|
Resolution
number OP/2023/124
MOVED by Chairperson AR Autagavaia, seconded by Deputy
Chairperson O Dewes:
That
the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:
a) whakamihi/
thank the work of staff and the leadership of the Joint Governance Working
Party (JGWP) for the work to date. The board continues to support the intent
of this work to look at a more equitable funding model that isn’t based
on historical and somewhat anomalous allocation of assets.
b) tuhi
ā-taipitopito/ note that the scope of this work relates to a tiny
fraction of funding spent in local areas, and therefore while supporting
better local board governance and control over its budgets, will not
necessarily improve overall equity in outcomes unless a similar lens is
applied to a much bigger proportion of council group budgets especially in
relation to infrastructure provision and maintenance
c) tono/
request that the JGWP recommend a prioritised list of areas of council
business where similar work to look at equity of funding allocation to/spend
in local board areas is investigated. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board believe
the next most urgent priority is Auckland Transport budgets in capex
delivery, asset renewals and maintenance, and public transport service
delivery in local board areas
Scope
d) has
significant concern about the scope and the results of the analysis contained
in the discussion document. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board believe
that implementation of the recommendations will significantly undermine the
stated aim to ensure a more equitable funding allocation of community
services budgets
e) has
been informed by project staff that the scope of the analysis of funding
inequity and the funding available for redistribution excludes the $65m of
discrete projects in the Long-term Plan (LTP). The board believes this
significantly undermines the validity of the analysis
f) strongly
believes that the ongoing need and viability of the discrete projects needs
to be analysed further (and will be through LTP 2024-34). Council’s
finances and direction on asset-based delivery has changed significantly
since a number of these projects were approved. The fact that some of these
projects are co-funded externally is an irrelevant consideration as to
whether council still requires these projects
g) believes
a more credible analysis should include discrete projects in determining the
current funding allocation by local board (as it is in fact currently
allocated in the LTP), and also in the quantum of funding available for
reallocation. The board understand that these projects would be assessed as
part of the LTP, but for the purposes of this work and for the board and the
public to provide informed feedback, the accurate current state of budgets
should be portrayed
h) whakaae/agree
that growth funding (including unallocated growth) and targeted rate funding
should be excluded from the analysis and reallocation calculations.
Transition
provision in Local board Funding Policy
i) is
also concerned that the transition provision in the current local board
funding policy where the Governing Body agreed that some boards such as
Ōtara-Papatoetoe should continue to receive a higher allocation of
Locally Driven Initiatives to support some longstanding community outcomes is
included and considered an overallocation in the analysis
j) tuhi
ā-taipitopito/note the unjust nature of i) above was demonstrated in the
original approach to the Annual Budget 2023/24 where
Ōtara-Papatoetoe stood to lose LDI funding at a rate higher than some other
boards
k) tuhi
ā-taipitopito/note that there are a number of anomalies in historic
funding allocation. The board request a more credible analysis to address any
anomalies.
l) tono/request
that transition provisions in Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) allocation in the
Local Board Funding Policy be excluded from current funding allocation to
ensure a fairer and accurate picture of current state of equitable funding
distribution.
Capex and
Opex
m) tautoko/
support the need to consider capex and opex separately
n) does
not support the proposal to use capex as a funding pool for boards to apply
to and raise co-funding for. This is a retrograde step that puts in another
bureaucratic and governance hurdle that is unjustified
o) tuhi
ā-taipitopito/note that the requirement for boards to raise co-funding
through partnerships, local rates or asset rationalisation will ensure that
asset rich and means-rich communities have an inherent advantage in
attracting funding from the capex pool
p) tuhi
ā-taipitopito/note that Community Services capex funding has
predominantly or exclusively been funded through general rates and asking for
these now to be co-funded through local rates seems to be the antithesis of
an equitable approach to addressing inequity
q) believes
capex should be allocated through normal transparent budget processes such as
the Annual Plan and LTP and not through a new complex and inequitable
allocation model.
Transition
Timeframe and Alternate Models
r) tautoko/
support a transition timeframe that mitigates the impact of changes on
communities as much as possible. The appropriate transition timeframe will be
determined by the funding decisions of the Governing Body. The more funding
that is required from re-allocations (as opposed to new funding) a longer
timeframe (longer than 3 years) seems justifiable
s) support
an appropriate transition timeframe contingent on a more accurate analysis of
the data as advocated above. The inclusion of discrete projects and exclusion
of LDI transition budgets under the Local Board Funding Policy will provide a
much clearer and accurate picture of options and transition approaches
t) is
generally averse to reallocation as a way of funding equity. However, the
board understands that significant and 100% new funding to support this work is
unlikely and unaffordable. The board believes that if reallocation is to be
justifiable then the date used for the reallocation and a picture of current
state must include discrete projects and exclude anomalous transition budgets
Summary of
feedback
u) tono/
request the Joint Governance Working Party to recommend to the Governing Body
a prioritised list of other areas of council-wide spending in local areas
that should be subject to a similar analysis and change
v) recommends
that the next area of spending for this analysis is Auckland
Transport’s capex, renewals, maintenance and public transport service
delivery in local board areas
w) tono/
request that discrete budgets in the Long-term Plan (LTP) is included in the
analysis of current state of equitable distribution and in any reallocation
pool
x) excluded
transition budgets approved as part of the Local Board Funding Policy
y) do
not establish a capex pool for boards to apply to contingent on co-funding
and allocate capex as part of normal transparent budget processes
z) kohuki/
consider the appropriate transition time once the source of funding for
implementation has been confirmed.
CARRIED
|
