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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 7 June 2022

2.00pm

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

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

 

OPEN 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, MNZM

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

1 June 2022

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8150

Email: sandra.gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

The purpose of the committee is to:

 

a)    advise and support the mayor on the development of the Long-term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan (AP)

b)    monitor the overall financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council group

c)     make financial decisions required outside of the annual budgeting processes.

 

The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·       advising and supporting the mayor on the development of the LTP and AP for consideration by the Governing Body including:

o   local board agreements

o   financial policy related to the LTP and AP

o   setting of rates

o   preparation of the consultation documentation and supporting information, and the consultation process, for the LTP and AP

·       monitoring the operational and capital expenditure of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council Group, and inquiring into any material discrepancies from planned expenditure

·       approving the financial policy of the council parent organisation

·       establishing and managing a structured approach to the approval of non-budgeted expenditure (including grants, loans or guarantees) that reinforces value for money and an expectation of tight expenditure control

·       approve the council insurance strategy and annual insurance placement for Council

·       performance measures and monitoring

·       write-offs

·       acquisition of property in accordance with the LTP

·       disposals in accordance with the LTP

·       recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body

·       funding for achieving improved outcomes for Māori.

 

Powers

 

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)        approval of a submission to an external body

(b)        establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)        The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)       If a decision is a budgetary or financial decision that relates primarily to the Finance and Performance Committee responsibilities, the Finance and Performance Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on matters that would otherwise be decided by other committees. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to multiple committees for decisions.


 

(iii)       The committee does not have:

(a)        the power to establish subcommittees

(b)        powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

 

Code of conduct

 

For information relating to Auckland Council’s elected members code of conduct, please refer to this link on the Auckland Council website - https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/elected-members-remuneration-declarations-interest/Pages/elected-members-code-conduct.aspx

 


 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·         Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·         Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·         Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·         In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·         The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·         However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·         All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·         Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·         Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·         All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·         Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·         Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·         Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                 9

2          Declaration of Interest                                          9

3          Petitions                                                                 9  

4          Public Input                                                           9

5          Local Board Input                                                 9

6          Extraordinary Business                                       9

7          Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023                                                             11

8          Annual Budget 2022/23: Overview to decision-making                                                               111

9          Annual Budget 2022/2023: Local board feedback and advocacy                                   231

10        Annual Budget 2022/2023: Mayor's final proposal                                                             349

11        Annual Budget 2022/2023: Kerbside refuse charging policy review                                     439

12        Annual Budget 2022/2023: Other rates and fees matters                                                               449

13        Rating of Whenua Māori: Adoption of Rates Remission and Postponement policies         507

14        Consideration of Extraordinary Items

 


1          Apologies

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

 

2          Declaration of Interest

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

 

3          Petitions

There is no petitions section.

 

4          Public Input

There is no public input section.

 

5          Local Board Input

There is no local board input section.

 

6          Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023

File No.: CP2022/06117

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend to the Governing Body that it agree the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       Public feedback has been received on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023. 

3.       On 23 May 2022, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority unanimously agreed the Authority’s Draft Operational Plan 2022/2023 and the Draft Summary of the Operational Plan 2022/2023.

4.       The Finance and Performance Committee and the Governing Body are invited to approve the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 and the Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      whakaae / agree to recommend to the Governing Body that the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 (Attachment A of the agenda report) and Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 (Attachment B of the agenda report) be agreed.

b)      whakaae / agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it include the Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 in the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

 

Horopaki

Context

5.       Each year the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan is developed to provide a framework in which the council will carry out its functions for the routine management of the tūpuna maunga under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. The Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan must be prepared and agreed concurrently with the council’s annual budget and included in summary form in the annual budget.

6.       A summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan was included in the council’s annual budget Consultation Document, and public feedback was received by the council and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. A report summarising the feedback was received at a joint hui of the council and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority on 18 May 2022.


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

7.       On 15 November 2021, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, by unanimous decision, adopted its Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 and Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 for inclusion in the council’s Consultation Document and Supporting Information to support consultation on the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

8.       On 8 December 2021, the Governing Body adopted the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 and the Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 for consultation.

9.       On 8 February 2022, the Governing Body adopted the Consultation Document and Supporting Information which included the Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023. The Governing Body also agreed the approach to consultation which provided for the council and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority to jointly consider submissions on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023.

10.     The council received feedback on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 through its annual budget consultation process.

11.     The Tūpuna Maunga Authority also sought and received feedback on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023.

12.     A report was prepared summarising feedback received on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan through both the council and Tūpuna Maunga Authority consultation processes. This was considered on 18 May 2022, when a joint deliberation hui was held between the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the Finance and Performance Committee.

13.     Auckland Council received 154 written submissions relating to the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan and the summary. However, 39 of these 154 submissions were considered to be out of scope as they did not refer to the budget nor any proposed authority activities set out in the draft operational plan. A number of submissions were lengthy / detailed, and often contained comments that were not germane to the draft operational plan or summary.

14.     Common themes received through the council’s consultation programme covered the vegetation management programme, World Heritage inscription, public engagement, and financial matters.

15.     While of course decisions on submissions are based on merits not numbers, for completeness of the submissions to council, 19 per cent were generally supportive of the draft operational plan, 7 per cent were generally in opposition, while 49 per cent did not express support or opposition. In relation to the authority’s vegetation management budget 6 per cent expressed general support, 39 per cent expressed general opposition, and 55 per cent did not say.

16.     On 23 May 2022, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority unanimously agreed the Draft Authority’s Operational Plan 2022/2023 and the Draft Summary of the Operational Plan 2022/2023, without amendment from the draft consulted on. 

17.     Staff recommend that the Finance and Performance Committee recommend to the Governing Body that it agree the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023, and the Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 as attached to this report, with the Summary to be included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18.     This report relates to the budget and operational plan of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, an independent co-governance entity. Matters relating to climate impacts may be addressed by that authority.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19.     This report relates to the budget and operational plan of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, an independent co-governance entity. The authority has its own independent relationships with the various parts of the council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20.     The Tūpuna Maunga Authority sought the views of the eight local boards with Tūpuna Maunga within their areas. Submissions were received during the consultation period and were considered in the joint deliberation hui.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21.     The Tūpuna Maunga Authority is a tangible expression of a Treaty-based partnership between Ngā Mana Whenua and the council. It is a vehicle through which the mana whenua worldview and historical, cultural and spiritual connections with the maunga will be given visibility and guide decision-making for the health and wellbeing of these important taonga.  The Tūpuna Maunga Authority and council have engaged with Ngā Mana Whenua on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 and submissions were received and considered.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22.     The budget for the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 fits within the envelope provided for in the council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     The Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023 is necessary to support the council’s routine management of the Tūpuna Maunga under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and must be agreed by the Auckland Council and the Tūpuna Maunga Authority prior to 1 July 2022.

24.     There is a reputational risk to Māori outcomes and relationships if the council did not approve funding for the Tūpuna Maunga in the Auckland area. This could affect the council’s ongoing relationships with mana whenua organisations of Tāmaki Makaurau.

25.     There is also a reputational risk in relation to sections of the community opposed to co-governance entities established by Treaty of Waitangi settlements and the council continuing to fund them, despite the statutory requirement for such funding.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26.     Prior to 1 July 2022, the council will need to adopt the final Annual Budget 2022/2023 which will provide funding for the Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023. If this Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023 and Summary are approved, necessary steps will be taken to make the plan available for public viewing online and to include the Summary within the final Annual Budget 2022/2023.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022-2023

15

b

Draft Summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022-2023

103

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Dominic Wilson - Head of Co-governance

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

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

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Annual Budget 2022/23: Overview to decision-making

File No.: CP2022/06519

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recap the annual budget process to date, provide an overview of the decisions required now and set out the next steps that will be undertaken to finalise and adopt Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       All councils are required by legislation to adopt an annual plan (referred to as the annual budget) every year, except once every three years when the long-term plan acts as the annual plan.

3.       In developing the consultation material for the Annual Budget 2022/2023, workshops were held with the Finance and Performance Committee between August 2021 and early December 2021, before items for consultation were agreed to on 8 December 2021.

4.       The Consultation Document and Supporting Information, which outlined the council’s proposals for the Annual Budget 2022/2023, were adopted by the Finance and Performance Committee on 8 February 2022 and included:

·        a proposed new targeted rate to support urgent climate action

·        a proposed package of budget responses to managing rising financial pressures

·        proposals to manage waste more efficiently and reduce waste to landfill

·        some proposed changes to rating and financial policy

·        a draft summary of the Tūpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2022/2023

·        draft local board priorities for 2022/2023

·        proposed changes to local board decision-making responsibilities as part of the Governance Framework Review.

5.       The annual budget consultation ran from 28 February to 28 March 2022.  A total of 11,550 pieces of feedback were received.

6.       All consultation feedback was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 4 May 2022 and the associated regional feedback report and its attachments are attached to this report.

7.       Each of the 21 local boards held workshops and meetings to consider the consultation results to help inform their feedback on the budget. Local boards then presented their feedback to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 25 May 2022.

8.       A workshop with the Governing Body was held on 1 June 2022 to discuss feedback received during consultation on the proposed changes to local board decision-making responsibilities. A separate report on the proposed changes to the decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards policy will be included on the agenda for the Governing Body meeting on 23 June 2022, ahead of adoption of the final Annual Budget 2022/2023 at the Governing Body meeting on 29 June 2022.

9.       The other reports on today’s agenda require decisions to enable documentation for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 to be finalised. All decisions made today will be reflected in final budget documentation for formal adoption at the Governing Body meeting on 29 June 2022.

10.     In making decisions on the annual budget, decision-makers are asked to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each reasonably practicable option, consider the feedback received, and then arrive at what they determine to be the best decision.

11.     Adopting the Annual Budget 2022/2023 will enable rates to be set for the 2022/2023 financial year.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      note the contents of this report, which sets the context for the other reports and decisions on today’s agenda.

Horopaki

Context

12.     The council is required by legislation to prepare and adopt an annual plan (referred to by Auckland Council as the annual budget), every year, except once every three years when the long-term plan acts as the annual budget.

13.     The annual budget outlines what we plan to do and how we plan to pay for it over the coming financial year and must be adopted before the commencement of the year it relates to, after having consulted with the community.

14.     A special consultative procedure (as set out in the Local Government Act 2002) was used for this annual budget due to the proposed amendment to the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 that was consulted on as part of this annual budget.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Development of consultation material for the Annual Budget 2022/2023

15.     The annual budget Consultation Document and Supporting Information are statutorily required under the Local Government Act 2002.

16.     The process to develop council’s Annual Budget 2022/2023 began with the mayor’s direction setting which was provided at a workshop in September 2021.

17.     Key elements of the process prior to undertaking public consultation were:

·        an overview of the process, proposed topics and financial context were discussed at a workshop with the Finance and Performance Committee on 15 September 2021

·        a number of workshops were held with the Finance and Performance Committee in October and November 2021 on the proposed key topics leading up to the Mayoral Proposal

·        local boards held workshops and meetings in November and December 2021 to approve their local consultation content

·        senior CCO staff were involved in the drafting of consultation material and were also invited to workshops and briefings throughout the budget process

·        the Mayor released the final draft Mayoral Proposal on 1 December 2021, outlining the issues he considered to be most important for Auckland

·        on 8 December 2021, the Governing Body agreed the Mayoral Proposal and other items for consultation

·        the Annual Budget 2022/2023 Consultation Document and the Supporting Information were adopted by the Governing Body on 8 February 2022 along with the Communications and Engagement Plan for this process.

Public consultation and feedback

18.     Public consultation was held from 28 February to 28 March 2022. The following topics and proposals were included as key areas of focus for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation:

·        Climate action targeted rate (CATR) – To accelerate our response to the climate emergency and progress towards achieving our emissions reduction targets set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri – Auckland’s Climate Plan, the Consultation Document included proposed funding of $574 million from a climate action targeted rate over the next 10 years. This will fund a $1.045 billion climate action package (including government funding and other sources) that includes:

·      improving transport choices for Aucklanders who will be living within 500 metres of new and improved bus services

·      moving to low emission ferry services

·      increasing provision for walking and cycling

·      increasing tree canopy cover in communities that need it most.

·        Managing on-going budget pressures - Uncertainty created by both the COVID-19 pandemic and unfavourable economic trends are placing pressure on the council’s budget. The documents outlined the range of financial levers that are available to manage this to give the council flexibility to respond.

·        Prioritising operating spending - To help manage on-going budget pressures the council proposed a set of criteria to be used when making decisions about cost reductions, including those that could reduce, stop or change some services.

·        Standardising waste management - The consultation material included a statement of proposal for the proposed amendment to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 for a move to a region wide rates-funded refuse collection service with a choice of three bin sizes to accommodate different household needs.

·        Local board priorities – The consultation material included information relating to the proposed local board agreements for the 21 local boards. Local board agreements set out priorities, budgets and intended levels of service for local activities, and the capital and operating expenditure required to fund these activities.

·        Other issues included for consultation included:

·      local board decision-making over local community services - proposed changes to expand local board decision-making powers for their local areas

·      a summary of the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2022/2023

·      proposed changes to fees and charges

·      council proposed rates for 2022/2023

·      proposed policy changes in relation to rating of Whenua Māori.

19.     A total of 11,550 pieces of feedback were received during the consultation period. Around 75 per cent of feedback was received digitally and 2,079 pieces were received through in-person engagement (e.g., libraries, service centres and events).

20.     172 organisations submitted feedback, including 14 groups that presented at one of the regional stakeholder events.

21.     Eight mana whenua and two mataawaka entities provided feedback and further information relating to Māori engagement is included in the Māori Impact Statement section of this report.


 

22.     A summary of feedback received during the consultation process was presented to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 4 May 2022. The executive summary of the feedback report, the full consultation summary report and its attachments are attached to this report. These reports can also be found on the council’s website here.

23.     To ensure decision-makers were informed about feedback received, staff with specific subject matter expertise reviewed and summarised the feedback and full submissions were made available to elected members.

Deliberations following consultation

24.     Finance and Performance Committee workshops were held between 13 April and 1 June 2022 covering all topics consulted on with the public and the feedback received. Local board chairs were invited to attend these workshops.

25.     On 25 May 2022 a workshop was held between local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee. These discussions provided an opportunity for local board views to be considered ahead of this committee making recommendations to the Governing Body as set out in separate reports on today’s agenda.

26.     Budget discussions between council officers and representatives from council-controlled organisations (CCOs) were covered as part of workshops on capex and service prioritisation.

27.     At a workshop on 1 June 2022, the Finance and Performance Committee received the draft Mayoral Proposal which outlined his preferred approach to this year’s budget. The Mayoral Proposal is a separate report on today’s agenda.

Risk management oversight

28.     Separately to the Finance and Performance Committee’s work in preparation for decision-making on the annual budget, the Audit and Risk Committee on 17 May 2022 considered a report on the risk management approach for the Annual Budget 2022/2023. The Audit and Risk Committee resolved (under resolution number AUD/2022/19) to:

a)   note that ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with rising inflation and interest rates and labour market and supply chain constraints are presenting significant risks to the financial position of the Auckland Council group

b)   note that the process to prepare and adopt the Annual Budget 2022/2023 is responding to these risks with a strong commitment to sustainable and prudent financial management

c)   note that once the Annual Budget 2022/2023 is adopted there will be a need for careful ongoing monitoring and management of some key financial risks   

d)   agree to advise the Governing Body that an appropriate approach is being taken to manage the key financial risks associated with the Annual Budget 2022/2023, provided that the Governing Body is able to reach agreement on a budget that addresses the financial pressures in a sustainable and financially prudent manner. 

29.     A separate staff report on this agenda on budget decision-making sets out key information on these significant financial risks and provides advice on the appropriate management of these risks for the Finance and Performance Committee to consider when agreeing its budget-related recommendations to the Governing Body. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30.     Climate action was identified as a key topic for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 as part of the Mayoral Proposal and decisions on items for consultation on 8 December 2021.

31.     Climate action will be highlighted in final budget documents as a priority for council for 2022/2023 and beyond.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32.     Staff from the CCOs have been directly involved in the development of the annual budget topic material where appropriate.

33.     All council departments will be affected by decisions made for the Annual Budget 2022/2023. Budget updates are made on a regular basis to the Executive Leadership Team and updates are provided from the finance team via the commercial managers or CCO conduits to the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34.     Auckland’s 21 local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

35.     Local board chairs were invited to attend all Finance and Performance workshops held between September 2021 and June 2022.

36.      Local boards received briefings with subject matter experts on each regional topic, as well as workshops to discuss these topics to formulate their feedback for consultation.

37.     Input on regional issues was presented by local boards to the Finance and Performance Committee on 25 May 2022. Subsequent formal feedback resolved by local boards has been captured in a separate report on today’s agenda. Local boards have also had the opportunity to provide informal feedback via their chairs on the budget proposals ahead of today’s decisions.

38.     Local boards will be adopting local board agreements in late June 2022 and these will be included in the final documents for the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     Engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka was a focus for the wider engagement strategy which was presented as part of the communications and engagement approach to the Governing Body on 8 February 2022 for approval. Targeted engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka was held before and during the consultation period, including pre-consultation workshops held in February 2022.

40.     Previous consultation material only included Te Reo Māori translations of headings and sub-headings. For the Annual Budget 2022/2023, staff worked with Ngā Mātārae (the council’s Māori Outcomes department) to enhance accessibility of the Consultation Document by including Te Reo Māori translation alongside English.

41.     Reporting on the Annual Budget 2022/2023 submissions took a new split view approach to ensure that feedback from Māori entities was clear and distinct from general population feedback.

42.     An in-depth report analysing the feedback from Māori entities was included as an attachment to the regional feedback report presented at a workshop on 4 May 2022 which is also attached to this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43.     There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. The financial implications associated with agreeing the budget are set out in other reports on this agenda.

44.     The Annual Budget 2022/2023 project has been funded as part of existing operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

45.     The Local Government Act 2022 requires the council to adopt an annual budget for the 2022/2023 financial year by 30 June 2022. Adoption of the annual budget will enable rates to be set for the relevant financial year. Not completing the Annual Budget 2022/2023 in accordance with statutory requirements has the potential to impact on the council’s revenue, and its ability to continue to deliver the services and projects that Auckland needs.

46.     There are some significant financial risks associated with this annual budget. The body of this report outlines how the council’s Audit and Risk Committee has exercised risk management oversight over this budget process in accordance with its terms of reference.  

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47.     The Governing Body will consider recommendations from the Finance and Performance Committee at a meeting later today to agree final decisions on the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

48.     Staff will prepare final budget documents as a result of today’s decisions and will prepare a report for the Governing Body on 29 June 2022 recommending formal adoption of the Annual Budget 2022/2023, as the council’s annual plan for 2022/2023 including 21 Local Board Agreements.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Annual Budget 2022/2023 – summary of feedback received

117

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tamsyn Matchett - Programme Manager

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

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

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


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Annual Budget 2022/2023: Local board feedback and advocacy

File No.: CP2022/06968

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of local board feedback and advocacy on the proposed Annual Budget 2022/2023 (the Annual Budget).

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 the annual budget, local boards achieve this in three ways:

·        preparing local board agreements to be included in the Annual Budget (Volume 2) – this includes local board projects, budgets, performance measures

·        providing feedback on regional topics 

·        recommending local matters to the Governing Body to consider or make decisions on in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 process, including advocating for projects/issues that are important to communities in their local board areas.

3.       From 28 February to 28 March 2022, the council consulted with the public on the annual budget. Each local board has now considered community feedback received for their local area and resolved feedback on the annual budget for the consideration of the Finance and Performance Committee when it makes its recommendations to the Governing Body.

4.       Local boards will adopt their local board agreements between 21 to 23 June 2022 and the Governing Body will then adopt the annual budget (including agreeing the local board agreements) on 29 June 2022.

5.       This report summarises feedback and advocacy from local boards on the annual budget and focuses on common themes.  As such, it does not include all of the matters raised in local board resolutions. The complete set of local board resolutions relating to the annual budget is provided in Attachment A and a compilation of adopted local board advocacy initiatives and other requests or recommendations is provided in Attachment B.

6.       There was general support for the overall investment package. Key themes arising from those local boards that resolved on regional issues in the annual budget include:

·        strong support for the proposed climate package including the climate action targeted rate to address climate change

·        general support for the proposed levers to manage budget pressures. Feedback from some local boards raised concerns regarding asset sales, in particular parks, reserves and green and open spaces

·        general support for the proposed criteria to be used when making decisions about cost reductions. Feedback from some local boards considered that there was insufficient information on the proposal and requested that local board input be sought when further information is available

·        general support for the proposal to move to a region-wide rates-funded refuse collection system from a pay-as-you-throw system. Feedback from some local boards noted that this move would be a disincentive for the community to minimise their waste

·        general support for other priorities and proposals in the annual budget.

7.       In general, the adopted advocacy initiatives and other requests raised by local boards focus on providing an equitable and sustainable service provision to the local communities of our growing city. The key themes include:

·        addressing environmental concerns, in particular water quality, restoration of beaches and the coast, and tree coverage

·        the need to invest in local waste recycling facilities to support a circular economy and waste minimisation

·        community investment in sports and aquatics facilities, parks, paths, public spaces, town centres, community assets and programming, particularly in areas of projected growth

·        the need for transport infrastructure that serves growing communities, particularly for investment in transport hubs, public transport networks, road infrastructure and initiatives to lower emissions.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      consider feedback and advocacy initiatives from local boards when making recommendations to the Governing Body on the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Horopaki

Context

8.       The annual budget sets out Auckland Council’s activities and community outcomes over the year and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources, including how to pay for those activities. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the annual budget.

9.       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).

10.     Local boards also 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. The Governing Body has a corresponding statutory obligation when making decisions, to consider the views and preferences expressed by 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.

11.     Local board chairs were invited to attend Finance and Performance Committee workshops where the development of consultation materials for the annual budget was discussed from September to November 2021 and for post-consultation discussion from April to May 2022.  All local board members were invited to attend briefings on the content of these workshops.

12.     Local boards agreed, both their local content for consultation and feedback on regional items proposed to be consulted on, at business meetings between 30 November and 2 December 2021. This local input was then formally considered by the Finance and Performance Committee on 8 December 2021.

13.     From 28 February to 28 March 2022, the council consulted with the public on the proposed annual budget. In total, Auckland Council received a total of 11,550 pieces of feedback during 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.

14.     Local boards considered consultation feedback related to their local board area and then passed resolutions detailing their feedback and advocacy to the annual budget at their business meetings between 10 and 12 May 2022.  

15.     This report provides an opportunity for the Governing Body (through the Finance and Performance Committee) to formally consider local board views in their decision-making on the annual budget.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     This report includes a summary of local board input on regional topics, and local matters to be considered by the Finance and Performance Committee in making recommendations to the Governing Body for the Annual Budget 2022/2023. This summary focuses on common themes and does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. Most local boards did not provide feedback on every topic.

17.     The full set of local board resolutions are provided in Attachment A (local board resolutions on the Annual Budget 2022/2023) and all local board advocacy initiatives and issues are provided in Attachment B (local board advocacy initiatives and requests for the Annual Budget 2022/2023).

Local board feedback on regional topics in the Annual Budget

18.     As part of the consultation, Aucklanders were asked for their views on issues and proposals for regional topics, including proposals for four key areas:

·    climate

·    budget pressures

·    operating spending prioritisation

·    waste service standardisation.

19.     The Annual Budget 2022/2023 Consultation Document (consultation document) gave an overview of Auckland Council’s challenges from a global, national, and local perspective. It outlined that while COVID-19 continues to cause uncertainty, the largest threat posed to the city is global heating.

20.     The consultation document outlined three key issues and other matters for feedback. Other matters included proposals related to operating spending prioritisation, rating policies, a proposed amendment to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, the summary of the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan, updates to policies including the Revenue and Financing Policy and how decision-making responsibilities over local community services are allocated.

21.     This report provides an opportunity for local boards to provide input into the council’s final Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Proposed climate package

22.     The Annual Budget 2022/2023 includes a proposed $1.045 billion package of investments in low-carbon public transport, active walking and cycling networks, and urban ngahere (forest) canopy cover. This package is proposed to be enabled by the introduction of a targeted rate to fund $574 million over the next ten years.

23.     In addition to the proposed targeted rate, two other funding levers are proposed to enable the level of investment outlined in the annual budget. This includes government co-funding of $344 million and expected fare revenue of $127 million.  

Local board feedback

24.     All local boards provided feedback on the climate action proposal and the majority (17 local boards) supported the proposal (Aotea / Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

25.     Two local boards partially supported the proposal:

·    Franklin Local Board supported the proposal but recommended an increased focus and commensurate spend to allow those living in rural and isolated areas of Auckland to participate in the reduction of emissions

·    Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supported the proposal but with reservations noting the cost to the ratepayer.

26.     Upper-Harbour Local Board had mixed views on the introduction of a climate action targeted rate suggesting it would not deliver on the outcomes proposed but noted their support in responding to climate change outcomes in general.

27.     Rodney Local Board abstained from taking a position noting a difference between the consultation feedback and the Kantar survey of local residents’ views and noted their prior feedback which included a request to a three-year time limit and inclusion of specific bus routes.

28.     Several local boards requested regular reporting to be provided to them on the outcomes being delivered with the targeted rate. These boards are Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki and Upper Harbour local boards.

 Responding to budget pressures

29.     The consultation document proposed a range of levers to manage on-going budget pressures. An operational budget gap of $85 million is projected 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.

30.     A range of levers are proposed to manage 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.

Local board feedback

31.     This proposal was supported by 16 local boards (Aotea / Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

32.     Three local boards partially supported the proposal:

·    Henderson-Massey Local Board recommended looking for partnerships with the private sector instead of delaying capital expenditure and expressed concern around privatisation and selling income-generating assets

·    Orākei Local Board recommended reducing asset recycling target to $50 million and prioritising the retention of green open space given the increase in growth within Auckland

·    Upper-Harbour Local Board support the proposal to use the government’s ‘Better Off’ support package funding as a lever to manage budget pressures but noted there was insufficient information on the proposals to delay capital investment and implement cost reductions.

33.     Kaipātiki Local Board had mixed views in that they support council using borrowing headroom as a budget lever but do not support asset recycling, particularly the sale of parks, reserves and open spaces.

34.     Twelve local boards noted their opposition to asset sales or their preference for assets to be retained, with a focus on retaining parks, reserves and green and open spaces. These boards were Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipatiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards. Upper-Harbour Local Board requested local board views be sought prior to any decision on sales of assets.

35.     Rodney Local Board did not support the proposal and expressed concern at changing the timing of capital spending and implementing cost reductions as they believe there is insufficient information on the proposal to delay capital investment as a budget lever.

36.     Four local boards in total expressed concern that there was insufficient information in the proposal and requested the ability to provide views when more information is available. These local boards were Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Rodney and Upper-Harbour local boards.

Operating spending prioritisation

37.     The consultation document outlined a a proposal 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. 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.

Local Board Feedback

38.     All local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority (15 local boards) supported the proposal (Aotea / Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

39.     Several of the local boards in support of the proposal recommended:

·    an equity focus when prioritising changes to services and

·    partnering with local communities to deliver services for efficiency and affordability.

40.     Five local boards noted there was insufficient information on the proposal and its likely impacts on local communities and requested local board input when further information is available. These boards are Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Rodney, Upper-Harbour local boards. Puketāpapa Local Board noted community feedback that this proposal was unclear and Albert-Eden Local Board requested consultation with the community when implications of any changes are clear.

Proposed waste service standardisation

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

42.     In addition to how to fund a region-wide kerbside rubbish collection, the following proposals to standardise waste management services and charges across Auckland were included in the consultation document:

·    standardise the opt-out rules for residential multi-unit developments (10 or more units)

·    standardise the opt-out rules for residential and lifestyle properties with between two and nine units

·    standardise the opt-out rules for non-residential properties

·    apply a minimum base charge to every separately used or inhabited part of a property.

Local board feedback

Region-wide rates-funded rubbish collection system

43.     Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal to move to a region-wide rates-funded refuse collection system from a planned region-wide pay-as-you-throw system.

44.     Fourteen local boards supported the proposal (Aotea / Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards).

45.     Two local boards partially supported the proposal:

·    Whau Local Board supported in principle the standardisation of waste collection while reiterating its previously resolved position that “pay-as-you-throw” is the best driver to support minimisation, equity and affordability

·    Henderson-Massey Local Board noted concern from submitters that a rates-funded model creates a financial burden on those who use the service the least but the pay-as-you-throw model has issues relating to bin tags including vandalism.

46.     This proposal was not supported by four local boards (Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Papakura and Upper-Harbour local boards). Devonport-Takapuna Local Board noted they strongly believe that pay-as-you-throw waste services encourages people to reduce the waste they send to landfill and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board also noted that a standardised waste system penalises those who minimise their waste.

47.     Seven local boards noted their support for a food scraps service (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour local boards) and a further two boards requested a community-led food scrap service (Aotea / Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards).

48.     Aotea/Great Barrier and Waitākere Ranges local boards requested consideration of the rural nature of properties in terms of accessibility when implementing urban standardisation of waste services.

Standardise the opt-out rules for residential multi-unit developments (10 or more units)

49.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback, 15 local boards supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).  

50.     Henderson-Massey Local Board did not support the proposal and did not give a reason.

Standardise the opt-out rules for residential and lifestyle properties with between two and nine units

51.     All of the 15 local boards who gave feedback supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).  


 

Standardise the opt-out rules for non-residential properties

52.     All of the 16 local boards who gave feedback supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).  

Apply a minimum base charge to every separately used or inhabited part of a property

53.     Of the 16 local boards who gave feedback, 15 local boards supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waitematā, and Whau local boards).

54.     Ōrākei Local Board did not support the proposal and did not give a reason.

Other matters for feedback

Tūpuna Maunga Authority Annual Operational Plan

55.     The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires that the Tūpuna Maunga Authority prepare an annual operational plan to provide a framework in which the council will carry out the routine management of the 14 tūpuna maunga, and the plan must be agreed by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the council. A Summary of the draft plan was included in the council’s consultation material for the annual budget.

56.     Three local boards gave feedback on the plan. Two local boards expressed support for the operational plan (Albert-Eden and Franklin local boards).  Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board noted the community’s feedback that will be taken into consideration by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

Changes to fees and charges

57.     In the consultation document, changes to fees and charges were proposed for animal management fees, cemetery services and building consents for rainwater tanks as follows:

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

·    only require building consent for rainwater tanks that connect to internal services and introduction of a base fee and a fee for additional inspection deposits

·    standardisation of cemetery fees.

58.     Of the seven local boards who gave feedback, six supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, and Waitematā local boards). Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board support the fees and charges consulted on but oppose increases to community venue hire fees.

59.     Ōrākei Local Board supported increasing resources to ensure the enforcement of bylaws and recommended that the council booking systems and associated collection of fees are reviewed to ensure that fees are being effectively collected.

Increasing local board decision-making over local community services

60.     The consultation document proposed an increase in local board responsibility for service levels. The proposed increase in local board responsibility for service levels is anticipated to allow for more localised service decisions that align with local priorities.

61.     Of the nine local boards who gave feedback, all expressed support for the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Waitematā local boards).  

62.     Several of the local boards in support of the proposal noted that increased resourcing for quality advice to support this increased decision-making responsibility is required (or requested that this resource is made available).

Local matters for consideration

63.     In the annual budget process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making. This includes:  

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

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

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

·    any local board advocacy initiatives.

Business improvement district and local targeted rate proposals

64.     Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended local targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. These proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented.

65.     There are no new or amended local targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals to be included in the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

66.     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 (opex) LDI funding is to be converted into capital (capex) 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.

Other matters raised in resolutions

67.     Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board request a minor change in wording in the Long-term Plan from ‘Remediate the Māngere town centre canopy’ to “Remediate the Māngere Town Centre Canopy and any surrounding amenities”. This will enable the board to understand the various options and priorities with a wider focus than the canopy.

68.     This budget was created in the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 to improve the Māngere Town Centre canopy. The budget has been deferred over a number of years and an investment in the canopy is still required however the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board believes there are other priorities in the Māngere Town Centre that also require investment. Staff support the view of the local board and as this project is already budgeted, staff will work under delegated authority with the local board to broaden the scope of this project. As this project is not explicitly referenced in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, there is no requirement to make a change to the current Long-term Plan.

Local board advocacy

69.     Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for consideration by the Governing Body and inclusion (as an appendix) to the 2022/2023 Local Board Agreement.

70.     21 local boards approved between two and 20 advocacy items each. There were also other specific requests or recommendations from local boards included in other sections of their resolved feedback on the annual budget.

71.     The full set of advocacy initiatives and other requests identified by local boards are compiled in Attachment B and are also included in the full local board resolutions in Attachment A.

72.     This year, three items were advocated for by numerous boards. These items and local board support for each of them are as follows:

·    Local Board Transport Capital Fund – twelve local boards expressed support for either the full reinstatement or, retention of, or increase to the Local Board Transport Capital Funds. These are Aotea / Great Barrier, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waitematā and Whau local boards

·    Tree protectionfour local boards requested support for local tree or urban ngāhere planting programmes to increase tree protection across Auckland. These are Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura and Whau local boards. In addition, Kaipātiki Local Board expressed support for the retention of mature trees

·    Recycling facilities – five local boards expressed support for local recycling facilities. These are, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Papakura local boards.

73.     The majority of local board advocacy were related to community investment in sports and aquatics facilities, parks, paths, public spaces, town centres, community assets and programming, particularly but not exclusively to support areas of projected growth.

74.     Other common themes across local board advocacy included:

·    request for funding to renew, maintain or build community assets

·    the need for transport infrastructure that serves growing communities, particularly for investment in transport hubs, public transport networks, road infrastructure and initiatives to lower emissions

·    addressing environmental concerns, in particular water quality, restoration of beaches and the coast, and tree coverage

·    waste management, in particular the development of local recycling and upcycling solutions to support a circular economy and waste minimisation

·    addressing social concerns such as housing conditions and affordability

·    supporting partnerships with mana whenua and Māori communities at a local governance level.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

75.     This report summarises local board feedback on the annual budget and as such has no specific impacts on the climate.

76.     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 the council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

77.     Council-controlled organisations and all council departments will be affected by decisions made for the annual budget and have been involved in its development.

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

Local impacts and local board views

78.     Local board views and feedback on the regional topics in the annual budget are provided in this report.

79.     Local boards have been involved throughout the development of the annual budget. This has included:

·        local board chairs attending Finance and Performance Committee annual budget workshops

·        all local board members were invited to attend briefings on the content of the Finance and Performance Committee annual budget workshops

·        local boards provided formal input into the consultation material for the annual budget in November - December 2021

·        local boards presented their views and input to the Finance and Performance Committee on 25 May 2022.  

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

80.     The annual budget is an important tool that enables and demonstrates the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

81.     Of those who submitted to the annual budget consultation, 10 per cent identified as Māori. There were also submissions from eight mana whenua entities and two mataawaka entities, many of whom provided specific feedback on local priorities and advocacy.

82.     Local boards considered submissions related to their local board rohe when finalising their feedback and advocacy positions for the annual budget.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

83.     The annual budget is a statutory process which must be completed every year. This report provides an opportunity for the Governing Body (through the Finance and Performance Committee) to formally consider local board views in their decision-making on the annual budget. The Governing Body will need to consider the financial implications of decisions relating to the feedback and advocacy initiatives from local boards as part of their decision-making.

84.     The Annual Budget 2022/2023 project has been funded as part of existing operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

85.     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

86.     Local boards will approve their local board agreements between 21 and 23 June, and Governing Body will adopt the Annual Budget 2022/2023 (including the local board agreements) on 29 June 2022.

 


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local board resolutions relating to the Annual Budget 20222023

243

b

Local board advocacy initiatives and requests 20222023

331

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phoebe Peguero - Kaitohutohu Matua | Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Director, Governance & CCO Partnerships

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

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

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

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

A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Annual Budget 2022/2023: Mayor's final proposal

File No.: CP2022/06913

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To set out the mayor’s recommendations for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 for consideration and decisions by the Finance and Performance Committee, which will be recommended to the Governing Body meeting on 7 June 2022.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This year’s annual budget is focused on taking urgent action to tackle climate change and managing Auckland Council’s finances prudently in an increasingly uncertain environment.

Delivering climate change action

3.       In 2019, Auckland Council unanimously voted to declare a Climate Emergency. The following year, we adopted Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan – the blueprint for halving Auckland’s emissions by the end of this decade and reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

4.       In this Climate Action Budget, I propose to act on those decisions and accelerate the progress on climate change that we have promised Aucklanders. This will be achieved by a Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) that will raise $574 million over 10 years, ringfenced for direct climate action in Tāmaki Makaurau. Funds raised through the CATR will be leveraged to seek to unlock a further $482 million through central government co-funding and other sources. The targeted rate will amount to approximately $1.12 per week for the median value residential property worth $1.2 million.

5.       Funding from the CATR will be allocated according to simple key principles: projects must have high impact and wide regional benefit, address inequity, and start fast. It will focus on improving transport choices and increasing urban ngāhere (forest) predominately in areas that are currently underserved. The bus component of the package will deliver improved services available to more than a million Aucklanders, resulting in at least 14.7 million additional annual bus trips by 2032, with further uplift possible if further supporting policy changes are made. The package will also include six to seven additional electric and low-emissions ferries, wharf upgrades and battery charging infrastructure, an additional 18km of safe cycle facilities, seven local area cycling networks, and at least 35km of walking connectivity improvements across Auckland, as well funding thousands of eight to ten-year-old native trees planted in areas with most heat vulnerability and lowest canopy cover and more than 4000 trees and plants for tiny forests, food forests, māra kai and bush remnants.

6.       Public consultation shows overwhelming support for the proposed CATR, with around two-thirds majority backing from individuals (68 per cent), organisations (66 per cent) and Māori entities (67 per cent). A clear 12 per cent margin of support was also found in independent polling.

7.       The impacts of climate change, already being felt, will have severe and dire consequences for future generations if we do not take urgent action to reduce emissions. Transformational change is needed if we are to have any hope of avoiding a climate disaster and leaving a positive legacy for future generations. Aucklanders have given their mandate to elected representatives to take strong climate action, now Council must play its part.


 

Financial challenges

8.       COVID-19 has continued to have an adverse impact on Auckland Council’s revenue through the reduction in public transport patronage, fewer visits to council venues and facilities and reduced attendance at events, delays to the resumption of dividends from Auckland International Airport and reduced revenue from Ports of Auckland. Interest rates and inflation have increased further than previously predicted, adding more pressure to council’s operating budget.

9.       On the projections in April, the total operating budget challenge in 2022/2023 has increased from the $85 million predicted in the consultation budget to $175 million. While some of it would be temporary, around $90 million ($150 million in a high-risk scenario) would be ongoing cost pressures, which need to be mitigated to ensure Council balances its operating budget and fully funds depreciation by 2027/2028 as set out in the current 10-year budget.

10.     Despite the growing operating cost pressures, the full use of the first tranche from the Government’s better off funding and available operating headroom allow Council to balance its budget for the 2022/2023 financial year. However, we are committed to prudent financial management and need to outline options available to the new Council and a pathway that addresses the ongoing operating budget challenges sustainably. A combination of capital budget deferrals and reductions to low-priority spending in this final Mayoral Proposal will achieve that. This will allow the new Council to make choices it needs to make to manage its finances sustainably and prudently.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it agree to the Annual Budget 2022/2023, which is based on the updated consultation budget with $2.8 billion capital expenditure, $5.1 billion operating expenditure and a 3.5 per cent increase in average general rate as planned, and includes:

i)       a package of further climate action to reduce emissions and support adaptation, including:

A)      over $1 billion expenditure over 10 years towards improving bus services, decarbonising ferry services, providing for walking and cycling, and increasing tree canopy in communities which need it most.

B)      a Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) providing for $574 million over 10 years to fund climate action, with the remainder funded by $128 million in fare revenue from additional services and $354 million in government co-funding.

C)      applying consistent principles for the CATR programme to determine further climate action if additional government funding becomes available from the Climate Emergency Response Fund.

D)      the targeted rate is

1)      based on capital value with 25.8 per cent to be raised from business properties and 74.2 per cent from non-business, rising by 3.5 per cent each year, the same as the Water Quality Targeted Rate.

2)      is differentiated within the business and non-business sectors on the same basis as the general rate.

E)      a political governance and oversight group for the CATR be established for the duration of the fund to provide direction in line with the purpose and principles of the targeted rate and to monitor and report on progress.

F)      note that Council has approved in principle a congestion charging system which is being considered for legislation by the Government, and that the Regional Fuel Tax and Climate Action Targeted Rate will be reviewed with a view to phasing out the Regional Fuel Tax as revenue becomes available from the congestion charge.

ii)       a grant of $750,000 to Coastguard New Zealand in the 2022/2023 financial year.

b)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body the following approach to addressing growing operating cost pressures caused by COVID-19 and economic conditions such as high inflation and interest rates, to ensure Auckland Council continues to act in a financially prudent way, including fully funding depreciation by 2027/2028.

i)       note that Auckland Council and council-controlled organisations will continue to work to achieve savings and asset recycling targets included in existing budgets and that the Value for Money programme and reviews will continue to be progressed under the oversight of the Value for Money Committee.

ii)       agree to apply $127 million better-off funding from the Government in 2022/2023.

iii)      agree to defer $230 million of capital expenditure over the next three years (2022/2023 – 2024/2025) while ensuring critical and high-risk projects as well as projects strongly supporting growth and climate action are maintained.

iv)      agree to approve the use and ongoing improvement of the prioritisation framework consulted on and the general approach to service prioritisation.

v)      agree that staff begin investigating service optimisation opportunities of around $30 million for consideration by the new Council as part of the Annual Budget 2023/2024.

vi)      agree that staff begin considering further cost reductions from service prioritisation of around $50 million for decision-making by the new Council as part of the 10-year Budget 2024-2034.

vii)     agree that staff report to the Value for Money Committee on scoping the strategic opportunities for cost reductions.

viii)    note options available to the new Council to respond to future operating cost pressures include varying degrees of capital deferrals, operating cost reductions and higher rates settings.

ix)      note further opportunities associated with Three Water Reform and optimising financial return from Ports of Auckland.

x)      note that final decisions beyond 2022/2023 rest with the new Council in consultation with the public as appropriate.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Annual Budget 2022/2023 Final Mayoral Proposal

353

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phil Goff, Mayor of Auckland

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

PDF Creator

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Chart

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Chart, line chart

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Diagram

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

A picture containing graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

A picture containing graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

A picture containing graphical user interface

Description automatically generated

A picture containing chart

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

Table

Description automatically generated

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

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A picture containing text, receipt

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

A picture containing text, receipt

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application, Word, email

Description automatically generated

Word

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Annual Budget 2022/2023: Kerbside refuse charging policy review

File No.: CP2022/06835

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend an amendment to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 for a move to a regionwide rates-funded kerbside refuse service, with a choice of three bin sizes to accommodate different household needs.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A proposed amendment to Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (the waste plan) was consulted on between February and March 2022 as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 Consultation Document (the consultation document).

3.       The proposed change is to adopt a regionwide rates-funded system for kerbside refuse collections with three refuse bin size options (80-litre, 120-litre and 240-litre) to accommodate different household needs instead of continuing to move towards a regionwide user-pays, Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) system. 

4.       Feedback received on this proposal was presented at the Finance and Performance Committee workshop on 4 May 2022 and is detailed in the report on this agenda – Overview to decision-making for the Annual Budget 2022/2023. Staff have considered the feedback alongside an assessment of the identified options in developing their advice in this report.

5.       The proposal received a clear majority of support from individuals, organisations and Māori entities. Therefore, staff recommend that the proposed amendment to the waste plan is adopted.

6.       Staff recognise that while most Auckland households will manage with the three-bin service, there is some concern about how the needs of very low and very high waste producers will be met with a standardised service.

7.       Therefore, staff also recommend that further work is undertaken on how best to meet the needs of very low and very high waste producers to incentivise and reward waste minimisation efforts.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body that it agree to amend the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 to move to a regionwide rates-funded refuse collection service with a choice of three bin sizes to accommodate different household needs

b)      note that, if agreed, the amended Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 will be presented to the Environment and Climate Change Committee for final adoption in September 2022

c)       note that the requirements of section 44(e) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, including those relating to the use of the special consultative procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, have been met

d)      based on feedback received, request staff to undertake further work to investigate options and incentives to better support very low waste producers prior to the roll out of changes, for example monthly refuse pick-ups.

Horopaki

Context

Decision making

8.       Section 44(e) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 sets out a number of matters that the council must consider before amending the waste plan.  Staff have considered each of these matters in developing the proposal and the advice set out in this report.  Section 44(e) also requires that any amendment to the waste plan uses the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, and that the most recent waste assessment undertaken by the council be notified with the statement of proposal.

9.       The consultation process for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 fulfilled these requirements and provided an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their views considered by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made. Feedback received during consultation is one key part that needs to be considered when making final decisions. Comments provided as part of the feedback should be considered to understand the context and the meanings behind the overall numbers and percentages in terms of those who supported or did not support the various proposals. 

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

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

Consultation and feedback

12.     The council consulted on the proposed amendment to the waste plan in February and March 2022 as part of the consultation on the Annual Budget 2022/2023. Detailed analysis of the feedback received during the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation has been included in another report on this agenda.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     The following sections set out key issues to be considered when making a decision:

·        the proposal that was consulted on and any relevant context

·        a summary of feedback received

·        consideration of feedback including the advantages and disadvantages of the options

·        local board feedback

·        staff recommendations.

14.     The analysis below records brief summaries of local board feedback on the proposals. Local board feedback is set out in full in a separate report also on this agenda.

15.     These sections focus primarily on the feedback received and any new information that has come to light since consultation, as well as staff responses to issues raised by Aucklanders in their feedback. More detailed analysis of each issue was included in the Supporting Information for consultation. 

Proposal

16.     The waste plan sets out the Zero Waste Vision for Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland and actions to achieve it.


 

17.     To minimise kerbside household waste, the waste plan commits to:

·        the introduction of a regionwide “three-bin” (refuse, recycling and food scraps) collection system to enable maximum diversion of waste from landfill

·        implementing a regionwide Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) charging system for refuse collections.

18.     Prior to implementing this change a review was conducted to determine whether PAYT remained the best policy direction.

19.     The review concluded that a regionwide rates-funded refuse collection service, with three refuse bin size options (80-litre, 120-litre and 240-litre) to accommodate different household needs would better meet the needs of the majority of Auckland households.

A weak link between payment method and waste minimisation

20.     The rationale for introducing a regionwide PAYT charging system was based on international evidence that at the time indicated a user pays or ‘polluter-pays’ system would drive greater household waste minimisation behaviour and in theory, a PAYT system creates a financial incentive to save money by reducing waste.

21.     A review of tonnage data of 120,000 households (60,000 each in PAYT and rates-funded areas) has not shown a significant difference in per capita tonnages between rates-funded and PAYT areas in Auckland. Analysis has shown that previous lower tonnages in user-pays areas were more influenced by the capacity limit of bags rather than payment methodology, indicating that constraining available capacity can have a positive impact of reducing waste generation under any payment method.

22.     The review highlighted that while households using council tags in PAYT areas might put their bin out less than weekly (on average 30 times per year), these bins tend to be heavier than the weekly bins in rates-funded areas as households wait until the bin is full. This means that although each household might save money on the tag price, overall per capita tonnages, and therefore disposal costs for council, are comparable to households in rates-funded areas.

23.     As part of the review staff commissioned a number of focus groups and surveys, which targeted Aucklanders in both PAYT and rates-funded areas. The surveys found that while customers in PAYT areas think about their waste volumes, the cost of tags is not high enough to significantly change consumption habits to reduce waste.

24.     Auckland’s price per set out would need to be much higher to change how households consider the amount of waste they are generating. Not only would a higher priced council service create equity and access issues for low-income households, it is also unlikely to be effective in influencing behaviour – customers could simply switch to a cheaper service that does not have the same incentive or mandated responsibility to reduce waste.

A rates-funded model is cheaper and more convenient for most Aucklanders

25.     Homeowners in Manukau, Auckland, Waiheke and Aotea/Great Barrier Island currently pay $293 for their combined refuse and recycling kerbside collection services ($150.06 for 120-litre bin + $143 base charge). This cost appears as two separate charges on the ratepayer’s bill. Homeowners in PAYT areas pay the same base charge of $143 on their rates bill, which includes kerbside recycling

26.     Currently, a household that puts their bin out every week on the North Shore, West Auckland or Papakura using a bin with a tag each week pays $71 more per year than a household in Auckland Central or Manukau pays in their rates for the same 120-litre/140-litre bin and $99 more for the same 240-litre bin (refer Table 1).

27.     These costs will continue to increase year-on-year due to increasing national waste levy costs and inflation. Maintaining the two different systems or switching everyone to PAYT is more expensive than a rates-funded service regionwide. Moving to a regional rates service would reduce these costs.

Table 1: Comparison of weekly refuse collection charges

 

CURRENT (FY2021/22) ANNUAL CHARGE

ESTIMATED PROPOSED COST (FY2024/2025)**

Rates

PAYT

Regionwide Rates

Regionwide PAYT

Estimated tag price

80-litre bin (small)

N/A

$148.20

$124

$219.92*

$3.46

120/140-litre bin (medium)

$150.06

$221.00

$187

$310.40*

$5.20

240-litre bin (large)

$220.59

$319.80

$276

$439.36*

$7.68

* includes contribution to base charge (approximately $40) required to keep tag price competitive  
** all costs are estimates which may be impacted by current inflationary pressures

28.     Under this proposal, everyone has access to the same fair and affordable service; everyone is offered the same pricing structure no matter where they live. Rural areas keep their allotted number of bags a year depending on the bin size, and remote areas, including the Hauraki Gulf Islands, benefit from the economies of scale in the region.

29.     The new 80-litre bin is proposed at an estimated rate of $124 ($2.38 per week), which is lower than the current weekly bin tag price of $2.85. It is also lower than the current smallest rates-funded bin, which is 120-litre and $150.06 per year.

30.     When all three bins are in place (rubbish, recycling and food scraps), with the smallest refuse bin, the estimated total cost of all three services ($312) (refer Table 2) is only $20 more than what households currently pay for only two services (currently $293 for 120-litre rubbish and recycling, refer paragraph 25). Inflationary pressures may impact these estimates.

Table 2: Estimated cost of all three services in proposal 2024/2025*

Rubbish bin size

Rubbish

Recycling

Food scraps

Total

80-litre

$124

$127

$61

$312

120-litre/140-litre or 104 bags

$187

$127

$61

$375

240-litre

$276

$127

$61

$464

* all costs are estimates which may be impacted by current inflationary pressures

Preferred option

31.     Evidence from the comprehensive review supported the adoption of a regionwide rates-funded system for kerbside refuse collections instead of continuing with a user-pays (PAYT) policy direction because a rates-funded service:

·        achieves the best waste minimisation outcomes, as it enables influence over the region’s domestic waste stream, while still allowing for a choice of bin sizes

·        is the most cost effective, lowest risk, and most financially resilient for the council to deliver

·        provides Auckland Council with the greatest opportunity to respond to the climate emergency and meet the commitments set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Auckland’s Climate Plan, by reducing and mitigating emissions and retaining the flexibility to adapt to climate impacts into the future

·        delivers the greatest certainty for Aucklanders by enabling Auckland Council to provide a universally available, equitably priced service across the region regardless of residents’ location or income.

32.     The preferred option recommended by the review was to amend the current waste plan to move to a regionwide rates-funded refuse collection service, with three refuse bin size options (80-litre, 120-litre and 240-litre) to accommodate different household needs.

33.     Under this option households in legacy Manukau City and Auckland City areas will continue to pay for their refuse collection through rates. Households in current PAYT areas will no longer be required to buy tags and will shift to paying through a targeted rate via a staged implementation. The proposed timing is to start in the last quarter of FY2023/2024 in Papakura and Franklin and continue to the North Shore and Waitākere throughout FY2024/2025, with a rates-funded refuse service starting in Rodney at the same time.

34.     Although changes in rates would not come into effect for the North Shore, Rodney and Waitākere until FY2024/2025, operational lead times require certainty of decision-making well in advance of that time.

35.     The recommended option requires a change to the waste plan, which necessitated consultation using the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002[1]. Therefore, council consulted on the proposal within the consultation on the Annual Budget 2022/2023 together with the consultation on the harmonisation of waste services and charges (covered by a separate report on today’s agenda).

Feedback from consultation

36.     Of the 7359 submitters who responded to this question, 57 per cent of submitters supported moving to a rates-funded service charge, while 33 per cent supported continuing to roll out PAYT charging regionwide.

37.     Of the 327 individual submitters who selected ‘Other’, 76 individuals actually indicated via their comments that they supported a rates-funded system, while 62 individuals indicated they supported PAYT.

38.     Across the region, Auckland Council received responses from similar proportions of individuals who lived in areas with a rates-funded service and with PAYT; 50.5 per cent of individual submitters lived in a rates-funded area, and of those, 71 per cent supported the proposal and 18 per cent did not. 49.5 per cent of individual submitters lived in an area charged through PAYT, and of those, 42 per cent supported the proposal and 48 per cent did not. 224 respondents live in the Whau area which has a mixed service and so these were unable to be included in the final tally.

39.     Of the different ethnicities who provided a submission, 4721 identified as European, 423 as Māori, 209 as Pasifika and 1593 as Asian. Just over half of individuals who responded (50.5 per cent) identified as being over 45 years, while 49.5 per cent were under 45 years.

Support for Rates Funded Proposal

40.     A breakdown of responses of individuals by local board area showed much higher levels of support (from 62 per cent to 73 per cent) for the proposal in rates-funded local board areas, than ‘do not support’ in the PAYT local board areas (28 per cent to 56 per cent).

41.     The only exception was Aotea/Great Barrier (rates-funded), where 47 per cent of individuals supported the proposal, however only 16 per cent did not support, the remaining chose either ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’.

42.     Of the submitters who supported the proposed rates-funded model, more than half (2334) did not provide a reason. Of those who did comment, the most common reason (446) given was that this system is fairer and more equitable. Another common reason given by 436 submitters was that this system is easier and simpler to use. A rates-funded system was seen to be better for discouraging behaviours such as illegal dumping of excess waste by 418 submitters.

43.     A number of submitters commented about the disadvantages that PAYT presented to large and low-income households as a reason for supporting a rates-funded system.

44.     There was support for the proposal across all ages and ethnicities.

Do Not Support proposal (prefer Pay-As-You-Throw)

45.     The most common reasons for supporting a PAYT charging system was that PAYT is better at supporting waste minimisation (760), that PAYT is the most cost-effective option for low waste producing households (534), and that PAYT is fairer as you only pay for what you put out (341). The majority of those submitters also said they themselves were very low waste producers and their household would not benefit from cost savings on a rates-funded service as they would if the service offered was PAYT.

46.     A number of submitters did not support the proposal because they did not believe the council could provide a cost competitive service compared with private providers and wanted to retain competition in the market.

Other feedback

47.     A lot of the ‘Other’ feedback included suggestions about how Auckland Council could make its services more responsive to those at the higher and lower waste-producing ends of the spectrum.

48.     This also included calling for options for households whose waste volumes vary throughout the year.

Local board feedback

49.     The local board feedback largely reflected the feedback of individuals from their areas. Fourteen supported the proposal, with many noting the strong support from individuals, iwi and organisations within their local board areas, two partially supported the proposal and four did not support the proposal (refer Table 3). Rodney Local Board, where there is currently no council refuse service, stated the results of the individual annual budget responses but did not express a view either way.

50.     All of the local boards that are currently rates-funded supported the proposal. The PAYT local boards that did not support the proposal felt that PAYT was fairer and more likely to encourage waste minimisation.

51.     All local boards reflected the views of the individual feedback from their local board areas except Whau and Kaipātiki.

52.     Whau is the only local board area where both PAYT and rates-funded services are offered. In the annual budget feedback, 60 per cent of individual submitters residing in the Whau Local Board area supported the proposal, 30 per cent did not support. Whau Local Board expressed partial support for the proposal. While expressing support for standardisation of services, it reiterated its earlier expressed support for PAYT, and requested that if the proposal was supported, staff consider “a review of the mechanism to account for the development of new technologies that may enable a fairer method of rating different levels of users”.

53.     Kaipātiki Local Board supported the proposal, despite a mixed view, while 52 per cent of individuals in the local board area did not support, and 39 per cent of individuals supported the proposal. The local board also noted the needs of super-efficient low waste producers and asked for consideration of a fourth, even smaller sized bin.

54.     Henderson-Massey Local Board also expressed partial support, acknowledging concern from submitters about the rates-funded model creating financial burden on those who use the service least but noted submitters’ issues with the PAYT system e.g. vandalising of tickets (tags) on bins.

55.     Waitākere Ranges and Aotea / Great Barrier local boards raised concerns about equity of service for rural areas when considering standard application of charges. For Waitākere Ranges these concerns were in relation particularly to baches where occupancy is not consistent and for Aotea / Great Barrier the practicalities of servicing remote properties.

56.     A number of other valuable comments were provided about waste services in general, which will be noted and followed up by staff.

Table 3: Local board feedback

Formal Feedback

Support Proposal

Do Not Support Proposal

Partial Support

Currently Rates Funded

Albert-Eden

Aotea/Great Barrier

Howick

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

Manurewa

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Ōrākei

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Puketāpapa

Waiheke

Waitematā

Whau

Currently Pay As You Throw

Franklin

Kaipātiki

Waitākere Ranges

Devonport-Takapuna

Hibiscus and Bays

Papakura

Upper Harbour

Henderson-Massey

Whau

Consideration

57.     Waste service provision is an essential service provided by the council that will be used to varying degrees by individuals at different stages of their lives. Having a policy that works for the entire region and all household types all of the time, while still delivering on core council policies, is very challenging. It requires staff to find a solution that works best for the greatest number of households.

Feedback from very low waste producers

58.     Feedback was received over the course of the annual budget consultation from residents in very low waste producing households, in both PAYT and rates-funded areas, that the capacity of refuse bin space allocated is too much from their perspective.

59.     While the proposed introduction of an 80-litre refuse bin at a lower annual rate will help to a certain extent, suggestions have been offered to further reduce available volume and associated costs. This could include a less frequent collection, for example a monthly bin pick-up when the food scraps service has been bedded in, or the possibility of even smaller refuse and recycling bins. In particular, this could benefit smaller households on a fixed income. Staff propose to continue investigating potential options in the lead-up to the proposed policy change becoming operational.

Some confusion about current payment methods and costs

60.     Every household pays for its rubbish to be collected. However, there is a lot of confusion about how “others” pay for their refuse collections across Auckland, and indeed about what households themselves already pay for through their rates.

61.     This was demonstrated in social media conversations and some responses during the consultation, where concern was expressed by households in PAYT areas that the estimated rate of $314 for a weekly 120L refuse bin collection and fortnightly recycling collection would be in addition to their current rates. There appeared to be a lack of understanding that the recycling element of this cost was already paid within their rates by households in PAYT areas, therefore the additional cost was only the refuse collection cost ($124 for an 80L bin, $187 for a 120L bin and $276 for a 240L bin).

62.     For many households the price of refuse collections will actually go down.

63.     Sentiments were also expressed that the proposed option was motivated by ‘revenue raising’. Waste rates are set based on the cost of providing the service, which includes collection and disposal. The council does not make any money on waste services. Rates are projected to go up each year with inflation and the increased costs of disposal through the waste levy. Private providers face the same inflationary and disposal cost pressures.

Recommendation

64.     The proposal of moving to a regionwide rates-funded system received a clear majority of support overall and therefore staff recommend that the proposed amendment to the waste plan of a move to a regionwide rates-funded refuse collection service is adopted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

65.     The climate impact of this proposed change to the waste plan was outlined in the report to Finance and Performance Committee, dated 8 December 2021.

66.     Auckland Council can make a significant contribution to our climate goals by optimising waste reduction and resource recovery, including the ability to influence a greater number of households into the future through the proposed rates-funded model. 

67.     Over the lifetime of the proposed decision, the impact of greater diversion from landfill of both food scraps and general recycling will be the most significant components of emissions reduction, with an anticipated emissions saving of 125,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year under a rates-funded weekly service.  

68.     The rates-funded option also presents the ability to influence truck fleet fuel efficiency (with a higher number of households on the service).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

69.     This policy decision specifically relates to kerbside collection services for residential properties. The rating impacts will therefore relate largely to residential ratepayers.

70.     For this reason, we have not sought the views of other Auckland Council departments and council-controlled organisations as they will not be impacted by this policy.

71.     Staff from Auckland Council’s Financial Strategy and Planning group formed part of the review team.

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

Local impacts and local board views

72.     Local boards provided their views on the impacts on their local community of standardisation of waste services at the 4 May workshop of the Finance and Performance Committee. Formal feedback on the proposed change was recorded at their May 2022 business meetings and received as part of the annual budget feedback. These views are outlined above and in the report to the committee on this meeting’s agenda. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

73.     According to the 2018 census, 53 per cent of the Māori population of Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland currently live in a rates-funded area, primarily in south Auckland, and 47 per cent live in PAYT areas, primarily in Papakura, Henderson-Massey and Franklin.

74.     Consultation on the annual budget included engagement with mana whenua from 19 iwi authorities, nine of whom made written submissions (included in the report ‘Summary of Submissions to Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2022/2023 – Māori Organisations’ also on this agenda as an attachment to the report ‘Annual Budget 2022/23: Overview to decision-making’). Three mana whenua entities also made presentations to the Governing Body in March 2022.

75.     Responses from Māori submitters and mana whenua were similar to the overall feedback.

Māori Feedback

76.     Feedback from submitters who identified as Māori are shown in the table below:

Proposal

Total submissions

Preferred rates-funded system

Preferred PAYT system

Don’t know

Other

Waste

423

264

107

22

30

Mana Whenua

77.     Five iwi authorities supported the standardisation of waste services in principle.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

78.     While both options (rates-funded or PAYT) are cost neutral to the council, the PAYT option poses greater revenue risk than rates-funded as it is substantially more difficult to predict the number of council customers under full PAYT scenarios. Any reduction in council customers over and above the level currently forecasted could lead to further increases to refuse costs per council customer and this would in turn increase the overall waste collection costs facing households through higher base service charges.

79.     The decision to change to a fully rates-funded refuse collection is made as part of the council’s exercise of discretion as to the choice of funding sources for its activities, under section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, influenced by relevant requirements and policy considerations such as the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 (including any proposal to amend that plan, if necessary).

80.     The rates themselves will be set in accordance with the requirements under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

81.     The key risks and mitigations relating to the decision to move the funding of the council’s kerbside refuse collection service to a targeted rate are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Risks and mitigations of moving to regional rates-funded refuse collection


Risk

Mitigation

Auckland Council increases its number of household collections, and this is perceived to be anti-competitive.

Council procures collection contracts for household kerbside services from the private sector and there is an opportunity to create competition through council services contracts.

Council does not provide collection services to the commercial sector; healthy competition exists within that sector.

The perception of unfairness in offering the same service/charge to all households: households that produce large amounts of waste may be perceived to benefit more under the rates-funded model, whereas households that produce less waste may be perceived to benefit more under the PAYT model.

Staff have modelled the cost of offering three different bin sizes (80-litre/120-litre/240-litre) under the rates-funded model to accommodate different households’ needs.

Modelling shows that smaller households can make savings by choosing an 80-litre bin.

Staff propose to investigate potential options for very low waste producing households in the lead up to operationalising the proposed policy change.

In 2019 the council entered into seven long-term waste collection contracts that provide for a PAYT refuse collection service (or transition to such a service).  If the council were to move to a fully rates-funded service then it is likely that some variation to these contracts will be required and there may be some, as yet to be determined, cost implications.

Staff have continued open dialogue with all waste collection contractors and based final costings on revised costs provided by contractors.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

82.     Decisions made by the Governing Body in response to the Finance and Performance Committee’s resolutions made at this meeting will be reflected in the Annual Budget 2022/2023. On 29 June 2022, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the Annual Budget 2022/2023 and set rates for the 2022/2023 financial year.

83.     If the Governing Body agrees to amend the waste plan, staff will present the amended waste plan to the Environment and Climate Change Committee (giving effect to the Governing Body’s decision) for final adoption in September 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sarah Le Claire - Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Parul Sood - General Manager Waste Solutions

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Annual Budget 2022/2023: Other rates and fees matters

File No.: CP2022/05959

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend changes to rating policy and fees for adoption as part of the council’s Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The recommendations in this report bring together all the rating issues and fees material proposed for adoption as part of the annual budget which are not covered by reports elsewhere. Proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges were consulted on between February and March 2022 as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 Consultation Document (the consultation document).

3.       Feedback received on these proposals was presented at the Finance and Performance Committee workshop on 29 April 2022 and is detailed in the report on this agenda: Overview to decision-making for the Annual Budget 2022/2023. Staff have considered the feedback alongside an assessment of the identified options in developing their advice in this report.

Standardisation of waste management services and targeted rates

4.       To achieve the Auckland Zero Waste vision, the council is moving to standardise its waste management collection services and how these are paid for. As part of this annual budget, the council consulted on a move to region-wide rates-funded refuse collection and standardisation of the opt-out rules for waste management services and associated targeted rates. The proposal on region-wide rates funded refuse collection is covered in the report on this agenda: Annual Budget 2022/2023: Kerbside refuse charging policy review. The proposed standardisation of the opt-out rules consulted on included the following:

·     multi-unit residential developments (MUDs) of 10 or more units will be able to opt out of council’s kerbside waste collection services if the council decides that it cannot provide a suitable service to the property. This will be effective from 2022/2023 for the former Auckland City Council (ACC) area and from 2023/2024 for rest of the region

·     where a targeted rate applies, all other multi-SUIP[2] residential (including lifestyle) properties will be charged a targeted rate for council’s kerbside waste service on a per SUIP basis from 2022/2023

·     non-residential properties (e.g. business and farm) can opt out of council’s kerbside services and associated targeted rates on request from 2023/2024

·     all eligible rateable SUIPs across the region will pay a minimum targeted rate from 2023/2024 to help fund the cost of council’s regional waste initiatives.

5.       The proposal also included an exemption from the above changes for properties in the former ACC area that have existing opt-out arrangements.

6.       All elements of the proposal received a clear majority of support from submitters. There were very few written comments and no significant themes from the feedback.


 

7.       With the exception of non-residential properties and some multi-unit developments, council is able to provide suitable kerbside waste collection services to all properties. This proposal would ensure that the council maintains maximum control of the waste stream to better enable achievement of the objectives of the council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. With the maximum number of properties contributing to costs, the overall rates will be able to be set lower. It also ensures fair treatment of all properties, both multi-unit and detached. On the other hand, allowing opt-out is fair when the council is not in a position to provide a suitable service.

8.       Staff recommend that the proposal for standardising opt-out rules be adopted as proposed.

Rollout of food scraps service and targeted rate for 2022/2023

9.       While the regional rollout of the food scraps service and targeted rate was not an issue for consultation in this annual budget, the amount of the targeted rate and the areas where the rate will apply in 2022/2023 were included in the consultation materials. A number of submitters commented on the rollout programme. Those who did not support the rollout disagreed with the compulsory nature of the targeted rate citing existing home composting arrangements. Those in support believed separate collection of food scraps from households would benefit the environment and home composting was not practical for everyone.

10.     The rollout of the food scraps service and targeted rate to all of urban Auckland is a key element of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). It was approved by the council in 2018 following strong support expressed through consultation in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. It is expected to divert up to 50,000 tonnes of household refuse from landfill per year. Currently, central government is consulting on proposals for a mandatory rollout of household kerbside food scraps collections for urban centres across Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as proposals for mandatory diversion of business food scraps from landfill.

11.     Staff recommend the food scraps targeted rate for 2022/2023 be adopted as proposed.

Updated waste management targeted rates for 2022/2023

12.     The majority of council’s costs in delivering waste management services are driven by fixed term contracts indexed against the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Inflation assumptions have risen since the development of the consultation materials which included estimates of the waste management targeted rate amounts at the time. Interest costs and internal staff costs are now also expected to be higher. To maintain cost recovery, the targeted rates for next year need to be adjusted. The table below shows the updated base service targeted rate and standard refuse targeted rate respectively, compared to the current charges and the estimated charges for next year indicated in the consultation document. The updated rates are still comparable with or below equivalent private collection prices.

Service

Current year $

Next year $

Consultation Document

Updated

Base service charge

142.70

135.62

140.45

Standard refuse charge

150.06

165.34

172.89

13.     With the updated waste management targeted rates, the estimated rates increase for the average value residential property will be 6.4 per cent, slightly higher than the 6.02 per cent signalled in the consultation document. Staff recommend the committee agree the updated waste management targeted rates for next year.


 

Rating policy proposals 

14.     The draft Annual Budget 2022/2023 proposed the following changes to rating policy:

·    amend the definition of the Urban Rating Area to exclude rural zoned land on Waiheke

·    rating units used as an access way to residential properties will be rated as residential use.

15.     These issues were not highlighted with specific consultation questions. No feedback was received on either of these issues. Staff recommend that the changes be adopted as proposed.

16.     The rating policy will also need to be amended to include the Climate Action targeted rate considered in the report Annual Budget 2022/2023 Mayoral Proposal: Climate Action at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 7 June 2022.

17.     Staff recommend that additional examples be added to the definition of a separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP) to provide greater clarity on the treatment of minor dwellings, granny flats, and self-contained flats.

Fees and charges

18.     To ensure that all fees are regularly reviewed, staff are undertaking a three-year cycle of fee reviews. The reviews will ensure that the cost recovery decisions previously made by the council continue to be met. In the first year of the proposed cycle, the council consulted on:

i.     small reductions in fees for dog registrations made possible by an increase in the volume of registrations and efficiency savings. The consultation also included other changes to animal management and regulatory fees to recover the cost of new services and better align some fees with the complexity of service delivery.

ii.     standardisation of fees for most cemetery services across all locations with some fees rising and others falling.  The key change is to standardise the fees for single and double depth burials at $1,700 and $1,800 respectively. Fees for disinterment are also being standardised to ensure full cost recovery and to bring them into line with the market.

iii.    as provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy, other fees and charges will increase in line with the council’s cost of inflation where necessary to maintain cost recovery. Latest projections from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) and other major financial institutions suggest there is significant risk that inflation may be higher than current projections. Fee settings will be reviewed in the next budget to adjust fee increases in line with inflation.

19.     A small number of responses (26) were received on issues related to fees. The most common response was that fees were too high.

20.     Following a review of public feedback and further assessment of the key considerations, it is recommended that the changes to fees are adopted as proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body to adopt as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 standardised charging for the waste management targeted rates as set out below:

i)    allowing residential multi-unit developments (MUDs) across Auckland with 10 or more units to opt out of council’s refuse, recycling and/or food scraps services and respective targeted rate charges where the service(s) cannot be provided by the council as per the standards specified in Attachment A of this report, effective from 1 July 2023 with the exception of ii) below

ii)   maintaining the existing opt-out arrangements for MUDs within the former Auckland City Council (ACC) area where:

A)     an approved opt-out as per the current policy is already in place, or

B)         an application for opt-out as per the current policy is received by the council on or before 30 June 2022

C)         applying the waste management targeted rates as applicable on a per SUIP basis to all residential and lifestyle properties with less than 10 SUIPs across Auckland where a service is provided or available, effective from 1 July 2022 with the exception of iv) below

iii)  maintaining the number of waste management targeted rate charges as per the current policy for the following multi-SUIP properties with less than 10 SUIPs within the former ACC, until the property changes owners:

A)      properties with a residential or lifestyle land use that are already receiving fewer waste management targeted rate charges than their number of SUIPs

B)      properties with a residential or lifestyle land use that request to reduce their number of charges on or before 30 June 2022

iv)  allowing all properties with a land use that is not residential or lifestyle to opt out of the standard refuse and/or the recycling service and respective targeted rate charges at their request, effective from 1 July 2023

v)   applying a minimum targeted rate charge to cover the costs of council’s regional initiatives including the annual inorganic collection, the resource recovery network and subsidy for providing affordable waste services on Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI), to all eligible rateable SUIPs across Auckland that are not currently paying this minimum charge, effective from 2023/2024.

b)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body to adopt as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 a food scraps targeted rate as set out in this report, to fund the food scraps collection service to the following areas, to be applied to all residential (including lifestyle) SUIPs to which the service is made available:

i)    the former Waitākere City Council (WCC) area

ii)   the former North Shore City Council (NSCC) area excluding those areas where the service is already available.

c)       agree to recommend to the Governing Body to adopt as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 the updated waste management targeted rates as set out in this report.

d)      agree to recommend to the Governing Body to adopt as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 amending the rating policy to:

i)    to rate rural zoned land on Waiheke that is located inside the Rural Urban Boundary as rural or farm/lifestyle

ii)   rate as residential separate rating units used as an access way to residential properties

iii)  include the proposed Climate Action targeted rate.

e)   agree to adopt as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023 changes to fees and charges as set out in Attachment C of this report.

Horopaki

Context

Decision making

21.     Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the key requirements the council must comply with when making decisions. In particular, the council must:

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

·    assess those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

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

22.     The consultation process for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 provided an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their voices heard by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made. Feedback received during consultation is one key part that needs to be considered when making final decisions. Comments provided as part of the feedback should be considered in order to understand the context and the meanings behind the overall numbers and percentages in terms of those who supported or did not support the various proposals. 

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

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

Consultation and feedback

25.     The council consulted on the proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges in February and March 2022 as part of the consultation on the Annual Budget 2022/2023. Detailed analysis of the feedback received during the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation has been included in another report on this agenda: Overview to decision-making for the Annual Budget 2022/2023.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

26.     The following sections set out for each of the proposed changes to council’s rating policies and fees and charges, key issues to be considered when making a decision:

·        the proposal that was consulted on and any relevant context

·        a summary of feedback received through consultation

·        local board feedback

·        consideration of feedback including the advantages and disadvantages of the options

·        staff recommendations.

27.     The analysis below records brief summaries of local board feedback on the proposals. Local board feedback is set out in full in a separate report also on this agenda.

28.     These sections focus primarily on the feedback received and any new information that has come to light since consultation, as well as staff responses to issues raised in the feedback received. More detailed analysis of each proposal was included in the Supporting Information for consultation. These proposal documents are attached to this report (refer to Attachments B, D and E). 

Standardising the opt-out rules for waste management services and targeted rates

Proposal

29.     Different rules apply in different parts of Auckland around the opt-out of the waste management services and associated targeted rates reflecting policies inherited from the former councils. The council consulted on the following proposal to standardise these rules:

·     multi-unit residential developments (MUDs) of 10 or more units will be able to opt out of council’s kerbside waste collection services if the council decides that it cannot provide a suitable service to the property, effective from 2022/2023 for the former Auckland City Council (ACC) area and from 2023/2024 for rest of the region.

·     where a targeted rate applies, all other multi-SUIP residential (including lifestyle) properties will be charged a targeted rate for council’s kerbside waste service on a per SUIP basis from 2022/2023​

·     non-residential properties (e.g. business and farm) can opt out of council’s kerbside services and associated targeted rates on request from 2023/2024

·     all eligible rateable SUIPs across the region will pay a minimum targeted rate from 2023/2024 to help fund the cost of council’s regional initiatives.

30.     The proposal also included exemption from the above changes for properties in the former ACC area that have existing opt-out arrangements.

Feedback from consultation

31.     Letters were sent to ratepayers potentially affected by the proposed changes inviting them to give feedback.

32.     6,510 submitters provided feedback on this proposal.  All elements of the proposal received a clear majority of support from submitters. 17 submitters provided written comments that related specifically to this proposal. Common themes raised are outlined below:

·     allowing opt out for multi-unit or business properties may compromise waste minimisation outcomes

·     the ability to opt out should be extended to more properties

·     private waste services are more flexible, bespoke and/or efficient.

33.     Between 361 and 387 responses to this question came from individuals who identified as Māori.  Of those, around half supported the standardisation of opt-out rules for the three property types, around 15 per cent did not support the standardisation of opt-out rules, while around 30 per cent selected ‘I don’t know’ for each of the proposed standardisation of opt-out rules.  In relation to the proposed application of a minimum base charge to every separately used or inhabited part of a property (SUIP), 35 per cent supported the proposal, 28 per cent did not support the proposal, while two per cent selected ‘Other’ and 29 per cent selected ‘I don’t know’.

Local board feedback

34.     The vast majority of local boards supported all elements of the proposal. Three local boards provided comments that related specifically to the issue. The Aotea / Great Barrier Local Board noted the sea-only-access nature of some of its properties and requested the council to consider the practicality of service delivery when standardising the opt-out rules. The Manurewa Local Board noted opt-out should only be granted if a multi-unit development is receiving private services that are at least equivalent to council services. The Upper Harbour Local Board called for council’s provision of bespoke refuse services to apartments and necessary changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to improve serviceability of multi-unit developments in the future.

Consideration

35.     With the exception of some multi-unit developments, council is able to provide suitable waste collection services to all residential properties with road access. This proposal would ensure that the council maintains maximum control of the waste stream to better enable achievement of the objectives of the council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. With the maximum number of properties contributing to costs, the overall rates will be able to be set lower. It also ensures fair treatment of all residential properties, both multi-unit and detached. Those allowed to opt out will still need to operate under a waste management plan and demonstrate to council staff that they are complying with our waste bylaws and waste minimisation best practices through the alternative services that they purchase. Where the council is not able to provide a service, such as for a property with no road access, a targeted rate will not apply.

36.     The volume, range and nature of business and farm waste means that the council’s kerbside service, which is designed mainly to meet domestic waste needs, is often not a suitable solution for business and farm properties. Not allowing these properties to opt out is unlikely to meaningfully influence their waste behaviour as they will need to purchase bespoke, private services regardless. It is also impractical to administer an opt-out system based on a case-by-case assessment of the suitability of the council’s service for the 31,000 non-residential properties. Allowing non-residential properties to opt out on request therefore strikes the right balance between fairness, waste minimisation and administrative efficiency.

Recommendation

37.     Staff recommend that the standardisation of opt out rules be adopted as proposed.

Food scraps service and targeted rate

38.     Following consultation as part of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, the Governing Body agreed in May 2018 to the provision of a foods scraps collection service to all urban households funded by a targeted rate. The targeted rate applies to every residential SUIP within the service area. The service and the associated targeted rate were first introduced in the former Papakura District area in 2018/2019 and then parts of the former North Shore City Council (NSCC) area in 2019/2020.

39.     From March 2023, the council will start extending the food scraps service to cover most of Auckland. The new areas that will start receiving this service during 2022/2023 are the former Waitākere City Council (WCC) area and the former NSCC area where the service is not already available. Properties in these areas will be charged the food scraps targeted rate on a pro rata basis – with a lower amount that reflects the number of months the service is available to them during the 2022/2023 rating year.

40.     The regional rollout of the food scraps service and targeted rate was not an issue for consultation in this annual budget having already been decided. However, the amount of the targeted rate and the areas where the rate will apply in 2022/2023 were included in the consultation materials. 513 submitters commented on the rollout programme nonetheless. Those who did not support the rollout disagreed mainly with the compulsory nature of the targeted rate citing existing home composting arrangements. Those in support believe separate collection of food scraps from households would benefit the environment and home composting was not practical for everyone.

41.     The rollout of the food scraps service and targeted rate to all of urban Auckland is a key element of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). It was approved by the council in 2018 following strong support expressed through consultation in the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. It is expected to divert up to 50,000 tonnes of household refuse from landfill per year. Central government is currently consulting on a proposal that all councils across New Zealand will provide households in urban areas with a food scraps diversion service. Without a mandated intervention, on the current trajectory it was likely New Zealand would not achieve the proposed 2030 reduction targets in the New Zealand Waste Strategy or the proposed 40 per cent reduction in biogenic methane in the emissions reduction plan[3].

42.     Staff recommend the food scraps targeted rate for 2022/2023 be adopted as proposed. This is set out in the table below.


 

 

Area

Scheduled start date of food scraps collection

Targeted rate per SUIP for 2022/2023 (incl. GST)

WCC area A

6 March 2023

$23.76

WCC area B

27 March 2023

$17.82

NSCC area A

1 May 2023

$11.88

NSCC area B

15 May 2023

$5.94

NSCC area C

29 May 2023

$5.94

Former Papakura District and former trial areas in NSCC

1 July 2022 (existing service for the full year)

$71.28

43.     The remaining eligible urban areas across the region will receive the kerbside food scraps collection service during the following financial year (2023/2024). The targeted rate will be charged in accordance with when the service starts and will be included in the consultation for the Annual Budget 2023/2024.

Updated waste management rates for the 2022/2023 year

44.     The consultation document included the proposed waste management targeted rates for 2022/2023. The consultation materials noted that the waste management targeted rate amounts may change in response to new cost information including inflation assumptions.

45.     The majority of council’s costs for delivering waste management services are driven by fixed term contracts indexed against the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Inflation assumptions have risen since the development of the consultation materials which included estimates of the waste management targeted rate amounts at the time. Interest costs and internal staff costs are now also expected to be higher.

46.     To maintain cost recovery, the targeted rates for next year will need to be set higher than was indicated in the consultation document. The table below shows the updated waste management targeted rates compared to the current year charges and the estimated charges for the next year indicated in the consultation materials.

Service

Current year $

Next year $

Consultation Document

Updated

Base service charge

142.70

135.62

140.45

Standard refuse charge

150.06

165.34

172.89

Additional recycling

88.90

84.77

89.59

Large refuse

70.53

77.71

81.26

Base service excluding recycling

53.80

50.86

50.86

47.     With the updated waste management targeted rates, the estimated rates increase for the average value residential property will be 6.4 per cent. This is slightly higher than the 6.02 per cent signalled in the consultation document.

48.     Staff recommend that the updated waste management targeted rates set out in the table above be agreed. They will be included in the Funding Impact Statement in the annual budget for adoption on 29 June which will form the basis for rates setting.

Rating policy: Excluding rural zoned land on Waiheke from the Urban Rating Area

Proposal

49.     The council consulted on amending the definition of the Urban Rating Area to exclude rural zoned land on Waiheke.

Consideration

50.     Prior to 2021/2022, land with a farm (rural industry) or lifestyle land use located in the Urban Rating Area was charged the farm-lifestyle differential. This meant that these properties paid 80 per cent of the rate charged to their residential neighbours, even though these properties received a similar level of services.

51.     Last year, as part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031, the council amended its rates differentials so the farm-lifestyle rates differential only applies to farm or lifestyle properties in the rural area. Farm and lifestyle properties inside the Urban Rating Area now pay urban residential rates.

52.     The Urban Rating Area is defined in terms aligned to the rules in the Auckland Unitary Plan (unitary plan). It includes all land within the Rural Urban Boundary as identified in the unitary plan but excludes land in Warkworth and land that is zoned future urban[4]. Land zoned future urban was excluded from the Urban Rating Area as this land is unable to be developed or used for urban development, unless it is rezoned through a plan change, or a resource consent is applied for. Under the unitary plan rules, all rural zoned land is outside the Rural Urban Boundary, so is automatically outside the Urban Rating Area.

53.     Zoning rules on Waiheke Island are set by the Hauraki Gulf Island (HGI) Plan, not the unitary plan. Under the HGI plan, there are 30 properties located inside the Rural Urban Boundary but have rural zoning so can’t be developed unless rezoned through a plan change, or a resource consent is applied for. These properties have always been inside the Urban Rating Area but were previously charged the farm-lifestyle rates differential as they have a lifestyle land use. Under the current rating policy, these properties are now charged urban residential rates.

54.     Staff consider the treatment of the Waiheke rural zoned properties as urban is inconsistent with the treatment of rural and future urban zoned land elsewhere in the region. To address this inconsistency in the current year, staff have applied remissions under the miscellaneous remission scheme to affected properties, so they pay no more than they would have if they had been charged farm-lifestyle rates.

Feedback

55.     Letters were sent to ratepayers affected by the proposed change to the Urban Rating Area on Waiheke to alert them of consultation on the proposal. No feedback was received on this proposal.

Local Board feedback

56.     Local boards did not provide feedback on this issue.

Recommendation

57.     Staff recommend that the council amends the definition of the Urban Rating Area to exclude rural zoned land on Waiheke.

Rating of residential access ways

Proposal

58.     The council consulted on amending the rating policy to rate residential access ways as residential.


 

Consideration

59.     Multi-unit developments will often be accessed through a shared driveway or private land that is jointly owned by all owners of units in the development. Increasingly, these access ways are being established as separate titles that are owned through a body corporate for the development. In this case, the access way will be a separate rating unit, which is classed as having a transport land use. Transport land use is normally classified as a business use for rating purposes. To ensure these multi-unit developments were treated equitably with other residential properties, it was proposed to amend the rating policy to treat them as residential.

Feedback

60.     No feedback was received on this proposal.

Local Board feedback

61.     Local boards did not provide feedback on this issue.

Recommendation

62.     Staff recommend that the council adds a note to the differentials definitions table in the rating policy, stating that separate rating units used as an access way to residential properties will be treated for rating purposes as residential use.

Rating policy: Other consequential amendments

Climate Action Targeted Rate

63.     A decision to introduce a Climate Action targeted rate as part of the annual budget (as discussed separately in the Mayoral Proposal at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 7 June) would require the rating mechanism in the prospective funding impact statement to be amended to include the new targeted rate.

Feedback

64.     Feedback on this issue can be found in the Overview to decision-making for the Annual Budget 2022/2023 report on this agenda.

Fees and charges

65.     Staff are undertaking a three-year cycle of fee reviews that will ensure all fee areas are reviewed once every three years. This will provide a predictable and structured process to ensure that the fees are meeting the objectives set when they were put in place and that they continue to fairly recover the costs of the services they fund.

66.     Some out of cycle fee reviews will continue to be necessary to address any material change in circumstances. As provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy, fees not subject to review in a particular year will be increased in line with council cost inflation where necessary to maintain cost recovery. Latest projections from the RBNZ and other major financial institutions suggest there is significant risk that inflation may be higher than current projections. Fee settings will be reviewed in the next annual budget to ensure any fee increases keep up with actual inflation. Each of the proposed fee changes included in the consultation are discussed below and set out in detail in the Attachment D: Fees and charges change proposals. Attachment C: Amendments to fee charges sets out the fees and charges for 2022/2023.

67.     The alternative to the fee changes proposed is to retain existing fee levels and fund the additional costs from general rates. Staff recommend adjusting the fees to reflect the level of cost recovery for the relevant activities, agreed by the council in previous decisions and set out in the Revenue and Financing Policy.


 

Regulatory fees

Animal management fees

68.     When the council standardised funding for its dog registration activity, it determined that 60 per cent of the cost should be recovered from dog owners through dog registration charges and 40 per cent from general rates. The council considered this an appropriate funding balance in recognition of costs imposed by dog owners and other animal management services, and the wider public benefit from animal management.  Council’s approach to animal review fees was reviewed this year, and staff still consider this policy is appropriate. This approach will continue to be applied to the 2022/2023 fees. 

69.     Due to an increase of approximately 6,000 registered dogs over the past 12 months, revenue is forecast to exceed the underlying increase in costs. The council consulted on a small reduction in the registration charges for responsible dog owners. It was also proposed to introduce a fee of $75 for after-hours impoundment of dogs. This is in addition to the current charge to reflect the higher costs incurred. A range of other fees are being adjusted by percentages slightly higher than council’s cost inflation to ensure appropriate cost recovery.

70.     Eleven feedback points were received on the animal management proposals. Two submitters were in support of a reduction in fees for responsible dog owners whereas three did not support this proposal, commenting that the cost of animal management should be paid by users.  Other comments were that few services were received for animal licence fees and that there should be fee reductions for those with a community services card. 

71.     The SPCA commented that the proposed fee for after-hours impoundment will disproportionally impact on low-income earners and will be a barrier to owners reclaiming their dogs.

Building consent fees

72.     The council consulted on only requiring a building consent for the installation of rainwater tanks that are connected to internal plumbing systems and to introduce fees for this service. There will be a base fee of $560 for processing and a fee of $174 for additional inspection deposits, if required.

73.     Nine feedback points were received on this proposal.  Two submitters generally supported the proposal to remove the requirement for a consent for unconnected rainwater tanks.  Three submitters did not support the fee to connect rainwater tanks to internal plumbing systems, commenting that rainwater tank usage should be encouraged and is important for water conservation. Others thought that rainwater tanks should be mandated for new builds.

Resource Consent and other regulatory fees

74.     The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 regulates activities that take place within or near natural wetlands. A new application deposit fee of $1,000 to recover the cost of processing permitted activity notices is proposed.

75.     Adjustments to other regulatory fees to better reflect the complexity of work required were also proposed.  These amendments are discussed in more detail in Attachment D: Fees and charges changes proposal. Attachment C: Amendments to fees and charges sets out the fees and charges for 2022/2023.

76.     Four responses were received on other regulatory fee proposals.  Two submitters did not support this proposal, commenting that the fees were too high.  The Property Council did not oppose the proposal for regulatory fees to reflect the complexity of the work required however they commented that increased fees should align with increased levels of service.  In particular, they were concerned with the delays in processing consents. 


 

Cemetery Services

77.     Fees and charges for Cemetery Services have undergone several minor reviews. However, a significant review of fees and charges across all locations had not been undertaken for services across the region.

78.     Staff have reviewed cemetery fees using the following criteria:

·        consistency across sites

·        clear and easily understood fees

·        ensuring an appropriate level of cost-recovery where required

·        alignment with the market where appropriate

·        provision of affordable options for essential services.

79.     A Cemetery Fees Framework was completed as the first stage of this two-phase review.  The council consulted on standardising fees for most services across all locations. The remaining fees for burial plots and related services will be reviewed in the next year. This next stage of the review will also investigate the appropriate level of cost recovery for all fees to enable the council to transition towards providing a consistent regional service.

80.     The new Cemetery Fee Framework which was consulted on included:

·     consolidation of 22 fee groups to nine with 1-4 sub-groups

·     renaming of 52 products and services to simplify and improve consistency

·     categorising cemeteries into a tiered system

·     grouping of ash plots into standard, standard+ and premium options.

81.     The framework standardises cemeteries by tier:

Tier 1 - Main

Manukau Memorial Gardens, North Shore Memorial Park and Waikumete Cemetery

Tier 2 – Satellite

All other cemetery sites, excluding Great Barrier Cemeteries

Tier 3 - Great Barrier cemeteries

 

Āotea/Great Barrier Local board have delegation for decisions on cemeteries located on Aotea/Great Barrier Island. These cemeteries have been included in this review for local board decision making.

82.     All fees and changes were proposed to change due to the wide variety of charges currently in place across all locations.  The overall impact of the proposal is not expected to materially change the financial performance of the service as a whole. Instead, we expect this change will be neutral as there will be a minor increase in burial and disinterment revenue and a minor decrease in facility hire and cremation service revenue.

83.     As part of the annual budget process public feedback was sought on an alternative fee structure for chapel hire.  No specific feedback was received on this proposal. Following consultation further information on costs has become available and we are about to begin renegotiation of chapel hire related contracts. Until this work is completed staff recommend that the chapel hire fee structure remains unchanged and only inflationary adjustments are made to these fees. The chapel hire fee structure will be addressed in phase two of the cemetery fee review next year.  Attachment C: Amendments to fees and charges sets out the fees and charges for 2022/2023. A full schedule of fees proposed in the consultation is in Attachment D: Fees and charges changes proposal.


 

Feedback

84.     Two responses were received through the consultation.  Both indicated their support for these proposals. 

Local Board feedback on proposed changes to fees and charges

85.     Seven local boards provided their feedback on proposed changes to fees and charges.  Six local boards (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura and Waitematā Local Boards) were in support of the proposed changes. 

86.     Other comments provided by local boards were that:

·    the focus should be on increasing utilisation to increase revenue (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board)

·    there was support for increasing resources to ensure the enforcement of bylaws (Ōrākei Local Board)

·    the council booking systems and associated collection of fees are reviewed to ensure that fees are being effectively collected (Ōrākei Local Board)

·    the importance of balancing greater facility utilisation at a lower charge, versus the possibility of a facility being used less as a result of increased charges (Papakura Local Board)

·    fees and charges but should be increased by 5 per cent or the level of inflation (Waitematā Local Board).

Recommendation

87.       Staff recommend that the proposed changes to fees and charges be adopted.

Some targeted rates to be set higher than levels consulted on

88.     The following targeted rates, which are set to fully recover the costs or the foregone revenue for the relevant services, will be set at a level higher than that indicated in the consultation materials, to reflect the higher than anticipated inflation of costs in the underlying services.

Targeted rate

Inflation rate used in consultation materials

Inflation rate to be used in rates setting

Basis of setting the inflation rate

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe swimming pool targeted rates

2.5 per cent

5.0 per cent

Average increase in active recreation facilities fees

Swimming/spa pool fencing compliance targeted rate

2.5 per cent

5.0 per cent

Operational costs increase in pool inspection service

Rodney drainage districts targeted rate

2.5 per cent

4.9 per cent

Operational costs increase in stormwater management

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

89.       Recommendations in this report have a primarily neutral climate impact as they relate to the allocation of charges rather than decisions on activities to be undertaken.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

90.       The proposals in this report have been communicated to, and agreed on, by the following departments or business units of the Auckland Council group:

a)      Waste Solutions

b)      Arts Community and Events

c)       Regulatory Services.

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

Local impacts and local board views

91.       Local boards provided their views on the impacts of regional decisions on their local areas at the 25 May workshop of the Finance and Performance Committee. Their views are included under each of the proposals and in the local board feedback and advocacy report to the committee on this meeting’s agenda.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

92.       The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers so is not able to identify the exact impact on the proposed changes on Māori. The impact of the proposed changes on Māori will be similar to that on other residents in Auckland.

93.       Consultation on the annual budget included engagement with mana whenua from 19 iwi authorities, nine of whom made written submissions.  Three mana whenua entities also made presentations to the Governing Body in March.

94.       Responses from Māori submitters and mana whenua were similar to the overall feedback.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

95.         The financial implications of the recommended charges are noted in the relevant sections above.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

96.     Some Aucklanders may be concerned about the level of increase in their rates and/or fees under the proposals in this report. The council wrote to ratepayers affected by proposed changes to waste opt outs discussed in this report to advise them of the changes the council is considering. Letters were also sent to ratepayers affected by the proposed change to the Urban Rating Area on Waiheke. Ratepayers affected were alerted to the proposals and consultation was designed to raise wider awareness. We advised affected ratepayers and customers how they could get more information and the opportunities to make their views known both in person and in writing. Support for rates for low income households is available through central government’s rates rebate scheme. Residential ratepayers may also postpone the payment of rates under the council’s Rates Remission and Postponement Policy. These schemes are advertised in the council’s rates notices, and advised to customers who contact us.


 

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

97.     Decisions made by the Governing Body in response to the Finance and Performance Committee’s recommendations made at this meeting will be incorporated into the Annual Budget 2022/2023. On 29 June 2022, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the Annual Budget 2022/2023 and set rates for the 2022/2023 financial year. Changes to fees arising from decisions made in response to this report will be implemented from 1 July 2022.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Service standards for residential multi-unit developments (MUDs)

465

b

Roll out of food scraps service and standardisation of liability for waste management targeted rates

467

c

Amendments to fees and charges

483

d

Fees and charges change proposal

491

e

Proposed changes to other rating matters

503

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Eric Wen - Senior Advisor -  Financial Policy

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor - Fin Policy

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor – Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Table

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A picture containing table

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Map

Description automatically generated

Map

Description automatically generated

Map

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, application, table

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Graphical user interface, table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, Word

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Rating of Whenua Māori: Adoption of Rates Remission and Postponement policies

File No.: CP2022/05957

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To recommend the adoption of the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy (in Attachment A to this report) and the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy (in Attachment B to this report).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       In February and March of this year council consulted on proposed amendments to its Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and Rates Remission and Postponement Policy. A full analysis of feedback received during consultation is in Attachment C to this report.

3.       Changes to these policies were proposed in response to amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) made through the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021 (the Amendment Act). The amendments require the council’s funding and financing policies to support the principles in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. These principles can be summarised as:

·    reaffirmation of the special relationship between the Māori people and the Crown established in the Treaty of Waitangi

·    recognition that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to Māori people

·    promotion of the retention of that land in the hands of its owners, their whānau, and their hapū, and to protect wāhi tapu

·    facilitation of the occupation, development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whānau, and their hapū.

Proposals

4.       Changes were proposed to both the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and Rates Remission and Postponement Policy to:

·    add an objective to support the principles of the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993

·    add an objective to support achievement of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau (Māori Outcomes Framework) objectives

·    expand the definition of Māori land to clearly identify the categories of land eligible for remission under the policies

·    move the remission for residents who occupy papakāinga housing under a licence to occupy scheme from the general rates remission policy to the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

·    remove redundant or expired remission schemes

·    improve administration of the policies.

5.       It was also proposed that a new scheme for Māori land under development be included in the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

Feedback

6.       Feedback was received from seven Māori entities representing around 26,000 members, including landowners and wider iwi members. A majority of these entities (57 percent) supported the proposals. The other Māori entities wanted greater support for Māori land. 

7.       A further 23 submissions were received from individuals. Over 80 per cent of these submissions were opposed to the proposals. The main reason for opposing the proposal was due to concerns about special treatment for Māori.

Response to feedback

8.       Staff recommend adopting the policies as proposed but with the following amendments to the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy:

·    amend the Part 2 - Remission to adjust Māori land rateable land values to enable council to apply a remission under this scheme automatically without requiring an application from the ratepayer; where the council is satisfied that the criteria for the scheme are met.  The council’s current Māori land remission policy allows the Part 2 remission scheme to be applied automatically, however this ability was inadvertently excluded from the draft policy that was consulted on. The ability to apply this remission scheme automatically should be reinstated in the policy for adoption as council did not identify its removal in the consultation material for the policy.  

·    minor editorial amendments - these changes do not make any substantive changes to the policy and simply improve clarity of the text.

9.       All changes to the policy text since consultation are marked in the attached policy documents. Adopting the attached policies will respond to the new obligations introduced through recent amendments to the Local Government Act 2002.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      whakaae / agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it adopt the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy in Attachment A to this report, to be effective and replace the existing policy from 1 July 2022

b)      whakaae / agree to recommend to the Governing Body that it adopt the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy in Attachment B to this report, to be effective and replace the existing policy from 1 July 2022.

Horopaki

Context

10.     Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) made through the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021 (the Amendment Act) require council’s funding and financial policies to support the principles set out in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. The following policies must be reviewed for compliance with the new section 102(3A) of the LGA:

Policy

Date policy needs to comply

Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

1 July 2022

Revenue and Financing Policy

Rates Remissions and Postponement Policy

Whichever is earliest:

·    The next review after 1 July 2021

·    1 July 2024

11.     The council is also required to review its Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy every six years and the last review was in 2015/2016.

12.     In addition, the legislative amendments referred to above established a statutory remission scheme for Māori freehold land that is or is intended to be developed.  This is separate to any policy remission scheme that council may establish.  Under this new statutory scheme, council must now consider applications for remission of rates for Māori freehold land that is or will be developed, where that development is likely to have certain specified benefits. Under these amendments, council is not required to grant a remission, but the legislation identifies the factors that must be considered when making a decision on an application.

13.     The proposals address the required policy changes together, enabling a unified policy response to the issue of supporting Māori to retain and utilise their land.

Engagement and Consultation

14.     Public consultation was undertaken on the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and Rates Remission and Postponement Policy from 28 February to 28 March 2021.

15.     Targeted consultation was undertaken for Māori landowners, mana whenua and mataawaka organisations. This included:

·    a proposal document and feedback form sent to all Māori land ratepayers, mana whenua and mataawaka contacts

·    a targeted online Have Your Say event for Māori

·    discussion of the issue at annual budget events for Māori.

What Māori land the current policy applies to

16.     The council’s current Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy is available to Māori freehold land that is in multiple ownership. The policy also applies to other types of Māori land that is in multiple ownership, including land returned under settlement, and land converted from Māori freehold land title under the Māori Affairs Act 1967, where the council considers it just and equitable to do so. These other types of Māori land are not explicitly defined in the policy. The current policy is not available for land that is out of Māori ownership, is commercially leased or not held in accordance with tikanga Māori values, or is used for purposes which do not align with the policy objectives.

Current support for Māori land

17.     The council’s current Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy offers:

·    full remission for land that is undeveloped and unused

·    full remission for marae and urupā - these properties are now non-rateable under the Local Government (Rating) Act, so this scheme is redundant

·    partial remission to adjust rateable values - this remission can be applied in cases where the highest and best use of the property is unlikely to be achieved within Maori ownership or due to other impediments on how the property can be used   

·    partial remission for Māori land used for non-commercial purposes for the community benefit of Māori

·    remission for arrears on Māori land if current rates are paid for three years.

18.     The current Rates Remission and Postponement Policy provides partial remissions for:

·    multiple Māori land units used as a single property

·    residents of papakāinga who are unable to access the government’s rate rebate scheme.

Valuing Māori land

19.     Land is valued for rating purposes in accordance with the Rating Valuations Act 1998 and rules made under that act by the Valuer General. Discounts are applied to Māori freehold land values as follows:

·    fixed discount of $7,000 reflecting the costs of complying with Māori land court rules

·    a variable discount of up to 15 per cent which is based on the number of owners, the presence of wāhi tapu or other sites of special significance on the land.

20.     The purpose of these valuation discounts is to recognise limitations on the use and sale of the land, including:

·    restrictions on the sale of Māori freehold land under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. This makes it difficult for owners to borrow against the land to develop it. Other types of Māori land may also have restrictions on their sale or use under Settlement Act legislation.

·    difficulties administering the land due to the large numbers of owners that need to approve changes. Ownership of the land is passed down within families to successive generations. This can result in large numbers of owners; in Auckland Māori land properties have an average of 500 owners. While a trust can be established to administer the land, this in itself requires the agreement of a majority of owners. Achieving agreement can be very difficult if owners are dispersed, or if succession has not occurred following the death of an owner.

21.     Valuation discounts only apply to land in Māori freehold land title. Other categories of Māori land do not receive discounts, even though the landowners may face similar impediments to using or selling the land.

Revenue and Financing Policy

22.     Amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy were consulted on alongside the two remission policies, including amendments to reflect the new requirement to support the principles in the preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Final recommendations for amending the Revenue and Financing Policy will depend on decisions made on the annual budget to be made at this meeting. Feedback and recommendations for the Revenue and Financing Policy will be reported to 29 June meeting of the Governing Body.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

Proposals

23.     The following changes were proposed to the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy:

·    add objectives to support the principles of the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and support achievement of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau (Māori Outcomes Framework) objectives

·    remove the remission scheme for marae and urupā. These properties are now fully non-rateable under legislation, meaning the policy remissions are redundant.

·    introduce a new remission scheme for Māori land under development.


 

Under this scheme, council will remit rates on Māori land that prior to development was non-rateable, or receiving a remission on the basis that it was unused, in cases where the development means that the land would otherwise become liable for rates before completion of the development.  Other Māori land may be eligible for a full or partial remission if the development provides additional residential accommodation for the owners, their hapū or iwi, or community facilities for the benefit of Māori.

Under recent amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act, there is a separate but overlapping statutory remission scheme.  Owners who are developing, or planning to develop Māori freehold land can apply to council for remission under section 114A of the Local Government (Rating) Act, where the development is likely to have certain specified benefits.  In contrast, the proposed policy remission scheme applies to more Māori land than just Māori freehold land, and has different criteria.  Staff consider that the policy scheme provides greater certainty and is more straightforward than the statutory pathway. 

·    expand the definition of Māori land to clearly identify the categories of land eligible for remission under the policy

·    include remission for residents who occupy papakāinga housing under a licence to occupy scheme, currently included in the general rates remission policy.

Feedback

24.     A full analysis of feedback received on the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy can be found in Attachment C to the report.

25.     Feedback on the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy was received from 23 individuals and seven Māori entities. Four (57 percent) of the Māori entities supported the proposal, responding that the proposal appropriately addressed the legislative changes. The three entities who provided another response wanted more support for Māori land, either by:

·    not charging rates on Māori land until a “more equitable” system of assessing rates for Māori land (one not based on market valuations) could be implemented (two submitters)

·    not charging rates to Māori land in recognition of land loss (one submitter).

26.     Key feedback from Māori entities included that:

·    council should offer greater support for papakāinga land that will not be alienated

·    proposed discounts do not go far enough and do not reflect the true extent of the differences between Māori owned land and general land

·    high rates impact on owners’ ability to retain the land

·    valuations based on market value is inequitable given land will never be sold

·    rateable values for Māori land were impacted by intensive development on nearby non-Māori land, while planning rules restrict further development on Māori land

·    council policies did not recognise sites used for the burial of whenua (placenta)

·    council needs to identify how it applies the principles [of the preamble of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act] in practice.

27.     Individual submitters mostly did not support the proposal, with 83 per cent opposed and 9 per cent in support. The main reason for not supporting the proposal was the submitter opposing special treatment for Māori. There was higher support for aspects of the proposal, with 44 percent of responses supporting clarification of the definition of Māori land, and 28 per cent supporting retaining existing remissions for Māori land.


 

28.     In addition to formal submissions, feedback was received through Have Your Say events held for Māori. Feedback from these events included:

·    the need to align the proposals with the aspirations of Māori and work together to create better outcomes for Māori

·    that further work is required to identify Māori land and ensure it is rated correctly.

29.     Attendees at the online events also requested further information on how council defines papakāinga and how land returned under settlement and land held in whānau trusts is treated.

Compliance with the Local Government Act 2002

30.     Section 108 (4) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the council to consider the matters set out in Schedule 11 of that Act when determining a remission and postponement policy for Māori freehold land rates.  Schedule 11 identifies nine objectives, and requires that the council consider:

·    the desirability and importance within the district of each of those objectives

·    whether, and to what extent, the attainment of any of those objectives could be prejudicially affected if there is no remission of rates or postponement of the requirement to pay rates on Māori freehold land

·    whether, and to what extent, the attainment of those objectives is likely to be facilitated by the remission of rates or postponement of the requirement to pay rates on Māori freehold land

·    the extent to which different criteria and conditions for rates relief may contribute to different objectives.

31.     Attachment D to this report contains a table setting out each of these objectives and assessing how the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy for adoption responds to them. These matters were also considered during the development of the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy, and this attachment was included in the Proposal to amend the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy document which was adopted for consultation by the Governing Body on 8 February 2022. 

Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

Proposals

32.     The following changes were proposed to the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy:

·    add objectives to support the principles of the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and support achievement of Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau (Māori Outcomes Framework) objectives

·    align the definition of Māori land with that proposed in the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

·    remove the postponement of rates for land described as Lot 2 DP 476554 or Lot 2 DP 510763 scheme, as this scheme expired on 30 June 2021

·    remove the remission for residents who occupy papakāinga housing under a licence to occupy scheme to now be included in the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

Feedback

33.     A full analysis of feedback received on the Remission and Postponement Policy can be found in Attachment C to the report.


 

34.     Feedback on the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy was received from 23 individual and four Māori entities. Two (50 percent) of the Māori entities supported the proposal, responding that the proposal appropriately responded to the legislative changes. The two entities who provided another response generally supported the proposal or did not comment.

35.     Individual submitters mostly did not support the proposal, with 87 per cent opposed and 9 per cent in support. The two individuals who supported the proposal did not provide a reason for their support. Of the 19 individuals who did not support the proposal, 12 did not give a reason, while six submitters thought that all ratepayers should be treated equally, with no special treatment based on race.

Response to feedback on both remission policies

36.     The Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement are designed to complement each other, with the former addressing general rating issues (that may also apply to Māori land) while the latter deals with issues specific to Māori land. For this reason, staff have considered the feedback on both these policies together.

37.     At this stage of the process, the council may either accept or reject some or all of the proposals that were consulted on. If council wanted to make material changes to the proposal as consulted on, it would need to consider whether further consultation is needed before making those changes.

Submissions requesting changes to the proposals

38.     Submitters who chose another response generally sought additional support for Māori land. The key changes requested were:

·    remissions for sites used for burial of whenua (placenta)

·    greater discounts for Māori land, as rating valuations do not fairly reflect the differences between Māori and general land

·    greater support for papakāinga land that will not be alienated

·    remission of all rates on all Māori land.

39.     Of these issues, the first two are currently being considered by staff through remissions schemes available in both the current and proposed Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement schemes. Staff are in contact with the owners of the land used for burial of whenua regarding the application of a remission for unused land that is set aside, in this case on the grounds of being wāhi tapu. Staff are also considering whether the issues raised in relation to the valuation of Māori land can be addressed through the existing remission scheme to adjust rateable valuations on Māori land.

40.     The request for support for papakāinga land relates to land purchased by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust to be developed as papakāinga housing for iwi members. As the land is in general title it does not receive the valuation discounts that apply to their papakāinga properties that are on Māori freehold land.

41.     The definition of Māori land to be included in the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy was considered by the Finance and Performance Committee at its 8 December 2021 meeting.  Land returned for commercial redress, or which is purchased by the owners, is excluded from eligibility for remissions under the proposed policy, unless it is:

·    is set aside and protected for cultural, historic or natural conservation purposes or because it is wāhi tapu (under Part 1 of the policy)

·    used for the community benefit of Māori (under Part 4 of the policy)

·    used for papakāinga housing with licence to occupy tenancies (under Part 6 of the policy).[5]

42.     Staff note the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust could consider the transfer of their general title papakāinga land to Māori freehold land title. This would enable Māori freehold land valuation discounts to be applied. The merits of such an approach is ultimately a matter for the trust to weigh.

43.     The option of remitting all rates on Māori freehold land was considered and rejected by council during the development of the current Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy in 2015/2016. The cost of such a remission, if restricted to Māori freehold land owned and occupied by Māori, would be around $600,000 in the current year.

44.     The legislative amendments introduced by the Amendment Act do not expressly require council to apply remissions to Māori land.  The new requirement in s102(3A) is for the specified funding and financial policies to support the principles in the preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, and council has discretion as to how it gives effect to this requirement. 

45.     The request for greater support for papakāinga land, and the request for remission of all rates on all Māori land would significantly expand the scope and cost of the both the current and proposed remission policies.  Any such change would require full consideration and consultation before it could be included in the policy. If council would like to consider these issues further, then a direction can be made to staff to report back on a proposal for policy options.

Submissions opposed to the proposal

46.     While the majority of individual submissions opposed the proposals, this was largely in the context of opposing remissions for Māori land in general rather than concerns with the proposals consulted on. Removing current remissions for Māori land beyond the redundant schemes identified in consultation is outside the scope of the proposals that were consulted on. Removing Māori land remissions would also raise the risk that council is not complying with the Local Government Act 2002 requirements to support the principles of the preamble to the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act.  As such staff do not recommend any changes to the proposed policy amendments in response to this feedback.

Recommendations

47.     After considering all feedback, staff recommend adopting the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy as proposed. Staff recommend adopting the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy with amendments to:

·    enable council to continue to apply the Part 2 remission scheme automatically without requiring an application from the ratepayer; where the council is satisfied that the criteria for the scheme are met.  The council’s current Māori land remission policy allows the Part 2 remission scheme to be applied automatically, however this ability was inadvertently excluded from the draft policy that was consulted on. The ability to apply this remission scheme automatically should be reinstated in the policy for adoption as council did not identify its removal in the consultation material for the policy.  

·    minor editorial changes to clarify the text.  

48.     All changes to the policy text since consultation are marked in the attached policy documents. Adopting the attached policies will respond to the new obligations introduced through recent amendments to the Local Government Act 2002.


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

49.     Recommendations in this report have a neutral climate impact as they relate to the allocation of charges rather than decisions on activities to be undertaken.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

50.     The issues in this report do not impact on the wider council group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

51.     In November 2021, the local boards were asked to provide feedback on the proposals to consult on amendments to the rates remission and postponement policies. Of the 18 local boards who resolved feedback on the Māori Land Rates Remissions and Postponement Policy and Rates Remissions and Postponement Policy, 14 supported the changes proposed to the policies (Aotea / Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, Whau).

52.     Four local boards did not indicate their position on the policy changes, but provided the following feedback:

·    Ōrākei Local Board supported reviewing the remission of rates of Māori freehold land used for community benefit as required by central government, and encouraged the Governing Body to reflect on the fundamental purpose and equitable treatment of rates regardless of Māori freehold status or other freehold status

·    Puketāpapa Local Board support the mana of the Independent Māori Statutory Board and mana whenua to be consulted [on these policies]

·    Rodney Local Board supported consultation on both policies and will consider constituent feedback prior to developing its views. The board had not resolved feedback on this issue at the time of writing.

·    Upper Harbour supported the remission and postponement policy proposed for marae and papakāinga but did not support remission and postponement for commercial land. [Note: the proposed policy excludes land returned for commercial redress, and land purchased by the owners, except where the land is formally set aside and protected for particular purposes, used for community benefit of Māori, or use for papakāinga housing with licence to occupy tenancies.]

53.     Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki and Waiheke local boards did not resolve feedback on this issue. Local boards’ resolutions on this issue can be found in Attachment C to the report.

54.     The low number of public submissions received on these topics means that the value of analysing feedback by local board area is limited. The highest number of submissions in any board area was four, while no submissions were received from nine board areas.  A breakdown of individual submissions by local board area can be found in Attachment C to this report.

55.     The costs of foregone revenue for rates remissions are managed regionally, so there is no impact on local budgets. Local boards with Māori land in their area may benefit from local Māori landowners having greater access to rates remissions. 


 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56.     Issues related to Māori land and how that is rated have high significance for Māori landowners. Targeted consultation was undertaken for Māori landowners, mana whenua and mataawaka organisations. A summary consultation document and feedback form covering all three policies was issued to Māori landowners, and mana whenua and mataawaka contacts. A Have Your Say event targeted to Māori was held for the policies.

57.     The advice provided in the report has also considered views of Ngā Mātārae, the Māori Housing Unit in the Development Programme Office, staff of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and Māori outcome leads across council.

58.     The primary impact for Māori landowners of these proposals will be the ability to apply for rates remission for some types of Māori land under development. While owners developing or intending to develop Māori freehold land may already apply for consideration of a rates remission under section 114A of the Local Government (Rating) Act, our proposed policy:

·    provides a simpler mechanism and greater certainty for owners undertaking development on unused or non-rateable land, or who are building community facilities or additional housing for the owners, their hapū or iwi members

·    is able to apply to a broader range of Māori land than just Māori freehold land.

59.     Other changes proposed to the two policies will provide greater clarity in the interpretation and application of the policies.

60.     Staff note the importance of ensuring Māori landowners can effectively access the new remission schemes. The council website will be updated to make information on Māori land remissions more accessible and to provide contacts for assistance.  Submitters and Māori landowners will be notified of the policy changes agreed by council.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

61.     There are no financial implications from the changes proposed to the Rates Remissions and Postponement Policy. The changes proposed are to assist administration of the policy, and not change eligibility or the level of support provided.

62.     Most of the changes proposed to the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy are similarly administrative in nature. The two exceptions are the new remission for land under development, and the amendment to the definition of what qualifies as Māori land.

63.     The cost of introducing a new remission for Māori land under development should be seen in the context of owners of Māori freehold land already having the ability for rates remission under section 114A of the Local Government (Rating) Act.  Any cost as a result of the decisions recommended in this report would only be for land eligible for remission under our scheme beyond land that is eligible under legislation. The cost of this scheme will depend on the number of applications and will vary between years. Total rates for Māori freehold land owned and occupied by Māori were less than $600,000 in the current year. The low development potential of most whenua Māori in Auckland suggests remissions will be in the range of a few thousand a year.

64.     The proposed changes to the definition of Māori land primarily act to clarify eligibility for the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and are expected to have very minor financial implications.

65.     The financial implications of the proposed changes to policies noted above were considered at the 8 December 2021 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

66.     It is not possible for staff to identify a comprehensive database of all land that could qualify as Māori freehold land that was compulsorily converted to general title under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. This creates uncertainty regarding the potential cost of remissions.

67.     Māori land converted under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 is already eligible for remissions under the current Māori land remission policy. To date, applications for remissions have been received for only two properties in general land title. This situation is unlikely to change until such land is identified, and the availability of council support promoted to owners.

68.     Staff have undertaken an initial review of property data and identified around 100 properties that are potentially former Māori freehold land (as identified by a Māori land designation in the legal description) and which have common owners with other Māori land. Council is unable to formally identify such land now. To do so requires the agreement and assistance of landowners to establish the relationship between the current and original owners of the land. Such land is only likely to be identified gradually which reduces the risk of sudden changes in rates remissions. Any financial cost is not expected to be material and spread over time.

69.     At this stage of the process the key risks are compliance and timing. Under the legislative requirements established by the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021, the council must review the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy for compliance with the new requirement in s102(3A) of the LGA, and amend or replace it as required by 1 July 2022. Council must do so in respect of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy by 1 July 2024, or the next general review of the policy that council undertakes (whichever is earlier).

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

70.     The amended Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and Rates Remissions and Postponement Policy is proposed to be effective from 1 July 2022.

71.     The Revenue and Financing Policy will be amended to reflect decisions on Climate Action Targeted Rate as part of the decisions on the Annual Budget 2022/2023 that is on a separate report on the agenda for this meeting. The final Revenue and Financing Policy will be recommended for adoption at the 29 June meeting of the Governing Body.

72.     Work will continue within council to improve the Māori land dataset held by council. This includes updating existing Māori freehold land and Treaty Settlement Land datasets and identifying former Māori freehold land converted to general title under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act and other general title land in Māori ownership. There is also work underway to improve accessibility to information on the services council offers to Māori and Māori landowners through the council’s website. Some of these projects are still in the initial phase of planning. Details of the deliverables, timeframe and reporting lines will be available when the formal project plan has been completed.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement Policy for Adoption

519

b

Rates Remission and Postponement Policy for Adoption

529

c

Consultation and Local Board feedback

535

d

Assessment of matters relating to rates relief on Māori freehold land considered

547

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor - Financial Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated

Text, letter

Description automatically generated


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Table

Description automatically generated

Table, Word

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Text

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated

Table

Description automatically generated with low confidence


Finance and Performance Committee

07 June 2022

 

Text

Description automatically generated

Graphical user interface, text, application

Description automatically generated

A picture containing Word

Description automatically generated

Text, table

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Text

Description automatically generated



[1] Section 44(e) of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) requires that any amendment to the waste plan uses the special consultative procedure (SCP) set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and that the most recent waste assessment undertaken by the council be notified with the statement of proposal.

[2] The council defines a separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP) as ‘any part of a rating unit that is separately used or inhabited by the ratepayer, or by any other person having a right to use or inhabit that part by virtue of a tenancy, lease, licence or any other agreement. Examples include a main dwelling and a minor unit on the same section (two SUIPs) and each shop in a shopping mall.

[3] https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/Transforming-recycling-consultation-document.pdf

[4] Land in the Hall’s Farm and Ockleston Landing Urban Rating Area maps is also excluded.

[5] This remission scheme allows council to remit the uniform annual general charge for residents of papakāinga housing who would otherwise qualify for central government’s rate rebate scheme, except they occupy their property under a licence to occupy agreement. It does not provide a general remission for land used for papakāinga.