Minute Item Attachments of Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

30 April 2024

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board feedback on Long-term Plan 2024-2034 regional topics

Overall direction for Long-term plan

Topic	Support / Do not support			Local board input
Topic	Pay less and get less	Central proposal	Pay more and get more	Local board input
Overall direction for Long-term plan				Support pay more in Stormwater, Transport, Environment and Parks & Community. Do not support fairer funding for Local Boards. Support central proposal in all else. · 82% want central or more for Transport · 91% want central or more in Water. · 76% want central or more in Environment & Regulation. · 76% want central or more in parks and community. · 82% want central or less in economic & cultural development. · 79% want central or less in city and local development.
Transport Roads, public transport and safety improvements across the transport network			Support	· Support $24 billion investment (more) in Transport. · This includes: Bayswater ferry terminal dredging and infrastructure, Lake road/Esmonde (Devonport Peninsula) PT and multi-modal improvements, an accelerated programme of ferry & bus decarbonisation. Improved PT capacity and frequency. Dedicated busways & dynamic lanes to improve traffic flows. Changes to HOP Card charging model as well as daily PT caps. More feeder buses connecting to bus stations. Support for greater investment in active transport modes and the infrastructure required to facilitate that.
Water Managing stormwater to minimise flooding and protect waterways			Support	· Our community is acutely aware of the need to accelerate investment in stormwater infrastructure. Need to work with the community to support the reduction and mitigation of flooding risk. This came through strongly.
City and local development Delivering urban regeneration and lead development of the city centre		Support		· Support urban regeneration programmes particularly in the regions. · Request consideration of Belmont/Bayswater, as well as Sunnynook for future sites in accordance with our centre plans. · Request Sunnynook Community Centre is prioritised for funding through the community facilities network plan.
Environment and regulation Protecting and restoring the natural environment			Support	· Community continues to place the environment as a key priority and this is made clear by the strong support for the NETR and WQTR. · Strong support for funding and enabling restoration and community groups to continue their good work as return on investment is high. Note, reductions to local board funding will impact negatively on our ability to support those groups.
Parks and community A wide range of arts, sports, recreation, library and community services including a fair level of funding for local boards			Support	· Strong support to invest in community facilities, including libraries, sports and the arts. · Concern has been raised regarding the significant negative impacts fairer funding will have on the Local Board’s ability to support investment in these areas. · Support work investigating partnership opportunities with schools to address shortfall in sports facilities (approx. 20 indoor courts short on the North Shore).
Economic and cultural development Major events funding and economic development	Support			· Predominant response was do less (44%). Strong awareness that major event benefits are not seen or realised on the North Shore.
Council support Supporting the delivery of services, enabling effective governance, emergency management and grants to regional amenities		Support		· Lots of comments made regarding the need for council to make efficiencies and improve systems and services.

Transport Plan

Proposal	Support / Do not support	Local board input
Investing in rapid transit network actions, such as making it easier to pay, including introducing capped weekly public transport passes	Support
Network optimisation, reducing temporary traffic management requirements and introducing dynamic lanes	Support	There were a number of comments specific to this issue, particularly referencing the impacts on throughput of Lake Road due to TMPs and impact on community-led events and activities.
Stopping some initiatives previously planned such as some raised pedestrian crossings and cycleways.	Do not support	Community supports safety and pedestrian and cycle improvements, but at a more affordable design and delivery.

North Harbour Stadium

Proposal	Support / Do not support	Local board input
Keeping the stadium precinct as it is now, and maintaining it at a cost of $33 million over 10 years
Redeveloping the stadium precinct funded through the reallocation of $33 million and the sale of some stadium precinct land while retaining the existing community playing fields and any other external funding available		Recommend a local stakeholder working group (not TAU) be formed to more fulsomely investigate options rather than settling on a preferred path forward through this LTP. This may include the retention of the stadium amongst other options. Note: Community expressed willingness to investigate a potential redevelopment with a change of management (37%). There was clear dissatisfaction with the current management model.
Change the operational management of the stadium to ensure greater use by the community (noting this option can be considered in addition to either of the options above)

Auckland Future Fund and Auckland Airport Limited Shares

Proposal	Support / Do not support	Local board input
Creating a diversified investment fund for Auckland (the Auckland Future Fund)	Support
Transferring council’s shareholding of just over 11 per cent in Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) to the fund to enable the subsequent sale of any or all the shares	Support	42% individual support 37% against. 27% organisations support, 45% against.

Ports of Auckland

Proposal	Support / Do not support	Local board input
Keeping underlying ownership of the port land and wharves but entering into a lease for the port operations for a period of 35 years	Do not support	41% want to retain in Council operation. 39% suggested we lease it. (Individuals) 50% organisations wish to keep it in Council operation.
Continuing to operate under the current arrangements and delivering more profits and dividends	Support	Suggest a return to an organisation such as Auckland Council Investments Limited to manage AC investments.
If the council group continues to operate the Port of Auckland continuing to use the profits and dividends to fund council services	Support
If the council group continues to operate the Port of Auckland, investing the profits and dividends in the proposed Auckland Future Fund		Support in theory but need to see what the implication on rates would be. Majority of submissions from DT prefer to see the returns invested to fund council services (45%).
Any other aspects of the proposal including in relation to self-insurance, and implementation options for the proposed Auckland Future Fund and possible changes to the council’s shareholding in Port of Auckland Limited and to the ownership of the Port Land		Notes: · 35 years is too long to lock up the land in a lease. · Many felt that public assets should be kept in public control. · Council would need to have strong oversight of any external operator to ensure compliance and public benefit. · Many feel that the ports are high value land that could provide a better service to Aucklanders. · Rail, as a mode of moving containers, needs to improve markedly. · Concern that an external operator won’t invest in the final years of lease and the assets would degrade. · Questions what would happen at the conclusion of the 35 years – what is the LTP for the Ports of Auckland? · It’s a very significant decision that requires a detailed business case Primary reason to lease it from submissions was to keep rates down.

Port Land

Proposal

Support / Do not support

Local board input

Captain Cook and Marsden wharves transferred to council within 2-5 years

Support

Consider it to be valuable waterfront land.

The Bledisloe Terminal site transferred to council for use in another way within 15 years

There was uncertainty regarding the impact on port operations and concern for a reduction in income generated.

41% keep Bledisloe Terminal and 40% release it. The realisation of this is 15 years away, so question appropriateness of consulting on this today.

Changes to other rates, fees and charges

Proposal	Support / Do not support	Local board input
Resuming the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and extending it to 2034/2035	Support	60% Support.
Resuming the Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) and extending it to 2034/2035	Support	77% Support.
Broadening the description of bus services funded by the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) to reduce the need to consult each year for minor changes to the bus programme	Support	66% Support
Discontinuing the Long-Term Differential Strategy and raising the share of NETR, WQTR and CATTR paid by businesses to align with their share of the general rate	Support	52% supported the reduction (individuals) and 60% of organisations supported this.
Changing the Rodney Drainage Districts Targeted Rate	NA
Increasing the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate from $296.75 to $336.80 (per year)	NA
Applying the Recycling Targeted Rate to all schools	Do not support	Community doesn’t support (53% individuals)
Continuing the planned roll out of rates funded refuse collections to the North Shore, Waitākere and Papakura in 2024/2025, and Franklin and Rodney in 2025/2026	Do not support	50% individuals support and 40% do not support. 60% orgs do, but 40% do not. The Local Board does not support this. PAYT is a user pays model that supports waste reduction habits. A targeted rate would result in more people filling up their bins simply because they can. Also concerned about the increase in cost, given Council intention to reduce collections to a fortnightly service (draft waste management and minimisation plan consultation ran at the same time as LTP but we don’t have feedback yet).

Other matters

Proposal

Support/Do not support

Local board input

Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2023/2024

No submissions.

Fairer funding - Local Board Funding Policy moving to the fairer funding model (include whether there is support for ‘pay more get more’ and ‘pay less get less’ options)

Do not support

Support reaching equity through new funding only, and not through any reallocation.

Massive risk to delivery in the community and reduction in funding will undermine the partnership approach the local board takes with community groups who deliver on the aspirations contained within the Local Board Plan.

All assets in the DTLB area are utilised and important. Assets still need to be renewed and maintained. Any reduced funding will compromise our ability to do this, and further degrade confidence in Auckland Council.

Suggest the total quantum of funding for local boards is inadequate at present.

Risk is compounded through potential local board reorganisation, as Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipatiki Local Boards are anticipating reduced budgets under fairer funding and are two boards proposed to be amalgamated.

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board key advocacy initiatives

Initiative

Greater funding and support for improved travel options, including the upgrade of Lake Road, the development of the Francis-Esmonde Link and the development of a new Bayswater Ferry Terminal.

Additional funding to renew and protect our heritage assets or that they be funded from a regional budget.

Increased investment in the provision and improvement of stormwater assets through the Making Space for Water programme.

Increased investment in the Wairau Catchment and Lake Pupuke to improve water quality from the WQTR

Support for AEM to deliver community initiatives that help people prepare and respond to emergencies.