Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of the Budget Committee

Budget Committee

28 May 2025

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Overview of decision-making

File No.: CP2025/09189

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recap the annual plan process, provide an overview of the decisions required at this meeting and set out the next steps to finalise and adopt Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report summarises the background and process that have brought us to decision-making on the Annual Plan 2025-2026.

3. The other reports on today’s agenda require decisions to enable the Annual Plan 2025/2026 to be finalised. These decisions will be confirmed by the Governing Body after the conclusion of this Budget Committee meeting today. All decisions made today will be reflected in final annual plan documentation for formal adoption by the Governing Body on 26 June 2025.

4. Adopting the Annual Plan 2025/2026 will enable rates to be set for the following financial year and allow implementation of key initiatives in the plan to commence.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the contents of this report, which sets the context for the other reports and decisions relating to the Annual Plan 2025/2026 on today’s agenda.

Horopaki

Context

Background

5. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), all councils are required to prepare and adopt an annual plan. This sets out what we plan to spend money on and the services we will provide over the coming financial year. This particularly includes areas where our plan has changed from the long-term plan.

6. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 represents year two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034.

7. The process to develop this annual plan began with a context setting and strategic approach Budget Committee workshop on 18 September 2024 and was followed by committee workshops on the annual plan topics.

8. Consultation items were agreed by the Budget Committee on 4 December 2024. The Consultation Document and Supporting Information were then adopted by the Budget Committee on 19 February 2025.

9. Public consultation ran between 28 February and 28 March 2025 and regional feedback was presented to the Budget Committee on 30 April 2025.

10. Council consulted the public on the following key issues:

· The overall direction for the annual plan budget, including overall implications for rates

· Whether central government should enact legislative change to enable a visitor bed night levy to help fund destination management, marketing and major events activities in Auckland

· Applying the Refuse Target Rate to properties in Franklin and Rodney

· Changes to fees and charges

· Local Board priorities

· Tūpuna Maunga Authority Draft Operational Plan 2025/2026.

11. Each of the 21 local boards held workshops and meetings in April and May 2025 to consider the consultation results to help inform their feedback on the annual plan and presented their feedback to the Budget Committee at a workshop on 14 May 2025. A report on today’s agenda summarises the input and advocacy of the local boards.

12. We received a total of 13,016 pieces of feedback.

13. Since consultation, staff have provided workshops, elected member memos, online briefings and drop-in sessions on key topics to support the Budget Committee leading up to today’s meeting.

Context

14. The council is required by legislation to prepare and adopt an annual plan (also referred to as the annual budget), every year, except once every three years when the long-term (10 year) plan (LTP) acts as the annual budget.

15. The consultation process for the Annual Budget 2025/2026 provided an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their voices heard by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made. This regional feedback was presented to Budget Committee on 30 April 2025.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. Other reports on this agenda require decisions to be made at today’s meeting to finalise the Annual Plan 2025/2026. These are:

· Mayor’s Proposal (with attached staff advice)

· Other Rates and Fees matters (including advice on the Waste Management Targeted Rates and the Business Improvement District Targeted Rates)

· Local Board feedback and advocacy

· Q Theatre.

18. When making decisions, the Local Government Act 2002 requires the council to:

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

· assess these options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

· consider with an open mind the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in the decision.

Development of consultation material for the Annual Budget 2025/2026

19. Key elements of the process prior to undertaking public consultation were:

· An overview of the process and financial context were discussed at a workshop with the Governing Body on 18 November 2024

· Workshops were held with the Budget Committee in October and November 2024 on the proposed key topics leading up to the Mayoral Proposal.

· Local boards held workshops and meetings in November and December 2024 to approve their local consultation content.

20. Senior Council-controlled Organisation (CCO) staff were involved in the drafting of consultation material and were also invited to relevant workshops and briefings throughout the budget process.

21. The mayor released the final draft Mayoral Proposal on 18 November 2024, outlining proposed issues for consultation.

22. The Communications and Engagement Plan for this process was agreed by Governing Body on 12 December 2024, along with the Draft Tupuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2025/2026.

23. Budget Committee agreed the items for consultation on 4 December 2024.

24. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document and the Supporting Information were adopted by the Budget Committee on 19 February 2024.

Public consultation and feedback

25. Public consultation was held from 28 February to 28 March 2025. We received a total of 13,016 pieces of feedback, including 3,001 pieces of feedback at in-person events. We heard from 222 organisations (including 11 attending an Organisation/ Interest Group Have Your Say event), and 22 Māori entities.

26. A summary of feedback received during the consultation process was presented at a Budget Committee workshop on 30 April 2025. The summary of the feedback report is attached to this report.

27. To ensure decision-makers were informed about feedback received, full submissions were made available to elected members on 28 April and released publicly on the council’s AK Have You Say website here.

Advice following consultation

28. Following consultation, Budget Committee workshops were held in April and May 2025 to provide updates on the annual plan as needed. Local board chairs were invited to attend these workshops. The sessions covered:

· regional feedback including input from the council’s demographic and sector advisory panels

· Tūpuna Maunga Authority joint hui on feedback on their operational plan for 2025/2026

· an update on the group financial position since the adoption of the consultation budget

· local board input on regional topics

· other rates and fees

· fees, charges and council revenue.

29. Local boards considered consultation feedback related to their local board area and then passed resolutions detailing their feedback and advocacy to the annual plan at their business meetings in May 2025. This feedback is included in a separate report on today’s agenda, providing an opportunity for the Budget Committee to formally consider local board views in its decision-making on the annual plan. Local Boards also had the opportunity to present their views at a Governing Body workshop on 14 May 2025.

30. At a workshop on 21 May 2025, the Budget Committee discussed the draft Mayoral Proposal outlining the mayor’s proposed approach to balancing the budget for 2025/2026. Staff analysis and advice to inform the development of the Mayoral Proposal and support the Governing Body with its decision-making for the final Annual Budget 2025/2026 was attached to the Mayoral Proposal. The Mayoral Proposal and attached staff advice is set out in a separate report on today’s agenda.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. Advice on climate impacts related to budget proposals has been provided as part of this process.

32. There are no direct impacts to climate related to the recommendations included in this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Staff from the CCOs have been directly involved in the development of the annual plan throughout this process.

34. All council departments will be affected by decisions made for the Annual Plan 2025/2026. Budget updates are made on a regular basis to the Executive Leadership Team.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. Auckland’s 21 local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

36. Local board chairs were invited to attend Budget Committee workshops on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 held between October 2024 and May 2025.

37. All local board members received the committee workshop material on each regional topic and held local board workshops to discuss these topics to formulate their feedback for consultation.

38. Input on regional issues was presented by local boards to the Budget Committee on 14 May 2025. Subsequent formal feedback resolved by local boards has been included in a separate report on today’s agenda.

39. Local boards will be adopting local board agreements in June 2025, and these will be included in the final documents for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40. Engagement with mana whenua and mātāwaka was a focus for the wider engagement strategy which was presented as part of the communications and engagement approach to the Governing Body on 12 December 2024 for approval.

41. A series of workshop sessions were held before and during the consultation period with mana whenua and mātāwaka groups on the content of the Annual Plan 2025-2026. It was an opportunity to encourage submissions and to respond to questions relevant to the annual plan.

42. The summary of the annual plan document was produced in Te Reo Māori (titled Te Whakarāpopoto o te Mahere ā-Tau 2025/2026) along with the summary poster that was used at consultation events.

43. Council staff attended hui including three Waitangi Day events to raise awareness of the Annual Plan and to promote the submission process, and submissions were also encouraged with specific sector groups such as Whanau Hauā, Rainbow, Rangatahi, pakihi Māori and Te Kotahi a Tāmaki, the Marae collective.

44. A ‘Have your Say’ event was also held at the Auckland Town Hall for mana whenua and mātāwaka on Monday 24 March 2025 with six mana whenua participants and six mātāwaka roopu presenting to the Budget Committee.

45. Feedback from Māori is reported separately as part of the Summary of Feedback report which is attachment A to this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. The financial implications associated with agreeing the budget are set out in other reports on this agenda.

47. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 project has been funded as part of existing operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The Local Government Act 2022 requires the council to adopt an annual plan for the 2025/2026 financial year. Adoption of the annual plan will enable rates to be set for the relevant financial year. Not completing the Annual Plan 2025/2026 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. Financial risks associated with this budget and the management of council finances are identified as strategic risks and reported to the Audit and Risk Committee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. Staff will prepare final budget documents following today’s decisions and will prepare a report for the Governing Body on 26 June 2025 recommending formal adoption of the Annual Plan 2025/2026, as the council’s annual plan for that financial year, including 21 Local Board Agreements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Summary of feedback Annual Plan 2025/2026

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tracey Wisnewski - Project Manager, Financial Strategy

Authorisers

Michael Burns - General Manager Financial Strategy

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Budget Committee

28 May 2025

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Local Board feedback and advocacy

File No.: CP2025/09336

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide an overview of local board feedback and advocacy on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 (the Annual Plan).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

· preparing local board agreements to be included in the Annual Plan (Volume 2) – this includes local board projects, budgets and performance measures

· providing feedback on regional topics for the Annual Plan

· recommending local matters to the Governing Body to consider in the Annual Plan process, including advocating for projects/issues that are important to communities in their local board areas.

3. From 28 February to 28 March 2025, the council consulted with Aucklanders on the Annual Plan. Each local board has now considered community feedback received for its local area and resolved feedback for consideration by the Governing Body.

4. Local boards will adopt their local board agreements between 10 to 12 June 2025 and the Governing Body will then adopt the Annual Plan (including agreeing the local board agreements) on 26 June 2025.

5. This report summarises feedback and advocacy from local boards on the Annual Plan and focuses on common themes. As such, it does not include all of the matters raised in local board resolutions. The complete set of local board resolutions relating to the Annual Plan are provided in Attachment A.

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

· Seventeen local boards expressed support for, or supported in principle, the overall plan.

· Fifteen local boards expressed full support for the bed night visitor levy.

· The adopted advocacy initiatives and other requests raised by multiple local boards generally focus on equitable funding models, improved transport options, environmental sustainability, and investment in sports and recreation facilities. Specific advocacy areas included:

- Fairer funding implementation and cost pressures, with calls for an equitable funding formula, financial transparency, and inflation-responsive funding to prevent service reductions

- Environmental and water quality initiatives, including investment in stormwater management, flood mitigation, marine protection and water safety measures

- Sports and recreation facilities, with a focus on funding for aquatic centres and sports infrastructure development

- Economic development, with advocacy for local procurement policies, business growth resourcing, and expanded opportunities for community-led initiatives

- Investment in growth-affected areas, emphasising the need for adequate planning and infrastructure funding to support urban intensification

- Transport and infrastructure, with requests for improved public transport reliability, road maintenance, ferry service enhancements, and funding to address the impacts of the City Rail Link

- Local decision-making, with calls for improvements to support governance and budget transparency, and ensuring local boards have the autonomy and resources needed to fulfil their responsibilities

- Compliance and enforcement, with requests for strengthened bylaw enforcement, equitable service delivery, and increased resourcing to support local compliance needs.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) kohuki / consider feedback and advocacy initiatives from local boards when making decisions on the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Annual Plan sets out Auckland Council’s planned activities and community outcomes over the next year and provides for integrated decision-making and coordination of the council’s resources, including how to pay for those activities. The Governing Body is responsible for adopting the Annual Plan.

8. 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).

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

10. Local board chairs have been invited to be involved in the development of the regional topics for consultation by attending Budget Committee workshops. Local board members were provided recordings or briefings of the Budget Committee workshops for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

11. Local boards agreed their local content for consultation, as well as feedback on regional items proposed to be consulted on, at business meetings between 19 and 21 November 2024. This input was then formally considered by the Governing Body on 4 December 2024.

12. From 28 February to 28 March 2025, the council consulted on the proposed Annual Plan and received a total of 13,016 submissions. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 10,011 online or hard copy forms, emails or letters

· in person – 3,001 pieces of feedback in person and through 89 Have Your Say events

· Neurodiverse Online Audio – four feedback forms.

13. Local boards considered consultation feedback related to their local board area and then passed resolutions detailing their feedback and advocacy to the Annual Plan at their business meetings between 29 April and 1 May 2025.

14. This report provides an opportunity for the Governing Body to formally consider local board views in its decision-making on the Annual Plan. The local boards also had an opportunity to present their views at a Budget Committee workshop on 14 May 2025.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. This report includes a summary of local board input on regional topics, and local matters to be considered by the Governing Body for decisions for the final Annual Plan. This summary focuses on common themes and does not include all the matters raised in local board resolutions. Most boards did not provide feedback on every topic.

16. The full set of local board resolutions are provided in Attachment A (local board resolutions on the Annual Plan 2025/2026).

Local board feedback on regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026

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

· The overall plan

· Destination management and major events

· Changes to other rates, fees and charges.

18. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document outlined key issues and other matters for feedback. These included the summary of the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan and updates to the Revenue and Financing Policy.

19. This report provides an opportunity for local boards to provide input into the council’s final Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Overall direction for Annual Plan

20. The consultation document outlined the overall proposed plan for council services, including prioritising investment in transport, water and fairer funding for local communities.

21. The consultation document for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 also outlined the proposed funding approach which includes a 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property, consistent with the LTP, and additional debt financing to fund $4 billion in capital expenditure.

Local board feedback

Overall plan

22. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal and 19 local boards supported the plan (either fully or in part).

23. 17 local boards expressed support for, or supported in principle, the overall plan (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

24. Two local boards supported the plan in part or with caveats:

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board stated it supports the principle of fairer funding, however that it needs to be matched with subsidiarity in decision-making, equitable resource allocation, and a focus on essential services and infrastructure investment.

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board emphasised that local boards are being expected to do more with the same budgets and that the actual share of funding that local boards receive needs to be looked at properly.

25. Two local boards neither supported nor opposed the proposal:

· Ōrākei Local Board highlighted dissatisfaction with council costs, bureaucracy, and the need for greater transparency in budget allocation.

· Waiheke Local Board noted public feedback from the local board area showed support for the overall plan but raised concerns about the level of services provided relative to rates paid by residents.

Fairer funding for local communities

26. All local boards provided feedback on fairer funding for local communities with 14 local boards expressing support for its implementation in principle (Albert-Eden, Aotea/Great Barrier, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

· Kaipātiki Local Board expressed concern that local boards are being asked to do more without additional funding or staff resources and called for accurate financial reporting to inform future funding decisions.

· Henderson-Massey Local Board stated it supports the implementation of fairer funding for local boards but notes its disappointment that the 2025/2026 cost pressures have only been addressed for 2025/2026 and will still need to be addressed in the new term.

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board supported the model in principle but stated that it needs to be matched with subsidiarity of decision making with funding and resourcing.

· Upper-Harbour Local Board supported the overall plan which proposed prioritising investment in fairer funding but requested a slower or different transition to fairer funding for local boards in relation to managing cost pressures for 2026/2027.

· Waiheke Local Board supported the implementation of Fairer Funding for local boards, but noted significant concerns that the Fairer Funding model will not adequately provide for necessary improvements in Waiheke’s infrastructure.

27. Six local boards neither fully supported nor opposed the proposal, citing concerns about cost pressures, infrastructure needs, and governance clarity (Devonport-Takapuna, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura and Waitākere Ranges local boards).

· Ōrākei Local Board noted a lack of clarity over future dispensation of Fairer Funding and the potential to disproportionately penalise some local boards over others.

· Papakura Local Board noted it does not receive additional funding under the fairer funding model and advocated for additional funding to cover inflationary cost pressures on an ongoing basis.

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board stated that in the context of fairer funding, decisions made by the Governing Body have a direct impact on the funding available for local board work programmes.

28. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board did not support the fairer funding model, stating that no local board should be worse off under its implementation.

Destination management and major events

29. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on a bed night visitor levy paid by those in short-stay commercial accommodation, to fund destination management, marketing and major events. Without such a levy, a $7 million budget shortfall for the 2025/2026 financial year would impact the funding for major events that are expected to attract visitor expenditure, such as the ASB Classic, Auckland Marathon, and Auckland Writers Festival.

30. A bed night visitor levy of 2.5 to 3 per cent paid by those in short-stay accommodation would raise around $27 million annually to fund destination management, marketing and major events activities in Auckland. However, this requires legislative change.

Local board feedback

31. All local boards provided feedback on the proposal and the majority, 15 local boards, expressed full support for the levy (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper Harbour, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

32. Three local boards supported the levy with comments or conditions:

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board expressed support for the levy for funding events but noted it could discourage visitors and have a disproportionate impact on certain parts of local communities.

· Rodney Local Board supported a targeted levy if applied fairly, transparently managed, and does not negatively impact affordability or local accommodation providers.

· Waiheke Local Board supported a fixed-rate levy if locally raised funds were reinvested in Waiheke.

33. Two local boards did not support the proposal:

· Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board supported funding major events but opposed a bed levy due to concerns about tourism recovery, recommending alternatives like a small increase to rates.

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board supported a stronger emphasis on a user-pays model with greater transparency rather than introducing a levy.

34. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board neither supported nor opposed the proposal, stating most local submitters supported the levy, but there were some key themes from the feedback that warrant further consideration – such as the implementation of a fairer design.

Changes to other rates, fees and charges

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

· changes to waste management targeted rates to reflect updated budget forecasts, including a 3 per cent 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

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

· changes to some cemetery and cremation services fees

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

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

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

Local Board Feedback

Changes to waste management targeted rates including a three per cent increase to the overall waste management targeted rate for a typical household.

36. Of the 15 local boards that provided feedback:

· Eleven local boards supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards). Albert-Eden Local Board noted support for an increase is based on the assumption that weekly collections will remain.

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board supported the proposal on condition that clarification is received on the proposed rate increase, especially considering reduced services such as fortnightly rubbish collections.

· Two local boards did not support the proposal: Papakura and Waitākere Ranges local boards.

37. Ōrākei Local Board neither supported nor opposed the proposal, noting that feedback on changes to all fees and charges indicate a low-level of understanding on what was being proposed.

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

38. Of the nine local boards that provided feedback:

· Four local boards supported the proposal: Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Rodney local boards. Rodney Local Board, however, expressed concern that the roll-out of rates-funded waste bins to Rodney may not encourage waste minimisation.

· Hibiscus and Bays Local Board did not support the proposal.

· Four local boards noted they deferred their feedback to Franklin and Rodney local boards (Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa and Papakura local boards).

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

39. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback:

· Eleven local boards supported or generally supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

· Manurewa Local Board partially supported the proposal, noting concern about increasing the cost to dog owners and whether this would disincentivise people from adopting dogs.

· Four local boards did not support the proposal (Franklin, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waitākere Ranges local boards). Waitākere Ranges Local Board noted the need to keep animal management 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

40. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback:

· Fourteen local boards supported, generally supported or supported in principle the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

· Howick Local Board did not support the proposal.

· Waitākere Ranges Local Board neither supported nor opposed the proposal, but noted the need to keep animal management fees reasonable in order not to discourage public uptake of dog adoption.

Changes to some cemetery fees

41. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback:

· Thirteen local boards supported, generally supported, or supported in principle the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards).

· Henderson-Massey Local Board neither supported nor opposed the proposal, noting concern that Waikumete Cemetery is currently at capacity, so Henderson-Massey residents are restricted in their options for burial arrangements.

· Two local boards did not support the proposal (Kaipātiki and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards).

Realigning bach fees into pricing tiers

42. Of the 13 local boards that provided feedback:

· Eleven local boards supported or supported in principle the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards).

· Kaipātiki Local Board noted it did not express an opinion as the proposed changes do not affect the Kaipātiki area.

· Waitākere Ranges Local Board noted it did not support increases for bach fees as these baches provide an opportunity for families and those of moderate means to afford opportunities to enjoy parks and reserves.

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

43. Of the 11 local boards that provided feedback:

· Ten local boards supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards).

· Kaipātiki Local Board noted it did not express an opinion as the proposed changes do not affect the Kaipātiki area.

Changing deposit levels for some regulatory services

44. One local board provided feedback, Howick Local Board, noting support for the proposal.

Other matters for feedback

Tūpuna Maunga Authority Annual Operational Plan

45. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires that the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and council agree an annual operational plan for each financial year, to provide a framework in which the council will carry out the routine management of the 14 Tūpuna Maunga. A summary of the draft plan was included in the council’s consultation material for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

46. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board gave feedback on the plan, expressing support.

Local matters for consideration

47. In the Annual Budget process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body for consideration or decision-making. This includes:

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals (no proposals this year)

· any local board advocacy initiatives.

Business improvement district targeted rate proposals

48. Local boards have allocated decision-making responsibility for making recommendations to Governing Body regarding any new or amended local targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area.

49. There were two proposals to establish BIDs and associated targeted rates:

· Takanini (Papakura Local Board)

· Grey Lynn (Waitematā Local Board)

50. Papakura Local Board noted the Takanini BID ballot was unsuccessful so will not be going ahead.

51. The council draft annual budget 2025/2026 consultation documents included the proposal to establish a new Grey Lynn Business Improvement District programme and targeted rate. Due to an error, specific information on the Grey Lynn BID establishment was not included in the local board consultation material.

52. There is a report on the Waitematā Local Board business meeting agenda on 20 May 2025 that seeks to approve the establishment of the new Grey Lynn BID programme and endorsement to recommend that the Governing Body sets the targeted rate for the 2025/2026 financial year.

53. There is one amended local targeted rate proposal – the Onehunga Business Association membership has voted to support a new (reduced) Onehunga BID targeted rate grant amount for the 2025/2026 financial year

54. There is a report on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board business meeting agenda on 27 May 2025 that seeks endorsement to recommend that the Governing Body set a lower targeted rate for the 2025/2026 financial year.

55. There are also proposals to not set rates for the 2025/2026 financial year, and disestablish the BID programmes, for the following BIDs:

· Hunters Corner (Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board)

· Māngere East Village (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board).

56. Upcoming reports on the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board business meeting agenda (20 May 2025) and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board business meeting agenda (21 May 2025) propose that the local boards consider recommending to the Governing Body that targeted rates for these BID programmes not be set for the 2025/2026 financial year. The local board may direct that the programmes are disestablished if Governing Body does not set the rate, which would mean that the business associations would need to go through a fresh establishment process if they wish for a rate to be set in future years

57. The report titled Annual Plan 2025/2026: Other Rates and Fees Matters is on the Budget Committee agenda alongside this report and includes any recommendations related to these BIDs.

Local board advocacy

58. Local boards have approved advocacy initiatives for consideration by the Governing Body, and which will be included (as an appendix) to the 2025/2026 Local Board Agreement.

59. The boards approved between two and 11 advocacy items each. There were also other specific requests or recommendations from local boards included in other sections of their resolved feedback on the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

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

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

· Fairer funding implementation and cost pressures – 11 local boards advocated for a review of the fairer funding formula to ensure equitable allocation, particularly in areas with high deprivation. Many emphasised that local boards should not face negative impacts due to future budget constraints and called for greater transparency in financial planning. Boards also expressed concerns about inflationary pressures and the need for cost pressures to be funded through rates increases to avoid service reductions. Some requested stronger financial advice and forecasting to support future decision-making and avoid unintended budgeting issues. (Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōrākei, Papakura, Upper-Harbour, Waiheke and Whau local boards)

· Sports and recreation facilities – 10 local boards advocated for funding to support aquatic centres and sports facilities as a priority, emphasising the need for infrastructure development and upgrades. (Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Manurewa, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, Whau, Waitematā and Waitākere Ranges local boards)

· Investment in growth-affected areas – 10 local boards advocated for growth funding to support community assets, infrastructure, sports facilities, and open space development in areas experiencing intensification. Specific advocacy included adequate planning, funding for infrastructure, and measures to manage urban expansion (Albert-Eden, Howick, Kaipātiki, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Manurewa, Ōrākei, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Upper-Harbour local boards).

· Transport and infrastructure – 10 local boards advocated for improvements to public transport reliability, road maintenance, ferry service enhancements, and funding to mitigate the impacts of the City Rail Link, including addressing the effects of increased train frequencies on level crossings and the surrounding roading network (Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, and Waiheke local boards).

· Environmental and water quality initiatives – nine local boards advocated for stormwater investment, flood mitigation funding, marine protection, and enhanced water safety initiatives. (Aotea/Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Howick, Ōrākei, Rodney, Waiheke and Waitākere Ranges local boards)

· Local decision-making – five local boards advocated for greater decision-making, improved clarity over budgets, and increased resources to support their decision-making responsibilities. Requests included enhancing governance over community facilities, ensuring local boards are central to planning and policy development, improving financial transparency, and allowing greater flexibility in budget allocations (Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, and Papakura local boards).

· Compliance and enforcement – five local boards advocated for improved bylaw enforcement, equitable service delivery, and increased resourcing to address local compliance needs. Requests included enhanced enforcement for roaming dogs, consent compliance, freedom camping, noise control, and kauri dieback programme compliance, along with additional funding and staffing to better serve outer areas of Auckland (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Howick, Kaipātiki, and Papakura local boards).

· Local economic development – four local boards advocated for the need for local procurement requirements, increased staff resourcing for business growth, and expanded opportunities for community-led economic development (Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Puketāpapa, Upper-Harbour, and Waitākere Ranges local boards).

62. The majority of other local board advocacy focused on community investment, environmental resilience, sports and recreation facilities, public safety initiatives, and funding to renew and protect heritage assets (such as marae and culturally significant sites) and maintenance and development of community assets (including libraries, community centres, and civic spaces). These advocacy efforts reflect local boards continued focus on managing growth, addressing infrastructure shortfalls, and ensuring equitable funding and resource distribution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

63. This report summarises local board feedback on the Annual Plan and as such has no specific impacts on the climate.

64. Projects allocated funding through this Annual Plan process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress are all assessed as part of the council’s reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

65. CCOs and all council departments will be affected by decisions made for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and have been involved in its development.

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

Local impacts and local board views

66. Local board views and feedback on the regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 are provided in this report.

67. Local boards have been involved throughout the development of the Annual Plan. This has included:

· local board chairs attendance at Budget Committee Annual Plan workshops

· recordings of the workshops for all local board members on the Annual Plan

· local boards provided formal input into the consultation material for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 in December 2024

· local boards presented their views and input to the Governing Body on 13 May 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

68. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 is an important tool that enables and demonstrates the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

69. Of those who submitted feedback on the Annual Plan consultation, eight per cent identified as Māori. There were submissions from 22 Māori entities, many of which provided specific feedback on local priorities and advocacy.

70. Nineteen mana whenua entities have interests in the Auckland Council rohe. Thirteen of the 19 (68.42%) provided verbal or written submissions on the Annual Plan.

71. There were six oral submissions from mana whenua and six oral submissions from mataawaka at the Have your Say Event.

72. Local boards considered submissions related to their local board rohe when finalising their feedback and advocacy positions for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

73. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 is a statutory process which must be completed every year. The council budget provides for the resourcing to deliver this project.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75. Local boards will approve their local board agreements between 10 and 12 June, and Governing Body will adopt the Annual Plan 2025/2026 (including the local board agreements) on 26 June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Local Board resolutions relating to the Annual Plan 2025-2026

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phoebe Peguero - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Ross Tucker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Budget Committee

28 May 2025

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Mayoral Proposal

File No.: CP2025/09234

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To set out the mayor’s recommendations for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 for consideration and decisions by the Budget Committee which will be recommended to the Governing Body following this meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In December 2024, the Budget Committee agreed to items for consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 that included:

· sticking with year 2 of the current Long-term Plan 2024-2034;

· funding destination marketing and major events activity through a Bed Night Visitor Levy (requiring legislative change);

· and other small changes to fees and charges and individual targeted rates.

3. Since then, we’ve consulted with Aucklanders with an impressive number of responses from across a diverse range of communities. We’ve heard from our advisory panels, local boards and received updated budget information and final staff advice.

4. My draft Mayoral Proposal and supporting staff advice was released on 19 May to the Budget Committee. The draft proposal was discussed with the Budget Committee on Wednesday 21 May 2025.

5. The final proposal (Attachment A) includes a short-term plan to address the issue of funding destination marketing and major events in lieu of legislation change, fairer funding for local boards and the Fix and Finish Fund, and direction relating to CCO reform and Group Shared Services.

6. CCO reform decisions were made in December 2024 and further decisions relating to transport will come to the Governing Body in June.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) agree to recommend to the Governing Body that the Annual Plan for 2025/2026 be based on year two of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 with relevant updates as outlined in the final Mayoral Proposal and supporting staff advice, and final financial projections, including the planned:

i) rates increase for the average value residential property of 5.8%;

ii) significant level of investment across all major investment areas;

iii) $47 million operating expenditure savings target.

b) agree to recommend to the Governing Body that a short-term approach be taken to closing the $7 million shortfall in funding for destination marketing and major events as indicated in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 for 2025/2026 that includes:

i) additional funding from the City Centre Targeted Rate ($2.5 million);

ii) $500,000 contribution from the Mayoral Office budget (underspend from current year);

iii) ongoing work with the industry to identify opportunities for incentivised voluntary contributions to fund specific events and/or contribute to a Major Events Fund;

iv) Tātaki Auckland Unlimited using reserves to bridge the remaining gap while work continues with industry.

c) note that a Mayoral Tourism Forum will be established to support ongoing joint-advocacy on a long-term sustainable funding solution (levy) for tourism related activity, provide advice and input on shorter-term funding initiatives like a ring-fenced Major Events Fund, the trial of a commission-based model, and ways the council can better utilise its regulatory tools to support hospitality across the region.

d) agree to recommend to the Governing Body the Fix and Finish fund established through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 be administered as a contestable fund guided by the eligibility criteria set out in staff advice, to be administered and managed by staff with final allocation decisions made by the Governing Body by 29 July 2025.

e) note further direction provided in the proposal relating to dog control issues, Group Shared Services, the implementation of CCO reform, particularly the urgent focus on critical priority areas (specifically, Mangawhau), and advice on options to support transport changes to be provided to the Governing Body to support decision-making in June 2025.

Horopaki

Context

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

8. As indicated in staff advice, council’s financial position hasn’t changed materially since the beginning of this process. This puts us in a good position to stick to what was agreed, meaning we:

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

· retain a significant level of investment across all major investment areas (water, transport, environment etc.);

· achieve our $47 million operating expenditure savings target.

9. Staff have also recommended the following additional budget items:

· Westhaven Marina Pile Mooring redevelopment

· Own Your Own Home (OYOH) alternative divestment approach

· Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) funded cycling, walking and public transport infrastructure

· Unlocking the future land sales programme

10. As stated in my Mayoral Proposal, I accept these being included in the annual plan, subject to a review of design standards and detailed business cases that consider how to minimise cost and maximise value. All business cases must be in line with capital spending rules.

11. All details relating to these additional budget items can be found in the staff advice (Attachment B).

Funding destination marketing and major events

12. In our Long-term Plan 2024-2034, we signaled that without a bed night visitor levy in place for FY25 we would have a $7 million shortfall in the funding of major events.

13. As agreed, we consulted with Aucklanders on the concept of a Bed Night Visitor Levy to fund destination marketing and major events, noting legislative change would be required.

14. A large majority of submitters supported this proposal, noting many valued the activity, believed it was a fairer way to spread the cost of the activity, and because a levy was commonly used in other big cities around the world.

15. Despite strong advocacy, this has disappointingly been left out of the government’s policy agenda. While we have made progress with them on multiple fronts, this remains a concerning issue, and one New Zealand can’t ignore forever.

16. Tourism and accommodation industry leaders tell me they will continue to advocate for a sustainable funding solution, like a levy, to help support growth in the sector. I am very keen to continue to work with the industry on this issue and other related concerns.

17. To continue our working relationship, I will establish a Mayoral Tourism Forum to enable a coordinated approach to this joint-advocacy, as well as considering other short-term funding initiatives like a ring-fenced “Major Events Fund”, a commission-based trial, and ways we can use our regulatory tools and role to better support hospitality across Auckland.

18. After discussions with the City Centre Advisory Panel following their strong advocacy on this issue, I can confirm their unanimous support for additional contributions of $2.5 million from the City Centre Targeted Rate (CCTR) to help close the $7 million shortfall for 2025/2026.

19. We will work with industry to incentivise further voluntary contributions by private businesses to the new Auckland Major Events fund. I expect rapid progress on this and will keep you updated. My expectation is this should at least match the $2.5 million additional contribution from the CCTR.

20. I will also contribute at least $500,000 from my Mayoral Office budget (underspend from this year’s budget).

21. While this doesn’t close the gap completely yet, we will be able to do so in the next few months which shouldn’t impact the prospecting for events in FY27. In the meantime, I expect Tātaki Auckland Unlimited to use their reserves to cover any remaining shortfall until we have secured the additional funding that will come from new initiatives and partnerships with the tourism sector.

22. These temporary measures are more than enough to provide certainty to the TAU board to keep moving with the events programme. I don’t want to be surprised to hear we are withdrawing from any event bids in the near future.

23. Looking ahead, the next long-term plan will provide us with the opportunity to have a different kind of discussion. In the lead up to this, I expect greater transparency over the bidding process, management of funding for this activity, and reporting on the return on investment.

Local boards

24. Earlier in this process, local boards identified issues with the transition towards fairer funding for boards with a larger asset portfolio. The potential implications meant those boards would have to reduce service levels to solve operating pressures they were facing because of an increase to their cost base.

25. Prior to consultation, noting local boards hadn’t received adequate advice, I requested that these operating pressures be dealt with centrally for 2025/2026. Beyond this, I expect staff to provide advice to support local boards to make appropriate decisions to balance their budgets.

26. The Fix and Finish Fund, as established through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, will be administered as a contestable fund. This method is in line with the intention of the fund, to support the delivery of projects with community support in an eligible local board area that otherwise would not get completed.

27. Criteria has been workshopped with eligible local boards and is included in staff advice.

28. Staff will administer and manage the fund, and the Governing Body will make final decisions on the allocation of the fund, based on staff advice and in line with the eligibility criteria. I expect those decisions to be made before the end of July 2025.

CCO reform package

29. Decisions on CCO reform were made by the Governing Body in December 2024. Since then, we have received regular updates on the programme’s progress from the Chief Executive.

30. Following consultation with staff, decisions have been made on the establishment of an Economic Development office, Auckland Urban Development Office property department and the consolidation of regional events and programming under TAU.

31. Once up and running, I expect the Auckland Urban Development Office to focus on the delivery of the current FY26 urban development programme, planning for future priority locations and the longer-term horizon. As a matter of urgency, I expect focus to be given to the City Centre (including the Waterfront), Mangawhau and Kingsland/Morningside catchments as priority areas due to the significance of and in relation to the City Rail Link (CRL).

32. Maungawhau especially requires significant work and as such should be led by council’s Chief Executive to identify what is needed to maximise the surrounding land and development opportunities in time for CRL opening next year. This is absolutely critical work.

33. While the reform programme remains on track to meet our deadline for the new structure (Eke Panuku and TAU integration), focus must also be given to building a culture that supports a new way of working across the council group that delivers greater strategic alignment, consistency of approach and positive outcomes.

34. Similarly, we must not lose momentum with transport reform, noting the government has indicated legislation allowing us to reform Auckland Transport will be introduced in coming months.

35. There will be a significant programme of work to support our decisions on the future shape of Auckland Transport, shifting its focus to the delivery of key services, in particular operating public transport.

36. I expect staff advice to include an accelerated approach to the transfer of transport, strategy, policy and planning functions (including staff and associated budgets) by 1 October 2025. This advice, including all other relevant matters for our consideration, is due to come to June’s Governing Body.

Group Shared Services

37. Some good work has been done to establish the foundations on which shared services are built. But now is the time to accelerate implementation and start realising cost reductions and other benefits.

38. In the next 12 months I expect staff to focus on the completion of outstanding business cases, a roadmap for the more complex opportunities, utlising AI for customer and other service improvements, a coordinated and collaborative approach to implementation and reporting on benchmarks in relation to key corporate functions.

39. As stated previously, I expect CCOs to participate in shared service provision wherever there is a nett group benefit accruing or unless there is a genuinely compelling reason – accepted by Auckland Council’s Chief Executive and the independent Group Shared Services Board Chair – not to.

Other issues

40. As with all annual plans, we receive a range of funding requests from other entities. A lot of them have merit and come from highly valued community groups.

41. The problem is, we’re not often able to respond through this process when we have very little wriggle room or a full understanding of the wider funding needs in different sectors.

42. This issue will continue to get worse as community groups and not for profit organisations grapple with a difficult economic environment.

43. I would like staff to consider how we manage these requests differently. We must better understand the wider context to requests, including the funding impacts at a group level, so we can make better decisions with public money.

44. Uncontrolled and roaming dogs continue to have a negative impact on many of our communities, and in particular vulnerable groups. The impacts are region-wide however there are high-risk areas like Manurewa where the community are facing an overwhelming number of unregistered dogs, roaming dogs and sadly, dog attacks.

45. We have provided additional funding through the LTP for more Animal Management Officers, but I would like staff to work with urgency on other initiatives like desexing schemes to help manage dog numbers, and to identify other ways to address the growing issue, including any additional investment requirements, in time for the next annual plan.

46. I also expect advocacy to continue on necessary changes to the Dog Control Act, and request that staff keep us updated through the Regulatory and Safety Committee.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The Governing Body will consider any recommendations made today by the Budget Committee directly after this meeting before agreeing to final decisions for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

48. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 will then be adopted by the Governing Body in June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Mayoral Proposal 2025/2026
b ⇨	Staff advice Annual Plan 2025/2026

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Mayor Wayne Brown

Budget Committee

28 May 2025

Annual Plan 2025/2026: Other rates and fees matters

File No.: CP2025/08951

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend changes to rating policy and fees for adoption as part of the council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The recommendations in this report bring together all the rating issues and fees material proposed for adoption as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 which are not covered by the Mayor’s proposal. Proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges were consulted on in February and March 2025 as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document (the consultation document).

3. Feedback received on consultation proposals was provided to councillors at a Budget Committee workshop on 30 April 2025. Officers have considered the feedback alongside an assessment of the identified options in developing the advice in this report.

Region wide rates funded refuse

4. In accordance with decisions made by the Governing Body in 2022, rates funded refuse is being rolled out to the whole of Auckland. Procurement contracts with suppliers have been negotiated and confirmed based on the rollout and the council is bound to fulfil its obligations set out in the contracts.

5. The scheme has been rolled out for properties in the former Waitakere, North Shore, and Papakura districts in the current financial year. It is planned to be extended to properties in the former Franklin and Rodney districts early next financial year.

6. The majority of the submissions relating to this proposal were in support. Officers recommend that the refuse targeted rates for areas affected by the rollout as set out in this report be adopted for inclusion in the final Annual Plan 2025/2026. Applying the targeted rates would ensure a fair and consistent approach across Auckland for the funding of the refuse service.

Waste management targeted rates for next year

7. The consultation document included proposed changes to the waste management targeted rates for 2025/2026 to ensure cost recovery. The overall proposed increase in the targeted rates reflects the current forecasts of waste volumes, the loss on pay-as-you-throw services no longer being funded by the base charge, the higher average cost of servicing rural residential and farm lifestyle properties in Rodney and Franklin, and higher than forecast processing costs at council’s material recovery facility.

8. The consultation document also noted 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.

9. While most of the submitters who commented on the waste management targeted rate did not support the proposed changes, the vast majority (81 per cent) of the opposition centred around the inability to opt out of a targeted rate for a service that they did not or seldom use, in particular the food scraps targeted rate. The opt-out of a waste management service and targeted rate was not a topic consulted on in this annual plan. The standardised targeted rate scheme ensures a fair and consistent funding approach across Auckland and affordability of the services for the majority of Aucklanders who do need them.

10. There have been minor adjustments to the forecast expenditure for the council’s waste management activities since the annual plan consultation. Officers recommend the updated waste management targeted rates as set out in this report be adopted for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Changes to BID targeted rates

11. Through the consultation document, the council consulted on the following rating policy changes for BID targeted rates in the Annual Plan 2025/2026:

· establishment of new BIDs and associated targeted rates for Grey Lynn and Takanini

· not setting the Hunters Corner and the Māngere East Village BID targeted rates for 2025/2026.

12. The majority of the public feedback received was in support of the proposals.

13. The relevant business associations in Grey Lynn and Takanini each held a ballot on their proposed BID establishment, in accordance with requirements under the BID policy. The proposed Grey Lynn BID was supported in the ballot with the majority of the returned votes in favour of the proposal. The proposed Takanini BID was not successful with the majority of the returned votes against the proposal. Officers anticipate that Waitematā Local Board will resolve to support the establishment of the Grey Lynn BID programme at its business meeting on 20 May 2025.

14. Officers also anticipate the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board will resolve at their business meetings later this month to support not setting a targeted rate for the Hunters Corner BID and the Māngere East Village BID respectively for 2025/2026. Officers will provide an update on the above local board decisions at this Budget Committee meeting.

15. Officers recommend that, subject to the decisions made by the relevant local board, the Funding Impact Statement (FIS) in the final Annual Plan 2025/2026 provide for

· a targeted rate be set for 2025/2026 to fund the Grey Lynn BID programme

· a targeted rate not be set for the Hunters Corner BID for 2025/2026

· a targeted rate not be set for the Māngere East Village BID for 2025/2026.

16. Since the adoption of the consultation document, the Onehunga Business Association (OBA) held a Special General Meeting, at which a majority of voters supported a resolution to request that council set the Onehunga BID targeted rate for a reduced amount ($410,000 rather than $1,000,000). The proposed reduction in the OBA BID grant will be covered in the annual BID compliance and accountability report to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board on 27 May 2025.

17. Officers recommend that the Annual Plan 2025/2026 provide for a lower targeted rate be set for the Onehunga BID based on the revised amount for 2025/2026, subject to approval by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board.

Fees and charges

18. Consultation proposed changes to some fees and charges where the proposed increase was in excess of the increases in line with council rate of inflation provided for in the Revenue and Financing policy. The proposals ensure that the service users who benefit from the activity fund the activity rather than general ratepayers. Most other fees and charges will be increased in line with the cost inflation for the relevant activity where necessary to maintain cost recovery. Proposed changes to fees included in the consultation document were:

· adjusting animal management fees, including dog registration, (except fees for dog adoption and vet service which are discussed in the paragraphs that follow) in line with the projected movement in costs. This maintains the current cost recovery balance between dog registration charges, service fees, and general rates

· increasing dog adoption fee from $350 to $450: actual cost to council is around $700 to $800 per adopted dog

· 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

· increasing some cemetery services to cover costs due to a significant under-recovery of costs from the existing fees and simplifying and increasing the administration fees for miscellaneous cemetery services. The proposed fees are lower than, or at the lower end of, other providers’ prices

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

· aligning staff charge out rates for rangers and senior rangers for large events, commercial activity or filming taking place on regional parks.

19. Limited feedback was received on these proposals:

· feedback received was evenly split between supporting and opposing the proposed changes to animal management fees, with the main theme being concerns that the level of the proposed fees may impact the use of council service

· five responses commented on the proposed changes to cemetery fees with two in favour, one opposed and the rest concerned about the affordability of the fees in the current economic climate

· five responses commented on the proposed changes to bach fees with three in favour, one opposed and another challenging it to be a core council service

· three responses commented on the proposed changes to staff charge out rates for regional park services with one in support and the remainder expressing concern over the impact of the fees on park visitors and that fees should also be charged for tourists.

20. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to fees and charges as set out in this report and in Attachment A: Changes to fees for miscellaneous cemetery services and regional park services, be adopted. The proposed fees more closely align with a cost recovery model while still giving consideration to affordability.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body that it

a) whakaae / agree that the Funding Impact Statement (FIS) in the final Annual Plan 2025/2026:

i) include the waste management targeted rate charges as specified in Table 2 and Table 3 of this report, to ensure cost recovery for the relevant services

ii) provide for the extension of the refuse targeted rate to the former Franklin District and Rodney District from 2025/2026, as specified in Table 1 in this report, to be applied to:

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

B) all other SUIPs to which a council refuse service is provided as per council records

iii) include a Grey Lynn Business Improvement District (BID) Targeted Rate to fund the new Grey Lynn BID programme, subject to the BID programme and associated targeted rate being supported by the Waitematā Local Board

iv) provide for the Hunters Corner BID Targeted Rate to not be set for 2025/2026, subject to this being supported by the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

v) provide for the Mangere East Village BID Targeted Rate to not be set for 2025/2026, subject to this being supported by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

vi) provide for the Onehunga BID Targeted Rate to be set based on a BID grant of $410,000 for 2025/2026, subject to it being supported by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board

vii) include adjustment to some targeted rates by the forecast rates of cost inflation as specified in Table 4 of this report

b) whakaae / agree to the changes to fees and charges set out in this report.

c) tuhi tīpkoa / note the extension of council’s waste management services will result in associated targeted rate charges (in accordance with current rating policy) to the commercial areas in the former Manukau City where the service isn’t presently available.

Horopaki

Context

Decision making

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

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

· assess those options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages

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

22. The consultation process for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 provided an opportunity for those interested in, or affected by, decisions to have their views considered by their elected representatives prior to decisions being made. Feedback received during consultation is one of the key elements that needs to be considered when making final decisions. Comments provided as part of the feedback should be considered to understand the context and the meanings behind the overall numbers and percentages in terms of those who supported or did not support the various proposals.

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

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

Consultation and feedback

25. The council consulted on the proposed changes to rating policy and fees and charges in February and March 2025 as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 Consultation Document (the consultation document). Feedback received on consultation proposals was provided to councillors at a Budget Committee workshop on 30 April 2025. Analysis of the feedback has also been included in this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

· the proposal that was consulted on and any relevant context

· a summary of feedback received through consultation

· local board feedback

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

· officers’ recommendations.

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

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

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

Proposal

29. In June 2022 the council amended its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan to provide for refuse services across the region to be funded from a targeted rate. As a result, rates funded refuse service has commenced 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. 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.

30. As part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 the council consulted on the implementation of this change. In particular, the proposal was that:

· the refuse targeted rate for Franklin be calculated on the basis of a full 12 months service

· the refuse targeted rate for Rodney be around 83 per cent of the full year charge, reflecting the scheduled start date of early September 2025.

Feedback from consultation

31. Of the 8,719 respondents that answered the feedback question, 4,974 (57 per cent) supported the proposal and 1,782 (20.4 per cent) did not support. The most prominent themes in the comments section relating to this question were

· concerns about rates increases in the current economic climate (781 submissions)

· that PAYT was a better model to fund refuse collection as it supports a user pays approach and incentivises a reduction in waste going to landfill (425 submissions).

32. There were 383 submissions received from Franklin residents, of which 46 per cent supported the proposal, 33 per cent did not support the proposal and 22 per cent either made other comments or responded, “Don’t know”. There were 417 submissions received from Rodney residents, of which 35 per cent supported the proposal, 53 per cent did not support the proposal and 13 per cent either made other comments or responded, “Don’t know”. The main concerns from those opposing the proposal in Franklin and Rodney were that PAYT was a better model, proposed change may discourage waste reduction, and they did not want to pay for an unused or seldom used service.

33. Six mana whenua entities addressed the “Changes to other rates, fees and charges” in their response. Four entities supported the proposal (Ngaati Whanaunga Inc, Ngāti Tamaterā, Tamaoho Settlement Trust, Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust) and two selected “Other” (Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust).

34. Four mataawaka entities addressed the “Changes to other rates, fees and charges” in their response. One supported the proposal and three selected “Other”.

Local board feedback

35. Of the nine local boards that provided feedback on this issue:

· four local boards supported the proposal: Franklin, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Rodney local boards. Rodney Local Board however expressed concern that the roll-out of rates funded waste bins to Rodney may not encourage waste minimisation

· Hibiscus and Bays Local Board did not support the proposal citing poor incentive for waste reduction and negative financial impact on its community, in particular small households

· four local boards noted they deferred their feedback to Franklin and Rodney local boards (Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa and Papakura local boards).

Consideration

36. The rollout of a rates funded refuse service to all areas of Auckland was a decision made by the council in June 2022 following extensive consultation. Procurement contracts with suppliers have been negotiated and confirmed based on the rollout and the council is bound to fulfil its obligations set out in the contracts. Included in the consultation document for public feedback was the detailed timeline of the rollout to Franklin and Rodney as well as the proposed targeted rate amounts for properties in those areas (Section 3.2.1 of Supporting Information). Applying the proposed targeted rates would ensure a fair and consistent approach across Auckland for the funding of the refuse service.

37. There have been minor adjustments to the forecast expenditure for the council’s waste management activities since the consultation document was prepared and adopted. The updated refuse targeted rate amounts are set out in the table below, reflecting the movement in forecast expenditure and the reduced number of months the service will be available for properties in Rodney. Officers recommend that these updated amounts be adopted for inclusion in the final Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Table 1 Updated refuse targeted rates recommended for the former districts of Franklin and Rodney

Service	Area (number of months service is available)	Targeted rate consulted on for 2025/2026 (incl. GST) $	Updated targeted rate for 2025/2026 (incl. GST) $
Standard refuse (120L/140L bin or equivalent)	Former FDC (12 months)	194.41	195.78
Standard refuse (120L/140L bin or equivalent)	Former RDC (10 months)	162.01	163.15
Small refuse (80L bin)	Former FDC (12 months)	161.56	162.70
Small refuse (80L bin)	Former RDC (10 months)	134.63	135.58
Large refuse (240L bin)	Former FDC (12 months)	322.68	324.96
Large refuse (240L bin)	Former RDC (10 months)	268.90	270.80

Changes to waste management targeted rates to reflect updated budget forecasts

Proposal

38. The consultation document included a proposed 3.3 per cent increase next year to the overall waste management targeted rate for a typical household with one standard sized refuse bin and recycling bin, reflecting:

· movements in costs following the commencement of the rates funded refuse rollout

· higher processing costs for recyclable materials than previously forecast

· lower processing costs and higher bin liner revenue for food scraps than previously forecast.

39. 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.

40. The waste management targeted rates for 2025/2026 that were proposed in the consultation are set out in Table 2.

Feedback from consultation

41. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the feedback form. 577 pieces of written feedback were provided either specifically on the waste management targeted rates proposal or on all proposed changes to targeted rates and fees/charges in general (excluding the extension of rates-funded refuse to Franklin and Rodney). Of these, 211 indicated support for the proposed changes to the waste management targeted rates for next year. Seven of these comments noted that the proposed increases were necessary to fund waste minimisation goals. Feedback was received from 366 comments expressing opposition to the proposed waste management targeted rates. Of these, 129 opposed the inability to opt out of the food scraps targeted rate. Another 168 was dissatisfied with the compulsory nature of targeted rates for unused or seldom used recycling, refuse, or waste services in general.

Local board feedback

42. Of the 15 local boards that provided feedback on this issue:

· eleven local boards supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Kaipātiki, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards). Albert-Eden Local Board noted support was based on the assumption that weekly collections will remain

· two local boards did not support the proposal: Papakura and Waitākere Ranges local boards.

43. Ōrākei Local Board neither supported or did not support the proposal noting that feedback on changes to all fees and charges indicate a low-level of understanding on what was being proposed.

Consideration

44. The opt-out of a waste management service and targeted rate was not a topic consulted on in this annual plan. The decisions to introduce a region-wide funding scheme for waste services were made in the past (food scraps in 2018 and the extension of rates funded refuse in 2022), following extensive consultation. The standardised targeted rate system ensures a fair and consistent funding approach across Auckland and affordability of the services for the majority of Aucklanders who do need them.

45. There have been minor adjustments to the forecast expenditure for the council’s waste management activities since the consultation document was prepared and adopted. The updated proposed targeted rate amounts are set out in the table below. The total rates for standard waste management services are rising from $426 in 2024/2025 to $439 in 2025/2026 (instead of the $440 consulted on).

Table 2 Changes to the Waste management targeted rates for standard services for 2025/2026 (including updated amounts since consultation)

Service	Targeted rate 2024/2025 (incl. GST) $	Targeted rate consulted on for 2025/2026 (incl. GST) $	Updated targeted rate for 2025/2026 (incl. GST) $
Minimum base service	63.07	46.89	43.97
Standard recycling or additional recycling (240L bin or equivalent)	106.64	118.96	120.32
Standard refuse (120L/140L bin or equivalent) (full year)	174.77	194.41	195.78
Food scraps (23L bin)	81.19	79.25	78.50
Total for a typical household	425.67	439.51	438.57

46. Proposed changes to the waste management targeted rate charges for non-standard services were also consulted on (Section 3.5 of Supporting Information for the Consultation Document). See Table 3 below for updated amounts.

Table 3 Changes to the Waste management targeted rates for non-standard services for 2025/2026 (including updated amounts since consultation)

Service	Targeted rate 2024/2025 (incl. GST) $	Targeted rate consulted on for 2025/2026 (incl. GST) $	Updated targeted rate for 2025/2026 (incl. GST) $
Small refuse (80L bin or equivalent) (full year)	145.24	161.56	162.70
Large refuse (240L bin or equivalent) (full year)	290.09	322.68	324.96
Additional recycling (a second 240L recycling bin)	106.64	118.96	120.32

Recommendation

47. Officers recommend that the updated targeted rate amounts included in Tables 2 and 3 above be adopted for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 to maintain cost recovery. Note that the refuse targeted rates will be applied on a pro-rata basis to the former Rodney District where the rates-funded refuse service is scheduled to be available for approximately 10 months during 2025/2026. See the preceding section for details.

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

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. The extension of the waste management services and targeted rates to commercial areas in Manukau does not require an amendment to the FIS. Officers recommend that the Budget Committee note this change.

Establishment of new Grey Lynn BID and Takanini BID programmes

Proposal

52. The consultation document included proposed establishments of Grey Lynn and Takanini Business Improvement District (BID) programmes and associated targeted rates.

Feedback from consultation

53. The Papakura Local Board had a specific question on the Takanini BID establishment proposal. Feedback on the proposal was received from 183 submitters in the Papakura Local Board area. Of these 71 (38.8 per cent) supported the proposal, 32 (17.5 per cent) did not, and 80 (43.7 per cent) didn’t know or selected “Other”. While some see potential benefits, they believe businesses should fund it, not ratepayers. Submitters opposed to the BID did not support it due to fairness and cost concerns. The Waitematā Local Board did not have a specific question on the Grey Lynn BID establishment proposal.

54. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the regional feedback form. Written comments on the proposals to establish the Grey Lynn and Takanini Business Improvement District (BID) programmes and associated targeted rates were provided from three submitters. One supported both the Grey Lynn and Takanini BID programmes, while two supported just the Takanini BID programme.

55. A ballot was held on the proposed establishment of the Grey Lynn BID. Of the 753 ballots issued, 230 (30.5 per cent) were returned. Of those returned, 178 (77.39 per cent) supported the establishment of the BID programme and 52 (22.61 per cent) did not.

56. A ballot was also held on the proposed establishment of the Takanini BID. Of the 719 ballots issued, 231 (32.1 per cent) were returned. Of those returned, 105 (45.45 per cent) supported the establishment of the BID programme and 126 (54.55 per cent) did not.

Local board feedback

57. The Waitematā Local Board will consider the Grey Lynn BID establishment proposal at its meeting on 20 May 2025. Officers anticipate that Waitematā Local Board will support the establishment of the Grey Lynn BID programme. Officers will provide an update on the Waitematā Local Board’s decision at the Budget Committee meeting.

58. As the Takanini BID establishment ballot was unsuccessful the proposal will not be proceeding the Papakura Local Board for consideration. The Takanini BID can be re-looked at by Takanini businesses in two years’ time.

Consideration

59. The council’s BID Policy requires a ballot to be held of all business ratepayers and business occupiers / tenants in the proposed BID programme area. To proceed with the expansion of a BID the ballot must achieve a threshold of at least 25 per cent of the total voting forms returned and of those, over 51 per cent must be in support of the proposal. The Grey Lynn BID establishment proposal met this threshold, while the Takanini BID establishment proposal did not.

60. Decisions to establish a BID programme reside with the respective local board. Decisions to set the targeted rate reside with the Governing Body.

Recommendation

61. Officers recommend the Grey Lynn BID targeted rate be included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 to fund the new Grey Lynn BID programme, subject to the BID programme and the targeted rate being supported by the Waitematā Local Board. It is also recommended that the Takanini BID targeted rate not be included in Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Hunters Corner BID and Mangere East Village BID

Proposal

62. The consultation document noted that council’s intention was 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.

63. The consultation document also included the proposal to discontinue the Māngere East Village BID and the associated targeted rate as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Feedback from consultation

64. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board had a specific question on the proposal to end the Māngere East Village Business Improvement District (BID) programme and associated BID targeted rate. Feedback on the proposal was received from 357 submitters. Of these, 182 (51.0 per cent) supported the proposal, 55 (15.4 per cent) did not, and 120 (33.6 per cent) didn’t know or selected “Other”. Submitters in support of the proposal to close the BID felt the BID wasn’t delivering and agreed with the proposal. Those against closure wanted more support and time for the BID to fix issues.

65. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board had a specific question on the proposal to end the Hunters Corner BID programme and associated BID targeted rate. Feedback on the proposal was received from 97 submitters. Of these, 42 (43.3 per cent) were unsure or didn’t know enough to comment, 16 (16.5 per cent) noted their dissatisfaction with the current state of Hunters Corner and the need for improvements to the area, and 11 (11.3 per cent) supported the proposal.

66. Targeted letters were sent to all property owners in the Hunters Corner BID (148) and the Māngere East Village BID (3) on 28 February 2025.

67. Eight responses were received from ratepayers in the Hunters Croner BID. Five of these supported the proposal to not set the BID targeted rate for 2025/2026 and three opposed. The feedback from the three responses opposed to the proposal indicated a desire to create a new BID programme to provide funding.

68. No responses were received from ratepayers in Māngere East Village BID.

69. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the regional feedback form. Written comments on these proposals were provided from two submitters. One commented that revitalisation of Māngere Town Centre should be prioritised over the Māngere East Village and Hunters Corners BIDs and one supported ending the Māngere East Village BID as it has failed to meet governance and accountability requirements.

Local board feedback

70. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board will consider the issue with Hunters Corner BID at its meeting on 20 May 2025. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board will consider the issue with Mangere East Village BID at its meeting on 21 May 2025. The local boards may also recommend that the two BID programmes be disestablished, if Governing Body does not set the rate. This would mean that the business associations need to go through a fresh establishment process under the BID Policy if they wish for a rate to be set in future years. Officers will provide an update of the local board decisions at the Budget Committee meeting.

Consideration

71. 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 had been given a further period of up to 30 April 2025 to resolve the issues. Insufficient progress has been made by HCTCS to address the compliance issues. Business owners will need to develop a new entity (incorporated society) and then consider establishing a new BID if they wish to continue in the BID programme.

72. The Māngere East Village BID programme had also experienced compliance issues since 10 March 2023. At its business meeting on 20 November 2024, the Māngere-Otahuhu Local Board resolved to support the discontinuation of the Māngere East Village BID programme.

Recommendation

73. Officers recommend that the Hunters Corner BID targeted rate and Māngere East Village BID targeted rate not be included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026, subject to this being supported by the relevant local board.

Changes to the Onehunga Business Association BID programme

74. Since the adoption of the consultation document, the Onehunga Business Association (OBA) held a Special General Meeting, at which a majority of voters supported a resolution to request that council set the Onehunga BID targeted rate for a reduced amount ($410,000 rather than $1,000,000). This resolution was supported by 142 votes to 54.

75. Careful consideration has been given to the matters raised in the petition at the 1 May Governing Body meeting. The proposed reduction in the OBA BID grant will be covered in the annual BID compliance and accountability report to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on 27 May 2025.

Recommendation

76. In line with this change requested in the OBA SGM resolution, officers recommend that Annual Plan 2025/2026 provide for the Onehunga BID targeted rate to be set based on the revised BID grant amount ($410,000) for 2025/2026, subject to approval by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.

Some targeted rates to increase with inflation

77. Officers recommend adjusting the following targeted rates next year by the forecast cost inflation for the relevant services.

Table 4 Recommended adjustments to targeted rates

Targeted rate name	Inflation rate for targeted rate adjustment 2025/2026
City centre targeted rate	4.5%
Mangere-Otahuhu pool entry targeted rate	2.6%
Otara-Papatoetoe pool entry targeted rate	2.6%
Swimming/spa pool compliance targeted rate	2.0%
Rodney drainage districts targeted rates	5.6%
Franklin local board paths targeted rate	3.4%

Changes to fees and charges

78. A three-year cycle of fee reviews was introduced in the Annual Budget 2022/2023. The reviews ensure that the cost recovery decisions previously made by the council continue to be met. Most fees will be increased in line with our forecast cost inflation (including regulatory fees as provided for in the Revenue and Financing Policy) where necessary to maintain cost recovery.

79. For this budget process fees and charges for animal management and cemetery services were reviewed. Most fees in these areas are currently at an appropriate level and it is recommended that they be only adjusted to reflect the projected rate of cost inflation. Changes beyond cost inflation are required to some animal management and cemetery fees to assist cost recovery and reduce ratepayer subsidy. It is also appropriate to change the structure of some regional park services fees. The proposed changes were consulted on as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and consideration of feedback and officer recommendations is covered below.

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

Changes to animal management fees

Proposal

81. The consultation document included the proposal to increase two animal management fees by more than the projected rate of cost inflation to improve cost recovery:

· increasing dog adoption fee from $350 to $450

· increasing vet fee from $75 to $150.

Feedback from consultation

82. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the feedback form. Written comments on the proposal to change animal management fees were provided from 13 submitters. Six supported the proposal noting impacts on ratepayers and concerns about the level of the fee impacting residents use of services. Six did not support the fee with concerns about the level of the fee impacting residents use of services and that dog control is a public good so should be funded from rates. One made comment noting concern about responsible dog owners paying for irresponsible dog owners.

Local board feedback

83. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback on the proposed change to dog adoption fee:

· eleven local boards supported or generally supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau local boards)

· Manurewa Local Board partially supported the proposal noting concern about increasing the cost to dog owners and whether this would disincentivise people from adopting dogs

· four local boards did not support the proposal (Franklin, Howick, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Waitākere Ranges local boards) noting potential impact on animal welfare and dog adoption rate.

84. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback on the proposed change to vet fee:

· fourteen local boards supported, generally supported or supported in principle the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus and Bays, Kaipātiki, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitematā and Whau local boards)

· Howick Local Board did not support the proposal citing potential impact on animal welfare

· Waitākere Ranges local board neither supported nor opposed the proposal but noted the need to keep animal management fees reasonable in order not to discourage public uptake of dog adoption.

Consideration

85. Actual cost of dog adoption to council is around $700 to $800 per adopted dog. Increasing the dog adoption fee to $450 helps reduce ratepayer subsidy for this service while 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).

86. The vet 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 proposed fee approximately recovers the actual costs to the council which include vet site visit, euthanasia, and cremation. Increasing this fee 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.

87. The proposed fees are expected to increase council revenue by around $35,000 per year.

Recommendation

88. Officers recommend the proposed changes to dog adoption fees and vet fees be adopted.

Changes to cemetery fees

Proposal

89. The consultation document included proposed increases to the following fees for cemetery services to cover costs.

Table 4 Proposed changes to some cemetery fees and charges

Category	Service	Current fee (incl. GST)	Proposed fee for 2025/2026 (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

Feedback from consultation

90. This consultation topic did not have a specific question on the feedback form. Written comment on the proposed changes to cemetery fees were provided from five submitters, two supported the proposal, one did not support the proposal, and two were concerned about the affordability of the fees in the current economic climate.

Local board feedback

91. Of the 16 local boards that provided feedback on this issue:

· thirteen local boards supported, generally supported, or supported in principle the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney, Waitākere Ranges, Waitematā and Whau local boards)

· Henderson-Massey Local Board neither supported nor opposed the proposal noting concern that Waikumete Cemetery is currently at capacity, so Henderson-Massey residents are restricted in their options for burial arrangements

· two local boards did not support the proposal (Kaipātiki and Ōtara-Papatoetoe local boards). Kaipātiki Local Board noted the need to recover costs for services but were concerned about the high percentage increase proposed to some of the cemetery fees and expressed their preference for the increases to be phased in over several years. Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board noted their concern about cost pressures for the community at a sensitive time.

Consideration

92. The proposed increases reflected 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 were well below those charged by other providers. The recommended fees were lower than, or at the lower end of prices for other providers. This recognised the potential impact on customers going through a difficult time or communities experiencing higher levels of deprivation.

93. The consultation document also included a proposal to simplify and increase administration fees and some miscellaneous service fees, from a current range between $44 and $200, to three fee levels at $100, $150, and $200 depending on staff time required. The details of these proposed changes are included in Attachment A: Changes to fees for miscellaneous cemetery services and regional park services.

94. The proposed changes are forecast to increase revenue by up to $500,000 per annum^{^[1]}.

Recommendation

95. Officers recommend the proposed changes to cemetery services fees be adopted.

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

Proposal

96. The consultation document included the following changes to fees (beyond inflationary cost adjustment) for regional parks to:

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

· align staff charge out rates for rangers and senior rangers for large events, commercial activity or filming taking place on regional parks.

97. The details of the proposed changes are included in Attachment A: Changes to fees for miscellaneous cemetery services and regional park services.

Feedback from consultation

98. These consultation topics did not have a specific question on the feedback form.

99. Written comment on the proposed changes to bach fees were provided from five submitters, three supported the proposal, one did not support the proposal, and one commented that it wasn’t a core council service.

100. Written comment on the proposed changes to staff charge out rates were provided from three submitters, one supported the proposal and two made comments on the impact the fee will have on park visitors and that fees should also be charged for tourists.

Local board feedback

101. Of the 13 local boards that provided feedback on the proposed changes to bach fees:

· eleven local boards supported or supported in principle the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards)

· Kaipātiki Local Board noted they did not express an opinion as the proposed changes did not affect the Kaipātiki area

· Waitākere Ranges Local Board noted they did not support increases for bach fees as these baches provide an opportunity for families and those of moderate means to afford opportunities to enjoy parks and reserves.

102. Of the 11 local boards that provided feedback on the proposed changes to staff charge out rates for regional park services:

· ten local boards supported the proposal (Albert-Eden, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Rodney and Waitematā local boards)

· Kaipātiki Local Board noted they did not wish to express an opinion as the proposed changes did not affect the Kaipātiki area.

Consideration

103. These changes simplify the pricing structure, better reflect costs of providing these services, and respond to demand for services at peak times. The proposed fees are forecast to increase revenue by around $44,000 per annum, primarily from the optimisation of the bach fees.

Recommendation

104. Officers recommend the proposed changes to bach fees and staff charge out rates for regional parks be adopted

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

105. The recommendations in this report have a neutral climate impact as they primarily relate to the allocation of charges rather than decisions on activities to be undertaken.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

· Waste Solutions

· Licensing and Compliance

· CCO/External Partnerships

· Parks and Community Facilities

107. This report has been reviewed by Legal Services for compliance with legislation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

108. Local boards have been involved in the decision-making process for the proposals considered in this report.

109. Local board chairs were invited to be involved in the development of the regional topics for consultation by attending Budget Committee workshops. Local board members were provided recordings or briefings of the Budget Committee workshops for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

110. Local boards agreed on their feedback on regional items proposed to be consulted on, at business meetings between 19 and 21 November 2024. This local input was then formally considered by the Governing Body on 4 December 2024.

111. Local boards considered consultation feedback related to their local board area and then passed resolutions detailing their feedback and advocacy to the Annual Plan at their business meetings between 29 April and 1 May 2025. The local boards also had an opportunity to present their views at a Budget Committee workshop on 14 May 2025.

112. Their views are included under each of the proposals in this report and will be presented in a separate report on this meeting’s agenda.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

114. Consultation on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 included engagement with Māori. Of these four mana whenua entities and six mataawaka entities made a comments on “Changes to other rates, fees and charges” in their submission. Feedback from Māori on the proposals covered in this report are included under each of the issues above, where feedback was provided.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

116. 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 Mayoral proposal or further alternative budget mitigations found.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

117. Some Aucklanders may be concerned about the potential changes to their rates or programmes that affect their properties. In some instances, the council wrote to each ratepayer potentially affected by the proposed changes to advise them of the changes the council was considering and seek their feedback. This year we wrote to business ratepayers in the Hunters Corner and the Mangere East Village BID areas to seek their feedback on the proposed discontinuation of the respective BID programmes and targeted rates. Business ratepayers in the area proposed for the new Grey Lynn and Takanini BIDs were engaged through the ballot process required to establish a BID.

118. Consultation was designed to raise wide awareness of the proposals relating to the Annual Plan 2025/2026. Ratepayers and customers were advised on how they could get more information and the opportunities to make their views known both in person and in writing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

119. Decisions made by the Governing Body in response to the Budget Committee’s resolutions made at this meeting will be incorporated into the final Annual Plan 2025/2026. On 26 June 2025, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and set rates for the 2025/2026 financial year.

120. Changes to fees arising from decisions made in response to this report will be implemented from 1 July 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Changes to fees for miscellaneous cemetery services and regional park services

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

Date	Subject
11/2/2025	Drop-in session: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Draft Consultation Material (no documentation) Documents available on the Auckland Council website here
21/3/2025	‘Have Your Say’ Event: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Regional Organisations & Interest Groups (Attachment A)
24/3/2025	‘Have Your Say’ Event: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Māori Organisations & Community Groups (Attachment B)
30/4/2025	Workshop: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Regional and Advisory Panel feedback Documents available on the Auckland Council website here Recording of the workshop available here
7/5/2025	Workshop: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Budget Refresh Documents available on the Auckland Council website here Recording of the workshop available here
14/5/2025	Workshop: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Local Board Feedback Documents available on the Auckland Council website here Recording of the workshop available here
15/5/2025	Drop-in session: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Other rates and fees matters for the Annual Plan (see Attachment D)
21/5/2025	Workshop: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Draft Mayoral Proposal Documents available on the Auckland Council website here Recording of the workshop available here

Date	Subject
27/2/2025	Annual Plan 2025/2026 Elected member handbook (Attachment C)
13/5/2025	Memorandum: Annual Plan 2025/2026: Other rates and fees matters (Attachment D)
16/5/2025	Service and Activity Profiles - Council Group FY25 (Attachment E)
19/5/2025	Draft Mayoral Proposal Available on the Auckland Council website here
19/5/2025	Staff advice to support the Draft Mayoral Proposal Available on the Auckland Council website here

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	21 March 2025, ‘Have Your Say’ Event: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Regional Organisations & Interest Groups, notes and presentations (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	24 March 2025, ‘Have Your Say’ Event: Annual Plan 2025/2026 – Māori Organisations & Community Groups, notes and presentations (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	27 February 2025, Annual Plan 2025/2026 Elected member handbook (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	13 May 2025, Memorandum: Annual Plan 2025/2026: Other rates and fees matters (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	16 May 2025, Service and Activity Profiles - Council Group FY25 (Under Separate Cover)

[1] The estimate of $500,000 assumes no impact to the number of services provide. However, there may be a small decrease in demand 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

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

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987