I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 6 May 2021

6.30pm

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

 

Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Deputy Chairperson

Margaret Miles, QSM, JP

 

Members

Anna Atkinson

 

 

Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP

 

 

Nicholas Mayne

 

 

Brian Neeson, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Cindy Lynch

Democracy Advisor

 

30 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 486 8593

Email: Cindy.Lynch@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

8.1     The Public Water Project - drinking fountains in parks                                   6

8.2     Whenuapai / Herald Island Ratepayers and Residents Association              6

8.3     Upper Harbour Ecology Network                                                                       7

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  7

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

11        Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate                                                           9

12        Local board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 23

13        Input into Auckland Council submission to central government: Inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland                                                                                 37

14        Decision-making responsibilities policy                                                                   71

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Welcome

 

The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed those present.

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Thursday, 8 April 2021, as true and correct.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

8.1       The Public Water Project - drinking fountains in parks

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To discuss the need for more drinking fountains in local parks and playgrounds.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Lilah McDonald, supported by her mother, Kate O’Leary, will be in attendance to discuss the shortfall of accessible drinking fountains and water bottle refill stations in parks and playgrounds across the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

a)      receive the deputation from Lilah McDonald and Kate O’Leary and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a          The Public Water Project - drinking fountains in parks presentation............. 95

 

 

8.2       Whenuapai / Herald Island Ratepayers and Residents Association

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To discuss concerns about proposed rates increases.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Dave Allen, on behalf of the Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association, and Mark le Fevre, on behalf of the Herald Island Ratepayers and Residents Association, will be in attendance to highlight concerns about the proposed rates increase for properties affected by moving the rural urban boundary.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

a)      receive the deputation from Dave Allen and Mark le Fevre and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a          Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association presentation............... 107

b          Herald Island Ratepayers and Residents Association presentation............ 121

 

 

8.3       Upper Harbour Ecology Network

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To discuss recent developments and activities of the Manager for the Upper Harbour Ecology Network.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Carole Tilman, Manager of the Upper Harbour Ecology Network, will be in attendance to outline recent developments and activities in her management role at the network.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

a)      receive the deputation from Carole Tilman, Manager of the Upper Harbour Ecology Network, and thank her for her attendance and presentation.

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate

File No.: CP2021/04285

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider whether to recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee the introduction of the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate to fund a new bus service in the Paremoremo and Lucas Heights areas.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       As part of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031, council consulted on the following two options for funding a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany:

·        Option 1: A targeted rate of $238 per Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) of a property for properties located within 500m walking distance of a proposed bus stop. The narrow service area assumes the distance someone would walk to catch a bus service in an urban area.

·        Option 2: A targeted rate of $153 per Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) of a property for properties located in the wider Paremoremo and Lucas Heights areas of the Upper Harbour Local Board. The wider service area assumes that, in rural areas, residents will travel much longer distances to catch a bus service.

3.       A total of 11,727 submitters provided comments in response to the specific question asked in relation to this proposal. The majority of submitters affected by the proposal (54 per cent) were against either option. Option 2 was the most supported of the proposed options (23 per cent).

4.       Feedback was mixed on whether Paremoremo needs a bus service. Submitters who did not support either option commented that the area does not need the bus service, that they would not use it, and that it should not be a priority at this time. Submitters who supported either one of the options commented that the wider area needs a service and that if one is provided, then they would use it.

5.       There was mixed feedback on whether people would travel more than 500m to use the new bus service. No evidence was found that supported walking distance catchments as large as those proposed under option 2, although the car park at the Paremoremo Community Hall could be used as an informal park and ride facility to support travel greater than 500m walking distance. Some submitters noted that regular bus services already run along Dairy Flat Highway and that nearby residents are unlikely to benefit from the new service.

6.       Submitters commented on the congestion issues at the intersection of The Avenue and Dairy Flat Highway during peak traffic times. The proposed bus route will likely face delays at this intersection during peak traffic times. Timetable scheduling can be used to mitigate the worst of the impacts, although at times, delays will be unavoidable. Auckland Transport advise that it is not possible to provide bus priority lanes due to the low frequency of the service and the proposal being a trial for three years.

7.       Officers consider that a service catchment somewhere between options 1 and 2 is justifiable. If the Upper Harbour Local Board wishes to proceed with recommending the introduction of a new bus service in the Paremoremo and Lucas Heights areas, then further investigation would be required to establish where the catchment area should be.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

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

i)        agree to include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate of $238 per Separately Used or Inhabited Part on properties located within 500m walking distance of a proposed bus stop as part of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 to fund a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany

or

ii)       agree to include the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate of $153 per Separately Used or Inhabited Part on properties located in the wider Paremoremo and Lucas Heights area as part of the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 to fund a new bus service from Paremoremo to Albany

or

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

Horopaki

Context

Upper Harbour 2020 Local Board Plan

8.       A key objective of the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 is an affordable, frequent, and reliable public transport network that encourages higher use. Consultation on the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 sought feedback on providing additional public transport services in non-serviced areas funded by targeted rates. Fifty-five per cent of respondents supported the Upper Harbour Local Board investigating this further.

Recovery Budget 2021-2031 proposal

9.       The council consulted on the introduction of a bus service between Paremoremo and Albany. The proposed service would operate at peak hours on weekdays, providing three round trips in the morning and four in the afternoon. Two options were proposed to fund this service:

·        Option 1: A targeted rate of $238 per SUIP of a property for properties located within 500m walking distance of a proposed bus stop. The narrow service area assumed the distance someone would walk to catch a bus service in an urban area.

·        Option 2: A targeted rate of $153 per SUIP of a property for properties located in the wider Paremoremo and Lucas Heights area of the Upper Harbour Local Board. The wider service area assumed that, in rural areas, residents will travel much longer distances to catch a bus service.

10.     As well as covering the costs of providing the service, the proposed targeted rate includes repayment of the capital costs for new bus stops over 10 years, as well as the interest that we incur until the borrowings are repaid. If the level of the capital expenditure changes then this will affect the level of the targeted rate requiring adjustment in future years. However, this would not require consultation as it is not expected to be material.

Decision-making

11.     When making decisions, sections 77 and 78 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the council to:

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

·        assess those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback form consultation

15.     A total of 11,727 submitters provided comments in response to the specific question asked in relation to this proposal. Key findings across all feedback received are:

·        a significant amount of feedback (more than 90 per cent) on this issue was received from submitters who do not live in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

·        more submitters did not support either option (3763 submitters or 32 per cent) than supported option 2 (2537 submitters or 22 per cent) or option 1 (1420 submitters or 12 per cent), whether they were affected by the proposal or not

·        of those affected by the proposal, the number of submitters who were against either option (248 submitters or 54 per cent) outweighed the combined total of submitters in support of option 1 (55 submitters or 12 per cent) and option 2 (105 submitters or 23 per cent).

16.     Key themes from submitters who would be affected by the proposal and were against either option, were that:

·        it should not be funded from a targeted rate

·        those who use the service should pay for it

·        they would not use the service/the service was not needed/was not a priority.

17.     Key themes from submitters who would be affected by the proposal and in support of either option were that:

·        Paremoremo needs a bus service

·        those who benefit from the availability or use of the service should pay

·        they were concerned about safety and traffic congestion.

18.     There was mixed feedback on whether people would travel more than 500m to use the service.

19.     A summary of feedback received from consultation can be found in Attachment A: Summary of feedback on Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate.

Consideration

Need, funding, and usage

20.     Feedback was mixed on whether Paremoremo needs a bus service. Some submitters commented that the wider area needs a service and that if one is provided, then they would use it. Other submitters commented that the area does not need the bus service, that they would not use it, and that it should not be a priority at this time.

21.     Public transport services in the Paremoremo and Lucas Heights areas are not a priority for funding in the Regional Land Transport Plan. The forecast level of patronage does not meet the threshold for funding public transport in Auckland from general rates.

22.     For the proposed bus service to proceed, a funding source is required. The council has proposed that this funding is met from a targeted rate. If the proposal and the targeted rate proceed, then the bus service will be introduced by Auckland Transport on a trial basis for three years. The service will be reviewed after the three years and will be funded by Auckland Transport if the service meets a sufficient level of patronage[1]. If this occurs, then the full costs will be met by Auckland Transport and the targeted rate will cease. If, after three years, the service is not funded by Auckland Transport, then the Upper Harbour Local Board will have the opportunity to consider continuing with, or ceasing, the service and targeted rate.

23.     An alternative funding source to the targeted rate is for the Upper Harbour Local Board to use some of its local driven initiative (LDI) budget to fund the bus service. This would require the Upper Harbour Local Board to reallocate LDI budget that has already been prioritised to fund other activities.

Service catchment area

24.     Mixed feedback was received on whether people will travel more than 500m to use the service. Some local submitters commented that they would travel more than 500m, while others commented that it was not safe due to lack of footpaths and high speed of traffic. Other feedback included:

·        that if they had to use their cars, they would likely drive into Albany rather than catch a bus

·        the use of a park and ride facility would encourage more use from residents further away

·        spreading the costs of the proposed service over a wider catchment would make it more affordable. 

25.     The 500m catchments set out in option 1 are based on the standards used in urban areas. The 500m distance is defined by how far someone would walk in five minutes. The actual distance that an individual would cover in five minutes will vary between individuals and some would choose to walk for more than five minutes to access public transport. The 500m rule is therefore arbitrary and actual service catchments may be more or less than this. However, walking distance catchments will be substantially less than the 3km that some residents face.

26.     Auckland Transport has undertaken further investigation on catchments in rural areas. Key findings are that factors that drive distances that people are prepared to walk to catch public transport include:

·        type and frequency of the service provided

·        age of the individual

·        purpose of the journey.

27.     Other factors that contribute to catchment area are the existence of park and ride facilities, the general proximity of alternative public transport options, and the convenience and safety of the service in comparison to other transport options. It has been noted that the car park at the Paremoremo Community Hall could be used as an informal park and ride facility to support travel greater than 500m walking distance.

28.     No evidence has been found that being in a rural environment is a contributing factor to the distance that people are prepared to travel to catch public transport. However, studies primarily focus on public transport provision in urban areas.

29.     Some submitters provided feedback that regular bus services run along Dairy Flat Highway. Residents in part of the Lucas Heights area will be located nearer to stops for these established bus services and would more likely use the existing services than the proposed new service. They are unlikely to receive benefits from being in the service catchment area for the new service as they are already within the catchment of an existing, more regular, service.

The Avenue and Dairy Flat Highway congestion

30.     Submitters also commented on the congestion issues at the intersection of The Avenue and Dairy Flat Highway during peak traffic times. A survey of traffic at the intersection of The Avenue and Diary Flat Highway was undertaken in April 2018. This survey showed that during morning peak times (between 7.45am and 8.15am) the queue of vehicles turning right from The Avenue to Dairy Flat Highway was at times more than 30 vehicles long. This is further supported by recent observations of travel times made using Google Maps between Paremoremo and Albany Bus Station showing that travel times can be delayed by as much as 15 minutes.

31.     The proposed bus route will likely face delays at this intersection during peak traffic times. However, as the proposal is for an hourly service, timetable scheduling can be set to try to avoid the worst of the peak time traffic, although at times a delay will not be avoidable.  Auckland Transport advise that it is not possible to provide bus priority lanes given the low frequency of the service and the proposal being a trial for three years.

32.     Alternatives include increasing the number of buses servicing this route or reducing the schedule at peak times to account for potential delays. An additional bus will ensure that the service can run to schedule but will result in additional cost. The additional cost will be material and impact on the level of the targeted rate to an extent that further consultation will be required. Reducing the schedule will impact on the convenience of the service and may result in reduced patronage.

General discussion

33.     While feedback from consultation provided additional support that the service catchments are larger than 500m, feedback also showed that the service catchment is unlikely to be as large as those identified in option 2. Further investigation from Auckland Transport failed to find evidence to support the larger catchment identified in option 2. Additionally, some feedback noted that existing established buses already provide service to part of the area identified in option 2.

34.     Officers consider that a service catchment somewhere between options 1 and 2 is justifiable and that further investigation would be required to establish where it should be. Changing the catchment area would impact on the level of the targeted rate and further analysis would be required. The level of the targeted rate would ultimately depend on where the service area boundary was established.  

35.     The service may be impacted by traffic congestion issues during peak times. This could be mitigated by designing a schedule that avoided the worst of the peak time traffic. Auckland Transport will not provide bus priority lanes due to the low frequency of the service and while the proposed service is under trial. The cost of adding additional buses to the service would increase the targeted rate beyond the scope of this consultation and further consultation would be required. 

36.     No comments were received on the charging of the targeted rate per SUIP of the rating unit.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

37.     Additional public transport services in Paremoremo and Lucas Heights will provide an increase in sustainable transport options for residents in the service area. Auckland Transport have advised that if the proposal proceeds, then the new bus service would be provided by electric buses. These new services will not have a material impact on emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

38.     This report has been prepared with and agreed on by Auckland Transport. The report has also been reviewed by Legal Services.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39.     The Governing Body has decision-making authority for setting rates. The Upper Harbour Local Board will provide its recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee.  The public transport options and potential targeted rate discussed in this report do not impact on any other local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40.     The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers so is not able to identify the exact impact of policy changes on Māori. The impact of the policy options on Māori will be similar to that on other residents in the proposed service areas in the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Māori feedback

41.     Feedback was received from 558 submitters who identified as Māori:

·        58 supported option 1

·        113 supported option 2

·        209 did not support either option

·        178 made other comments.

Mataawaka organisations and mana whenua

42.     Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust; Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated; Ngāti Tamaoho Trust; Te Akitai Waiohua ticked do not know with no further comment provided.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.     The capital expenditure proposed as part of options 1 and 2 require additional borrowing of around $60,000. As the council is operating at close to its borrowing limits, the Governing Body’s approval is required. To mitigate the impact on council’s borrowing constraints, the targeted rate proposal recovers the costs of the capital investment over 10 years. This is a shorter timeframe than the useful life of the assets.

44.     If the proposed new bus service and targeted rate proceed and subsequently cease due to lack of patronage, then Auckland Transport will fund the balance of any capital costs that have not been recovered from the targeted rate.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45.     There is a risk that the capital and operational costs for the public transport services for Paremoremo and Lucas Heights may be more than the estimates provided in this report.  This will be managed by Auckland Transport providing updated advice to the local board before commitments are entered into. Given the relatively low level of capital investment required, this is not considered to be a significant risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46.     On 25 May 2021, the Finance and Performance Committee will consider the recommendations from the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding the Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate. The Governing Body will then consider recommendations from the Finance and Performance Committee as to what to include in the Recovery Budget 2021-2031.

47.     On 29 June 2021, the Governing Body will adopt the Recovery Budget 2021-2031 and set rates for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Summary of feedback on Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate

17

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor – Financial Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/04571

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

·        proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Upper Harbour 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.       Auckland Council carried out public consultation on the draft 10-year Budget 2021-2031 between 22 February and 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposals. This included consultation on the Upper Harbour Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2021/2022 and its key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031. It also included consultation on the proposed Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate.

5.       Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws. 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.

6.       Local boards are also required to have a local board agreement with the Governing Body each financial year. These 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.

7.       Auckland Council received 19,965 submissions in total across the region and 1363 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area. In comparison, fewer than 800 submissions were received for the previous consultation on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

8.       Nine-hundred and ninety-five (995) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were received on the local board’s priorities. Of those, 46 per cent of submitters either supported all or most priorities proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board, with Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park highlighted as the key priority.

9.       One thousand one-hundred and sixty-one (1161) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area were received on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 showing a majority of submitters (56 per cent) did not support the proposed investment package.

10.     A majority of submitters supported specific proposals in the budget, such as the proposal to provide additional investment to address the climate crisis (53 per cent of 980 submissions received) and Auckland Council’s community investment proposal (57 per cent of 965 submissions received).

11.     The consultation feedback on the proposed Paremoremo Public Transport Targeted Rate will be considered by the Upper Harbour Local Board in a separate report on 6 May 2021.

12.     This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 taking the public consultation feedback into account. The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the 10-year budget decision-making process in May and June 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

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

c)      recommend any new or amended business improvement district 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 capital projects which are outside local boards’ allocated decision-making responsibility.

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

g)      approve the Upper Harbour Local Board key advocacy initiatives for inclusion in its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement.

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

Horopaki

Context

13.     Auckland Council carried out public consultation on the draft 10-year Budget 2021-2031 between 22 February and 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposals. This included consultation on the Upper Harbour Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2021/2022 and its key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031.

14.     The proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed 10-year budget asked submitters to respond to five key questions on:

·        the proposed investment package

·        climate change

·        water quality

·        community investment

·        rating policy, including proposals on extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate and extending the Urban Rating Area.

15.     Public feedback was also sought on the proposal to introduce a local targeted rate to fund a bus service in Paremoremo and this feedback will be considered by the local board on 6 May 2021 in a separate report.

16.     The Upper Harbour Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2021/2022 and its key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031 consulted on are provided in the table below:

Upper Harbour Local Board proposed priorities 2021/2022

Upper Harbour Local Board proposed advocacy initiatives 2021-2031

Caribbean Drive sports field and toilet facility

Prioritisation of investment for open space development in areas where there is a known need and gap in the network, such as:

·    Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park

·    a sub-regional indoor court facility in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

Improving provision and access to drinking water (drinking fountains)

A long-term solution for a library

Implement Greenways Plan as budgets allow

Acquisition of Bomb Point, Hobsonville

Progress Upper Harbour Local Board Urban Ngahere Strategy

Adequate levels of renewals funding to ensure assets are well maintained

Support initiatives that build local resilience and support community connections

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17.     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

18.     As part of the public consultation, Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a cross-section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.    

19.     In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people and organisations during the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

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

·        In person – 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in person and 23 online webinars), one of which was held in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, and two independently managed phone interviews. Due to the Covid-19 lockdowns, 26 events were affected (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform), one of which was in Upper Harbour.

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

20.     Out of the 19,965 submissions received, 1363 submissions were from people living in the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The majority of these submissions (99 per cent) were from individuals. The remaining 1 per cent were submissions from organisations.

21.     Sometimes council receives submissions that have come via a platform created by an external organisation or community group – these are referred to by council as pro forma submissions. There were 211 pro forma submissions received from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·        158 pro forma submissions from people using the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance form opposing the one-off 5 per cent rates increase

·        53 pro forma submissions from Herald Island residents opposing the proposal to extend the urban rating area

22.     Six mana whenua entities and two mataawaka organisations provided submissions in regard to Upper Harbour Local Board priorities.

23.     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.

24.     The information in graph 1 below shows the distribution of submissions from people and organisations in the Upper Harbour Local Board area by feedback method:

Graph 1. Number of submitters by feedback method

25.     Graphs 2 and 3 below provide an overview of demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those Upper Harbour submitters who provided demographic information:

Graph 2. Ethnicity

 

Graph 3. Age and Gender

Feedback received on the Upper Harbour Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives 2021-2031

26.     Of the 1363 submissions received from people in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, 995 responded to the question ‘Tell us your thoughts on our proposed priorities for the local board area in 2021/2022 and our key advocacy initiatives – have we got it right?’

27.     Of the 995 submissions received, 462 either supported all or most priorities (46 per cent), 287 either did not support most or any priorities (29 per cent), and 246 submissions either responded that they did not know or ‘other’ (25 per cent). Graph 4 below provides an overview of submissions received:

Graph 4. Upper Harbour submissions on local board priorities and key advocacy initiatives

28.     The analysis of the comments provided by submitters in support of all priorities identified the following common themes: 

·        priority to be given to Scott Points Sustainable Sports Park

·        a number of requests for open space / parks in Whenuapai

·        support for the local board advocacy priorities:

o   Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park

o   acquisition of Bomb Point 

o   indoor courts.

29.     The analysis of the comments provided by submitters in support of most priorities also identified support for Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park to go ahead as soon as possible, a number of requests for open space / parks in Whenuapai, support for acquisition of Bomb Point and a few repeated comments on the importance of a fit-for-purpose library for Albany. There were a few repeated comments that drinking fountains should not be a priority for the local board.

30.     The analysis of the comments provided by submitters that did not support most local board’s priorities also included a few repeated comments regarding installation of water fountains and disagreement that this should be a priority. These submitters supported prioritisation of Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park.

31.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who did not support any of the local board priorities felt the proposed priorities were not aligned with their own priorities.

32.     A number of submitters who selected ‘other’ commented that they would like to see better public transport and more footpaths.

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

33.     The proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Submitters to respond to five key questions on regional topics covering the topics outlined below:

·        proposed investment package

·        climate change

·        water quality

·        community investment

·        rating policy.

34.     The submissions received from the Upper Harbour 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

35.     Aucklanders were asked about a proposed $31 billion capital investment programme over the next 10 years allowing the council to deliver key services and renew its ageing 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.

36.     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 for the next three years.

37.     Of the 1161 submitters from the Upper Harbour Local Board area who responded to this question, 653 did not support the proposed investment package (56 per cent) and 372 supported the proposed investment package (32 per cent). Graph 5 below gives an overview of responses for the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Graph 5. Upper Harbour submissions on proposed 10-year Budget

38.     The analysis of the comments provided by those submitters who did not support the proposed investment package for the 10-year budget identified the following themes:

·        general lack of support for the increase with concerns around affordability and financial hardship in the community

·        a sense of distrust that the money will be invested in the right places and council should focus on delivering core business

·        a preference for no rate increase at all or a decrease

·        suggestions that council seeks other revenue sources and savings to make up the shortfalls in the budgets

·        dissatisfaction with council’s management (for instance, a few comments mentioned there were too many staff, and salaries were too high).

39.     The analysis of the comments provided by those submitters who supported the proposed investment package identified the following themes:

·        general support for the proposal with the sense that a one-off increase will have greater benefits for Auckland’s future, but expectation that the rates then revert back to 3.5 per cent

·        support investment in Auckland.

Key Question 2: Climate change

40.     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.  

41.     Of the 980 submitters from the Upper Harbour Local Board area who responded to this question, 516 supported the proposal (53 per cent) and 350 did not support the proposal (36 per cent). Graph 6 below gives an overview of responses for the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Graph 6. Upper Harbour submissions on proposed climate change investment

 

42.     Comments from submitters who supported the proposal to increase investment included a few common themes:

·        support the investment

·        need to do more

·        support for electric buses

·        support for various other climate change initiatives such as recycling and active modes of transport.

43.     Comments from submitters who did not support the proposal to increase investment had a variety of themes, including:

·        initiatives should be delivered within existing budgets

·        support action for climate change initiatives but not the highest priority

·        not an essential investment

·        do not support electric buses as the solution

·        not council’s role.

Key Question 3: Water quality

44.     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.  

45.     Of the 972 submitters from the Upper Harbour Local Board area who responded to this question, 337 supported the proposal to extend and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate (35 per cent), 310 supported the proposal to extend the targeted rate only (32 per cent), and 221 did not support either option (23 per cent). Graph 7 below gives an overview of responses for the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Graph 7. Upper Harbour submissions on proposed Water Quality Targeted Rate

46.     Comments from submitters who supported the extension and increase of the Water Quality Targeted Rate, had the following common themes:

·        water quality is important

·        support the investment to maintain and provide infrastructure

·        support the environmental outcomes that the targeted rate delivers on

·        clean safe drinking water is a basic need.

47.     Comments from submitters who supported only the extension of the targeted rate, but not the increase, indicated concerns about affordability for increased rates. A few other common themes were:

·        council should do what they can with what they have, and prioritise spending on essential services

·        find other revenue / savings to fill in the gaps for no increase

·        support the environmental outcomes delivered by extending the rate collection period.

48.     The common themes in comments from submitters who did not support either option were:

·        inability to afford an increase in rates

·        council should focus on core service delivery and find other savings to cover costs.

Key Question 4: Community investment

49.     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.

50.     Of the 965 submitters from the Upper Harbour Local Board area who responded to this question, 470 supported the proposal (57 per cent) and 283 did not support the proposal (29 per cent). Graph 8 below gives an overview of responses for the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Graph 8. Upper Harbour submissions on Community Investment proposal

51.     The main themes in comments from submitters who supported the proposal were:

·        reasonable solution to continue to provide community services, an effective and practical approach

·        it is important to make services available locally, tailored to fit the needs of the locals

·        support the proposal but any changes locally should require community consultation and engagement.

52.     The main themes in comments from submitters who did not support the proposal included:

·        lack of support for privatisation or sale of assets and community facilities

·        new facilities not essential, invest in maintaining what we have

·        closing facilities takes away a much-needed community resource

·        community facilities are a core service

·        assets should be user pays

·        important to involve affected communities in these discussions.

Key Question 5: Rating policy

53.     Aucklanders were asked for their feedback on a raft of proposed rating changes impacting different properties across Auckland differently.

Rating policy proposal

Consultation feedback

Extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate until June 2031 to invest further in measures such as addressing the spread of kauri dieback, and predator and weed control

881 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·    470 supported the proposal (53 per cent)

·    289 did not support the proposal (33 per cent)

·    122 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (14 per cent).

There were not enough comments to draw themes but a few repeated comments in support of it being used for Kauri dieback and pest control (plants and animals).

Extending the Urban Rating Area so land that has an operative urban zoning, or which has resource consent to be developed for urban use now (except for Warkworth), pays the same urban rates as nearby properties that have access to a similar level of service

1059 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·    548 did not support the proposal (52 per cent)

·    400 supported the proposal (38 per cent)

·    111 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (10 per cent).

Main theme in comments from submitters who did not support the proposal was that they disagree they are provided the same levels of service/infrastructure as urban zones (e.g., footpaths, public transport, water and wastewater infrastructure).

A few repeated comments from submitters in support of the proposal: rural areas need to pay for their infrastructure upgrades.

Charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates so they pay the same urban rates as nearby properties that have access to a similar level of service

895 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·    411 did not support the proposal (46 per cent)

·    369 supported the proposal (41 per cent)

·    115 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (13 per cent).

Main theme in comments from submitters who did not support the proposal was that they disagree they are provided the same levels of service/infrastructure as urban zones (e.g., footpaths, public transport, water and wastewater infrastructure).

Not enough comments to draw themes from other submissions.

Extending the City Centre Targeted Rate until June 2031 to maintain our investment in upgrading the city centre

864 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·    380 support the proposal (44 per cent)

·    327 do not support the proposal (38 per cent)

·    157 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (18 per cent).

Not enough comments to draw themes.

Introducing the Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate on the land in Te Arai and Okahukura that benefits from the stormwater services

861 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·    419 support the proposal (49 per cent)

·    157 do not support the proposal (18 per cent)

·    285 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (33 per cent).

Not enough comments to draw themes.

Other changes to rates and fees including the introduction of the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate on Vector to fund council’s tree management programme around the Vector overhead power lines and options to reinstate the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate

Accommodation provider targeted rate: 8 submissions – 6 did not support any options proposed:

·    Business North Harbour support option 3 but requested increased spending on visitor attraction, major events, and destination marketing activity greater than the $14.5 million indicated and for this greater sum to be paid for from general rates

·    Quest Albany does not support but if it cannot be waived, then support option 3.

Electricity network resilience targeted rate: 24 submissions – 14 did not support the proposal; a few repeated comments that costs should be covered by Vector.

Waitakere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate and Clevedon water connection targeted rate – no submissions received on these.

Recommendations on local matters

54.     This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body in May 2021 for consideration as part of the 10-year budget process. This can include:

·        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 in its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement.

Local targeted rate and business improvement district targeted rate proposals

55.     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.

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

57.     There were no new or amended BID targeted rate proposals in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

58.     The Upper Harbour Local Board consulted on a targeted rate proposal to fund a bus service between Paremoremo and Albany. The consultation feedback on this proposal is provided in a separate report to be considered by the local board on 6 May 2021.

Funding for locally driven initiatives

59.     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

·        an LDI capital project exceeds $1 million.

60.     These conditions do not apply to the Upper Harbour Local Board for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Local board advocacy

61.     Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for inclusion in 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 2021. 

62.     The Upper Harbour Local Board’s proposed advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031 consulted on are provided in the table below with recommendations.

Upper Harbour Local Board proposed advocacy initiatives 2021-2031

Recommendations for 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement

Prioritisation of investment for open space development in areas where there is a known need and gap in the network, such as:

·   Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park

·   a sub-regional indoor court facility in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Include

Support for prioritisation of Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park in consultation feedback

A long term solution for a library

Include

Acquisition of Bomb Point, Hobsonville

Include

Adequate levels of renewals funding to ensure assets are well maintained

Include

Local board input on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

63.     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.

64.     In addition to the proposals covered in the consultation questions, the 10-year budget also identified the following priorities:

·        Māori outcomes fund - $150 million investment over the next 10 years

·        Social investment – reinstate contestable funds which were impacted in the Emergency Budget 2020/2021, $500,000 annual homelessness operational fund, Southern Initiative, Western Initiative, Auckland Unlimited, living wage to contracted cleaners, Amotai social procurement initiative

·        Strategic assets - Bledisloe House, heritage buildings in Takapuna and Devonport, waterfront properties

·        Proposed changes to key policies - CCO Accountability Policy, Auckland Airport Shareholding Policy, Local Board Funding Policy, Revenue and Financing Policy

·        Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan.

65.     The submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board did not provide specific feedback on these matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

66.     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.

67.     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

68.     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

69.     Local impacts and local board views are provided and being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

70.     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

71.     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.

72.     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.

73.     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.

74.     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.

75.     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

76.     This report is seeking the local board’s decisions on priorities that have financial impacts and will be included in the local board agreement. The final local board agreement will be approved by the local board in June 2021 and then adopted by the Governing Body later that month as part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 adoption.

77.     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

78.     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

79.     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.

80.     The local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work programmes on 17 June 2021.

81.     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

Author

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/04884

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Central 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 (or charges) to manage demand on the road network. This can encourage users to change their travel behaviour, such as the time, route, or mode by which they travel. 

3.       A copy of a memo provided to the Auckland Council Planning Committee and local board members (dated 1 April 2021) on this subject under Attachment A to this report. A copy of the findings report produced by ‘The Congestion Question’ project (TCQ) dated July 2020 is under Attachment B to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.       Council staff have presented to the Planning Committee on TCQ previously, most recently on 3 December 2020 where a project update and the findings from phase two were presented. The Planning Committee passed the following resolution at that meeting:

Resolution number PLA/2020/116

MOVED by Cr C Darby, seconded by Mayor P Goff: 

That the Planning Committee:

a)   note that phase two of The Congestion Question project is complete

b)   receive the findings from phase two of The Congestion Question project

c)   approve officers scoping the next phase of the project alongside officers from participating agencies, including Auckland Transport.

d)   note that officers will seek the committee’s approval of the scope before proceeding with the third phase of The Congestion Question project

e)   require that the scope provides a timeline and process for comprehensive public engagement, including targeted engagement with Māori, due to the critical importance of hearing from Aucklanders about the implications and options of congestion pricing before any decisions are finalized

f)    require that the potential social inequity impacts and the mitigation of any such impacts be fundamental to further considerations and the scope of the next phase of work

g)   requests quarterly progress reporting on the next phase of congestion pricing in Auckland

h)   urge the government to fully commit its agencies to progress the next phase of congestion pricing in Auckland, including provisional scheme design, for a final decision by Quarter Three 2021.

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

7.       Feedback received from local boards by 10 May 2021 will be considered for incorporation into the main submission. Feedback received from local boards by 17 May 2021 will be appended to the council submission.

8.       The local board now has the opportunity to consider the matters raised by TCQ project and formulate its views for inclusion as part of Auckland Council’s submission to the select committee. In terms of providing such input, the local board may choose to:

·        remain silent (i.e., choose to not provide feedback) and simply receive the report for information

·        resolve its final feedback at this meeting against this report for consideration into the main council submission.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

a)      receive the report and its attachments as follows:

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

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

b)      provide input into Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Memo: Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland

41

b

The Congestion Question main findings July 2020

45

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

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


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04901

 

  

 

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 Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum:

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 JGWP meeting on 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)      trialling 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 consideration 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. They are 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 Māori 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 boards 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 the 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 sub-set 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 the 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 AT, 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 AT, namely street trading and town centre/urban design. Piloting these delegations can help AT 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 2021 as part of the long-term plan. Local board feedback is requested in early May 2021 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

79

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

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

 


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    The Public Water Project - drinking fountains in parks presentation                                           Page 95

Item 8.2      Attachment a    Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association presentation                                                   Page 107

Item 8.2      Attachment b    Herald Island Ratepayers and Residents Association presentation                                                   Page 121


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

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


Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 














Upper Harbour Local Board Community Forum

06 May 2021

 

 












[1] Level to be agreed with Upper Harbour Local Board based on boardings per service hour and be set in line with targets set for similar service in the RLTP.