I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Rodney Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 1 May 2024

10:00AM

Kumeū Meeting Room
296 Main Road, Kumeū

 

Rodney Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brent Bailey

 

Deputy Chairperson

Louise Johnston

 

Members

Michelle Carmichael

 

 

Mark Dennis

 

 

Tim Holdgate

 

 

Colin Smith

 

 

Geoff Upson

 

 

Ivan Wagstaff

 

 

Guy Wishart

 

 

 

 

 

Ignacio Quinteros

Democracy Advisor

 

26 April 2024

 

Contact Telephone: +64 21579781

Email: ignacio.quinteros@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


Local Board Member

Organisation

Position

Brent Bailey

Central Shooters Inc

President

Auckland Shooting Club

Member

Royal NZ Yacht Squadron

Member

Michelle Carmichael

Fight the Tip Tiaki te Whenua Inc

Deputy chairperson

Tapora School Board of Trustees

Staff representative

Mark Dennis

Helensville Tennis Club

Elected member

Parakai Springs Complex

Operations manager

Tim Holdgate

Landowners Contractors Association

Vice chairman

Agricultural & Pastoral Society Warkworth

Committee member

 

Louise Johnston

Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society

Treasurer

Colin Smith

Landowners Contractors Association

Committee member

Geoff Upson

 

 

Ivan Wagstaff

 

 

Guy Wishart

Huapai Kumeū Lions

 

Member

Kaipara ki Mahurangi LEC

Member

Kumeū Community Centre

Committee member

Kumeū Small Landowners Assoc

Member

Future Kumeū Inc Committee

Member

Kumeū Live (Music Events)

Manager

Kumeū Emergency Network

Member

Kumeū Community Action

Member

Kumeū Showgrounds Committee

Member


Rodney Local Board

01 May 2024

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS            PAGE

1          Nau mai | Welcome                                                                  5

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies                                                   5

3          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest                                                               5

4          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence                      5

5          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements                              5

6          Ngā Petihana | Petitions                                       5

7          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations           5

8          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                5

9          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business     5

10        Long-term Plan 2024-2034: local board consultation feedback and input                        7

11        Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary

            Items

 

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

4          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

 

5          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

 

 

6          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

7          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.

 

 

8          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of three minutes per speaker is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

 

 

9          Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


Rodney Local Board

01 May 2024

 

 

Long-term Plan 2024-2034: local board consultation feedback and input

File No.: CP2024/04693

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive consultation feedback from people and organisations who have an interest in the Rodney Local Board area on:

·        proposed priorities, activities, and advocacy initiatives for the Rodney Local Board Agreement 2024/2025

·        regional topics for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

2.       To recommend any local matters or advocacy initiatives to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process.

3.       To provide input to the Governing Body on the proposed regional topics in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

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 2024/2025 will be included in the council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

5.       Auckland Council carried out public consultation on the draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 between 28 February to 28 March 2024 to seek community views on the proposals. This included consultation on the Rodney Local Board’s key local priorities and advocacy initiatives for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and proposed priorities for the 2024/2025 local board agreement with the Governing Body.  

6.       Of the 27978 submissions received in total by Auckland Council, 1714 submissions were relevant to the Rodney Local Board area. In comparison, for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (long term plan) Auckland Council received 19,965 submissions in total across the region with 1,972 submissions from the Rodney Local Board area.

7.       One thousand and eighty-three (1083) submissions from the Rodney Local Board area responded to the question on the overall direction for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, including twelve submissions from organisations and 256 pro-forma submissions. A majority of individual (42 per cent), organisations (50 per cent) and pro-forma submitters (99 per cent) supported the options to ‘do less’.

8.       In relation to specific areas of the overall proposal, most submitters supported either the central proposal or the option to ‘do more’: water (87 per cent of 782 submissions) transport (83 per cent of 781 submissions), parks and community (69 per cent of 824 submissions), council support (68 per cent of 808 submissions) and environmental regulation (65 per cent of 784 submissions).

9.       Most submitters supported the option to ‘do less’ on city and local development (55 per cent of 775 submissions) and economic and cultural development (59 per cent of 781 submissions).

10.     One thousand and thirty-eight (1038) submissions were received on the local board’s 2024/25 priorities from submitters from within and outside the Rodney Local Board area. Of those, 56 per cent of the 1021 individual submitters and 65 per cent of the 17 organisation submitters either supported all or most priorities proposed by the Rodney Local Board.

11.     This report provides an opportunity for the local board to consider the feedback relevant to its board area and provide input into regional proposals in the draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 or recommend any local matters or advocacy initiatives taking public consultation feedback into account. The Governing Body will consider these as part of the draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 decision-making process in May and June 2024.

12.     The local board will consider feedback on its local priorities for 2024/25 and approve its local content for its local board agreement (to be included in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034) on 19 June 2024.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on the proposed Rodney Local Board priorities and activities for 2024/2025 and key advocacy initiatives for 2024-2034.

b)      whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 from people and organisations based in the Rodney Local Board area.

c)       whakarite / provide input on regional topics in the proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034, and advocacy initiatives to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

13.     The draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (the Plan) outlines the strategic choices and direction proposed to address key financial challenges Auckland Council is facing, including adapting to economic fluctuations, paying for growth, the rising cost of asset ownership, storm response and resilience and a limited funding system.

14.     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 the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council, including the 10-year budget (long term plan).

15.     Local boards are also required to agree a local board agreement with the Governing Body each financial year that outlines the annual local activities to be delivered in the local board area, and includes information relating to budgets, levels of service, and performance measures.

16.     In the 2024/2025 financial year, local board agreements will form part of the Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and the local board will consider its agreement with the Governing Body on 11 June 2024.

17.     Public consultation on the Plan took place between 28 February and 28 March 2024 to seek community views on the proposals. The consultation content included information on regional proposals to be decided by the Governing Body, information on the Rodney Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2024/2025 to be included in its local board agreement, and key local board priorities and advocacy initiatives for 2024-2034.

18.     Consultation on the regional proposals asked submitters to respond to questions on:

·        overall direction for the long-term plan, including on seven areas of council-funded services and activities

·        transport plan

·        the future of the North Harbour Stadium precinct

·        major investments:

o   creating an Auckland Future Fund using the Auckland International Airport shareholding

o   options relating to the future of the Port of Auckland.

·        port land (Captain Cook and Marsden wharves; Bledisloe terminal)

·        changes to other rates, fees and charges.

19.     The Rodney Local Board consulted on the following proposed priorities for 2024/2025, and key local board priorities and advocacy initiatives for 2024-2034:

Rodney Local Board proposed priorities 2024/2025

Rodney Local Board proposed advocacy initiatives 2024-2034

Continue to support community groups and mana whenua to keep our waterways clean and healthy and restore biodiversity

Advocate to Auckland Transport for increased funding in the 10-year budget (long-term plan) for rural roads that are resilient including:

·       $124 million for Auckland Transport’s Unsealed Roads Improvement Programme to improve unsealed roads through strengthening and other methods

·       an increase of funding, ringfenced for maintenance and renewals exclusively, that allows Auckland Transport to renew and maintain at least eight to nine per cent of Auckland’s roads in any given year as per Auckland Transport’s Asset Management.

Support communities to develop local community emergency leadership groups and emergency action planning in response to the findings of the Emergency Response Assessment study being undertaken in 2023/2024

Advocate to the Governing Body for sensitive planning to avoid any impact on our natural landscapes with high biodiversity values, working with the environment to protect and preserve it

Support the community to minimise waste, turn it into resources, and promote education on waste reduction

Advocate to the Governing Body for adequately resourced and effectively enforced environmental compliance to both public and private entities to protect our environment

Deliver new and/or improved playground and play spaces in Goodall Reserve, Te Hana Reserve, Rautawhiri Park and Riverhead War Memorial Park 

 

Provide additional activities and programmes for children and young people maximising the use of our libraries, halls and open spaces, where possible.

 

Continue to support our local arts centres in Helensville and Kumeū and look to extend arts experiences to other parts of Rodney

 

Develop and refurbish toilet facilities in Glasgow Park, Dinning Road Esplanade Reserve and Port Albert Recreation Reserve

 

Develop pathway connections in Green Road Park

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     This report includes analysis of consultation feedback relevant to the Rodney Local Board area. This analysis supports the local board to consider public feedback in its input to the Governing Body on the regional topics proposed in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, key local board advocacy and any other local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body for the 10-year budget.

Consultation feedback overview

21.     In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 27,978 people in the consultation period from across the region (compared to 19,965 for the 2021-2031 long-term plan).

22.     Of the 27,978 submissions received in total from across the region, 1714 submissions were relevant to the Rodney Local Board area, of which approximately 90 per cent were from Rodney inhabitants and four per cent from Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area inhabitants. Rodney Local Board received six per cent of the total submissions received by the council.

23.     Sometimes council received submissions from individuals who use a form or template created by an external organisation or community group. These could be submitted directly with the council, or the individual could submit their submission via the group’s platform. These are referred to by council as pro forma submissions.

24.     Three hundred and fifteen (315) pro forma submissions were received in the Rodney Local Board area:

·        252 pro-forma submissions (using the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance form) in relation to the overall regional direction (do less) and Auckland Future Fund (proceed)

·        54 submissions in relation to the North Harbour Stadium (keep stadium but change precinct management).

25.     Graphs 1 and 2 below provide an overview of demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those Rodney submitters who provided demographic information:

Graph 1. Ethnicity compared to 2018 Census data

 

Graph 2. Age and Gender

26.     All feedback was made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Submissions on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034” and has been accessible after 24 April 2024 through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/long-term-plan-2024-2034-consultation-feedback. 

Feedback received on the Rodney Local Board’s priorities for 2024/2025 and proposed local board priorities and advocacy initiatives for 2024-2034

27.     One thousand and thirty-eight (1038) submissions relevant to the Rodney Local Board area responded to the question ‘What do you think of our proposed priorities in 2024/25?’.

28.     Of these, 56 per cent of individuals and 65 per cent of organisations either supported all or most priorities, 20 per cent of individuals and 12 per cent of organisations didn't support all or most and the rest selected “other” or “didn’t know”. Graph 3 below provides an overview of submissions received:

Graph 3. Overview of submissions on the Rodney Local Board priorities

29.     Graph 4 below provides an overview of submissions received:

Graph 4. Overview of individual submissions on the Rodney Local Board priorities

30.     A summary of individual submitters who regard the local board priorities as either very or fairly important, and the resulting ranking of priorities is provided in graph 5.

Graph 5. Overview of individual support for Rodney Local Board priorities

31.     Organisations provided the following feedback on the Rodney Local Board priorities in 2024/25 (see graph 6).

Graph 6. Overview of organisations’ submissions on the Rodney Local Board priorities

32.     A summary of organisations’ submissions who regard the local board priorities as either very or fairly important, and the resulting ranking of priorities is provided in graph 7.

Graph 7. Overview of organisations’ support for Rodney Local Board priorities in 2024/2025

33.     Of the 1038 respondents to the questions on the Rodney Local Board priorities for 2024/25, 518 also provided comments. Not many comments related to specified priorities, for example there were only 24 comments relating to Green Road Reserve and only seven comments about the playgrounds specified in the priorities. A further 118 comments were “don’t know/no comments”, out of scope or non-specific support/don’t support. The main themes from the remaining comments include:

·        improved services for Milldale (192 comments) with 184 comments requesting funding to support the delivery of Waterloo Reserve

·        roading and public transport (37 comments).

34.     Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between 11-14 June 2024. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in the current report.

Feedback received on the regional topics in the long-term plan from submitters from Rodney Local Board area

Key Question 1: Overall direction for Long-term Plan

35.     Submitters were asked about the overall proposed direction for council services and investment over the next 10 years. This included the ‘central proposal’ alongside alternative options of ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ in seven areas of council-funded service and activities. These seven areas are their associated options are described in detail in the consultation document available at Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document from pages 22-27 and included:

·        Transport - roads, public transport and safety improvements across the transport network

·        Water – managing stormwater to minimise flooding and protect waterways

·        City and local development – delivering urban regeneration and lead development of the city centre

·        Environment and regulation - protecting and restoring the natural environment

·        Parks and community - A wide range of arts, sports, recreation, library and community services including a fair level of funding for local boards (see section on fairer funding for local boards below)

·        Economic and cultural development – major events funding and economic development

·        Council support – supporting the delivery of services, enabling effective governance, emergency management and grants to regional amenities.

36.     The “as proposed” (central) option would see annual rates increases for the average value residential property set at 7.5 per cent in year one, 3.5 per cent in year two, 8.0 per cent in year three and no more than 3.5 per cent for the years after that. Over the 10-year period 2024-2034, the central proposal would provide for a capital investment programme of $39.3 billion and $72.0 billion of operational spending.

37.     The “as proposed” (central) option, and alternative options of ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ scenarios are outlined in Table 1 below.

            Annual rates increase for average value resident property

Pay less and get less

“As proposed” (central) option

Pay more and get more

Year 1

5.5 per cent

7.5 per cent

14 per cent

Year 2

3.5 per cent

3.5 per cent

10 per cent

Year 3

3.5 per cent

8.0 per cent

10 per cent

Later years

No more than 1 per cent above CPI inflation thereafter

No more than 3.5 per cent for the years after that

5 per cent for the years after that

CAPEX

$33.5b

$39.3b

$52.0b

OPEX

$69.2b

$72.0b

$76.5b

Table 1: The “as proposed” (central) option and the ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ scenarios

38.     One thousand and eighty-three (1083) submissions from the Rodney Local Board area responded to the question on the overall direction for the Plan, including 815 from individuals, twelve from organisations and 256 pro-forma submissions.

39.     Forty-two (42) per cent of individual submitters supported the option to ‘do less’, 33 per cent supported the “as proposed” (central) proposal, and 13 per cent supported the option to ‘do more’.

40.     Fifty (50) per cent of submissions from organisations supported the option to ‘do less’ proposal, 33 per cent supported the “as proposed” (central) proposal, and there was no support for the “do-more” proposal.

41.     Ninety-nine (99) per cent of the pro-forma submitters, using the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance form, supported the “do less” option.

42.     Graph 8 below gives an overview of the responses from the Rodney Local Board area:

Graph 8. Overview of Rodney Local Board area submissions on the overall direction

43.     Graph 9 below provides an overview of the responses from the Rodney Local Board area on these seven areas:

Graph 9. Overview of Rodney Local Board area submissions on key areas of council services and activities

44.     A summary of submissions who regard the key areas of council services and activities as either “as proposed” (central) or “do more” proposal, and the resulting ranking of priorities is provided in graph 10.

Graph 10. Overview of Rodney Local Board area submissions on key areas of council services and activities

45.     Many respondents made comments about what they wanted to see more of and see less of.  For example, if people selected ‘do more’ they may also record what they wanted to see more of and what they wanted to see less of.

46.     Those submitters who selected the “do more” option wanted more of the following:

·          improve transportation options, including better roads, public transport and cycling infrastructure

·          improve stormwater management

·          environmental conservation including mitigating climate change and protect natural ecosystems

·          community development.

and when answering what they wanted less of, submitters responses included:

·          focusing on essential services

·          efficient use of funds

·          and prioritising public transport over roading infrastructure.

47.     Those submitters who chose the “as proposed” (central) option wanted more of the following:

·          transport and infrastructure, including public transport and roads

·          community facilities

·          environmental protection

·          focus on essential services

·          efficient use of funds.

and wanted less of the following:

·          focus on public transport

·          new development where there is a lack of infrastructure.

48.     Those submitters who chose “do less” option, wanted more of the following

·          stronger emphasis on infrastructure, for example roading/sealing unsealed roads, stormwater management and maintenance of drains.

and wanted less of the following

·          pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures

·          waste management fees

·          red tape and bureaucracy

·          cultural and community events.

Key Question 2: Transport Plan

49.     Submitters were asked for feedback on a proposal to work with government to make progress toward an integrated transport plan for Auckland with a proposed total capital spend of $13.4 billion for Auckland Transport over 10 years.

50.     This would include:

·        making public transport faster, more reliable and easier to use by investing in rapid transit network actions, such as making it easier to pay, including introducing capped weekly public transport passes

·        network optimisation, reducing temporary traffic management requirements and introducing dynamic lanes

·        stopping some initiatives previously planned such as some raised pedestrian crossings and cycleways.

51.     A total of 801 submissions from the Rodney Local Board area responded to this question.

52.     Of the 789 individual submissions from the Rodney Local Board area that responded to this question, 48 per cent supported most of the proposal, 23 per cent supported all of the proposal, 16 per cent did not support most of the proposal and five per cent did not support any of the proposal.

53.     Of the nine organisations submissions from the Rodney Local Board area that responded to this question, 67 per cent supported most of the proposal, 11 per cent supported all of the proposal and 22 per cent did not support most of the proposal.

54.     There were three pro-forma submissions, all of whom supported the proposal.

55.     Graph 11 below gives an overview of responses.

Graph 11. Overview of Rodney Local Board submissions on Transport Plan proposal

56.     An analysis of the comments overall demonstrates a diverse range of opinions and priorities regarding transportation in Auckland, with a strong emphasis on improving public transport, addressing road infrastructure, and ensuring adequate parking facilities.

57.     The majority of Rodney submitters support all or most of the proposal.  Those who support “all of the proposal” want more of the following:

·        better public transport that is more accessible, reliable, and affordable

·        improved roading infrastructure

·        better cycling and active modes infrastructure

·        congestion management.

and want less of the following:

·        cycle lanes, road cones and raised pedestrian crossings.

58.     Those submitters who support “most of the proposal” want more of the following:

·        public transport, active transport and road maintenance.

and want less of the following:

·        reduced expenditure on cycleways, raised pedestrian crossings, speed bumps, traffic management measures, and public transport subsidies.

59.     Those submitters who do “not support all or most of the proposal” want more of the following:

·        road maintenance and cost efficiency

·        mixed comments about public transport.

Key Question 3: North Harbour Stadium

60.     Submitters were asked for feedback on options for the future of North Harbour Stadium precinct. Submitters could choose one or more of the three options set out:

·        Option 1: keep the stadium precinct as it is now and maintain it at a cost of $33 million over 10 years

·        Option 2: redevelop the stadium precinct funded through reallocation of this $33 million, the sale of some stadium precinct land while retaining the existing community playing fields and any other external funding available

·        Option 3: change the operational management of the stadium to ensure greater use by the community (noting that this option could be considered in addition to either option 1 or 2).

61.     A total of 865 submissions from the Rodney Local Board area responded to this question:

·        25 per cent supported redeveloping the stadium precinct (option 2)

·        24 per cent) supported keeping the stadium (option 1)

·        18 per cent supported changing the operational management (option 3)

·        10 per cent supported redeveloping the stadium precinct and changing the operational management (options 2 and 3)

·        9 per cent supported keeping the stadium precinct as is and changing the operational management (options 1 and 3).

62.     Graph 12 below give an overview of the responses from the Rodney Local Board area.

Graph 12. Overview of Rodney responses on North Harbour Stadium options

63.     Overall, the comments reflect a mix of opinions, with concerns about mismanagement, opposition to redevelopment, and calls for better utilisation of the existing stadium resources.

Key Question 4a: Major Investments: Auckland Future Fund and Auckland International Airport Limited shares

64.     Submitters were asked to provide feedback on a proposal to establish a diversified investment fund for Auckland (the Auckland Future Fund) in order to spread the risk of council’s investments over a range of different assets in different locations.

65.     The proposal includes the transfer of 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 by the fund manager.

66.     There was a total of 1048 submissions on this question from the Rodney Local Board area. Forty-four per cent of submissions from individuals, 33 per cent of submissions from organisations and 100 per cent of the pro-forma submissions supported proceeding with the proposal to set up the Auckland Future Fund and transfer council’s shareholding of Auckland International Airport Limited shares to the Auckland Future Fund. Thirty-five per cent of submissions from individuals and 56 percent of submissions from organisations did not support proceeding with the proposal.

67.     Graph 13 below gives an overview of responses.

Graph 13. Auckland Future Fund and Auckland International Airport Limited shares

68.     The submissions relating to the proposal made the following points:

·        support for diversification and that professional management could lead to better returns and mitigate risks associated with being heavily invested in a single asset

·        that the Auckland Future Fund could be financially prudent and increase resilience.

69.     The submissions for not proceeding with the proposal made the following points:

·        it is in Auckland’s interest to retain ownership of strategic assets like Auckland Airport

·        it is financially prudent to retain the asset as the dividends provide a steady income and it is financially unwise to sacrifice long-term gains for short-term financial relief

·        there is a lack of trust and scepticism in the council's ability to manage the proposed fund and concerns about effectiveness

·        environmental concerns resulting of the loss of control of the airport.

Key Question 4b: Major Investments: Port of Auckland: leasing or continue operations

70.     Submitters were also asked for their feedback on options for the future of Port of Auckland.  The two options identified were:

·        Option 1: retain underlying ownership of the port land and wharves and lease the operation of the port for a period of about 35 years with the upfront payment from the lease invested in the proposed Auckland Future Fund

·        Option 2: retain underlying ownership of the port land and wharves with the Port of Auckland Limited continuing to operate the port and implement their plan to deliver improved profitability and dividends.

71.     There was a total of 1064 submissions on this question from the Rodney Local Board area.

72.     Of the 801 responses from individuals, 45 per cent supported the lease of the operation of the port, 36 per cent wanted the council group to continue operation of the port, while seven per cent selected “other” and 12 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

73.     Of the nine responses from organisations, 33 per cent supported the lease of the operation of the port, 33 per cent wanted the council group to continue operation of the port, while 22 per cent selected “other” and 11 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

74.     There were 254 pro-forma submissions, all of whom supported the lease of the operation of the port.

75.     Graph 14 below gives an overview of responses.

Graph 14. Overview of Rodney submissions on Port of Auckland

76.     The submissions relating to the proposal for the council group to continue with the operation of the port made the following points:

·        risk/concerns about foreign entities controlling and profiting from a vital local asset 

·        impacts such as environmental damage and loss of control over essential services

·        scepticism about the Auckland Future Fund.

77.     The submissions relating to the proposal to lease the operation of the port made the following points:

·        a private operator with professional management could run the port more efficiently and profitably

·        a lease provides a significant upfront cash injection, which could be used to pay down debts, invest in other infrastructure projects, or offset rate increases

·        operating a port is not a core function of the council 

·        leasing it out to a private operator could lead to much-needed improvements and modernisation

·        leasing the port operation will reduce risk and operational costs.

Key Question 4d: Major Investments: Port of Auckland: profits and dividends

78.     People were also encouraged to give feedback on 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.

79.     It was noted that if the council group continues to operate the port through Port of Auckland Limited, it could continue to use the profits and dividends from the port to fund council services, or it could invest the profits and dividends in the proposed Auckland Future Fund.

80.     There was a total of 1050 submissions on this question from the Rodney Local Board area.

81.     Of the 787 submissions from individuals, 50 per cent supported continuing to use the port dividends and profits to fund council services, 32 per cent wanted the proceeds to be invested in the proposed Auckland Future Fund, while six per cent selected “other” and 12 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

82.     Of the nine submissions from organisations, 56 per cent supported continuing to use the port dividends and profits to fund council services, 33 per cent wanted the proceeds to be invested in the proposed Future Fund, while 11 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

83.     There were 254 pro-forma submissions, all of whom supported the “other’ option.

84.     Graph 15 below gives an overview of responses.

Graph 15. Overview of Rodney submissions on Port of Auckland: Profit and Dividends

85.     The submissions relating to the proposal for the council to continue to use the port to fund council services made the following points:

·        preference to use the profits/dividends to address immediate issues - investment in infrastructure maintenance, service provision and reducing debt

·        scepticism towards the Auckland Future Fund.

86.     The submissions relating to the proposal to invest the proceeds in the proposed Auckland Future Fund supported the approach for financial sustainability, long-term planning and diversification of revenue streams.

Key Question 5: Port Land: Transfer of Captain Cook, Marsden and Bledisloe wharves

87.     Submitters were asked for their feedback on a proposal whereby some land and wharves currently used for port operations could be transferred to Auckland Council and used for something else that provides public benefit. This could include the creation of some new public spaces and/or new waterfront residential or commercial developments.

Transfer of Captain Cook and Marsden wharves

88.     Captain Cook and Marsden wharves could be transferred to council within two to five years provided that resource consent can be obtained for work at the Bledisloe Terminal. These works are required to allow some port operations to be moved and would cost around $110 million, but otherwise there would be no significant impact on the operations or value of the port.

89.     Of the 774 submissions from individuals on the transfer of Captain Cook and Marsden wharves to the council within two to five years, 50 per cent supported proceeding with the proposal, 33 per cent wanted no change, leaving the land under port operations, while three per cent selected “other” and 14 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

90.     Of the eight submissions from organisations, 50 per cent supported proceeding with the proposal, 25 per cent wanted no change, leaving the land under port operations, while 13 per cent selected “other” and 134 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

91.     There was one pro-forma submission who supported proceeding with the proposal.

92.     Graph 16 below gives an overview of responses to the transfer of the Captain Cook and Marsden wharves to the council within two to five years.

Graph 16. Overview of Rodney Local Board area submissions on transfer of Captain Cook and Marsden wharves

93.     The analysis of comments in response to these questions highlighted a range of perspectives on the proposed changes to Auckland's waterfront and port operations, with considerations ranging from economic viability and practicality to urban planning, transportation, economic development, environmental sustainability, social equity and governance issues.

94.     The submissions relating to the proposal to proceed with the proposal to transfer Captain Cook and Marsden wharves from the port to Auckland Council so they can be used for something else made the following points:

·        support repurposing port areas for public benefit, for example public spaces and shopping / dining precincts, and the enhancement and beautification of the water front supported expanding public transport and ferry services

·        supported preserving public access.

95.     The submissions relating to the proposal to make no change and leave under port operations made the following points:

·        concerns about the economic implications of transferring the wharves and potential negative impacts for trade or industry in the area

·        the council should focus on its core responsibilities

·        there is existing public access and facilities.

96.     Mana whenua iwi with interests in the Rodney Local Board area gave feedback as follows:

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei requests that council:

Formally acknowledges that any decisions regarding the future of Port of Auckland and the land and seabed underlying it include Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei directly

Consider an option for Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei purchase or lease back whatever remnant of the land and seabed underlying the Port of Auckland that is available, with the support of other investors such as other iwi and hapū and other established New Zealand investors

The establishment of a formal joint working group between Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Auckland Council, to explore future economic opportunities that benefit both Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and wider Auckland region

 

Transfer of Bledisloe Terminal site

97.     The Bledisloe Terminal site could be freed up and transferred to council for use in another way within 15 years. However, this would significantly reduce the scale of port operations in Auckland with many shipments needing to be transported into the Auckland by truck or rail. It would also lower the value of the proposed port lease by an estimated $300m or reduce the future profits and dividends the council earns from the port.

98.     Of the 815 responses from individuals to the question on the transfer of Bledisloe Terminal site, 40 per cent supported keeping the Bledisloe Terminal site as a port operational area, 40 per cent supported transferring the site, while two per cent selected “other” and 18 per cent selected “I don’t know”.

99.     Of the ten organisations’ submissions from the Rodney Local Board area that responded to this question, 40 per cent supported keeping the Bledisloe Terminal site as a port operational area, 40 per cent supported transferring the site, while ten per cent selected “other” and ten per cent selected “I don’t know”.

100.   There were two pro-forma submission each supporting one of the options.

101.   Graph 17 below gives an overview of responses to the transfer of the Bledisloe Terminal site to the council for use in another way within 15 years

Graph 17. Overview of Rodney Local Board area submissions on transfer of the Bledisloe Terminal site

102.   The submissions on the option to keep the Bledisloe Terminal site under the port operational area made the following points:

·        concern about the impact on the viability and profitability of the port and revenue

·        noting that the port is an essential service.

103.   The submissions on the option to proceed with transfer of Bledisloe Terminal site to Auckland Council so it can be used for something else made the following points:

·        public benefits (amenity, recreation) if the waterfront is developed; also enhancing the city and making it more attractive

·        there could be economic / commercial benefits if turned into an attractive waterfront.

Key Question 6: changes to other rates, fees and charges

104.   Submitters were asked for feedback on proposed changes to business rates, targeted rates and charges as set out below.

Waste management rates changes

105.   Auckland Council is proposing to continue 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 replacing the current pay as you throw service, and consequent rates change. During the rollout it is proposed the refuse targeted rate will be applied to properties in these areas based on the approximate number of months the rates funded service is available to them.

106.   It is also proposed to adjust the Waste Management Targeted Rates in 2024/2025 to maintain cost recovery levels and to re-introduce recycling charges for schools.

Changes to other rates, fees and charges

107.   Other proposed changes to rates and fees and charges included in the consultation document for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 include:

·        resuming the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and extend it to 2034/2035 to continue to invest in the protection of native ecosystems and species

·        resuming the full Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) and extend it to 2034/2035 at a level that only covers the annual programme operating and interest costs. This ensures water quality improvements in harbours and streams across the region can be funded but at a lower amount for next year than previously planned

·        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

·        discontinue the Long-Term Differential Strategy which gradually lowers the share of general rates paid by businesses and raises the share paid by other ratepayers, and raise the share of the NETR, WQTR and CATTR paid by businesses to align to the share of general rates paid by businesses

·        changing the Rodney Drainage Districts Targeted Rate to reflect public feedback and updated analysis of the benefits to properties and boundaries

·        increasing the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate from $296.75 to $336.80 (per year) for the 2024/2025, 2025/2026, and 2026/2027 years to maintain cost recovery in the three-year contract cycle and avoid an annual subsidy of around $117,000 from general rates.

108.   A summary of the feedback received from the Rodney Local Board area is provided in Table 2 below.

Q6 Changes to other rates, fees and charges

Submissions from the Rodney Local Board area

Resuming the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and extend it to 2034/2035 to continue to invest in the protection of native ecosystems and species

Of the 794 submissions that answered this question:

·      383 support the proposal (48 per cent)

·      337 do not support the proposal (42 per cent)

·      74 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (10 per cent).

Resuming the full Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) and extend it to 2034/2035 at a level to only cover the annual programme operating and interest costs

Of the 777 submissions that answered this question:

·      503 support the proposal (65 per cent)

·      193 do not support the proposal (25 per cent)

·      81 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (10 per cent).

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

Of the 773 submissions that answered this question:

·      397 support the proposal (51 per cent)

·      266 do not support the proposal (34 per cent)

·      110 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (15 per cent).

 

Discontinue the Long-Term Differential Strategy which gradually lowers the share of general rates paid by businesses and raises the share paid by other ratepayers

Of the 768 submissions received on this question:

·      340 support the proposal (44 per cent)

·      273 do not support the proposal (36 per cent)

·      155 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (21 per cent).

Continue 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 replacing the current pay as you throw service, and consequent rates change

During the refuse targeted rate will be applied based on the approximate number of months the rates funded service is available to them

Of the 755 submissions on this question:

·      314 support the proposal (42 per cent)

·      344 do not support the proposal (46 per cent)

·      97 either did not know or chose ‘Other’ (13 per cent).

Adjust the Waste Management Targeted Rates in 2024/2025 to maintain cost recovery levels and to apply the Recycling Targeted Rate to all schools

·    Of the 731 submissions received on this question:

·    216 support the proposal (30 per cent)

·    431 do not support the proposal (59 per cent)

·    84 did not know or chose ‘Other’ (11 per cent)

Changing the Rodney Drainage Districts Targeted Rate to reflect public feedback and updated analysis of the benefits to properties and boundaries

·    Of the 757 submissions received on this question:

·    433 support the proposal (57 per cent)

·    121 do not support the proposal (16 per cent)

·    203 did not know (27 per cent)

Increasing the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate from $296.75 to $336.80 (per year) for the 2024/2025, 2025/2026, and 2026/2027 years to maintain cost recovery in the three-year contract cycle, and avoid an annual subsidy of around $117,000 from general rates

·    Of the 750 submissions received on this question:

·    351 support the proposal (47 per cent)

·    158 do not support the proposal (21 per cent)

·    241 did not know (33 per cent)

Table 2: Feedback on proposed changes to rates and fees and charges

109.   An analysis of comments on these questions, reflect overall a mix of concerns about rising costs, environmental sustainability, and equity or fairness in how funds are allocated and collected.

Other matters for feedback

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2024/2025

110.   Submitters were asked to feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2024/2025 which sets out a framework in which the council must carry out the routine management of 14 Tūpuna Maunga.

111.   There were no submissions from the Rodney Local Board area referencing this plan.

Fairer funding for local boards (Local Board Funding Policy)

112.   Auckland Council is proposing to shift to a fairer funding model, where some local boards will receive additional funding to deliver for their communities. Other local boards, where there is a disparity of funding, would need to make changes in their priorities to manage within a reduced budget. The proposal is to address local board funding equity through the first three years of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

113.   The central proposal is to achieve this through a 50/50 combination approach, i.e., reallocating some existing funding between local boards and providing some new funding ($20 million opex and $30 million capex) over the first three years of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

114.   As the extent of funding disparity between local boards is significant, and the council’s capacity for new funding is limited, the proposal is for 18 local boards to be within five per cent of their equitable funding levels (opex and capex) by year three of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034. Of the 21 local boards, three local boards will remain funded above their equitable levels but to a lesser degree than current levels.

115.   A fixed funding allocation is proposed for Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Local Boards, who will be allocated one per cent and two per cent of the available funding respectively, given their smaller population sizes.

116.   These changes would require an amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy.

117.   In addition to the central proposal being put forward, there are also scenarios to 'pay more, get more' and 'pay less, get less'. Under the ‘pay more, get more’ scenario no reallocation among local boards would be required. A funding uplift would be provided to get all local boards to their equitable funding levels. To achieve full equity under this option, close to $900 million would be required in additional operating funding and about $1 billion in capital funding over 10 years.

118.   To achieve local board funding equity under the ‘pay less, get less’ scenario, where no additional funding would be available, a significant reallocation would be required from local boards that are currently funded above their equitable level of funding to boards who receive lesser funding. Local boards that could lose funding may not be able to deliver projects previously agreed, asset renewals or services without increasing fees, imposing local targeted rates or rationalising assets. 

119.   An analysis of the overall submissions identified a number of comments in support for fairer funding for local boards. These expressed a desire for a fair and equitable distribution of funding, ensuring that resources are allocated to address the most pressing needs of the community, including considerations for different regions and demographics within Auckland.

Recommendations on local matters 

120.   This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the long-term plan process, in May 2024. This includes:

·        any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates – none are applicable to the Rodney Local Board 

·        any new/amended local targeted rate proposals – none are applicable to the Rodney Local Board

·        proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility - none are applicable to the Rodney Local Board 

·        release of local board specific reserve funds or a locally funded capital project exceeds $1million

·        local advocacy initiatives.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

121.   Local boards are allocated funding for local driven initiatives (LDI) annually, to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision-making over the LDI funds but need approval from the Governing Body where:

·        the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose

·        a LDI capital project exceeds $1 million.

122.   These conditions do not apply to the Rodney Local Board for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

123.   Projects allocated funding through this long-term plan 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 council’s rigorous reporting requirements on a project-by-project basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

124.   The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 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

125.   Local impacts and local board views are provided and being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

126.   The local board will present its views to the Governing Body on the 8 May 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

127.   Analysis of consultation feedback received on the proposed long-term plan includes submissions made by mana whenua, matawaaka organisations and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

128.   This information will be completed in the last tranche of the regional analysis and made publicly available with the remaining feedback on the Auckland Council webpage called “Submissions on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034” and will be accessible after 24 April 2024 through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/long-term-plan-2024-2034-consultation-feedback

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

129.   The local board provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

130.   The local board is required to make recommendations on local matters for the long-term plan by mid-May 2024 to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the long-term plan on 16 May 2024.

131.   The council must adopt its long-term plan, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2024.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

132.   Recommendations and local board input will be provided to the relevant Governing Body committee for consideration as part of decision-making for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

133.   The local board will approve its local content for its local board agreement (to be included in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034) on 11 June 2024.

134.   The final Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 27 June 2024.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Helgard Wagener - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager