Tomorrow, Wayne Brown presents his first budget as Auckland mayor. Does he have the councillor support he needs to get it passed? Photo / Jed Bradley
Auckland mayor Wayne Brown will face his first really big day in the job tomorrow, when the full governing body of council meets to debate his plans to cut $295 million from their annual budget.
We don’t know how they’ll vote and fireworks are expected. Brown wants to raise net rates by 4.66 per cent, sell airport shares, insist on a better return from the port, cut most spending on the environment and water targeted rates, and reduce the scope of a wide range of council services and facilities.
That includes the operations of the council-controlled organisations (CCOs): Auckland Transport, Watercare, the local development agency Eke Panuku and the events, venues and economic agency Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.
The cuts will probably affect the zoo, cultural venues like the Aotea Centre and the Civic, the Auckland Art Gallery, sports stadiums, council-sponsored events and economic development activity.
Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) is a separate company, not a CCO. But it and the waterfront land on which it operates are wholly owned by council and they are included in the council budget. Brown wants the car importing operation gone from its current site by the end of 2024 and the entire waterfront port land freed up for public use by 2039.
Already, the port has declared its opposition to Brown’s plans. In a statement on Monday, board chair Jan Dawson said Brown was “jumping the gun” and should be waiting for “the outcomes of a joint study” announced by the mayor and transport minister Michael Wood.
The board met today behind closed doors. Dawson has not been available for comment and a spokesperson says no statement is expected.
However, the Herald understands from council sources that the board has already advised the mayor he is wrong to require significant changes to their current operation, beyond some efficiencies they have already planned.
We understand the board also believes Brown is wrong to think progress can be made now to free up more port land for public use.
If Brown wins majority support from councillors at their meeting tomorrow, the conflict will intensify.
Already, it appears the mayor has asked for advice on where each member of the port’s board stands. That suggests he will want council to remove those who do not accept his proposals.
It’s not yet known how much support Brown has for his budget and related planning matters, including the port. Councillors have spent hours in confidential briefings and debates, but their views will be in the open tomorrow.
The budget is not the only big item on the council’s agenda. Brown also wants approval for his “letters of expectation” to the port company and the CCOs.
These letters set out budget requirements and prescribe the policy framework in which the agencies should operate.
The budget decisions made by council tomorrow will be formalised into a revised draft, to be adopted in February 2023 for public consultation in March. That input will then be considered in May and June, with the final version of the budget coming into effect on July 1, 2023.
The 2023/24 financial year will be year three in the current long-term plan, also known as the 10-year budget. That plan is scheduled for review next year as well, and many of the decisions made tomorrow are likely to affect it.
At this point, the exercise does not include any allowance for extra costs council may face over the City Rail Link.
To be debated by council on Thursday, before going to public consultation:
The mayor’s office has drafted new instructions for the council-controlled organisations. They will be debated by the full council tomorrow, and if adopted, will become “letters of expectation” for the CCOs. In effect, they will be the agencies’ operating instructions.
Brown wants AT to put “an appropriate focus” on travel times, although he also lists other goals, including “convenience, safety, accessibility, choice, climate change and environmental factors”.
He also wants AT to “complete existing transport projects on time and on budget, and halt low priority initiatives that are not yet underway”. What those might be is not spelled out, although there is mention of a “lower-cost delivery of the cycling programme”.
AT, he says, should “prioritise significant gains with faster, smaller scale improvements to arterial roads and public transport, eg, increasing the use of dynamic lanes, smart traffic lights, transponders on buses, bus and transit lanes and re-configuration of existing roads”.
He wants “a better approach to traffic management” that will “reduce developers’ footprints on roads and enable fewer orange cones”. Local boards should get a bigger say on local transport projects and AT will be asked to support efforts by the mayor and the minister to develop an “integrated plan across all modes” for transport in Auckland.
Brown says it will be “written by Aucklanders” but he is explicitly not asking AT to write it.
Much of this is consistent with Brown’s earlier statements on transport, and he still requires “a fundamental change of approach”.
But his list now contains several things that are new.
The agency will be required to keep working “towards achieving Council’s objectives under the Transport Emissions Reduction Plan”.
And perhaps the biggest surprise: he wants AT to “look at opportunities to increase external income, including parking charges and fines”.
The events, venues and economic development agency will be asked to create a “single operator” for the council’s four main stadiums, including Eden Park, which council does not own. There’s a similar request for cultural institutions.
The agency will also be told to plan how to rely less on rates revenue. That could involve changes to sponsorships, events and ticket prices.
Watercare is to keep costs down and to meet the targets of the climate plan and drought-management plan. It should co-operate with Government over Three Waters but preserve its ability to manage if the Three Waters legislation is repealed.
Once the target of strong-minded criticism from the mayor, the urban development agency will be asked to ensure “tangible public benefits” for its work, improve the commercial return on its property holdings and reduce its corporate costs. There’s not much new there.
Brown has also recognized Eke Panuku’s record creating high-quality mixed public, residential and commercial spaces in Wynyard Quarter, and asked it to take a lead role in developing similar plans for the port land.
With a “staged withdrawal of port-related activity over 2024-2039″, he says, “I want us to deliver to Auckland by 2039 the most beautiful and loved publicly owned waterfront of any harbour city in the world.”
As for POAL, it will be given that timetable for relinquishing land for public use, starting with the car-storage areas of Captain Cook, Marsden and Bledisloe wharves by the end of 2024. The rest of the land will follow with five-year targets from 2029 to 2039.
This timetable will be the basis for “a plan for the progressive return of waterfront land for the use of all Aucklanders”. But POAL won’t be creating it. Instead, it is required “to support the mayor, council and Eke Panuku in developing this plan”.
In the meantime, the company has some strict safety requirements and detailed revenue and dividend targets. There’s also an instruction to “work with council and KiwiRail to move 100 per cent of container freight to rail as soon as possible”.
Brown has not indicated how he thinks the port will be able to improve its productivity and profitability while also changing so much about how it operates and managing a staged withdrawal from the waterfront.
Given the POAL board’s opposition to all this, there’s one more notable feature.
The company will be told it must “desist from taking actions that may undermine council’s plans. This includes not publicly campaigning against council directly or indirectly through funding of external organisations. POAL is to report on its external memberships and spending on any organisations involved in public relations, lobbying or campaigns.”
That’s an extremely unusual instruction.
It follows concerns about use-of-force powers being given to staff.