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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 6 December 2023

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Komiti mō te Tahua Pūtea / Budget Committee

 

OPEN ADDENDUM AGENDA

UPDATED 5 December 2023 at 10.00am

Attachment A – Local Board Feedback on Regional Topics

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Mayor

Wayne Brown

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Members

Cr Andrew Baker

Cr Mike Lee

 

Cr Josephine Bartley

Cr Kerrin Leoni

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Chris Darby

Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Julie Fairey

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Ken Turner

 

Cr Lotu Fuli

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Shane Henderson

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Richard Hills

Cr Maurice Williamson

 

IMSB Member Tony Kake, MNZM

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sonja Tomovska

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

 

5 December 2023

 

Contact Telephone: 09 890 8022

Email: sonja.tomovska@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Budget Committee

06 December 2023

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

 

8          Long-term Plan 2024-2034: regional topics for consultation - local board input  5

 

 


Budget Committee

06 December 2023

 

 

Long-term Plan 2024-2034: regional topics for consultation - local board input

File No.: CP2023/19275

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of local board input on regional consultation content for the 10-year Budget 2024-2034.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

·        providing input into regional content, including providing feedback on the regional items proposed to be consulted on, which includes the Mayoral Proposal Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (the Mayoral Proposal).

3.       For the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, local boards agreed both their local content for consultation and their feedback on the regional items proposed to be consulted on at business meetings from 28 to 30 November 2023.

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

5.       Key proposals of the preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal that local boards provided feedback on:

·        Financial strategy and main budget levers

·        Transport

·        Climate change, storm recovery and resilience

·        Auckland Future Fund

·        Auckland’s waterfront and port

·        Local boards

·        Community assets, services and open space

·        Regional facilities and development

·        Māori outcomes

·        Watercare

6.       Both regional and local consultation items will be incorporated into the consultation document and supporting information for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, which are planned to be adopted by the Budget Committee in early February 2023. Consultation is planned to take place from 28 February to 28 March 2024 and final decisions and the adoption of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 will be made in May - June 2024.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a)      kohuki / consider input from local boards when deciding on regional items to be consulted on for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The long-term plan sets out Auckland Council’s planned activities and community outcomes over 10 years and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources, including how to pay for those activities.

8.       The Budget Committee is responsible for approving the consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process for the long-term plan prior to consultation and then making recommendations to the Governing Body on the adoption of the final long-term plan. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the final long-term plan. 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 long-term plan).

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

Developing regional consultation content  

10.     Budget Committee briefings and workshops have been held from September to November 2023 to develop items for consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

11.     Local board chairs were invited to attend the Budget Committee workshops where the potential regional consultation topics were discussed. All local board members were provided briefings of the presentations.

12.     The local boards were asked to provide feedback on the Mayoral Proposal and potential investment areas for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 consultation including available budget levers.

13.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal was provided to local boards on 28 November 2023, and local boards held business meetings from 28-30 November to adopt their feedback on the proposed regional consultation topics for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 in time for this meeting of the Budget Committee on 6 December 2023.

14.     This report provides the opportunity for local boards to provide formal input on the items proposed to be consulted on for the Long-term Plan and for the Governing Body (through the Budget Committee) to consider the views expressed by the local boards when agreeing regional items for consultation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     This report summarises the feedback from local boards and focuses on common themes relating to key topics in the Mayoral Proposal and potential investment areas. As such, it does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. Most local boards did not provide feedback on every topic in the Mayoral Proposal.

16.     The full set of local board resolutions are provided in Attachment A (local board resolutions on the Mayoral Proposal and regional topics for consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034).

Feedback on Mayoral Proposal

17.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal outlined options to consult on including:

·    Financial strategy and main budget levers

·    Transport

·    Climate change, storm recovery and resilience

·    Auckland Future Fund

·    Auckland’s waterfront and port

·    Local boards

·    Community assets, services and open space

·    Regional facilities and development

·    Māori outcomes

·    Watercare

18.     Local feedback on the proposal is summarised below.

Financial strategy and main budget levers

19.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on a range of options including refreshing fiscal rules and reducing the council’s debt to revenue limit, maintaining the track to fully funding depreciation by 2028, reducing operating costs of the Auckland Council Group, cost saving initiatives, slowing growth in capital expenditure and average residential rates increases of 7.5per cent (year 1), 3.5per cent (year 2) and 8per cent (year 3).

20.     Twelve local boards provided feedback on the proposal to reduce the debt to revenue limit. Eight supported the proposal for consultation (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa and Whau local boards). Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Whau local boards noted that there may need to be flexibility in case of emergency e.g. storm damage and recovery challenges. Three local boards do not support the proposal for consultation (Manurewa, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards).

21.     Eleven local boards provided feedback on the proposal to maintain the track to fully funded depreciation by 2028. Ten supported the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards). Henderson-Massey Local Board did not support the proposal for consultation.

22.     Eight local boards provided feedback on the proposal to reduce operating costs of the Auckland Council Group for the next three years. Four supported the proposal for consultation (Howick, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Puketāpapa local boards), however Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board did not support a reduction to Eke Panuku operating costs and Puketāpapa Local Board did not support a reduction in service levels. Four local boards noted concern that reducing operating costs will have an impact on service delivery and lead to more restructures (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Whau local boards) and three noted that local impacts will have to be clearly articulated in the consultation material (Franklin, Manurewa and Papakura local boards).

23.     Fifteen local boards provided feedback on the proposals relating to specific initiatives to achieve efficiencies and stop waste.


 

 

24.     Eight local boards supported the proposal on group budget responsibility and transparency rules for consultation (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura, Upper Harbour and Whau local boards). However, two boards noted concern about a possible deterioration in service levels (Henderson-Massey and Whau) and Howick noted detailed cost-benefit analysis should only be undertaken on large projects. Henderson-Massey Local Board also noted its concern with closer control of year-on-year spending increases and not keeping up with the rate of inflation.

25.     Five local boards supported the proposal to accelerate Group Shared Services and consolidation of service function for consultation (Howick, Manurewa, Papakura, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

26.     Four local boards supported the proposal to transform technology delivery for consultation (Howick, Manurewa, Papakura, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

27.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the proposal to slow growth in capital expenditure, no new mega projects and focusing on getting more out of what we have. Five supported the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura and Puketāpapa local boards) however three local boards noted that infrastructure and facilities are still needed in growth areas (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey and Puketāpapa local boards). Franklin Local Board noted concern that reducing the capital programme by almost half is highly likely to see a de-prioritisation of projects of local significance and importance to communities and may compromise the response to growth.

28.     Nineteen local boards provided feedback on the proposed rates increases to meet unavoidable cost pressures. Thirteen local boards supported the proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards) however Manurewa and Puketāpapa local boards request that increases should be kept to a minimum. Henderson-Massey Local Board did not support the proposal for consultation as they support rates higher than 1.5 per cent above inflation to meet unavoidable cost pressures. Waitematā also supports rates higher than 7.5per cent in year one and 3.5per cent in year two to catch up on our infrastructure deficit and maintain valuable Council services, and Whau Local Board supports investigating a higher increase in rates for year 2 of the Long-term Plan.

29.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the proposal regarding the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR), Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) and Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR), with all ten supporting the proposal for the Natural Environment Targeted Rate and Water Quality Targeted Rate for consultation (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards). Eight supported the proposal relating to the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate for consultation (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour and Whau local boards)

30.     Five local boards provided feedback on the proposal to end the Long-term Differential Strategy (LTDS). Three supported the proposal for consultation (Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Waitākere Ranges local boards). Kaipātiki Local Board request that the consultation includes an option to progressively reverse the Long-term Differential Strategy due to businesses being able to claim back rates and GST and having a larger impact on council infrastructure than residential properties. Two local boards supported a pause in the Long-term Differential Strategy rather than ending it completely (Puketāpapa and Whau local boards).

31.     Seven local boards provided feedback on the proposal to increase non-rates revenue and all generally supported the proposal for consultation (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Manurewa, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).


 

 

32.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the capital efficiency and further cost savings initiatives suggested by councillors. Franklin and Howick local boards generally support the initiatives for consultation. Six local boards did not support the initiative to enable local boards to waive accountability reports for community grants (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Upper Harbour and Whau). Five local boards did not support the further removal of rubbish bins (Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour and Whau).

Transport

33.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on fully funding council’s share of road renewals and unsealed road improvements, cutting low value initiatives including raised pedestrian crossings and cycleways, making public transport more reliable, time of use (congestion) charging, cutting costs of temporary traffic management, increased parking charges and reducing transport emissions.

34.     Seventeen local boards provided feedback on the proposal to fully fund the council’s share of road renewals ($5.5 billion) if co-funding is available and the Unsealed Road Improvements programme ($124 million). Twelve supported the road renewals proposal for consultation (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards) and Kaipātiki Local Board requested sufficient funding for road renewals to prevent the routine downgrade of asphalt roads. Four local boards supported the Unsealed Road Improvements programme proposal for consultation (Aotea/Great Barrier, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Rodney local boards). Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Whau local boards expressed concerns about the costs and benefits of the proposal and Henderson-Massey Local Board did not support the proposal for consultation.

35.     Seventeen local boards provided feedback on the proposal to cut ‘low value’ initiatives, including raised pedestrian crossings and expensive cycleways. Four supported the proposal for consultation (Howick, Kaipātiki, Ōrākei and Papakura local boards) and eight supported the proposal with caveats for either safety or disruptions in cycleway networks (Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards). Five local boards did not support the proposal for consultation (Henderson-Massey, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitākere Ranges and Whau).

36.     Eighteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal to make public transport faster, more reliable and easier to use. Six local boards generally supported the proposal for consultation (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Upper Harbour and Whau local boards).

37.     Seven local boards supported the proposal for a $50 weekly public transport pass/cap for consultation (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards). Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board advocated for free public transport for all, especially in lower socio-economic communities but will support a fare cap but at a lower rate for lower income families.

38.     Five local boards supported the proposal to finish existing Rapid Transit projects and progress work on additional affordable projects for consultation (Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Ōrākei and Upper Harbour local boards).

39.     Four local boards supported the proposal to progress a trial of a low-cost bike ferry connecting Northcote and the city centre for consultation (Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Ōrākei and Upper Harbour local boards).


 

 

40.     Fourteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal to progress time of use (congestion) charging Fourteen supported the proposal for consultation (Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards) with a few requesting that the proposed roads be included in the consultation material (Kaipātiki  and Upper Harbour local boards) and an equity lens is applied (Henderson – Massey Local Board). Whau Local Board requested an investigation into the impact of time of use charging on our deprived communities.

41.     Eight local boards provided feedback on the proposal to reduce transport-emissions in line with target to reach net zero by 2050 and all supported the proposal for consultation (Franklin, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa and Whau local boards).

42.     Eleven local boards provided feedback on the proposal to reduce costs of temporary traffic management, and all supported the proposal for consultation (Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards). Hibiscus and Bays and Kaipātiki local boards recommended that the temporary traffic management approach be extended to events and local board-supported community organisations requiring traffic management plans.

43.     Thirteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal for Auckland Transport to make $70 million in operating cost savings. Ōrākei Local Board supported the proposal for consultation. Four local boards supported the proposal for consultation with caveats including concerns about how low value programmes to be reduced will be identified and how fines could cause further stress to household budgets (Henderson-Massey, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Whau local boards). Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board did not support the proposal for consultation. Five local boards supported increasing parking charges and enforcement (Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā). Upper Harbour Local Board did not support charging for Park and Ride services.

Climate change, storm recovery and resilience

44.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document included proposals relating to climate initiatives including delivering the ‘Making Space for Water’ programme over 10 years to ensure the region is resilient to flooding, funding storm recovery schemes and investigating options for renewal energy generation on some council assets. Eighteen local boards provided feedback on the broad proposals.

45.     Fourteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on delivering the ‘Making Space for Water’ programme and thirteen supported it for consultation (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards). Waitematā Local Board noted that the ‘Making Space for Water’ programme should be completed in less than the 10 years proposed.

46.     Twelve local boards provided feedback on the proposal to investigate options for renewable energy generation by using under-utilised council assets, to reduce energy bills and emissions. Eleven local boards supported the proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe Papakura, Puketāpapa and Waitematā local boards). Upper-Harbour Local Board requested the advice referenced in the Mayoral Proposal commissioned by staff on whether we can generate electricity more on under-utilised council land and assets.

47.     Five local boards provided feedback on the proposal to set targets to reduce emissions and reach net zero by 2050 and all supported it for consultation (Albert-Eden, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei and Puketāpapa local boards).

Auckland Future Fund

48.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed to consult on establishing an Auckland Future Fund to address Auckland Council’s physical and financial risk posed by climate change, protect intergenerational assets and achieve sustainable returns from council’s financial investments, and that the fund be initially capitalised with the council’s remaining shares in Auckland International Airport Limited, and the proceeds from any lease of the operations of the Ports of Auckland (AIAL) (if council proceeds with that option).

49.     Sixteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal and eleven expressed support for it to be consulted on (Aotea/Great Barrier, Kaipātiki, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper-Harbour and Waitematā local boards). Upper Harbour Local Board supported the proposal for consultation provided the consultation material is clear and transparent on options.

50.     In addition, Whau and Henderson-Massey local boards expressed support in principle for the Auckland Future Fund but opposed it being established through the sale of the remaining AIAL shares and / or a ports lease.

51.     Puketāpapa Local Board noted that this includes transfer of the remaining AIAL shares and that the fund, if established, should weigh heavily to ‘green’ investments.

52.     Waitākere Ranges Local Board noted it opposed the establishment of the fund if it is funded by selling strategic assets.

53.     Devonport-Takapuna Local Board expressed it did not support the establishment of the fund noting amongst other things that repayment of debt should be a priority.

Auckland’s waterfront and port

54.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on the return of Auckland’s waterfront land while protecting the operation of the Port and to progress work on the future development of Port land. It included consulting on two options to get a better return from Port operations: enhanced status quo or a 35-year lease of the operations of the Port of Auckland with funds invested in the Auckland Future Fund.

55.     Thirteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal. Six local boards supported consulting on the options (Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa and Upper-Harbour local boards).

56.     Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waitematā local boards expressed support for consideration of leasing the port with Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board also supporting a return of port land.

57.     Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Ōrākei and Whau local boards opposed the proposed ports lease. Aotea/Great Barrier and Whau local boards supported return of waterfront land.

58.     Waitākere Ranges Local Board opposed the privatisation of Port of Auckland operations on the basis that, using overseas experience as a guide, this will result in increased charges to local users of ports activities, reduced economic activity and cause the transmission overseas of profits derived locally.

Local boards

59.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on accelerating fairer funding to local boards to address legacy imbalances with a combination of new funding and reallocation, retaining the Local Board Capital Transport Fund and continuing to empower local boards with more decision making. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal.

60.     Twelve local boards expressed their support to accelerate fairer funding to local boards (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

61.     Five local boards did not support the proposal to accelerate fairer funding to local boards (Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Ōrākei local boards).

62.     Upper-Harbour Local Board stated that the current way of allocating capital funding via Asset Based Services (ABS) largely towards renewals of existing assets exacerbates issues of inequity.

63.     Seventeen local boards advocated for the retention of, or an increase to the pre-Covid levels of, the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards).

64.     The majority of boards expressed support for greater local decision making and the resourcing of advice to support this. Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board expressed support for pausing the reorganisation review of the number of local boards as this is not currently a core need.

Community assets, services and open space

65.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on investing $4 billion in capital expenditure and $6.7 billion in operating expenditure in community assets, services and open spaces. The proposal also included consulting on a Sport and Recreation Facilities Plan, a pause in funding for seismic upgrades and $5.9 million per annum towards animal control officers. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the broad proposal.

66.     Twelve local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on investing $4 billion capital expenditure and $6.7 billion operating expenditure in community assets, services and open space. Six local boards support the proposal (Howick, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Rodney and Waitākere Ranges local boards). Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Puketāpapa local boards partially supported the proposal. Three local boards did not support the proposal with Henderson-Massey Local Board citing they did not support the proposal if it means reductions in local board renewals funding and service level reductions (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey and Whau local boards). Kaipātiki Local Board requested that local boards retain decision-making over all decisions relating to the future use of local parks, open spaces and facilities including any decisions relating to optimisation and consolidation of assets and services.

67.     Fifteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on a Sport and Recreation Facilities Plan to address deficit in indoor sports facilities, including an additional $35 million over three years. All supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper-Harbour and Whau local boards).

68.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on pausing funding for seismic upgrades pending a review of standards. Six local boards supported the proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Howick, Henderson-Massey, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Ōrākei local boards). Four local boards did not support the proposal (Franklin, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Waitematā local boards).

69.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on implementing the recommendations of the Regional Parks Political Working Group. Seven local boards supported the proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Howick, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa, Papakura, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards). Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board suggested reviewing regional park operations to ensure best value for money. Upper-Harbour Local Board requested that any new investigation for a new regional park should be needs based.


 

 

70.     Eleven local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on the current community-led action investment being maintained and not increased. Four local boards supported the proposal (Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa and Papakura local boards). Henderson-Massey Local Board supported the proposal in principle citing the need for further information. Five local boards supported a greater level of resourcing for community-led programmes (Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

71.     Seven local boards provided feedback on the proposal for $5.9 million per annum towards animal control officers with six local boards supporting the proposal (Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura and Puketāpapa local boards). Kaipātiki Local Board requested that the Governing Body delegate decision making relating to temporary dog access rules to local boards.

Regional facilities and development

72.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on maintaining council funding for economic development and events while alternative revenue sources are progressed, investigating making better use of North Harbour Stadium, restoring the Strategic Development fund for urban regeneration, funding major regional facilities and safety initiatives and increased capacity for animal shelters. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the broader proposal.

73.     Eleven local boards provided feedback on the proposal to investigate options to make better use of North Harbour Stadium. Four local boards supported consulting on the consideration of the options for this proposal (Hibiscus and Bays, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa and Whau local boards). Rodney and Upper-Harbour local boards did not support the proposal. The remaining local boards which provided feedback either acknowledge the mayor’s willingness to investigate options or recommended other options (Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Howick, Kaipātiki and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards).

74.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on maintaining council funding for economic development and events while alternative revenue sources are progressed including a bed night visitor levy. Eight local boards supported the proposal (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Manurewa, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei and Puketāpapa local boards). Papakura Local Board noted local boards need support for economic development at a local level. Whau Local Board requested more resourcing be provided for local economic activity outside the city centre.

75.     Eleven local boards provided feedback on the proposal to maintain urban regeneration programmes with nine broadly supporting the proposal (Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards). Albert-Eden and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards noted their support for funding the urban regeneration programme but did not support the proposal for a new waterfront swimming pool.

76.     Six local boards provided feedback on the proposal to consult on there being no new funding for Haumaru Housing. Three local boards requested further information regarding the proposals (Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki and Whau local boards). Howick Local Board supported the proposal. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board did not support the proposal citing concerns of any impacts this could have on the seniors residing there. Waitematā Local Board recommended consulting on how investment in Haumaru Housing might help ensure more quality, affordable rental accommodation, for working and retired Aucklanders.

77.     Four local boards provided feedback on the proposal to fund major regional facilities and amenities, pursue closer collaboration and legislative change with all supporting the proposal (Howick, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa and Whau local boards).


 

 

Māori outcomes

78.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document proposed consulting on increased funding for the Māori Outcomes Fund by $3 million per year from year 4 of the Long-Term Plan to a total funding of $171 million over 10 years. This would be accompanied by a review on partnerships with Māori, iwi, matawaaka and mana whenua.

79.     Thirteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal and all supported the proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper-Harbour, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

Watercare

80.     The preliminary draft Mayoral Proposal document outlined a proposal to maintain Watercare’s debt to revenue limit at 340per cent and work with the central government on balance sheet separation.

81.     Ten local boards provided feedback on the proposal, and all supported it to consultation (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Whau local boards).

82.     Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board expressed support an alternative model that enables balance sheet separation so necessary investment can be made without a huge increase in water charges.

83.     Kaipātiki Local Board requested that local boards be given increased decision making over stormwater assets.

Feedback on investment options

84.     Some local boards also provided feedback on the seven investment areas discussed during the Long-term Plan workshops leading up to the Mayoral Proposal. Below is a summary of those local board responses.

Transport

85.     Seven local boards provided feedback on the options in the transport proposal and supported it. Feedback included supporting increasing public transport usage, expanding transport revenue streams and time of use pricing concerns and support.

Drinking water, wastewater and stormwater

86.     Seven local boards provided feedback on investment options relating to drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. Feedback included support for more investment, leveraging funding with central government and applying an equity lens in understanding the impact of climate change.

Built environment

87.     Seven local boards provided feedback on investment options relating to the built environment. Feedback included supporting the prioritisation of climate conscious options and support for the restoration of Eke Panuku’s $100 million Strategic Development fund to deliver agreed urban regeneration objectives.

Natural environment

88.     Seven local boards provided feedback on investment options relating to the natural environment. Feedback included support for community-led delivery and recommending that the Governing Body make express provision in the Long-term Plan for preventing the spread of Caulerpa in the Hauraki Gulf,

Community

89.     Seven local boards provided feedback on community-related investment options. Feedback included a range of views expressed.

Economic development

90.     Six local boards provided feedback on investment options relating to economic development. Feedback included a range of views expressed.

Well-managed local government

91.     Six local boards provided feedback on investment options relating to well-managed local government. Feedback included support for a steady and transitional change for the streamlining of council technology, and support for consulting on a converged group services model.

Feedback on budget levers

92.     Some local boards also provided feedback on the budget levers that were discussed during the tong-Term Plan workshops leading up to the Mayoral Proposal. Below is a summary of those local boards’ responses.

Rates

93.     Six local boards provided feedback on rates as a budget lever. Feedback included support for consulting on increasing rates, targeted rate proposals and other regional and local rates proposals.

Debt

94.     Five local boards provided feedback on debt as a budget lever. Feedback included support for consultation on a prudent use of debt and preserving our credit rating.

Efficiencies

95.     Five local boards provided feedback on efficiencies as a budget lever. Feedback included support for consulting on efficiency initiatives and making sure local impacts are clearly communicated.

Service reductions

96.     Five local boards provided feedback on service reductions as a budget lever. Feedback included a mix of support/do not support for consultation, making sure local impacts are clearly communicated and cost/benefits are assessed for any reductions.

Capex investment levels

97.     Four local boards provided feedback on capex investment levels as a budget lever. Feedback included a range of views expressed.

Asset sales

98.     Six local boards provided feedback on asset sales as a budget lever. Feedback included a mix of support/do not support for consultation.

Local board advocacy

99.     Eighteen local boards approved advocacy initiatives for consideration by the Governing Body and inclusion in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034. However, all local boards also adopted advocacy as part of their local consultation content (this has not been captured in this report).

100.   There were also other specific requests or recommendations from local boards included in other sections of their resolved feedback on the Long-term Plan.

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

102.   This year, the following items were advocated for by multiple boards:

·    Initiatives for improving the environment and/or mitigating the effects of climate change – eleven local boards advocated for environmental initiatives or protections and planning, funding, infrastructure and education initiatives to support mitigating the effects of climate change including from flooding (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Rodney, Upper-Harbour, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards)

·    Increased funding or support for community facilities - nine local boards advocated for funding or support to deliver improved community facilities (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper-Harbour, Waiheke and Whau local boards)

·    Equity lens for funding local boards – eight local boards advocated for funding to be applied equitably across local boards (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards)

·    Improvements to public transportseven local boards advocated for improvements to the public transport system (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Waiheke and Whau local boards)

·    Funding for new or improved walking and cycling connections – five local boards advocated for investment in upgrading or building pathways and cycleways to support active modes of transport (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa and Whau local boards)

·    Support for increased local board decision making – four local boards advocated for resources, direction and/or funding to support increased local decision making (Franklin, Ōrākei, Papakura and Waiheke local boards)

·    Increased funding for bylaw and consent compliance and enforcement – three local boards advocated for adequate funding to the Bylaw and Consent Compliance teams to ensure complaints and requests are responded to appropriately (Ōrākei, Papakura and Rodney local boards)

·    Improvements to water quality – three local boards advocated for measures to ensure improvements to water quality (Ōrākei, Upper-Harbour and Waitematā local boards).

103.   The majority of local board advocacy related to community investment in sports and aquatics facilities, parks, paths, public spaces, town centres and community assets, more efficient public transport, increased decision-making for local boards and increased localism with resourcing and delivering projects.

104.   Other common themes across local board advocacy included:

·    partnerships with mana whenua or increased funding to support Māori outcomes

·    funding for recycling initiatives including for construction waste

·    request for funding to renew, maintain or build community assets and open spaces including aquatic facilities

·    support for local economic development in South Auckland

·    support for urban planning including tree protection.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

105.   This report summarises local board feedback on regional items considered for consultation. The climate impacts (both positive and negative) of specific proposals are summarised in other reports on this agenda and will be considered further in future advice and reports to support decision-making.


 

 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

106.   The council group impacts of the regional consultation content are considered in the Mayoral Proposal report to the Budget Committee on this agenda.

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

Local impacts and local board views

107.   Local board views and feedback on the regional items considered for consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 are provided in this report.

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

·        local board chairs attending Budget Committee workshops

·        all local board members were provided briefings of the presentations to the workshops

·        local boards provided informal feedback and advocacy to the Budget Committee at a workshop on the 22 November 2023. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

109.   Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. The long-term plan, including local board agreements, are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

111.   The Long-term Plan is a statutory process which must be completed every three years. The council budget provides for the resourcing to deliver this project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

112.   The Governing Body (including through the Budget Committee) 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. This report enables the Budget Committee to consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards on regional items to be consulted on for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 when making decisions at today’s meeting.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

113.   The regional and local consultation items will be incorporated into the consultation document and supporting information for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, which is planned to be adopted by the Budget Committee in early February 2024.

 


 

 

114.   Aucklanders will have the opportunity to give feedback on regional and local content contained in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034. Consultation is planned to take place from 28 February to 28 March 2024. All feedback received from submitters will be analysed by staff and made available for consideration by the local boards and the Governing Body ahead of final decision-making.

115.   Following consultation, the Governing Body and the local boards will make decisions on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, including local board agreements, in June 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local board feedback on regional topics for Long-term Plan 2024-2034 consultation

19

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phoebe Peguero - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Acting Director - Governance and CCO Partnerships

Peter Gudsell - Group Chief Financial Officer

 

  


Budget Committee

06 December 2023