long term plan 2015 summary of decisions

8/20/2019 Long Term Plan 2015 Summary of Decisions

1/19

An overview of decisions

shaping the future of Auckland

10-YEAR BUDGETTHE

SUMMARY OF DECISIONS


2/19

The 10-year budget 2015-2025 Summary of Decisions2 The 10-year budget 2015-2025 Summary of Decisions 3

After 18 months, Council’s next 10-year budget is nallyin place.

Drafting this budget, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025(LTP), has been more than just a number–crunchingexercise. It was the chance for Aucklanders to help shapeour city for the next 10 years and beyond, and we’d liketo thank everyone who got involved.

We wanted to give as many Aucklanders as possiblethe opportunity to tell us what they thought about ouroptions for xing transport; how to balance affordablerates with investing for growth; where and what weshould be investing in locally and across the city, and therole that the council should play in developing Auckland.

For seven weeks, between 23 January and 16 March, wecarried out the largest and most exciting conversationwe have had yet with Aucklanders, achieving one of thehighest response rates in any budget consultation inNew Zealand.

An impressive number of Aucklanders (27,383) providedover 260,000 points of written feedback. More than2,300 people attended the feedback events held acrossthe region, which made it easy for people to come alongto community gatherings to share their views and givefeedback to the council’s decision makers. For the rsttime ever, we also captured feedback through social media.

The decisions that needed to be made about investmentin transport were so important that we engaged a further5,000 people in an independent Colmar Brunton surveyon the transport options.

Auckland is now rmly one city, one region, and themessages that came through the feedback were very clearand consistent: keep rates affordable and debt low, and

nally start xing our transport problems.So we have kept the average increase in general ratesat 2.5 per cent next year, down from the 4.9 per centpreviously forecast. We have reduced projected debt atthe end of 10 years by 17 per cent from $13.7 billion to$11.6 billion. Plus, with the use of an interim transportlevy for each of the next three years on top of the generalrate (of $114 for residential ratepayers and $183 forbusinesses), we have a plan in place to nally get this citymoving and get our transport, especially public transportto the standard we expect.

After considering your feedback, we now have a budgetthat balances the need for investment in our localcommunities and the whole region with making sure thisremains an affordable place for all Aucklanders to live in.

Introduction

APPROACH TO DECISION-MAKING

This document gives an overview of the mainproposals consulted on for the 10-year budget,key messages provided through the feedback fromAucklanders and the council’s nal decisions.

All feedback from Aucklanders was analysed toinform a series of reports summarising all commentsreceived by topic to then brief elected membersahead of discussions, debate and decision-making.

For further information you can nd a record of alldecisions here and all summary of feedback reportsare on the council website aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/06/GB_20150625_AGN_5792_AT.PDF#page=257http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Pages/reports.aspxhttp://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Pages/reports.aspxhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/06/GB_20150625_AGN_5792_AT.PDF#page=257


3/19


Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3

1. Investing in Auckland ...........................................................................................................................................6

2. Fixing transport ................................................................................................................................................... 13

3. Your rates .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

4. Housing and development .............................................................................................................................. 20

5. Other regional decisions ..................................................................................................................................21

6. Local decisions ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

Albert-Eden Local Board ................................................................................................................................................................ 23

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board..............................................................................................................................................23

Franklin Local Board ........................................................................................................................................................................24

Great Barrier Local Board ..............................................................................................................................................................24

Henderson-Massey Local Board..................................................................................................................................................25

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board ....................................................................................................................................................25

Howick Local Board .........................................................................................................................................................................26

Kaipātiki Local Board .......................................................................................................................................................................26

Māngere-Ōtahuhu Local Board ...................................................................................................................................................27

Manurewa Local Board ...................................................................................................................................................................27

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board ............................................................................................................................................28

Orākei Local Board ...........................................................................................................................................................................28

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board....................................................................................................................................................29

Papakura Local Board ......................................................................................................................................................................29

Puketāpapa Local Board .................................................................................................................................................................30

Rodney Local Board ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Upper Harbour Local Board .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

Waiheke Local Board ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Waitākere Ranges Local Board ....................................................................................................................................................32

Waitematā Local Board .................................................................................................................................................................32

Whau Local Board ............................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Find out more ...........................................................................................................................................................34

Continue the conversation ..................................................................................................................................34

CONTENTS


4/19


The feedback showed a split between those in favour(38 per cent) and not in favour (54 per cent) of theproposal. Those against the proposed increase in ratesargued that the rise would be unaffordable for those onxed incomes.

Others felt that the proposed rise showed that the citywas not living within its means, while some thought thecouncil should cut back and just concentrate on providingcore services such as transport, water infrastructure, parkmaintenance, libraries and waste collection.

Those who agreed with the proposal thought that a rise ofthis amount was about right and would be of benetbecause it would lead to progress and delivering the

WHAT WE CONSULTED ON

uckland is the fastest growing region in New Zealand.More people want to live here than anywhere else inhe country and our population is expected to reach 2.2

million in the next 30 years.

his will result in an increased demand on ourfrastructure capacity, including roads, open space,

ocial infrastructure and water. We will need to focus ourlanning and investment to coordinate growth and gethe best value for money.

short, we will need to invest in the right things in theght locations to meet these challenges.

his investment will need to include building new assetsuch as roads, parks, property, libraries, and stormwater

ystems) and upgrading or replacing things we alreadywn.

We know that this investment needs to be balanced,ffordable and within our means.

One important issue we asked Aucklanders for theireedback on was how to nd the right balance betweenffordability and investing in the future of the city andur capacity to cope with the growth that will put extratress on our services.

Our draft plan proposed to invest $17.2 billion over 10ears to maintain our assets and cater for growth. Thisvel of investment provided for a basic transport network,ut would not deliver the signicant improvements inansport that Aucklanders have said they want.

We also proposed to spend around $4 billion a year overhe next 10 years on the hundreds of essential day-to-dayervices that the council provides. These include things

ke park maintenance, rubbish and recycling collection,vil defence, dog control, upkeep of sportselds, cleaningp grafti, pollution response, pest management and

much more.

On the one hand we must ensure that we can deliver thevel of investment needed. On the other, we must keep

ates rises affordable for residents and businesses acrossuckland.

o to achieve this balance, we proposed a general ratescrease of 3.5 per cent.

his would ensure our day-to-day services continue, whileso providing the right balance between affordability androgress across the region.

investment that Auckland needs. People also agreed withthe proposal as they thought there was an obligation toprovide infrastructure now, so as not to leave a burdenfor future generations.

Feedback on suggested spending changes called forreduced spending on governance and support (inparticular council staff and administration costs), andless spending on economic and cultural development,transport, parks, community and lifestyle.

However, transport and parks, community andlifestyle were also areas with strong support forincreased spending.

HERE’S WHAT WE ASKED

An overview of the 10-year budget was set out in theconsultation document, showing the key spending areas,what is delivered and what changes are proposed.

Do you agree with the proposed overall averagegeneral rates increase of 3.5 per cent each year,which will enable the proposed investment andspending outlined in this document?

If you don’t agree, in which activity areas do youthink we should spend more or spend less, andwhat level of general rates increase would yousupport?

IN NUMBERS

HERE’S WHAT YOU TOLD US

Aucklanders gave almost 35,000 points of feedback onthis issue. Over 15,000 of these directly commented onthe proposed rates increase and associated spending and

investment proposals.

Of these responses, 38 per cent agreed with the proposedplan and 54 per cent disagreed.

1. Investing in Auckland

33,499 15,529 967 146

Feedbackpoints

Writtenresponses

In person Responses through blogs,Twitter and Facebook

38% Agree

6% Other

2% Partial

54% Disagree

33,499points offeedback

HERE’S WHAT WE DECIDED

Our 10-year budget seeks to achieve the right balancebetween affordability and progress for Auckland. Afterconsidering the extensive feedback from Aucklanders, wehave weighed up trade-offs and made decisions to ndwhat we think is the right balance.

Instead of 3.5 per cent, we agreed to increase generalrates by an average of 2.5 per cent 1 in 2015/2016,followed by an average general rates rise of 3.2 per centin 2016/2017 and 3.5 per cent for each of the remaining

years in the 10-year budget.

This will enable an investment programme of $18.2billion2 over the next 10 years and also allow the councilto maintain its core element of services such as parkmaintenance, rubbish and recycling collection, civildefence, dog control, upkeep of sportselds, cleaning upgrafti, pollution response, pest management and more.

In terms of transport, this increase will fund a basiclevel of transport investment. However it is not enoughto deliver the increased investment in transport thatAucklanders have said they want to see, to begin toaddress Auckland’s transport issues. This is discussed in

the following section.The consultation document and supporting informationfor the 10-year budget set out a number of changesthat the council proposed. An overview of the budgetsand these proposed changes for each area of councilactivity is set out, along with common feedback themesand relevant council decisions made by council. Thesedecisions are reected in the average general ratesincreases agreed on.

1 The gure of 2.5 per cent is the average when all three categories of ratepayersare added together. Separated, the average general rates increase for residentialratepayers is 4.2 per cent; and 1.4 per cent for businesses; for farm / lifestyle adecrease of 9.7 per cent on average. But the overall rates increase for individualproperties will vary considerably, reecting factors such as revaluation and thetargeted rates that apply to the property.

2 Excludes the additional $523 million transport investment discussed in thenext section, Fixing transport.

Spend less (total feedback points) Spend more (total feedback points)

Figure 1 – Feedback on spending areas

T r a n s p

o r t

W a t e

r s u p p l y

a n d w

a s t e w

a t e r

P a r k s

, c o m m

u n i t y

a n d l i f e

s t y l e

E c o n o m i c a

n d

c u l t u r

a l d e v e

l o p m e

n t A u c k l a n d

d e v e l

o p m e

n t

E n v i r o n m e

n t m a

n a g e m e

n t

a n d r e g u l a

t i o n

G o v e r

n a n c e

a n d s

u p p o r t

F i n a n c i a l p

o l i c y

O t h e

r0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000


5/19


What was proposed What you said Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Area of spend C ha ng es pr op ose d i n t he co nsul ta ti on doc ume nt K ey fe ed ba ck me ssa ge sCapital spend

$18.7bn

Operating

spend

$41.4bn

Key decisions

• Some reductions in spending and service levels• Planning and policy activity reduced• Prioritising the completion of the Auckland

Unitary Plan• Prioritising capital projects in locations where

they are most needed• Replace Waterfront Auckland and Auckland

Council Properties Ltd with a new CCO to moreeffectively work with the private sector on thedevelopment of housing and town centres

• Around 3,700 feedback points were received• Feedback called for the council to prioritise

infrastructure, including transport, three waters(water, wastewater, stormwater) and socialinfrastructure and to ensure investment isspread across the region

• Other feedback covered the lack of housingaffordability, concerns over the quality ofhousing/development and the impact ofintensication

• Waterfront development received largelypositive feedback

• The proposal to establish Development Auckland

was supported by 42 per cent of submitters,while 33 per cent did not support the proposal.See p20 for more information

• The council considered the feedback provided and agreed the proposed 10-year budget• Council agreed to replace two existing CCOs (Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council

Property Limited) and establish Development Auckland, which will be operational from 1September 2015

Economic and CulturalDevelopment

• Similar levels of service and expenditure• Renewing ageing Auckland Zoo infrastructure• Investing in QBE (North Harbour), Western

Springs and Mt Smart stadiums to support theAuckland Stadium Strategy

• Around 1,880 feedback points were received• No specic feedback was received on the

proposal to reduce ATEED operating funding by$1 million. Howe ver, some feedback supporteda reduction in spend for major events andeconomic development activity

• A small amount of feedback was also receivedsupporting the retention of the NZ Warriors atMount Smart stadium

• The proposed budgets were agreed:• $6 million was provided for progressing the technology and innovation precinct Grid AKL in

Wynyard Quarter (funded by a reduction in operating funding), on the basis that any additionaloperational costs are funded within ATEED’s current operating budget

• Regional Facilities Auckland will further engage with stakeholders and sporting codes thatare affected by the stadium strategy, consider all options and report back within a year

• Minor reductions in expenditure and someeducation programmes

• Funding a greater proportion of costs throughuser-pays fees

• Maintaining stormwater network investmentat existing levels for reasons of safety andenvironmental protection

• Rolling out the Waste Management andMinimisation Plan to introduce a region-wide organic collection, a “pay as you throw”waste collection, and changes to the inorganic

collection service

• Around 4,100 feedback points were received,largely focussed on general areas ofenvironmental and stormwater management,rather than specic proposals

• Feedback generally was not in support of anyreduction in environmental spend

• Feedback generally supported thestandardisation of waste services and/or chargesacross the region

• Feedback generally supported the provision ofan inorganics service, but there was no clearview on what kind of service was preferred

• See p21 for feedback on waste management andstreet trading charges

• A new annual inorganic collection service (on property and booked in advance) will beintroduced and paid for via a solid waste targeted rate of $23 plus GST per year

• The retrot your home programme will be expanded by an additional $3 million per year• Funding of $158,000 was reinstated for National Biological control, but offset by other savings• Regional funding of $161,000 will be provided in 2015/2016 for the Sustainable

Neighbourhoods Programme to support transition while the empowered communitiesmodel is established

• Council will identify all work underway in the Manukau Harbour and investigate the cost ofhydrodynamic modelling of the harbour

• See p21 for decisions on waste management and street trading charges

• Reducing corporate costs through an ongoingefciency programme – further reductions of$21 million in year one and $30 million from

year two onwards• Improved returns from Ports of Auckland and

Auckland International Airport• establish a signature Māori event and increase

support for marae and papakainga housing

• Around 5,700 feedback points were received.• Most feedback focused on dissatisfaction with

the council’s governance model• A common theme was spend less in this area,

particularly in administration and staff costs• Feedback generally supported the proposed

priorities for the Māori transformationalshift activity

• Discussions were held between the Council andreserve boards around funding requirements

The council agreed to adopt the draft proposals, and also agreed to:• Increase funding for the Parakai Reserves Board by $279,000 for operating costs and $50,000

for capital expenditure over 10 years• Reinstate the Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board funding of $811,000 over 10 years• Reinstate COMET funding of $235,000 a year • Underwrite up to $450,000 for the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust to support the purchase

of a new helicopter in 2016/2017• Identify an extra $5 million of activity in 2016/2017 that contributes to the Māori

transformational shift• Identify $2 million to implement Council’s response to the recommendations from the

Independent Māori Statutory Board on Board’s 2014 Treaty Audit report

0-YEAR BUDGET AT A GLANCE

Auckland Development

$1bn $2.4bn

EnvironmentalManagement and

Regulation

Governanceand Support

$0.4bn $2.1bn

$5.4bn$1bn

$4.2bn$1.3bn


6/19


What was proposed What you said Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Area of spend C ha ng es pr op ose d i n t he co nsul ta ti on doc ume nt K ey fe ed ba ck me ssa ge sCapital spend

$18.7bn

Operating

spend

$41.4bn

Key decisions

• Minor reduction in levels of service – includinglower-cost street gardens, spraying instead ofmechanical edging, reduced and standardisedlibrary hours

• New revenue streams and user fees throughstandardised fees for cemeteries, morecommercial structures in leisure centres and feesfor some events in parks

• Introduce a more community-led approach tocommunity development

• Standardising rentals for social housing• Prioritising capital projects where they are

most needed

• Around 12,000 feedback points were received.• Feedback was generally not in support of

increased use of chemical sprays in parks or areduction in the maintenance of park gardens orremoval of street gardens

• Generally people did not support a reductionin library opening hours, however there wassupport for establishing a $1 fee for booksrequested but not collected

• Feedback on taking a more commercialapproach for pools and leisure facilities was lowand did not show a clear pattern

• Key stakeholders supported the implementation

of a more community-led approach tocommunity development• Feedback was split evenly between people who

wanted more spent on things like parks andcommunity facilities and others who did not.Over 1500 people submitted in support of afunding request from Surf Lifesaving

• Budgets were reinstated for annual street garden planting in town centres for 2015/2016 tosupport a transition period

• Standardised library hours will be implemented across the Auckland region, but with noreduction in total hours

• A $1 fee was introduced for books that are ordered from another library, but not collected• A more community-led approach will be taken to community development• $1.9 million was provided for Surf lifesaving Northern Region to redevelop the highest

priority surf clubs• An extra $350,000 per year was provided for regional grants and an extra $200,000 per year

was provided for regional events• Funding will be provided to support the delivery of a World War 1 memorial in the Domain of

$400,000 operating expenditure and $600,000 capital expenditure• Funding of $830,000 was agreed for activities relating to emergency housing, homelessness

and rough sleeping• $72,000 each year was agreed to deliver the the Auckland Festival of Photography

• Signicant reductions in levels of service• Fewer public transport improvements• Deferring of some projects and maintenance• Drastically reducing the number of key projects

to deliver

The 3.5 per cent average annual increase in generalrates proposed funded a basic transport package(estimated $6.9 billion over 10 years). Howeverit could not fund the investment needed to avoidsevere congestion issues

• Major support for a level of investment higherthan the basic programme - 50 per cent ofsubmitters supported the Auckland PlanTransport Network

• 38 per cent of submitters supported or partiallysupported introducing a motorway user chargeto pay for increased investment, while, 34 percent supported or partially supported usingrates/fuel taxes

• Strong support for increased investment inpublic transport

• See section 2: Fixing Transport for moreinformation

• Council will work with central government to reach an agreement on how Auckland can raisealternative funding

• In the interim, additonal investment of $523 million over three years was agreed to implementan Accelerated Transport Programme

• A 3-year interim transport levy will be introduced to help fund councils share of the cost of theAccelerated Transport Programme

• See section 2: Fixing transport for more information

• No changes in levels of service• Focusing on major, high-priority projects

that will cater for projected growth, includingthe central interceptor (to reduce sewerage

overows into waterways in central Aucklandand the Waitematā harbour) and the consentapplication for further water take from theWaikato River to cater for Auckland’sfuture growth

• Water and wastewater spend is funded almostentirely by user charges – changes have beenmade to enable water and wastewater chargeincreases to be reduced to 2.5 per cent in therst two years and 3.6 per cent each yearthereafter

• 238 feedback points were provided• Just under half of the feedback was against the

proposed price increases• Other feedback supported the removal of

uoride from Auckland’s water supply

The council considered the feedback and agreed the proposed budgets and water and wastewaterpricing increases

Parks, Communityand Lifestyle

Transport

Water Supply and

Wastewater

$4.7bn $6.6bn

$14.4bn$7.9bn

$2.4bn $6.3bn

The reports and minutes supporting the nal decisions are available here: Budget Committee 7 May, Governing Body 8 May,Infrastructure Committee 19 May, Finance and Performance Committee 21 Ma y and CCO Governance and Monitoring on 2 June.The nal plan was adopted at the Governing Body meeting on 25 June 2015.

0-YEAR BUDGET AT A GLANCE

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/06/COU_20150602_MIN_5943.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/06/COU_20150602_MIN_5943.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDFhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/BUD_20150507_MIN_5968.PDF


7/19



You don’t have to spend long in Auckland to know that it hassome pretty serious transport issues. Transport is the numberone issue for Aucklanders.

Around 716,000 more Aucklanders will be sharing our roadsover the next 30 years. Just to keep this city moving in thefuture, Aucklanders want an enhanced, fully integratedtransport network that includes new roads, rail, ferries, buswaysand cycleways.

So in this consultation Aucklanders faced a stark choice. Shouldwe accept a basic transport network which costs less, or do weinvest more – and pay more- to get the advanced transport

network set out in the 30-year vision for our region known asthe Auckland Plan?

The proposed Auckland Plan transport network includes moreinvestment in roads, rail, ferries, busways and cycleways ourcity desperately needs. To build the advanced network thatthousands of Aucklanders told us they want would require anadditional $12 billion over the next 30 years.

The main benets would be more transport choices with fasterand more frequent public transport, faster travel times, acrossthe city, improved safety and better support for Auckland’sgrowing population. It would also bring economic benets of upto $1.6 billion in improved productivity and reduced costs forAuckland businesses.

However, this option would come at a cost. The basic transportprogramme could be funded through the proposed averagegeneral rise of 3.5 per cent, but the Auckland Plan programmewould require extra funding.

We asked Aucklanders two questions - do they want theAuckland Plan transport network, and if they do, how do theywant to pay for it?

Implementing alternative transport funding would requirelegislative change and could take time to put in place. So it wasalso signalled that a targeted transport rate could be required in

the short term.

HERE’S WHAT WE ASKED

Do you support the basic transport network ordo you think we should invest more to get theAuckland Plan transport network that wouldaddress our transport problems?

If we decide to invest in the Auckland Plantransport network, how do you think Aucklanders

should pay for it?

Are there any specic projects or priorities e.g.cycleways, improved public transport services ormore bus lanes, we should focus on delivering aspart of the basic transport network or the AucklandPlan transport network ?


There was a majority of support for a level of investment higherthan the basic transport network. Only 29 per cent of submissionsreceived supported the basic transport network, while 50 per centsupported the Auckland Plan Transport Network.

In response to the second question on how the Auckland plannetwork should be funded, the largest group (38 per cent) ofsubmitters supported or partially supported a motorway usercharge to raise the funds needed to implement the AucklandPlan transport network.

However, the level of support for funding the Auckland Plantransport network through increases to rates and fuel taxeswas also substantial with 34 per cent of submissions eithersupporting or partially supporting this approach.

Generation Zero put forward an alternative transport budgetcalled the Essential Transport Budget and developed its ownfeedback form, which 3,232 submitters completed. Separateanalysis of these responses showed 95 per cent supported theEssential Transport Budget and 51 per cent favoured a partialfuel levy, 32 per cent favoured a motorway user charge and17 per cent favoured using rates.

You can read a full summary of the feedback on questions 2aand 2b here.

Feedback on question 2c showed strong support forimprovements to public transport, with 59 per cent ofrespondents supporting investment in this area.

2. Fixing Transport

lthough this budget strikes a good balance, we must stillo a lot more work to ensure we are making the best usef our resources. We have committed to a number ofitiatives to support this including an independent reviewf Auckland’s future port needs, reviewing our assets and

major shareholdings to ensure that we are optimisingeturns and identifying enough surplus property assets to

meet our targets.

LIBRARY HOURS

It was proposed that the council s tandardise andreduce library hours across Auckland. After gettingfeedback, the Council amended the changes to libraryhours for the Long-term Plan. Library hours willstill be standardised across the region, but the totalnumber of hours will not be reduced.

This will mean that 27 libraries have increasedopening hours, 24 will have reduced opening hoursand three, including the Central City Library, willremain the same. Several libraries, currently fundedto be open for six days a week, will now open sevendays a week.

Some local boards have elected to top up the libraryhours that are funded regionally, by using theirdiscretionary funding.

UPLIFTING MAORI WELL-BEING AND

ACHIEVING BETTER OUTCOMES WITH MAORI

Feedback generally supported Māori transformationalactivities, such as a Māori sig nature event, anddeveloping marae and papakāinga. As a result thecouncil will develop these activities over the next10 years to contribute to uplifting Māori well-being,enabling better outcomes with Māori and showcasingAuckland’s Māori identity. This will mean holdingevents that celebrate our unique Māori identity,protecting our Māori cultural heritage and buildingenduring relationships with Māori.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SUPPORT

AUCKLAND COMMUNITIES

After considering the feedback provided byAucklanders, the council made a number of decisionsthat will increase funding for s ervices that benetAuckland communities. This includes3:

• $1.9 million for Surf Lifesaving Northern Regionto redevelop the highest-priority surf clubs

• $830,000 for emergency housing, homelessnessand rough-sleeping responses across Auckland

• reinstating funding for the City of ManukauEducation Trust (COMET) by $235,000 per year

• underwriting up to $450,000 for the AucklandRescue Helicopter Trust, towards the purchase ofa new rescue helicopter in 2016/2017

• reinstating funding of $161,000 in 2015/2016for the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programmeto enable the programme to continue whileempowered community approachesare developed

• providing $72,000 each year for the AucklandFestival of Photography

• funding to support delivery of a World War 1memorial in the Domain of $400,000 operatingexpenditure and $600,000 capital expenditure.

3 These gures exclude ination

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingtransportchoices.pdfhttp://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingtransportchoices.pdf


8/19


OLMAR BRUNTON SURVEY

he council also commissioned an independent phone surveyf 5,022 eligible Auckland voters aged 18 years and older tosk about the transport options. Colmar Brunton conductede survey.

terviews were carried out in English, Hindi, Korean, Tongan,andarin and Cantonese between February and March 2015.

he resulting data was weighted to align with populationharacteristics by local board area. The survey design andonclusions were overseen by the University of Auckland.

esults of the survey are below:

Preferred transport network plan

5%Don’t know

or other

32%Basic transport

network

58%Auckland Plantransport network

5%Neither

SupportPreferred plan

Preferred funding option

2%Don’t know

57%Motorway

User Charge

31%Fuel taxesand rates

5%Neither

SupportPreferred option

The results supported the ndings of the consultation, with the

majority of responses (58 per cent) in favour of the AucklandPlan Transport Network. On funding options, the most popularchoice (57 per cent) was for motorway tolls.

Read the full Colmar Brunton report here.


The results of the consultation and survey did n ot come as asurprise. We know Aucklanders want the transport systemxed. They want alternatives to driving cars. We know thatbecause as soon as we can build and offer enhanced publictransport, Aucklanders are choosing to use it. Currently we aregenerating one million more rail trips every six months.

Aucklanders’ feedback in the consultation and the surveyshowed that they wanted to invest more to x transport and tostart xing it now.

This response has provided a clear mandate to raise the extrafunds needed to invest more in transport.

The next step for the council is to work with centralgovernment to reach an agreement on how Auckland canraise the required transport funding. This is likely to requirelegislative change and could take some years to establish. Inthe meantime, we know Aucklanders want us to start investing

now, so council agreed an accelerated an accelerated transportprogramme that includes extra investment of $523 million overthe next three years.

To help fund the council’s share of the programme, a three-yearInterim Transport Levy will be established from 2015/2016.The levy will be set at $114 a year including G.S.T for non-business ratepayers (about $2 per week) and $183 for businessratepayers (about $3.50 per week).

Over the next three years, this levy will raise $186 million, witha further $215 million funded from N ew Zealand TransportAgency (NZTA) and central government contributions and $122million from council borrowing.

F ocus more F ocus Les s

Figure 2 – Feedback on transport priorities Figure 3 – What the money from the interim transport levy will enable

R o a d s

S t a t e H i g

h w a y s

F o o t p

a t h s

P u b l i

c T r a n

s p o r t

( g e n e r a l ) B u

s T r a

i n

L i g h t R a i l

F e r r y

W a l k i n g

C y c l i n

g S a f e t

y

P a r k i n g

a n d

E n f o r

c e m e n t

F r i e g h t

O t h e

r0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingtransportchoices.pdf#page=59http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingtransportchoices.pdf#page=59


9/19


The rst step is to calculate how much money is required fromrates, compared to other sources, to run the city 4.

The second step is to work out what proportion of the totalrates is paid by businesses compared to non-businesses.Business pay signicantly more relative to their propertyvalue than non-business. This is being slowly reduced overtime because reducing the share of rates paid by businesseswill enhance Auckland’s reputation as a business friendly cityand reduce costs for businesses, thereby helping to promotebusiness and employment growth for Auckland.

The third step is to set a xed charge that every rate payerpays as a minimum contribution for council services. Thisxed charge is called the Uniform Annual General Charge(UAGC). The level at which it should be set was another issuewe engaged with Aucklanders on.

The remaining general rates requirement is then shared acrossall ratepayers based on the capital value of each property.Your property value is the main driver for the amount of rates

you pay. The higher your property value relative to others,the more rates you will pay. Recent revaluations have had animpact on how rates are shared across rate payers because notall properties experienced the same change in property value.The average increase in the value of a residential property inAuckland was 34.2 per cent so if your property value increasedby more than this then it is likely that your general rates willincrease by more than the average residential general ratesincrease of 4.2 per cent and vice versa. Increases in propertyvalue do not mean the council collects more income in rates –it only affects the share that each property pays.

Any targeted rates for additional services to the property areadded on top of the general rates you pay. For example, wastemanagement charges. From 2015/2016 your rates will alsoinclude the Interim Transport Levy, which is a targeted rate.Two key rates issues that we consulted Aucklanders about, andwhat you said, are discussed in more detail below.

BUSINESS SHARE OF RATES

The results of the 2014 property revaluation showed thatresidential property had increased signicantly more on averagevalue than businesses. As a result, maintaining the existing rateof reduction in the share of rates that businesses pay wouldhave resulted in an unintended additional ve per cent averagerates rise for non-business ratepayers.

In the consultation document for the 10-year budget wetherefore proposed slowing the rate of reduction slightly tomove from 32.8 per cent in 2015/2016 to 25.8 per cent in2025/2026, adding two years to the original timeframe andavoiding the unintended increase for residential ratepayers.This would have added 1.0 per cent to residential ratesincrease each year.

We asked Aucklanders:

Do you support gradually reducing business propertyrates from 32.8 per cent of all rates to 25.8 per centover the next 10 years?”

The majority (63 per cent) of feedback was against the proposalto reduce the business differential. The main reasons wereaffordability for residential ratepayers and a view that businesscan afford to pay a greater share. The other feedback was 28per cent in support of the proposal and nine per cent partiallysupporting or giving other feedback.

The issue is complex and in many cases respondents providedgeneral feedback against reducing the business differential,rather than commenting on the rate at which the reductiontakes place.

After considering the feedback provided and the options, thecouncil decided to reduce the share of rates paid by business ata slower rate than was proposed – agreeing to reduce businessproperty rates from 33.0 per cent of general rates in 2015/2016to 25.8 per cent in 2036/2037. This will limit the impact onresidential ratepayers to 0.5 per cent in any one year.

ates pay for the hundreds of essential day-to-day serviceshat the council provides. These include things like parkaintenance, rubbish and recycling collection, civil defence, dog

ontrol, upkeep of sportselds, cleaning up grafti, pollutionsponse, pest management and much more.

uckland ratepayers are split into three categories: residential,usiness and farm/lifestyle property owners. Calculating thehare of rates paid by each household and business property is aomplex process that involves a number of factors. Figure 4 is aep by step guide to how your general rates are calculated.

3. Your rates

4 Rates currently make up 43 per cent of council’s the income, or $1.57 billionin 2015/2016. The rest comes from investment returns such as the port orAuckland Airport shares, or from grants, fees and charges.

$1.39bnfrom

general rates

$385 is appliedto your rates

to ensure everyratepayer pays

a minimumcontribution tocouncil services.

Figure 4 – How your general ratesare calculated (2015/2016)

H o w m

u c h m o n e y w e n e e d f r o m

r a t e s t o r u n t h e c i t y

D e t e r m i n e w h a t p o r t i o n o f r a t e s

i s p a i d b y b u s i n e s s

S e t t h e f

x e d a m o u n t

p a i d b y a l l r a t e p a y e r s

R e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n i s

s p l i t a c r o s s a l l r a t e p a y e r s

Balance dividedacross all ratepayers

based on theirproperty’s

capital value

$3.19bnneeded to run

the city

$1.39bn from general rates

$1.80bnfrom other sources

including targeted rates

67% fromnon-business rates

33% frombusiness rates


10/19


KEY FACTORS

Key factors that may affect the amount you pay in rates in 2015/2016 are:

• the general rates rise – the amount of money the council will collect overall from general rates

• the Interim Transport Levy - this will be around $2 per week for residential ratepayers and $3.50 per week forbusiness ratepayers

• no further capping of rates

• revaluation - Auckland’s housing stock was revalued in 2014. These new revaluations will affect your ratesdepending on the change in the value of your property compared with the average change of 34.2 per cent. Thecouncil will not receive more money from this, but the share of rates across property owners will be different

• the level of the UAGC

• the share of rates that businesses pay.

OTHER DECISIONS ABOUT RATES

The consultation document for the 10-year budget also included a number of other proposals relating to rates. Wedecided to progress these proposals after considering the feedback from Aucklanders.Decisions included:

• City Centre Targeted Rate – the City Centre Targeted Rate was extended to 2025 and will now also includea targeted rate of $57.50 ($50 plus GST) per dwelling for city centre residents. The cost of running city centreprojects ($12.8 million) will be funded from the general rate from 2019/2020

• Māngere-Ōtāhuhu swimming pool targeted rate - this targeted rate will increase from $13.77 to $30.51 tofree adult entry to the pool at the new Ōtāhuhu Recreation Precinct

• landlocked properties - a new differential for landlocked properties charged at 25 per cent of the urbanresidential rate

• targeted rate for solid waste services – this rate including the new annual inorganic collection service, will bestandardised across Auckland where services, costs and funding methods are similar. The rate is adjusted wherethe services received are not standard

• Hauraki Gulf Island subsidy – the costs of providing solid waste services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands that are notcovered by targeted rates revenue from the area will be met from the solid waste targeted rates for the entireAuckland region, instead of just the former Auckland City Council area. Auckland Council will also work with thelocal communities of the Hauraki Gulf Islands to reduce costs and rationalise services where possible

• the remission for residents of licence to occupy retirement villages has been extended to include the Interim

Transport Levy from 2015/2016.Council will also progress work to assess rating options for motels and other temporary accommodation, farm andlifestyle properties and Māori freehold land as part of the development of the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

feedback forms,making 32,616feedback points

feedback pointswere received onthe UAGC

feedback points werereceived on businessdifferential

participantscommented on theproposed level ofUAGC at a have yoursay event

You can read a summary of the feedback on these topics here.

IN NUMBERSAGC

he level at which the UAGC is set affects the amount of ratesollected from high value properties compared with low valueroperties. A higher UAGC leads to lower rates for high valueroperties which some people think is fair because everyoneceives the same services, while a lower UAGC leads to lowertes for low value properties which some people think is fairer

ecause owners of lower value properties are often less ableo pay.

he consultation document set out a number of options forhe UAGC and proposed that it should be set at $385 per year,hich equalled 13.6 per cent of general rates.

We asked Aucklanders:

What do you think the xed portion of rates(UAGC) that everyone pays should be?

he highest amount of feedback (49 per cent) supportedhe proposal to keep the UAGC at $385. The next highest22 per cent) thought it should be higher, and 20 per centanted it lower.

fter considering the feedback from Aucklanders and thevailable options, the council agreed to set the UAGC at theroposed level of $385.

O FURTHER CAPPING OF RATES

ver the past three years, transition adjustments have been inace to smooth the impact of any signicant rates changes forsidential and business ratepayers, as the council moved fromght inherited rating policies to one. A 10 per cent cap haseen in place to limit what would have been large increases forome residential ratepayers. There was also a cap on residentialtepayers who would have received rates decreases.

o further capping is in the 10-year budget as the legislationhat enabled this policy has now expired. This will mean that alluckland properties of similar value and use will pay a similarmount of general rates.

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingratesandotherpolicies.pdfhttp://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingratesandotherpolicies.pdf


11/19



ousing and quality development is another big issueor Auckland.

While the council is not in the business of building houses, were taking an active role in improving the supply of qualityousing as part of our commitment to lift living standards forl Aucklanders.

he council currently has a planning and regulatory role tonable development and provide the essential infrastructureuch as water, roads and other services. This includes workingith central government to fast-track residential development

ithin Special Housing Areas and to progress the Housingction Plan.

o help make sure future development happens in the bestuited locations, and is good quality such as existing townentres where residents can live close to jobs and services,he council proposed to replace two existing council-controlledrganisations (CCOs) with a new CCO known as Developmentuckland.

evelopment Auckland would help facilitate projects atsuitable scale to see better urban development , andew residential and commercial buildings in redvelopedown centres and other good locations. This would includemalgamating small parcels of land in fragmented ownership,o that new, well designed buildings can be built. Fragmentednd, owned by many different small landholders, can be aarrier to more intensive urban development.

We did not propose that the council or any of our CCOs woulde directly involved in building any houses. Rather we wouldok for partners to develop surplus or underused council land.

merger would cause some organisational disruption andhere would be some costs associated with it. However, weroposed that those costs would be met from efciencies

ithin existing budgets.

Do you support the council taking a moreactive role in the development of Aucklandthrough replacing two existing council-controlled organisations (CCOs) with anew development agency?

IN NUMBERS


The proposal was supported by 42 percent of submitters withthe main rationale being that the new agency would lead toincreased efciencies and savings, and better housing throughimproved affordability, choice, and quality of the currenthousing stock.

Those who did not support the proposal (33 per cent) citedconcerns about costs, the risk of an increase in rates and thathousing development is not the role of the council.

You can read a summary of the feedback here.


The council agreed to replace two existing CCOs (WaterfrontAuckland and Auckland Council Property Limited) andestablish Development Auckland to take a more active rolein urban redevelopment.

The agency will be in place from 1 September 2015.

Since amalgamation Auckland Council has been working tostandardise fees and charges across the region to ensure thatall Aucklanders pay the same amount for services regardless ofwhere they live. The consultation document and supportinginformation for the 10-year budget included a number ofproposals to continue this programme of standardisation.These proposals and the decisions made are set out below.

Rent for social housing(housing for older people)The council proposed to set all rents for council owned socialhousing at 30 per cent of tenants’ pre-tax income. Changes to

rent as a result of this policy would be capped at $15 per weekper unit in any given year. Proposed changes in rent would bephased in with six monthly rent reviews with increases cappedat $7.50 per week.

Council staff visited all its housing for the elderly to discuss theproposal during the consultation process. Of the 366 feedbackpoints received from consultation, 355 (97 per cent) did notsupport the proposal.

The council considered the feedback and agreed to set the renton the council’s Housing for Older Persons units at 30 per centof tenants’ pre-tax income (adjusted annually based on thetenants, income). However any increases or decreases in a given year are to be limited to $10 per week and implemented in$5 steps each six months. This approach aims to minimise theimpact on tenants.

Street tradingThe consultation document and supporting informationproposed to standardise street trading licence fees and tointroduce standardised rental fees for street trading for theuse of public space.

After considering the feedback and discussing the impact onvarious areas across Auckland, we agreed on the proposedchanges, some amendments to ease the transition for somegroups of licensees.

Standardisation of other feesAfter consultation, it was agreed that the following fees wouldalso be standardised across Auckland:

• cemetery fees

• event permit fees – this includes a set of region-wide feesfor commercial, private and community events, a three-tierfee structure to reect the varying impact of events anddiscounts for community events

• all remaining fees and charges associated withenvironmental health bylaws and legislation - these feeswill be set at levels that recover the cost of providing theservice, with the exception of the re permit fee which willbe set at zero to ensure cost does not discourage peoplefrom applying for a re permit.

Other fees and chargesDecisions were also made on fees and charges for buildingcontrol, resource consents and property information, animalmanagement, food premises, health protection and hairdresserslicensing, harbourmaster service and solid waste bylawlicencing.

For details on the decisions on these fees please see agenda link.

4. Housing and development 5. Other regional decisions

Feedbackpoints received

In written form

In person CONTRIBUTIONS POLICYAfter amalgamation Auckland Council adopted a standardisedContributions policy, taking a transparent and consistentapproach to setting contributions payable by developers to fundthe cost of growth in Auckland. The council has amended thepolicy to comply with law changes passed last year.

The consultation document and supporting information forthe 10-year budget included a number of proposals to thecontributions policy. These were:

• increasing the number of funding areas

• increasing prices annually by ination

• changing the denitions and demand factors for somedevelopment types in particular:

- setting residential development chargesbased on house size as well as type

- including Kaumatua housing in the

retirement unit development type.

Over 200 points of feedback were received from consultation,which included an event held for the developmentcommunity. The feedback generally supported the proposedchanges. In particular it supported the proposed increase infunding areas to better align the expenditure of contributionswith the area where they were collected.

The council considered the feedback and will be increasing thenumber of funding areas for stormwater from 17 to 22. Thenumber of funding areas for parks will also rise, with details tobe worked through over the next 12 months.

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingdevelopmentauckland.pdfhttp://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/GB_20150507_MAT_6075.PDF#page=5http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/05/GB_20150507_MAT_6075.PDF#page=5http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan2015/Documents/ltpbriefingdevelopmentauckland.pdf


12/19


very three years each local board develops a plan for their areahich informs the long-term plan and guides their decisions. Acal board agreement is then developed each year between the

overning body and each local board, which sets out the localervices and investments planned for the area over the comingear. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year budget.

s part of the consultation for the 10-year budget, each localoard engaged with their community on the proposals forheir area. This section provides a summary of the key localroposals consulted on and the decisions for each local board.

Albert-Eden Local Board

The Albert-Eden Local Board consulted on the followingproposals for the next 10 years 2015-2025:

• Mt Albert town centre upgrade and Pt Chevalier,Sandringham, and Greenwoods Corner villagecentre improvements

• local parks, sportselds, and open space improvements,including Potters Park and Nicholson Park (stage 2)redevelopments

• town Centre public art

• local events such as Christmas, ANZAC day andcivic events

• Mount Eden historical heritage survey

• implementation of a comprehensive masterplan forChamberlain Park

• development of greenways connections.

In total, the Albert-Eden Local Board received 1006 submissionsand the majority of submitters supported the local proposals.There was particularly strong support for the Mt Albert towncentre upgrade (76 per cent); village centre improvements(71 per cent); Potters Park and Nicholson Park redevelopments(68 per cent each); and local events (80 per cent).

Over the next 10 years, the board plans to invest in community

programmes and initiatives, local events, community grants,support for local economic development, integrated urbandesign to improve public places, stream enhancement andsustainability initiatives.

The Mt Albert town centre renewal project and the Pt Chevalierplaza area project will continue to be progressed in 2015/2016.In later years the Board will upgrade Pt Chevalier, GreenwoodsCorner and Sandringham village centres, to revitalise theseareas and drive economic development.

The Board will also continue with its local parks, sportselds,and open space improvements programme which includes:the development of Potters and Nicholson parks; theimplementation of the Chamberlain Park Masterplan; MotuManawa walkway and upgrades for Fowlds Park, GribblehirstPark, Nixon Park, Phyllis Reserve, and Walker Park.

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board consulted on thefollowing proposals for the next 10 years:

• construct the Wairau Creek pedestrian/cycle bridge

• replace Black Rock bridge

• complete Torpedo Bay walkway

• progress the Korean Garden

• upgrade Barrys Point Reserve sports-elds

• upgrade Hurstmere Road

• progress coastal walkways

• support local community development, arts and culture

• develop Barrys Point Reserve

• protect our heritage.

Of the 814 respondents who made specic comments onthe local proposals, feedback was balanced, with 48 per centshowing general support for all of the proposals, and a further26 per cent having mixed views. In particular, there was strongsupport for coastal walkways, and heritage protection.

Other regional proposals impacting local board areas alsoincluded the standardisation of library opening hours, streetgarden efciencies and increased use of chemical spraying for

parks edging.After considering the feedback and the earlier feedbackprovided during the development of the local board plan, theboard has provided funding for the specic local projects above,will maintain an ongoing focus on heritage and communitydevelopment, including support for the arts and will fundincreased service levels for libraries, street gardens andparks edging.

6. Local decisions

NEW LOCAL BOARD CAPITALEXPENDITURE FUND

Throughout the development of the 10-year budget,a number of local boards sought additional capitalfunding to meet the investment needs of theirlocal communities.

The nal 10-year budget establishes a new localboard capital expenditure fund of $10 million peryear from 2015/2016. The fund will be for localboards to build council-owned assets, add to anexisting council-funded renewal or new capitalproject, work in partnership with an external provideror seed fund a community project.

Over the coming months we will determine howthe fund will be allocated between local boards anddene the criteria for eligible projects.


13/19


Franklin Local Board

he Franklin Local Board consulted on the following proposals

or the next 10 years:coastal erosion control

development of Waiuku Sports Park

facilities partnership scheme

events, grants and community support

funding for environmental initiatives, particularly focusingon waterways

upgrade of Pukekohe town centre

consideration of paying a targeted rate for additionalcommunity facilities .

f the 470 respondents who made specic comments on thecal proposals, 58 per cent indicated their general support for

hese proposals. In particular, there was signicant supportor the continued control of coastal erosion, and the provisionrants to community groups and event organisers, andommunity support.

fter considering the feedback, the board has funded theroposals listed above, with the exception of the facilitiesartnership scheme. Although there was support to continuehis fund, the board has decided to allocate funding in

015/2016 to undertake a comprehensive study of sport andecreation facilities. This will look at existing facilities and wherehe gaps are to inform future plans to accommodate the growthrojected for Franklin.

key advocacy area was to fund hydrodynamic modelling ofhe Manukau Harbour – the united voices of local boards on theanukau Harbour Forum led to this being funded as a regional

roject by the governing body.

Great Barrier Local Board

The Great Barrier Local Board consulted on the following

proposals for the next 10 years:• new and upgraded walkways including the Tryphena

Coastal trail, and the Claris to Crossroads, Harataonga andStation Rock Road walkways

• restore the Pah Beach stone walls

• environment enhancement, biosecurity and biodiversityprogrammes, marine protection and stream waterquality monitoring

• develop Medlands Playground and Plantation Reserves

• plan for the island’s abattoir and cemetery needs

• implement further infrastructure to support morealternative energy uptake, a waste recovery facility and 3Gcellphone access

• align initiatives with the aspirations of Ngati RehuaNgatiwai ki Aotea

• advocate for retention of the solid waste subsidy

• advocate for sealing or improving the island’s roads.

Of the 108 respondents who made specic comments on theselocal proposals, most indicated support. After considering the

feedback, the board has allocated funding to the proposalslisted above including walkways, the ecology and sustainabilityconversations, the Tryphena catchment water qualitymonitoring programme, supporting the waste minimisationrole, advancing marine protection in some form, pursuingthe abattoir proposal and investigating methods of dustsuppressants for the key island roads.

Feedback was strongly opposed to the introduction of a full userpays solid waste charge. This will not proceed and Great Barrierresidents will now pay a similar amount to what others in theregion pay.

Henderson-Massey Local Board

The Henderson-Massey Local Board consulted on the following

proposals over the next 10 years:• improve community safety in Henderson

• advocating for a pool, sport and recreation precinct andcommunity facilities at Westgate

• construction of Westgate library and community centre

• partnering with the Tindall Foundation to deliver the YouthConnections employment project

• converting the old Massey library to a youth facility oncethe Westgate library is built

• hold local events such as Snow in the Park, HendersonChristmas Festival, Kite Day, Movies in Parks and makingNeighbours Day a agship event for our local board area

• build a youth destination Park at Te Rangi Hiroa

• more people living in Henderson.

There were 324 people who made formal submissions andmany others gave feedback at local events, giving the board1183 pieces of feedback. Strong support (92 per cent) wasexpressed for the board’s community safety focus. There was72 per cent support for growth in Henderson and 82 per centsupported the board’s youth employment proposals.

After considering the feedback, the board agreed to fund thedraft local board proposals unchanged.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board consulted on the following

proposals for the next 10 years:• fund the development of Metropark East changing rooms

and facilities

• continue the development of Long Bay Reserves

• continue to support a seven day service at our libraries inOrewa, Whangapāraoa and Browns Bay

• complete the Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre upgrade

• update the town centre plan for Whangapāraoatown centre and progress development of a BusinessImprovement District in Silverdale

• support the delivery of local environmental programmesfocusing on the North-Wet Wildlink, Love Your Bays andWeiti initiatives

• complete improvements to Stoney Homestead to enableoperation as a community hub

• progress the development of a Business ImprovementDistrict in Whangapāraoa

• plan and develop a more connected network of walkwaysthroughout the Hibiscus and Bays area.

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board received 3,554 submissionsthrough the LTP consultation. There was 60 per cent support forlocal board proposals overall.

Key themes for the 2015/2016 local board proposals includedsupport for continuing seven-day libraries services (whilstaccepting reduced hours to this service), developing a towncentre plan for Whangapāraoa and a Business ImprovementDistrict for Silverdale, upgrading the Stanmore Bay LeisureCentre, continuing to support the delivery of environmentalprogrammes, and developing reserves at Long Bay.

After considering the feedback, the local board has funded theproposals listed above, with the exception of the changing roomfacility at Metropark East which will require further advocacyto fund the rst stage. Further sportseld development atMetropark East has been funded.


14/19


Howick Local Board

he Howick Local Board consulted on the following proposalsor the next 10 years:

continue to deliver a coastal management programme

progress the redevelopment of the Uxbridge CreativeArts Centre

continue to fund local community projects and events

further develop Barry Curtis Park, walkways, cycleways andplayspace at Flat Bush

upgrade Flat Bush Water Quality Ponds

develop the multi-use community facility, library andaquatic centre at Flat Bush

develop sportselds and install articial turf on keysports parks

develop Flat Bush green ngers, Murphy’s Park and TamakiInlet Walkway

extend existing walkways and cycleways and includeinformative signage

continue to deliver initiatives from our local board plan

investigate potential for a youth focussed facility ormore programmes for youth.

f the 1,300 respondents who made specic comments onhe local proposals, 62 per cent indicated support. In particular,roposals for continuing the coastal management programme,unding local community projects and events, extendingalkways and cycleways, developing the multi-use communitycility and library received the majority of support.

fter considering the feedback, funding has been allocated tol of the proposals above. The local board also considered

eedback on key advocacy proposals. There was general supportor the advocacy proposals, with the most common beingeveloping the Half Moon Bay transport hub, improving publicansport and trafc congestion including the Pakuranga Reevesoad Flyover. We will continue to advocate for these priorities.

Kaipātiki Local Board

The Kaipātiki Local Board consulted on the following proposalsfor the next 10 years:

• Local proposals for 2015/2016:

• redevelop the Marlborough Park Hall as a youth destination

• implement the Kaipātiki Network Connections Plan

• upgrade Birkenhead Town Centre

• complete the de-silting of Onepoto Ponds

• develop 136 Birkdale Road as a community space

• hold local Events

• Local board proposals for 2016-2025

• continue to implement the Kaipātiki NetworkConnections Plan

• upgrade Northcote

• Key advocacy areas were to retain library hours and retain

park service levels

Of the 826 respondents who made specic comments on thelocal proposals, 55 per cent indicated support, 21 per centindicated they were not in support and 23 per cent providedother comments. In particular, a signicant level of support wasreceived for retaining current service levels in our parks and atour libraries. Our capital development projects all received amajority support.

After considering the feedback, the board advocated in supportof the above local proposals. All local proposals will be fundedand the board has also topped up the agreed regional level forparks edging and library hours responding to the clear messagereceived from the community.

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board consulted on the followingproposals for the next 10 years:

• opening the new Ōtāhuhu Recreation Precinct andswimming pool in Ōtāhuhu in mid-2015

• assessing options for a multi-use community facility inMāngere East

• restore Seaside Park playing elds

• local economic development action plan to deliver onenterprise and tourism aspirations

• managing mangroves in the Manukau Harbour

• intiatives such as CCTV in town centres to improve safety

• ‘Ōtāhuhu Linkages’ and streetscapes for good qualityconnections around the Otahuhu Town Centre

• environmental initiatives

• canopy for Māngere Town Centre and public toilet.

There were a total of 565 submisisons, mostly from individuals,for Māngere-Ōtāhuhu. Out of 409 responses for local proposals,55 per cent indicated support. In particular there was strongsupport (82 per cent) for local economic development planfollowed by assessing options for the multi-use communityfacility in Mangere East (78 per cent). The local board agreed to

progress the proposals listed above.The board consulted on a local targeted rate for subsidisingentry for all 17 years and over to local pools. The boardconsidered the feedback which showed a balanced view for “insupport” and “not in support”. The board decided to continueits local policy of providing free entry for adults to swimmingpools through targeted rates.

The board also sought feedback on its proposal to meet costsfor maintaining current opening hours in local libraries. Theboard have resolved to fund costs from its local budget, forextending hours of operation as there was a strong support(69 per cent) for the initiative.

Manurewa Local Board

The Manurewa Local Board consulted on the followingproposals for the next 10 years:

• completing the nal stage of development of the NetballManurewa Community Events Centre

• Totara Park development

• CCTV and town centre safety initiatives

• holding local events such as Christmas in the Park, WaitangiDay celebrations, Santa Parade, Movies and Music in Parks,and Elvis in the Gardens

• develop a funding plan for a community performance artsfacility for Manurewa.

Of the 378 respondents who made specic comments on thelocal proposals, 64 per cent indicated overall support and therewas strong general support for all but one of the local board’sproposals which was to develop a funding plan for a communityperformance arts facility for Manurewa.

After considering the feedback, the board has funded theproposals listed above, apart from developing a funding planfor the performance arts centre. We also asked you aboutwhich was more important - redeveloping existing communityfacilities or a walk and cycleway network, and whether youwould support paying a local targeted rate to fund additionalcommunity facilities. You said you’d prefer developing existing

facilities and didn’t support a local targeted rate. Instead, thelocal board will explore partnerships and sponsorships withbusinesses and other organisations to develop extra facilitiesin Manurewa.


15/19


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

he Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board consulted on theollowing proposals for the next 10 years:

development of Waikaraka Park and Sir Woolf Fisher Park

streams, waterways and environmental restoration projects

continue community grants and events

investigation of possible BIDs (Business ImprovementDistricts) in Tamaki and Penrose

improved accessibility and increased use of Panmure Hall

implementation of a community safety plan

increased participation and partnership in sportand recreation

support for communities to enhance and celebrateneighbourhoods and public spaces.

he Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board received 935 writtenubmissions, and 50 people attended one of the local board’sHave your Say” events. Of the respondents who made specicomments on the local proposals, approximately 60 per centdicated overall support for the proposals, with particularlyrong support for ecological restoration projects, community

rants and events and the community safety plan.

fter considering the feedback, the local board has decidedo allocate funding in the 2015/2016 year to all the local

rojects consulted on in the LTP, with the exceptions of thevestigation of a Penrose BID (which the board will re-consider2016/2017) and funding specic initiatives for enhancing and

elebrating neighbourhoods and public spaces as the plannedroject is now unable to be delivered in this nancial year. Thecal board will investigate ways of using other funding to meet

his outcome.

Orākei Local Board

The Orākei Local Board consulted its community on prioritisingthe following proposals over the next 10 years:

• bringing forward the upgrade of the Meadowbank

Community Centre

• upgrading playgrounds and paved seating area atGlover Park

• developing the Shore Road eastern car park

• installing new sports eld lighting at Orākei Domain,Crosseld Reserve, Madills Farm and Shore Road Reserve

• continuing to advocate to Auckland Transport to progressthe Tāmaki Harbour Edge Connector boardwalk

• continuing to advocate to Auckland Transport to progressthe Pourewa (Selwyn) Station project

• advocating to the governing body for a more equitablebalance between larger-scale regional initiatives andinvestment at the local level.

Orakei had a high level of support for its proposals. A majorityof submitters supported all the projects and advocacy pointsthat the board consulted on. There was particularly strongsupport (over 80 per cent) for the Tamaki Drive boardwalk,the Pourewa (Selwyn) station and rebalancing regional andlocal investment.

After considering the feedback, the board will progress the

following projects in 2015/2016: the Glover Park entranceupgrade, sports eld lighting at Orakei Domain and CrosseldReserve, upgrading the entranceway at Crosseld Reserve andinstalling a new toilet at Madills Farm. It will also completedesign and consent for the Shore Road Eastern car park andprogress physical works the following year. In 2016/2017 theboard will install sports eld lighting at Madills Farm and ShoreRoad Reserve.

The Board is also progressing concept design for theMeadowbank Community Centre and looking at opportunitiesto progress upgrade work through a Public Private Partnership.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board consulted on the followingproposals over the next 10 years:

• fund business associations to promote public safety and

improve the Ōtara, Hunters Corner and Old Papatoetoetown centres (2015/2016 – $410,000)

• promote rehabilitation of Ōtara Lake and waterways(2015/2016 – $100,000)

• develop two community skills sheds(2015/2016 – $40,000)

• continue adult entry to swimming pools without charge,funded by a targeted rate (2015/2016)

• refurbish Te Puke o Tara Community Centre (2017)

• develop Ngati Ōtara Park multisport facility and marae(2020) – for community, cultural and health benets

• advocate for funding to develop a Papatoetoe and districtmuseum and arts facility, and Hampton-East TāmakiSports Park

• advocate for funding to realign intersection of Ormiston,East Tamaki and Preston Roads

• continue to deliver initiatives from our local board plan.

Written feedback was given by 400 people and organisationsfrom the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area. Another 20

people gave their feedback at Have your say events. Mostrespondents supported all the specic board proposals for2015/2016. Opinion on Colin Dale Park was mixed, with aroundhalf in support and half not in support. The board’s proposalto continue to enable adults to use the Ōtara and Papatoetoeswimming pools without charge was supported.

After considering the feedback, the board has funded all the2015/2016 proposals listed above and recommended to theGoverning Body that the targeted rate to fund adult entry toswimming pools is continued in 2015/2016.

Papakura Local Board

The Papakura Local Board consulted on the following proposalsover the next 10 years:

• a metropolitan centre master plan

• upgrades to Drury Domain

• Pahurehure Inlet cycle and walkways

• establishing community and teaching gardens at Karaka

• continued development of Opaheke Fields

• Takanini multi-use community hub and library

• developing a community arts programme

• youth development initiatives

• bringing more sports and community events to Papakura.

Of the 433 respondents who made specic comments on thelocal proposals, 60 per cent indicated support. In particular, 80per cent supported prioritising the Papakura-Manurewa area forregeneration and development; 73 per cent supported work ona metropolitan centre master plan; and 78 per cent supportedcontinuing the sports park development at Opaheke Fields.

After considering the feedback, the board has funded theproposals listed above. There was little support for a localtargeted rate to fund town centre improvements (only 38per cent) therefore the board will not be proceeding with thisfunding option. Instead the board will develop partnerships

with local businesses and employers to move forward withmetropolitan centre regeneration.


16/19


Puketāpapa Local Board

he Puketāpapa Local Board consulted on the following

roposals over the next 10 years:linkage improvements between Fearon Park and HaroldLong Reserve

construct a new marquee at Pah Homestead for functions

focus on delivering Initiatives for youth– Youth Action Plan,Youth Connections, Project P.E.T.E.R

local events and engagement

planning for Stoddard Road and implementation of theThree Kings Plan

implement the Local Economic Development Action Plan

sustainability initiatives including healthy homes andrestoration of streams.

f the 472 respondents who made specic comments onhe local proposals, 61 per cent indicated support. Oneroject stood out as very popular having attracted over 100ubmissions. This project is the proposal for a track networkong the Manukau foreshore reserves. Those submitters whoere less supportive (19 per cent) of the local proposals were

mostly concerned with cost savings and prudent nancialmanagement which is feedback that the board has taken

to account.fter considering the feedback, the board has funded thebove proposals after further reviewing cost allocations andentifying areas for trims and potential savings. The board also

dvocated to the Governing Body for funding towards the tracketwork along the Manukau foreshore reserves and has nowecured funding to continue this work in 2015/2016.

Rodney Local Board

The Rodney Local Board consulted on the following local

proposals for the next 10 years:• plan for and construct recreational walkways, bike trails

and footpaths

• continue to develop the Warkworth Showgroundsand partner with the community to progress themultisport facility

• upgrade main streets by implementing existing towncentre plans

• progress the expansion of the Kumeu Arts Centre

• upgrade town centre toilets in Kumeu and Warkworth

• undertake planning and concept design for a swimmingpool in Warkworth

• support communities to undertake environmentalrestoration projects

• partner with the community to build playgrounds inWarkworth and Kumeu and skateparks in Wellsfordand Snells Beach

• upgrade sportselds in Huapai and Warkworth

• upgrade the Warkworth Town Hall .

A total of 1397 people from Rodney provided written or onlinefeedback. In terms of feedback points from public meetingsand written sources Rodney received 22,751 points. There wasgeneral support for the local proposals with the constructionof footpaths and walkways receiving signicant support. TheRodney community also supported environmental programmes,as well as toilet, sportseld and mainstreet upgrades.

After considering the feedback, the local board has funded all ofthe proposals listed above. There was also signicant supportto continue advocacy for a co