governing body june 2014

7/27/2019 Governing Body June 2014

1/83

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Thursday, 26 June 20149.30amReception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Governing BodyOPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Mayor Len Brown, JPDeputy Mayor Penny HulseCouncillors Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Dick Quax

Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Sharon Stewart, QSMCr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBECr Bill Cashmore Cr Wayne WalkerCr Ross Clow Cr John WatsonCr Linda Cooper, JP Cr Penny WebsterCr Chris Darby Cr George Wood, CNZMCr Alf FilipainaCr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSOCr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeCr Calum Penrose

(Quorum 11 members)

Elaine StephensonDemocracy Advisor

20 June 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6328Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/83

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance withthe long term council community plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the LocalGovernment Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose ofthe local governance statement; or

(g) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b) Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation

(c) Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001,including the appointment of electoral officer

(d) Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders andCode of Conduct

(e) Relationships with the Independent Maori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement

and appointments to committees.

(f) Approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) Overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategicprojects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) andreceiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities andperformance measures.


3/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Affirmation 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements 5

6 Petitions 5

7 Public Input 5

8 Local Board Input 5

9 Extraordinary Business 6

10 Notices of Motion 7

10.1 Notice of Motion - Councillor Cathy Casey - Housing New Zealand

memorandum of understanding 7

10.2 Notice of Motion - Councillor Chris Darby - Lower city centre and

central waterfront 8

11 Adoption of Local Board Agreements for 2014/2015 9

12 Setting of rates 2014/2015 11

13 Adoption of the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2014/2015 19

14 Council Controlled Organisation Review - Project update, analysis of

services against criteria, and local board input to current state

assessment. 2515 Appointments to the Mutukaroa (Hamlin's Hill) Trust 67

16 Consideration of Extraordinary Items


4/83


5/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 5

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

An apology from Cr CE Fletcher has been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 29 May 2014,

including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements

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

6 Petitions

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

7 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theCommittee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2)working days prior to the meetingand must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion todecline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30)minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

8 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5)minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,give two (2)days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has thediscretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on theagenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.


6/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 6

9 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amended) states:

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

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

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

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

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


7/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 7

10 Notices of Motion

10.1 Notice of Motion - Councillor Cathy Casey - Housing New Zealandmemorandum of understanding

In accordance with Standing Order 3.10.14, the following Notice of Motion to revoke aprevious decision has been received from Cr Cathy Casey for inclusion on the agenda for

the Governing Body meeting being held on Thursday, 26 June 2014:

Recommendation/s


a) revoke the following decision made at the 1 May 2014 Governing Body meeting:

Resolution number GB/2014/30

o) authorise the Auckland Council Chief Executive to negotiate a memorandum ofunderstanding with Housing New Zealand and discuss options to:

i, provide the choice to existing Housing New Zealand tenants to remain inexisting communities.

ii. investigate ways to increase social housing stock within Auckland.

iii undertake community (including tenant) engagement processes in allHousing New Zealand redevelopments to achieve the best possibleoutcomes.

To be substituted with the following motion:


a) establish a political working party, comprising of three councillors, to negotiate a

memorandum of understanding with Housing New Zealand with regards to theHousing Monitoring Report and to discuss options to:

i. provide the choice to existing Housing New Zealand tenants to remain in existingcommunities.

ii. investigate ways to increase social housing stock within Auckland.

iii undertake community (including tenant) engagement processes in all HousingNew Zealand redevelopments to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Cr Cathy Caseys Notice of Motion is appended as Attachment A and is also signed by

Councillors:John WatsonArthur AnaeAlf FilipainaMike LeeRoss ClowWayne WalkerChris Darby.

Attachments

A Cr Cathy Casey signed Notice of Motion .....................................................73


8/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 8

10.2 Notice of Motion - Councillor Chris Darby - Lower city centre and centralwaterfront

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has beenreceived from Councillor Chris Darby for inclusion on the agenda for the Governing Bodymeeting being held on day, Thursday, 26 June 2014:

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body direct the Chief Executive to undertake the following to fullyinform decision-making on the lower city centre and central waterfront:

a) progress an open space needs assessment, reflecting projected city centrepopulation (residents, workers, students and visitors), to inform developmentproposals for the lower city centre and central waterfront areas.

b) undertake an independent and objective evaluation of existing and potential values ofQueen Elizabeth Square, taking into account historical consents and covenants andmana whenua interests.

c) request Precinct Properties progress the enhanced Queen Elizabeth Squaredevelopment design option, as contemplated in the City Centre Masterplan andAuckland Council design brief, and this be independently evaluated againstPrecincts preferredincorporated option and within the context of the widerdevelopment framework.

d) reflect the Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework in strategy,design briefs and design responses pertaining to public land in the city centre.

Councillor Chris Darbys signed notice of motion is appended as Attachment A. Adocument with background information is appended as Attachment B. The relatedAuckland Development Committee decision of 15 May 2014 is appended as Attachment C.

Attachments

A Councillor Chris Darby's signed notice of motion ........................................77B Background Information - Councillor Chris Darby's notice of motion ...........79

C Auckland Development Committee 15 May 2014 decision ..........................83


9/83

Item1

1

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Adoption of Local Board Agreements for 2014/2015 Page 9

Adoption of Local Board Agreements for 2014/2015

File No.:CP2014/13346

Purpose1. To provide an update on local board agreements as part of the process to adopt the Annual

Plan 2014/2015

Executive summary2. This report was not available when the agenda went to print due to the timing of the local

board meetings that need to be completed in order to finalise the report.

Recommendation/sa) The recommendations for this report will be provided in an addendum agenda.

AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers Stephen Town - Chief Executive


10/83


11/83

Item1

2

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Setting of rates 2014/2015 Page 11

Setting of rates 2014/2015

File No.:CP2014/12488

Purpose1. To recommend to the governing body the setting of rates for 2014/2015.

Executive summary2. The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LG(R)A) requires that rates are set by resolution

of the council. The rates figures were not available in time to meet the agenda close off forthis meeting. This report contains the text of the resolutions only (not including the ratesfigures) needed to set the rates for the Auckland Council for 2014/2015. The resolutions withthe rates figures will be tabled at the meeting on 26 June 2014.

3. On 8 May 2014 the Budget Committee considered the feedback from the consultation on thedraft Annual Plan 2014/2015. The committee recommended to the governing body that only

changes to Business Improvement District targeted rates be made to the rating policy for2014/2015.

4. The council has adopted a rates transition management policy that limits rates increases tono more than ten percent for non-business properties for the first three years of the long-term plan. Legislation requires that where the cap on decreases is different from the cap onincreases then the net impact on rates revenue must be zero. To meet this requirement for2014/2015 the cap on decreases for non-business properties needs to be minus threepercent. Businesses will be fully transitioned to their new rates in 2014/2015 and notransition adjustments will apply.

5. The Annual Plan 2014/2015 includes sections that contain rates set for 2014/2015. Thesesections will be updated to reflect the resolutions made by the governing body at this

meeting.

Recommendation/sThat the Governing Body:

a) resolve under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to set rates for the 2014/2015financial year and to authorise the addition of penalties as follows:

i) that a Uniform Annual General Charge be set, for all rateable land, at $[to beinserted] (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit

ii) that a general rate be set for all rateable land based on the capital value of the

land and at different rates in the dollar for different categories of land as set outin the table below:

Category Rate in the dollar of capital value(including GST)

Urban business [to be inserted]Franklin urban business [to be inserted]Rural business [to be inserted]Franklin rural business [to be inserted]Urban residential [to be inserted]Rural residential [to be inserted]Farm/lifestyle [to be inserted]Sea-only access

[to be inserted]Uninhabitable islands [to be inserted]


12/83

Item12

Governing Body

26 June 2014


iii) that a Waste Management targeted rate be set differentially for differentcategories of land at different fixed amounts as set out in the table below:

Category Basis for charging Amount of rate(including GST)

Full waste service for land inthe district of the former

Auckland City Council

Per available serviceto the rating unit

[to be inserted]

Waste service where opt outof refuse service applies forland in the district of theformer Auckland City Council


[to be inserted]

Waste service where opt outof recycling service appliesfor land in the district of theformer Auckland City Council


[to be inserted]

Waste service where opt outof both the refuse andrecycling services apply forland in the district of the

former Auckland City Council


[to be inserted]

Waste service where anadditional recycling serviceapplies for land in the districtof the former Auckland CityCouncil


[to be inserted]

Waste service for recyclingcollection for land in thedistrict of the former FranklinDistrict Council where theservice is available

Per separately usedor inhabited part of arating unit (SUIP)

[to be inserted]

Waste service for refusecollection for land in the

district of the former FranklinDistrict Council where theservice is available

Per SUIP [to be inserted]

Waste management for landin the district of the formerManukau City Council wherethe service is available


Waste management for landin the district of the formerNorth Shore City Councilwhere the service isavailable


Waste management for land

in the district of the formerPapakura District Councilwhere the service isavailable


Waste management for landin the district of the formerRodney District Councilwhere the service isavailable


Waste management for landin the district of the formerWaitakere City Councilwhere the service isavailable



13/83

Item1

2

Governing Body

26 June 2014


iv) that a City Centre targeted rate be set for all rateable land in the urbanbusiness differential category, as defined for the purposes of the general rate,in the central area, of an amount of [to be inserted] (including GST) per dollarof the capital value of the rating unit

v) that Business Improvement District targeted rates be set for all rateable land inthe business differential categories, as defined for the purposes of the general

rate, within the defined Business Improvement District area, as set out in thetable below:

BID area Fixed amount perrating unit(including GST)

Rate in the dollar ofcapital value(including GST)

Avondale [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Birkenhead [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Blockhouse Bay [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Browns Bay [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Devonport [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Dominion Road [to be inserted] [to be inserted]

Eden Terrace [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Ellerslie [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Glen Eden [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Glen Innes [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Greater East Tamaki [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Heart of the City [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Howick [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Hunters Corner [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Karangahape Road [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Kingsland [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Mahunga Drive [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Mairangi Bay [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Mangere Bridge [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Mangere East Village [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Mangere Town [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Manukau Central [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Manurewa [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Milford [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Mt Eden Village [to be inserted] [to be inserted]New Lynn [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Newmarket [to be inserted] [to be inserted]North Harbour [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Northcote [to be inserted] [to be inserted]

Old Papatoetoe [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Onehunga [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Orewa [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Otahuhu [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Otara [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Panmure [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Papakura [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Parnell [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Ponsonby [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Pukekohe [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Remuera [to be inserted] [to be inserted]

Rosebank [to be inserted] [to be inserted]St Heliers [to be inserted] [to be inserted]State Highway 16 [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Takapuna [to be inserted] [to be inserted]


14/83

Item12

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Te Atatu [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Torbay [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Waiuku [to be inserted] [to be inserted]Wiri [to be inserted] [to be inserted]

vi) that the Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu swimming pool targeted

rates be set for all rateable land in the residential differential categories, asdefined for the purposes of the general rate, located in the respectiveMngerethuhu Local Board and tara-Papatoetoe Local Board areas asset out in the table below:

Local board area Fixed amount per SUIP(including GST)

Mngerethuhu [to be inserted]tara-Papatoetoe [to be inserted]

vii) that the Riverhaven Drive targeted rate be set on the properties in RiverhavenDrive which benefit from the construction of a road that gives access to theproperties, of an amount of $[to be inserted] (including GST) per rating unit

viii) that the Glorit Flood Gate Restoration targeted rate be set on the threeproperties detailed below, based on the area of land within the rating unitbenefiting from the facility (as assessed by council), of an amount set out in thetable below:

Valuationnumber

Legal description(abbreviated)

Area of benefit(Ha)

Amount of rate(including GST)

00910-00102 Sec 27 SO 59120 245 [to be inserted]00910-00502 Lot 5 DP 127940 2 [to be inserted]00910-00400 Sec 2 SO 69274 17.5 [to be inserted]

ix) that the Waitakere Rural Sewerage targeted rate be set for all land in thedistrict of the former Waitakere City Council which has an on-site wastemanagement system and in respect of which the council has available theservice of pumping out the system and which is scheduled to take place withinthe 3-year period commencing 1 July 2014, of an amount of $[to be inserted](including GST) for each such on-site waste management system.

x) that the Retro-fit Your Home targeted rate be set on land in respect of whichthe council has provided financial assistance under the Retro-fit your homescheme, at different levels for each year that the ratepayer has startedrepaying the financial assistance by this targeted rate, of an amount set out inthe table below:

Year of repayment Rate in the dollar of valueoutstanding as at 1 July2014 (including GST)

1 [to be inserted]2 [to be inserted]3 [to be inserted]

xi) that the Kumeu Huapai Riverhead Wastewater targeted rate be set on land inrespect of which the council has provided financial assistance to connect to theKumeu Huapai Riverhead pressurised wastewater scheme, of an amountbased on the extent of that financial assistance and calculated as [to be

inserted] (including GST) of the outstanding balance (dollars) as at 1 July 2014.


15/83

Item1

2

Governing Body

26 June 2014


xii) that the Point Wells Wastewater targeted rate be set on land in respect ofwhich the council has provided financial assistance to connect to a pressurewastewater collection system in Point Wells, of an amount per separately usedor inhabited part of a rating unit based on the extent of the financial assistanceas shown in the following table:

Total assistance

provided

Amount of fixed rate

(including GST)$10,000 [to be inserted]$ 9,500 [to be inserted]$ 9,000 [to be inserted]$ 8,500 [to be inserted]$ 8,000 [to be inserted]

xiii) that the Jackson Crescent Wastewater targeted rate be set on land in respectof which the council has provided financial assistance to connect to awastewater collection scheme in the Jackson Crescent, Martins Bay areas, ofan amount of $[to be inserted] (including GST) per rating unit

xiv) that in 2014/2015 the rates be due in four instalments as set out in the tablebelow:

Instalment Due Date1 29 August 20142 26 November 20143 26 February 20154 27 May 2015

xv) that a penalty of 10 per cent will be added to rates assessed in the 2014/2015year that are not paid by the due date

xvi) that further penalties of 10 per cent will be added to rates assessed in previousfinancial years that are unpaid on 4 July 2014; and then again on 4 January2015

xvii) the discount for the early payment of rates be set at 1.1 percent of the2014/2015 rates if those rates, together with any outstanding prior years ratesand penalties, are paid in full on or before the due date of the first instalment(29 August 2014).

b) set the non-business decrease cap at minus three percent for 2014/2015 in theRates transition management policy.

c) direct officers to amend the Funding Impact Statement, Rating policy and Ratestransition management policy to reflect the resolutions in this report for inclusion inthe Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Comments

Background

6. For 2012/2013 the council adopted a uniform rating policy for the Auckland region. At thesame time the council adopted a Rates transition management policy to manage the level ofchange experienced by ratepayers due to the transition to the uniform rating system. Thekey issues relating to these policies were considered during the development of the long-term plan.


16/83

Item12

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Decision Making

Rates resolution

7. For the council to assess rates for the 2014/2015 financial period section 23 of the LocalGovernment (Rating) Act 2002 (LG(R)A) requires the council to set the rates by resolution.The council must also set its rates in accordance with the relevant provisions of thetransition legislation and the long-term plan. The resolutions contained in this report areconsistent with the relevant legislation and the Long-term Plan 2012-2022.

8. The budget is set based on the assumption that rates will be invoiced on time. A delay insetting the rates may cause issues in delivery of the rates assessment/invoice in time for thefirst instalment due date. It will also cause delays to when the arrears penalty can beapplied. Delaying the setting of rate may result in increased administrative costs to council.

9. A copy of the rates resolution must be sent to the Secretary of Local Government within 20working days of adopting the rates resolution.

10. The LG(R)A requires that the instalment due dates must also be set in the same resolutionas those used to set the rates. The resolutions necessary for the Governing Body to set therates and instalment due dates for the 2012/2013 financial period are included in the

recommendations in this report.

Rates transition management policy 2014/2015

11. The council has adopted a rates transition management policy that sets the maximumchange in rating liability permitted in relation to an unchanged rating unit. The policy appliesfor three years from 1 July 2012.

12. Rates increases for non-business properties (residential, farm or lifestyle, and sea onlyaccess) are limited to no more than 10 per cent of the previous years rates1, for each yearin which the policy applies. The cap on decreases must be calculated each year to ensurethat the overall financial impact on the council is neutral. It is based on the final budget forthe year and set by council resolution at the same time as the rates are set. To ensure that

the policy complies with legislation a cap on rates decreases of minus 3 percent is requiredfor the 2014/2015.

13. For business properties, rate changes have been phased in over three years. In 2014/2015businesses will be fully transitioned to their new rates and no transition adjustments willapply.

14. The resolution necessary for the governing body to set the decrease cap at minus 3 percentfor the rates transition management policy for the 2014/2015 financial period is included inthe recommendations in this report.

Business Improvement District targeted rates

15. The council uses targeted rates to fund Business Improvement District (BID) programmes

where businesses have agreed to work together, with the support of council to improve theirbusiness environment.

16. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 included possible new BID targeted rates for theDevonport, State Highway 16 and Mission Bay areas and possible extensions to the existingBID programmes in Dominion Rd, Otahuhu, Manukau Central. These changes requiredundertaking ballots with the business ratepayers in the respective areas.

17. The ballots for BID programmes for Devonport, Otahuhu, and State Highway 16 weresuccessful. The ballots for Dominion Rd and Manukau Central were unsuccessful. TheMission Bay Business Association decided not to proceed with joining the BID programme atthis stage.

1The transition management policy does not cap changes for some excluded rates. Excludedrates are listed in the policy.


17/83

Item1

2

Governing Body

26 June 2014


18. The resolutions necessary for the governing body to set the BID rates for 2014/2015 areincluded in the recommendations of this report.

Early payment discount, late payment penalties and instalment dates

19. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 proposed that rates will be payable in four equalinstalments on:

instalment 1: 29 August 2014 instalment 2: 26 November 2014 instalment 3: 26 February 2015 instalment 4: 27 May 2015

Ratepayers can pay more regularly if they wish to.

20. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 proposed a 10 per cent penalty for late payment of ratesfor each rates instalment due date, and that a 10 per cent penalty on the previous yearsrates arrears be added at the beginning of the financial year (or five days after the ratesresolution, whichever is the later) and then again six months later. It is necessary to set thepenalty rate at 10 percent, as used by all the previous councils, to discourage the use of thecouncil as a bank by ratepayers. Costs incurred by the council from the late payment ofrates must inevitably be met by those ratepayers that pay on time. Most councils use a 10percent penalty.

21. The early payment discount policy is available to ratepayers who pay their full years ratesbefore the due date of the first rates instalment. The policy sets out that the council willprovide a discount based on the councils short term borrowing cost. This returns theinterest cost saving to the council to those ratepayers who pay early. The draft Annual Plan2014/2015 consulted on an early payment discount of 1.1 per cent. For the early paymentdiscount to remain cost neutral the discount amount should remain at 1.1 percent.

22. The resolutions necessary for the governing body set the early payment discount, latepayment penalty, and instalment dates are included in the recommendations of this report.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Local boards had the opportunity to comment on the policies proposed in the draft AnnualPlan 2014/2015 as part of their deliberations. Relevant feedback from these sessions wasprovided to the Budget Committee on 8 May 2014.

Maori impact statement

24. The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers so is not able to identifythe exact impact of the policy options on Mori. The recommendations in this reportwill

have a similar impact on Maori as it will on other ratepayers.

Implementation25. There are no implementation issues.

AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report.


18/83

Item12

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Signatories

Authors Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Eric Wen - Modeller User Charges

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance OfficerStephen Town - Chief Executive


19/83

Item1

3

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Adoption of the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2014/2015 Page 19

Adoption of the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2014/2015

File No.:CP2014/12356

Purpose1. To adopt the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the adoption of the 21

Local Board Agreements.

Executive summary2. The Annual Plan 2014/2015 document has been prepared to reflect the decisions made at

the Budget Committee meeting held on 8 May 2014, and adopted by the Governing Body ata meeting held later that day. These decisions included approving the budget for the plan aswell as decisions relating to fees and charges, rates and performances measures andtargets.

3. Following these decisions, staff have prepared the final Annual Plan documents for

presentation to the Governing Body for adoption today.4. Local boards are considering adoption of their updated local board agreements for

2014/2015 during business meetings between 9 and 19 June 2014. An update on the statusof local board agreements is provided under a separate report on todays agenda. The 21local board agreements, and related content, make up Volume 2 of the Annual Plan2013/2014.

5. On 8 May 2014, the Governing Body also resolved that the Chief Executive wouldimmediately review the group capital programme with a target of reducing or deferring $300million of rates-funded capital expenditure in 2014/2015.

6. This was in response to advice from staff about significant budget pressures in 2015/2016.The lagged impact of changes to capex budgets means that action would need to be takenin the 2014/2015 year to provide a timely response to pressure on rates increases for2015/2016.


a) adopt the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including 21 local board agreements

b) delegate the authority and responsibility for agreeing minor editorial changes and thecorrection of minor errors to the Annual Plan 2014/2015 document to the Chair orDeputy Chair of the Budget Committee, and the Chief Finance Officer

c) note that staff will report to the Finance and Performance Committee in July with theresults of the Chief Executives review of the 2014/2015 group capital programme.

Comments

7. Auckland Council received 1967 submissions covering around 10,230 submission points onthe draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. 283 submitters wished to be heard, of which 44 werescheduled to be heard by the Governing Body. The hearings phase of the draft Annual Plan2014/2015 took place between 17 March and 11 April 2014. There were 21 local hearingsand two days of regional hearings.

8. Between 28 April and 1 May 2013, the Budget Committee met with all local boards todiscuss the key issues for local board agreements and advocacy areas for the council andthe Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). On 5 May 2014, the Budget Committee met


20/83

Item13

Governing Body

26 June 2014


with all substantial CCOs to discuss 2014/2015 budgets, proposals and local boardadvocacy areas.

9. At its meeting on 8 May 2014, the Budget Committee considered the Mayors Proposal forthe annual plan and made recommendations to the Governing Body on the proposedbudget, changes to fees and charges, changes to performance measures and targets andrates. These recommendations were adopted by the Governing Body at a meeting held

later on the same day (Resolution number GB/2014/33

Refer to Attachment A).

10. The setting of rates for 2014/2015 will be considered in a separate paper on todays agenda.

11. Following the decisions made on 8 May 2014, staff have updated all annual plandocumentation. This includes updating the councils financial information and Annual Planstatements as well as updating projections for the remaining years of the Long-Term Plan2012-2022 to reflect the impact of all budget decisions on outer year budgets. The revisedfinancial projections for 2015 -2022 are included in the financial overview in Volume 1 of theAnnual Plan 2014/2015.

Local board agreements

12. An update on local board agreements is covered by a separate report on todays agenda

(late report due to the timing of local board meetings). Local board agreements and budgetshave been updated to reflect local board reprioritization decisions and recommendationsmade by the Budget Committee on 8 May 2014. Local boards are considering adoption oftheir local board agreements for 2013/2014 during business meetings held between 9-19June, along with capital project lists and advocacy areas. The 21 local board agreements,and related content, make up Volume 2 of the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Capex review

13. On 8 May 2014, the Governing Body also resolved that the Chief Executive wouldimmediately review the group capital programme with a target of reducing or deferring $300million of rates-funded capital expenditure in 2014/2015.

14. This was in response to advice from staff about significant budget pressures in 2015/2016.The lagged impact of changes to capex budgets means that action would need to be takenin the 2014/2015 year to provide a timely response to pressure on rates increases for2015/2016.

15. Staff will report to the Finance and Performance Committee in July with the results of theChief Executives review of the 2014/2015group capital programme.

Consideration


16. The views of the Local Boards on the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including Local Board

Agreements contained in Volume 2, are covered in a separate report on this agenda.

Mori impact statement

17. Many of the budget changes that formed part of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 specificallyidentified and described any direct impact on Mori outcomes or initiatives. The consultationprocess on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was inclusive of Mori. Mana whenua andmataawaka were encouraged to submit on the draft plan. 21 versions of the summarydocument including submission forms were translated into Te Reo Mori, and translatorswere available for submissions received, as well as for submitters wishing to speak at thehearing in Te Reo Mori.

Implementation18. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the council to adopt the Annual Plan and set rates

for 2014/2015 by 30 June 2014.


21/83

Item1

3

Governing Body

26 June 2014


19. The Annual Plan 2014/2015 will be tabled at the Governing Body workshop on 24 June2014.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A 8 May Governing Body decisions for Annual Plan 2014/2015 23

Signatories

Authors Tanya Stocks - Local Board Budget Process

Authorisers Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive


22/83


23/83

AttachmentA

Item1

3

Governing Body

26 June 2014



24/83

AttachmentA

Item13

Governing Body

26 June 2014



25/83

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Project update, analysis of services against criteria, andlocal board input to current state assessment.

Page 25

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Project update, analysis ofservices against criteria, and local board input to current stateassessment.

File No.:CP2014/12637

Purpose1. To present the analysis of services against criteria which is a step in the review of council

controlled organisations (CCOs). The analysis helps establish and test the rationale fordelivering services through a CCO. The report also presents the local board input tocouncils current state assessment, undertaken to inform the CCO review.

Executive summary2. This report:

Summarises the CCO review process to date and next steps.

Provides an overview of the service analysis that has been considered at councillorworkshops on 14 May and 4 June 2014.

Summarises and comments on the local board input to the current state assessment.

3. The Governing Body received the CCO review current state assessment and adopted theterms of reference for the review at its meeting of 27 February 2014. At its meeting of 2 May2014, the Governing Body adopted a set of criteria to assist in its assessment of therationale for delivering services through CCOs.

4. The service assessment has been discussed at two workshops on 14 May and 4 June 2014.The full assessment is attached (Attachment A) and this report summarises the key findingsand points of discussion.

5. The analysis will be one input to the next stage of the review which will consider delivery andconfiguration options, including the option of no change. Other inputs include:

Further analysis of overlaps between council and CCO activities.

Desktop reviews of international models for delivering economic developmentoutcomes, urban development outcomes, and regional sports/arts/cultural facilities andservices.

A review of the linkages between stormwater, wastewater, and water supply.

6. Local boards have provided their input to the councils current state assessment which they

considered at their business meetings in March and April. A summary of their feedback isprovided as Attachment B.

7. The report also considers the key issues raised in the local board assessment and identifiesthe issues that may be addressed by the CCO review.


a) receive the analysis of services being delivered by council controlled organisationsagainst criteria (Attachment A) and agree that this work will inform delivery andconfiguration options developed at the next stage of the review.

b) receive the local board input to the current state assessment and note the ways inwhich the council controlled organisation review may address matters raised.


26/83

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 26

Comments8. This report:

Summarises the CCO review process to date and next steps.

Provides an overview of the service analysis that has been considered at councillorworkshops on 14 May and 4 June 2014.

Summarises and comments on the local board input to the current state assessment.

CCO Review Process to Date and Next Steps

9. At its meeting of 27 February 2014, the Governing Body received two current stateassessment reports; one prepared from a council perspective, and one from a CCOperspective, and adopted the terms of reference for the review.

10. The current state assessment reports helped inform the terms of reference by outliningissues and opportunities for the review to address. While the reports indicated that there wasa reasonable degree of comfort with the CCO model there were a range of matters raisedthat the review needed to address. Some of these have possible structural implications suchas reviewing and removing duplication, while other issues relate to making the CCO model

work welle.g. through improving and streamlining accountability mechanisms, andreviewing governance policies.

11. The terms of reference defined the scope of the review, including that major structuralchange for Auckland Transport was out of scope. The scope covers all other activitiescurrently being delivered through CCOs, as well as council activities that overlap with these.

12. At its meeting of 2 May 2014, the Governing Body considered a report outlining the benefitsof delivering some of its activities and services through an arms length structure such as aCCO, as well as some of the challenges. At this meeting the Governing Body adopted a setof criteria to assist in its assessment of the rationale for delivering services currently beingdelivered by CCOs, through CCOs.

13. Councillors and IMSB members from the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committeeattended workshops on 14 May and 4 June to review the assessment of services againstcriteria. The Governing Body is now being asked to receive this analysis (attachment A) andagree that it will be used to inform the development of delivery and configuration options inthe next stage of the review.

14. In addition to the service analysis there is other work underway that could influence options.This includes:

Further analysis of overlaps between council and CCO activities.

Desktop reviews of international models for delivering economic developmentoutcomes, urban development outcomes, and regional sports/arts/cultural facilities and

services. A review of the linkages between stormwater, wastewater, and water supply.

Some of this work has been discussed at workshops on 4 June and 10 June and willbe formally reported to the Governing Body when completed.

15. The next stage of the review is to develop options for change, noting that no structuralchange will form one of the options to be tested. Workshops have been scheduled for 2July, 6 August, and 13 August, with the Governing Body currently scheduled to adopt draftoptions on 28 August. This allows for a period for consultation with CCOs, local boards, andthe IMSB prior to identifying preferred options in October. If any of the options involvesignificant structural change, this timetable would allow for consultation through the LTP

process.


27/83

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 27

16. As noted in paragraph 10, the terms of reference for the review covers a number of issuesthat do not relate to structural change. This work is progressing in parallel to the work ondelivery and configuration, although over a longer timeframe as resources are currentlybeing prioritised to work that could have structural implications. Some of this work wasdiscussed at the 10 June workshop including the role of the council and CCOs in thestrategy development process, and ways of enhancing and streamlining the CCOaccountability framework.

Analysis of Services Against Criteria

17. An important step in the review is to assess the services currently being provided by CCOsagainst a set of seven criteria that were adopted at the Governing Body meeting of 2 May2014. The criteria reflect that there are benefits and challenges for the council fromdelivering activities through an arms length entity.

18. The reason for undertaking this assessment is to test whether the services currently beingdelivered through a CCO, are appropriate to be delivered in this way in other wordswhether the characteristics of the services suggest that benefits can be maximised, whileminimising the challenges. Assessing services against criteria is a step in the process andwill be one input into delivery and configuration options. Analysis of this kind has a risk of

oversimplifying and is only a guide to decision making. Any option to change delivery of anactivity would require more in depth analysis at the next stage.

19. This report summarises the key findings of the analysis and points of discussion at theworkshops on 14 May and 4 June. The analysis has minor amendments from that presentedat councillor workshops, to correct inconsistencies and a small number of minor errors.

20. Commercial focusthis criteria recognises that a CCO with a commercially focused boardcan apply commercial acumen to running a business, particularly where there areopportunities to grow external revenue or leverage private investment. These conditions mayfavour arms-length delivery.

21. The analysis suggests that commercial acumen is very important for a number of services

currently being delivered by CCOs, such as commercial property development at thewaterfront; ACPLs place-shaping and acquisition/disposal functions; management ofAuckland Councils ownership interests in POAL and AIAL; tourism development, attractingbusiness and investment, major events; and the management and operation of regionalfacilities. A degree of commercial focus is needed for all activities but to a lesser degree forservices such as provision of public infrastructure on the waterfront; skill development andtalent attraction; and water and wastewater services, as Watercare is precluded from payinga dividend and must provide services at minimum cost.

22. Efficiencythis criteria recognises that by grouping related activities in a separate entity,there is an opportunity to focus on an area of activity that is a priority for council. This mayhelp to achieve better outcomes or produce faster results than would be possible within a

council department with a wider range of activities to manage and priorities to balance.23. The analysis suggests that this is one of the strongest reasons for delivering services

through a CCO structure. The ability to focus on a discrete service or related group ofservices was considered important for all activities currently being delivered by CCOs. It hasbeen assessed as particularly important for the delivery of major events and Auckland brandand identity; water, wastewater and tradewaste services; regional facilities management andoperation; waterfront commercial property and marina development; and ACPLs place-making and property acquisition/disposal functions.

24. Flexibilitythis criteria recognises that arms length entities may be more agile and nimblein their decision-making and able to respond to opportunities more quickly. The need forflexibility in decision-making may favour arms length delivery.


28/83

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 28

25. The analysis suggests that the ability to make quick decisions and/or respond toopportunities is of high importance for some activities being delivered by CCOs, particularlythose with a development focus rather than a management and operational focus. Howeverflexibility was also considered important for regional facilities management and operationsas there is a need to respond quickly to commercial opportunities, for example when dealingwith promoters.

26. There was discussion at the workshops that CCOs were sometimes not as flexible as thecouncil might expect them to be. For example, there were comments that some CCOs werenot innovative in their response to councils sustainability objectives. Note that contribution tocouncils broader strategic outcomes is picked up under integration rather than flexibility.There was also a comment that CCOs may be able to respond more rapidly to risk not justto opportunities.

27. Specialist skillsthis criteria recognises that for some activities there are benefits fromhaving the expertise of a professional board of directors with sector knowledge andexperience. CCOs may also be in a stronger position to attract staff with particular skills,than a local authority. The need for specialist skills may favour arms length delivery.

28. The analysis suggests that most activities being delivered by CCOs benefit from having

specialist expertise on the board and in some cases from having an enhanced ability toattract specialist skills at the staff level. This is particularly true for all activities currentlybeing delivered by ATEED; commercial property development on the waterfront;management of regional facilities and performing arts, events and conferencing venue hire;and Watercares laboratory services.

29. Accountability for ratepayer fundingthis criteria recognises that the council is ultimatelyaccountable for the money that it collects from ratepayers. The relationship that council haswith CCOs which receive significant ratepayer funding is more complex as the council hasinterests both as a shareholder and funder. Significant ratepayer funding may favour in-house delivery.

30. The analysis shows that some activities being delivered by CCOs are fully or largely fundedfrom ratepayer funding, or receive high levels of ratepayer funding in addition to otherrevenue. These include public good/benefit activities such as public infrastructure on thewaterfront and waterfront activation; all services delivered by ATEED; regional facilitiesmanagement, operation of the art gallery and management of art collections. Servicesoperating with less ratepayer funding or with a high proportion of external revenue includethe operation of sports, performing arts and events venues; and commercial propertymanagement and development on the waterfront.

31. This criteria was difficult to apply for ACIL which is a net funder of council but must be highlyaccountable for this funding. It was also difficult to apply to Watercare which raises its ownrevenue from customers.

32. Stakeholder, iwi, and political interest in decision makingthis criteria recognises that itcan be more difficult for council to deliver services through an arms length entity wherethere is a significant and ongoing requirement for public engagement and consultation, andwhere the activity generates political or public interest. High local board interest is often anindicator of high public interest. High public interest in decision making may favour in-housedelivery.

33. The analysis suggests that activities which can generate significant public and/or politicalinterest or the requirement to consult, include ACPLs place-shaping functions and propertyacquisition/disposals; major events; and water and wastewater services. Other activities maygenerate interest periodically.

34. Discussion regarding this criteria suggests that there may be merit in distinguishing between

the need for widespread engagement or consultation, versus the need to engage andpartner with specific groups. CCOs tend to be well placed to develop partnering relationshipswith specific stakeholdersfor example ATEED has relationships with business sector


29/83

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 29

groups and government departments. In some circumstances they can be better placed todevelop such partnerships. They can also engage effectively with specific stakeholdergroups. However, where general public engagement is needed, council tends to have welldeveloped processes and expertise.

35. There was also some discussion that because of their distance from council, CCOs canmake hard but necessary decisions.

36. Integrationthis criteria recognises that for activities with high levels of connectedness withother council services, or which contribute to multiple Auckland Plan outcomes, deliverythrough an arms length entity can create barriers and encourage focus on core objectives atthe expense of other council objectives. Highly connected activities may favour in-housedelivery.

37. The analysis suggests that the level of connectedness with other council activities andcontribution across multiple Auckland Plan outcomes is low for services provided by ACIL,and relatively low for management of regional facilities and collections, and hireage ofsporting facilities. It is relatively high for most of the activities provided by ACPL includingplace-shaping and property acquisition/disposal; for most activities provided by Watercaredue to the linkages with land-use planning; for waterfront commercial property development,

public infrastructure and activation; and for attracting business and investment.

38. The workshop discussion focussed on the desire to see better integration of CCO activitieswith council activities rather than achieving integration by bringing activities in-house.

39. Overall, the workshop discussion across all services and criteria reflected a generalexpectation that accountability for ratepayer funding, effective public engagement whererequired, and integration with council activities, should be possible to achieve within a CCOstructure.

Local Board input to Current State Assessment

40. The council perspective, current state assessment report did not include input from localboards as they were given a longer timeframe to respond. All local boards considered adiscussion document at their March/April business meetings, and 20 local boards providedinput. Attachment B provides an overview of the input from local boards. Copies of thedetailed feedback are available to councillors in the councillors lounge.

41. The following is the executive summary of the overview report.

The general theme from the local boards feedback suggests that the CCO modelneeds refining but is a well-functioning model. High-level comments are as follows:

Overall, there is a widespread recognition that the CCOs have achieved some successin their first three and a half years of operation.

Local boards have the most dealings with Auckland Transport (AT), Auckland Tourism

Events and Economic Development (ATEED), Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL),and to a lesser extent Watercare. Consequently local boards have provided moredetailed comments in relation to these CCOs.

The improvements in the relationship between the local boards and the CCOs over thelast three years are widely acknowledged. Several local boards mentioned the value ofhaving dedicated CCO liaison advisors. However, local boards would like to seefurther improvements in the area of communication, project up-date and reporting, andengagement with communities. They also would like to see the CCOs consistentlyadhere to the no surprises policy. Many references to improvement potential relateparticularly to AT reflecting that it is the CCO with the highest level of interaction withthe local boards.

The vast majority of local boards consider that strategy needs to sit with AucklandCouncil with it being Auckland Councils role to set the vision and strategic direction forthe whole of Auckland Council group. The local boards also pointed to the importance


30/83

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 30

of having close and trusted working relationships with the CCOs to enable goodstrategy development.

Five local boards suggested that the accountability framework could be improved (forexample simplified) and some requested an investigation of the processes or tools toenable local boards to be more genuinely involved in the direction setting of the CCOs.

The local boards remarked that the CCOs can operate as functional silos, which attimes adversely affects project delivery. While examples of collaboration existed,many local boards advocated for the CCO review to investigate ways to betterpromote a culture of collaboration within the Auckland Council group and avoidfunctional silos.

Generally, the local boards feel that improving collaboration, rather than makingstructural changes, was the best way forward to improve cohesiveness within theAuckland Council group and to improve delivery to the community. Local boardsidentified gaps and duplication in relation to two activity areas: place making, andeconomic development.

Local boards have a significant role in place making. They would like a stronger

recognition of their role in place making, as well as stronger collaboration betweenagencies involved in place making, that is AT, ACPL, Auckland Councils Regional andLocal Planning and City Transformation departments and Auckland Councils HousingProject Office.

The local boards role in place making means that they have a strong interest in theroad corridor. All aspects of the road corridor sits under ATs jurisdiction. Local boardswould like to investigate potential delegations to local boards from AT during thiselectoral term.

The large majority of local boards commented that the split of economic developmentactivities between ATEED and Auckland Council was confusing and warranted achange: either through improved collaboration and alignment or through structural

change. It was also commented that while both ATEED and Auckland Councildelivered economic development activities, support for local economic developmentwas insufficient.

Local boards would welcome the opportunity to be further engaged in the CCO review.

42. This report provides some comment on the key issues raised and how, and the extent towhich, the CCO review may address them.

Communication and no surprises

43. CCOs are required to keep local boards well informed of local projects on a regular basis,and adhere to a no surprises policy with respect to local issues and impacts (such as roadclosures).

44. The council has clear requirements regarding CCOs communications with local boards.Each CCO is required to prepare a Local Board Engagement Plan (LBEP) and update itregularly. The Shareholder Expectation Guide (SEG) has detailed specifications about thecontents of those plans.

45. The council has also specified how, and how often, a CCO will keep local boards informed.Auckland Transport is of the greatest interest to local boards, and therefore reports monthlyto local boards. At the other extreme, ACIL writes to local boards offering to attend ameeting at which the chief executive provides a briefing.

46. The council has also specified that all CCOs must adequately resource liaison with andreporting to local boards. All CCOs have responded to this with responses depending on the

level and nature of local board interest in their activities. For example, Watercare has a staffmember dedicated to local board engagement, and Auckland Transport has a large electedmember liaison team.


31/83

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 31

47. The local board feedback is that communication has improved over the last three years andis generally well resourced. Many boards would like to see further improvements incommunications.

48. At its meeting of September 2013, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved to surveylocal boards annually on the quality of CCO engagement with local boards and on CCOsresponsiveness to local boards.

49. Auckland Councils Local Board Services Department is considering the inclusion of aquestion on CCOs in the 2014 local board member survey. This would provide baseline dataand would allow a performance target to be included in 2015/2016 statements of intent. Asthe council already has clear requirements on communications, this would seem anappropriate response rather than further addressing the issue through the CCO review.

Consultation and engagement

50. Councils guidelines are clear that in addition to keeping local boards informed, CCOs areexpected to engage and consult on decisions affecting a local boards governance role,having local impact, and/or requiring a CCO to undertake community consultation.

51. The feedback indicates that some local boards still think that there is a gap between

communication and engagement, and that community consultation by CCOs is not alwaysadequate. Note that Auckland Transport is undertaking work to improve its consultationprocesses and has been piloting a new approach with the Waitakere Ranges local board.

52. The survey referred to in paragraph 49 can also be used to measure the local boardmembers views about the quality of engagement and consultation. In addition, it is proposedthat the CCO review considers how CCOs could be encouraged to follow council guidelinesand standards for community consultation, including the role of local boards when CCOsundertake community consultation.

Local board prioritiestransport

53. All CCOs are required to consider local board priorities when developing their work

programmes. Many of the issues that have arisen between local boards and AucklandTransport over the last three years relate to Auckland Transports prioritisation of projects ofinterest to local boards.

54. While there will always be tension between local board priorities and Auckland Transportsability to fund these, it is important that there is a robust process for Auckland Transport toconsider local board priorities and communicate with local boards in relation to this.

55. This has been addressed by council in a number of ways. Auckland Transport has a fund of$10 million per annum to fund local board capital projects that would not otherwise meetAuckland Transports funding criteria. This fund is underspent to date and there appear to bea variety of reasons for this including that local boards may need some support to identifythe projects that can be funded from the fund. Another issue is that some local board

projects do not quality for funding from this fund. The criteria for the fund are to beconsidered by the Infrastructure Committee and this is not a CCO review issue.

56. With respect to regional priorities, Auckland Transport held cluster workshops with localboards in 2013 to explain how they prioritise projects and then met with each local boardregarding their priorities.

57. Some local boards have asked for the review to investigate how local boards can be moreinvolved in the direction setting of CCOs. The appropriate mechanism for local boards to beinvolved in direction setting of CCOs is through the LTP process. This will be consideredthrough the CCO review work that is being undertaken on achieving stronger linkagesbetween the LTP and statement of intent process.

58. The review could also consider whether workshops on local board priorities should becomea regular requirement for Auckland Transport, and potentially other CCOs as part of the LTPand/or annual plan process.


32/83

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 32

Local board prioritieslocal economic development

59. Local boards are responsible, as set out in the allocation of decision-making for non-regulatory activities, for local economic development plans, projects and initiatives withinparameters set by regional strategies and policies.

60. Local boards have voiced concern over the last three years that ATEED has a regional focusand is not able to provide resourcing for local economic development priorities. The issuesare quite complex and include:

There is limited funding for local economic development initiatives. ATEED is currentlynot funded to deliver local economic development programmes, although it can tailor itsregional programmes, for example, in relation to skills, tourism, and youth employment,to local needs.

There is a perceived confusion about the role of ATEED and the role of councilseconomic development department, in relation to local economic development.

Local boards do not have a direct governance relationship with CCOs and so cannothold them accountable in relation to local boards economic developmentresponsibilities.

61. These issues are being explored through a number of processes including workshopsbetween local board members, governing body members, ATEED staff and AucklandCouncil staff. The lack of support for local economic development has been documentedduring a workshop between local board and governing body members supported by ATEEDand Auckland Council staff.

62. While the LTP will need to address the funding issue, the CCO review will need to clarifyresponsibilities. Any decision on who is responsible for delivering local economicdevelopment plans, projects and initiatives, will need to consider governance implications.

Place making

63. Local boards have a significant role in place making and a strong interest in the roadcorridor. Many Auckland Transport functions have place making implications. Local boardsare seeking a greater acknowledgement of their role, and would like to investigatedelegations of some Auckland Transport functions.

64. The CCO review will include a review of the split of operational responsibilities betweenAuckland Council and Auckland Transport. There are a number of issues that causeproblems for both entities, and a need to ensure that the split of responsibilities is clear andoptimal. This work will include responsibilities for functions that impact on place making.

65. ACPL also has direct place making functions. The feedback on the current state assessmentindicates that ACPL has a good relationship with most local boards over its place makingfunctions.

Consideration


66. This report reflects feedback from local boards on the current state assessment.

67. In relation to the service assessment, one of the criteria requires council to consider thedegree of political, stakeholder and public interest in the decisions.


68. The IMSB input to current state assessment were tabled at the Governing Body meeting of27 February.

69. In relation to the service assessment, one of the criteria requires council to consider thedegree of political, stakeholder and public interest in the decisions.


33/83

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 33

Implementation70. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A CCO Services Assessment Overview 35

B Reivew of CCOs - Local Board Views 59

Signatories

Authors Catherine Syme - Principal Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers Mark Butcher - Treasurer

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer



34/83


35/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Project update, analysis of services against criteria, and local board input to current state assessment. Page 35


36/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



37/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



38/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



39/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



40/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



41/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



42/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



43/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



44/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



45/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



46/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



47/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



48/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



49/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



50/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



51/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



52/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



53/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



54/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



55/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



56/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014



57/83

AttachmentA

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014



58/83


59/83

AttachmentB

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 59


60/83

AttachmentB

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 60


61/83

AttachmentB

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 61


62/83

AttachmentB

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 62


63/83

AttachmentB

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 63


64/83

AttachmentB

Item14

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 64


65/83

AttachmentB

Item1

4

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Page 65


66/83


67/83

Item1

5

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Appointments to the Mutukaroa (Hamlin's Hill) Trust Page 67

Appointments to the Mutukaroa (Hamlin's Hill) Trust

File No.:CP2014/12709

Purpose1. To nominate a Governing Body member to the Hamlins Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust.

Executive summary2. Mutukaroa is a regional park. It is managed through a trust structure to provide co-

management of the park pending the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims.

3. Auckland Council inherits the right to nominate two members of the Trust. In the previousterm the Governing Body nominated Sandra Coney and delegated the right to nominate thesecond member to the Maungakiekie-Tmaki Local Board. The Board nominated ChrisMakoare, who has continued as a member of the Board following the 2013 elections.

4. Sandra Coney was not a candidate for the Governing Body for the 2013 elections and hasadvised she now wishes to give priority to her responsibilities in Waitakere Ranges. TheGoverning Body is invited to nominate a member to replace her.


a) nominate a member to replace Sandra Coney on the Hamlins Hill (Mutukaroa)Management Trust.

Comments

Hamlins Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust

5. The Trust was established in 1996 by Deed between the then Minister of Lands as settlorand Phil Warren (ARC), Hugh Kawharu (Ngti Whtua), Hariata Gordon (Ngti Poa),Robert Mahuta (Tainui), Les Mills (ACC), Richard Northey (MP).

6. In the deed, the primary object of the Trust related to the land described in the schedule tothe deed, being Crown Land. The Trust was to contribute to the control, management,

protection and enhancement of the park as a regional park by leasing it to the ARC (nowAuckland Council), participating in the statutory management planning of it, offering generaladvice and raising funds to support selected projects.

7. The trust structure is a mechanism for co-management of Mutukaroa pending the resolutionof Treaty of Waitangi claims. Consideration was given to including Mutukaroa in the TmakiCollective redress legislation. This has not eventuated, due largely to the fact that not allclaimants are represented on the Tamaki Collective.

8. The Trust is required to hold one annual meeting within three months of the end of thefinancial year and may hold other meetings as required. It has currently been meeting onceor twice per year.

9. The name of the Trust on the trust deed is Hamlins Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust.The Trust is seeking to change the name to give prominence to Mutukaroa and this is thename of the park that is displayed on signage on the park.


68/83

Item15

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Membership of the Trust

10. The deed requires the Trust to comprise of six trustees. Five are appointed by the Trustsappointments committee on the nomination of the:

Auckland Regional Council Ngti Whtua Trust Board Ngti Poa Trust Board Tainui Maori Trust Board Auckland City Council

11. The sixth trustee is the Member of Parliament representing the electorate in which HamlinsHill is located.

12. The Auckland Council inherited the nomination rights of both the Auckland Regional Counciland Auckland City Council. The Governing Body has nominated one member, whom itdeems to replace the ARC representative, and has delegated the nomination of the othermember to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board.

13. The current trustees are:

Sandra Coney (Auckland Council- nominated by the Governing Body) Chris Makoare of the Maungakiekie-Tmaki Local Board (Auckland Councilnominated

by the Local Board)

Rangimarie Rawiri (Ngti Whtua) George Kahu (Ngti Poa) Tom Roa (Waikato-Tainui)

14. Member of Parliament Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga is a member by virtue of his position.

15. The term of office of trustees is five years. A vacancy arises on a trustee ceasing to hold the

office on which the nomination was based. Other grounds include a trustee: becomingbankrupt; being convicted of an offence and liable for a term of imprisonment; having anunsound mind; resigning by notice in writing; failing to attend three consecutive meetingswithout leave of the chairperson; or being ousted on two-thirds of the votes.

Nomination of a Governing Body member

16. The Governing Body nominated Sandra Coney and delegated the nomination of the othermember to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board. Ms Coney did not stand for election tothe Governing Body at the 2013 elections and is now the Chairperson of the WaitakereRanges Local Board. She has indicated that she does not wish to continue on the Trust asshe wants to give priority to her responsibilities in the Waitakere Ranges.

17. This report asks the Governing Body to nominate one of its members to the Trust.

Consideration


18. The chairperson of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board has advised that Chris Makoareis continuing as the Boards nominee to the Trust.


19. The trust structure was created as a means of co-managing Mutukaroa, pending resolutionof Treaty of Waitangi claims. It provides for representation from Ngti Whtua, Ngti Poaand Waikato-Tainui.


69/83

Item1

5

Governing Body

26 June 2014


Implementation20. The appointment will be finalised through the Trusts appointments committee in time for the

annual meeting of the Trust, which will be held within the next three months.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director



70/83


71/83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 71

ATTACHMENTSItem 10.1 Attachment A Cr Cathy Casey signed Notice of Motion Page73Item 10.2 Attachment A Councillor Chris Darby's signed notice of

motion Page77Item 10.2 Attachment B Background Information - Councillor Chris

Darby's notice of motion Page79Item 10.2 Attachment C Auckland Development Committee 15

May 2014 decision Page83


72/83


73/83

AttachmentA

Item1

0.1

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 73


74/83

AttachmentA

Item10.1

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 74


75/83

AttachmentA

Item1

0.1

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 75


76/83


77/83

AttachmentA

Item1

0.2

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 77


78/83


79/83

AttachmentB

Item1

0.2

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Page 79


80/83

AttachmentB

Item10.2

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Pag

governing body june 2014

Documents