Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of the Budget Committee

Long-term Plan 2024-2034	2024
Prepare final documentation. Volume 1: An overview of our Long-term Plan Vol.2: Our detailed budgets, strategies, and policies Vol.3: Local Board information and agreements	17 May – 30 June
Audit NZ audit review	27 May – 21 June
Governing Body workshop – receive and discuss final LTP documentation ahead of the Governing Body meeting	19 June
Audit and Risk Committee meeting – to review the effectiveness of governance over risks and the operation of internal controls for the preparation of Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034	24 June
Governing Body meeting – adoption of the final Long-Term Plan 2024-2034	27 June

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of consultation feedback LTP 2024-2034

Budget Committee

16 May 2024

Long-term Plan 2024-2034: Local Board feedback and advocacy

File No.: CP2024/03695

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an overview of local board feedback and advocacy on the proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (the Long-term Plan).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. As part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model, local boards have a legislative role to provide input on regional plans. For the Long-term Plan, local boards achieve this in three ways:

· preparing local board agreements to be included in the Long-term Plan (Volume 3) – this includes local board projects, budgets and performance measures

· providing feedback on regional topics for the Long-term Plan

· recommending local matters to the Governing Body to consider or make decisions on in the Long-term Plan process, including advocating for projects/issues that are important to communities in their local board areas but which sit outside local board decision-making responsibility.

3. From 28 February to 28 March 2024, the council consulted with the public on the Long-term Plan. Each local board has now considered community feedback received for its local area and resolved feedback for the consideration of the Budget Committee when making recommendations to the Governing Body on the final Long-term Plan.

4. Local boards will adopt their local board agreements between 11 to 13 June 2024 and the Governing Body will then adopt the Long-term Plan (including agreeing the local board agreements) on 27 June 2024.

5. This report summarises feedback and advocacy from local boards on the Long-term Plan and focuses on common themes. As such, it does not include all of the matters raised in local board resolutions. The complete set of local board resolutions relating to the Long-term Plan is provided in Attachment A, and a compilation of adopted local board advocacy initiatives and other requests or recommendations is provided in Attachment B.

6. Key themes arising from those local boards that resolved on regional issues in the Long-term Plan include the following:

· thirteen local boards supported the central proposal for the overall direction of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 with the majority of boards supporting ‘pay more, do more’ in the areas of transport (13 local boards) and water (11 local boards). Ten local boards also supported ‘pay more, do more’ in parks and community.

· there was broad support for the Transport Plan as a whole with 17 local boards expressing support for investing in a rapid transit network and network optimisation and ten local boards expressing support for stopping some initiatives

· for the North Harbour Stadium, seven local boards supported the option of keeping the stadium precinct as it is, and 11 local boards supported changing the operational management of the stadium

· twelve local boards supported the proposal to create a diversified fund (Auckland Future Fund).

· fifteen local boards supported retaining underlying ownership of the port land and wharves with the Port of Auckland Limited continuing to operate the port and 13 local boards supported continuing to use the profits and dividends from the port to fund council services

· sixteen local boards supported the proposal to transfer the Captain Cook and Marsden wharves to council within two-five years. Ten local boards did not support the proposal to transfer the Bledisloe Terminal site to council within 15 years.

7. The adopted advocacy initiatives and other requests raised by local boards generally focus on equitable funding models for local boards, providing active modes of transport and improved public transport, investment in environmental sustainability initiatives and investment in new or improved aquatic centres. The key themes include advocacy and requests for:

· the retention of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund

· an equity lens to be applied for funding local boards

· funding and investment in environmental sustainability

· funding and initiatives to support improved water quality

· funding for stormwater infrastructure or flood mitigation

· funding for new or improved walking and cycling connections and improved public transport networks

· funding for upgrades or new aquatic centres.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) kohuki / consider feedback and advocacy initiatives from local boards when making recommendations to the Governing Body on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Horopaki

Context

8. The long-term plan sets out Auckland Council’s planned activities and community outcomes over the next ten years and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources, including how to pay for those activities. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the long-term plan.

9. As part of this process, local boards develop annual local board agreements which are agreed between local boards and the Governing Body (and are included in the long-term plan).

10. Local boards also have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in their local board areas in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. The Governing Body has a corresponding statutory obligation when making decisions to consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operations of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

11. Local board chairs were invited to attend a Budget Committee workshop where the proposed regional consultation content was discussed. All local board members were invited to attend briefings on the long-term plan content.

12. Local boards agreed their local content for consultation and feedback on regional items proposed to be consulted on, at business meetings between 28 - 30 November 2023. This local input was then formally considered by the Budget Committee when it agreed consultation items on 6 December 2023.

13. From 28 February to 28 March 2024, the council consulted with the public on the proposed Long-term Plan. In total, Auckland Council received a total of 27,978 pieces of feedback during the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 25,836 online or hard copy forms, emails or letters

· in person – 2,142 through online Have Your Say events.

14. Local boards considered consultation feedback related to their local board area and then passed resolutions detailing their feedback and advocacy on the Long-term Plan at their business meetings between 30 April and 2 May 2024.

15. This report provides an opportunity for the Budget Committee to formally consider local board views when making recommendations to the Governing Body on the final Long-term Plan. The local boards also had an opportunity to present their views at a Budget Committee workshop on 8 May 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. This report includes a summary of local board input on regional topics and local matters to be considered by the Budget Committee for decisions for the final Long-term Plan. This summary focuses on common themes and does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. Most boards did not provide feedback on every topic.

17. The full set of local board resolutions is provided in Attachment A (Local board resolutions on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034) and all local board advocacy initiatives and issues are provided in Attachment B (Local board advocacy initiatives and requests for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034).

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

18. As part of the consultation, Aucklanders were asked for their views on issues and proposals for regional topics, including proposals for these key areas:

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 council’s shareholding in Auckland International Airport

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.

19. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document gave an overview of Auckland Council’s financial position and a range of proposals which 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.

20. The consultation document also outlined key issues and other matters for feedback. These included proposals related to the Transport Plan, North Harbour Stadium, major investments, port land, regulatory fees, the summary of the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan and updates to the Revenue and Financing Policy , CCO Accountability Policy and the Local Board Funding Policy.

21. The following sections summarise local board feedback on the regional topics for the Budget Committee to consider in making recommendations to the Governing Body on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Overall direction for Long-term Plan

22. The consultation document outlined 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 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.

Local board feedback on the overall direction

23. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority, 13 expressed support for the central proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke and Whau local boards).

24. In addition, Waitākere Ranges supported ‘enhanced’ central proposal funding for rates increases for the next year, stating they do not agree with the pay more and get more proposal of a 14 per cent rate increase but consider that activities over and beyond the central proposal are warranted.

25. Kaipātiki Local Board also stated they do not support an increase in rates beyond what is proposed in the central proposal, but do not support ‘pay less, get less’.

26. Several of the local boards in support of the central proposal shared views that communities are facing strained economic and financial times.

27. Five local boards supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal for the overall direction (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

28. Upper Harbour Local Board stated they had mixed views as they do not support the asset recycling targets outlined in the ‘pay less, get less’ or central proposals.

Local board feedback on transport

29. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority (13 local boards), supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

30. Six local boards supported the central proposal (Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Puketāpapa local boards).

31. Ōrākei Local Board noted their support for the completion of the City Rail Link (CRL) to facilitate greater public transport and to ease congestion so that Auckland can reduce carbon emissions and encourage economic growth.

32. Waitākere Ranges Local Board stated they support further investment in public transport and oppose any reduction in walking and cycling initiatives with the urgent need to decarbonise transport now.

Local board feedback on water

33. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority (11 local boards), supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

34. Nine local boards supported the central proposal (Franklin, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney and Waiheke local boards).

35. Waitākere Ranges Local Board stated they support council fully recovering growth costs from developers over the term of the Long-term Plan, and support the Making Space for Water (MSFW) programme but urge council to also invest in issues relating to land stability, overland flow paths, and rural stream care as well as land flooding.

Local board feedback on city and local development

36. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal and ten supported the central proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour and Whau local boards).

37. Six local boards supported the ‘pay less, do less’ proposal (Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Rodney and Waiheke local boards).

38. Three local boards supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal (Henderson-Massey, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Waitematā local boards).

39. Three local boards asked for their local board areas in to be considered for urban regeneration (Devonport-Takapuna, Puketāpapa and Waitākere Ranges local boards).

Local board feedback on environment and regulation

40. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority (11 local boards), supported the central proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Rodney local boards).

41. Eight local boards supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

42. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supported both the central and the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal.

Local board feedback on parks and community

43. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal and ten supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal (Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

44. Eight local boards supported the central proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura and Puketāpapa local boards).

45. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supported both the central and the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal.

46. Waitākere Ranges Local Board supported fully funding parks and facilities renewals.

Local board feedback on economic and cultural development

47. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal and eight supported the central proposal (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour and Whau local boards).

48. Six local boards supported the ‘pay less, do less’ proposal (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Papakura, Rodney and Waiheke local boards).

49. Three local boards supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, and Waitematā local boards).

50. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board stated that economic and cultural development are significantly different and the local board’s preference would be to separate these services.

51. Henderson-Massey Local Board supported proposals around the approach to regional facilities and amenities and requested that council lobbies central government for funding.

52. Waitākere Ranges Local Board supported working with business improvement districts (BIDs) to improve local business environment and local economy.

Local board feedback on council support

53. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority (16 local boards), supported the central proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke and Whau local boards).

54. Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Waitematā local boards supported the ‘pay more, do more’ proposal.

55. Henderson-Massey Local Board did not state which proposal they support but noted several comments including that overhead costs have been reduced heavily over the past few years and their concerns that further reductions could have negative impacts on service levels, delivery of projects and work programmes, the quality and timeliness of advice provided and staff wellbeing.

56. Waitākere Ranges Local Board supported enhanced grants to regional amenities, especially Surf Lifesaving.

Transport Plan

57. The consultation document outlined 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 ten years.

Local Board Feedback

58. All local boards provided feedback on the transport plan as a whole with broad support noted. Seventeen local boards expressed support for investing in a rapid transit network (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards).

59. Seventeen local boards expressed support for network optimisation (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards).

60. Ten local boards expressed support for stopping some initiatives (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards). Manurewa Local Board partially supported the proposal noting that consideration needs to be given to the location of raised pedestrian crossings and cycleways and that work needs to be done with local boards as local knowledge is key. Two local boards had mixed views (Waiheke and Whau local boards). Three boards did not support this proposal (Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey and Waitākere Ranges local boards).

North Harbour Stadium

61. The consultation document outlined 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).

62. Eighteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal and seven supported option 1 - keeping the stadium precinct as it is now (Aotea/Great Barrier, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards). Four local boards did not support it (Franklin, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Papakura local boards).

63. Five local boards supported option 2 - redeveloping the stadium precinct (Franklin, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura and Whau local boards). Five did not support this option (Aotea/Great Barrier, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Rodney, and Waitematā local boards).

64. Eleven local boards supported option 3 - changing the operational management of the stadium (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards).

65. Devonport-Takapuna Local Board recommended a local stakeholder working group be formed to more fulsomely investigate options rather than settling on a preferred path forward through this long-term plan.

Major Investments: Auckland Future Fund and Auckland International Airport Limited Shares

66. The consultation document outlined 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 included the transfer of council’s shareholding of just over 11 per cent in Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) to the fund and to enable the subsequent sale of any or all the shares by the fund manager.

Local Board Feedback

67. All local boards provided feedback and the majority, 12 local boards supported the proposal to create a diversified fund (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards).

68. In addition, three local boards supported the proposal in principle however expressed concern on how it is to be funded, and the protection of the fund (Henderson-Massey, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Papakura local boards).

69. Six local boards did not support the proposal (Aotea / Great Barrier, Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

70. Eleven local boards did not support the proposal to transfer council’s shareholding in Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) to the fund (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

71. Ten local boards supported the proposal to transfer council’s shareholding in Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL) to the fund (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards).

Major Investments: Port of Auckland

72. The consultation document outlined options for the future of Port of Auckland. The two options identified were:

1. retaining underlying ownership of the port land and wharves, and leasing 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. retaining 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.

73. 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.

74. 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.

Local Board Feedback

75. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal. Fourteen local boards did not support the option of retaining underlying ownership of the port land and wharves, and leasing the operation of the port for a period of about 35 years (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards). Seven local boards supported the proposal (Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Rodney local boards).

76. Fifteen local boards supported retaining underlying ownership of the port land and wharves with the Port of Auckland Limited continuing to operate the port (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Whau and Waitematā local boards). Three local boards did not support this option (Manurewa, Papakura and Rodney local boards).

77. Thirteen local boards supported continuing to use the profits and dividends from the port to fund council services (Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards).

78. Eleven local boards supported investing the profits and dividends from the port to in the proposed Auckland Future Fund (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards).

79. In addition, Devonport-Takapuna local board supported investing the profits and dividends from the port in the proposed Auckland Future Fund in theory but stated they needed to see what the implication on rates would be.

80. Six local boards did not support investing the profits and dividends from the port to in the proposed Auckland Future Fund (Aotea / Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

Port Land

81. The consultation document outlined 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.

82. 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.

83. 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.

Local Board Feedback

84. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the two proposals. Sixteen local boards supported the proposal to transfer the Captain Cook and Marsden wharves to council within 2-5 years (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

85. Manurewa Local Board did not support the proposal.

86. Three local boards stated they needed more information or a more comprehensive strategy to guide their feedback (Howick, Waitākere Ranges and Hibiscus and Bays local boards).

87. Ten local boards did not support the proposal to transfer the Bledisloe Terminal site to council within 15 years (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

88. Five local boards did support the proposal (Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Rodney and Upper Harbour local boards).

89. Waiheke Local Board had mixed views noting a strategic review of the long-term ferry, cruise ship and future passenger service infrastructure requirements should be investigated prior to any redevelopment.

90. Devonport-Takapuna Local Board stated there was uncertainty regarding the impact on port operations and concern for a reduction in income generated.

Changes to other rates, fees and charges

Rates matters

91. The following proposals relating to rates across Auckland were included in the consultation document:

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

· Resume 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

· Broaden 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

· 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.

· Re-introduce recycling charges for schools.

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

· Increase 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.

Local Board Feedback

Resuming the Natural Environment Targeted Rate

92. Of the 20 local boards that gave feedback, 19 supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

93. Puketāpapa Local Board noted conditional support only if the ‘pay less, get less’ Long-term Plan direction is adopted.

Resuming the full Water Quality Targeted Rate

94. Of the 19 local boards that gave feedback, 18 supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

95. Puketāpapa Local Board noted conditional support only if the ‘pay less, get less’ Long-term Plan direction is adopted.

Broadening the description of bus services funded by the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate

96. Of the 19 local boards that gave feedback, 18 supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

97. Puketāpapa Local Board noted conditional support only if the ‘pay less, get less’ Long-term Plan direction is adopted.

Discontinuing the Long-Term Differential Strategy

98. Of the 18 local boards that gave feedback, 12 supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Rodney and Waitākere Ranges local boards).

Roll out of rates funded refuse collections

99. Of the 11 local boards that gave feedback on the continued planned roll out of rates funded refuse collections, eight local boards were in support (Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Upper Harbour, Waikehe, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā local boards).

100. Three local boards did not support the continued roll out (Devonport-Takapuna, Papakura and Rodney local boards). Papakura Local Board did not support the proposal to move from weekly to fortnightly rubbish collection, due to the multi-generational/large households needing weekly collection.

Re-introduce recycling charges for schools

101. Of the 20 local boards that gave feedback on re-introducing recycling charges for schools, 16 local boards stated they did not support it (Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

102. Four local boards did support the proposal (Albert-Eden, Upper Harbour, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards).

Changing the Rodney Drainage Districts Targeted Rate

103. Of the six local boards that gave feedback, all supported the proposal (Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura, Rodney and Waiheke local boards).

Increasing the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate

104. Of the seven local boards that gave feedback, all supported the proposal (Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura, Rodney, Waiheke and Waitākere Ranges local boards).

Fees and charges

105. In addition to most other fees and charges which will be adjusted in line with inflation, there were 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.

· increase to film-permitting fees to adjust for cumulative inflation since 2015. It was 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.

Local Board Feedback

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

106. Of the six local boards who provided feedback, all supported the new fees (Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura and Waitematā local boards).

Increased deposit levels for a number of consenting fees

107. Of the six local boards who provided feedback, four local boards supported it (Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, and Waitematā local boards). Kaipātiki, and Papakura local boards did not support it.

Increase to film-permitting fees to adjust for cumulative inflation since 2015

108. Of the eight local boards who provided feedback, seven local boards supported it (Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura and Waitematā local boards local boards). In addition, Waitākere Ranges Local Board supported increased film-permitting fees to adjust for cumulative inflation since 2015 on the proviso that the proportion of fees paid to the relevant local board stays the same.

Adjusted fees for pool and leisure centres to ensure an appropriate level of cost recovery

109. Of the eight local boards who provided feedback, five local boards supported it (Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waitematā local boards local boards). Kaipātiki and Papakura local boards did not support it. Waitākere Ranges Local Board noted fees for pool and leisure centres should remain as affordable as possible.

Baseline fees across similar venue hire and bookable spaces so that they are charged appropriately.

110. Of the eight local boards who provided feedback, four local boards supported it (Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Papakura and Waitematā local boards). In addition, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board supported in principle. Kaipātiki and Manurewa local boards did not support it. Waitākere Ranges Local Board reserved their view on the basis they need to understand the implications more fully.

Other matters for feedback

Tūpuna Maunga Authority Annual Operational Plan

111. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires that the Tūpuna Maunga Authority prepares an Annual Operational Plan to provide a framework in which the council will carry out the routine management of the 14 Tūpuna Maunga, and the plan must be agreed by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and the council. A Summary of the draft plan was included in the council’s consultation material for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

112. Nine local boards gave feedback on the plan and all nine expressed support (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, and Waitematā local boards).

Fairer funding for Local Boards (Local Board Funding Policy)

113. 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.

114. 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.

115. Ten local boards supported the fairer funding under the central proposal (50/50) (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Manurewa, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

116. Six local boards supported getting local boards to funding equity through the ‘pay more, get more’ proposal or did not support a model that included reallocation (Devonport-Takapuna, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards).

117. Rodney Local Board supported all three proposals to get local boards to funding equity.

118. Two local boards did not support any of the three options (Kaipātiki and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local boards). Kaipātiki Local Board noted that of the three proposals, the ‘pay more, get more’ proposal will have the least negative impact as it utilises new funding and not reallocation of existing local board funding.

119. Two local boards did not provide clear indication of their position (Hibiscus and Bays and Howick local boards). Both local boards reiterated their August 2023 feedback on the discussion paper for local board funding equity. Howick Local Board previously supported the 2021 Governance Framework Review decisions (in principle) to achieve local board funding equity within a 10-year period rather than the shorter timeframe, noting that this approach would ensure there is no reduction in current local board funding levels.

Local matters for consideration

120. 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 new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· any local board advocacy initiatives

Business improvement district and local targeted rate proposals

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

122. There is one BID targeted rate proposal which is an expansion of the Onehunga Business Improvement District (BID). Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s feedback is being sought through a separate business meeting report in May 2024.

123. There is a proposal for a Franklin paths targeted rate. Of the three local boards that provided feedback, all supported this (Franklin, Howick and Papakura local boards). There is a report on the same agenda recommending the rate to the Governing Body.

Local board advocacy

124. Local boards have approved advocacy initiatives for consideration by the Governing Body and will be included (as an appendix) to the 2024/2025 Local Board Agreement.

125. The boards approved between two and 12 advocacy items each. There were also other specific requests or recommendations from local boards included in other sections of their resolved feedback on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

126. The full set of advocacy initiatives and other requests identified by local boards is compiled in Attachment B and also included in the full local board resolutions in Attachment A.

127. This year, six items were advocated for by numerous boards. These items and local board support for each of them are as follows:

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund - eight local boards advocated for the retention of, or increase to, the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa and Upper Harbour local boards).

· Equity lens for funding local boards – six local boards advocated for funding to be applied equitably across local boards (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Upper Harbour and Waiheke local boards).

· Funding and investment in environmental sustainability – eleven local boards advocated for initiatives focused on environmental sustainability including waste management, recycling programmes, marine protection and increased tree canopy cover and green infrastructure (Aotea/Great Barrier, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper-Harbour, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards).

· Funding and initiatives to support improved water quality – six local boards advocated for increased investments and resources to support water quality improvements in streams, rivers and waterways (Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei and Waitematā local boards).

· Funding for stormwater infrastructure or flood mitigation – seven local boards advocated for stormwater infrastructure upgrades, repairs and improvements and funding for increased community resilience response to mitigate the effects of climate change and flooding (Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Puketāpapa and Waiheke local boards).

· Funding for new or improved walking and cycling connections and improved public transport networks – eight local boards advocated for investment in upgrading or building pathways and cycleways and/or upgrades to public transport services to support active modes of transport (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards).

· Funding for upgrades to or new aquatic centres – six local boards advocated for new or improvements to existing pool and aquatic infrastructure (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

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

129. Other common themes across local board advocacy included requests and advocacy for:

· funding to renew and protect heritage assets

· requests to maintain or build community assets including libraries and community centres

· upgrades to or the expansion of parks and sport fields and for allocating resources for quality open space in areas impacted by growth and intensification

· increased funding and retention of the Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund

· improving road maintenance and renewals in the roading network

· the importance of local decision-making opportunities, allowing local boards to have a greater say in the use of local facilities, assets, and services.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

130. This report summarises local board feedback on the Long-term Plan and as such has no specific impacts on the climate.

131. 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 the projects Auckland Council chooses to progress are all assessed carefully as part of the council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

132. Council-controlled organisationss and all council departments will be affected by decisions made for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and have been involved in its development.

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

Local impacts and local board views

133. Local board views and feedback on the regional topics in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 are provided in this report.

134. Local boards have been involved throughout the development of the Long-term Plan. This has included:

· local board chairs attendance at Budget Committee Long-term Plan workshops

· briefings for all local board members on the Long-term Plan

· local boards provided formal input into the consultation material for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 in December 2023

· local boards presented their views and input to the Governing Body on 8 May 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

135. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 is an important tool that enables and demonstrates the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

136. Of those who submitted feedback on the Long-term Plan consultation, seven per cent identified as Māori. There were submissions from 23 Māori entities, many of which provided specific feedback on local priorities and advocacy. Of the 23 Māori entities, 12 presented feedback at a Town Hall Have Your Say event specifically for mana whenua and mātāwaka entities.

137. Local boards considered submissions related to their local board rohe when finalising their feedback and advocacy positions for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

138. The Long-term Plan 2024-2034 is a statutory process which must be completed every three years. The council budget provides for the resourcing to deliver this project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

139. The Governing Body must consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards when making decisions that affect those local board areas, as this is a legislative requirement and part of Auckland Council’s shared governance model.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

140. Local boards will approve their local board agreements between 20 and 22 June, and the Governing Body will adopt the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (including the local board agreements) on 27 June 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Local board resolutions on regional topics for LTP 2024-2034
b ⇨	Local board advocacy initiatives and requests LTP 2024-2034

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Phoebe Peguero - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Renee Burgers - Lead Advisor Plans and Programmes

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Local Board Services

Nicola Mills - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Final Mayoral Proposal - Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2024–2034
b ⇨	Staff advice to support the Mayoral Proposal

Budget Committee

16 May 2024

Long-term Plan 2024-2034: Other rates and fees matters

File No.: CP2024/05153

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend changes to rating policy and fees for adoption as part of the council’s Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The recommendations in this report bring together all the rating issues and fees material proposed for adoption as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 which are not covered by the Mayor’s proposal. Proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges were consulted on in February and March 2024 as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document (the consultation document).

3. Feedback received on consultation proposals was presented at a Budget Committee workshop on 24 April 2024. Officers have considered the feedback alongside an assessment of the identified options in developing the advice in this report.

Region wide rates funded refuse

4. In June 2022 the Council amended its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to provide for refuse services across the region to be funded from a targeted rate. As part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 the council consulted on the implementation of this change, including proposal to commence the rates funded refuse service in the North Shore, Waitākere and Papakura in 2024/2025 and Franklin and Rodney in 2025/2026. It was also proposed the refuse targeted rate charges be calculated on a pro rata basis reflecting the approximate number of months the service is available in each of the areas affected by the rollout.

5. The majority of the submissions relating to this proposal supported the proposal. Officers recommend that the refuse targeted rates for areas affected by the rollout as set out in this report be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Waste management targeted rates for next year

6. The consultation document included proposed changes to the waste management targeted rates for 2024/2025. The overall proposed increase in the targeted rates reflects our current forecasts of waste volumes, the impact of the waste levy increase imposed by the government, the inflation factors included in our contracts with suppliers for labour and fuel costs, and the deteriorating international market for recyclable materials.

7. 11 pieces of written feedback were received on this proposal with seven expressing concern that the proposed targeted rates were too high. There have been minor adjustments to the forecast expenditure for the council’s waste management activities since the long-term plan consultation. Officers recommend the updated waste management targeted rates as set out in this report be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Funding school recycling services

8. In 2016 the council provided for all schools to receive free recycling services to encourage recycling and waste reduction. The foregone revenue is around $220,000 for the current financial year. This cost is met from the recycling targeted rate paid by other ratepayers. The consultation document included a proposal to charge the recycling targeted rate to schools from 2024/2025 onward.

9. 32 per cent of the submissions received supported the proposal with 53 per cent opposed. Most of the submitters who provided a written comment believed that schools should not be charged for recycling due to their role in waste education and concerns that they are struggling financially.

10. The council has no evidence that the provision of free recycling services has led to increased recycling by schools. Recycling rates will be a very small part of schools’ costs. Public schools (91 per cent of schools in Auckland) have their costs met by the Ministry of Education. Private schools, the remaining 9 per cent, are funded by fees. Schools are generally non-rateable and do not pay council’s general rates or other targeted rates, despite placing considerable demand on council funded amenities and services.

11. Officers recommend that schools are not charged for recycling services given the strong feedback for continuing this support from the community and local boards.

Other rating policy changes

12. Through the consultation document, the council consulted on the following rating policy changes for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034:

· amendments to the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate (ENRTR) to enable engineering solutions to protect trees that have significant public interest (as an alternative to pruning) and increasing the ENRTR by inflation each year to keep up with costs. There were no submissions on this proposal.

· amendments to the description of the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) bus programme to reduce the need to reconsult each year via the annual budgeting process for minor changes to the bus programme. Consultation on delivery of bus services is undertaken in the Regional Public Transport Plan. Any proposed changes to the bus programme to be funded by the CATTR would continue to be reported to the CATTR Governance and Oversight group, and any material changes to the programme scope would require that group’s approval. Any changes proposed to the settings of the CATTR would still require consultation through the annual budgeting process. There were 14,596 submissions on this proposal, 57 per cent in support, 28 per cent did not support, 13 per cent indicated “Other” and two per cent “I don’t know”.

· amendments to the Rodney Drainage Districts Targeted Rates (RDDTR) to better reflect the areas benefiting from the relevant drainage schemes. There were 756 submissions on this proposal with 57 per cent in support and 16 per cent opposed.

· expansion of the area covered by the Onehunga Business Improvement District (BID)Targeted Rate. There were two submissions on this proposal with one in support and one opposed.

· an increase in the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate (WRSTR) from $296.75 to $336.80 (per year) for the next three-yearly cycle to maintain cost recovery. There were 14,339 submissions on this proposal with 52 per cent in support and 19 per cent opposed. Of the 11 submitters who identified themselves as customers of the pump-out scheme, nine did not support the proposal and the other two did not indicate a position.

· the introduction of a new targeted rate to fund additional investment in paths in the Franklin Local Board area. Advice on the proposed Franklin Local Board Paths Targeted Rate, along with a recommendation from the Franklin Local Board on the proposal is covered in a separate report on the agenda for this meeting.

13. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to the ENRTR, CATTR, RDDTR, Onehunga BID targeted rate, and WRSTR as specified in this report be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

14. Officers are reviewing the Hunters Corner BID programme due to potential non-compliance with the BID policy on the part of the business association that administers the programme. Officers are reporting to Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at their 21 May meeting on options for addressing these issues including an option to not set the relevant targeted rate for 2024/2025. Officers will advise the Governing Body at its 27 June meeting on the local board’s decision and recommendation about that targeted rate.

15. Officers also recommend adjusting the City Centre Targeted Rate, the Mangere-Otahuhu Pool Entry Targeted Rate, the Otara-Papatoetoe Pool Entry Targeted Rate and the Swimming/spa Pool Compliance Targeted Rate by the forecast rate of cost inflation in the relevant sector.

Fees and charges

16. Consultation proposed changes to a range of fees and charges where the proposed increase was in excess of the increases in line with costs provided for in the Revenue and Financing policy. The proposals ensured that the service users who benefit from the activity were funding the activity rather than general ratepayers.

17. A three-year cycle of fee reviews was introduced as part of the Annual Budget 2022/2023. The reviews will ensure that the cost recovery decisions previously made by the council continue to be met. Advice on cost recovery levels will be provided where there have been material changes to the nature or cost of services since the original cost recovery decisions were made.

18. Most fees and charges not subject to review in a particular year will be increased in line with the cost of inflation for the relevant activity where necessary to maintain cost recovery.

19. A number of regulatory fees and charges were reviewed to ensure that the cost of processing is recovered from customers using services or to adjust deposits to reflect actual costs more accurately. Proposed changes to regulatory fees included in the consultation document were:

· new fees to recover the cost of processing new requirements under the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022 which come into effect in May 2024

· some increases to building and resource consenting fees or deposit levels to better reflect the final fee, and to ensure cost recovery

· increases in film permitting fees to maintain the original cost recovery level.

20. Nine submissions addressed proposed changes to consenting fees. Six opposed the fee increases while three made other comments.

21. To respond to the growing need for animal management services, the council is increasing its kennel capacity at Henderson and Manukau, employing additional field and animal shelter staff, increasing capacity for the Regional Compliance team, and establishing the Pukekohe Animal Shelter. The cost of implementing these initiatives is $5.9m. The council decided that the additional costs should be funded from general rates as the wider public are the primary beneficiaries of these additional services. As a result, consultation proposed that animal management fees were only adjusted to reflect underlying cost increases.

22. In 2023/2024 the first phase of the review of fees and charges for the Active Communities service (pools and leisure facilities) was undertaken. Following consultation, the council adopted the proposed changes to standardise baseline fees for bookable spaces in council managed pool and leisure facilities. The second stage of the review, which was consulted on as part of the long-term plan consultation document, focused on achieving an appropriate level of cost recovery for all services provided from pools and leisure centres (both council-managed and contracted pool and leisure facilities).

23. There were 15 submissions on this proposal with 27 per cent in support, 27 per cent opposed and 46 per cent neither supporting or opposing the proposal. In response to the feedback officers are recommending that charges for learn to swim and supervising adult charges be set at a lower level, or the rate of change adjusted to avoid discouraging use of the services.

24. The review of fees and charges for venue hire and bookable spaces (community halls, community and art centres, bookable library spaces) has been split into two phases due to the number and complexity of the fees. The existing pricing frameworks currently in place for bookable spaces contain variations and inconsistencies inherited from legacy councils. In the first phase of the review, which was consulted on as part of the consultation document, fees for the use of venue hire and bookable spaces have been reviewed with a focus on harmonising fees. The second stage, planned for 2025/2026, will focus on determining the appropriate level of cost recovery.

25. There were 14 submissions on this proposal with 14 per cent in support, 36 per cent opposed, and 50 per cent noted that some users were providing a community service. Officers are recommending that the proposed standardisation of these fees proceed to provide for similar charges for similar services across the region.

26. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to fees and charges as set out in this report and in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal be adopted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) whakaae / agree to recommend to the Governing Body as part of the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034 that it:

i) adopt the changes to the waste management targeted rate charges as specified in this report, to ensure cost recovery for the relevant services

ii) adopt the extension of the refuse targeted rate to the former districts of North Shore City, Waitākere City and Papakura District, from 1 July 2024 and Franklin District and Rodney District in 2025/2026, as specified in this report, to be applied to

A) all residential and lifestyle Separately Used and Inhabited Parts (SUIPs) to which the service is made available

B) all other SUIPs to which a council refuse bin is assigned as per council records

iii) continue to provide recycling services to schools without charge

iv) adopt a broader description of the bus programme funded by the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate to reduce the need to reconsult each year via the annual budgeting process for minor changes to the bus programme, noting that consultation on delivery of bus services is undertaken in the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP)

v) adopt the changes to the Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate as set out in this report, to allow for engineering solutions to protect trees that have significant public interest and to cover cost increases

vi) adopt the updated Rodney drainage district land class boundaries and targeted rates for the Okahukura Drainage District and Te Arai Drainage District, as specified in this report

vii) adopt the expansion of the Onehunga Business Improvement District (BID) Targeted Rate from 2024/2025, subject to this being supported by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

viii) increase the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate from $296.75 to $336.80 (inclusive of GST) per year for 2024/2025, 2025/2026 and 2026/2027 to maintain cost recovery.

ix) adjust the City Centre Targeted Rate, the Mangere-Otahuhu Pool Entry Targeted Rate, the Otara-Papatoetoe Pool Entry Targeted Rate and the Swimming/spa Pool Compliance Targeted Rate by the forecast rates of cost inflation as specified in this report

x) agree to the changes to fees and charges set out in this report.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that officers are reporting to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at their 21 May meeting on a proposal to not set the Hunters Corner BID targeted rate for 2024/2025 due to potential non-compliance with the BID Policy, and that officers will advise the Governing Body at its 27 June 2024 meeting on the local board’s decision and recommendation with regard to the targeted rate.

Horopaki

Context

Decision making

27. Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets out the key requirements the council must comply with when making decisions. In particular, the council must:

· identify all reasonably practicable options to achieve the objective of the decision

· assess those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

· give due consideration, with an open mind, to the views and preferences of people likely to be affected by, or have an interest, in the decision.

28. The consultation process for the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 provided an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their views considered by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made. Feedback received during consultation is one key part that needs to be considered when making final decisions. Comments provided as part of the feedback should be considered in order to understand the context and the meanings behind the overall numbers and percentages in terms of those who supported or did not support the various proposals.

29. The council must weigh up the information provided on the advantages and disadvantages of each option, consider the feedback received from local boards and the public, and then arrive at what it determines to be the best decision.

30. When making decisions the council is limited by the scope of the original consultation. Decisions can only be made within the bounds of the options considered in the proposal put forward for consultation. If the council wishes to make a decision that is materially different to what was consulted on, then further consultation is required.

Consultation and feedback

31. The council consulted on the proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges in February and March 2024 as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 Consultation Document (the consultation document). Detailed analysis of the feedback received during the consultation was presented at a Budget Committee workshop on 24 April 2024.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

32. The following sections set out key issues for each of the proposed changes to the council’s rating policies and fees and charges to be considered when making a decision:

· the proposal that was consulted on and any relevant context

· a summary of feedback received through consultation

· local board feedback

· consideration of feedback including the advantages and disadvantages of the options

· officers’ recommendations.

33. The analysis below records brief summaries of local board feedback on the proposals. Local board feedback is set out in full in a separate report also on this agenda.

34. These sections focus primarily on the feedback received and any new information that has come to light since consultation, as well as officers’ responses to issues raised in the feedback received. More detailed analysis of each proposal was included in the Supporting Information for consultation.

Region wide rates funded refuse

Proposal

35. In June 2022 the council amended its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to provide for refuse services across the region to be funded from a targeted rate. The rates funded service will be rolled out to North Shore, Waitākere, and Papakura in 2024/2025 and Franklin and Rodney in 2025/2026, replacing the pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) funding model currently in place in those areas (Auckland and Manukau already have a rates funded service).

36. The proposed schedule for the roll-out of the rates funded refuse service to these areas was included in the consultation document, with the proposed refuse targeted rate charges calculated on a pro rata basis reflecting the approximate number of months the service will be available in each of the areas affected by the rollout.

Feedback from consultation

37. Of the 14,423 respondents that answered the feedback question, 50 per cent supported the proposal with 32 per cent opposed. The most prominent theme in the comments section relating to this question was that PAYT was a better model to fund refuse collection as it incentivises rubbish reduction and the amount of rubbish to landfill would increase under the rates funded model (97 submissions). Other common themes included:

· PAYT is a better/fairer model as you only pay for what you throw out (83 submissions)

· our household does not produce much rubbish (35 submissions)

· don’t like the rubbish tag system or don’t want to pay for tags (23 submissions).

38. Four iwi provided feedback on this proposal. Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust supported the proposal, Ngāti Tamaoho did not. Ngātiwai Trust Board selected “Other” and Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board selected “I don’t know”.

39. Of the three mataawaka who provided feedback on this proposal, Wāhine Relative Limited (Wāhine Māori) was not in support and Te Kaha O Te Rangatahi and Whanau Hauā CCS Disability Action selected “Other”.

Local board feedback

40. Eleven local boards provided feedback on the proposed to change to region wide rates funded refuse. Eight local boards (Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā) supported the proposal. Three local boards (Devonport-Takapuna, Papakura, and Rodney) did not support the proposal.

41. The Franklin and Waiheke local boards noted the support from submitters in their areas. Devonport-Takapuna noted that the PAYT model supports waste reduction. The Franklin Local Board commented that illegal dumping was already a problem in their area.

Consideration

42. The rollout of a rates funded refuse service to all areas of Auckland was a decision made by the council in June 2022 following extensive consultation. Procurement contracts with suppliers have been negotiated and confirmed based on the rollout and the council is bound to fulfil its obligations set out in the contracts. Further details of the proposed targeted rate charges for each area were included in the supporting information for the consultation document.

43. There have been minor adjustments to the forecast expenditure for the council’s waste management activities since the consultation document was prepared and adopted. The commencement date for rates funded refuse for North Shore has also been rescheduled from December 2024 to March 2025. The updated refuse targeted rate amounts are set out in the table below, reflecting the movement in forecast expenditure and the reduced number of months the service will be available for properties in North Shore. Officers recommend that these updated amounts be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

Service	Area	Targeted rate consulted on for 2024/2025 (incl. GST) $	Updated targeted rate for 2024/2025 (incl. GST) $
Standard refuse (120L/140L bin or equivalent)	Former WCC	104.82	101.95
	Former NSCC	104.82	58.26
	Former PDC	29.95	29.13
Small refuse (80L bin)	Former WCC	87.10	84.72
	Former NSCC	87.10	48.41
	Former PDC	24.89	24.21
Large refuse (240L bin)	Former WCC	173.97	169.22
	Former NSCC	173.97	96.70
	Former PDC	49.71	48.35

Waste management targeted rates for the 2024/2025 year

Proposal

44. The consultation document included a proposal to adjust the waste management targeted rates for 2024/2025 to maintain cost recovery levels. The total rates for standard waste management services were expected to rise from $406 in 2023/2024 to $423 in 2024/2025. The proposed costs reflected our forecasts of waste volumes at the time the consultation material was prepared, the impact of the waste levy increase imposed by the government, and the inflation factors included in our contracts with suppliers for labour and fuel costs. It also included a $7 increase in the standard recycling charge over and above cost inflation ($5), reflecting the deteriorating international market for recyclable materials.

45. The food scraps collection service is continuing to be rolled out to all residential and lifestyle properties across mainland urban Auckland. From 2024/2025 onward all properties with access to this service will pay a uniform full year food scraps targeted rate. For 2023/2024 part of the cost for the food scraps service is met with a subsidy from the waste levy. Economies of scale following completion of the regional rollout are expected to deliver cost savings. This will allow 100 per cent of the food scraps service cost to be funded from the targeted rate from 2024/2025. A subsidy from the waste levy revenue will no longer be required.

46. The waste management targeted rates for 2024/2025 that were proposed in the consultation are set out in the table at paragraph 48. The refuse rates are to be applied on a pro-rata basis where the rates-funded refuse service is be available for the full year.

Feedback from consultation

47. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the feedback form. Of the 11 submissions that provided a written comment relating to this proposal, seven were against the overall increase in the waste management targeted rates and three were in support. The main theme in these comments was that the level of the targeted rates was too high.

Consideration

48. There have been minor adjustments to the forecast expenditure for the council’s waste management activities since the consultation document was prepared and adopted. The updated proposed targeted rate amounts are set out in the table below. The total rates for standard waste management services are rising from $406 in 2023/2024 to $426 in 2024/2025 (instead of $423 consulted on).

Service	Area	Targeted rate 2023/2024 (incl. GST) $	Targeted rate consulted on for 2024/2025 (incl. GST) $	Updated targeted rate for 2024/2025 (incl. GST) $
Minimum base service	All areas	59.39	58.43	63.07
Standard recycling or additional recycling (240L bin or equivalent)	All areas	96.18	108.16	106.64
Standard refuse (120L/140L bin or equivalent)	Former ACC and MCC	172.91	179.69	174.77
Small refuse (80L bin)		143.71	149.32	145.24
Large refuse (240L bin)		287.03	298.24	290.09
Food scraps (23L bin)	All areas	77.20	76.93	81.19

Recommendation

49. Officers recommend that the updated targeted rate amounts included in the table above be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034 to maintain cost recovery. Note that the refuse targeted rates will be applied on a pro-rata basis where the rates-funded refuse service is not available for the full year. See the preceding section for details.

Funding school recycling services

Proposal

50. In 2016 the council provided for all schools to receive free recycling services, to encourage recycling and waste reduction. The foregone revenue is around $220,000 for the current financial year. This cost is met from the recycling targeted rate paid by other ratepayers. The consultation document included a proposal to apply the recycling targeted rate to schools from 2024/2025 onward, as set out in the table below:

Bin size	240L	360L	660L
Proposed targeted rate for 2024/2025 (incl. GST)	$108.16	$162.24	$270.40

Feedback from consultation

51. Of the 14,018 submissions that responded to the feedback question, 32 per cent supported the proposal with 53 per cent opposed. The most prominent theme in the comments section relating to this question were that:

· schools play an important role in recycling / waste minimisation education (21 submissions)

· schools are already struggling financially so don’t charge them more (15 submissions).

52. Four iwi provided feedback on this proposal: two were in support (Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust) and two (Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngātiwai Trust Board) not in support of the proposal.

53. Four mataawaka entities provided feedback on this proposal. Wāhine Relative Limited (Wāhine Māori) supported the proposal and Mad Ave Community Trust – Rangatahi Ora and Te Kaha O Te Rangatah did not support it. Whanau Hauā CCS Disability Action selected “Other”.

Local board feedback

54. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposed to change to funding school recycling services. Three local boards (Albert-Eden, Upper Harbour, and Waitematā) supported the proposal. Seventeen local boards (Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau) did not support the proposal.

55. Waiheke Local Board noted the support from submitters to the consultation and the Waitematā Local Board noted that all Crown entities should pay rates. The Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin and Hibiscus and Bays local boards noted that submitters in their areas were not in support. The Howick and Waitākere Ranges local boards also did not support the proposal as they were concerned that this may encourage schools to reduce recycling resulting in negative environmental and educational outcomes and would impact on operational funding.

Consideration

56. The council has no evidence that the provision of free recycling services has led to increased recycling by schools. Paying a charge for recycling services is not expected to alter schools’ role in waste education. In addition, recycling rates will be a very small part of schools’ costs. Public schools, 91 per cent of schools in Auckland, have their costs met by the Ministry of Education. Private schools, the remaining 9 per cent, are funded by fees.

57. Schools are generally non-rateable and do not pay council’s general rates or other targeted rates, despite placing considerable demand on council funded amenities and services such as footpaths, roads, public transport, parks and libraries. Schools only pay for rates to fund waste services delivered to their properties.

58. As there is no evidence that the policy of providing free recycling services to schools has achieved its objective, officers consider that ratepayers should not be meeting costs that would otherwise be met by schools, and in most cases the government. However, officers consider it appropriate to charge no extra targeted rate for a 360-litre bin service in relation to the standard 240 litre bin service. This would be consistent with the current approach to households and businesses. Officers note that swapping an existing bin for a different size bin incurs a one-off $40 administration fee (not a targeted rate).

59. The 660-litre bin service for schools will attract a higher targeted rate (2.5 times the standard recycling charge) as the cost is significantly higher. This is equivalent to the charge for this service to residential and business properties (see below).

60. 660 litre recycling bins are also supplied to some multi-unit developments (MUDs) such as apartment blocks due to the lack of space for multiple standard sized bins. In this case the council ensures each property (apartment unit) has access to the same bin capacity as the standard service if required. Each property within the MUD pays one standard recycling targeted rate charge.

Recommendation

61. Officers recommend that schools are not charged for recycling services given the strong feedback for continuing this support from the community and local boards.

Rodney drainage district targeted rates

Proposal

62. The Rodney drainage districts targeted rates are assessed based on land area and land class, to reflect benefit received and cost caused. Land classes, in turn, are defined by flood plain and catchment boundaries. Having reviewed the drainage district targeted rates to ensure the rates were being fairly applied, council found that the identifiable boundaries of flood plains and catchments have moved due to underlying hydrological changes in the districts and the availability of more accurate data, and that Class C land receives an indirect benefit from the presence of the public drainage assets.

63. The movements of the hydrological boundaries identified in the review mean that it is likely the existing land class boundaries specified for rating purposes no longer accurately reflect benefit and cost. Therefore, the council consulted as part of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 on an amendment to the current land class boundaries based on updated hydrological information, to ensure the targeted rate charges continue to be applied fairly.

64. The council also consulted on a proposal to apply a targeted rate to Class C land to reflect the benefit noted above. Given the indirect nature of the benefit received by Class C, officers propose applying a 0.1 differential to the targeted rate assessed for Class C land relative to that for Class A land. The differential for Class B land will be maintained at 0.5.

65. There are 17 properties in the Te Arai district which are on unit titles and do not have land area information on the council’s Rating Information Database (RID). Under the proposal, the drainage district targeted rate assessed for these properties will be zero. The land parcel, with a total land area of 35,260 square metres, is situated entirely on Class C land. If treated as one single property, the land parcel would attract $7.50 of drainage district targeted rate proposed for next year. This equates to 44 cents per rating unit if the amount was equally split between all 17 rating units associated with the land parcel. While this technical anomaly would result in a small amount of subsidy for the unit title properties by other properties in the drainage district, officers consider that the impact is minor and no change to the proposal is needed to address this. Should any future changes result in material increase in the potential targeted rate liability of these properties, officers would revisit the exemption applied to these unit title properties and report back to the council as appropriate.

66. An incorporated society made up of local community representatives has been established for each drainage district to oversee the maintenance of drainage assets in the respective district. Information on actual spend will be recorded and used to inform the targeted rate setting for the 2025/2026 financial year. For 2024/2025 the targeted rate revenue requirement will be set by applying the forecast rate of council inflation to the current targeted rate revenue. The current forecast rate of inflation for stormwater activities is 4.4 per cent for 2024/2025.

67. The tables below show the proposed targeted rate charges for 2024/2025 and the distribution of targeted rates between land classes under the proposal.

Okahukura

	Targeted rate per square metre of land (proposed)	Share of targeted rate amount 2024/2025 (proposed)		Rateable land area
	$ (incl. GST)	Amount $	Percentage	Hectare	Percentage
Class A	0.00299673	18,242	51%	700	24%
Class B	0.00149836	14,680	41%	1,127	39%
Class C	0.00029967	2,825	8%	1,084	37%
Total		35,747	100%	2,911	100%

Te Arai

	Targeted rate per square metre of land (proposed)	Share of targeted rate amount 2024/2025 (proposed)		Rateable land area
	$ (incl. GST)	Amount $	Percentage	Hectare	Percentage
Class A	0.00212443	14,725	44%	797	24%
Class B	0.00106222	17,881	53%	1,936	57%
Class C	0.00021244	1,191	4%	644	19%
Total		33,796	100%	3,377	100%

Feedback from consultation

68. Of the 756 submissions that responded to the feedback question on this proposal, 57 per cent supported the proposal with 16 per cent opposed.

69. Nine submitters commented specifically on this proposal. Four thought the targeted rate should be increased further and reprioritised to areas that were vulnerable to flooding. Three others commented that the consultation did not contain enough information on the proposal.

70. Four iwi provided feedback on this proposal. Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust and Ngātiwai Trust Board supported the proposal and Ngāti Tamaoho did not. Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board selected “I don’t know”.

71. Five mataawaka entities provided feedback on this proposal. Te Kotahi a Tāmaki Makaurau Marae Collective was in support while Te Kaha O Te Rangatahi was not in support. Whanau Hauā CCS Disability Action selected “Other” and Mad Ave Community Trust – Rangatahi Ora and Wāhine Relative Limited (Wāhine Māori) selected “I don’t know”.

Local board feedback

72. Rodney Local Board was one of six local board which expressed their support for this proposal. Waiheke noted the support from submitters to the consultation. In support were Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa and Papakura local boards.

Consideration

73. The proposed changes will ensure targeted rates continue to align with benefit received and/or costs imposed. We expect a minor rates impact for most properties in the drainage districts.

74. There have been minor downward adjustments to the forecast cost inflation for the stormwater services since the consultation document was prepared and adopted. Officers recommend these adjustments be incorporated in the targeted rate calculation.

Recommendation

75. Officers recommend adopting the Rodney drainage districts targeted rates as set out below for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034:

	Targeted rate per square metre of land $ (incl. GST)
	Okahukura drainage district	Te Arai drainage district
Class A	0.00298524	0.00211629
Class B	0.00149262	0.00105815
Class C	0.00029852	0.00021163

See Attachment C: Maps of Rodney drainage districts land class boundaries for the maps of both drainage districts showing recommended land class boundaries.

Changes to Electricity Network Resilience Targeted Rate

Proposal

76. In 2021/2022 the council introduced the electricity network resilience targeted rate (ENRTR) to fund the operating costs of enhanced maintenance of council trees that present a risk to Vector’s electricity lines network. This increased tree maintenance is to allow for an enhanced, risk-based service to more effectively manage risk to Vector’s powerlines from trees council owns.

77. In the consultation document, the council proposed amending the ENRTR to allow for engineering solutions to protect trees that have significant public interest and raise the rate to cover cost increases.

Feedback from consultation

78. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the feedback form. There was no feedback on this proposal. Vector, through the ENRTR Governance Group, support these proposed changes. There was no feedback from iwi, mataawaka entities, or local boards for this proposal.

Consideration

79. There are some council-owned trees where the most appropriate solution to protect the tree and reduce interference with power lines is to provide an engineering solution (such as a redirection of the power line around the tree). These alternatives may require additional capital work to be undertaken on the electricity lines network. Any work on the electricity lines network will need to be undertaken by agreed contractors to acceptable standards.

80. The council is also facing increasing costs for the provision of this enhanced service due to inflation. Currently the ENRTR is set at a fixed level. It is necessary to increase the ENRTR in line with the increased costs council faces. The alternative is that over time the level of additional service provided will decrease and result in reduced outcomes than would otherwise be the case.

Recommendation

81. Officers recommend that the following amendments to the ENRTR be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034:

· providing for the rate to be used towards capital costs of engineering solutions as an alternative to pruning for trees where it is the most appropriate approach to protect the tree and protect the lines network

· ongoing annual increases by inflation to maintain services levels as costs increase.

Changes to Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate description

Proposal

82. In the consultation document, the council proposed broadening the description of the bus programme to be delivered by the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR). This would reduce the need to reconsult each year via the annual budgeting process for minor changes to the bus programme.

83. The council also proposed to extend the CATTR for a further two years until 2033/2034. After allowing for ongoing operating costs the extended rate will provide capacity for around $50 million additional investment. If the CATTR is extended, then Auckland Transport and the CATTR Governance and Oversight group will work through the best projects for the additional investment to achieve the climate outcomes sought.

Feedback from consultation

84. There were 14,596 pieces of feedback received on this proposal. Of these:

· 57 per cent supported the proposal

· 28 per cent did not support the proposal

· 13 per cent responded ‘I don’t know’

· two per cent responded “Other”.

85. Most submitters did not provide a comment. Of the 58 that commented on this issue the most common themes were:

· do not support investment in climate action (17 comments)

· concern about climate change and its affects (15 comments).

86. Other less common themes included:

· comments about specific areas of investment for the programme (12 comments)

· support changes that make administration easier (7 comments)

· affordability of rates increases (7 comments).

87. There were also a small number of comments where the submitter was concerned about the change in scope of the programme and the respective roles of local government vs central government in addressing this issue.

88. Five iwi provided feedback on this proposal: three were in support (Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust, Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust and Ngāti Rehua – Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board). Ngāti Tamaoho was not in support of the proposal and Ngātiwai Trust Board selected “Other”.

89. Four mataawaka entities provided feedback on this proposal. Mad Ave Community Trust – Rangatahi Ora supported the proposal, Wāhine Relative Limited (Wāhine Māori) did not support it, while Te Kaha O Te Rangatahi and Whanau Hauā CCS Disability Action selected “Other”.

Local board feedback

90. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposed to change to the CATTR. Nineteen local boards (Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā, and Whau) supported the proposal. Puketāpapa had condition support only if the Pay Less and Get Less option was adopted.

91. Devonport-Takapuna and Waiheke noted local support for the proposal. Manurewa and Franklin made suggestions on how the CATTR should be spent. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki recommended increasing the rate by inflation.

Consideration

92. Listing of all CATTR funded improvements to bus services in the Annual Budget 2022/2023 consultation materials has provided a tight scope for proposed bus service investment. This has led to a situation where re-consultation on changes to the bus programme funded by the CATTR is generally required each year. The proposed new approach summarises the proposed bus improvements by CATTR targets and investment levels for different parts of the region, rather than the previous approach of listing all specific proposed route changes.

93. The details of bus service investments are consulted on via the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP). This is the appropriate place for bus route level detail to be held given this is the statutory document that outlines Auckland’s plans for bus service changes. The RPTP is currently being reviewed and this may impact the delivery of planned bus services (either the services themselves or the timing of delivery).

94. A summary of the current and proposed CATTR funded bus improvements are shown in the tables below.

Summary of current CATTR funded bus improvements

	New FTN^{^[1]}	Other routes being improved	Population within walking distance of new improved service (2018 census)	Number of zero emission busses to be added	Percentage of package
Central	3	17		6	17%
North	1	18		12	18%
South & East	5	31		45	45%
West	3	14		19	20%
TOTAL	12	80	974,000	82

Summary of proposed CATTR funded bus improvements

	New FTN*	Other routes being improved	Population within walking distance of new improved service (2018 census)	Number of zero emission busses to be added	Percentage of package
Central	5	20		18	18%
North	2	20		11	19%
South & East	4	27		39	41%
West	3	13		13	22%
TOTAL	14	80	970,000	81

95. Broadening the description of the CATTR funded bus service programme from 2024/2025 will:

· provide ongoing flexibility to determine specific CATTR funded bus service investment with reference to the RPTP process, and reduces the need to reconsult each year when minor changes are made to the CATTR funded bus programme

· maintain the general region wide nature of the benefits from the expenditure on the overall CATTR climate action programme and the distribution of the rates burden will not change

· ensure that the council can continue to deliver the climate and service outcomes for which the CATTR was established.

96. Decisions required on the CATTR funded bus services would continue to be made by the CATTR Governance and Oversight group. Any material changes to the scope of the programme would require approval of the CATTR Governance and Oversight group.

97. An alternative option is to continue with the scope of the proposed bus service investment as laid out in the consultation materials for the Annual Budget 2022/2023. This would result in consultation taking place each year via the annual budgeting process as the changes to bus services occur through the RPTP process. Another option is that the council could retain the original CATTR proposal, where operationally feasible, and fund RPTP services through further general rates increase. This would lead to an underspend of CATTR funding for bus services and create a surplus in reserve to be used in future years.

98. Once the CATTR programme is completed there will be ongoing operating costs of around $43 million per annum which will need to be maintained into the future to ensure the outcomes achieved by the programme continue to be delivered. Accordingly, the ongoing operating expenditure would be met from general rates from 2034/2035 onwards in line with most other rates funded council expenditure.

Recommendation

99. Officers recommend the following proposed amendments to the CATTR be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034:

· broadening of the description of the bus programme funded by the CATTR to reduce the need to reconsult each year via the annual budgeting process for minor changes to the bus programme noting that consultation on delivery of bus services is undertaken in the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP)

· extending CATTR to 2033/2034 to provide capacity for around $50 million additional investment in the CATTR programme.

Expansion of Onehunga Business Improvement District Programme

Proposal

100. The Onehunga Business Association is proposing an expansion of the Onehunga Business Improvement District (BID).

Feedback from consultation

101. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the feedback form. Of the two submissions that provided a written comment on the proposed expansion to the Onehunga BID, one supported the proposal and the other did not support it.

Local board feedback

102. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is scheduled to discuss the proposed expansion of the Onehunga BID at its 28 May business meeting. Staff expect approval of the proposal by the local board.

Consideration

103. The council’s BID Policy requires a ballot to be held of all business ratepayers and business occupiers / tenants in the proposed BID programme area. To proceed with the expansion of a BID the ballot must achieve a threshold of at least 25 per cent of the total voting forms returned and of those, over 51 per cent must be in support of the proposal.

104. A ballot was held from 26 February to 26 March 2024 on the proposed expansion. 72.5 percent supported the expansion.

Recommendation

105. Officers recommend the Onehunga Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate expansion as proposed be adopted for inclusion in the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034, subject to it being supported by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.

Hunters Corner BID

106. Officers are reviewing the Hunters Corner BID programme due to potential non-compliance with the BID Policy on the part of the business association that administers the programme. Officers are reporting to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at their 21 May meeting on options for addressing these issues including an option to not set the relevant targeted rate for 2024/2025. Officers will advise the Governing Body at its 27 June meeting on the local board’s decision and recommendation with regard to the targeted rate.

Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate

Proposal

107. The Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate funds the cost of the council’s three yearly pump out of primary onsite wastewater systems, septic tanks, in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area. The consultation document included a proposal to increase the WRSTR from $296.75 to $336.80 (both inclusive of GST) per year for the next three-yearly cycle to maintain cost recovery.

Feedback from consultation

108. Of the 14,339 submitters who responded to the feedback question on the proposed increase to the WRSTR, 52 per cent supported the proposal with 19 per cent opposed. Of the 11 submitters who identified themselves as customers of the pump-out scheme, nine did not support the proposal and the other two did not indicate a position.

109. 40 submitters provided a written comment on the proposal. The key themes from these comments were:

· the proposed increase was too much and/or would be unaffordable (14 submissions)

· Council should let tank owners manage their own pump-out (8 submissions)

· those who use the service should pay (6 submissions).

110. Four iwi provided feedback on this proposal. Ngāti Tamaterā Treaty Settlement Trust was in support, while Ngāti Tamaoho did not support it. Ngātiwai Trust Board selected “Other” and Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust Board selected “I don’t know”.

111. Of the five mataawaka entities who provided feedback on this proposal, two were in support (Mad Ave Community Trust – Rangatahi Ora and Te Kotahi a Tāmaki Makaurau Marae Collective), two did not support (Te Kaha O Te Rangatahi and Whanau Hauā CCS Disability Action) and Wāhine Relative Limited (Wāhine Māori) selected “I don’t know”.

Local board feedback

112. Waitākere Ranges Local Board was one of six local boards in support of this proposal. Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura and Rodney local boards were also in support.

Consideration

113. Coinciding with the three-yearly service cycle, the council reviews the cost of delivering the service and the amount of the associated targeted rate every three years. A review undertaken by staff last year showed an increase in cost from $2,655,000 for 3,430 tanks in the current service cycle to $2,941,000 for 3,347 tanks in the next service cycle (excluding GST). The increase reflects inflation of costs mainly in fuel and labour over the last three years, as well as an increase in corporate overheads driven mainly by a change in allocation methodology. The new corporate overhead allocation method, introduced in 2021, ensures these costs are fairly distributed between the activities we undertake. The changes ensure that targeted rate payers and the general rate payers are paying a fair share of the costs required to deliver council services.

114. Officers therefore proposed an increase in the WRSTR from $296.75 to $336.80 (both inclusive of GST) per year for the next three-yearly cycle to maintain cost recovery. Not increasing the targeted rate would result in an annual subsidy of around $117,000 from general rates.

115. All other households in Auckland either pay the wastewater tariff charged by Watercare or purchase a private pump-out service to dispose of their domestic sewerage. We estimate that households in Auckland that connect to Watercare’s reticulated wastewater network pay an average $780 per year for wastewater disposal. This is over twice the cost of the pump-out service funded by the targeted rate.

116. The proposed 13.5 per cent increase in the targeted rate (which has not changed for the last three years) is around 4.5 per cent per year. Customers using the Watercare network have experienced a 24 per cent increase in water and wastewater tariffs over the last three years, which was around 8 per cent per year on average, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased by around 17 per cent over the same period, or an average 5.6 per cent per year.

117. The targeted rate is set at the same amount for all properties. Some pump-outs may cost more or less than this average charge, depending on factors such as the distance the truck needs to travel, the volume of the waste, and the difficulty in accessing the septic tank. As a result, the private pump-out cost for individual houses may be higher or lower than the rate. Market information we have obtained indicates that the private pump-out service for certain properties in the Waitakere Ranges area could cost as much as $1,900 including GST.

Recommendation

118. Officers recommend the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate (WRSTR) be increased from $296.75 to $336.80 (both inclusive of GST) as proposed.

Franklin Local Board Paths Targeted Rate

119. The council consulted on the introduction of the Franklin Local Board Paths Targeted Rate to fund additional investment in paths (walking and cycling). Advice on the proposed Franklin Local Board Paths Targeted Rate, along with a recommendation from the Franklin Local Board on the proposal is covered in a separate report on the agenda for this meeting.

Some targeted rates to increase with inflation

120. Officers recommend adjusting the following targeted rates next year by the forecast rate of cost inflation in the relevant sector. The programmes to be funded by the City Centre Targeted Rate are set out in Attachment B: Proposed CCTR Investment Portfolio 2024 to 2034.

Targeted rate name	Inflation rate for targeted rate calculation 2024/2025
City centre targeted rate	3.75%
Mangere-Otahuhu pool entry targeted rate	2.3%
Otara-Papatoetoe pool entry targeted rate	2.3%
Swimming/spa pool compliance targeted rate	4.7%

Proposed fees and charges changes

121. A three-year cycle of fee reviews was introduced in the Annual Budget 2022/2023. The reviews will ensure that the cost recovery decisions previously made by the council continue to be met. Advice on cost recovery levels will be provided where there have been material changes to the nature or cost of services since the original decisions were made. Some out of cycle fee reviews will continue to be necessary to address any material change in circumstances.

122. Most fees (including regulatory fees as provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy) not subject to review in a particular year will be increased in line with the cost of inflation where necessary to maintain cost recovery. The council does not have a central inflation rate for the different business areas to apply to their costs and revenues as these will differ depending on the underlying cost drivers for each activity. In 2025, the inflation rate is expected to range from 2.3 per cent to 4.0 per cent depending on the activity.

123. Each of the proposed fee changes resulting from our review (not including those changes resulting only from inflationary adjustments) are discussed below and are set out in detail in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal.

124. The alternative to the fee changes proposed is to retain existing fee levels and fund the additional costs from general rates. Officers recommend adjusting fees and charges to reflect the level of cost recovery for the relevant activities, as agreed by the council in previous decisions and set out in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

Regulatory fees

125. To respond to the growing need for animal management services, the council is:

· increasing kennel capacity at Henderson and Manukau to 56 kennel spaces

· employing 54 additional field and shelter staff to support an increasing workload and to enhance health, safety, and well-being of staff.

· increasing capacity for the Regional Compliance team to pro-actively focus on reduction of incidents of dog attacks, aggressive and roaming dogs and to increase dog registrations and compliance of dogs classified as menacing. This team will also enhance health and safety for staff by providing capacity for them to work in pairs.

· establishing the Pukekohe Animal Shelter, currently leased by the Waikato District Council, to be used as an adoption centre for the Auckland region. This facility will also be used as an education centre for school groups, frontline workers who regularly enter onto properties in the course of their duties and community groups, promoting responsible dog ownership and animal management services and also to provide dog bite prevention education.

126. The cost of implementing these initiatives is $5.9m, being the cost of additional staff and managing the increased kennel capacity including depreciation and maintenance.

127. The council considered options for funding these costs as set out in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal. It was determined the costs should be funded from general rates in 2024/2025 as the wider public are the primary beneficiaries of the additional services. The costs of these investments are not caused by registered dog owners or the individual users of the services who make payments to the council but are driven by driven by dog owners who do not engage with the council. As a result, consultation proposed that animal management fees were only adjusted to reflect underlying cost increases. A full review of animal management fees is planned to be undertaken as part of the Annual Budget 2025/2026.

Consenting fees

128. The consultation document included proposed changes to some building and resource consent fees and deposits. Fee increases proposed will maintain cost recovery while changes to deposits will better reflect the final fees. The proposed amendments are discussed in more detail in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal.

129. The types of consenting activities where fees are proposed to change are as follows:

Consent type	Description	Fee type
Building consent	Producer statement author register	Fixed fee
Building consent	Independent Qualified Person (IQP)	Fixed fee
Building consent	Code compliance Certificate charges	Base fee
Building consent	Application to separate an issued building consent	Base fee
Building consent	Amended building consent applications	Deposits
Resource consent	Deemed permitted boundary activity	Deposits
Resource consent	Multiple/bundle applications for any combination of two or more: land use, subdivision, or regional consent	Deposits
Resource consent	Certificate for completion; certificate of compliance; existing use; outline plan; extension of lapse date	Deposits
Resource consent	Change or cancellation of consent conditions	Deposits
Resource consent	Coastal structures, activities, and occupation	Deposits
Resource consent	Extension of time	Deposits
Resource consent	Land Use Consent Application - Residential	Deposits
Resource consent	Outline Plan of Work Application	Deposits
Resource consent	Resource consent pre-application appraisal	Deposits
Resource consent	Subdivision Consent Application	Deposits
Resource consent	Variation or cancellation of consent notices	Deposits
Resource consent	Tree consent	Fixed fee

130. We also consulted on new building consent fees proposed to recover the cost of processing requirements under the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022 which come into force in May 2024. Owners of dams that meet the height and volume requirements will need to confirm the potential risk their dam poses, put in place safety plans, and undertake regular dam inspections. The cost of processing these new regulations are outlined in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal.

Feedback from consultation

131. There were nine submissions on increased regulatory fees or changes to deposits, none of which were in support of the proposals. Six submitters did not support the proposals as they were too expensive. Others commented that the charges were unnecessary or not transparent.

Local Board feedback

132. Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, and Waitematā local boards were in support of this proposal while Kaipātiki and Papakura were not in support.

133. Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura, and Waitematā local boards supported implementing fees to recover costs for the processing requirements for dams.

Recommendation

134. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to regulatory fees and charges as set out in this report and in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal be adopted.

Film permitting fees

135. Film permitting is administered by Screen Auckland, a unit of Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU) under the Public Trading, Events and Filming Bylaw 2022 and within the provisions of the Auckland Film Protocol adopted in 2019.

136. The consultation document included a proposal for Screen Auckland to increase film permitting fees to adjust for cumulative inflation increases since 2015 when standardised fees were introduced. The fees will be adjusted for inflation annually in the future. This proposal increases cost recovery while maintaining the ability to compete with other regions for film activity. The proposal is discussed in more detail in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal.

Feedback from consultation

137. Four submissions were received on the proposal to increase film permitting fees. The Advertising Producers Association supported the increase in fees but did not support annual increases based on inflation as it meant that costs for projects planned some time in advance lacked certainty. Other submitters commented that the proposal does not align to Auckland’s target of being a film friendly city and that increased costs would affect local creatives and crew.

Local Board feedback

138. Ten local boards (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges, and Waitematā) were in support of this proposal.

139. The Kaipātiki Local Board supported a fee increase higher than inflation while Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board commented that inflationary increased should be standard.

Consideration

140. The Auckland Film Protocol enables Screen Auckland to assess applications on a case-by case-basis to provide the option for applicants whose project is low budget, charitable or student filming activity to apply for a fee waiver or reduction.

141. The Screen Taskforce initiative by Screen Auckland will be considering the film friendliness of Auckland as one of its high priority projects. The taskforce includes both internal and external stakeholders and will aim to implement initiatives that will increase the attraction of Auckland as a film friendly city to enhance the economic development opportunities the screen industry brings to the city. The majority of productions international and domestic use local crew.

Recommendation

142. Officers recommend that the proposed charges consulted on for film permitting fees as set out in this report and in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal be adopted.

Active Communities fees

Proposal

143. The review of fees and charges for Active Communities services have been split into two phases due to its size and complexity. The first phase of the fees, bookable spaces for hire at 19 of the 25 council managed sites, were reviewed and adopted as part of the Annual Budget 2023/2024.

144. Through the consultation document, the council consulted on the second phase of the review of fees and charges for Active Communities services, which focussed on the appropriate level of cost recovery for all the services provided from pool and leisure centres including memberships, swim schools and entrance fees. The assessment of cost recovery was balanced with enabling the council to provide a service that can be accessed by all parts of the community across the network. The second phase includes both council-managed pool and leisure facilities and memberships and aquatic entrance fees for facilities managed under contract.

145. There are 45 Active Communities sites across the Auckland region, 25 of these are managed directly by Auckland Council.

146. The details of the proposed changes are set out in more detail in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal.

Feedback from consultation

147. Of the 15 pieces of feedback that addressed this proposal, four feedback points (27 per cent) supported the overall proposal and four (27 per cent) opposed it. A further seven feedback points (46 per cent) neither supported or opposed the proposal.

148. Those in support of the proposal noted that it was fair, while those who did not support the proposal were concerned that the increases would create a barrier to accessing pools and leisure services. Others commented that these services should be charged on a user pays basis, affordable, subsidised in lower socio-economic areas, or increased by inflation only.

Local board feedback

149. Nine local boards provided feedback on the proposed to change to Active Communities fees. Six local boards (Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Puketāpapa, and Waitematā) supported the proposal. Three local boards (Kaipātiki, Papakura, and Waiheke) did not support the proposal.

150. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Puketāpapa local board noted that entry fees for pools should be affordable and access should be equitable. The Kaipātiki Local Board commented that these fees should be set by local boards and not the Governing Body. They also commented that supervision fees were effectively a charge for free swimming for children. The Waiheke Local Board noted that submitters to the consultation from their area did not support the proposal.

Consideration

151. The proposed changes introduce an Auckland wide membership option to allow customers to access all 45 pool and leisure council-managed and contracted sites. The estimated increase in revenue from this proposal is expected to be around $90k per year. It is also proposed to align legacy and discontinued memberships to current membership options over three years. In year one, it is estimated that around 4,500 memberships fees (approximately 20 per cent) will increase by up to 7 per cent. The increase in revenue in year one is estimated to be $260k.

152. After reviewing local board feedback, changes have been made to the proposed supervising adult and spectator fees to ensure these are not a barrier to pool use. This fee will be retained at previous levels rather than the increase in fees proposed. However, the proposed decrease to the supervising adult fee at Tepid Baths and West Wave Pool and Leisure Centre fee will proceed as the fees at these facilities were generally much higher than at other sites.

153. Learn to swim fees have also been reviewed following consultation to ensure the rate of increase does not discourage customers taking up learn to swim classes. As the current fees at Manurewa Pool and Leisure Centre (Manurewa Local Board),Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa Pool and Leisure Centre (Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board ) and babies fees at Tepid Baths (Waitemata Local Board) and Stanmore Bay (Hibiscus and Bays Local Board) are lower than those for the rest of the network, these fees are now proposed to be moved to a mid-point in FY25 to transition them to full alignment with the network in FY26.

154. The proposed changes will establish baseline fees for like services across Active Communities activities. This will mean that the impact on each facility will vary. Most of the changes at the upper end of the scale are to bring charges in line with the charges elsewhere in the city. Establishing baseline fees for like services also means some fees will fall. Changes are proposed to the following baseline fees:

· entrance to all council managed and contracted pools and leisure facilities along with an increased discount rate for qualifying customers.

· swimming lessons to better align to market rates, along with a new discount rate for those who qualify.

· OSCAR before and after school care and holiday programme fees to maximise government subsidies and ensure costs are recovered.

· term programme fees to simplify the fees framework.

Recommendation

155. Officers recommend that the proposed charges consulted on for Active Communities services as set out in this report and in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal be adopted.

Venue hire and bookable spaces

Proposal

156. Venue hire and bookable spaces incorporates council managed community halls, community centres, art centres and bookable library spaces.

157. The review of this portfolio has been split into two phases. The consultation document included proposals following phase one of the review of baseline fees across similar venues to ensure they are charged appropriately across the portfolio. Fees for 252 bookable spaces at 110 venues are included in this review. The proposed amendments are set out in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal.

158. Phase two, planned for 2024/2025, will assess the appropriate level of cost recovery balancing value to the ratepayer and accessibility for customers and communities.

Feedback from consultation

159. Fourteen pieces of feedback addressed this proposal. Two feedback points (14 per cent) supported the overall proposal with five (36 per cent) opposed it. A further seven (50 per cent) feedback points noted that some community groups using the facilities were providing a community service. They also noted that fees should:

· be increased by inflation only

· be subsidised for lower socio-economic areas

· be fair

· be affordable.

Local board feedback

160. Five local boards supported this proposal. The Waitematā Local Board recommended that local boards have an opportunity to apply surcharges for bookings for large social gatherings on Friday and Saturday evenings to recover additional costs of onsite management. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki noted their support the proposal in principle.

161. Two local boards did not support the proposal. The Kaipātiki Local Board commented that these fees should be set by local boards and not the Governing Body.

Consideration

162. The existing pricing frameworks currently in place for bookable spaces contains variations and inconsistencies inherited from legacy councils. The basis for phase one of the review is the Hire Fee Framework which considers the size, condition and quality of each bookable space, the levels of staffing, the amenities available, and current patterns of utilisation of the spaces. Phase one of this review addresses variations within local board and adjacent areas to bring pricing of comparable venues closer together.

163. Fees for around half of the venues reviewed in phase one are not proposed to change as they have been set at an appropriate level when compared to spaces nearby or with similar types of spaces or capacity. While some fees are proposed to increase, a number of fees are proposed to decrease. Overall, the proposed changes to venue hire fee are expected to the generate an increase in revenue of around $160k. Although the proposal will increase some prices slightly, the increases are below forecast inflation rates.

164. The current discounts framework is not proposed to change, and these will be applied to eligible community groups and regular hirers.

Recommendation

165. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to venue hire and bookable fees and charges as set out in this report and in Attachment A: Fees and Charges Changes Proposal be adopted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

166. Most of the recommendations in this report have a neutral climate impact as they primarily relate to the allocation of charges rather than decisions on activities to be undertaken. The recommendations in the CATTR proposal will mean that council can continue to efficiently deliver the climate and service outcomes for which the CATTR was established while helping manage the financial challenges it is facing.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

167. The proposals in this report have been agreed on by the following departments or business units of the Auckland Council group:

· Auckland Transport

· Tātaki Auckland Unlimited

· Waste Solutions

· Regulatory Services

· Customer and Community Services

· Healthy Waters

· CCO/External Partnerships.

168. The proposals in this report have been reviewed by Legal Services.

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

Local impacts and local board views

169. Some of the recommendations in this report will directly impact local boards, particularly fees for local activities. Local boards can choose to increase or decrease the fees and charges for local activities in their area. This may result in extra funding for the local board if fees are increased or a top-up may be required from the local board funding if fees are reduced from those set.

170. Local Boards provided their views on the impacts of regional decisions on their local community at the May workshop of the Governing Body. Their views are included under each of the proposals and in a separate report on this meeting’s agenda.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

171. The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers or fee payers so is not able to identify the exact impact of the proposed changes on Māori. The impact of the recommended rates and fees changes on Māori will be similar to that on other residents in Auckland.

172. Consultation on the Long-term Plan 2023/2024 included engagement with the 19 iwi authorities. Mataawaka were also invited to provide feedback on the consultation topics. Fourteen of the 19 (74%) mana whenua entities responded to the council’s proposals for the Long-term Plan 2024/2034. Nine mataawaka entities also made a submission.

173. Feedback from Māori on the proposals covered in this report are included under each of the issues above, where feedback was provided.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

174. The financial implications of the recommended changes are noted in the relevant sections above.

175. The recommended changes to rates, fees, and charges will allow the council to meet its cost recovery targets for the relevant activities for the 2024/2025 financial year. If these adjustments are not made the level of general rates increase may have to be higher than set out in the Mayor’s proposal or further alternative budget mitigations found.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

176. Some Aucklanders may be concerned about the recommended level of increase in their rates and/or fees under the proposals in this report. The council wrote to each ratepayer potentially affected by the proposed changes to the Rodney drainage rating area, the Waitākere Rural Sewerage Targeted Rate and schools impacted by the proposed changes to recycling services to advise them of the changes the council is considering. Business ratepayers in the area proposed for the Onehunga BID were engaged through the ballot process required to establish a BID.

177. Consultation was designed to raise wide awareness of the proposals relating to the Long-term Plan 2024/2034. Ratepayers and customers were advised on how they could get more information and the opportunities to make their views known both in person and in writing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

178. Decisions made by the Governing Body in response to the Budget Committee’s resolutions made at this meeting will be incorporated into the final Long-term Plan 2024-2034. On 27 June 2024, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and set rates for the 2024/2025 financial year.

179. Changes to fees arising from decisions made in response to this report will be implemented from 1 July 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Fees and charges change proposals
b ⇨	Proposed CCTR Investment Portfolio 2024 to 2034
c ⇨	Maps of Rodney drainage districts land class boundaries

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor – Financial Policy

Eric Wen - Senior Advisor - Financial Policy

Melva Yee - Programme Manager and Data Analyst

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Nicola Mills - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Franklin Local Board Paths Targeted Rate report
b ⇨	Franklin Local Board Paths Targeted Rate consultation feedback summary (report attachment)

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	15 March 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 - Regional Organisations & Interest Groups ‘Have Your Say’ Event (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	21 March 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 - Māori Organisations & Community Groups ‘Have Your Say’ Event (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	22 March 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 - Regional Organisations & Interest Groups ‘Have Your Say’ Event (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	26 March 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 - Regional Organisations & Interest Groups ‘Have Your Say’ Event (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	10 April 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 - 2034 – Workshop – Process update and strategic check in (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	24 April 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Regional engagement feedback (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	24 April 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Budget refresh and facilitated discussion on regional feedback (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	30 April 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Recap the Auckland Future Fund - Port lease, AIAL and self-insurance components (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	1 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Auckland Transport Update (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	1 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Trade-off discussion (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	3 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Online only Briefing – Housing and Infrastructure (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	3 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Online only Briefing – Financial Policy (Under Separate Cover)
m ⇨	6 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Auckland Future Fund CONFIDENTIAL (Under Separate Cover)
n ⇨	6 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – North Harbour Stadium (Under Separate Cover)
o ⇨	8 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Local Board Input (Under Separate Cover)
p ⇨	8 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Making Space for Water and Recovery Office (Under Separate Cover)
q ⇨	13 May 2024 - Budget Committee Long-term Plan 2024 – 2034 – Workshop – Mayoral Proposal (Under Separate Cover)

[1] Frequent Transport Network – services that operate at least every 15 mins, 7am-7pm, 7 days a week

Mayor	Wayne Brown
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Greg Sayers
Members	Cr Andrew Baker	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Angela Dalton	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Cr Chris Darby	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Julie Fairey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Houkura Chair David Taipari
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Ken Turner
	Cr Lotu Fuli	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Shane Henderson	Cr John Watson
	Cr Richard Hills	Cr Maurice Williamson
	Houkura Member Tony Kake, MNZM

Author	Sonja Tomovska - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Nicola Mills - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer