P. 1
Strategy Finance Committee - March 2013

Strategy Finance Committee - March 2013

|Views: 78|Likes:
Published by Ben Ross
Strategy Finance Committee - March 2013 Agenda. Am speaking in this one under Public Input
Strategy Finance Committee - March 2013 Agenda. Am speaking in this one under Public Input

More info:

Published by: Ben Ross on Mar 04, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/04/2013

pdf

text

original

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee will be held on

:

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Thursday, 7 March 2013 10.00am Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland

Strategy and Finance Committee OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Councillors Cr Penny Webster Cr Des Morrison Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Cameron Brewer Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sandra Coney, QSO Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Michael Goudie Cr Ann Hartley, JP Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Cr Mike Lee

Cr Richard Northey, ONZM Cr Calum Penrose Cr Dick Quax Cr Noelene Raffills, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Member David Taipari Member John Tamihere Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Wayne Walker Cr George Wood, CNZM

(Quorum 11 members) Tam White Democracy Advisor 1 March 2013 Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7253 Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Note:

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

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Strategy and Finance Committee will have responsibility for:         Planning and Financial Management, exercising the Council’s responsibilities and making recommendations to the Governing Body where required under Part 6 (except subpart 2) of the Local Government Act 2002; Discussing Independent Maori Statutory Board agreements with the Independent Maori Statutory Board and making recommendations to the Governing Body; Discussing local board agreements with the local boards and making recommendations to the Governing Body on the adoption of the agreements as part of the annual plan; Delegation of powers to subcommittee(s); Dealing with Council’s Governing Body responsibilities for rates collection; Ensuring local board input to the Long Term Plan and financial policies; Approving the write off of outstanding accounts (excluding rates) and wholly or partly remit fees and charges up to $500,000; and Acquisition and disposal of property assets.

For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the existing delegation (contained in the Chief Executives Delegation Register) to staff relating to the above terms of reference under the enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by requiring them to be exercised as directed by the committee.

Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to: Local Government Act 2002; Local Government (Rating) Act 2002; and Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 Apologies Declaration of Interest Confirmation of Minutes Petitions Public Input 5.1 6 Ben Ross - Manukau Rail Link (northern connection) PAGE 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7

Local Board Input 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Julia Parfitt - Chairperson of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board - the Murrays Bay Sailing Club Chairpersons of Albert-Eden, Waitemata and Puketapapa Local Boards - Disposal Recommendation Paul Downie - Chairperson Gt Barrier Local Board - Gt Barrier road sealing Angela Dalton - Chairperson Manurewa Local Board - Auckland Transport Allocation of Auckland Transport’s capital funding to local board priorities – Manurewa Local Board request to alter criteria for project eligibility

7 7 8

7 8 9

Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion Manukau Rail Link (northern connection)

The report was unavailable at the time the agenda went to print and will be circulated in an addendum agenda. 10 Rating Sales Policy The report was unavailable at the time the agenda went to print and will be circulated in an addendum agenda. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities Waterfront Auckland: Waterfront Plan implementation strategy. Disposal Recommendation Report Reforecast local board property costs Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16 Allocation of Auckland Transport’s capital funding to local board priorities – Manurewa Local Board request to alter criteria for project eligibility The report was unavailable at the time the agenda went to print and will be circulated in an addendum agenda. 18 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
Page 3

9 81 153 155 165 171

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

PUBLIC EXCLUDED
19 C1 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public Potential purchase of Heritage Building (Airedale Cottages) under the Built Heritage Acquisition Fund 181 181

Page 4

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 1 Apologies An apology from Councillor Anae Arthur Anae has been received.

2

Declaration of Interest Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3

Confirmation of Minutes That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) confirm the minutes of the Strategy and Finance Committee held on Thursday, 7 February 2013 and the confidential minutes of the Strategy and Finance Committee held on Thursday, 7 February 2013, as a true and correct record.

4

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

5

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

5.1

Ben Ross - Manukau Rail Link (northern connection)

Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Strategy and Finance Committee. Executive Summary 2. Mr Ben Ross will speak to the Strategy and Finance Committee regarding the budget allocation request by Auckland Transport. Recommendation/s That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive the presentation from Ben Ross.

Appendices A Questions from Ben Ross ......................................................................... 185

Page 5

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 6 Local Board Input Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson 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 the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda. 6.1 Julia Parfitt - Chairperson of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board - the Murrays Bay Sailing Club

Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for the Chair of Local Boards to address the Strategy and Finance Committee. Executive Summary 2. Julia Parfitt, Chair of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will speak to the Strategy and Finance Committee regarding the Murrays Bay Sailing Club. Recommendation/s That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive the presentation from Julia Parfitt, Chair of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

6.2

Chairpersons of Albert-Eden, Waitemata and Puketapapa Local Boards Disposal Recommendation

Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for Local Boards to address the Strategy and Finance Committee. Executive Summary 2. Chairpersons of Albert-Eden, Waitemata and Puketapapa Local Boards will speak to the Strategy and Finance Committee regarding the Disposal Recommendation report. Recommendation/s That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive the presentation from the Chairpersons of Albert-Eden, Waitemata and Puketapapa Local Boards.

Page 6

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 6.3 Paul Downie - Chairperson Gt Barrier Local Board - Gt Barrier road sealing

Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for the Chair of Local Boards to address the Strategy and Finance Committee. Executive Summary 2. Paul Downie, Chair of Great Barrier Local Board will speak regarding the Great Barrier road sealing issues. Recommendation/s That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive the presentation from Paul Downie, Chairperson Great Barrier Local Board.

6.4

Angela Dalton - Chairperson Manurewa Local Board - Auckland Transport Allocation of Auckland Transport’s capital funding to local board priorities – Manurewa Local Board request to alter criteria for project eligibility

Purpose 1. To provide an opportunity for the Chair of Local Boards to address the Strategy and Finance Committee. Executive Summary 2. Angela Dalton will speak to the Strategy and Finance Committee regarding Auckland Transport allocation of Auckland Transport’s capital funding to local board priorities. Recommendation/s That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive the presentation from Angela Dalton, Chairperson Manurewa Local Board.

7

Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: “An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if(a) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,(i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Page 7

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 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 local authority; and the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(ii)

(b)

no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

8

Notices of Motion At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

Page 8

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

File No.: CP2013/02830

Purpose
1. To approve the annual funding plan 2013-14 for the Auckland War Memorial Museum (AWMM) and Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT)

Executive Summary
2. The independent boards of the AWMM and MOTAT have provided their annual plans for the 2013/14 financial year. The draft annual plans have been published and circulated for public consultation during December 2012. RFA are the appointed advisor to Council on the annual funding process for the museums as per the Advisory and Management Agreement with Council. RFA Board have reviewed both annual plans and proposed levies for the museums. RFA recommend to Council to accept the proposed levies for AWMM and MOTAT the 2013/14 financial year.

3.

Recommendation/s
That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) agree the total amount requested by the Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology is within the levy cap and within budget of the Long Term Plan 2012-2022 recommend to the Governing Body to accept the proposed levy of $27,308,000 for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and $11,695,000 for the Museum of Transport and Technology for the 2013/14 financial year.

b)

Discussion
4. The organisations, AWMM and MOTAT operate under two separate pieces of legislation, being:  Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996  Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 5. RFA provide a regional approach to running and developing Auckland’s arts, culture and heritage, leisure, sport and entertainment venues. Under the Advisory and Management Agreement between Council and RFA; RFA are the appointed advisor to Council for the annual funding process for the museums. The legislation requires both museums to prepare a draft annual plan, and circulate the plan for public consultation, calling for public submissions. As appointed advisor, RFA made a submission to both entities draft annual plans on behalf of Council, please refer to the attachments. Each museum received two written submissions each. Both museums considered the submissions received, deliberated and have decided on the final proposed levy. The final draft annual plans have been forwarded to RFA for review. RFA have considered the annual plans and levies proposed by AWMM and MOTAT at their board meeting on 27th February 2013. RFA board are recommending to Council to accept the proposed levies and annual plans from both entities (refer to attachments B & D). The table below details the levies and the levy cap as described by the respective legislation:
Page 9

6.

7.

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Item 11

Institution AWMM MOTAT Total

2013/14 Levy $ 000s 27,308 11,695 39,003

2012/13 Levy $ 000s 26,641 11,695 38,336

Increase 2013/14 v 2012/13 $ 000s 667 0 667

Percentage increase % 2.5 0 2.5

2013/14 Levy Cap $ 000s 71,843 11,990 83,833

8.

The Long Term Plan 2012-2022 has budgeted an amount of $39.554 million of funding for AWMM and MOTAT for 2013/14 financial year. If the proposed levies are accepted, a saving of $551,018 will be achieved. RFA advise that they have undertaken the following steps in relation to the levy process:  In September 2012, a letter was sent to the respective boards. The letter advised the indicated average rates increase for the region was to be well below 4% and advised that RFA’s expectation was that any levy request was to be the lower of the average rates increase as decided by Council through the Council Annual Plan process, or the inflation rate adopted by Council for the 2013/14 Annual Plan.  In late October 2012 RFA, meet with each of the entities where they talked through aspects of the plans including the indicative levies.  In November 2012 a letter was sent to the respective boards advising the Mayor was looking to achieve an average rates increase of below 2.9% and that the rate of inflation is approximately 2.5%. This was subsequent to the boards deciding the amount of the levy to be indicated in their draft annual plans.  Both the AWMM and MOTAT revised their draft annual plans and reduced their levies to 2.5% and 0% accordingly.  RFA made a submission on both of the draft Annual Plans, see attachments

Annual Funding Process for Museums: 9.

Arbitration: 10. The respective legislation for AWMM and MOTAT states that should Council decide to reject any of the proposed levies and an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, the matter is to be referred (by either party) to an arbitrator for a decision. The arbitrator must release its decision prior to 30 April 2013. AWMM have developed Future Museum, which is the AWMM strategic response to the Auckland Plan. The strategy is centred around two main directives of; (i) collections care and (ii) audience engagement. A number of initiatives will be triggered over the next five-years as the strategy involves a long-term programme of capital works projects, based on the AWMM’s existing Asset Management Plan and the asset replacement financial model. RFA and Council officers intend for representatives of AWMM to present the Future Museum strategy to Councillors later this year. RFA acknowledged AWMM in the efforts they implemented to reduce energy consumption and the willingness of AWMM to share knowledge and expertise in this area. RFA thanked AWMM for its commitment to reducing costs and reviewing alternative revenue streams, in particular they appreciated AWMM’s reconsideration of the initial levy proposed, which resulted in a reduction from 3.7% to a 2.5% increase.

AWMM: 11.

12.

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 10

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 13.

14.

RFA Board has reviewed the AWMM levy request for the 2013/14 financial year and is recommending that Council accept this request. MOTAT have focused on how it can fund priorities for the organisation, which has included increases in museum revenue from admissions, shop sales and other revenue streams. MOTAT were also successful in receiving a grant from the Lotteries Grant Board towards the collection inventory project. RFA acknowledge and appreciate MOTAT’s efforts on reviewing costs to effect a nil increase to the levy, which is $931,000 lower than the amount forecasted in last years annual plan. The proposed levy for the MOTAT Annual Plan 2013-14 is $11,695 million, which represents a 0% increase from 2012-13. The RFA Board have reviewed the MOTAT levy request for the 2013/14 financial year and are recommending that Council accept this request.

MOTAT 15.

16.

17.

Consideration
Local Board Views
18. Decision-making and oversight in respect of regional activities is the responsibility of the Governing Body. This report relates to the funding relationship between the Council, AWMM and MOTAT.

Maori Impact Statement
19. AWMM and MOTAT have the ability to positively contribute to Maori Wellbeing, and to deliver on Auckland Plan outcomes relating to effective communication and engagement with Maori and contribution to effective Maori capacity.

General
20. This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues
21. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments
No. A B C D E Title RFA Letter to Governing Body regarding levies 2013-14 for AWMM and MOTAT AWMM - RFA submission to the annual plan 2013.14 AWMM annual plan 2013.14 MOTAT - RFA submission to the annual plan 2013.14 MOTAT annual plan 2013.14 Page 13 15 17 49 51

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Colette Farrer - Advisor Alastair Cameron - Acting CCO Governance and External Partnership Manager Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 11

Item 11

The proposed levy for the AWMM Annual Plan 2013-14 is $27,308 million, which represents an increase of $667,000 or 2.5% than 2012-13. This is less than last years increase of $1.024 million or 4% increase.

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 13

Attachment A

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment A
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 14

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 15

Attachment B

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 17

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 18

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 19

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 20

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 21

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 22

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 23

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 24

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 25

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 26

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 27

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 28

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 29

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 30

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 31

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 32

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 33

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 34

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 35

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 36

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 37

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 38

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 39

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 40

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 41

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 42

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 43

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 44

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 45

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 46

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 47

Attachment C

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment C
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 48

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 49

Attachment D

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment D
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 50

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 51

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 52

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 53

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 54

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 55

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 56

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 57

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 58

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 59

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 60

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 61

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 62

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 63

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 64

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 65

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 66

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 67

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 68

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 69

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 70

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 71

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 72

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 73

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 74

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 75

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 76

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 77

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 78

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Page 79

Attachment E

Item 11

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment E
Annual Funding for Museums 2013-14, Auckland War Memorial Museum and Museum of Transport and Technology

Item 11

Page 80

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities
File No.: CP2013/02835

Purpose
1. To approve or reject the Final draft 2013-14 Funding Plan from the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board (Funding Board).

Executive Summary
2. The Funding Board have submitted its Final Draft 2013-14 Funding Plan, the total levy request for the 2013/14 is $14.096 million, which represents a 2.5% increase from 2012-13. This is in line with the new funding principle, requesting the Funding Board have regard to, and be strategically aligned with, Council’s proposed rate increase for the forthcoming year. The Funding Board and Council have defined roles, as per the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. Council’s role is to approve or reject the total levy amount, having regard to the funding principles. Auckland Council does not make the decision on allocations, that is expressly reserved to the Funding Board, which must act independently of Auckland Council. The decision for Council is to approve the proposed total levy amount, or reject it, on the basis that it is either too high or too low. Rejection means the matter goes to arbitration. Should Council decide to reject the proposed total levy, the dispute must be referred to an independent arbitrator. The arbitrator finalises the total levy amount having regard to all relevant considerations, but does not decide the allocations. The Funding Board decides in its sole discretion how to allocate the finalised levy amount following arbitration, by adopting its final funding plan The Council made a submission to the draft-funding plan 2013-14, requesting amongst other things, that the Funding Board confirm that the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust’s (ARRHT) ability to deliver current levels of service will not be adversely affected by the proposed reduction in funding; and requesting clarification on the proposal for an annual Auckland Arts Festival. The Funding Board have responded to the Councils submission stating, “The Trust (ARRHT) has advised that they will continue to deliver current levels of service unless they are unable to raise the additional funds from the public. Trust members have also assured the Funding Board that no 111 calls would go unanswered”. The Auckland Arts Festival Trust has approached Council seeking endorsement and funding for an annual festival. The Arts Festival Trust is a registered Auckland Regional Amenity; therefore, it must seek its additional funding requirements through the Funding Board. Council is currently preparing a Cultural Arts Strategy as required by the Auckland Plan. This strategy is due to be completed in June 2013. It is proposed that this strategy be developed first to enable assessment of the Arts Festival Trust proposal against the strategy criteria, prior to the Governing Body reviewing the proposal for an annual festival.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Recommendation/s
That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) b) recommend to the Governing Body to accept the proposed levy from the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board of $14.096 million for 2013/14 recommend to the Governing Body that the Cultural Arts Strategy be developed prior to consideration of an annual Auckland Arts Festival.

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 81

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Discussion

Item 12

8.

The Funding Board is an independent body, which is responsible for allocation of the annual funding provided by the Auckland Council for the ten Auckland Regional Amenities (Amenities). The role of the Funding Board is to assess the annual funding applications from the Amenities, against funding principles identified within the Act. The funding principles detail a range of requirements for the Funding Board to have regard to when determining the provisional grants for the Amenities. At the 1st November 2012, Strategy and Finance committee meeting council adopted two additional funding principles, which required the Funding Board to have regard of the councils proposed rates increase for the forthcoming year and requiring the Amenities to align their activities to the Auckland Plan, by adopting relevant performance measures. The funding principles primarily require the Funding Board to;  Grant funding to the Amenities for expenses incurred in providing the services;  For the Funding Board to ensure funding is only available for activities within the Auckland region; and,  For the funding not to be applied towards capital expenses.  Funding Board must determine that the Amenities have made all reasonable endeavours to maximise their funding from other available funding sources.

9.

10.

11.

Once the Funding Board have conducted the analysis of the Amenities annual funding applications, it is required to prepare the draft funding plan and circulate the plan for public consultation, calling for public submissions. This year, 1175 submissions were received by the Funding Board, a significant increase on previous years. The vast majority of submissions related to the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust. The Funding Board have considered the submissions, and have held hearings for the submitters who wished to speak to their submission. Following consideration of the submissions, hearings and deliberations, the Funding Board has finalised the annual funding plan for 2013/14. The recommended grants to the Amenities are:
Amenity Funding Application 2013-2014 Year on Year Change 20122013 to 20132014 0.00% 6.30%

12.

Amenity

Grant Allocated by Funding Board 2012-2013

Allocation of Grant 2013-2014

Auckland Festival Trust Auckland Philharmonia Trust Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust Auckland Theatre Company Ltd Coastguard Northern Region Inc

$2,230,000 $2,650,000

$2,300,000 $2,817,000

$2,230,000 $2,817,000

$1,200,000

$1,230,000

$900,000

-25.00%

$1,310,000

$1,330,000

$1,330,000

1.53%

$640,000

$650,000

$650,000

1.56%

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 82

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Amenity

Grant Allocated by Funding Board 2012-2013

Allocation of Grant 2013-2014

New Zealand National Maritime Museum (Voyager) New Zealand Opera Ltd Stardome Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Surf Life Saving Northern Region Inc Watersafe Auckland Incorporated Total Funding Board administration budget Total gross levy before Funding Board Reserves Reserve allocation (one-off) Total net levy payable by Auckland Council

$1,840,000

$1,920,000

$1,875,000

Year on Year Change 20122013 to 20132014 1.90%

$800,000 $1,020,000

$824,000 $1,169,000

$800,000 $1,119,000*

0.00% 9.71%

$1,120,000

$1,155,200

$1,140,000

1.79%

$920,000

$942,000

$920,000

0.00%

$13,730,000 $315,000

$14,262,000 $315,000

$13,781,000 $315,000

0.37% 0.00%

$14,045,000

$14,577,000

$14,096,000

0.36%

-$293,700

$0

$0

$13,751,300

$14,577,000

$14,096,000

2.50%

* the grant allocation to Stardome includes a one-off payment of $75,000 for 2013-2014.

Roles and Responsibilities 13. The Funding Board and Council have defined roles under the Act. The Funding Board must review the funding applications and make determinations on the level of funding for each of the specified Amenities for the year. The Funding Board then make a recommendation to Council on the total amount of levy for the year. Council’s role is confined to approving or rejecting the total levy amount, having regard to the funding principles. The Act specifies that the Funding Board has been established as an independent body of the Council. Council’s role is in the provision of annual funding, not in the decision making of how the funds are allocated between the Amenities.

14.

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 83

Item 12

Amenity Funding Application 2013-2014

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 15.

Item 12

Should Council decide to reject the proposed total levy, with having regard to the funding principles, the dispute must be referred to an independent arbitrator. The Act does not allow for renegotiation of the proposed amounts, the matter must be referred to an arbitrator in the first instance. At the February Strategy & Finance committee meeting, Council approved a submission to the draft-funding plan 2013/14. The Funding Board have responded to the Councils submission, in writing (Attachment 1) and within the Final Draft 2013-14 Funding Plan (Attachment 2). The responses are detailed below. The Funding Board have resolved to grant the Auckland Regional Helicopter Trust (ARRHT) $900,000 for 2013/14, which is a reduction of $300,000 from the grant provided in 2012/13. ARRHT had requested $1,230,000 for 2013/14. Council included in its submission to the draft-funding plan a request that the Funding Board confirm that: “ARRHT’s ability to deliver current levels of service will not be adversely affected by the proposed reduction in funding. When doing so, the Funding Board should have regard to other trusts related to ARRHT.”

Submission: 16.

Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter: 17.

18.

19.

The Funding Board, having considered all the submissions, including a submission from the ARRHT, concluded that the level of funding allocated to ARRHT is an appropriate contribution to support the activities laid out in ARRHT’s 2013/14 funding application. The Funding Board notes that ARRHT and its associated trust have managed to accelerate its debt repayments and place orders for extra aircraft whilst still maintaining a sound financial position and holding significant reserves. The Funding Board has also stated in its response to Council that: “The Trust has advised that they will continue to deliver current levels of service unless they are unable to raise the additional funds from the public. Trust members have also assured the Funding Board that no 111 calls would go unanswered. As the Funding Board is not responsible for any aspect of the Trusts operational activities we cannot guarantee any ongoing service levels. We continue to be confident however that the Trust has sufficient cash resources to maintain current service levels. As we assess funding applications on an annual basis and receive regular quarterly financial updates we feel comfortable that we will be able to see any significant change in the Trusts ability to raise funds from other sources at an early stage.”

20.

21.

22.

The final draft-funding plan details that the Funding Board considers that the capacity, availability and capability of rescue services are the responsibility of the ARRHT board and management. The plan also notes that while the reduction may appear significant, the Funding Board considers that it reflects the intention of the legislation, as the ARRHT have demonstrated the ability to access alternative funding sources to support its activity. The ARRHT notified the Funding Board of its intention to establish a second trust, known as Rescue Helicopter Auckland Trust (RHAT), which is the asset owning, fundraising trust. The ARRHT remained as the operational trust. The trustees are the same for both trusts. The Funding Board have looked at all the entities across the Helicopter Trust family e.g. ARRHT and RHAT and has concluded that the combined trading results of the two entities was a surplus of $2.257 million for the year to 30 June 2012. Sources of funding include fundraising, and operational recoveries from Auckland District Health Board, ACC and NZ Police.
Page 84

23.

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

The Auckland Arts Festival – Festival Every Year 25. Auckland Councils submission to the Funding Board asked for clarification or further investigation relating to the funding mechanisms in respect of the proposal to annualise the Auckland Arts Festival The Auckland Arts Festival Trust (Arts Festival) has approached council requesting financial support to enable the arts festival to become an annual event, known as Festival Every Year (FEY). The Arts Festival currently receives $2.23m annually from Auckland Council, and it is estimated that the Arts Festival would require an additional $1m per annum to deliver an annual event. The Arts Festival have presented to the Culture Arts and Events Forum, and the Economic Forum. The Culture Arts and Events Forum resolved to support the FEY in principle, subject to funding and business case. The Economic Forum resolved to recommend to the Governing Body that the Arts Festival become an annual event. The Arts Festival is a registered Auckland Regional Amenity. The Act stipulates that when an amenity receives funding for an activity under the legislation, that the specified amenity cannot receive operational funding from Auckland Council outside of this process. However, it is noted that the Arts Festival has not applied for the additional funding to host FEY through the ARAFA process. The Funding Board have acknowledged in the Final Draft 2013-14 Funding Plan that they are aware of the Arts Festival wishes to increase the frequency of the festival. The Funding Board advise that the Arts Festival should continue discussions with Council and other interested agencies to gauge the level of support for FEY and additional funding that will be required for FEY. The Arts Festival has been advised that:  Funding for FEY must come through the Funding Board as required by legislation (noting that the extra funding required to host FEY was not applied for by the Arts Festival in the 2013-14 funding applications).  Council is currently developing the Cultural and Arts strategy, as required by the Auckland Plan. Once the Strategy is completed, the Arts Festival will be asked to prepare a business case, which would then be assessed against the criteria outlined in the strategy. This will better inform Councils decision-making, and will be required prior to the Governing Body considering the proposal.  The CCO Governance and External Partnerships department will work with the Arts Festival to enable the development of a process to consider the strategic alignment of FEY with the Auckland Plan objectives.  Detailed a timeframe/next steps for progressing the FEY proposal to the Governing Body for review.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 85

Item 12

24.

The Funding Board document in the final draft-funding plan that they are not responsible for the governance of any of the Amenities. The sole purpose of the Funding Board is to administer the provisions of the Act, which primarily comprises determining the levy to be collected from Council and determining the level of funding for each of the ten Amenities. Each Amenity has its own board and management, which is autonomous of the Funding Board. The Funding Board detail that the operational decisions of each Amenity, may have an operational funding implication, does not necessarily result in an increase in grant funding from the Funding Board, as this is not the intention of the Act.

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 Water safety

Item 12

31. 32.

Auckland Council asked the Funding Board to clarify that the courses provided by Watersafe are not a duplication of those provided by the Coastguard. The Funding Board has advised that the courses provided by Watersafe are developed and promoted in conjunction with Coastguard, with whom Watersafe Auckland has maintained a long and close working relationship. The Funding Board have advised that this ensures that there is no duplication of courses; rather, they are complementary. Watersafe Auckland is actively addressing the matter of increased water safety education for the Pasifika community and will be encouraged to prioritise this aspect of their activities in their current business plan.

33.

Performance measures 34. The Auckland Council submission to the Funding Board contained a commitment from Council officers to assist in the development of meaningful performance measures, which demonstrate an alignment to the Auckland Plan. The Funding Board has acknowledged the importance of ensuring alignment between the performance measures of the Amenities and the Auckland plan. The Amenities have signaled a willingness to work with Auckland council to develop appropriate performance measures.

Branding 35. Auckland Council asked for the Amenities acknowledgement of Council as a major contributor, through the incorporation of the Councils logo on the Amenities websites/promotional material. The Funding board has advised that it will remind all of the Amenities of their obligation to acknowledge the financial support provided by Auckland Council.

36.

Consideration
Local Board Views
37. 38. Decision-making and oversight in respect of regional activities is the responsibility of the Governing Body. Local Board views have not been formally canvassed, however, views have been sought from all 21 Local Board Relationship Managers, and it has been raised as an item at the quarterly Local Board/Governing Body meetings. Some of the Local Boards have chosen to formally respond to the proposed reduction of funding to the ARRHT, as follows: “That the Waiheke Local Board would view with concern, any proposal by the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board to reduce the annual funding to the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust. Waiheke Island, in particular, is dependent on their valuable services, as there are limited emergency health service available on the island. The age profile of the Waiheke residents is older than the rest of the Auckland region and is therefore more likely to be in greater need of these emergency services. The Waiheke Local Board also notes that the Waiheke Health Trust would view any reduction of the Helicopter service with concern. The proposed funding cut could mean rescue helicopters being available for fewer hours and with reduced capability, which would directly effect Waiheke Island, as a major user of the service. The Waiheke Local Board also notes that a reduction in funding could also jeopardize the purchase a replacement helicopter in 2015”.

Waiheke Local Board 39.

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 86

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 Howick Local Board 40. “The Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust (ARRHT) provides an important service to the community for residents in the region requiring urgent and critical medical attention. The board is concerned that this service will be reduced if the funding proposal by ARRHT is not approved. The board believes that the efforts of the ARRHT to raise funds to supplement their activities should be congratulated and this should not determine their need for funding. Current funding streams such as donations are variable and do not guarantee funding in the longer-term for the ARRHT. The board supports that there be no reduction in funding to the ARRHT as this may adversely impact on service levels in the Howick Local Board area, and in fact the wider region currently covered by the rescue helicopter service”. The Franklin Local Board would like to reiterate their feedback to the above proposal, that the service is very important to Franklin, particularly due to its remote rural areas, and does not want to see the helicopter service lost. That in relation to the correspondence regarding funding for the rescue helicopter the Great Barrier Local Board records its opposition to any reduction in funding for this service due to the essential nature of this service for Great Barrier residents and visitors

Franklin Local Board 41.

Great Barrier Local Board 42.

Maori Impact Statement
43. The Amenities have the ability to make positive contributions to Maori Wellbeing, to deliver on Auckland Plan outcomes relating to effective communication and engagement with Maori and contribute to effective Maori capacity. The Act requires that the membership of the Funding Board must have at least one member who represents the interests of Maori in the Auckland region.

General
44. This report does not trigger the significance policy

Implementation Issues
45. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments
No. A B Title Funding Board response to the Auckland Council submission 2013.14 Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board Final Draft 2013-14 Funding Plan Page 89 93

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Colette Farrer - Advisor Alastair Cameron - Acting CCO Governance and External Partnership Manager Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 87

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 89

Attachment A

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment A
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 90

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 91

Attachment A

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 93

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 94

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 95

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 96

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 97

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 98

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 99

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 100

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 101

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 102

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 103

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 104

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 105

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 106

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 107

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 108

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 109

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 110

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 111

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 112

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 113

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 114

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 115

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 116

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 117

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 118

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 119

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 120

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 121

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 122

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 123

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 124

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 125

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 126

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 127

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 128

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 129

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 130

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 131

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 132

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 133

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 134

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 135

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 136

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 137

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 138

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 139

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 140

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 141

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 142

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 143

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 144

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 145

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 146

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 147

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 148

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 149

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Attachment B
Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Item 12

Page 150

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Annual Funding 2013-14 for the Auckland Regional Amenities

Page 151

Attachment B

Item 12

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Waterfront Auckland: Waterfront Plan implementation strategy.
File No.: CP2013/03268

Purpose
1. To inform Councillors of the next steps Waterfront Auckland is taking to progress the implementation of the Waterfront Plan.

Executive Summary
2. Waterfront Auckland will present the Waterfront Plan Implementation Strategy for the committee's information prior to Waterfront Auckland beginning a process to attract appropriate private sector investment to develop the next stage of the waterfront. Waterfront Auckland has advised that the finalisation of the Waterfront Plan Implementation Strategy is its most significant piece of work for 2013, and a significant amount of work has been done to date to develop an appropriate investment opportunity with strongly defined aspirations around sustainability, diversity and public amenity. Waterfront Auckland will present the approach it will take to attracting private investment; the investment opportunity it will take to market; the financial and non-financial outcomes it seeks to achieve; the approach to achieving the right partnerships with the private sector and the process and next steps. A hard copy of the presentation will be available on the day of the meeting along with additional information about the specific investment opportunity.

3.

4.

5.

Recommendation/s
That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive for its information the Waterfront Plan Implementation Strategy.

Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Alastair Cameron - Acting CCO Governance and External Partnership Manager Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Waterfront Auckland: Waterfront Plan implementation strategy.

Page 153

Item 13

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Disposal Recommendation Report
File No.: CP2013/03116

Purpose
1. This report seeks approval to sell six non-service council owned properties that are considered suitable for sale.

Executive Summary
2. ACPL is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $100m by December 2013. Identifying a list of potential sale properties will contribute to all Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and investments. ACPL and Auckland Council’s Property Department work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify such properties. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage consultation process. The six properties outlined in this report have been through the agreed consultative process including; organisation wide internal officer consultation, local board and Maori engagement. The properties are considered surplus to council service needs and as such are being recommended for disposal. The detail of this process relating to each property is included in the body of this report.

3.

Recommendation/s
That the Strategy and Finance Committee agree: a) that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the Strategy and Finance Committee approve the disposal of Lot 59 DP 49217, NA2058/71, 7 Undine Street, Pakuranga at current market value, noting that ACPL expect to achieve a housing outcome for the site with final terms and conditions to be approved under the appropriate delegations. that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required processes, the Strategy and Finance Committee approve the disposal of Lot 60 DP 49217, NA 1949/50, 9 Undine Street Pakuranga at current market value, noting that ACPL expect to achieve a housing outcome for the site with final terms and conditions to be approved under the appropriate delegations. that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required processes, the Strategy and Finance Committee approve the disposal of Lot 3 DP 48621, NA1967/30, 20 McAnnelley Street, Manurewa at current market value, with final terms and conditions to be approved under the appropriate delegations. that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required processes, the Strategy and Finance Committee approve the disposal of approximately 230m² to New Zealand Transport Agency for the provision of cycle way requirements at market value and the disposal of the residual land (the final area of which is to be confirmed subject to survey) of Part Lot 8 DP 30866, NA116948, 35 Whitaker Place, Grafton, at market value with final terms and conditions to be approved under the appropriate delegations. that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required processes, the Strategy and Finance Committee approve the disposal of Lot 1 DP 90570, NA 47D/698, 27 Normanby Road, Mt Eden at current market value, noting that ACPL will undertake the sales process for this prominent site in a manner that maximizes the opportunities to achieve quality urban design outcomes with final terms and conditions to be approved under the appropriate delegations and that consideration be given to the site for the City Rail Link project objectives.
Disposal Recommendation Report Page 155

b)

c)

d)

e)

Item 14

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 f) that subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required processes, the Strategy and Finance Committee approve the disposal of approximately 5000m² to Watercare Services Limited at market value and the disposal of the residual land (the final area of which is to be confirmed subject to survey) of Lot 5 DP 117066, NA 66C/490, Section 2 SO 396080, Part Bed of the Waitemata Harbour marked A on Survey Office Plan 52343, NA 90D/234, 37 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna at current market value, noting that ACPL will undertake the sales process for this prominent site in a manner that maximizes the opportunities to achieve quality urban design outcomes with

Item 14
4.

Discussion
ACPL and Auckland Council’s Property Department work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify properties in the council portfolio that may be suitable to sell. Once identified as a potential sale candidate ACPL takes the property through a multi stage consultation process. The first phase of the process requires ACPL to engage with a wide stakeholder audience across council and CCO’s to establish whether the property is needed for a future funded project or whether it must be retained for some strategic purpose. This is determined by an Expression of Interest (“EOI”) process whereby officers request that all or part of a property is retained. Alternatively officers may request that the property is somehow encumbered or covenanted as part of the disposal process. If the EOI has technical and financial merit it will be endorsed, if however the reasoning is more subjective a thorough business case is required. An inter disciplinary council and ACPL steering group comprised of senior managers, called the Property Disposal Pipeline Working Group (“PDPWG”) meets as required to assess the business cases. Once the property has been cleared of a robust service requirement the process then enters the next phase, which includes engagement with Local Boards, relevant ward Councillors, Maori and the Independent Maori Statutory Board, (Maori engagement detail is included in paragraph 8 below). The next phase requires ACPL Board approval before making the final recommendation to the Strategy and Finance Committee. As part of the overall review process each property is also legally assessed to see if there are any impediments to sell or if there is a prescribed legal way in which it must be sold. The last stage of the process is triggered once a resolution to sell is obtained. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment as part of the development of the final sales strategy. The EOI process provides the Maori and Strategy Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Maori in connection with the potential disposal of a site. The Heritage department is also invited through the EOI process to flag any particular archaeological merit that need to be assessed further. As of late 2012, council required another level of engagement with Maori to be included in the process. ACPL proactively engage at the early stages of the process with relevant Iwi who have a recognised interest a particular property to establish if a property has any particular cultural significance to them. Iwi across the region are invited during the latter stages of the process to register if any of the sites are of particular interest to them as a potential commercial investment opportunity. Lastly a report is presented to the Independent Maori Statutory Board ahead of any presenting any sale recommendations to sell to the Strategy and Finance Committee detailing how Maori have been engaged throughout the process

5.

6.

7.

8.

Consideration
7 and 9 Undine Road, Pakuranga
9. These 675m² (1350m² in total) sites are zoned Main Residential under the Manukau Operative District Plan 2002. The sites have a cumulative Capital Value of $495,000.
Page 156

Disposal Recommendation Report

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 10.

11.

Watercare Services Limited submitted an EOI during the officer consultation period requiring that an easement be registered for the water reticulation infrastructure located underground. However this matter has been resolved and there is no longer a requirement to register the easements.

Local Board Views
12. The Howick Local Board is not supportive of a sale, its preference being to retain the properties pending a master plan for the Pakuranga Town Centre. The Board further comments that before specific properties can be considered for disposal, the Board want an overall comprehensive plan for the area that will be more flexible and provide more options. The Board feel it is important that a strategic and coordinated approach is taken rather than disposing of properties individually. The master plan exercise the Local Board is referring to is not currently a programmed piece of work and Undine Street is quite some distance from the town centre so it is likely not to be included.

13.

Maori Impact Statement
14. Refer paragraph 8 above for an outline of Maori engagement during the disposal process. Mana Whenua stakeholder contacts from the 12 relevant Iwi authorities were contacted for feedback around the cultural relevance to their Iwi of 7 and 9 Undine Street, Pakuranga. Feedback has come from just four stakeholder contacts, although all received follow up calls, messages and emails in the week before the response deadline of the 8th of February. Feedback is outlined per Iwi authority below. i) Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust: these properties have cultural relevance to the Ngai Tai due to their proximity to the waters of Taikehu and the Tamaki River, and they are in a region known to contain Ngai Tai urupa (cemetery sites). Ngai Tai do not oppose the sale of these properties. They are potentially commercially interested in these sites, as well as focused on positive community outcomes in the region. They have a keen interest in partnering with Auckland Council to achieve these outcomes.

ii) Pukaki Maori Marae Committee - Te Akitai Iwi Authority: have lodged an expression of interest in the potential purchase of 7 & 9 Undine Street, Pakuranga. iii) Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated: have indicated they are unhappy with council process/policies in that council owned properties are considered outside of treaty settlement processes. The stakeholder contact requests some attention be given to redressing treaty violations, possibly via preferential discounted offers to purchase with right of first refusal. iv) Patukirikiri: state they have no specific links to these properties.

General
15. Capital receipts from the sale of this redeveloped property will contribute towards council’s disposals target, the proceeds of which will help council achieve its capital investments programme. These properties are not considered Strategic Assets to which the Significance Policy would apply. Nor do these properties trigger the general determining factors on decision making set out in the LGA and Auckland Council’s Significance Policy and the requirement to consult under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

16.

Disposal Recommendation Report

Page 157

Item 14

These two sites were purchased by the former Auckland Regional Authority in 1970 for Pakuranga Motorway. The properties were never used for roading purposes and were declared surplus in 1992. The sites originally had houses on them but these were removed, leaving vacant residential sites.

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Implementation Issues

Item 14

17.

Council’s Specialist Technical Statutory team advise that there are no s40 offer back requirements in respect of 7 and 9 Undine Street, Pakuranga, the requirements having been completed previously by the Auckland Regional Authority. Once the resolution to sell is confirmed the next phase of the disposal process is to prepare the property for sale. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment by ACPL, so council can be sure to maximise its returns where possible. ACPL expect to achieve a housing outcome for the site.

18.

20 McAnnalley Road, Manurewa
19. 20. The 675m² site is zoned Main Residential under the Manukau Operative District Plan 2002 and has a current capital value of $285,000. This site was purchased in 2006 for the purpose of improving access to Gallaher Park as laid out in the Manurewa Town Centre Concept Plan. The key to unlocking the park however also involved swapping this site with the Housing New Zealand site at 24 McAnnalley Street, Manurewa however this did not eventuate at the time. Council officers have recently revisited this (unbudgeted) proposal. However Housing New Zealand has advised that it is not interested in swapping its land, therefore the desired outcome of retention to help transform an inward looking, single use park, into a new public space for the Manuwera community cannot be achieved.

Local Board Views
21. The Manurewa Board Members advised that there is a need for early childhood education centers in the Manurewa area. Advocating for affordable, local early childhood education centers is one of the key projects/activities in the Manurewa Local Board Plan. The Board questioned whether 20 McAnnalley Street, Manurewa could be a suitable site for an early childhood facility. The opportunity to work with the relevant officers in council is available to the Board via the agreed Local Board business case process whereby a Board can make a bid to have a property transferred from the non service back to the service portfolio. No business case was received from the Local Board. The Board also expressed concern that current financial policy restricts the proceeds from the sale of 20 McAnnalley Street Manurewa being put against the purchase of 24 McAnnalley Street Manurewa. Furthermore the Board noted that it opposed the principle of not being able to ring fence money from divested properties for reinvestment back into the community from where the surplus asset is located. The Local Board also requested that it should be able to give input into divestment proposals and reprioritise buildings according to the local need. The Board finally noted that they were concerned that assets were being stripped from the Manurewa area which has a low number of assets to begin with.

22.

23.

Maori Impact Statement
24. Refer paragraph 8 above for an outline of Maori engagement during the disposal process. Mana Whenua stakeholder contacts from the 12 relevant Iwi authorities were contacted for feedback around the cultural relevance to their Iwi of 20 McAnnalley Street, Manurewa. Feedback has come from just four stakeholder contacts, although all received follow up calls, messages and emails in the week before the response deadline of the 8th of February. Feedback is outlined per Iwi authority below. i) Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust: this property is located in area of general cultural relevance, but practical interests in Manurewa region are predominantly social due to large numbers of Ngai Tai living there. Ngai Tai do not oppose the sale of this property, and are potentially commercially interested in this site, as well as particularly focused on positive community outcomes in the region. They have a keen interest in partnering with Auckland Council to achieve these outcomes.
Page 158

Disposal Recommendation Report

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

iii) Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated: have indicated they are unhappy with council process/policies in that council owned properties are considered outside of treaty settlement processes. The stakeholder contact requests some attention be given to redressing treaty violations, possibly via preferential discounted offers to purchase with right of first refusal. iv) Patukirikiri: state they have no specific links to these properties.

General
25. Capital receipts from the sale of this redeveloped property will contribute towards council’s disposals target, the proceeds of which will help council achieve its capital investments programme. This property is not considered a Strategic Asset to which the Significance Policy would apply. Nor does this property trigger the general determining factors on decision making set out in the LGA and Auckland Council’s Significance Policy and the requirement to consult under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

26.

Implementation Issues
27. Council’s Technical and Statutory team advise that the property at 20 McAnnalley Street, Manurewa,must be offered back to the former owner, Phally Chhun and Maksira Long or their successors under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 when the property is no longer required for the public work for which it is held or for another work. If the offer is made under s40 of the Public Works Act 1981 but is not accepted within 40 working days, the property may be sold under section 42(1). Once the resolution to sell is confirmed the next phase of the disposal process is to prepare the property for sale. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment by ACPL, so council can be sure to maximise its returns where possible. Once a commercially sound sales strategy is developed and endorsed by the ACPL Board then officers will implement it. ACPL has a dedicated officer that manages this part of the disposal process. This will include an assessment as to whether the property is sold as an investment opportunity with the tenant in place, or whether it is sold with vacant possession. If the latter option is preferred ACPL will use its best endeavours to relocate the tenants within ACPL’s portfolio.

28. 29.

30.

35 Whitaker Place
31. 32. The site is 3072m² and is zoned Residential in the former Auckland City Central Area Plan. The current Capital Value is $395,000. Auckland City Council purchased 35 Whitaker Place, Grafton in 2005 on an offer back arrangement from Transit New Zealand. Transit no longer required the site for motorway purposes and as council was the beneficiary of an offer back under the Public Works Act, Transit was obliged to sell the site back at an historic value of $280,000. Four EOI’s were received during the officer consultation phase. Three of these related to the same matter, namely the desire to retain some land for the inclusion of it into the NZTA cycleway project. ACPL has been in discussions with NZTA and relevant council officers regarding the matter. It appears that the impact on the site will be minimal, requiring only a small portion of land. There may also be a requirement to ensure that a right of way easement granting pedestrian access from the cycleway up to Whitaker Place is retained if the site is sold. It is anticipated that NZTA will reach their final decision regarding land requirements early 2013. The physical requirements for the cycleway and the pedestrian access will be provided for. ACPL will seek to add value prior to the sale of the remainder of the land once the cycleway/pedestrian access interests have been accommodated.
Page 159

33.

Disposal Recommendation Report

Item 14

ii) Pukaki Maori Marae Committee - Te Akitai Iwi Authority: have lodged an expression of interest in the potential purchase of 20 McAnnalley Street, Manurewa.

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 34.

Item 14

The fourth EOI was received by the Heritage Unit which noted that the site may be of archaeological merit. An archaeological assessment has been completed but there were no significant findings.

Local Board Views 35. The Waitemata Local Board is supportive of ACPL pursuing a sale of this land, subject to NZTA’s needs for the cycleway. The Board also stated a desire to achieve an access way to connect the cycleway to Whittaker Place, as noted above at paragraph 33, this request will be provided for as part of the disposal process.

Maori Impact Statement
36. Refer paragraph 8 above for an outline of Maori engagement during the disposal process. Mana Whenua stakeholder contacts from the 13 relevant Iwi authorities were contacted for feedback around the cultural relevance to their Iwi of 35 Whitaker Place, Grafton. Feedback has come from just four stakeholder contacts, although all received follow up calls, messages and emails in the week before the response deadline of the 8th of February. Feedback is outlined per Iwi authority below. i) Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust: this property is located in an area of general cultural relevance to Ngai Tai known as ‘Pukekawa’. Ngai Tai do not oppose the sale of this property, and are potentially commercially interested in this site, as well as focused on positive community outcomes in the region. They have a keen interest in partnering with Auckland Council to achieve these outcomes.

ii) Pukaki Maori Marae Committee - Te Akitai Iwi Authority: have lodged an expression of interest in the potential purchase of 35 Whitaker Place, Grafton. iii) Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated: have indicated they are unhappy with council process/policies in that council owned properties are considered outside of treaty settlement processes. The stakeholder contact requests some attention be given to redressing treaty violations, possibly via preferential discounted offers to purchase with right of first refusal. iv) Patukirikiri: state they have no specific links to these properties.

General
37. Capital receipts from the sale of this redeveloped property will contribute towards council’s disposals target, the proceeds of which will help council achieve its capital investments programme. This property is not considered a Strategic Asset to which the Significance Policy would apply. Nor does this property trigger the general determining factors on decision making set out in the LGA and Auckland Council’s Significance Policy and the requirement to consult under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

38.

Implementation Issues
39. 40. Council’s Specialist Technical Statutory team advise that there is no offer back requirement in this instance. Once the resolution to sell is confirmed the next phase of the disposal process is to prepare the property for sale. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment by ACPL, so council can be sure to maximise its returns where possible. Once a commercially sound sales strategy is developed and endorsed by the ACPL Board then officers will implement it. ACPL has dedicated officers that manage this part of the disposal process. The sales strategy will incorporate the requirements to include an easement into the site.

27 Normanby Road, Mt Eden
41. This is a 7,756m² site zoned Mixed Use under the former Auckland City Council District Plan. The site has a current Capital Value of $5,000,000.
Page 160

Disposal Recommendation Report

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 42.

43.

In 2005 the former Auckland City Council resolved that the land be retained while investigations were carried out to ascertain if there were still public works requirements for the land. In the meantime short term leases were granted for commercial purposes. The site has also been used by council for storage related to the art gallery. The Solid Waste Business Unit submitted a business case (outside of the consultation process timeframes) to retain this site for Solid Waste activities. This business case was assessed by Senior Management in November and was not endorsed. The Property Disposal Pipeline Working Group (PDPWG) deemed this site more appropriate to achieve a good quality mixed use outcome given its proximity to the town centre and future transport linkages. AT has recently approached ACPL requesting that the site be considered to achieve the City Rail Link “(CRL”) project objectives. AT have requested that a full assessment of the site’s suitability will be concluded when landowner negotiations are further progressed over the next six months or so. AT advise that this site offers the potential for savings to council to mitigate displacement effects on landowners arising from the CRL. If there is a genuine opportunity to mitigate effects via the disposal of this site to an effected landowner, precedence will be given to this need over other commercial opportunities.

44.

45.

Local Board Views
46. The Planning Portfolio of the Albert-Eden Local Board, requested that the site be investigated as a possible resource recovery centre in the first instance. The Board also noted that if this site was not endorsed for a Resource Recovery Site then it would not be opposed to divestment of the site for a mixed-use well planned development.

Maori Impact Statement
47. Refer paragraph 8 above for an outline of Maori engagement during the disposal process. Mana Whenua stakeholder contacts from the 13 relevant Iwi authorities were contacted for feedback around the cultural relevance to their Iwi of 27 Normanby Road, Mt Eden. Feedback has come from just four stakeholder contacts, although all received follow up calls, messages and emails in the week before the response deadline of the 8th of February. Feedback is outlined per Iwi authority below. i) Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust: this property is located in an area of general cultural relevance to Ngai Tai known as ‘Pukekawa’. Ngai Tai do not oppose the sale of this property outright, but object at this time in lieu of finding an alternative venue for a community project nearby that is run by a Ngai Tai member and is struggling with its current venue. Ngai Tai are also potentially commercially interested in this site, as well as focused on positive community outcomes in the region. They have a keen interest in partnering with Auckland Council to achieve these outcomes.

ii) Pukaki Maori Marae Committee - Te Akitai Iwi Authority: have lodged an expression of interest in the potential purchase of 27 Normanby Road, Grafton. iii) Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated: have indicated they are unhappy with council process/policies in that council owned properties are considered outside of treaty settlement processes. The stakeholder contact requests some attention be given to redressing treaty violations, possibly via preferential discounted offers to purchase with right of first refusal. iv) Patukirikiri: state they have no specific links to these properties.

Disposal Recommendation Report

Page 161

Item 14

The site was acquired for a public work in 1980 and developed as a works depot. For many years it was used for various activities by the council reflecting the purpose of its original purchase until 2005.

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Item 14

General
48. Capital receipts from the sale of this redeveloped property will contribute towards council’s disposals target, the proceeds of which will help council achieve its capital investments programme. This property is not considered a Strategic Asset to which the Significance Policy would apply. Nor does this property trigger the general determining factors on decision making set out in the LGA and Auckland Council’s Significance Policy and the requirement to consult under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

49.

Implementation Issues
50. That approval be obtained under delegation from the Manager Property Department, for an exception to offering back under s40(2)(a) on the grounds that it is impracticable to do so on the basis that there is no successor. That if there are no other council requirements for 27 Normanby Road statutory approval be obtained to dispose of it under section 40 or 42 of the Public Works Act 1981, such approval to establish the effective date for valuation for an offer back if appropriate. Once the resolution to sell is confirmed the next phase of the disposal process is to prepare the property for sale. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment by ACPL, so council can be sure to maximise its returns where possible. Once a commercially sound add value/sales strategy is developed and endorsed by the ACPL Board then officers will implement it. Consideration will be given to whether this site can accommodate any affordable housing element in the final design. ACPL has dedicated officers that manage this part of the disposal process.

51.

52.

37 Fred Thomas Drive, North Shore
53. 54. 55. This site is comprised of approximately 14,000m² of land zoned as Business 9 in the former North Shore City Council District Plan. The site has a current Capital Value of $1,160,000. Six EOI’s were received for this property during the consultation process. Watercare has requested 5,000m² to construct a new wastewater pump station and storage facility. 18-24 months is the expected timeframe to confirm the design and exact location we also note that site contamination investigations will need to be carried out. This EOI request will be met subject to reaching agreement with regard to the level of visual screening that Watercare will have to provide for this gateway site. Auckland Transport noted its interest in the bus lane adjacent to the subject site. The legalisation of the adjacent bus way is to be finalised by Auckland Transport. North West Planning Team advised that this site has significant value within the Takapuna Strategic Framework over the next 3-5 years. The same interest has been submitted by Community Policy & Planning, & Traffic operations. The site is ideally located to provide improved linkage opportunities and longer term redevelopment of the precinct. A business case required for further consideration. The Property Disposal Pipeline Working Group (PDPWG) determined that the essence of this EOI could be achieved by ACPL working with the market now to deliver a good quality urban design development. Strategy & Planning (Auckland Transport) requested that we explore options to future proof a roadway to retain vehicular and pedestrian access to the Busway station. This EOI will be considered as part of the quality urban design development referred to in paragraph 62 below. The Heritage Unit commented that the site may be of archaeological merit, an assessment has been completed but there were no significant findings.

56. 57.

58.

59.

Disposal Recommendation Report

Page 162

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Local Board Views
60. Given the prominence of the site as a ‘gateway’ to Takapuna the Board noted that it is essential that any development enhances the gateway by providing an ‘attractive and inspirational vision for what lies beyond’. The Board recommended that any commercial development of the land should provide high value employment for local residents. Furthermore that any development should facilitate improved cycling and walking options through the site to Barry’s Pt Road for residents and workers - particularly to and from Takapuna, and on to Akoranga station and Barry's Point Reserve. The Board requested that ACPL approach the owners of properties on Barry's Point Road that back on to 37 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna to explore the possibility that through combining titles and boundary adjustment better quality outcomes can be achieved for Takapuna through an upgrade of properties on Barry's Point Road. We also received feedback from the Board that any development of that land should be mindful of the public transport ambitions for Fred Thomas Drive, that is, that over time it will be Fred Thomas Drive that is the primary access route to central Takapuna, not Esmonde Road/Burns Ave as at present. Lastly the Board commented that the development of 37 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna should also be mindful of, and sympathetic to Barry's Point Reserve and its future development. The Board asked that in particular, ACPL works closely with council's Strategic Transformation team in identifying suitable development of 37 Fred Thomas Drive as well as NZTA, AT, and Auckland Council’s transport strategy team to ensure the Additional Harbour Crossing and future Rapid Transit options are taken into account.

61.

62.

63.

Maori Impact Statement
64. Refer paragraph 8 above for an outline of Maori engagement during the disposal process. Mana Whenua stakeholder contacts from the 13 relevant Iwi authorities were contacted for feedback around the potential sale of 37 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna. Feedback has come from just four stakeholder contacts, although all received follow up calls, messages and emails in the week before the response deadline of the 8th of February. Feedback is outlined per Iwi authority below. i) Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust: this property is culturally relevant due to its proximity to the former site of 3 significant carvings (where Harbour Bridge is now founded). It is also related to Awataha Marae and is in region known to contain urupa (cemetery sites). Ngai Tai do not oppose the sale of this property, and are potentially commercially interested in this site, as well as focused on positive community outcomes in the region. They have a keen interest in partnering with Auckland Council to achieve these outcomes.

ii) Ngati Tamaoho Trust: acknowledge the cultural relevance of this site to their Iwi, but they defer interest to those more invested. iii) Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated: have indicated they are unhappy with council process/policies in that council owned properties are considered outside of treaty settlement processes. The stakeholder contact requests some attention be given to redressing treaty violations, possibly via preferential discounted offers to purchase with right of first refusal. iv) Patukirikiri: state they have no specific links to these properties.

General
65. Capital receipts from the sale of this redeveloped property will contribute towards council’s disposals target, the proceeds of which will help council achieve its capital investments programme.

Disposal Recommendation Report

Page 163

Item 14

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 66. As this property is considered ideally located to provide improved linkage opportunities and longer term redevelopment of the surrounding area, it has been considered to have a significant value within the Takapuna Strategic Framework over the next 3-5 years. Advice from council’s Statutory and Technical Team is that this factor may trigger the general determining factors on decision making set out in the LGA and Auckland Council’s Significance Policy and the requirement to consult under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002. Senior management have considered this matter however, and concluded that the land may be rationalised, subject to quality urban design outcomes being achieved at the site.

Item 14
67.

Implementation Issues
Council’s Specialist Technical Statutory team advises that the offer back requirement under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 does not apply on the basis that the land was vested in council pursuant to the Order in Council dated 9 June 1989 and the successor in title by virtue of the Order and was not taken for a public work under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981. If the recommendation for this property is confirmed the next phase of the process is to prepare the property for sale. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment by ACPL, so council can be sure to maximise its returns where possible. ACPL will consider a number of tailored solutions that may include a master-planning exercise for the site with a development partner or an outright sale if a purchaser proposal meets council’s desired urban design objectives. Once a commercially sound add value/sales strategy is developed and endorsed by the ACPL Board then officers will implement it. ACPL has dedicated officers that manage this part of the disposal process.

68.

Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Authorisers Authorisers Toni Giacon - Team Leader, Portfolio Review, Auckland Council Property Limited David Rankin - Chief Executive, Auckland Council Property Limited Ian Wheeler - Manager Property, Auckland Council Property Department Andrew McKenzie - Chief Financial Officer, Auckland Council

Disposal Recommendation Report

Page 164

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Reforecast local board property costs
File No.: CP2013/03058

Purpose
1. This report provides an update on local board property costs and recommends that local board budgets are updated to reflect reforecast property costs in order to improve the alignment of budgets with expected actual costs at an individual property and local board level.

Executive Summary
2. During the LTP process, property costs were estimated at a local level and allocated to local board budgets, along with the funding for this expenditure. The approach taken to allocate the property budgets to local boards was based on a modelling process because the Property department was operating with limited asset and historic cost information. While based on the best information available at the time, there were a number of limitations to the modelling approach and final LTP property budgets were not accurate at an individual local board level. Local boards were advised in May 2012 that these budgets should be treated as interim until better asset and cost information was available. Following a number of improvement initiatives, including the implementation of the SAP property management modules and the establishment of contracts for 93% of property costs, from July 2012 actual costs and revenue have been tracked at a building level, enabling the Property department to develop more accurate budgets at both a local board and an individual building level. The current and reforecast local board property budgets are set out in Attachment A, along with a high level explanation of the movement in each local board area. The Property department advises that the reforecast local board property costs represent a significant improvement on previous budgets and do not have any impact on existing service levels. It is recommended that property budgets are updated as part of the annual plan process to ensure budgeted costs, and funding, better reflect expected actual costs at a local board and building level for 2013/2014 and beyond. It is recommended that these changes are made prior to the local boards reviewing and finalising their budgets for 2013/2014 in March/April.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Recommendation/s
That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) receive the report. b) agree the reforecast local board property costs set out in Attachment A in order to improve the alignment between budgets and expected actual costs for 2013/2014 and beyond, and that local board funding is revised in line with these adjustments.

Reforecast local board property costs

Page 165

Item 15

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Discussion

Item 15

7.

During the LTP process, property costs were estimated at a local level and allocated to local board budgets, along with the funding for this expenditure. The approach taken to allocate the property budgets to local boards was based on a modelling process that was then refined using the local knowledge and experience of local building managers. The modelling process was required because the Property department was still operating with limited asset information in relation to individual buildings and very little historic cost information was available. The modelling process divided assets according to broad usage categories (corporate buildings, halls, swimming pools, libraries) and on the basis of whether the buildings were considered large, medium or small. Costs were applied to these building categories and sizes by cost type, based on a small amount of available building cost information. While the methodology provided a mechanism to better align the regional building operational budget to individual local board areas and buildings, the approach was still very limited and took little account of the building age, condition, or use profile. There were also budget gaps because property asset data was still being refined. As a result of these limitations, the budget was not accurate at a local board level and local boards were advised in May 2012 that these budgets should be treated as interim until better asset and cost information was available. Update – Revised allocation to local boards

8.

9.

10.

New real estate and maintenance modules have been implemented within SAP and now provide the ability to manage costs more effectively at a building level, and provide improved reporting for managers and local boards. Asset data has been consolidated and building condition information has been collected and reviewed. In addition, an extensive procurement process has significantly reduced the number of suppliers of building services to council and laid the foundation for substantial savings in the future. New contracts for building services are now in place covering over 90% of property costs and significantly reducing the number of suppliers across the Auckland region and the Property department is now providing all of the building management to support council’s services. The remaining procurement processes are currently underway. Following the implementation of SAP property management modules, from September 2012 actual costs and revenue have been tracked at a building level, supporting the development of more accurate budgets at both a local board and an individual building level. These costs include all building costs (security, cleaning, repairs and maintenance, utilities, depreciation and any rent to third parties) and cover all properties across local activities (community facilities, libraries, toilets, buildings on local parks, etc). The Property department has undertaken a review of actual property costs at a local board level and reforecast local board costs based on this improved data set. The current and reforecast property costs are set out in Attachment A, along with a high level explanation of the movement in each local board area. The changes are predominantly driven by:  the identification of additional buildings in the north that are maintained and operated within local board areas (largely, but not exclusively, toilets)  agreed transfers of management responsibility for some local assets between council departments (mainly Park Sport and Recreation Department)  actual cost data now being available at a building level that provides improved cost estimates  budgets are now directly related to contractual agreements, and therefore more accurately reflect the cost of maintaining each building

11.

12.

13.

Reforecast local board property costs

Page 166

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

14.

The Property Department advises that the reforecast local board property costs represent a significant improvement on previous budgets and do not have any impact on existing service levels. I.e. the same number of buildings across the region is being managed by Council to the same standard. It is recommended that local board property budgets, and funding, are updated as part of the annual plan process to ensure budgets better reflect expected actual costs at a local board and building level for 2013/2014 and beyond. It is recommended that these changes are made prior to the local boards reviewing and finalising their budgets for 2013/2014 in March/April.

15.

Consideration
Local Board Views
16. Local boards were advised in May 2012 that the current property budgets were not accurate at a local board level and should be considered interim until a review and reforecast had taken place. This report recommends the reforecast local board property costs are implemented now to enable the revised costs to be included in local board budgets prior to local boards reviewing and finalising their budgets for 2013/2014. A separate communication explaining the revised property budgets will be provided to local boards prior to the distribution of updated local board budgets. In addition, officers from the Property Department will attend all local board workshops to respond to any queries.

Maori Impact Statement
17. The purpose of these recommended budget changes is to more accurately align property costs budgeted at a local board level to actual costs. There is no impact on service levels and no impact on Maori outcomes or services provided to Maori.

Implementation Issues
18. Following approval, changes to local board budgets will be implemented in early March to enable the updated costs to be reflected in budget prioritisation models that will be provided to local boards in March to enable local boards to review and finalise their budgets as part of the annual plan process.

Attachments
No. A Title Local Board Movements Page 169

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Abigail Pye - PA to Chris Carroll John O’Brien - Manager Regional Operations Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting Ian Wheeler - Manager Property Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Reforecast local board property costs

Page 167

Item 15

 some realignment of the allocation of properties to correctly align to local and regional decision-making responsibilities (movements both ways) and the correct local board (improved boundary alignment through new contracts).

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Reforecast local board property costs

Page 169

Attachment A

Item 15

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

File No.: CP2013/03162

Purpose
1. Council is reviewing 158 bylaws inherited from the former Auckland councils. The review must completed by 30 October 2015. Following the review of each bylaw, and then adoption of new bylaws by the Governing Body, the bylaws must be implemented across council’s business units’ systems, processes, and documentation. This report provides the background to the bylaw review and implementation programme and the funding required over the next four years.

Executive Summary
2. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 provided for the bylaws made by the former local authorities in the Auckland region that were in force on 31 October 2010, to be bylaws deemed to be made by Auckland Council. The bylaws remain in force until 31 October 2015 at which time they will be revoked unless the Auckland Council confirms, amends or revokes them beforehand. Where bylaws are required to help support the outcomes sought by the council, the aim is to consolidate the current 158 bylaws for the region, down to approximately 30 bylaws. The council’s policies and bylaws team have a programme underway to review the bylaws through appropriate political and public consultation processes as defined by the Local Government Act. Licensing and Compliance is charged with leading the implementation of the bylaw review programme and has established an integrated programme jointly led by Policy and Bylaw Unit, with a supporting programme from Information Services. The bylaw implementation projects are coordinated through a governance steering group of senior managers from Policy and Planning, Operations, Legal, Transformation, Information Services, Democracy Services. Scoping requirements and preparing business cases are followed by execution plans and delivery by cross functional teams from Operations, Information Services and Planning as well as staff from CCOs. Benefits identification, realisation and reporting requirements are being developed as part of business cases and will be informed by the cost-to-serve analysis across bylaw compliance services. Total cost of the implementation programme = $13.6m. Internal budgets totaling $5.7m have been reallocated to the implementation programme, leaving a shortfall of $7.9m. The implementation programme and related funding is in two stages: • Stage 1: Implementation from 1 March - 30 June 2013 requires funding = $1m; • Stage 2: Implementation from 1 July 2013- 30 October 2015 requires funding = $6.9m.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Recommendation/s
That the Strategy and Finance Committee: a) b) receive this report. approve the funding of $1.0m ($0.76m opex, 0.276m capex) for implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme from 1 March 2013 – 30 June 2013.

Note: the balance of the funding required = $6.9m (of which $5m is opex, $1.9 is capex) is the subject of a separate investment proposal being submitted through the Annual Plan process (Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme 2013/14 – 2015/16).
Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16 Page 171

Item 16

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Item 16

Discussion
9. Following Governing Body decision, effect is given to the new bylaws by implementing the changes across the relevant council / CCO functions. These changes can be significant in many cases as the old bylaw is withdrawn and the new bylaw requirements are implemented. Where new bylaws are being introduced to former council areas that did not have a bylaw prior to 1 November 2010, the implementation requirements are more extensive. A small number of bylaws will lapse, others will be amended but most will be replaced through the bylaw consolidation process. Existing bylaw information needs to be replaced or amended on websites, intranets and in collateral. Regulatory systems and financial systems need to be changed to give effect to changes to bylaws. This involves: • • • Assessing the new bylaws requirements Identifying gaps between current bylaws and the proposed new bylaws Scoping the changes to systems, processes, documentation, collateral, forms, compliance inspection regimes, risk profiles, fees, intranet, iknow and websites, signage. Building changes to the above across all systems and staff/customer interfaces with a customer centric approach Developing and preparing education and communications (public and internal) and operations manuals for staff Providing training for staff Full testing of systems and other builds, and business readiness obtaining sign off Managing the implementation Handover and transferring continuous improvement processes to business as usual

10. 11. 12.

• • • • • • 13.

Staff across a number of council departments need to be equipped with new information and trained to use new systems functions, compliance processes, compliance schedules and checklists, and charge a fee for the services provided. The public and stakeholders need to be equipped with the new information. Various customer groups will have to be communicated to directly and others through public notices. To achieve consistent customer service delivery at a regional level, the underpinning operational functions must be standardised as part of the bylaw implementation. This work involves project teams working across multiple departments within council and CCOs.

14.

Implementation Timing 15. It is the intention to implement bylaws as soon as possible after their adoption by the Governing Body. In some cases implementation will take place within weeks but in other cases implementation will be scheduled to coincide with annual licence renewals and it may be several months after adoption before the bylaw is implemented. The impact on customers needs to be managed particularly during periods where multiple bylaw implementations and annual licence renewals rounds occur concurrently. The proposed implementation of the new NewCore computer system will influence any changes proposed to be made up to 30 June 2013. The bylaws implementation project team is working closely with the NewCore project manager to coordinate planning, share resources, and where possible avoid duplication.
Page 172

16.

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Analysis 17. Bylaws associated with legislation change, or the annual plan fees reviews and proposals, will have implementation priority. Note: Funding for Liquor Licensing is outside the scope of this project - Part one of funding for Liquor Licensing Readiness has already been approved and Part 2 which focuses on establishment of District Licensing Committees is due later in 2013 when full cost analysis will be available. 18. Bylaw implementation has been split initially into two stages. Stage 1: Bylaw Implementation from 1 March 2013 to 30 June 2013 The first stage of implementation involves key bylaws and those involving annual plan fees changes: • • • • • Dog Management Bylaw Food Safety (Bylaw, new premises grading and Annual Plan fee proposal Electoral Signage - for 2013 local body elections Solid waste Hairdressing (although controlled by legislation and not by a bylaw, Hairdressing is included in the programme as part of the Annual Plan fee proposal and regional standardisation objectives)

Stage 2: Implementation from 1 July 2013 - 2015/16 The second stage involves all of the remaining bylaws to be implemented following their adoption by the Governing Body (further explanation of the bylaws is available in Appendix A): • Street Trading • • • • • • • • • • • • • Health Protection – personal appearance and beauty (e.g. skin piercing, tattooing, hair removal), swimming pool hygiene Public Safety and Nuisance Trade waste Signage – way finding, safety Alcohol – liquor bans Animal Management - stage 2 (non-dog –e.g. stock, cats, poultry, pigs, bees) Stormwater Facilities Marine Transport Watercare Environmental Construction and development

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Page 173

Item 16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 Fees and cost recovery

Item 16

19. 20.

Dog Registration, Food Safety and Hairdressing fees have been reviewed and changes are proposed for 2013-14 through the 2013-14 Annual Plan process. There still remains a wide range of disparate fees associated with other council functions and bylaws. These fees need to be reviewed, replaced, revoked or standardised at a regional level, to coincide with the implementation of the new bylaws. Appropriate fee levels need to be established to achieve cost recovery in line with council’s Finance and Revenue Policy. Cost recovery for each bylaw implementation will need to be assessed on its merits against the Finance and Revenue Policy. Cost-to-serve analysis is required to underpin a robust fees policy and charging schedule. This specialist analysis will be provided through external sources. Some of these fees are associated with very low volumes of licence applications.

21.

22.

Basis for funding 23. The costs of bylaw implementation have not previously been determined by Auckland Council. Internal budgets have been reallocated to support the bylaw implementation programme wherever possible, but there is a significant shortfall that requires this additional funding. Of note: • Each project will manage one or more bylaw implementations. The larger and more complex bylaw implementations, such as Food Safety and Dog Management will have a dedicated projects and project teams. Each project will have a project manager most often provided externally as internal capacity and capability is limited. Each major project will likely have a business analyst – these will be a mix of internal and external expertise, noting internal capacity is limited. Most projects will require a number of work stream leaders to lead various phases or aspects of the implementation. Wherever possible internal people from various council departments and CCOs will be assigned work streams to lead, but some may be supplied externally. Some staff will be required to work on the project team full time or for a large percentage of time and some will have to be backfilled. Licensing and Compliance managers will be allocating a large proportion of their time to the bylaw implementation programme which will require other staff to step up to take a share of the workload. From the initial scoping to the handover, 6-12 month’s duration will not be uncommon and in some cases more time could be required.

• • •

• •

• 24.

Although this investment proposal is for the current financial year to 30 June 2013, the bylaw implementation will be spread over four financial years from 1 March 2013 - FY2015/16. A separate investment proposal will be submitted to fund the balance of the bylaw implementation through the Annual Plan process.

Risks 25. There is significant risk to council if this funding is not approved. The key risks relate to: • Legislation – Auckland Council must confirm, amend or revoke bylaws by 30 October 2015. Without funding in 2012/13 the implementation programme would have to stop and restart at a later date, which would either extend the implementation programme past 2015/16, or require additional effort and cost, within a shorter timeframe.
Page 174

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 • Reputation – there will be an expectation that bylaws are implemented promptly following adoption by the Governing Body. The Food Safety bylaw and the Dog Management bylaw have already been through the public consultation process, raising the expectation of new bylaws to be implemented. Food Safety fees are linked to the bylaw’s new grading regime and it would be expected that fees and grading would be implemented together. Planning and preparation – without funding approval, the bylaw implementation programme would either shut down or be severely downsized, and it is likely that key skilled and experienced people would be released and probably permanently lost from the programme.

Funding / Cost Breakdown 26. The cost of the bylaw implementation programme = $13.6m including contingency. Internal capex and opex budgets have been reallocated wherever possible to support the programme, however a funding shortfall of $7.9m remains. The following table shows the breakdown of the $7.9m shortfall by capex ($2.1m) and opex ($5.8m).

27.

The funding shortfall will be split into two stages to match the following implementation programme: Stage 1 • 2012/13 - costs of $1.0m reflect the level of effort the business has assessed will be required to undertake 4 bylaw implementations from 1 March 2013 to 30 June 2013 and further preparatory work for other new bylaws. The funding of $1.0m for stage 1 (Opex - $0.76m for programme work + contingency, interest, depreciation and amortisation costs; Capex - $0.276m), is the subject of the separate investment proposal “Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme 2012/13”.
Page 175

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Item 16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Item 16

Stage 2 • 2013/14 – 2015/16 - costs of $6.9m reflect the balance of costs involved in implementing the larger portion of the implementation programme which involves research, scoping, designing, building, testing and implementing new systems and processes across 26 bylaw groupings. The $6.9m funding sought is the subject of a separate investment proposal “Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2013/14–2015/16. 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 - 2021/22
amortisation)

• Cost breakdown by year $2.9m $1.3m $1.2m $1.5m (the balance of costs due to interest, depreciation and

Assumptions: a) Scoping (concept papers, business cases), planning (project execution plans), handover (closure) are provided mostly by external resources given internal capacity is minimal. Some of the funding required will be able to be capitalised.

b) 28. 29.

Costs have been reviewed by Finance department. This proposal excludes funding of recent changes to liquor licensing legislation and excludes a separate investment proposal to fund the establishment of District Licensing Committees, which will follow later in the year when cost-to-serve analysis has been completed.

Implementation Governance and Cost Control 30. With 158 current bylaws likely to be consolidated to approximately 30 new bylaws, the implementation will be managed through 10-15 projects, each project with its own bylaw or group of bylaws to implement. Budgets are allocated to projects based on business cases approved by the Executive Prioritisation Group. Project spend is reported regularly to each Project’s Steering Group. The bylaw implementation projects are coordinated through a governance structure of senior managers from Policy, Operations, Legal, Transformation, Information Services and Democracy Services. The majority of bylaw implementation projects are led by Licensing and Compliance with strong participation by key change partners such as; Policy and Bylaws, Information Services, Customer Services, Democracy Services, Communications and Public Affairs, Accounting Services, Parks, Finance. The balance of the bylaws are managed by other council departments, e.g. Infrastructure & Environmental Services, and CCOs – Transport and Watercare.

31.

32.

Stakeholders 33. Implementation project teams each have a stakeholder engagement plan and a communications plan to ensure that internal and external stakeholders are involved at the appropriate levels.

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Page 176

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Options: 34. Option 1 Do nothing. This is not a valid option as all of the bylaws are being reviewed and action is required by legislation. In some cases new bylaws are being introduced to parts of Auckland for the first time. 35. Option 2 Provide funding for the new bylaw implementation programme over four financial years with an initial allocation of $1.0m for 2012/13. The balance of funding required for the bylaw implementation programme will be the subject of a separate investment proposal through the Annual Plan process. The four year timeframe enables council to spread the funding burden and execute an implementation schedule that minimises customer impact and accommodates workload peaks and troughs. 36. Option 3 Provide funding to implement the new bylaws over a period greater than four financial years. This option was discounted given there is an expectation that once the bylaw has been adopted it would be implemented as soon as possible. Delaying implementation unduly would not be in the best interest of those impacted by the bylaw, some of whom will be required to pay new or redundant fees, and meet public safety requirements. Conclusion 37. 38. This report has provided background to the bylaw implementation programme and provided a rationale for the funding required. Option 2 is the only viable option, given the work must be carried out according to the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 timeframe for bylaw review. Council Officers’ analysis indicates the best approach is to implement the new bylaws progressively within the next four financial years against a priority schedule.

Consideration
Local Board Views
39. Local boards are key parties for engagement during bylaw development. The issue of the bylaw approach, and local board involvement in operating the bylaw, are typically covered in two rounds of workshops for each major topic. Local board feedback is also invited during the formal public consultation stages. The bylaw implementation plans consider the requirements of local boards and involves them as mutually agreed with local board services and democracy services.

Maori Impact Statement
40. The policy review of each bylaw topic includes considering whether that topic has any elements of special interest to Maori. If so (e.g. Traditional tattooing) appropriate ways to seek specific engagement are considered in developing the approach taken in the bylaw. Implementation of such bylaws will consider the issues raised in the policy review and use that to guide appropriate implementation action.

General
41. Officers do not consider that the decisions or budget adjustments set out in this report are significant for the purposes of the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Page 177

Item 16

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Implementation Issues

Item 16

42.

The key implementation issues highlighted elsewhere in this report relate to funding, resourcing, and timing. Bylaw implementation has not been budgeted previously. Some internal budgets have been reallocated to support the programme but there is still a shortfall. Without funding, the bylaw implementation programme will not be able to secure and maintain the necessary expertise to undertake the implementation. Implementation is proposed to take place between 1 March 2013 and 30 October 2015. A delay in securing funding will slow down the programme and create significant time constraints as 30 October 2015 draws closer. Development of the NewCore system and the related blackout period has already placed constraints on the implementation period.

Attachments
No. A Title Proposed bylaw implementation projects Page 179

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Graham Bodman - Manager Licensing and Compliance Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Page 178

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

1.

Implementation Projects Solid Waste

Summary Description Provides for a staged implementation of licensing of waste collectors (2013) and waste facilities (2015) as well as licensing of donation collection points (2013). Licensing of waste collectors and facilities was only done in three of the seven former Auckland councils. Parallel to that, the bylaw provides for authorising collection of certain materials from public places. These authorisations will demand the same level of record keeping by council. Proposes controls for dog access rules, and controls for dangerous dogs. Implementation of food safety licence and compliance inspections for commercial food premises, premises grading, and graduated fee increases over five years. Proposes controls for local body election signage. Proposes controls for collection and treatment of waste from industry. Although governed by separate legislation (and not by a bylaw), the implementation of a standard region wide registration fee has been proposed through the Annual Plan and must be implemented prior to 1 July 2013. Fee alignment will also involve standardising related compliance inspections, inspection criteria and collateral.

2. 3.

Dog Management Food Safety

4. 5. 6.

Election Signage Trade waste Hairdressing

Proposed implementation in the period form 1 July 2013 – 30 October 2015 (order and timing is yet to be decided) Implementation Projects Health Protection Summary Description Proposes rationalising of health protection controls and a Health and Hygiene Code of Practice for commercial services that provide personal beauty services, such as: tattooing, body piercing, acupuncture, electrolysis, extractions, red vein treatment, derma rolling, sun beds, pulsed light, laser treatment, colon hydrotherapy, manicure, pedicure, public swimming pools. Proposes controls to enhances council’s ability to address the following issues:  Outdoor dining and drinking areas;  Outdoor displays of goods;  Markets, temporary stands and stalls;  Mobile traders and travelling shops;  Hawkers and pedlars;  Fundraising for a private or charitable cause / soliciting or collection of any subscription or donation;  Giving away promotional materials or goods  Street performances
Page 179

7.

8.

Street Trading

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Attachment A

Item 16

Proposed bylaw implementation projects

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013 Implementation Projects Summary Description Public Safety and Proposes controls for: Nuisance  The perceived problems from activities or users that give rise to nuisance and inappropriate behaviour and impact on public safety  Controls the problems from activities that cause obstructions and damage to public places  The use of beaches, local and regional parks  Auckland public transport infrastructure facilities  Street naming and numbering 10. Signage (excluding Electoral) Proposes controls for general signage, banners. 11. Alcohol Bans Proposes controls for Liquor Bans and associated (excludes Alcohol Reform Bill issues. 9.
and Local Alcohol Policies)

Item 16

12. Animal Management

13

Stormwater

14. Facilities

15. Marine

16. Transport

17. Watercare

18. Environmental

19. Construction Development

Proposes controls for non-dogs: Stock Cats Poultry Pigs Bees Other animals Proposes controls for:  Ecology  Flooding  Network protection  Water quality Proposes controls for the operational management, conduct, fees for:  Libraries  Recreation centres  Cultural facilities: e.g. art gallery  Community centres and halls Proposes controls for management of:  Wharfs  Moorings  Marinas Proposes controls for: 1. Speed limits, traffic flow, one way streets 2. Transport AC Land - Speed limits, traffic flow, one way streets in parks and other areas that are not legal roads Proposes controls for:  Trade waste  Waste water  Water supply Proposes controls for:  Regulating nuisance created by private property owners, e.g. light spill, burglar alarms and Proposes controls for construction of such items as:  Verandas  Cooling towers (controls for legionnaires disease)  Vehicle crossings
     

Attachment A

Note: 158 bylaws are grouped into 30 topics which are grouped into 19 implementation projects

Funding Proposal for Implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme – 2012/13 – 2015/16

Page 180

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
The following motion is submitted for consideration: That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows. This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows: C1 Potential purchase of Heritage Building (Airedale Cottages) under the Built Heritage Acquisition Fund
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities. In particular to ensure commercial sensitivity matters are preserved in any negotiations for purchase.. s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). In particular to ensure commercial sensitivity matters are preserved in any negotiations for purchase.. Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Public Excluded

Page 181

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

APPENDICES
Item 5.1 - Appendix A - Questions from Ben Ross - Page 185

Page 183

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

The Questions That Need to Be Answered:
1. Why does Auckland Transport need the budget reallocation to build the Duplicate North Link now 2. Why are you asking for the reallocation to come from the EMU Depot Construction Contingency Fund when the depot is not finished, and why also within the Capital Fund 3. You speak of 10 minute frequencies that the Double North Link would allow – so 6 trains per hour (TPH) rather than 3, why? 1. Why that frequency when the patronage would never demand such a frequency in and out of Manukau Station (basically a lot of empty running trains) 2. What Timetable operations are you planning then with 6TPH in and out of Manukau via the North Links 3. Are you sacrificing “Eastern Line” services from Homai south through running 6TPH out of Manukau to Britomart and solely via Glen Innes and Syliva Park (basically only Southern Line services would service Pukekohe to Homai (this is without the South Link) and any Eastern Line Passengers from those Southern Stations would need to transfer at Puhinui (or even Papakura if from Pukekohe before Pukekohe Electrification happens)) 4. You mentioned in your presentation to the Transport Committee that the North Link has to be done NOW to utilise the resources already present on the current electrification project. To wait after the electrification project means extra cost in bring the contractors back? Okay so what about that logic for Pukekohe Electrification and The Manukau South Link. This question also applies to changes in signalling complexities 5. Will the budget reallocation upset in any way the viability of the Manukau South Link IF the Business Case for that link is solid and sound, and recommends a go-ahead on that project 6. Can AT not wait until the Business Case for the Manukau South Link is out so that: 1. A proper timetable operations place can be done that incorporates both links in operation 2. Pool resources to build both links at the same time to minimise cost, signalling complexity and utilise resources already present – you know as AT said for the reason on getting a wriggle with the North Link 3. Shouldn’t of the North and South Link(s) Business Cases have been done together or is AT missing something here that we might not know about and those who would benefit in South and Counties Auckland might not know about

Page 185

Attachment A

Item 5.1

Public Input from Ben Ross

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

Item 5.1 Attachment A

7. If the Strategy and Finance Committee is to give the go-ahead for allowing the duplicate North Link, will AT ask Kiwi Rail to move the electric mast that is blocking the path of the future South Link (see picture below) as part of the North Link Duplication Works. If not – why not when it will impede future construction of the South Link and cause more disruption to the duplicate North link than would of been required had the mast been moved in the first place

The graphic from 2012 of the Electric Mast Foundation (there is now a mast proper and it is wired up) blocking the South Link path – the original post it came from was: “SOUTH AUCKLAND GETS SHAFTED – YET AGAIN – Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on October 11, 2012 ·:”

Those are the questions I would like the Strategy and Finance Committee to ask Auckland Transport before approving any requests that would allow the building of the Manukau North Rail Link Duplication. If the Committee wishes (something I probably will do any how) I can speak in the Public Input section of the meeting (if the Chair allows) and reiterate my questions to the Councillors – as well as to AT who would be in attendance.

Page 186

Strategy and Finance Committee 07 March 2013

And if AT can not answer those questions properly then sorry your request should be rejected AGAIN by the Strategy and Finance Committee until you can answer those questions properly! – NO SHORT CUTS and NO MORE BUGGERS MUDDLE IN PRESENTATIONS THAT CONFUSES EVERYONE!

Page 187

Attachment A

Item 5.1

If the South Link has to jump through the hoops, then so can the North Link – without creating a buggers muddle three times (and may be a fourth) in the presentations.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->