I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 2 May 2024

9.30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
6-8 Munroe Lane
Albany
Auckland 0632

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Anna Atkinson

 

Deputy Chairperson

Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP

 

Members

Callum Blair

Kyle Parker

 

John Mclean

Sylvia Yang

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Max Wilde

Democracy Advisor (Upper Harbour Local Board)

 

23 April 2024

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 4142684

Email: Max.Wilde@AucklandCouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Upper Harbour 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          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes                                                    5

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence                                                            5

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements                                                                                       5

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions                                                                                                5

8          Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations                                                                    5

9          Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum                                                                      5

10        Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business                                                              6

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

12        Long-term Plan 2024-2034: local board consultation feedback and input           23

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

 

 


1          Nau mai | Welcome

 

The Chairperson will open the meeting with a Karakia.

 

 

2          Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda an apology had been received from Chairperson A Atkinson.

 

 

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          Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 18 April 2024, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

5          He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

7          Ngā Petihana | Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          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 Upper Harbour 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.

 

 

9          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.

 

 

10        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.”

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

02 May 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/04187

 

  

 

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 to the agenda report) records the allocation of decision-making responsibilities for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council, as determined by the Governing Body.   The Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards 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 Decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards document 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 Upper Harbour 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 document (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 allocation table 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 2024 business meetings and this will be reported to the JGWP’s 6 May 2024 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 2024 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

Authors

Christie McFadyen – Principal Advisor – Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

02 May 2024

 

 









Upper Harbour Local Board

02 May 2024

 

 

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

File No.: CP2024/04657

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive consultation feedback from people and organisations in the Upper Harbour Local Board area on:

·        proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Upper Harbour 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 on regional topics to the Governing Body on the proposed regional topics in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4.       Auckland Council carried out public consultation on the draft Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (the Plan) between 28 February to 28 March 2024 to seek community views on the proposals. This included consultation on the Upper Harbour 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.  

5.       Of the 27,960 submissions received in total from across the region, 1,451 submissions selected Upper Harbour as their local board area. In comparison, the Upper Harbour Local Board received 1,363 submissions for the previous long-term plan consultation in 2021, and 1,340 submissions were received for the 2023 annual budget consultation.

6.       One thousand one-hundred and twenty-one (1,121) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area responded to the question on the overall direction for the Plan, including seven submissions from organisations. A large number of individual submitters supported the option to ‘do less’ (42 per cent) with a majority supporting either the ‘central’ or ‘do more’ proposal (49 per cent). 58 per cent of organisations supported either the ‘central’ or ‘do more’ proposal.

7.       A majority of submitters from Upper Harbour local board area support either all or most of the Transport Plan proposal (76 percent of 1,119 individual submissions and 67 per cent of six organisation submissions)

8.       A majority of submitters from the Upper Harbour Local Board area supported either keeping the North Harbour Stadium precinct as is, changing the operational management or both options.

9.       One thousand and eighty-seven (1,087) submissions relevant to the Upper Harbour local board area were received on the local board’s 2024/2025 priorities. Of those, 202 did not select Upper Harbour as their local board area. 66 per cent of individual submitters and 79 per cent of organisations either supported all or most priorities proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board, with the support to deliver environmental outcomes and investment in library provision in Albany being a key priority. 

10.     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.

11.     The local board will consider feedback on its local priorities for 2024/2025 and approve its local content for its local board agreement (to be included in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034) on 13 June 2024.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on the proposed Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour 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

12.     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.

13.     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.

14.     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.

15.     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 13 June 2024.

16.     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 Upper Harbour 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.

17.     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.

18.     Table 1 below outlines the Upper Harbour Local Board consulted on the following proposed priorities for 2024/2025, and key local board priorities for 2024-2034:

Upper Harbour Local Board proposed priorities for 2024/2025

Upper Harbour Local Board proposed key priorities for the 10-year Budget 2024-2034

Progress with the detailed business case for a new multi-purpose library facility in Albany.

Investigate options to sell land or introduce a targeted rate to enable investment in building a new multi-purpose library facility in Albany

Continue to deliver stage 1b of Te Kori Scott Point which includes physical works for 3 sports fields and sport field lighting as well as a second baseball diamond.

Investigate and develop a new public toilet facility at the Whenuapai Town Park

Implement actions from the Upper Harbour Ethnic Peoples Plan.

Develop and implement a plan for Albany to create a connected community and vibrant destination where people want to live, visit, shop, work and connect

Continue to invest in projects that improve the environment and address climate change including planting trees as outlined in the Upper Harbour Urban Ngahere Strategy and continuing to support and fund volunteer environmental work.

Continue to prioritise support to our local community organisations and volunteers to deliver outcomes that provide a sense of belonging, wellbeing and resilience for residents.

Implement actions from the Upper Harbour Engagement Strategy.

Implement actions from the Upper Harbour Greenways Plan.

Implement actions from the Upper Harbour Wheeled Recreation Service Assessment.

Table 1: Upper Harbour Local Board proposed priorities for 2024/2025 and for the 10-year Budget 2024 - 2034

 

19.     The Upper Harbour Local Board consulted on the following proposed advocacy initiatives for 2024 – 2034:

·        advocate to the Governing Body for fair and equitable funding allocations for Upper Harbour

·        advocate to the Governing Body for appropriate funding to enable fit for purpose library service provision in Albany

·        advocate for adequate level of renewals funding to ensure existing assets are well maintained

·        advocate to the Governing Body for appropriate investment in North Harbour Stadium to be a well utilised multi-purpose facility that meets the needs of the growing North Auckland community

·        advocate to the Governing Body for appropriate planning and investment for infrastructure and quality open space in areas impacted by growth and intensification e.g. Whenuapai, Hobsonville Point and Albany

·        advocate to the Governing Body and Auckland Transport for the retention and increase of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

 Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20.     This report includes analysis of consultation feedback relevant to the Upper Harbour 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 27,960 people in the consultation period from across the region (compared to 19,965 for the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan).

22.     Of the 27,960 submissions received in total from across the region, 1,451 submissions selected Upper Harbour as their local board area. In comparison, the Upper Harbour Local Board received 1,363 submissions for the previous long-term plan consultation in 2021, and 1,340 submissions were received for the 2023 annual budget consultation.

23.     The majority of these submissions (99 per cent) were from individuals. The remaining 1 per cent were submissions from organisations.

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

25.     The following pro forma submissions were received in the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

·        126 pro forma submissions from people using the Harbour Sport ‘Save Our Stadium’ campaign petition to keep the North Harbour Stadium precinct as is but change the operational management

·        119 pro forma submissions from people using the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance form supporting the option to ‘do less (reduce council services/ investment), lower rates increases and less debt’

·        11 pro forma submissions in support for the central proposal for the overall direction of the long-term plan, in particular retaining the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment fund and the proposal for $35m of additional funding to be added to the fund

·        15 pro forma submissions came through a separate survey that Whenuapai Ratepayers and Residents Association where submitters provided individual responses to the Long-term Plan questions plus additional questions posed in the survey

26.     The text for each of these pro forma submissions is provided under Attachment A of this agenda report, however for this report the pro forma submissions have been treated and reported and analysed as individual submissions.

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

Graph 1. Ethnicity compared to 2018 Census data

 

Graph 2. Age and Gender compared to 2018 Census data

 

28.     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 Upper Harbour Local Board’s priorities for 2024/2025 and proposed local board priorities for 2024-2034

 

29.     One thousand and eighty-seven (1,087) submissions provided feedback on the Upper Harbour Local Board priorities. Of those, 202 did not select Upper Harbour Local Board as the area they live in.

30.     Six hundred and ninety-two (692) submitters responded to the question “what do you think of our proposed priorities in 2024/2025?”

31.     Of these, 66 per cent of individuals and 79 per cent of organisations either supported all or most priorities while 26 per cent of individuals either did not support most or any priorities Graph 3 below provides an overview of submissions received:

Graph 3. Overview of submissions on the Upper Harbour Local Board priorities 2024/2025

 

32.     The analysis of the comments provided by submitters in support of all or most priorities (66 per cent individuals and 79 per cent organisations) included the following themes:

·        support for initiatives that deliver environmental outcomes

·        support for investment in library provision in Albany

·        prioritisation of core services with some initiatives being seen as non-essential

·        some skepticism about cycling projects and Ethnic Peoples Plan.

33.     The analysis of the comments provided by submitters that did not support most or any (26 per cent individuals) local board’s priorities reflect a range of perspectives on how the local board should prioritise its activities and allocate resources, with a common thread of emphasizing a focus on core services. While there were no clear themes across the commentary provided a few repeated comments included:

·        proposed projects not seen as a priority, specifically mentioned was the Whenuapai toilet block, Albany library provision and Ethnic Peoples Plan.

·        perception that the council should operate efficiently and transparently, focusing on core responsibilities and minimizing unnecessary spending.

 

34.     Submitters had further opportunity to provide specific feedback on the local board priorities and responded to the question “more specifically, what do you think of each priority?”  The responses for each priority are outlined in Graph 4 (individuals) and Graph 5 (organisations) below:

Graph 4. Overview of submissions for each local board priority – individuals

 

Graph 5. Overview of submissions for each local board priority – organisations

 

35.     In regard to the local board's key priorities for 2024-2034, there was an open question “what do you think of our proposed priorities for the 10-year budget 2024-2034.”  192 responses were provided with a variety of views.

36.     While there were no clear themes there were several repeated comments providing the following views:

·        support for investment in community facilities and a library

·        support for initiatives and projects that would reduce traffic congestion

·        importance of investing in environmental initiatives and infrastructure to respond to growth.

 

Feedback received on the proposal to investigate options to fund a new multi-purpose library facility in Albany.

 

37.     The current Albany Village Library lease comes to an end in 2029 with no further right of renewal.

38.     At the September 2020 business meeting the local board endorsed the development of a detailed business case to develop a new library in Albany, acknowledging the indicative funding investment of $25 million https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2020/09/UH_20200917_MIN_9751.htm#PDF2_ReportName_76273

39.     Due to unforeseen circumstances, including the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic this project was not progressed further until the start of the 2022 – 2025 electoral term where the new local board has strongly advocated for this outcome as their key priority to progress this electoral term.

40.     The local board has proposed investing in a detailed business case as part of their 2024/2025 priorities. 57 per cent of individuals and 81 per cent of organisations said this priority was either very important or fairly important.

41.     There is currently $6.5million capital funding proposed as a discrete project allocation in the Long-term Plan 2024 - 2034.

42.     Considering the financial constraints that Auckland Council currently faces, the local board has sought some initial views from Upper Harbour residents on options to investigate further to potentially fund any short falls that may arise to deliver a new multi-purpose library facility in Albany.

43.     Submitters were asked “what options do you support investigating to fund a new multi-purpose library facility in Albany”. 628 submitters provided responses as outlined in graph 6 below:

 

Graph 6. Overview of submissions – investigating options to fund shortfalls for a new multi-purpose library facility

44.     There was a variety of views provided from submitters that responded to this question, these included:

·        request for more detail and consultation on the options to sell land

·        views that the current library is sufficient (status quo)

·        questions regarding whether library facilities are needed in the digital age

·        suggestions to look at delivering differently and co-locating with other facilities like North Harbour Stadium

·        skepticism about the use of targeted rates and Auckland Council’s ability to allocate funds appropriately

·        views from the Western part of the Upper Harbour local board area that residents use the Te Manawa facility in Westgate

·        suggestions to delay the project until there are sufficient funds to deliver the project.

 

45.     Submitters were asked “do you have any other thoughts or ideas on potential options to fund the budget shortfalls”. The following suggestions came through from submissions:

·        explore alternate revenue sources such as charging for parking at the library car parks

·        Private Public Partnerships to share facilities and potentially contribute naming rights

·        reduction of spending in other areas.

 

46.     Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement on 13 June 2024.

 

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

Key Question 1: Overall direction for Long-term Plan

 

47.     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 and 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.

48.     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.

49.     The central proposal, and alternative options of ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ scenarios are outlined in Table 2 below.

 

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

            Table 2: The central proposal and the ‘pay more, get more’ and ‘pay less, get less’ scenarios

 

50.     One thousand one-hundred and twenty-one (1,121) submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area responded to the question on the overall direction for the Plan, including seven submissions from organisations.

51.     A large number of individual submitters supported the option to ‘do less’ (42 per cent) with a majority supporting either the ‘central’ or ‘do more’ proposal (49 per cent). 58 per cent of organisations supported either the ‘central’ or ‘do more’ proposal.

52.     Graph 7 below give an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area:

 

 

 

Graph 7. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on the overall LTP direction

 

53.     In response to the question of what Auckland Council should do more or less of, a majority of submitters supported either the central proposal or the option to ‘do more’ on:

·        transport (77 per cent of 1,088 submissions)

·        water (82 per cent of 1,088 submissions)

·        city and local development (54 per cent of 1,089 submissions)

·        environment and regulation (68 per cent of 1,090 submissions)

·        parks and community (67 per cent of 1,106 submissions)

·        economic and cultural development (54 per cent of 1,093 submissions)

·        and council support ( 66 per cent of 1,099 submissions).

54.     Graph 8 below provides an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour Local Board area on these seven areas:

 

Graph 8. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on key areas of council services and activities

 

55.     The analysis from comments provided by submitters supporting council “doing less” include:

·        acknowledgement of the cost-of-living crises and the burden of increased rates on residents

·        call to council to reduce spending and look at more efficient use of resources including technology improvements and reducing overheads

·        focus on core services with a strong view for improved infrastructure relating to transport outcomes (road maintenance, active modes, public transport)

·        a variety of views that some projects were non-essential, these include but are not limited to: cycleways, speed humps, events and cultural initiatives.

 

 

56.     The analysis from comments provided by submitters supporting council “doing more” or “as proposed (central proposal)” include:

·        support for investment in infrastructure, particularly on stormwater management,  roading, public transport and active modes of transport 

·        concerns about climate change and the need for ongoing investment in climate resilience and carbon emissions reduction

·        support for investing in community spaces that meet the needs of the community (e.g. Albany Library, North Harbour Stadium)

·        investment in recreation facilities and sports infrastructure, including indoor court facilities (specific support for the Sport and Recreation facilities Investment Fund).

 

Key Question 2: Transport Plan

 

57.     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.

58.     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.

59.     One thousand one hundred and twenty-five (1,125) submissions from the Upper Harbour local board area responded to this question. Of that 1,119 were from individuals and six were from organisations. Graph 9 below provides an overview of responses.

 

Graph 9. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on Transport Plan proposal

 

60.     The analysis from comments provided by submitters supporting all or most of the proposal (76 per cent of individuals and 67 per cent of organisations) include:

·        efficient, reliable and accessible public transport is a priority

·        recognition to reduce traffic congestions

·        advocacy for investment in appropriate infrastructure across all transport modes

·        environmental concerns and the need to reduce emissions

·        support for appropriate safety measures such as raised pedestrian crossings.

 

61.     The analysis from comments provided by submitters not supporting all or most of the proposal (18 per cent of individuals) include:

·        views that public transport is inefficient and inconvenient

·        concern about spending on cycleways and safety measures such as pedestrian crossings

·        sentiment that there needs to be more accountability and transparency from Auckland Transport

·        preference for private vehicle use.

 

Key Question 3: North Harbour Stadium

 

62.     Aucklanders 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).

63.     A total of 1,260 submissions from the Upper Harbour local board area responded to this question.

64.     Twelve per cent of individuals supported keeping the stadium as is (option 1), 32 per cent supported changing the operational management (option 3) and 18 per cent supported both (option 1 and 3 combined) while 14 per cent of organisations supported keeping the stadium as is (option 3).

65.     Eighteen per cent of individuals and 43 per cent of organisations supported redeveloping the stadium precinct (option 2) while 6 per cent of individuals and 29 per cent of organisations supported redeveloping the precinct and changing the operational management (option 2 and 3 combined).

66.     Graph 10 below give an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area.

 

 

Graph 10. Overview of Upper Harbour responses on North Harbour Stadium options

 

67.     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.

68.     Main themes in comments for those that support keeping the stadium precinct as (option 1) include:

·        concerns regarding the cost to ratepayers for any redevelopment proposals

·        strong sentiment that the stadium is a valuable asset to the community

·        views that the current stadium meets the needs of the community without needing significant redevelopment

·        preference to invest in increase events and activities to increase utilisation.

69.     Main themes in comments for those that support redevelopment (option 2)  include:

·        call for redevelopment to improve facilities and make it fit for purpose to meet the demands of the community

·        views the stadium is under-utilised and neglected

·        several suggestions to repurpose some of the land in the precinct for housing and commercial development.

70.     Main themes in comments that support changing the operational management (option 3) include:

·        frustration regarding the current state of under utilisation and attribute it to poor management of the facility

·        views that new management would unlock the potentials for the stadium, create revenue and self-sustain

·        strong sentiment it needs to serve the community better

·        concerns regarding sale of the stadium.

 

71.     Main themes in comments that support keeping the stadium as is and changing the operational management (option 1 and 3) include:

·        strong call to action to preserve the stadium and improve the operational management

·        valued community asset for North Shore residents

·        support to return to previous operating models

·        concerns about any demolition or sale

·        support for investment in upgrades and maintenance

·        calls for better utilisation and access

·        concerns for future generations.

 

72.     Main themes in comments that redevelopment of the stadium precinct and changing the operational management (option 2 and 3) include:

·        views that redevelopment could support better utilisation and space that meets the needs of the community

·        views that the current operations and management is failing

·        desire for more transparent community engagement on redevelopment including community groups beyond just sports codes to make the stadium a multi-use community hub.

 

 

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

73.     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.

74.     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.

75.     There were 1,241 submissions from the Upper Harbour local board area that responded to this question. 

76.     Graph 11 below give an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area:

Graph 11. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on Auckland Future Fund and AIAL shares

 

77.     Overall, the comments reflect a mix of support for the Auckland Future Fund proposal as a prudent financial move and scepticism about its potential benefits and risks. There is a common thread of wanting to ensure that the funds are used wisely to benefit Auckland's future.

78.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who supported the proposal (52 per cent of individuals and 50 per cent of organisations) included the following themes:

·        acknowledgement of the benefits of the Auckland Future Fund and the how the additional revenue would lead to less rate increases and less use of debt

·        importance of planning for Auckland’s future, stressing the need for appropriate funding and investment in infrastructure and climate mitigation

·        preference for a professional fund management over Auckland Council managing the fund

·        some comments suggested that the airport shares are not a core function of Auckland Council nor provide a good return on investment.

 

79.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who did not support the proposal (29 per cent of individuals) included the following themes:

·        concerns about privatisation of Auckland Airport

·        do not support selling public assets

·        lack of confidence in Auckland Councils ability to effectively management investment funds.

80.     For those that supported “other” there was a view of supporting the idea of the investment fund, without selling the Auckland International Airport Limited shares.

 

Key Question 4b: Major Investments: Port of Auckland

81.     Aucklanders 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.

82.     There were 1,239 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area that answered this question. 

83.     Thirty-six per cent of individuals and 20 per cent of organisations responded to continue to council group operation of the port while 47 per cent of individuals and 20 per cent of organisations selected the option to the lease the operation of the port.

84.     Graph 12 below provides an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area.

 

Graph 12. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on Port of Auckland options

 

85.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who want to see the council group continue operations of the port included the following themes:

·    views that continuing council operated port allows for better accountability and council decision making

·    concern that leasing the port operations could result in an increase in costs and negative impacts to the economy

·    concern that the operations will be focused on making profits

·    distrust of private management.

 

86.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who support the operations of the port being leased included the following themes:

·    support the income this would generate for Auckland, reducing debt and less reliance on ratepayers

·    views that private operators may operate more efficiently that is currently done

·    criticisms on councils’ ability to manage the port.

 

87.     The analysis of comments from submitters that selected ‘other’ include the following themes:

·    suggestions to move the ports elsewhere to unlock the waterfront land for development

·    calls for long term vision and planning that consider the future needs of Auckland.

 

 

Key Question 4c: Major Investments: Port of Auckland (profit / dividends)

88.     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.

89.     There were 1,237 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area that answered this question.

90.     Thirty-nine per cent of individuals responded to continue to use the profits/dividends to fund council services while 34 per cent of individuals and 25 per cent of organisations selected the option to invest in the proposed Auckland Future Fund.

91.     Graph 13 below provides an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area.

 

 

Graph13. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on how council should use funds if it continues to operate the port

92.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who want to see dividends/profits from the ports used to fund council services included the following themes:

·    preference to use profits to address immediate issues such as investment in infrastructure maintenance, service provision and reducing debt

·    skepticism towards the proposed Auckland Future Fund.

93.     The analysis of comments provided by submitters who want to see dividends/profits invested into the proposed Auckland Future Fund included the following themes:

·    support for the approach for financial sustainability and diversification of revenue streams

·    view this could help alleviate the financial pressure on ratepayers.

94.     There were no clear themes from submitters that selected ‘other’ however there were a few repeated comments with suggestions to combine both options and use some of the profits to invest in the proposed Auckland Future Fund and some of the profits to fund council services.

 

Key Question 5: Port Land (transfer of Captain Cook and Marsden Wharves and Bledisloe Terminal)

95.     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.

96.     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.

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.     There were 1,237 submissions from the Upper Harbour Local Board area that answered the question regarding the transfer of Captain Cook and Marsden Wharves to Auckland Council.

99.     Graph 14 below provides an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area.

 

Graph 14. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on Captain Cook and Marsden wharves

 

100.   Fifty-five per cent of individual submitters supported the proposal to transfer the Captain Cook and Marsden wharves from the port to Auckland Council.

101.   An analysis of the comments provided from these submitters in support included the following themes:

·    support to repurpose port areas for public benefit including public spaces and shopping and dining precincts

·    support for enhancement and beautification of the waterfront

·    acknowledgements of the economic benefits that could be realised through tourism and commercial uses

·    concern raised regarding the environmental impacts of the current port operations.

 

102.   Twenty-eight per cent of individuals and twenty-five per cent of organisations did not support the proposal to transfer the Captain Cook and Marsden wharves from the port to Auckland Council.

103.   An analysis of the comments provided from these submitters who do not support the proposal included the following themes:

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

·    concerns about disruptions to port operations and increases in costs to importers

·    concerns regarding the investment that would be needed to provide the public benefits envisioned in this proposal.

104.   There were no clear themes from submitters that selected ‘other’ but a few repeated comments regarding not supporting a stadium being developed at the waterfront.

105.   There were 1,287 submissions from the Upper Harbour local board area that answered the question regarding the transfer of Bledisloe Terminal to Auckland Council.

106.   Graph 15 below provides an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area.

 

Graph 15. Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on Bledisloe Terminal

 

107.   Forty-one per cent of individual submitters and 20 per cent of organisations selected the option to keep the Bledisloe Terminal under the port operational area. 

108.   An analysis of the comments provided from submitters who wanted the terminal to remain within the port operational area included the following themes:

·    views that keeping the Bledisloe terminal operational will avoid increases in freight costs

·    views this operation is seen as essential service to the economy

·    creates employment opportunities

·    concerns regarding the lack of viable alternatives and the potential costs of relocating or transferring operations.

 

109.   Forty one percent of individual submitters and 20 per cent of organisations selected the option to transfer the Bledisloe Terminal to Auckland Council.

110.   An analysis of the comments provided from submitters that supported the transfer include the following themes:

·    concerns about sustainability and want to see the port operations reduced

·    views that there could be public benefits if the waterfront is developed

·    views there could be economic and commercial benefits if the waterfront is developed.

 

 

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

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

 

Waste management rates changes

112.   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.

113.   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

114.   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.

 

115.   Table 3 below provides an overview of the responses from the Upper Harbour local board area.

Proposal

Support

Don’t support

Other

Don’t know

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.

n=1108

 

44%

44%

2%

10%

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.

n=1105

 

66%

23%

2%

9%

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.

n=1100

 

54%

30%

2%

13%

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.

n=1095

 

46%

34%

2%

17%

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.

n=1094

 

49%

37%

2%

13%

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

n=1063

 

35%

51%

1%

13%

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

n=1083

 

46%

19%

3%

33%

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.

n=1089

51%

24%

2%

23%

            Table 3: Overview of Upper Harbour submissions on proposed changes to other rates

 

 

Other matters for feedback

Fairer funding for local boards (Local Board Funding Policy)

116.   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.

117.   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.

118.   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 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.

119.   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.

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

121.   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.

122.   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. 

123.   An analysis of the overall submissions from Upper Harbour local board area identified one comment in support for fairer funding for local boards.

Recommendations on local matters 

124.   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 Upper Harbour Local Board 

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

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

·        release of local board specific reserve funds - none are applicable to the Upper Harbour Local Board

·        local advocacy initiatives.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

125.   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.

126.   These conditions do not apply to the Upper Harbour Local Board for the 2024/2025 financial year.

Local board advocacy

127.   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 2024.  This is in addition to the advocacy topics the local board consulted on (reported in paragraph 19).

128.   The main additional advocacy request identified in the analysis of submissions include:

·        support for Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund and support for proposal for an additional $35m to be added to the fund.

129.   Other advocacy matters previously identified by the local board include:

·        advocate for priority development of a sub-regional community resource recovery centre in the North.

 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

130.   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

131.   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

132.   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.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

135.   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

136.   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

137.   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.

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

139.   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.

140.   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 13 June 2024.

141.   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

No.

Title

Page

a

Upper Harbour Local Board - Pro forma submissions summary

49

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Heather Skinner - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Local Area Manager

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

02 May 2024