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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 4 May 2021

4.30pm

Waitematā Local Board Office
Ground Floor
52 Swanson Street
Auckland

 

Waitematā Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chair

Richard Northey, (ONZM)

 

Deputy Chair

Alexandra Bonham

 

Members

Adriana Avendano Christie

 

 

Graeme Gunthorp

 

 

Kerrin Leoni

 

 

Julie Sandilands

 

 

Sarah Trotman, (ONZM)

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Priscila Firmo

Democracy Advisor

 

28 April 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 353 9654

Email: Priscila.firmo@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Waitematā Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

5          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

6          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

7          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

9          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

10        Waitematā Local Board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031                                                                                                                        7

11        Decision-making responsibilities policy                                                                   73

12        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


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.

 

4          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

5          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

6          Petitions

 

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

 

7          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 Waitematā Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 

8          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.

 

9          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.”


Waitematā Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

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

File No.: CP2021/04793

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

·    proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Waitematā Local Board Agreement 2021/2022. 

·    regional topics for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

2.       To recommend any local matters to the Governing Body, that they will need to consider or make decisions on in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 process.

3.       To seek input on the proposed regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4.       Local board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives for each local board area. Local board agreements for 2021/2022 will be included in the council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

5.       Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031. This included consultation on the Waitematā 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 954 submissions from the Waitematā Local Board area.

7.       Waitematā received 687 submissions on the local board priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The majority of local respondents either support all (33%) or support most (35%) of the priorities. 

8.       Waitematā received 859 responses to the proposed investment package.  48 per cent support the proposal, 37 per cent do not support, 10 per cent responded ‘other’ and five per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

9.       Waitematā received 761 responses to increasing investment to respond to climate change challenges.  68 per cent support increasing investment, 17 per cent do not support, 11 per cent responded ‘other’ and three per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

10.     Waitematā received 746 responses to the proposal to extend and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate.  67 per cent support the extension and increase, 16 per cent support the extension only, 10 per cent do not support either change, two per cent responded ‘other’ and four per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

11.     Waitematā received 722 responses to the proposal for a new community investment approach.  55 per cent support the proposal, 29 per cent do not support, nine per cent responded ‘other’ and seven per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

12.     Waitematā responses generally support the proposals within the rating policy.

·    71 per cent support extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate

·    65 per cent support extending the City Centre Targeted Rate

·    33 responses were received about the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate, showing 53 per cent responded do not support.

13.     In the 10-year Budget process there are matters where local boards can provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making.  This includes:  

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

·    proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

·    any local board advocacy initiatives.

14.     Note that proposals for any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates and any new/amended local targeted rate proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented. 

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

16.     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 Waitematā Local Board:

a)      receive consultation feedback on the proposed Waitematā 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 Waitematā local board area.

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

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

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

 

Horopaki

Context

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

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

19.     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.

20.     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

21.     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 

22.     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.    

23.     In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

a)      written feedback – 18,975 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

b)      in person – 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in person and 23 online webinars), two of which were held in the Waitematā 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).

c)      social media – 78 pieces of feedback through Auckland Council social media channels.

24.     All feedback will be made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback submissions for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031” and will be accessible from 3 May 2021 through the following link: akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/submissions-budget-2021-2031.

25.     The Waitematā Local Board received 954 submissions, not including submissions from mana whenua and mataawaka groups, which is being treated separately below.

26.    The Waitematā Local Board delivered the following:

a.   Two Have Your Say Events: A Hearing style meeting and a joint Waitematā/ Ōrākei Local Board Water Quality Town hall event, both of which were conducted on Skype due to COVID-19 restrictions.

b.   Three drop-in events at the City Centre market, Grey Lynn Farmers market and the Parnell Farmers market.

c.   Four awareness raising presentations were held at the Karangahape Road Business Association, City Centre Network, St Mary’s Bay Residents Association and Ponsonby Business Association.

d.   The mana whenua zoom hui was cancelled due to technical issues.

Information on submitters

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

 

 

28.     Mana whenua and mataawaka engagement was conducted Auckland wide by Innov8 Environmental Consulting.  A report is attached that summarises the Mana Whenua feedback on the Auckland Council 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (the Long-Term Plan) Waitematā Local Board Strategic Proposals & Initiatives (attachment A).

29.     The Waitematā Local Board received submissions from seven mana whenua entities.  Six mana whenua entities indicated their support for all the local board priorities: Ngāti Paoa; Ngāti Tamaterā; Ngāti Whanaunga; Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua; Te Ākitai Waiohua & Waikato. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei did not indicate their level of support, however their written submission to the local board states that they strongly support the board’s key priorities for 2021-2031, and that these priorities are in close accordance with their own.

30.     Waitematā received submissions from 26 organisations.  The consultation process does not provide specific weighting for submissions from organisations.  However, organisations have provided the collective views of people within that organisation and can be considered as such.

31.     Sometimes the council receives submissions that have come via a platform created by an external organisation – these are referred to by the council as pro forma submissions.  A total of 159 pro forma submissions were received to the Waitematā Local Board from Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (100), St Georges Bay (31), and Gen Zero (28).

 

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

32.     The Waitematā Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2021/2022:

·    Priority 1: Improve air and water quality and clean up our waterways. Encouraging restoration of local streams, such as Waipapa, Waiparuru and Newmarket streams, and supporting programmes that improve biodiversity in the Hauraki Gulf.

·    Priority 2: To grow our urban ngahere (forest), we will prioritise planting at sites identified in the ‘Planting Opportunities List’ that will help deliver the goal of providing 30 per cent of tree canopy cover within our local board area by 2050.

·    Priority 3: We will continue to work with mana whenua, and the community groups and across council to identify appropriate sites for regenerative urban farms which will capture carbon, that increase biodiversity, enrich soils, improve watersheds, and enhance ecosystem services, with the aim that they become self-sustaining and create employment.

·    Priority 4: We will continue to provide support to address homelessness and improve dignity and wellbeing. This includes initiatives that provide basic amenities, such as drinking fountains, showers, toilets and lockers.

33.     The Waitematā Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

·    Initiative 1: Increase funding for water quality improvements

We are advocating to the council’s Governing Body to increase funding to accelerate improvements to our stormwater / wastewater systems. This will address growing public concern about pollution in our waterways and bays, including, particularly Hobson Bay, and help achieve cleaner harbours, beaches and streams.

·    Initiative 2: Restore and reopen the Leys Institute and deliver Ponsonby Park

We are advocating for funding to strengthen and reopen the Leys Institute for library and community use. This Auckland Council-owned building is home to a popular community library and gymnasium and was closed to the public in December 2019 due to seismic and structural issues.  

We also want the Governing Body to allocate the remaining $5.5 million to deliver the civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road and find the $5.5million of remaining funding to deliver the park project for a growing community. to provide a much-needed area for the growing community.

·    Initiative 3: Reinstate Local Board Transport Capital Fund 

We are advocating for reinstatement of the regional Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the pre-COVID-19 level of $21 million annually and for previously allocated funding of $38 million – lost through council’s Emergency Budget – to be fully restored. This will allow us to improve road safety, and street scaping including the revitalisation of St Georges Bay Road, and support cycle lane programmes that contribute positively to the environment and community wellbeing.

34.     Waitematā received 687 submissions on the local board priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The majority of local respondents support all (33%) or support most (35%) of the priorities 


 

 

35.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses to the Waitematā Local Board priorities.

36.     People were able to provide comments for their selection but were not required to.  There were 250 comments in the responses to the Waitematā Local Board priorities.  Key themes included:

·    Support the focus on environment: waterway restoration, urban planting and farms

·    Support larger investment in climate change activities: low carbon transport, increasing tree cover and improve food resilience

·    Promote climate change resilience activities such as rainwater tanks during drought

·    Local planning: Ponsonby Park – mixed support, prioritise walking and cycling projects in Grey Lynn area, and improved streetscapes, support reopening of Leys Institute,

·    Request to prioritise water quality at Cox’s Bay and Hobson Bay

·    Support coordinated approach to addressing homelessness and align with Auckland City Mission’s Home Ground development

·    Support short-term increase in rates and borrowing

·    Governance: both support and concerns, focus on local board area, focus on core council responsibilities

37.     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 are to be considered in the current report.

Key themes

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

·    Transport: Support walking and cycling, improve public transport network, decarbonise public transport, transit-only harbour crossing, improved parking enforcement, progress light rail, reduce private vehicle use, cycleways (both support and don’t support), concerns over the disruptions in Queen Street and Karangahape Road.

·    Regional Planning: Mitigate climate change, invest in infrastructure to support intensification, support investment in green spaces, encourage intensification and discourage urban sprawl, improve public spaces, support affordable housing, invest in transport infrastructure, invest in infrastructure to ensure adequate water supply.

·    Environmental Services: Prioritise climate change investment, support transport mode shift, shift to electric vehicles, support tree protection, improve water quality, improve air quality, minimise waste, reduce agrichemical use.

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

39.     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

40.     The submissions received from the Waitematā 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

41.     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.

42.     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.

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

  

44.     Waitematā received 859 responses to the proposed investment package.  48 per cent support the proposal, 37 per cent do not support, 10 per cent responded ‘other’ and five per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

45.     The key themes in the responses that support the investment package (48%) are:

·    Support investment in infrastructure, need to renew ageing infrastructure

·    Prioritise investment in sustainable transport networks and environmental outcomes

·    Essential response needed to climate change

·    Not enough investment made in the past

·    Support more housing and population growth

·    Renew water infrastructure

·    Don’t want a reduction in services

·    Not a bold enough budget to address the climate emergency and Covid recovery

·    Some support a greater increase in rates

46.     The key themes in the responses that do not support the investment package (37%) are:

·    Financial hardship

·    Pressure on businesses

·    Job losses

·    Impact of Covid

·    Only invest in core/essential services

·    Find other revenue/savings

·    Greater asset recycling

47.     The key themes in the responses that selected ‘other’ (10%) and don’t know (5%) are:

·    Support a greater rates increase

·    Financial hardship

·    Need to stimulate local economy

Key Question 2: Climate Change

48.     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.  

49.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Waitematā Local Board area.

50.     Waitematā received 761 responses to increasing investment to respond to climate change challenges.  68 per cent support increasing investment, 17 per cent do not support, 11 per cent responded ‘other’ and three per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

51.     The key themes in the responses that support (68%) increased investment in climate change are:

·    Urgent and necessary actions needed

·    Need to do more than proposed

·    Support electric busses

·    Support tree protection

·    Support investment in walking and cycling infrastructure

52.     The key themes in the responses that do not support (17%) increased investment in climate change are:

·    Not essential investment

·    Find other sources of funding such as government funding or user pays

53.     The key themes in the responses that selected ‘other’ (11%) and don’t know (3%) are:   

·    Need to do more

·    Support the investment but not the priorities

 

Key Question 3: Water quality

54.     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.  

55.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Waitematā Local Board area.

56.     Waitematā received 746 responses to the proposal to extend and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate.  67 per cent support the extension and increase, 16 per cent support the extension only, 10 per cent do not support either change, two per cent responded ‘other’ and four per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

57.     The key themes in the responses that support the extension and increase (67%) are:

·    Improving environmental conditions for marine life, birds and humans

·    Support mauri and essence that supports life

·    Under investment in the past

·    Need improvement for future generations

·    Ability to swim safely

·    Request to prioritise beaches close to high density areas such as Cox’s Bay and Meola Reef

58.     The key themes in the responses that support the extension only (16%) are:

·    Find alternative revenue or savings

·    Financial hardship

59.     The key themes in the responses that do not support either change (10%) are:

·    Find alternative revenue and savings

·    Dissatisfied with Council/Watercare management/direction

60.     The key themes in the responses that selected ‘other’ (2%) and don’t know (4%) are:

·    Need to be higher priority and delivered sooner

·    Dissatisfied with Council/Watercare management/direction

 

Key Question 4: Community investment

61.     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.

62.     The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Waitematā Local Board area.

63.     Waitematā received 722 responses to the proposal for a new community investment approach.  55 per cent support the proposal, 29 per cent do not support, nine per cent responded ‘other’ and seven per cent selected ‘don’t know’.

64.     The key themes in the responses that support the proposal (55%) are:

·    It is an efficient/practical approach

·    Support multi-use facilities and shared facilities

·    Some concerns that the approach is unclear and what assets are being considered

·    Keep local facilities/ services: continue investment in parks and green spaces and concerns of losing face-to-face services such as libraries, specific mentions of Leys Institute

·    Need to consider the needs of specific communities

·    Support community or external run facilities

65.     The key themes in the responses that do not support the proposal (29%) are:

·    Keep local facilities/ services, particularly libraries and local reserves

·    Concerns of reduced social cohesion and losing opportunities for face-to-face interactions

·    Impact on vulnerable communities and low decile neighbourhoods, equity of access

·    Against privatisation of these services

·    Concerns that partnerships lack accountability and is costly

66.     The key themes in the responses that selected ‘other’ (9%) and don’t know (7%) are:

·    Concerns that partnerships would reduce quality or service standards

·    Concerns of losing heritage buildings

·    Concerns of level of equity

·    Concerns of distances and transport options to services

·    Support shared community spaces, not necessarily council owned

 

Key Question 5: Rating policy

67.     Aucklanders were asked for their feedback on several proposed rating changes impacting 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.

 

68.     Waitematā received 710 responses to extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate.  The graph below gives an overview of the responses.

69.     Waitematā received 709 responses to extending the Urban Rating Area.  The graph below gives an overview of the responses.

70.     Waitematā received 678 responses to charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates.  The graph below gives an overview of the responses.

71.     Waitematā received 706 responses to extending the City Centre Targeted Rate. 

Key themes include:

·    Concerns that more development in the city centre would increase congestion

·    Development would negatively impact the businesses during COVID recovery

·    Concerns of the state of Queen Street

The graph below gives an overview of the responses.

72.     Waitematā received 668 responses to introducing the Rodney Drainage Targeted Rate.  The graph below gives an overview of the responses.

73.     Waitematā received 33 responses to resuming the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate.  53 per cent responded do not support.  Three per cent support Option 1: resume the APTR as currently planned from 1 April 2021, six per cent support Option 2: reinstate the APTR from 1 January 2022, 18 per cent support Option 3: reinstate the APTR from 1 July 2022, 21 per cent selected “other”.

74.     Waitematā received 36 responses to the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate.  53 per cent support the targeted rate, 33 per cent do not support, and 14 per cent selected “Other”.

Other feedback

75.     Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if they had any feedback on any other issues.  There was no particular theme that emerged over others as a strong area of interest, most commentary was provided as part of feedback on local issues.

Recommendations on local matters 

76.     This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the 10-year Budget process, in May 2021. This includes:

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

·    proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

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

Local targeted rate and business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals

77.     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.

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

79.     There are no new proposals in the local board area for the 2021/2022 financial year.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

80.     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.

81.     The Waitematā Local Board does not have any proposals for the 2021/2022 financial year that need approval from the Governing Body under these conditions.

82.     The Waitematā Local Board do not have any proposals for the 2021/2022 financial year that need approval from the Governing Body under these conditions.

Local board advocacy

83.     The Waitematā Local Board adopted an extensive advocacy list as part of its three-year strategic document, the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2020.

84.     Local boards are requested to approve its priority 2020/2021 advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to their 2020/2021 Local Board Agreement, taking into account the consultation feedback from the 10-year Budget. 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

85.     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.

86.     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

87.     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.

88.     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

89.     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

90.     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.

91.     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

92.     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.

93.     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.

94.     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.

95.     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.

96.     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

97.     This report is seeking the local board’s decisions on financial matters in the local board agreement that must then be considered by the Governing Body.

98.     The local board also provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

99.     The council must adopt its 10-year Budget, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2021. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the 10-year Budget by mid May 2021, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the 10-year Budget on 25 May 2021.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

101.   Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the relevant Governing Body committee for consideration during decision making at the Governing Body meeting.

102.   The final 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 22 June 2021.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Mana Whenua feedback on Waitematā Local Board Strategic Proposals & Initiatives within the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

23

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Caroline Teh - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

 


Waitematā Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Waitematā Local Board

04 May 2021

 

 

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04971

 

  

 

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 Waitematā 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

81

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

 


Waitematā Local Board

04 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