Regional written feedback volume 1 · 2019-03-05 · Regional feedback 1.Waste management target...

Date: Tuesday, 28 April 2020

Annual Budget 2020/2021 Regional

WRITTEN FEEDBACK Vol. 1 (15–3336)

Sub # Organisation Local Board Volume

15 Regional 1342 Regional 1369 Regional 1560 Regional 1562 Regional 1580 Regional 1581 Regional 1756 Regional 1757 Regional 1801 Regional 1810 Regional 1964 Regional 11000 Regional 11017 Regional 11080 Regional 11420 Regional 11438 Auckland Rugby Union Regional 11444 Regional 11466 Regional 11473 Regional 11475 Regional 11476 Regional 11478 Regional 11479 Regional 11480 Regional 11481 Regional 11487 Regional 11488 Regional 11490 Regional 11492 Regional 11494 Regional 11495 Regional 11497 Regional 11498 Kumeu Valley Estate Regional 11502 Regional 11504 Regional 11505 Regional 11506 Regional 11508 Regional 11510 Regional 11511 Regional 11512 Regional 11514 Regional 11515 Regional 11516 Regional 11518 Regional 11519 Regional 11520 Regional 11521 Regional 11524 Regional 11525 Regional 11527 Regional 1


1528 Regional 11531 Regional 11532 Regional 11534 Regional 11535 Regional 11536 Regional 11538 Regional 11539 Regional 11541 Regional 11543 Regional 11544 Regional 11546 Regional 11547 Regional 11551 Regional 11552 Regional 11555 Regional 11556 Regional 11557 Regional 11558 Regional 11561 Regional 11563 Regional 11565 Regional 11570 Regional 11571 Regional 11572 Regional 11575 Regional 11629 Regional 11647 Regional 11928 Regional 11974 Regional 12037 Regional 12038 Regional 12039 Regional 12041 Regional 12043 Regional 12049 Regional 12053 Regional 12054 Auckland Coastal Defences Historical Trust Regional 12055 Regional 12072 Regional 12076 Regional 12179 Regional 12182 Regional 12188 Regional 12192 Regional 12196 Regional 12199 Regional 12209 Regional 12215 Regional 12216 Regional 12218 Regional 12424 Regional 1


2442 Tyla Trust Regional 12474 Regional 12481 Regional 12484 Regional 12506 Regional 12542 Regional 12549 Regional 12553 Regional 12568 Regional 12569 Regional 12596 Regional 12621 Regional 12625 Regional 12717 Aktive - Auckland Sport & Recreation Regional 12733 Regional 12745 Sport Auckland Regional 12761 Regional 12858 Regional 12859 Regional 12864 Regional 12865 Regional 12868 Regional 12876 Regional 12881 Nikau Retreat Regional 13028 Auckland Marina Users Association Inc Regional 13029 Property Council New Zealand Regional 13030 Grey Power Zone 2 Regional 13063 Coromandel Marine Farmers Association Inc. Regional 13191 Regional 13203 Regional 13208 Regional 13211 Regional 13220 Regional 13221 BIDS From Across Auckland Regional 13222 Ngati Awa-Ki Te Awa O Te Atua Regional 13223 AKBIDS Regional 13235 Regional 13239 Regional 13313 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Regional 13334 Auckland Anglican Social Justice Group Regional 13336 Hapai Te Hauora Tapui Limited Regional 1

1

Hi I don't think going to a annual fee is fair as once a pool is approved then there should be no cost to the rate payer . The council seems to not understand the ratepayer cannot keep paying out to council wims to gouge money out of ratepayers

Hour consent process should cover any future costs again this show how out of touch the Council is out of touch with the ratepayer!!!!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: [email protected] Date: 22/02/20 9:09 AM (GMT+12:00) To: [email protected] Subject: Auckland Council would like to hear your views

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.eReminders - Auck land Council Instalment Reminder.

Dear Sir/Madam

We are contacting you as proposals for our Annual Budget 2020/2021 may affect your property.

The attached letter gives more detail and the ways in which you can have your say on what you think of the proposal.

All consultation material are available on akhaveyoursay.nz.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Regulatory Services Auckland Council

To view PDFs download Acrobat Reader from the Adobe website. Further help on how to view PDFs.

CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. We do not accept responsibility for any viruses or similar carried with our email, or any effects our email may have on the recipient computer system or network. Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Council.

To help protect your privacy, Micro soft Office prevented auto matic download o f this picture from the In ternet.Download Acrobat Reader

#15

Annual Budget 2020/2021

Submitter detailsDate received: 24 Feb 2020 15:15

Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board: Outside Auckland

Regional feedback1. Waste management target rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) hasincreased due to international market conditions. To pay for this we propose to charge onlythose who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $20 a year (or $0.38 a week) to$141.03 (incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for allratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.

What do you think of our proposal?

Support

I support user pays on principle

2. Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

#342

In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through atargeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.

To cover this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate in these areas by:

$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to$144.16 a year), and20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00to $211.91 a year).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those wholive outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau Cityareas.


Support

As per previous responce

3. Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate.While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal in the Henderson-Masseyand Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area want tokeep the service.

The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43. Ourproposal is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and$320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of theservice to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers.


Support - continue the service

It is likely cheaper for the overall City ratepayer to continue the existing service but with increasesin cost recovery

Local prioritiesFranklin

I support most of the prioritiesI think the rural community in Franklin is being a bit short changed with the thrust towardsurbanisation

Other feedback5. Do you have feedback on any other issues?

I think the rural community i is being a bit short changed with the thrust towards urbanisation

#342

1

Annual Budget 2020/2021 To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Submitter details

Date received: 24 Feb 2020 15:29

Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board: Don't Know

Regional feedback

1. Waste management target rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international market conditions. To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $20 a year (or $0.38 a week) to $141.03 (incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.


Support

#369

2


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residents already meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.


$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93to $144.16 a year), and

20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from$191.00 to $211.91 a year).

If we don't do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those who live outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau City areas.


Support

charge them more, we have been paying for our rubbish in west auckland for years


Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pump-out service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area want to keep the service.

The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43. Our proposal is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we don't do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers.


Do not support - end the service

we already pay enough rates for things we don't want or use, such as the council using our rates to compete against private companies in the events industry

Local priorities

Other feedback

5. Do you have feedback on any other issues?

#369

3

The council needs to stop interferring in business and concentrate on their key responsibilities such as providing clean water, beaches, roads and infrastructure. The council has tens of millions of dollars tied up in their event AV company Auckland Live. This company has access to council rates to purchase AV gear and then competes against other private companies for work!!!!!!!!!!! Sell these assets, get out of this industry, leave the industry to the professionals and get on with doing your core work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

#369


Attachment:

Language:

Organisation name:






Do not support

Pay as you throw services should be implemented as used for refuse. This will encourage peopleto create less waste and will be a better long term strategy.

#560







Other

Not Applicable







Local prioritiesAre the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?


#560

Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hardcopy submission


Attachment:

Language:

Organisation name:






Do not support

Implement pay as you throw


#562














Auckland Council

#562

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/xrWbLbWofTRmThadeicd6A

1

Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Hard copy submission

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#580

2

Support




$14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16 a year), and

20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191.00 to $211.91 a year).








Local priorities

Are the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?

Other feedback


#580

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#581

2

Support








Support







Local priorities


Other feedback


#581

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board: Don't Know Central

Regional feedback





Support

#756

2

Don't use it but its a good idea








Support

Because it's charging the people who actually use the service







Local priorities

Other feedback


Funding upgraded noise control , staffing and training

#756

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Do not support

#757

2

we need to encourage and educate people on how to recycle. we should also set up free recycle centres in each suburb where people can go and drop recyclable items off themselves rather than just going to the dump and having to pay. no body will or wants to pay disposing off rubbish thats why people are dumping it on side of roads and parks etc and then the government pays people to clean it up








Other

again most of household rubbish is recyclable but the silly thing is our 240 litre recycle bin gets emptied every 2 weeks. the recycle bins should be emptied every week as is the general waste red bin lids we wouldnt have to throw recycle items into general waste bins just because the recycle bin is full and we have to wait an entire week or 2 to use it again







Local priorities

#757

3

Other feedback


#757



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Do not support


#801






Support







Local prioritiesFranklin

I support all of the priorities


#801



Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board: Don't Know Beach Haven





Support


#810






Support







Local priorities


Auckland Council

#810

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/Qh0bJ8J2OsqopJbuD4r1YA



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Support



#964





Support







Local prioritiesWaitākere Ranges

I support all of the priorities


Auckland Council

#964

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/xQ1r7YpQlsd0ScuuhqgNZg



Attachment:

Organisation name:






Do not support

There is so much homeless and people who cant afford food now you want to make people paymore money as a single mum and a rate payer it's hard enough now to make ends met if you dothis rubbish will be just dumped any where

#1000







Do not support







Local prioritiesManurewa

I do not support most of the priorities


#1000

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#1017

2













Local priorities

Other feedback


Happy to pay per year for pool fence inspections

#1017



Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board:








#1080









Local priorities


We do not support the proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspections to go annually. Wewould like the inspection and charging to stay at 3 yearly.

Auckland Council

#1080

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/WfSqwZB1OaYL3zQ6PXaqWg


Submitter detailsDate received: 3 Mar 2020 21:32

Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board:





Support



#1420





Support







Local prioritiesMāngere-Ōtāhuhu

I support most of the priorities

What activities would you like to better care for our local environment inMāngere-Ōtāhuhu?


#1420

1


Submitter details

Date received: 4 Mar 2020 14:23

Attachment:

Organisation name: Auckland Rugby Union

Local Board: Regional Organisation

Regional feedback



#1438

2















Local priorities

Albert-Eden

I support all of the priorities On behalf of Rugby we support the Local Board priorities on all counts. Rugby is grateful for the quality of facilities provided & we appreciate the minimal disruption to our delivery model. Specifically we would like to further support developments at Nixon Park as stated & happy to

#1438

3

further contribute to developments at Chamberlain Park. We endorse that greater access to better facilities for all the community, not just Rugby. We strongly believe in a 'Better Auckland Built by Rugby'.

Other feedback


With the change of development plan for Chamberlain Park will this highlight a shift in priority for improved sports fields within the Local Board?

#1438

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





Do not support

Costly for lower income earners

#1444

2








Do not support







Local priorities

Other feedback


#1444

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:


Regional feedback






#1466

2












Local priorities

Other feedback


test

#1466

1

Thank you for your email seeking feedback on your proposal to charge annually for pool inspections.

I agree that every new pool installed should be inspected and passed meeting all safety requirements, with possibly a $44.00 charge for that.

To keep your council administration costs down why keep re‐ inspecting pools which have already been passed?? Surely that is pointless and a waste of time and money for all concerned.

In the case of this pool, someone has to be home for the pool inspector to even access the property (to have a secure property which cannot be accessed is surely the point). This pool passed its inspection when first installed. In due course there were some new regulations and we made the appropriate improvements always meeting all safety requirements. We have recently been inspected again and our pool has passed.

I do not agree to changing regulations on existing pools which have been ‘passed’ and I do not agree to a fee for ongoing inspections of the same.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,


#1473

1

We agree with the proposed change Looks like a great new system

On 22/02/2020, at 9:07 AM, [email protected] wrote:

<mime‐attachment.jpg>

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,


<mime-attachment.jpg>To view PDFs download Acrobat Reader from the Adobe website. Further help on how to view PDFs.


<12344875942.pdf>

#1475

1

Subject: pool fencing

yearly 44 sounds fair

#1476

1

Hi Re Pool inspection and billing cycle. It is far more efficient for us to remain on a 3 year cycle than annually please do not increase our costs. We have no objection to the fee being included on our rates every three years. If the council wishes to reduce the rate payers and the councils huge financial burdens please extend inspection and billing to a 5 year cycle to achieve greater efficiency. The time old method of implementing smaller fees on a more regular basis allows for the unscrupulous to action increases on smaller invoices which eventually out way the combined one off bill.

#1478

Hello, we would like to keep the pool inspections as part of the rates, spread out over 3 years.

Thanks,

On Saturday, 22 February 2020, 09:02:04 am NZDT, [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote:

eReminders - Auckland Council Instalment Reminder.

Dear Sir/Madam

We are contacting you as proposals for our Annual Budget2020/2021 may affect your property.

The attached letter gives more detail and the ways in which you canhave your say on what you think of the proposal.


#1479

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/Pages/default.aspx

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/annual-budget-2020-2021/Pages/default.aspx

Kia ora

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My preference is for a three yearly inspection fee.

regards

#1480

1

Happy to include in rates but should lesser amount as the saving in admin should be passed to rate payers; $35 per year would be better.

Seems a bit off to suggest that we pay the increase amount and council gets all the admin cost saving.

Sent from my iPhone

#1481

1

Hello. Yes we agree that $44 per year is a reasonable proposal via rates. However more discount as incentive for early payment would be appreciated. Yours Sincerely.

#1487

We have been trying to get our pool fence inspected for some time nowas it is due and your staff can't even get the appointment times rightand arrive 1.5 hours earlier and expect us to drop what we are doingand where we are at all because they arrived earlier than the appointedtime or dont even turn up at all. Shall we send the council an invoicefor lost time at our works due to the council staff not turning up whenexpected when we have had to leave our place of employment to meetyour staff who can't even get an appointment time right. I bet youwould dispute an invoice for this.

You propose a $44 annual targeted fee.... over three years this equatesto $132 yet you propose to increase the 3 yearly rate from $130 to$135. Why not increase it $2 to match the $44 annual fee.

Another thing..... We as rate payers are paying all of these fees alongwith other fees on our rates like the Water Quality Targeted Rate. Where is this money going? We are always hearing about the beachesthat are closed because there is poo and sewage entering the water.

You are going to do whatever you want so asking us for our input is awaste of time.

Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:22 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

#1488

mailto:[email protected]

1

I am happy to have the fees included in our rates bill. Thanks.

Sent from my iPad

On 22/02/2020, at 9:09 AM, [email protected] wrote:

<mime‐attachment.jpg>

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,


<mime-attachment.jpg>To view PDFs download Acrobat Reader from the Adobe website. Further help on how to view PDFs.


<12342763659.pdf>

#1490

1

Hi i would prefer to keep it all as is.

On Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 9:07 AM , <[email protected]> wrote: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Dear Sir/Madam





#1492

1

I prefer inspections every decade. 3 years already over the top and annually is madness.

I will add that the current risk management approach is out of line with reality.

For example we have no kids, and the ocean has no fences. They failed our barrier last time because we had a vegetable garden. I dont even know where to start when I see this kind of culture with nothing to keep it in check. All that I know is it's the kind of culture that will thank me for my feedback before telling me that you're doing a better job by inspecting a barrier that doesn't change every single year.

Nothing that I say will matter, even if I'm right.

:

#1494

1

Hi, We agree to your proposal. Thanks n regards

On Sat, 22 Feb. 2020, 9:10 am , <[email protected]> wrote: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Dear Sir/Madam





#1495

1

Thank you for your email. We're happy to accept the new targeted rate of $44 annually for 3 yearly pool inspection. Regards

On Sat, 22 Feb 2020, 9:11 AM <[email protected]> wrote: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Dear Sir/Madam



#1497

1

I feel that is you are able to make a saving by invoicing us annually then you should pass this savings on to us instead of the government taking that savings and charging us the same if not more for the same service that we are paying in advance for. We have just had our 3 yearly inspection which should cover us for 3 years but then you plan to invoice us yearly in advance to then the payment is collected twice for the same period. I see some unfair play going on here. I would assume that we would not be charged the yearly fee for another 3 years if our inspection has been within the last year.

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 9:04 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1498

1

Hi thanks for the email about the changes, these seem to be all about the council saving money but then putting up the fee for the inspection, I think I would rather stick with the three yearly checkby the council as I know where I stand, last time I got an independent check it seemed to take forever, so would be happy for it to stay the way it is, thanks

On Saturday, 22 February 2020, 9:02:52 AM NZDT, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1502

1

Thanks for asking. I’m not bothered either way, whatever is the least admin hassle for you and me

Thanks

On 22 February 2020 at 09:14 [email protected] wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1504

Dear Sir/Madam

re:Assessment No

Thank you for the info regarding pool inspection costs from July 1 2020.

Providing pool inspections on a regular basis should cost as little as possible, provided they arecarried out properly. Please could you let me know what an IQPI would cost for each inspection? Ipresume this charge would be on top of the proposed annual charge of $22?

I await your prompt replyyour sincerely

#1505

Subject: Pool fencingDate: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 11:32:52 AM

$44 targeted rate Ok with me

#1506

1

We just read your letter. We are not adverse to spreading the payments over 3 years. I'm assuming the inspection still only happens once a year. However we have just had our pool inspected and paid $130.00 so we ill anticipate that this fee will not be added to rates for 3 years if this was to go ahead, otherwise we are paying double. Please confirm


Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1508

1

good idea

On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 09:29, <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1510

1

I am totally opposed to even having an inspection fee. One way to reduce your administration costs is to have no inspection at all. Alan Coulam


Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1511

let's keep it at a 3 yr check, too much admin. otherwise. Reduce the fee if the pool is always compliant.Tk u

#1512

1

Yearly is better if it really does reduce council costs

On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 at 9:05 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




‐‐

Colleen Bennett

Director / Co ‐ Founder


Bobux International Ltd 48 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, New Zealand PO Box 99196, Newmarket, Auckland 1149 TEL +64 9 969 0679 MOB +64 21 020 38602 SKYPE colleenbobux www.bobux.com

BEST DESIGN AWARDS WINNER 2017 | 2016 | 2015 RED DOT DESIGN AWARDS WINNER 2015

JUNIOR DESIGN AWARDS WINNER 2016

#1514

Subject: Pool fencing inspectionDate: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 5:05:35 PM

Assessment number This idea of having pools inspected annually is quite frankly ridiculous It means the home owner will need to be there more often The last time we had our pool fencing inspected we couldn't be there so it needed to berescheduled A pool fence does not change materially in 1 year what will happen is that differentinspectors will need to come back and if there is any issue it will cost far more to theowner and to council If you want to save money then push it to every 4 yearsYou can even have h ave a check list that owners can do with the technical requirementsthen have those done by the owner every 2 yrs and every 3rd time a inspector comesaround My fence has building permit and code of compliance why should it be inspected annuallyfor increased costs to me in time and money If you say it's a safety thing then as electricity kills people on regular basis why areelectrical cables inspected annually or every 3 years This idea has not being modeled very well Can you send me the modeling as well

#1515

Subject: Pool inspectionDate: Monday, 24 February 2020 7:27:36 pm

I do not think this work should be outsourced unless you fix the rates which can be charged by the outsourcecompany.

Please confirm external rates will be fixed.

Thanks you.Sent from my iPhone

#1516

Subject:Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 11:12:09 AM

Thank you for seeking feedback on the proposal to replace the three yearinspection with an annual one. I read the explanation but I want to make itclear that I would prefer to retain the three yearly inspection. I found theinspection annoying since the rules change so often thus requiring morealterations. I fear that there would be more changes and cost if the inspectionwas yearly.

So put me down for the status quo please.Cheers,

#1518

1

Hello,

Our thoughts regarding pool fence inspections are as follows. Keep to the status quo for the 3 yearly $135 fee, I’m sure we have paid this within the last year so would expect that to be taken into consideration.

#1519

1

Hi Sir/Madam,

The Spa‐Bath has been filled already. we don’t need to pay inspections any more.

#1520

Subject: POOL FENCINGDate: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 2:48:25 PM

1. Your web site fails to provide the promised form!!

2. I hung on to the phone for ages… no service!!

MY FEEDBACK… IT SHOULD ONLY BE NECESSARY TO INSPEC T A POOLONCE.

.

#1521

Subject: Pool Inspecrtion RatesDate: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 3:40:11 PM

25/02/2020

To whom it may concern,Re letter: Pool Inspection Rates

Upon reading this letter I would prefer to keep it as it is $130.00 payment every 3 years,As for this $44.00 added to our annual rates will this stay at $44.00 for the next 3 yearsor will it increase yearly.Answer this PleaseIf $130.00 is increased by $5.00 to $135.00 in 3years . What will $44.00 per Annum [ $132.00 for 3 years ] increase by in 3 years.Keep it as is a 3 yearly fee.I await your replyRegards

#1524

1

There is nothing in the survey about the pool provisions!

It makes sense for the pool licence fee to be incorporated into the rate fees for properties with a pool

Cheers

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1525

1

Brilliant


Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1527

1

Love to give my views but will you actually take any notice?

Thanks

On 22 February 2020 at 09:07 [email protected] wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1528

Subject: Proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspectionsDate: Monday, 24 February 2020 8:34:09 pm

In regards to your proposal I believe the present systems is the most pragmatic and transparent and do not wishto see a further targeted rate.

Regards

#1531

Subject: re new pool fencing inspectionsDate: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 8:52:19 AM

Hi Auckland CouncilGet lost with your annual inspection proposal!It used to be every 5 years.PLUS the cost to check my gate on a less than 5 minute job is ridiculous! Especially when there isan unfenced creek down the road!You would think when doing inspections the inspector would do inspections on all the pools in 1area rather than special trips for cost savings!

Regards

#1532

1

I support the annual targeted rate for pool inspections.

#1534

1

We are happy for the pool fencing assessment fee to be added to our rates invoice as stated in your letter dated 22 February.

#1535

Subject: Re pool fence payment change Assessment # Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 1:31:50 PM

I concur with your proposal to change to $44 annual payment via rates.

#1536

1

I am totally OPPOSED to the proposed changes that have been outlined in your letter of the 22nd February.

1. I cannot accept that generating a bill EACH year and the cost of POSTAGE for each of those three years is a lessercost to Council than ONE BILL every three years.

2. The three yearly bill as it exists now, could be added to the closest RATES BILL and council would actually SAVE onthe cost of postage and LOWER IT'S $74,000 ADMINISTRATION COSTS DIRECTLY.

3. Further to this. Why was this letter advising of your proposal NOT INCLUDED with the RATE DEMAND notice Ireceived a few days ago??? Wouldn't this simple move again SAVED thousands of dollars of administrative costs?

4. I object strongly to the implied threat that if pool owners DON'T accept this proposal the COST of inspection willincrease. This is tantamount to bullying tactics and unacceptable when coming from a public service. There isabsolutely no need for any increase AT ALL in the existing fee illustrated by the small amount being added. COUNCILIS DOING THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT CAN !!

On a public relations level this proposal fails on ALL levels. Council is putting up costs AGAIN when there is NO justifiable reason to do so. In fact COSTS TO COUNCIL COULD BE REDUCED by continuing with the current programme of pool inspection. I am not convinced that many pool owners need to "spread the cost" as described and it smacks MORE of council trying to smooth its revenue gathering to an annual rather than 3 yearly income stream.

Council needs to be reminded that it exists to serve the ratepayers. It is our money that council is spending and with a recession looking more and more likely, it needs to be seriously reviewing the way it relates to the city's population.

It is time Council took responsibility for its excessive costs and adopted basic cost‐cutting measures like those above and stopped threatening to raise the price of its services.

I would appreciate a response to the above please.

#1538

Hi ThereThank for your email. I am happy with the proposal for our Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Regards

Get Outlook for Android

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 7:02:52 AM

Subject: Auckland Council would like to hear your views


Dear Sir/Madam

#1539

https://aka.ms/ghei36


1

Auckland council will save lot money. Auckland council should get rid of incompetent staff earning $800000.00 per year salary.

Auckland transport has thief’s stealing parking meter money. The loot has been shared by the management. I complained to the Financial controller deputy mayor Bill cah More Phill Geof Auditor general. They are interested to investigate . it seems they are party to the loot.

The Auckland planners are very incompetent. For example maioro road Richardson road and the ramp to motor way was changed 5 or6 times while under construction and could have saved millions of dollars.

The cycle lane on Sandringham road . the wing of butter fly has gone fly away only the thorax remained which is very dangerous to the motorist specially at night when raining. The vehicle run over the thorax get damage.

The beneficiaries are the planner the management who gets free meals and amber liquid and gift from the contractor. Other beneficiary are the mechanic granges the car parts owners. The losers are the motorist and the rate payer.

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,



#1541

Subject: Re: Auckland Council would like to hear your viewsDate: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 10:46:29 AMAttachments:

Good morning,

We refer to your email dated 22/2/2020.

We are happy for the targeted rate of $44 per year for the swimming pool inspections asoutlined in your attached letter received on 22/2/2020 on the basis that Council willarrange the swimming pool and spa pool 3 yearly inspections.

Kind regards

Dear Sir/Madam


#1543

1

Head of Healthy Waters Strategy: Attention:

Good morning , I am in total dismay at the proposed changes to the actual charge rate paid for our tank pump out. When you work out the cost per three year cycle, at the present rate of $594, is way over the top now for three yearly pump out.

They don’t just come out to Bethells Beach and do one tank at a time. They do the street and area at the same time which is cost efficient. The system they use is by a smaller truck that is used to pump out local septic tanks, then transferred into a large semi tank trailer, that is park up at Bethells Valley. This smaller truck can do a large number of local septic tanks at the same time.

Are they doing what is required by the Council to clean out local tanks, are they just skimming? do you the Council actually check this process?

The process they use is, access the lid, 15 mins. They then start the pump out, about 20 ‐ 30 mins. As my system is a one person per day full flush. (Have half a brick in the toilet tank its self) Then there might be about 2 – 3 half flushes per day. This means my system does not have any scum on the top and hardly smells. They just do a little pump out then that’s it.

Now you are asking for $780 – $960 per three year pump out.

This is nothing but a bloody rip off Mr Chin.

I strongly appose any extra cost associated with the pump out rate per three year cycle.

People should be made to get their own tanks done. To keep an eye on this, the Council should do a yearly check themselves to get the owner to do a pump out if required. There would be the odd owner that will not have the available funds at their disposal, then the Council can pay the cost and add it to their rates the following year. Also they can coordinate other tanks at the same time per year, as to keep the cost per pump out down.

Regards

PS Have you rang and got a quote from another Septic Tank Waste Disposal Company. Ask for a quote on just one property tank clean out?

#1544

2

Pretending to be a local property owner?

#1544

1

Please accept the below as a written submission on the Waitakere rural sewerage service targeted rate. Attached is the email confirming his position (do not support ‐ end the service). Can you please reply to confirm you’ve received this and if a submission number is allocated? Ngā mihi Lizzie

Good morning Mr Chin. First I like to thank you for your phone call. This email was prior to your phone call. If I need to fill in proper forms, please let me know, for a legal submission. Regards

Head of Healthy Waters Strategy: Attention: Mr Andrew Chin: Good morning Mr Chin, I am in total dismay at the proposed changes to the actual charge rate paid for our tank pump out. When you work out the cost per three year cycle, at the present rate of $594, is way over the top now for three yearly pump out. They don’t just come out to Bethells Beach and do one tank at a time. They do the street and area at the same time which is cost efficient.

#1544

2

The system they use is by a smaller truck that is used to pump out local septic tanks, then transferred into a large semi tank trailer, that is park up at Bethells Valley. This smaller truck can do a large number of local septic tanks at the same time. Are they doing what is required by the Council to clean out local tanks, are they just skimming? do you the Council actually check this process? The process they use is, access the lid, 15 mins. They then start the pump out, about 20 ‐ 30 mins. As my system is a one person per day full flush. (Have half a brick in the toilet tank its self) Then there might be about 2 – 3 half flushes per day. This means my system does not have any scum on the top and hardly smells. They just do a little pump out then that’s it. Now you are asking for $780 – $960 per three year pump out. This is nothing but a bloody rip off Mr Chin. I strongly appose any extra cost associated with the pump out rate per three year cycle. People should be made to get their own tanks done. To keep an eye on this, the Council should do a yearly check themselves to get the owner to do a pump out if required. There would be the odd owner that will not have the available funds at their disposal, then the Council can pay the cost and add it to their rates the following year. They can coordinate other tanks at the same time per year, as to keep the cost per pump out down. Regards

PS Have you rang and got a quote from another Septic Tank Waste Disposal Company. Ask for a quote on just one property tank clean out? Pretending to be a local property owner?

#1544

1

Thanks for the confirmation Lynton, and for taking the time to share your concerns. Your email will be provided to the consultation team as feedback – no need to do anything further. Andrew did read your email, just asked me to reply as I have been doing so for many other emails on this topic. Ngā mihi

Good morning . Thank you for your prom reply. I my email, I have address (What do you think of our proposal). My proposal is the last paragraph in my email. Which means; Do not support – end the service. (With conditions) If this is not appropriate and I need to fill in the necessary forms can you email them please. Also, I hope Mr. Chin read my email as to look at what they do to service our septic tanks. Regards

#1544

1

Dear Sir/Madam We are contacting you as proposals for our Annual Budget 2020/2021 may affect your property. The attached letter gives more detail and the ways in which you can have your say on what you think of the proposal. All consultation material are available on akhaveyoursay.nz. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you,

#1546

I am writing as a pool owner and in reaction to the letter dated 22 February 2020 inviting our response.

I note from the watersafety.org.nz - 2018-preventable-drowning-report, the national number of preventable drownings was 68 in 2018. This includes all forms of water activities ranging from beaches, water holes & rivers, through to angling & baoting activities, and swimming pools. My point is that the pool environment is unlikely to change dramatically during a 3 year period (with the cavaet being renovations that are captured through other bylaws), making the 3 year pool barrier inspection a poor use of council resources.

Perhaps a more efficient method to replace this 3 year inspection could be the grading of a pool environment from high to low – with lower graded pools (ie: with a history of remedies required) requirying more regular inspections than higher graded environments. This would no doubt apply limited council resources to areas of concern, whilst reducing the time wasting and cost for the majority of pool owners.

As the proposed inspection currently occurrs every 3 years, and takes less than 15 minutes to complete, the current rate of $130 values the process at over $1m revenue pa (with the proposed $44pa slightly exceeding this).

Perhaps it is time for Council to reflect on the process rather than any proposed enhancements

Regards

#1547

1

dear whoever. I would like to stay with the $130 three yearly inspections.

Does this mean we prepay for 3yrs before inspection or pay 1 yrly after inspection? If prepay is intended see:

A.We may sell within 3 years and lose what we paid yearly.B.We may decide to remove the pool and as above.

C. The money is better in my bank than in the councils

#1551

Subject: Swimming Pool invoicing.Date: Monday, 24 February 2020 7:31:54 pm

Thank you for just another idea incumbent of a totally inept Council, ifyou think for one moment i would be sending you any advance funding fora council to save $74k in operating cost you are very much mistaken.

What you need to focus on is reducing staff at seiner level and putGeoff at the top of the list, if you believe the public will go alongwith your rhetoric in the enclosed letter clearly you are as stupid asthe swinging dicks that came up with the idea.

Buffoonery at its best, now you understand why the Auckland council ratelower than any other council in the country.

Have a nice day perhaps a reality check is in order, how many times haveyou clowns promised a price reduction for early payments and then founda different avenue to still recover the difference then adding moreswinging dicks to your already over indulgent council totally out ofcontrol.

#1552

Subject: your letter of 22 feb 2020Date: Tuesday, 25 February 2020 1:08:07 PM

Proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspections.

Question:How often do you inspect your own security fencing or your fencing around waterways. Likewisehow often do you inspect drain lids and culverts?

I think you have missed the point of what this is about.

Pool Owners require a fair system that is not only understandable and transparent but isaccountable to what was signed off.

Pool owners do not have an appetite to change their fencing around their pool because the costis prohibitive.

Why wouldn’t you overhaul all your out of date systems and have a blanket policy for all theseareas, that these drains, ponds, pools, lids must be photographed and uploaded to a cloud basedregister every three years. The cost would be negligible and most owners would be compliant.Likewise what is the cost of becoming a iqpi, maybe everyone could do the 5 minute course.

This scam of changing a three yearly fee to an annual charge is just another funding grab by acouncil that is incapable of balancing its books and like the fuel tax is sinking money into trainsets and broken pipes.

I think most people have had a guts-full of being fleeced.

#1555

1

Morning In reference to pool fencing inspections, we would prefer a annual charge of $44.

#1556

1

I vote to stick with the existing three (3) yearly inspection. Thankyou.


Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1557

1

As I do not have a pool, no issue for me, except I do want to see Council expenditure reduced, Regards,


Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1558

1

The pool inspection fee $130 target with rate isn't very correct and clear. I prefer maintain present way to avoid misunderstanding for fees charging as well as privte agent's uncertainty requirements.

Thanks for your attention and regards,

<[email protected]>

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1561

1

I support the introduction of the above targeted rate for swimming pool owners. Regards

#1563

1

Dear Sir

I have read the proposals as set out re the targeted rate which may be be included in my rates demand forthe period as set out.

I would like to make my views on the matter.

1. Can you clarify how the targeted rate of $44.00 starting on the 1 July 2020 will effect me when I havealready paid $128.00 on the 19th June 2019 for the pool inspection fee for the next three years.

2. If this proposal is put in place do you intend to credit the remaining balance of the two years left on thecurrent inspection.

3. I realise that there has to be a uniform starting time for any such action and would be interesting to knowhow you intend to implement this proposal when I have already paid in advance of your proposed targetedrate start.

4. Also will the extra Charge if applied to our rates demand be a separate line item as the targeted publicswimming pool charge for the public Otahuhu and Mangere pools.

#1565

Increased bus movements to Ellerslie train station from Campbell road and rockfield road.

#1570



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






Support


In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a

#1571

targeted rate. This targeted rate no longer meets the cost of collection. In other areas, residentsalready meet the full cost of rubbish collection via pay-as-you-throw.





Support








There is a new suggestion to charge the pool inspection fee year instead of 3 yearly. I oppose thisand would like to keep it at 3 yearly.

Auckland Council

#1571

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/pWJ77f3YlV2cajONAm9IvQ

1

I am totally opposed to the proposal to replace the $ 130 three yearly swimming and spa pool barrier inspection fee with an annual targeted rate of $44, starting from I July2020, for the following principal reasons :

1) there is no saving in money. Over 3 years the cost is $2 more and for those who paidtheir$130 in the last year, expecting a reprieve from inspection for the next 2 years, it issubstantially more:

2) A three yearly inspection is entirely suitable for permanent fencing to stand the testof time.In my experience over 20 years, there have been no additional requests from thepool inspectors:

3) This is work creating and will result in a substantial increase in the number ofinspections and inspectors required and hence the annual running costs. We need tothink of ways to reduce the annual costs of running the Council rather than thereverse.

Sincerely

#1572

1

To: <[email protected]>

Hi, There

I have received a letter from you. Regrading proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspections I would like to have to feedback form. We do not use pool currently, We would like to reduce pool rate inspection.

Please send me it.

#1575

1

To whom it may concern:

I oppose the felling of 2000 exotic trees in Auckland over 14 maunga. In these days of global warming we need all the advantages that trees give to the environment and the way they nurture the smaller trees.

On Owairaka this nurturing is seen in abundance where the native seedlings are growing under the exotic trees. I see no reason spending huge amounts of money to remove mature trees for no purpose.

There is ample space on the maunga to plant more native trees without having to resort to felling healthy exotics.

#1629

1

I think it should be left as it is 3 yearly.

Dear Sir/Madam





Thank you,




#1647

This letter proposes a further increase in inspection charges and annual payments. You areasking for comments.

I had significant email correspondence with various staff at Auckland Council last yearover the need to address what was obviously inefficiencies in your department. As youwill appreciate other departments have the same problem as well but that does not makethis right. To overcome these inefficiencies you just charge what is necessary to cover thedepartment costs. I had two issues, firstly the need to organise inspections efficiently andsecondly the need to get your accounting systems accurate. As a retired charteredaccountant with experience in charge rates and operating businesses effectively, I offeredto help improve your efficiency and would not charge for this. One of your staff said theydid not need my services as they had introduced systems that would improve efficiency. Isuspect this was a fob off as next thing charges went up from $128 to $130.

In simple terms, you are now suggesting a further small increase to $132 per inspectionand no doubt this is just to open the door for more increases later. However you are doingnothing to provide a service at a fair cost to ratepayers. What is needed before changingthe method of charging is to work out what is a fair rate and how to run the departmentefficiently. The first way is to have the city divided into sectors. Eg Bucklands Beachwould all be done at one time. This would mean some pools may be done after only 6months and if this happened then the charge would be one sixth the 3 yearly rate. Mostinspections take 5 minutes. At present the inspector has to come out often for just one ortwo inspections then go all the way back to complete the paper work. In sectors perhaps20 pools could be done in one morning by one inspector. Actually your people who comeout are very good and I do not blame them for the haphazard way your departmentoperates. I think most of your staff are probably wanting to do a good job for ratepayersbut they are defeated by the beauracracy Progressively working around the city wouldmean charges could be reduced to a more realistic figure making ratepayers happier andhave less agro for the staff from ratepayers feeling ripped off.

On the accounting, I am not sure what can be done but we had several cases last year ofone person saying one thing and then some heavy handed person stepping in and referringa disputed account ( indeed an account that was not owing at all) referred to Baycorp.Another example of a system working in a haphazard way.

I think you will get a lot of support from ratepayers if you get your department operatingefficiently with a fair charge for the few minutes need for an inspection. The change toannual charges is no help to ratepayers and does not address the real issue.

As I said, yours is not the only inefficient department. Building is possibly even worsewith hour rates of $192 for checking documents . Total council charge for checking 4times the cost of the consultant who prepared the documents. This department were ratherpatronising in advising that if they did not charge these rates, the department would have tobe subsidised from rates and we would not want rates to go up. As you know they go upby roughly double inflation each year. I am quite sure that building department needs alsoto be run in a business like manner. As I pointed out any business that was run the way

#1928

council operated would have long been priced out of existence.

My offer is still there. I am happy to help the pool inspection department to become moreefficient at no cost. But the proposal to charge annually is nothing more than moving thedeck chairs on the Titanic.

#1928

1

To whom it may concern.

I support the right of the Western Springs Speedway to exist at its current position and to offer speedway entertainment as it has done for the last 90 years. Everyone who has moved into that area or purchased property in that area will have known prior to purchase of the existence of this entertainment venue and the associated noise and traffic issues as a result. If this venue is banned, next will be Auckland Airport to be relocated as this venue affects more rate payers than any other single operation.

This is just silly PC reactions to people who won’t take responsibility for their own choices. Happy to discuss further if required.

#1974

I was sent a letter from Ak council about charging of pool inspections

Leave it as it is every three years for the fees. Invoice separately

#2037

1

Dear , Mayor Hon Phil Goff In our city From 27 February to 1 March five indoor performances of ‘Shen Yun Performing Arts 2020 World Tour’ event are scheduled to carried out which will be lasting for four days in the Aotea centre of Auckland. According to the official information, performers of Shen Yun are coming from all around the world and this event is a part of their world tour. Besides, the Aotea Centre has the ability to take up to 2139 people in one performance. Which means more than 2000 people will be kept indoor with performers coming from and performing around the world who are more likely exposed to COVID-19. We do not dare to imagine if there is some unwanted thing happens, how badly the consequence will be？After four day five performances is the number of possible affected people that we can keep under control？ Enclosure is Investigation Report there are over 10,000 People from 50 associations said “cancel" to shenyun Performance

#2038

I would like the inspection to stay three-yearly. All the requirement need to be a checklist(tick the boxes) with far less cost to the owners. I don't need a long typed report withphotographs -- PHOTOGRAPHS? I know what my little pool looks like. All this wasposted to me in a very large envelope which went straight to the bin. What a waste of timeon the inspector's part. More expensive postage and further paper waste to be disposed off.Multiply that level of wastage across Auckland. Stop empire building and reduce the paperwaste.

#2039

In my opinion, the $130 three yearly should stay.@ $44.00 per annual charge, times this by 3 (3 year comparison) is $132.00, really littledifference in costsEven if you increased rate to $135.00 for 20/21 period, again not a huge difference

Thank

#2041

Dear Sir/Madam/Non Binary Entity

I am somewhat confused by the letter I received dated 22 February re pool inspection fees

This letter states the intent to replace the 3 yearly swimming pool inspection fee with anannual targeted rate.

This implies that at present we are charged a one off fee every 3 years when our pools areinspected.

This appears to be misinformation and incorrect.

I am based in the old Auckland City limits and our pool inspection has always been part ofthe general rates we are charged.

We have never been charged a separate fee on each 3 yearly inspection unless the poolrequires a re-inspection and the inspectors have to come out a second time.

I therefore object to the current proposal as it appears to be double dipping, in that in futurea target rate is going to be charged on top of our existing rates that already includeallowances for services such as the initial pool inspection.

Yours

#2043

Dear Auckland Council,

Thank you for your request for comment on the proposed targeted rate for swimming poolinspections.

I strongly oppose this suggestion and believe the cost of these inspections should come out ofthe general rate paid by all Aucklanders.

We own a swimming pool which I am quite happy to keep safe for my family and passers-by,however the inspections are not something I have ever requested but have been imposed onswimming pool owners by the council and government.

Secondly passers-by also have an obligation to ensure their children are safe wherever they are,be it on the beach, on roads or when next to a property with a swimming pool. Consequentlypool owners should not bear an extra cost for the inspections and the cost should be shared byall.

Kind regards,


Dear Sir/Madam


#2049


Many thanks for your letter informing us of proposed changes to this service coming into effect1 July 2021.

I agree that those not needing the service should not be subsiding those of us who do. However Ido question the price of$198 per annum being raised to an estimate of $260-$320 per annum. This concern is based ona quote I was given today by Hydrotech of $450+GST. We are a household of two who make lightdemands on the system and have already elected to only use the pump out every 6 years andwhen done always told it is in very good shape. We are already subsidising others and have beenhappy to do so.

But now I do wonder how the council can justify the anticipated new cost which could equate tonearly a thousand dollars per pump out ?

I look forward to hearing from you

#2053



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name: AUCKLAND COASTAL DEFENCES HISTORICAL TRUST





Support



#2054






Support








Devonport-Takapuna

I support most of the prioritiesNEED TO ADD- PROTECT OUR HERITAGE AND MAUNGA FROM TMA CHANGES, WITHOUTCONSULTATION.


THE TUPUNGA MAUNGA AUTHORITY ARE RECEIVING FUNDING FROM ALL RATES, TOMANAGE OUR MAUNGA, YET ARE REFUSING TO SEEK OR ACCEPT INPUT FROM ALLLOCAL COMMUNITIES BEFORE MAKING CHANGES TO OUR JOINT TREASURES!PROPOSE NO ACC FUNDING UNTIL TMA COMPLY.

#2054



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






Support



#2055






Support









Auckland Council

#2055

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/pf7TtZ3-zdTdsElj9v7jBQ



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






Support



#2072













Auckland Council

#2072

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/OLT7hAtXzR70CaL3bdkwmw

1


Submitter details


Attachment:

Organisation name:

Local Board: Don't Know Auckland City

Regional feedback





Support

#2076

2

Fair








Support

Fair







Very impt to Manukau Harbour and waterways to keep septics functioning as well as possible

Local priorities

Albert-Eden

Local Boards need a great deal more decision making powers than they have at present

Devonport-Takapuna

#2076

3


Franklin


Hibiscus & Bays


Howick


Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

What activities would you like to better care for our local environment in Māngere-Ōtāhuhu?

Ōrākei


Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Puketāpapa


Upper Harbour


Waiheke


Waitākere Ranges

#2076

4


Waitematā


Whau


Other feedback


The idea that residents should only give feedback and have a say on their residential area local Board is really silly.Parts ofAK are used by all residents ie central Ak Takapuna NS beaches, regional parks CBD the Harbours the Gulf Islands ....so all AKers can contribute our views and get the facilities we all need

#2076

Subject: $44 annual pool chargeDate: Friday, 6 March 2020 8:01:10 am

No no no no

When you check the pool I will pay the money. What will happen is you won’t check the pool as you don’thave enough resources but you will still get $44 per year.

Auckland Council - stop this nonsense. Another charge is not what is needed.

#2179

Subject: feedback on pool annual permit and costDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 3:07:37 pm

Re pool fencing inspections and feedback

I own a house in Auckland which is rented out, with a broken unfilled spa and gazebo. It has notbeen used for 5-7 years. I don’t want to pay an annual licence for something not worki g or notused, I just have not dumped it.

Thanks

#2182

Subject: Fwd: Proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspectionsDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 5:45:17 pm

Hello,

My fiance and I both do not support the Proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspections.

We do not believe there is any benefit to us in having the council hold onto our money and for usto only receive a service three years later. The money stated to be saved on our side, by followingthis proposal, can be made by placing our money in an interest account instead of handing it overto the council. We do not wish to pay for the inspection until we receive the service.

We do not support the Proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspections and wish to pay onlywhen a service is rendered.

Kind Regards,

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Annual Budget 2020/2021 Consultation

Auckland Council

Kia ora

We sent an email/letter to you on 22 February about the proposed targeted rate for pool fencinginspections as part of the Council’s proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Proposed targeted rate for pool fencing inspections

#2188

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/mail/link/ORxA5MEDLIyeYjnXloH7HQ

1

I definitely feel it should be a one off expense not added to our rates. I don't know why you can't drone it to make sure the fence is still there.

Nga mihi

#2192

Subject: Pool fencing rateDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 6:13:40 pm

I do not agree with a targeted annual rate, please leave it as is.

Sent from my iPhone

#2196

Subject: Pool ratesDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 6:21:08 pm

Hi

I reject having pool inspections in general rates. I prefer a fee attached to an event rather than the endless taxingthat is Council Rates.

I reserve the right to independent inspection.

Thanks

#2199

Subject: Proposed Targeted rate for Pool FencingDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 3:48:35 pm

To Whom It May Concern

I wish to register that I do not agree with the council’s proposed plan of an annual targeted rateof $44 per annum and would prefer the three yearly $135 fee to be introduced.

It is unbelievable that it will cost the council more to process one invoice every three yearscompared to three invoices every year.

Nāku noa na | Kind regards,

#2209

Subject: swimming pool changesDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 5:06:47 pm

HI I am fine with the new system if is easier for the council to administer

thanks

#2215

Subject: Swimming Pool Inspection SurveyDate: Thursday, 5 March 2020 5:05:32 pm

I can’t see what is wrong with the 3 yearly process. As many people work and access to properties isn’t always possible whether it be dogs or fences every three years seems easier.

Kind regards

#2216

Date: Thursday, 5 March 2020 9:37:45 pm

Dear Ak.Council, thanks for your hard work.Keep it up .This might be off topic a bit but it is very sad regardingall the drownings.I wonder if you could get someone like

to give each school lessons and maybe a few publiclectures on water safety ,drowning prevention and how to swim .Maybe Surf Lifesaving could help too re thesurf lectures.

Ps any person drowned is a tragedy.

Sent from my iPhone

#2218



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name: Tyla Trust






Support



#2442






Support









Auckland Council

#2442

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/YW7EPx245h4H67ws0x4-cg



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






#2474

Do not support

AKLD city council can incentivise everyone including user to provide options for recycling- perhapsrebates. Consider the environmental costs & spread for everyone to minimise burden for Pacificpeople.




· $14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93to $144.16 a year), and

· 20.91 a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from$191.00 to $211.91 a year).



Do not support

Concerned about increase to rents/@ a higher rate than the increased cost. As per the aboveanswer- council can consider recycling options.







Target to rate payers- less charge for renters.


#2474

Auckland Council

Unclear how the priorities will meet the needs of people who survive hand to mouth – day to day.


I think there is a lack of transparency of how costs for local board priorities have been apportionedfor, eg. Orakei Local Board's funding of America's Cup projects- what's in it for low incomefamilies? I travelled from Wgtn to discuss strategic issues, was disappointed to be discussing low-level rubbish issues. This is not about the Annual Plan Budget.

#2474

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/VXewTK1r87Huv8GiSwt2xg



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






#2481

Do not support








Do not support






Do not support - continue the Waitākere septic tank service subsidised by all general ratepayers

Local prioritiesAre the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?It’s really nice and beautiful the new setup for playground area and walking and cyclingconnection.


#2481



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






#2484

Do not support

Recycling business model should cover for the cost








Support








Auck is multicultural and is multifaceted. Priorities should be set at community level not at meetingtables of Council.

#2484

Auckland Council


Build "neighbourhood" capabilities towards self sufficiency and self determination.

#2484

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/mLOYDEbqsKwyczbwfhVHEQ



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:






#2506

Support

If you cannot pay for this, there are alternatives like WINZ. -Only landlords pay for the bins













Local prioritiesAre the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?-Public parks and toilet aren’t as good condition-Health & safety


Parking tickets too expensive and Auckland council do not explain themselves in some incidentse.g why the ticket was issued.

#2506

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2549

2

Support








Support







Local priorities


Other feedback


Translator's note: the respondent ticked "I support most of the priorities" without providing the local board name.

#2549

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2553

2

Support








Support







Local priorities


Other feedback


translator note: the respondent ticked "I support all of the priorities" without indicating the local board.

#2553



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#2568






Support









Auckland Council

#2568

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/vm5h6jHFpHTplJ2SHgN_Ng



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support

I hope general rates won't be increased.


#2569






Support

This is rather fair. Everybody who throws waste is responsible for paying rates.









translator note: the respondent ticked "I support most of the priorities" without indicating the localboard.

#2569



Attachment:

Language: English

Organisation name:








#2596












I built and house and improvements on my property 700k + 800K improvements now rates havedoubled. Neighbors have more land and pay less rates. Unfair how rates are calculated that I haveto pay more, when I spent the money to improve property. Don't use many council servicesanyway. Just waste collection.

Auckland Council

#2596

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/lRKtIawpwVb7KhqUcsfMVQ

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2621

2

Do not support








Do not support







Local priorities


Other feedback


#2621

1



Submitter details


Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:


Regional feedback





#2625

2

Do not support








Do not support







Local priorities


Other feedback


#2625



Attachment: 200311 Council Annual Budget submission.pdf, 180216 #Sportmatters.pdf

Organisation name: Aktive - Auckland Sport & Recreation

Local Board: Don't Know All boards across Auckland as we are Auckland wide








#2717

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/Files/GetUploadFile/byC29FMZxUuhsgjXymkP1Q

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/Files/GetUploadFile/WyrjSxYRjUSDFAjXymkUsA









Local priorities


Auckland Council

#2717

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/nYRtCiKSsM-ZEBONMgqo4Q

Auckland Council is currently reviewing the Auckland Plan and its Long-term Plan (10 year budget). A critical component of this is invest-ment in our community’s sport and recreation.

There is a serious risk of reduced investment in physical activity under the revised plan. Without this support, our current and future community sport and recreation spaces are in jeopardy.

This means our growing, increasingly diverse population won’t have the infrastructure to participate in and enjoy physical activity, whether it‘s social or competitive.

Auckland Council spent $81.2 million on new sport and

recreation facilities in 2012/13. We are concerned that there is a REAL AND SERIOUS

RISK OF UNDERINVESTMENT

in physical activity in the Long-term Plan.

The HUGE and wide-ranging benefits of physical activity to all Aucklanders are also impacted. These benefits include improved physical and mental health and well-being, social connectedness, economic and productivity gains, and educational outcomes.

Given Aucklanders’ love of physical activity and its proven advantages, it is critical that all club managers, coaches, committees, schools, parents and everyone who enjoys physical activity have their say on Auckland Council's Auckland Plan and Long-term Plan to protect investment in sport and recreation in Tāmaki Makaurau.

PHYSICALACTIVITY

is incredibly important in the lives of Aucklanders, and has significant social,

health and economic benefits. Investment is key to this now and in

the future.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

......

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

The Snapshot

78% of Auckland adults

take part in physical activity

each week.

..........

#Sportmatters

If all Auckland 5 to 19 year olds took part in just

3 HOURS of informal sport and recreation a week,

an extra 100,000 young people would improve their

health and wellbeing.

The sport and recreation sector contributes at least

$1.6 billion to the Auckland economy,

employing more than 17,000 people.

Aktive – Auckland Sport & Recreation, Sport Auckland, Harbour Sport, Sport Waitakere

and CLM have a vision for Auckland to be

THE WORLD’S MOST ACTIVE CITY

..........

#2717

So please...

+KEEP

INVESTING Keep investing to help make physical activity

accessible for all Aucklanders – there are HUGE social, health and

economic benefits.

KEEP INVESTING

Keep investing in networks that link public transport,

cycling and walking. +KEEP

ALIGNINGKeep aligning with community

partners that are focused on young people,

underrepresented groups and low participation

communities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTINUED INVESTMENT

in a fit for purpose network of appropriate facilities in the right places, including maintenance,

renewal and investment in current and new facilities.

Make it easy to

CHOOSE AN ACTIVE LIFE,

by ensuring the pricing policy for

for Aucklanders, increasing access to physical activity.

INCREASE PARTICIPATION by maintaining and extending the network of quality open

spaces across the region that meet community needs and provide a range of

recreational opportunities.

Auckland’s

obesity rates are crippling our communities amd

our economy

URBAN SPRAWL LEADS DIRECTLY TO LOWER LEVELS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

21% of 4 year oldsin Auckland are currently

overweight or obese, and 32% of New Zealand children are expected to be overweight or

obese by 2025.

Physical inactivity cost New Zealand’s health

care system over $200 million in 2013.

Adults in Auckland from deprived areas

take part in significantly fewer

sport and recreation activities.

Asian people in Auckland take part in substantially

fewer sport and recreation activities, even though their interest in trying new activities is higher

than average.

..................

M

The Statistics

..................

..................

SPACES AND PLACES

*Data is based on Sport New Zealand Value of Sport and Recreation Auckland Report 2015, Sport New Zealand Regional Profile Auckland 2013-2014 and the 2013 New Zealand Census.

The BenefitsPhysical activity makes a

substantial contribution to the

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

of all Aucklanders and connects communities.

Those who participate in physical activity are happier and have a

HIGHER LEVEL OF WELLBEINGthan those who don’t.

#2717

1

AK Have Your Say

Auckland Council – Annual Budget 2020/2021

Summary Aktive is a charitable trust that has been established to make Auckland the world’s most active city. It is a key strategic partner of Sport NZ, Auckland Council and major grant-makers and funders. Aktive invests more than $11m per annum in a range of delivery partners, organisations and projects that will get more people recreating and playing sport in Auckland, with focuses on young people and communities. More than one million Aucklanders – adults and children – are active each week. They are supported by 308,880 volunteers contributing 22.1 million hours of their personal time per annum, worth $337.3 million to keep the sport and recreation sector moving. This sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to the Auckland economy, providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In addition, there is a saving of $115.4 million per annum in healthcare costs for Auckland1. Sport, recreation, physical activity connects Tāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical and mental health and wellbeing, social, economic and educational benefits. We are committed to ensuring all Aucklanders regardless of age, ethnicity and ability level can participate in sport, recreation or physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to live active, healthy lives, with positive health, community and economic benefits. This requires sport, recreation and physical activity to be both recognised and prioritised in relevant plans and budgets. The $120 million Sport and Recreation Facilities Investment Fund is a step in the right direction and we understand the fund has been activated and proposals submitted. It is increasingly imperative to build on this to meet the needs of our growing city. Overview Auckland is anticipated to grow significantly over the next 30 years. To make sure that we build on its strengths and hold on to the things that are dear to us during this growth, we ask Council to prioritise good quality facilities in our growing city. Snapshot of our city Currently around 1.6 million people live in Auckland. Over the next 30 years this number is expected to grow by another 740,000 people to reach 2.4 million2. Our love of sport and recreation The statistics prove what we know – Aucklanders love physical activity – it’s incredibly important in our lives and the lives of our whanau and friends. There is clear evidence of the huge and wide-ranging benefits of sport and recreation – improved physical and mental health and wellbeing, social connectedness, economic and productivity gains, and educational outcomes3. Who we represent

1 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 2 The Auckland Plan 2050/Our development strategy/Future Auckland/What will Auckland look like in the future, Auckland Council 3 Sport New Zealand Value of Sport and Recreation Auckland Report 2015, Sport New Zealand Regional profile Auckland 2013-2014 and the 2013 New Zealand Census and ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting

#2717

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/auckland-plan/development-strategy/future-auckland/Pages/what-auckland-look-like-future.aspx

2

The sport and recreation sector in Auckland comprises: ▪ Approximately 308,800 volunteers ▪ 62 Regional Sport Organisations (RSOs) ▪ An estimated 1,500 clubs ▪ More than 450,000 members. More than one million Aucklanders – adults and children – are active each week. With thanks Auckland Council is the major provider of our city’s sport and recreation facilities. We greatly appreciate this support and investment – without it much of what happens in our sector wouldn’t be possible. Our voice We believe all Aucklanders, regardless of age, ethnicity and ability level, should be able to participate in sport, recreation and physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to live active, healthy lives with positive health, community and economic benefits. The value of sport and recreation The sport and recreation sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to the Auckland economy, employing more than 25,000 people. There are also 308,880 volunteers who contribute 22.1 million hours of their time each year, organising thousands of formal and informal opportunities for hundreds of thousands of people. When it comes to actual participation, 78% of Auckland adults take part in physical activity each week4. Sport and recreation connects people – belonging and participation are valued outcomes of this. This point and others highlighting the positive benefits of physical activity are documented in Sport New Zealand ‘The Value of Sport’ research:5 ▪ 84% of respondents agree that sport and physical activity bring people together and promote a sense of

belonging; ▪ 73% agree that sport and other physical activities help build vibrant and stimulating communities; ▪ 89% agree that being active helps relieve stress and is good for mental health; ▪ 82% agree that sport and other physical activities help to motivate people and create a sense of purpose; ▪ 92% agree that being active keeps people physically fit and healthy; ▪ 85% agree that being active keeps their children physically fit and healthy; ▪ Evidence indicates a positive association between children’s physical activity participation and academic

achievement. In addition, there is significant research demonstrating the broader benefit of sport and recreation: ▪ Physical activity brings $115.4 million of healthcare cost savings for Auckland, as well as adding 7,100 additional

years of healthy life and contributing to 279 fewer deaths6; ▪ Participation in sport brings 47.5 million hours of meaningful, positive social contact each year7. ▪ Evidence is emerging that underspending on facilities leads directly to lower participation levels8; ▪ Sport and recreation operating spend has a direct and significant correlation with participation levels9. ▪ Physical activity has a positive link to improved educational outcomes, leading to an increased $6.9 million of GDP

growth for Auckland10; ▪ Physical activity is delivering $1.5 million in annual savings through reduced crime rates11; ▪ Physical activity brings $46.3 million of savings to Auckland through increased productivity levels, due to lower

levels of sickness12.

4 Sport New Zealand Value of Sport and Recreation Auckland Report 2015, Sport New Zealand Regional profile Auckland 2013-2014 and the 2013 New Zealand Census and ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 5 Sport New Zealand ‘The Value of Sport’ Main Report, March 2018 6 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 7 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 8 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 9 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 10 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 11 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting 12 ACW Auckland City Report 2018, Portas Consulting

#2717

3

Our city’s growth We all agree growth is a challenge. From the view of sport and recreation, it is essential that growth in population, both at the urban fringe and in the existing urban area, is matched by sufficient investment in new and existing facilities to meet the new demand that will be generated. Portas' 2018 Active Citizens Worldwide (ACW) research proves a direct link in Auckland between sport and recreation facilities and the increased participation rates of surrounding local communities13. Physical inactivity already costs New Zealand’s health system hundreds of millions each year ($200 million in 2013 alone). 32% of New Zealand children are expected to be overweight or obese by 2025, with 21% of 4-year-old children in Auckland already in this category. These obesity rates are crippling our communities and our economy14. The sport sector is doing its bit The sport sector is demonstrating a maturity in creating a sensible and reasonable partnership and collaborative approach to facilities planning and supply. As well as the Sport Facility Code Plans for Auckland, collaborative projects such as the Indoor Courts Facility Plan and the Sports Facilities Priorities Plan show that we, as a sector, are playing our part in making sure every Council dollar is invested wisely for maximum return in benefits to the community. With OneVoice, the sector co-created the Auckland Sport & Recreation Action Plan (ASARSAP) – the priority strategic action plan for sport and recreation that has been adopted by Council. Aktive and its key community sport partners15 are also playing their part, with the support of Sport New Zealand, Foundation North, the NZCT and other funders. The Auckland Approach to Community Sport strategy gives priority to Auckland’s young people, and Māori, Chinese, Samoan and Indian populations. As well, it provides significant support to volunteers, administrators and coaches, promotes shared and multi-sport facilities, and supports school/sport partnerships, involving community use of facilities. Next steps We appreciate that Auckland Council has to make choices about the mix of services it provides. Regardless, there is no denying the enormous contribution that sport, recreation and physical activity makes to the health and wellbeing of all Aucklanders, of all ages, socio-economic levels and ethnicities. As demonstrated, physical activity and its wide-ranging benefits are fundamental to our community. We urge that there be adequate investment in sport and recreation in the Annual Budget 2020/2021. This is critical to ensure our growing, increasingly diverse population have access to suitable infrastructure to participate in physical activity – whether it’s a competitive rugby match, social tennis, outdoor netball, school sports events or kilikiti. All Aucklanders regardless of age, ethnicity and ability level should be able to participate in sport, recreation and physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to connect with their community and live active, healthy lives.

13 Active Citizens Worldwide, Auckland City Report 2018 14 Sport New Zealand Value of Sport and Recreation Auckland Report 2015 and Sport New Zealand Regional profile Auckland 2013-2014 15 CLM Community Sport Counties Manukau, Harbour Sport, Sport Auckland, Sport Waitakere and College Sport

#2717

Hi

I have no objection to the $135 rate for my fence inspection.

#2733



Attachment:

Organisation name: Sport Auckland

Local Board: Don't Know Sport Auckland is a Regional Sports Trust that covers the whole ofAuckland, but predominantly works in the Central Auckland region covering Waiheke, Waitemata,Great Barrier, Orakei, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Puketapapa, Albert-Eden and Howick Local Boardareas






#2745











Local prioritiesAlbert-Eden

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have a very good working relationship with the Albert-Eden Local Board and feelthey do an outstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our full support fortheir current priorities. In particular we support the changes to the priority focus area forChamberlain Park which aims to achieve the best possible outcome for the wider community.More than one million Aucklanders – adults and children – are active each week. They aresupported by 308,880 volunteers contributing 22.1 million hours of their personal time per annum,worth $337.3 million to keep the sport and recreation sector moving. This sector contributes atleast $1.9 billion to the Auckland economy, providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. Inaddition, there is a saving of $115.4 million per annum in healthcare costs for Auckland. Sport,recreation and physical activity connects Tāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical,mental health and wellbeing, social, economic and educational benefits. Sport Auckland iscommitted to ensuring the community in the Albert-Eden LB area regardless of age, ethnicity andability can participate in sport, recreation or physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spacesto enable them to live healthy active lives, with positive health, community and economic benefits.This requires sport, recreation and physical activity to be both recognised and prioritised inrelevant plans and budgets.

Howick

#2745

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have a very good working relationship with the Howick Local Board and feel they doan outstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our full support for theircurrent priorities. In particular we support the ongoing advocacy for multi-purpose facilities at LloydElsmore Park (with our Independent role as Chair of that Steering Group) and Flat Bush and theHowick Walking and Cycling Network Plan.. More than one million Aucklanders – adults andchildren – are active each week. They are supported by 308,880 volunteers contributing 22.1million hours of their personal time per annum, worth $337.3 million to keep the sport andrecreation sector moving. This sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to the Auckland economy,providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In addition, there is a saving of $115.4 millionper annum in healthcare costs for Auckland. Sport, recreation and physical activity connectsTāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical, mental health and wellbeing, social, economicand educational benefits. Port Auckland is committed to ensuring the community in the Howick LBarea regardless of age, ethnicity and ability can participate in sport, recreation or physical activityin fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to live healthy active lives, with positivehealth, community and economic benefits. This requires sport, recreation and physical activity tobe both recognised and prioritised in relevant plans and budgets.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have a very good working relationship with the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Boardand feel they do an outstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our fullsupport for their current priorities. In particular we support the increased focus on improvingwalking and cycling connections. More than one million Aucklanders – adults and children – areactive each week. They are supported by 308,880 volunteers contributing 22.1 million hours oftheir personal time per annum, worth $337.3 million to keep the sport and recreation sectormoving. This sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to the Auckland economy, providing more than25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In addition, there is a saving of $115.4 million per annum inhealthcare costs for Auckland. Sport, recreation and physical activity connects Tāmaki Makaurau,and delivers significant physical, mental health and wellbeing, social, economic and educationalbenefits. Sport Auckland is committed to ensuring the community in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki LBarea regardless of age, ethnicity and ability can participate in sport, recreation or physical activityin fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to live healthy active lives, with positivehealth, community and economic benefits. This requires sport, recreation and physical activity tobe both recognised and prioritised in relevant plans and budgets.

Ōrākei

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have a very good working relationship with the Orakei Local Board and feel they doan outstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our full support for theircurrent priorities. In particular we support the prioritisation of their natural environment workingwith the community, including Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to improve water quality in Ōkahu Bay and todevelop an integrated plan for Pourewa Valley; the advocacy for transport initiatives, including theGowing Drive linkage to the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive Shared Path, and wider safetyimprovements; and the continuation of the community and park facility upgrades. More than onemillion Aucklanders – adults and children – are active each week. They are supported by 308,880volunteers contributing 22.1 million hours of their personal time per annum, worth $337.3 million tokeep the sport and recreation sector moving. This sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to theAuckland economy, providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In addition, there is a savingof $115.4 million per annum in healthcare costs for Auckland. Sport, recreation and physicalactivity connects Tāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical, mental health and wellbeing,social, economic and educational benefits. Sport Auckland is committed to ensuring the

#2745

community in the Orakei LB area regardless of age, ethnicity and ability can participate in sport,recreation or physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to live healthyactive lives, with positive health, community and economic benefits. This requires sport, recreationand physical activity to be both recognised and prioritised in relevant plans and budgets.

Puketāpapa

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have a very good working relationship with the Puketapapa Local Board and feelthey do an outstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our full support fortheir current priorities. In particular we support the continued focus to develop and maintain theparks and facilities in the area; the focus on great community outcomes, enhancing theprogrammes and activities they fund; and the protection of the natural environment. More than onemillion Aucklanders – adults and children – are active each week. They are supported by 308,880volunteers contributing 22.1 million hours of their personal time per annum, worth $337.3 million tokeep the sport and recreation sector moving. This sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to theAuckland economy, providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In addition, there is a savingof $115.4 million per annum in healthcare costs for Auckland. Sport, recreation and physicalactivity connects Tāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical, mental health and wellbeing,social, economic and educational benefits. Sport Auckland is committed to ensuring thecommunity in the Puketapapa LB area regardless of age, ethnicity and ability can participate insport, recreation or physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to livehealthy active lives, with positive health, community and economic benefits. This requires sport,recreation and physical activity to be both recognised and prioritised in relevant plans andbudgets.

Waiheke

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have previously worked alongside the Waiheke Local Board and feel they do anoutstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our full support for their currentpriorities. In particular we support the 10-year Transport Plan and the Waiheke Pathways(Greenways) Plan; and community-led programmes for youth. More than one million Aucklanders– adults and children – are active each week. They are supported by 308,880 volunteerscontributing 22.1 million hours of their personal time per annum, worth $337.3 million to keep thesport and recreation sector moving. This sector contributes at least $1.9 billion to the Aucklandeconomy, providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In addition, there is a saving of$115.4 million per annum in healthcare costs for Auckland. Sport, recreation and physical activityconnects Tāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical, mental health and wellbeing, social,economic and educational benefits. Sport Auckland is committed to ensuring the community in theWaiheke LB area regardless of age, ethnicity and ability can participate in sport, recreation orphysical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spaces to enable them to live healthy active lives,with positive health, community and economic benefits. This requires sport, recreation andphysical activity to be both recognised and prioritised in relevant plans and budgets.

Waitematā

I support all of the prioritiesSport Auckland is a Charitable Trust with a vision "to inspire our communities to live healthy activelifestyles" We have previously worked alongside the Waitemata Local Board and feel they do anoutstanding job for their local community. We will continue to offer our full support for their currentpriorities. In particular we support the prioritisation of investment and activation of their parks.More than one million Aucklanders – adults and children – are active each week. They aresupported by 308,880 volunteers contributing 22.1 million hours of their personal time per annum,worth $337.3 million to keep the sport and recreation sector moving. This sector contributes atleast $1.9 billion to the Auckland economy, providing more than 25,000 jobs for Aucklanders. In

#2745

addition, there is a saving of $115.4 million per annum in healthcare costs for Auckland. Sport,recreation and physical activity connects Tāmaki Makaurau, and delivers significant physical,mental health and wellbeing, social, economic and educational benefits. Sport Auckland iscommitted to ensuring the community in the Waitemata LB area regardless of age, ethnicity andability can participate in sport, recreation or physical activity in fit for purpose facilities and spacesto enable them to live healthy active lives, with positive health, community and economic benefits.This requires sport, recreation and physical activity to be both recognised and prioritised inrelevant plans and budgets.


Auckland Council

#2745

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/UT_iqEUZUeJuXdM7lbxFNA

1

March 7th 2020

I wish to make a submission regarding the above draft plan.

This plan is flawed in the way it has been prepared because of the ambiguity in so many areas. It breaches all of the Tupuna Maunga Values including the Spiritual, cultural and Heritage Values, while damaging the Ecology and Biodiversity of the Auckland Maunga. The citizens of Auckland are horrified that this goes against the living connection to actively nurture positive relationships between all nationalities in Auckland by wrecking and damaging all exotic species of vegetation currently growing on the Maunga of Auckland. I do NOT support the destructive felling of healthy, mature trees on any of Aucklands Maunga. There are better ways of changing the Maunga than destroying everything standing. Underplanting is the way to go and when the trees die then replant natives or cull out to allow new growth to come through but do NOT cut down healthy exotic trees just for the hell of it! Please! Please show some sense and rewrite this draft plan and clearly state what is to happen and not hide behind ambiguity and innuendo with double speak thrown in. Show your true colours to the people of Auckland and stop hiding the truth of your real intentions.

#2761

Subject: Feed back on pool charges. My wife and I are in agreement with the proposedchanges

Date: Friday, 6 March 2020 1:17:29 pm

#2858

1

Good morning $130 three yearly inspection is fine for us

Thanks

Auckland Council <[email protected]>

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here .

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Auckland Council

#2859

1

Formal submission

Having been opposed to the felling of trees as outlined in your proposal, I wish to register my objection to this aspect of your plan. As there is no arboristic arguement for this felling and quite the contrary for the estabishment of native seedlings; I maintain this aspect of the plan to be in error.

I also believe this action contradicts the Waituatanga ‐ tread gently ‐ as outlined the proposal. Mana Aoturoa ‐ histories and interactions; Mauri Punaha ‐ wellness; and Mana Hononga ‐ nurture. The Authority is not omnipotent. You are funded by all Auckland's ratepayers and if their representation is suffering lack of proper care via its representation within the Authority, the Authority is then riding roughshod over this (all of Auckland's people) for the advancement of a dubious cause ‐ certainly not for a democratic Tamaki Makaurau or Tangata Whenua of today. Respectfully I ask you to reconsider the felling of the trees.

#2864

1

Good morning i did not receive the e mail for proposed pool inspection fees of $44 per year but why should you have $88 dollars over 2 years sat in council bank account. We attended the New World in Keumeu to speek to Auckland council representative who were bemused at my concern as they knew nothing about the pool fence inspection fees. I think on that note you leave things as they are as the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

#2865

1

Hello, I have been asked for my opinion as to how Council collects future pool inspection fees. My view is that I am a responsible adult that can, and does, look after the safety of my family and other visitors to my property and therefore does not need a pool inspection every three years. It serves little purpose. Save money by making the inspection requirement one that applies only to commercial premises e.g. hotels etc.

If this is not acceptable to Council then keep the status quo as it identifies how much we pay and is not hidden in the overall rates bill.

#2868

1

Hi

Thanks for your request for feedback in relation to the changes to the pool fencing inspections schedule and process. This change makes sense and is supported by me.

Kind regards,

#2876

1

Yes, the Nikau Retreat Directors all agree with the proposed payment change. Regards,

#2881

#3028

#3028

#3028

Page 1 of 11

“AK HAVE YOUR SAY”

Questions Relating to the Annual Budget 2020/2021

ATTACHMENT TO QUESTION 5 – “Do you have any feedback on any

other issues?”

SUBJECT - AUCKLAND REGIONAL MARINA STRATEGY

SUBMISSION BY AUCKLAND MARINA USERS ASSOCIATION INC

1. SUMMARY

The Purpose of our submission is to request that Council:-

Implement the resolution passed by the Planning Committee on 5 March 2019.

That the Planning Committee:

a) endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven. b) commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawaka engagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritized. c) agree that Auckland Council is a creature of statute, which adheres to the intent of empowering acts even where those acts are inconsistent with any precinct plans at individual marinas. The motion was declared CARRIED by 17 votes to 3.

In this regard AMUA requests that Council implement the following Strategy

Delivery Plan:-

• Budget for the marina strategy in the amount $350,000 to $500,000.

• Deliver the strategy using an external supplier (consultancy) and commit to

selecting the external supplier and delivering the strategy under the guidance

of a steering committee which includes stakeholder representatives.

• Define and implement essential changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to align

with Empowering Acts.

AMUA made a presentation to the annual stakeholder event on 11 March 2020. In

addition to the following pages of our submission a copy of our presentation is

attached for ease of reference.

#3028

Page 2 of 11

2. RISKS TO COUNCIL IF THE ABSENCE OF A MARINA STRATEGY

One issue has now come to the fore since 5 March 2019. In our view it is the number

one issue driving the need for a region wide marina strategy.

Various instruments governed the development of marinas. Typically occupation of

the seabed (marina basin) and leasing of reclaimed land and “licensing” of

developers/operators was for a fixed term.

The urgency of this issue is demonstrated by the expiry dates of existing seabed

and/or berth licences.

• Westhaven 2026 and 2029

• Bayswater 2031

• Hobsonville 2025 (renewable to max 2035)

• Pine Harbour 2038

• Gulf Harbour 2028 (renewable to max 2088)

The terms and conditions of the original instruments were drawn up to protect the

interest of Council, the neighbouring community and marina users. The issue is –

what happens when existing licences and leases for marinas expire?

Unless Council develops and implements a marina strategy to address this issue the

commercial terms and conditions governing licences and leases will likely lapse on

expiry (or surrender) of the existing instruments.

This situation has arisen because the licensing of marina operators and rules regarding

the allocation of occupation permits for marina basins and leasing of marina land are

not addressed in the AUP or Auckland Council by-laws.

The significance of this issue was identified as a direct result of recent decisions to

grant non-notified exclusive occupation permits to the year 2054 at Hobsonville,

Bayswater and Pine Harbour. The marina operator now holds exclusive occupation

permits for a duration well beyond the duration of the existing licences. The permits

do not contain or reference commercial and other conditions from the existing

instruments that protect the interests of Council, the neighbouring community and

marina users. Unless new licencing requirements are put in place the operator will be

able to operate the marinas free of such conditions.

AMUA believes the emergence of this issue has highlighted that the future for

Auckland’s marinas now comes down to a choice between two pathways/scenarios-

Retaining and developing the community/public ownership and control of

marinas OR

Passing these community assets to private ownership of marina land and

private operation of the marina

#3028

Page 3 of 11

The following table outlines the above two scenarios and provides a high level view of

the risks and consequences of not developing the marina strategy and continuing the

drift toward privatisation of these unique community assets.

Integrated Land and Water Assets

(Public Ownership and Control)

Private Marinas (Fragmented

ownership and control)

Requires new by-laws and additions to

the Regional Coastal Plan (AUP) to

enable Council to select and licence

marina operators and retain the ability

to define and enforce commercial

controls.

Let existing instruments lapse or accept

surrender and rely on “Occupation

Permits” issued under the RMA. No

opportunity to enforce or retain the

commercial protections for Council,

community and berth holders.

Retain land in Council/Public ownership

and retain strict control over choices

and incentives for integrated land and

marina development and operation as a

“boat harbour”, a focus for access to the

water, and strategic transport hub

(ferries).

Allow sale of marina land and lose control

of future ownership, choices and

incentives. There is potential for separate

entities to have control of land and marina

basin. Result would be little ability to

control alignment between objectives for

land and marina components or related

public transport (ferry) operations.

Maintain control of commercial terms

including cost plus fee approach to

recovery of costs and retain ability to

achieve lowest cost of entry to marina

based recreational activities and

facilities.

Retain the ability for Council to enforce

performance requirements for marina

operation and maintenance.

Leave commercial terms for berth licences

to private operator. Private operator is

incentivised to maximise profit to highest

possible margin.

What happens if private owner of marina

land or private marina operator becomes

insolvent? How are these community

assets and interests protected?

Unless Council develops a region wide marina strategy the drift toward the “Private

Marinas” scenario – which has been exacerbated since 15 March 2019 – will continue

and benefit no one except private sector interests.

#3028

Page 4 of 11

3. EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND STRATEGY DELEIVERY PLAN

Budget – AMUA’s budget estimate of $350,000 to $500,000 recognises that:-

There is a significant body of existing information

There are a number of complementary studies and strategies that are

complimentary to a marina strategy and will contribute to cost effective and

efficient delivery.

There is a significant pool of expertise and voluntary resource available

through the stakeholder organisations such as Auckland Yachting and

Boating Association as well as AMUA.

There are known governance issues as a well as more straightforward supply

and demand matters. Accordingly the strategy needs to progress far enough

to provide clear guidance on the supply function and spatial requirements of

marinas; as well as the desired future model for ownership and management

control. Having established the regional context the strategy then needs to

translate those matters into Objectives and Policies, with measurable

outcomes, as well as any necessary legislative and/or regulatory actions,

including the AUP (chapter F and possibly by-laws.

AMUA has developed a staged strategy process plan and based the budget on a

detailed resourcing plan prepared with input from a professional urban planning

organisation with domain knowledge and expertise.

Consequently AMUA believes the estimate of $350,000 - $500,000 is robust and will

allow for prioritised implementation plans for Hobsonville, Westhaven, Gulf Harbour

and Half Moon Bay marinas as envisaged by part a) of the resolution passed on 5

March 2019.

At the Annual Plan stakeholder event on 11 March 2020 AMUA emphasised that our

estimate recognises the considerable amount of relevant existing information held by

Council, AMUA and other stakeholders, and the availability of voluntary support from

stakeholders; as well as more recent research into relevant international and domestic

strategy documents.

AMUA wishes to record that the Council estimate of $1 million prepared in June 2019

was only provided to AMUA on 9 March 2020 – after repeated requests that Council

share scope and budget information and engage with stakeholders.

Given part b) of the 5 March 2019 resolution we were disappointed not to be

approached to provide input to the scope and budget when we have openly stated

our willingness to do so and explained our knowledge of existing data and the issues

that need to be addressed.

#3028

Page 5 of 11

AMUA also wishes to record its surprise that what was clearly an initial assessment

estimate prepared in June 2019 was not updated after AMUA and other stakeholders

met with Jacques Victor and Vanessa Blakelock in September 2019. Especially as we

subsequently exchanged information on data needs and existing sources.

In addition we also note that the Council estimate identifies the Thames Coromandel

Marine Strategy as an example with a cost of $1.2 million. This is not a credible

example of a comparable strategy. There is only a 5 page draft available on the TCDC

website but it is clear that the TCDC strategy has a much broader scope than proposed

for the Auckland regional marina strategy. The Thames Coromandel strategy covers

TCDC and private marine and harbour assets including boat ramps (23), wharves (7),

docks and marinas. It includes the Coromandel Harbour as well as the demands of

aquaculture on marine and harbour facilities.

Apart from the example of Nelson ($60-70,000); which we have identified to Council

previously, the Moorings and Marinas Strategy for Northland (July 2014) seems to be a

more appropriate comparator.

Deliver the Strategy Using an External Supplier

We noted in our presentation the deep sense of distrust created by a litany of

questionable decisions and actions by Auckland Council and Panuku since 2011. The

granting of the non-notified and uncontested exclusive occupation permits

(September 2019) to the year 2054 at Hobsonville, Bayswater and Pine Harbour

marinas is a particular and recent example of why distrust has developed and grown

over time.

Distrust has been heightened by the Mayor’s and CEO’s lack of response to requests

for assurances that Council or related entities, would not accept the surrender of

existing seabed licences nor support the repeal of empowering acts at Hobsonville or

elsewhere. Such actions would clearly subvert possible outcomes from the proposed

strategy.

It is for these reasons that we do not see any way that Council can lead the strategy

and avoid conflict due to vested interest in defending earlier decisions and actions.

That is why we are calling for the strategy to be delivered by an external supplier and

the supplier selection and strategy delivery to be conducted under the scrutiny of a

steering committee that includes stakeholder representatives.

Given that an external supplier is required to address the issues of distrust and

credibility, the NZTA’s “Supplier Nominated Price” model for procurement of the

external supplier is a logical and proven approach for Council to obtain best value.

#3028

Page 6 of 11

Define and Implement Changes to the AUP

When West Harbour Residents and Ratepayers Group (WHRRG) enquired about

progress to implement part c) of the 5 March 2019 resolution they were advised by

email from Council that:-

“Staff advise that they are satisfied that the Unitary Plan provisions for Hobsonville

Marina Precinct are not ultra vires and they are not planning to ask a Court for a

ruling, nor will they be investigating a plan change at this time.”

To AMUA and WHRRG this response is a clear refusal to implement the Planning

Committees resolution. In our view this statement also indicates that Council may not

oppose repeal of the Empowering Acts when existing licences and leases expire.

We recognise that it is not unusual for different regulations and legislation to apply to

say the same piece of land. However; what is unusual is that Auckland Council failed

to take into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act when the AUP was

prepared, and is now refusing to implement a very clear resolution to resolve

resultant conflicts between the Act and the AUP.

4. RELEVANT BACKGROUND FROM 2019-20 ANNUAL PLAN SUBMISSION

AMUA and other stakeholders made submissions to the 2019-20 Annual Plan

AKHaveYourSay Process.

In all six organisations including AMUA made written submissions and AMUA made a

presentation to the stakeholder event alongside a representative from the Marine

Industry Association.

• Northern Reclamation Yacht Clubs Working Group – Royal New Zealand Yacht

Club, Ponsonby Cruising Club, Richmond Yacht Club

• West Harbour Residents Group

• Auckland Yachting and Boating Association

• Akarana Marine Sports Charitable Trust

• Bayswater Community Committee Inc

• Auckland Marina Users Association Inc – Westhaven, Pine Harbour, Gulf

Harbour, Bayswater, Hobsonville

AMUA asks that Council consider all of the prior submissions as a part of the 2020-21

process and in particular note the followings aspects from AMUA’s 2019-20

submission which remain highly relevant.

#3028

Page 7 of 11

We again ask that Council:-

a) Recognise the regional importance and significance of marina assets and fund

and resource the region wide marina strategy endorsed by the Planning

Committee on 5 March 2019 to the level necessary to achieve robust

evidenced based strategic planning decisions.

b) Recognise and capture the opportunities for cost and resource efficiency that

can be achieved by;

coordination with relevant current regional planning projects

identified in the 10 Year Budget 2018-2028;

collaborating with stakeholders who are willing and able to contribute

data and information, venues for and facilitation of engagement and

consultation, facilitation of data collection and relevant expertise; and

establishing a Steering Committee for the marina strategy, with mana

whenua and stakeholder representation, to capture the above

opportunities in the development of the strategy budget and

programme and for ongoing oversight of the marina strategy project.

c) Recognise that the future use of our marinas is important to all people

engaging in marine sport and recreational activities - for safe access to the

water and to maximise the use of marinas and marina land as a regional

network for marine recreational activities.

4.1. AUCKLAND MARINA USERS ASSOCIATION INC

The Auckland Marina Users Association Inc is an incorporated society, formed in June

2018 and currently representing marina users and berth holder associations from

Westhaven, Gulf Harbour Westpark/Hobsonville, Bayswater and Pine Harbour

marinas.

These five marinas comprise 4000+ berths of the approximately 6000 marina berths in

the 12 marinas located throughout the Auckland region.

4.2 APPROACH TO A REGIONAL MARINA STRATEGY

We request that the approach to the strategy follow the general approach outlined in

the submission made by the Auckland Marina Users Association Inc in their submission

to Planning Committee Members and the General Manager, Auckland Plan, dated 28

November 2018. (A copy can be supplied on request).

In particular we advocate the need for:-

a) a comprehensive assessment of current and future marine recreational needs

that are or could be served through the use of the regions marinas; and

#3028

Page 8 of 11

b) an inclusive engagement with mana whenua and stakeholders for the

identification of current and future demands and issues affecting the regions

marinas.

We wish to strongly advocate that a Steering Committee, including mana whenua and

stakeholder representatives be established to achieve a cost effective approach

through input to the development of the scope and budget and the delivery of the

strategy. In this regards stakeholders have the resources and capability to assist in

minimising expenditure associated with the strategy.

4.3 ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STRATEGY AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

EFFICENCY

The Auckland Marina Users Association Inc has the ability to contribute to the

development of the strategy through the network of relationships we have

established with other organisations as well as:-

Access to existing data and historical information

Facilitating surveys and additional data collection

Providing venues for meetings – Ponsonby Cruising Club have made an offer

free of charge

Relevant expertise

We also note that there are opportunities for efficiency in the development of the

marina strategy through coordination and collaboration with current regional planning

projects identified on page 147 of the 10 Year Budget 2018-2028; namely:

Developing a future framework for Auckland’s waters

Developing the Auckland Climate Change Action Plan

Ensuring the Auckland Unitary Plan remains fit for purpose and adapts to an ever

chaging Auckland by evaluating the environment, social, economic and cultural

outcomes it is achieving and making changes where needed.

Accordingly; there are numerous opportunities for cost efficiency through the

involvement of mana whenua and stakeholders in the approach to the strategy. That

is why we advocate for the establishment of a Steering Committee, including mana

whenua and stakeholder representatives to guide the approach to and delivery of the

strategy.

4.4 CONTEXT AND IMPORTANCE OF A REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR MARINAS

Based on a Recreational Boating Study in 2012 (Beca for Auckland Council) the total

number of boats and watercraft in the Auckland region is estimated to be, in

summary:-

#3028

Page 9 of 11

160,000+ water craft including

o 11,400 yachts and launches

o 55,000 trailer boats – 50,000 power

o Circa 100,000 dinghies, wind surfers, personal watercraft etc

The Outboard Boating Club is an iconic and unique marina for launches and powered

trailer craft with over 200 berths, 270 leased trailer parks and 10 ramps utilised by

club members and the public. The demand for their facilities is such that they

currently have a 3 year waiting list and need additional facilities to serve the growing

demand associated with powered trailer boats.

Auckland Yachting and Boating Association (AYBA) – has 47 affiliated clubs. AYBA

analysed clubs and groups in support of a sport facility plan for yachting and boating

and concluded that there are over 110 clubs and sports organisations with a minimum

of 11,000 members plus an estimated 19,000 non-members engaged in marine sports

in the region.

There are many more people involved in recreational fishing and other informal

marine recreational activities.

Quote from – Auckland Council’s Coastal Management Framework July 2017 –

“Sustainable future coastal management requires a comprehensive understanding of

our coastal structures and associated assets. However, considering the extent of the

Auckland coast and associated modification, existing information is disparate and

incomplete.”

Marinas are some of our most significant and costly items of coastal infrastructure and

not easily replaced or relocated in the future – and have a significant role to play in

facilitating safe access to marine recreational activities, the Public Transport network

and Civil Defence.

There are 12 marinas with some 6,000 berths and varying provisions for dry stacking

and trailer parking and marine industry and related commercial services. Haul out and

hardstand facilities also vary as do the provisions for containment and treatment of

runoff from wash-down and maintenance areas. Facilities for the safe launching and

recovery of trailer mounted boats and other water craft also vary considerably.

Planning controls generally comprise the Objectives, Policies and Standards of the

Auckland Unitary Plan – Coastal Marina Zone (Chapter F3). Use of the marina basin

(sea bed) is subject to Coastal Occupation Permits issued under the RMA and subject

to varying end dates. There are understood to be Precinct Plans for 5 marinas and the

extent of Council land ownership at and around marinas also varies.

#3028

Page 10 of 11

The Panuku (Board Report May 2018) acknowledged the lack of a region wide strategy

when recommending the sale of Council owned land into private freehold ownership

at Westpark/Hobsonville and Gulf Harbour marinas.

4.4 REGIONAL ISSUES AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE STRATEGY

We request that the strategy address the following topics as regional issues of

common interest. Individual marinas will have particular needs and issues.

Public access to and around the regions marinas for walking, cycling and social

gatherings is generally provided in the form of esplanades vested in Council and

guaranteed by original empowering acts and/or current coastal occupation permits.

Enhancement of these recreational open space provisions is a significant

opportunity.

There is a significant opportunity to utilise marinas as focal points for safe access to

the water and to support the rapidly growing range of marine recreational activities

and watercraft. The Akarana Marine Sports Charitable Trust and the facilities at

The Landing in Okahu Bay are an example of what can be achieved.

Assessment of land ownership at and around marinas and current spatial allocation

to enable prioritisation of spatial and location needs related to:

Recreational activities such as club rooms, dinghy storage, and training

schools

Cultural marine recreational activities such as waka ama

Haul out facilities such as travel lifts and slipways

Hardstand for boat repairs and maintenance

Marine engineering and associated services for boat building, repairs and

maintenance

Dry stack storage and launching facilities

Trailer parking and launching facilities

Safe launching and recovery arrangements for personal watercraft,

dinghies, wind and kite surfers and the like.

Coastal inundation risk at marinas and compliance with Objective 5 of the

NZCPS

Coastal inundation risk at marinas and the need for future marina

infrastructure adaptation

Dedicated berth holder car parking and the opportunities for shared use

with commuters

Passenger Transport (ferry) access to marinas as well as park and ride and

kiss and ride facilities. (Note; Auckland Transport does not currently have a

ferry strategy)

Civil Defence Emergency Management and the role marinas can play.

Coastguard facilities

#3028

Page 11 of 11

5. CONCLUSION

We reiterate our request that Council:-

Implement the resolution passed by the Planning Committee on 5 March 2019.

implement the following Strategy Delivery Plan; namely:-

Budget for the marina strategy in the amount $350,000 to $500,000.

Deliver the strategy using an external supplier (consultancy) and commit to

selecting the external supplier and delivering the strategy under the

guidance of a steering committee which includes stakeholder

representatives.

Define and implement essential changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to

align with Empowering Acts.

We also request that the strategy process follow the approach outlined in the

submission made by the Auckland Marina Users Association Inc in their submission to

Planning Committee Members and the General Manager, Auckland Plan, dated 28

November 2018.

In that regard we advocate that the strategy process commence with a comprehensive

assessment of demand, needs and issues information gathered for all marinas, clubs,

marine sports and marine recreational demand in general and the subsequent stages

be phased to give priority to the 4 named marinas in the 5 March 2019 resolution –

enabling a phasing of funding and resources and addressing the most urgent issues

and decisions.

Submitted by Richard Steel

Chairman – On Behalf of Auckland Marinas Users Association Inc

#3028

REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER EVENT, 11 MARCH 2020

SUBJECT ‐ AUCKLAND REGIONAL MARINA STRATEGY


#3028

15 March 2019 Resolution – Passed 17 : 3


a) endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven.

b) commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawaka engagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritised.

c) agree that Auckland Council is a creature of statute, which adheres to the intent of empowering acts even where those acts are inconsistent with any precinct plans at individual marinas.

#3028

2019‐20 Annual Plan Submissions

• Northern Reclamation Yacht Clubs Working Group – Royal New Zealand Yacht Club, Ponsonby Cruising Club, Richmond Yacht Club


• Auckland Yachting and Boating Association• Akarana Marine Sports Charitable Trust


• Auckland Marina Users Association Inc – Westhaven, Pine Harbour, Gulf Harbour, Bayswater, Hobsonville

#3028

The Marina Asset – Jewels in the City of Sails

• 12 marinas with 6,000 berths and various ramps, haul out facilities,

hardstand and dry stacking, marine services, ferry terminals,

esplanades, cafes, restaurants, open space etc

• Marinas are key as focal points for safe access to the water and to support the rapidly growing range of marine recreational activities and watercraft.

#3028

The Marine Recreational Constituency

• 160,000+ water craft including

• 11,400 yachts and launches

• 55,000 trailer boats – 50,000 power

• Circa 100,000 dinghies, wind surfers, personal watercraft etc

• Over 110 clubs and sports organisations with a minimum of 11,000 members plus an estimated 19,000 non‐members engaged in marine sports in the region.

#3028

Need for Strategy is Now More Urgent ‐ WhyOccupation of the seabed (marina) and “licensing” of developers/operators is for a fixed term – what happens when existing “licences” expire?

• Westhaven 2026 and 2029• Bayswater 2031• Hobsonville 2025 (renewable to max 2035)• Pine Harbour 2038• Gulf Harbour 2028 (renewable to max 2088)

No provisions in Regional Coastal Plan (Chapter F of AUP) for allocation of Occupation permits – provisions for aquaculture but not marinas

No licensing provisions in By Laws – provisions for moorings in “Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 ‐ but not marinas

Lack of conditions in recent “exclusive” occupation permits to 2054

#3028

Choice ‐ Community Assets or “Private” Marinas?Community Assets (Public Ownership and Control) Private Marinas

Requires new by laws and additions to the RegionalCoastal Plan to enable Council to select and licence marina operators and retain ability to define and enforce commercial controls.

Let existing instruments lapse or accept surrender and rely on “Occupation Permits” issued under the RMA. No opportunity to enforce or retain the commercial protections for Council, community and berth holders.

Retain land in Council/Public ownership and retain strict control over choices and incentives for integrated land and marina development and operation as a “boat harbour”, a focus for access to the water, and strategic transport hub (ferries).

Allow sale of marina land and lose control of future ownership, choices and incentives. There is potential for separate entities to have control of land and marina basin. Result would be little ability to control alignment between objectives for land and marina components.

Maintain control of commercial terms including cost plus fee approach to recovery of costs and retain ability to achieve lowest cost of entry to marine recreational activity.

Retain the ability for Council to enforce performance requirements for marina operation and maintenance.

Leave commercial terms for berth licences to private operator. Private operator is incentivised to maximise profit to highest possible margin.

What happens if private owner of marina land or private marina operator becomes insolvent? How are these community assets and interests protected?

#3028

Marina Zone

Open Space

Mixed Use Zone

Private Title

Limit of NavSafety By Law

Ferry Terminal

#3028

Marina Zone

Mixed Use Zone

Mixed Use Zone

#3028

Bund

Ferry Terminal

Planned Apartment Development

#3028

Duration of Consents and Threat to Existing InstrumentsDuration - was a matter of discretion and could have been aligned to the expiry date of existing licences pending completion of the strategy.

No response from Council to request for the following assurances:-a. That Auckland Council will refrain from any action or accept surrender of the

existing Seabed Licence and associated instruments for Hobsonville marina or refrain from taking any associated action that has the apparent effect of nullifying the existing Seabed Licence

b. Consistent with the resolution of the Planning Committee, Auckland Council (or associated entities) will refrain from adopting any process or course of action that attempts to repeal the Empowering Act or other empowering acts associated with other marinas in the region.

#3028

Conflict with the Unitary Plan ‐ Hobsonville

• Resolution statedc) agree that Auckland Council is a creature of statute, which adheres to the intent of empowering acts even where those acts are inconsistent with any precinct plans at individual marinas.

• “Staff advise that they are satisfied that the Unitary Plan provisions for Hobsonville Marina Precinct are not ultra vires and they are not planning to ask a Court for a ruling, nor will they be investigating a plan change at this time.”

#3028

15 March 2019 Resolution – Passed 17 : 3 and Progress by Councila) endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council

owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven.

None ‐ No budget, No Resources, No work – one meeting (stakeholder initiated)

b) commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawakaengagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritised.

Prepared scope and budget – without stakeholder engagement

Issued resource consents to year 2054 that subvert the strategy


Refused to amend the AUP (Precinct Plans)

No response to request for assurances regarding seabed licences and empowering acts

#3028

Strategy Delivery Plan

• Budget ‐ Purchaser (Council) nominated price model

• External consultancy – to achieve independence and domain expertise

• Steering Committee including strong stakeholder involvement in supplier selection and ongoing decision making – to address issue of public distrust and provide transparency

#3028

Annual Plan 2020/21 – Your Decision

• Are Councillors prepared to accept further delay and further subversion of the Planning Committee Resolution of 5 March 2019

OR

• Will Councillors ensure adherence to the resolution of 5 March 2019 and:

• budget for the marina strategy • Insist on an external supplier (consultancy) and a steering committee with stakeholder participation

• Insist on essential changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to align with Empowering Acts

#3028

REGIONAL STAKEHOLDER EVENT, 11 MARCH 2020

SUBJECT ‐ AUCKLAND REGIONAL MARINA STRATEGY


1

#3028

15 March 2019 Resolution – Passed 17 : 3


a) endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven.

b) commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawaka engagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritised.


The resolution was the culmination of a democratic process and protracted debate.

In briefa. Develop a region wide marina strategyb. Commence the process with engagementc. Uphold the empowering acts

We were informed at the 5 March meeting that there was no budget and should seek support for funding through the Annual Plan process. –Which we did.

2

#3028

2019‐20 Annual Plan Submissions

• Northern Reclamation Yacht Clubs Working Group – Royal New Zealand Yacht Club, Ponsonby Cruising Club, Richmond Yacht Club


• Auckland Yachting and Boating Association• Akarana Marine Sports Charitable Trust


• Auckland Marina Users Association Inc – Westhaven, Pine Harbour, Gulf Harbour, Bayswater, Hobsonville

Support came in the form of 6 written submissions and a presentation to this same forum 12 months ago by AMUA ‐ see the list of submitters to 2019/20 Annual Plan

AMUA is not alone in its concern at the lack of progress in 2019/20 and emerging issues.

Which is why we back here today, requesting that the strategy is funded in 2020/21 and the resolution implemented.

3

#3028

The Marina Asset – Jewels in the City of Sails

• 12 marinas with 6,000 berths and various ramps, haul out facilities,

hardstand and dry stacking, marine services, ferry terminals,

esplanades, cafes, restaurants, open space etc

• Marinas are key as focal points for safe access to the water and to support the rapidly growing range of marine recreational activities and watercraft.

A quick reminder of why this is a regional issue

4

#3028

The Marine Recreational Constituency

• 160,000+ water craft including

• 11,400 yachts and launches

• 55,000 trailer boats – 50,000 power

• Circa 100,000 dinghies, wind surfers, personal watercraft etc

• Over 110 clubs and sports organisations with a minimum of 11,000 members plus an estimated 19,000 non‐members engaged in marine sports in the region.

Rather than marinas being a focal point and environment for the development and management of safe access to the water and marine recreational activity we are seeing more and more fragmentation.

With Auckland predicted to grow by another million people ‐ How will the growing numbers of watercraft in general and waiting lists for marina berths be addressed if there is no strategy?

5

#3028

Need for Strategy is Now More Urgent ‐Why

Occupation of the seabed (marina) and “licensing” of developers/operators is for a fixed term – what happens when existing “licences” expire?

• Westhaven 2026 and 2029• Bayswater 2031• Hobsonville 2025 (renewable to max 2035)• Pine Harbour 2038• Gulf Harbour 2028 (renewable to max 2088)

No provisions in Regional Coastal Plan (Chapter F of AUP) for allocation of Occupation permits – provisions for aquaculture but not marinas

No licensing provisions in By Laws – provisions for moorings in “Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 ‐ but not marinas

Lack of conditions in recent “exclusive” occupation permits to 2054

AMUA has been progressing issues identification. One issue has now come to the fore – in our view it is the number one priority.

Various instruments governed the development of marinas and typically occupation of the seabed (marina) and “licensing” of developers/operators and leasing of reclaimed land was for a fixed term. The issue is – what happens when existing licences expire?

The commercial terms and conditions will lapse on expiry (or surrender) – BECAUSE the licensing of marina operators ‐ or rules regarding how occupation permits might be allocated ‐ are not addressed in the AUP; by‐Laws or other legislation. Under current legislation all that will exist at expiry of existing instruments is an occupation permit.

We identified this issue as a direct result of recent decisions to grant non‐notified exclusive occupation permits to 2054 at Hobsonville, Bayswater and Pine Harbour.

The time between 2054 and the expiry dates for licences at these three marinas ranges from 16 years to 23 years. The 3 consents do not include commercial terms and conditions from existing licences, leases etc that were important protections for Council, community and berth holders.

The marina operator has been presented with a permit to operate a marina business free of commercial conditions when the current licences expire. This non competitive non‐notified process has by our estimates presented a windfall to the private in the order of $20m

AMUA and WHRG requested notification of these consents to no avail.

6

#3028

Choice ‐ Community Assets or “Private” Marinas?Community Assets (Public Ownership and Control) Private Marinas

Requires new by laws and additions to the RegionalCoastal Plan to enable Council to select and licence marina operators and retain ability to define and enforce commercial controls.

Let existing instruments lapse or accept surrender and rely on “Occupation Permits” issued under the RMA. No opportunity to enforce or retain the commercial protections for Council, community and berth holders.

Retain land in Council/Public ownership and retain strict control over choices and incentives for integrated land and marina development and operation as a “boat harbour”, a focus for access to the water, and strategic transport hub (ferries).

Allow sale of marina land and lose control of future ownership, choices and incentives. There is potential for separate entities to have control of land and marina basin. Result would be little ability to control alignment between objectives for land and marina components.

Maintain control of commercial terms including cost plus fee approach to recovery of costs and retain ability to achieve lowest cost of entry to marine recreational activity.

Retain the ability for Council to enforce performance requirements for marina operation and maintenance.

Leave commercial terms for berth licences to private operator. Private operator is incentivised to maximise profit to highest possible margin.

What happens if private owner of marina land or private marina operator becomes insolvent? How are these community assets and interests protected?

Hence ‐ The issue of what happens when existing instruments expire lies at the heart of a strategy for the regions marinas.

AMUA believes the future for Auckland’s marinas comes down to a choice between two pathways/scenarios‐

• Retaining and developing the community/public ownership and control of marinas OR • Passing these community assets to private ownership of marina land and private operation of the

marina

Council’s lack of attention to this issue – which has continued since the 5 March 2019 resolution – means marinas are drifting toward the “Private Marinas” scenario. This issue now needs urgent consideration because:‐

When the current instruments expire – and in the absence of any legislative or regulatory framework to the contrary – there appears to be nothing in terms of legislation to stop Westhaven, Gulf Harbour, Bayswater, Hobsonville et al? becoming “private marinas” – marina land privately owned and occupation permits held by a private operator(s).

7

#3028

Marina Zone

Open Space

Mixed Use Zone

Private Title

Limit of NavSafety By Law

Ferry Terminal

Pine Harbour exemplifies some of the issues surrounding the “Private Marinas” scenario.

Part of the foreshore – underlying piers A‐C was “declaimed”. Delineated by “Limit of Navigation Safety By‐Law.

The private title remains under this part of the marina. As a result that area is alienated from the CMCA (Common Marine and Coastal Area) and does not require an occupation permit?

Berth licences expire 2038 – what happens to this area then? Could it be filled in?

The Ferry terminal is located in this area. What security of tenure does AT have?

AT does not have regional ferry strategy.

How can ferry options for the future be protected here or at other marinas around the region?

8

#3028

Marina Zone

Mixed Use Zone

Mixed Use Zone

The landward component of PHM – being land that was not reclaimed ‐ is privately owned (and was at the time of development).

The private operator (or CCO) of any is incentivised to maximise the financial return from the marina. Particularly so when some of the land is private land.

Changing land use is a primary means of enhancing financial value. BUT – if there is no strategy how do decision makers know that the orange part the marina hardstand can be given over for mixed use commercial and residential development.

Surely it should have remained part of the marina zone?

9

#3028

Bund

Ferry Terminal

Planned Apartment Development

Hobsonville – We have identified several new issues as a result of our ongoing research.

All of marina land was reclaimed and vested in Council. Empowering Act says no sale of land and max lease of land 21 years. Lots have been sold and others leased for 99 years – WHY

Titles show the 99 year leases have been mortgaged – which raises the issue of what happens if the lease holder becomes insolvent.

Like other marinas – the marina bund and foreshore area is subject to coastal inundation risk. See the blue hatched areas.

AUP allows commercial and residential use as a permitted activity in the area subject to coastal inundation risk.

When the bund and other infrastructure needs raising how will this be done – who will pay? Are you happy to leave this to transient private organisations?

Similar to the Pine Harbour situation the private operator is keen to develop apartments and wants freehold title to foreshore area now used as marina parking and relocate parking to hardstand area.

Private operator says hardstand services can be provided at other facilities! How would you know this is a valid argument if there is no regional strategy.

10

#3028

Duration of Consents and Threat to Existing Instruments

Duration - was a matter of discretion and could have been aligned to the expiry date of existing licences pending completion of the strategy.

No response from Council to request for the following assurances:-a. That Auckland Council will refrain from any action or accept surrender of the

existing Seabed Licence and associated instruments for Hobsonville marina or refrain from taking any associated action that has the apparent effect of nullifying the existing Seabed Licence

b. Consistent with the resolution of the Planning Committee, Auckland Council (or associated entities) will refrain from adopting any process or course of action that attempts to repeal the Empowering Act or other empowering acts associated with other marinas in the region.

Returning to the Exclusive Occupation Permits – There are two aspects of the recently granted consents which have strategy implications:‐

1. The first is the duration of the consents – which was a matter of discretion! The duration could have been aligned to the licences etc – Which would have safeguarded public and Council interests until the gap in legislation to govern marinas has been addressed.

2. The second is an Advice note attached to one of those consent decisions which infers the marina operator’s possible intent to surrender existing consents ‐ which could include existing licences.

In response to the advice note ‐ solicitors on behalf of AMUA and WHRRG requested these two assurances.

Despite requests from our solicitors to discuss these specific issues we have been unable to obtain an agreement from Mayor Goff or CEO Stephen Town to meet ‐ AND we have received no response to the assurances we requested.

11

#3028

Conflict with the Unitary Plan ‐ Hobsonville

• Resolution statedc) agree that Auckland Council is a creature of statute, which adheres to the intent of empowering acts even where those acts are inconsistent with any precinct plans at individual marinas.

• “Staff advise that they are satisfied that the Unitary Plan provisions for Hobsonville Marina Precinct are not ultra vires and they are not planning to ask a Court for a ruling, nor will they be investigating a plan change at this time.”

And returning to part c) of the 5 March resolution

This is the response WHRRG received in response to their request for information on the implementation of part c) of the 5 March resolution.

To AMUA and WHRRG this response is a clear refusal to implement the resolution.

12

#3028

15 March 2019 Resolution – Passed 17 : 3 and Progress by Councila) endorse the development of a region wide marina strategy prioritising the Council

owned marinas including Gulf Harbour, Hobsonville (Westpark), Half Moon Bay and Westhaven.

None ‐ No budget, No Resources, No work – one meeting (stakeholder initiated)

b) commence the strategy process with stakeholder and mana whenua and mataawakaengagement that identifies relevant information, needs and how urgent issues can be prioritised.

Prepared scope and budget – without stakeholder engagement

Issued resource consents to year 2054 that subvert the strategy


Refused to amend the AUP (Precinct Plans)

No response to request for assurances regarding seabed licences and empowering acts

In summary

The 5 March 2019 resolution was the culmination of a democratic process and protracted debate.

As a result of the lack of ANY progress on the strategy – a clear lack of willingness to meet to discuss marina issues, or engage on scope and budget ‐ and actions that subvert the potential outcomes of the strategy ‐ AMUA and other stakeholders are currently left with a sense of deep distrust and the conclusion that Council is intent on not implementing the resolution.

13

#3028

Strategy Delivery Plan

• Budget ‐ Purchaser (Council) nominated price model

• External consultancy – to achieve independence and domain expertise

• Steering Committee including strong stakeholder involvement in supplier selection and ongoing decision making – to address issue of public distrust and provide transparency

We want to be constructive and move the strategy forward.

In the absence of information from Council we prepared – with professional assistance – a resource plan and indicative budget of $350,000 to $500,000. We believe our assessment and approach is robust.

We received a copy of the Council’s broad scope and budget dated 21 June 2019 on 9 March 2020. Estimated cost $1 million.

HOWEVER ‐ the strategy cannot go on hold while we and Council officers argue about scope and budget.

To progress matters we suggest Council adopt this Strategy Delivery Plan.

The Purchaser Nominated Price model is a NZTA procurement model for professional services. Quote – “This method is typically used for such activities as strategy studies, feasibility studies, transportation studies and investigations.”

And ‐ “Purchaser nominated price should be used where the purchaser has predetermined the price that it is prepared to pay for the desired outputs. Best value for money is obtained by selecting the supplier(s) that provide the best proposal for the price as set out in the RFP (the nominated price).

To address the distrust that has accumulated over a period of years and particularly during the last year. – we suggest the strategy is prepared by an external supplier and ‐ that supplier selection and delivery is undertaken under the scrutiny of a steering committee, including stakeholder representatives.

What is Council prepared to spend ‐ and how does it want the strategy to be delivered?

14

#3028

Annual Plan 2020/21 – Your Decision

• Are Councillors prepared to accept further delay and further subversion of the Planning Committee Resolution of 5 March 2019

OR

• Will Councillors ensure adherence to the resolution of 5 March 2019 and:

• budget for the marina strategy • Insist on an external supplier (consultancy) and a steering committee with stakeholder participation

• Insist on essential changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan to align with Empowering Acts

When you consider the 2020/21 Annual Budget and Plan and our request that the resolution be honoured and the strategy funded ‐ we believe you are also faced with a choice about Council’s integrity and preparedness to be collaborative, open and transparent with stakeholders/community.

15

#3028

Item 3 - Auckland Marina User Association Inc - Andrew & Euan Speaking notes recorded on 11 March 2020: • Resolution at 15 March 2019 Planning committee, it was a resolution to develop a region wide

strategy commenced the process of engagement and uphold the empowering acts. We were informed at that meeting for the current financial year, and we should seek funding through the Annual Budget process and we did. We did six submissions to the same forum 12 months ago.

• There has been lack of momentum since the resolution for the strategy was passed, which is why we are here today to seek funding for 2021 and the resolution is implemented.

• The asset is 12 marinas, 6000 births and variety of facilities of those marinas support greater activity and access to marina/water.

• Auckland growing – how with the growing number be addressed if there is no marina strategy. We think it’s urgent.

• What happens when the marina licenses expire? The point is the existing commercial terms and conditions will lapse on expiry or surrender. Because the licensing or rules regarding how occupation permits might be advocated are not addressed by the Unitary Plan, By Laws, or other legislation.

• Granted exclusive occupation permits to the year 2054, at Hobsonville and Pine Harbour Marinas.

• The time between 2054 and the time it expires varies between 16 and 23 years. The three consents that were granted do not include commercial terms and conditions from existing licensing or leases that were important protections for council community.

• Lack of progress is a real concern, lack interest to meet and discusss, left with a deep sense of mistrust and council is not open to progressing the resolution.

• Strategy is now a matter of urgency. Spoke to Strategy Delivery Plan.

• $350,000 - $500,000 is our budget estimate. The strategy can’t go on hold while argue about money.

• Confirmed strategy can be delivered within a $350,000 budget.

• Previous Planning Committee resolution not being progressed • Requesting that the strategy is funded in the 2020/2021 and the resolution implemented • Auckland’s growth, how will numbers of watercraft in general and waiting lists for marina

berths be addressed without a strategy • Explanation about why the need for the strategy is urgent • What happens when existing licenses expire? • The choice between community assets or ‘private’ marinas? • Duration of exclusive occupation consents granted in September 2019 and threat to existing

instruments and lack of assurance from the Mayor/Council that Council will not accept the surrender of existing seabed licence or support repeal of the Empowering Act at Hobsonville marina or other marinas in the region.

• Council’s apparent refusal to resolve conflicts between the Unitary Plan and Empowering Acts • Suggest Council adopts a Strategy Delivery Plan – including (a) delivery by an external supplier

and (b) delivery under the guidance of a steering committee which includes stakeholder representatives.

#3028

Cr/LB member

Question/Comment

Cr Newman

Cr Newman: Thank you, apologies, 12-months is embarrassing Cr have not actioned. We would adopt the marina strategy, funding sequenced through the unitary plan. Marina strategy set out agreed objectives, these objectives are flowed through to relative policies, I don’t agree with your position on the Precinct plan can't be given effect because they can’t be given affect. My assumption would be we would do the marina strategy on an evidential basis, the finding would inform the subsequent amendments that we would need make to chapter F of the Auckland Unitary Plan and with segments alongside that basis. Is that correct? Response: Yes that’s the sort of process that we would envisage if the marina strategy is executed in a timely manner and I've stressed the importance of urgency on matters of legislation. Cr Newman: The Marina Strategy would set out agreed objectives and that will then Segway into the subsequent policies that require to give effect to the objectives which would be codified in chapter F by way of plan change. Response: Yes that’s my understanding. You may need to introduce changes to bylaws of licensing of marina operators on the current legislation. The empowering acts for several marinas not all, provide

Cr Walker Given the urgency, is there a necessity to release a start on this immediately? Response: we are already a year behind delivering this programme, scoping could start now and budgeting. But I believe it is beneficial to wait and start as a project. Risk, does not only quantify as financial, do you think we need to be informing ourselves of risks? We are bringing the risks we see, but council needs to consider a risk perspective for their own. These have been presented to Stephen Town. Cr Walker: What's your view on what sort of costs were are looking at and how can these be sustained? Response: As set out in the presentation, $350,000 will get us along the strategy development to identify the key objectives.

Cr Simpson

Cr Simpson: You have gone to a new financing model, do you think you can deliver what was agreed at the Planning committee within the 350,000 budget, leveraging off volunteers?

#3028

Response: We have a mechanism to bring the volunteering data in place, we have a survey that’s continuing and ongoing understanding of the area. $350,000 will do it.

Cr walker Cr Walker: Refresh of revenue we get from this, what sort of capital value could we get from this marina? Response: we do not have these figures today. Marinas across the region generate revenue. Contribution of Westhaven, flows $11mil through Panuku.

Cr Darby Cr Darby: There was no funding allocate in the last Annual Budget. What are mana whenua saying to you? Response: We haven't engaged with mana whenua we see this difficult and should be driven as part of strategy development. Cr Darby: I would say mana whenua are a key stakeholder, and marina owners. Response: importance of a steering group comprising of these key areas. Cr Darby: Have you considered attaining a high court determination on the impacts of the Empowering Acts on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Do you think $350,000 plus additional $100,000 to seek a high court determination. Response – we have considered it and questioned about a fundraising scheme also done some cursory questions and some have said yes.

Don’t see why stakeholders should fund high court decision, this should come from the council.

Cr Newman

Can a work programme fund the development of the Marina Strategy. The issue is, having resolving this and a chapter F in the unitary plan that doesn’t reflect what parliament need through the Empowering Acts. The costs should be coming through that, not deciding costs upfront now. With respect to the occupancy permits, we have a resolution that has not been actions, can I get your reassurance that you will be following up directly with the officers, this should be dealt with offline.

Cr Fletcher

Cr Fletcher: Interested in the observations you have made on safe access water, given the 630,000 have you had any formal communication with coast guard? Response: No, see this as an important part of the Marina Strategy development as a key stakeholder. Cr Fletcher: Would you like to expand on the fact that AT do not have a Ferry Strategy?

#3028

Response: Yes, for example Pine Harbour have around 10,000 to 15,000 people going into that area, it is hugely popular I'm sure Cr Cashmore is aware. Security in future for Ferry opperations will be of concern to those users. Cr Fletcher: Thank you very much for your submission.

Cr Simpson

Thank you for your time today.

Additional notes from Richard Steele emailed 16 March 2020:

In addition we would like to record and bring to your attention clarification of two of the above notes:- Strategy Delivery Plan. We noted in our presentation the deep sense of distrust created by a litany of previous questionable decisions and actions by Auckland Council and Panuku. The granting of the non-notified and uncontested exclusive occupation permits (September 2019) to the year 2054 at Hobsonville, Bayswater and Pine Harbour marinas is a particular and recent example of why distrust has developed and grown over time. However; of even more concern to us was and continues to be the Mayor’s and CEO’s lack of response to requests for assurances that Council or related entities, would not accept the surrender of existing seabed licences nor support the repeal of empowering acts at Hobsonville or elsewhere. Such actions would clearly subvert possible outcomes from the proposed strategy. There appears to be no reason why such assurances could not have been given on 11 March – unless such actions are in progress or have occurred already. Hence further distrust. It is for these reasons that we do not see any way that Council can lead the strategy and avoid vested interest in defending earlier decisions and actions. That is why we are calling for the strategy to be delivered by an external supplier and the supplier selection and strategy delivery to be conducted under the scrutiny of a steering committee that includes stakeholder representatives. Given this approach to address the issues of distrust and credibility; the NZTA’s “Supplier Nominated Price” model for procurement of the external supplier is a logical and proven approach for Council to obtain best value. Budget. Based on experience we believe the guiding factors with respect to the necessary budget is that there are some known governance issues as a well as more straightforward supply and demand matters. The strategy needs to progress far enough to provide clear guidance on the supply function and spatial requirements of marinas and the desired future model for ownership and management control. Having established the regional context the strategy then needs to translate those matters into Objectives and Policies (as emphasised by Councillor Newman), with measurable outcomes, as well as any necessary legislative and/or regulatory actions, including the AUP (chapter F and possibly by-laws. We reiterate that we believe our estimate of $350,000 - $500,000 is adequate for that purpose and will allow for prioritised implementation plans for Hobsonville, Westhaven, Gulf Harbour and Half Moon Bay marinas.

#3028

As noted on 11 March our estimate recognises the considerable amount of relevant existing information held by Council, AMUA and other stakeholders, and the availability of voluntary support from stakeholders; as well as more recent research into relevant international and domestic strategy documents. Our estimate is supported by stage by stage resourcing plan and was prepared with input from a professional organisation (not Beca) with domain knowledge and expertise. The Council estimate prepared in June 2019; which we were given on 9 March 2020; suggests a budget of $1 million and unfortunately lacks a comparable resourcing plan. We were surprised that what was clearly an initial assessment estimate prepared in June 2019 was not updated after we met with Jacques Victor and Vanessa Blakelock in September 2019. Especially as we subsequently exchanged information on data needs and existing sources. We were also disappointed not to be approached to provide input to the scope and budget when we have openly stated our willingness to do so and explained our knowledge of existing data and the issues that need to be addressed.

In addition we have since noticed that the Council estimate identifies the Thames Coromandel Marine Strategy as an example with a cost of $1.2 million. There is only a 5 page draft available on the TCDC website but it is clear that the TCDC strategy has a much broader scope than proposed for the Auckland regional marina strategy. The Thames Coromandel strategy covers TCDC and private marine and harbour assets including boat ramps (23), wharves (7), docks and marinas. It includes the Coromandel Harbour as well as the demands of aquaculture on marine and harbour facilities. Apart from the example of Nelson ($60-70,000) which we have identified previously the Moorings and Marinas Strategy for Northland (July 2014) seems to be a more appropriate comparator. We will be making a written submission by 22 March and would be pleased to provide any further information that you or other Councillors may require at any time.

Dear Desley On behalf of the West Harbour Community Group, we work closely with AMUA since its formation and previously, and I wish to confirm and reiterate the matters raised in Richard’s email to you. In particular, but not solely, the risks around surrender of the Seabed License for West Harbour (Hobsonville) Marina and upholding of the Empowering Act. Unfortunately even legal advice and communication to the Mayor has not resulted in a response nor the meeting requested a number of times by our group and ultimately, by Counsel for AMUA and the WHCG. Our Group has now requested a response from the CEO as to whether any application has been made by Hobsonville Marina Limited to surrender the West Harbour seabed license.

#3028

The legal issues are too complex to detail here again, but suffice to say David Rankin has emailed me recently to concur that the “legal issues are complex indeed” around West Harbour Marina and an “investigation” is taking place. Thank you for your interest. Kind regards June Kearney West Harbour Residents Group

#3028

6 March 2020

Auckland Council Draft Annual Plan 2020/21

1. Recommendations

1.1 Property Council New Zealand recommends the following:

Coordinated approach

(a) Better co-ordination and alignment for the provision, development and delivery of key infrastructure (transport, water and electricity) across Auckland.

Transport

(b) Collaborate with Auckland Transport to propose significant changes to its network. These changes should provide more frequent and reliable public transport options within and outside of the CBD.

(c) Align major transport projects with Unitary Plan land zoning that best unlocks transport and supports intensification and housing.

(d) Establish future transport options to better connect Wynyard Quarter with the rest of the CBD.

Adjusting fees and charges

(e) Compare Auckland Council charges with other local authorities around New Zealand and report on its findings.

(f) Investigate a tiered consenting approach in which applicants can request to pay a higher fee for senior resources and quicker turnaround.

(g) Adopt a policy on certain time and cost expectations for consent applications, to increase certainty for applicants.

(h) Additional improvements to efficiency such as; increasing council resources and upskilling.

Rates differentials

(i) Faster reduction of the rates differential;

(j) Transparency as to how Auckland Council decided the rates differential level; and

#3029

(k) Remove the rates differential and replace with alternative funding mechanisms such as user charges, targeted rates, public-private partnerships and special purpose vehicles.

Funding the City Centre Masterplan Refresh

(l) Extend the city centre targeted rate to support the delivery of key project/s in the City Centre Masterplan refresh that are of greatest benefit to those residing and working in the CBD.

2. Introduction

2.1 Property Council’s purpose is; “Together, shaping cities where communities thrive”. We believe in the creation and retention of well-designed, functional and sustainable built environments which contribute to New Zealand’s overall prosperity. We support policies that provides a framework to enhance economic growth, development, liveability and growing communities.

2.2 Property Council’s Auckland Branch has 360 businesses as members. The property industry contributed $22.8 billion in 2016 to the Auckland economy, with a direct impact of $10.5 billion (13 per cent of the GDP) and indirect flow-on effects of $12.3 billion. It employs 53,050 directly which equates to eight per cent of the total employment in Auckland. For every $1.00 spent by the Property Industry it has a flow-on effect of $1.70 to the Greater Auckland region.

2.3 This submission responds to Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2020/21 Consultation and Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2020/21 Supporting Information documents. In particular, a coordinated planning approach, transport, consent fees and charges, rates differentials, and how the Annual Plan sits alongside the CCMP. In preparing our submission we sought and received feedback from a selection of our Auckland-based members.

3. Coordinated approach

3.1 Auckland Council’s recent declaration of a climate emergency, and decision to focus on climate change issues in the 2021 Long-term Plan is important. With the imminent increase of electric vehicles come potential issues around electricity network capacity. Ultimately, the success of our city depends on better planning for infrastructure development across power, three waters, and transport to support both commercial and residential development in a collaborative way.

3.2 We recommend better co-ordination and alignment generally between the Council Controlled Organisations (i.e. Auckland Transport and Watercare) for the provision, development and delivery of key infrastructure (transport, water and electricity) across Auckland.

4. Transport

4.1 Traffic congestion in Auckland costs nearly $2 billion per year in lost productivity (between 1.5% and 2% of Auckland’s GDP).1 The 2019 TomTom Traffic Index report showed that in

1 New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, Benefits from Auckland road decongestion, July 2017, https://www.ema.co.nz/resources/EMA%20Reports%20and%20Documents/Advocacy/Submissions/2017/NZIER%20report%20on%20Auckland%20Benefits%20of%20Decongestion.pdf

#3029

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/annual-budget-2020-2021/Documents/annual-budget-consultation-document.pdf

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/annual-budget-2020-2021/Documents/supporting-information.pdf

https://www.ema.co.nz/resources/EMA%20Reports%20and%20Documents/Advocacy/Submissions/2017/NZIER%20report%20on%20Auckland%20Benefits%20of%20Decongestion.pdf


2019, 163 extra hours (6 days and 19 hours) was spent driving in rush hours over the year. This is up 2% from 2018.2

4.2 Coupled with rapid population growth, new and additional transport infrastructure is required. Auckland urgently requires the delivery of regional transport projects. We recommend Auckland Council work with Auckland Transport to propose significant changes to its network to provide more public transport options within and outside of the CBD. We support multiple public transport modes including trains, buses and ferries. In particular, we support regional public transport such as dedicated public transport routes and additional infrastructure to support ferries. More coordinated regional transport and supporting infrastructure help make the city more available to urban fringe communities and in turn encourages development in these areas.

Regional transport, support infrastructure, and housing

4.3 Auckland Council’s goal of reducing emissions from private vehicle use and having more people use public transport will only be possible if public transport is available, reliable, efficient and cost effective.

4.4 The Annual Plan aims to progress key public transport initiatives such as the City Rail Link, Puhinui Bus-Train Interchange and the first phase of the Eastern Busway project. We continue to support the City Rail Link and other multi-modal approaches to transport in Auckland such as the Bus-Train Interchange and Eastern Busway projects within the Annual Plan.

4.5 With all three of these projects, there is a need to align land use zoning for commercial, retail and housing density with public transport interchanges. Auckland Council needs to enable zoning for a range of housing typologies and commercial buildings near key emerging transport nodes. Intensifying around key transport nodes will not only increase housing supply which it critical in Auckland, but also ensure that planning is well-thought out as to not add to current road traffic congestion.

4.6 We recommend aligning major transport projects in Auckland with the right land zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan to unlock transport, intensify employment, housing and urban renewal projects.

CBD connectivity

4.7 Public transport that connects key areas of the CBD is of paramount importance to all who choose to live, work, play and shop. Transport options need to be reliable and frequent, for users to switch from their private vehicles to public transport. Public transport access across Auckland needs to better connect individuals from their home to their work or desired destination. This would see a more integrated planning approach between Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and key stakeholders.

4.8 For example, the missing transport link in the city centre is connecting Wynyard Quarter with the rest of the CBD. Wynyard Quarter is an expanding commercial and residential area of

2 TomTom Auckland Traffic Index, https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/auckland-traffic#statistics

#3029 #3029

https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/auckland-traffic#statistics


paramount importance to the CBD. It has limited car parking and public transport options, becoming isolated and hard to reach. We recommend greater connections between Britomart, Aotea Centre and Wynyard Quarter. This would not only help assist commuters but also allow Wynyard Quarter to flourish and reach its potential of being a vibrant and safe waterfront location for all.

5. Adjusting fees and charges

5.1 Our submission to Auckland Council on the 2019/20 Annual Plan raised concerns as to the fee increases for various resource and building consents. In particular, the increases were proposed with very little detail as to the justification. However, we are encouraged that Auckland Council undertook a six-month study into fees and charges and as a result are simplifying the fee structure and reducing fees for small projects that relate to building consent applications. We recommend Council continues its investigatory work by comparing its charges with other local authorities around New Zealand and report on its findings.

5.2 The proposed new fee structure would see some fees being moved to fixed charges or to a base fee with additional charges for hours of work. The time Council consents take to be approved add significant cost to residential, commercial and industrial developments in Auckland. Many of our members would be happy to pay for senior resources where appropriate to speed up the current consenting process. We recommend Council investigate a tiered consenting approach in which applicants can request to pay a higher fee for senior resources and a quicker turnaround, provided all applicant paperwork obligations are accurately completed.

5.3 Council consent applications significantly vary in the time they take to get approval. We recommend Council adopt a consenting policy outlining certain time and cost expectations that can be used during the application stage. This would provide more certainty to both Council employees and applicants in terms of the average time an application should take. We further recommend council undertake additional improvements to efficiency of consent approvals such as, increasing council resources and upskilling council consent staff.

6. Rates differential

6.1 The rates differential is the difference between the rates residential property owners are charged and the higher rates businesses are charged. Auckland Council proposes to reduce the portion of general rates paid by businesses from 31.68 per cent in 2020/21, to 25.8 per cent by 2037/38. This would see the rates differential decrease by 5.88 per cent over an 18-year period. This is a significant amount of time for businesses to be paying an ‘inappropriate differential’ according to Auckland Council.

6.2 The Productivity Commission New Zealand report into local government funding and financing, November 2017 reviewed Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan 2018-28. The report states: “the Council reports a decision to adjust the rates differential over a 20-year period to reduce the proportion of general rates taken from business properties; but it does not provide

#3029

details of the basis for this decision.”3 The Annual Plan 2020/21 is consistent with this, stating: “…council has decided that the appropriate differential for business is to raise 25.8 per cent of the general rates take.”4 This highlights the lack of transparency as to how the Council decided what was an ‘appropriate level’ of business funding and aligns with our transparency concerns below.

6.3 We do not support rates differentials as a rating tool due to lack of transparency as to what the differential funds. Rates differentials are collected as general rates and are added to the overall pool of money, making it near impossible for businesses who pay the rating differential to track the total charges and where it is spent. This results in a lack of transparency for commercial ratepayers as it is unclear what their additional rates are funding and whether it is beneficial to their business needs. Often the level of commercial rates paid is disproportionate to the level of services received.

6.4 Funding mechanisms such as targeted rates and user pay rating systems support the principles of transparency and objectivity in legislation (Local Government Act 2002 and Local Governing (Rating) Act 2002). Both these rating systems are beneficiary pay models, meaning those who benefit or use the service contribute towards it. For example, money collected via targeted rates are ringfenced to a project or geographic area that will benefit from the funding. We support beneficiary pay funding mechanisms, as they are transparent and provide a better understanding and opportunity to engage on where rates are spent.

6.5 Our position on transparency is consistent with the 2019 New Zealand Productivity Commission report on local government funding and financing which found that “councils’ rating practices are too often not transparent.”5 The report recommends councils should make better and more transparent use of their rating and other funding tools.6

6.6 Our position of abolishing rates differentials is consistent with Central Government’s 2007 Local Government Rates Enquiry (known as the Shand report) which recommended that in the interest of transparency, rates differentials should be abolished and replaced with targeted rates.7

6.7 Although in principle we support reducing the rates differential (albeit a lot quicker than currently proposed), we wish to see it removed entirely and replaced with alternative funding mechanisms such as; targeted rates, user charges (i.e. congestion charges), public-private partnerships and special purpose vehicles.

7. Funding the City Centre Masterplan Refresh

7.1 In our submission to Auckland Council on the City Centre Masterplan refresh 2019 (“CCMP”), we noted that project delivery will depend on funding, which in most cases is not yet

3 Productivity Commission New Zealand, Local government funding and financing, November 2019, pg. 196. 4 Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/21, Supporting Information, pg. 90. 5 Productivity Commission New Zealand, Local government funding and financing, November 2019. 6 Ibid, pg. 307. 7 Funding Local Government, Report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry, August 2007.

#3029

confirmed.8 Our submission noted that there are significant amount of priorities across Auckland that need funding and financing from general rates, and it is likely that projects within the CCMP may not receive funding due to other demands in Auckland. We recommended that a targeted rate occur to support project/s in the CCMP that are of greatest benefit to those residing and working in the CBD. Under our recommendation, targeted rates should replace rates differentials.

7.2 The Annual Plan 2020/21 is unclear whether the city centre targeted rate for projects (in the City Centre redevelopment programme) includes projects in the CCMP. After further investigation, we understand that targeted rates fund the city centre business case development programme and Master Plan targets. We recommend the targeted rate is extended to also include the delivery of key projects within the CCMP that are of greatest benefit to those residing and working in the CBD.

8. Conclusion

8.1 We generally support the draft Annual Plan 2020/21. At a high level we recommend the following:

• better coordination for the development and delivery of key infrastructure

• aligning major transport projects with Unitary Plan land zoning to supportintensification

• additional improvements to efficiency of consent applications

• a faster reduction of the rating differential

• extend the city centre targeted rate to support the delivery of key project/s in theCCMP.

8.2 Property Council members invest, own and develop property across Auckland. We wish to thank Auckland Council for the opportunity to submit on the Annual Plan 2020/21 as this gives our members a chance to have their say in how Auckland is shaped, today and into the future.

8.3 Any further queries do not hesitate to contact Katherine Wilson, Senior Advocacy Advisor, via email: [email protected] further queries do not hesitate to contact Katherine Wilson, Senior Advocacy Advisor, via email: [email protected] or cell: 027 8708 150.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Hay Auckland Branch Executive President Property Council New Zealand

8 Property Council New Zealand, Auckland Council Central City Masterplan Refresh, October 2019. https://www.propertynz.co.nz/sites/default/files/uploaded-content/field_f_content_file/property_council_submission_to_auckland_council_on_central_city_masterplan_refresh.pdf

#3029



https://www.propertynz.co.nz/sites/default/files/uploaded-content/field_f_content_file/property_council_submission_to_auckland_council_on_central_city_masterplan_refresh.pdf



6 March 2020

Auckland Council Freepost Authority 182382 Private Bag 92 300 Auckland 1142

Email: [email protected]

Auckland Council Draft Annual Plan 2020/21

1. Recommendations

1.1 Property Council New Zealand recommends the following:

Coordinated approach

(a) Better co-ordination and alignment for the provision, development and delivery of key infrastructure (transport, water and electricity) across Auckland.

Transport

(b) Collaborate with Auckland Transport to propose significant changes to its network. These changes should provide more frequent and reliable public transport options within and outside of the CBD.

(c) Align major transport projects with Unitary Plan land zoning that best unlocks transport and supports intensification and housing.

(d) Establish future transport options to better connect Wynyard Quarter with the rest of the CBD.

Adjusting fees and charges

(e) Compare Auckland Council charges with other local authorities around New Zealand and report on its findings.

(f) Investigate a tiered consenting approach in which applicants can request to pay a higher fee for senior resources and quicker turnaround.

(g) Adopt a policy on certain time and cost expectations for consent applications, to increase certainty for applicants.

(h) Additional improvements to efficiency such as; increasing council resources and upskilling.

Rates differentials

(i) Faster reduction of the rates differential;

(j) Transparency as to how Auckland Council decided the rates differential level; and

#3029


(k) Remove the rates differential and replace with alternative funding mechanisms such as user charges, targeted rates, public-private partnerships and special purpose vehicles.

Funding the City Centre Masterplan Refresh

(l) Extend the city centre targeted rate to support the delivery of key project/s in the City Centre Masterplan refresh that are of greatest benefit to those residing and working in the CBD.

2. Introduction

2.1 Property Council’s purpose is; “Together, shaping cities where communities thrive”. We believe in the creation and retention of well-designed, functional and sustainable built environments which contribute to New Zealand’s overall prosperity. We support policies that provides a framework to enhance economic growth, development, liveability and growing communities.

2.2 Property Council’s Auckland Branch has 360 businesses as members. The property industry contributed $22.8 billion in 2016 to the Auckland economy, with a direct impact of $10.5 billion (13 per cent of the GDP) and indirect flow-on effects of $12.3 billion. It employs 53,050 directly which equates to eight per cent of the total employment in Auckland. For every $1.00 spent by the Property Industry it has a flow-on effect of $1.70 to the Greater Auckland region.

2.3 This submission responds to Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2020/21 Consultation and Auckland Council’s Annual Budget 2020/21 Supporting Information documents. In particular, a coordinated planning approach, transport, consent fees and charges, rates differentials, and how the Annual Plan sits alongside the CCMP. In preparing our submission we sought and received feedback from a selection of our Auckland-based members.

3. Coordinated approach

3.1 Auckland Council’s recent declaration of a climate emergency, and decision to focus on climate change issues in the 2021 Long-term Plan is important. With the imminent increase of electric vehicles come potential issues around electricity network capacity. Ultimately, the success of our city depends on better planning for infrastructure development across power, three waters, and transport to support both commercial and residential development in a collaborative way.

3.2 We recommend better co-ordination and alignment generally between the Council Controlled Organisations (i.e. Auckland Transport and Watercare) for the provision, development and delivery of key infrastructure (transport, water and electricity) across Auckland.

4. Transport

4.1 Traffic congestion in Auckland costs nearly $2 billion per year in lost productivity (between 1.5% and 2% of Auckland’s GDP).1 The 2019 TomTom Traffic Index report showed that in

1 New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, Benefits from Auckland road decongestion, July 2017, https://www.ema.co.nz/resources/EMA%20Reports%20and%20Documents/Advocacy/Submissions/2017/NZIER%20report%20on%20Auckland%20Benefits%20of%20Decongestion.pdf

#3029

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/annual-budget-2020-2021/Documents/annual-budget-consultation-document.pdf

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say/topics-you-can-have-your-say-on/annual-budget-2020-2021/Documents/supporting-information.pdf



2019, 163 extra hours (6 days and 19 hours) was spent driving in rush hours over the year. This is up 2% from 2018.2

4.2 Coupled with rapid population growth, new and additional transport infrastructure is required. Auckland urgently requires the delivery of regional transport projects. We recommend Auckland Council work with Auckland Transport to propose significant changes to its network to provide more public transport options within and outside of the CBD. We support multiple public transport modes including trains, buses and ferries. In particular, we support regional public transport such as dedicated public transport routes and additional infrastructure to support ferries. More coordinated regional transport and supporting infrastructure help make the city more available to urban fringe communities and in turn encourages development in these areas.

Regional transport, support infrastructure, and housing

4.3 Auckland Council’s goal of reducing emissions from private vehicle use and having more people use public transport will only be possible if public transport is available, reliable, efficient and cost effective.

4.4 The Annual Plan aims to progress key public transport initiatives such as the City Rail Link, Puhinui Bus-Train Interchange and the first phase of the Eastern Busway project. We continue to support the City Rail Link and other multi-modal approaches to transport in Auckland such as the Bus-Train Interchange and Eastern Busway projects within the Annual Plan.

4.5 With all three of these projects, there is a need to align land use zoning for commercial, retail and housing density with public transport interchanges. Auckland Council needs to enable zoning for a range of housing typologies and commercial buildings near key emerging transport nodes. Intensifying around key transport nodes will not only increase housing supply which it critical in Auckland, but also ensure that planning is well-thought out as to not add to current road traffic congestion.

4.6 We recommend aligning major transport projects in Auckland with the right land zoning in the Auckland Unitary Plan to unlock transport, intensify employment, housing and urban renewal projects.

CBD connectivity

4.7 Public transport that connects key areas of the CBD is of paramount importance to all who choose to live, work, play and shop. Transport options need to be reliable and frequent, for users to switch from their private vehicles to public transport. Public transport access across Auckland needs to better connect individuals from their home to their work or desired destination. This would see a more integrated planning approach between Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and key stakeholders.

4.8 For example, the missing transport link in the city centre is connecting Wynyard Quarter with the rest of the CBD. Wynyard Quarter is an expanding commercial and residential area of

2 TomTom Auckland Traffic Index, https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/auckland-traffic#statistics

#3029



paramount importance to the CBD. It has limited car parking and public transport options, becoming isolated and hard to reach. We recommend greater connections between Britomart, Aotea Centre and Wynyard Quarter. This would not only help assist commuters but also allow Wynyard Quarter to flourish and reach its potential of being a vibrant and safe waterfront location for all.

5. Adjusting fees and charges

5.1 Our submission to Auckland Council on the 2019/20 Annual Plan raised concerns as to the fee increases for various resource and building consents. In particular, the increases were proposed with very little detail as to the justification. However, we are encouraged that Auckland Council undertook a six-month study into fees and charges and as a result are simplifying the fee structure and reducing fees for small projects that relate to building consent applications. We recommend Council continues its investigatory work by comparing its charges with other local authorities around New Zealand and report on its findings.

5.2 The proposed new fee structure would see some fees being moved to fixed charges or to a base fee with additional charges for hours of work. The time Council consents take to be approved add significant cost to residential, commercial and industrial developments in Auckland. Many of our members would be happy to pay for senior resources where appropriate to speed up the current consenting process. We recommend Council investigate a tiered consenting approach in which applicants can request to pay a higher fee for senior resources and a quicker turnaround, provided all applicant paperwork obligations are accurately completed.

5.3 Council consent applications significantly vary in the time they take to get approval. We recommend Council adopt a consenting policy outlining certain time and cost expectations that can be used during the application stage. This would provide more certainty to both Council employees and applicants in terms of the average time an application should take. We further recommend council undertake additional improvements to efficiency of consent approvals such as, increasing council resources and upskilling council consent staff.

6. Rates differential

6.1 The rates differential is the difference between the rates residential property owners are charged and the higher rates businesses are charged. Auckland Council proposes to reduce the portion of general rates paid by businesses from 31.68 per cent in 2020/21, to 25.8 per cent by 2037/38. This would see the rates differential decrease by 5.88 per cent over an 18-year period. This is a significant amount of time for businesses to be paying an ‘inappropriate differential’ according to Auckland Council.

6.2 The Productivity Commission New Zealand report into local government funding and financing, November 2017 reviewed Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan 2018-28. The report states: “the Council reports a decision to adjust the rates differential over a 20-year period to reduce the proportion of general rates taken from business properties; but it does not provide

#3029

details of the basis for this decision.”3 The Annual Plan 2020/21 is consistent with this, stating: “…council has decided that the appropriate differential for business is to raise 25.8 per cent of the general rates take.”4 This highlights the lack of transparency as to how the Council decided what was an ‘appropriate level’ of business funding and aligns with our transparency concerns below.

6.3 We do not support rates differentials as a rating tool due to lack of transparency as to what the differential funds. Rates differentials are collected as general rates and are added to the overall pool of money, making it near impossible for businesses who pay the rating differential to track the total charges and where it is spent. This results in a lack of transparency for commercial ratepayers as it is unclear what their additional rates are funding and whether it is beneficial to their business needs. Often the level of commercial rates paid is disproportionate to the level of services received.

6.4 Funding mechanisms such as targeted rates and user pay rating systems support the principles of transparency and objectivity in legislation (Local Government Act 2002 and Local Governing (Rating) Act 2002). Both these rating systems are beneficiary pay models, meaning those who benefit or use the service contribute towards it. For example, money collected via targeted rates are ringfenced to a project or geographic area that will benefit from the funding. We support beneficiary pay funding mechanisms, as they are transparent and provide a better understanding and opportunity to engage on where rates are spent.

6.5 Our position on transparency is consistent with the 2019 New Zealand Productivity Commission report on local government funding and financing which found that “councils’ rating practices are too often not transparent.”5 The report recommends councils should make better and more transparent use of their rating and other funding tools.6

6.6 Our position of abolishing rates differentials is consistent with Central Government’s 2007 Local Government Rates Enquiry (known as the Shand report) which recommended that in the interest of transparency, rates differentials should be abolished and replaced with targeted rates.7

6.7 Although in principle we support reducing the rates differential (albeit a lot quicker than currently proposed), we wish to see it removed entirely and replaced with alternative funding mechanisms such as; targeted rates, user charges (i.e. congestion charges), public-private partnerships and special purpose vehicles.

7. Funding the City Centre Masterplan Refresh

7.1 In our submission to Auckland Council on the City Centre Masterplan refresh 2019 (“CCMP”), we noted that project delivery will depend on funding, which in most cases is not yet

3 Productivity Commission New Zealand, Local government funding and financing, November 2019, pg. 196. 4 Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/21, Supporting Information, pg. 90. 5 Productivity Commission New Zealand, Local government funding and financing, November 2019. 6 Ibid, pg. 307. 7 Funding Local Government, Report of the Local Government Rates Inquiry, August 2007.

#3029

confirmed.8 Our submission noted that there are significant amount of priorities across Auckland that need funding and financing from general rates, and it is likely that projects within the CCMP may not receive funding due to other demands in Auckland. We recommended that a targeted rate occur to support project/s in the CCMP that are of greatest benefit to those residing and working in the CBD. Under our recommendation, targeted rates should replace rates differentials.

7.2 The Annual Plan 2020/21 is unclear whether the city centre targeted rate for projects (in the City Centre redevelopment programme) includes projects in the CCMP. After further investigation, we understand that targeted rates fund the city centre business case development programme and Master Plan targets. We recommend the targeted rate is extended to also include the delivery of key projects within the CCMP that are of greatest benefit to those residing and working in the CBD.

8. Conclusion

8.1 We generally support the draft Annual Plan 2020/21. At a high level we recommend the following:

• better coordination for the development and delivery of key infrastructure

• aligning major transport projects with Unitary Plan land zoning to supportintensification

• additional improvements to efficiency of consent applications

• a faster reduction of the rating differential

• extend the city centre targeted rate to support the delivery of key project/s in theCCMP.

8.2 Property Council members invest, own and develop property across Auckland. We wish to thank Auckland Council for the opportunity to submit on the Annual Plan 2020/21 as this gives our members a chance to have their say in how Auckland is shaped, today and into the future.

8.3 Any further queries do not hesitate to contact Katherine Wilson, Senior Advocacy Advisor, via email: [email protected] further queries do not hesitate to contact Katherine Wilson, Senior Advocacy Advisor, via email: [email protected] or cell: 027 8708 150.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Hay Auckland Branch Executive President Property Council New Zealand

8 Property Council New Zealand, Auckland Council Central City Masterplan Refresh, October 2019. https://www.propertynz.co.nz/sites/default/files/uploaded-content/field_f_content_file/property_council_submission_to_auckland_council_on_central_city_masterplan_refresh.pdf

#3029






Item 4 - Property Council - Andrew & Catherine

Speaking notes recorded on 11 March 2020:

• Congratulate on proposed Annual Budget, however some improvements.

• Property council delivers - $30 billion to the economy. Represents community throughKiwisaver.

• Have Ngati Whatua as a members on our board.

• Members deliver commercial and residential. Passionate about shaping the community.

• Four key topics:

o Coordinated planning

o Transport

o Fees and Charges

o Rating differentials

• More coordination between council, its CCOs and central government.

• Arguably the most important infrastructure of Auckland is its transport, traffic congestioncosts almost $2 billion dollars of lost productivity per year

• According to TomTom navigation in 2019 Portland spent on average, six days and 19 hourssitting in traffic during rush hour. This is huge impact on productivity, it equates to 144episodes of a TV show.

• Annual Budget needs to show a switch from private to public transport, we will see areduction in emissions.

• This requires more integrated planning in a coordinated approach from council, AT and centralgovernment.

• 2019 City Centre Master Plan, fell short as it was not planned to be connected to thedevelopments of the city center. For example, Wynyard quarter and back into the CBD. Thisshows the limited approach and short planning from council coordination with transport withcurrent and future development projects. By being more coordinated we reduce of the risk ofisolated communities.

• Fees & Charges

• Time equals money, this adds to projects risks and acts a barrier to delivering futuredevelopments with the time delay.

• We would like to a see a consistent policy outlining time, and cost expectations that can beused.

• Many of our members would be comfortable to pay for senior resources if a moreimprovements in efficiency such as increasing council resourcing and upskilling staff.

• Rates differentials, we do not support this as a rating tool. This makes it near impossible forbusiness to pay the differential rates and this results in a lack of confidence, transparency forthe business and commercial property sector.

#3029

• Our position on rates differentials is consistent with the 2019 Productivity Commission Reporton Local Government Funding and Financing. The report recommendation to council to makebetter use of existing funding tools and greater transparency.

• We recommend removing the rates differential and replacing with target rates, congestioncharges to public or private partnerships and SPVs.

• In conclusion we generally support the drafted plan, at a high level recommend to get acoordinated approach for development with transport and supporting infrastructure align withmajor transport projects with zoning to support intensification. Additional improvements ofefficiency of consenting applications and the removal of the rating differential.

Cr/LB member

Question/Comment

Cr Cooper Thank you for your submission.

I noticed no mention of NZTA, are you going to lobby the government to support with funding?

Response: Our submission only covers with Auckland council and working with AT, and central government. We are actively lobbying with government, government organisations and ministries around transport. In particular we have been meeting with Minister of Transport, Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Environment and how we can better connect our walkways, cycleways, regional transport hubs and focus on intensifying around these regional transport hubs to better provide people access to housing and employment. It is a coordinated effort and this is required.

Cr Cashmore

Presentation well done, a couple things: • bearing in mind the isthmus the employment area and integration/migration.

The Isthmus area has a lot of focus, especially intensification on residential housing, there is new shops and heritage building, does the Property Council have a view on these two impedements?

Response: Will get back to you offline.

Cr Cashmore: We have a 10 year funded programme – would you support allocation was taken away and put in a procurement delivery?

Response: we would provide support to concept that provides certainty of delivery

Cr Coom Thank you for your work on city centre to extend the targeted rate. The CBD has 35,000 people who live in. The city centre inclues the whole area. Co-orinations of infrastructure – is there a view of co-orindation of developments in the city centre – should we co-ordinate to minimize delays in the city centre - is there a view from your members? From private development there is no way that council would be involved. Is that covered in your submission?

Response: There is no clear solution on this and we do not include this in our submission.

#3029

Mayor Thank you for your submission and support of the AB.

Para 8, talk about additional improvements to the efficiency of consenting applications, the reports we get back they have raiseed resource building time from 64% within 20 statutory days to 90% within 20 days, have your staff experience this shift?

Yes, however, even though its within the 20-day timeframe, it could be on our end but they come back to us could be the application size or something they can legally stop the clock and those days can tick over the 20-woring days, so it could actually be taking longer.

Mayor: But you would accept that if our officers are not sent all the information thay've got to send it back to you to do it, and they can't be held responsible for that.

Response: yes

Mayor: No worries, we will take back feedback and were looking at continual improvements in that area. Secondly, how viable do you think a further reduction in the rating differentials, for example this year, the reduction of the rating differential is being staggered. For example businesses are paying 2.5% rate increase but residential will be 4%. As a residential rate payer, how would you feel about picking up the slack.

Response: Well I would say rates differentials means that businesses pay higher rates and cross subsidize the residential rate take in the first place. So they're already subsidizing residential rate take and now Auckland Council has said that the level they're subsidizing it is inappropriate that’s what's in the annual plan, and an appropriate level is 25.8% and 20 years is a long time to be paying an inappropriate level.

Mayor: The question is whether you think it's viable that you suddenly make that switch and you have a quiet massive increase of residential rates, how do you think that will go down with your members?

Response: Council can look at alternative funding mechanisms to help bridge that gap, in our submission we talked about the tools that are currently available under the Local Government Act, and we also have further tools that the government has established through the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill, and we support that bill that the government are doing. And we think that is a fantastic opportunity for council to really work with government and leverage those other rating tools that can help with our infrastructure short fall.

Mayor: the problem is we're looking to pick up all those things that are being introduced through the legislation. I don’t think you will find it easy to suddenly to switch the amount of rating that you would lose from businesses to another instrument, I guess that’s my point.

#3029

Cr Casey Auckland Council is a corporate member of the property council, can you tell me how that works in relation to setting your advocacy priorities which is one of the functions of a corporate member? And who sits on the body for us?

Response: We will get back to you with our members names as we have just refreshed our structure in Feb 2020.

Cr Casey: Corporate membership would have a conflict of interest with setting your priorities.

Cr Newman

Sympathy with Mayor point, because what he is asking is how purists are we going to be or what pragmatism we're going to bring to the argument of carrying out differentials right, because you have to sustain this policy in partnership with your community, so 20 years may seem a long time but actually there's been significant progress made.

In relation to Development Contributions, does the Property Council believe that the full cost of growth should be priced at development contribution or should some of the cost of that growth be socialized with the wider community?

Yes so development contribution is a contribution to growth but not whole covering, and we have seen SPV was used with crown infrastructure partners, where to fund the bulk upfront and infrastructure is being funded through those who benefit. So is more like a beneficiary pays rating model, in which those that live in the area and that pay contribute towards the infrastructure over a long 25 year time period, are benefiting from the infrastructure.

Cr Simpson Thank you for your time, submissions and some helpful options for answers, very helpful, thank you.

#3029

Submission on The Draft Annual Plan 2020-2021 Chief Executive/Director

Submitter Details: Name M.Marinovich Zone Director Organisation Grey Power Zone 2 (Auckland Region)

Do you wish to speak in support of your submission Yes Introduction I am the Grey Power Zone Director for the Grey Power Federation Zone 2 which covers the seven Associations in the Auckland region with the responsibility to the Federation Board of co-ordinating their activities, and I am also President of Grey Power Waitakere Association. I fully endorse the submission made by Grey Power Waitakere and would like to add a further supporting submission in regard the the establishment of a Wine Industry Museum in Henderson at the Council owned Corban Estate property, the site of the Corban family homestead and winery. I am a member of the long established and close knit West Auckland Dalmation/Croation community who pioneered the wine industry in Auckland and New Zealand on their properties in the west, my own family being fourth generation orchardists in Oratia. The late Assid Corban, former Mayor of Henderson, Mayor of Waitakere City and a member of the old Auckland Regional Authority, as well the patriarch of the well known Corban wine industry family advocated strongly for the establishment of a Wine Industry Museum, ideally at the old family winery property at the Corban Estate property. Mr Corban had an extensive collection of wine making equipment, artefacts and documents he proposed to donate to form the basis of the collection for the museum. Grey Power strongly supported Mr Corban’s vision and community campaign with submissions to the Henderson Massey Local Board in early 2019, and there was support and encouragement from other wine industry people.

#3030

The project has lost some momentum and focus with the death of Mr Corban, and I ask that MOTAT provide funding its its current Plan to take a pro-active lead in re-activating the Wine Museum project by working with Auckland Council and carrying out a feasibility study aimed at establishing a Wine Museum at Henderson. Grey Power is very supportive of this project and we believe MOTAT involvement and support fits clearly in the core objective of “preserving of transport and technology and the effect it has had on the Auckland region, and New Zealand”. The wine industry is now one of New Zealand’s most significant and innovative, and it is critical that its heritage and history of its beginnings in West Auckland is protected and preserved before this singular opportunity is lost. It is logical that the Museum would develop into a national museum for the wine industry, and could be an integral part of MOTAT. Once Mr Corban’s heritage winemaking equipment and collection is taken out of storage at the late Assid Corban’s property plus artefacts available from other vineyards, it needs to be housed ideally in a building on the property of the old Corban Homestead in Henderson. Time is of the essence, and we respectfully suggest MOTAT has an element of responsibility to be pro-active on this so that important elements of our wine making history are not consigned to rubbish skips and lost forever. It I also an opportunity to establish an important linkage with the West Auckland community, valuable both to them and MOTAT. We trust that as a Board you will seriously consider and discuss the situation of the Wine Museum in Henderson, and encourage you to take a lead in promoting a satisfactory solution, which include interim measures to preserve Mr Corban’s artefacts and heritage material. We would ask that you make financial provision in the current Draft Annual Plan for an active MOTAT involvement in the Wine Museum development project in Henderson. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with you.

#3030

Item 1 - Grey Power: Bill Rayner

Speaking notes recorded on 11 March 2020: • Been in all the consultation process since the Auckland Plan began. • Key point: our original request was for a population policy forum to discuss the council

assumptions on populations growth, diversity and cultural changes on the Auckland Population

• prefer hearings styled HYS events for the consultation process. • A serious disconnect with the general community, completely in-efficient consultation and

submission process This is mainly due to size and structure and needs to be addressed. Eg North Shore is horrific. 4 years ago have your say process was introduced and the formal meetings fell away, written submission, appointment was sent.

• We have an issue with how the feedback form and consultation documents are laid out for making decisions on a multi-million dollar budget. Consultation is Digital access can send feedback a tweet. Written submissions were ignored and needs to be fixed.

• As part of the 10-year budget process we wrote a question to the Auditor-general's office. We had a detailed conversation and mainly the digital access. We made a formal submission, 400 personally written to our local board and were told these were ignored because they are combined. And we didn’t feature in their local board report at all. We are unhappy with that. So it needs to be fixed. We made a formal report to the auditor general about the HYS process.

• On the papers – Greypower has shifted focus. We are shifted to a focus basis – note in our papers – weren’t a submission here, they were different organisations eg ARAFA. Focused on a project, particularly heritage areas. Funding has disappeared $80million regional branch. Submissions we made were concentrate on the heritage of Auckland. Include $300K in the bucket – in the formulae in the act.

• Key issues, need of support for community organisations for submission.

• Senior community are suffering at the moment and a gap between old and young seniors.

• Full statutory review of the governance structure for Auckland Council, it's not working. The mayor is addressing the CCO structures.

• The population policy forum is fraught with fish-hooks, needs to be addressed.

• Senior housing, issue we have with council policy, selling off surplus land to finance the buildings development. only guarantee to keep the same number of housing.

• Phil Twyford is our conduit and working with them particulary in heritage but also is social housing sector and potential funding.

• Asset winery in Henderson is critical, there is momentum to do this and key for MOTAT to be proactive on this.

#3030

Cr/LB member

Question/Comment

Cr Casey Thanking for support for senior panel. This council has resolved for increase in funding for housing for older people.

Cr Hills Question: Appreciate your advice and work for council. We do have a break-down in communication and participation for voting, we are working this out. We have had 4 times the submission and engagement with the new HYS events structure compared to last structure. What would your structure be like: GP: although response rates increase quality of submissions drop. We have fundamental flaws in the consultation process. It's not credible, there were 800 phone submissions for Generation Zero, then those people got swamped so there is a fundamental flaw in the process. We are talking about a million dollar budget that is beyond a normal persons comprehension. What we are doing is not right.

Mayor Question: With the wine museum/winery what apatite, are they supportive of it and if they are I would have thought there was a commercial opportunity for sales, wine tasting etc. Possibly a Museum along side the Brian Corban homestead. What is the feedback for this industry on these opportunities? GP: There is certainly a commercial opportunity they introduced previously, but did not take off need more leadership. The industry do support this.

#3030

1


Submitter details


Organisation name: Coromandel Marine Farmers Association Inc.


Regional feedback





Other

#3063

2

No Comment








Other

No comment






No comment

Local priorities

Other feedback


#3063

3

Yes, we submit on the proposed marine farming charges as per our attached submission. In short the proposed charges are excessive.

#3063

Auckland Marine Farms & Consent Fees Page 1 of 2

Submission to Auckland Council Re Regional Resource Consent Annual Charges 2020/21 Section 2. Marine Farm - $209/ ha of farm

1. Introduction Until recently there were some 300ha of marine farms in Auckland Region, at; Mahurangi, Waiheke, Waimaungo, Great Barrier. Within ~ the last 2 years a further ~ 600ha of marine farm water has been granted in Auckland region in the Firth of Thames. 2. Issue of concern The quantum of the annual resource consent charge on marine farming appears to be excessively high at $209/ha and also is unreasonably increasing with more area without recognition of the greater area to cover the presumed marine farm share of costs. The potential annual fee for the ~300 ha of marine farm at the 2019/20 rate of $209/ha of marine farm would be ~ $62,700 then to $188,100, a threefold increase for the sector.

3. Discussion 3.1.1 Method of calculating the charge The submitters believe in principle that Council fees based on actual and

reasonable costs incurred in the administration and operation of resource consents are appropriate. It is noted that regional resource consent fees also include an (unspecified) component related to a “Functions Powers and Duties charge” (FPD). The submitters do not believe in principle being required to pay this component of the fee is appropriate, when;

a. it is unclear how marine farm (or other user) shares are calculated and allocated,

b. it is unclear how money raised is spent and how it relates to the marine farming activity,

c. Marine farmers undertake a wide range of monitoring already directly.

Auckland Marine Farms & Consent Fees Page 2 of 2

3.1.2 Comparison with other Regions The Marlborough District Council have no annual consent fee, only actual and reasonable costs incurred if any monitoring is necessary – irrespective of the size of the marine farm. Tasman District Council charge on a long line basis with a base fee of $450 for 0-10 long lines with an additional $25/long line. This fee is rebated by 50% where a consent holder has an environmental monitoring programme in place which is funded by the consent holder. Note that this is the total fee charged - there is no additional impact/monitoring component to the annual charging. The Waikato Regional Council charges Actual & reasonable for farm inspections and also charge Admin at $170+gst per farm per year plus $76+gst per hectare per year, thus at that rate the 90 ha would = $76K/yr (not $188K) for 50 farms even with the total of 900ha.

4. Relief sought

• For AMS; we support that consent holders are to be charged the actual and reasonable cost of undertaking compliance monitoring inspections, reporting and administration, all as is associated with ensuring activities are carried out in accordance with consent conditions.

For FPD; We ask that the Council preferably delete this charge

on marine farms. Alternatively review and much reduce the proposed $209 rate/ha to be charged to consent holders. That is in light of the excess burden & share of cost on marine farming that rate will create, given the recently much-expanded farm area, while costs (should have) have remained relatively fixed. Otherwise, the charges will surely be out of step;

o with actual and reasonable costs, o with what is charged in other regions o and with farmers ability to pay.

Council should provide the relief sought.



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Support



#3203






Support









translator's note: the respondent ticked "I support all of the priorities" without indicating the localboard.

Auckland Council

#3203

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/GsiaqRgn4aTxlqRBJDS3aA



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






Do not support



#3208













I suggest there should be more swimming stadiums.

Auckland Council

#3208

https://engage.ubiquity.co.nz/surveys/link/FoMS60Ef3tJ6vZ6xRIwMuw



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






#3211

Support








Support









#3211

Item 2 ‐ BID ‐ Mark Knoff‐Thomas, Viv Beck, Jan Tongatule, Kevin O'Leary, Cheryl Adamson

Speaking notes recorded on 11 March 2020: Currently 48 BIDS from across Auckland representing 25,000 businesses my own assessment of

capital value is in excess of $24 billion dollars, through the BID programme we work with council and council group to improve the local business environment and grow the regional economy.

We are working on a joint response right now in respect to each LB initiatives. We will cover the RFT and the NZ upgrade programme and this AB rating proposals and

concerns regarding the current situation with Covoid‐19 RFT, congestion has an impact on productivity for business and freight delivery etc. In the lead

up to the LTP we want to make clear we supported RFT as an interim measure, we want to reiterate our position as interim.

Our preference was to raise demand and raise funding more equitably as well as investing in public transport to drive behavior change.

We understand that the technical work is continuing through the LTP and would like access to this through more transparent work.

we would like to see more transparent records on the spend of this programme. We do not want to see this as a long‐term solution. We want to raise our concern with the programme underspend last year.

We want to raise our concern with business being over‐taxed. Want to ensure RFT is still equitable with other rates on transport modes as well. Reinforce

the importance of freight strategies. All we ask from council is having an open transparent process with the rates processes.

Current proposal with business differential would appreciate a further reduction on this as our businesses are having to deal with other financial challenges in our areas.

Importance of innovation in terms of addressing congestion, for eg. City Centre Master Plan and access for everyone we see that as a transformational opportunity for access into major areas of employment and that would be considered in terms of funding.

Reinforce the importance of work the Freight Strategy and particularly last mile deliveries for businesses.

We have seen the impact of not funding development spots in terms of not mitigating the impact of construction on business.

All we ask from council is an open, fair and transparent system and process around the rates process.

The current proposal of business differential will be set at 31.68% which is way above what council are looking for to reduce it to 25.8% over the term of the LTP. We appreciate the reduction and along with our members would appreciate a further reduction as per the Sham report, no business differential whatsoever would be terrific.

The waste management rate, again from a business perspective and business do seem to be penalized that are residential based.

We were pleased to see that there were no rates differential this year in that specific rate. Additional rates as well around the previous AKL city and Manukau areas. This is unfair from a

business perspective as business are accounting the costs of residential process. Food waste is a big issue for us as our business pay commercial contractors for managing their

food waste, which is an additional charge they have to bare that other residentials to not have to cover.

None of our business out west are affected by the septic tank proposal, no comment.

#3221

If we can speed up the reduction of the business rate differential that would be terrific. One of our concerns when reading the supporting information was with the targeted rates and

on page 89. there is an assumption that business will have to pay more if these targeted rates do not go through, ask for council to bare in mind what business are going through at the moment.

Covoid‐19, many business are small to medium, not much reserves to handle the impacts on retail, hospitality and other businesses in a challenging environment. Business are looking for customers and spend, fair to say, communications around "continue with normal activity" and eating out and doing more activity is important.

We appreciate public health needs and its dynamics, we just want to reiterate the impacts. We saw the importance of accurate and timely communications with the sky‐city fire, and

sending communications out about importance of working remotely, consider the impacts these decisions have on small business.

Business costs for cleaning, throwing major stock out, so take a holistic view, on residents, businesses who are impacted by these decisions.

We support ATEEDs initiative to promote domestic tourism right now. We are seeing central government are doing things to support businesses.

We know rates relief is not favored and we've certainly tried it, in instances business were severely impacted by construction, we highlight with your AB planning, to be flexible in your fees/rates and increases eg. Increase in public transport spend.

There will be a lot of business associations wanting to put forward projects through the LTP process. Asking Cr to consider further investment out east Auckland, street scape upgrade in St George's Bay Road and Parnell cycle ways projects to come through the next few months.

It’s a time for us all to work collectively to make sure we can support these businesses through this unprecedented experience, 97% of our business are small to medium, they cant take too much more before things start to look ugly.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this morning.

Cr/LB member

Question/Comment

Cr Cashmore

Question: Thanks for your submission. Congestion charging model is all about timing, what would you suggest is a good time to bring this on, would this be pot‐implementation of the CRL? BID: we need to see the detail of this technical piece of work and consider it more holistically because it’s a really important and have seen the challenges of access that’s so critical to business and ensuring there is increase access for businesses throughout the CRL. We need to understand the impacts throughout the center, and fringe areas. We encourage early engagement with stakeholders early in the process. So we make the right decisions at the right time. We have to transform access.

Mayor Question: Acknowledge the people speaking, the work that you do is really appreciated. I wont respond to covoid‐19 as Viv and I had a really long conversation on this. With the rates differential it takes your rates down for the business sector down by 2.5% this year, you should feel positive as Tauranga Council has increased by 12.6%, so should feel positive about this. With regards to climate change is part of our Annual Plan and our long‐term plan which you referred to before, what if anything businesses were thinking about doing so that they can be a partner in participating in the process of reducing our carbon emissions?

#3221

BID: collectively, waste management is a big part of what a lot of places are doing for managing waste more effectively, but I think something we're working on is really mobile shift to try and get people out of cars as much as possible. It's proving to be the biggest bang for our buck. We would encourage to increase education on waste management to build capability this should fit in with your climate framework. In Parnell, when they see the costs per annum for contracting out this work the shutters come down, so we see the support of waste management solutions through our BID network, as well as considering impacts on climate change. We support mode shift and initiatives for electrification.

Cr Coom Question: Acknowledgment and for last 9 years. If we could look hypothetically to allocate some funding like a contingency fund to respond to the impact, what are some ideas around supporting business, I know rates relief is tricky as it doesn’t flow‐down to the business its pocketed by the land‐lord. What are the specific things you would look at council for funding that would compliment what central government can allocate: BID: we are hearing positive signals of Central Government influencing the impact of cash flow. In addition, whilst understanding council constraints we are looking laterally around the levers council can pull to help businesses, and looking for opportunities as they are impacted by cash flows and fixed costs. If the government package is able to assist the impacted sectors to keep going that’s terrific however, there maybe other business who cannot access this support. We need to understand councils levers to reduce these challenges. Also Council to revisit their way of messaging, there is more opportunity to communicate these positively, like ATEEDS communications for domestic tourism.

Cr Newman

Question: Thank you very much. I see a need for a package around increase spending and tax cuts from central government. With respect to relationship development response, responding to the impact of things changing, construction, I too want more specificity around that because what does that look like. Because development response has to be targeted as apposed to being broad response. Has to be specifically targeted to a business or business affected by a developmentally given location. So talk me through that. BID: positive outcome from Albert St dev, advisory board developed a plan understanding bus impacts, hoardings, day‐today management of constructions and understanding the business needs. K‐road good example, funding by advisory board, and council understanding, having a programme, setting aside a component of a project budget to ensure a programme is developed. Three strands: 1. How do you work with stakeholders to activate their needs/development

response. Albert St, did not have/consider their needs. It is likely with large scale projects we will continue to advocate for these business.

#3221

2. We need a budget allocated to ensure business needs are heard, spaces for their suppliers for their deliveries.

3. This needs to be allocated through the project budget.

Cr Walker Question: Covoid‐19 impacts on business in the city‐centre? BID: City Centre delivers about $100 million of rates towards council, 20% of the Auckland economy, not including impact of suburban malls another big contributor to the Auckland economy.

Cr Casey Thank you for heart of city funding for homeless sector.

#3221

NGATI AWA-KI TE AWA O TE ATUA

Submission on Tūpuna Maunga Authority

Draft 2020/21 Operational Plan

6 February 2020

Ko Ōwairaka te maunga, Ko Ōwairaka te Pātuwatawata, Ko Te Waiunuroa o Wairaka te puna, Ko Te

Waimimi o Wairaka te awa, Ko te Keo o Wairaka te mauri, Ko te Waiorea ngā tuna kaitiaki o

Wairaka, Ko te Waitemata te moana, Ko Mataatua te waka, Ko Ngāti Awa te iwi.

I also wish to make an oral submission on 17 March

As Ngāti Awa ki te Awa o Te Atua, my whānau and I do not own any land in Tāmaki Makaurau, but

our deep ancestral, spiritual and cultural connection to Ōwairaka obliges us to protect the places of

those areas where our ancestors’ footsteps are imprinted. We therefore care deeply about the

maunga’s well-being now and forever.

Our submission, therefore needs to be understood in the context of the story of our ancestor, the

high-born chieftainess Wairaka after whom the maunga was named. She established her mana and

mauri over it 800 years ago and her wairua flows strongly through the maunga. Her wairua also

flows out to Western Springs and Te Wai Unuroa o Wairaka (the spring and waterway at Unitec) by

way of the aquifer system originating from Three Kings, known as Te Wai o Rakataura.

Operational plan: Treat the maunga as taonga tuku iho – treasures to be handed down to the generations

Operational plan: Recognise European and other histories and interaction with the maunga.

The operational plan to have consultation with other hapu, iwi, marae that have interest, history and historical ties to the maunga identified in the operational plan.

About Wairaka, our ancestress and how this establishes our spiritual and historical relationship

with Ōwairaka, Te Tatua o Riukiuta, Te Puke Tapapa o Whakapoi.

In around 1250 AD, Wairaka and her extended whanau journeyed to Aotearoa from the island of

Mauke in Rarotonga on board the waka Mataatua, which was captained by her father the high chief

Toroa. After making landfall at Parengarenga Harbour they ventured south before settling on the

maunga that later came to be known as Ōwairaka.

Shortly after their arrival, Wairaka’s father blessed some karaka saplings he had brought from

Rarotonga. He planted them on the summit and told Wairaka they would be a symbol of her home

#3222


should she later wish to return and establish herself there. In parallel with Pakeha immigrants

planting exotic trees on the maunga hundreds of years later, Toroa’s karaka were also introduced

species that reminded him of home. Yet over time, we have all come to love karaka and have

adopted them as our own.

After a time, Wairaka’s whanau left the region and established themselves in the Whakatane region.

Wairaka subsequently married and had three children. After they grew up and left home, she

decided to return to Auckland to be near to a brother, Te Whakapoi, who lived on Puketapapa (Mt

Roskill).

The maunga was still unoccupied when she returned, so Wairaka climbed to the summit and lit her

fires thus creating Te Pa o Wairaka – the home of Wairaka. She lived there for 30 years, establishing

herself as a brave and strong yet fair leader. From that time onwards the name has been held

because of the mana, the authority and physical and spiritual influence that she had. Wairaka

became the mountain; the mountain became her.

We therefore request to be consulted with directly in future about all operational and strategic plans

relating to Ōwairaka, and also about any significant changes or developments that will affect the

maunga.

Operational plan: Wairuatanga / Spiritual – Tread lightly / Planning to provide direction on how the Tūpuna Maunga values should be reflected on each maunga

Operational plan: The various aspects of the operational plan that pertain to exotic tree

removal

Operational plan: Mana hononga tangata – Actively nurture positive partnerships

Acknowledge and be respectful to the spirit of all the mountains

The maunga Ōwairaka and her trees, birds, insects known as Te Tini o Hakuturi, have therefore

always been of great importance to Ngati Awa whanui and the people of Mataatua through her son

Awanuiarangi, who fathered the people of Ngati Awa people.

In a more recent context, Te Tawera hapū has also a strong connection with these exotic trees and

to our Treaty partners, our Pakeha people. We acknowledge that we as Ngati Awa Ki te Awa O Te

Atua have Scottish family connections that put us right alongside our Pakeha whānau in protecting

the trees at Ōwairaka and protecting the Treaty relationship we have with each other.

#3222


In relation to the Tupuna Maunga Authority’s unilateral decision to remove 345 trees from Ōwairaka

/ Mt Albert, we as the descendants of Wairaka weren’t consulted about the proposed plan to

remove 345 trees from Ōwairaka under last year’s operational plan. It appears that nobody – Māori

or otherwise – were consulted even though they should have been.

It disturbs Te Tawera Hapu, that this year’s operational plan contains the same wording as last

year’s, so we would assume the Authority plans to continue getting rid of all exotic trees off

Ōwairaka, Te Puketapapa, Te Tātua a Riukiuta and other maunga. From a Te Ao Māori perspective,

severing the trees from the lifeforce of the maunga of all exotic trees is wrong because all trees give

life and come from Papatūānuku, Mother Earth. Removing hundreds of trees all at once from

Ōwairaka, and thousands more from other Auckland maunga, will harm the environment.

Furthermore, it saddens Te Tawera Hapu and Ngati Awa ki Te Awa O Te Atua, to see that media

coverage is making this a Māori versus Pākeha issue because back in time all of us – people, trees,

birds and everything - ultimately came from the one source. I am also concerned to hear that people

from Tupuna Maunga Authority and also Auckland Council have also positioned this as a racial issue.

It is not a racial issue; it is an environmental and spiritual one. It is also an issue that drives to the

heart of what was meant to be a positive Treaty partnership between Ngā Mana Whenua and

others. I encourage Tūpuna Maunga Authority to live by its value of ‘Tread lightly’ when making

significant changes.

I am the mountain and the mountain is me, I am the trees and the trees are me, I am the insects and

the insects are me. This proverb relates to bringing people on a journey

Operational plan: Wairuatanga / Spiritual – On-site and off-site interpretation and story telling Operational plan: Mana Aotūroa / Cultural and heritage – Sharing European and other histories

and geological significance

Wairaka’s spirit and memory of her strong personality also flows through the maunga and

surrounding areas.

Western Springs was formed when she passed urine (mimi) there and placed her eels in the resulting

pool, hence the name Te Waimimi o Wairaka. Afterwards, she buried a Keo (powerful stone) at what

#3222


is now Auckland Zoo, naming it Te Mauri o Wairaka. She also created a spring at nearby UNITEC by

stamping her foot above the aquifer until water sprang forth. To this day the spring bears her name -

Te Waiunuroa o Wairaka (the long drink of Wairaka).

The special place of Ngā Mana Whenua and their histories in Ōwairaka and other maunga absolutely

must be acknowledged, respected and highlighted. However, it is also important that all histories

are acknowledged, told and respected - not just some. We would hope that signage and other

interpretative materials at Ōwairaka in particular, but also Te Puketapapa and Three Kings

acknowledge ancient histories (e.g. Wairaka), other iwi histories (where these are known) such as

Rakataura, as well as more modern ones (e.g. European).

It is our hope that the missing Wairaka history interpretive panel will be reinstated on Ōwairaka,

along with information about how her wairua flows out to Western Springs and Unitec via the

aquifer.

Operational plan: Healing – Restoration of indigenous native ecosystems

Operational plan: Mauri Pūnaha Hauropi / Ecology and biodiversity

We support restoring restoration of indigenous native ecosystems / reintroducing native plants and

attracting native animal species BUT it must be done in the context of acknowledging that all trees –

even exotic ones - are the children of Ranginui and Papatūanuku. Trees provide us with the air that

we breathe. They stabilize the soil. Trees also help keep water clean and prevent flooding. They

enable us to live in the world and the environments in which we need to be one with all the

elements. These trees connect us all to a shared existence in the time dimensions of the past,

present and future.

We have spent many hours at Ōwairaka in particular during recent months since we learned of the

Authority’s plans to fell all the exotic trees there as well as on other maunga. In looking around the

new plantings at Ōwairaka, we question the integrity of the planned approach to restoring

indigenous native ecosystems and encourage the Authority to review this approach under its draft

Operational Plan. For example, in some cases the wrong types of native plants have been planted in

on the bare hillside by the archery field.

“Tiakina te mauri o nga rakau, ma ratou ano tatou e manaaki rawa. Look after the trees and the

trees will look after us”.

#3222


We can see there has been no cultural integrity in the way they have been planted. We propose that

if it does go ahead that there be staged process to allow the bird life, plant life, everything that exists

above and below has an opportunity to transform from the forest as it is today, where it needs to be

in the future. We acknowledge that there is already a relationship where the exotic trees and the

native trees are not competing against other in fact they are living in harmony.

Protecting the mana and the mauri of Ōwairaka is very important to Ngati Awa Ki te Awa O Te Atua

and we believe this is vital for other maunga too. We urge the Tūpuna Maunga Authority to leave

the exotic trees in place to provide protective cover for the many decades it will take for the native

plants to grow to maturity. This will protect the maunga itself, and the birds and other life that call

the maunga their home.

Ngati Awa Ki te Awa O Te Atua are in full support of actions that will benefit our ancestral mountain

Ōwairaka, named for the daughter of Toroa and wider to Maiurenui of Tainui and the people of

Taranaki.

Wairaka children have vast connections that include, Te Whanau a Apanui, Whakatohea, Ngai Tai,

Tuhoe, Ngati Whare, Ngati Manawa, Ngati Rangitii, Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau, all the iwi in Tauranga,

all the Te Arawa tribes in Rotorua.

Ngati Awa ki Te Awa o Te Atua encourages the Tūpuna Maunga Authority to live by its values in

particular, the TMA values of mana hononga tangata / actively nurture positive relationships.

Adhering to this value in all your actions will help to ensure the operational plan’s proposed actions

are inclusive rather than divisive. Taking a wide range of perspectives into account will enhance and

improve positives relationships between the Authority, Ngā Mana Whenua, iwi that have historical

ties to the mountain, and all other people.

Pouroto Ngaropo MNZM, JP

#3222

1

AkBids

Business Improvement Districts OF Auckland

16March2020

SubmissiontoAucklandCouncilAnnualBudget2020/2021AucklandCouncilisseekingfeedbackontheAucklandCouncilAnnualBudget2020/21andrelatedannualbudgetpolicydocuments.ThissubmissionwascompiledbyaBIDcollectiveincludingHeartoftheCity,Newmarket,Parnell,GreaterEastTamakiandNorthHarbourBusiness.ItwasdistributedtoseveralotherBIDswhomayuseallorpartofthecontentintheirindividualsubmissions.Ourfeedbackcovers:1

(1) AnnualBudget2020/2021RatingProposals(2) ConcernsregardingtheimpactoftheCoronavirus(COVID-19)(3)RegionalFuelTax,theNewZealandUpgradeProgrammeandClimateChange

(1)AnnualBudget2020/2021RatingProposalsOuroverall feedback is thatwhatbusinessesneedmost fromCouncil isa fair, transparentandstableapproachtorates.BusinessdifferentialWhileweappreciatethatthebusinessdifferentialisbeingreducedandlooktothatbeingfurtherreducedintheLongTermPlan2021/31,fundamentally,wedonotaccepttheviewthatabusinessdifferentialshouldbeappliedtoratesespeciallyforreasonsthat“businessesarebetterabletomanageadditionalcoststhanresidentialproperties”orbecause“businessescanclaimbackGSTandexpenseratesagainsttax.”2Thesereasonsdonotjustifythebusinessdifferential,particularlyforsmallbusinesseswhomakeupmostbusinesses inAuckland.TheShandReportonFundingLocal Government recommended against rating differentials. In 2020/2021 the businessdifferentialratioswillbesetsothat31.68percentofgeneralrates(UAGCandvalue-basedgeneral

1Withregard to theamendments to theRatesRemissionandPostponementPolicyandRevenueandFinancingPolicy,pleasetreatourfeedbackbelowasalsobeingfeedbackontheamendmentstothosePolicies.2AssetoutintheAdditionalsupportinginformationtotheLongTermPlan2018/2028.Forexample,ifincomeforasmallbusinessisrelativelyflat,butthereisasignificantrates increase,theextraratesexpensewill impactnegativelyontheprofitabilityofthebusinessandmayevenforcethebusinesstorunataloss.

#3223

2

rate)comefrombusiness.Bycomparison,TaurangaCityCouncilhasnobusinessratesdifferentialatall.WasteManagementTargetedRate3Our overall feedback is that while we accept the need to pay for increases in the costs ofresponsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) due tointernationalmarketconditions,andthatincreasingthetargetedrateisthemostappropriatewayofachievingthis,wequestionwhetherratesarefairtobusinesseswhentheactivitiesfundedbythiswastemanagementtargetedrate(particularlytheincreases)largelybenefitresidentialusers.Inaddition,weholdconcernsthatmanysmallbusinessesarebeingencouragedtotakeindividualresponsibility, especially for food waste, which places additional financial burdens on smallbusinesses.RefuseCollectionintheformerAucklandCityandManukauCityareas4Again, our overall feedback is that while we accept that the new refuse collection contracts(includingforfoodscraps)willincreasecostsintheformerAucklandCityandManukauCityareas(andthattheywillalsohelp Council divert materials from landfill and likely be more cost effective over the longer term), wealsoquestionwhethertheseratesarefairtobusinesseswhentheactivitiesfundedbytherateslargelybenefitresidentialusers.TheWaitākereruralsewerageserviceandtargetedrateAs our business association is not located in theWaitākere Ranges, wewon’t bemaking anyspecificsubmissionsonthisproposal,otherthantosaythatthisserviceshouldnotbefundedfromallgeneralratepayers.(2)ConcernsregardingtheimpactoftheCoronavirus(COVID-19)Concerns expressed fromour local businessmembers are that the Coronavirus (COVID-19) isalreadyhavingasignificantimpactontheirbusinesses.Theimpactstodateincludedirectfinancialimpactsonbusinesses(especiallyhospitality,tourismandsomeretailcategories),supplychainandmarketdisruptionaswellaseffectsonproduction.Therearealsosignificantimpactsforimportersandexporters.Shouldtheseimpactsbeprolonged,theeconomicimpactwillbesevere.Although preparations for the Annual Budget 2020/2021 preceded the outbreak of theCoronavirus (COVID-19), we need to alert the Council to the concerns of our local businessmembers.WhiletheGovernmentisduetoannounceapackagetosupportbusiness,weaskCounciltourgentlyconsidermeasuresthatitmighttaketoassistbusinesses.WebelievetheurgencyandsignificanceoftheimpactsonbusinessesandtheeconomynecessitateCouncilconsideringoptionssuch as deferring rates increases, interim rates relief, and accelerating the reduction in thebusinessdifferential.This is set against aback-dropof aminimumwage increaseon1April2020, thatwill furtherimpactthecashflowofmanybusinessesunderstressbecauseoftheCoronavirus(COVID-19). 3 YourConsultationDocumentsaysthatthecostofresponsiblydealingwithourkerbsiderecycling(paper,cardboardandplastics)hasincreasedduetointernationalmarketconditions.Topayforthisyouareproposingtochargeonlythosewhousetheservicebyincreasingthetargetedrateby$19.97ayearor$0.38aweek(thetotalcostchangingfrom$121.06to$141.03incl. GST). You say that if Council does not do this, youwill have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for allratepayers,includingthosewhodon’tgetakerbsidecollectionservice.4YourConsultationDocumentsaysthatintheoldAucklandCityandManukauCityCouncilareas,householdspayforrubbishthroughatargetedrate.Inotherpartsofthecity,residentspayfortheircollectionviaPayAsYouThrow.ThetargetedratefortheAucklandCityandManukauCityCouncilareasnolongermeetsthecostofcollection.Tocoverthisextracostyouareproposing increasing the targeted rate in theseareasby$14.23ayearor$0.27aweek fora120 litrebin (the total costchangingfrom$129.93to$144.16incl.GST),anda$20.91increaseayearor$0.40aweekforalarge240litrebin(thetotalcostchangingfrom$191to$211.91incl.GST).Yousaythatifyoudonotdothis,Councilwillhavetoincreasegeneralratesforallratepayers, includingthose livingoutsidethesetwoareaswhowouldsubsidiseresidentsofoldAucklandandManukaucities.

#3223

3

Wearealsoconscious that thecityhasabigyearahead in2021withsignificant internationaleventsincludingtheAmerica’sCupandweneedtomitigatetheimpactonbusinessesasmuchaspossibleinordertobenefitfullyfromtheupsidewhenitdoescome.(3)RegionalFuelTax,theNewZealandUpgradeProgrammeandClimateChangeAtarecentBIDManager’smeetingontheAnnualBudget2020/2021,weaskedCouncilfinanceofficerswhatworkisunderwayregardingtheRegionalFuelTaxasBIDshavesupporteditasaninterimmeasureonly.RegionalFuelTaxOurpreferenceistointroduceinitiativesthatbothmanagedemandandraisefundingequitablyassoonaspossible,balancedwithinvestmentintoaffordableandmorefrequentpublictransportinordertoeffectsustainablebehaviouralchange.Weunderstand,forexample,thattechnicalworkonthe ‘CongestionQuestion’projectthathasbeenexaminingthepotential toapplycongestioncharging inAuckland isprogressing.Weunderstand thatCouncil anticipates that the technicalinvestigatoryphaseofthisprojectwillbecompletedinthefirsthalfof2020andsubsequentlybereported to Government and Auckland Council for decisions on any further work. As aconsequence,welookforwardtothisworkbecomingpubliclyavailable. Intheinterim,whilewehavesupportedaregionalfueltaxof10centsperlitre(plusGST),weaskfor greater transparency regarding the spending of this tax on specific transport projects andservices.Wewish to avoid the regional fuel tax,which is the equivalent of a significant ratesincrease(especiallyfortransportoperators),beingusedasa‘topup’foroveralltransportbudgets.WearealsoconcernedabouttheunderspendoftheRegionalFuelTaxby$268minitsfirstyear.AlthoughweappreciatethatthespendoffundsraisedbytheRegionalFuelTaxisplannedovertheten-yeartermoftheRFTandthatinsomeyearsthespendwillbelessthantherevenue(withthe balance being held in a specific reserve to be released for projects scheduled later in thedecade),youwillappreciateweareworried thatbusinessesarebeingover-taxed if theRFT isbeingunderspentorthatinfrastructureisnotbeingbuiltattherequiredpace.NewZealandUpgradeProgrammeThegovernmenthasallocated$6.8billionintotransport($5.3billiononroadsand$1.1billiononrail)withAucklandreceiving$3.48billionofthetransportfunding.MayorGoffsaysthiswillbeputtowardthe$1.3billionMillRoadhighway,the$411millionPenlinktollroad,thewideningofStateHighway1betweenPapakuraandDrurySouthandthe$360millionSeaPathwalkingandcyclingpathacrosstheHarbourBridge.WeunderstandthatAucklandCouncilisworkingwithcentralgovernmenttoestablishtheimpactoftheNewZealandUpgradeProgrammeinvestmentonCouncil’sbudgets.Yousaythatdecisionsonbothrevenuesettingsand/oradditionalinvestmentwillbemadethroughthe10-yearBudget2021-2031process.WeaskthatthisbemanagedtransparentlywithaviewtomakingfairandequitabledecisionsregardinghowthisgovernmentinfrastructurepackageimpactsonthelevelsoftheregionalfueltaxandratesfundingfortransportprovidedforintheLTP2021-2031.ClimateChangeWe note the Council’s emphasis in the Annual Budget on climate change with actions likeelectrification of the vehicle fleet, moving to sustainable energy at council facilities and treeplantingspecified.BIDsareinvolvedwithavarietyofinitiativesrelatingtoclimatechange,suchassupportingmodeshiftintransport,electrificationofthebusfleetandsustainablewasteinitiatives.

#3223

4

AsthemajorityofbusinessesacrosstheAucklandRegionaresmalltomediumsized,wewelcomeinitiatives that support business to make the necessary changes. Funding for education isparticularlyimportanttoraiseawarenessanddrivechange.ConclusionsAsweenteraveryuncertainperiod,especiallyforsmallandmediumsizedbusinessesandthosereliant on international markets, we ask the Council to consider carefully whether there areoptionsforCounciltoconsiderreliefforthesebusinessesintheAnnualBudget2020/2021.Yourssincerely,CherylAdamson,ParnellBusinessAssociationonbehalfofthecollectivementionedonpage1

#3223



Attachment:

Language: Chinese

Organisation name:






#3235

Other

Rubbish Tag















#3235

Feedback must be received by Sunday 22 March 2020.Please read the consultation document available at akhaveyoursay.nz or at any library, service centre, local board office or by phoning 09 301 0101 before you give feedback. It has more information about the issues and choices that we want your feedback on.All of the questions below are optional. We encourage you to give feedback online at akhaveyoursay.nz, or you can complete this form and return it to us using one of these options:

Email Scan your completed form and email it to [email protected].

In person Drop your completed form off at your local library, service centre or local board office.

By post Place your completed form in an envelope

and send it to freepost address: AK Have Your Say, Auckland Council, Freepost Authority 182382,

Private Bag 92 300, Auckland 1142.

WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK

Your feedback will be included in public documents. All other personal details will remain private.

First name:

Last name:

Email address or postal address:

Your local board:

Is your feedback on behalf of an organisation or business?

(If yes, this confirms you have authority to submit on the

organisation’s behalf)

Yes No

Name of organisation or business:

The following information is optional but will help us

know whether we are hearing from all Aucklanders.

Are you: Female Male Gender diverse

What age group do you belong to?

Under 15 15-24 25-34 35-44

45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Which of the following describes your ethnicity? (Please select as many as apply)

Pākehā/NZ European Māori

Chinese South East Asian

Samoan Tongan

Indian Korean

Cook Islands Māori

Other (please specify)

All personal information that you provide in this submission will be held and protected by Auckland Council in accordance with our privacy policy (available at aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/privacy and at our libraries and service centres) and with the Privacy Act 1993. Our privacy policy explains how we may use and share your personal information in relation to any interaction you have with the council, and how you can access and correct that information. We recommend you familiarise yourself with this policy.

Every three years we do a 10-year Budget which plans out our work programme and how to fund it. Each year, we update the 10-year Budget to respond to emerging issues and reflect any changes to our fees and charges. Given 2020-2021 is the third year between budgets, the changes we propose are updates to the current work programme outlined in the 2018-2028 10-year Budget.

In 2019 Auckland Council declared a climate emergency and responding to climate change will be a key theme of the next 10-year Budget. We are finalising a climate change framework

and this year we will start putting in actions to reduce Auckland Council’s emissions by 20% over the next five years.

Managing our waste sustainably is becoming increasingly important and we are diverting more material away from landfills. We are also working on developing a local solution to recycling so we don’t need to continue to send recyclable materials offshore.

This year’s budget is proposing adjustments to some fees and charges to ensure they are fair (with those benefiting from services paying for them), more transparent and easier.

✃

Federated Farmers ofNew Zealand

#3313

Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau CityTo answer the following question please read page 14 of the consultation document

In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas,

households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. In other

parts of the city, residents pay for their collection via Pay As You

Throw. The targeted rate for the Auckland City and Manukau City

Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.

To cover this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate

in these areas by $14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin

(the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16 incl. GST), and

a $20.91 increase a year or $0.40 a week for a large 240 litre bin

(the total cost changing from $191 to $211.91 incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to increase general rates for

all ratepayers, including those living outside these two areas who

would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau cities.


Support Do not support Other

Please tell us your reasons for this:

2.

Waste management targeted rateTo answer the following question please read page 14 of the consultation document

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling

(paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international

market conditions.

To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the

service by increasing the targeted rate by $19.97 a year or

$0.38 a week (the total cost changing from $121.06 to

$141.03 incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by

increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who

don’t get a kerbside collection service.


Support Do not support Other


1.

To see how your rates may change go to our rates guide at akhaveyoursay.nz.

Please provide your opinion below, all questions are optional.

Targeted rates pay for specific services, or they apply to specific ratepayers in certain areas. In this section, we are proposing changes to certain targeted rates. This means that ratepayers only pay for services they receive.

The alternative to these proposals would be to further increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those who do not receive those services.

✃

Federated Farmers agrees that it is approprate

that the refuse collection targeted rate should be

raised so that it covers the cost of the service.

Federated Farmers agrees that it is appropriate

that the waste management targeted rate should

be raised so that it covers the cost of the service.

#3313

5.

Need more room? You can attach extra pages, but please make sure they are A4 and also include your name and contact information.

Local board priorities

Which local board does your feedback relate to?

In your opinion, are the priorities right for the local board area in 2020/2021?

I support all the priorities

I support most of the priorities

I do not support most of the priorities

I do not support any of the priorities


4.

Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate To answer the following question please read page 15 of the consultation document

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pumpout

service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated

a willingness to go ahead with the removal of this service in

the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas,

residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area said they

wanted to keep the service. The cost of delivering this service is

higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43.

Our proposal, for those in the Waitākere Ranges local board

area who want the service, is to recover the full cost by

increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year

(incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we do not do this, the council could end the service, or

continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank

users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general

ratepayers, including those who don’t use the service.


Support the proposal - continue the service through a targeted rate

Do not support the proposal - end the service

Do not support the proposal - continue the Waitākere septic tank service subsidised by all general ratepayers


3.✃

Other feedback – what is important to you? You can find more information about our proposals in our consultation document, pages 14 to 29.

Do you have any feedback on any other issues?

Franklin & Rodney

Federated Farmers considers that this is a matter

for the local community to determine.

Federated Farmers sees the Budget as being

"more of the same", with changes only to some

service charges and targeted rates. Federated

Farmers generally supports that approach.

However, given the current uncertainty that is arising

as a result of the international Covid-19 outbreak,

Federated Farmers asks that the Council

reconsider its proposed General Rate and UAGC

increase.

In support of this, I attach a letter from the President

of Federated Farmers, Katie Milne, which is being

sent to all local authorities tomorrow, 23 March.

Federated Farmers particularly supports the 2

"rural" local boards working with farmers and other

landowners to address environmental issues.

Federated Farmers is concerned that the Rodney

Local Board proposes to continue to levy the

transport rate across all of Rodney, but to use the

funds only in the townships, on buses and footpaths.

#3313

23 March 2020 To Mayors, Chairs, Councillors and Chief Executives All Regional, City and District Councils CALL TO CONTAIN RATES RISES AND RECONSIDER CONSULTATION PROCESSES On behalf of Federated Farmers of New Zealand I am asking all Councils to keep their ratepayers in mind when considering their draft annual plans for 2020/21 and to consider whether some consultation processes in the pipeline need to be extended and/or delayed while their ratepayers, citizens and staff guard themselves against the threat of Covid-19. Draft annual plans currently being put out by regional, city, and district councils show some alarmingly large rates increases, some in excess of 10% and a number well over 5%. Ratepayers are facing a very difficult and uncertain time and the last thing they need to worry about right now are runaway rates increases. Federated Farmers is deeply concerned about the serious impact of Covid-19 on our communities and on our economy. We have applauded the decisive action of central government both in terms of public health and its economic rescue package. Despite the Government’s rescue package, the economy will suffer a sharp shock and will likely enter a deep and long recession. At a time of economic downturn and uncertainty it is particularly important that councils focus on their core functions and operate as efficiently and effectively as possible to keep the rates burden down for the wellbeing of their communities. ‘Nice to haves’ need to be shelved. As well as focusing on core business councils could also consider following the Government’s lead and take on more debt, especially for capital investment. Most councils have little debt and have plenty of scope to borrow while remaining prudent while those that are close to their debt limits could be forgiven for breaching them at this extraordinary time. We also note that many councils aren’t planning to consult this year on their annual plans and will simply be adopting annual plans based on the numbers from their 2018-28 Long Term Plans. The environment has changed dramatically since they’d have made their decision not to consult and these councils should now urgently review their planned rates increases too. Another serious concern we have is the ability of councils to meaningfully consult and engage with their communities on other policy and regulatory matters, including district and regional plans. We ask that Councils look to adjust their work programmes and timeframes. Assuming business as usual for these processes is unwise with the restrictions on gatherings and the simple fact that most people (both inside and outside councils) are trying to focus first and foremost on their wellbeing and will be avoiding gatherings as much as possible.

#3313

Finally, Federated Farmers will be approaching central government asking that they consider using taxpayer resources to help councils meet the costs with three waters infrastructure investment needed to comply with the Government’s tougher regulation of drinking water. We will also be asking that drinking water quality be regulated at point of supply to humans rather than at source. The Three Waters Reforms look like being incredibly expensive for councils and will be a major driver behind large rates increases. Federated Farmers’ provinces will be making their own submissions on councils’ specific draft annual plan consultations and I acknowledge their submissions.

#3313

SOCIAL JUSTICE GROUP

_________________________________________________________

18th March 2020

Submission on the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2020/1

From: The Auckland Social Justice Group of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.

Our interest in this Bill is because we, as the Social Justice Group of the Tikanga-Pakeha Diocese of Auckland, are committed to the five-fold Mission Statement of the Anglican Communion and in particular “seek to transform unjust structures of society”.

(I) To proclaim the good news of the Kingdom;(ii) To teach, baptise and nurture new believers;(iii) To respond to human needs by loving service;(iv)To seek to transform unjust structures of society;(v) To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation & sustain & renew the life of the earth

Hence • We support the Council’s proposal outlined in the Annual consultation

document to implement a Living Wage policy over the council term endingOctober 2022; to ensure the Living Wage is paid to all contracted cleanersengaged in regular and ongoing work for the council.

• We also call upon Auckland Council to ensure that workers employed byCouncil contractors are also paid the Living Wage (as tenders are sought orservices delivered on a regular and ongoing basis).

• Request that the Council include in all Terms and Conditions of Contract forservices that the contractor pay any workers involved in the contract aminimum of the Living Wage.

#3334

The New Zealand Living Wage is defined by Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand Inc of which we are a member as:

• The income necessary to provide workers and their families with the basic necessities of life. A living wage will enable workers to live with dignity and to participate as citizens in society.

Paying employees and contract workers a Living Wage should not been seen as an economic liability, rather research has shown that there are benefits such as increased productivity and job satisfaction resulting in lower staff turnover and absenteeism. Staff morale and motivation are also significantly increased These benefits should not be underestimated. The wellbeing of people, children and families who can live with dignity because they have sufficient income cannot be overstated. We strongly encourage Auckland City Council to take action and to adopt the submission put forward by the Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand. On behalf of the Social Justice Group

#3334

22nd March, 2020

Submission to the Auckland Council Annual Budget 2020/2021on

behalf of Hāpai Te Hauora Tapui Ltd

We thank the Auckland Council for the opportunity to provide a submission to represent

the voices of the diverse communities, whanau, hapu and iwi we serve in Tāmaki

Makaurau.

Hapai Te Hauora Tapui Ltd (Hapai) is the largest Maori Public Health organisation in New

Zealand. We are a kaupapa Maori organisation, and are national leaders in population

health, health promotion and education, policy, advocacy, research & evaluation, and

infrastructure services. We support Maori communities and whanau to play a role in

decision-making on matters affecting their health and well-being.

Established as a tripartite agreement between Te Rūnanga o Ngati Whātua, Raukura

Hauora o Tainui and Te Whanau o Waipareira. In matters of Maori Public Health, we are

the representative Maori Public Health body for two of the largest Iwi who hold mana

whenua over Tamaki Makaurau (collectively with a number of other affiliate Iwi and

Hapu ), as well as one of the largest urban Maori Organisations in Tamaki Makaurau.

Given our heritage as well as the intention of our establishment, we recognise our

founding remit as the wider Tamaki Makaurau region, which uniquely positions Hapai to

broker contracts for the benefit of iwi Maori living in Tamaki Makaurau.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Annual Budget that will inform

our fiscal response as Tāmaki Makaurau to the environmental, cultural, economic and community

challenges that we face. Should the opportunity arise, we wish to appear before the Council to speak

to our submission.

Please feel free to forward any questions that you have regarding the comments that we

have included in this submission. The contact person is:

#3336

Intro

1. As an organisation, Hapai is committed to realising the health and well-being potential of

Maori communities through working towards equitable health outcomes for whanau,

hapu , iwi and hapori (communities). As the conduit between people and policy, our

mandate to speak to this kaupapa comes from within the community, and our

responsibility to uphold their voices and aspirations.

2. Hapai operates from the philosophy of “Oranga Tangata, Oranga Whenua” as the

simulative epitome of Te A o Maori in practice. This speaks to the inextricable

connectedness of humanity to the environment in all of its facets. “Oranga Tangata,

Oranga Whenua” highlights the critical interdependence that Maori people have with

their environment, reflected not only in its physical manifestations of land, water, but also

in human and esoteric capitals.

3. As the navigational vision of Hapai, “Oranga Tangata, Oranga Whenua” informs our

strategic direction, drives our mission and grounds our practice in a distinctively

indigenous manner.

4. “Oranga Tangata, Oranga Whenua” speaks to the intrinsic connection of physical and

environmental health. We recognise that if we address, support and enhance our natural

physical, mental, social and spiritual environments then positive wellbeing, will be an

incidental outcome.

5. We support the leadership of mana whenua and our communities in determining their own

health and wellbeing outcomes, therefore while this submission is that of Hāpai, it is largely

informed by both the concerns and the aspirations of the Ngāti Whātua, Waipareira &

Raukura Hauora o Tainui communities we engaged with.

6. Hāpai responds to each of the key issues and challenges highlighted in the Annual Budget as

well as the priorities presented within the Mayoral Proposal for the Annual Budget document

by defining their realisation from an “Oranga Whenua, Oranga Tangata” lens. This will ensure

our Māori public health views and indigenous community informed responses are centralised.

#3336

Response to budget priorities

Community

7. We support the extension of increasing the living wage to the Council’s CCO employees as this

shows leadership internally. We would however like to see external leadership from the

Council by using its mandate to advocate for the implementation of a mandatory living wage

Auckland wide, and ultimately nationwide.

Homelessness

8. Hāpai and its respective communities do not support that the budget allocation of $500,000

per annum is realistic to ensure the appropriate implementation of the extensive

interventions identified by the council;

identify every rough sleeper individually (by name list) and the factors contributing to

their homelessness, and put in place a plan tailored to their needs and finding them a

home

work with the government to set numerical targets for getting rough sleepers off the

streets and into homes

work with the government to prevent people from becoming homeless early, including

mechanisms to ensure people released from hospitals, me to address such a complex

need.

This funding will also enable the council to support outreach services across the region

and target youth, Māori and Pasifika homelessness. This will support early

intervention and prevention initiatives aimed at young people, improving practice and

services for rainbow youth, supporting Kaupapa Māori initiatives and increased

services by Māori-led organisations.

Parks & Sport

9. While we support investment into improving the infrastructure of sports facilities across

Auckland, given their obvious correlations with positive health and wellbeing outcomes, we

are concerned with the accessibility to those facilities and what communities those facilities

will privilege and those they will not.

10. Comparatively, $12million per/annum towards improving sports facilities & $50million over

2020/2021 towards developing parks and open spaces are considerably larger investments

#3336

than what has been allocated to addressing such a complex and entrenched issue like

homelessness.

Māori Outcomes

11. It is concerning that, this is the only priority that is not explicitly allocated an investment figure

within the Mayoral Proposal for the Annual Budget. While we acknowledge that improving

Māori outcomes is delivered across multiple streams within Council and across several

contractual timeframes, it is imperative that the transparency of this process is maintained

throughout Council’s communications.

12. Furthermore, improving Māori outcomes goes beyond cultural narratives for parks and

recreation spaces, supporting Māori businesses to connect to larger private contractors and

ensuring involvement in the planning and delivery of upcoming events. We view these as

‘Business As Usual’ components of Council’s work. These actions merely work to address some

of the impacts of the dominant Eurocentric narratives across Tāmaki, inequitable economic

outcomes for Māori and ensuring Māori are represented in the arts, cultural and sporting

arenas.

13. To continue to improve outcomes for Māori in Tāmaki, we believe that the internal Council

staff should commit budget to ensuring all staff, (new and current) are formally inducted

through a comprehensive education programme regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, mana whenua

& ahi kā iwi history and dynamics for Tāmaki specifically, Māori engagement practices, te reo

Māori and understanding the urban Māori environments in Tāmaki also.

14. To ensure meaningful outcomes, it is imperative that internal Council staff contextualise how

their department, contract and deliverables will or do impact the social, economic,

environmental and cultural outcomes for Māori communities in Tāmaki.

Environment

15. In regards to natural environment investments, we support the $38million allocated to

supporting our native species and prevent kauri die-back and manage risks. We do however

recommend that this budget allocation is not only informed by, but privileges, mātauranga

Māori as the living body of knowledge that connects the Taiāo (the natural environment in its

physical and spiritual manifestations) to those that engage with it (humans, birdlife and other

animals).

16. Hāpai supports the water quality improvement plan for both the provision of clean and safe

drinking water and the provision of safe and resilient wastewater services. This imperative

#3336

action requires as much resource as possible to ensure we minimise our human impact on the

ancestral waters of Tāmaki. We support the leadership of mana whenua in this space

Waste Management

17. Hāpai supports that the decisions around waste management changes are made dependant

on community response. However, while we acknowledge that the targeted rates will be

carried by those who receive the service, ultimately the result of waste Auckland wide is an

issue that we all face, therefore to increase the general rates is also a viable option.

Early initiatives to act on climate emergency

18. We support the comprehensive plans for investment in this Annual Budget to ensure action

on climate emergency. We do not support however that these are named “early” initiatives,

while they might be early in terms of the context of the Council timeline; we recommend the

use of the word “urgent” in place of “early” might better reflect the current state and

appropriate response we must not only foster, but commit to.

19. We note that the decarbonising of the Council fleet is showing leadership given Council

vehicles have a physical presence in and about Tāmaki. We hope this continues to contribute

to informed attitudes towards electrical & hybrid vehicles and encourages more infrastructure

to make electrical vehicle charging more accessible across Tāmaki.

20. While it is again promising to read that $900,000 has been allocated to climate change

research given it is a very complex challenge with many contributing factors and changing

components; it is concerning to see the breadth of work that is meant to be undertaken with

that limited budget allocation. Of particular concern is the inclusion of “communications and

tools to embed behaviour change”. This is such a crucial component of ensuring the

appropriate dissemination of information and meaningful tools are implemented to support

our communities. This alone should have a separate budget allocation outside of research,

climate assessment tools, risk assessment and Mana Whenua Māori worldview led change.

21. It is imperative also that the Council is transparent around what 75% of Tāmaki schools will

receive the sustainable education programme. We advocate that the distribution of both

education and support is equitable to the decile of the school and what access they have, to

the appropriate resources and infrastructure to implement the action required.

City and town centres

#3336

22. We support the improvement of the city centre infrastructure that will ensure better public

transport and pedestrian focused enhancements; we are however, apprehensive that

$6billion in the next 5 years is being invested into the CBD and it is highlighted that the

upcoming significant events in 2021 are a key motivating factor - “when the eyes of the world

will be on Auckland”.

23. In line with manaakitanga, Hāpai would hope that marae are supported also to make

appropriate improvements to their facilities to ensure they can host the myriad of guests over

this time period.

24. It is concerning that many of our smaller town centres and surrounding communities,

particularly lower-socio economic communities are not ensured the same investment figure.

Hāpai always advocates that our communities suffering from entrenched and

intergenerational poverty, that are over-exposed to alcohol outlets, gambling outlets and

have concentrated access to tobacco and unhealthy food options, should be prioritised in

infrastructure investments that promote social, physical and mental wellbeing.

25. It is imperative that the Council continues to build partnerships, like those with Haumaru

Housing and Housing Foundation, to ensure safe, healthy and empowering environments are

developed for the people of our communities.

Transport

26. Hāpai supports the introduction of electric & hydrogen powered buses, particularly because

of the potential this has to contribute to the reduction of emissions on a large scale once fully

implemented.

27. Hāpai always advocates that affordability, accessibility and availability of public transport be

prioritised as we acknowledge that this is not only the fastest way to get cars off the road, but

a key component of ensuring our communities remain connected.

We thank the council again, for the opportunity to engage in this process. We give you our

whakaaro and the reflections of our communities in the hopes that our voices will be

heard and the council upholds, at a minimum, its Treaty obligations of partnership, participation and

most importantly, protection.

END

#3336

Date post:	08-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times