Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of the Budget Committee

Budget Committee

04 December 2024

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Overview to decision making

File No.: CP2024/17817

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· provide an overview of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 (the Annual Plan) process to date

· outline the decisions required at today’s Budget Committee meeting and

· inform the next steps to progress and finalise the Annual Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council (the council) is required, under the Local Government Act 2002, to prepare and adopt an annual plan for each financial year.

3. The Annual Plan for 2025/2026 (this annual plan) represents year two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (the LTP).

4. The process to develop this annual plan began in September 2024 with two facilitated sessions with Governing Body members, who provided direction to the council group on the following areas of focus:

· funding major events, destination marketing and visitor attraction

· council controlled organisation (CCO) reform; and

· planning and paying for growth.

5. The output of these sessions was articulated in the Mayoral and Councillor Direction to Council Group document.

6. A series of workshops and briefings, with councillors and local board chairs, were then undertaken between October and November 2024 to respond and advise on this direction and inform decision-making. This also included an overview of the annual plan process and a budget update.

7. The draft Mayoral Proposal was released to elected members on 18 November 2024, and then publicly on 19 November 2024. Budget Committee members provided informal feedback and input on the draft Mayoral Proposal at a workshop on 20 November 2024. Local boards have also considered the draft Mayoral Proposal and formally resolved their feedback on regional issues at business meetings in November 2024.

8. Decisions from the Mayoral Proposal, other rates and fees and other items for consultation, will be considered today by the Budget Committee.

9. The Governing Body will meet on 12 December 2024 to make decisions on the proposed Communications and Engagement approach, and the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (the TMA) draft operational plan. Approving the TMA’s draft operational plan is a requirement as set out in Section 60 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.

10. Following decision-making in December 2024, staff will prepare a consultation document and supporting information for approval by the Budget Committee in February 2025.

11. Public consultation is expected to be undertaken between late February to late March 2025.

12. Following feedback from public consultation and local boards, the Budget Committee will reconsider budgets and make recommendations in May/June 2025 before the Annual Plan 2025/2026 is adopted by the Governing Body in June 2025.

13. Given the significance of the CCO reform decisions, it is recommended that substantive CCOs are given a one-month extension of all statutory deadlines in the SOI process for 2025, as allowed for in the Local Government Act 2002.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the Annual Plan 2025/2026 - overview of decision-making report, which sets the context for the other reports and decisions on the agenda

b) whakaae / approve a one-month extension of statutory deadlines for all council-controlled organisation statements of intent for 2024-2027, as provided for in the Local Government Act Schedule 8, section 4

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Audit and Risk Committee considered the risks, and risk management approach for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 on 3 December 2024.

Horopaki

Context

14. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the council to prepare and adopt an annual plan for each financial year, except once every three years when the LTP acts as the annual plan for that year.

15. This annual plan represents year two of the recently adopted LTP and it outlines what council plans to-do and how it will be funded for the 2025/2026 financial year.

16. The Mayor has a statutory role to lead the development of the annual plan, and the Budget Committee has delegated responsibility for assisting the Mayor in the development of the annual plan, for approving the annual plan consultation document, supporting information and consultation process prior to consultation, and for making recommendations to the Governing Body on the adoption of the final annual plan.

17. To support this process, staff have provided workshops, briefings and advice to the Mayor and Budget Committee in relation to the Annual Plan 2025/2026. This is outlined in the following section.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

This Annual Plan builds on the progress made in the Long-term Plan 2024 - 2034

18. The starting budget for this annual plan is year two of the LTP. Budgets are regularly updated to incorporate any council decisions made since the LTP was adopted, and any changes to our significant forecasting assumptions.

19. The process to develop this annual plan began in September 2024 with two facilitated sessions with Governing Body members, who provided direction to the council group on the following areas of focus:

· funding major events, destination marketing and visitor attraction

· council controlled organisation (CCO) reform; and

· planning and paying for growth.

20. The output of these sessions was outlined in the Mayoral and Councillor Direction to Council Group document.

21. A budget update briefing was held to provide an overview of the council group's starting point budget projections for the annual plan in October 2024.

22. A series of workshops and briefings were undertaken between October and November 2024 to respond and advise on this direction and inform decision-making. This also included an overview of the annual plan process. The following table outlines the workshops and briefings undertaken during this period:

Month

Budget Committee annual plan workshop topics

October

· Options for funding visitor attraction and events, including reinstating the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate (APTR).

· Budget update on the council group’s starting point budget projections for the Annual Plan.

November

· Proposed waste rates and fees proposals.

· CCO reform – overview, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited and Auckland Transport.

· CCO reform – Eke Panuku.

· Planning and paying for growth and update from Te Tupu Ngātahi / Supporting Growth Alliance.

· Discussion on the draft Mayoral Proposal.

· Local board input into proposed regional topics.

· Approach to communications and engagement.

23. Local board chairs also participated and provided informal input on the topics that were discussed at workshops throughout October and November 2024.

24. The Budget Committee will consider regional items for consultation as they relate to the other items on today’s agenda.

The Mayoral Proposal is a key document in developing the Annual Plan

25. The draft Mayoral Proposal was released on 19 November 2024. This was supported by reports containing staff advice on the topics included in the direction document. Budget Committee members provided informal feedback and input on the draft Mayoral Proposal at a workshop on 20 November 2024.

26. Local boards considered the draft Mayoral Proposal and supporting advice at their business meetings in November and their feedback will be included in a report to the Budget Committee meeting on 4 December 2024.

27. Final staff advice to support the Mayoral Proposal is included on today’s agenda.

Potential central government policy changes may have implications on this Annual Plan

28. Council has long advocated to central government that some form of bed night levy or tax to support funding major events, destination marketing or visitor attraction is required. The LTP also assumed a bed night levy or tax would be implemented by the government by 1 July 2025, and without one it would result in a budget gap for the 2025/2026 financial year for major events.

29. While central government have indicated they might consider a bed night levy or tax, it is uncertain whether this will be implemented by 1 July 2025. If central government does not have a solution in place for the 2025/2026 financial year, then the council will need to consider a range of options via this annual plan to address the budget gap.

30. As part of the CCO reform work, any changes to Auckland Transport (AT) as a statutory body will require legislative change. Ministry of Transport officials and council staff continue to keep each other informed of the timelines for decision-making on this matter.

31. Further detailed advice is provided in separate reports in today’s agenda.

Our proposed communications and engagement approach

32. Budget Committee members provided input and informal feedback on the proposed communications and engagement approach at a workshop on 27 November 2024. The proposed approach will be formally agreed by the Governing Body on 12 December 2024.

33. Based on the decisions made today and on 12 December 2024, staff will prepare a consultation document and supporting information, for adoption by the Budget Committee in February 2025.

Other topics for consultation

34. Local boards will separately agree local consultation content for inclusion in the consultation material for the annual plan.

35. Local consultation material will be adopted by local boards in December 2024 and will be included in consultation material to be adopted by the Budget Committee in February 2025.

36. Section 60 of Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 states that council and the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (the TMA) must agree an annual operational plan each year. The council and the TMA must agree a draft of the plan, and a summary, and the council must include the agreed summary of the TMA draft operational plan in its consultation document for the annual plan. Decisions on the draft operational plan and summary are due to be made by the TMA on 9 December 2024, and subsequently by the Governing Body on 12 December 2024.

Proposed one month extension to CCO statements of intent

37. It is recommended that substantive CCOs are given a one-month extension of all statutory deadlines in the SOI process for 2025, as allowed for in the Local Government Act 2002.

38. Given the significance of CCO Reform decisions, this will allow CCOs more time to align their work programmes with the agreed outcomes and final decisions of the annual plan and CCO reform process. It is anticipated that letters of expectation will be sent in February 2025. With the extension, initial submission of draft SOIs will be required on or before 1 April 2025, and final submission on or before 31 July 2025. The final SOIs will need to reflect CCO reform and final annual plan decisions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39. There are no climate impacts associated with the recommendations of this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

40. Staff from across the council group, including CCOs, have supported the development of the annual plan.

41. All council departments, CCOs and other entities funded by the council could be impacted by decisions made for the annual plan. Council’s executive leadership team and the chief executives of the CCOs were briefed on the budget and will continue to be regularly updated as the development of the budget progresses.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. Local boards have a legislative role to provide input on regional plans.

43. Local boards have been briefed on the information provided to the Budget Committee. These briefings along with providing the local boards with the draft Mayoral Proposal aimed to help inform local board input on the items for consultation and these views will be set out in a report for consideration by the Budget Committee on 4 December 2024.

44. Local boards will continue to be provided with key information related to the annual plan, including any necessary advice on individual local consultation matters that will take place alongside regional consultation between February and March 2025. This includes consulting on any related impacts to the community (or actions to mitigate these impacts).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45. There are no impacts on Māori from the decision sought in this report.

46. The proposed approach to engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka will be presented as part of Communications and Engagement report on 12 December 2024.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. Financial impacts and implications have been outlined in the budget update that was presented to the Budget Committee in October 2024. This information is included as part of today’s agenda.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The annual plan enables rates to be set for the relevant financial year. Not completing the annual plan in accordance with statutory requirements has the potential to impact on the council’s revenue, and its ability to continue to deliver the services and projects that Auckland needs.

49. Another risk is compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. Legal Services will review the consultation material for legislative compliance, prior to adoption by the Budget Committee in February 2025.

50. Several risks were included in the October 2024 budget update, and relate to the annual plan have been identified, they include:

· Category 3 Property buy-out costs

· returns from the Auckland Future Fund

· City Rail Link related costs

· Auckland Transport revenue and funding

· Central government changes to the Income-Related Rent Subsidy and Haumaru Housing

· further increases to inflation and interest rates increasing cost pressures

· implementation of operating savings

· relationship with Central Government; and

· delay in the rates re-valuation process due to issues identified during the Valuer General certification process that need addressing.

51. These risks are being managed through the project’s internal governance and oversight group, regular updates to both the Budget Committee and Audit and Risk Committee.

52. The Audit and Risk Committee considered the risks associated with the Annual Plan 2025/2026, and the risk management approach, on 3 December 2024.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. Today’s decisions will inform the preparation of the consultation document and supporting information for consultation on the annual plan.

54. The supporting information will include more detailed information (i.e., the information that is relied on by the content of the consultation document) and, following adoption by the Budget Committee, will be made readily available to the public in February-March 2025, alongside the consultation document.

55. Staff will also prepare material to support the communication and engagement campaign for consultation, including an information pack for elected members.

56. The table below sets out the next steps to finalise the annual plan.

Phase	Timing
Budget Committee workshop to review the consultation document and supporting material ahead of the meeting	February 2025
Budget Committee meets to adopt the consultation document and supporting material	February/March 2025
Public consultation	Late February – late March 2025
Budget Committee receive regional feedback report	April 2025
Local boards meet to receive local feedback	May 2025
Budget Committee workshop budget discussions	May 2025
Budget Committee workshop where local boards provide feedback on regional issues.	May2025
Budget Committee workshop – Mayor’s Proposal and final decision making	May/June 2025
Budget Committee meeting on final decisions	May/June 2025
Local board workshops Local Board Agreements	June 2025
Local boards adopt Local Board Agreements	June 2025
Governing Body workshop to adopt the final annual plan	June 2025
Governing Body meet to adopt the final Annual Plan 2025/2026	29 June 2025
Final Annual Plan documentation and information relating to the decisions made (e.g., reports) will be made available to the public and closing the loop activities with submitters will be completed	July 2025

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tristan Coulson - Programme Manager

Tracey Wisnewski - Project Manager

Authorisers

Michael Burns - General Manager Financial Strategy

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Budget Committee

04 December 2024

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Local board feedback on draft Mayoral Proposal and regional topics for consultation

File No.: CP2024/18628

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an overview of local board input on regional consultation content for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

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 each long-term plan and annual plan local boards provide input in two ways:

· preparing local content – specifically for local board agreements that set out local priorities and activities for the financial year, which are agreed between local boards and the Governing Body

· providing input into regional content, including providing feedback on the regional items proposed to be consulted on, which includes the draft Mayoral Proposal on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 (the Mayoral Proposal).

3. For the Annual Plan 2025/2026, local boards agreed their feedback on the draft Mayoral Proposal and other regional items at business meetings from 19 to 21 November 2024.

4. Local Boards will decide their local content for consultation at business meetings from 3 to 12 December 2024.

5. This report summarises the feedback from local boards on the draft Mayoral Proposal and other regional items. This report focuses on common themes and, as such, does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. A complete set of the local board resolutions is provided in Attachment A.

6. Key proposals and themes from local board feedback on the draft Mayoral Proposal include:

· Council-controlled Organisation Reform:

Structural change: nine local boards supported or supported in principle the proposal and six partially supported the proposal

Non-structural change: sixteen local boards supported or supported in principle the general proposal

Auckland Transport: eighteen local boards supported or supported in principle the general proposal

Group shared services: seventeen local boards supported or supported in principle the general proposal.

· Planning and Paying for Growth: Eleven local boards expressed direct support, and nine supported aspects of the proposal

· Funding Major Events, Destination Marketing, and Visitor Attraction: Seventeen local boards supported or supported the proposal in principle

· Local Board Funding: Ten either supported or supported the proposal in principle while 10 local boards did not support a slower transition to fairer funding for local boards.

7. Both regional and local consultation items will be incorporated into the consultation document and supporting information for the Annual Plan 2025/2026, which are planned to be adopted by the Budget Committee in early February 2025. Consultation is planned to take place from late February to late March 2025 and final decisions and the adoption of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 will be made in May - June 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) kohuki / consider input from local boards when deciding on regional items to be consulted on for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Horopaki

Context

8. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 contains the proposed budget and funding impact statement for the year, identifies any variations from the financial statements and funding impact statement in the Long-term Plan for the relevant year, and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources.

9. The Budget Committee is responsible for approving the consultation documents, supporting information and consultation process for the long-term plan prior to consultation and then making recommendations to the Governing Body on the adoption of the final long-term plan. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the final annual plan. 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 annual plan).

10. When making decisions, the Governing Body (including through the Budget Committee) has a statutory obligation to consider the views and preferences of the 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.

Developing regional consultation content

11. Budget Committee briefings and workshops have been held from October to November 2024 to develop items for consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

12. Local board chairs were invited to attend the Budget Committee workshops where the potential regional consultation topics were discussed. Local board members were provided recordings or briefings of the Budget Committee workshops for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

13. The local boards were asked to provide feedback on the draft Mayoral Proposal and other regional items for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation.

14. The draft Mayoral Proposal was provided to local boards on 19 November 2024, and local boards held business meetings from 19-21 November to adopt their feedback on the draft Mayoral Proposal and other regional items for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 in time for the meeting of the Budget Committee on 4 December 2024.

15. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to provide formal input the draft Mayoral Proposal and other regional items for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and for the Governing Body (through the Budget Committee) to consider the views expressed by the local boards when agreeing regional items for consultation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. This report summarises the feedback from local boards and focuses on common themes relating to key topics in the draft Mayoral Proposal and potential investment areas. As such, it does not encompass every detail mentioned in local board resolutions. Most local boards did not provide feedback on every topic in the draft Mayoral Proposal.

17. The report also includes feedback on other rates and fees and charges.

18. The full set of local board resolutions are provided in Attachment A (local board resolutions on the draft Mayoral Proposal and regional topics for consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/2026).

Feedback on Mayoral Proposal

19. The draft Mayoral Proposal outlined a range of topics including:

· Council-controlled Organisation reform

· Planning and paying for growth

· Funding major events, destination marketing and visitor attraction

· Rates

· Safety and security

· Local board funding

20. Local feedback on the proposal is summarised below.

21. Several boards in their feedback noted the short time frame between the release of the draft proposal and the deadline for the local boards to provide input.

Council-controlled Organisations (CCOs) reform

22. The draft Mayoral Proposal identified Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited as being in scope for reform. The proposal was split across for topics Structural and Non-structural change, Auckland Transport and Group Shared Services.

Structural change

23. Key aspects of this part of the proposal that local boards provided feedback on include:

· bringing urban regeneration and property management activity in-house (this would result in the disestablishment of Eke Panuku)

· council delivering the functions of economic development, major events and destination activities, with Tātaki retaining its trust structure and managing council’s regional facilities

· reestablishing economic policy capability to support decision-making across all council activities.

24. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal with nine local boards supporting or supporting in principle the general proposal: Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitākere Ranges local boards.

25. Six local boards partially supported the proposal:

· Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa and Whau local boards do not support the disestablishment of Eke Panuku, with three of those local boards supporting the consolidation of property management under Auckland Council (Howick, Manurewa and Whau local boards).

· regarding Tātaki, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board noted concern about bringing in major events in-house, Manurewa and Upper Harbour local boards support only bringing local economic development in house whereas Kaipātiki Local Board support a full disestablishment of Tātaki Auckland Unlimited

26. Five local boards did not support the proposal: Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei and Waiheke local boards. However, Franklin Local Board does partially support the Tātaki proposal but does not necessarily support the retention of regional facilities management as an arms-length CCO. Franklin and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards also support reestablishing economic policy capability to support decision-making across all council activities.

27. All boards that commented on reestablishing economic policy capability to support decision-making across all council activities supported the proposal with 13 local boards commenting on the need for support for local boards on local economic development. (Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau)

Non-structural change

28. Key aspects of this part of the proposal local boards provided feedback on include:

· Changes to the council’s director appointment policy and performance review processes – to enable appointment of directors who have the right skillsets aligned with the delivery focus of each CCO and a more streamlined process for recruitment and appointment of those directors.

· Cultural change - a programme of work should be included in any implementation plan that assists in building and supporting the environment necessary to manage positive change.

29. Sixteen local boards provided feedback on the non-structural change proposal with 15 local boards supporting or supporting in principle the general proposal: Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards.

30. Six local boards specifically supported or supported in principle the proposal to make changes to the council’s director appointment policy and performance review processes: Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura local boards.

31. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board stated in regard to the cultural change part of the proposal that they “are unsure of the critical importance for a programme of work on cultural change at this point in time, particularly if there are no structural changes proceeding to CCOs as proposed”.

Auckland Transport

32. Key aspects of this part of the proposal local boards provided feedback on include:

· continue to pursue legislative change through engagement with central government

· Auckland Council take responsibility for providing back-office functions to Auckland Transport

· review existing delegations from Auckland Council to Auckland Transport, with a view to bringing these functions back in-house

· Auckland Council to take responsibility for all transport policy and strategic planning functions for which Auckland Transport does not have a statutory role

· Auckland Transport must fully participate in the Group Shared Services(GSS) programme.

33. Nineteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal on Auckland Transport with 18 local boards supporting or supporting in principle the general proposal: Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards.

34. Devonport-Takapuna Local Board partially support the proposal, recommending that council advances on a minimum option to refocus AT on delivery and further explore the ability to implement either a public transport only CCO or an integrated transport delivery CCO.

Group shared services

35. Key aspects of this part of the proposal local boards provided feedback on include:

· The GSS programme speed up with the integration of all outlying services across the group that fall within the GSS mandate.

· All eligible functions within Auckland Council and CCOs (including Watercare) are formally moved into GSS by 1 July 2025.

36. Eighteen local boards provided feedback on the proposal with 17 local boards supporting or supporting in principle the proposal in general: Albert-Eden, Aotea / Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour and Waitematā local boards.

37. Ōrākei Local Board does not support the proposal stating that “the board does not believe resource should be allocated in this direction at this stage”.

38. Five local boards supported or supported in principle the GSS programme speed up: Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Upper-Harbour local boards.

39. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board supported all eligible functions within Auckland Council and CCOs (including Watercare) being formally moved into GSS by 1 July 2025. Albert-Eden Local Board commented on this proposal that the feasibility of including Watercare in this proposal needs to be reconsidered.

Consultation

40. The draft proposal also proposes not to publicly consult on the CCO reform package as it is not required under legislation and primarily concerns internal organisational matters.

41. Eight local board boards provided feedback with seven local boards (Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Waitākere Ranges and Waitematā) requesting that the proposal does go to public consultation. Two local boards (Aotea / Great Barrier and Papakura local boards) agreed that consultation is not required.

Planning and paying for growth

42. The draft Mayoral Proposal proposed a range of options, including measures to enhance Auckland's productivity and ensure sustainable and affordable growth. The council aims to collaborate with the central government on initiatives like time-of-use charging while strengthening its internal policy, planning, and infrastructure capabilities. Proposed reforms would centralise key functions and update evidence on the costs of extending infrastructure.

43. Twenty local boards provided feedback on the proposal with 11 local boards expressing direct support: Albert-Eden, Aotea-Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Rodney and Waitematā local boards.

44. The remaining nine local boards expressed support for aspects of the proposal: Henderson-Massey, Howick, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Waiheke, and Whau local boards.

45. Papakura Local Board stated it supported integration of planning across the council group but noted that in some areas, a case-by-case response is required.

Funding major events, destination marketing and visitor attraction

46. The draft Mayoral Proposal proposed consulting on the introduction of a bed night visitor levy to address a $7 million shortfall in funding major events for FY26.

47. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal with 17 local boards supporting or supporting in principle the proposal: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper-Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards.

48. Upper-Harbour Local Board supports consulting on the proposal but reserves the right to provide formal views until public consultation feedback is received.

49. Aotea-Great Barrier Local Board is concerned about a bed levy and suggested providing more options on how destination marketing and major events could be funded including raising rates.

50. Waiheke Local Board supports a bed tax but requests that any revenue generated in the board area be returned to the local board to support infrastructure to support visitors on Waiheke.

51. Franklin Local Board does not support the proposal stating that while the board agrees to consult on a visitor levy there is insufficient time to introduce and then implement an Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate for FY26, and that failure to enable a visitor levy will have significant impact Auckland’s event calendar and major events capability, the board recommends consulting on two further options to bridge the funding gap.

Procurement and effective spending

52. The draft Mayoral Proposal proposed ways to improve how ratepayers' money is procured and spent, particularly regarding capital projects.

53. With $39 billion of capital expenditure planned over the next decade, the council recognises the need for a procurement policy that ensures value for Aucklanders. The proposal emphasises delivering cost-effective solutions while avoiding inefficiency.

54. Of the 18 local boards that provided feedback:

· Sixteen local boards expressed support or support in principle for the proposal: Albert-Eden, Aotea-Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper-Harbour, Waitematā and Whau local boards. Puketāpapa Local Board noted “support the cost benefit analysis, noting it has not been done for current proposals for CCOs”.

55. Additional feedback from local boards included:

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board noted support for the statement in the proposal that “success should be measured not by how much money is spent but, on the value, or outputs of investment”. They further stated that local, small-scale providers need opportunities to work with council.

· Waitākere Ranges Local Board spoke broadly about the concepts included noting that “a forecast increase in operational costs of $8-10 million is unacceptable when the board currently do not believe it is seeing value for money for maintenance of our assets which the board then have to remediate”.

Rates

56. The draft Mayoral Proposal proposed retaining the agreed rates increase for the average value residential property of 5.8%.

57. Four local boards provided feedback on the proposal. Three supported the proposal: Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura and Whau local boards.

58. Franklin Local Board did not support the proposal stating that rates increases may need to be reconsidered to address unforeseen cost pressures to some local boards.

Safety and security

59. The draft Mayoral Proposal proposed a range of options including safety and security measures for Auckland’s central city and other regions. The proposal highlighted past efforts have focused on collaboration with community partners, police, and council wardens, leading to the successful implementation of the City Centre Community Safety Action Plan funded by the City Centre Targeted Rate. To expand on these measures, Long-Term Plan funding has been allocated for a Regional Community Safety Team, initially comprising eight wardens to address anti-social behaviour across the region.

60. The team is also proposed to support council events, address freedom camping issues, and collaborate with transport officers and police to improve public transport safety

61. Of the 17 local boards that provided feedback on the proposal to enhance safety and security measures:

· Fifteen local boards noted broad support: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Upper-Harbour local boards. Many of these boards emphasised the need for central government funding and noted that eight additional wardens would be insufficient to effectively cover the entire region.

62. Additional feedback included:

· Whau and Waitākere Ranges local boards acknowledged the Mayor’s initiatives for creating a safer region.

· Waitākere Ranges Local Board further noted that “this is a complex issue that needs to be more comprehensively addressed and extend beyond the city centre”.

Local board funding

63. The draft Mayoral Proposal proposed including flexibility in adapting the fairer funding approach for local boards to manage potential cost increases.

64. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal with ten local boards either supported or supported in principle: Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Upper-Harbour and Waitematā.

Key comments included:

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local boards expressed support for the proposal if additional funding cannot be sourced from outside the fairer funding allocation.

· Howick Local Board expressed support in principle but noted the lack of advice it had received on the impact.

· Devonport-Takapuna Local Board supported the proposal but raised concern that the board had not been provided with clear information on cost pressures

· Upper-Harbour Local Board support investigating options for a slower transition to fairer funding for local boards to help manage cost escalation related to the management of local facilities as long as the implementation of fairer funding is not pushed out.

65. Ten local boards stating they did not support a slower transition to fairer funding for local boards: Albert-Eden, Franklin, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards.

66. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board support the current process toward fairer funding but stated they could not provide informed feedback on the proposal as they did not have specific details regarding impacts to all local boards and their proposed funding.

Other rates and fees and charges

67. In addition to the adjustment of most other fees and charges in line with inflation, there are also specific changes proposed to the fees outlined below:

· changes to waste management targeted rates to reflect updated budget forecasts including a 3% increase to the overall waste management targeted rate for a typical household

· the introduction of the refuse targeted rate to the former Rodney and Franklin districts in conjunction with the rollout of rates funded refuse to these areas

· possible changes to some Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates (noting that relevant boards have received advice and will provide a formal recommendation in May 2025 on whether the Governing Body should set each rate depending on consultation outcome and compliance). More detailed advice on these BID targeted rates is included in a separate report on this agenda (Annual Plan 2025-2026: Other Rates and Fees Matters).

· changes to some animal management fees including an increase in the dog adoption fee from $350 to $450 and an increase vet fee from $75 to $150

· changes to some cemetery fees

· changes to other fees and charges that are over and above inflationary adjustments including:

o realigning bach fees into pricing tiers based on occupancy levels, capacity and location and

o aligning staff charge out rates with staff pay bands for services in regional parks,

o changing deposit levels for some regulatory services to better reflect actual final charges.

Local Board Feedback

Changes to waste management targeted rates to reflect updated budget forecasts including a 3% increase to the overall waste management targeted rate for a typical household.

68. Of the 18 local boards that provided feedback:

· Ten local boards supported or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, and Waitematā local boards.

· Four local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

69. Whau Local Board noted that the proposed 3 per cent increase to the overall waste management targeted rate is included in the proposed 5.8 per cent increase to general rates.

70. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board requested information on how services can be reduced while an increase is being proposed.

71. Two local boards did not support the proposal: Devonport-Takapuna and Papakura local boards.

The introduction of the refuse targeted rate to the former Rodney and Franklin districts

72. Of the 12 local boards that provided feedback:

· Eight local boards supported or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, and Whau local boards.

· Four local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

Changes to some animal management fees including an increase in the dog adoption fee from $350 to $450

73. Of the 20 local boards that provided feedback:

· Thirteen local boards supported, generally supported, or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitematā, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau local boards.

· Three local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

74. Four local boards did not support the proposal: Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Howick and Manurewa local boards. Manurewa Local Board noted that the fee increase may disincentivise people from adopting dogs.

75. Whau Local Board stated they encourage keeping dog adoption fees reasonable in order not to discourage public uptake of dog adoption.

Changes to some animal management fees including an increase vet fee from $75 to $150

76. Of the 20 local boards that provided feedback:

· Fourteen local boards supported, generally supported, or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke, Waitematā, and Waitākere Ranges local boards.

· Three local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

77. Howick and Manurewa local boards did not support the proposal.

Changes to some cemetery fees

78. Of the 20 local boards that provided feedback:

· Ten local boards supported, generally supported, or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Puketāpapa, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards.

· Six local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Rodney, Upper-Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, and Whau local boards.

79. Four local boards did not support the proposal (Kaipātiki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Papakura local boards). Papakura Local Board stated that new ways to accommodate burials should be investigated and enabled as a growth response and effective land use response.

Realigning bach fees into pricing tiers

80. Of the 17 local boards that provided feedback:

· Thirteen local boards supported or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards.

· Four local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

Aligning staff charge out rates with staff pay bands for services in regional parks

81. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback:

· Twelve local boards supported or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards.

· Four local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

Changing deposit levels for some regulatory services

82. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback:

· Twelve local boards supported or accepted the proposal: Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Waiheke and Waitematā local boards.

· Four local boards supported the proposal for consultation: Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Rodney, and Upper-Harbour local boards.

Local board advocacy

83. All local boards approved advocacy initiatives for consideration by the Governing Body for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

84. There were also other specific requests or recommendations from local boards included in other sections of their resolved feedback on the Annual Plan.

85. The full set of advocacy initiatives and other requests identified by local boards are included in the full local board resolutions in Attachment A.

86. The majority of local board advocacy related to community investment in sports and aquatics facilities, parks, pathways, local economic development, open spaces, town centres and community assets, more efficient public transport and roading, increased decision-making and funding for local boards, the retention of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and increased localism with increased resourcing for delivering projects.

87. This year, the following items were advocated for by multiple boards:

· Initiatives for improving the environment and/or mitigating the effects of climate change – four local boards advocated for environmental initiatives or protections and initiatives to support mitigating the effects of climate change including from flooding (Aotea/Great Barrier, Albert-Eden Devonport-Takapuna and Kaipātiki local boards)

· Increased funding or support for community facilities - ten local boards advocated for funding or support to deliver improved community facilities including sports fields, libraries, community centres, aquatic centres and recreational spaces. (Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa Upper Harbour Waitākere Ranges and Whau local boards)

· Improvements to public transport – five local boards advocated for improvements to the public transport system including bus and ferry services (Albert-Eden, Kaipātiki Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Rodney and Waiheke local boards)

· Increased funding for bylaw and consent compliance and enforcement – five local boards advocated for increased bylaw and consent compliance and enforcement (Albert-Eden, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Ōrākei and Papakura local boards)

· Improvements to water quality and coastal erosion – nine local boards advocated for measures to protect the environment and promote sustainability, particularly regarding water quality and coastal erosion. (Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei local boards)

· Growth and development: four local boards advocated for appropriate planning and infrastructure to support future growth and development (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Papakura local boards).

88. Other common themes across local board advocacy included:

· environmental conservation including initiatives to protect natural environments, such as the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and the Waitākere Ranges

· community development including initiatives to improve local communities, such as economic development, social infrastructure, public safety and cultural heritage preservation

· governance and equity including fairer funding distribution and increased local board autonomy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

89. This report summarises local board feedback on regional items considered for consultation. The climate impacts (both positive and negative) of specific proposals are summarised in other reports on this agenda and will be considered further in future advice and reports to support decision-making.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

90. The council group impacts of the regional consultation content are considered in the Mayoral Proposal report to the Budget Committee on this agenda.

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

Local impacts and local board views

91. Local board views and feedback on the regional items considered for consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 are provided in this report.

92. Local boards have been involved in the development of these regional items proposed for consultation, including:

· local board chairs attending Budget Committee workshops

· all local board members were provided briefings of the presentations to the workshops

· local boards provided informal feedback and advocacy to the Budget Committee at a workshop on the 27 November 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

93. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. The annual plan, including local board agreements, are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

94. Many local boards, as outlined in their resolutions, considered the impacts on Māori within their local board area.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

95. The annual plan is a statutory process which must be completed annually. The council budget provides for the resourcing to deliver this project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

96. The Governing Body (including through the Budget Committee) 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. This report enables the Budget Committee to consider the views and preferences expressed by local boards on regional items to be consulted on for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 when making decisions at today’s meeting.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

97. The regional and local consultation items will be incorporated into the consultation document and supporting information for the Annual Plan 2025/2026, which is planned to be adopted by the Budget Committee in early February 2024.

98. Aucklanders will have the opportunity to give feedback on regional and local content contained in the Annual Plan 2025/2026. Consultation is planned to take place from late February to late March 2025. All feedback received from submitters will be analysed by staff and made available for consideration by the local boards and the Governing Body ahead of final decision-making.

99. Following consultation, the Governing Body and the local boards will make decisions on the Annual Plan 2025/2026, including local board agreements, in June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Annual Plan 2025/2026 Local board feedback on draft Mayoral Proposal and regional consultation content

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Phoebe Peguero - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Renee Burgers - Lead Advisor Plans and Programmes

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Budget Committee

04 December 2024

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Mayoral Proposal

File No.: CP2024/17818

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present the Mayoral Proposal for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 for the Budget Committee’s consideration and to recommend key items from the proposal for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This year’s annual plan process was guided by the Mayor and Councillor’s Direction Document (Attachment A) that sets out key issues and requests for further advice to support workshops that were held between August and December 2024. The issues outlined in the document were:

· Council-controlled organisation (CCO) reform

· The funding of major events and destination marketing; and

· Planning and paying for growth.

3. My draft Mayoral Proposal and the supporting staff advice was released on 18 November to the Budget Committee and local board members. The draft proposal was discussed with the Budget Committee on Wednesday 20 November and in subsequent workshops with the CCOs in-scope for reform (Tataki Auckland Unlimited, Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport).

4. At the same time, local boards met to agree to their formal feedback on the draft proposal and these views were presented to the Budget Committee during workshops on Wednesday 27 November. A report on today’s agenda summarises those views.

5. The proposal includes detail on the key issues of CCO reform, funding destination marketing and major events, planning and paying for growth, and includes direction to the chief executive on other issues like Group Shared Services and procurement.

6. The final Mayoral Proposal will be distributed ahead of this meeting to support decision-making.

7. CCO reform will be reported to the Governing Body for consideration on Thursday 12 December in line with the Governing Body Terms of Reference.

Finances

8. This annual plan relates to year two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 which was adopted in June 2024.

9. While a range of financial and economic challenges have been identified in the staff advice, I don’t believe we need to depart from what was agreed with Aucklanders through the LTP. Instead, I expect staff to carefully monitor and diligently manage these risks within existing budget envelopes.

10. In my view, the LTP is like a social contract with our communities. This means, we stick to what was agreed, by:

· retaining the agreed rates increase for the average value residential property of 5.8%;

· aiming for a group debt to revenue limit of 250% (excluding Watercare) while ensuring there is adequate headroom to respond to future shocks;

· delivering the further $47 million in savings on top of other savings agreed to through previous plans and decisions;

· continuing to invest in the services and activities Aucklander’s care about with $4 billion of capital investment;

· proceeding with our approach to the fairer funding of local boards.

Funding destination marketing and major events

11. In our LTP, we signalled that without a bed night visitor levy in place for FY25 we would have a $7 million shortfall in the funding of major events. A levy requires legislation to enable it.

12. Staff advice includes analyses of the options available to respond to this shortfall including no bed night visitor levy and no additional rates funding, the reintroduction of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate, an increase to the Destination Partnership Programme, or a bed night visitor levy.

13. Most of these options are either too difficult to implement or intolerable to ratepayers. My strong preference is to continue to advocate for a bed night visitor levy and to consult with Aucklanders on the associated options and details.

14. A bed night visitor levy of between 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent would raise around $27 million in Auckland. Investment at this level would enable the delivery of a full destination marketing and major events programme.

15. I acknowledge these events are important to many. While I don’t support this cost being worn by the ratepayer, I want to make it clear that I do support these events taking place. The question we are asking ratepayers is whether they support a fairer way of funding this activity.

16. Consultation with Aucklanders should indicate our strong preference is for a bed night visitor levy, as well as how a levy could be applied. The alternative funding options as set out in staff advice should also be outlined in the consultation material.

17. I also expect that we continue to collaborate closely with the tourism and accommodation sector on funding options and advocacy to central government.

CCO reform package

18. My CCO reform package included in the Mayoral Proposal is a response to the question on whether we are best structured to deliver on the long-term plan and its broader vision.

19. In the direction document, it asks if reform could address ongoing concerns with CCOs about public trust and confidence, strategic alignment, democratic accountability, cost effectiveness and the ability to deliver on council’s plans. It specifically asks for options and advice on how we could:

· improve democratic accountability over projects and services delivered to Aucklanders by CCO’s;

· increase strategic alignment between council decision making and what CCO’s do for Aucklanders;

· improve the effectiveness and efficiency of how council group operates.

20. In response to that direction, staff provide analysis on a range of matters, including the rationale for and performance of the current CCO model, and structural reform options for three CCOs – Auckland Transport, Eke Panuku and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

21. Advice includes the full range of options requested, and the advantages and disadvantages of those options. The principle-based approach that has informed this advice is also the approach I have taken with the Mayoral Proposal and my reform package.

22. Given the nature of the proposed reform package (which does not require public consultation or decision-making as part of the annual plan process) and the Governing Body Terms of Reference, recommendations will be taken to the Governing Body on Thursday 12 December 2024.

Group Shared Services

23. In my Mayoral Proposal, I set out direction related to Group Shared Services. In response, I have received further advice, which is included in the updated staff advice attached to this report (Attachment B).

24. Group Shared Services is a part of the Well Managed Local Government priority in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 and is a key strategy to achieve value for money for Aucklanders.

25. Following decisions on the LTP, the GSS board agreed to a high-level scope for GSS functions, subject to final business case approval:

· Technology Services

· People Services

· Procurement Services

· Corporate Support Services

· Data Services

· Customer Experience and Digital Services

26. While there has been progress in the integration of some functions, I believe we need to take any opportunity to keep the pace up and fully realise the associated benefits and savings. This will also assist with a more coordinated and efficient approach to our service delivery and is in line with the proposed CCO reform package.

27. To support this acceleration, I would like the chief executive to assess the benefits (through business cases) for all eligible functions within Auckland Council and CCOs with as many as possible to be completed by 1 July 2025.

28. Thereafter, where business cases are favourable, I would like functions to transition into GSS without undue delay.

29. I recognise there will be instances where this isn’t practical or appropriate due to highly business-specific needs and expect the customer service experience is a key consideration of any future advice.

30. In some cases, where it is judged to be important that a function must stay within a CCO, it is expected that common technology platforms or systems will be utilised and supported by GSS wherever possible.

31. I have confirmed with the independent chair of the GSS board that this is achievable.

Planning and paying for growth

32. Auckland’s productivity has a direct impact to national living standards. If we want to make improvements to productivity, we must manage growth appropriately.

33. Auckland Council has a big role to play in the way we approach land use, urban regeneration, infrastructure, and amenity provision. We also have influence over where households and businesses locate, how people and goods move around, and how Auckland grows spatially.

34. While we have made progress in recent years, we continue to face issues around planning and paying for growth. This is particularly evident when we consider the limited funding tools available, our inability to limit growth to areas with planned infrastructure including out of sequenced private plan changes, and the often unnecessary associated cost to ratepayers.

35. As we continue to engage with central government on their RMA reforms and opportunities like a regional deal, we should also consider how we better organise ourselves to play our part in Auckland’s growth story.

36. As outlined in my proposal, I would like staff to look at initiatives that could help us better understand our growth needs and how we better prioritise our efforts. This should include the development of a framework that helps connect growth related decisions to relevant policy and strategy, updated Auckland-specific evidence on the cost and spread of growth, and further work on how we make better use of the funding tools available to us.

Other issues

37. Through my proposal, I’ve signalled other areas that require further work.

38. Many of you have consistently raised concerns over the way we procure and effectively spend ratepayer dollars. Often, this is in response to capital works that aren’t right-sized or cost effective.

39. The chief executive has acknowledged the challenges in this space and has established a team to drive improvements in how we do things. This work will be reported back to the Revenue and Expenditure Committee by March 2025.

40. I also expect us to continue to lead efforts to drive safety initiatives within the city centre but also across the region, including greater alignment between our council wardens, transport officers and the police.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) agree to publicly consult in principle on a bed night visitor levy to fund major events and destination marketing activity, subject to necessary legislation being enacted.

b) agree that public consultation material should include details of a proposed regionally applied levy of 2.5 to 3 per cent, to raise around $27 million per annum to fund major events and destination marketing activity, and outline the alternative options as included in the staff advice and set out in the body of this report.

c) agree to the following principles to apply to the acceleration of Group Shared Services:

i) all eligible functions from Auckland Council and Council-controlled organisations should be assessed for the Group Shared Services Programme (through business cases) as soon as possible and with as many as possible to be completed by 1 July 2025;

ii) the expectation is that all functions are shifted into Group Shared Services as soon as possible, to realise financial and other benefits from reduced duplication of back-office activities, unless there is a strong rationale not to include the function or part of a function (for example, where part of a function is highly specific to a Council-controlled organisation’s services and needs to be retained to protect the customer experience);

iii) decisions on business cases should be based on cost and benefits for the Auckland Council Group and its objectives as a whole, rather than impacts on individual Council-controlled organisations or the council parent;

iv) where there is a good reason for part of a function to stay within a Council-controlled organisation, it is still expected that common technology platforms or systems will be utilised and supported by Group Shared Services wherever possible.

d) request the chief executive to provide further advice next year relating to:

i) implementing the approach to Group Shared Services as set out in clause c), with a view to making significant progress by 1 July 2025, and options available to Governing Body if insufficient progress is made;

ii) the development of a framework to support decision-making on growth related issues that takes an integrated council group approach and helps to identify necessary trade-offs and prioritisation;

iii) an updated approach to group procurement as outlined in the Mayoral Proposal.

e) note that in line with the Governing Body Terms of Reference all decisions relating to the proposed Council-controlled organisation reform package will be made at the Governing Body meeting on Thursday 12 December 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Mayor and Councillor Direction to the Annual Plan 2025-2026
b ⇨	Staff advice to support Mayoral Proposal

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mayor Wayne Brown

Budget Committee

04 December 2024

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Other Rates and Fees Matters

File No.: CP2024/17819

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend changes to some targeted rates and fees and charges for consultation as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The recommendations in this report bring together all the rating issues and fees material, not covered elsewhere on this agenda, recommended for consultation as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Changes to Waste Management Targeted Rates

3. In accordance with decisions made by the Governing Body in 2022, rates funded refuse is being rolled out to the whole of Auckland. The scheme is commencing for properties in the former Waitakere, North Shore, and Papakura districts in the current financial year. It will be extended to properties in the former Franklin and Rodney districts early next financial year.

4. Properties in Franklin and Rodney will be charged a refuse targeted rate for the first time in 2025/2026, replacing the need to purchase rubbish bags or tags. The refuse targeted rate for Franklin will be for the full 12 months. The refuse targeted rate for Rodney will be around 83 per cent of the full year charge, reflecting the scheduled start date of early September 2025.

5. Initial analysis shows a small increase (around 3.3 per cent) next year to the overall waste management targeted rate for a typical household with one standard sized refuse bin and recycling bin. This increase is already provided for in the projected overall 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP).

6. Within the overall changes to the waste management targeted rates are some moderate changes to individual charges which are explained below:

· the combined cost of refuse and base services has increased by less than two per cent per household. This is due to the loss on pay-as-you-throw services no longer being funded by all ratepayers who pay the minimum base charge and balancing the higher cost of servicing rural residential and farm lifestyle properties in Rodney and Franklin

· the net increase attributable to the standard refuse service is estimated to be $3.46. This is made up of an increase in the standard refuse rate of $19.64 less the reduction of $16.18 in the minimum base charge.

· the recycling targeted rate is expected to increase by $12.32, or 11.6 per cent. This is a result of higher than forecast processing costs at council’s material recycling facilities.

Service	2024/2025 targeted rate $	Estimated 2025/2026 targeted rate $	Change $	Change %
Minimum base charge	63.07	46.89	-16.18	-25.7%
Standard refuse (full year)	174.77	194.41	19.64	11.2%
Standard recycling	106.64	118.96	12.32	11.6%
Food scraps	81.19	79.25	-1.94	-2.4%
Total for a typical household	425.67	439.51	13.84	3.3%

7. Officers also note that from July 2025 waste management services and targeted rates will be extended to the commercial areas in Manukau where the service isn’t presently available.

Changes to Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates

8. In 2024/2025 the council did not set a targeted rate for the Hunters Corner BID due to non-compliance with the BID Policy. The Hunters Corner Town Centre Society Inc has been given a further period of up to 30 April 2025 to resolve outstanding issues. Officers will continue to monitor the situation and report back to Budget Committee in May 2025 with advice and a recommendation on the Hunters Corner BID programme.

9. The Mangere East Village BID has also experienced compliance issues since 10 March 2023. Officers have not received a response from the Mangere East Village BID. At its business meeting on 15 May 2024, the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board resolved to support the disestablishment of the Mangere East Village BID programme. Officers recommend that the council consult on the discontinuation of the Mangere East Village BID programme and the associated targeted rate as part of the Annual budget 2025/2026.

10. Officers recommend consulting on the following changes to other BID programmes:

· expansion of the Glen Eden BID

· establishment of a new Grey Lynn BID

· establishment of a new Takanini BID.

11. Ballots^{^[1]} will be held before 31 March 2025 for these proposed expansions and new establishments. The relevant local boards will meet in April and May 2025 to consider the outcome of the ballots. Officers will report back to the Budget Committee in May with final recommendations from the local boards.

Changes to fees and charges

12. Most fees and charges will increase in line with the projected rate of inflation where necessary to maintain cost recovery.

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

14. For this budget process, officers reviewed the fees and charges for animal management and cemetery services to ensure the appropriate level of cost of providing the services is recovered from customers using services. Officers consider that most fees in these areas are currently at an appropriate level and recommend that they be only adjusted to reflect the projected rate of inflation.

15. Changes beyond inflation should be made to certain animal management and cemetery fees to assist cost recovery and reduce ratepayer subsidy. Officers recommend that the council consult on the following changes (as set out in this report) as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026:

· dog adoption fee and vet fee

· fees for cemetery and cremation services

· other fees and charges.

16. Officers also recommend delegation to staff for the fees to be set for new ash wall facilities that will open during the year where these differ from those identified herein for quality reasons.

17. Officers also recommend the following changes to fees and deposit levels, either to simplify the pricing structure or to better reflect costs:

· realign bach fees into pricing tiers based on occupancy levels, capacity, and location

· align staff charge out rates with staff pay bands for services in regional parks

· change deposit levels for some regulatory services to better reflect actual final charges.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) whakaae / agree to consult as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 on extending the refuse targeted rates to the former districts of Franklin and Rodney for 2025/2026, on a pro rata basis reflecting the approximate number of months the service will be available in each area

b) whakaae / agree to include in the materials to support consultation on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 the proposed increases to the waste management targeted rate charges next year as specified in this report, to ensure cost recovery for the relevant services

c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the extension of council’s waste management services and targeted rates to the commercial areas in Manukau

d) whakaae / agree to consult on the discontinuation of the Mangere East Village BID programme and the associated targeted rate as part of the Annual budget 2025/2026

e) whakaae / agree to consult on the establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID) and BID targeted rate for Takanini

f) whakaae / agree to consult on the establishment of a BID and BID targeted rate for Grey Lynn

g) whakaae / agree to consult on the expansion of the Glen Eden BID and BID targeted rate

h) whakaae / agree to consult on not setting the Hunters Corner BID targeted rate if the Hunters Corner Town Centre Society Inc is not compliant with the BID Policy by April 2025

i) whakaae / agree to consult as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 on changes to fees and charges as set out in this report

j) tono / request that the Governing Body delegate authority to the Head of Regional Operations to prescribe fees in relation to ash wall facilities.

Horopaki

Context

18. The council is required to consult on changes to its rating policy and certain changes to regulatory fees and charges where legislation requires consultation on any changes, or where the changes are considered significant under its Significance and Engagement Policy. The council can also choose to consult where it considers it appropriate to do so.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. The following sections set out the key issues to be considered when making a decision for each of the recommended changes to council’s targeted rates and fees. The following changes are discussed:

· introduction of the refuse targeted rate to the former Rodney and Franklin districts in conjunction with the rollout of rates funded refuse to these areas

· changes to waste management targeted rates to reflect updated budget forecasts

· extension of the waste management services and targeted rates to commercial areas in Manukau where the services aren’t presently available

· changes to some Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates

· changes to some animal management fees

· changes to some cemetery fees

· changes to other fees and charges that are over and above inflationary adjustments.

Introduction of the refuse targeted rate to the former districts of Rodney and Franklin

20. In accordance with decisions made by the Governing Body in 2022, the council is rolling out rates funded refuse to the whole of Auckland. This is commencing for properties in the former Waitakere, North Shore, and Papakura districts within the current financial year. It will be extended to properties in the former Franklin and Rodney districts early next financial year. As a result, properties in Franklin and Rodney will be charged a refuse targeted rate for the first time in 2025/2026, replacing the need to purchase rubbish bags or tags.

21. Unless an opt-out is approved by the council, a refuse service (80 litre bin, 120 litre bin, 240 litre bin, or an amount of council rubbish bags equivalent to the 80 litre, 120 litre or 240 litre bin size) will be made available to all residential and lifestyle properties in Franklin and Rodney, from the following scheduled commencement dates:

· early July for the former Franklin District

· early September for the former Rodney District.

22. Other properties in Franklin and Rodney will be able to opt into our services and an appropriate targeted rate will be charged accordingly. Under the current policy, properties with a land use other than residential and lifestyle can opt in or out of council’s waste management services and targeted rates (with the exception of the minimum base charge which all properties pay).

23. Collection costs per property are higher in Franklin and Rodney due to the longer distances trucks have to travel to service the same amount of properties in rural and semi-rural areas. Officers consider it appropriate to set the refuse targeted rate at the same level for those properties as the rest of the region. Officers’ advice to the Finance and Performance Committee in June 2022 for the decision to extend rates funded refuse to the Pay As You Throw (PAYT) areas was based on standardised charging across the whole of Auckland This was on the basis that every eligible property would have “access to the same fair and affordable service” and be offered “the same pricing structure no matter where they live”. This is consistent with the consideration given when the council sets the same waste management targeted rate charges for properties in Hauraki Gulf Islands despite higher costs to service those properties.

24. The recommended refuse targeted rate for Franklin is for the full 12 months, the same as areas where rates funded refuse is already in place. The recommended refuse targeted rate for Rodney is around 83 per cent of that for the rest of the region, reflecting the scheduled start date of early September 2025 for properties in that area.

25. Officers recommend that the following targeted rate charges for Franklin and Rodney be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Service	Former council area	Targeted rate for 2025/2026 (including GST)	Approximate number of months service will be available in 2025/2026
Small refuse (80L bin or equivalent)	Franklin	$161.56	12
Small refuse (80L bin or equivalent)	Rodney	$134.63	10
Standard refuse (120L bin or equivalent)	Franklin	$194.41	12
Standard refuse (120L bin or equivalent)	Rodney	$162.01	10
Large refuse (240L bin or equivalent)	Franklin	$322.68	12
Large refuse (240L bin or equivalent)	Rodney	$268.90	10

Changes to waste management targeted rates to reflect updated budget forecasts

26. Analysis of the recommended waste management rates for 2025/2026 shows a small increase (3.3 per cent) next year to the overall waste management targeted rate for a typical household with one standard sized refuse bin and recycling bin. This increase is already provided for within the projected overall 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property set out in the LTP.

27. Within the overall changes to the waste management targeted rates there are some changes to individual targeted rates which are explained below:

· an increase of $19.64 in the standard refuse charge reflecting the higher cost of servicing rural residential settlements and lifestyle blocks in Rodney and Franklin is offset by a $16.18 reduction in the minimum base charge as the loss on PAYT services no longer needs to be funded by all ratepayers. This equates to a net increase of around $3.50 per household, or 2 per cent, for the standard refuse service.

· the recycling targeted rate is expected to increase by $12.32, or 11.6 per cent. Costs to run the council’s material recycling facilities have increased as a result of higher processing costs than previously forecast.

Service	2024/2025 targeted rate $	Estimated 2025/2026 targeted rate $	Change $	Change %
Minimum base charge	63.07	46.89	-16.18	-25.7%
Standard refuse (full year)	174.77	194.41	19.64	11.2%
Standard recycling	106.64	118.96	12.32	11.6%
Food scraps	81.19	79.25	-1.94	-2.4%
Total for a typical household	425.67	439.51	13.84	3.3%

28. Officers recommend that the waste management targeted rate charges as set out in the table above be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026

Introducing waste services to the rest of the commercial areas in Manukau

29. The council does not currently provide waste management services to all properties within the commercial areas of the former district of Manukau. The town centres in Howick, Hunters Corner, and Papatoetoe are the only three commercial areas where council’s waste services are available. Plans are in place to introduce waste services to all other commercial areas in Manukau from 1 July 2025.

30. Business properties in these areas will be able to opt in and receive the recycling and/or refuse services from the council. Once opted in, the relevant targeted rate will be added to the property’s rates bill from the following financial year. Any service received before the targeted rate becomes effective will be charged through a pro rata fee, invoiced immediately to the customer.

31. Officers will contact the residential properties located within these commercial areas (mostly apartment blocks) to discuss their serviceability by the council. If a suitable service cannot be provided to a property, a targeted rate will not apply. If a suitable service can be provided, a targeted rate will apply regardless of whether the service is used by the ratepayer. This is consistent with the standardised charging mechanism for the waste management services adopted by the council in June 2022.

32. The extension of the waste management services and targeted rates to commercial areas in Manukau does not require a change in the Funding Impact Statement. Officers recommend that the Budget Committee note the extension of council’s waste management services and targeted rates to the commercial areas in Manukau.

Changes to some Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)

33. In 2024/2025 the council did not set a targeted rate for the Hunters Corner BID, due to non-compliance with the BID Policy on the part of the Hunters Corner Town Centre Society Inc (HCTCS). HCTCS has been given a further period of up to 30 April 2025 to resolve the issues. As of the date this report was prepared, progress on addressing the compliance issues had been limited. Officers will continue to monitor the situation and report back in May or June 2025 with a recommendation on the Hunters Corner BID programme. Officers recommend the consultation document note that council’s intention is not to set the Hunters Corner BID targeted rate for the 2025/2026 financial year if HCTCS has not resolved relevant issues by April 2025.

34. Another BID programme, Mangere East Village, has also experienced compliance issues since 10 March 2023. Over the last 18 months officers have made multiple attempts to contact the BID, including the committee members of the business association, in an effort to resolve the issues. As of the date this report was prepared, officers have not received any response. At its business meeting on 20 November 2024, the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board resolved to support the discontinuation of the Mangere East Village BID programme. Officers recommend that the council consult on the discontinuation of the Mangere East Village BID programme and the associated targeted rate as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

35. With regard to other BID programmes, the following changes are recommended:

· expansion of the Glen Eden BID

· establishment of a new Grey Lynn BID

· establishment of a new Takanini BID.

36. Each of these has received support from the respective local board.

37. 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. In order to proceed with establishment 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.

38. Ballots will be held before 31 March 2025 for these proposed expansions and new establishments. The relevant local boards will meet in April and May 2025 to consider the outcome of the ballots. Officers will report back to the Budget Committee in May 2025 with final recommendations from the local boards.

Changes to fees and charges

39. Fees and charges make up 31 per cent of group operating revenue for 2024/2025 in the council’s Funding Impact Statement in its LTP. A three-year cycle of fee reviews was introduced in the Annual Plan 2022/2023. The review programme ensures that users of council services continue to pay an appropriate share of the costs for those services. Some out of cycle fee reviews will continue to be necessary to address any material change in circumstances.

40. 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 projected rate of inflation where necessary to maintain cost recovery.

41. Preliminary work on revenue budgets to inform consultation on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 has been based on estimated inflation costs expected to be faced by each service. However, given the current level of economic uncertainty, inflation forecasts could be different when decisions on fee levels are required in May 2025. Fees recommended in this report may need to be adjusted taking into account updated inflation forecasts to maintain cost recovery.

42. Each of the recommended fee changes resulting from our review (not including those changes resulting only from inflationary adjustments) are discussed below.

43. The alternative to the recommended fee changes is to retain existing fee levels and fund the additional costs from general rates. Officers recommend adjusting fees and charges to ensure cost recovery for the relevant activities.

Animal management fees

44. As part of the three yearly review for council fees and charges, officers have undertaken an assessment of our animal management fees with a focus on cost recovery. The charts below show the costs and revenue sources for the activity. The majority of the cost is animal nuisance and animal welfare including staff callouts to deal with dog related complaints, and the provision of animal shelters.

45. Officers recommend maintaining the current cost recovery balance between dog registration charges, service fees, and general rates. Animal management fees, including dog registration, (except fees for dog adoption and vet service which are discussed in the paragraphs that follow) would be adjusted in line with the projected movement in costs. Maintaining current cost recovery is recommended after weighing the following considerations: 

· the general public, including dog owners, benefit from the council’s services which maintain a safe and pleasant living environment for the wider community

· owners of nuisance/dangerous dogs and sheltered dogs (registered or unregistered) create the need for the council to act. However, it is often difficult to recover costs from these dog owners. The fees for this service are set to maximise revenue but do not fully recover the costs of the services as raising the fees would reduce the number of dogs being returned to their owners. This would result in reduced fee revenue while raising the costs to council of holding the dogs and any subsequent action required. It is also difficult to quantify the amount of costs caused by each category of owners:

o costs relating to animal pound and shelter are budgeted at $7.5 million per year. Around 43 per cent of the dogs impounded/sheltered during 2023/2024 were subsequently returned to the owner. These were either registered dogs at the time of impoundment or dogs that were to be registered when they were returned to the owner.

o requests for service (officer callouts to deal with nuisance/dangerous dogs) cost around $13.4 million per year. Data on the distribution of dogs between the registered and unregistered categories associated with request for service is unavailable.

· on balance, both general rates and dog registration fees should contribute towards the costs of managing nuisance/dangerous dogs and sheltered dogs.

· current levels of dog fees are generally affordable and in line with other councils^{^[2]}. 

46. Decreasing the level of cost recovery for the animal management activity would result in decreased level of service or require additional funding from the general rates.

47. Officers recommend to increase the following two fees by more than the projected rate of inflation, to assist cost recovery and reduce ratepayer subsidy.

· increasing dog adoption fee from $350 to $450: actual cost to council is around $700 to $800 per adopted dog. Increasing the fee to $450 would help reduce ratepayer subsidy for this service while still keeping the adoption process affordable for most people. It is important to maintain affordability as all unclaimed and unadopted dogs will need to be euthanised and cremated, increasing costs to the council (it is often difficult to recover these costs from owners).

· increasing vet fee from $75 to $150: this fee applies to unclaimed dogs not suitable for adoption, where the owner is known to the council but does not want to claim their dog back. The recommended fee would approximately recover the actual costs to the council which include vet site visit, euthanasia, and cremation. A higher price may lead to some owners not paying but it is forecast that it will overall improve cost recovery. Any outstanding payments will be placed in the debt collection process.

48. The recommended changes to adoption fees and vet fees are expected to increase council revenue by around $35,000 per year.

Changes to some cemetery fees

49. Officers recommend increases to the following fees for cemetery services to cover costs. The fee increases reflect a significant under-recovery of costs from the existing fees. Some of these services require lengthy hours of staff attendance and existing charges do not adequately reflect this. All our existing fees in these areas are well below those charged by other providers. The recommended fees are lower than, or at the lower end of, other providers‘ prices. This recognises the potential impact on customers going through a difficult time or communities experiencing higher levels of deprivation. The recommended fees are forecast to increase revenue by up to $500,000 per annum^{^[3]}.

Category	Service	Current fee (incl. GST)	Recommended fee (incl. GST)
Ash wall interment and slot (existing facilities)	Ash wall interment	$133	$300
	Ash garden (space for 2 urns)	$1,555	$2,200
	Ash lawn (space for 2 urns)	$755	$1,555
Other services	Disinterment of adult	$5,550	$6,500
	Public holiday burial	$1,110	$2,000
	Sunday burial and cremation	$500	$1,200
	Viewing the charging of the casket	$244	$350

50. Officers also recommend simplifying and increasing administration fees for miscellaneous services, from 14 current fees ranging between $44 and $172, to three fee levels at $100, $150, and $200 depending on staff time required.

51. Officers recommend that the changes to cemetery and cremation charges as set out above be consulted on as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

52. The council is currently building additional ash wall facilities to help meet increased demand for this service. The charges for services provided in these facilities will be determined case by case once the building work is complete. The level of the charges in these facilities may differ from those for existing facilities and the recommended charges set out in the table above. The price for each slot will vary depending on the design, quality, and location of the slot. Many of these facilities will be put into use before the next annual plan cycle.

53. To ensure that the services for the new ash wall facilities can provided as soon as the facilities are ready, officers recommend that the Governing Body delegate to the Head of Regional Operations authority to prescribe fees in relation to ash wall facilities, outside of the annual plan cycle. In setting these fees officers will have regard of the relevant legal requirements and may undertake consultation on the proposed changes as appropriate. Officers will document the decision-making process including documenting the consideration of the matters set out in legislation in relation to council’s decision making. The fees set under the delegation for these new facilities will not seek to recover more than the reasonable costs incurred by the council to provide the services. Further, the fees set will generally not exceed those charged by other providers in Auckland for similar services.

Changes to other fees and charges that are over and above inflationary adjustment

54. Officers recommend the following changes to fees and deposit levels, either to simplify the pricing structure or to better reflect costs:

· realign bach fees into pricing tiers based on occupancy levels, capacity and location, this change is estimated to increase revenue by around $44,000 per annum

· align staff charge out rates for rangers and senior rangers for large events, commercial activity or filming taking place on regional parks, this change is not expected to materially change revenue.

· change deposit levels for some regulatory services to better reflect actual final charges, this will not impact on revenue.

55. As part of the three-yearly fee review cycle, we have also undertaken Phase Two of the review of the fees for venue hire and bookable space. Under Phase One of the review, fees were adjusted in line with the Hire Fee Framework and were implemented on 1 July 2024. Phase Two of the review examined the cost to serve and considered the balance between rates and user charges funding of venue hire and bookable space. After undertaking the review, officers do not recommend any change to the current fees and charges other than an inflationary adjustment for 2025/2026. Local boards will have the final decision making on the level of fees for venue hire and bookable space in their respective board area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

56. 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.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

a) Waste Solutions

b) Licensing and Compliance

c) CCO/External Partnerships

d) Parks and Community Facilities

58. This report has been reviewed by Legal Services.

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

Local impacts and local board views

59. Local boards considered the proposals in this report at their meetings in the third week of November. A summary of local board input is included in Attachment A of this report. Local board input is also discussed in a separate report titled ”Annual Plan 2025/2026: Local board feedback on draft Mayoral Proposal and regional topics for consultation“ on this agenda.

60. Local boards will have opportunities to express their views on the impacts of regional decisions on their local community before final decisions are made in May 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

61. 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 recommended changes on Māori. The impact of the recommended rates and fees changes on Māori will be similar to that on other residents in Auckland.

62. Consultation on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 will include engagement with iwi authorities. Targeted engagement to include mataawaka is also being planned for. This approach is still being finalised and will be presented to Governing Body for approval in February 2025 ahead of public consultation.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

64. The recommended changes to rates, fees and charges will allow the council to meet its cost recovery targets for the relevant activities for the 2025/2026 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 koringa ā-muri

Next steps

65. Resolutions passed by the Budget Committee at this meeting will be used to develop the consultation material for the Annual Plan 2025/2026. These materials will include all changes agreed to by the Budget Committee at this meeting.

66. In February 2025, the Budget Committee will be asked to adopt the consultation material and approve the consultation process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Local board input on other rates and fees matters 4 Dec 2024

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Eric Wen - Senior Advisor - Financial Policy

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor – Financial Policy

Authorisers

Michael Burns - General Manager Financial Strategy

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Budget Committee

04 December 2024

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Summary of Budget Committee workshops, briefings and related confidential information released into Open - 4 December 2024

File No.: CP2024/18238

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide a public record of workshops and briefings held by the Budget Committee relating to the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

2. To note confidential decisions and related information released into the public domain.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to the Budget Committee members via memos, briefings and workshops, where no decisions are required.

4. The following workshops and briefings have taken place for the Budget Committee:

Date

Subject

25/9/24

Briefing – Annual Plan 2025/2026 - Financial context / update

Recording of the briefing is available here

16/10/24

Workshop – Funding visitor attractions and events (including APTR)

Documents available on the Auckland Council website here

Recording of the workshop available here

30/10/24

Briefing – Budget Update

Recording of the briefing available here

06/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: CCO Reform – Overview

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

06/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: CCO Reform – Eke Panuku

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

06/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: CCO Reform – Tataki Auckland Unlimited

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

13/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: Planning and paying for Growth

The workshop presentation was made available as part of the staff advice to support the Draft Mayoral Proposal here

Attached: Agenda, Notes and Notes Attachments Document.

13/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: Strategic Growth Alliance

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

13/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: CCO Reform – Auckland Transport

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

20/11/24

Workshop – Draft Mayoral Proposal

Documents available on the Auckland Council website here

Recording of the workshop available here

20/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: CCO Reform – CCO Feedback

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

27/11/24

Workshop – Local Board input into the mayoral proposal

Documents available on the Auckland Council website here

Recording of the workshop available here

27/11/24

Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: CCO Feedback

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(i)

The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

27/11/24

Workshop – Draft communications and engagement plan

Documents available on the Auckland Council website here

Recording of the workshop available here

5. The following information items have been distributed:

Date	Subject
1/11/24	Memorandum: Proposed changes to targeted rates and fees and charges for Annual Plan 2025/2026
18/11/24	Draft Mayoral Proposal Available on the Auckland Council website here
18/11/24	Staff advice to support the draft Mayoral Proposal Available on the Auckland Council website here
25/11/24	Memorandum: CCO Reform - PSA feedback
27/11/24	Memorandum: Local Board cost pressures
28/11/24	Memorandum: Update on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2025/2026

6. This document can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “Budget Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

o under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

7. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Budget Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) whiwhi / receive the Summary of Budget Committee workshops, briefings and related confidential information released into Open – 4 December 2024.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Workshop – CONFIDENTIAL: Planning and paying for Growth - Agenda, Notes, Attachments
b ⇨	Memorandum: Proposed changes to targeted rates and fees and charges for Annual Plan 2025/2026
c ⇨	Memorandum: CCO Reform - PSA feedback
d ⇨	Memorandum: Local Board cost pressures
e ⇨	Memorandum: Update on the Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2025/2026

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Duncan Glasgow - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

[1] A process where affected business owners vote on a proposal with regard to a BID programme or targeted rate.

[2] Excludes charges for responsible dog owners’ licenses and super gold card holders which are generally lower for Auckland residents.

[3] The estimate of $500,000 assumes no impact to the number of sales. However, there may be a small decrease in sales if prices increase in which case the additional revenue will be lower.

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