Budget Committee - May 2014

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

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Budget Committee will be held on:

Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:

Thursday, 8 May 2014
9.30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Budget Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Mayor Len Brown, JP
Deputy Chairperson Cr Penny Webster
Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Calum Penrose
Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dick Quax
Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Cr Bill Cashmore Member David Taipari
Cr Ross Clow Member John Tamihere
Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Chris Darby Cr Wayne Walker
Cr Alf Filipaina Cr John Watson
Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr George Wood, CNZM
Cr Penny Hulse
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee

(Quorum 11 members)

Mike Giddey
Democracy Advisor

4 May 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7565
Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

a)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

Development of the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans under the chairmanship of the Mayor who
leads these processes including:

Local Board agreements
Local Board Funding Policy
Financial Policy related to LTP and AP (recommendation to the Governing Body)
Setting of rates (recommendation to the Governing Body)
Draft LTP and Annual Plan prior to community consultation
Development contributions policy

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.
Except:
(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see
Governing Body responsibilities)
(b) where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation
only
(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body
(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the
next meeting of that other committee.
(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.
(v) Power to establish panels for the purpose of hearing submissions.

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 5
2 Declaration of Interest 5
3 Confirmation of Minutes 5
4 Petitions 5
5 Public Input 5
6 Local Board Input 5
7 Extraordinary Business 5
8 Notices of Motion 6
9 Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Overview and process update 7
10 Update on the six Mori priority project areas 61
11 Independent Mori Statutory Board - proposed Funding Agreement for
the 2014/15 financial year 71
12 Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Local board advocacy 77
13 Local Board Agreements 2014/2015 update
This report will be provided in an addendum agenda.

14 Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Budget Update 127
15 Rates related policies and changes to fees and charges 223
16 Mayor's Proposal for the final Annual Plan 2014/2015
This report will be provided prior to the meeting.

17 Auckland Arts Festival annualisation 255
18 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Page 5

1 Apologies

An apology from Cr D Quax 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 Budget Committee:
a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 27 March 2014 as a
true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present 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.

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

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.

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

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) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Page 6

public,-

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) 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

(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.

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Overview and process update Page 7

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Overview and process update

File No.: CP2014/08436

Purpose
1. To provide an overview of the consultation process and related matters on the draft Annual
Plan 2014/2015 and outline the process to finalise and adopt the Annual Plan 2014/2015.
Executive summary
2. The Governing Body adopted the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including draft local board
agreements, on 19 December 2013. The draft annual plan largely represented year three of
the LTP 2012-2022, and proposed an average rates increase of 2.4% (lower than the
average rate increase proposed in the LTP of 4.9%). The key consultation topics for the
draft plan were making the Auckland Arts Festival an annual event and Aucklands stadium
strategy.
3. Public consultation took place between 23 January and 24 February 2014, followed by local
and regional hearings between 17 March and 11 April.
4. Auckland Council received 1,967 submissions covering around 10,230 submission points on
the draft plan. 283 submitters (14.4 per cent) wished to be heard, of which 44 requested to
be heard at a regional hearing.
5. Most of the feedback received related to the two key consultation topics. All submission
responses have been reviewed. Local board workshops and deliberation meetings were
held between 24 March and 17 April to consider responses to local issues. Regional
analysis is provided as part of this report or within the relevant reports on todays agenda
(Auckland Arts Festival, Budget update and Financial policy/fees related).
6. While analysis of the submissions on the stadium strategy show 46.9 per cent do not
support the stadium strategy, a significant proportion of the comments (72 per cent) relate to
specific issues, rather than the overall strategy. RFA have analysed the annual plan
submissions and the summary report to the RFA Board at its meeting on 30 April is
attached. The annual plan submissions will inform further work to be undertaken by RFA on
the stadium strategy and any financial impact will be considered as part of the LTP process.
An update on the stadium strategy will be reported to the Governing Body in June 2014.
7. Since the draft annual plan was adopted, staff have reviewed and updated group budgets to
better reflect the true cost of delivering the activities included in the draft plan. In addition,
new budget requests have been put forward since the budget refresh, including requests
arising through the submissions process. These requests will be considered today as part of
the Mayors proposal.

Recommendation/s
a) refer the analysis of submissions on the stadium strategy contained in this report to
the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee to consider and provide any feedback to
the RFA, noting that the annual plan submissions on the stadium strategy, along with
any feedback from council, will form part of RFAs considerations in the further
development and implementation of the stadium strategy and that any financial
impact will be considered as part of the LTP process
b) note that the decisions required to finalise the Annual Plan 2014/2015 are set out in
separate reports on todays agenda.
I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Comments

8. The Governing Body adopted the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including draft local board
agreements, on 19 December 2013. A special edition of OurAuckland, summarising the
draft plan and the regional and local consultation areas was distributed across Auckland,
along with a submission form. A draft Annual Plan website was launched on 23 January
providing a comprehensive overview of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 and an online
submission form tailored for each local board area. Volumes 1 and 2 of the draft Annual
Plan 2014/2015 were available in libraries, local board offices, service centres and online.
Accessible versions were also available online.
9. The special consultative procedure (SCP) was used to consult on the draft Annual Plan
2014/2015. Public consultation took place between 23 January and 24 February 2014. The
hearings phase on the draft plan ran from 17 March to 11 April - there were 21 local
hearings and 2 days of regional hearings. The regional hearings consisted of 1.5 days of
traditional hearings and a half day forum on the stadium strategy.
10. The draft annual plan largely represented year three of the LTP 2012-2022, and proposed
an average rates increase of 2.4% (lower than the average rate increase proposed in the
LTP of 4.9%). The key consultation topics for the draft plan were:
Making the Auckland Arts Festival an annual event
Aucklands stadium strategy.
11. Analysis on submission responses to annualising the arts festival, budget related or financial
policy/fees and charges related matters is provided in the relevant reports that are part of
this agenda. A summary of submission responses to the stadium strategy, along with other
key themes coming through the consultation process, is set out in the consideration section
of this report.
Deliberation of budgets
12. Between 24 March and 17 April, local board workshops and meetings were held to discuss
the key issues for finalising local board agreements, feedback on region-wide priorities and
policies and advocacy areas.
13. Discussions between local boards and the Budget Committee took place between 29-30
April, providing an opportunity to discuss local priorities for 2014/2015 and beyond and key
areas of advocacy for each local board prior to the Budget Committee making final decisions
for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.
14. On 5 May, the Budget Committee held discussions with each substantial council controlled
organisation (CCO) to discuss 2014/2015 priorities, budgets and key deliverables, as well as
any issues raised through the annual plan submission and hearings process and any local
board advocacy areas that involve CCOs.
Updated high-level budget situation
15. Since the draft annual plan was adopted, staff have reviewed and updated group budgets to
better reflect the true cost of delivering the activities included in the draft plan. In addition, a
range of new budget requests have been put forward since the budget refresh, including:
budget requests from CCOs and parent
additional funding sought by the Independent Maori Statutory Board
local board advocacy
A range of requests arising through the submission process.
I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


16. A separate report on todays agenda provides a full update on budgets and Council is asked
to consider the budget requests through the Mayors proposal for the final Annual Plan
2014/2015.
Consideration
Summary of public consultation
17. Auckland Council received 1,967 submissions covering around 10,230 submission points on
the draft plan. This is in line with submission levels for the 2011/2012 Annual Plan (around
1,800 submissions), but significantly lower than for the Annual Plan 2013/2014 where
around 3,950 submissions were received.
18. 283 submitters (14.4 per cent) wished to be heard, of which 44 requested to be heard at a
regional hearing. Submissions that covered both regional and local content were heard at
local hearings, with at least the ward councillor(s) present to hear regional content. Most of
the feedback received related to the two key consultation topics the proposal to annualise
the Auckland Arts Festival and the stadium strategy.
Response to proposal to annualise the Auckland Arts Festival
19. The Auckland Festival Trust has requested approximately $1 million additional funding per
annum from the council (through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board) from
2015/2016 in order to hold the Auckland Arts Festival annually instead of every two years.
While the funding request does not impact budgets for 2014/2015, an indicative decision is
required now in order to meet planning requirements. A business case has been prepared
and a decision is sought via a separate item on todays agenda.
Response to Auckland Stadium strategy
20. RFAs stadium strategy has been in development since RFAs establishment in 2010, with a
series of engagements taking place over 2011 and 2012. In December 2012, Auckland
Council resolved to undertake wider public consultation on the stadium strategy (deferred
until the 2014/2015 annual plan process).
21. In addition to the draft annual plan SCP process, council staff organised three public
information sessions in March at Mt Smart, Eden Park and North Harbour Stadiums with
council and RFA staff in attendance. Public attendance at these sessions was very low.
22. A total of 1,069 submitters (54.4% of all submitters) provided a response on the stadium
strategy. Of these, 230 (21.5%) supported the proposal, while 501 (46.9%) did not support it
and 338 (31.6%) were unsure. Analysis by sub-region and by stadium/activity was provided
in the report to the Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings Committee on 8 April 2014 titled
Summary of public submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Regional overview.
23. RFA staff have analysed the submissions and RFA board members and management also
joined councillors to hear verbal submissions on the stadium strategy. The RFA analysis
notes that a significant proportion of the comments (72 per cent) relate to specific issues,
rather than the overall strategy. Those specific issues relate primarily to the specialisation of
stadium functions, such as rugby league moving from Mt Smart or speedway moving from
Western Springs. The integration and high performance aspects of the strategy attracted
relatively little attention from submitters.
24. Of the main issues identified, a large proportion of comments related to the proposed
speedway move from Western Springs. There was particular emphasis on the history of
speedway at Western Springs, with many submissions noting its presence at that site since
the 1930s. To a large extent, the specific issues raised through this process are similar to
those already identified by the key sporting organisations directly affected by stadium
specialisation. These organisations have stated that they will need to manage a degree of
customer and stakeholder concerns if and when they make their decisions to move their
businesses as identified within the strategy.
I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


25. The graphic below summarises responses to the draft annual plan consultation as analysed
by the RFA
1
.
26. RFA will undertake further work on the stadium strategy in the short to medium term. A
report was presented to the RFA board (refer to Attachment A) at its meeting on 30 April,
which recommends that the annual plan submissions form part of RFAs considerations,
alongside other inputs, in the further development and implementation of the stadium
strategy. The submissions will help further inform the direction RFA takes with stadium
owners, sporting codes and stadium hirers. Any financial impact will be considered as part of
the long term plan process.
27. An update on the stadium strategy will be reported to the governing body in June 2014.

Other feedback received
28. The Summary of public submissions of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Regional
overview report to the 8 April draft annual plan hearings identified key submission themes.
Staff have reviewed the submission points across all themes, including the key areas
identified above, and responses to specific queries raised are provided in Attachment A of
this report. There are no changes recommended as a result of the analysis.
Local board views and implications
29. Local boards have access to all submissions, have held local hearings, made final decisions
for local board agreements and also had the opportunity to formally advocate on any
regional issues with the Budget Committee. A separate report on todays agenda covers
local board advocacy.
30. Five of the 21 local boards made resolutions pertaining to the stadiums strategy topic in the
draft annual plan, on a range of topics. Hibiscus and Bays local board supports the inclusion
of North Harbour Stadium as part of RFA. Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local
boards noted submitters concerns (Maungakiekie-Tamaki particularly acknowledged the

1
MS = Mt Smart, WS = Western Springs, EP = Eden Park
I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


local concerns about proposed changes to sporting codes at Mt Smart). Rodney local board
supports speedway remaining at Western Springs, with no further limitations on its
operation. In contrast, Waitemata local board supports the proposed changes that would see
speedway move to Mt Smart and Western Springs developed as a test cricket venue.
31. Local board views are also covered in each of the relevant decision-making reports on
todays agenda.
Mori impact statement
32. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 includes a number of proposals that will have a direct
impact on Mori initiatives and outcomes. In particular, the draft plan proposes an additional
$1 million per annum for marae development and Mori housing initiatives and $770,000 per
annum additional funding for identification and protection of significant Mori sites.
33. Mana Whenua authorities were sent a letter about the consultation process. Mataawaka
received information via standard communications processes that Auckland Council use to
disseminate annual plan information. Te Reo Mori regional summaries and submission
forms were available, as well as translators for submissions received in and/or submitters
wishing to address the hearing in Te Reo Mori. Three Maori organisations requested to be
heard at a regional hearing.
34. A specific budget request for additional funding in 2014/2015 and later years has been
received from Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board, which will be considered through the
Mayors proposal for the final Annual Plan 2014/2015.
General
35. Changes in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 were assessed against the significance policy
and were not considered to be material changes. Staff advise that the decisions required at
todays meeting are within the scope of the consultation on the draft annual plan and that
this decision-making would comply with the provisions in the Local Government Act 2002.
Implementation
36. Decisions on annual plan budgets are required today in order for staff to prepare financial
statements, finalise local board agreements and support adoption of the agreements by local
boards, and prepare the annual plan document for adoption by the Governing Body on 26
June 2014.
37. A rates resolution will also be prepared for adoption at the 26 June meeting.
38. The recommendation by the Budget Committee on fees for dog registrations and the
environmental health and licensing fees for 2014/2015 will be considered at the Governing
Body meeting scheduled to follow this meeting.

Attachments
No. Title Page
A RFA board report - Annual Plan submissions on stadium strategy - 30
April meeting
13
B Analysis of key draft annual plan submission themes and responses 31

Signatories
Author Tanya Stocks Programme Director, Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting
Authorisers Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting
Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Attachment B: Analysis of key draft annual plan submission themes and responses
1,967 submissions were received on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. Around 10,230 total
submission points were extracted from the submissions. Analysis of the submissions on the Arts
Festival, budget related (including requests for additional funding) and financial policies/fees and
charges are considered in other reports to this agenda.
An overview by theme of the submissions is provided below and submission points requiring a
response are set out in Table One. The themes include the key submission themes identified in
the Summary of public submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Regional overview
report to the 8 April Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings Committee.
The most common submission topic themes are:
a. Fluoridation
b. Regional arts, culture & events
c. Transport Public transport and roads
d. General comments about the plan
e. Regional environment & heritage (including environmental strategy, policies and
programmes)

Other submission themes analysed are:
f. Regional libraries
g. Economic strategy & initiatives
h. Planning & strategy
i. Financial strategy / living wage
j. Bylaws
k. Regulation
l. Governance and democratic process
m. Regional recreation services
n. Regional communities
o. Regional park services
p. Stormwater management
q. Auckland Waterfront Development Agency
r. Watercare Services Ltd
s. Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development
t. Waste & recycling services
u. Emergency management

a.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Fluoridation
There were 242 submitters that raised the issue of fluoridation of water supply with 241 opposing
it. The majority (217) of submissions opposing fluoridation were on a pro forma outlining that they
object to the addition of fluoride chemicals to the public water supply and want the practice to stop.
The pro forma stated that fluoridation is a violation of human rights, that it poses a health risk and
they do not want their rates spent on an outdated practiced. It also stated that if people want
fluoride they can get it from brushing their teeth with fluoride toothpaste.
24 submitters made their own submissions, with The Fluoride Action Network NZ (FANNZ), and
Health Professionals Opposing Fluoridation providing detailed submissions.
Overall the main reasons for opposing fluoridation of water supply were:
That it is unethical and a violation of basic human rights as people are not given the right to
choose what they consume. Related to this was the view that fluoridation of water supply is forced
medication and that the removal of fluoride is expensive.
The chemical used to fluoridate water, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA) is highly toxic poison,
which is a by-product of the fertilizer industry and has no evidence of safety.
Belief that the ingestion of fluoride is linked to various health impacts including lower IQ,
weaker bones, dental fluorosis, endocrine system dysfunction and other health problems,
particularly those with challenged immune systems, the young and the elderly. Linked to this is
that there is no control over who gets it and how much they consume.
Questioning its effectiveness and that it is only effective in preventing tooth decay when
applied topically not ingested. Recommended more effective ways of delivering fluoride or
addressing tooth decay such as providing free toothpaste, floss, toothbrushes, and fluoride tablets
to those most in need, subsidizing dental care, and addressing dietary causes.
The issue will be formally considered as part of the review of water services in the region, i.e
within the Water Strategic Action Plan currently being developed.
b. Regional arts, culture & events
Of the 54 submissions that commented on this topic, 48 were requests for council to consider
annual investment and assistance for Massive Theatre Company. The Theatre has also made a
request for funding which is considered as part of the budget requests on todays agenda, along
with other budget requests raised through the submissions process.
c. Transport Public transport and roads
A large number of submissions were received. Some of these covered multiple points meaning
that, in all, around 150 points were made by submitters. This is not surprising given the scale of
transport operations and the level of public interest. Submissions came from a broad spectrum of
organisations (such as Local Boards, AA and Federated Farmers) and from individuals from
across the whole geographic area served by Auckland Council.
Some issues were perennial (such as cycling and congestion), while others were more topical
such as the CRL and introduction of electric trains. Given the wider range of views expressed, it is
difficult to say that a consensus exists, except in a few areas.
Walking and Cycling. There was overwhelming support for improvement in this area with more
than 20 points made in support and no submitters suggesting we were investing inappropriately in
this area. Comments universally sought more investment and speedier progress. Specific points
ranged from the need to link the existing network, use of the rail corridor for cycle-ways and safety
concerns including lighting, traffic calming and intersections.
In addition to the submissions noted above, nine submitters wanted the Auckland Harbour Bridge
Skypath to proceed. One submitter was against this on the basis of cost.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


City Rail Link. Ten comments were made against investment in CRL with eight in favour. Those
against cited limitation of benefits to a few Aucklanders, cost and the need for better analysis
before proceeding. Those in favour generally expressed the view that it was part of a desirable
public transport system.
Public Transport (PT). Twenty-two comments were made making recommendations for greater
investment in public transport. These ranged from support for public transport generally/ greater
investment to specific suggestions around integrated fares, better service frequency, ferry services
to new locations, rural services, more bus lanes and bus feeder services. In contrast only two
submissions contained negative comments on public transport; being that we are investing too
much and benefits accrued only to some people while roads provide services to freight and a
broader group of users.
Roads. Four submissions were against further spending on roads with a similar number wanting
to increase investment. The need to address rural roads and freight corridors was raised. Nine
similar submissions were received seeking investment in sealing of rural roads.
Environmental Issues. All the six comments in this area were supportive of tighter standards
and reducing emissions with some supporting specific initiatives such as electric trains and cars.
Parking. Several submitters raised parking issues. Several commented on the need to consider
suburban parking or the need for resident parking in central suburbs. Other comments included
the need to require more parking per dwelling in the Auckland Plan, the possibility of selling
parking buildings to pay for park & rides and the need for consultation before raising parking
charges.
Financial. Ten submitters raised financial issues. Some of these commented on the current
priorities (in addition to the specific comments noted above suggesting more investment in walking
& cycling, public transport and roads) while several mentioned the need for alternative funding
mechanisms. These included use of development levies for PT, levying new residents and road
use charging. Two submissions raised the need to reduce cost across the board and the
existence of unnecessary spending (on road maintenance).
Electric Trains. The small number of comments on investment in electric trains were evenly split
between those who saw these as expensive relative to other modes or beneficial to only a few
people, to those who saw environmental and congestion reduction benefits of this service.
A large number of submissions dealt with specific issues. Of these, eight submitters wanted
AMETI accelerated while one wanted it stopped. The four submissions on Penlink were evenly
split. Three wanted acceleration of the East/ West link while one was opposed. Two were in
favour of a NW bus-way.
Some submissions showed innovation with suggestions for a digital strategy, improved transport
information for decision-making, speed limit reductions, micro cars and a monorail.
All other comments reflected a single view on a specific issue. Examples include Franklin Road,
motorway extension to Warkworth, growth in Pukekohe, Ellerslies main street and gold card
concessions.
Summary. Generally progress is already being made, or is incorporated into the Annual Plan, on
many of the issues raised. A number of issues belong more correctly in the debate on the
forthcoming long term plan. The strategic intent to give priority to public transport is clearly well
supported. There is a need to continue progress on walking and cycling initiatives.
d. General comments about the plan
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


There was a fairly small response stating the plan is prejudiced or that there was no point in
responding as the decisions are a foregone conclusion. There was both praise and complaints
about the information within the document. Some found the document too complex and too long
and therefore didnt read it. Two submissions requested visibility in the plan of how much money is
being spent on consultants. It was noted to alert organisations of the accessible options we have
in place and the Blind Foundation found it difficult to access the accessible version. Staff are
meeting with the Blind Foundation to explore options for the LTP. There was some negative
feedback generally around the online submission form from local boards, which will also be
explored to remedy for the LTP.

e. Regional environment & heritage
Submissions provided general support for heritage protection. In particular:
support for increased assistance, including financial, to owners of heritage buildings
support for surveying and identification of heritage
support for a heritage incentives policy
support for identification of sites of value to mana whenua and request an increase in the
number of identified sites of significance.
Five submitters specifically raised air quality in their submissions. These included the Regional
Public Health Service (AP141447), Te Rununga o Ngati Whatua (AP141434), Heart of the City
(AP141126), Ellerslie Residents Association (AP1410383) and a local resident (AP140107).
Points raised included reducing emissions from industry and transport, reducing exposure to poor
air quality, providing air quality data/information, additional funding for air quality monitoring and
general support for policies to improve air quality in Auckland.
f. Regional libraries
6 submission points were raised for regional libraries, with the key themes being the planning and
development of library buildings and associated expenditure, and accessible library buildings,
collection material and services. Responses to specific submission requests are included in Table
One.
g. Economic strategy & initiatives
The submissions cover a range of issues related to the Auckland Economic Development
Strategy, with strong support for councils collaborative approach and ambitions for economic
growth generally.
There are no particular trends in the responses relating specifically to economic strategy and
initiatives. The issues raised of greatest relevance to economic strategy and initiatives refer to
local economic development (Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)), digital enablement and the
business-friendly dimensions, including council efficiency and fees. Comments of particular
interest to economic strategy and initiatives are set out below.
Local Economic Development:
Support for better integrated business precinct in industrial south
Concern about lack of accountability and value for money relating to the BID programme
Business Friendly:
Requests for more transparent charging of staff time against client fees
Opposition to increased fees and charges for building control and consents
Advocacy for Auckland gigazone (higher internet speeds within CBD and/or city fringe
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Request for faster rollout of business-friendly initiatives
Skills and local workforce:
Support for council partnering with businesses to better match skills supply and demand
Internationally connected:
The view that council should not own the Auckland Film Studios Ltd
None of the submission points require revision to the content of the Annual Plan.
h. Planning & strategy
Submissions relating to spatial, strategic and infrastructure strategy address the wide range of
challenges with managing population growth in Auckland. Several submissions dispute the
amount of growth Auckland Council is planning for in the Auckland Plan and other key planning
documents and ask for this to be reviewed. Concerns are raised about the implications of this
growth scenario, the risk of poor quality developments being built and inability of Council to ensure
good outcomes. Issues of fairness in terms of providing and paying for the infrastructure needed
to support growth also feature.
Suggestions for addressing the demands of accommodating population growth included
encouraging and supporting people to settle elsewhere, not allowing people to move to Auckland,
additional restrictions on immigration, and planning for reducing the population. A number of
submissions support intensification in areas of Auckland (particularly the isthmus) and further
building up of the city as approaches to these issues. Capture of land value uplift as a result of
rezoning and direct involvement of Council in exemplar housing developments is also suggested.
A range of views on the form and intensity of development proposed through the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) were received, including comments both in support and opposed to
proposed environmental and cultural heritage protections. The Annual Plan process is not the
vehicle for considering such matters. Many of these issues are expected to have also been raised
by submitters to the PAUP. Submissions on the PAUP closed on 28 February 2014. Submissions
will be considered by an Independent Hearings Panel.
i. Financial strategy and living wage
The key topics identified within this theme were comments on the level of councils expenditure
and debt. 38 submitters made comments around expenditure being too high with a number
specifically mentioning council sticking to core services, essentials or main council elements.
How submitters defined these varied slightly but generally included roads, transport, water,
sewage, waste collection, and parks. 22 submitters made comments around the level of
borrowings being too high with many concerned about the rate at which it is growing.
Following the discussion around the living wage concept in the lead-up to the adoption of the Draft
Annual Plan a number of submitters included comments on this in their submissions. Support for
a living wage policy for council staff was expressed in 14 submissions with a number of these
indicating this should be extended to contracted workers. Three submitters noted specifically that
they did not support a living wage policy whilst a number made other comments around staff costs
and salary levels.

j. Bylaws
8 submissions were received on bylaws, relating to Alcohol licensing laws, dog by-laws and other
general bylaw suggestions. Specific responses are provided in Table One.
k. Regulation
These submissions relate to alcohol licensing, noise control, and the control of animals. They also
relate to the fees charges for various licences. Responses are set out in Table One.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


l. Governance and democratic process
There were 44 submissions in this category. Key themes were agreement for a review of CCOs
and comments on annual plan governance related measures. Specific responses are provided in
Table One.
m. Regional recreation services
Seven submissions expressed support for the implementation of the Sport and Recreation
Strategic Action Plan. (SARSAP). Submitters acknowledged existing council investment,
encouraging both continued and increased investment as a means of delivering Auckland Plan
outcomes.
Three submissions also requested consideration of a skating rink to expand provision and provide
increased access for inline skating leagues. Sport and recreation facility and provision planning
forms part of the actions of SARSAP under the Infrastructure theme.
n. Regional communities
25 submissions were received; most responses were supporting social housing. Specific
responses to each point are provided in Table One.
o. Regional park services
The submissions highlight the special role regional parks and the maunga play as part of
Aucklands unique natural and cultural identity and in making Auckland the worlds most liveable
city. The submissions are generally supportive of the continued acquisition, development and
maintenance of regional parks.
The submissions support gaining World Heritage status for the maunga and seek to increase the
level of service the maunga offer and the funding necessary to achieve this.
Submissions support the management of cemeteries and the need to ensure their management
aligns with the relevant health regulations and the recent review of the Burial and Cremations Act,
which the council participated in.
p. Stormwater management
The main theme from the submitters is that Stormwater Management is a core Council service
and that more priority is required in relation to Stormwater management. In particular a number of
submissions focussed on stormwater maintenance and upgrades in relation to erosion and
flooding. Two submissions made reference to the need for holistic water management and one
submitter supported cost effective delivery of services.
q. Auckland Waterfront Development Agency
Submissions on waterfront redevelopment highlight the on-going tension between the provision of
public open spaces and public buildings, and the development of commercial and residential
buildings. Waterfront Auckland is required, through its Statement of Intent, to provide Auckland
Council with a return on investment on its landholdings on the waterfront. Waterfront Auckland
has a strategic plan, and provisions via the District Plan and Unitary Plan along with very stringent
development guidelines to ensure that the balance between commercial and public buildings and
open space is achieved. Waterfront Auckland has a strong track record of successfully creating
and activating public spaces such as Queens Wharf, Karanga Plaza, North Wharf and Silo Park.
The same approach will be translated into the new public spaces being created in the area. In
addition, Waterfront Auckland undertakes a very intensive public engagement programme to
ensure that current and future development will meet the needs of local residents and businesses,
the wider region, and visitors to Auckland.

r. Watercare Services Ltd
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Key submission themes included charges being considered too high and comments relating to
sewerage/waste water treatment. Specific queries have been responded to in Table One.

s. Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development
Key submission themes relating to ATEED included:
General support of work to promote Auckland as a tourist/visitor destination (Auckland
Visitor Plan). In particular
o Improved online promotion of Auckland required
o Increased recognition of economic value of tourism/heritage tourism
o Support for domestic marketing partnership with HOTC
o Support required for local i-SITE (Franklin)
General support for holistic economic development approach
Support for promotion of sectors such as equine
Support for the creation of a Gigazone within Auckland

t. Waste & recycling services
There is general support for the Waste and Recycling initiatives described in the Waste
management and minimisation plan adopted by Council and incorporated into the LTP. There are
questions over the different levels of service within Auckland Council, suggestions for focus,
request for more detail and questions about green waste services. Specific responses are
provided in Table One.

u. Emergency Management
There were only four submissions relating to emergency management. Submissions focussed on
seeking clarification on how council responds in an emergency and what capability is in place, and
there was also a query around insurance responsibilities.

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Table One: Responses to specific queries or requests raised in submissions
Theme: Fluoridation of water supply
Specific submission query Sub # Response
Requests Council to
incorporate one of the
following in its Annual Plan
1) End water fluoridation
permanently, and pass a by-
law prohibiting the use of
public water supply for
medical intervention
purposes, (recommended)
OR
2) Suspend water
fluoridation indefinitely, until
such time as the
international scientific
community has reached a
consensus that water
fluoridation is safe
1123
(FANNZ)
The current practice of fluoridation of water supply will
continue. However, Council will consider how it will address
the issue of fluoridation of water supply through the Water
Strategic Action Plan being developed. i.e. whether there
will be a review of policy.
Requests Council to cease
fluoridation of water supply
1123
(FANNZ), All
pro forma
submissions,
1264, 1429
As above. Council to consider how it will address the issue
of fluoridation of water supply.
Request for a review of
water fluoridation policy for
Auckland
1349 (NZ
Health
Professionals
Opposing
Fluoridation),
1987, 622
A review of fluoridation policy is required as currently
Watercare has adopted legacy policies thus there is no
consistent policy across Auckland, and due to increasing
public concern on the issue. Council will undertake a review
of fluoridation policy as part of its Water Strategic Action
Plan, currently in development. A review of policy, however,
may trigger Councils Significance Policy requiring a certain
level of consultation. This may have cost implications.
Theme: Regional arts, culture & events
37.2 Regional arts & culture
initiatives.
48 responses supporting
investment in Massive
Company.
48
submissions

Massive Company delivers regional arts programmes with
active participation by diverse young Aucklanders. They
have a track record of successful project delivery with Arts
Alive & Creative Communities Scheme grants. The budget
request will be considered through the mayoral proposal.
37.2 Regional arts & culture
initiatives. 3 of 4 responses
dont support any Pride
Parade funding
160, 397,
421, 1045
The Pride Parade have applied for funding from the Major
Events Baseline Sponsorship Fund. Decisions on 2014/15
funding are expected to be made in the next few weeks.

Theme: General comments
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


In the final Annual Plan
statistics on pages 110 and
111, provide a reference to
another section of the Plan
where more detail is
available. In the final Annual
Plan separate out
consultants fees from other
operating expenses and
provide the comparison
figures for last years Annual
Plan.
1049
The Local Government Act requires that our Funding
Impact Statement is laid out in a specific way, this does not
allow for the separation of consultancy costs from other
applications of operating funding. Our Prospective
Statement of Comprehensive Income is formatted to be
consistent with the Annual Report.
The key purpose of an Annual Plan (or a Long-term Plan) is
to discuss with the community options around the costs and
funding of activities to be undertaken by the local authority.
The focus of this document, therefore, is on what services
are being delivered, at what cost, rather than how the
services are delivered.
In an organisation such as Auckland Council that delivers
different programmes and services from one year to the
next, inter-year comparisons can be misleading. This is
particularly true with respect to consultancy expenditure
which, by its nature, is predominately used for one-off
specialist pieces of work rather than the delivery of
continued levels of service.
Further details of actual expenditure (including separating
out consultancy expenditure and inter-year comparisons)
can be found in the Annual Report.

1) Requests greater cross-
referencing between
the large number of plans
and reports produced by
Council.
2) Seek realistic population
projections and consistency
between annual plan and
unitary plan projections.
3) A better understanding of
council operations would be
achieved if other operating
expenditure were further
analysed by separating out
consultants costs and
property costs.
1090 1) Greater cross-referencing can be increased for the
LTP.
2) The population projections used by Auckland
Council are sourced from the Statistics New Zealand. The
Unitary Plan is based on the Auckland Plan. The Auckland
Plan states the population of the region could be between
2.5 and 1.7 million people at 2041. The high growth
scenario is used (2.5 million) is assumed as the base
planning for the Auckland Plan. For the purposes of the
LTP a medium population growth scenario has been
assumed.
3) Same response as the above submission 1049
Submission window should
be 6 weeks.
1211 The tight timeframes and legislative parameters make it
difficult to extend the submission period, however this will
be considered for future processes.
The Blind Foundation
suggests that public
awareness campaigns be
established to alert
organisations to barriers and
solutions to include people
who have significant vision
loss in their planning for
1275 Staff will work with the Blind foundation to improve the
public awareness, specifically with visually impaired
members of the public.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


cultural and arts initiatives.
We suggest that those who
are involved in the design
and construction of
entertainment products and
services have, and make
use of, access to adequate
knowledge and information
on the specific needs and
requirements of people who
are blind or have low vision.

Theme: Regional environment and heritage
Request to increase financial
assistance (rates rebates)
and advice to owners of
historic buildings.
1049, 1074,
1144, 1338
Work is underway to develop a heritage incentives policy
for Council consideration.
Requested funding for
additional air quality (and
noise) monitoring in the
CBD. (Heart of the City)
141, 1126 A strategy for air quality monitoring and investigations is
being prepared which considers priority pollutants, key air
quality issues, good practise methods and the monitoring
network overall (including in the CBD). Funding will be
considered in light of this strategy (and overall in the
context of other environmental monitoring).
Requested air quality
monitoring data be more
accessible (e.g. on line or
summary reporting),
including at a local level
(Heart of the City, Ellerslie
Residents Association, Te
Rununga o Ngati Whatua,
Regional Public Health
Service)
141, 1126,
1410, 383,
1434, 1447
Agree that air quality monitoring data is not easily
accessible (although it is available on request). Over the
long term it is intended that the data will be publically
available on-line.
Supports Council policy to
improve air quality and
requested that Council
reduce air emissions.
(Heart of the City, Ellerslie
Residents Association, Te
Rununga o Ngati Whatua,
Regional Public Health
Service)
1126, 383,
1434, 1447
Noted. Improving air quality is a council responsibility
under the Resource Management Act. Actions that are
being taken include policies in the Unitary Plan,
development of an air quality bylaw, resource consents,
advocacy (e.g. council submissions), working with other
organisations to reduce emissions, etc.
Resolve discrepancy
between the AP air quality
targets and the key priorities.
(Te Rununga o Ngati
Whatua)
1434 While there is no specific key project for air quality
outlined in the annual plan text, it is included in the
Environmental Strategic Action Plan and in business as
usual activities. Key projects for air quality in the next
year include the Unitary Plan and the air quality bylaw, and
we will start to work again on transport emissions.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Progressively reduce air
quality performance targets
(Regional Public Health
Service)
1447 Noted. This is something that could be considered for the
LTP.
Auckland Council is a
member of the Inter Council
Working Party on GMOs,
and that budget from this
Annual Plan should be
allocated to support the
Councils obligations.
1352 At this stage, no budget requirement is anticipated to be
needed to meet Auckland Councils obligations to help with
the collaborative work programme of the ICWP for 2014/15.
If this situation changes, additional funds could be
requested through the 2015/25 LTP.
More money needs to go to
environmental protection and
less to rail and the
purchasing of trains which
only services a very small
area of Auckland.
141 The share of funding allocated to each category of council
service is a question that will be considered through the
next long-term plan process.
Theme: Regional libraries
Region wide library facility
strategy
Current library build capital
expenditure
517
46
Auckland Libraries is in the process of developing a library
facility strategy that will inform both the long term plan and asset
management plans.
The following library builds are under construction and were
planned and budgeted by legacy councils the builds were
subsequently approved to proceed by Auckland Council:
Ranui Library Replacement ($6.4m)
Waiheke Library Replacement ($8.2m)
Te Atatu Library Replacement ($10.3m)
Devonport Library Replacement ($7.9m)
Otahuhu Library Replacement ($5.5m)
Westgate Library (growth) ($13.4m) construction
imminent

The libraries below are either in the planning and design phase
(P/D), early consultation (C) or a placeholder (P) for future
planning. They are still going through the council approval
process.
Flatbush Library (P/D) ($15.7m)
Takanini Library (C) ($5.8m)
Albany (P) ($8.7m)
Highland Park (P) ($3.5m)

Library buildings are more than book repositories; they are key
place-making facilities that connect people with each other, their
communities and with the world of information. For many, the
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


technology provided in the library also enables access to the
world of online information. Libraries buildings serve as civic
hubs that facilitate active participation in the democratic process
and are for many people their place of choice for leisure and
relaxation.
Since amalgamation libraries have on average welcomed 36,500
visitors per day to library buildings. This number remains
consistent even with the growth in online resources.
Toilet upgrade in the central
library
645 The toilets in the central library are currently being upgraded. All
work should be complete by June 2014.
Restore Freegal Music
Service
1120 As part of the 2013/2014 annual plan, Auckland Council's
governing body resolved to end the Freegal downloadable music
service. The Naxos and Music Online e-resources were not
affected by this reduction.
Libraries would like to provide this type of service to our
customers as we think that access to downloadable music is a
core future service. At this stage Council has no plans to
reinstate this service; but will considered through the LTP
process (indicative cost would be $205,000 in operational
funding per annum).
In the meantime Auckland Libraries is continuing to build the
amount of downloadable/accessible content available to
Aucklanders in the form of e-books and e-audiobooks. In
December the number of titles available rose to more than
40,000. More will be added throughout 2014, and the dramatic
increase in the use of these collections means that customer
demand requires the library progressively to apply more of its
budget to e-content.
Accessible Libraries 1275 Through the approved Library Strategic Plan, the council has
made a commitment to the use of universal access principles in
the delivery of Library services:
Universally accessible a place for me, open for
everyone
Universally understandable a world of ideas simply
arranged
Universally appealing to connect with my family, my
community and our future
This commitment is reflected in the design of new buildings and
the expansion of downloadable/accessible content available to
Aucklanders in the form of e-books and e-audiobooks. In
December the number of titles available rose to more than
40,000.
Libraries are also applying universal access principles to the
design of the new library website.
Public heritage service
available in each library
1322 There are currently 4 specialist research and heritage centres
around the Auckland region. The Whau local board is serviced
by the research and heritage centre located in the Henderson
Library. Auckland Libraries do not support the implementation of
a heritage office in each library. There are however, local
history collections at each branch and staff are happy connect
local historians with specialist staff to preserve the unique
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


cultural history of the different areas of Auckland.

Theme: Organisation support
Also as regards the Built and
Natural Environment theme,
NWO raises issue with
the relatively low target of 61
sites of significance to Maori
to be protected, especially
when compared with the
target of 2,600 for historic
heritage (presumably non-
Maori) resources to be
protected.
1175
NWOs support across other points is noted and appreciated. It
is acknowledged that a target of 61 is not high, but it reflects the
complexity and resourcing required for this process. As noted, it
is intended to significantly augment this in coming years.

We suggest that Auckland
Council engage more closely
with NZHPT to capitalise on
the considerable amount of
knowledge held and
opportunities identified by
the Trust.
1074 Auckland Council already works closely with NZHPT on a variety
of fronts including archaeological assessments, work related to
waahi tapu and koiwi discovery. There are also statutory
requirements in the Historic Places Act that require local bodies
to engage with NZHPT in particular situations. The Maori
Department within Council has an established relationship with
its counterpart service in NZHPT and often work together on
projects.

Theme: Economic strategy and initiatives
Suggestion that Mangere-
Otahuhu is recognised as
the gateway to Auckland
042 The Mangere Gateway Programme is a legacy Project initiated
by the former Manukau City Council. The Programme aims to
create an international Visitor Gateway in the large area to the
west of SH20, from the Auckland Airport in the South to the
Mangere Bridge/ Manukau Harbour in the North. The project
involves a range of initiatives which focus on promoting
Aucklands point of distinction with Maori economic
development a key aspect of the Gateway work including the
creation of a new Visitor / Heritage Centre within the area. It has
been envisaged that the culturally significant Otuataua
Stonefields site would be the site for such a centre however,
the project is on hold pending further discussion with iwi / Mana
Whenua and could involve an alternative location. Other projects
include cultural walks, cycle ways, heritage trails ETC. The
Mangere Gateway Programme is progressed by City
Transformation South (budget also) but is currently on hold
pending discussions with The Southern Initiative Team around
the best home within Council for the work.
Request for higher
prioritisation of digital and
710 Anawhata falls within the remit of the Rural Broadband Initiative
(RBI). This is central governments investment in providing DSL
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


telephony infrastructure to
Anawhata (West Auckland)
broadband (offering 5 megabits per second [Mbps]) to 86% of
rural New Zealand homes and businesses through a
combination of wireless and fixed line solutions. However, it is
unclear if RBI will impact services in Anawhata.
Any service improvements depend on the telecommunications
industry. Outside of RBI there is limited appetite from the
telecommunications industry to invest in infrastructure for rural
and remote areas.
However, Council does advocate for the telecommunications
industry to enhance coverage and services in rural and remote
Auckland and the Waitakere Ranges are noted as a priority
area.
Support for the development
of an integrated precinct plan
for the industrial south
818 The Local Economic Development team are currently developing
an Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.
This has involved extensive consultation with Local Boards, the
Southern Initiative, Business Improvement Districts and
Business Associations, major developers and land holders and
large firms within key sectors.
The Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South
will be available in draft form later in 2014.
Concern about discussion by
the Business Advisory Panel
not translating into action
and change at officer level
within council
090 The Business Advisory Panel was established to complement
and inform implementation of the Auckland Economic
Development Strategy. The panel is a useful medium for the
exchange of ideas and issues. The Panels effectiveness is
subject to regular scrutiny and opportunities for improvement
in keeping with the councils overall approach to such initiatives.
This includes how areas of discussion might best inform
councils economic growth agenda and translate into action.
Recommends review of
Business Improvement
District (BID) programme,
including:
Update of BID
targeted rate budgets
against BID decisions in time
for the AP and rate-setting in
June
Review of
accountability arrangements
and value for money of
services received by council
114 The adopted 2014/15 Annual Plan will incorporate the BID
targeted rate amount as approved by BIDs at their Annual
General Meetings.
The BID Partnership Programme approach is a public-private
partnership between Auckland Council and business
associations that have a commitment to develop and promote
their local business environment. The Council does not receive
services through the BID programme. The BID Partnership
Programme is funded through BID target rates collected by
Auckland Council and administered by the Business Association
to achieve agreed objectives. Governance and accountability
arrangements are set out in the Auckland Region Business
Improvement District Policy (2011).

Recommend that Auckland
Council adopt a collaborative
approach with the private
sector, central government
and other key stakeholders.
114 Noted. The newly established Business Leadership Group,
chaired by Michael Barnett illustrates this approach.
Recommends council use
Health Impact Assessment
(HIA) for health planning,
including economic
447 Council supports evidence-based decision making, to meet the
current and future needs of communities with regards to good
quality local infrastructure, public services and performance of
regulatory functions in a cost-effective manner.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


dimension. Evidence based decision making includes an assessment of the
likely intended and unintended effects of a policy against various
criteria, including equity, social, environmental and business
impacts, among others, to the extent that it is possible. As such,
we consider that aspects of Health Impact Assessment will be
included in council policy analysis, albeit not under the formal
designation of a Health Impact Assessment.
Theme: Planning and Strategy
Reconsider introduction of
Zoning Charge Levy to
ensure community share in
large windfall profits arising
from zoning changes
1457 The idea of capturing part of the windfall gain made by
landowners resulting from decisions to re-zone land to urban or
to substantially up-zone land in order to fund infrastructure or
affordable housing was consulted on as part of the Draft Unitary
Plan in 2012. Following consideration of the feedback on this
and other funding options it was decided, on balance, that this
was not a preferred method of funding infrastructure or
affordable housing in Auckland.
We submit that (whether
through a change to the draft
Annual Plan or otherwise)
council should engage with
Counties Power to re-
establish a co-ordinated
liaison channel and a mutual
no surprises policy.
1268 Auckland Council is committed to liaison with groups like
Counties Power through active involvement in the Auckland
Utility Operators Group and the Infrastructure Providers Forum.
Utility providers are consulted as a matter of course if proposals
and initiatives come up that are likely to affect them.
NZAA broadly supports the
integrated "One System"
approach that the Draft Plan
takes. We are concerned,
however, that the Draft Plan
fails to identify the
relationship between
transport capital projects and
the plans that sit below the
Auckland plan, eg City
Centre Masterplan or the
Waterfront Plan.
1273 Clear links between the transport capital projects and the
underlying plans like the City Centre Masterplan, the Waterfront
Plan and Auckland Plan are very important. It is intended that
further explanation of the linkages between spending and
specific elements of Councils strategic documents will be
proposed in the Long-term Plan 2014-2025.
Grey power asks that a full
review of the basic
assumptions of the Auckland
Plan be carried to ensure
current planned
development and
expenditure levels are in line
with what is now anticipated
Auckland population
changes will be.
1457 The Auckland Plan provides for three scenarios for the future of
Aucklands population high, medium and low growth.
Auckland Council will periodically review with Statistics New
Zealand, the appropriateness of the high growth model base
adopted for land supply related planning and the medium growth
model base adopted for investment decisions on infrastructure.
Given the decision of the
Hearing Panel to implement
Plan Change 28 for the
urban development of
Kingseat, I seek that the
1177 The Councils decision to approve Plan Change 28 to the
Operative Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section) has been
appealed the Environment Court in its entirety. Consistent with
due process, decisions on funding to support growth in Kingseat
should await the decision of the Court on these matters.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Annual Plan and the LTP
make appropriate budget
allocations to provide for the
planning and construction of
the necessary infrastructure,
including roading, water
supply, wastewater
treatment, stormwater,
parks, riparian reserves and
community facilities.
Recommend that the council
give consideration to
developing a program for
upgrading village centres.
1256 The Auckland Plan provides direction on the prioritisation of
centres throughout the Auckland region. Council will continue to
work with Auckland Transport and other entities to give effect to
the Auckland Plan outcomes for centres.
Spatial-based projects such
as the Southern Initiative
and Tamaki Redevelopment
should not just focus on new
housing. Much of the
existing housing is cold,
damp and unhealthy which
leads to poor social and
health outcomes.
1331 The Southern Initiative focuses on seven work streams or
priority areas over the next five years. Housing is one of these
priority areas. There are also some longer term outcomes such
as a safe community and healthy community which are systemic
but takes longer than five years to achieve.
Theme: Bylaws
We request that, in revising
and harmonising the bylaws,
the focus be on increasing
access by all to the
community and not just on
what might be the least
expensive solutions to
implement.
1120 The council is committed to providing the information on the
development of the bylaws and through its public consultations,
material that can be used effectively by those with impaired
vision.
In addition, during the development of a number of the bylaws
disability groups are actively consulted for their advice and
experience.
NRC notes and supports the
initiative to review and
implement a single set of
Auckland-wide bylaws to
replace the 158 former
council bylaws, and makes
the following requests and
recommendations:
Requests that the review
includes consultation with
NRC.
Recommend that a
consolidated summary of
bylaws affecting the
performance of the freight
sector be published as a key
output of the review process.
942

The council is reviewing the remaining 80 legacy bylaws over
the next two years, and will add the National Road Carriers
(NRC) to its database of interested stakeholders and will keep
the NRC informed of progress.

Council staff has passed on the NRCs request for a
consolidated summary of bylaws affecting the performance of
the freight sector to Auckland Transport for their information and
response, and the traffic related bylaws are the jurisdiction of
Auckland Transport.
We recommend Council 1447 The council is committed to maintaining the relationships with
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


keep ARPHS informed and
engaged with Bylaw reviews
our external stakeholders as the council reviews its bylaws and
various codes of practice.
Theme: Regulation Licencing & compliance
No increase of liquor outlets
at all. I want to see them
decreasing.
169

This will be considered as part of the Local Alcohol Plan
My submission relates to
industrial noise. I think we
need serious consideration
given to localised heavy
nidustries which operate
next to residential areas. eg
Winstone Gib and Hansells
in Oranga Penrose
operations. Any factory that
'needs' to operate machinery
all night long does NOT
belong in a city. Noise
Control Officers are very
helpful but they are
constrained by by-laws that
make nonsense of liveability.
Until everyone in our city has
the right to a restful night's
sleep - without machinery
vibrating continuously even
while oberating within the
bylaw decibel limit -
Auckland will never be the
world's most liveable city.
639 The current district plan and the proposed unitary plan,
possess specific rules designed to protect residential
properties and their occupants from any unreasonable
noise that may be generated from any commercial or
industrial activity, regardless of where that commercial or
industrial activity is located. Historically a lot of industrial
and commercial activities were located together in specific
locations away from residential areas. In some instances
residential developments have been established next to
existing commercial and industrial businesses. With
modern advances in acoustic engineering technology, a
requirement for a specific distance separation, between
residential properties and industrial or commercial
properties, cannot be justified in terms of achieving a
desired noise reduction, because industrial and commercial
activities can be designed and engineered to operate
adjacent to residential properties without adverse noise
effects.
Increases in licensing fees
are just a rip off.
680

All licensing fees are based on the user-pays principle.
License holders are the primary beneficiary (i.e. users) of
the licensing service as the receipt of a licence and the
associated compliance inspections, allows a licence holder
to operate. Accordingly the licence fees are a direct
reflection of the cost of providing the licensing service and
in that context are inherently reasonable and appropriate.
Massive shame that
formulating a noise policy for
the CBD was mostly
submitted against last year.
CBD has very different
needs to the rest of the
region, not to mention a
requirement for more
tolerance of noise from those
who choose to live in the
CBD
703 It is recognised that certain areas of Auckland should have
higher permitted noise levels than others. This is reflected
in the current district plan and proposed unitary plan, which
includes higher permitted noise levels in the central
business districts than the in other areas, such as
residential.
Why do we not have any dog
free beaches in central
auckland? Please make Pt.
677 The Albert-Eden local board is scheduled to complete a
review of selected local dog access rules in 2015.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Chev beach dig free. There
is not enough room for dogs
at high tide as well as other
users. Dogs can be walked
at Meola Reserve very
nearby. This could be
developed into a proper
"doggie park" with all the
facilities.
Theme: Governance and democratic process
The Annual Plan target of
40% is too low and should
be increased to 45%.
1144 Historical voter turnout has been around 30-35%, so 40% is
a stretched target. Council is working with central
government to raise awareness for future local government
elections, including online voting.
The blind community wish to
be able to cast votes in the
election on equal terms with
the sighted community. This
includes equal access to
information about candidates
and being able to cast our
votes in a confidential secret
manner.
1120 Council provides some of the election material is readable
by the sight impaired. E-voting, once introduced will
alleviate most of the sight impaired issues.
Ngati Whatua O Orakei
(NWO) support the intended
performance measure under
the theme of Governance
"percentage of Maori
residents who fee/ they
can participate in local board
decision-making" (page 29).
The intended target of 50%
still appears low and indeed,
active engagement and
partnership with NWO at the
outset will contribute to
achieving a greater
percentage of participation in
decision-making by Maori.
1175 This measure is the same as non-Maori and needs to
remain linked to that. Staff agree that engagement and
partnership will deliver a greater percentage. This is the first
year that this measure has been implemented, so will be
reviewed through the LTP process.
Grey Power Auckland
Region:
1) Of particular concern
is the very high number of
staff the Council currently
has, and also the large
numbers receiving high
salaries.
2) Auckland Council is
asked to set a freeze on
current staff levels and costs
and initiate a full review
1457 Legislation now provides for the Governing Body to
determine a remuneration policy for the Council. In
December 2013, the Governing Body resolved that the
Auckland Council prepare a remuneration policy for the
2014/15 financial year.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


aimed at reducing staff
levels to 7,500 by 2015 and
holding salary costs levels
as part of this process.
3) It would be very
helpful to have an
Ombudsman type office who
has the ability to sort out
ratepayers issues when the
initial Council response is
inadequate.
The Waitakere Ranges
Protection Society submits
that the Governing Body
should investigate and rectify
the apparent loss of the Te
Henga Bethells Quarry
rehabilitation fund. The
former Waitakere City
Council collected royalties
from quarry operators over
many years for quarry
remediation upon closure.
911 This is a legacy council fund, and is not lost. The fund was
an accounting entry to record a non-restricted fund
intended to be used for future rehabilitation. In 2010,
Auckland Council decided that the Rehabilitation fund for
Te Henga Quarry should be released back to Equity in the
new Councils accounts. Good accounting practice requires
that we recognise as a liability (a provision) for its
obligations to rehabilitate the Quarry. At 30 June 2013, staff
undertook a preliminary assessment of rehabilitation costs.
This indicated a cost in the range of $300,000 to $400,000.
This was not entered as a provision as the level was not
material and insufficient evidence was available to support
the provision. However, once the final use of the site has
been determined by Auckland Council, a provision for the
rehabilitation will be entered in the Councils accounts. This
will then be funded. Council will drive this process to
develop a rehabilitation plan, once the end use is
determined, and will fund it accordingly. The royalties paid
from the quarry have and continue to be treated as income
to Council and is used as part of the funding of services of
the Council.

The Council Controlled
Organisations (CCOs) need
to be reviewed to ensure
more accountability and
transparency, with input from
the stakeholders and public
1090, 1114,
1120, 1268,
1393
The Governing Body has instigated a review of the CCOs
with terms of reference decided and has agreed that
consideration be given to a public submission process.
Theme: Regional communities
32.5 Regional social housing
- Housing in rural areas.
151, 516 Auckland Council as a provider of social housing owns and
operates 1412 Housing for Older Persons (HFOP)
dwellings. The dwellings are unevenly distributed across
the city, with provision concentrated in the south, west and
north.
HFOP supports people being active and independent within
their communities. This approach is commonly referred to
as aging in place, and recognises the social and economic
advantages of enabling citizens to be part of their
communities.
To support independent living HFOP villages are located
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


close to amenities such as shopping centres and public
transport.
There are currently villages in Waiuku, Pukekohe and
Torbay, there are no villages in the legacy Rodney area due
to Rodney District Council decisions to divest.
32.2 Regional community
development policy - Ageing
Strategy policy document.
1457 While an Ageing Strategy is not currently on the policy
forward work programme, the issue of policy and strategy
relating to older people will be discussed with the Seniors
Advisory Panel and their recommendations on this issue
will be brought to council for consideration.
development initiatives.
Council provides Literacy
programs and work related
skills programs.
1375 Councils major support for literacy is through library
provision and funding of COMET Auckland. Further council
involvement in literacy tends to be indirect and through
working in partnership with central government and the
community sector (for example through the provision of
council facilities from which organisations may provide
literacy programmes). Youth employment is a Mayoral
priority and council is increasing its graduate programme
from 17 to 50 people and its cadets from 10 to 20 in 2015.
Council considers youth employment to be a major issue for
Auckland and is committed to supporting positive transitions
for young people from school, in partnership with central
government and others. Council has received confirmation
from the Tindall Foundation of 1.85 million over the next
three years for the Youth Connections youth employment
initiative across Auckland.
development policy - Alcohol
policy.
1434 Council is committed to reducing alcohol related harm,
through local alcohol policy development and the range of
other policy and operational activity undertaken by council.
Any council generated policy will support the aims of the
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and this
recommendation to include a reference to alignment of
council policy and activity with this Act in the Annual Plan is
supported.
Theme: Regional park services
More drinking fountains
needed
81
The need for and location of drinking fountains are
considered as part of the concept planning for new parks or
the redevelopment of existing parks.

No one is able to tell me how
to apply for access to land
for garden allotments. As an
apartment dweller, I'd like to
have an allotment. Please
consider an initiative on this
topic and put unused land to
good use.
160
The council does not provide for garden allotments
however there are a number of community gardens dotted
around the region, which make provision for citizens to
participate in gardening activities. Reference to community
gardens and volunteer programmes can be found on the
council website.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Submitter wants to ensure
there is adequate support
and funding for volunteers
and conservation parks.
Also requests that greater
funding is put into the
acquisition of regional parks
and volcanic landscapes.
494 The council budgets for and supports an extensive
volunteer programme on its parks, including some of the
volcanic landscapes, and will continue to do so .
Submitter requests that
funding to support and
resource volunteers is
shown in Auckland wide
parks (volcanic cones and
regional parks).
494 The council budgets for and supports an extensive
volunteer programme on its parks, including some of the
volcanic landscapes, and will continue to do so . These are
incorporated in the operational budgets for the
management of parks and open space across the city.
Concern that the area
commonly referred to as the
Horse Paddock remains in
the ownership of the party
that owns the Sugar
Refinery. Council will have
Right of First Refusal for
purchase of the Horse
Paddock. Request that
Council initiate contact with
the Owner of the Refinery
and commence negotiations
to purchase the Horse
Paddock. Once the Horse
Paddock is brought into
public ownership, it should
be made part of the Chelsea
Heritage Park.
530 The horse paddock adjacent to the Chelsea Heritage
Park has been identified as a potential purchase should it
become available on the market. The decision to purchase
will depend on priorities for other purchases and the value
this land will contribute to the existing open space network.
Request for smoke free
public open spaces.
716 The council has adopted a smoke free policy for public
open spaces and buildings At this stage it is an educational
programme involving signage informing people of the policy
and encouraging them not to smoke in the vicinity of other
people with a particular focus on areas where children
congregate, such in the vicinity of playgrounds.
We support the Regional
Parks budget of $28,492m
opex and $14,241m capex
for additional Regional Parks
acquisition and submit that
provision should be made for
additions to the Waitakere
Ranges Regional Parkland.
911 The council will continue to provide strong support for the
creation and maintenance of its regional parks, including
the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, as an essential
component of Aucklands unique natural and cultural
identity and in making Auckland the worlds most liveable
city.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


The council states that
keeping the tree-scape is
important as providing a
benefit for the general public
but there is no provision for
assisting residents with the
costs incurred in maintaining
large trees in a residential
area.

Action: Divert part of the
funds devoted to Parks to
provide a fund to assist with
the pruning and shaping of
designated trees.
1049 The council does not currently have the capacity to help
manage trees within private land. The council has over
55,000 hectares of parkland currently under its care. As a
priority the council devotes resources to the management of
this asset through pest animal and weed control and will
provide private land owners with assistance with these
programmes on private land. But apart from some arborist
advice the council does not normally involve itself in pruning
and shaping of designated trees on private land.
Botanic Gardens -
maintaining the Auckland
Botanic Gardens, including
creating opportunities for
outdoor recreation,
accommodation and events.
1074 The council will continue to provide strong support for the
creation and maintenance of the Auckland Botanic
Gardens, in recognition that the Botanic Gardens are one of
Aucklands major visitor and recreational attractions with
over 1 million visits each year.
Recommend that the council
not make any further
investment in acquiring new
regional parks at this time.
1256
The council uses criteria to assess the need for additional
parkland, including regional parkland. These criteria look at
the strategic need as well as the suitability of the land for its
recreational and the protection of its natural and cultural
heritage values. Land that does not satisfy these criteria will
not be purchased.
Recommend a new design
for children's playspaces be
incorporated to include
nature, fantasy, adventure.
The planting budget now
needs to increase e.g. for
fruit tree communities, food
and forests on public
reserves.
1322 The council recognises the need for children to experience
and learn from natural settings. The Auckland design
manual currently under development will explore
opportunities for play-spaces that incorporate nature,
fantasy and adventure. The council also acknowledges the
need for community gardens and will continue to support
and grow these initiatives.
I am concerned that only $1
million has been allocated to
Auckland's maunga. How
does this square with the
plans for World Heritage
status by 2020? Do not
support level of focus on
visitor experience and
recreational use aspects of
volcanic cones policy.
1385 The future management of the volcanic cones is currently
being established through the co-management framework
with the Tamaki Collective. The need for future expenditure
will be determined as part of developing management plans
for the cones and will be reflected in future annual plans
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Edge Trimmers dangerous
need guards on
1408; 1420 The council and its contractors adhere to recognised health
and safety standards.
We recommend the DAAP
should signify that all
expansion and upgrading of
burial sites must not be
adverse to the details and
limitations as posed by the
recent review of the Burial
and Cremations Act.
1434 The council has participated in the review of the Burial and
Cremations Act and is aware of the implications of this
legislation.
In terms of Cemeteries, we
recommend Council
recognises public health
risks and engagement
issues.
1447 The council has participated in the review of the Burial and
Cremations Act and is aware of the implications of this
legislation and its responsibilities under the relevant health
related legislation. The council would welcome
engagement and collaboration on these matters of common
interest with the submitter.
Theme: Watercare Services Ltd.
Water and waste water
charges unfair.
231 Watercare is required by legislation to be a minimum cost
provider of water and wastewater services and is prohibited
from paying a dividend to its shareholder the Auckland
Council. The cost of water and wastewater services reflect
the actual cost of delivering those services to the people of
Auckland while maintaining a high standard of public health
and environmental protection.
The Huapai sewage
treatment plant is
decommissioned. It is not
appropriate that a sewage
treatment plant is positioned
in a park (public area) or
next to a waterway that flows
to the Kaipara harbour.
There have been constant
issues with this plant
including smell & overflow.
This is a health & safety
issue.
526 Ever since commissioning of the new wastewater main from
Kumeu, Huapai and Riverhead Watercare has experienced
challenging odour issues as a result of the low number of
connections and low wastewater volumes in the connected
networks. Low wastewater flows and increased retention
times cause septicity which raises the potential for odours
to be generated. In response Watercare has mitigated this
issue by reinstating pre-treatment at the Huapai wastewater
treatment plant. As more growth and connections come on-
line in this area these problems will reduce and the use of
the plant for pre-treatment will be stopped.
Discharge from
sewage/overflow needs to
be handled on a community
level - i.e. it is not acceptable
for overflow from Waitemata
harbour area to be
discharged into Manukau
Harbour. It has taken years
to finally have a clean up of
the Manukau - sort out your
543 The Mangere Wastewater Treatment plant is Aucklands
largest wastewater treatment facility and treats existing
flows from a large part of the Auckland isthmus. Old
combined networks across the city have carried wastewater
and stormwater to the treatment plant for treatment for
many decades. The new central interceptor will continue to
take these flows as well as picking up some additional wet
weather overflows. However, the actual increase in
average flows to the treatment plant is expected to increase
by only 2%. Furthermore, additional flows from the north
and west will be diverted to the Rosedale Wastewater
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


area, don't dump in ours!! Treatment Plant taking pressure of the Mangere
Wastewater Treatment Plant and allowing for continued
growth across Auckland while continuing to protect the
Manukau and Waitemata Harbours.
Water rates are not fair and
need overhaul. Why should
I pay for waste water rates
on my garden and be
prevented from having water
stored from roof and
gutterings?
544 The domestic wastewater tariff is only charged on 78.5% of
the metered water use. In effect there is an allowance made
for water use in gardens and other situations where it does
not go down the drain. This figure is based on BRANZ
research on average household water use. Households are
free to install and use water tanks and will need to make
decisions on whether there is benefit in doing so.
We believe in a greater
allocation of money to
construct water dams for
Auckland for the future
rather than relying on the
Waikato River.
683 Unfortunately the major dam sources for Auckland have
already been utilised and there are few remaining
opportunities for dams. Building new dams is also very
expensive realtive to the water yield which can be obtained
and consenting would also be very difficult and expensive
to achieve. Watercare is required by legislation to priovide
services at minimum cost, collectively, to all the people of
Auckland. Infrastructure, including a world class treatment
plant, is already in place for a water take from the Waikato
River and this source will continue to become more
important as the region grows.
Reduce water charges which
are hugely overpriced.
1108 At the time of integration in 2010 Watercare reduced water
prices, in some cases significantly so. Watercare is
rerquired by legislation to be a least cost provider of water
and wastewater services and is prohibited from paying a
dividend to Auckland Council. The cost of water and
wastewater services reflect the actual cost of delivering
those services to the people of Auckland while maintaining
a high standard of public health and environmental
proection.
Property owners should be
encouraged to install storage
tanks to collect rainwater for
gardens, vehicle washing
and toilet flushing.
1113 Sustainability initiatives are good in principle but the
arguments for Watercare as a regional service provider are
not always compelling in terms of cost and protection of
public health. Watercare continues to design and build
infrastructure to meet Aucklands peak demand when rain
tanks are typically dry and customers fall back on the public
supply network. The provision of bulk services remains
consistent with Watercare's commitments to be a minimum
cost provider and households who wish to install rain tanks
continue to able to do so.
Re: Central Interceptor -
should seek to stop
wastewater overflows rather
than just reduce
1113 Overflow structures are a standard component of modern
wastewater networks and are designed for emergencies to
protect private property and public health. Regional plans
permit an average of two overflows from a controlled
structure per annum and the central interceptor will result in
a significant reduction in overflows along the network.
These limits balance the adverse environmental effects of
overflows which tend to be short lived, against the cost to
build infrastructure to reduce them. Reducing overflows to
zero, even if technically feasible, would cost many billions
of dollars. The main emergency overflow for the central
interceptor tunnel will be located near the Mangere
wastewater treatment plant. However, due to the scale and
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


potential risks, this has been designed with sufficient
redundencies and contingencies that it is unlikely to ever be
needed. Furthermore, Watercare has listened to the
Consent Commissioners and agreed to install standby
power generation.
The electronic versions of
Watercare Services invoices
are not fully accessible to
blind and vision impaired
readers.
1120 Watercare has worked with blind disability services to
improve the way in which water and wastewater billing
information was made available electronically. To date
Watercare has done the best it can with the technology
available. Watercare will continue to review and improve
these services as billing and customer information systems
are upgraded.
KIPT is supportive of fair
volumetric charging for water
and a mix of fixed charge
and volumetric water
charges for waste water
calculation.
1133 Noted.
Request that Auckland
Council extends the
sewerage line to make a
direct connection with:
Oratia District
School
the Settlers' Hall
the Small Hall
the cluster of
buildings which includes the
Oratia Superette and
Dragiceviches' Orchard
buildings and allocates
funding for this from the
$38,000,000 allocated to
Collection System
Expansion and the
$25,100,000 allocated to
Collection System
Improvement in the
Wastewater section of the
Capital Projects List7 (see
6).
1328 The provision of wastewater services to new areas is
dependent on detailed Council planning (structure planning)
or private plan changes. Much of Oratia is currently zoned
countryside living and until such time as Council determines
that such areas are a priority for growth and are
accompanied by coordinated structure plans that determine
the nature , mix and layout of growth and accompanying
services, then Watercare is unable to service these new
areas.
Beacon supports projects to
manage demand for
services, create a more
resilient, localised and
diverse network, and, where
appropriate, maintain the
network
1331 Noted.
Hunua water supply scheme
is an important core service
and we approve this.
1375 Noted. The Hunua dams have the greatest storage capacity
of all our regional dams and along with the Ardmore water
treatment facility represent some of most important
Auckland water supply infrastructure.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


I do not support the changes
to having the Manukau
Harbour used as a
dumping ground for
Auckland city's waste water.
The environment could be
adversely affected. Please
pump it out past the
Manukau Heads into ocean
currents and keep
our harbour a place
for swimming and
community enjoyment.
1390 The Mangere Wastewater Treatment plant is Aucklands
largest wastewater treatment facility and treats existing
flows from a large part of the Auckland isthmus. Old
combined networks across the city have carried wastewater
and stormwater to the treatment plant for treatment for
many decades. The new central interceptor will continue to
take these flows as well as picking up some additional wet
weather overflows. However, the actual increase in
average flows to the treatment plant is expected to
increase by only 2%. Furthermore, additional flows from the
north and west will be diverted to the Rosedale Wastewater
Treatment Plant taking pressure of the Mangere
Wastewater Treatment Plant and allowing for continued
growth across Auckland while continuing to protect the
Manukau and Waitemata Harbours. The option to discharge
past the Manukau Heads was considered by the public and
discounted many years ago. As a result the harbour
discharge is of such high quality that contact recreation
continues to be available. Watercare is commited to
protecting the Manukau and has invested half a billion
dollars in upgrades and improvements to the harbour
including the removal of the old oxidation ponds and
creation of new beaches. This commitment continues with
ongoing upgrades to the plant, development of new
walkways and Watercare's purchase of Puketutu Island to
become a future park.
Watercare should be actively
encouraging Aucklanders to
reduce their water
consumption as similar
organisations do in other
communities faced with
water supply limitations such
as the Australian cities. I see
little sign of this. The CEO of
Watercare is significantly
overpaid for what must be a
relatively straightforward job
especially compared to the
CEO of Auckland Council.
1393 Aucklanders already have the lowest water consumption
rates compared with other urban parts of New Zealand. The
cost of our water is also significantly lower than in Australia.
However, Watercare remains focused on achieving by 2025
a 15% per capita reduction in water use throughout the
region. This work includes updating the regional demand
management plan and creating a free water audit service
for households, in partnership with EcoMatters Environment
Trust. The latest addition to this programme is the 'Be
Waterwise' booklet aimed at helping households save water
and money. It is available on Watercares website.
Opposes wastewater
charges
1402 Watercare is required by legislation to be a least cost
provider of water and wastewater services and is prohibited
from paying a dividend to Auckland Council. The cost of
water and wastewater services reflects the actual cost of
delivering those services to the people of Auckland while
maintaining a high standard of public health and
environmental protection.
Upgrade sewer capacity 1440 Watercare is planning to spend approximately 2 billion
dollars over the next 10 years building new wastewater
infrastructure to increase capacity.
Most people I know are very
unhappy with Watercare. I
think Council should open up
discussion on unpopular
department instead of
1473 At the time of integration in 2010 Watercare reduced water
prices, in some cases significantly so. Watercare is required
by legislation to be a least cost provider of water and
wastewater services and is prohibited from paying a
dividend to Auckland Council. The cost of water and
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


ignoring them.
1. We don't want bills for
water every month.
2. We do not like the way
they pit our bill up the month
they estimate usage.
3. We do not like paying for
water down the drain, when
we water the garden.
wastewater services reflect the actual cost of delivering
those services to the people of Auckland while maintaining
a high standard of public health and environmental
protection. Monthly billing was implemented to help
customers avoid large quarterly or six monthly bills and to
help identify water leakages. Estimates are used every
second reading based on past water use figures. All
customers in Auckland are charged in the same way for
domestic water and wastewater services. Wastewater
charges include an allowance of 21.5% for garden watering
that does not go down the drain.
water meters should be
installed free of charge.
1969 Watercare must recover all costs for services. Costs are
typically directed to those who create the demand for
services including water meter installations. Infrastructure
growth charges are also levied to those who create demand
for new services such as water and wastewater
connections which require additional investment.
The Local Board also needs
to advocate heavily on the
issue of commercial water
rates which according to our
calculations will see some
businesses facing a $10,000
increase in rates, which is
simply not sustainable.
These changes take place
from the 1st July 2014 and
we need to be aware? that
this will have a large impact
on many of our businesses?

This July water rates for
commercial premises will be
going up. We argued against
this as there is no
competition in the water
sector meaning there is a
monopoly of power that
Watercare has.
Furthermore, by our
calculations a large majority
of our businesses will once
again be facing huge
increases. We hope there is
some support in place for
this change!

1990 Watercares new standardised non-domestic wastewater
tariff will remove charging anomalies and bring greater
fairness to the region. The 44 wastewater tariffs currently
paid by non-domestic users were set by the former councils
which each approached charging differently, eg wastewater
charges based on variables such as land value or number
of toilet pans. As a result, the cost of wastewater and
therefore the cost of doing business varies depending on
where in Auckland a business or organisation is located.
Standardising the tariff will address this important issue of
fairness. Changes to the non-domestic wastewater tariff will
not generate additional revenue for Watercare.
Theme: Waste and Recycling
WMMP implementation -
Levels of service, green
waste, hazardous waste
Various The WMMP will introduce a consistent service across Auckland
as a phased implementation. The main service requirements will
consist of:
1) a pay as you throw refuse collection differentiated by bin
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


size. It will not be charged by weight but per lift.
2) An enhanced recycle service
3) An organic collection in urban areas
4) An on property inorganic collection supported by a
number of sites providing a resource recovery network
5) Fixed sites for hazardous waste collection to ensure
safe handling and disposal.
The implementation will be supported by appropriate
communications and education
A specific green waste service will not be provided by Council as
there is already a mature private sector industry providing this
service
Until the implementation, existing service levels including
funding arrangements will prevail.
Councils responsibility for
landfill remediation on
private land
1434 Private land utilised for landfill purposes is managed through the
consenting process. Councils responsibility is to monitor the
consent conditions to ensure compliance, however responsibility
to address the conditions rests with the owner. Council does
have responsibility to manage a number of historic sites which
are on council land.
Specific hygiene matters
relating to organic collection
138 The method of using a kitchen caddy and a larger bin is utilised
in a number of sites overseas and is a proven method. There are
remedies if there are odour concerns and these issues will be
dealt with as part of the communication and education
component.
Waste initiative seed funding
to include disabled
community
1120 The funding available distributed by Council from the waste levy
is available to all applicants. However the suggestion of targeted
promotion of the fund to disability consumer organisations and
service providers should be explored.

Theme: Emergency management
Areas where a response is
required
Submis
sion #
Advice from business
If something urgent has
suddenly happened, how
can we quickly find our
coordinator while it is not
office hours? [In
this situation] can there be a
person coming together,
which can translate it in
Cantonese or Mandarin?
1127

CDEM has a 24/7 Duty Officer system to respond to events.
They have access to Language Line and a data base of council
staff who can be contacted to communicate in various dialects.
Reinstate civil defence
emergency management
facilities and capability north
of the harbour bridge in
association with other local
boards in the northern
1336

The facility in 400 East Coast Bays is still important to Civil
Defence and it is used for training, housing of staff, and as a
radio communications hub. We have no plans to close it.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

9

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


region. Progress the
implementation of disaster
warning systems.
Should include
retention/reinstatement of
400 East Coast Bays as a
key site in the CD
infrastructure.
In light of the recent
Christchurch disasters we
recommend future proofing
the procedures, processes
as well as the resource
arrangements particularly
insurance facilities to prevent
a repeat of the debacle
currently being played out
particularly with respect to
insurance payouts.
1434

Private insurance claims are dealt with the various insurance
companies. For larger events The Insurance Council appoints a
coordinator to work with CDEM. The service that individuals
receive will depend on the resources available within the various
insurance companies.
Auckland Council has an insurance portfolio in respect of its own
buildings to cover any resultant material damage (net of
deductible). In the event of a natural catastrophe such as
earthquake the Earthquake Commission (EQC) would
underwrite any council, and private insurance claims in line with
the EQC policy (EQC cover) and property owners underlying
material damage policy. For any damage to Council property,
our insurance brokers would provide claims management
services.
EQC cover insures losses for earthquake, natural landslip,
volcanic eruption, hydrothermal activity, tsunami and storm and
flood (within limits). The EQC would administer their own claims
through appointed loss adjusters.
Lastly, we highlight potential
shortcomings of the Annual
Plan in the event of
unexpected regional
emergencies.
1447 The size and scale of Auckland has resulted in greater capacity
to respond to a regional emergency.

I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Update on the six Maori priority project areas Page 61

Update on the six Mori priority project areas

File No.: CP2014/07213

Purpose
1. To provide an update on progress on the Mori priority project areas identified in the Annual
Plan 2013/2014.
Executive Summary
2. On 27 March 2014 the Budget Committee agreed that staff report to the Budget Committee
by May 2014 on the milestones and funding to progress the 2013/2014 Mori priority
projects in 2014/15.
3. The financial information and brief commentary for the Mori priority project areas is
summarised in the table below. Further detail is contained in Attachment A to this report.

Priority Area Annual
Budget
2013/2014

($000)
Actual
spend (to
date)
2013/2014
($000)
Draft
Annual
Budget
2014/2015
($000)
Status update
1.Major event -
explore a Mori
event
13 8 37 Full feasibility study is expected
to be completed by ATEED
during the 2014/2015 financial
year with the aim of putting the
Mori Signature event in the
LTP.
$8k spend to date is for
consultation with mana whenua
undertaken during Nov/Dec
2013
2. Transport
walking and
cycling
infrastructure - Te
Reo
signage/narrative,
Mori design and
public artworks
230 386 Detail is
being
defined
with
project
managers
Auckland Transport (AT) has
engagement planned for
2014/2015 and budget
definition will be completed by
the end of May 2014.
Summary of actual spend:
AMETI $291k;
Dominion Rd $42k;
East West Link and Mill
Rd $38k;
Road Safety promotion
$6k;
City Rail Link $5k;
Walking and Cycling
programme $4k.
3. The Southern 177 149 232 In the current financial year
I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Initiative (TSI) -
scope a project to
address Mori
interests
there is no specific budget for
Mori specific projects, but all
TSI work streams incorporate a
Maori dimension.
4. Unitary Plan -
funding of mana
whenua
engagement, use
of iwi management
plans, sites of
significance and
other Mori
Provisions
200 28 770 $35k for payments to iwi is still
anticipated for the current
financial year to complete
engagement with Mana
Whenua.
Budget is in the draft AP
2014/2015 for identification and
assessment of Mori sites of
significance for protection /
management. Total budget
over 10 years of $7.56m.
5. Tamaki
Transformation
Programme -
opportunities for
affordable housing,
marae and
associated
education and
cultural facilities
93 93 Yet to be
defined
TRC is preparing a business
case for the council and Crown,
which is to be completed by 30
May 2014. The council, Crown
and TRC will need to determine
allocation of funding for the
Should further funding be
allocated, TRC will continue to
operate under the Tmaki
Strategic Framework, which
includes projects with specific
Mori outcomes.
Summary of actual spend:
Cultural mapping with
three iwi $30k;
Tamaki Learning
champions programme
$30k;
Tamaki Youth
Employment
programme $33k;
6. Stormwater -
incorporate
Matauranga Mori
3,334 2,396 3,850 The Stormwater Unit has
projects in a number of
categories that protect and / or
enhance streams, estuaries
and marine receiving
environments and therefore
contribute positively towards
the mauri of water in the
Auckland region.

4. Information on the wider range of expenditure contributions by council departments and
CCOs to Mori outcomes in the Annual Plan 2013/2014 is not presented in this report. This
is included in the report Quarterly Update: Business Improvements to identify Auckland
Council contributions to Mori Outcomes to the Finance and Performance committee on 20
May 2014.
I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Recommendation/s
a) receive the Update on the six Mori priority project areas report.

Discussion
5. The Annual Plan 2013/2014 outlines what the council plans to do, how much it costs and
how these will be funded in the 12 months to 30 June 2014. The Annual Plan 2013/2014
included six priority areas as the councils commitment to Mori.
6. In March 2014, the Budget Committee resolved to receive an update by May 2014 on the
milestones and funding to progress the 2013/2014 Mori priority projects in 2014/2015.
Progress since 1 July 2013 against each of these priorities is detailed in Attachment A as
provided by the relevant departments and CCOs.
7. Information on the wider range of expenditure contributions by council departments and
CCOs to Mori outcomes in the Annual Plan 2013/2014 is included in the report Quarterly
Update: Business Improvements to identify Auckland Council contributions to Mori
Outcomes to the Finance and Performance committee on 20 May 2014.
Consideration
Local Board Views
8. Local boards were not involved in the preparation of this report as the relevant budgets are
regional.
Mori Impact Statement
9. This report is about progress on matters which will impact positively on Mori. From this
information provided, it appears that all projects are on track to achieve against the agreed
budgets.
General
10. Note the committee agreed, in November 2013, that regular progress and planning updates
on the Mori priority project areas be included in future quarterly updates on Mori
Outcomes to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Attachments
No. Title Page
A Progress update on priority project areas for Mori 65

Signatories
Author Shelby Young Senior Advisor

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Progress update on priority project areas for Maori
Priority Area Status Update Annual
Budget
2013/14
Actual
(to date)
2013/14
Annual
Budget
2014/15
1. Event - explore a
Maori event

ATEED has been asked by the mayor to assess the concept of a Maori signature
event for Auckland and is committed to delivering feasibility investigations of
Maori event proposals.
In March and April 2014, ATEED held cross-council meetings with Community
Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) and Te Waka Angamua (TWA) to discuss
next steps for the project with the view of agreeing an approach to inform an
ATEED feasibility. Feedback from these sessions has been beneficial: firstly to
stock-take the existing Maori event landscape and understand the Maori event
calendar; and secondly, to begin to develop a strategic framework to facilitate a
joint understanding of what a Maori signature event should deliver. This will
provide a mechanism to assess event proposals against. CDAC and TWA are
supportive of a strategic and consultative approach to determine core event
principles before assessing any individual applications.
Following agreement on strategic direction and iwi engagement options, a
project plan is being prepared, which will break down project milestones
required to achieve project goals. ATEED expects to work with CDAC and TWA
on this next phase. Future milestones will include involvement from the
Independent Maori Statutory Board in developing assessment criteria in
2013/14 and requesting proposals from professional event organizers in
2014/15.
$13,000 $8,300

$37,000

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


ATEED estimated $50,000 would be required for feasibility assessment in
2013/14, allocating these funds from its Major Event Fund - $8,300 was spent
on mana whenua consultation undertaken during November and December
2013. ATEED anticipates it will conduct a full feasibility study on one or two
proposals next financial year using forecast budget from its Major Event Fund
($50,000 has been assigned). The current aim is to put the Maori signature
event in the Long Term Plan.
2. Transport walking and
cycling infrastructure - Te
Reo signage /narrative,
Maori design and public
artworks

(Consolidated budget and actual spend)
AMETI - Mana Whenua (Ngti Paoa, Ngti Whtua rkei, Ngti Tamaoho, Te
Akitai Waiohua, Ngi Tai ki Tmaki, Ngti Maru and Ngti Te Ata) worked with
Auckland Transport on the design within the completed Panmure Rail Station,
including signage (including street signs) and landscape aspects.
Dominion Road - A cultural landscape design plan for Dominion Road (including
walking and cycling) was completed in 2013 by Ngti Whtua rkei, Ngti
Tamaoho, Ngi Tai ki Tmaki, Ngti Maru and Te Akitai Waiohua. The
landscape plan incorporates Mori cultural heritage, Mori values and
narratives, as well as ecological footprints such as planting and bird habitat. The
next phase of work has now commenced around implementation of the cultural
landscape plan.
East West Link and Mill Road - Mana Whenua have been engaged early on the
East West Link, with input into the business case development (which includes
criteria for Mori Urban Design). Mana Whenua who have completed initial
Mori Value Assessments within this reporting period include Te Akitai
Waiohua, Te Rnanga o Ngti Whtua and Te Kawerau a Maki. Mana Whenua
$ 230,000 $ 385,900
$ 291,000

$ 42,300

$ 37,400

Detail is
being defined
with project
managers
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


are in the process of completing Mori Value Assessments for Mill Road.
Road Safety promotion - Community Transport works with a small number of
Mori groups to provide road safety education and information targeted at
identified high risk themes. This includes drivers licence education, and
educational tools, including a te reo booklet designed for the Travel Wise
school programme on safety on the way to school that was launched in August
2013.
City Rail Link - A mana whenua forum comprising of Ngti Whtua rkei, Ngti
Paoa, Ngti Maru, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngti Tamaoho, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngai
Tai ki Tamaki, has been established to achieve the conditions of the City Rail
Link Notice of Requirement which require input by Mana Whenua into relevant
aspects of this project. This includes interpreting and applying the Mana
Whenua design principles imbedded in the Urban Design Framework which
influence the design of this project. The project team has recently completed a
video about the project in Te reo Mori.
Walking Cycling programme - Further engagement in upgrading and
reconstructing assets for the Domain Walking and Cycle project has resulted in
the construction of mana whenua inspired retaining walls, fencing and
footpath, speed hump design, which celebrates and acknowledges Mana
Whenua history in the area. Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngi Tai ki Tmaki and Ngti
Whtua o rkei assisted in leading this input. Mana Whenua were consulted
on the Mt Roskill Safer Routes and Pt England to Panmure walking and
cycleway projects.

$ 6,300

$ 4,700

$ 4,200
3. The Southern Initiative
(TSI) - scope a project to
The Terms of Reference to incorporate the appropriate reference to the Treaty
of Waitangi were discussed at the December meeting and not resolved. The TSI
$177,000 $149,000 $232,120
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


address Maori interests

has provided in kind support to the Weymouth/ Waimahia special housing
development for its community open day/ launch in December and is in regular
liaison with the development partners to identify other opportunities for
Council or government agencies to provide co-ordinated services to the project.
The TSI is not aware of any further progress over the vacation period on the
Otara papakainga housing development. The budgets for 2014/2015 remain in
draft. In the current financial year there is no specific budget for Maori specific
projects but all work streams incorporate a Maori dimension.
4. Unitary Plan - funding
of mana whenua
engagement, use of iwi
management plans, sites
of significance and other
Maori Provisions
No new activities have been planned and $35,000 is still anticipated by the end
of this financial year to complete the budget spend for 2013/2014.

$200,000 $ 28,377 $ 770,000
5. Tamaki Transformation
Programme -
opportunities for
affordable housing,
marae and associated
education and cultural
facilities
No new activities have been planned since the update provided on 27 March
2014.
The council is still in discussion and negotiation with the Crown and TRC. TRC is
preparing a business case for the council and Crown, which is to be completed
by 30 May 2014. The council, Crown and TRC will need to determine allocation
of funding for the 2014/15 financial year.
Should further funding be allocated, TRC will continue to operate under the
Tmaki Strategic Framework, which includes projects with specific Maori
outcomes.
$93,000 $93,000 Yet to be
defined
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
0

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


6. Stormwater -
incorporate Matauranga
Maori

The Stormwater Unit has projects in a number of categories that protect and /
or enhance streams, estuaries and marine receiving environments and
therefore contribute positively towards the mauri of water in the Auckland
region.
In delivering stormwater projects, the Stormwater Unit consults and works
collaboratively with iwi to achieve mutual beneficial outcomes where
appropriate.
Consultation with iwi is undertaken on individual stormwater projects with
letters sent directly to iwi as identified by local board boundaries that the
relevant project is located within. The assistance of iwi staff within Council has
assisted in getting more targeted consultation on individual projects.
In addition, at a regional level the Stormwater Unit notifies iwi about
forthcoming projects that are likely to require resource consent. Further
progress on keeping iwi informed of forthcoming projects is expected now that
the restructure of the Stormwater business is now complete. Early consultation
with relevant iwi allows identification and confirmation on whether a Cultural
Impact Assessments (CIA), is required and allows iwi early input into the
stormwater solution.
No new activities have been planned since the update provided on 27 March
2014.
$3,334,322 $2,395,847 $3,850,000

I
t
e
m

1
1

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Independent Mori Statutory Board - proposed Funding Agreement for the 2014/15 financial year Page 71

Independent Mori Statutory Board - proposed Funding Agreement for
the 2014/15 financial year

File No.: CP2014/07705

Purpose
1. To recommend the funding agreement for the Independent Mori Statutory Board (IMSB) for
the 2014/2015 financial year (2014/15FY).
Executive summary
2. Auckland Council and the IMSB are required each year to negotiate in good faith to make a
funding agreement on the amount of money and the level of servicing that the council is to
provide to the board.
3. On 27 February 2014 the Governing Body authorised Councillors Webster, Clow and
Cashmore to form a working party to conduct negotiations with the IMSB for the 2014/15
funding agreement.
4. Negotiations with the IMSB have resulted in a recommended basis for the 2014/15 funding
agreement. Key features of the recommended agreement are:
Board member remuneration has increased consistent with percentage increases
determined by the Remuneration Authority for elected members.
IMSB will directly fund staff previously seconded and funded by council. As a
consequence, councils staffing budget will be reduced.
Additional work monitoring progress against the IMSBs Issues of Significance and
supporting IMSBs participation in councils Long-term Plan (LTP) is anticipated in the
2014/15 FY and increased funding provision made for this.
Funding is included for IMSBs second Treaty Audit of the Auckland Council group.
5. A high level comparison with the 2013/14 funding agreement is as follows:
2013/2014 2014/2015
Direct funding to
IMSB
2,374,500
(opex and capex)
2,710,000
(opex- no capex)
Contribution from
other council
budgets
176,000
(seconded staff)
-
Total 2,551,000 2,710,000

6. In addition to the direct funding, the following amounts will be held within councils budget,
with an agreed sign-off process between council and IMSB for their expenditure:
$80,000 for legal expenses; and
$140,000 for Unitary Plan work.
7. The new sign off process will facilitate council and IMSB agreeing expenditure against these
allocated amounts. The resulting work will assist both parties and ensure that there is no
duplication of effort between the Council and the IMSB.

I
t
e
m

1
1

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Recommendation/s
a) note that the IMSB funding agreement political working party has negotiated a
recommended funding agreement for the 2014/15 FY with the IMSB.
b) endorse the recommended IMSB funding agreement for the 2014/15 FY.
c) recommend that the Governing Body adopt the proposed IMSB funding agreement
for the 2014/15 FY.
d) note that following adoption of the recommended agreement by the Governing Body
and the IMSB a funding agreement will be prepared for signing by the mayor and
councils chief executive and the IMSB chair and chief executive.

Comments

Background
8. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 established the IMSB with the following
purpose to assist the Auckland Council to make decisions, perform functions, and exercise
powers by:
(a) promoting cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for
mana whenua groups and mataawaka of Tmaki Makaurau; and
(b) ensuring that the council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the
Treaty of Waitangi.
9. The IMSB also has certain functions. These include:
a) Appointing a maximum of two persons to sit on each council committee that deals with
the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources
b) Appointing a person or persons to other committees if so invited to do so by council
c) Preparing, keeping up to date and prioritising a schedule of issues of significance to
mana whenua groups and mataawaka of Tmaki Makaurau
d) Working with Auckland Council on the design and execution of documents and
processes to implement the councils statutory responsibilities towards mana whenua
groups and mataawaka of Tmaki Makaurau.
10. The IMSB has appointed members to 15 of the councils 19 Governing Body committees.
11. The council has a number of responsibilities. These include:
e) Providing the board with information needed by the board to identify business of the
council that relates to the boards purpose
f) Consulting with the board on matters affecting mana whenua groups and mataawaka of
Tmaki Makaurau
g) Taking into account the boards advice
h) Appointing an independent expert to inform it of appropriate fees for members of the
board
i) Meeting the reasonable costs of the boards operation.
12. Auckland Council and the IMSB are required each year to negotiate in good faith to make a
funding agreement on the amount of money and the level of servicing that the council is to
provide to the board. The funding agreement must include, or make provision for:
the reasonable costs of IMSBs operations and secretariat;
I
t
e
m

1
1

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


IMSB seeking and obtaining advice and establishing committees;
IMSBs work plan for the year;
IMSB board members fees and reasonable expenses.
13. On 27 February 2014 the Governing Body authorised Councillors Webster, Clow and
Cashmore to form a working party to conduct negotiations with the IMSB for the 2014/15
funding agreement. These negotiations have resulted in a recommended basis for the
2014/15 funding agreement.
Key components of the recommended funding agreement for 2014/15
14. Total direct funding for IMSB for 2014/15 to be $2,710,000. The key components of the
recommended funding agreement are set out below.
15. IMSB board member remuneration increased as of November 2012 consistent with
percentage increases determined by the Remuneration Authority for elected members.
16. In the 2014/15 FY, IMSB will directly fund staff who were previously seconded to IMSB from
council. As a consequence, IMSBs salary budget has increased and councils staffing
budget will be reduced.
17. IMSBs work programme for the 2014/15 FY includes data collection and analysis of
wellbeing indicators associated with the IMSBs Issues of Significance; and work supporting
IMSBs participation in councils LTP process. The 2015-2025 LTP process provides a
significant opportunity for better alignment of outcomes in IMSBs Mori Plan/Issues of
Significance and councils LTP.
18. The Treaty Audit is a key IMSB work programme that assists the Auckland Council group to
identify areas for improvement and to effectively fulfill the IMSBs statutory purpose of
ensuring the council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the Treaty of
Waitangi. The first audit was completed in 2012 and the 2013/14 funding agreement
anticipated a second audit being undertaken in 2014/15. IMSB have engaged
PricewaterhouseCoopers to work with council to prepare the scope for the second Treaty
Audit. The new audit will be commissioned once the scoping process has been completed.
19. The funding agreement includes provision for IMSB to engage specialist Mori expertise to
assist council to progress certain key projects. The intention is to utilise this funding where
council does not have the necessary in-house expertise. In the previous two years, council
has held this funding within its own budget. In 2013 the budget for this was $160,000 and
council agreed its expenditure jointly with IMSB. The recommended 2014/15 FY funding
agreement includes $100,000 for this and IMSBs preference is to hold this funding within
their budget.
Other components of the recommended funding agreement for 2014/15
20. In addition to direct funding, the following amounts will be held within councils budget, with
an agreed sign-off process for their expenditure:
$80,000 for legal expenses; and
$140,000 for Unitary Plan work.
21. The new sign off process will facilitate council and IMSB agreeing expenditure against these
allocated amounts. The resulting work will assist both parties and ensure that there is no
duplication of effort between the Council and the IMSB.
22. The following council departments provide support services to IMSB:
Human Resources; Information Services; Finance; Accounting; Procurement; Treasury;
Property; Copy Centre/Mailroom; Records Management; Customer Services; Democracy
Services; Risk Management; Legal.
I
t
e
m

1
1

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


23. These support services will be listed in the funding agreement without an estimated dollar
value. There are no actual payments from IMSB to council for the services and overheads
are allocated through the annual plan process.
24. The following table reflects the recommended agreement and provides a comparison with
the 2013/14 agreement.

2013/2014
Agreement
Proposed
2014/2015
Refer
paragraph
Board
remuneration
and expenses

663,600 782,500 15

Secretarial Salaries 1,111,900 1,214,500 16

Expenses, including audit
fees 119,000 119,000

Professional
services
Legal, contractors, other
professional advice,
communications,
engagement and reporting
to Maori stakeholders. 190,000 264,000 17

Work program Te Tiriti o Waitangi Audit 140,000 160,000 18

Research, managing and
monitoring Mori Plan
outcomes 100,000 70,000

Specialist
Mori
expertise for
council
projects

0 100,000 19

Total direct
opex funding

2,324,500 2,710,000

CAPEX

50,000 0

Total direct
funding (opex
and capex)

2,374,500 2,710,000

Contribution
from other
council
budgets Seconded staff 176,500 0

Total direct
funding

2,551,000 2,710,000

I
t
e
m

1
1

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Consideration
25. Local boards have not been consulted as this has been a process of negotiation between
the Governing Body and the IMSB. However, the work resulting from the IMSB work
program and related council work programs impacts on local boards. For example,
engagement with Mori and consideration of the Mori outcomes priorities identified by the
IMSB are important in the development of the Local Board Plans.
26. The funding agreement supports the IMSB to give effect to its statutory purpose of
promoting cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for Mori in
Tmaki Makaurau; and ensuring that the council acts in accordance with statutory provisions
referring to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Implementation
27. Following adoption of the recommended agreement by the Governing Body and the IMSB a
funding agreement will be prepared for signing by the mayor and councils chief executive
and the IMSB chair and chief executive.

Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author Deborah James - Executive Officer
Authorisers Grant Taylor - Governance Director

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Local board advocacy Page 77

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Local board advocacy

File No.: CP2014/08662

Purpose
1. This report provides an update on local board advocacy areas to the governing body and
Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). Advocacy areas are areas for which local boards
do not have decision making responsibilities but reflect community needs and priorities
identified by the local boards through engagement processes.
Executive summary
2. The updated advocacy areas are a combination of some initiatives that local boards have
advocated for over the last 3 years and some new initiatives. They have been informed by
recent community engagement undertaken by the local boards on the 2014 local board
plans. A summary of all local board advocacy areas is attached.
3. The advocacy areas will form part of the local board plans, the strategic documents that
complement the Auckland Plan and will help inform the Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025.
4. The local board advocacy areas align well with the transformational shifts in the Auckland
Plan. The common advocacy areas across the local boards include:

Transport, including a well-connected and accessible public transport system, safe and
uncongested roads and road corridor planning
Access to safe walking and cycling routes for health and wellbeing, to enjoy and preserve
our green spaces and as an alternative means of transport to cars and public transport
Community development and safety, including adequate operating funds for community
centres and community facilitators, and reductions in alcohol, gambling and psychoactive
substances outlets
New and upgraded community facilities, particularly for growth areas, including community
centres, sports facilities, aquatic centres, arts and culture centres and libraries
Developing and implementing town centre and area plans and protecting our natural and
built heritage
Implementing local economic development plans including tourism initiatives
Environmental management such as weed and pest control and improving the quality of
our waterways
Ensuring that our communities have access to open spaces and parks and enabling local
boards to facilitate community led place shaping

5. Auckland Transport continues to have the greatest share of local board advocacy areas to
CCOs. Local boards see transport as key to unlocking economic development opportunities,
improving the quality of urban living and place shaping to create a community identity. In
large infrastructure projects local boards play an important role in not only advocating for
action on behalf of their communities but also bringing together the main stakeholders to
ensure that community led development occurs where possible.
6. Community facilities and community development has the greatest share of advocacy areas
to the governing body. This reflects the role of local boards in leading on community
development and placemaking. Local boards engage and empower their communities to
participate in local decision making and provide a range of activities, events and services
I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


that build community cohesion and identity. Through their advocacy areas local boards are
voicing a concern that more planning should occur for social infrastructure in growth areas.
7. Key advocacy points were covered in the governing body and local board discussions on 29
and 30 April. In addition to the common themes mentioned above, local boards raised the
importance of the local board funding policy, planning effectively for growth, the need to
address service level equity issues and some service delivery issues, and role that local
procurement can play in achieving local outcomes.

8. This report provides a summary of advocacy areas where there is an element of
commonality across local boards. Attachment A contains all current advocacy areas to the
governing body by local boards. Attachment B contains all the current local board advocacy
areas to CCOs. A resolution of the Strategy and Finance Committee in September 2013
requested that CCOs consider reporting to local boards on their advocacy plans.

Recommendation/s
a) note:
i) the advocacy areas to the governing body and CCOs that local boards have
identified for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 as set out in Attachments A
and B.
ii) that the advocacy areas, read in conjunction with local board plans, reflect the
priorities for the communities that local boards represent, and therefore should
inform the development of the Long-term Plan 2015 2025.

b) request that council and CCO staff continue to work with local boards to progress
advocacy areas during the 2014/2015 financial year and that CCOs consider reporting
to local boards on their advocacy plans.

Comments
9. Local boards have a statutory requirement to engage with their communities and are well
placed to understand their communitys priorities and aspirations. The advocacy role of local
boards is key to informing the governing body, CCOs, council departments and external
agencies of local priorities.
10. Local boards have been identifying advocacy areas through community engagement on
Council planning processes (local board plans, annual plans and long-term plan) and
ongoing dialogue with their communities. These advocacy areas have been refined through
political meetings, business meetings, workshops and informal processes since
establishment.
11. The updated advocacy areas are a combination of some initiatives that local boards have
advocated for over the last 3 years and some new initiatives. At their April meetings, local
boards confirmed an updated list of advocacy areas for CCOs and the governing body for
inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015.
12. The complete set of local board advocacy is extensive, with over 500 specific issues
identified across all local boards. Analysis of the key themes identified across all local board
advocacy is provided below. Attachment A contains all current advocacy areas to the
governing body by local boards. Attachment B contains all the current local board advocacy
areas to CCOs.

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


13. The key themes have been grouped under the transformational shifts of the Auckland Plan.
Some contribute to more than one transformational shift but have been placed under one for
presentation purposes.

Dramatically accelerate the prospects of Aucklands children and young people
14. Local boards have a strong sense of responsibility to the children and young people of their
communities. Most local boards are working with local youth advisory forums on youth led
engagement approaches. This engagement results in community facilities that meet the
needs of children and young people and initiatives that build a sense of belonging and
identity. A common advocacy area is for new or upgraded community facilities, including
community centres, parks, libraries, sports facilities and pools, arts and music centres. Local
boards also stress the importance of adequate operating funds for these facilities.
15. Another focus area for local boards is working with community groups and external agencies
to deliver programmes to foster wellbeing and capacity building. This model of community
development follows an international trend which enables local government to both deliver
more with less and increase community engagement. An engaged, cohesive community is
more likely to provide for the needs of its children and young people. Ongoing funding to
support community groups and community led engagement is important for this sustainable
approach to building strong communities.
16. Educational opportunities, youth employment and training opportunities are also common
advocacy areas with local boards asking for secure funding for Youth Connections.
17. The impact of alcohol, gambling and psychoactive substances on communities continues to
be a concern for local boards particularly those in the south, with many advocating for
sinking lid policies in these areas.

Strongly commit to environmental action and green growth
18. Core to Aucklands liveability is its stunning natural environment and coastline. Local boards
are keen that access to and quality of these are not lost with population growth and
development. Most Auckland communities have people who are passionate about
protecting our environment and prepared to volunteer their time. Local boards are active in
working with these volunteers, external agencies and iwi, who have a kaitiaki role, to deliver
significant environmental programmes. This work often brings the communities together and
creates a sense of pride and belonging.
19. Management of the environment is a key advocacy area for many boards with particular
focus on weed and pest control. Some boards have emphasised the need for more regional
and local collaboration along with continuing support for community groups that contribute to
environmental outcomes. In addition to council departments, CCOs are seen to play an
important role, such as Auckland Transport for roadside weed control.
20. Many local boards advocate for improved management of our waterways, particularly the
Manukau harbour, although lagoons, streams and lakes are also mentioned. Most
advocacy areas relate to managing the input into waterways although some also relate to
weed control, daylighting of streams and beach restoration. Waiheke Local Board are
advocating for the establishment of marine reserves.

Move to outstanding public transport within one network
21. Local boards fully support the transformational shift that aims to move to outstanding public
transport within one network. Transport continues to be a significant advocacy area for local
boards due to the role that transport plays in moving people and goods efficiently,
connecting communities and supporting urban living. The importance of co-ordinated
infrastructure planning across external agencies, particularly in growth areas, and the role of
I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


local boards in facilitating community input is emphasised by a number of local boards in
their transport advocacy points.
Access to well-connected and affordable public transport is the most prevalent area of
transport advocacy for local boards. Local boards would like to see:
Connected public transport through frequent feeder services and the provision of
new or improved park and rides, such as at Glen Eden, Paerata, Drury, Silverdale,
Manurewa, Homai, Puhinui, Papakura and Takanini
Increased bus services and reviewed bus routes
Rail and bus station and ferry terminal upgrades taking into account urban design
and community led place shaping
Strategic direction provided for water transport and increased ferry services. This
includes determining ownership and management responsibilities for the Port Fitzroy
wharf on Great Barrier.
22. The prioritisation of specific road projects feature highly with key projects including road
sealing (Great Barrier and Rodney), development of specific routes or initiatives, plans to
reduce congestion, improved interchanges and better connections between state highways.
The importance of roads for economic development is also raised such as roads for quarries
and linking business areas. The impact of road development on the community is a common
theme including the role of road corridors in place shaping, ensuring community involvement
in infrastructure project planning, considering urban design and safety.
23. Many local boards are advocating for transport safety initiatives in their communities
including safer rural roads and rail crossings, ensuring safe pedestrian and cycle routes and
traffic calming measures, such as slow speed zones.

Cycling and walking
24. Providing access to safe and enjoyable walkways and cycleways for wellbeing and
recreation or for transport is a key area of focus for local board advocacy action plans.
25. For some local boards the focus is on providing and promoting an alternative mode of
transport to cars and public transport. This may include safe pathways along key commuter
routes with features such as over-bridges. Walkways and cycleways can contribute to
outstanding public transport within one network by ensuring connectivity with public transport
such as providing lockers and bike racks at stations and terminals. Some local boards also
see promoting cycling and walking as a means to ease congestion on the roads.
26. For other local boards the focus is on community wellbeing and recreation in addition to the
environmental benefits of providing an ecological corridor alongside a pathway.
27. With the majority of local boards adopting, or in the process of developing, greenways plans,
this is a shared initiative that local boards are seeking support for from the governing body.
28. These initiatives tend to link pathways across parks and open spaces with pathways built
into existing or developing transport infrastructure. As such the development of these paths
may involve teams in transport, parks, environmental and planning areas working together.
There is also potential for pathways to cross a number of local board areas creating a
network of greenways routes across Auckland.
29. Local board chairs have met to discuss how to progress greenways including the potential
for collaborative working between local boards.
30. The Governing Body could assist with progressing this area through:
Providing resource for a co-ordinated approach which brings all the stakeholders
together, enables learnings to be shared across local board areas and connects
pathways across local board areas where appropriate.
I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Providing funding for pathways, possibly through a regional fund, particularly where
development is outside of transport infrastructure and therefore not covered by the
Auckland Transport Capital Fund.

Radically improve the quality of urban living
31. Quality urban living is at the heart of what local boards do, which makes them crucial to the
delivery of this transformational shift. Their role brings together both the physical and social
dynamics of urban living with a strong emphasis on creating resilient, inclusive and thriving
communities. Local boards important placemaking role helps bring together communities,
council departments, CCOs and external agencies to encourage community led planning
and development.

Community development and facilities
32. Community development and safety is fundamental to the role of local boards to foster
strong, cohesive communities. An overarching focus of local boards is to develop
community cohesion through building a sense of identity and belonging. The advocacy areas
relating to these points span a wide variety of issues from safety initiatives to increased
support for Citizens Advice Bureau.
33. The need for new or upgraded community hubs that are adequately funded is an important
issue for local boards. There are a number of requests for increased operating budgets
including funding for community facilitators. Local boards see this as sustainable investment
which builds capacity in the community through enabling community groups to deliver more.
34. An emerging advocacy area is funding to support migrant communities including requests
for regional funding for Auckland Regional Migrant Services Trust.
35. Sports facilities are a key area for many local boards with a focus on Auckland maintaining
world class facilities. Advocacy points include upgrading existing facilities, the acquisition of
land for new facilities and the development of specialist centres such as a table tennis centre
in Waitemata and equestrian facilities in Henderson Massey.
36. Aquatic Centres are seen as an important community facility with local boards advocating for
new pools in areas such as Beachlands, Waiheke, Westgate and Warkworth or upgrades of
pools. Henderson-Massey Local Board are advocating for schools to be supported in
making their pools available to the wider community.
37. The majority of advocacy areas for arts and culture relate to continued or increased support
for existing facilities. Manurewa Local Board are advocating for a music and arts centre to
nurture young and budding artists and Rodney Local Board is advocating for more arts
centres across the local board area.
38. Local boards see libraries as an important community service which builds community
identity and cohesiveness. Some boards are advocating for new libraries, a number of local
boards are advocating for extensions to mobile library services or existing libraries. More
digital services available at libraries, including enhanced internet connectivity and wireless,
is another advocacy area.

Planning and infrastructure
39. Local boards play a central role in planning to ensure that development reflects the
aspirations of the local community. Increased focus on planning is seen as essential to
ensure a holistic, co-ordinated approach to radically improving the quality of urban living.
40. A number of local boards have advocated for support in the development or delivery of area
plans or precinct plans including Albert-Eden Area Plan, Henderson Lincoln Rd Area Plan,
I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Howick development planning, Hobson Bay Action Plan, Mission Bay Precinct Plan, Otara-
Papatoetoe Area Plan, Papakura, Stoddard Road/May Road development plans, Three
Kings Precinct Plan, Matiatia Master Plan, Aotea Quarter Plan, Waitemata Area Plan and
Rodney Area Plan.
41. Thriving town and metro centres are seen by local boards as important for social, economic
and cultural reasons. Local boards are advocating for support in developing and
implementing town centre plans for growth areas or revitalising town centres or main streets.
42. The need for social and physical infrastructure planning for growth areas is another concern
for a number of local boards. Social infrastructure includes community centres and facilities
such as libraries or sports fields. Physical infrastructure refers to transport or water services.
43. A number of local boards have advocated for a greater proportion of development and
financial contributions to be invested in the local area where the fees are raised, to enable
the impacts of growth to be offset.
44. Maintaining built and natural heritage is a priority area for a number of boards who are
advocating for support in developing heritage assessments or funding for the preservation of
specific heritage sites.
45. Affordable housing and housing for the elderly is an area of concern for some boards who
are advocating that this be considered in planning for Special Housing Areas. Other boards
are focusing on the importance of quality urban design in housing development.
46. A number of local boards have advocacy requests for prioritisation of stormwater and waste
water projects including to address flooding issues.
47. Other advocacy points relating to water services include the provision of water to rural
communities and the relocation of filling stations.

Parks, open spaces and recreation
48. A number of boards have advocated for the purchase of land for parks and open spaces,
particularly in growth areas.
49. Some local boards have asked for reserve or park management plans to be reviewed to
enable local boards to lead on community development and placemaking.
50. Local boards are keen to ensure that their communities continue to have access to open
spaces and harbours with particular focus on managing this in areas of development.
Advocacy areas include ensuring that boat access and dredging maintain recreational use of
the harbours of Auckland.
51. The development of walkways through our open spaces and foreshores is a common
advocacy point, this is linked to the cycling and walking section above with a focus on the
recreational use of our open spaces to promote health and wellbeing. These initiatives are
often connected with the aspiration for better environmental management of these
ecologically important areas.

Substantially raise living standards for all Aucklanders and focus on those most in need
52. Local economic development is a focus for local boards who aim to increase local
prosperity, raise living standards and provide opportunities for young people. Another key
driver is to provide the option for people to work closer to home.
53. A number of local boards have advocated for more support for local economic development,
including for local tourism. This is particularly important for areas further away from the city
centre.
54. Local boards have prioritised discretionary funding to develop local economic development
plans, tourism plans or visitor strategies. These plans reflect the needs and opportunities of
the local communities and contribute to the overall economic development objective
I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


articulated in the Economic Development Strategy. As local boards move into delivery, many
encounter difficulties in implementing the actions, due to limited support and discretionary
funding. Local boards are advocating for more support for local economic development.
55. Economic development advocacy areas include identifying and supporting growth sectors
and developing local investment attraction strategies. Specific tourism advocacy areas
relate to the promotion of local areas through the development of visitors centres and the
availability of tourism information. Some local boards support the current prioritisation of
specific initiatives such as innovation precincts and fast broadband.
56. While the specific needs of local boards in economic and tourism development vary greatly
from board to board, there is a need to clarify how projects are prioritised, and to clarify how
delivery is supported by the council departments and ATEED.

Significantly lift Mori social and economic wellbeing
57. Many local boards are further building on their relationships with iwi and see them as an
important partner, in particular some local boards are exploring options for enhancing Mori
input into local board decision making. Working with Mori ratepayers and residents is also
important for many boards; they support urban marae and work with them on community
wellbeing initiatives.
58. The importance placed by many boards on engaging with the local Mori population means
that the advocacy areas discussed above will inherently impact on this transformational shift.
For example initiatives such as Youth Connections often target young Mori and some local
economic development plans have a particular focus on opportunities for Mori.
Consideration
59. This report summarises local board advocacy areas for 2014/2015 as consulted on as part
of the draft annual plan. Local boards are currently drafting the 2014 local board plans,
which are also likely to reflect the advocacy areas in this report. The local board plans will in
turn inform the Long-term Plan 2015 2025.
60. Many local board decisions are of importance to Mori and continuing to build relationships
with mana whenua and Mori residents and rate payers is an ongoing focus. The recent
informal engagement on draft local boards plans included innovative and successful
approaches to engaging with iwi through joint hui. Particular areas of focus for local boards
engagement and partnership work with mana whenua and Mori residents and rate payers
include environmental management, community development and economic development.
Implementation
61. The Mayor has signalled that the Long-term Plan 2015 2025 provides an opportunity to
review the focus of council activities to better align with delivery of the Auckland Plan. The
local board advocacy areas as well as other local strategic priorities developed in the local
board plans will be an important component of the Long-term Plan discussions.

Attachments
No. Title Page
A Local board advocacy to governing body 85
B Local board advocacy to CCO's and external agencies 107

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Signatories
Authors Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards
Karen Titulaer Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services
Authorisers Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
2

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Budget Update Page 127

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Budget Update

File No.: CP2014/08787

Purpose
1. To provide an update on the budget context and related issues to inform the mayoral-led
process of deciding on the final budgets for 2014/2015 on 8 May 2014.
2. This report is a revised version of a report to 27 March 2014 Budget Committee meeting
which provided a preliminary view of the budget context prior to regional hearings on the
draft annual plan.
Executive summary
3. The current long-term plan sets out a programme of significant capital investment to help
achieve the Auckland Plan.
4. The long-term plan also identifies the funding streams and efficiency savings necessary to
support councils delivery of core services alongside the capital investment programme in a
way which is affordable for current ratepayers and financially sustainable for future
ratepayers.
5. The Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 represented an update and refinement of year three of the
Long-term Plan 2012-2022 (LTP).
6. Since the adoption of the Draft Annual Plan, budgets have been refreshed to better reflect
the true cost of delivering the activities and projects planned for 2014/2015. Performance
measures and targets, and schedules of user fees and charges have also been reviewed.
7. A total of 1,967 public submissions were received on the draft annual plan with a sizeable
number commenting on the councils financial strategy, expenditure levels and proposed
rates increases. A number of these submissions were requests for additional funding.
8. Projected capital expenditure for the group for 2014/2015 has been revised down by about
$80 million to $1.70 billion. Along with the return of capital from Auckland Airport and capex
reductions for 2013/2014, this has resulted in the projected net debt for the group at 30 June
2015 being revised down by about $120 million to $7.31 billion.
9. Since adoption of the draft plan, council has approved $4.4 million of additional expenditure.
In addition, about $20 million of additional cost pressures have been identified including:
a budget shortfall for Auckland Transport with a rates impact of $15.6 million. This
budget shortfall is primarily driven by lower projections of public transport revenue as a
result of lower than expected patronage, and lower than anticipated car parking revenue
additional expenditure requirements relating to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
budget shortfalls for Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED),
Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL) and Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).

10. The 2.4 per cent average rates increase proposed in the draft annual plan
2
can still be
achieved after accommodating all of these cost pressures due to a range of favourable
budget movements including:
higher projected dividends for Ports of Auckland
interest savings associated with the capital return from Auckland Airport
Auckland Transport deferring $50 million of capital expenditure

2
The proposed average rates increase of 2.4 per cent refers to the average across all ratepayers. As a result of the councils long-
term differential strategy, the average increase for business ratepayers is 0 per cent and the average for residential and other ratepayer
groups is 3.6 per cent.
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


changing the approach to funding the future replacement of Auckland Transports
Electric Motor Units to better align this with the approach to replacing other assets
Waterfront Auckland paying a one-off dividend to return higher than expected after-tax
earnings back to the council parent
proposed increases in parking charges for the Central Business District.
11. The final average rates increase for 2014/2015 could range between 2.4 and 2.7 per cent,
depending on the decisions council makes on the following discretionary items:
$2.5 million of cross-council economic development initiatives proposed to be led by
Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED)
$1.8 million of additional funding for The Southern Initiative
$365,000 of additional democracy services support for the Advisory Panels
$150,000 for Waitakere Ranges possum control as referred from the February 2014
Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.
12. Looking ahead to 2015/2016, we are currently projecting budget pressures of about $30
million which would need to be addressed to achieve the 4.9 per cent average rates
increase projected for that year in the current Long-term Plan. This is primarily the result of
a lower than anticipated increases in public transport revenue combined with the impact of
the electric trains become operational earlier than previously anticipated.
13. The lagged impact of changes in the capital programme on operating budgets mean that it
would be very challenging to significantly lower the average rates increase for 2015/2016 by
cutting capital expenditure in that year.
14. One option to mitigate the high projected average rates increase for 2015/2016 would be to
reduce or defer capital expenditure during the 2014/2015 financial year. While there is not
sufficient time to undertake another full review of capital expenditure budgets in time for the
adoption of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, such a review could be undertaken over the next
few months as part of the Long-term Plan work programme.
15. If council were to target a $300 million reduction or deferral of capital expenditure in
2014/2015, then the rates requirement for 2015/2016 could be reduced by approximately
$23 million as a result of lower interest and depreciation costs.
16. Auckland Transport has proposed some material changes to their performance targets for
public transport patronage and customer satisfaction.
17. Once this committee has decided on the final budgets for the Annual Plan 2014/2015
officers will prepare the annual plan document (incorporating 21 Local Boards Agreements)
for agreement and adoption by 30 June 2014.

Recommendation/s
Staff have not made any recommendations on changes to budgets or performance
measures in this report as it is the Mayors role to lead the budget process.

Discussion

Background
Investing in Auckland
18. The Long-term Plan 2012-2022 (LTP) set out a programme of significant investment in
Auckland, with an average of $1.15 billion to be spent on new assets for the first three years.
19. Some of the key capital project budgets included over the three year period were:
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


$528 million for local activities, including local parks, libraries and cultural, community,
and recreation facilities
$461 million for the City Rail Link
$323 million to purchase electric trains
$184 million for the Panmure transport corridor as part of the Auckland-Manukau
Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI)
$58 million to upgrade the Albany Highway
$31 million to develop cycleways
$154 million for the Hunua Number 4 water supply scheme
$49 million for North Shore trunk sewer upgrades
$35 million for strategic property developments.

20. Total assets were projected to increase by $6 billion over the first three years of the long-
term plan and be $41.7 billion at 30 June 2015.
21. The LTP also sets out the councils strategy and policies for funding this investment, based
on the key principles of fairness, prudence, affordability and efficiency.
22. Debt is used to fund investment in new assets after netting off other sources of capital
funding specific to those assets such as subsidies and development contributions. Asset
sales are used to reduce the overall level of debt and consequential operating costs. The
use of debt to fund new assets promotes the principle of fairness as the benefits from those
assets are spread over time.
23. In accordance with the principle of prudence, the LTP included limits on its borrowing to
maintain debt at a sustainable level and provide flexibility to deal with unforeseen events.
While debt was projected to increase substantially over the 10 year period of the plan, it was
projected to remain within prudent levels in comparison to the councils income and able to
be managed within the limits on rates and debt.
24. Net debt was projected to increase by $2.7 billion over the first three years of the long-term
plan and be $7.5 billion at 30 June 2015.
25. The following chart shows the projected movements in assets and net debt over these three
years:

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015
26. The Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 represented an update and refinement of year three of the
long-term plan, focusing on maintaining the momentum generated over the first two years of
the LTP.
27. The capital programme for the council group in the draft annual plan was as follows:
$ million 2014/15
New works 1,230
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Renewals 550
Total capex 1,780

28. To help fund the $1,230 million investment in new assets, net debt for the group was
projected to increase by $920 million. As a result, net debt at 30 June 2015 was projected to
be $7.4 billion, just slightly lower than the LTP projection.
29. The groups sizeable capital investment programme has resulted in depreciation and interest
expense growing much faster than the rate of inflation.
30. Over the first three years of the long-term plan, depreciation was projected to grow at an
average rate of 7 per cent per annum while interest expense was projected to grow by an
average rate of 16 per cent per annum. This means that the capital investment programme
places considerable pressure on operating budgets.
31. These cost pressures, along with $17 million of new cost pressures related to increasing
customer expectations and additional legislative compliance requirements, were able to be
accommodated in the draft annual plan with a projected 2.4 per cent average rates increase
through the identification of further efficiency savings.
32. Auckland Transport signaled an $18 million budget shortfall for 2014/2015, in part driven by
lower projections of public transport revenue as a result of lower than expected patronage.
However, no provision was made for covering this shortfall in the draft annual plan. Instead,
the mayor proposed holding robust discussion with the board and senior staff on the
underlying issues before considering any increases in funding.

Budget refresh
33. Since the adoption of the draft annual plan, budgets have been refreshed to better reflect the
true cost of delivering the activities and projects planned for 2014/2015. Performance
measures and targets, and schedules of user fees and charges have also been reviewed.
34. The following sections present the key results from this budget refresh, along with other new
information such as the results from the analysis of public submissions.

Public submissions
35. A total of 1,967 public submissions were received on the draft annual plan. These
submissions have been analysed and the following key points are noted:
81 submissions commented on the councils financial strategy, with 38 of these
specifically commenting that the proposed expenditure was too high and 22 of these
specifically commenting on debt being too high
53 submissions commented on rates, with 44 specifically commenting that the proposed
rates increase was too high
51 submissions opposed the proposed 5 per cent increase in charges for social housing
on the basis of affordability
48 submissions requested annual funding for Massive Theatre Company and funding to
assist them with finding a home
7 submissions requested additional funding to support Auckland Sport in implementing
their priority actions identified in the Sports and Recreation Strategic Action Plan
a submission was received from Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board for reserve
maintenance and development under the new co-governance arrangements
25 other submissions requested funding for other various arts, culture, community and
sports organisations.

36. Of the 25 general funding request submissions received, 13 of these were for local board
consideration as they related to services determined by the local boards. The remaining 12
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


requests plus the requests for the Massive Theatre Company, Auckland Sport and Ngati
Whatua Orakei Reserves Board, have been summarised and included in Attachment A,
together with staff commentary on any current context around the particular requests.
37. For those submissions requesting specific amounts, the total capital grant funding requested
was $1,421,316 and the total operational funding requested was $576,000 in respect of the

Capital budgets and debt levels
38. The capital budgets and debt levels set out in this section are generally unchanged from
those reported on 27 March. The one exception is the proposed new capex for animal
management services, where a proposal to in-house some services has already been
agreed to by the Finance and Performance Committee on 16 April, while the proposals to
co-locate other services has been deferred to the next long-term plan.
39. The budget refresh process has resulted in projected 2014/2015 gross capital expenditure
for the group of about $1.90 billion. This figure represents the sum of the individual capital
projects in the plan. Because we assume that about $200 million of these projects will not
be delivered during 2014/2015, we are projecting that $1.70 million will actually be spent in
that year. Later in this report we discuss the option of further reducing capex delivery for
2014/2015.
40. The revised $1.70 million projection for capital expenditure is about $80 million lower than
the $1.78 billion in the draft plan. This is primarily the result of:
Colin Maiden Park being acquired in 2013/2014 rather than 2014/2015
deferral of land acquisitions for the City Rail Link
capital expenditure deferrals for Watercare and Waterfront Auckland.

These reductions were partially offset by:
$57 million of proposed additional capex for Ports of Aucklands commercial operations
$9.5 million of proposed new capex for integrated bylaw implementation
$5 million proposed capex timing change for ACPLs Yard 37 development at
Hobsonville Point
$2 million of agreed new capex to in-house some animal management services
$1.5 million of proposed additional capex for ATEEDs fit out of the Wynyard Quarter
Innovation Precinct and $200,000 for a mobile i-SITE.
$0.4 million of proposed new capex for animal management services for asset renewals
and minor upgrades to support day-to-day operations.

41. In addition to the net reduction in projected capex for 2014/2015, the groups borrowing
requirement has also reduced as a net result of:
deferral of city rail link property acquisitions from 2013/2014
the return of capital from Auckland Airport
lower projections for weathertightness claims
partially offset by lower development contributions and reduced capital revenue from
Yard 37.

42. Overall, if all the proposed additional capital expenditure is approved, the closing net debt
balance for 2014/2015 would now be about $7.31 billion, which is about $120 million lower
than the $7.43 billion in the draft plan.
43. Given the commercial nature of the proposed additional $57 million capex for Ports of
Auckland, no detail is included in this report. Whether or not to proceed with this investment
is a commercial investment decision for the board of Ports of Auckland. Given the scale of
the investment, Auckland Council Investments Limited will discuss this when they present
their 2014/2015 budget submission at the Budget Committee on 5 May.
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Operating budgets
44. On 27 March we reported on $25 million of cost pressures and funding requests not
provided for in the draft annual plan, along with $9 million of mitigating items. We therefore
advised that further mitigating budget movement of about $16 million would need to be
identified over the following six weeks to achieve the average rates increase of 2.4 per cent
proposed in the draft annual plan.
45. Following further work on cost pressures and mitigating items we now advise that all cost
pressures can be accommodated with a 2.4 per cent average rates increase for 2014/2015.
However, there are still some funding requests which could require a higher average rates if
council decides to approve those requests.
46. An average rates increase of 2.4 per cent refers to the average across all ratepayers. The
councils long-term differential strategy reduces the rates burden on business payers and
increases it on other ratepayer groups. For 2014/2015 the reduction in the differential from
2.53 to 2.43 will shift $11.1 million of rates requirements to other differential groups. An
overall 2.4 per cent average increase for 2014/2015 will mean that the average increase for
business ratepayers of 0 per cent and an average for residential and other ratepayer groups
of 3.6 per cent.

Approved budget changes
47. Since the draft annual plan was adopted, council has approved budget changes that
increase the rates requirement for 2014/2015 by about $4.4 million as follows:
Organisation Budget item
Rates
requirement
$000
Auckland Council

Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel
-agreed by the Budget Committee on 27 March
3,140
Unitary Plan geographical information systems
-agreed by the Budget Committee on 27 March
730
Decisions of the Finance and Performance committee
-primarily the interest impact of decisions to spend
additional operating expenditure in 2013/2014
575
Total 4,445

Additional cost pressures
48. Overall $20 million of additional cost pressures have been identified which were not provided
for in the draft annual plan, but which could now be accommodated with a 2.4 per cent
average rates increase. A full breakdown of these cost pressures is set out in the following
table:
Rates
requirement
$000
Auckland Council Independent Maori Statutory Board
-a separate report on this agenda proposes a funding
agreement that is higher than the existing budget
provision for 2014/2015
150
Removal of commercial revenue budget in relation to the
redevelopment of the Pioneer Women's and Ellen
Melville Hall
140
Consequential opex associated with the new capex for
implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme
310
Auckland Transport Budget shortfall primarily due to lower than anticipated
increases in public transport and parking revenue
15,600
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


(before any increases to parking charges)
ATEED Budget shortfall due to Foodbowl contractual
commitments
1,000
Additional depreciation funding requirement for Wynyard
Quarter Innovation Precinct
210
Auckland Council
Properties Limited

Yard 37 (Hobsonville Point) rate funded interest expense
increase due to timing change
400
Budget shortfall due to changes to the property portfolio 860
Overstatement of the Whitford Quarry surplus in ACPL
and Auckland Council
850
RFA Budget shortfall due to the ongoing costs of operating
the upgraded Auckland Art Gallery
1,000
Total 20,520

49. Investment proposals and supporting information for each of these items, as well as the
proposed increases in capital expenditure outlined above, is included as Attachment B.
50. A separate report on this agenda addresses the funding agreement for the Independent
Maori Statutory Board. A separate report on local board budgets addresses the item
related to the redevelopment of the Pioneer Women's and Ellen Melville Hall.

Mitigating items
51. These cost pressures are fully mitigated by the following items that have not yet been
included in the annual plan budgets:
Organisation Budget contribution
Rates
requirement
$000
Auckland Council

Lower funding agreements for Auckland Regional
Amenities, Auckland War Memorial Museum and
MOTAT than provided for in the draft annual plan.
920
Additional revenue from Greenmount landfill 600
Additional revenue from Penlink forestry revenue 600
Changed treatment of property development funding 990
Auckland Council
Investments Limited
Interest savings from Auckland Airport capital return 4,750
Enhanced dividends from Ports of Auckland, net of
reduced 2014/2015 dividend from Auckland Airport
4,700
Auckland Transport Increased parking charges in the CBD for both on-street
and off-street parking. This will bring the charges for
council owned parking buildings more into line with
prices currently charged by private operators.
5,500
Deferring $50 million of capital expenditure 2,500
In-sourcing roading professional services 500
Public transport contract reviews 500
Change to funding approach for asset replacement of
electric trains
1,500
Waterfront Auckland One-off dividend to return higher than expected after-tax
earnings back to the council parent
3,000
Total 26,060

52. These mitigating items are just slightly higher than the sum of approved changes and
additional cost pressures outlined above, providing capacity to accommodate about $1
million of new funding requests while maintaining the average rates increase at 2.4 per cent.

New funding requests
53. The following funding requests have been put forward for council to consider when deciding
on the final budgets for the 2014/2015 annual plan:
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Rates
requirement
$000
Auckland Council

Additional funding for The Southern Initiative (TSI) 1,800
Democracy services support for advisory panels 365
Waitakere Ranges possum control
-referred from the February 2014 Regional Strategy
and Policy Committee meeting
150
ATEED Establishment of an Auckland Investment Office (AIO) 1,300
Developing global brand positioning for Auckland 500
Commercial partnerships (Partnerships for Auckland) 500
Additional funding to support the Skypath project 160
Total 4,775

54. Investment proposals and supporting information for each of these items are included as
Attachment C, along with ATEEDs new capex funding request for a mobile i-SITE.
55. If council agrees to accommodate these or any other funding requests then an average rates
increase for 2014/2015 may be required that is higher than the 2.4 per cent proposed in the
draft annual plan.

Other potential budget issues
56. At this stage the following potential budget issues have been excluded from the annual plan
projections:
the funding requests from public submissions outlined above
local board advocacy items
additional funding for the development of the Maunga and other reserves under new co-
governance arrangements
additional funding for the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust
the cost of inspecting and strengthening of any council owned earthquake-prone
buildings
the possible outcomes of the CCO review.

57. Two separate reports on this agenda address local board advocacy items and local board
budget issues.

Looking ahead
58. On 26 March, we provided the results of financial modelling in response to the mayoral
direction for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. The primary conclusion from that modelling
was that it will be a significant challenge to reduce the projected future average rates
increase from 4.9 per cent per annum to 2.5 or 3.5 per cent. We discussed four available
options available for addressing that challenge:
i. Reducing or deferring capital expenditure
ii. Reducing service levels
iii. Increasing non-rates revenue
iv. Further efficiency savings and/or more sales of surplus assets
59. A secondary conclusion was that it would not be possible to reduce the average rates
increase for 2015/2016 (the first year of the new plan) down to these levels solely by
reducing or deferring capital expenditure in that particular year.
60. We are currently projecting budget pressures of about $30 million which would need to be
addressed to achieve the 4.9 per cent average rates increase projected for that year in the
current Long-term Plan. This is mainly due to lower than anticipated increases in public
transport revenue, slightly lower projected growth in the rating base, and higher interest
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


funding requirements associated with the electric trains becoming operational earlier than
previously anticipated.
61. The lagged impact of changes in the capital programme on operating budgets mean that it
will not be possible to significantly lower the average rates increase for that particular year
by cutting capital expenditure in the 2015-2025 period of the next Long-term Plan.
62. One option to mitigate the high projected average rates increase for 2015/2016 would be to
reduce or defer capital expenditure during the 2014/2015 financial year. While there is not
sufficient time to undertake another full review of capital expenditure budgets in time for the
adoption of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, such a review could be undertaken over the next
few months as part of the Long-term Plan work programme.
63. If council were to target a net $300 million reduction or deferral of rates funded capital
expenditure in 2014/2015, then the rates requirement for 2015/2016 could be reduced by
approximately $23 million as a result of lower interest and depreciation costs.
64. This $300 million reduction or deferral would be in addition to the $200 million under-delivery
already factored into the annual plan projections. It would mean delivering $1.40 billion of
the individual capex projects which total $1.90 billion.

Performance measures and targets
65. As part of continuous improvement, Auckland Council departments and the CCOs have
undertaken further reviews on the current performance measures and targets since the draft
annual plan.
66. Following this review, Auckland Transport has proposed adjustments to their public transport
patronage and customer satisfaction targets for 2014/2015. These proposed changes are
outlined below.
67. In addition, some minor changes are proposed to some measures and targets across the
council group. These are set out in Attachment D. These changes range from minor
wording changes to the addition of one new measure for road quality.
68. As part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, council departments and
CCOs are undertaking detailed reviews of their measures. The focus is to ensure that
measures are relevant and provide the community with meaningful information about how
successfully the council group delivers services.
Auckland Transport public transport patronage
69. Auckland Transport have proposed changes to their public transport patronage targets for
2014/2015 based on current results that are lower than previously anticipated.
Measure
Actual
2012/13
Annual
Plan
target
2013/14
Rolling
12
months
to March
2014
Draft
Annual
Plan
target
2014/15
Proposed
Annual
Plan
target
2014/15
Rapid Transit Network rail boardings
per annum (000's)
10,039 14,423 11,051 13,041 12,100
Rapid Transit Network busway
boardings per annum (000's)
2,279 2,618 2,371 2,588 2,511
Quality Transit Network and Local
Connector Network bus boardings per
annum (000's)
51,251 56,305 52,430 56,627 53,695
Ferry boardings per annum (000's) 5,506 5,744 5,149 5,899 5,940
Total 69,075 79,090 71,001 78,155 74,246

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


70. The proposed target for 2014/2015 represents a 9 per cent increase on the rolling 12 month
result to March 2014, compared with an 18 per cent increase projected in the draft annual
plan.
71. These proposed targets are aligned to Auckland Transports revised revenue projections.
72. As Statement of Intent measures, Auckland Transport has proposed changes for the three
years from 2014/2015 to 2016/2017. The proposed changes beyond 2014/2015 are set out
in Attachment E. While significant annual increases are proposed for the following two
years, the proposed increases will not catch up to patronage targets previously anticipated
for 2016/2017.

Auckland Transport customer satisfaction
73. Auckland Transport has proposed an amendment to their 2014/2015 targets to reflect
removal of neutral responses from the satisfaction targets. In calculating historical targets,
Auckland Transport had included neutral in the targets. This also follows a change in survey
methodology from a 5-point scale to an 11-point scale.
74. Targets now reflect the new methodology and recent results using the new scale. The
reduction in these targets is primarily due to the change of methodology.
75. It is also proposed that percentage of residents satisfied with the quality of footpaths in their
local area be removed in order to keep in line with other transport customer measures.
Customer perceptions of the quality of footpaths in the Auckland region inevitably cover the
perceptions of footpaths in their local area.
Measure
Actual
2012/13
Annual
Plan
target
2013/14
Draft
Annual
Plan
target
2014/15
Proposed
Annual
Plan
target
2014/15
Percentage of public transport
passengers satisfied with their PT service
85% 87% 87% 83%
Percentage of residents satisfied with the
quality of roads in the Auckland region
46% 75% 75% 70%
quality of footpaths in their local area
43% 75% 75% Removed
quality of footpaths in the Auckland
region
41% 75% 75% 65%

Fees and charges
76. A separate report on this agenda discusses proposed changes to fees and charges for
2014/2015, including changes to water and parking charges.

Consideration
77. Local boards have heard annual plan submissions, reviewed their advocacy items, made
decisions on budgets and considered changes to local fees and charges within their
allocation of decision-making responsibility. Local board views on advocacy items and any
other matters pertaining to regional decision-making are covered by a separate report on
this agenda.
I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


78. None of the revised budget projections covered by this report have been identified as having
any material new implications for the delivery of Mori outcomes and initiatives. A separate
report on this agenda provides an update on progress on the Mori priority project areas
identified in the Annual Plan 2013/2014.
General
79. Some of the budget matters covered by this report may be significant under the councils
significance policy. Any decisions on these matters are considered to be within the scope of
the statutory decision-making process for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.
Implementation
80. Decisions will need to be made on the annual plan budgets on or about 8 May 2014 in order
for staff to prepare financial statements, co-ordinate the sign-off of the local board
agreements and prepare the annual plan document for final adoption by the statutory
deadline.

Attachments
No. Title Page
A Funding requests from public submissions 139
B Further information on budget pressures 145
C Further information on new funding requests 187
D Minor changes to performance measures 217
E Public Transport changes 221

Signatories
Author Ross Tucker - Team Leader Capital Planning

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

C

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

D

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Minor changes to performance measures
Organisation Measure Target Change Reason for change
Auckland
Council
Percentage of
Kauri dieback
spread on
closed tracks in
the Waitakere
Ranges
n/a Reword measure
to:
Percentage of
closed tracks in
the Waitakere
Ranges that
have Kauri
dieback disease.

The changing of the
wording of the measure
better reflects the
measures being carried
out and aligns to the
target set in the draft
Annual Plan.
Auckland
Council
Percentage of
Kauri dieback
spread on open
tracks in the
Waitakere
Ranges
n/a Reword measure
to:
Percentage of
open tracks in
the Waitakere
Ranges that
have Kauri
dieback disease.

The changing of the
wording of the measure
better reflects the
measures being carried
out and aligns to the
target set in the draft
Annual Plan.
Auckland
Council
Lost time injury
frequency rate
4.5 Amend target
from 5 to 4.5
Amend target to
recognise improvement
in current performance
which is already at 5.
Auckland
Council
Percentage of
customers
satisfied with
animal
management
service
70% Amend target
from 78% to 70%
Majority of Council
interactions with
customers involve a
negative experience,
such as dog
impounding or late fee
requests. As such, the
baseline level of
satisfaction is likely to
be quite low. Current
satisfaction rate is 60%,
officers feel 70% is an
appropriate target and
78% is not achievable.
Auckland
Council
Percentage of
urgent animal
management
complaints
responded to
within one hour
(dog attacks
etc.)
98% Amend target
from 80% to 98%
The initial set target was
not based on
substantial baseline
data.
The new target is based
on better baseline data
and allows a marginal
2% for more distant
travel times and traffic.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

D

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


ACIL Return on equity
(ROE) for ACIL
group
12.9% Amend target
from 13.1% to
12.9%
The reduction in the
expected 2014/15 ROE
(total comprehensive
income of ACIL group
over total shareholders
funds) was due to the
shareholders funds
now forecast to be
higher than previously
anticipated. This is not
due to decreased
returns in dollar terms,
rather due to the larger
denominator of the ratio
ATEED Spend by
visitors in
Auckland
($million)
5,194 Amend target
from 3,898 to
5,194
The change in the
visitor spend figures
reflect a new
methodological
approach taken by the
Ministry of Business,
Innovation and
Employment for
reporting regional
tourism expenditure.
Electronic card
transactions have now
been combined with the
International Visitor
Survey and the Tourism
Satellite Account to
provide a more accurate
measure of domestic
and international visitor
spend.

Waterfront
Auckland
Number of
employees
working in
Wynyard
Quarter area
4,810 Amend target
from 6,120 to
4,810
The rate of commercial
development (and
therefore employment
growth) is subject to
market conditions.
Assumptions that were
made for non-WA land
have not been realised
and the termination of
leases to enable
redevelopment has led
to some short-term loss
of employment.
Significant employment
growth is expected in
2015-2017.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

D

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Auckland
Transport
Off-street
parking
occupancy rates
(All day)
n/a Change
measurement
basis from all day
to 4-hour peak
period
Measuring parking
occupancy over the 4-
hour peak period will be
more useful for
management of parking
space availability.

Auckland
Transport
On-street
parking
occupancy rates
(All day)
n/a Change
measurement
basis from all day
to 4-hour peak
period
Measuring parking
occupancy over the 4-
hour peak period will be
more useful for
management of parking
space availability.

Auckland
Transport
Road
maintenance
standards (ride
quality) as
measured by
smooth travel
exposure (STE)
for all urban and
rural roads
Not less
than 82%
for urban
roads and
not less
than 92%
for rural
roads
New measure As there is limited
measures for tracking
the quality of roads,
Auckland Transport
have proposed to add a
new measure to
supplement customer
satisfaction. This is also
one of the Department
of Internal Affairs
mandatory measures
from 2015/2016.
Targets reflect actual
performance for
2012/2013.

Auckland
Transport
Public transport
subsidy per
passenger
kilometre (CPI
adjusted to June
2012)
$0.26 Amend target
from $0.26 to
$0.29
Revised target based
on current performance
Auckland
Transport
Number of
morning peak
(7-9 am) car
trips avoided
through travel
planning
initiatives

13,400 Amend target
from 13,400 to
16,700
Auckland
Transport
Arterial road
network
productivity
52% Amend target
from 52% to 53%
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

D

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014



Auckland
Transport
Public and
customer safety
and security
incidents across
public transport
network per
100,000
passenger
boardings
n/a Change
measurement
basis to incidents
per 1,000,000
Minor adjustment to
improved clarity
Auckland
Transport
Percentage
reduction in total
fatal and serious
injuries on local
road network
n/a Change
measurement
basis from
percentage to
number of
injuries
Minor adjustment to
improved clarity

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

E

I
t
e
m

1
4

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Proposed changes to public transport patronage targets
Total Public
Transport
patronage (000's) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Current SOI 2013-
2016 & DAP for
2014/15 74,580 74,378 78,155 80,948 87,752 91,271 94,687 97,111 99,138 101,070
Draft SOI 2014-2017
and proposed
Annual Plan 2014/15 74,580 74,378 74,246 77,705 80,399
Actual for 2012/13 &
rolling 12 month at
March for 2013/14 69,075 71,001

Rail (000's) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Current SOI 2013-
2016 12,376 11,440 13,041 14,477 17,758 18,258 18,758 19,258 19,758 20,258
Draft SOI 2014-2017
and proposed
Annual Plan 2014/15 12,376 11,440 12,100 13,665 15,005
rolling 12 month at
March for 2013/14 10,039 11,051

Rapid Transit
Network busway
boardings per
annum (000's) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Current SOI 2013-
2016 & DAP for
2014/15 2,457 2,456 2,588 2,673 2,919 3,040 3,149 3,200 3,251 3,302
Draft SOI 2014-2017
and proposed
Annual Plan 2014/15 2,457 2,456 2,511 2,635 2,759
rolling 12 month at
March for 2013/14 2,279 2,371

Bus (000's) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Current SOI 2013-
2016 & DAP for
2014/15 54,244 54,763 56,627 57,771 60,874 63,625 66,294 68,026 69,358 70,592
Draft SOI 2014-2017
and proposed
Annual Plan 2014/15 54,244 54,763 53,695 55,292 56,375
rolling 12 month at
March for 2013/14 51,251 52,430

Ferry (000's) 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Current SOI 2013-
2016 & DAP for
2014/15 5,503 5,719 5,899 6,027 6,201 6,348 6,486 6,627 6,771 6,918
Draft SOI 2014-2017
and proposed
Annual Plan 2014/15 5,503 5,719 5,940 6,113 6,260
rolling 12 month at
March for 2013/14 5,506 5,149

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Rates related policies and changes to fees and charges Page 223

Rates related policies and changes to fees and charges

File No.: CP2014/08782

Purpose
1. This report considers the submissions and the local boards feedback received on the
proposed changes to the policies included in, or consulted on alongside, the draft Annual
Plan 2014/2015, and advises on the adoption of changes to:
rates related policies
fees and charges.
2. The report also advises on other rates and fees related issues that require the attention of
the Committee.
Executive summary
Rating policy
3. The rating policy in the draft annual plan was the same as the policy in the long-term plan
except for changes proposed to BID targeted rates by business associations. The draft plan
also set out the early payment discount, the instalment dates and penalties to be applied for
2014/2015.
4. No submissions were received on any of the changes proposed. The rates related matters
raised in submissions had been considered in the development of the rating policy for the
Long-term Plan 2012-2022.
5. The proposed changes to BID targeted rates required undertaking ballots with the business
ratepayers in the respective areas. The ballots for Devonport, Otahuhu, and State Highway
16 were successful. The ballots for Dominion Rd and Manukau Central were unsuccessful.
The Mission Bay Business Association decided not to proceed with joining the BID
programme at this stage.
6. Officers recommend that the extended boundary for the Otahuhu Business Association
targeted rate and that new targeted rates for Devonport and State Highway 16 business
associations be included in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 (pending local board ratification)
and the BID targeted rates for 2014/2015 be set accordingly.
Fees and charges
7. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 implements the councils decisions on fees and charges
including
an annual inflation adjustment of 1.0 per cent made under the revenue and financing
policy
the final transition to target fee levels that recover 60 per cent of the animal
management cost
the continuing transition to uniform fee levels for food premises licensing.
8. In addition, the draft included the following proposed changes to fees and charges:
a uniform 5 per cent increase to all social housing rents
standardisation of health protection licensing fees across the region and increases to
some fees and charges to meet the target of recovering 90 per cent of the cost of
providing the service
changes to some of the building control fees to better align revenue with cost.

9. The council received 67 submissions covering the fee proposals. The majority (94 per cent)
of these submissions were on the proposal to increase social housing rent. There were 3
submissions on building control fees and one on health protection licencing fees.
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


10. 83 per cent of the submissions on social housing opposed the change on affordability
grounds and 5 per cent supported it. council staff also met with residents of all 66 Housing
for Older Persons villages. Most residents did not oppose the increase during site meetings
and one on one meetings. At some village meetings concerns were raised on affordability.
11. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to fees be approved. Even after the 5 per
cent increase the rentals will be considerably lower than the market level.
12. The full schedule of regulatory fees and charges for 2014/2015 will be adopted as part of the
final Annual Plan 2014/2015. The fees for animal management and environmental health
and licensing for 2014/2015 need to be adopted earlier to allow sufficient time for
implementation. Officers recommend that these be adopted at the Governing Body meeting
scheduled to follow this meeting.

Recommendation
Staff have not made any recommendations on rates related policies and changes to fees
and charges in this report, as it is the Mayors role to lead the budget process.

Comments

Rating policy
13. The rating policy in the draft annual plan was the same as the policy in the LTP except for
changes proposed to BID targeted rates by business associations. The draft plan also set
out the early payment discount, the instalment dates and penalties to be applied for
2014/2015.
14. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 included possible new BID targeted rates for the
Devonport, State Highway 16 and Mission Bay areas and possible extensions to the existing
BID programmes in Dominion Rd, Otahuhu, Manukau Central. These changes required
undertaking ballots with the business ratepayers in the respective areas.
Submissions
15. There were no submissions on any of the changes proposed. The submissions on other
rates related matters are analysed in the table below.
Submissions on rating policy
Subject
No of
Submissions Percentage Key comment
Rural differential 1 4%
Lower differential to better reflect
service levels available
UAGC 14 54%
Too low: should reflect minimum cost
of services provided to all rate payers
Business differential 9 35%
Too high given level of services used
by businesses
Transition 1 4%
Use a higher UAGC to reduce impact
of change
Targeted rates for
swimming pool entry 1 4% Adults should pay for entry
Total 26 100%

16. Other comments included:
need for better balance between a minimum payment for services and tax element of
rates
more differentials to recognise differences in the use of council services (public goods)
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


limit council activities to core services.

Conclusion

17. The issues raised in these submissions had been considered in the development of the
rating policy for the Long-term Plan 2012-2022.
18. Officers note that the council cannot make any changes to the rating policy that have not
been consulted on. The matters raised in the submissions will be included in the Long-term
Plan 2015-2025 work program for consideration by the council.
19. The ballots for BID programmes for Devonport, Otahuhu, and State Highway 16 were
successful. The ballots for Dominion Rd and Manukau Central were unsuccessful. The
Mission Bay Business Association decided not to proceed with joining the BID programme at
this stage.
20. Staff recommend that the extended boundary for the Otahuhu Business Association targeted
rate and that new targeted rates for Devonport and State Highway 16 business associations
be included in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 (pending local board ratification) and the BID
targeted rates for 2014/2015 be set accordingly.

Key impacts of existing policy
21. The rates transition management policy sets a maximum of 10 per cent increase for non-
business rate payers. However, 35,000 of former Auckland City Council ratepayers who are
capped at 10 per cent will pay around $14 over the cap for the biennial inorganic collection
service.
22. The councils long-term differential strategy (LTDS) reduces the rates burden on business
ratepayers and increases it on other ratepayer groups. For 2014/2015 the reduction in the
differential from 2.53 to 2.43 will shift $11.1 million of rates requirement to other differential
groups. The table below shows the percentage change for the main differential categories in
2014/2015. These estimates are based on an overall rates increase of 2.4 per cent included
in the draft Annual Plan 2014/0215.
Category Average rates
increase
LTDS impact Net average
increase
Business 2.4% -2.4% 0.0%
Non-business 2.4% +1.2% 3.6%

Local activity targeted rates
23. Both the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board and the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board have
requested the continuation of their swimming pool targeted rates to fund free access to
swimming pools for adults 17 years and over.

Fees and charges

Overview of submissions

24. Through the draft annual plan the council consulted specifically on:
social housing rents
health protection fees
building control fees.

25. The council received 67 submissions related to the above fees and charges. The majority
(63 or 94 per cent) of submissions were on social housing (see table below). There were 3
submissions on building control fees and one on health protection licensing fees.
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Submissions on proposed changes to fees and charges
Fee category No of Submissions
Social housing 63
Building control fees 3
Health licencing 1
Total 67

26. Council also received 12 submissions on other fees, of which: 2 were on dog registration
and 8 on waste and recycling. Animal management fees were given extensive consideration
in the development of the Annual Plan 2013/2014. They will be fully transitioned to the target
level in 2014/2015 to recover 60 per cent of the cost of providing the service. Officers do not
consider that any changes are required to the proposed fees. The issues raised on waste
and recycling fees will be considered in development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 as
part of implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Social housing rent

27. For the 2014/2015 year the council proposed to increase the rent on social housing for older
persons by 5 per cent as a nominal catch up pending a wider review of social housing
rentals, as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Engagement with stakeholders
28. During February 2014, council staff conducted meetings across 66 Housing for Older
Persons villages to seek feed-back on the proposed increase. This was supplemented by
letters sent to 1,412 residents.
29. During site meetings and one on one meetings, most residents did not oppose the increase.
During some village meetings in the west and the south, there was vocal opposition to the
change on affordability grounds. In particular, 11 residents and 2 stakeholders at the Otara
Court meeting and 20 residents and 5 stakeholders at the Hills Court meeting raised
concerns about the increase.
Submissions
30. The proposal to increase rent on social housing was supported by 5 submitters (8 per cent).
The majority (52 or 83 per cent) did not support the proposed increase. Approximately half of
the submitters who opposed the change said the increase would not be affordable. Other
reasons cited for opposition included disparity of rents across the region and the absence of
service level increases to justify the rent change.

Summary of submissions on social housing
Topic No of submissions Share
Support 5 8%
Do not support 52 83%
Other comments 6 9%
Total 63 100%

Local boards comments
31. No local boards made any comment on this issue.
Conclusion
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


32. The primary support for social housing is provided by the government through Ministry of
Social Development subsidy (formerly Housing New Zealand) with Housing New Zealand
being the principal landlord. The council supplements central government assistance
through its social housing portfolio. Social housing rents have remained unchanged for
between three and six years. Even with this increase, rents will still be considerably lower
than the market rents for similar properties.
33. As noted by some submitters there are differences in rent levels and assessment criteria
across the region partly reflecting the policies inherited from former councils. The council
will consider the options for harmonising rents and assessment process/criteria for social
housing as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
34. Officers recommend that the 5 per cent increase in social housing rent proposed alongside
the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 be adopted.

Building control fees
35. A number of changes are proposed to building control fees. The changes are to:
fully pass on external charges
more accurately recover full costs including some reductions
cover the cost of new regulatory requirements.

Submissions

36. There were three submissions on building control fees. One submission opposed fees
increases in excess of the inflation rate. The other two submissions:
sought clarification of the rationale for the increase in building control fees
suggested the need for more transparency in charging staff costs against consent
related activity
recommended elimination of peer reviewing professional engineering reports submitted
by applicants.


Conclusion
38. Under the Building Act 2004 the council can recover the cost of processing applications
through user charges. The overall cost of the service needed to operate the business e.g.
petrol prices, insurance, electricity, phones costs etc has increased. While efforts are made
to offset these price increases with internal efficiency gains, the net change to costs is
passed back to the user of the services through changes to the user charges. The fees and
charges that typically make up the vast majority of the fees for a building consent (the hourly
charge out rates) have increased marginally to reflect those changes. The fees that have
increased by more than inflation are generally deposits which have no impact on the end
cost, but give a better indication of the cost of the application.
39. As part of a larger programme of work to consolidate councils IT systems the council is also
investigating options for providing better clarity of what individual charges relate to on
invoices.
40. In order to grant a building consent, the council is required to be satisfied that the application
meets the building code standards. In some instances it is necessary to peer review some or
all of an external specialist report in order to be able to determine compliance with the
building code. We recommend that applicants approach the council regarding engineering
reports they intend to commission to discuss possibilities.
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


41. Officers recommend that the changes to the building control fees proposed alongside the
draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 be adopted.

Health protection licence fees
42. In the draft annual plan the council proposed to:
standardise the fees for health and hygiene licencing across the region; and
increase some fees to meet the target of recovering 90 per cent of the cost of providing
the service.

Submissions
43. The council received only one submission which supported 100 per cent cost recovery.
Conclusion
45. The proposed cost recovery rate of 90 per cent reflects the cost of licencing and associated
administrative activities which benefit licensees. The balance reflects the cost of handling
complaints associated with health and hygiene issues where investigations by council
officers often result in no action against any individual party.
46. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to health protection license fees be adopted
alongside the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Early adoption of animal management fees and environmental health fees
47. The full schedule of regulatory fees and charges for 2014/2015, including the amended
regulatory charges discussed in this report and the other regulatory fees and charges which
are to increase by the council rate of inflation, will need to be adopted by the governing body
as part of the annual plan.
48. The registrations of approximately 100,000 dogs and 4,900 premises licensed with the
council will expire on or before 30 June. The registrations of a further 4,000 premises will
expire between 31 July and 30 August. The fees and charges for animal management and
environmental health and licensing for 2014/2015 will need to be adopted earlier than the
adoption of the full annual plan to allow sufficient time for data testing and the printing and
mailing of renewal notices before those registrations expire.
49. Officers recommend that the fees and charges for animal management and environmental
health and licensing services, which are included in Attachment A and B respectively, be
adopted at the governing body meeting scheduled to follow this meeting.

Water and wastewater charges
50. The average price increase for water and wastewater is set at 2.4 per cent for 2014/2015.
This is down from 3.5 per cent for water and 3.75 per cent for wastewater in the Draft Annual
Plan 2014/2015. The reduction in the price increase reflects reduced operating costs from
continued business efficiencies and improved borrowing costs.
51. Following extensive consultation as part of Annual Plan 2013/2014, Watercare's new non-
domestic wastewater tariff will begin to come into effect on 1 July 2014. This new tariff
regime combines an annual fixed charge (per water meter) and a volumetric charge. The
volumetric charge is based on a percentage of the volume of water that flows through the
customers water meter.
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


52. The new tariff features four pricing usage plans - the fixed and volumetric charges vary
depending on how much water an individual business or organisation uses. To allow time for
customers to plan and prepare, the new tariff will be phased in over three years with the full
new tariff taking effect from 1 July 2016.

Local board fees
53. As part of the process for finalising their Local Board Agreements for 2014/2015, local
boards have reviewed the 2014/2015 fee schedules for their local area. As part of this
process, the local boards considered a proposal to standardise the approach for
administering fees for the use of local community, arts and cultural facilities. This includes:
applying consistent naming convention across the region for the various fees
a consistent approach for local boards to apply extra discounts to particular activities
(e.g. religious practice, or sport and fitness) in line with their Local Board Plan priorities
adjustments to the fees and charges themselves where necessary to improve
consistency across the portfolio of facilities within a local board area, or for similar
facilities in adjoining boards.
Consideration
54. Where local boards have provided feedback by way of resolution on the matters consulted
on through the draft annual plan, this has been incorporated in the corresponding section of
this report.

55. The issues supporting decisions on rates related policies and fees and charges were
extensively canvassed as part of the LTP. The Independent Mori Statutory Board is
represented on the Budget Committee and will also be able to provide feedback on the
proposed policies as part of annual plan process.
56. The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers or patrons to council
services, so is not able to identify the exact impact of policy changes on Mori. The impact
of the policy options on Mori will be similar to that on other residents in Auckland.
Implementation
57. There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations included in this
report.
Attachments
No. Title Page
A Animal management fees 231
B Environmental health & licensing fees 233

Signatories
Authors Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy
Eric Wen - Modeller User Charges
Ariya Randeni - Policy Advisor Financial
I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Attachment A Animal management fees and charges for
2014/2015

As resolved by the council during the Annual Plan 2013/2014 process, the fees and charges for animal
management will be increased to recover a greater proportion of cost of delivering the service, with the level
of cost recovery reaching the target of 60 per cent in 2014/2015. The fees and charges included in this part
reflect this decision.
Fixed fees
Type Description Fee from 1 July 2014
(incl. GST)
Dog registration - if paid
on or before 1 August of
the registration year
(conditions apply)
Standard fee
(1)
$134
Responsible Dog Owner Licence (RDOL) with de-sexed dog
(2)
$60
Responsible Dog Owner Licence (RDOL) with entire dog $69
De-sexed dog (no Responsible Dog Owner Licence)
(3)
$96
Supergold Community Services Combo Card holder
(4)
$60
Special category dog
(5)
$0
Working dog
(6)
$30
Classified dangerous dog 150% of applicable fee
Dog registration - if paid
after 1 August of the
registration year
Standard fee
(1)
$164
De-sexed dog $126
Supergold Community Services Combo Card holder
(4)
$75
Special category dog
(5)
$0
Working dog
(6)
$37
Classified dangerous dog 150% of applicable fee
Licence application Responsible Dog Owner Licence application fee $0
Other animal
management
Multiple dog permit application fee $41
Replacement registration tag $8
Dog impoundment fee first offence $71
Dog impoundment fee second offence $133
Dog impoundment fee third and subsequent offence $205
Daily sustenance for impounded dog $18
Large animal impoundment fee $27
Large animal daily sustenance (excluding first day) $16
Small animal impoundment fee $16
Small animal daily sustenance (excluding first day) $11
Vet care, microchipping, de-sexing, adoption, handover of
ownership of dog
Contact the council
Stock driving fee per kilometre Actual cost
Notes:
1. Dogs less than three months of age and imported dogs registered for the first time on or after 2 August pay a portion of the annual
fee based on the number of complete months remaining in the registration year. All other dogs registered for the first time on or
after 2 August pay the fee listed under If paid after 1 August.
2. To qualify, you must hold a current Responsible Dog Owner Licence (RDOL) prior to making your application and supplied the
council a valid veterinary certificate as proof your dog has been de-sexed prior to, or with your application. You only need to send
the certificate once. RDOL discount is only applicable to RDOL holders and RDOL status will be revoked for non-payment by due
date (1 August). The fee category applicable then would revert to the underlying re-registration category.
3. To qualify, you must supply the council with a valid veterinary certificate as proof your dog has been de-sexed prior to or with your
application. You only need to send the certificate once.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


4. To qualify, you must present your current Supergold Community Services (CSC) Combo Card to the council. You need only
present the card once.
5. The term special category dog applies to dogs used for or by disability assist, Police, Department of State, Aviation Security
Service, Civil Defence, or Biosecurity Act 1993 as defined in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996 under the term Working Dog. It
does not apply to dogs used for herding or driving stock or by security guards.
6. To qualify, the owner must sign a declaration and, if requested, be able to demonstrate the dogs ability to perform its nominated
working function to the satisfaction of a council officer.
Hourly rates
Description
(1)
Specialty Hourly rate from 1
July 2014 (incl.
GST)
Manager/project manager/legal services All areas $177
Team leader All areas $162
Planning, engineering, subdivisions,
urban designer, arborist, animal
management, other (excluding specialist/
advisor/ senior)
Planning, engineering, subdivisions, urban
designer, arborist, stock impoundment, other
$146
Assistant/technician Assistant planner, graduate development
engineer, graduate resource consent
planner, planning technician
$126
Administration All areas $98
Note:
1. The categories denote descriptions of work performed by council officers. Position titles vary across the Auckland Council
regulatory departments.

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Attachment B Environmental health and licensing fees and
charges for 2014/2015
Food premises licensing
b) As approved by the council during the Annual Plan 2013/2014 process, licensing fees for food premises
will be standardised across the region over a period of five years (2013/2014 2017/2018), with cost
recovery rate for the food licensing service increasing from 63 per cent to 90 per cent over the period. The
tables below show the fees that will be applied for 2014/2015 (the second year of the transition period). The
fee levels vary depending on which former council area the premises are located in.
c) Premises that have a registered Voluntary Implementation Programme Food Control Plan with council
will be charged an annual fee based on the risk rating of the food premises (determined by Council) and
using the Grade category they achieve in the previous year.
Auckland central and islands
Transitional fee category
(1)

Standardised fee
category
(1)

Fee from 1 July 2014 for new
premises and existing
transferred to new owners
(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

Fee from 1 July 2014 for
other existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Small high risk A grade Grade A, High risk 1,024 921
Small high risk B grade Grade B, High risk 1,206 1,145
Small high risk D grade Grade D, High risk 1,387 1,369
Small high risk E grade Grade E, High risk 1,748 1,712
Large high risk A grade Grade A, High risk 1,024 1,024
Large high risk B grade Grade B, High risk 1,206 1,206
Large high risk D grade Grade D, High risk 1,387 1,378
Large high risk E grade Grade E, High risk 1,748 1,748
Small medium risk A
grade
Grade A, Medium risk 530 530
Small medium risk B
grade
Grade B, Medium risk 892 802
Small medium risk D
grade
Grade D, Medium risk 1,109 988
Small medium risk E
grade
Grade E, Medium risk 1,399 1,240
Large medium risk A
grade
Large medium risk B
grade
Large medium risk D
grade
Grade D, Medium risk 1,109 1,109
Large medium risk E
grade
Small low risk A grade Grade A, Low risk 398 338
Small low risk B grade Grade B, Low risk 452 409
Small low risk D grade Grade D, Low risk 615 524
Small low risk E grade Grade E, Low risk 832 680
Large low risk A grade Grade A, Low risk 398 398
Large low risk B grade Grade B, Low risk 452 452
Large low risk D grade Grade D, Low risk 615 615
Large low risk E grade Grade E, Low risk 832 832
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


(1)

Standardised fee
category
(1)

(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

(incl. GST) ($)
Re-grading and re-
inspections
Re-grading 577 577
New premises fee New premises fee
(3)
241
Notes:
1. These two columns provide an indicative mapping between the transitional (legacy) fee categories and the standardised fee
category under the new grading system. The actual risk and performance grade of a specific licensee (and hence the
standardised fee category that it falls under) will be determined by the council, during the year prior.
2. The fees shown in these columns apply to new premises and existing premises being transferred to new owners, where the
transition arrangement does not apply. Fees for other premises will be subject to the transition arrangement. These are displayed
in the two right most columns of the table.
3. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The
transition arrangement does not apply to this fee.
Franklin
Fee category Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises
and existing transferred to new owners
(incl. GST) ($)
(1)

Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing
premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Grade A, High risk 1,024 619
Grade B, High risk 1,206 692
Grade D, High risk 1,387 766
Grade E, High risk 1,748 913
Grade E, Medium risk 1,399 771
Grade A, Low risk 398 364
Grade B, Low risk 452 387
Grade D, Low risk 615 453
Grade E, Low risk 832 541
Re-grading 577 374
New premises fee
2
241

Notes to previous table:
transition plan does not apply to this fee.
Manukau
Transitional
fee category
(2)

Standardised fee category

(2)

premises and existing transferred
to new owners (incl. GST) ($)
(3)

Fee from 1 July 2014 for other
existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Up to 50m
2

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Transitional
fee category
(2)


(2)

(3)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Grade E, High risk 1,748 1,036
Up to 200m
2

Up to 400m
2

Grade D, High risk 1,387 1,040
Up to 800m
2

Grade B, High risk 1,206 1,037
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Transitional
fee category
(2)


(2)

(3)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Over 800m
2

Grade A, High risk 1,024 1,024
Grade B, High risk 1,206 1,132
Grade D, Medium risk 1,109 1,092
Regrading Regrading 577 317
New premises
fee
New premises fee
(4)
241
Notes:
1. Fees applied in the former Manukau City Council area were based on size as opposed to risk and performance grade. Specific
fees were subject to a discount or surcharge up to plus or minus 20 per cent based on historical grades.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


North Shore
Transitional
fee category
(1)

Standardised fee
category
(1)

premises and existing transferred to
new owners (incl. GST) ($)
(2)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Food premises
category 2
Food premises
category 2
Food premises
category 2
Food premises
category 2
Food premises
category 1
Grade A, Medium
risk
530 477
Food premises
category 1
Grade B, Medium
risk
892 642
Food premises
category 1
Grade D, Medium
risk
1,109 982
Food premises
category 1
Grade E, Medium
risk
1,399 1,165
Food premises
category 1
Food premises
category 1
Food premises
category 1
Food premises
category 1
Re-grading 577 352
New premises fee
(3)

241
(3)

Notes:
2. The fees shown in this column apply to new premises and existing premises being transferred to new owners, where the transition
arrangement does not apply. Fees for other premises will be subject to the transition arrangement. These are displayed in the two
right most columns of the table.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Papakura
(1)
Standardised
fee category
(1)

(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
Category Description of
premises
Existing
premises with A
or B grading

General food
retailing

Grade A, High
risk
1,024 715
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 514
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1,206 788
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 661
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
Existing
premises with A
or B grading

Multi-licence
premises (e.g.
supermarkets),
registration of
basic premises

Grade A, High
risk
1,024 715
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 514
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1,206 788
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 661
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
Eating houses
(A or B grading)

Take-away
retailer

Grade A, High
risk
1,024 715
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 514
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1206 788
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 661
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
Eating houses
(A or B grading)

Tea-rooms,
coffee-bars,
restaurants &
licensed
premises with
seating for not
more than 50
persons

Grade A, High
risk
1024 715
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 514
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1206 788
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 661
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


(1)
Standardised
fee category
(1)

(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
premises
Eating houses
(A or B grading)

Tea-rooms,
coffee-bars,
restaurants &
licensed
premises with
seating for more
than 50 but not
more than 100
persons

Grade A, High
risk
1024 774
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 530
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1206 848
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 721
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
Eating houses
(A or B grading)

Tea-rooms,
coffee-bars,
restaurants &
licensed
premises with
seating for more
than 100
persons

Grade A, High
risk
1024 833
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 530
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1,206 907
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 780
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
Eating houses
(A or B grading)

Wholesale
manufacturing
(including
Section 5 of the
Food Hygiene
Regulations
1974 premises)

Grade A, High
risk
1,024 745
Grade A,
Medium risk
530 530
Grade A, Low
risk
398 398
Grade B, High
risk
1,206 819
Grade B,
Medium risk
892 691
Grade B, Low
risk
452 452
Fee for new
premises or
registration and
if premises
have not been
graded or has a
D or E grading

General food
retailing

Grade D, High
risk
1,387 954
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109 841
Grade D, Low
risk
615 615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748 1,101
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399 959
Grade E, Low
risk
832 729
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


(1)
Standardised
fee category
(1)

(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
premises
Fee for new
premises or
registration and
if premises
have not been
graded or has a
D or E grading

Multi-premises
(e.g.
Supermarkets)
Registration of
basic premises

Grade D, High
risk
1,387 954
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109 841
Grade D, Low
risk
615 615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748 1,101
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399 959
Grade E, Low
risk
832 729
Eating houses
(if premises
have not been
graded or have
a D or E
grading)

Take-away
retailer

Grade D, High
risk
1,387 954
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109 841
Grade D, Low
risk
615 615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748 1,101
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399 959
Grade E, Low
risk
832 729
Eating houses
(if premises
have not been
graded or have
a D or E
grading)

Tea-rooms,
coffee-bars,
restaurants &
licensed
premises with
seating for not
more than 50
persons

Grade D, High
risk
1,387 954
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109 841
Grade D, Low
risk
615 615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748 1,101
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399 959
Grade E, Low
risk
832

729
Eating houses
(if premises
have not been
graded or have
a D or E
grading)

Tea-rooms,
coffee-bars,
restaurants &
licensed
premises with
seating for more
than 50 but not
more than 100
persons

Grade D, High
risk
1,387

1,000
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109

887
Grade D, Low
risk
615

615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748

1,147
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399

1,005
Grade E, Low
risk
832

775
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


(1)
Standardised
fee category
(1)

(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
premises
Eating houses
(if premises
have not been
graded or have
a D or E
grading)

Tea-rooms,
coffee-bars,
restaurants &
licensed
premises with
seating for more
than 100
persons

Grade D, High
risk
1,387

1,066
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109

953
Grade D, Low
risk
615

615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748

1,213
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399

1,071
Grade E, Low
risk
832

832
Eating houses
(if premises
have not been
graded or have
a D or E
grading)

Wholesale
manufacturing
(including
Section 5 of the
Food Hygiene
Regulations
1974 premises)

Grade D, High
risk
1,387

935
Grade D,
Medium risk
1,109

822
Grade D, Low
risk
615

615
Grade E, High
risk
1,748

1,082
Grade E,
Medium risk
1,399

940
Grade E, Low
risk
832 710
Re-grading Re-grading 577 401
New premises
fee
New premises
fee
(3)

241
Notes:
1. These three columns provide an indicative mapping between the transitional (legacy) fee categories and the standardised fee
d)
e)
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Rodney
Transitional fee
category
(assessment
banding)
(1)

Standardised fee
category
(1)

(incl. GST) ($)
(2)

existing premises
(incl. GST) ($)
1-3 Grade A, Low Risk 398 321
Grade B, Low Risk 452 403
>3-5 Grade A, Medium risk 530 375
>5-7 Grade A, High Risk 1,024 576
Grade B, High Risk 1,206 708
Grade D, Medium Risk 1,109 787
>7-9 Grade D, High Risk 1,387 899
Grade E, Medium Risk 1,399 963
>9 Grade E, High risk 1,748 1,105
Premises
reassessment
Re-grading 577 322
New premises fee
(3)
241
Notes:
Waitkere
Transitional fee
category
(1)

Standardised fee
category
(1)

(2)

(incl. GST) ($)
Food Premises
Up to 50m
Grade E, High risk 1,748 976
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Transitional fee
category
(1)

Standardised fee
category
(1)

(2)

(incl. GST) ($)
Food Premises
51-100m

Food premises
>100m
Eating houses Seating
capacity up to 25
persons
Grade A, High risk

1,024 715
capacity between 26
and 50 persons
capacity over 50
persons
Fee premises and
eating houses re-
grading
Re-grading 577 379
New premises fee
(3)
241
Notes:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014



Health protection licence
f) The fees and charges included in this section apply to premises providing a service that either, as
determined by the council,
pierces the skin,
risks breaking the skin, or
risks burning the skin.
g) Premises will be assessed and registered with the council as providing either a single basic service,
multiple basic services, or high risk service(s), defined as below:
Category of health
protection licence
Description
Single basic service Premises providing a single service which is categorised as being at risk of breaking or
burning skin
Multiple basic services Premises providing more than one service which is categorised as being at risk of breaking
or burning skin
High risk service(s) Premises providing one or more services which are categorised as piercing the skin e.g.
acupuncture, body piercing , derma rolling, electrolysis, extractions, red vein treatment,
stamping, tattooing and traditional tattooing
h)
i) The changes to health protection licence fees under each category are displayed below. Only one
annual registration fee is required for each licensee.
I. Single basic service
Former council area Current fee description Fee from 1 July 2014
(incl. GST)
Auckland central and
islands
Health protection licence: Basic (single service)
$240
Franklin No existing fee $240
Manukau No existing fee $240
North Shore Miscellaneous licences: health and beauty $240
Papakura No existing fee $240
Rodney No existing fee $240
Waitkere Other fees and charges: Application fee for
premises subject to the Health Act 1956
registration
$0
Waitkere Other fees and charges: Beauty therapy clinic $240
Note to table:
Where inspection or re-inspection is required, councils normal hourly rates for regulatory services apply.

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


II. Multiple basic services
Former council
area
Current fee description Fee from 1 July 2014
(incl. GST)
Auckland central
islands
Health protection licence: Multi basic (multiple services) $300
Franklin No existing fee $300
Manukau No existing fee $300
North Shore Miscellaneous licences: health and beauty $300
Papakura No existing fee $300
Rodney No existing fee $300
Waitkere Other fees and charges: Application fee for premises
subject to the Health Act 1956 registration
$0
Waitkere Other fees and charges: Beauty therapy clinic $300
Note to the table:
Where inspection or re-inspection is required, councils normal hourly rates for regulatory services apply.

III. High risk service(s)
Former council
area
Current fee description Fee from 1 July 2014 (incl. GST)
Auckland central
islands
Health protection licence: (involving skin
penetration)
Either $240 or $300 depending on number
of services operated on site
Franklin No existing fee Either $240 or $300 depending on number
Manukau Skin-piercing operation Either $240 or $300 depending on number
Manukau Additional fee per additional skin-piercing
operation
$0
North Shore Miscellaneous licences: Skin Piercer Either $240 or $300 depending on number
Papakura No existing fee Either $240 or $300 depending on number
Rodney No existing fee Either $240 or $300 depending on number
Waitkere Other fees and charges: Application fee
for premises subject to the Health Act
1956 registration
$0
Waitkere Other fees and charges: Tattoo/Body
Piercing Premises
Either $240 or $300 depending on number
Notes to the table:
1. An annual registration fee of $360 plus council rate of inflation will apply to high risk premises from 1 July 2015. In the period
between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015, high risk premises will temporarily be registered as providing either a single basic service
or a multiple basic service and be charged the relevant fee.
2. Where inspection or re-inspection is required, councils normal hourly rates for regulatory services apply.
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


IV. Changes to fees for premises no longer covered by the health and hygiene bylaw
j) The changes below apply only if none of the services provided at the premises, as determined by the
council,
pierces the skin,
risks breaking the skin, or
risks burning the skin.

Former
council area
Legacy fee type Description Fee from 1 July 2014
(incl. GST)
Auckland
central
islands
Health protection licence Swimming pool (12 months) Removed
Auckland
central
islands
Health protection licence Swimming pool (6 months) Removed
North Shore Miscellaneous licences Swimming, Health and Beauty Removed
Papakura Other premises Massage Parlour - minimum fee plus
any additional costs. Charge at
appropriate hourly rate
Removed
Papakura Other premises Charge for any health inspection for
any activity not specified in the
schedule
Removed
Waitkere
Health protection licence Health and fitness centre Removed
Waitkere
Health protection licence Massage premises or room Removed

Other environmental health and bylaw licensing
k) The fee structures for all other environmental health and bylaw licensing services (except liquor
licensing) are to be maintained for 2014/2015 with a small increase to all fees to reflect the cost of inflation
(one per cent). These are based on fee structures inherited from the seven former councils. Fees applied
within a former council boundary are displayed below under that former council heading. These fees are
proposed to be regionally consolidated in the future.
l) The liquor licensing fees are currently set by the government. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was
passed in December 2012, and has replaced the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The new act will affect the way
that alcohol is sold, supplied and consumed across New Zealand. Licensing fees will also change to include
an annual fee and premises will be charged according to the cost/risk category that they fall under.
m) Follow the link below to read answers to some of the frequently asked questions regarding changes to
alcohol licensing fees:
n) http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/licencesregulations/liquor/Documents/alcohollicensingchangesfe
esFAQ.pdf
o)
Auckland central and islands
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Type Description Fee from 1 July
2014 $ (incl.
GST)
All licences (excludes food,
hairdressers and health
protection licences)
New premise application (excludes food and
hairdressers premises) 181
Brothel licence Annual fee 708
Camping grounds Annual fee 401
Funeral directors mortuary
licence
Annual fee
433
Gambling venues New class 4 or New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB)
venue consent application
401
Hazardous substances
inspections
Bulk tank demolished 181
LPG storage tank installed 181
Storage tank installed 181
Tank removal 126
Test pipelines to bulk installations 137
Food Stalls Annual market organisers licence
(blanket licence held by market organiser covers
stalls selling fruit, vegetables and uncooked eggs
only)
164
Letter of exemption No fee
Level two 6 months 126
Level two 12 months 192
Level three 6 months 225
Level three 12 months 368
Festival and Events Hourly rate (per officer) See hourly rates
Inspection Fee Hourly rate (per officer) See hourly rates
Offensive trades Renewal 369
Street trading Banner 181
Display of goods - per month 148
Flower sellers- per month 401
Newspapers - per seller, per site, per annum 126
Permanent banners - per annum 6,607
Recycling bins - per annum 345
Sports services vendors - per month 236
Street Trading Application Fee 181
Coffee vendors per six months 566
On-street outdoor seating (per m2 of site coverage) 71
Pie carts, Newmarket per month 1,114
Pie carts, Commerce Street per month 1,334
Strawberry and vegetable vendors per month 400
Transfer fee / duplicate / re-
issue of certificate/licence
Transfers of ownership,
all licences and re-issue of lost certificate/licence
99
Bylaw dispensation (other than
permanent signage)
Temporary sign
142
Billboard Billboard dispensation 165
Other Fees Certificate of Inspection 187
Return Fee for seized equipment (Noise) 276
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


2014 $ (incl.
GST)
Amusement Device Fee
Refer to the
Amusement
Devices
Regulations 1980
Re-inspection Fee (Camping ground, Food
Premises, Funeral Director, Hairdresser, Health
Protection, Offensive Trade)
187
Recover cost of seized goods Based on actual
cost and hourly
rates
Recover cost of works carried out in default (bylaw
notice)
Based on actual
cost and hourly
rates
Officer time (Bylaws) Based on actual
cost and hourly
rates

Franklin
2014 $ (incl.
GST)
Return fee for seized
appliances
Administration fee per seizure 73
Per response in a Metropolitan Zone 84
Per response in a Rural Zone 152
Trading in public places Up to 6 months 84
6-12 months 152
Other licences/registration Camping Grounds 307
Umbrella Low Risk Food Licence Fee 743
Food premises Day Licences (excepting those
operated by non-profit organisations)
72
Mobile food vehicle 162
Offensive Traders 307
Funeral Parlours 263
Transfer of Licence 73
Duplicate of Licence 39
Sale yards 221
Re-inspection fee for all Licence or Registered
premises - per inspection (except food premises)
123
Gaming Machine - class 4 Venue Consent - per
inspection
577
Relocatable Home Park Consent - per inspection 307
Manukau
2014 $ (incl. GST)
Various other licence
types

Camping Grounds 481
Funeral Director 390
Permits trading in public places 198
Permits markets and stalls 345
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


2014 $ (incl. GST)
Offensive Trades 481
Temporary signs permit - general 272
Brothel Permit 272
Other fees Transfer of licence 118
Duplicate licence fee 119
Certificate of Inspection 187
Inspection fee (excludes food premises) 138
Provision of lists of premises 30
Return Fee for seized equipment 276
Permit application fee for permits not specified
elsewhere in Listing of Fees and Charges
286
Objection 483
Dispensation Deposit Fee 7,004
Hourly Staff Charge-out Rates (for bylaw related
applications where the application fee is a deposit)
As per hourly rates

North Shore
2014 $ (incl. GST)
Mobile shop Health
Licence

198
Re-inspections Based on actual cost
and hourly rates
Vendor Mobile Shop Trading Permit 247
Noise control Seizure of Equipment 193
Brothels Applications for licence 292
Annual licence fee 292
Application for dispensations - base fee + actual
cost
566
Outdoor cafs in public
places
Application Fee 181
Annual Licence Fee m2 49
Miscellaneous licences Amusement galleries 231
Camping Grounds 231
Funeral Director 292
Signs - Exceeding 1m
2
under bylaw 136
Signs - All other signs under bylaw 77
Fire permit 99
Display of goods exemption - application Fee 181
Display of goods exemption - m
2
49
Licence transfer fees (any licence) 94
Pre-purchase checks (any licence) 198
Gambling Venue Application 440

Papakura
2014 $ (incl. GST)
Other premises Funeral Directors and Mortuaries 448
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


2014 $ (incl. GST)
Camping Grounds 536
Brothel Application - minimum Fee plus any
additional costs. Charge at appropriate hourly rate
524
Bylaw licences Non-food stalls (other than charitable or community
organisations) - licence per event
49
Non-food stalls (other than charitable or community
organisations) annual
319
Amusement Gallery 171
Special Events and minimum Fee 524
Statute based licences Mobile Shops/Roadside Traders (other charitable or
community organisations) - first month
102
Mobile Shops/Roadside Traders (other charitable or
community organisations) - per month after the first
month
54
Circuses (with menagerie) 522
Duplicate licence 71
Noise Complaints &
Seizure of Equipment
Minimum fee 161
Seized equipment administration and storage fee 161
Seized equipment administration and storage -
disposal Fee
127
Call out to deactivate
building security alarm
system that is causing
excessive noise
Attendance plus any other fees
177
Other fees Street trading approval per year 161
Street dining approval per year 161
Single Sandwich Board approval per year 89
Application for dispensation from sandwich board,
street trading & street trading requirements
493

Rodney
2014 $ (incl. GST)
Food stalls Annual fee 270
one day up to and including 5 days fee 148
Camping grounds Camping ground 270
Remote camp site 148
Offensive trades Offensive Trade licences 270
Transfer of certificates Noting or transfer of registration certificate 148
Health (burial) Registration of funeral director 270
Bylaw administration (i) Any certificate, authority, approval, permit, licence,
consent from or inspection by the Council, not
specifically covered by a fee under any chapter of the
bylaw or any other enactment
121
(ii) Charge for searching for documents, copying
certificates, consents or other authorising documents
and registers
88
(iii) Where the application for a licence is for a period of
less than 12 months the fee payable shall be reduced by
1/12 [one twelfth] for every complete month by which the
term of the licence is less than one year, but so as not in
105
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


2014 $ (incl. GST)
any case less than:
Occupation fee:
business occupying
public footpath
Display of goods (per m
2
per annum) applies where an
applicant wishes to occupy the footpath and a 1.5 metre
gap cannot be maintained
83
Trading in public
places licence fee
Hawker 148
Mobile or travelling shop 270
Commercial open air
market (includes single
stall)
Annual permit 270
Daily (or part thereof) permit
83
Brothels and
commercial sex
premises licence fee
Small Owner operated brothel 281
Brothel
412
Rodney District Council
gambling venue
application fee
Class 4 venue 412
Board venue
412
Other fees and charges Return Fee of Seized Equipment 389
Processing application for Certificate of Exemption 143
Licence fee
(i) Keeping of pigs
(over 10 weeks old)
2 and up to 2 adult pigs 122
Over 2 and up to 50 adult pigs 143
Over 50 and up to 100 adult pigs 197
Over 100 adult pigs 260
(ii) Keeping of more than 12 head of poultry 122
Assessment fee
(i) Travellers
accommodation
5 30 persons 143
32 50 persons 197
Over 50 persons 260
(ii) Public buildings or
places of public resort
A. Theatres and / or cinemas 170
B. Public halls
1. Public or commercial 170
2. Non-profit organisations 143
3. Churches or buildings used
solely as places of worship
No fee
C. Grandstands and stadiums 170
D. Showgrounds 170
E. Circuses per month or part
thereof
143
F. Public assembly in the open air or in marquees,
tents or other temporary structures:
1. For profit
Up to and including 2,000
persons for each day or part
thereof
170
Over 2,000 persons $170 plus $27 per
1,000 persons
2. For non-profit organisations
for each day or part thereof
143
3. For public worship No fee
Waitkere
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Description Fee from 1 July
2014 $
(incl. GST)
Funeral Directors 312
Camping Grounds 333
Transfer fee for noting change of occupier 102
Hawkers licence 41
Mobile Shop licence 139
Inspection fee if food sold mobile shops 158
Inspection fee if food sold food stalls 158
Pre-application / licence, consent meeting (per hour) As per hourly rates
Charge for any re-inspection for any activity not specifically scheduled 139
Return of seized property (noise) under section 336 RMA 462
Buskers licence 189
Markets licence excluding any individual vendor stall licences 189
Food Stalls licence 139
Outdoor Caf areas 262
Hourly rates
p) Charges set out in the table below are generally applicable to the entire region. Where a different hourly
rate is set for a specific activity identified in Other environmental health and bylaw licensing, the rate in that
schedule will apply.
Description
(1)
Specialty Hourly rate from 1
July 2014 (incl.
GST)
Manager/project manager/legal
services
All areas
$177
Team leader All areas $162
Specialist/advisor/ senior Planning, engineering, subdivisions,
environmental health, compliance and
monitoring, urban designer, arborist,
licensing, incident investigators, other
$162
Building processing and
inspections, compliance,
monitoring, environmental health
Building, compliance , monitoring,
environmental health, licensing, incident
investigators, other
$135
Assistant/technician Assistant planner, graduate development
engineer, graduate resource consent
planner, planning technician
$126
Administration All areas $98
Note:
1. The categories denote descriptions of work performed by council officers. Position titles vary across the Auckland Council
regulatory departments.

Hairdresser premises licensing
q) The annual licensing fees for hairdresser premises is standardised across the region. All fees are
charged annually and cover the cost of inspections, i.e. there will be no separate inspection fees (unless
there is significant non-compliance).
Fee from 1 July 2014
(incl. GST) $
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

B

I
t
e
m

1
5

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Region wide hairdresser licence fee 209

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014

Auckland Arts Festival annualisation Page 255

Auckland Arts Festival annualisation

File No.: CP2014/08508

Purpose
1. To present the business case on proposed annualisation of the Auckland Arts Festival and
seek a decision from councillors.
Executive summary
2. This report summarises a business case prepared in response to the Auckland Festival
Trusts (AFT) request for additional funding to support an annual Auckland Arts Festival
(AAF).
3. A range of arguments are presented that compare the advantages and disadvantages of
providing the additional funding requested.
4. Four options have been developed for the committees consideration:
status quo (do not provide additional funding)
provide additional funding on a short term basis for a trial annual festival in 2016
provide additional annual funding to support annualisation
provide additional annual funding to support annualisation, with conditions.
5. While AFT understand the LTP will not be finalised for another year, they require a strong
indication of whether council supports their request for additional funding now.
6. Consultation showed public support for annualisation, and some stakeholder support.
However, given the lack of alignment with CDACs arts and culture priorities and the
extensive process required to balance priorities as council develops the LTP over the
coming months, the business case does not provide a strong enough argument to support
Auckland Council making an ongoing commitment to an annual festival.
7. Providing funding on a one-off basis would allow for two more festivals to take place (the
2015 festival already planned and the 2016 trial annual festival) before a decision needs to
be made about an ongoing commitment. It will also allow for a better understanding of the
additional funding requests expected from the other ARAFA amenities in response to an
annual AAF.

Recommendation/s
a) provide additional funding to the Auckland Festival Trust (through ARAFB) on a short
term basis for a trial annual Auckland Arts Festival in 2016.

Comments
8. Auckland Council currently provides $2.23 million to the Auckland Festival Trust (AFT) every
year, through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) levy, to stage a
biennial Auckland Arts Festival (AAF).
9. AFT has aspirations for the festival to become an annual event and has requested
approximately $1 million additional funding per annum from the council (making councils
contribution approximately $3.23 million per year). Given the legal restrictions placed on
council funding the amenities outside the ARAFA process, it is most likely that the additional
I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


funding would also be provided through the ARAFA levy. AFT would also require additional
external annual funding of nearly $1 million per annum from other sources such as
sponsorship and grants from trusts and Creative New Zealand.
10. AFT initially met with senior council staff in 2011 to discuss annualising the festival. In
2012/2013 they requested additional funding for a 2014 event (outside of the ARAFA
process), but the governing body did not agree to provide the funding at that time.
Councillors instead asked council staff to develop a business case, which would assist the
council in its decision whether to support annualisation from 2015 onwards (which would
impact on the 2015-2025 long term plan [LTP]). The governing body also resolved to
recommend to AFT that it hold discussions with other regional arts amenities and arts sector
organisations with the aim of developing stronger sector support for annualisation.
11. AFT has requested a firm commitment from the council to allow them to source the
additional funding and sponsorship required to support the move to an annual festival. The
trust is aware that the increased funding would need to be confirmed through the ARAFA
process; however it will proceed with planning the 2016 festival if it gets this commitment
now.
12. Auckland Councils current funding environment is very tight, with all expenditure (not just
new funding proposals) being reviewed. The ARAFA amenities are assured council funding
to allow them to operate sustainably, but any new requests for funding need to be
considered alongside other council priorities. New funding proposals may only be put
forward if they deliver on the six transformational shifts
3
and two key geographic areas (the
city centre and the Southern Initiative) or generate a return in the short to medium term
(unless they are required for statutory or health and safety reasons).
13. A project group was established to develop a business case. The group has representation
from:
CCO Governance and External Partnerships
Financial Plan, Policy and Budgeting
Community Policy and Planning
Community Development Arts and Culture
ATEED.
14. The project team has undertaken a range of activities in preparing the business case:
assessed strategic alignment with key plans and strategies (e.g. Auckland Plan,
Economic Development Strategy, Major Events Strategy)
commissioned and reviewed an economic impact assessment of an annual AAF
assessed financial information provided by AFT
reviewed a large amount of information provided by AFT, including a number of reports
they have commissioned on annualisation and the economic impact of the festival
discussions with a range of stakeholders (including other ARAFA amenities, other funders
of AFT and the New Zealand Festival)
consultation with Aucklanders through the draft annual plan 2014-2015.
15. The project team would like to express its appreciation for AFTs cooperation throughout the
development of the business case. AFT board members and staff were responsive to
requests for meetings and information.

3
The six transformational shifts in the Auckland Plan are: dramatically improve the prospects for Aucklands Children
and Young People; strongly commit to environmental action and green growth; move to outstanding public transport
within one network; radically improve quality of urban living; substantially raise living standards for all Aucklanders and
focus on those most in need; significantly lift Maori and social and economic well-being.
I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


16. The full business case is appended as Attachment A and a summary of the key benefits and
disadvantages of financially supporting an annual Auckland Arts Festival is provided below.
Arguments for supporting an annual Auckland Arts Festival
17. The AAF primarily takes place in the city centre (with some events around the region). The
city centre is one of two geographical priority areas specified in the Auckland Plan and for
the development of the 2015-2025 LTP.
18. An evaluation of the 2013 AAF showed audiences had high levels of satisfaction with festival
events and the experience overall.
19. The same evaluation showed that 81 per cent of AAF audience members agreed that the
festival made them proud of Auckland. This is consistent with a 2011 study, Aucklanders
and the arts, which showed that 77 per cent of Aucklanders were proud of the arts in
Auckland. Although difficult to measure the effects, this sense of pride is important and may
have indirect economic benefits. A study of the Adelaide Festival, using a willingness to pay
model, shows that festivals are valued by all residents of Adelaide, not just those who attend
the festival. The 2013 AAF really activated Aucklands central city.
20. There is anecdotal evidence (from AFTs stakeholder engagement, provided to the project
group) that the festival has provided a platform and exposure for smaller arts groups.
21. Evidence from Australia shows that most biennial festivals do move to an annual footing
eventually although some take a lot longer than the eleven years since AAFs first festival.
22. There are a number of benefits for the festival itself, which may put it on a more sustainable
financial footing long-term and help reduce its risk profile (however projections assume
council funding will remain at the same level for the foreseeable future).
23. Consultation through the draft Annual Plan 2014-2015 indicates twice as many people
support annualisation (51%) than oppose it (23%). The remaining 26 per cent were unsure.
24. Many of Aucklands major annual events are sports focused. An annual arts offering would
provide some balance.
Arguments against supporting an annual Auckland Arts Festival
25. There is limited direct economic impact/benefit from AAF.
26. AAF targets audiences who are already engaged with the arts CDACs programming
framework sets priorities which increase participation by those parts of the community who
are currently less engaged in the arts. For this reason, CDAC do not consider AAF to be
aligned with the Auckland Plan priorities.
27. An annual AAF would not contribute to any of the Auckland Plans six transformational shifts.
28. An annual AAF may displace other arts sector spend this is very difficult to assess and
may be short-lived. Of particular concern is the potential impact on other regional amenities
who receive ARAFB funding. The experience of Australian cities whose festivals annualised
suggests that this may be less than anticipated.
29. There are a lot of events in Auckland during the first three months of the year, which puts
pressure on venues (restricting options for other arts organisations who may not be involved
in the festival) and on hotels. There is a lot of competition for audiences during that time
(from both free and ticketed events), which also puts pressure on other arts organisations.
30. There are two key financial risks to council. The first is that festival revenue projections may
not be achieved (the main risks are considered to be sponsorship and other grants).
31. The second area of financial concern for council is that other ARAFA amenities and other
arts groups are likely to increase their funding requests (three amenities have already
confirmed this). As such, the total financial impact on the council is likely to be greater than
$1 million per year. Alternatively festival offerings may be reduced with lower benefits.
I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


32. There is also a concern whether the growth in audience numbers for the 2013 AAF can be
sustained. Part of 2013s success was due to good weather, but we cannot assess how
much. Box office risk can be managed by changes to programming, but that could mean
reduced festival offerings and therefore reduced benefits.

Options
Option 1 - status quo
33. Under this option, Auckland Council would continue to provide funding for a biennial AAF
through ARAFB (current funding is $2.2 million per year). This would allow the festival to
maintain its current structure, but it is unlikely to achieve its goal of annualisation (unless
AFT makes significant changes to the festivals current form, e.g. shortens the length of the
AAF).
34. Should the councillors choose this option, staff recommend reviewing the request again in
three years time, immediately following the 2017 AAF. This would allow time:
to assess whether the audiences and revenue from the 2013 festival can be sustained for
the 2015 and 2017 AAFs
for the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to undertake a wider piece of work on festivals in
NZ (if included in their work programme)
to assess whether the pressure on council funds has eased (this timing would allow it to
form part of the next LTP development process).
Option 2 - provide additional funding on a short term basis for a trial annual festival
35. The council may decide to increase AFTs funding in the form of a short term increase to
AFTs grant to allow the festival to stage a festival in 2016 as a trial (rather than an ongoing
commitment to provide additional funding every year). AFT have indicated it would increase
its funding request to approximately $3.2 million per year for an annual festival (representing
an additional $1 million per year). To allow for an extra festival in 2016 (and the AFT to stage
the already planned, biennial 2017 festival), this additional funding would need to be
provided for two years (2015-16 and 2016-17). Under this option, this additional funding is
likely to be provided through an increase to AFTs ARAFA levy for those two years.
36. This would allow the festival to demonstrate whether it is able to sustain the 2013 audiences
on an annual basis and give council more evidence to make a decision about making a long
term commitment to funding an annual festival. Following the 2016 festival, a decision would
need to be made quickly about future annualisation to give AFT certainty and allow sufficient
time to plan for the 2018 festival (if annualisation is fully supported at that time). Any ongoing
commitment made at that time could still be conditional, based on the performance of the
2017 festival.
Option 3 - additional annual funding to support annualisation
37. This option would mean increasing AFTs funding through ARAFB, as per AFTs request.
AFT have indicated it would increase its funding request to approximately $3.2 million per
year. It is assumed that this additional funding is not to be reallocated from the other
amenities, so it would lead to an increase of the ARAFA levy (approximately seven per cent
4

due to AAF annualisation, before any increases requested by other amenities).
38. This additional funding from the council is not the full amount required to support
annualisation AFT would need to obtain more funding from other sources such as Creative
NZ, trusts and sponsorship.

4
The total 2012-2013 ARAFA levy was $14.1 million.
I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


39. If councillors support this option, a review should be undertaken after several annual
festivals, to assess whether the projected benefits have been met and whether an annual
AAF is still a council priority.

Option 4 additional annual funding to support annualisation, with conditions
40. This option would see council (through ARAFB) give AFT the additional funds requested, but
attaching conditions. This may somewhat improve the alignment of the festival with the
aspirations of the Auckland Plan, but some conditions may not be acceptable to AFT.
41. Possible conditions may include:
that AFT must secure the other funding it requires by a certain date (e.g. 31 December,
which would allow ARAFB to withhold the additional funding for the following year if the
target is not met)
a commitment to offer the other ARAFA amenities (APO, ATC, NZO) the chance to be
involved in every festival, within the festivals programming needs (noting this is likely to
increase those amenities funding requirements)
request ARAFB establish KPIs for the AFT setting attendance (demographic) targets and
geographic spread (or to better reflect other Auckland Plan priorities)
move the festival to another time of year when there would be less competition from other
events and less pressure on venues (AFT have advised that this would have implications
for festival costs and programming)
reduce the length of the festival (either every year or in odd years when it competes with
NZF in Wellington) to potentially reduce the cost and additional funding required.
42. Any conditions would need further development and discussion with AFT and ARAFB to
ensure they help achieve the best outcomes.
43. If councillors support this option, a review should be undertaken after several annual
festivals, to assess whether the projected benefits have been met and whether an annual
AAF is still a council priority.
44. A table summarising analysis of the options is attached as appendix 1 of the business case.
45. Consultation showed public support for annualisation, and some stakeholder support.
However, given the lack of alignment with CDACs arts and culture priorities and the
extensive process required to balance priorities as council develops the LTP over the
coming months, the business case does not provide a strong enough argument to support
Auckland Council making an ongoing commitment to an annual festival.
46. Providing funding on a short term basis would allow for two more festivals to take place (the
2015 festival already planned and the 2016 trial annual festival) before a decision needs to
be made about an ongoing commitment. It will also allow for a better understanding of the
additional funding requests expected from the other ARAFA amenities in response to an
annual AAF.
Consideration
47. 19 of the 21 local board plans contain references to arts and culture, although the focus is
understandably at a much more local scale. An annual Auckland Arts Festival is unlikely to
make more than a minor contribution to these local board priorities, due to its regional focus
and predominance of events in the CBD.
48. Of the 21 local boards, only two made resolutions relating to this topic when setting their
draft annual plan feedback Upper Harbour and Waitemata. Neither support additional
I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


funding for annualisation. Upper Harbour local board recognises the value of the AAF but,
following feedback from residents, does not support additional funding for an annual festival.
Maori impact statement
49. AAF makes a limited contribution to Maori outcomes, particularly when compared to Matariki
Festival. However, if AFT is given the extra funding to support annualisation, they have
committed to employing a fulltime Maori programme manager. AFT have advised the role
will have a strong emphasis on ensuring strong Tikanga Maori within the AAF organisation,
development of new Maori (and Pacific) work, mentoring of emerging Maori artists/arts
practitioners and delivery of Maori (and Pacific) content in each festival programme.
Implementation
50. Any decision to provide additional funding to support annualisation of the Auckland Arts
Festival would be subject to confirmation through the ARAFA process. It is expected that
ARAFB will follow the councils guidance on this matter, although the board would separately
scrutinise whether it considers the requested funding to be at an appropriate level (for the
increased level of service implied by annualisation).

Attachments
No. Title Page
A Auckland Arts Festival annualisation:business case 261

Signatories
Author Kirsty Colquhoun - Advisor
Authorisers Mark Butcher - Treasurer
Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A

I
t
e
m

1
7

Budget Committee
08 May 2014


Budget Committee - May 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Budget Committee - May 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council

You might also like