Agenda of Papakura Local Board - Wednesday, 11 May 2022

Papakura Local Board

11 May 2022

Papakura Local Board Consulation Feedback and Input into the Annual Budget 2022/2023

File No.: CP2022/05034

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

· proposed priorities and activities for the Papakura Local Board Agreement 2022/2023

· regional topics for the Annual Budget 2022/2023

2. To recommend any local matters to the Governing Body, that they will need to consider or make decisions on in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 process.

3. To provide input on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Local board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and initiatives for each local board area. Local board agreements for 2022/2023 will be included in the Council’s Annual Budget 2022/2023.

5. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2022 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2022/2023. This included consultation on the Papakura Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2022/2023 to be included in their local board agreement.

6. Auckland Council received 11,550 pieces of feedback in total across the region including 278 pieces of feedback from the Papakura local board area. Feedback from Papakura residents indicates:

· 74% support for local priorities

· half of submitters support the proposed climate action targeted rate

· 56% of individual submitters support the budget package

· 55% of individual submitters support the proposal to prioritise operational spending

· 52% of individual submitters do not support a move to a region-wide rates funded refuse collection.

· half of individual submitters support the three proposals for waste service opt out provisions

· 36% of individual submitters support applying a minimum base charge to every separately used or inhabited part of a property (SUIP).

7. In the Annual Budget process there are financial matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making. This includes:

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

· release of local board specific reserve funds

· any local board advocacy initiatives.

The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the Annual Budget decision-making process in June 2022.

8. 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 Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) receive consultation feedback on the proposed Papakura Local Board priorities and activities for 2022/2023.

b) receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 from people and organisations based in the Papakura local board area.

c) recommend that the Governing Body approves any proposed locally driven initiative (LDI) capital projects, which are outside the local board’s allocated decision-making responsibility.

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

e) provide input on regional topics in the proposed Annual Budget 2022/2023 to the Governing Body.

f) provide its advocacy initiatives for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

9. Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the local board) for each local board area. The Papakura Local Board Agreement sets out how the Council will reflect the priorities in the Papakura Local Board Plan 2020 in respect to the local activities to be provided in the Papakura local board area and includes information relating to budgets, levels of service, and performance measures.

10. The local board agreements 2022/2023 will form part of the Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2022/2023.

11. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2022 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2022/2023, as well as local board priorities and proposed activities to be included in the local board agreement 2022/2023.

12. 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 Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. 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 Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Consultation feedback overview

14. 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.

15. In total, we received feedback 11,550 pieces of feedback in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 9,464 online or hard copy forms, emails or letters

· in person – 2,086 pieces of feedback through online Have Your Say events, or independently managed phone interviews. All events (except one which didn’t have any attendees) were moved to an online platform or cancelled due to the red COVID-19 traffic light setting.

16. Written feedback was received from the following mana whenua iwi, four of which have interest in the Papakura Local Board area:

· Ngāti Whatua o Orākei - Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whatua

· Ngāti Paoa - Ngāti Paoa Trust Board

· Ngaati Whanunga - Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society

· Te Ahiwahui - Makaurau Marae Māori Trust

· Te Kawerau ā Maki – Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust

· Ngāti Tamaterā - Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

Feedback received on the Papakura Local Board’s priorities for 2022/2023

17. The Papakura Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2022/2023:

· Priority 1: work with the Papakura and Takanini Business Associations to support local businesses and grow local prosperity and employment

· Priority 2: support age-friendly and inter-generational activities that link older people and rangatahi

· Priority 3: explore opportunities to link visitors and residents with our historical and cultural attraction and recreational walking and cycling trails

· Priority 4: continue to deliver a range of community-led events and activities that make use of our parks and facilities to bring people together and promote wellbeing

· Priority 5: continue to work with neighbouring local boards, local communities and mana whenua on projects that improve our environment and the health of our waterways.

18. 227 submissions were received on Papakura Local Board’s priorities for 2022/2023. The majority of local respondents support all (72) or most (95) local priorities.

Table

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated with low confidence

19. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between 21-23 June 2022.

Information on submitters

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

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

Key themes

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

· Concentrate on core services

· Events and visitor priority are ‘nice to haves’

· Focus on infrastructure such as parks, playgrounds and dog/family friendly spaces and other tangible things that benefit all

· Finish existing projects before beginning anything new

· Local priorities wording is too vague – would like more specific information

· Disbelief that the priorities will eventuate

· Concern about crime and safety in general and in Papakura town centre

· Not liking how Papakura is changing

· Need to keep heart of Papakura alive

· Both support for and against cycleways

Specific requests for local projects and funding

22. Requests for local funding through the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation included:

· Activities for kids to reduce antisocial behaviour

· Fitness, health and leisure activities, including for seniors

· Equitable support for theatre

· A bridge over Papakura Stream linking Waiata Shores and Wattle Downs

· Activities that bring Papakura’s diverse communities together

· More frequent buses and bus stops

· Footpath lighting on Hinau Rd, Karaka shared path

· Addressing issues of speed and safety at the Settlement Road/Opaheke Road intersection.

Mana whenua feedback on local priorities

23. Four submissions were received with mana whenua iwi with significant interests in the Papakura Local Board Area:

· Ngāti Paoa (Trust Board) – support local priorities provided they can be supported financially

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua – requested support with building a new wharekai at their marae in Waiuku, and also support for initiatives in the water knowledge, water safety messaging and water health space

· Ngāti Tamaterā – reiterated the principal of a Tiriti based relationship, including a suggestion for induction hui as an initial meet and greet exercise, with the opportunity to present iwi frameworks, strategy and management plans, with potential for site visits to marae, and for local boards to share their priorities. Ngāti Tamaterā priority areas include housing, employment, education, strong identity, and healthy and thriving whanau

· Ngaati Whanaunga – expectation for relationship to be based in Treaty principles, request for more opportunities for rangatira ki te rangatira engagement, for Ngaati Whanaunga to be treated as a partner and not just another ‘stakeholder’, and for Council engagement to move to a more sustainable model of engagement that moves beyond a project-by-project approach. Priorities for Ngaati Whanaunga are healthy and prosperous business; healthy and prosperous people, healthy and prosperous whaanau and hapuu; healthy and prosperous environment.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 from the Papakura Local Board area

24. The proposed Annual Budget 2022/2023 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed Annual Budget asked submitters to respond to four key questions on:

i. Climate

ii. Budget pressures

iii. Operating spending prioritisation

iv. Waste service standardisation

25. The submissions received from the Papakura 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: Climate

26. Aucklanders were asked about a proposed climate action package which will be funded by a targeted rate. The climate action package includes investments in low-carbon public transport, active walking and cycling networks; and urban ngahere (forest) canopy cover.

27. This is proposed to be funded through $574 million from a targeted rate over the next 10 years as well additional funding from government co-funding.

28. Of the 254 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 128 were in support, 100 did not support, 16 did not know and 10 selected other. The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Chart

Description automatically generated

Key themes

29. Key themes in the feedback from those that did not support included:

· Denial that there is a climate change issue

· Climate change is a central government issue, and an international issue

· Council should focus on core services

· There are other more important issues to address right now

· Council should fund these actions within existing funding

· Climate change is an issue for everybody, not just ratepayers

· Need to address access to public transport first

· Need to consider other solutions like supporting more local working and less long-distance travelling

30. Feedback from mana whenua iwi with interests in the Papakura Local Board area included:

· Ngāti Paoa (Trust Board) – support, as it is vital that we address climate change

· Ngāti Tamaterā – support in principle, emphasising the need to collaborate with mana whenua iwi to address the impact of climate change on Māori communities and marae

· Ngaati Whanaunga – support with recommendations such as a focus on initiatives that are inexpensive and have tangible benefits for Māori e.g. supporting working from home, providing access to WIFI, ensuring bus routes, and walking and cycling infrastructure are located close to marae and supporting access to cycles.

Key Question 2: Budget pressures

31. Aucklanders were asked about a range of levers proposed to manage on-going budget pressures. Council is forecasting a budget shortfall of $85 million for 2022/2023 compared to what was budgeted for in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031. This is due to on-going impacts of COVID-19 on revenue and growing inflationary pressure.

32. A range of levers are proposed to manage the budget pressures including:

- Using the Government’s Better Off support package funding

- Changing the timing of some capital spending

- Implementing cost reductions in the form of efficiency savings and a potential reduction in some services

- Keeping the previously agreed general rates increase of 3.5 per cent for 2022/2023 and;

- Continuing work on the sale or long-term lease of non-strategic assets as required.

33. Of the 210 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 118 were in support, 50 did not suppport, 16 did not know and 16 selected ‘other’. The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Chart

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Key themes

34. Key themes of note from those not in support included:

· Council needs to be more efficient and focus on core services, including reducing staff costs

· Rates have already increased due to CV increases

· Against selling council assets

· Aucklanders are already facing financial difficulties

35. Feedback from mana whenua iwi with interests in the Papakura Local Board area included:

· Ngāti Paoa – support

· Ngaati Whanuanga – do not support using Three Waters funding to fund business as usual activities

· Ngāti Tamaterā – support, focussing on core council services with a targeted approach, taking into account real need that communities are experiencing.

Key Question 3: Operating spending prioritisation

36. Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on a proposal that would see council prioritise operating spending to help manage on-going budget pressures. A set of criteria to be used when making decisions about cost reductions, including those that could reduce, stop or change some services, was proposed.

37. The proposal involves implementing $15 million of additional permanent cost reductions in the form of efficiency saving and low-priority service reductions across the group in 2023/2024, growing to $30 million per annum from 2024/2025 onwards.

38. Of the 204 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 113 were in support, 28 did not suppport, 46 did not know and 17 selected ‘other’. The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Table

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Key themes

39. Key themes of note from those not in support included:

· Information is unclear

· Many services already seem to have stopped or are already ‘user pays’

· The climate change example should be a ‘must do’

· Reducing staff costs should be a priority.

40. Feedback from mana whenua iwi with interests in the Papakura Local Board area included:

· Ngāti Paoa (Trust Board) – support

· Ngaati Whanaunga – unclear why best financial practice approaches that should be used during daily operations are subject to engagement feedback; decision-making criteria fails to factor in Maaori community needs

· Ngāti Tamaterā – support, to ensure core services are kept operating.

Key Question 4: Waste service standardisation

41. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to standardise waste services and charges across Auckland. The proposal would involve a move to a region-wide rates funded refuse collection service and see a choice of three bin sizes (with different pricing for each) to accommodate different household needs.

42. Auckland Council are also proposing to include standardising which properties can opt-out of waste management services and charges across Auckland.

43. Of the 227 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 93 were in support, 116 did not support,11 made other comments and 7 responded as I don’t know. The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Table

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

44. Key themes in the feedback from those that did not support included:

· Want to keep doing own composting

· PAYT (pay as you throw) allows people to control their own waste costs, incentivises reducing waste

· Bins encourage waste production

· Currently do not put out bins weekly – proposal doesn’t seem to recognise this

· Does not support waste minimisation

· Cost of implementing new system

· Unfairly punishes those who actively work to reduce waste

· Inconsistent with everything else which is user pays e.g. water, power, petrol tax.

45. Feedback from mana whenua iwi with interests in the Papakura Local Board area included:

· Ngāti Paoa (Trust Board) – support

· Ngaati Whanaunga – support, as rates funded option results in maximum access and equity for all households, however also emphasising that the need for a public education campaign around waste minimisation and cyclical resource flow to maximise resource use and re-use

· Ngāti Tamaterā – support in principle with concerns regarding impact on overcrowded houses and large whanau with potential need for targeted increased bin capacity

46. Auckland Council is also proposing to standardise which properties can opt-out of waste management services and charges across Auckland.

47. Auckland Council is proposing to standardise the opt-out rules for residential multi-unit developments (10 or more units).

48. Of the 208 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 103 were in support, 40 did not support, 11 made other comments and 54 responded as I don’t know. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Table

Description automatically generated

Timeline

Description automatically generated with low confidence

49. Auckland Council is proposing to standardise the opt-out rules for residential and lifestyle properties with between two and nine units.

50. Of the 206 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 92 were in support, 42 did not support, 17 made other comments and 55 responded as I don’t know. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Table

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

51. Auckland Council is proposing to standardise the opt-out rules for non-residential properties

52. Of the 206 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 102 were in support, 42 did not support, 10 made other comments and 52 responded as I don’t know. The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Table

Description automatically generated

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generated

53. Auckland Council is proposing to apply a minimum base charge to every separately used or inhabited part of a property.

54. Of the 201 submitters who gave feedback on this question, 72 were in support, 67 did not support, 9 made other comments and 53 responded as I don’t know. The graph and table below give an overview of the responses from the Papakura Local Board area.

Table

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

Other feedback

55. Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if they had any feedback on any other issues, including a proposal to increase local board decision-making over local community services:

· Two submitters were in support of the proposal to increase local board decision-making over local community services

· one submitter also emphasised need for local boards to still take a regional view to avoid ‘white elephant’ projects

· Ngāti Tamaterā were in support, suggesting that meaningful engagement and partnership with mana whenua and sharing decision making opportunities is key and provides an opportunity for iwi to help design local board work programmes, priority areas and shared outcomes

· Ngāti Paoa (Trust Board) were in support, provided community comments are taken into consideration

56. Aucklanders were asked about changes to fees and charges. One submitter was concerned that fees for rainwater tank consents and inspections were a disincentive, and another suggested subsidies for rain water harvesting.

Recommendations on local matters

57. This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the Annual Budget process, in June 2022. This includes:

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

· release of local board specific reserve funds.

· local advocacy initiatives.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

58. Local boards are allocated funding for locally 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.

These conditions do not apply to the Papakura local board for the 2022/2023 financial year.

Local board advocacy

59. Local boards are requested to provide approved advocacy initiatives which considers the consultation feedback above. This allows the Finance and Performance Committee to consider these advocacy items when making recommendations on the Annual Budget 2022/2023 to the Governing Body in June.

60. The advocacy initiatives approved by the local board will be included as an appendix to the 2022/2023 Local Board Agreement

Local board input on regional topics in the Annual Budget 2022-2023

61. 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 Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

62. The decisions recommended in this report are part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next year.

63. Projects allocated funding through this Annual 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

64. The Annual Budget 2022/2023 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

65. 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.

66. Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s Annual Budget. Local board agreements form part of the Annual Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the Annual Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

67. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

68. 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.

69. Analysis provided of consultation feedback received on the proposed Annual Budget includes submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

70. 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 the council’s decision-making processes.

71. 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

72. 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.

73. 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

74. The council must adopt its Annual Budget, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2022. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the Annual Budget by mid May 2022 and present to the Finance and Performance Committee on 25 May, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the Annual Budget on 7 June 2022.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75. The local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work programmes in June 2022.

76. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the Finance and Performance committee for consideration ahead of that Committee making recommendations to the Governing Body for decision.

77. The final Annual Budget 2022/2023 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 29 June 2022.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Annual Budget 2022/2023 - Papakura Local Board feedback on regional topics	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Lucy Stallworthy - Local Board Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Papakura Local Board

11 May 2022

Papakura Local Board and Youth Grants Programme 2022/2023

File No.: CP2022/05518

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Papakura Local Board Grants Programme 2022/2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt its own local grants programme for the next financial year.

4. This report presents the Papakura Local Board Grants Programme 2022/2023 and Papakura Youth Grants Programme 2022/2023 for adoption as provided in Attachment A and Attachment B respectively.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) adopt the Papakura Local Board Grants Programme 2022/2023 provided as Attachment A

b) adopt the Papakura Youth Grants Programme 2022/2023 provided as Attachment B.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities, and services that benefit Aucklanders.

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt its own local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board grants programme guides community groups and individuals when making applications to the local board.

7. The local board community grants programme includes:

· outcomes as identified in the local board plan

· specific local board grant priorities

· the types of grants, the number of grant rounds, and opening and closing dates

· any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply

· other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. Once the local board grants programme 2021/2022 has been adopted, the types of grants, grant rounds, criteria, and eligibility with be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach which includes utilising the local board channels.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. The new Papakura Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2022/2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

10. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups with projects that support community climate change action. Local board grants can contribute to climate action through the support of projects that address food production and food waste, alternative transport methods, community energy efficiency education and behaviour change, build community resilience, and support tree planting.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

11. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

12. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant council unit will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment, or heritage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

13. The grants programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of its grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. All grant programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes in the application process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018 -2028 and local board agreements.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

16. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy. Therefore, there is minimal risk associated with the adoption of the grants programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17. An implementation plan is underway, and the local board grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and council channels, including the council website, local board Facebook page and communication with past recipients of grants.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Papakura Grants Programme 2022/2023	31
b ⇩	Papakura Youth Grants 2022/2023	37

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Lima Seve - Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Pierre Fourie - Grants & Incentives Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Papakura Local Board

11 May 2022

Papakura Local Board

Community Grants Programme 2022/2023

Our Community Grants Programme aims to provide contestable and discretionary community grants to local communities.

Outcomes sought by the Papakura Local Board

Our grants programme will be targeted towards supporting the following outcomes and priorities, as outlined in the Papakura Local Board Plan 2020:

· A vibrant and prosperous local economy

· A community enriched by its diversity, where people feel connected and lead active, healthy lives

· A well-connected area where it’s easy to move around

· A treasured environment and heritage

· A partnership with Māori that creates a Papakura whre Māori identity, culture and aspirations are embraced

Our priorities for grants

The Papakura Local Board welcomes grant applications and community initiatives that align with the following local board plan priorities:

· Support the arts and local cultural experiences in Papakura

· Develop social enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation that leads to gainful employment

· Support communities and individuals within Papakura to achieve their goals and aspirations

· Support initiatives that enhance the environment in and around parks and stream

· Enables more people to enjoy the environment in and around our parks, reserves, harbour and streams

· Support successful programmes to help people reduce, reuse and recycle

· Highlights and celebrates Papakura’s history and heritage and the implementation of the Papakura Heritage Strategy

· Celebrate Papakura’s Māori identity and culture

· Support Māori aspirations for kaitiakitanga over our natural environment and water quality for the benefit of current and future generations

· Support Māori to deliver community and economic benefits to the people of Papakura

b) Higher Priorities

The Papakura Local Board will prioritise:

· Events or activities that are held in the local board area or can demonstrate the benefit for the local community.

· Applicants who have considered other sources of funding for their project and/or are collaborating with other community groups

· Projects or events that align with the healthy environment principles

c) Lower Priorities

A lower priority will be given to applications:

· That are fundraising events

· Costs towards travel expenses, salaries, vehicles, electronic equipment and catering

· The application has demonstrated little financial need for the project

d) What we won’t fund

In addition to the eligibility criteria outlined in the Community Grants Policy, the Papakura Local Board will not fund:

- Applicants who have failed to complete or provide a satisfactory accountability form from previous grants received

- Applicants with no quotes provided

- Applications applying for the same project or activity more than once in a financial year

- Applications requesting funding for projects or events which have already taken place

Investment approach

The Papakura Local Board has allocated budgets to support the grants programme as follows:

- Small Grants:

Minimum amount per grant: $300 - Maximum amount per grant: $2,000

- Local Grants:

Minimum amount per grant: $2,000 – Maximum amount is generally up to $5,000 per grant unless there are exceptional circumstances

- Discretionary Grants:

Requests will be assessed on a case by case basis but must demonstrably support at least one of the Papakura Local Board Plan outcomes

Application dates

Applications will be accepted from the opening date and must be submitted by the closing date. Applicants will be notified of the outcome after the decision date. Projects and funding request item(s) must occur on or after the start date to be eligible.

Type of grant	Round	Open	Close	Decision	Project start
Local Grant	One	25 July 2022	19 August 2022	28 September 2022	1 October 2022
Small Grant	One	3 October 2022	4 November 2022	7 December 2022 (TBC)	1 January 2023
Local Grant	Two	20 February 2023	24 March 2023	26 April 2023 (TBC)	1 May 2023
Small Grant	Two	10 April 2023	12 May 2023	28 June 2023 (TBC)	1 July 2023

Multi-board funding

Papakura Local Board will also consider funding multi-board grant applications in collaboration with other local boards. Applicants will need to clearly demonstrate how their intended project, event and/or activities will specifically benefit people and communities in the Papakura Local Board area.

Type of grant	Round	Open	Close	Decision	Project start
Multi-board	One	13 June 2022	5 August 2022	7 December 2022 (TBC)	1 January 2023
Multi-board	Two	16 January 2023	17 March 2023	26 April 2023 (TBC)	1 May 2023

Accountability measures

The Papakura Local Board requires that all successful applicants to:

· Complete and submit accountability report by the due date, proving that the grant has been used to deliver the set outcomes and objectives

· Include Papakura local board logo on publicity and promotional material, with the words “funded by/part funded by Papakura Local Board”

· Be available to work with council staff on media coverage and provide at least one photograph of the event or activity

Additionally, successful applicants would be welcome to provide a verbal report at a Papakura Local Board business meeting. Ten minutes at the start of the meeting can be set aside for a deputation or three minutes during public forum. Please contact the local board’s Democracy Advisor to make arrangements.

· photos and anecdotal narratives as supporting information

· standard financial accountability, e.g. receipts and comparison of spending against budget

· information on community contributions

· invite to events directly contributed to by the local board grant

Papakura Local Board

11 May 2022

Endorsing Business Improvement District (BID) target rate for 2022/2023

File No.: CP2022/00318

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To request the local board to recommend that the Governing Body sets the targeted rate for the Papakura Town Centre Business Improvement District (BID) programme for the 2022/2023 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are areas within Tāmaki Makaurau where local business and property owners have agreed to work together to improve their business environment, encourage resilience and attract new businesses and customers.

3. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes, including Papakura Business Association (PBA), by collecting a targeted rate from business rated properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate collected are then provided by way of a BID grant to the relevant business association.

4. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BID programmes. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rate grants to the Governing Body.

5. Each business association operating a BID programme sets the BID targeted rate grant amount at its Annual General Meeting (AGM) when members vote to approve an operational budget for the following financial year. This budget funds the implementation of a business plan that delivers programmes based on each BID’s strategic priorities.

6. PBA members approved a BID targeted rate grant of $250,000 for 2022/2023. This figure is unchanged from the current financial year.

7. The business associations operating BID programmes are incorporated societies that are independent of the council. However, to sustain public trust and confidence in the council, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

8. For the council to be confident that the targeted rate funds provided to the BID-operating business associations are being used appropriately, the council requires the BIDs to comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

9. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

10. Staff are satisfied PBA sufficiently complies with the BID Policy.

11. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the BID targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2022. This enables PBA to implement programmes that contribute to Outcome 1: A vibrant and prosperous local economy. Thereby supporting the aspirations of the Papakura Local Board Plan 2020.

12. PBA, like all BID-operating business associations, will continue to play an important role in supporting its members facing two global challenges. A BID programme can support local businesses to mitigate some of the economic flow-on effects from the COVID 19 pandemic through business resilience and recovery initiatives. A BID programme can also facilitate opportunities that address the climate change emergency, with a focus on sustainability.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the targeted rate for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 for the following Business Improvement District (BID) programme:

(i) $250,000 for Papakura Business Association.

Horopaki

Context

BID programmes promote economic well-being and collaboration with the council

13. The Auckland Council Growth Model 2021-2051 reports Tāmaki Makaurau is projected to include approximately 660,000 more people in the next 30 years. This level of population growth presents challenges and opportunities for Auckland town centres and commercial precincts.

14. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) are rohe within Auckland where local business and property owners have agreed to work together, with support from the council, to improve their business environment, promote economic resilience and attract new businesses and customers.

15. The BID programme does not replicate services provided by the council but channels the capabilities and knowledge of the private sector to improve economic outcomes and achieve common goals.

16. BID programmes provide the opportunity for the council group to work with business associations, to seize on the opportunities from Auckland’s growth, particularly in key metropolitan centres such as Papakura.

17. BID programmes provide the opportunity for the council group to work with business associations to seize on the opportunities from Auckland’s growth.

18. BID programmes encourage collaboration to achieve greater local outcomes. They provide a mechanism to enable local boards to engage with the business sector in local town centres and business areas in a co-ordinated way.

BID programmes provide essential support in building business resilience and aiding economic recovery

19. The economy continues to be impacted by the flow-on effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying ‘traffic light’ framework, affecting both retail-based town centres and commercial precincts.

20. BID-operating business associations provide the local business leadership required to help their members to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic through business resilience and recovery initiatives.

BID programmes are funded by a targeted rate on business ratepayers within a set area

21. BID programmes are funded by a targeted rate applied to all business rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct.

22. Auckland Council supports business associations operating BID programmes by collecting the targeted rates and providing these funds, in their entirety, by way of a BID targeted rate grant to the relevant business association.

23. This revenue is paid to the business association every quarter to provide a regular and sustainable income stream to implement an agreed work programme.

The BID Policy is the mechanism to ensure accountability for BID targeted rate grants

24. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) ensures accountability for BID targeted rate funding and encourages good governance and programme management.

25. The policy outlines the principles behind the council’s BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, amalgamating and disestablishing a BID programme; determines rating mechanisms; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements.

Diagram A: From calculation to approval, how the BID targeted rate is set.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

The business association sets the BID target rate grant amount to deliver its work programme

26. BID-operating business associations are provided with a rate modelling spreadsheet to help with their budget decision-making. The spreadsheet models any proposed changes to their current BID target rate grant amount and, most importantly, how that influences the BID targeted rate for everyone who will pay it. When considering a change to the BID targeted rate grant amount, business associations must consider what the local business and property owners can afford.

27. Each BID-operating business association prepares an annual business plan for the following financial year that will deliver programmes based on their strategic priorities and financial parameters.

28. The cost of implementing that business plan is set out in an annual budget that the association’s board (governing committee) agrees will be recommended for approval by the business association membership.

29. The AGM provides the forum where members vote to approve the operational budget and, in doing so, set the requisite BID target rate grant amount for the following financial year.

Local boards are responsible for recommending the BID targeted rate grant if a BID complies with the BID Policy

30. Under the Auckland Council shared governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BID programmes. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rate grants to the Governing Body. The local board should recommend the setting of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is sufficiently complying with the BID Policy.

31. The Papakura Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the Papakura BID programme last year (resolution number PPK/2021/78), as did 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their rohe.

The Governing Body sets the targeted rates when it approves the Annual Budget

32. The recommendation in this report is put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 and its striking (setting) of the targeted rates.

33. In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Governing Body is authorised to make the final decisions on what BID programme targeted rates, if any, to set in any particular year or property (in terms of the amount and the geographic area to be rated).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

34. BID programmes are operated by independent business associations, and their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent status, the BID Policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. That is a matter for business association members to determine. Staff, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Papakura Business Association complies with the BID Policy

35. Staff are satisfied that PBA has sufficiently met the requirements of the BID Policy.

36. Staff require BID-operating business associations to provide to the council the following documents, and stay in touch with their local board at least once a year:

· Current strategic plan – evidence of achievable medium- to long-term opportunities.

· Audited accounts – assurance that the BID-operating business association is managing its members’ BID targeted rate funds responsibly.

· Annual report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit BID targeted ratepayers.

· Business plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the strategic plan, to be resourced and achieved.

· Indicative budget for the following year – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the budgeting process which sets all rates.

· Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

· Annual Accountability Agreement – certification that these requirements have been met.

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and the council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship.

· AGM minutes – the provisional minutes of each business association’s 2021 AGM meeting which contain the resolution, voted on by members, confirming the BID grant amount for the 2022/2023 financial year.

37. In addition, BID-operating business associations are required to inform the council staff of progress with other compliance requirements, including:

· Incorporated Society registration of the business association along with all required documents up to date.

· Resolving problems or issues, if any, that have an impact on the governance or operation of the BID programme.

38. The BID Policy sets an annual compliance deadline of 10 March for the information to be forwarded to the council, as summarised in the table below.

Table 1: Business association’s compliance with the BID Policy as of 10 March 2022

Requirement Financial Year 2020/2021
Strategic Plan	2021-2024
Audited financials
Annual Report
Business Plan
Indicative budget
Board Charter
Annual Accountability Agreement
Annual meeting w/ local board	16 February 2022
Programme Agreement	valid to June 2023
Incorporated society registration
2021 AGM minutes (provisional)
Resolving problems or issues	Nothing to record

39. As Papakura Business Association has sufficiently complied with the BID Policy, staff advise the local board to recommend to the Governing Body the setting of the BID targeted rate grant.

Papakura Business Association retains the same BID targeted rate grant amount for 2022/2023

40. The amount of PBA’s proposed BID targeted rate for 2022/2023 - $250,000 – is unchanged from the current financial year.

41. PBA last increased its BID targeted rate in 2018, following a successful BID boundary expansion.

A regional perspective

42. Across Tāmaki Makaurau’s 50 BID-operating business associations, 26 increased their targeted rates between 1.6% to 10% - for 2022/2023, while 24 maintained the fiscal status quo.

Table 2: BID targeted rates comparison: 2022/2023 c.f. 2021/2022

BID

2022/2023

2021/2022

Change

Papakura Business Association

$250,000

$250,000

Nil

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43. Through targeted rate-funded advocacy and activities, BID-operating business associations promote and often facilitate environmental sustainability programmes.

44. From running carbon-reducing ‘shop local’ campaigns to transitioning to energy-efficient lighting and championing waste reduction and recovery programmes, there are many examples of BIDs leading the local sector’s responses to the climate change emergency.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

45. Advocacy is a key service provided by business associations and those with BID programme-funded personnel are at an advantage. The BIDs ensure the views and ambitions of their members are communicated to elected representatives and staff across the council family, including CCOs, on those policies, plans, programmes and projects that impact them.

46. The BID-operating business associations work with Auckland Unlimited (AU) on economic development initiatives, events and sustainability programmes.

47. The BID-operating business associations also work constructively with both Eke Panuku and Auckland Transport on often controversial proposals and projects.

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

Local impacts and local board views

48. The local board’s views are most frequently expressed by its appointed representative on the board of each BID-operating business association. This liaison board member (or alternate) can attend BID board meetings to ensure there is a direct link between the council and the operation of the BID programme.

49. The PBA values their strong and enduring governance-to-governance relationship with the Papakura Local Board. The contributions by the local board’s ‘BID representatives’, past and present, have promoted mutual understanding, collaboration and aligned economic outcomes.

Visions, plans aligned

50. Papakura’s business association and local board share an interest in the rohe and are ambitious for its future and its people. They also share goals that include economic prosperity, community identity, placemaking and pride.

51. Papakura Town Centre’s BID programme tangibly supports the vision and aspirations of the Papakura Local Board Plan 2020, best expressed in Outcome 1: A vibrant and prosperous local economy.

Local rohe, local benefit, local funding

52. Recommending that the Governing Body sets the targeted rate for Papakura Business Association means that this BID programme will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in its current rohe. It will provide services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in its strategic plan.

53. Papakura Local Board is among several local boards who provide additional funding to local business associations, however accountability for any grants is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association. Those contractual obligations are separate from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

54. Papakura boasts the largest suburban Māori population in New Zealand, with 26.8% of Papakura residents being Māori (SOURCE: 2018 CENSUS). Working in partnership with local marae presents an opportunity to advance Māori economic development within the township and beyond. To reference the business association’s vision again, “Papakura is known for its passionate community spirit and for celebrating its cultural diversity, including its significant local Māori community”.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

55. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

56. The BID targeted rate is payable by the owners of the commercial properties within the geographic area of the individual BID programmes. In practice, this cost is often passed on to the business owners who occupy these properties.

57. If the Governing Body agrees with the BID targeted rates proposed by the local boards, the cost of grants will be met from the existing operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

58. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from this recommendation to endorse the BID targeted rate grant for the PBA.

59. To sustain public trust and confidence in the council, there needs to be a balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association and the accountability for monies collected by a public sector organisation.

60. The rules and obligations of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each business association to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members and to have its accounts audited.

61. The council staff regularly monitor compliance with the BID Policy and this report is part of an active risk management programme to minimise inappropriate use of funds.

62. Economic disruption created by the extended flow-on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to be felt in Auckland’s town centres and business precincts. The BID programme is an internationally proven approach to engage and empower local businesses. The BID programmes in this local board area can, through business resilience and recovery initiatives, help to mitigate some of the economic effects of the pandemic.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

63. If the local board supports this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rate grant be set as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

64. After the Annual Budget is approved, the council collects the targeted rate funds and distributes them in quarterly BID grant payments, effective from 1 July 2022 to PBA. This enables the BID to implement programmes that improve the local business environment, support businesses as they recover from the flow-on effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and help address the climate change emergency through sustainability initiatives.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Papakura Local Board

11 May 2022

Urgent decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling

File No.: CP2022/04956

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note an urgent decision of the Papakura Local Board which provided the board’s formal feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling, for inclusion into the Auckland council’s submission.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central government recently released a discussion document entitled Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling, through the Ministry for the Environment.

3. The discussion document containing the proposals is set out here: Te kawe i te haepapa para: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling.

4. The document covers three proposals:

i. a container return scheme that encourages people to return their empty beverage containers for recycling

ii. improvements to household kerbside recycling, including nationwide standardised material collections and urban food scraps collection

iii. separation of food scraps from general waste for all businesses.

5. These are part of the wider Ministry for the Environment work programme including:

· a new waste strategy and associated legislation

· implementation of the 2021 National Plastics Action Plan

· the increase and expansion of the waste levy

· reducing greenhouse gas emissions from organic wastes via a proposed Emissions Reduction Plan.

6. The reasons for the changes include the need to:

· substantially increase our recycling rates noting that Aotearoa/New Zealand only recycles and composts about one-third of materials we place on the kerbside, with the rest going to landfills (many countries recycle two-thirds)

· reduce carbon emissions noting that the waste sector contributed around four per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, and around nine per cent of biogenic methane emissions.

7. The deadline for local board input into the Auckland Council submission was 5pm on 21 April 2022 which is before the next scheduled business meeting on 27 April 2022.

8. The submission period closes on 8 May 2022.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the urgent decision of the Papakura Local Board which provided the board’s formal feedback on the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document: Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling for inclusion into the Auckland council’s submission as follows:

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) provide the following feedback to the Governing Body on the Government’s Resource Management system reform amendment proposal:

Relevance to the Papakura Local Board

Outcome four: A treasured environment and heritage

Objective: Papakura has successful programmes to help people reduce, reuse and recycle

Initiative: Continue to advocate for national law change on waste minimisation, particularly relating to product stewardship (including packaging waste). Product stewardship means those involved in a product’s lifespan accept responsibility for reducing its environmental impact

i. Kaupapa whakahoki ipu - Container return scheme

1. Do you agree with the proposed definition of a beverage? (page 31)

Yes

2. Do you agree with the proposed definition of an eligible beverage container? (page 31)

Yes

3. Do you support the proposed refund amount of 20 cents? (pages 31-34)

Yes - support the proposed 20 cents refund amount.

4. How would you like to receive your refunds for containers? Please answer all that are relevant and select your preference. (page 34 – 38)

- Cash

- Electronic funds transfer (eg, through a scheme account or mobile phone app)

- Vouchers (for cash or equivalent value product purchase)

- Donations to local community organisations/charities

- Access to all options - Preferred

- Other

Other: Please specify

5. Do you support the inclusion of variable scheme fees to incentivise more recyclable packaging and, in the future, reusable packaging? (page 34 – 38)

Yes

6. Do you agree with the proposed broad scope of beverage container material types to be included in the NZ CRS? (page 38 – 40)

Yes

The Papakura Local Board is a strong advocate for product stewardship.

7. If you do not agree with the proposed broad scope (refer to Question 6), please select all container material types that you think should be included in the scheme.

No comment

8. Do you support a process where alternative beverage container packaging types could be considered on a case-by-case basis for inclusion within the NZ CRS? (page 40 – 41)

Yes

The board would like to see some sort of legislative approach that encourages the use of compostable containers. Many compostable containers are not easily home composted. Therefore, a similar return fee scheme should be set so they are easily returned for commercial composting.

9. Do you agree with the proposal to exempt fresh milk in all packaging types from the NZ CRS? (page 42 – 44)

Yes

10. Do you support the Ministry investigating how to target the commercial recovery of fresh milk beverage containers through other means? (page 44)

Yes

11. Do you support the Ministry investigating the option of declaring fresh milk beverage containers made out of plastic (eg, plastic milk bottles and liquid paperboard containers) a priority product and thereby including them within another product-stewardship scheme? (page 44)

Yes

12. We are proposing that beverage containers that are intended for refilling and have an established return/refillables scheme would be exempt from the NZ CRS at this stage. Do you agree?

Yes

13. Should there be a requirement for the proposed NZ CRS to support the New Zealand refillables market (eg, a refillable target)?

Yes

If this encourages less waste to landfill

14. Do you have any suggestions on how the Government could promote and incentivise the uptake of refillable beverage containers and other refillable containers more broadly?

No comment

15. Are there any other beverage packaging types or products that should be considered for exemption?

No comment

16. Do you agree that the size of eligible beverage containers would be 3 litres and smaller? (page 45)

Yes

Perhaps the container size could be reviewed after a period time.

17. Do you think that consumers should be encouraged to put lids back on their containers (if possible) before they return them for recycling under the scheme? (page 46)

Yes

18. Do you agree that the scheme should provide alternative means to capture and recycle beverage container lids that cannot be put back on the container?

No comment

19. Do you agree that a NZ CRS should use a ‘mixed-return model’ with a high degree of mandated retail participation to ensure consumers have easy access to container return/refund points, as well as the opportunity for voluntary participation in the network by interested parties?

Yes

20. Where would you find it easiest to return eligible beverage containers? Please answer all that are relevant and select your preference.

- Commercial recycling facility

- Waste transfer station

- Other community centres/hubs

- Local retail outlet that sells beverages - Preferred

- Supermarket - Preferred

- Community recycling/resource recovery centre - Preferred

- Shopping centre/mall - Preferred

- Other

Comment

Any place that makes it easy for people to return containers when going about their day-to-day business. The return places will probably need to have an on-site person to ensure compliance and arrange quick payouts.

21. Retailers that sell beverages are proposed to be regulated as part of the network (mandatory return-to-retail requirements). Should a minimum store size threshold apply? (page 52)

Yes

If yes, what size of retailer (shop floor) should be subject to mandatory return-to-retail requirements?

- Over 100m² (many smaller dairies likely exempt)

- Over 200m² (many dairies and some petrol stations likely exempt)

- Over 300m² (many retailers, dairies, petrol stations and smaller supermarkets likely exempt)

Additional Comments (optional)

A practicable approach is needed. A case-by-case approach might be required in some circumstances. The approach could be “apply for exemption” for the smaller sites.

22. Do you think the shop-floor-size requirements for retailers required to take back beverage containers (mandatory return-to-retail) should differ between rural and urban locations? (page 52)

Yes

If yes, what lower size threshold should be applied to rural retailers for them to be required to take back containers?

- Over 60m² (as in Lithuania)

- Over 100m² (many smaller dairies likely exempt)

- Over 200m² (many dairies and some petrol stations likely exempt)

- Over 300m² (many retailers, dairies, petrol stations and smaller supermarkets likely exempt)

Additional Comments (optional)

A practicable approach is needed. A case-by-case approach might be required in some circumstances. The approach could be “apply for exemption” for the smaller sites.

23. Do you agree that there should be other exemptions for retailer participation? (For example, if there is another return site nearby or for health and safety or food safety reasons.) (page 52)

Yes

Only if there is another large facility close by.

24. Do you agree with the proposed ‘deposit financial model’ for a NZ CRS? (page 53 - 55)

Yes

25. Do you agree that a NZ CRS would be a not-for-profit, industry-led scheme? (page 56 - 57)

Yes

26. Do you agree with the recovery targets for a NZ CRS of 85 per cent by year 3, and 90 per cent by year 5? (page 58)

Yes

27. If the scheme does not meet its recovery targets, do you agree that the scheme design (including the deposit level) should be reviewed and possibly increased? (page 58)

Yes

28. Do you support the implementation of a container return scheme for New Zealand? (page 58)

Yes

29. If you do not support or are undecided about a CRS, would you support implementation of a scheme if any of the key scheme design criteria were different? (eg, the deposit amount, scope of containers, network design, governance model, scheme financial model, etc).

No comment

Additional feedback:

Nil

ii. Improvements to household kerbside recycling

31. Do you agree with the proposal that a standard set of materials should be collected for household recycling at kerbside? (page 67 – 68)

Yes

The Papakura Local Board would like to see more effort by central government in encouraging enterprise to find other uses for products that are not currently recyclable. The optimum long-term objective must be a circular economy.

32. Do you agree that councils collecting different material types (in addition to a standard set) might continue to cause public confusion and contamination of recycling? (pages 67 – 68)

Yes

33. Do you think that national consistency can be achieved through voluntary measures, or is regulation required? (page 68 - 69)

It hasn’t worked with a voluntary approach. However, consideration needs to be given to how councils can be financially supported to implement these changes if it is a regulated approach. Potentially council’s will have made decisions regarding waste based on keeping rates to a minimum rather than the optimum to the environment.

There is an opportunity to fund this by the product producers subsidising the regulated approach.

The aim should be to encourage more industries to produce or import recyclable packaging, ie: product stewardship.

34. Please mark below all the items from the proposed list which you agree should be included in the standard set of materials that can be recycled in household kerbside collections. (pages 69 – 73)

☒ Glass bottles and jars

☒ Paper and cardboard

☒ Pizza boxes

☒ Steel and aluminium tins and cans

☒ Plastic bottles 1 (PET) and 2 (HDPE)

☒ Plastic containers and trays 1 (PET) and 2 (HDPE)

☒ Plastic containers 5 (PP)

35. If you think any of the materials above (Q34) should be excluded, please explain which ones and why. (page 69 - 73)

No comment

36. If you think any additional materials should be included, please explain which ones and why. (page 74)

Ordinary appliance batteries (eg: AAA, AA, DD, 9volt, hearing aid batteries etc.) should be easily returned to the retailer or recycled to keep them out of the landfills.

37. Do you agree that the standard set of materials should be regularly reviewed and, provided certain conditions are met, new materials added? (page 74 – 75)

Yes

Happy for new materials to be added but do not support materials being deleted as it will add to confusion over time.

38. What should be considered when determining whether a class of materials should be accepted at kerbside in the future? (Mark all that apply) (page 75)

☒ Sustainable end markets

☒ End markets solutions are circular and minimise Environmental harm

☐ Viable processing technologies

☐ Processing by both automated and manual Material recovery facilities

☒ No adverse effects on local authorities, including financial

☐ Supply chains contribute appropriately to recovery and end-of-life solutions for their products

☐ Other

Additional comments (optional)

Emerging new technologies and innovation to expand the circular economy approach to recycled materials needs to be financed and supported. A long-term approach needs to be taken.

39. Who should decide how new materials are added to the list?

☐ The responsible Minister

☒ Ministry for the Environment staff in consultation with a reference stakeholder group

☐ Existing Waste Advisory Board

☐ An independent board

☐ Other (please specify):

Additional comments (optional)

A collaborative approach with all affected parties would be best in determining adding new materials to the list.

40. Do you agree that, in addition to these kerbside policies, New Zealand should have a network of convenient and easy places where people can recycle items that cannot easily be recycled kerbside? For example, some items are too large or too small to be collected in kerbside recycling.

Yes

41. Do you agree that food and garden waste should be diverted from landfills? (page 76 – 77)

Yes

Papakura has had a food scraps waste collection service for several years now and it has proved successful. A continued education programme is required to keep people motivated to use it. We also see the benefit of the output (the compost) where the community can make arrangements to collect a couple bags of compost to use on their gardens free of charge.

42. Do you agree that all councils should offer a weekly kerbside food scraps collection to divert as many food scraps as possible from landfills? (page 76 – 77)

Yes

43. Do you agree that these collections should be mandatory in urban areas (defined as towns with a population of 1000 plus) and in any smaller settlements where there are existing kerbside collections? (page 76 – 77)

No comment

44. Do you think councils should play a role in increasing the diversion of household garden waste from landfills? (page 77)

Yes

If yes, what are the most effective ways for councils to divert garden waste?

- Offering a subsidised user-pays green-waste bin? - preferred

- Making it more affordable for people to drop-off green waste at transfer stations? - preferred

45. We propose a phased approach to the rollout of kerbside food scraps collections. The timeframes will depend on whether new processing facilities are needed. Do you agree with a phased approach? (page 77 – 78)

Yes

This allows for gearing up. However, there is already a food scraps processing facility developed in Reporoa with a transfer facility in Papakura that could potentially be used in the interim. It would be worth investigating whether there is an opportunity to scale up and take food scraps from a wider area than just Auckland.

46. Do you agree that councils with access to suitable existing infrastructure should have until 2025 to deliver food scraps collections? (page 77 – 79)

Yes

47. Do you agree that councils without existing infrastructure should have until 2030 to deliver food scraps collections? (page 77 – 79)

No, it should be sooner

The government should provide financial assistance for those council without existing infrastructure.

48. Are there any facilities, in addition to those listed below, that have current capacity and resource consent to take household food scraps? (page 77 – 79)

No comment

49. Are there any additional materials* that should be excluded from kerbside food and garden bins? (page 79 – 81)

No comment

50. For non-food products or packaging to be accepted in a food scraps bin or a food and garden waste bin, what should be taken into consideration? Mark all that apply.(page 82 – 83)

☒ Products help divert food waste from landfills.

☒ Products meet New Zealand standards for compostability.

☒ Products are certified in their final form to ensure they do not pose a risk to soil or human health.

☒ Products are clearly labelled so that they can be distinguished from non-compostable products.

☒ A technology or process is available to easily identify and sort compostable from non-compostable products.

☒ Producers and users of the products and packaging contribute to the cost of collecting and processing.

Comment

New technologies need to be advanced to achieve the best results.

51. If you think any of the materials listed above should be included in kerbside food and garden bins, please explain which ones and why. (page 82 – 83)

No comment

52. Do you agree that it is important to understand how well kerbside collections are working? (page 84 – 86)

Yes

53. Do you agree with the proposal that the private sector should also report on their household kerbside collections so that the overall performance of kerbside services in the region can be understood? (page 84 – 86)

Yes

54. Do you agree that the information should be published online for transparency? (page 84 – 86)

Yes

Potentially there is an opportunity for an education campaign to be built around the release of the information.

55. Apart from diversion and contamination rates, should any other information be published online? (page 84 – 86)

No comment

56. Should kerbside recycling services have to achieve a minimum diversion rate (eg, collect at least a specified percentage of recyclable materials in the household waste stream)? (page 87)

Yes

A consistent education programme will be required to keep people motivated to recycle and use the food scraps bin to achieve the proposed targets.

57. Should the minimum diversion rate be set at 50 per cent for the diversion of dry recyclables and food scraps? (page 87)

Yes

A consistent education programme will be required to keep people motivated to recycle and use the food scraps bin to achieve the proposed targets.

The target should be reviewed regularly with an ultimate aim of increasing the target.

58. We propose that territorial authorities have until 2030 to achieve the minimum diversion rate, at which time the rate will be reviewed. Do you agree? (page 87 - 88)

Yes

59. In addition to minimum standards, should a high-performance target be set for overall collection performance to encourage territorial authorities to achieve international best practice? (page 87 – 88)

Yes

60. Some overseas jurisdictions aim for diversion rates of 70 per cent. Should New Zealand aspire to achieve a 70 per cent target? (page 87 – 88)

Yes

61. What should the consequences be for territorial authorities that do not meet minimum performance standards? For example withholding levy payments or paying a fine. (page 88)

Incentives may be required but a punitive approach should be the last resort.

62. Should either glass or paper/cardboard be collected separately at kerbside in order to improve the quality of these materials and increase the amount recycled? (page 90 - 92)

☒ Glass separate

☒ Paper/cardboard separate

☒ Separated, but councils choose which one to separate

☐ Status quo – they remain comingled for some councils

63. If glass or paper/cardboard is to be collected separately, should implementation: (page 90 – 92)

☐ Begin immediately

☐ Wait for any CRS scheme design to be finalised

☒ Wait until the impact of a CRS scheme has been observed

64. Should all councils offer household kerbside recycling services? (page 93 – 95)

Yes

65. Should these services be offered at a minimum to all population centres of more than 1000 people? (page 93 – 95)

No comment

66. Do you agree that councils without any council-funded kerbside recycling collections should implement these collections within two years of their next Waste Management and Minimisation Plan? (page 93 – 95)

Yes – with government support

67. What research, technical support or behaviour change initiatives are needed to support the implementation of this programme of work? (page 96 – 98)

No comment

iii. Separation of business food waste

68. Should commercial businesses be expected to divert food waste from landfills as part of reducing their emissions? (page 98 – 100)

Yes

69. Should all commercial businesses be diverting food waste from landfills by 2030? (page 105 – 107)

Yes

70. Should separation be phased in, depending on access to suitable processing facilities (eg, composting or anaerobic digestion)? (page 108 – 109)

Yes

71. Should businesses that produce food have a shorter lead-in time than businesses that do not? (page 108 – 109)

Yes

72. Should any businesses be exempt? (page 108 – 109)

73. What support should be provided to help businesses reduce their food waste? (page 108 – 109)

There should be some support eg:

- Education programme

- Phased financial support for upgrades

- Expert advice on best practice

Additional feedback:

No comment

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Urgent decision - Papakura Local Board feedback on Te kapanoni i te hangarua: Transforming recycling	63

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Lee Manaia - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Local Area Manager Franklin Manurewa Papakura

Chairperson	Brent Catchpole
Deputy Chairperson	Jan Robinson
Members	Felicity Auva'a
	George Hawkins
	Keven Mealamu
	Sue Smurthwaite