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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 2 May 2024

10:00 am

Council Chamber
Civic Building L2
1 Smythe Road
Henderson

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Chris Carter

 

Deputy Chairperson

Dr Will Flavell

 

Members

Brooke Loader

Oscar Kightley

 

Brenda Brady

Ingrid Papau

 

Peter Chan, JP

Dan Collins

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Laura Hopkins

Democracy Advisor

 

26 April 2024

 

Contact Telephone: 027 501 1350

Email: laura.hopkins@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

02 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          Review of the allocation table recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities                                7

5          Long-Term Plan 2024-2034: local board consultation feedback and input                      23

 

 


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.

 

Member

Organisation

Position

Chris Carter (Chair)

1.     St Lazarus Trust

2.     Waitākere Badminton Club

Member

Member

Peter Chan, JP

 

1.     Cantonese Opera Society of NZ

2.     Asian Leaders Forum

3.     NZ-Hong Kong Business Association

4.     NZ-China Business Association

5.     Whau Coastal Walkway Trust

Member

Member

Member

Member

Trustee

Dan Collins

1.     Rānui Action Project

Chair

Dr Will Flavell

(Deputy Chair)

1.     Asia New Zealand Leadership Network

2.     Te Atatū Tennis Club

3.     Waitākere Literacy Board

4.     Te Kura

Member

Board Member

Board Member

Member

Brooke Loader

1.     Waitākere Licensing Trust

2.     UDL Energy Complaints Scheme Advisory

3.     Neighbourhood Support

4.     Te Atatū Glendene Community Patrol

5.     Real Estate Authority New Zealand

Member

Member

Member

Volunteer

Member

Ingrid Papau

1.     Liberty Impact Community Trust

2.     #WeLoveTuvalu Community Trust

3.     Neighbourhood Support

4.     Liberty Church

5.     Rutherford Primary Board of Trustees

Board Member

Member

Street Contact

Member

Member

 


 

Member appointments

          Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council:

 

External organisation

Lead

Alternate

Massey Matters

Will Flavell

Peter Chan

Central Park Henderson Business Association

Chris Carter

Dan Collins

Heart of Te Atatū South

Brooke Loader

Brenda Brady

Ranui Advisory Group

Dan Collins

Brooke Loader

Te Atatū Peninsula Business Association

Ingrid Papau

Brenda Brady

Waitākere Ethnic Board

Peter Chan

Brooke Loader

Waitākere Healthlink

Chris Carter

Brenda Brady

Te Whau Pathway Trust

Ingrid Papau

Dan Collins

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

02 May 2024

 

 

Review of the allocation table recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities

File No.: CP2024/04594

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board input into the current review of the allocation table, which records the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The “Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards” document (Attachment A) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body.   This document is also sometimes referred to as the “allocation table”.

3.       The allocation table is being routinely reviewed as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process. In 2022, the allocation table was substantially reviewed to give local boards increased decision-making powers.

4.       There does not appear to be any need for substantive changes to the allocation table at this time. Feedback suggests that some parts of the current allocations are not clear, and minor amendments can be made to support a better understanding of the respective governance roles and responsibilities between the Governing Body and local boards.

5.       However, there is work needed on implementation actions to support the organisation to give better effect to the shared governance model. This is being advanced through the Joint Governance Working Party’s (JGWP) enquiry into the Mayor’s proposal for more empowered local boards.

6.       Local boards are being asked to provide feedback on the review of the allocation table that will go to the Governing Body for consideration, prior to being adopted for inclusion in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whakarite / provide its input into the current review of the allocation table, recording the allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) provides that both the Governing Body and local boards are responsible and democratically accountable for the decision-making of Auckland Council, and that where responsibility rests depends on the nature of the decision being made.

8.       Section 15 of LGACA sets out the classes of decisions that the Governing Body make, and section 16 sets out the classes of decisions that local boards make. Both sections include a class of decisions in respect of non-regulatory activities of the council. LGACA requires that the Governing Body allocate decision-making responsibility for these non-regulatory decisions to either itself or local boards in accordance with the principles set out in section 17.

9.       The “Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards” (also known as the “allocation table”) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body. The allocation table is included in the long-term plan and each year’s annual plan. The current allocation table is attached at Attachment A.

10.     The overarching intent of the document is to empower local boards to make decisions that reflect the needs and preferences of diverse local communities while ensuring that the Governing Body is able to fulfil its statutory decision-making responsibilities and make decisions regionally, where to do so will better promote the well-being of communities across Auckland.

11.     The allocation table is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all allocated decision-making because of the broad range of Auckland Council’s activities and the nuances within those. Allocation of decision-making is therefore applied on a case-by-case basis, with the allocation table used as a starting point.

12.     The allocation table was last reviewed in 2022 where substantial updates were made to provide local boards with increased decision-making powers, in alignment with the Governance Framework Review work.

13.     The allocation table is routinely reviewed as part of every long-term plan process and included in the final long-term plan. However, changes to decision-making responsibilities can be made at any time via a new allocation decision (by the Governing Body) or a delegation.

Empowering Local Boards

14.     Consequently, allocated decision-making will continue to be considered in the context of the “More Empowered Local Boards” workstream, which is being led by the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) and reported recently to local boards. This recognises that empowerment includes allocated decision-making, but that there are other levers to consider, including:

·    delegated and statutory decision-making powers

·    how well information and advice enable governors to utilise their powers

·    the skills and knowledge staff need to give effect to the governance model

·    whether updates are required to other policies, systems and processes to reflect more empowered local boards.

15.     Local boards resolved their feedback related to empowerment at their March business meetings and this will be reported to the JGWP’s 6 May meeting. Feedback related to the allocation of decision-making responsibility will be considered within the scope of this current review.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16.     Informal feedback on the current allocation table from elected members and relevant business units was used to identify the scope of the review. Feedback suggests that the allocation table is still leading to confusion around governance roles and responsibilities. In practice many activities require both regional and local decisions, and there is actual and perceived complexity in giving effect to allocated decision-making.

17.     Aside from an anomaly related to disposal decisions, the current review does not recommend any substantive changes to decision-making allocation. Some amendments are proposed to the text to help aid interpretation and flow. These include:

·    refining the introductory text

·    minor wording amendments to help make more explicit the governance roles and responsibilities

·    closely aligning activity descriptions to the Groups of Activities in the long-term plan.

18.     A key focus is on implementing the allocation table to help the organisation give better effect to allocated decision-making in practice. This includes:

·    reviewing other relevant documents that may require updates

·    considering training and guidance needs for staff

·    awareness raising through communications and engagement.

19.     Local board delegations are also scheduled to be reviewed separately.

Further consideration is required for some parks disposals

20.     An issue has been raised with decision-making around some parks disposals. Table 1 shows the current position in terms of decision-making around different types of parks-related decisions.

Table 1: Decision-making responsibility for asset acquisitions and disposals

Type of decision

Current decision-maker

Basis for decision-making

Current constraints / process

Acquisition

Acquisition of local community assets (e.g. local parks, local community facilities)

Local boards

Allocation

Subject to budget parameters agreed with Governing Body

Acquisition of regional assets (e.g. stormwater assets, regional parks, regional facilities)

Governing Body

Allocation

Decisions made by relevant committee (as per GB terms of reference)

Disposal

Disposal as part of land exchange

Needs to be clarified

Disposal of service properties

Local boards

Delegation (from GB – statutory responsibility)

Service property optimisation framework

Disposal of non-service properties

Governing Body

Statutory responsibility

Asset recycling programme

21.    The report to the Governing Body in 2021 [GB/2021/67] provided the policy intent of the changes to the current allocation table which was to allow local boards to make decisions relating to acquisition of new assets.

22.     Historically, disposal decisions have been treated as sitting with the Governing Body (as a statutory responsibility). But this is difficult in practice where local boards make acquisition decisions as part of a land exchange, but not the related disposal decision.

23.     Work is underway to consider whether, from a policy perspective, local boards should be able to make both the acquisition and disposal decision as part of land exchanges, and whether this should be allocated or delegated.

Clarifying decision-making over stormwater activities in relation to local parks activities

24.     Current landowner approvals processes for council-led stormwater activities do not align with the existing allocation table and the LGACA. This has contributed to inefficiencies where a part of council wants to undertake a stormwater activity on council land.

25.     Council’s stormwater, flood resilience and water quality activities are generally regional in nature. As per the current allocation table, decision-making for all these activities sits with the Governing Body to ensure a coordinated, consistent approach across the network and integration with other regulatory related decisions. This position remains the same regardless of how the land is held – whether as a regional or local asset.

26.     Under the allocation table, local boards are allocated decision-making responsibilities for local parks. Staff are not proposing any changes to the allocated responsibilities of local boards and consider that the explanatory note in the allocation table adequately explains how the overlap in responsibilities will be managed. This states “[t]he decision-making of local boards in relation to local parks may be constrained where decisions relate to council stormwater management activities, including the stormwater network”.

27.     Under the local board delegation protocols, Land Advisory staff have been delegated responsibility for land use consents. Staff have interpreted this mandate to be broad, because of the broad responsibilities of local boards for determining ‘use of and activities within local parks’. The delegation protocols require that staff consult with local boards before making these decisions and refer the matter to them if the local board calls the delegation in as the “landowner”.

28.     However, this is contrary to the LGACA, where decision-making responsibilities are allocated for particular activities (as opposed to categories of land) and the land remains owned by Auckland Council.

29.     Therefore, in line with the allocation table, Healthy Waters, instead of Land Advisory, will now seek the views of local boards before taking a decision on whether to proceed with the proposed stormwater works. The experience of local boards should not be different to consultations over landowner approval applications. The only difference will be the local board’s ability to ‘call in’ a decision.

30.     This revised process is consistent with the allocation of decision-making responsibility for stormwater activities to the Governing Body (and Healthy Waters under delegation).

31.     When a stormwater activity is proposed to occur on a local park, staff will carefully consider the views and preferences of local boards and will be mindful of other local activities on parks when making decisions, consistent with the process previously undertaken by Land Advisory. Similarly, there is still potential for escalation of decision-making where the proposal is not supported by the relevant local board. Diagram 1 outlines this process.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Diagram 1: Decision-making process for stormwater activities

32.     Staff recommend that this process be reviewed with local boards in six months’ time. Any issues arising will be considered through the next annual review of the allocation table or, through the local board delegation protocols which are due to be reviewed later this year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

33.     There are no climate impacts associated with local boards providing their feedback.

34.     Climate impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35.     Feedback was sought from relevant business units who give effect to the allocation of non-regulatory activities through provision of advice.

36.     Key themes from their feedback are as follows:

·    The need to be more explicit on the extent of the local board / Governing Body role, where there are overlaps and limitations are not made clear.

·    Some activities could be further specified e.g. priority locations for development, place-shaping vs place-making etc.

·    Work to ensure staff understand where decision-making responsibility sits, and how best to give effect to the shared governance principles in practice.

·    More guidance and definitions would help to understand the nature of decision-making.

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

Local impacts and local board views

37.     Local board views are being sought through this report.

38.     Local impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39.     There are no Māori impacts associated with local boards providing their feedback.

40.     Māori impacts for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.     There are no financial implications associated with local boards providing their feedback.

42.     Financial implications for individual decisions by way of the application of non-regulatory decision-making are determined on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43.     There are limited risks associated with local boards providing their feedback. The main risks are outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Risk identification and mitigation

Main risks

Consequence

Likelihood

Comments and risks management strategies

Delay in adoption of the refreshed allocation table

Medium

Low

The allocation table must be adopted by the Governing Body by the end of May to meet the LTP timeframes. Careful project management is in place to ensure milestones are met.

Local boards are not satisfied with the scope of their decision-making powers

Medium

Medium

Local board views will continue to be considered as part of the “Empowering Local Boards” workstream. A range of levers will be considered as to how to empower local boards. This includes, but is not limited to, allocated decision-making.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44.     Local board feedback will be assessed to inform final recommendations on the review of the allocation table.

45.     All feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for their consideration, before the Governing Body is asked to adopt the refreshed allocation table at their meeting on 30 May.

46.     The allocation table will be included in volume two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

47.     Staff will implement activities that support the organisation to give effect to the allocation table. These activities include developing guidance, considering learning and development needs, and outreach to relevant business units via communications and engagement.


 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council's Governing Body and local boards

15

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Christie McFadyen - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authoriser

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

02 May 2024

 

 









Henderson-Massey Local Board

02 May 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/04668

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive consultation feedback from the Henderson-Massey local board area on:

·    proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Henderson-Massey 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, that they will need to consider or make decisions on in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 process.

3.       To provide input 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 publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2024 to seek community views on the proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034. This included consultation on the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2024/2025 to be included in their local board agreement, and key priorities and advocacy initiatives for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

6.       Auckland Council received 27,960 submissions in total across the region and 1,683 submissions from the Henderson-Massey local board area. The majority of submissions supported or partially supported the key projects and activities the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan to deliver in 2024/2025.

7.       In the Long-term Plan process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making. This includes any local board advocacy initiatives. The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the Long-term Plan decision-making process in May/June 2024:

·    any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

·    proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

·    any other local board advocacy initiatives.

8.       Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034.


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on the proposed Henderson-Massey 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 Henderson-Massey 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

9.       Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the Henderson-Massey Local Board) for each local board area. The local board agreement sets out how the Council will reflect priorities in the Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2023 in respect of the local activities to be provided in the local board area, and also includes information relating to budgets, levels of service, and performance measures.

10.     The local board agreements 2024/2025 will form part of the Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

11.     Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2024 to seek community views on the proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034.  The consultation content included information on regional proposals to be decided by the Governing Body, and information on the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2024/2025 to be included in their local board agreement, and key local board priorities and advocacy initiatives for 2024-2034.

12.     Auckland Council is facing key financial challenges including adapting to economic fluctuations, paying for growth, the rising cost of asset ownership, storm response and resilience and a limited funding system. To address this, strategic choices and direction must be made in the council’s proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

13.     Local boards have a statutory responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in their local board area in relation to the content of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

14.     This report includes analysis of consultation feedback, any local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body and seeks input on regional topics in the proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Consultation feedback overview 

15.     As part of the public consultation for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.

16.     Of the 27,960 submissions Auckland Council received, 1,683 submissions were from the Henderson-Massey local board area. This feedback was received through:  

17.     The 1,683 submissions were a mix of individual and organisational responses as follows:

    

18.     All feedback will be made available on an 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 

Feedback received on the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s priorities for 2024/2025 and the Long-term Plan 2024-2034

19.     The Henderson-Massey Local Board consulted on the following priorities for 2024/2025:

·    Priority 1: Our People - create opportunities that support connectedness, diversity and inclusion in our community

·    Priority 2: Our Environment – focus on initiatives that increase tree canopy cover, improve water health and provide for resilient and low carbon communities across Henderson-Massey

·    Priority 3: Our Community – ensure the maintenance and development of ‘fit for purpose’ local services and spaces meet the needs of our diverse communities

·    Priority 4: Our Places – support initiatives that improve walking and cycling opportunities

·    Priority 5: Our Economy – continue to support the Western Initiative to deliver the Youth Connections programme.

20.     The Henderson-Massey local board requested feedback on the following: “What do you think of our proposed priorities for your local board area in 2024/2025”?  Respondents supported all (24 per cent) or supported most (33 per cent) of the local board's proposed priorities. This is demonstrated in the graph below:

21.     Key themes to note across the submissions received on the proposed priorities:

·    most submissions did not include comments. Of those that did, there were no predominant themes specific to Henderson-Massey Local Board

·    a few respondents emphasised the importance of focusing on environmental initiatives, particularly the increase in tree canopy cover and the need to recognise climate change and its impacts on community

·    there was some support for economic growth In the Henderson-Massey area and some respondents highlighted the importance of improving neighbourhood safety and well-being for all residents.

22.     The Henderson-Massey Local Board consulted on the following local priorities for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034:

·    Priority 1: Our People – support initiatives that increase community safety and wellbeing in our community

·    Priority 2: Our Environment – continue to implement the Henderson-Massey Urban Ngahere Action Plan, and invest in climate response initiatives to reduce transport emissions

·    Priority 3: Our Community- support new and innovative ways to deliver events, programmes and activities that reflect and celebrate our diverse communities

·    Priority 4: Our Places – progress opportunities for neighbourhood path connections

·    Priority 5: Our Economy – support local community organisations to deliver economic development initiatives.

23.     Key themes to note across the submissions received on the proposed priorities for the 10-year budget 2024-2034:

·    most submissions did not include comments. Of those that did, there were no predominant themes specific to Henderson-Massey Local Board

·    some respondents emphasised the importance of increased safety and wellbeing in the Henderson-Massey local board area

·    the completion of Te Whau pathway was of importance to some respondents as well as supporting opportunities for neighbourhood path connections

·    There was some support for the Henderson-Massey Local Board to invest in climate response initiatives and to reduce transport emissions.  

24.     The Henderson-Massey Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives that sit outside local board decision-making and require advocacy to the Governing Body or another entity: 

·    for additional funding from the Climate Change Targeted Rate (CCTR) or Natural Enivronment Targeted Rate (NETR) to increase urban ngahere planting

·    to progress the Climate Action Targeted Rate-funded Kelston to New Lynn Cycle Focus Area project to increase the connected cycle network from Henderson-Massey to the central city

·    for funding in the council’s 10-year Budget for community recovery and resilience in response to the ongoing effects of the flooding and Cyclone Gabrielle damage

·    for the continued funding partnership with government for the completion of the Te Whau Pathway through the Auckland Council-central government partnership

·    for funding in the council’s 10-year budget for the detailed design and construction phase for an aquatic facility in the north west

·    to fund Auckland Transport at pre-covid levels so that the Local Board Transport Capital Expenditure Fund can be retained and increased

·    to retain funding levels for Tataki Auckland Unlimited to enable delivery of the Henderson Creative Arts Precinct

·    to retain funding for Panuku to enable full delivery of the Unlock Henderson urban regeneration project.

25.     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.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the Long-term Plan from the Henderson-Massey local board area

26.     The proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed Long-term Plan asked submitters to respond to key questions on the following:

1.   Overall direction for Long-term Plan

2.   Transport plan

3.   North Harbour Stadium

4.   Major Investments:

a.   Creating an Auckland Future Fund using the Auckland International Airport shareholding

b.   Options relating to the future of Port of Auckland (includes options c. and d.)

5.   Port Land

6.   Changes to other rates, fees and charges.

27.     Submitters were also encouraged to give feedback on any of the other matters included in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 consultation document.

28.     The submissions received from the Henderson-Massey local board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Overall direction for Long-term Plan

29.     Aucklanders were asked about the overall proposed direction for council services and investment over the next ten 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.

30.     The central proposal 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.

31.     The central proposal, and alternative options of ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ scenarios are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 - The central proposal and the ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ scenarios

Annual rates increase for average value resident property

Pay less and get less

Central proposal

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

 

32.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

Key Question 2: Transport Plan

33.     Aucklanders 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.

34.     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.

35.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

 

Key Question 3: North Harbour Stadium

36.     Aucklanders were asked for feedback on options for the future of North Harbour Stadium precinct. The options set out were:

1.   to keep the stadium precinct as it is now, and maintain it at a cost of $33 million over 10 years

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

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).

37.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

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

38.     Aucklanders 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. 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.

39.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

 

Key Question 4b: Major Investments: Port of Auckland

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

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.

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.

3.   The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

Key Question 4c: Major Investments: Port of Auckland

41.     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.

42.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

Key Question 4d: Major Investments: Port of Auckland

43.     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.

Key Question 5: Port Land

44.     Aucklanders 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.

45.     Captain Cook and Marsden wharves could be transferred to council within 2-5 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.

46.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.


 

 

Q5A Captain Cook and Marsden wharves

47.     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 $300 million or reduce the future profits and dividends the council earns from the port.

48.     The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Henderson-Massey local board area.

Q5B Bledisloe Terminal

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

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

Waste management rates changes

50.     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.

Rates funded refuse collection roll out


 

 

51.     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.

Re-introducing recycling charges for schools

Changes to other rates, fees and charges

52.     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.

53.     In addition to most other fees and charges which will be adjusted in line with inflation, there are also specific changes to the fees outlined below.:

·    new fees to recover the cost of processing new requirements under the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022

·    increased deposit levels for a number of consenting fees

·    an increase to film-permitting fees to adjust for cumulative inflation since 2015. It is also proposed that this fee is adjusted for inflation yearly

·    adjusted fees for all services provided from pool and leisure centres to ensure an appropriate level of cost recovery

·    baseline fees across similar venue hire and bookable spaces so that they are charged appropriately. This includes community halls, community centres, art centres and bookable library spaces.

Other matters for feedback

54.     The following proposals were also included in the consultation in the Long-term Plan:

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2024/2025

55.     Aucklanders 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.

Fairer funding for Local Boards (Local Board Funding Policy)

56.     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.

57.     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 LTP 2024-2034.

58.     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 5 per cent of their equitable funding levels (opex and capex) by year three of the LTP 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.

59.     A fixed funding allocation is proposed for Aotea/Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Local Boards, who will be allocated 1 per cent and 2 per cent of the available funding respectively, given their smaller population sizes.

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

61.     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.

62.     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.

Recommendations on local matters 

63.     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

·    any new/amended local targeted rate proposals 

·    proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

·    release of local board specific reserve funds

·    local advocacy initiatives.

Local targeted rate and business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals

64.     Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended locally targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. Note that these proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented.

65.     Local boards then recommend these proposals to the Governing Body for approval of the targeted rate. 

66.     This does not apply to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

67.     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.

68.     This does not apply to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Local board advocacy

69.     Local boards can also agree advocacy initiatives which considers the consultation feedback above. This allows the Governing Body to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 in May. 

70.     The advocacy initiatives approved by the local board will then be included as an appendix to the 2024/2025 Local Board Agreement.

Local board input on regional topics in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034

71.     Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

72.     Local board plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide the development of local board agreements (LBAs), local board annual work programmes, and local board input into regional plans such as the Long-term Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

73.     The decisions recommended in this report are part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next 10 years.

74.     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.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

75.     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

76.     The local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

77.     Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034. Local board agreements form part of the Long-term Plan. Local board chairs have also attended Budget Committee workshops on the Long-term Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

78.     Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact Māori. Local board agreements and the Long-term Plan are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori Outcomes.

79.     Local board plans, developed in 2023 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities.

80.     There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations enable local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and areas of mutual interest. Ongoing relationships influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

81.     Some projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. For any project or programme progressed by Auckland Council, the potential impacts on Māori, will be assessed as part of relevant reporting requirements.

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

83.     Ngā Mātārae led the council-wide approach to engagement with Māori entities.  This included:

·    Two information sessions for mana whenua

·    One information session for mataawaka organisations

·    Two submission workshops (to provide help with developing submissions)

·    A hearing style event for mana whenua, Māori organisations and community groups.

84.     Analysis of consultation feedback from mana whenua, mataawaka organisations and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe/local board area 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”. It will be accessible after 24 April 2024 through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/long-term-plan-2024-2034-consultation-feedback

85.     The Henderson-Massey Local Board engaged locally with Māori through a hui held at Hoani Waititi Marae on 25 March 2024. Elected members from Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges and Whau local boards met with the Māori community to discuss issues that were of importance to Māori. 

86.     Māori comprise 17.2 per cent of the population in the Henderson-Massey local board area. 84 submissions from people who identify as Māori were received from people residing in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area. This represents 6 per cent of total submissions.

87.     Te Kawerau ā Maki, mana whenua of the Henderson-Massey local board area, submitted on the regional topics for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and matters specific to Waitākere Ranges, Upper harbour and Rodney local boards.

88.     Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust, a mataawaka organisation, submitted feedback to the Whau, Henderson-Massey, and Waitākere Ranges local boards on a number of regional issues and a proposal for devolving budget allocated to Māori outcomes within the Henderson-Massey Local Board to Te Whānau o Waipareira to determine, through mataawaka Māori input, in alignment with local board outcomes..

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

89.     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

90.     The council must adopt its Long-term Plan, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2024. The local board is required to make recommendations on these 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.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

92.     The local board will approve its local content for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (including its local board agreement) and corresponding work programmes in June 2024.

93.     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

Wendy Kjestrup - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager