Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday 22 June 2021

9.30am

The Stevenson Room
Level One Franklin the Centre
12 Massey Ave
Pukekohe

 

Franklin Local Board

 

OPEN MINUTE ITEM ATTACHMENTS

 

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

 

5a        Acknolwedgement - Patricia Brown

A.      22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board - Acknowledgement of Patricia (Nana) Brown    3

8.1       Deputation - Life Education Trust Counties Manukau

A.      22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board - Life Education Trust presentation              5

8.2       Deputation - Drowning Prevention Auckland - Nicola Keen-Bigelaar

A.      22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board - Drowning Prevention Auckland presentation                                                                                                                              23

8.3       Deputation - Franklin Gymsports

A.      22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board - Franklin Gymsports presentation             41

13        Approval of the 2021/2022 Franklin Local Board Customer and Community Services work programme

A.      22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board - Customer and Community Service Work Programme (updated)                                                                                          53

17        Feedback on Equity of Service Levels and Funding Proposals - Draft Report

A.      22 June 2021 Franklin Local Board - Local Board feedback on Equity of Service Levels and Funding Proposals                                                                             93



Franklin Local Board

22 June 2021

 

 

PDF Creator


Franklin Local Board

22 June 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


Franklin Local Board

22 June 2021

 

 


















Franklin Local Board

22 June 2021

 

 













Franklin Local Board

22 June 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


Franklin Local Board

22 June 2021

 

 

22 June 2021 - Item 17 - Attachment B - Feedback to the Joint Governance Working Party on the funding and decision-making proposals

Principles

Key principles underpinning the recommendations of the Draft Report

 

Feedback points

Local board feedback

Does the local board support the principle of local boards having decision-making responsibility over its local services, service levels and service assets?

Yes

 

Does the local board support the principle of local community service funding being based on equity rather than assets?

Yes

Does the local board support changes to the funding model that would ensure that local boards not currently receiving equitable funding get additional funding?

Yes

                                      

Broader local board decision making responsibility

 

Feedback points

Local board feedback

Does the local board support the scope of decision-making responsibility being proposed?

Yes

Does the local board have other feedback on decision-making responsibility proposals?

·    Further consideration of local board procurement influence on regional contracts is encouraged e.g. large maintenance contracts for service assets enable a balance between regionalised efficiency and local outcomes

·    Increased decision-making responsibilities will require appropriate resourcing to ensure that local boards have access to sufficient staffing levels and quality advice to support their decision-making

·    There may need to be a culture change in some departments and CCOs to reinforce that local boards are governors, not stakeholders.

Funding allocation approach

 

Feedback points

Local board feedback

Does the local board support the scope of funding being  allocated?

·    Yes.

·    The local board supports the ‘local community services funding pool’ model which is broader than the current model.

·    Notes this approach will help resolve frustrations around decisions and funding, where responsibility for decisions fall across both local boards and governing body

·    The local board considers that council’s current definition (or at least interpretation) of deprivation is problematic. Vulnerable communities are not just about a lack of financial resources, and this definition should also consider things like access to reliable power, access to high-speed internet, access to council services, access to transport choices. These are environmental factors that equate to deprivation through isolation (from core services).

Does the local board support the proposed allocation weightings, including a 5% allocation based on land values?

·    No – the local board seeks an amended approach

·    The local board supports an equal weighting between land area and deprivation i.e. 80/10/10 %. This is the same weighting on land area as deprivation, as is the case in the current local board funding policy

·    The local board does not support including the 5% allocation criteria based on land value in the proposed allocation weightings.

·    Including land value in the model benefits areas that are already able to realise greater financial returns through optimisation and sale of service assets. This is not consistent with achieving greater equity of funding between board areas.

Does the local board support:

o   Allocating only any new money under the proposed allocation model, or

o   Transition to equitable funding through funding re-allocation, and over what period between 10-15 years?

·    The local board has a preference for allocating new money to the proposed allocation model in a way that will enable the transition to happen more rapidly and minimising difficulties for local boards that will need to re-balance their current funding levels

·    The local board supports a tapered transition response to equity funding over a timeframe that is less than 10 years

 

Does the local board support the inclusion of a visitor services  factor for local boards that have significantly more visitors than  residents?

·   Yes

·   Further feedback below

Does the local board have other feedback on the funding  allocation proposals?

·    The threshold for consideration for visitor services factor should consider other areas with seasonal visitation demands e.g. Maraetai and Karioitahi beaches, whilst also recognising the significance of the impact on Waiheke

·    The funding allocation needs to consider use of facilities and services by neighbouring communities outside of Auckland e.g. Pokeno and Tuakau, and to a lesser extent by communities in the Hauraki District and Thames/Coromandel. This should be considered in terms of service levels and funding, as demand from other communities outside of Auckland impacts access for local communities and funding of services

·    The staffing levels and advice will be key for enabling this to work.

Minimum service levels

 

Feedback points

Local board feedback

Does the local board support the proposed minimum service levels including asset condition as a health and safety minimum service level

Yes.

 

Does the local board have other feedback on the minimum service level proposals?

The local board notes that minimum service levels should not be too constraining as this could undermine local decision-making.

 

Multi-board services

 

Feedback points

Local board feedback

Does the local boards support the criteria for multi-boards services?

Yes

 

Does the local board support:

No change to how costs of multi-board services are funded, or

Allocating funding for multi-board services under the ‘Hybrid’ approach?

The local board supports funding for service assets in the area which they sit, and a consultation approach for multi-board services

 

Does the local board support the proposal for host local boards  to consult on multi-board service level decisions within local board clusters?

Yes

 

Does the local board have other feedback on multi-board service proposals?

Host board consultation process would need to be adequately resourced with staff to provide quality advice and undertake work as necessary

 

 

Other feedback

 

Feedback points

Local board feedback

Does the local board have other feedback on the content or recommendations of the Draft Report?

·    The staffing levels and advice will be key for enabling this to work.

·    Staffing support will need to be of sufficient calibre and quantity to enable local boards in good decision-making and fit-for-purpose outcomes

·    Note that population alone as an indicator of board member workload is problematic. Large board areas with more limited access to council facilities and widespread and diverse communities mean that local board members need to work very hard to connect with and represent. In Franklin there are 16 distinct villages, each with their own pressure points and representative groups that elected members must engage with and represent

·    A wider definition of deprivation is required i.e. deprivation through isolation

·    Given rapid growth in certain parts of Auckland, the local board suggests that capacity for frequent re-assessment of population and recalibration of the funding allocation is necessary to ensure ongoing equity of funding.

·    The local board notes that concentrated populations have more densely located facilities and services – both council and private, enabling choice. Choice is further supported by an effective transport system. Larger, more sparsely populated areas have less choice and the council facilities supplement shortfalls in basic service provision. This is also likely to be an issue for Rodney and the Gulf Islands.

·    More densely populated areas already have an advantage in terms of council responsiveness i.e. council tends to respond to and plan resources around the volume of complaints (not always about need), and cost of response. The model needs to take account of this disparity, hence reviewing the definition of deprivation.

·    This proposed new model, while well-supported by this local board, will affect the scope of local board member roles. Current demands fill up the local board member role of 20 hours per week, and the new model will require even further governance commitment.