|
Upper Harbour
Local Board
11 May 2023
|
|
Wastewater
capacity upgrade at Hobsonville Point
File No.: CP2023/05104
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
approve the vesting of an additional 1000m2 of land as a reserve on
the south-eastern portion of the site to offset the land required for the
wastewater pump station.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Ongoing
and future residential and commercial development in Hobsonville Point is putting
pressure on existing wastewater network capacity in the area.
3. The
existing wastewater pump station services a catchment area including Launch
Bay, Catalina Bay and the Airfields Precinct. It was completed in 2017 and is
expected to service the catchment. A capacity review study undertaken by
Harrison Grierson consultants indicates that future demand will exceed the
capacity of the existing wastewater pump station.
4. Land
for a new wastewater pump station is required to support further planned residential
and commercial development.
5. The
responsibility for delivering wastewater services to enable development in the
area sits with Eke Panuku and Kāinga Ora.
6. This
responsibility is clearly set out in a 2010 Infrastructure Funding Agreement
between Waitākere City Council (now Auckland Council) and Hobsonville Land
Company Limited (now Kāinga Ora).
7. The
Infrastructure Funding Agreement also requires Kāinga Ora to develop and
vest certain land in the area to Auckland Council as reserve.
8. The
most appropriate location for the new wastewater pump station has been
identified as 1,000m2 of yet to be vested reserve land at the corner
of Bomb Point Drive and Glidepath Road, currently owned by Kāinga Ora.
9. To
offset the land needed for the new wastewater pump station, an agreement has
been reached between Eke Panuku, Auckland Council and Kāinga Ora to vest
an additional 1,000m2 of land as reserve with council, within land
held by Kāinga Ora at Te Onekiritea Point.
10. A one-kilometre-long
new underground connector pipe (rising main), to be installed along Glidepath
Road and Hobsonville Point Road in the transport corridor, will join the new
pump station to the wider wastewater reticulation network at the intersection
of Hobsonville Point Road and Baffin Road.
11. Construction
is expected to start in April 2023 and be completed late 2023 to early 2024.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Upper Harbour Local
Board:
a) whakaae
/ approve the vesting of an additional 1,000m2 of land as a reserve
on the south-eastern portion of the site to offset the land required for the
wastewater pump station as set out in Map 2 of this agenda report.
Horopaki
Context
12. The
development of new homes in Hobsonville Point has been steadily occurring since
the master planned community first broke ground.
13. In 2017, the
existing wastewater pump station (PS3) was installed on Hudson Bay Road to
accommodate the projected residential and commercial development of the
surrounding land.
14. Revised
development yield forecasts indicate that PS3’s capacity is not
sufficient to support the expected development in the catchment area.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
15. With the
current wastewater pump infrastructure provided by PS3 at Hobsonville Point
projected to be at capacity by late 2023 or early 2024, Watercare is expected
to refuse consent to any new development that exceeds existing wastewater
network capacity. If this were to occur, it would halt any further land
development in the PS3 catchment area outlined in map 1 below.
Map
1: PS3 catchment area
16. A new
wastewater pump station (PS6) is thus required to supplement PS3. When it comes
online, PS6 will add extra capacity of 32 litres per second at peak wet weather
flow. PS3 currently provides 52 litres per second peak wet weather flow. The
new combined capacity will be 84 litres per second.
17. Watercare
have given approval in principle for this wastewater capacity upgrade. Design
is currently underway to gain Watercare’s Engineering Plan Approval
before works can begin.
18. The location
of PS6 is dictated by the need to gravity feed existing underground wastewater
pipes that already connect PS3 and will further feed into PS6.
19. The only suitable
site for PS6 is near the junction of Bomb Point Drive and Glidepath Road, on
land currently owned by Kāinga Ora. This land is proposed to be vested as
reserve with Auckland Council under the Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA).
The full site to be vested, known as Lot 7, is 1.8732 hectares in size.
20. PS6 will
require 1,000m2 of land to accommodate an access driveway, pumping
equipment and a large underground storage tank. Fencing will prevent
unauthorised access to the plant and equipment.
21. PS6 will thus
reduce Auckland Council’s future reserve land here by 1,000m2,
as shown in blue below in map 2 below.
22. It is
proposed to ‘replace’ the required 1,000m2 of land,
shown in blue, by adding an additional 1,000m2 to the
south-eastern portion of Lot 7, shown in yellow in map 2 below.
Map 2: Lot 7 Plan
showing proposed site for PS6 and identified location for
‘replacement’ reserve land
23. The
construction of PS6 requires removing a small portion of trees and brush. The
same area will be fenced and landscaped on completion, reusing the same onsite
plantings where feasible, or replacing with native planting. The site will also
be landscaped.
24. The pump
station equipment is largely underground and will be vented, with only a
cabinet and small associated equipment visible above ground. An example of a
similar facility is located at 31 Bomb Point Drive. The site is also below the
road level, meaning it will be generally obscured from view. It will be more
than 20 metres from any residential site or residence, which meets
Watercare’s requirements for odour mitigation.
25. The design
includes an emergency storage tank, which can accommodate 8 hours of wastewater
storage during which time any failure can be remedied.
26. Wastewater
will be gravity fed into PS6 and pumped via a new one-kilometre-long rising
main connector pipe as shown in map 3 below. The new pipe will run beneath
Glidepath Road and Hobsonville Point Road, connecting to the wastewater
reticulation network near Baffin Road.
27. Disruption
from construction is expected to be minimal, however the new rising main
installation may temporarily disrupt the road and footpath network as
installation moves along the corridor. This disruption will be minimised by
‘thrusting’ the pipes underground in sections, which will appear to
the public as a series of dug potholes, avoiding having to dig up ground along
the whole route.
28. The staging
and methodology are being worked through and the full details will be shared
once confirmed.
29. A
proactive communications and engagement approach with stakeholders and the
local community will be taken once project details are confirmed.
Map 3:
PS6 Proposed rising main connector pipe, as a yellow line
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
30. The
proposed PS6 site has a 6-metre elevation above sea level. Any potential
coastal inundation from predicted sea level rise will not affect this site. Its
provision and capacity have also been determined with the analysis of peak wet
weather flows.
31. PS6 will
enable the construction of more well designed, medium density housing in
Hobsonville Point, with great amenities (public transport, schools, shops, open
and green space) easily accessible within walking distance. This empowers
Aucklanders to live low-carbon lifestyles.
32. Hobsonville
Point residents already use 25 per cent less electricity and 32 per cent less
water than the Auckland average, with modern, dry and warm homes better
insulated and more sustainable compared to older housing.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
33. Eke Panuku,
Auckland Council’s Parks and Community Facilities team, Watercare and
Kāinga Ora have been working closely on the project to ensure it aligns with
the relevant council and central government strategic obligations and
priorities for the area.
34. Eke Panuku
will work with Auckland Transport to mitigate any disruption to roads or
footpaths as a result of construction work.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
35. Eke Panuku
engaged with the Upper Harbour Local Board at a workshop dated 10 March 2023 to
discuss the project.
36. The Upper
Harbour Local Board raised its concerns about Kāinga Ora’s
obligations to vest the remainder of land for reserve purposes. This obligation
is set out in the Infrastructure Funding Agreement between Kāinga Ora and
Auckland Council. Some 4ha of land is yet to be vested in council’s
ownership by Kāinga Ora, in addition to the 1000m2 required to
offset the land in which PS6 will be located. The vesting of reserve land is
being led by the Parks and Community Facilities division. Parks and Community
Facilities is aware of the additional 1000m2, and this land requirement
will be accounted for in the final area of land to be vested.
37. The
local board queried storage tank capacity, power failure and venting
considerations. PS6 will have 2 separate pumps. If one fails there is another
in reserve. Should a power failure occur, PS6 is alarmed and monitored. The
system is provided with the means to easily connect to an emergency generator.
In the event of a pump failure, the single underground storage tank with PS6 is
2.5 metres in diameter and 29 metres long, with a capacity of 156,000 litres.
Doubling the storage tank capacity is unnecessary and impractical due to the
sloping nature of the site, which will include retaining elements at the top
and bottom. The 8 hours of storage capacity is in full accordance with Watercare
standards and is considered more than satisfactory.
38. The local
board queried impacts on the existing walkway. There will be no impact on any
existing walkway. The site of PS6 will be fully fenced and planted so as to be
aesthetically pleasing and unobtrusive.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
39. Eke Panuku
engaged with mana whenua to invite their feedback on tree removal. No feedback
was received.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
40. The estimated
cost of the project is $7.9m, which will be shared by Eke Panuku and
Kāinga Ora, as per the variation to the IFA.
41. As indicated
earlier, there is an IFA that obligates Auckland Council (via Eke Panuku) and
Kāinga Ora to deliver the infrastructure necessary for enabling development
in the Hobsonville Point area.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
|
Risk
description
|
Mitigation
measure
|
|
Delays on
project due to contractor availability and necessary materials
|
Early
engagement with contractor to ensure availability of resources
|
|
Unrealistic
stakeholder and community input/ response to the proposal
|
Eke Panuku
will attempt to understand concerns and address them as appropriate, provide
information and set realistic expectations.
|
|
Visual impacts
during construction of new wastewater pump station PS6
|
Regular
project updates to stakeholders as part of communications and engagement
approach.
|
|
Duration of
resident and traffic disruption while installing new one-kilometre-long
rising main connector pipe
|
Regular
project updates to stakeholders as part of communications and engagement
approach and proactive communication if any changes occur
|
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
42. Subject to
local board approval, Eke Panuku will progress with the planning, design and
delivery of PS6, in coordination with Auckland Council, Kāinga Ora,
Watercare and Auckland Transport.
43. Construction
of PS6 is expected to start in April 2023 and be completed late 2023 to early
2024.
44. Eke Panuku
will continue to engage with the Upper Harbour Local Board as this project
progresses, including to communicate timing, construction staging and any
associated disruption.
45. Eke Panuku
will communicate with the local community, including neighbouring residents
once the project is confirmed and more details are known.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Peter Johnston – Development Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Marian Webb - GM Assets and Delivery
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager
|
|
Upper Harbour
Local Board
11 May 2023
|
|
Local board consultation feedback and
input into the Annual Budget 2023/2024
File No.: CP2023/05397
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
receive consultation feedback from the Upper Harbour Local Board area on:
· proposed
priorities and activities for the Upper Harbour Local Board Agreement 2023/2024
· proposed
local activities to discontinue, reduce spending on, or
increase fees to meet the Governing Body’s proposed reduction in
local board funding
· regional
topics and related policies for the Annual Budget 2023/2024.
2. To
recommend any local matters to the Governing Body that they will need to
consider or make decisions on in the Annual Budget 2023/2024 process.
3. To
provide input on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Budget 2023/2024 to
the Governing Body.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
4. Local
board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels
of service, performance measures and initiatives for each local board area.
Local board agreements for 2023/2024 will be included in Auckland
Council’s Annual Budget 2023/2024.
5. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February 2023 to 28
March 2023 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget
2023/2024. This included consultation on the Upper Harbour Local Board’s
proposed priorities for 2023/2024 to be included in their
local board agreement and proposed local activities to discontinue,
reduce spending on, or increase fees to meet the Governing Body’s
proposed reduction in local board funding.
6. Auckland Council received 41,147 submissions in total across the
region and 1,340 submissions from the Upper Harbour local board area. A summary
of key feedback for the Upper Harbour area is as follows:
· 78% of submissions
by individuals supported all or most local board key priorities and 76% of
submissions by organisations supported all or most key priorities
· submissions on
proposed Auckland Council operating spending reductions showed mixed views:
o 27% of individuals selected
proceed with the proposed reductions
o 32% of individuals and 50% of
organisations selecting do not proceed with some reductions
o 29% of individuals and 50% of
organisations selected do not proceed with any reductions
· submissions on Amending Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL)
Shareholding Policy showed
mixed views with:
o 32% of individuals
and 30% of organisations selecting proceed with the proposal
o 30% of individuals
and 40% of organisations selecting enable a partial sale
o 26% of individuals
and 15% of organisations selecting don’t change the policy.
· submissions on managing rates and debt showed:
o 28% of submissions
from individuals selected to proceed with the proposed increases to rates and
debt
o 20% of submissions
from individuals selected make greater use of debt
o 29% of submissions
from organisations selected proceed with the proposed increases to rates and
debt
o 29% of submissions
selected set a higher general rates increase
· submissions on the
proposed storm response showed majority support for this proposal with:
o 66% of individuals
and 67% of organisation selecting proceed with the proposal.
7. In the Annual Budget process there are financial matters where local
boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or
decision-making. This includes any local board advocacy initiatives. The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the Annual
Budget decision-making process in June 2023.
8. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide
input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report
provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s
proposed Annual Budget 2023/2024.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Upper Harbour Local
Board:
a) receive consultation feedback on the
proposed Upper Harbour Local Board priorities and activities for 2023/2024
including proposed local activities to discontinue, reduce spending on,
or increase fees, to meet the reduction in local board funding proposed by the
Governing Body.
b) receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the Annual
Budget 2023/2024 and related policies from people and organisations based in
the Upper Harbour local board area.
c) provide input on regional topics in the proposed Annual Budget
2023/2024 and related policies to the Governing Body.
d) provide advocacy on any local initiatives for
the Annual Budget 2023/2024 to the Governing Body.
Horopaki
Context
9. Each
financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed
between the Governing Body and the local board) for each local board area. The
Upper Harbour Local Board Agreement sets out how the Council will reflect the
priorities in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2020 in respect to the local
activities to be provided in the local board area. It includes information
relating to budgets, levels of service, and performance measures.
10. The local
board agreements 2023/2024 will form part of Auckland Council’s Annual
Budget 2023/2024.
11. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February 2023 to 28
March 2023 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget
2023/2024, as well as local board priorities and proposed
activities to be included in the local board agreement 2023/2024.
12. Auckland Council has faced ongoing budget challenges and recent and
rapid increases in inflation and interest rates has placed significant
pressure on the council’s financial position. A forecast budget
deficit of $295 million needs to be addressed in the council’s proposed
Annual Budget 2023/2024.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
13. This
report includes analysis of consultation feedback and seeks input on regional
topics in the proposed Annual Budget 2023/2024.
14. All feedback is available on an Auckland Council
webpage called “Submissions on the Annual Budget 2023/2024” and is
accessible through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/submissions-annual-budget-2023-2024
Consultation feedback overview
15. As part of
the public consultation Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels
to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback
and input into regional and local topics.
16. In total,
Auckland Council received feedback from 41,147 people in the consultation
period. This feedback was received through:
· written
feedback – 35,720 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.
· in
person – 4,488 pieces of feedback through Have Your Say events (one of
which was held in the Upper Harbour local board area).
· social
media – 939 pieces of feedback through Auckland Council social media
channels.
Information on submitters from the Upper Harbour local
board area
17. 1,340 pieces
of feedback were received form people living in the Upper Harbour local board
area.
18. The information in Graph 1 below shows the
distribution of submissions from individuals and organisations in the Upper
Harbour Local Board area by feedback method:
Graph on 1:
Number of submitters from the Upper Harbour local board area by feedback method
19. The information in Graph 2 below shows the
number of submissions from individuals and organisations in the Upper Harbour
Local Board area:
Graph 2:
Number of submissions from individuals and organisations
20. The
27 organisations that identified
Upper Harbour as their local board area are:
· Albany Community Hub
· Auckland Curling
Club
· AUT Millennium
· Business North
Harbour Inc
· Centre for Urban and
Transport Studies
· Discoverers informal
Methodist church
· East Coast Bays
Association Football Club
· FromThePit - annual
music photography exhibition
· Greenhithe Community
Trust
· Greenhithe Community
Trust
· Greenhithe Community
Trust
· Greenhithe Ecology
Network
· GrindHouse Theatre
Company
· Harbour Hockey
Charitable Trust
· Hobsonville bridge
club
· Hobsonville
Community Trust
· Hobsonville Migrants
Group (totaling 80 members from wide range of ethnic groups)
· Hobsonville Support
Group for Parents of Neurodiverse Kids
· Meadowood Community
Centre
· Monarch Dance
Studios
· New Zealand Events
Association
· New Zealand &
China Xh Holding Group LTD
· Shore Grace Church
· Shore Rovers Netball
Club
· Upper Waitemata Ecology
Network
· Whenuapai Ratepayers
and Residents association
· YES Disability
Resource Centre
21. Three
of the 27 submissions on behalf of an organisation are from three different
individuals who submitted on behalf of the Greenhithe Community Trust.
22. There
are 19 organisations that provided feedback on the Upper Harbour Local Board
priorities as follows and identified a different local board as their area:
· Auckland Bands'
Association Inc
· Auckland North
Community and Development Incorporated
· Asian Family
Services
· Digital Seniors
· Harbour Sport Trust
· Harbour Volleyball
Association
· Offgrid Studios
· Okapi Alliance of
New Zealand - Congolese Community
· Mind Over Manner
· Netball North
Harbour
· North Harbour
Budgeting Services Incorporated
· North Harbour Sports
Council
· North Harbour Sports
Council
· North Shore Budget
Service
· Save Our Venues
· Tāmaki Makaurau
Auckland Architecture Association
· The Royal New
Zealand Plunket Trust, (Whānau Āwhina Plunket)
· Women In Urbanism
Aotearoa
· Young Workers
Resource Centre
23. Two
of the 19 submissions on behalf of an organisation are from two different
individuals who submitted on behalf of the North Harbour Sports Council.
24. Graphs 3 and 4 below provide an overview of demographic
categories individuals identified with. This information only relates to those
submitters who provided demographic information:
Graph 3: Ethnicity
Graph 4: Age and Gender
Feedback received for the Upper Harbour
Local Board for 2023/2024
Key priorities in the Upper Harbour Local Board Area
in 2023/2024
25. The Upper Harbour Local Board consulted on the following
priorities for 2023/2024:
· Priority 1: Invest in projects that improve the
environment and address climate change including planting trees as outlined in
the Upper Harbour Urban Ngahere Strategy, continuing to fund volunteer
environmental work, development and implementation of a pest free strategy
· Priority
2: Support library and local community organisations to continue to deliver
outcomes that provide a sense of belonging, wellbeing and resilience for
residents
· Priority
3: Continue to deliver on stage 1A of Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park and
Caribbean Drive sports field upgrade and toilet facility
· Priority
4: Investigate opportunities to implement actions from the Water Access
Assessment to improve access to the Waitemata Harbour
· Priority
5: Progress delivery of the track upgrades at Sanders Reserve to provide for
better tracks for walkers, mountain bikers and horse riders
· Priority
6: Invest in projects that allow communities to continue to enjoy open spaces
such as renewal of playgrounds including Bushlands Reserve and Starlight Park,
updating the Upper Harbour Walking guide and renewal and upgrades of walkways
and paths.
26. 1,195 submissions were received on the Upper Harbour
Local Board’s priorities for 2023/2024.1,031 submissions on the Upper
Harbour Local Board priorities were from within the Upper Harbour local board
area and 164 submissions were from outside of the local board area and provided
feedback on the Upper Harbour Local Board priorities.
27. 1,161 submissions from the local board area are from
individuals and 34 are from organisations.
28. 78% of submissions by individuals supported all or most
local board key priorities and 76% of submissions by organisations supported
all or most key priorities.
29. The below graph provides an overview of how people responded
to the Upper Harbour Local Board key priorities.
Graph 5: Upper
Harbour submissions on local board priorities
30. Key themes identified from comments provided by
submitters on the local board key priorities are detailed in Table 1 below:
Table 1:
Local board key priorities – Key themes
|
Key
themes on local board priorities
|
|
Support
all priorities
|
• views
that local board funded activities are invaluable for local communities and a
preference for local board funding to not be reduced
• views that local boards are the
level of government closest to communities and understand community needs
|
|
Support
most priorities
|
• a
concern that the proposed priorities cannot be completed if local board
funding is reduced
• a preference to prioritise initiatives that benefit the most people
in the local board area rather than select groups
|
|
Do not
support most priorities
|
• views
that some priorities are more important than others
• a preference to prioritise improvements to public transport systems
and road infrastructure
|
|
Do not
support any priorities
|
• views
that most of the proposed priorities are non-urgent and can wait until
financially better times
• views
that the proposed priorities are “nice to have” and are
considered luxury activities
• views that the proposed
priorities should be cut in place of other priorities such as roads,
transport and other important infrastructure
|
|
Other
|
• interest expressed in optimisation of assets including unused
facilities and unused land
|
|
Priority
1: Invest in projects
that improve the environment and address climate change
|
• views
that climate action is the communities biggest challenge and climate action
should be the biggest priority
• views
that a reduction in climate action will cause greater harm in the long term
• views
that climate action is even more important now following recent weather
events
|
|
Priority
2: Support library
and local community organisations to continue to deliver outcomes that
provide a sense of belonging, wellbeing and resilience for residents
|
• views
expressing the importance of community initiatives and the role they play in
community resilience and social cohesion – particularly in times of
crisis
• recognition
of the role community initiatives play in supporting community interaction
and participation - with particular focus on seniors and youth.
• significant
support for community houses
• views
expressing the value of libraries as a community space and connection to
activities and resources – particularly for mothers, migrants and
isolated people
|
|
Priority
3: Continue to
deliver on stage 1A of Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park and Caribbean
Drive sports field upgrade and toilet facility
|
In support
• Scott
Point Sustainable Sports park is important for the local community
• views
that sport facilities are essential for engagement and connectivity,
especially for youth
Do not support
• views
that these are two major projects which are not important enough to
prioritise
• views
that the two projects do not impact enough people
• views that there are already
enough sports facilities and resources are best utilised else where
|
|
Priority
4: Investigate
opportunities to implement actions from the Water Access Assessment to
improve access to the Waitemata Harbour
|
• views
that this is not a priority right now
|
|
Priority
5: Progress delivery
of the track upgrades at Sanders Reserve to provide for better tracks for
walkers, mountain bikers and horse riders
|
• views
that Sanders Reserve is great as it is
• views
that although this priority is worthwhile in the long term, considering the
current financial context it should not be a priority right now
• views
that current priorities should focus on initiatives that impact a wider group
of people
|
|
Priority
6: Invest in projects
that allow communities to continue to enjoy open spaces such as renewal of
playgrounds
|
In
Support
• views
expressing the value of open space as a meeting place and recreational space
• views
expressing the importance of public, open spaces for general mental and
physical wellbeing
• views
expressing the significance of playgrounds for children
Do not
support
• views
that walking tracks and playgrounds are not a priority when faced with
financial challenges
• a preference to focus only on maintenance of existing assets rather
than embarking on new projects
|
31. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered
by the local board when approving their local board agreement between 20-22
June 2023.
Responding
to the budget challenge
32. The
council’s proposed response to mitigate the budget pressures for
2023/2024 included a proposed reduction of $16 million to local board
operational funding – this would require the Upper Harbour Local Board to
reduce its planned operating spend by $534,000.
33. To do this,
local boards would need to make tough decisions, prioritising what they do and
where they invest. Aucklanders were asked for their
priorities given the proposed reduction would mean some local activities
would have to be discontinued, have reduced spending, or increased fees.
34. The table below gives an overview of the responses from
the 1,255 submitters that selected one to three of the below options as their
top three priority services in the Upper Harbour local board area –
submission data from both individuals and organisations have been combined and
represented in the figures provided:
Table 2: Top three priorities
by service from most important to least important
|
Rank
|
Priority
(service level)
|
Key
Themes
|
Number
of submitters (approx. %)
|
|
1
|
Environmental restoration
and pest control e.g. ecology initiatives assistance programme
|
• reducing
animal and plant pests is high priority
• restoration
and pest control initiatives benefit the long term/future of Upper Harbour
• initiatives
that deliver environmental action should be prioritised over environmental
education projects
|
37.5%
|
|
2
|
Protection and restoration
of local waterways e.g. Īnanga spawning sites
|
• views
that protecting and restoring local waterways is important to:
• support the natural ecosystem
• to restore water quality
• to help minimise flooding in future events
• to support species protection
|
31%
|
|
3
|
Library opening hours and
services
|
• library
service support a wide range of people including migrants, women, children,
seniors
• libraires
are a free public space accessible to all people which is important for
community wellbeing
• libraires
are an important source of free information, activities and the internet
|
28%
|
|
4
|
Parks maintenance level of
service
|
• parks
maintenance is especially important considering future intensification
• well
maintained parks make Auckland an attractive place to live and are important
for tourism
• reduced
park maintenance increases health and safety concerns
• parks
are a core business and as such should be prioritised
|
26%
|
|
5
|
Local grants e.g.
community grants programme and rate remission grants
|
• community
organisations are important assets who provide invaluable support for the
community
• such
as cultural and artistic initiatives that are crucial for the city
• community organisations often rely on grants
|
16%
|
|
6
|
Community programme
delivery, e.g. connected community programmes
|
• community
programmes support a variety of groups such as seniors, youth and migrants
• community
programmes are key to healthy, vibrant and functioning communities
• community
funding supports local communities to be strong and resilient
• community resilience is important when facing challenges such as
Covid-19, climate change and economic difficulties
|
15.5%
|
|
7
|
Environmental education
e.g. our local streams programme (Sustainable Schools)
|
• environmental
education plays a vital role in environmental restoration
• change
is gradual, educating the next generation will have long term impacts
• environmental
education plays an important role in community engagement and connectedness
• environmental
education supports young people to understand their agency in their own
futures
• environmental
education should be delivered by schools
|
15%
|
|
8
|
Local events e.g. Movies
in Parks and event partnership fund
|
• access
to free events is important as access to paid events can be difficult for
some
• local
events support peoples connection and engagement with community at a local
level
• local
events support the development of community culture and cohesion
• local
events boosts moral and spread positive feeling
|
12.5%
|
|
9
|
Waste minimisation and
sediment education e.g. construction waste education and leadership programme
|
• waste
minimisation is important for the protection and sustainability of our land
• waste
minimisation is important but should not be delivered by local boards
|
11.5%
|
|
10
|
Environmental programme
volunteers
|
• volunteers
help support the short-term and long-term health of environment
• volunteer
organisations rely on council coordination and support and without it
previous hard work will be compromised
• volunteer
support is vital and highly cost effective
|
8%
|
|
11
|
Open space low / no mow
areas
|
• views
that maintaining New Zealand’s clean and green image is important
• views
that the cost savings would be too minimal and not worth the
implications
|
5.5%
|
|
12
|
Community lease charges
|
• community
groups are already struggling with increased costs
• increased
lease fees for community buildings will put many community groups at risk
which will impact community wellbeing
• affordable
prices must be maintained to enable community access and participation
|
4%
|
35. Key themes of note across all the feedback received
included:
· frustration
with the question as it was difficult to choose just three priorities with a
lot of people feeling it was unfair to ask
· an
indication that people wished to support other initiatives but felt
environmental outcomes had to be top priority
· an
overall sense that people (communities) and the land (environment) are most
important to the community
· lots
of support for initiatives that future proof against future weather events.
Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the Annual
Budget 2023/2024 from the Upper Harbour Local Board area
36. The proposed Annual Budget 2023/2024 sets out Auckland
Council’s priorities and how the Council plans to pay for them.
Consultation on the proposed Annual Budget asked submitters to respond to key
questions on:
1. operating
spending reductions
2. amending Auckland International
Airport Limited (AIAL) Shareholding Policy
3. managing
rates and debt
4. storm
response
5. local
board priorities (covered in ‘Feedback received on the Upper Harbour Local Board for 2023/2024’ section above)
6. changes
to other rates, fees and charges
37. Submitters
were also encouraged to give feedback on any of the other matters included in
the Annual Budget 2023/2024 consultation document.
38. The submissions received from the Upper Harbour local
board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of
any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.
Key
Question 1: operating spending reductions
39. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on a proposal to save
$125 million through reductions including:
· maintaining
the current reduced number of public transport services for 2023/2024 to save
$21 million
· reducing
funding to Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to save a further $27.5 million with
effects on service delivery (including economic development and tourism
promotion) and pricing at venues it manages such as Auckland Zoo, Auckland Art
Gallery and stadiums
· reducing
regional services such as community and education programmes, arts and culture
programmes, regional events, economic development and other social services
activities such as homelessness funding, community empowerment and funding for
youth centres to save $20 million
· reducing
local board funded activities across all boards to save $16 million (feedback
received on local impacts of the reduction is outlined in the ‘Feedback
received for the Upper Harbour Local Board for 2023/2024’ section above)
· reducing
contestable grants to save $3 million
· no
longer directly providing early childhood education services to save $1
million.
40. The graphs below give an overview of the responses to
this question from the Upper Harbour Local Board area.
Graph 6: Upper
Harbour submissions on operating spending reductions 
41. Submissions on proposed operating spending reductions
showed mixed views:
·
27% of individuals selecting proceed with the proposed reductions
· 32%
of individuals and 50% of organisations selecting do not proceed with some
reductions
· 29%
of individuals and 50% of organisations selected do not proceed with any
reductions.
Key themes
42. Key themes of note across the feedback received included:
Proceed with the proposed
reductions
· views
supported service reductions but not rates increase
· views
didn’t support all reductions but recognised the need for reductions
· views
expressed a need to focus on core/essential services only
· despite
agreeing with the proposal conflicting comments indicated a preference not to
proceed with some reductions with a strong emphasis on not supporting the
proposal to maintain current reduced levels of public transport services
· views
support reductions to staff and contractor budgets and other operating costs
Do not proceed with
some reductions and instead further increase rates and/or debt
· views
that the proposal will increase inequality
· views
council services make Auckland a better place to live
· Individual
support for preferred services shown:
o regional service are
key to the cities culture
o education is a core
service
o Tataki Auckland
Unlimited reduction will impact the cities economy
o less public transport
negatively impacts climate goals and increases traffic congestion
o regional grants
support communities at need
o services
which local boards provide are vital for local communities
Do not proceed with
any reductions and instead further increase rates and/or debt
· a
preference to invest in public transport as it is essential infrastructure
· views
that the proposal lacks strategic vision and doesn’t consider community
well being
· views
that the proposed cuts are essential services
· views
that the council needs to be accountable
· some
support for no service reductions and no rates increases
· views
that those who can afford to pay for more should pay more
Other
· a
preference for council to stop unnecessary spending
· preference
to cut non-essential
· a
preference to investigate other options.
Key
Question 2: Amending Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) Shareholding
Policy
43. Aucklanders were asked about a planned change to the AIAL
Shareholding Policy which will allow the sale of some or all of Auckland
Council’s shares in AIAL. The proposal is to sell all the shareholding
(currently around 18% of shares in Auckland Airport) which would reduce debt by
around $1.9 billion. This is projected to reduce interest costs by $87 million
per year.
44. Other options were considered, including keeping all the
shares or a partial sale. These options would contribute less towards the
budget reduction target and require other actions such as further increasing
rates or debt.
45. The graphs below give an overview of the responses to
this question from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:
Graph 7: Upper
Harbour submissions on Amending Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL)
Shareholding Policy
46. Submissions on Amending Auckland International Airport
Limited (AIAL) Shareholding Policy showed mixed views with:
·
32% of individuals and 30% of organisations selecting proceed with the proposal
· 30%
of individuals and 40% of organisations selecting enable a partial sale
· 26%
of individuals and 15% of organisations selecting don’t change the
policy.
Key themes
47. Key themes of note across the feedback received included:
Proceed with
proposal to enable the sale
· views
that reducing debt is a priority
· views
that council should not own shares in private business
· views
that the airport is not a good financial investment
· views
that owning the airport shares does not hold strategic value
Enable partial sale
· views
that it is important to keep at least 10% of shares:
o to maintain some
influence in the airport
o to ensure future
financial benefit
o to prevent total
private ownership.
Don’t change
the policy
· views
that expressed concerns of future risks are:
o relinquishing public
control/ ownership of a major piece of city infrastructure to private interests
o this is short term
solution with long term consequences which will impact future generations
· views
that now is not the right time to sell due to the economic context
· views
that the airport is a valuable asset to the city economically and strategically
Other
· a
preference to sell other assets such as golf courses
· a
preference not to increase debt or rates
· views
that airport shares are the cities safety net.
Key
Question 3: Managing rates and debt
48. Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on a
proposal of a total rates increase for the average value residential property
of around 4.66 per cent or $154 per year. This would be achieved through:
· an
average increase in general rates of 7 per cent
across all existing properties, including non-residential
· reducing the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and
Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) by around two thirds and using the money
already collected from these rates to continue delivering these work programmes
as planned in 2023/2024
· pausing the long-term differential strategy (the split
between business and residential rates) for one year. Under the current policy,
annual increases to general rates for business properties are less than for
non-business properties so that over time the share of general rates paid by
business properties is fairer.
49. Aucklanders
were also asked about the proposal to increase council’s use of debt by
up to $75 million in the 2023/2024 year. The proposal involves using the debt to fund some capital
expenditure that is currently planned to be funded by operating revenue.
50. The graphs below give an overview of the responses to
this question from the Upper Harbour Local Board area:
Graph 8: Upper
Harbour submissions on managing rates and debt
· Submissions on managing rates and debt showed:
o 28% of submissions
from individuals selected to proceed with the proposed increases to rates and
debt
o 20% of submissions
from individuals selected make greater use of debt
o 29% of submissions
from organisations selected proceed with the proposed increases to rates and
debt
o 29% of submissions
selected set a higher general rate increase
o 15 submissions were identified as pro formas
and 100% of them selected other.
Key themes
51. Key themes of note across the feedback received included:
Proceed with the
proposed increases to rates and debt
· views
that the proposal seems reasonable
· views
that rates need to keep up with inflation
· views
that council needs to generate more income
· Concerns
include:
o making rate fees
fairer (e.g., scaled rates)
o a
preference for the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and Water Quality
Targeted Rate (WQTR) to remain the same
Set a higher general
rates increase
· views
that a rates increase is preferable to service reductions
· views
that a rates increase is fairer than reducing services
· views
that rates have historically been too low and should be increased
· views
opposing reductions to NETR and WQTR
· some
support for a scaled approach to rates
Set a higher general
rates increase and make less use of debt
· views
that a rates increase will be a short term difficulty but better in long run
· concerns around long term impact of debt on future generations
Set lower general
rates increase and make greater use of debt
· views
that rates are already too high and show little return
· views
that during the current cost of living crisis is not the right time to increase
rates
· views
that rates increases disproportionately impact low income earners
· views that rates should be assessed by affordability
Make greater use of
debt
· an
opposition to rates increases as:
o the cost of living is
already too high
o further increase will
cause difficulties for rate payers
· debt
can be spread across future generations
· debt should be used in difficult times
Other
· support
for both a rates increase and a greater use of debt
· a
preference to reduce councils operation costs by reducing staff and service
budgets
· a
preference to explore other options
· mixed views on NETR and WQTR.
Key
Question 4: Storm response
52. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to
increase council’s operating budgets by around $20 million each year to
improve the ability to prepare for and respond to future storms. This would
likely require rates to increase for 2023/2024 by around an additional 1 per
cent (on top of the 4.66 per cent increase proposed to address the budget
shortfall).
53. Graph 9 below give an overview of the responses to this
question from the Upper Harbour Local Board area.
Graph 9: Upper
Harbour submissions on storm response
54. Submissions on the proposed storm response showed
majority support for this proposal with:
·
66% of individuals and 67% of organisation selecting proceed with the proposal
· 15
submissions were identified as pro formas and 100% selected proceed with the
proposal.
Key themes
55. Key themes of note across the feedback received included:
Proceed
with proposal
· the
prosed rates increase is reasonable
· further
weather/climate incidents are highly likely, and Auckland must be prepared by:
o having
a long-term plan
o increasing
operating budgets
o improving
current infrastructure
o revaluate
further development i.e. intensification/building on flood plains
Do
not Proceed with proposal
· views that better planning is required
· an
opposition to rates increase
· views that the proposal is too vague
· views that extreme weather events are rare
· views that the proposal is a waste of money
I don’t know
· the
proposal doesn’t have enough information for some people to answer the
question.
Key
Question 5: local board priorities
56. Aucklanders
were asked for feedback on the local impacts of the Annual Budget 2023/2024,
feedback received on this is outlined in the ‘Feedback received for the
Upper Harbour Local Board for 2023/2024’ section above.
Key
Question 6: changes to other rates, fees and charges
57. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on proposals
to increase some targeted rates and other
regulatory fees and charges as set out below. If the changes are not
made, then general rates may need to be higher than proposed.
Waste management rates changes
· A 10.6 per cent increase to the base rate and targeted rate
charges for non-standard refuse bins (in the former Auckland (ACC) and Manukau
(MCC) city council areas)
· introduction of a fee for swapping bin sizes
· extension
of the food scraps targeted rate to the new areas that will receive the service
this year.
Changes to other rates, fees
and charges
· Re-prioritisation
of additional bus service expenditure which was planned to be funded by the
Climate Action Targeted Rate (CATR) for the 2023/2024 year
· Swimming
Pool/Spa Pool Fencing Compliance Targeted Rate: increases to reflect the actual
costs of the service, and an increase in the fee for follow up inspections
· amendment to Community Occupancy Guidelines
· changes to the Rodney Drainage District Targeted Rate
· establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID)
and BID targeted rate for Silverdale
· animal management fees
· some building and resource consenting fees
· other regulatory fees such as food licensing
registration, micro-mobility operator fees and swimming pool inspections
· cemetery fees
· review of fees for bookable spaces in council managed
pool and leisure facilities.
58. Table 3 below
gives an overview of the responses to this question by individuals from the
Upper Harbour Local Board area:
Table 3: Overview of changes
to other rates, fees and charges by individuals
|
Proposed
changes
|
Individuals
|
|
Waste
Management Rates Change
|
Support
|
Do not
support
|
Other
|
I
don't know
|
|
Cost
changes in waste management
|
559
|
349
|
27
|
152
|
|
Introduce
a one-off fee of $40 for those residents wishing to change their bin size
|
714
|
245
|
27
|
104
|
|
Extend
the food scraps targeted rate to the new areas that will receive the service
this year
|
613
|
276
|
20
|
175
|
|
Changes
to other rates
|
Support
|
Do not
support
|
Other
|
I
don't know
|
|
Swimming
Pool/Spa Pool Fencing Compliance Targeted Rate
|
692
|
268
|
30
|
110
|
|
Change
which bus services are funded by the Climate Action Targeted Rate
|
500
|
325
|
30
|
239
|
59. Table 4 below
gives an overview of the responses to this question by organisations from the
Upper Harbour Local Board area:
Table 4: Overview of changes
to other rates, fees and charges by organisations
|
Proposed
changes
|
Organisations
|
|
Waste
Management Rates Change
|
Support
|
Do not
support
|
Other
|
I
don't know
|
|
Cost
changes in waste management
|
10
|
3
|
0
|
6
|
|
Introduce
a one-off fee of $40 for those residents wishing to change their bin size
|
11
|
2
|
0
|
7
|
|
Extend
the food scraps targeted rate to the new areas that will receive the service
this year
|
12
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
|
Changes
to other rates
|
Support
|
Do not
support
|
Other
|
I
don't know
|
|
Swimming
Pool/Spa Pool Fencing Compliance Targeted Rate
|
14
|
2
|
0
|
4
|
|
Change
which bus services are funded by the Climate Action Targeted Rate
|
11
|
3
|
0
|
5
|
Key themes
60. Key themes of
note across the feedback received included:
Waste Management: Cost Change
· views
that bin charges should be the same all over the city:
o it would be fairer
o it would be less
confusing when people move
Waste Management: One-off fee for bin change
· views
that it’s reasonable for people increasing bin size
· views
that it’s unreasonable for people decreasing bins size
o concerns one-off fee
for decreasing bin size would disincentivise people
Waste Management: Extend Food scraps targeted rate
· wish
to see food scrap services extended all over city
· views
express opinions that it is unfair to expect people to pay for this service
when they don’t want to use it – particularly if they are already
composting
Other Rate Change: Swimming Pool/Spa Pool Fencing
Compliance Targeted Rate
· views
that pool owners should take financial responsibility for the safety around
their own pools
· views
that fees are already unreasonable and should not be increased
· views
that pool inspections should not happen at all or only when the pool is built
or when the house is sold
Other Rate Change: Change which bus services are funded by
the Climate Action Targeted Rate
· opposition
towards climate action targeted rates:
o waste of money
o does not help climate
change
· opposition
against redirecting targeted rates to other priorities:
o its already been
agreed upon
o should be used to
improve and increase services.
Other
matters for feedback
61. Aucklanders
were asked to feedback on the Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan
2023/2024 which sets out a framework in which the council must carry out the
routine management of 14 Tūpuna Maunga. There were a small amount of
submissions from the Upper Harbour local board area in support of this topic.
62. Aucklanders
were also asked what else is important to them and if they had any feedback on
any other issues.
Key themes
63. Key themes of
note across other areas of feedback received included:
· strong
preference to sell golf courses
· strong
preference for the council organisation to be run more efficiently
(staff/contractor reductions)
· strong
emphasis on the need for better roads and public transport
· strong
emphasis on the importance of arts and culture in the city
· expression
of frustration relating to drainage systems and speed bumps
Annual Budget 2023/2024 related policies
The following proposals were
consulted on alongside the Annual Budget:
Revenue and
Financing Policy
64. The proposal
to pause the Long-Term Differential Strategy (LTDS) for one year would require
an amendment to the Revenue and Financing Policy.
65. Under
the current rating policy, businesses pay a greater share of rates than
non-business properties. Businesses make more use of council services like
transport and stormwater. They also place more demand on these services.
Council previously decided that the level of business rates is too high and
should be reduced gradually over time. The LTDS currently lowers the total
amount of general rates (UAGC and value-based general rate) for businesses in
equal steps, from 31 per cent in 2022/2023 to 25.8 per cent by 2037/2038.
Feedback
66. 146
submissions were received on the proposal across the Auckland Region. Of these,
99 supported the proposal and 41 did not support the proposal. A further six
were either other or did not know. Comments from those in support included
views that businesses are in a position to afford the increase and the impact
of rates on residential ratepayers.
67. Responses
from those who did not support the proposal included the view that business
rates are too high.
68. The Property
Council did not support the proposal citing concern for increased costs on
businesses and business rates being too high.
69. Business
North Harbour do not support the proposal to pause the long-term differential
strategy as the intention of the long-term differential strategy is for the
share of general rates paid by business properties to be made fairer.
Māori Land
Rates Remission and Postponement Policy
70. The Council
is proposing to amend the Māori Land Rates Remission and Postponement
Policy to provide a partial remission of rates to general title
papakāinga, where that land is:
· protected
from being sold out of Māori ownership
· for
the sole use of hapū/iwi (tribe).
71. This
recognises the similarities between these properties and papakāinga on
Māori freehold land. The proposed remission would apply a discount of up
to 10 per cent of the rateable land value. This is similar to what is applied
to Māori freehold land.
Feedback
72. There were 40
submissions from individuals across the Auckland Region. Of these 20 were in
support of the proposal and 20 did not support the proposal. Responses in
support included the positive benefits to Māori in retaining land.
Responses from those who did not support included Māori not having special
treatment, and concern about the costs to other Aucklanders.
73. Eight
of the 40 responses were from individuals who identified as Māori, all of
who supported the proposal. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei also
submitted in support of the proposal.
Local board advocacy
74. Local boards can also provide approved advocacy
initiatives which considers the consultation feedback above. This allows the
Governing Body to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the
Annual Budget 2023/2024 to the Governing Body in June.
75. The advocacy initiatives approved by the local board will
be included as an appendix to the 2023/2024 Local Board Agreement.
Local board input on regional topics in the Annual Budget
2023/2024
76. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying
and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local
board area in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans,
and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. This report
provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on the
council’s proposed Annual Budget 2023/2024, proposed changes to
the Revenue and Financing Policy and Māori Land Rates Remission and
Postponement Policy.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
77. The decisions recommended in this report are part of the
Annual Budget 2023/2024 and local board agreement process to approve funding
and expenditure over the next year.
78. Projects allocated funding or proposed to have reduced
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
79. The Annual Budget 2023/2024 is an Auckland Council Group
document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation
items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may
include items from across the group.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
80. The local board’s decisions and feedback are being
sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its
feedback on regional plans and policies.
81. Local boards play an important role in the development of
the council’s Annual Budget. Local board agreements form part of the
Annual Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Governing Body workshops
on the Annual Budget.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
82. Many local board decisions are of importance to and
impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Budget are important
tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to
Māori.
83. Local board plans, developed in 2020 through engagement
with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area
priorities. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local
boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.
84. Analysis provided of consultation feedback received on
the proposed Annual Budget 2023/2024 includes submissions made by mana whenua
and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board
area.
85. Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori
will assist in understanding each other’s priorities and issues. This in
turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in the
council’s decision-making processes.
86. Some projects approved for funding could have discernible
impacts on Māori. The potential impacts on Māori, as part of any
project progressed by Auckland Council, will be assessed appropriately and
accordingly as part of relevant reporting requirements.
87. The Annual Budget 2023/2024 and related policies includes
a proposed amendment to the Māori Land
Rates Remission and Postponement Policy covered in the ‘Annual Budget related policies’ section above.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
88. This report is seeking the local
board’s decisions on financial matters in the local board agreement that
must then be considered by the Governing Body.
89. The local board also provides input to
regional plans and policies. There is information in the council’s
consultation material for each proposal with the financial implications of each
option outlined for consideration.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
90. The council must adopt its Annual Budget, which includes
local board agreements, by 30 June 2023. In order to meet this timeframe, the
local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the
Annual Budget 2023/2024 by mid-May 2023 and present to the Governing Body to
make decisions on key items to be included in the Annual Budget on 8 June 2023.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
91. The local board will approve its local board agreement in
June 2023 and corresponding work programmes in July 2023.
92. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be
provided to the Governing Body for consideration in its decision-making.
93. The final Annual Budget 2023/2024 (including local board
agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 29 June 2023.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Robert Marshall - Local Board Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager
|
