I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 8 December 2021

10.00am

This meeting will be held remotely and can be viewed on the Auckland Council website
https://councillive.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

 

 

Kōmiti ā Pūtea, ā Mahi Hoki /
Finance and Performance Committee

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Shane Henderson

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

IMSB Member Renata Blair

Cr Richard Hills

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

7 December 2021

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8150

Email: sandra.gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


Finance and Performance Committee

08 December 2021

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

 

8          Annual Budget 2022/2023: Regional topics for consultation - local board input                          5

 


Finance and Performance Committee

08 December 2021

 

 

Annual Budget 2022/2023: Regional topics for consultation - local board input

File No.: CP2021/18218

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of local board input on regional consultation content for the Annual Budget 2022/2023

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       As part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model, local boards have a legislative role to provide input on regional plans. For each annual budget, local boards provide input in two ways:

·        preparing local content – specifically for local board agreements that set out local priorities and activities for the financial year, which are agreed between local boards and the Governing Body

·        providing input into regional content, including providing feedback on the regional items proposed to be consulted on.

3.       For the Annual Budget 2022/2023, local boards agreed both their local content for consultation and their feedback on the regional items proposed to be consulted on at business meetings from 30 November to 2 December 2021.

4.       This report summarises the feedback from local boards on regional items proposed to be consulted on for the Finance and Performance Committee to consider. This report focuses on common themes and, as such, does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. A complete set of the local board resolutions, including any advocacy items, is provided in Attachment A.

5.       Generally, there is a high level of support to consult on the following regional topics:

·        changes to fees and charges (animal control fees, cemetery fees and regulatory fees updates)

·        policies that must be reviewed to ensure they comply with the new section 102(3A) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) (Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy, Revenue and Financing Policy, and Rates Remission and Postponement Policy)

·        kerbside refuse charging policy review, domestic kerbside food scraps collections and standardisation of waste management collection services

·        climate action package and targeted rate.

6.       Both regional and local consultation items will be incorporated into the annual budget consultation document and supporting information, which are planned to be adopted by the Governing Body on 28 February 2022. Consultation is planned to take place from 8 February to 28 March 2022 and final decisions and the adoption of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 will be made in June 2022.

 


 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      consider input from local boards when making recommendations to the Governing Body on regional items to be consulted on for the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The annual budget contains the proposed budget and funding impact statement for the year, identifies any variations from the financial statements and funding impact statement in the 10-year budget for the relevant year, and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the annual budget. As part of this process, local boards develop annual local board agreements which are agreed between local boards and the Governing Body (and are included in the annual budget).

8.       When making decisions, the Governing Body has a statutory obligation to consider the views and preferences of the local boards, if the decision affects, or may affect the responsibilities or operations of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

Developing regional consultation content  

9.       Finance and Performance Committee workshops have been held from September to November 2021 to develop items for consultation for the annual budget.

10.     Local board chairs were invited to attend the Finance and Performance Committee workshops where the regional consultation topics were discussed. All local board members were invited to attend five separate Annual Budget 2022/2023 briefings summarising topics discussed at Finance and Performance Committee workshops.

11.     This report provides an opportunity for local boards to provide formal input on the items proposed to be consulted on for the annual budget and for the Governing Body (through the Finance and Performance Committee) to consider the views expressed by the local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12.     Local boards have been asked to provide input on the content of regional items considered for consultation.

13.     This report summarises the feedback from local boards and focuses on common themes relating to key annual budget regional topics considered by the Finance and Performance Committee. As such, it does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions.  Most local boards did not provide feedback on every topic considered by the Finance and Performance Committee.

14.     The full set of local board resolutions are provided in Attachment A (local board resolutions on proposed regional topics for consultation for the Annual Budget 2022/2023).


 

 

Financial Policy

Fees and Charges

15.     Officers recommend a three-year cycle of fee reviews to ensure that all fees are regularly reviewed. In the first year of the proposed cycle, it is recommended that the council consult on:

·        adjustments to animal management fees - small reductions in fees for dog registrations and review of other charges to ensure appropriate cost recovery

·        minor technical changes to regulatory fees - changes are proposed to recover the cost of new services and better align some fees with the complexity of service delivery

·        standardisation of cemetery fees.

16.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback on fees and charges, all 16 supported the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021

17.     Amendments to the LGA made through the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021 require the council to support Māori to retain and use Māori land through our Revenue and Financing, Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement and Rates Remission and Postponement policies. The LGA does not specify the manner in which the council must provide this support.

18.     The following policies must be reviewed to ensure they comply with the new section 102(3A) of the LGA:

·        Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

·        Revenue and Financing Policy

·        Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

19.     Officers recommend consultation on proposed changes to these three policies alongside the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

20.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback on the proposed changes to Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy, all 16 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

21.     Of the 15 local boards who gave feedback on the proposed changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy, 14 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards). Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board does not support the proposal to consult on the Revenue and Financing Policy stating more work needs to take place.

22.     Of the 15 local boards who gave feedback on the proposed changes to the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy, all 15 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).


 

 

Waste

Kerbside refuse charging policy review

23.     This review is re-examining the evidence to see whether the current policy direction of a regional shift to Pay As You Throw (PAYT) is still the right decision to achieve the Zero Waste by 2040 vision of the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (the waste plan).

24.     Local boards have also previously provided feedback on this topic in their September 2021 business meetings. This is provided as Attachment B to the Kerbside Refuse Charging Policy Review paper also on this agenda.

25.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback on kerbside refuse charging policy review, 13 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Waitematā, and Whau local boards). Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei and Waiheke local boards prefer to stick to the current status-quo hybrid model.

26.     Of the 15 local boards who gave feedback on their preferred method for kerbside refuse charging, eight local boards support a rates funded model (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waiheke, and Waitematā local boards), four supported a PAYT model (Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Papakura and Whau local boards) and three support a hybrid model (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei and Waiheke local boards).

Domestic kerbside food scraps collections

27.     The full region-wide domestic kerbside food scraps service and targeted rate will be rolled out over a nine month period starting in March 2023 in the contiguous urban area of Auckland as agreed under the waste plan in 2018.

28.     The current kerbside collection service was trialled in a small part of the North Shore, and currently also operates in Papakura. The roll out will start in North Shore and Waitākere at the end of FY2022/2023, which means that these areas will be charged a pro rata rate to cover the part year for which they receive the service.

29.     The rest of the region will follow over the second half of the year, which falls within the next financial year, and so the targeted rate for the rest of the region will also start in FY2023/24. 

30.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback on domestic kerbside food scraps collections, 14 support the proposal for consultation (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards). Ōrākei notes that communities may have concerns about smells of rotten food and risk of attracting animals.

31.     Manurewa Local Board does not support a targeted rate due to affordability in their communities and that it does not create incentives to use alternative ways of recycling food waste.

32.     Upper Harbour commented that the proposal for consultation on the Food Scraps Targeted Rate should include an element of choice. 

Multi-unit developments (MUDs) with ten or more residential dwellings

33.     Officers recommended a review of the “opt-out” policy for multi-unit developments (MUDs) in urban areas only. The current policy is inconsistent across the region. MUDs in legacy Auckland City are the only ones that can currently opt-out of council waste charges.


 

 

34.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback on the proposed “opt-out” policy for MUDs, 15 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards.) with Puketāpapa Local Board support conditional on MUDs coming under the council’s waste systems as much as possible and bringing the community along on Auckland’s Journey to Zero Waste kaupapa. Henderson-Massey does not support the proposal for consultation.

35.     Both Albert-Eden and Waitematā local boards raised the issue of multiple bins blocking footpaths.

Multi-separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP) properties with two to nine residential SUIPs

36.     Officers recommended standardising waste collection services charges for multi-SUIP properties (with two to nine residential SUIPs)– either per service or per SUIP. Currently different parts of Auckland are charged in different ways.

37.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback on standardising waste collection services charges for multi-SUIP properties (with two to nine residential SUIPs), all 16 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

38.     Of the eight local boards who gave feedback on their preferred method for charging, they were evenly split with four boards supporting per SUIP (Albert-Eden, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Whau local boards) and four supporting per service (Franklin, Papakura, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards).

Non-residential properties (mainly businesses and farms)

39.     Officers recommended standardising charges for non-residential properties (mainly businesses and farms) waste collection services – either per service or per SUIP. Currently different parts of Auckland are charged in different ways.

40.     Of the 15 local boards who gave feedback on standardising waste collection services charges for non-residential properties (mainly businesses and farms), 14 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards). Hibiscus and Bays Local Board does not support the proposal for consultation.

41.     Of the six local boards who gave feedback on their preferred method for charging, they were evenly split with three boards supporting per SUIP (Franklin, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards) and three supporting per service (Albert-Eden, Papakura and Waitematā local boards).

Climate action 

42.     Officers recommended a climate action package to reduce emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change. Better connecting Aucklanders by improving access to frequent low-emissions public transport services and safe convenient walking and cycling paths. Creating greener communities with more trees in areas that need them most, to respond to warming neighbourhoods. 

43.     The recommended climate action package is approximately $1 billion over ten years funded by a Climate Action Targeted Rate providing for $574 million, with the remainder funded by government co-funding ($344 million) and fare revenue ($127 million).

44.     The principles used for allocating this funding are high impact, wide regional benefit, address inequity, and start fast.

45.     Of the 19 local boards who gave feedback on the introduction of a Climate Action Targeted Rate, 18 support the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

46.     Franklin Local Board does not support the proposal. The board considers there needs to be a more balanced approach to the climate change targeted rate by introducing it for a set time to coincide with the completion of the City Rail Link and the introduction of congestion charging. Rodney Local Board also recommended a shorter three year period to allow for congestion charging.

47.     Both Franklin and Rodney Local Board stated that the use of targeted rates for delivery of regional outcomes removes the use of this mechanism to deliver targeted outcomes at the local level to respond to local issues.

48.     Of the 15 local boards who gave feedback on the four key principles used to develop the climate action package, 14 support the proposal for consultation (Aotea / Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards). Franklin Local Board does not support the application of the principles.

49.     Of the 11 local boards who gave feedback on whether the climate action package will help to support the outcomes and priorities of the local board, 10 local boards stated the package will support outcomes and priorities of their local board (Aotea / Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waitematā and Whau local boards). Franklin Local Board stated it does not adequately deliver to the outcomes and local priorities as outlined in the Franklin Local Board Plan.

50.     Both Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke commented on the lack on inclusion of smaller, rural, and isolated communities in the package.

51.     Both Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards note that $127 million of the climate package will be funded by new transport revenue over ten years and are concerned that higher charges for public transport will limit public transport uptake.

Budget pressures

52.     The Finance and Performance Committee considered the impacts of COVID-19 restrictions and other cost pressures (higher inflation and higher interest costs) on the council’s budget and the financial levers available to fund this.

53.     The temporary and ongoing operating impacts are estimated to be $85 million for 2022/2023. Of this, the ongoing operating cost pressure is estimated to be between $30 million to $40 million per annum beyond 2022/2023.

54.     There is a high degree of uncertainty within the forecast and trends in the current environment. 

55.     Officers advised that the key levers available to council to respond and credibly reduce an operating gap are:

·    higher than planned general rates increase

·    reduced operating costs with associated impacts on services

·    medium to long-term deferral of capital investment

·    reviewing ownership of strategic assets.

56.     As this is a complex issue with multiple key levers, there was less agreement around the use of budget levers. Some local boards suggested a balanced use of levers or supported the levers generally without providing feedback on specific levers.

 

57.     Of the eight local boards who gave feedback on a higher than planned general rates increase, four boards support the use of this lever  (Franklin, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitematā and Whau local boards) and four do not support (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōrākei local boards).

58.     Of the eight local boards who gave feedback on reduced operating costs with associated impacts on services, one board supports the use of this lever  (Albert-Eden Local Board), three do not support (Franklin, Papakura and Waitematā local boards), one stated it was the least favourable option (Ōtara-Papatoetoe) and three requested more information about the possible cuts to services and local impacts (Ōrākei, Rodney and Whau local boards). Henderson-Massey Local Board suggested, that if there are cuts to services an equity lens should be put on any reductions, particularly in the south and the west.

59.     Of the nine local boards who gave feedback on medium to long-term deferral of capital investment, two boards support the use of this lever (Henderson-Massey and Hibiscus and Bays local boards) and seven do not support (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Waitematā local boards).

60.     Of the 11 local boards who gave feedback on reviewing ownership of strategic assets, three boards support consideration of this as a lever (Devonport-Takapuna, Ōrākei and Puketāpapa local boards), six do not support (Albert-Eden, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitematā and Whau local boards), one stated it was the least favourable option (Henderson-Massey Local Board) and one stated they preferred not to sell assets (Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board).

61.     It should be noted that the Mayor’s Proposal details the government’s recently announced Three Waters Reform support package for councils. Auckland’s allocation from the better off funding is around $509 million. The first tranche of around $127 million will be available from 1 July 2022. Using the funding to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 is consistent with this purpose. As the temporary and ongoing operating impacts are estimated to be $85 million for 2022/2023, they can be accommodated by the $127 million government funding. As the availability was only identified in the Mayor’s Proposal, this context was not included in the staff briefings provided to local boards prior to their business meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

62.     This report summarises local board feedback on regional items considered for consultation. The climate impacts (both positive and negative) are summarised in the other annual budget reports to the Finance and Performance Committee on this agenda.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

63.     The council group impacts of the regional consultation content are considered in the other annual budget reports to the Finance and Performance Committee on this agenda.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64.     Local board views and feedback on the regional items considered for consultation for the annual budget are provided in this report.

65.     Local boards have been involved in the development of these regional items proposed for consultation, including:

·        local board chairs attending Finance and Performance Committee workshops

·        all local board members were invited to attend five separate Annual Budget 2022/2023 briefings summarising topics discussed at Finance and Performance Committee workshops

·        local boards provided informal feedback and advocacy to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 November 2021.  

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66.     Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. The annual budget, including local board agreements, are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

67.     Many local boards, as outlined in their resolutions, considered the impacts on Māori within their local board area.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68.     The annual budget is a statutory process which must be completed every year. The council budget provides for the resourcing to deliver this project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69.     The Governing Body must consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards when making decisions that affect those local board areas, as this is a legislative requirement and part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

70.     The regional and local consultation items will be incorporated into the annual budget consultation document and supporting information, which is planned to be adopted by the Governing Body on 8 February 2022.

71.     Aucklanders will have the opportunity to give feedback on regional and local content contained in the annual budget. Consultation will take place from 28 February to 28 March 2022. All feedback received from submitters will be analysed by staff and made available for consideration by the local boards and the Governing Body.

72.     Following consultation, the Governing Body and the local boards will make decisions on the annual budget, including local board agreements in June 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local board feedback on regional topics for consultation and advocacy

13

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Renee Burgers - Lead Advisor Plans and Programmes

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

08 December 2021

 

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

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