Agenda of Manurewa Local Board - Thursday, 20 March 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

A board member will lead the meeting in prayer.

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 20 February 2025, including the confidential section, as a true and correct.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - Manurewa Youth Council

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Representatives from the Manurewa Youth Council will be in attendance to discuss youth input on the annual plan and budget.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank the Manurewa Youth Council for their attendance.

8.2 Deputation - Kuracare Charity

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Richie Aholelei from Kuracare Charity will be in attendance to speak to the board about the current services they deliver in Manurewa, and opportunities for future partnership.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Richie Aholelei for his attendance.

8.3 Deputation - All Aboard

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Marie Guerreiro, Executive Director of All Aboard will be in attendance to speak to the board about the organisation and the work they do.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Marie Guerreiro for her attendance.

8.4 Deputation - New Foundations Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. Sue Dickens from New Foundations Trust will be in attendance to speak to the board about the Trust and the work that they do.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Sue Dickens for her attendance.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Manurewa Local Board Update - March 2025	15

Manurewa Local Board

20 March 2025

Feedback on options to address local board operating cost pressures for Annual Budget 2025/2026

File No.: CP2025/04361

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on options to manage local board cost pressures in the context of Fairer Funding, for reporting back to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) in April 2025, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP). This included new funding of $84 million operating and $50 million capital over two years to transition most local boards significantly closer to funding equity. $35 million of new operating funding was planned for in 2025/2026 and allocated to local boards through the LTP.

3. Through the council’s Annual Budget 2025/2026 refresh process, staff have identified that some costs are forecast to be higher than previously anticipated, and operating revenue budgets set in the LTP are at risk of not being achieved. In a memorandum to the Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications.

4. Thirteen local boards (identified as funded below their equitable levels) were allocated a portion of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 exceeding their individual cost pressures. However, there are eight local boards (that were identified as funded at or above their equitable levels) which were allocated little or no additional funding, and staff anticipate the level of implementable advice and options available to these local boards will be insufficient to fully mitigate the size of their individual cost pressures without materially impacting service levels.

5. After a recent budget refresh exercise, which concluded in February, the revised total cost pressures and revenue shortfalls identified for local community services is $13.9 million across 21 local boards, comprising of:

· known variations to asset schedules within full facility contracts (subject to final price negotiation) were not budgeted for in the LTP, $5.1 million

· utilities costs (driven primarily by Electricity and Gas forecasted prices), $5.8 million

· improved libraries rostering to meet health and safety requirements, reduce the likelihood of unplanned facility closures and deliver planned levels of service, $1.5 million

· revenue shortfalls from pools and leisure facilities and venue for hire, $2.4 million

· improvements in leasing revenue is an overall net positive contribution of $0.3 million, however this differs by local board. Where they are net positive, this could be used to mitigate the effect of cost pressures. Leasing revenue improvements can arise because of local board decisions.

6. While this initial budget refresh exercise has been completed, staff are continuing to investigate the cost pressures to identify mitigations and other offset opportunities.

7. Between 4 and 6 March 2025, finance staff have workshopped with all local boards the updated local board budget position (based on the best available information), including individual local board positions, and options to manage the collective local board cost pressures. A further budget update since these workshops has occurred (and local boards informed through a memo), reducing the overall cost pressures for local boards from $18 million to $13.9 million.

8. This report seeks local board feedback on the three potential options and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views including other matters relating to local cost pressures to the Joint Governance Working Party, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on the three identified options to manage local board cost pressures in the short term.

b) tuku / provide feedback on any other matters relating to local board cost pressures and budgets.

Horopaki

Context

9. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) and is to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP) to transition towards significant funding equity for most local boards over four years, including the allocation of $35 million of new operating funding to 13 local boards for 2025/2026. Eight local boards have been allocated little to no new funding.

10. Cost pressures can arise when the costs of delivering a service are forecast to increase beyond what is projected in the LTP. These can occur as new information becomes available after the adoption of an LTP or Annual Plan, and budgeting assumptions are updated.

11. The total net operating cost pressures identified for local community services for 2025/2026 is $18 million and relate to ‘asset-based services’. This is the total across all 21 local boards and does not include cost pressures relating to any other area of the council group operations.

12. Operating cost pressures relating to networks of asset-based services (e.g. pools, libraries, open space maintenance) have historically been managed across local boards at a regional level by the Governing Body. In this approach additional levers are available, such as changes to the level and distribution of general rates funding and minimum service levels. There is also the ability for staff to drive efficiencies across the regional network, and to manage “unders and overs” across that network.

13. Local boards have two main levers for responding to cost pressures in the short term. These are:

a) utilising new operating funding from their share of the $35 million in 2025/2026 provided to support a transition to Fairer Funding, or

b) by making changes to services including prioritisation and trade-off decisions across their service portfolio.

14. Staff also have some levers available to help manage the costs and revenues for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

15. The eight local boards that will not receive sufficient new funding would need to respond to cost pressures by reviewing service levels, making prioritisation and trade-off decisions to remain within their existing funding levels, and then work with staff to ensure the efficient delivery of those services. However, staff do not expect the level of implementable options and advice available for 2025/2026 to be sufficient to cover the full amount of their individual cost pressures.

16. On 14 February 2025, staff presented a report to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) about cost pressures for local boards, how local boards can currently manage these cost pressures, and possible transitional support which the JGWP could recommend to the Governing Body as part of annual budget decision making. This report is included in Attachment A. At this time the updated local cost pressure position was unknown, however since then, updated estimates of cost pressures have been forecasted.

17. The JGWP resolved (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) on three potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term, and has requested staff seek formal local board feedback on these to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes.

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026.

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

18. As operating cost pressures are ongoing, local boards should also consider in their feedback, how this would be managed for future years.

19. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the JGWP in April to support a recommendation to the Governing Body, per JGWPC/2025/4 c).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Through the budget refresh process staff identified $13.9 million of net operating cost pressures related to delivering existing levels of service for local community services. The distribution by local board is presented below. Staff are continuing to investigate these cost pressures, including identifying mitigations, and have identified some regional scheduled maintenance costs were incorrectly attributed to local boards. A memo was distributed to all local boards on 12 March 2025 explaining the corrections, and this has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million from the $18 million presented in workshops, as presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: distribution of cost pressures to local boards

21. Analysis was completed to compare the level of individual local board cost pressures against each local board’s allocation from the new operating funding in 2025/2026. This is because the new funding is yet to be allocated towards a service or activity, and if this was used to cover cost pressures, there would not be an impact to existing service levels.

22. Analysis showed that 13 local boards had sufficient new operating funding to cover their individual cost pressures, however this would result in a reduction of up to 61 per cent in their new operating funding, which was provided for the purpose of funding equity and which local boards expected to deliver additional outcomes for their communities.

23. Eight local boards with little to no new funding would only have the option to look across existing services to find cost reductions or revenue opportunities to offset cost pressures. However, advice on strategic options and opportunities for local boards to change asset-based services to reduce cost will initially be limited. Advice is more readily available for activities currently funded from ‘Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)’ operating funding which is a only a small proportion of the local board operating costs.

24. For these eight local boards, this could mean between 36 per cent and 84 per cent funding reduction from their existing ‘Locally Driven Initiatives’ programme of services and activities. Changes at this level are likely to be material to existing levels of services, as most of these services and activities have been ongoing for many years and are designed to achieve local board plan outcomes. Any material changes to existing levels of service are likely to trigger a requirement for public consultation; however local boards were not recommended to consult in detail on specific opportunities in the Annual Budget 2025/2026 consultation. Therefore, this gives rise to a risk that certain opportunities may not be implementable unless further consultation is held.

Table 2: analysis of cost pressures compared to available funding by local board

Supporting a transition to fairer funding

25. To support this significant shift in the way local boards are funded, some key principles and assumptions were agreed as part of the adoption of Fairer Funding:

· No local board is worse off in its level of funding (than under the prior ABS/LDI funding model).

· Achieving significant funding equity for most local boards in four years.

26. The level of implementable advice across local community services and environmental management may not be available for the Annual Budget 2025/2026 to fully cover the full quantum of local boards individual cost pressures. Additional options to address local cost pressures in the short term have been developed for JGWP consideration to help all local boards transition to the new way of funding.

Options analysis for addressing local board cost pressures

27. The Joint Governance Working Party on 14 February 2025 (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) requested staff to seek local board feedback on the following potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes.

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026.

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

28. A combination of options will likely be needed to resolve the full range and quantum of cost pressures for 2025/2026, but consideration should also be given to whether these options should be temporary (e.g. one year) or implemented for a longer period (e.g. two years, or on an ongoing basis).

29. Based on of the current projected size of local cost pressures it is unlikely any overall funding changes to local boards would be considered significant (per council’s Significance and Engagement Policy), and therefore would not require public consultation to implement. However, changes to local funding levels requires a Governing Body decision.

30. A Governing Body decision is required to implement options 2 and 3 as these involve a change to how funding for local boards is distributed and involves a departure from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

31. This option requires local boards to fund services within LTP funding allocations, including any new funding received. This is in line with the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, makes progress towards bringing 19 local boards to within 5 per cent of their equitable funding level in 2025/2026, and places no additional burden on ratepayers.

32. Under this approach local boards would address cost pressures by:

i) Utilising new operating funding

ii) Adopting and seeking staff advice on opportunities to increase revenue or reduce costs in some areas to make room for increased costs in others. These may include minor changes to services, or trade-off decisions across a range of locally funded services and must be implementable in time to support the 2025/2026 Annual Budget (including re-consultation if significant)

iii) Working with staff during the financial year to continuously seek out cost efficiencies and revenue enhancements for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

33. Local boards that will not receive any new funding, or that will receive insufficient new funding to address cost pressures, are limited to available staff advice on opportunities and changes to services. The implications of delays to the provision of advice over their portfolio of services until 2026/2027 may mean that local boards look to more flexible areas of their funding, which are well understood and supported with staff advice (for example services and activities previously funded from LDI). Reducing these services may impact on the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

34. Based on initial estimates of local cost pressures, staff had advised that local boards did not need to consult on significant service level changes, therefore seven of the eight local boards with little to no new funding consulted broadly on priorities. This limits the level of implementable opportunities without having to further consult.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

35. Of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 provided to support the transition to funding equity, a portion could be used to provide temporary support for local boards unable to fully offset cost pressures. Some of the additional funding may not otherwise be utilised if there are insufficient options and advice on new and increased service levels. This would involve allocating funding to local boards with little to no new funding to address cost pressures from the $35 million new funding, then distributing the remainder based on the equitable rankings.

36. The impact of using this option is that local boards that were allocated additional operating funding would see a reduction to that level of operating funding, with the reduction in the level of operating funding used to cover cost pressures from other local boards.

37. Based on the budget information at end of February 2025, modelling was carried out and presented to local boards showing the impact should all local cost pressures be covered from the $35 million new funding first, with the remainder distributed equitably as per the Local Board Funding Policy 2025. Since then there has been a reduction to the overall size of local cost pressures from $18 million to $13.9 million, which means the modelled impact is expected to be less than what was presented through workshops.

38. However, this is only one possible scenario, and there are various ways this option can be applied, including:

· whether all local cost pressures are covered from the $35 million first, or only for those local boards that cannot cover their own

· the proportion of local cost pressures covered from the $35 million first, and this could be on a scale from zero per cent to 100 per cent.

39. This option would represent slightly less progress towards funding equity for the 2025/2026 year than anticipated in the LTP. This approach remains consistent with a transition to equitable funding over four years and places no additional burden on ratepayers should it be used temporarily, until sufficient advice is available and implementable for local boards to manage cost pressures over their full portfolio of services.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures, including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

40. The Governing Body is responsible for decision making on the overall funding level for local boards and could allocate additional local funding to support cost pressures. This could be achieved without increasing general rates within the existing overall LTP funding level if there are sufficient improvements to other assumptions (such as interest rates and depreciation costs), or by balancing the application of funding across a wider range of services including regional activities. These options are not available to local boards, and any new local targeted rates could not be implemented in time for 2025/2026.

41. Once budget projections have been fully updated across the group, it will be clearer whether or not the emerging cost pressures for local services can be accommodated within the currently projected rates increase for 2025/2026. If it can be, then it will be up to the Governing Body to approve that allocation, after considering budget trade-offs across the group. If it cannot be, then the Governing Body is expected to be able to have some flexibility to make minor adjustments to the rates increase as part of its final budget decision-making in May 2025. However, the current political direction on this is clear that a higher rates increase is the last resort.

42. While progress will still be made towards funding equity, any permanent direct funding provided to individual local boards to address cost pressures is an inequitable way of distributing general rates funding and would increase the challenge of progressing towards full funding equity. This also departs from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

43. Under this option, additional funding could be provided for one or more years until sufficient advice is available for local boards to manage cost pressures, and could be managed at a regional level to be provided to local boards as needed to minimise the impact on funding equity.

44. The Joint Governance Working Party resolved specifically for staff to investigate whether the Delivering Differently budget could be used to temporarily resolve local cost pressures. The majority of the funding for this programme is debt funded (such as capital grants) which cannot be re-purposed to mitigate local operational cost pressures. The remaining funding is for the purpose of supporting local boards shift away from asset-based service provision and future unaffordable renewals, and it‘s important that progress on this work continues.

Summary of options and risks

45. The following table summarises the impact, risks and alignment to the proposed principles for each option. A combination of options may be used to resolve the level of cost pressures for local boards in both 2025/2026 and beyond.

Option

Risks and/or impacts

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

· Advice not fully ready across local board service portfolio to implement for 2025/2026.

· Activities and services with advice to respond this year may be limited to those tailored to local priorities and reducing these will impact the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

· Funding equity gap between local boards would be slightly larger than planned (5 per cent of funding equity by 2025/2026).

· A one-year approach would mean local boards may have cumulative cost pressures to solve in the next year.

· Continued application would slow progress to significant funding equity in subsequent years.

· Perceived retreat on historical commitments made through the LTP for individual local boards.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

· Could impact on other services, including regional services, as a result of funding reallocation.

· Inequitably allocating additional funding to local boards departs from funding policy and slows progress towards equitable funding.

Improvements to budget and cost allocation accuracy

46. Through the Annual Budget 2025/2026 budget refresh process, staff identified over $25 million of costs and budget held in regional community services but are related to the delivery of existing levels of local community services. These relate to services that are managed across the region (or at a network level), with financials also historically being managed at a regional level.

47. Implementing these cost allocation changes through Annual Budget reviews will impact local funding envelopes and funding equity. While changes to baseline budgets are typically made when the Fairer Funding model is refreshed in the next LTP to align with the frequency of review specified in the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, some necessary improvements to the accuracy of budgets may be required to support effective management and local board governance.

48. Allocation of these costs and funding will not be based on an equitable distribution as these are considered adjustments to baseline budgets, instead of new local funding. An example would be where there are Pools and Leisure centralised costs to be allocated to local boards, only those local boards with Pools and Leisure sites will receive an allocation of costs and funding. Changes that impact baseline budgets would impact funding equity analysis and local board rankings, however should not impact the total cost to the council or planned service levels, as they are a change to how costs and funding is allocated only.

49. There will be no cost pressures for 2025/2026 associated with these cost and funding transfers for local boards, nor any impacts on the existing levels of service being delivered in each local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have climate impacts.

51. In particular, local boards contribute to climate outcomes through their local environmental work programmes (currently funded through their LDI operating funding) and therefore the scale of cost reductions required to fund the cost pressures could result in significant impacts to local environmental work programmes. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on the level of funding that can be allocated towards local environmental work programmes. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. Staff from the Finance and Community divisions provided input into the report for the Joint Governance Working Party and have developed the list of local community cost pressures for the 2025/2026 Annual Budget through reviewing the costs of delivering existing levels of services.

53. Staff will continue to improve the quality and range of advice for local boards over the four years transitioning to significant funding equity. This could have impacts on the operations of the Community Division which may need to adapt to the new funding structure of local community services, and improvements to how local services are being budgeted.

54. Some options for feedback in this report require Governing Body decisions on funding and may need to be considered together with the entire council group financial position and budget updates. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

55. In a memorandum to Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications. Seven local boards have consulted broadly on priorities but not specific cost reduction initiatives.

56. Finance staff workshopped the updated budget position and options to manage the collective cost pressures with local boards between 4 and 6 March 2025. This report seeks local board feedback on the options presented and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views to the Joint Governance Working Party.

57. The identified $13.9 million net operating cost pressures is over a third of the $34.6 million additional operating funding provided to local boards to progress towards funding equity. Individual local board impacts were workshopped with local boards, based on the $18 million cost pressures identified at that time. However subsequently staff identified through a detailed review, updates to the budgets presented, which has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million (Table 1 in this report).

58. Under Fairer Funding, 13 local boards are able to cover their individual cost pressures using new operating funding allocated to achieve funding equity purposes, however this will reduce the level of new operating available to these local boards to improve community outcomes. The proportion of new operating funding required to cover cost pressures for individual local boards can be up to 61 per cent of their allocated new operating funding.

59. Eight local boards would be unable to address their individual cost pressures without making reductions to existing services, and there is unlikely to be sufficient cost reduction or revenue generating options available for local boards which can be implemented for 2025/2026 to offset the entirety of their cost pressures.

60. The options provided intend to assist all local boards in transitioning to funding equity over time, and depending on the combination of options may change individual local board funding envelopes compared to the LTP.

61. A feedback template has been provided (Attachment C) to assist local boards in providing feedback to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have Māori impacts depending on each local board’s specific community.

63. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on local board work programming which is the process where local boards prioritise their available funding towards achieving local board plan outcomes for their community, including impacts to their Māori community. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. Some of the options proposed in this report for further engagement will impact local board funding decisions and council’s overall funding levels for this Annual Budget 2025/2026, but would be subject to further Governing Body decision making. Full detail on risks, mitigation and implications are outlined in the earlier sections of this report, and in more detail below.

65. Feedback on this report informs the Joint Governance Working Party and inputs into Governing Body Annual Budget decision making.

66. Some options for managing cost pressures would have no impact to rates by requiring these to be managed within existing local board funding envelopes or the wider Auckland Council Group (subject to Governing Body decision making). However, there may be a risk that an increase in rates is required to fund cost pressures, and this would only be clear once the Governing Body is presented with a budget update for the Auckland Council Group.

67. The final decisions to manage local cost pressures may have a direct impact on the level of funding each local board is allocated and may vary the funding levels set out in the LTP.

68. Options where the level of funding to local boards are set on a non-equitable distribution, including any targeted operating funding support provided, requires the decision maker, which is Governing Body, to agree to a temporary departure from the Local Board Funding Policy 2025 adopted through the LTP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. There are significant risks identified with the uncertainty of local board annual funding envelopes and available funding, which has resulted in challenges for staff to plan for and engage with local boards to participate effectively in work programme discussions and to meet key annual budget timelines with sufficient levels of clarity and understanding. This is because options which alter local board funding require Governing Body decision-making, and based on the current timeline, Annual Budget decisions are set to be made on 28 May 2025. A mitigation being confirmed is for a recommendation from the JGWP to be presented to the Budget Committee on 16 April 2025, seeking indicative support for later formal decision-making by the Governing Body.

70. There is a risk should the Governing Body not decide to provide additional support to local boards. Given the updated size of local cost pressures it is unlikely that options with a minor impact to service levels could fully mitigate these for local boards not receiving top-up funding. Eight local boards are therefore at risk of not being able to approve a balanced budget by June 2025 without additional support or further consultation in a short timeframe on further reductions which are considered significant (under council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

71. Some proposed options will have financial and reputational risks to council as these could be perceived as changes to the commitments made in the LTP, such as changing the allocation of funding levels for individual local boards.

72. There are also risks relating to the timeframe for the council to develop the necessary improvements to financial budget data and process improvements, and to develop the capability to provide local boards with advice on options for changing service levels and how local services can be more efficiently delivered. Some improvements to local board data and increased staff advice are expected from 2026/2027, however these will not be across the full portfolio of services. A longer-term solution is anticipated to require the full transition period to funding equity of four years.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the Joint Governance Working Party on 11 April 2025 to seek recommendations from JGWP to the Governing Body for Annual Budget decision making.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Options to address local board operating cost pressures and their impact on Fairer Funding implementation – (14 February 2025 JGWP)	35
b ⇩	Memorandum: Local Board cost pressures – additional information (2 Dec 2024)	47
c ⇩	Feedback template	51

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Hao Chen - Manager Local Board Financial Advisory

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Brian Chan - General Manager Financial Advisory

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Manurewa Local Board

20 March 2025

Local board views on draft plan change to add trees and groups of trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part and to the Notable Trees overlay

File No.: CP2025/03777

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a draft plan change which seeks to add trees and groups of trees to Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if local boards provide their views.

3. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to the AUP Schedule of Notable Trees (‘Schedule 10’), and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps. The proposed additions are derived from nominations received from the public over the course of the last decade, and which have been held in council’s database. The 169 trees and 27 groups affect approximately 160 properties.

4. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions. If authorisation is given by the committee, it is anticipated that the plan change will be notified in May 2025.

5. The local board will have a second opportunity to express its views on the plan change after the period for submissions is complete

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on draft plan change to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to Schedule 10, and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

6. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change (to be notified for submissions). A plan change will be included in the AUP if it is later approved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

7. The purpose of the draft plan change is to address all of the nominations for notable trees that council has held in its database over the last 10-12 years. All nominations have been progressively evaluated, with a view to adding them to Schedule 10, and the corresponding mapped overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and notable groups found in the schedule.

8. Schedule 10 currently contains approximately 3000 ‘line items’ representing thousands of trees and groups of trees. It is a very large and dynamic schedule, which undergoes constant change through consenting activities such as subdivision, resource consent processes and other changes as a result of emergency works (in the case of dangerous of storm-affected trees, for example). Schedule 10 is an amalgam of all the legacy councils’ similar schedules which contained lists of specially protected trees. These were ‘rolled over’ into the Proposed AUP prior to the AUP being made partially operative in November 2016.

9. Schedule 10 is managed by the AUP through a policy and rule framework. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in the AUP (Chapter B4.5. Notable Trees) contains the objectives and policies (including the criteria for scheduling), while Chapter D13. Notable Trees overlay contains the district-level objectives and policies, and sets out the rules framework for how activities affecting notable trees are treated. Schedule 10 itself is found in Chapter L Schedules. The AUP maps contain the Notable Trees overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and groups throughout the region, using specific symbology.

10. A number of plan changes have been undertaken in the last 5 years relating to Schedule 10 and Chapter D13 of the AUP. However, there has not been a comprehensive plan change that has attempted to evaluate and address all of the nominations received by council. These nominations have been sporadic but regular, and also include those trees which were requested to be included at the time of the PAUP through the public submission process.

11. All nominations that seek to add trees and groups to the Schedule are triaged to ensure they are ‘eligible’ to progress through to the site evaluation stage. Those that are found to already be included in Schedule 10, or which are duplicate nominations, or those which nominate trees that are no longer present on the site, for example, are not added to the on-site application which council and consultant arborists use to assess trees.

12. The evaluation process is a detailed exercise based on the criteria as set out in the RPS. Each tree, and group of trees, is evaluated against each criterion and provided with a score.

The criteria are based on the following:

a) heritage or historical association;

b) scientific importance or rarity;

c) ecosystem service or environmental function;

d) cultural association and accessibility

e) intrinsic value: the trees are intrinsically notable because of a combination of factors including size, age, vigour and vitality, stature and form or visual contribution.

13. Approximately 160 new ‘line items’ representing 169 trees and 27 groups have been found to meet the criteria and are proposed to be put forward to the plan change with a view to adding them to Schedule 10 and the corresponding Notable Trees overlay maps.

14. The plan change addresses the nominations only, and does not seek to alter any of the objectives and policies, or any part of the rules framework relating to Notable Trees.

15. A summary of the numbers of trees and groups of trees according to Local Board area that are proposed to be added to Schedule 10 is included at Attachment A. The table also includes the districts within the Local Board areas that will be affected by the addition of trees and group of trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

16. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

17. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirementfor Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) decision-makers to:

· have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA), and

· to have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) RMA) when preparing or changing a district plan.

18. It is considered that the draft plan change has positive climate considerations. The proposed formal protection through scheduling of 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region will contribute positively to carbon sequestration and therefore is beneficial to mitigating the effects of climate change.

Local board views – climate

19. It is not considered that the plan change will affect any local board in particular in terms of climate change. Across local board areas, the collective addition of approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees will be beneficial in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation by ensuring the retention of and formal protection of a number of trees.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Many of the trees and groups of trees are located on council reserves and also on road reserves which are the domain of Auckland Transport. All owners of land upon which a nominated tree or group is located were notified as part of a mail-out to advise of an upcoming site visit by a council or consultant arborist. As part of the notification process, they will again be contacted if a tree or group is one of those included in the qualifying number for inclusion to the plan change. All owners and affected parties (including council departments and Auckland Transport) will have the opportunity to participate in the submission process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 160 new ‘line items’ to Schedule 10 of the AUP, representing 169 trees and 27 groups of trees.

22. This draft plan change affects all local boards, except for Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Waiheke Local Board.

23. There are no funding impacts on Local Boards as a result of the plan change.

24. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views. The committee will be provided with the local board’s resolution when considering whether to authorise notification of the draft plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

26. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Consultation is currently underway simultaneously with all iwi authorities. Feedback will be incorporated into the plan change.

27. Later in the plan-making process, the planner will analyse Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance (2021) and Māori Plan (2017, Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

29. Costs from undertaking the plan change are met by existing council budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the draft plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences in contributing to formulation of the draft plan change.

31. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, the opportunity to influence policy prior to public notification is forgone. (There is a later opportunity to comment on the plan change, following the close of submissions).

32. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Local boards will provide feedback at the March business meetings.

34. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee in May 2025 seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions.

35. After submissions close, a second report will provide an opportunity for views and preferences of the local board, which will then be included in a hearing report for the decision-makers on the plan change. The local board may appoint a local board member to speak to the local board’s views at the plan change hearing.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Proposed additions of trees and groups by Local Board, and areas within each Local Board	59

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Andrews – Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

John Duguid – General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Manurewa Local Board

20 March 2025

Proposed policy refresh: Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022)

File No.: CP2025/04018

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback on proposed changes to the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Business Improvement District (BID) programme team oversees the BID programmes ongoing development accountability and governance. The refresh process will not include a review of these roles or resources.

3. BID programmes provide sustainable funding to business associations by applying a targeted rate to business rated properties within a defined geographical area and granting these funds to the relevant business association.

4. BID-operating business associations sign a three-year targeted rate grant agreement which requires compliance with the Auckland Council Business Improvement District (2022) Policy (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (the Policy) as attached as Appendix A.

5. Staff are proposing changes to the BID Policy 2022 to clarify minimum requirements, including adding an issues resolution option (the ability to terminate funding agreements in cases of ongoing non-compliance where other concerns are evident), and a requirement for unallocated funds to be reported in the annual report for transparency. Additionally, the deadline for annual accountability reporting will shift from 10 March to 1 December. Other minor changes are also proposed. A summary of proposed changes as part of the policy refresh are attached as Appendix B.

6. Key stakeholders including local boards, BID-operating business associations and relevant council departments will be engaged in the process.

7. The updated policy is scheduled for submission to the Governing Body in April 2025 with implementation commencing on 1 July 2025.

8. Feedback received from Manurewa and Wiri BIDs support the proposed changes as part of the BID Policy refresh.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) tūtohi / receive the report and information regarding the proposed refresh of the BID Policy (2022) and provide formal feedback on the changes proposed.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Auckland BID programme

9. BID-operating business associations are membership-based organisations independent of Auckland Council. The Auckland Council Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022) (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (the policy) sets out the framework for the governance, accountability, and management of a BID programme and targeted rate funding.

10. The policy supports the independent nature of the BID-operating business associations who are responsible for the BID programme delivery, its success, and are accountable to BID members/BID affiliates.

11. Local boards have the primary relationship with BID-operating business associations in their area:

· local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals

· local boards have allocated decision-making responsibility for BID programme establishments, amending existing BID programmes, BID boundary changes, continuation/discontinuation, and issue resolution.

Auckland Council Business Improvement District Policy (Kaupapa Here ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi)

12. The policy was last substantially reviewed and updated in 2021/2022 and approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 26 July 2022. The policy will be approved for adoption by the Governing Body.

13. Auckland Council requires BID-operating business associations to fully comply with the policy and the three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement (Appendix A)

14. The policy describes the reason for the BID programme and sets out the process for:

· establishing, continuing/discontinuing BID programmes;

· changes to the BID programme boundary area/map;

· changes to the BID targeted rating mechanism;

· issue resolution;

· key stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

15. The policy sets out the engagement and reporting requirements for BID-operating business associations to ensure all BID members/BID affiliates have access to the relevant BID programme information. BID-operating business associations must use their Annual General Meeting (AGM) process to obtain formal member approval for the BID programme delivery, budget and to confirm their BID targeted rate grant amount for the following financial year.

16. The three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement sets out the conditions of the BID targeted rate grant funding and the relationship between Auckland Council and a BID-operating business association.

17. There are currently 51 BID programmes within the region.

BID Targeted Rate

18. BID programmes are supported by a BID targeted rate grant providing sustainable funding to BID-operating business associations. A BID targeted rate is applied to business rated properties within a defined geographic area. The rates collected are then provided to the relevant BID-operating business association via an annual grant.

19. The amount of BID targeted rate grant is decided each year at the BID-operating business associations annual general meeting (AGM) as part of the income and expenditure budget for the following financial year.

20. BID targeted rates are set according to the procedure defined in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, Section 23.

Local Board role with BID programmes

21. The policy recognises local board decision-making responsibilities in relation to:

· approval of the establishment of a new BID programme and boundary area

· approval of any changes to or amendments to an existing BID programme boundary area

· annually recommending BID programme targeted rate grant amounts to the Governing Body

· recommending to the Governing Body proposed changes to a BID targeted rating mechanism.

22. The BID Policy (2022) is an effective document and includes the provision for local boards to receive an annual BID compliance and accountability report (in May each year). The report provides the local board with information on any issues that may be impacting on the BID programme or BID-operating business association.

23. The May 2024 BID annual compliance report presented to local boards with BID programmes highlighted:

· compliance with the 10 March 2024 due date for accountability reporting was lower than previous years.

· fifty-one per cent (26) of BIDs successfully completed their annual accountability reporting by the due date of 10 March 2024

· forty-one per cent (21) were notified of missing information or documents and received an extension

· four BIDs failed to meet BID Policy Requirement 11 and did not complete annual accountability reporting.

24. These situations are of concern and undermines the BID Policy and the relationship between the organisations and Auckland Council. The BID-operating business associations that receive an allocation of public funds (BID targeted rate grants) should as a minimum reach the BID policy requirements.

25. Of the four BIDs that failed to meet the policy requirement 11, Hunters Corner and Māngere East Village BID were situations of continued non-compliance with the policy over multiple years.

Hunters Corner BID

26. For two years, the BID Team and the local board, dealt with a complex governance and management situation within the Hunters Corner BID involving:

· non-compliance with the BID Policy

· missing financial reporting and association financial records

· accumulating liabilities

· unauthorised changes to bank signatories

· absence of accountability reporting for grant funds received by the BID from local board and a CCO, over several years

· ineffective governance and management processes.

27. Whilst the existing policy issue resolution (section five) could have responded to these situations individually, the issues were long-term, undisclosed, and had no visibility due to governance practices within the business associations committee at the time. Once understood, these factors culminated in the need for effective and immediate decision making by Auckland Council.

28. The situation had moved beyond mere non-compliance with the BID Policy into actions that council deemed a significant risk to the funding and the associations obligations under the three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant funding agreement.

Māngere East Village BID

29. For the past 18 months, staff and the local board have been working through governance and management issues with this BID which has included continued non-compliance with the policy. The BID has also failed to undertake governance processes as set out in their constitution.

30. The outcome of this situation has been the delay of targeted rate payments to the BID due to the concern that BID rate payers (BID affiliates) are receiving no value from the BID programme. The executive committee of Māngere East Village BID has taken no actions to regain compliance with the BID Policy.

31. The local board has been involved in the process and has instructed staff, under resolution, to work with the association towards BID discontinuation from June 2025.

Broadening the definition of an “issue” to include other factors

32. The combination of circumstances in both the examples above have contributed to the need to refresh and add clarity to the issue resolution options in the ‘issues’ section of the policy (Section 5). The existing BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement document allows for the option for council to not set the target rate and terminate the funding agreement.

33. The situations above (Hunters Corner BID and Mangere East BID) were more nuanced than purely non-compliance with the BID Policy. These situations were identified as:

· a failure to communicate relating to the non-compliance.

· debt accumulation with no actions towards reduction.

· disharmony within a business community.

34. The Introduction of the BID Policy (2022) notes that executive committees “must operate with the principles of trust, respect and democracy, and values of transparency and accountability, and good faith” (pg. 6). The lack of these factors is sometimes difficult to prove but their absence will have an impact on the reputation of a BID programme.

35. The purpose of the additional issue resolution option is to be able to consider factors other than non-compliance.

36. Feedback from local boards is particularly welcomed regarding what other circumstances could undermine the integrity of a BID programme and use of targeted rate.

37. The current policy notes that where an issue is identified, council will work with the BID to achieve compliance. Council staff will communicate with local boards when an issue is identified. This approach will remain unchanged.

38. The proposed new option for issue resolution aligns with current wording in the three-year grant agreement under the section ‘Termination”. The proposed policy wording would allow council to ‘Stop/ End’ (terminate) the three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement and/or not set the BID targeted rate for subsequent years.

39. The business association would no longer be considered as operating a BID programme under the policy.

40. The proposed additional resolution option should not be of any concern to BID programmes that are compliant with the policy and do not have other act or thing that council deems a significant risk to the associations funding or the associations obligations under this agreement.

BID Policy refresh

41. Communication about the refresh of the current policy began in October 2024 to all stakeholders involved in the management and operation of BID programmes across Tāmaki Makaurau. Stakeholders include all local boards, both BID-operating and non-BID business associations, council departments and interested parties.

42. This report is part of that process and seeks feedback from each local board. A summary of proposed changes to the BID Policy 2022 is attached as Appendix B. Although the refresh focuses on specific areas of the policy, feedback on any section of the policy is welcome.

43. If approved by the Governing Body in April 2025, the 2025 BID Policy will become operational from 1 July 2025.

44. There are no expected additional financial costs associated with undertaking this refresh.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Manurewa Local Board BIDs feedback

45. Feedback received from Manurewa and Wiri BID support the proposed changes as part of the BID Policy refresh.

Rationale for the refresh

46. The refresh process is based on observations and feedback from working with the policy (2022), annual compliance requirements reporting, and as noted, complex governance and management issues.

47. The aim of the refresh is to:

a) add in more content and clarification to sections of the policy regarding the minimum requirements, including the sections relating to establishments and expansion projects.

b) For clarity purposes, to strengthen parts of the policy (and appendix documents) relating to issue resolution (section five).

Summary of proposed changes suggested for BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents

48. The key proposed changes proposed for BID Policy (2025) are set out in Table 1.

Table 1 - Key changes made to the BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents

Change from 2022 BID Policy	Description	Note	2022 section, Requirement
New Wording Proposed
Section 5 Issue resolution.	Clarifying what would be deemed an ‘issue’ in addition to non-compliance with the policy.	New wording for an additional option to strengthen this section. These changes should be of no concern to the majority of BIDs compliant with the policy.	Section 5 Requirement 22
	New wording added to: Requirement 22 ‘… or if Auckland Council becomes aware of any act or thing that is a significant risk to the funding or the obligations under the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement’.	Adding the ability for Auckland Council to act in situations where not only non-compliance with the policy is clear, but where there is a potential for serious risk to BID programme funding and the business associations obligations. Examples could include: · a failure to communicate relating to a non-compliance. · debt accumulation with no actions towards reduction. · disharmony within a business community. · a society not prepared to work with Auckland Council.
	‘Stop and End’ (terminate) the three- year target rate agreement and/ or not set the target rate for subsequent years.	‘Last case’ option for BIDs that are non-compliance and/ or with significant risk to the funding or the obligations under the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement.
New Section 2.6.3	Accumulated BID targeted rate grant/unspent BID targeted rate grant	To provide more clarity and transparency within the BID Treasurer report presented at the BID AGM. Treasurers report to include information on any BID targeted rate grant accumulated or unspent.	Added to Section 2.6
2.7	BID grant used to guarantee, secure, or repay borrowed or raised money. New wording to align with the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement.	Aligning the policy and the Three-year BID Targeted Rate Grant Agreement regarding the use of BID grant to guarantee, secure or repay borrowed or raised money.	Added to Section 2.6, and aligning with Requirement 6
Section 3, Table One	Updated tables - BID programme annual accountability reporting.	Table format updated, new headings and numbering. New wording to provide a better understanding of the minimum requirements and transparency of information reported.	Section 3
	New deadline for annual accountability reports to be with council	Change date of annual accountability reporting from 10 March to the earlier date of 1 December. BIDs can complete post AGM reporting within a shorter period. Enables better alignment between a) council confirmation of compliance with policy and b) council annual draft budget/10year plan engagement process.
4.1.2 and Requirement 14	Audit review option removed	Advice sought from Risk and Assurance Team recommended that all BIDs be required to undertake an annual full audit.	Section 4.1.2 and Requirement 14
Minor changes – to accommodate administration changes and updates, additional wording to provide clarification to support a better understanding of the requirements of the policy.
Various places in the policy		Updating references to the date of the Incorporated Societies Act 2022
	Removal of council website references	Information has been updated or is longer relevant.
	New wording or updated wording	Wording and sentence structure tidied up and align throughout the policy and appendix documents.
Section 3, Table One	Treasurer’s written report	Information transferred from Appendix D and amalgamated into Table One.	Section 3, Table One
4.1.2	Governance practices	New item due to changes within the Incorporated Societies Act 2022. New wording sets the notice requirements for AGM as a minimum of 14 days’ notice and SGM as a minimum of 21 days’ notice.	Section 4.1.2 and aligning with Requirement 13
Section 6	Table Three – BID ballot processes New Table Four – BID ballot process and mandate	Table Three captures information for the Eligible BID Voter list. New Table Four captures BID ballot process and mandate. Table format updated, wording added to tidy sentence structure and understanding of the processes associated with BID ballots.	Section 6.4, Table Three and new Table Four
Appendix A	Tidied up wording	To align with the policy
Appendix B	Tidied up wording	Tidied up form layout and sentence structure, wording and added in numbering
Appendix C	Tidied up wording
Appendix D	Removed	Information transferred and merged into Section 3, Table One
New Appendix D	Summary of policy requirements	Updated to align with policy
Appendix E	Abbreviation and definitions	Updated to align with policy

49. A detailed summary of the proposed changes to the policy and appendix documents is set out in Appendix B.

Draft BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents

50. The draft BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents will be presented to the Governing Body at the April 2025 meeting.

51. Once approved, BID Policy (2025), the appendix documents and changes document will be made available on the BID Auckland Council website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

52. The BID Policy (2025) focuses on the governance and accountability for BID-operating business associations. Individually the BID programme, through targeted rate-funding, can focus on advocacy and activities relating to climate factors at the request of their members.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

53. Formal feedback will be sought from council teams and those who work and have an interest in the BID programme and business community space.

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

Local impacts and local board views

54. Local boards strongly contributed to the development of BID Policy (2022). The refresh process for the development of BID Policy (2025) presents an opportunity for local board feedback that can shape the content of the policy.

55. Local boards are asked to provide formal feedback on the changes proposed for BID Policy (2025). Local boards are encouraged to engage with BID-operating business associations in their local board area to help to inform this feedback process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

56. Officers are working with Auckland Council’s Ngā Mātārae Unit to ensure that the BID Policy (2025) aligns with the Auckland Council’s Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau performance measurement framework.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

57. There are no financial implications for local boards under the refresh of the BID Policy (2022).

58. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from business rated ratepayers and used by the business association for improvements within that rohe. The council’s financial role is to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association every quarter.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59. There are no direct financial risks to the local board or the council that could result from the refresh of the BID Policy (2022) and appendix documents.

60. The BID Policy describes the balance between the independence of the BID-operating business association, and the accountability role council has for monies collected as a public sector organisation. This balance is necessary to sustain public trust and confidence with the Auckland Council BID programme.

61. At the completion of the refresh, BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents will set out the requirements and obligations for BID-operating business associations and are intended to help minimise the potential for business associations to misuse BID targeted rate funds by requiring each BID to plan for their intended use, report on its activities to its members, to undertake and meet all requirements set out in the policy.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

62. All BID-operating business associations and non-BID business associations will be advised of the refresh and invited to provide feedback on the changes proposed. The policy refresh, and engagement information will also be published on the council BIDs website www.bid.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

63. Feedback from local board representatives on BID programmes is particularly valuable for policy development. Upon request, a workshop session could be organised. Appendix C details the stakeholders which the refresh will engage with.

64. Following formal feedback received from local boards, CCOs, BID-operating business associations, non-BID business associations, council departments, other external stakeholders, and those with an interest in BID programmes, the proposed BID Policy (2025) and appendix documents will be put before the Governing Body in April 2025 for approval.

65. The BID Policy (2025), if approved by the Governing Body, would become operational on 1 July 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2022)	71
b ⇩	Changes between current Business Improvement District (BID) Policy and proposed BID Policy 2025	117
c ⇩	Stakeholder Engagement Programme	123

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Gill Plume - BID Senior Advisor

Claire Siddens - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager CCO/External Partnerships team

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Manurewa Local Board

20 March 2025

Local board input into Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2025/03894

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill proposes a mechanism for extending New Zealand’s parliamentary term from three to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

3. Rather than mandating an automatic change, this would allow Parliament to extend its term only if select committees reflect proportional representation – meaning the number of MPs from each party on committees matches their share of seats in Parliament.

4. Supporters argue a four-year term enables better policymaking and project delivery, while opponents highlight reduced electoral accountability. New Zealand’s three-year term is rare globally, and past referendums have opposed extending it, though recent reviews suggest shifting public sentiment.

5. A key consideration for Auckland Council is the potential impact on local election cycles. There could be years where local and central elections coincide, which could impact voter engagement. Fixed parliamentary terms would benefit the alignment of local election timing.

6. In December 2024, the council submitted feedback on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper, supporting a four-year electoral cycle for local government. The submission acknowledged potential benefits of aligning local and central elections if local elections shift to booth voting but recommended keeping them two years apart otherwise. While most local boards supported a four-year term, views varied on election timing—some favoured aligning with central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap.

7. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider the council’s submission on 10 April. The submission closing date is 17 April.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback to Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Bill

8. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) proposes a mechanism to extend the current three-year Parliamentary term to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

9. The Bill doesn’t automatically change the term to four years. Instead, Parliament can choose to extend its term from three to four years if select committees are structured in a way that fairly reflects the makeup of Parliament. To make this happen, Parliament must pass a resolution within the first three months of a new term stating that the proportionality requirement has been met, and the Governor-General must then issue a proclamation.

Key Considerations

10. Arguments in favour of a four-year term include allowing for a more deliberate and considered legislative process, reducing the frequency of election cycles, and providing governments with a longer timeframe to implement policy.

11. Arguments against a four-year term highlight concerns around democratic accountability. A longer term would mean elected representatives face elections less frequently, shifting accountability from a three-year to a four-year cycle.

12. Additionally, New Zealand’s constitutional framework differs from jurisdictions with stronger checks and balances, such as an upper and lower house or a clearer separation of executive and legislative powers. In New Zealand, the executive is formed from the majority party in Parliament and drives the legislative agenda.

13. To address concerns around accountability, the Bill strengthens the role of select committees by requiring their composition to more accurately reflect the proportionality of Parliament.

History of New Zealand Parliamentary terms

14. New Zealand originally had a five-year parliamentary term, in line with Britain. In 1879, it was reduced to three years following the abolition of provincial governments, as there were concerns about the concentration of power at the central level. Reducing the term ensured more frequent electoral accountability.

15. Two non-binding referendums on extending the term—held in 1967 and 1990—both resulted in strong opposition. Both referendums saw large majorities opposed to extending the term to four years.

16. Recent reviews, including the 2013 Constitutional Advisory Panel and the 2023 Independent Electoral Review, suggest public opinion may be shifting towards a four-year term.

17. A key change since the last referendum was the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system in 1993, which increased proportional representation and strengthened the role of smaller parties in governance. While MMP has enhanced legislative scrutiny, concerns remain about reduced accountability if the term is extended.

18. The Constitutional Advisory Panel in 2013 found that public support for a four-year term was contingent on improved legislative scrutiny and accountability measures, such as more referenda, better human rights assessments, and the introduction of an upper house. The panel emphasised that any extension should be decided by referendum.

19. The Independent Electoral Review (IER), set up in 2022, also assessed the term length and found arguments for and against a four-year term to be finely balanced.

International context

20. New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term is rare internationally. In 183 countries with elected lower houses or unicameral parliaments, only eight have a term of three years or less, 72 have a four-year term, 99 have a five-year term and four have a six-year term.

21. In general, parliaments (whether unicameral or bicameral) have a four-year or five-year term including both the United Kingdom (with Westminster-style of Parliament and Executive, headed by a sovereign) and Germany (with an MMP electoral system), from which New Zealand’s system is based.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The last referendum on the parliamentary term took place in 1990 in which 69 per cent of voters rejected extending the term from three to four years. It is timely to revisit the topic again with communities.

23. A key concern for local government is the uncertainty around whether Parliament will adopt a three-year or four-year term. If local government maintains its three-year term while Parliament alternates between three and four years, there is likely to be occasional overlap, where parliamentary and local elections occur in the same year. However, this would likely happen inconsistently.

24. If local elections remain the responsibility of councils (rather than the Electoral Commission), the concurrent timing of parliamentary and local elections could lead to voter confusion.

25. Auckland Council, in its submission to the Electoral Reform Working Group, acknowledged that there could be potential benefits if local elections were conducted by the Electoral Commission, using the booth voting method, alongside parliamentary elections. This could capitalise on the higher voter turnout for parliamentary elections to boost participation in local elections. However, it remains uncertain whether this will occur.

26. As a result, the council’s draft submission on the bill would consider requesting that parliamentary terms be fixed, and that the legislation governing local elections be amended to align with parliamentary terms.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The Bill does not have any direct climate impacts.

28. However, a four-year term could provide a longer, uninterrupted timeframe for planning and implementing climate-related initiatives.

29. If both local and central government terms are fixed at four years, this could lead to a reduction in postal voting for local government elections. This change may result in environmental benefits, such as reduced paper usage and a decrease in transport requirements for the delivery and collection of voting papers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The council group is not directly affected by the proposed change. However, if local and central elections were to coincide, further analysis of the potential impacts would be necessary.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. In February 2023, nine local boards provided feedback on the introduction of a four-year electoral term for local government in the draft submission of the Future for Local Government paper. Most supported a four-year term, though views on election sequencing varied. One board opposed aligning local and central elections, emphasising the importance of maintaining local focus.

32. In November 2024, local boards provided further feedback to inform the council’s submission on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper (Issue Five), which also addressed the four-year term. While most local boards supported the shift, there were differing views on election timing—some favored aligning local and central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap. Local board views are compiled here.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Māori views were not sought in the preparation of this report. A four-year term could allow more time to build relationships and ensure continuity in key initiatives, without disruptions from frequent election cycles.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The Bill does not impose any direct costs. Potential cost efficiencies could arise if central and local elections coincide.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The council's position on this matter presents minimal risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider approving the council’s submission at its meeting on 10 April.

37. Submissions close on Thursday, 17 April.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor Governance

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Planning & Operations Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Matt Winiata
Deputy Chairperson	Glenn Murphy
Members	Joseph Allan
	Heather Andrew
	Angela Cunningham-Marino
	Andrew Lesa
	Rangi McLean

Authors	Chloe Hill - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Local Area Manager