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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 6 May 2021

10.00am

Local Board Office
560 Mt Albert Road
Three Kings

 

Puketāpapa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julie Fairey

 

Deputy Chairperson

Jon Turner

 

Members

Harry Doig

 

 

Ella Kumar, JP

 

 

Fiona Lai

 

 

Bobby Shen

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Selina Powell

Democracy Advisor

 

29 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: 021 531 686

Email: selina.powell@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 7

5          Decision-making responsibilities policy                                                                   23

6          Auckland Transport  - Regional Land Transport Programme 2021                       45

7          Proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax scheme                                                     59

8          Local Board feedback on the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland                                                                       113

 


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.

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/03469

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To summarise consultation feedback from the Puketāpapa Local Board area on:

·    proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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 397 submissions from the Puketāpapa local board area.

7.       There were two significant pro formas received during consultation: Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (ARA) and Generation Zero. The feedback related to the proposed investment package, investment for responding to climate change and the extension and increase of the Water Quality Targeted Rate.  ARA provided 3,008 responses, 45 of which were from Puketāpapa Local Board area. Generation Zero provided 166 responses, 2 of which were from Puketāpapa Local Board area.

8.       Feedback from Puketāpapa Local Board area was:

·    Thirty-six per cent support for the proposed investment package, 42 per cent do not support.

·    Seventy-four per cent support for additional investment for responding to climate change, 15 per cent do not support.

·    Fifty-seven per cent support for an extension and increase of the Water Quality Targeted Rate, 25 per cent support for an extension only, 11 per cent do not support.

·    Sixty-four per cent support for the proposed approach to community investment, 21 per cent do not support.

Twenty-six per cent support for all local priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031, 40 per cent for most, 16 per cent do not support most, five per cent to not support any.

 

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.

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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

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

d)      provide input 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 Puketāpapa Local Board) for each local board area. This local board agreement reflects priorities in the Puketāpapa 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 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.    

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 – through 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events, (38 in person and 23 online webinars), (1 of which were held in the Puketāpapa local board area), Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, 26 events were affected (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform).

·    telephone interviews – two people made submissions through this channel

·    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.

19.     397 submissions were received from the Puketāpapa Local Board area. This feedback was received through 44 hard copy forms, 306 online forms and 47 pro formas.

20.     When respondents submit via the official consultation platform (either the hardcopy feedback form or the online form), they are directed to the consultation document and support information which are the statutory basis for the consultation process. When respondents submit via pro forma feedback access to that information is out of the control of Auckland Council and may not be provided, although each pro forma is different. 

21.     As with all feedback, pro forma feedback must be given due consideration with an open mind, and it is up to elected members to determine the weight that is given to pro forma feedback.


 

Information on submitters

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

 

 

Feedback received on the Puketāpapa Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives

23.     The Puketāpapa Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2021/2022:

·    Priority 1: Supporting connected communities and social inclusion, which will assist in COVID-19 recovery and responding to rapid housing development.

·      Priority 2: Protecting and enhancing our environment e.g. mitigating and adapting to climate change.

·      Priority 3: Initiatives that enable our people to speak up and help shape our future.

·    Priority 4: Promoting community hauora (holistic wellbeing) through our programmes and partnerships.


 

 

24.     The Puketāpapa Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

·    Initiative 1: Invest in living locally

To help us adapt effectively to significant changes like large population growth,

COVID-19 recovery and climate change. We are seeking the council’s Governing Body support, including funding and decision-making allocation for local placemaking activities, such as:

• building on key moves from the Mt Roskill Integrated Area Plan by investing in support for local town centres, neighbourhood centres and public spaces for people to live more actively and locally.

• valuing natural spaces and heritage, from trees to maunga

• ensuring we have quality urban neighbourhoods with effective infrastructure planning that includes our community’s views

• improving local connections to help people easily move around our community

• reflecting our cultural identities throughout our community.

·    Initiative 2: Maintain funding for two local projects from the previous Long-Term Plan:

• Construction of Stage Two of the Waikowhai Boardwalk (Bamfield Reserve to Taylors Bay)

• Investigation into the future of The Whare building (Monte Cecilia Park).

 

25.     189 submissions were received on Puketāpapa Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. Most local respondents (66 per cent) supported all (50 responses) or most (75 responses) of the priorities. 30 submitters did not support most priorities, and 10 did not support any. 21 did not know, and 3 selected ‘other’.

26.     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.


 

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

·    On priority 1:

Supporting diverse communities and cultural activities

Bringing communities together across the area

Connected, walkable, accessible neighbourhoods

·    On priority 2:

Requesting more spend generally, and including in Manukau Harbour, waterways and extending
Te Auaunga naturalisation

Increase tree cover and protect trees

Education on keeping waterways clean

·    There were no themes on priority 3.

·    On priority 4:

Food resilience

Libraries are appreciated

More social and artistic services and infrastructure

 

Feedback on other local topics

28.     Key themes across feedback received on other local topics included:

·    Advocacy item: Invest in living locally

Supporting projects to get ahead of growth – public spaces and water infrastructure

Supporting investing in sports fields

Supporting safe, connected neighbourhoods – walkable and cycleways

Concerns about growth, related to development, parking house pricing, traffic.

·    Waikowhai Boardwalk:

Seven comments supporting. One comment asking to prioritise bush walk maintenance.

 

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

29.     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.

30.     The submissions received from the Puketāpapa Local Board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Proposed investment package

31.     Aucklanders were asked about a proposed $31 billion capital investment programme over the next ten years, allowing the council to deliver key services and renew our aging assets. The proposal includes a one-off 5 per cent average general rates increase for the 2021/2022 financial year, rather than the previously planned 3.5 per cent increase, before returning to 3.5 per cent increases over the remaining years.

32.     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.

33.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

34.     Key themes from those who supported included:

·    Aucklanders already having budget constraints after COVID-19 and struggling with the current rates.

·    Auckland Council need to review their operating model and expenses.

35.     Key themes from those who did not support included:

·    Make this effort is essential for the communal benefits, development and upgrades.

36.     Key themes from those who selected ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’ option included:

·    5% is a high rate for everyone, proposing different rates: higher for wealthy homeowners/business.

 

 

Key Question 2: Climate Change

37.     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.  

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

 

 

39.     Key themes from those who supported included:

·    Climate change is the single largest threat to the planet, an investment of this nature is urgently needed.

·    Requiring all Council suppliers to be actively measuring their carbon footprint.

40.     Key themes from those who did not support included:

·    Agreeing but asking that these decisions come from Central government.

41.     Key themes from those who selected ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’ option included:

·    The need to also reduce car use and Include parking levies.

 

Key Question 3: Water quality

42.     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.  

43.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

  

 

44.     Key themes from those who supported extension and increase included:

·    Water is a resource that must be preserved for the future.

·    This is an essential need, and there should be enough clean water to drink and swim in.

 

45.     Key themes from those who supported extension only included

·    Supporting but noting that the residential water rate is too high already.

46.     Key themes from those who did not support included.

·    Asking that the water shortage is solved first.

 

Key Question 4: Community investment

47.     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.

48.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

 

49.     Key themes from those who supported included:

·    The need of better use of community facilities which will benefit Auckland and reduce costs.

·    Support leasing or shared facilities and online services.

 

50.     Key themes from those who did not support included:

·    These assets are valuable for the community development and should not fall into private hands

 

51.     Key themes from those who selected ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’ option included:

·    Depends which facilities would be closed.

·    Interest on how the community will get better facilities and strongly against some facilities closing.

 

Key Question 5: Rating policy

52.     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.

53.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Puketāpapa Local Board area. Note that not all 397 submitters did respond on all of these proposals. There were two questions with no responses (‘Waitakere rural sewerage targeted rate’ and ‘Clevedon water connection targeted rate’).

Extending the Urban Rating Area

 

 

Support

109

66%

Do not support

32

20%

Other

3

2%

Don't know

20

12%

TOTAL

164

100%

 

Extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate

 

 

Support

97

60%

Do not support

47

29%

Other

11

7%

Don't know

8

5%

TOTAL

163

100%

 

Extending the City Centre Targeted Rate

 

 

Support

92

56%

Do not support

54

33%

Other

8

5%

Don't know

9

6%

TOTAL

163

100%

 

Electricity network resilience targeted rate

 

 

Support

5

31%

Do not support

7

44%

Other

4

25%

Don't know

0

0%

TOTAL

16

100%

 

Accommodation provider targeted rate (APTR)

 

 

Support Option 1

1

20%

Support Option 2

0

0%

Support Option 3

1

20%

Other

1

20%

Do not support

2

40%

TOTAL

4

80%

 

During the Emergency Budget 2020/2021 the decision was to suspend the APTR until 31 March 2021. These are the options proposed for the APTR.

Option 1: Status quo, resume the APTR as planned from 01 April 2021.

Option 2: Reinstate the APTR from 01 January 2022 reducing the APTR revenue to around $7.2 million in 2021/2022 and lower spending on visitor attraction, major events and destination marketing activity to around $21.8 million in 2021/2022.

Option 3: Reinstate the APTR from 01 July 2022 and lower spending on visitor attraction, major events and destination marketing activity to around $14.5million in 2021/2022.

 

Feedback received from mana whenua

54.     Submissions from Mana whenua were received separately, therefore are not reflected in the total number of submissions or theme analysis reported above. Mana whenua provided on the regional proposals has been reported to the Governing Body.

55.     Four mana whenua organisations provided feedback on Puketāpapa Local Board priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031.

56.     Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust, Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua and Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority support all priorities. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Trust Board responded other.

57.     Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Trust Board: Supporting the 5% increase. Also mentioning the four major issues that Auckland Council is facing today: Water (quality and quantity), climate change, transport and growth.

58.     Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua: Supporting the 5% increase. They have pointed out the need of Iwi support and community voice on most of the topics.

59.     Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust: Supporting the 5% increase as well as the proposals to respond to Climate change, Community Investment and Housing & Growth.

60.     Te Ākitai Waiohua Iwi Authority: Supporting the 5% increase. Being the following their strategic priorities: Education; Health and Wellbeing; Employment; Training; Housing and accommodation; Iwi and community involvement.

 

Feedback received from key stakeholders

61.     Submissions from Mataawaka were received separately, therefore are not reflected in the total number of submissions or theme analysis reported above.

62.     Two mataawaka organisations provided feedback on Puketāpapa Local Board priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031.

63.     Te Roopu Waiora: They mentioned the following priorities to consider:

·    A specific resourced Puketāpapa Local Board strategic that ensures whanau with disabilities can access to public communications, forums and facilities.

·    Ensuring diverse communities experiencing disability are included in the Local Board planning.

·    Social procurement opportunities to improve cultural and disability competency of local business, suppliers and government agencies.

64.     Whenua Warrior: They have expressed they support most of the Puketāpapa Local Board priorities. And they have communicated their core objectives:

·    Building gardens to feed the community

·    Fight food poverty

·    Reflect on solutions for people in need, teaching and empower those communities.

65.    Submissions from youth are reflected in the total number of responses informed above. There were 88 submissions from people aged 14 or younger. And 95 between 15 and 24 years old. Including the following topics on their comments:

·    Concerns about the struggle to pay more if rates are increased. Otherwise, the majority has supported the 5% increased rates. Some were addressing the need to act now, being ‘ready for worst times’.

·    The need of living on a more sustainable city, with great public transport options and decentralised resources. As well as having more suburban social infrastructure and housing development in the area.

·    Climate change and water quality were the most engaging topics: youth submissions represent the 81% of the supporters to increase the rates to tackle climate change.

·    On the Community Investment question some addressed the importance to have integrated community facilities.

·    Some were concerned about the Library being closed.

·    Other proposals were: No carbon zone on Queen St and implementing more green areas.

Recommendations on local matters 

66.     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 where this is applicable. 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

67.     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.

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

69.     This situation does not apply to the Puketāpapa local board for the 2021/2022 financial year

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

70.     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.

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

Local board advocacy

72.     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

73.     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.

74.     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

75.     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.

76.     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

77.     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

78.     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.

79.     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

80.     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.

81.     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.

82.     Analysis provided on 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.

83.     On-going conversations between local boards and Māori will assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

84.     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

85.     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.

86.     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

87.     The council must adopt its 10-year Budget, which includes local board agreements, by 30June 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

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

89.     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.

90.     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

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Canela Ferrara - Local Board Engagement Advisor

Mary Hay - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04988

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse the draft decision-making responsibilities policy for inclusion in the long-term plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Governing Body is required by legislation to allocate decision-making responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council to either itself or local boards. This allocation is outlined in the Decision-Making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards policy that is published in each long-term plan and annual plan.

3.       The policy also records delegations given to date by the Governing Body to local boards and provides a list of statutory responsibilities that are conferred on both governance arms.

4.       An internal review of the policy was undertaken in early 2021 and considered by the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 22 March 2021. The review outlined some proposed changes to the policy as well as some recommendations on how to take forward other issues that do not yet lend themselves to a policy amendment. The recommendations adopted by the Joint Governance Working Party have informed the proposed changes in the draft policy. (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa 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

31

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 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


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

Auckland Transport - Regional Land Transport Programme 2021

File No.: CP2021/04490

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to outline the outcomes of the proposed Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP) in the local board area and provide an opportunity for the board to resolve feedback for the attention of the Governing Body and the Regional Transport Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This report covers:

·    A summary of what the RLTP is and the process of its development.

·    A summary of what projects and programmes are planned for the local board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport – Regional Land Transport Programme report

b)      provide feedback on the Regional Land Transport Programme as per Attachment A to this report.

 

Horopak

Context

3.       The RLTP is a 10-year investment programme for transport in Auckland.  It includes the activities of Auckland Transport, Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) and KiwiRail.

4.       It is reviewed and publicly consulted on every three years in a process led by the Auckland Regional Transport Committee (RTC).

5.       The RTC is comprised of members of the AT Board and representatives from Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail. During the review process the RTC seeks the views of Auckland’s elected representatives through the Governing Body. The AT Board is responsible for the final approving of the RLTP.

6.       The RLTP is the end product of a number of different local and central government processes and plans:

·        Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)

·        The Auckland Plan 2050

·        Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP)

·        National Land Transport Programme (NLTP)

·        Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS)

7.       It is worth noting that AT is not a party to ATAP discussions but that the direction expressed in this document is a key driver for outcomes in the RLTP. Likewise, the LTP sets funding levels for key programmes in the RLTP, such as the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

8.       The current transport programme is set out in the 2018 RLTP. This saw the introduction of the Regional Fuel Tax (RFT), that provided an additional $1.5bn of direct revenue over 10 years. Including the RFT, the 2018 RLTP anticipated a $10 billion capital programme over ten years.

9.       While the 2018 RLTP programme provided a sound investment base there have been an increasing number of challenges requiring attention in the 2021 RLTP. These include:

·     The impact of growth and other demands creating a need for increased investment in upgrading existing infrastructure and for new investment to support growth

·     A need for increased investment to ensure transport plays its role in meeting overall greenhouse gas reduction targets

·     Continuing to invest in public transport and to accelerate cycling network completion to support mode change

·     A need to deliver further investment to support vision zero goals to provide reductions in deaths and serious injuries

·     An increasing need for more responsive investment in the transport network at a local level.

10.     Unfortunately, the response to these challenges is tempered by the impact of Council’s Emergency Budget, the effect of Covid-19 on public transport  fares (leading to reduced operational funding for AT), and a strong likelihood that Waka Kotahi funding will not reach previously assumed levels.

11.     It has been assessed that about 95% of the available capital funding from Council and Government is needed to run the transport system, maintain the quality of the system (renewals and maintenance) and deliver committed/contracted /under construction projects. This means that there is very little headroom for new investment and that there will be hard trade-offs, including the deferring of many important projects. 

12.     At its meeting on 11 March the Planning Committee unanimously endorsed the draft RLTP.  ATAP itself was released on Friday 12 March. The RTC formally approved the draft RLTP for public consultation at its meeting on 23 March 2021.

13.     The current timeline for development of the RLTP is as follows:

Date

Action

23 March

RTC considers draft RLTP for public consultation

29 March-2 May

Proposed dates for public consultation

May

Evaluation of public consultation

27 May

RTC review final draft RLTP

3 June

Governing Body review RLTP for endorsement

June

AT Board reviews RLTP for final approval

01 July

RLTP operational

 

14.     As a regional programme it is appropriate that the primary engagement focus sits with the Governing Body through the Planning Committee.

15.     However, as the RLTP has important local impacts AT recognizes the importance of seeking local board views to ensure these are included in the information given to the RTC and Governing Body to inform their decision making. To this end, AT has the following engagement planned:

 

 

 

Date

LB Engagement

15 Feb

AT attended the Chairs Forum to give an overview on the RLTP process, to outline how the RLTP is put together and finally what the process is for LB input.

29 March – 2 May

Workshops with all local boards to discuss the RLTP.

4 – 18 May

AT will write reports for local boards to pass resolutions to officially record their feedback on the RLTP.

3 June

Local boards could use their statutory input slot at a Governing Body Meeting (Planning Committee) to give their views on the RLTP.

 

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     The draft Long Term Plan proposal is to reinstate the Local Board Transport Capital Fund back up to $20M per annum for the next ten years. On this basis the proposed RLTP includes $200M for Local Board initiatives. However, it should be noted that this is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5%.

17.     The below tables summarises projects that are planned to be delivered in the Local Board area and surrounding areas and could be of benefit to residents from Puketāpapa Local Board area.

#

AT Projects

Duration

10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)

19

Northwest Bus Improvements

2021/22 – 2022/23

85.0

66

Carrington Road Improvements

2026/27 – 2030/31

54.6

76

Wolverton Culverts

2021/22

10.0

 

18.     The below tables summarises projects within larger programmes, that are planned to be delivered in the Local Board area and surrounding areas and could be of benefit to residents.

#

Project from a Programme

Underlying Programme

22

Dominion / Balmoral Road and Dominion / Mount Albert Road Bus Interchanges

Neighbourhood Interchanges (AT)

23

New Lynn to Avondale, Point Chevalier to Westmere, Waitemata Safe Routes and Great North Road

Urban Cycleways (AT)

29

Ponsonby Road, Great North Road, New North Road, Sandringham Road, Mount Eden Road and Manukau Road corridors

Connected Communities (AT)

30

Maioro Street Dynamic Bus Lane

Network Performance (AT)

36

Mount Roskill Spatial Priority Area

Projects Supporting Auckland Housing Programme (AT)

67

Ash Street and Rata Street

Safety (AT)

68

Mount Albert Road

Safety (AT)

78

Residential Speed Management – Sandringham, New Windsor, Blockhouse Bay and Kelston

Safety (AT)

79

Oranga Spatial Priority Area

Projects Supporting Auckland Housing Programme (AT)

19.     The below table summarizes projects being delivered by other agencies that are planned to be delivered in the Local Board area and surrounding areas and could be of benefit to residents.

 

Non-AT Projects

Responsible Agency

10 Year Capital Expenditure ($M)

21

Te Whau Pathway

Auckland Council

30

 

20.     The below map corresponds to the above tables and shows the location of the projects

21.     The below table outlines objectives from the local board plan that are approached in the RLTP

Objectives

RLTP outcomes

A range of transport options that are less polluting.

Over $300 million is allocated to delivering AT’s On-going Cycling Programme, which is intended to follow the completion of the Urban Cycleways Programme early in the RLTP period. This is in addition to the allocation to cycling included in the Connected Communities programme.

$49 million to continue delivering new footpaths in high priority locations.

A new $30 million programme for minor improvements for cycling and micromobility. A key element of this package will be delivering

‘pop up cycleways’ which will retrofit a range of existing painted cycle lanes with appropriate safety barriers. This programme will also address other issues on the existing cycling network to improve useability and enhance safety.

Ongoing funding for a programme of tactical urbanism initiatives such as those brought to life through Waka Kotahi’s Innovating Streets Programme.

Making getting around safer.

The RLTP includes:

·    Operational funding for the ongoing delivery of the Bike Safe programme which teaches primary, intermediate and secondary school children how to ride their bike safely.

·    It also includes Continued investment in the AT Community Bike Fund which supports communities and groups delivering activities, events and projects that encourage more people to ride bikes more often.

·    Over $650 million of AT investment to deliver the AT Safety Programme, which will deliver improvements targeted towards speed management, high risk intersections, high risk corridors and vulnerable road users.

·    $100 million for minor improvements across the network.

·    $193 million of Waka Kotahi investment to deliver the state highway Safer Networks Programme.

More walking, cycling and use of public transport.

The rapid transit network (RTN) is a key investment priority and forms the largest category of capital investment in this RLTP.

The proposed transport programme in this RLTP will deliver a step-change in the coverage and performance of the RTN over the next 10 years. This RLTP will also see the RTN continue to diversify away from the City Centre.

This programme is expected to deliver 200km of new and upgraded cycleways and shared paths across the region by 2031, the majority of which is included as part of the strategic cycling network. Between 100km-125km of new cycleways will be generated from AT, 15km from Auckland Council and 59km from Waka Kotahi. Some existing cycle lanes will also be retrofitted with appropriate safety barriers.

Operational funding to continue delivery of the Travelwise Programme, an innovative schools-based programme that aims to improve road safety and reduce the number of vehicles driving to and from school at peak times to help reduce congestion.

 

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.     The approach set out in the RLTP conforms with the direction expressed by Council through the Long-Term Plan. However, AT notes that far more needs to be done to reach the Auckland Council climate change emissions targets.

23.     This investment programme is only one of a comprehensive set of measures needed to reduce transport emissions. The RLTP does not exist to set government policy and additional measures are needed that are beyond its scope to implement. A comprehensive approach to emission reduction will therefore require a range of actions from across government and industry sector.

24.     In the context of this challenge, Auckland needs a Climate Plan for its transport system which sets out the preferred pathway to meeting Auckland Councils emissions targets. This plan, along with a Climate Change Programme Business Case will be developed as part of this RLTP.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25.     The RLTP is the product of several Auckland Council processes and plans including:

·        Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP)

·        The Auckland Plan 2050

·        Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP)

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

Local impacts and local board views

26.     Auckland Transport has used local board plans to inform the development of the RLTP.

27.     Opportunities for local boards to engage on the RLTP have included:

·        Chair’s Forum on the 15th February 2021

·        A workshop with the Puketāpapa Local Board on the 1st April 2021

·        Highlighting the opportunities for local board feedback to the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28.     Iwi and mataawaka have been engaged through AT’s Maori engagement team.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29.     The are no direct financial implications for the local board in receiving this report.

30.     Local board feedback on the RLTP and any changes made as a result of that feedback could have financial implications depending on that feedback. Further information about AT’s priorities for funding and implications of changes to funding levels can be found on page 80 of the RLTP consultation document.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31.     AT’s capital programme within the RLTP is contingent on the Mayor’s proposed rates increase of 5%. If this is not adopted there will be significant impacts on plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32.     Once the local boards have resolved their feedback on the RLTP, AT will review all feedback from local boards and the public. This feedback, and any proposed changes, will be compiled into a feedback report for the consideration of the Governing Body and the Regional Transport Committee. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: RLTP Local Board Feedback template

53

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ben Stallworthy – Elected Member Relationship Partner, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Hamish Bunn – General Manager Investment, Planning & Policy, Auckland Transport

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

Proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax scheme

File No.: CP2021/03903

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the draft proposal to vary the Regional Fuel Tax scheme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) scheme for Auckland, established in 2018, is a key funding source for investment in Auckland’s transport network. The scheme is projected to generate $1.5 billion of revenue and enables over $4 billion of additional investment.

3.       Decisions by central government to invest directly in RFT projects and current reviews of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) indicative package and the draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) have necessitated a variation to the RFT scheme.

4.       There is no proposal to alter the level of the RFT, the period for which the scheme runs, or the area covered by the tax.

5.       Decisions around the overall investment programme for transport and the funding of this are made through the ATAP and RLTP processes. The allocation of projects within the RLTP to the RFT programme is a key step to support implementation.

6.       The draft proposal to vary the RFT scheme (refer Attachment A) retains the 14 projects identified in the original programme but updates the specific initiatives within these projects, along with cost and timing projections.

7.       The draft proposal went out for public consultation alongside the draft RLTP. Following consideration of feedback from local boards and from the general public, a final proposal will be endorsed by the Governing Body and sent to the relevant ministers for approval and enactment through Order in Council.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the report on proposed variations to the 2018 Regional Fuel Tax scheme.

b)      provide feedback on the proposed variation to the 2018 Regional Fuel Tax scheme.

 

Horopaki

Context

The creation of Auckland’s RFT scheme

8.       Work on an aligned strategic approach to transport in Auckland (ATAP) began in 2016. This work made clear that the level of investment needed was not achievable with the existing funding mechanisms.

9.       A regional fuel tax was proposed as a tool to achieve a higher level of investment for Auckland. With the leverage that this funding could drive from government subsidies and development contributions, the RFT enabled $4 billion of investment that would not otherwise occur.

10.     Without this investment, a number of the positive outcomes of the programme would not be able to be achieved, including improved road safety, increased availability and use of public transport, more active transport options, improved access to employment, and more growth and housing development.

11.     An amendment to the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) was passed in 2018 which provided for the introduction of regional fuel taxes by order in council.

12.     Auckland Council consulted with Aucklanders on the introduction of an RFT as part of its 10-year Budget 2018-2028 consultation in February/March 2018. Following this, a detailed proposal for an RFT scheme was prepared, consulted on from 1-14 May 2018, and then approved for submission to the government.

13.     The proposed scheme was approved by the government and become operative from 1 July 2018 (refer Attachment B).

Details of the existing scheme

14.     Auckland’s RFT scheme collects 10c per litre (plus GST) and applies to sales of petrol and diesel by retailers within the boundaries of Auckland Council (excluding Aotea Great Barrier Island) from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2028.

15.     Revenue from the scheme is projected to be $150 million per annum, a total of $1.5 billion across the 10 years.

16.     The original proposal also details:

·        the key objectives of the scheme

·        the effects of the scheme (positive and negative)

·        how it aligned with the relevant strategic documents

·        why it should be a funding source (including other options considered)

·        reasoning for the exclusion of Aotea Great Barrier Island

·        the information and assumptions that support the forecast revenue calculations.

17.     The programme funded 14 categories of expenditure referred to in the scheme as projects:

·        bus priority improvements

·        city centre bus infrastructure

·        improving airport access

·        Eastern Busway (formerly AMETI)

·        park and rides

·        electric trains and stabling

·        ferry network improvements (was downtown ferry redevelopment)

·        road safety

·        active transport

·        Penlink

·        Mill Road corridor

·        road corridor improvements

·        network capacity and performance improvements

·        growth-related transport infrastructure.

Progress of the scheme to 31 December 2020

18.     Since the RFT was introduced, $376 million of revenue has been received by Auckland Council. Auckland Transport has spent $346 million on designated projects which was funded by $162 million of RFT, $135 million of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency subsidies, and $49 million of development contributions.

19.     The programme was always planned to ramp up over the 10 years, reflecting the need to complete projects that were already in train in 2018, and to gear up to a much higher level of delivery. Unspent funds at any stage in the programme are held in reserve. This reserve totalled $197 million as at 31 December 2020.

20.     Key achievements of the scheme so far include:

·        improving road safety through the introduction of lower speed limits on 600 Auckland roads to reduce harm and loss of life

·        installing red-light running enforcement and CCTV cameras

·        improving airport access through works on the Puhinui Station with construction now underway on the new interchange

·        improving the Downtown Ferry terminal with the completion of breakwater piling and Pontoon 5 and Landing Pontoon 2 now at the commissioning stage to increase capacity and customer experience.

Subsequent government funding announcements

21.     Two key announcements by central government have reduced the requirement for Regional Fuel Tax funding for some of the projects included in the scheme.

22.     On 29 January 2020, the government announced the New Zealand Upgrade Programme (NZUP). This programme included direct crown investment of $3.48 billion in transport infrastructure for Auckland.

23.     The NZUP provided funding for two projects included in the RFT scheme. The Penlink project was allocated $411 million and the Mill Road project was allocated $1.354 billion. Following this, the responsibility for the delivery of these two projects was transferred to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.

24.     As part of its fiscal stimulus package to support the economy in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government announced a programme on 1 April 2020 to fund ‘shovel ready’ infrastructure projects.

25.     Following applications by the Auckland Council group, a number of projects were contracted to receive funding. Two of the successful projects constituted part of wider RFT projects.

26.     Funding was received towards the Downtown Ferry Terminal which is a part of the ferry network improvements RFT project.

27.     Funding was also received to support the Puhinui Bus/Rail Interchange project which forms a part of the Improving Airport Access RFT project.

28.     Staff consider that this, along with the current reviews of ATAP and the draft RLTP (summarised below), constitute a change to a material aspect of the programme of capital projects supported by the RFT as enacted in 2018.

ATAP update and draft RLTP preparation

29.     Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have been working with central government partners to update the ATAP. The development of an ATAP indicative package will inform and guide Auckland’s RLTP and the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).

30.     Despite additional funding available to the programme through direct government investment, the ATAP budget is still highly constrained. This is the result of increased demands for transport investment in Auckland as well as updated costings and information around existing projects. Funding of the ATAP indicative package is reliant on the continuation of the RFT scheme.

31.     Staff consider that this, along with the recent central government funding decisions (summarised above) constitute a change to a material aspect of the capital projects programmes supported by the RFT as enacted in 2018.

32.     Given these material changes, staff have prepared a formal proposal to vary the scheme, as required by section 65G(1) of the LTMA 2003. This draft variation proposal formed the basis for public consultation which is required under section 65H(c) of the LTMA.

33.     Following consultation, the Governing Body will consider feedback (including that from local boards) and then submit the proposal (with any changes made) to the Ministers of Finance and Transport, who will then decide whether to accept it (sections 65I and 65J of the LTMA). If the Ministers do accept the proposal, they will send it on to the Governor-General to enact through an Order in Council (sections 65J and 65K of the LTMA).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Proposed variation to the scheme

34.     Given the changes discussed above (government funding and ATAP update) and the fact that local board views were captured for the original 2018 scheme, the council seeks local board views on the proposed variation. 

35.     The proposed variation of the scheme is led by the work on the updated ATAP indicative package and the draft RLTP.

36.     It is not proposed that there is any change to:

·        the rate of the RFT

·        the period of the scheme

·        the area subject to the scheme.

37.     Despite the fact that the scheme does not run to the end of the new 10-year budget, it is not proposed that the council looks to extend the scheme. This is primarily because work continues on the Congestion Question project which is investigating different road pricing options that could replace the RFT in the future.

38.     It is proposed that the scheme maintains the same 14 projects (with the special consideration of Penlink and Mill Road staying in the scheme without additional allocation of RFT due to a change in delivery and funding management) but that changes are made to:

·        the descriptions of projects, identified initiatives within them, and projected benefits, to reflect any changes in scope

·        the level of projected total expenditure and indicative RFT contribution to each project to reflect where new funding has become available or where project costings have been updated

·        the timing of projects following decisions made through the development of the draft RLTP

·        the naming of one project where it is proposed that Downtown Ferry Redevelopment is renamed Ferry Network Improvements to reflect the incorporation of initiatives to purchase new electric ferries to help decarbonise the public transport fleet.

39.     It has been assessed that these changes constitute a change to a material aspect of the programme of capital projects supported by the RFT scheme and therefore, the council must prepare a proposal to vary the scheme, pursuant to section 65G(1)(a) of the LTMA.

 

Consultation

40.     Public consultation on the draft proposal to vary the RFT scheme is occurring alongside the Auckland Transport consultation on the draft RLTP.

41.     This consultation takes place from 29 March to 2 May 2021.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

42.     The proposal to vary the RFT scheme constitutes a change in an allocation of funding within the overall ATAP indicative package and RLTP. Transport projects funded include climate change optimisation, such as electric trains and stabling and promoting eco-friendly commuting initiatives like improving congestion through network capacity and performance improvements.

43.     The impacts of the complete RLTP on the climate have been reported to the local board in another report on this agenda.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44.     Council staff have worked with staff from Auckland Transport representatives in the development of the draft proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

45.     Local board views will be captured through this report and reported to the Planning Committee prior to decision-making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

46.     The proposal to vary the RFT scheme constitutes a change in an allocation of funding within the overall ATAP indicative package and RLTP. The impacts of the RLTP on Māori have been reported to the local board.

47.     The RFT proposal has been incorporated in the RLTP consultation process, which includes extensive engagement with 19 mana whenua and mataawaka groups.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

48.     The RFT scheme is projected to deliver around $1.5 billion of revenue over the 2018-2028 period. This constitutes a significant portion of the transport investment in Auckland.

49.     Without an RFT, council would need to either:

·        utilise another of the currently available funding mechanisms (general rates or an Interim Transport Levy), or

·        fund transport at the level of renewals and committed projects only.

50.     The rating options would result in ratepayers facing significant increases (10-11 per cent) in addition to the general rates increase and paying according to their property value, rather than based on use. To fund the transport budget at the level of renewals and committed projects only would have significant impacts on the growth and economy of Auckland.

Risks and mitigations

51.     The key risk is a potential misalignment of the RFT scheme from the ATAP programme and the RLTP. This variation proposal looks to mitigate this risk by updating the scheme and the RLTP in tandem.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52.     Public consultation on the proposal takes place from 29 March to 2 May 2021.

53.     The Planning Committee will receive public feedback and local board views on the proposal in May 2021.

54.     The Planning Committee and Governing Body will consider the adoption of a proposal for submission to government.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft proposal to vary Regional Fuel Tax scheme project details

65

b

Proposal for a Regional Fuel Tax (2018)

87

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Justine Yu - Senior Advisor - Fin Policy

Michael Burns - Manager Financial Strategy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason – General Manager,  Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 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


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 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


Puketāpapa Local Board

06 May 2021

 

 

Local Board feedback on the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland

File No.: CP2021/04425

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek formal input from the Puketāpapa Local Board into Auckland Council’s submission on the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Government’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee is calling for public submissions on its inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland. Congestion pricing involves implementing a charge to manage demand on the road network. This can encourage users to change their travel behaviour - the time, route, or mode by which they travel.

3.       Local Board members received a memo about this on 1 April, highlighting the following key points:

·    The Minister of Transport has asked Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee to undertake this inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

·    The inquiry is guided by a terms of reference

·    The inquiry has invited public submissions, which close on 20 May 2021.

·    Officers will bring a report to the 6 May Planning Committee meeting that will set out proposed high level positions in response to key policy matters and seek delegation for a political working party to finalise the submission.

 

4.       Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT) will make a combined submission to the inquiry.

·    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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      provide input into Auckland Council’s submission on 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

Author

Mary Hay - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager