Budget Committee - May 2015

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Budget Committee will be held on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Thursday, 7 May 2015

9.30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
Budget Committee
OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Penny Webster
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Cameron Brewer
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Bill Cashmore
Cr Ross Clow
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Cr Chris Darby
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee
Cr Calum Penrose
Cr Dick Quax
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Member David Taipari
Member John Tamihere
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr John Watson
Cr George Wood, CNZM
(Quorum 11 members)
Mike Giddey
Democracy Advisor
30 April 2015
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8143
Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy
unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact
the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
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
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a
resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the
meeting.
Those who are not members of the public

General principles
Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where

access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is
necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item
and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a
Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee
meeting).
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of
interest leave the room.
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors
who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in
standing orders.
Staff
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to
perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant
to, a particular Local Board area.
IMSB
Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.
Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to
perform their role.
CCOs
Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant
to the CCO.
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Apologies
Declaration of Interest
Confirmation of Minutes
Petitions
Public Input
Local Board Input
Extraordinary Business
Notices of Motion
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making
10
Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local Board views
11
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Local Board update
23
This report will be distributed in an addendum agenda.

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan
2015/16
49
13
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Mayor's Report
57
14
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Proposal to establish a new Urban

Development Entity (Development Auckland)
233
15
Greenways - A regional approach to greenways
261
16
Review of Business Improvement Districts Service Delivery Model
267
17
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Other Policies
307
18
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Performance measures
309
19
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
12
Page 5
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
1
Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
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.
Confirmation of Minutes
That the Budget Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 as
a true and correct record.
Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
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.
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.
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
Page 7
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
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)
(b)
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
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.
Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 8
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 9

File No.: CP2015/07295
Purpose
1.
This report provides an overview of the process undertaken to consult and consider
feedback to inform the Councils next 10-year budget (the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 or
LTP), the decisions now required and the next steps to finalise the plan.
Executive Summary
2.
Between 23 January and 16 March 2015, Auckland Council undertook public consultation to
inform its next 10-year budget using the special consultative procedure.
3.
The consultation approach reflected recent changes in legislation that provide greater
flexibility to enable the process to work better for the community and decision-makers, and
established three broad channels of feedback (written, in-person and digital).
4.
To support the consultation process, a significant public awareness raising campaign was
undertaken over mid-January to mid-March. The level of awareness of the 10-year budget
(LTP) across the Auckland population increased significantly over this period, from 34% in
December 2014 to 54% in mid-March 2015 when the consultation period closed.
5.
The volume of feedback received across the three broad channels was:
27,383 written submissions (including 203 late submissions) were received, providing
over 260,000 feedback points
1,412 people attended a Have Your Say event, providing over 8,600 feedback points,
and around 900 people attended local community events and provided over 1,600
feedback points
1,354 pieces of eligible feedback were provided through digital channels
6.
All feedback was processed and coded into feedback points across a range of themes and
topics. Staff with specific subject matter expertise then reviewed all feedback relevant to
their area and distilled this into a set of 11 regional and 21 local Summary of Feedback
reports for consideration by elected members.
7.
All Summary of Feedback reports are available on the Auckland Council website at
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/longtermplan20
15/Pages/home.aspx. The submissions and feedback received will also be available on the
council website by 30 April 2015.
8.
This approach was designed to suit the size and scale of the Auckland Council consultation
process and ensure decision-makers were well informed about the feedback received from
Aucklanders on the 10-year budget.
9.
In addition to collecting feedback on transport issues using the consultation process, an

independent survey of 5,022 respondents was undertaken by Colmar Brunton on the key
transport issues facing Auckland. The end to end survey process and final report on the
survey results were peer-reviewed by the University of Auckland.
10.
Prior to meeting today to make decisions, the Budget Committee held discussions with local
boards and also held workshops to consider key matters for decision-making.
11.
Decisions on the 10-year budget are now required in order for staff to finalise financial
statements, progress local board agreements, finalise the long-term plan document and
complete an audit process ahead of adoption of the final plan on 25 June 2015.
Page 9
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Recommendation/s
a)
note that the decisions required to finalise the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 are set out
in separate reports on todays agenda.
Comments
Consultation to inform the 10-year budget
12.
Between 23 January and 16 March 2015, Auckland Council undertook public consultation to
inform its next 10-year budget (the Long-term Plan 2015-2025) using the special
consultative procedure.
13.
The consultation approach reflected recent changes in legislation that provide greater
flexibility to enable the process to work better for the community and decision-makers.
14.
Key elements of the consultation process undertaken are set out below.
The Governing Body adopted a consultation document and supporting information on

18 December 2014 for consultation on the 10-year budget. The consultation
document focused on the key issues facing Auckland and the proposals and options to
address these issues. Developing a consultation document was required under the
new legislation and aimed to make it easier for Aucklanders to understand and engage
on the most important decisions being made by council. A summary of the
documents and tools available to support consultation are set out in Attachment A.
The public consultation period opened on 23 January 2015 and closed on 16 March
2015 this longer consultation period provided more time for Aucklanders to provide
feedback.
A public awareness raising campaign was undertaken over mid-January to mid-March

to encourage Aucklanders to participate in the consultation process. This included
distributing a Summary document to all households promoting the consultation
document and the shapeauckland website, as well as a significant campaign at both a
regional and local level to raise awareness - across media channels (print, radio,
television), engagement events, targeted stakeholder communications and social
media.
The level of awareness of the 10-year budget (LTP) across the Auckland population
increased significantly over this period, from 34% in December 2014 to 54% in midMarch 2015 when the consultation period closed. An overview of the public
awareness raising activity undertaken and key stats is provided in Attachment B.
Three broad channels were used to collect feedback to make it easier for Aucklanders
to get involved and feedback was collected across all channels at the same time.
i.
ii.
Written feedback this included a hard copy feedback form (distributed to Auckland
households as part of a Summary document), an online feedback form and also any
emails, letters, proformas or other written communications received.
In person feedback Events were held across Auckland (largely in the evenings and
weekends) to provide an opportunity for Aucklanders to provide feedback in person
to elected members. Two types of events were held:
o Have your say events - Traditional hearings were replaced with 37 public
spoken interaction events called Have Your Say (HYS) events across the
Auckland region from 14 February through to 16 March 2015. This included
Page 10
events for key stakeholders and also for specific communities (Maori, Ethnic,
Pacific, Disability and Youth/Seniors). 1,412 Aucklanders attended the Have
Your Say events and feedback was recorded and analysed alongside other
channels.
o
40 local community feedback events were also held, which were attended by
around 900 people. These events were led by local boards and focussed more
on local issues.
iii. Digital feedback Feedback was also collected for the first time through social
media channels (facebook, twitter and blogs) using #LTP2015 and through an online
chat event.
Independent Transport Survey
15.
In addition to collecting feedback on transport issues using the consultation process an

independent survey of 5,022 respondents was undertaken by Colmar Brunton on the key
transport issues facing Auckland. The end to end survey process and final report on the
survey results were peer-reviewed by the University of Auckland.
Consideration of feedback
16.
Feedback was received across the three broad channels established for the consultation
process and most feedback received covered a wide range of issues, providing multiple
feedback points. In some cases, feedback points comment on more than one issue.
17.
In summary:
27,383 written submissions (including 203 late submissions) were received, providing
over 260,000 feedback points
1,412 people attended a Have Your Say event, providing over 8,600 feedback points,
and around 900 people attended local community events and provided over 1,600
feedback points
1,354 pieces of eligible feedback were provided through digital channels.
18.
Feedback was also received through events held with housing for older people tenants,
empowered community workshops and from council advisory panels.
19.
All feedback was processed and coded into feedback points across a range of themes and
topics. Staff with specific subject matter expertise then reviewed all feedback relevant to
their area and distilled this into a set of Summary of Feedback reports for consideration by
elected members.
20.
11 Summary of Feedback reports were prepared to summarise the feedback received on

regional topics and themes and these were considered by the Budget Committee between
20-22 April. As a set, these reports covered each of the key issues for consultation and all
areas of council group activity. The results of the Colmar Brunton transport survey were
considered alongside the consultation feedback on the key transport questions (refer to the
Summary of Feedback report on Transport Choices).
21.
In addition, 21 reports summarising the feedback relevant to each local board area were
prepared and considered by local boards at meetings held between 15 23 April.
22.
All Summary of Feedback reports are available on the Auckland Council website at
15/Pages/home.aspx. All submissions and feedback received will also be available on the
council website by 30 April 2015.
23.
This approach was designed to suit the size and scale of the Auckland Council consultation
process and ensure decision-makers were well informed about the feedback received from
Aucklanders on the 10-year budget.
Page 11
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 9
24.
Following the Budget Committee and Local Boards separately considering the feedback
received, three days of discussions were held between local boards and the Budget
Committee. These discussions provided an opportunity for local board views to be
considered ahead of the Budget Committee making final decisions for the 10-year budget.
Decision-making
25.
Since the draft 10-year budget was adopted, staff have reviewed and updated group
budgets to better reflect the true cost of delivering the planned activities. Now, some key
budget decisions are required, including:
confirming (or not) service level changes consulted on in the draft
decisions on transport spending and funding
considering a range of new budget proposals and funding requests, including those
from CCOs, council departments, submitters, local boards, the Independent Maori
Statutory Board and co-governance entities.
26.
The Mayoral Report for the LTP sets out the Mayors recommendations for budgets, rates
and fees and charges. Staff reports on these areas are attached to the Mayors Report.
27.
In addition, the Budget Committee will consider reports on local board advocacy,
recommended amendments to policies, performance measures and targets, funding for the
Independent Maori Statutory Board and the Maunga Authority and also the proposal to
establish a new CCO (Development Auckland).
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
28.
Information on local projects and priorities was included in the consultation material for the
10-year budget to inform the development of local board agreements for 2015/2016. During
the consultation process, local boards held local community events to engage with their
communities and a Have your say event was held in each local board area, which provided
an opportunity for Aucklanders to provide feedback in person to local board members on
local issues.
29.
Reports summarising the feedback received relevant to each local board area were
considered by each local board between 15-23 April and local board views were then shared
with the Budget Committee during discussions on 24, 28 and 29 April.
30.
A separate report on todays agenda covers local board advocacy for the 10-year budget.
Local board views are also considered in each of the relevant decision-making reports on
todays agenda.
31.
Local boards will hold workshops following the budget decisions made today and then meet
to agree final budgets and adopt local board agreements between 9-16 June.
Mori impact statement

32.
In June 2014 the Finance and Performance Committee agreed to take a strategic top down
approach to agreeing and prioritising activities that contribute to Mori outcomes through
clarifying the councils political direction on priority Mori transformational shift activities and
associated budgets in the LTP.
33.
The Mori transformational shift priorities included in the LTP consultation material included
proposed funding for a Mori signature event, Mori capital projects (including marae
development and papakinga housing), Kaitiakitanga of Tmaki Makaurau, a waka
Page 12
programme, whnau well being, Effectiveness for Maori, Treaty Settlements, Sites of
significance and mataawaka contribution to council decision-making.
34.
A tailored approach was followed to engage with Maori on the 10-year budget, including:
Targeted communications to Maori communities, organisations and mana whenua (291)

Maori awareness raising events
4 Mori Have your say and 2 local community events
A tailored video highlighting relevant aspects of the draft 10-year budget for Maori
Maori specific press releases
Interviews with maori media
Te Reo Maori Summary document .

35.
The Have your Say events were attended by 157 people, and in addition a specific event
was held for mana whenua. Translators were available to support the Have your say events
and to translate written submissions received. A summary of the feedback received is
available as part of the Summary of Feedback on the Governance and Support theme on
the council website.
36.
As directed by the Budget Committee on November 5, Council and IMSB secretariat staff
have worked together to identify specific activities and budgets within overall budget
envelopes that deliver on the Maori transformational shift.
Implementation
37.
Decisions on the 10-year budget are required today in order for staff to:
finalise financial statements to reflect decisions made today
progress local board agreements local boards will hold workshops in May and then
meet between 9-16 June to agree local 10-year budgets and adopt local board
agreements for 2015/2016
finalise the long-term plan document for adoption following decisions made today; and
complete an audit process ahead of adoption of the final plan on 25 June 2015.
38.
A rates resolution will also be prepared for adoption at the 25 June Governing Body meeting,
for consideration after the adoption of the LTP.
39.
Following decisions made today relating to development contributions, the Development

Contributions policy will also be updated for adoption on 25 June.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Consultation documentation and tools
15
Overview of public awareness raising activity to support consultation
17
Signatories
Author
Tanya Stocks - Programme Director
Authorisers
Matthew Walker General Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer
Page 13
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Attachment A
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 15
Attachment B
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 17
Attachment B
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 18
Attachment B
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 19
Attachment B
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 20
Attachment B
Item 9
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 21
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 10

File No.: CP2015/07589
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to formally note local board feedback on the LTP Consultation
Document and key advocacy areas, as previously discussed with the Budget Committee, for
consideration in decision making on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Executive Summary
2.
Local board plans, informed by extensive community engagement, were adopted in October
2014. Legislation requires that local board plans help inform the development of the Longterm Plan 2015-2025.
3.
Throughout the past year, local boards have been involved as part of councils shared
governance model in the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
4.
Local boards have considered public feedback received from or on their local area on the
proposed LTP.
5.
Following on from discussions with the Budget Committee in October last year, local boards
held further discussions with the Budget Committee in April 2015 on key advocacy areas
and proposed LTP priorities. Common areas of local priorities include:
Continued investment in sports fields, recreational facilities and multi-use community
facilities
Development of greenways
Planning and action to improve water quality in the Manukau Harbour
Acquisition of land for open space and recreation in growth areas
Spatial planning and town centre development
Transport, with a focus on roads, public transport and active transport in particular.
Boards also provided feedback on the key consultation topics, including Investing in
Auckland, Fixing Transport, Sharing Rates (UAGC and business rates), Development
Auckland, and proposed levels of service changes.
Local boards welcome the proposed local board capital fund but a number of boards do not
agree with the funding source being the community facilities partnership scheme. This
scheme enables boards to collaborate and leverage significant third party funding.
Key local board priority capital projects are contained in the attachments to this report, but a
summary will be provided prior to the Budget Committee meeting.
Recommendation/s
a)
consider feedback from local boards on the LTP Consultation Document and key
advocacy areas before making decisions on the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Page 23
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 10
Comments
6.
In early 2014 local boards undertook extensive engagement with their communities on their
local board plans. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires that the
priorities identified in the 2014 local board plans should inform the development of the Longterm Plan 2015-2025.
7.
With reference to the community priorities identified in their local board plans, and public
feedback received from or on their local area on the proposed LTP, local boards have
considered feedback on the LTP Consultation Document and have identified key advocacy
areas. Local boards discussed their feedback and advocacy with the Budget Committee on
24, 28 and 29 May. These discussions followed on from earlier discussions in October last
year where local boards provided feedback on the Mayoral Proposal for the LTP and
proposed LTP priorities. The areas of commonality across the local boards are detailed
below with more overview information summarised in Attachment 1. Individual local board
feedback and advocacy are included in Attachment 2.
Investing in Auckland
8.
While some boards support the proposed average 3.5 per cent rates increase and others
support a lower average rates increase, overall they would like to see increased focus on
maintaining investment through efficiency savings and seeking other sources of funding,
with less focus on service level cuts.
Fixing Transport
9.
Overall boards support investment in transport that is over and above what is in the Basic
transport network, although not all supported the Auckland Plan transport network. Most
boards would like more focus on public transport and active transport. There is no clear
preference for a particular funding option, with a variety of concerns raised for both options.
Sharing rates
10.
The majority of local boards that provided feedback on the UAGC supported the UAGC
remaining at its current level of $385. Four boards expressed support for a higher UAGC
and no local boards supported a lower UAGC.
11.
Those boards that provided feedback on the reducing business differential did not support
this decrease, with four boards supporting a suspension of the reduction for three years.
Development Auckland
12.
Of those boards that provided feedback on the proposal to establish Development Auckland,
the majority supported the proposal.
Proposed levels of service changes

13.
Some boards have provided very detailed feedback on service level proposals, these can be
found in the attachments to this report. The proposals regarding library hours, community
development, chemical weed spraying, planting, and general parks maintenance received
the most feedback from boards.
Local priorities
14.
Local boards have identified particular projects or initiatives that are a priority for progression
in their local area, for which they would like the Governing Body to make a decision to
support.
15.
Local boards have prioritised these local projects or initiatives with reference to their local
board plans and other prioritisation tools in council such as the Community Facility Networks
Plan.
16.
Key themes across local priorities are:
Boards believe continued investment in sports fields, recreational facilities and multiuse community facilities is important for the liveability of Auckland.
Page 24
The development of greenways remains a key focus with a number of boards

advocating for a regional fund for implementation.
There is support across a number of boards for planning and action to improve water
quality in the Manukau Harbour.
A number of boards are advocating for the acquisition of land for open space and
recreation in growth areas.
Spatial planning and town centre development continue to be important areas of focus
for boards.
With regards to CCOs, transport remains the highest priority for boards, with focus on
roads, public transport and active transport in particular.
Key local board priority capital projects are contained in the attachments to this report, but a
summary will be provided prior to the Budget Committee meeting.
Other proposals
Local boards welcome the proposed local board capital fund but a number of boards
do not agree with the funding source being the community facilities partnership
scheme. This scheme enables boards to collaborate and leverage significant third
party funding.
Consideration
17.
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of local board feedback on the LTP
Consultation Document and key advocacy areas for input into development of the LTP.

18.
Many local board decisions are of importance to Mori and there is a need to continue to
build relationships between local boards and relevant iwi. The local board plans have been
developed through engagement with the community, including Mori, and this has formed
the basis for local priorities input into developing the LTP.
Implementation
19.
Following Budget Committee decisions on LTP budgets in May, local boards will develop
their local board agreements for adoption at business meetings in June.
Attachments
No.
Title
Attachment One contains an overview of local board feedback on the LTP

Consultation Document and key advocacy areas.
Attachment Two contains individual local board feedback on the LTP

Consultation Document and advocacy. (Under Separate Cover)
Page
27
Signatories
Author
Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards
Page 25
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 10
Authorisers
Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy & Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services
Page 26
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 28
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 29
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 30
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 31
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 32
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 33
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 34
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 35
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 36
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 37
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 38
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 39
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 40
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 41
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 42
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 43
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 44
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 45
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 46
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 47
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan

2015/16
File No.: CP2015/07500
Purpose
1.
This report provides the necessary information to enable the Budget Committee to make a
decision on the 10 year budget for the Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16.
Executive Summary
2.
The Mayors Long-term Plan proposal announced in August 2014 included a commitment to
provide a reasonable level of funding / support to reflect the projected cost of co-governance
entities.
3.
The Ng Mana Whenua o Tmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 (the Act) requires
the Tpuna Maunga o Tmaki Makaurau Authority (Maunga Authority) and the council to
agree an annual operational plan through the councils Long Term Plan or Annual Plan
Process.
4.
The Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 was adopted through unanimous
decision by the Maunga Authority at Hui 4 on 1 December 2014. It sets out a high level 10
year work programme with more detailed information for each maunga for the first three
years of the Long-term Plan (that is, 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18).
5.
The draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 proposed $45,671,879 capital funding over 10 years
and $30,733,031 operating funding over 10 years for the Tpuna Maunga under the CoGovernance Entities Theme. This funding is set at a regional level and deemed by the
Maunga Authority as the minimum funding necessary to commence restoration and visitor
management. The Proposed Net Operating Expenditure incorporated the funding from the
Open Space and Volcanic Cones Targeted Rate Reserve ($2.5 million), which has been
applied to fund activities over the first six years of the LTP 2015-2025.
6.
Feedback was received from one organisation, 18 individuals representing 13 organisations

and 24 members of the public.
7.
The uniqueness and significance of the Tpuna Maunga and submitters understanding of
their spiritual, cultural, historic heritage, geological, landscape and recreation values was
evident in the majority of submissions.
8.
There was overall strong support for the new co-governance arrangement, improving the
protection and enhancement of values associated with the Tpuna Maunga, the Draft
Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16, the Integrated Management Plan and the
proposed 10-year budget.
9.
There was a common desire noted by submitters to see community partnerships and
education and visitor experience brought forward to be a short term operational expenditure
priority. Council staff advise that the actions identified by submitters for these areas could
be delivered within existing operational budgets and that no reprioritisation of budgets is
required.
10.
The Governing Body and the Maunga Authority held joint deliberations on the 23 April 2015
at which the public feedback received was discussed.
11.
The Maunga Authority will adopt the Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 at its 8
June hui once the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 budgets have been finalised.
Recommendation/s
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16
Page 49
Item 12
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 12
Recommendations are included in the Mayoral Report.
Comments
Overview of Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16
12.
The Tpuna Maunga hold a paramount place in the historical, spiritual, ancestral and
cultural identity of Ng Mana Whenua o Tmaki Makaurau. On 29 August 2014, the Ng
Mana Whenua o Tmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 (the Tmaki Collective
Redress Act) came into effect. The Act vested ownership of the Crown owned-land in 14
Tpuna Maunga in the Tpuna Taonga o Tamaki Makaurau Trust, on the basis that they
are held in trust for the common benefit of the iwi/hap of Ng Mana Whenua o Tmaki
Makaurau and the other people of Auckland.
13.
The Tpuna Maunga o Tmaki Makaurau Authority (Maunga Authority), which comprises six
representatives from Ng Mana Whenua o Tmaki Makaurau, six representatives from the
council and a non-voting Crown representative, is the administering body for the Tpuna
Maunga. The Maunga Authority is independent of Council. Council is responsible for the
routine management of the Tpuna Maunga and the administered lands under the direction
of the Maunga Authority, and for the costs incurred both in carrying out this function and the
functions under the Act and the Reserves Act 1977.
14.
The Act requires the Maunga Authority and the council to agree an annual operational plan.
The operational plan provides a framework in which the council will carry out its functions for
routine management of the Tpuna Maunga and administered lands for that financial year
and provides indicative information for the following two years. The annual operational plan
must (under the Act), be prepared and adopted concurrently with the councils Long Term
Plan or Annual Plan and must be included in summary form.
15.
The Maunga Authority adopted the Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 at Hui 4
on 1 December 2014. This was summarised in Section 12 of the Auckland Council Longterm Plan 2015-2025 supporting information and a link to the Draft Tpuna Maunga
Operational Plan 2015/16 was made available to the public.
16.
The Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 is one of the five activities within the
Co-Governance Entities theme in the Long-Term Plan 2015-2015.
Overview of the proposed 10 year budgets

17.
The Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 / draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025
budget proposes $45,671,879 capital funding over 10 years and $30,733,031 operating
funding over 10 years. The Proposed Net Operating Expenditure incorporates the full
$2,500,000 of the legacy Open Space and Volcanic Cones Targeted Rate Reserve to help
fund activities over the first 6 years of the LTP 2015-2025. A summary of planned
expenditure and funding is provided in Attachment A.
18.
The Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16s focus is on reversing the current level
of degradation evident over these iconic Auckland landscapes, resourcing the development
of an Integrated Management Plan for the 14 Tpuna Maunga and undertaking capital
projects to enhance the visitor experience and improve the awareness of associations Mana
Whenua have with the Tpuna Maunga and values of the Tpuna Maunga.
19.
There is an increase in the funding set aside for capital projects in the last three years of the
Long-term Plan 2015 2025. This recognises the time required to undertake strategic
planning for the Tpuna Maunga (including completing the integrated management plan)
and the project planning requirements (including resource consents and Heritage New
Zealand approvals) to deliver the agreed works programme.
Page 50
20.
The draft plan was prepared with the overall council funding in mind. The Maunga Authority
consider it the minimum amount necessary to respect these taonga, to restore the living
connections and to create and manage them as internationally significant visitor
destinations.
Summary of Feedback
21.
The importance of the Tpuna Maunga to Mana Whenua, organisations, communities and
individuals was clearly evident in the submissions received. While what submitters valued
differed, there was a common desire to see an improvement in the protection and
enhancement of the Tpuna Maunga. There was a level of optimism in a number of
submissions that the new ownership and governance regime for the Tpuna Maunga and
the proposed work programme and associated budgets will achieve positive outcomes.
Net Operating Expenditure

22.
Submitters supported the need for a long-term vision for the Tpuna Maunga. The majority
of the submitters expressed a desire to be able to work with and influence decisions in
respect of the Tpuna Maunga. Submissions received from two local boards and the
Cornwall Park Trust highlighted that by working together it would be possible to improve the
connectivity of the Tpuna Maunga with the broader cultural landscape and open space
network and provide a co-ordinated and consistent approach to managing visitor experience
and behaviour.
23.
Funding to enable the development of the Integrated Management Plan is proposed as a

priority within the first three year period of the Long Term Plan 2015-25. The Maunga
Authority will shortly consider a proposal to complete the plan over a 12 month period. The
development of this plan, which includes two sets of public notification, will enable Mana
Whenua, individuals, communities and organisations to input into decisions on the future
management of the Tpuna Maunga and will define a vision for the Tpuna Maunga
collectively and individually.
24.
Many submitters highlighted the importance of bringing community partnerships (including

volunteering) and education and visitor experience forward to be a short-term operational
expenditure priority.
The Maunga Authority considers the building of partnerships and
stakeholder relationships to be important for achieving its vision for the Tpuna Maunga.
This work stream will be a key priority over coming months.
25.
A number of submissions made reference to maintenance of existing infrastructure.

Renewal projects on specific maunga are prioritised based on a number of factors such as
the condition of the asset, health and safety issues, and whether the infrastructure is still
necessary and appropriate. In the future this will be guided by the Tpuna Maunga Values,
Integrated Management Plan, the Visitor Management Plan and the management principles.
The upgrade and development of visitor related infrastructure is highlighted as a priority in
the Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16, and is recognised as an investment in
the economic development of the Tupuna Maunga as visitor destinations.
26.
Four of the submitters representing the Friends of Maungawhau noted the need for a
dedicated on-site ranger service to adequately protect the maunga and facilitate
volunteering. They noted concern about the current thin line of front line staff. The Council
is in the process of reviewing the operational roles required to deliver the Maunga Authoritys
work programme and this feedback will be taken into consideration as part of this review.
27.
Council staff advice is that the actions identified by submitters, if supported by the Maunga
Authority, can be delivered within existing operational budgets and that no changes to the
proposed 10 year operational expenditure budget is required.
Page 51
Item 12
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 12
Capital Projects
28.
Visitor management in terms of pedestrian and vehicle access was a common theme in
submissions. There was strong support for the continuation of casual pedestrian access
with appropriate controls and infrastructure to protect sites of significance. There were
submissions received for and against changes to private vehicle access on the Tpuna
Maunga. At Hui seven, the Maunga Authority resolved to support restricting vehicle access
to Maungawhau / Mt Edens tihi (summit), with the implementation subject to a further report
on the funding requirements. This issue will be one of many considered more generally in
the context of developing an Integrated Management Plan. Capital projects associated with
implementing a policy position will be budgeted for as part of this project.
Other
29.
Much of the feedback focused on non-budget related matters such as:
The design and location of visitor infrastructure such as way-finding and interpretative
signage and the track network,
Removal of redundant infrastructure by third parties,
The formalisation of the relationship between the Maunga Authority and The Friends of
Maungawhau, and
Specific mechanisms to enable greater community and stakeholder involvement in

decisions, improve communication of Maunga Authority decisions and strengthen
partnerships.
Consideration
30.
The Maunga Authority includes members from Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board, Orakei
Local Board and Albert-Eden Local Board.
31.
Local Boards with Tpuna Maunga within their boundaries were advised about the Draft
Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 and the opportunity to submit or attend the Have
Your Say Day event. Representatives from two local boards attended the Have Your Say
Day Event.
32.
The final LTP will be adopted by 1 July 2015 and agreed actions will apply across the
council group including local boards.

33.
The Maunga Authority is comprised of two representatives from Marutuahu ropu entity, two
representatives from Ngti Whatua ropu entity and two representatives from the Waiohua
Tamaki ropu entity.
34.
All 13 iwi/hapu that comprise the Tpuna Taonga o Tmaki Makaurau Trust were advised
about the Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 and the opportunity to submit or
attend the Have Your Say Day event. Two Mana Whenua Chairs attended the Have Your
Say Day Event.
35.
The Ng Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 requires the
Maunga Authority in exercising its powers and carrying out its functions to have regards to
the spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical significance of the maunga to Ng
Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau. This requirement has a significant influence on the way
in which decisions are made by the Maunga Authority.
Implementation
36.
Once the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 has been finalised, the Maunga Authority will review
and adopt the Draft Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2015/16 at Hui 9 on the 8 June 2015.
Page 52
Attachments
No.
Title
Summary of Indicative Funding requirements
Page
55
Signatories
Author
Anna McElrea - Senior Parks and Recreation Advisor
Authorisers

Grant Taylor - Governance Director
Page 53
Item 12
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Attachment A
Item 12
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 55
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13

File No.: CP2015/07647
Purpose
This report sets out the Mayoral proposal for the final Long Term Plan 2015-25 (LTP) for
consideration and decisions by the Budget Committee.
Executive Summary
This report is leading into the final stages of agreeing the LTP 2015-25. This process started
well over a year ago.
The council is in a strong financial position with debt levels well within our prudential ratios
and a track record of rates revenue increases well below those projected by the legacy
councils and the ATA.
It is important that this strong financial position is maintained in the years ahead and the
draft LTP resets the financial parameters from the LTP 2012-22. Rates revenue increases
were reduced from 4.9% per annum to 3.5%, projected debt from $13.7 billion to $10.8
billion and the interest to revenue ratio capped at 12%.
The capital programme was significantly reduced from previous projections to achieve these
lower ratios and in particular transport capex was cut back to a basic level of service, with a
clear question to Aucklanders on the level of transport investment they supported and how
they would be prepared to pay for it.
Following record levels of feedback and participation in consultation the council now needs
to make the decisions that will impact on the future of Auckland.
I am supporting the Auckland Plan Transport Network level of investment and motorway
tolling as the mechanism to pay for this. We now need to engage with government to
support this approach. While these negotiations are underway I am supporting an interim
transport programme of additional capital expenditure of $523 million over 3 years, paid for
by an interim transport levy of less than $2 per week for non-business ratepayers and $3
per week for business ratepayers.
Other budget areas are proposed to remain largely unchanged from the draft with only a
small number of exceptions covered in the recommendations below.
The rating policy was also a major consultation question and on the two big issues I am
proposing leaving the UAGC at $385 (particularly in light of the proposed transport levy) and
slowing down the reduction in the business differential to limit the impact on residential
ratepayers to 0.5% per annum
Other fees, charges and policies remain largely as proposed for consultation. The few
changes that are proposed are covered in the recommendations below and includes
continuing to subsidise the Hauraki Gulf Islands refuse collection charges.
Page 57
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Recommendation/s
1. That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body that the transport
budgets for the final LTP be based on the draft budgets, adjusted for the updates set
out in the staff reports, with the following changes:
a. Inclusion of an interim transport capex budget for the first three years of the
LTP as follows:
Additional
transport capex
2015/16
$170 million
2016/17
$174 million
2017/18
$179 million
b. Funding of the council share of the interim transport programme to be by way of

a Transport Levy (targeted rate) set at $99 per SUIP for non-business
ratepayers and $159 per SUIP for business ratepayers.
2. That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body that the Mayor and
Chief Executive engage with the government to enable the implementation of a
motorway tolling system by 2018/19 to fund the implementation of the Auckland Plan
Transport Network for the 2018-28 LTP.
3. That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body that the budget
(excluding transport) for the final LTP be based on the draft budgets, adjusted for the
updates set out in the staff reports, and to incorporate the following changes and
specific decisions:
Auckland Development (Refer Attachment A to the agenda report)
a. The funding of the Vos Yard project from the Heritage Acquisition fund be
referred to the Auckland Development Committee, as there is no LTP budget
impact
Economic and Cultural Development (Refer Attachment A to the agenda report)
b. The additional capital expenditure of $6 million for Grid AKL be approved on the
basis that the consequential opex be managed through the existing ATEED
operating budget
Environmental Management and Regulation (Refer Attachment A, A4 to the agenda
report)
c. A standardised annual inorganic collection service (on-property, booked in

advance) to be implemented and paid for via the solid waste targeted rate.
d. Provide up to $9 million per annum (an increase of $3 million pa) of financial
assistance for the Retrofit your Home programme but with a maximum debt
exposure of $35 million.
Page 58
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Governance and Support (Refer Attachment A, A6 to the agenda report)

e. Increase the funding of the Parakai Reserves Board by $279,000 opex (rates
impact of $169,000) and $50,000 capex over 10 years as set out in the staff
report
f.
Increase the funding of Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board by a total of

$811,000 opex over 10 years as set out in the staff report
g. Increase the funding of COMET by $235,000 per annum

Parks Community and Lifestyle (Refer Attachment A, A5, A8, A9 to the agenda report)
h. Note that an Empowered Communities approach will be implemented during
the 2015/16 financial year with final detail of the proposed Community
Development and Safety operational model to be presented to the Regional
Strategy and Policy (RSP) committee on 4 June 2015.
i.
Note that the associated savings target of $1.6m in FY 2015/16 and $2.0m pa
each year thereafter, until 2025, has been included in the Budget and that any
necessary review of implementation and related budget can be undertaken as
part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan process.
j.
Provide funding of $1.9 million over the first four years of the LTP to Surf
Lifesaving Northern Region for the purposes of redevelopment of the highest
priority surf clubs in line with their request
k. Increase the regional grants budget by $350,000 per annum in line with the
2014/15 level of funding
l.
Provide funding of $300,000 opex in year 1 of the LTP, $100,000 opex in year 2
and $600,000 capex in year 3 for a World War 1 memorial in the Domain,
noting that this will allow applications for funding from other sources.
m. Provide a $350,000 operating grant (from existing provision in the budget) to

the James Wallace Arts Trust for a further year and seek a full report back to
the Finance and Performance Committee on options for financial sustainability
of this Trust.
n. Provide a budget of $360,000 for years 1 and 2 of the LTP and $110,000 for
year 3 for emergency housing, homelessness and rough sleeping responses.
Water Supply and Wastewater (Refer Attachment A to the agenda report)
o. Confirm the budgets and water and wastewater pricing increases as set out in
the updated budgets
Local Board Discretionary Capex
p. Provide a new Local Board discretionary capex fund of $10 million per annum
Page 59
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13
noting that this will incorporate the existing Facilities Partnership Fund.
q. Approve the following parameters for this fund:
i. The fund may be managed as a three year amount
ii. Local Boards may use the fund to build council owned assets, add to an
existing council funded renewal or new capital project, work in
partnership with an external provider or seed fund a community project
r.
Ask staff and Local Boards to develop a formula for allocation and criteria for
qualifying projects and report back to the Finance and Performance Committee
Maori Transformational Shift (Refer Attachment A7 to the agenda report)

s. Note that further work on the council funded activities and budgets that
contribute to Maori wellbeing in the LTP has identified $186 million of
contribution over the 10 years (including the budgets for co-governance
entities).
4. That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body the adoption of the
following changes to fees and charges for 2015/2016:
a)
standardised licensing fees for street trading across Auckland as included in

Attachment B1 to the agenda report
b)
standardised rental fees for street trading across Auckland as included in

Attachment B1 to the agenda report, which include the following amendments to
the draft proposal:
an additional six month rental option for seasonal outdoor dining operators
simplified rent for mobile vendors based on typical size and hours, with extralarge vendors being charged an over-size fee
c)
any increases to street trading charges (licence fee and rent combined) for
existing licensees resulting from the implementation of a) and b) above be capped
at $500 per licensee per year for three years starting 2015/2016
d)
standardised cemetery fees across Auckland as included in Attachment B2 to the

agenda report
e)
standardised event permit fees across Auckland as included in Attachment B3 to

the agenda report
f)
standardised fees for the remainder of the environmental health and licensing
services as included in Attachment B4 to the agenda report
g)
fees and charges for building control, resource consents and property information
as included in Attachment B5 to the agenda report
h)
fees and charges for the following services
Page 60
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
animal management (Attachment B6 to the agenda report)
Item 13
i.
ii. food premises (Attachment B7 to the agenda report)

iii. Health protection and hairdressers licensing (Attachment B8 to the agenda
report)
iv. Harbourmaster service (Attachment B9 to the agenda report)
v. Solid waste bylaw licensing (Attachment B10 to the agenda report).
following decisions on solid waste services, targeted rates and charges:
(Refer Attachment A to the agenda report)
a) Introduction of a new annual, on-property, pre-booked inorganic collection service

from 2015/2016 to be funded from the waste management targeted rate
b) The targeted rate for solid waste services, including the annual inorganic service, in
the former council areas be standardised where services, costs and funding
methods are similar, for 2015/2016 as follows:
i.
Auckland City (including Hauraki Gulf islands) and Manukau City

(adjusted as appropriate in Auckland City to provide for the rates where a
ratepayer has opted out of either or both of refuse and recycling services)
ii.
North Shore and Waitakere
iii.
Rodney
iv.
Franklin and Papakura (adjusted as appropriate in rural Franklin where a

ratepayer does not receive a recycling service).
c) That the costs of providing solid waste services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands in
excess of targeted rates revenue from the area be met from the solid waste
targeted rates for all of the Auckland region rather than just the former Auckland
City area.
d) Staff continue to work with the local communities of the Hauraki Gulf Islands to
reduce costs and rationalise services where possible
e) User charges billed to the property owner for refuse for the former Auckland City
(including the Hauraki Gulf Islands) and Manukau City areas be gradually
introduced from 2017/2018 financial year
f)
Recycling services continue to be funded from the waste management targeted

rate
g) The new organic collection to be funded from the waste management targeted rate
where the service becomes available
h) Standardised existing bag charges at competitive rates in areas where the service
Page 61
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13
is provided by the council.

following changes to Housing for Older Persons rentals as set out below:
(Refer Attachment D to the agenda report)
a) the rent on the councils Housing for Older Persons units be set at 30 per cent of
tenants pre-tax income
b) the rent be adjusted annually based on tenants income
c) for any given year, changes to annual rents (including increases and decreases) for
existing tenants resulting from a) above be capped at $10 per week implemented in
$5 steps at six month intervals.
7. That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body:

(Refer Attachment E to the agenda report)
a)
that the proposed contributions policy be amended as follows:

i.
replace the funding areas for reserve acquisition, reserve development and
community infrastructure with the following four areas: Auckland Wide,
Greenfield, Urban and Rural
ii. replace the stormwater funding areas with the following areas:
Stormwater
Helensville
Kumeu / Huapai
Warkworth
Hibiscus Coast
East Coast
Bays
Mahurangi
Waitemata
North
Waitemata
West
Waitemata
Central
Waitemata
Northwest
Manukau North
Manukau
Central
Pukekohe /
Waiuku
Manukau
South
Manukau
West
Tamaki West
Tamaki East
Wairoa
Ararimu
Waitakere
Ranges
Urban
Auckland
Other
Page 62
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
iii. reduce the unit of demand factor for attached dwellings (low rise) to reflect the
lower levels of demand associated with higher density developments
iv. reduce the unit of demand factors for retirement village units and aged care
rooms to exclude costs for sports fields and playground.
v. allow Council the discretion to offer a reduction of contribution charges for
stormwater where developers provide relevant infrastructure.
b)
Note that the contributions policy will be updated for the decisions made on
capital expenditure and adopted alongside the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on 25
June 2015
c)
Note that staff will report back on further refinements to the funding areas for
reserve acquisition, reserve development and community infrastructure for
consideration alongside the Annual Plan 2016/2017.
8. That the Budget Committee:

a) agree to undertake a review of Auckland Council's mix of funding sources to inform
the 2016-17 Annual Plan, with the broad objectives of further reducing the
proportion of council revenue funded from rates, maximising the return on councils
investments and exploring alternative sources of funding, including from the
optimisation of assets that are poorly aligned with council's core business and the
broader strategic growth priorities for Auckland
b) direct the Chief Executive to commence the design of the review and its associated
processes following the release of the Local Government New Zealand Funding
Review Final Report in June 2015
c) request that the terms of reference for the review be reported back to the July
meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.
9. That the Budget Committee recommend to the Governing Body adoption of the
following rates policy decisions for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025:
(Refer Attachment F to the agenda report)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
a uniform annual general charge of $385 for 2015/16 amended each following
year of the LTP by the amount of the average rates increase
that the long-term business differential strategy be amended to achieve a
proportion of general rates collected from business ratepayers of 33.0 per cent for
2015/2016 falling to 25.8 per cent by 2036/2037 in equal steps and that the
differential ratio for business be set annually to reflect this
that in line with the amendments to the overall business differential strategy,
Franklin business differential be set at a level which will align with the overall
business sector in 2016/17
no further rates transition
extension of the city centre programme and targeted rate to 2025, funding the
depreciation and consequential operating expenditure of city centre programme
projects from the general rate from 2019/2020, and introduction of a city centre
targeted rate of $57.50 per separately used or inhabited part of a property on city
Page 63
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
centre residents
f)
increase Mangere-Otahuhu swimming pool targeted rate to fund free adult entry to
the new Otahuhu swimming pool
g) create a new rating differential for properties with no road access (including
properties currently classified as the sea only access) and set the differential at
0.25 (current sea only access differential)
h) rates related policies as proposed in the consultation document:
i. setting Uniform Annual General Charge based on separately used or inhabited
parts of a rating unit
ii. setting the value based general rate using capital value
iii. the general rate differential categories and descriptions
iv. all targeted rates except waste management, transport and those in e and f
above
v. the early payment discount policy
vi. the instalment dates and penalties
i) direct staff to report back with for consideration as part of development of the
Annual Plan 2016/2017 on rating options for:
a. motels and other temporary accommodation
b. Maori freehold land.
j) direct staff to complete further work on rates postponement options as a mechanism
for assisting rating affordability issues and report this back to the Finance and
Performance Committee.
Comments
CONTEXT
10. In August last year when I presented my Mayoral Proposal for the LTP 2015-25, I emphasised
the need for us to see this LTP as a reset exercise for Auckland Council. It is time to consign
to history the priorities and policies of the legacy councils and create our own future based on
Auckland as it exists today and the priorities for the amalgamated region. We have our
Auckland Plan to guide the priority setting and we have a set of financial parameters that drive
the need to prioritise. There are some tough decisions we need to make if we want to meet
community expectations of financial prudence (low rates and debt) while investing in our
growth and in particular fixing the transport problem.
11. Despite the popular rhetoric to the contrary we are in excellent financial shape and our track
record since the start of this council is extremely good.
Page 64
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Note: Adjusted for growth
12. Our increases in rates revenue have been significantly below the projections of the legacy
councils and the ATA, and we are operating well below our policy limit for the Interest to
Revenue ratio. We have maintained our AA credit rating, the best in the country apart from
the government, and our draft LTP was well received by the credit rating agencies.
13. In addition our core costs have been well contained, allowing us to apply increases in revenue
to better outcomes for Aucklanders.
Page 65
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
14. This is a financial position we should be proud of and one we need to maintain going forward.
The Draft 10 year budget

15. The draft 10 year budget re-set our future financial parameters from the previous LTP by:
Reducing projected average rates revenue increases from 4.9% to 3.5% per annum
Reducing projected debt levels at the end of the 10 years by $2.9 billion
Keeping our interest to revenue ratio at 12% or less
16. To achieve this we needed to reduce and re-focus our capital programme and also reduce our
operating costs through some small reductions to levels of service. We have also continued to
drive efficiency savings from the organisation.
Page 66
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
17. This baseline budget for the LTP gave a much reduced debt profile and more affordable
increases in rates revenue but this came with a significant reduction in our investment in
transport infrastructure.
18. Against this backdrop, we have introduced to Aucklanders the biggest debate for decades
how much are we prepared to invest in our transport infrastructure and how do we want to pay
for it? This will be the biggest decision, among the many that we need to make, and the one
that will have the biggest impact on the future of Auckland. It is the one that this Council and its
leadership will be remembered by.
CONSULTATION
19. Because of the significance of the decisions in this LTP it was important that we reached as
many Aucklanders as possible through the consultation process. A huge effort, involving large
numbers of our hard working and dedicated staff, has gone into making this the biggest
response rate in any LTP process in Auckland or anywhere else in New Zealand.
20. The awareness raising campaign included:
Delivering the LTP summary to every household
A full media campaign
Attendance at all major events around Auckland during the period e.g. Pasifika,
Laneways, A and P shows etc
Specific engagement events - from local community events through to the Auckland
Conversations event
Targeted stakeholder communications and social media
21. We also replaced our traditional hearings process with 37 Have Your Say events which
attracted over 1,400 people. For the first time in a LTP process we utilised social media to
collect feedback as well as raise awareness.
Page 67
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
22. By the time the consultation period closed we had received 27,383 written submissions which
provided 260,000 feedback points, The 1,412 people who attended Have Your Say events
provided 8,600 feedback points along with 1,600 feedback points from the 900 people who
attended local community events. In addition to those feedback channels 1,354 pieces of
feedback came through digital channels.
23. The transport question is of such significance that we agreed a statistically robust survey
would be carried out in time to inform our decision making. Colmar Brunton was engaged to
deliver this survey of just over 5,000 people.
24. All of this material had been analysed and summarised by our staff and we have been
provided with a detailed set of reports which give us a very good overview of community views
on all of the topics on which we will be making decisions.
25. Key messages coming through from this feedback include:
The community expects financial prudence
They want us to continue to invest in the things that they value (although not surprisingly
what they value is quite diverse)
There is significant support for increased investment in transport
The vast majority are prepared to pay more to have the transport issues addressed
BUDGET PROPOSAL
26. At the end of any LTP or Annual Plan consultation process, most councils are faced with two
competing messages from feedback. There is a clear message that rate increases and growth
in debt should be minimised alongside messages about where the community want more
spending or increased service. Our difficult task is to balance these messages and create a
budget that does its best to deliver financial prudence while providing the infrastructure and
services that Aucklanders, current and future, need and value.
27. My starting point for this final round of the budget decisions is relatively minimal change from
our consultation budget with the clear exception of transport.
28. I am committed to delivering the level of investment as set out in the Auckland Plan Transport
Network. In order to do this and keep our rates affordable we need the support of government
to raise the revenue required. As part of this proposal I am seeking your endorsement to enter
into further negotiations with government on the option of tolling the motorway network to
provide the revenue stream. Realistically, the revenue stream and the increased level of
investment that it will fund could not commence until 2018/19 (year 4) of the plan.
29. In the interim period, I believe that we have a strong mandate to increase the transport budgets
from the Basic level included in the consultation document, to a more aggressive level of
investment and that we should fund this additional amount via an interim targeted transport levy.
30. I have also consistently re-iterated my desire to get the average rates revenue increase down
closer to my starting point of 2.5% and I think that is even more important if we are to introduce an
interim transport levy. The organisation has responded to this message and in the attached staff
report (Attachment A to the agenda report), you will see that this has been achieved for 2015/16.
A number of changes in underlying assumptions and budgets have been described. The net result
of all of these changes and the funding of the interim transport programme by a fixed interim
transport levy of $99 per SUIP for non-business ratepayers and $159 per SUIP for business
ratepayers, allows us to achieve an updated average rates revenue increase of 2.5%.
Transport (Attachments A, A1, A2 to the agenda report)
Page 68
31. Aucklanders have clearly indicated their expectation that we address the transport issues. A
majority of both those that responded in the consultation and those that took part in the survey
show a preference for a higher level of investment and a willingness to pay.
32. In the long-term, to address the transport problem we need an extra revenue stream and
government support with tools to generate that revenue. My preference is for motorway tolling and
the recommendations in this report seek an endorsement to enter into that conversation with the
government. Any solution agreed with government would not be effective until 2018/19 and
would be reflected in the next LTP. In the interim, it is clear the basic transport programme will not
be acceptable to Aucklanders and I am proposing the following approach:
i.
Additional transport capex of $170 - $179 million per annum for the first three years - a total of
$523 million. Of this the Council will fund approximately $300 million and the rest will be
funded by NZTA subsidy. In the attached staff reports (Attachment A2 to the agenda report)
you will see Auckland Transport have prepared an initial prioritisation of this funding. I am
supportive of the additional investment for public transport, walking and cycling, safety
programmes and the major projects of AMETI and SMART.
However, I believe it is important that this additional funding is of benefit to the whole region as
all of the region will be paying. While in this LTP we will be initially approving the amount of
funding we also need to give a steer to Auckland Transport on our strategic priorities.
I would like to see $10 million over the three years for road sealing in Rodney (instead of the
$6 million currently allocated).
Lake Road is currently not in the interim programme some minor improvements will be able
to be funded and we need to ensure that some priority is given to these. The Auckland Plan
Transport network would this project prioritised
There are several important projects where we need to work collaboratively with NZTA and
government and to continue strong advocacy for prioritisation i.e.
Northern Busway extension to Albany we have provided funding to deliver an extra
busway station between Constellation and Albany on the assumption that NZTA will
construct the busway extension during the period of the LTP
North-Western busway this project is subject to funding within the Auckland Plan
Transport Network and consequent support from NZTA
Penlink funding to complete the Notice of Requirement process is included in the
interim programme but construction is subject to further work with the governemnt
Pukekohe electrification this is an important project for the south which we need to
strongly advocate to government.
ii. To fund this programme of work I am proposing an interim transport levy (targeted rate). I
believe a clearly identified fixed amount, identified as an interim transport levy, would be
supported by the majority of Aucklanders. This amount, if applied equally across all ratepayers
would be $2 per week ($104 per annum) per SUIP. During earlier discussion around a
possible targeted rate there seemed to be a view that applying a differential for business would
be a preference. For the purpose of this exercise a differential of 1.6 has been used which is
the equivalent of the tax benefits that business receive for this cost. This results in an interim
transport levy for business ratepayers of $159 per SUIP ($3 per week) and an interim transport
levy for non-business ratepayers of $99 per SUIP (less than $2 per week).
Auckland Development (Attachment A to the agenda report)
33. The consultation document identified a funding envelope requiring a significant saving in our
planning activity. I am still comfortable with this approach and am proposing no changes.
Page 69
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
34. There is a specific request for budget for the Vos Yard development proposing to utilise the
Heritage Acquisition fund. While I support this in principle it is not a LTP decision and I propose
that the request be referred to the Auckland Development Committee for consideration.
Economic and Cultural Development (Attachment A to the agenda report)
35. Included in the consultation document for this area was a small reduction ($1 million) of operating
funding for ATEED and some challenges to raise revenue for a proposed investment fund. ATEED
have also been asked re-prioritise their resources to include a significant maori event and more
focus on youth employment outcomes. Two further budget requests have been received from
ATEED.
i. A request for additional capital expenditure of $6 million to complete the GridAKL fit out. It
has been suggested by staff that their operating budget be adjusted for the consequential
opex so that there is no rates impact. On that basis I support the request.
ii. A request to move operating funding forward from years 3 and 4 of the LTP to year 2 - $5
million in total. I am not supporting this request. I would like to see ATEED generate
additional revenue and apply this to any need for additional funding in year 2.
Environmental Management and Regulation (Attachments A, A4 to the agenda report)
36. The budget for consultation included some small reductions in levels of service in this area. I am
proposing to confirm this budget and the service level reductions with one exception. I am
concerned that removing the budget for our contribution to the Bio-control Collective is not in our
best interests. This budget of $158,000 per annum is needed to ensure that we get maximum
engagement in defining research on weed and pest issues that will benefit Auckland. I am asking
staff to identify alternative savings and report back to us on 7 May before we make our final
budget decisions.
37. There are two other specific areas for decision that I am supporting:
i. The provision of a standardised inorganic service on-property, annual and booked in
advance. This would be paid for by the targeted rate.
ii. The Retrofit your home programme continues to outpace the existing annual allowance for
the programme. There is no rates impact from this programme as all costs are recovered
from the home owner. Our main concern should be to ensure that the debt is managed
within our overall financial parameters. I support the proposal to allow up to $9 million per
annum in grants for this programme provided that our debt exposure is no greater than $35
million.
Governance and Support (Attachments A, A6 to the agenda report)
38. Inevitably this area has attracted the most comment in respect of reducing costs. While a
significant cost area it was probably not made clear enough in our consultation document that this
also includes our contributions to the Auckland War Memorial Museum, MoTAT, and the group of
organisations covered by the ARAFA legislation. Between them these organisations will receive
$57.4 million in 2015/16 about half of the costs in this area.
39. However the costs of running the business of Council and its CCOs are still significant. The Chief
Executive continues to drive an efficiency programme which will have to find another $36 million of
savings in 2015/16 and further savings in future years, which when added to those already
achieved will have taken $2.64 billion out of the costs of delivering our services over the term of
the LTP.
40. The issue of the numbers and costs of staff continues to be raised. The efficiency savings have,
and will continue to impact on staff. It is true that staff numbers have risen since establishment
however, to put that in context we are still below the number of staff employed by the legacy
Page 70
councils and in that time we have added a population the equivalent of Hamilton (who have a staff
of over 750).
41. I am not proposing to change this budget except for the specific items below.
i.
We have received additional funding requests from Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board and
the Parakai Reserves Board and I am supporting those requests for sufficient funding to
support the activities of those boards.
ii. COMET had their funding reduced in the draft budget. They have expressed the view that their
operation is under threat. In response to my request that they advise the minimum level of
funding that they would need to continue, they have requested a further $235,000 per annum.
This is less that their original submission and I am supporting this increase.
Parks, Community and Lifestyle (Attachments A, A5, A8, A9 to the agenda report)
42. The budget for consultation included a number of service level changes. Many of these were
relatively small but engendered a reasonable amount of comment from the community and Local
Boards. Overall I am comfortable with the approach to this budget and the savings that have been
proposed. We need to standardise service levels across the region but there is flexibility for the
Local Boards to use their discretionary funding to raise these service levels if they wish or work
with their local community to achieve a different level of service. An example of this is weed
control where there has been some community feedback regarding the options proposed. I am
comfortable with the general standardised approach that has been proposed as a cost saving, but
propose that Local Boards and their communities look at alternative options where they can locally
fund or support those alternatives.
43. However, having said that, I am aware that there is concern from several Local Boards, and their
communities, about the standardisation of library hours. A suggestion was made that we could
substitute that cost saving for a revenue stream generated by charging customers for ordering
books from other libraries. I am open to that suggestion if there is general agreement that this
would be more acceptable.
44. We have also undertaken a fundamental review of the way that we work with, and support, the
community through the Empowered Communities project. Work is still underway on this project
and a separate report (Attachment A8) provides an update. It is intended that final detail on the
operational model will be brought back to the June Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. In
the meantime the indicative savings have been included in the budget.
45. We have also had some requests for funding that need to be considered within this area of activity
and some of these I am supporting.
i. Surf Lifesaving Northern Region have applied for $1.9 million over four years to support
development of their highest priority clubs. I am proposing to include that request in the
budget funded by loan, in line with our normal practice for capital grants (Attachment A5
number 21)
ii. A number of options for increasing the regional grants budget have been proposed and I
proposing that we add $350,000 to bring the budget back to the same level as the current
year (Attachment A9)
iii. World War One memorial this project is to build a lasting memorial to commemorate the
centennial of World War 1. I am supporting the allocation of both opex and capex in years 1
and 2 of the LTP. Opex of $300,000 in year 1 and $100,000 in year 2 will fund preparation of
designs, concept plans and other professional fees. $600,000 capex in year 2 will seed fund
the construction with remaining funding being sought from other sources.
Page 71
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
iv. James Wallace Arts Trust this trust has been provided with an operational grant of
$350,000 since 2012. This grant was due to expire at the end of the current financial year on
the basis that the trust would become financially sustainable with the development of a
catering and function business. However, due to some as yet unresolved issues, this has not
been able to be implemented. I am proposing that we agree to continue the funding of
$350,000 for a further year and that a full report be brought to the Finance and Performance
Committee on progress to resolve the issues. Provision for some ongoing support was
included in the budget so there is no financial impact (Attachment A5 number 1 to the
agenda report)
In addition to the above I have one further proposal that I am seeking to include in this
budget:
v. Emergency Housing and Homelessness
This is an ongoing issue for our city and one that is cause for concern. This is not a problem
we can solve on our own. There needs to be a collaborative approach from central and local
government and NGOs. We have been in discussions with these parties for some time and I
feel we need to put some resources behind our verbal commitments. I am now proposing
putting additional funding into the budget to enable some progress i.e.
1. A fund of $250,000 per annum for two years to assist emergency housing providers with
costs such as regulatory consents and assistance with planning/professional fees.
2. A budget of $110,000 per annum for three years, to increase our support of
organisations such as the City Mission to work with the homeless and rough sleepers in
the city. This would be targeted at staff who proactively work with the homeless to
ensure:
they are safe and can access social services
manage and resolve complaints received from the public and other agencies about
homeless people in public spaces.
Page 72
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Local Board Discretionary capex
47. Since the adoption of the LTP for consultation, I have had dialogue with a number of Local Board
members and it has become apparent that the issue of capital budgets for Local Boards is still a
cause for much dissatisfaction.
48. I am still firmly of the view that major asset decisions need to be left with the Governing Body. We
need to manage debt and in the face of so many conflicting priorities in a constrained fiscal
environment we are best placed to make the decisions on those priorities. We need to take a
regional rather local perspective on that decision making. However, it is clear that some discretion
for Local Boards, outside of those major asset decisions, would be extremely helpful for them.
They would like the ability to respond to the needs of their local community for small projects such
as a playground. I have heard of the desire to work with the local community and seed fund some
assets. I am also aware there is a legacy fund available to some Local Boards which allow them to
enter into partnerships with external agencies to build asset for the community this is budgeted
at $4 million in 2015/16.
49. My proposal is to expand this fund both in dollar terms and in flexibility as follows:
$10 million per annum but managed as 3 year amount i.e. $30 million for 3 year period. The
current facilities partnership fund will be wrapped into this so the existing $4 million pa for that
fund will effectively be topped up to $10 million
The fund will be allocated on a formula to be agreed with the Local Boards this could be
similar to the LDI formula i.e. primarily population
Local Boards can use the entire 3 year allocation for one project or spread over the 3 years for
smaller projects
The fund could be used for discrete projects or to top up a renewal or other new project for a
higher level of service/outcome
The fund could be used as seed/partial funding for a community based project criteria for
these kinds of projects will need to be agreed.
50. The other elements of the proposal, to ensure we continue to manage debt and prioritise major
asset projects at regional level with each LTP, are:
i. Major new capital projects will only be approved by the Governing Body. The current provision
that Local Boards can fund a major new facility with opex funded by their LDI fund would be
removed.
ii. Local Boards will still be able use their LDI to fund the opex of bringing a funded project
forward the LDI would be reinstated at the point the project was originally due to be built
iii. Programme budgets for capex will only be allocated to specific projects for the first 3 years of
the LTP and thereafter would be held at the programme level so that priorities can be revisited
with each LTP.
Page 73
Item 13
Water and Wastewater (Attachment A to the agenda report)

46. Watercare have produced a prudent budget which results in water and wastewater price increases
of 2.5% in years 1 and 2, and 3.6% for the remaining years. As a self funding entity they have no
impact on rates. Their debt levels have been reduced as part of the early consideration of the draft
budget and I am supporting their budget being unchanged.
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13
Maori Transformation Shift (Attachment A7 to the agenda report)

51. During the preparation of the draft 10 year budget, proposed priorities for achieving progress on
the Mori transformational shift were identified by the council group; the Independent Mori
Statutory Board (IMSB); and mana whenua chairs. The Independent Maori Statutory Board
(IMSB) advocated for their top 10 projects and associated funding of $180 million. The
organisation, through a process of re-prioritisation and new budget proposed an allocation of
$82.4 million which was agreed by the Budget Committee. We also agreed that further work
would continue to identify activities and budgets that contributed to Maori wellbeing. At this point
the exercise has identified $186 million of contribution over the 10 years including $80 million of
funding for co-governance entities. It is expected that further contributions may be identified over
time as the planning for future projects, including Councils response to the 2014 Treaty Audit
recommendations, is developed.
REVENUE
52. When building the final ten year budget, in-depth consideration of revenue is equally as important
as the scrutiny of costs. Currently rates form approximately 43% of our total revenue base. We
need to continue to reduce our reliance on rates as a revenue source.
53. The proposal for alternative funding of our transport infrastructure, particularly the option of
motorway tolling, is an important step in this direction, but we also need to ensure that our fees
and charges reflect a fair sharing of costs between those who benefit from the services and the
ratepayer.
54. There has also been a recent discussion about potential asset sales. My position on the sale of
our shares in Ports of Auckland and Auckland Airport remains unchanged I do not support any
such sale. However, I recognise that there is a desire for councillors to understand and debate
the financial implications of the alternative positions and also a need to communicate with the
public about these alternatives. In view of this I am proposing that the Chief Executive prepare
information that will enable this discussion to take place through the work programme of the
Finance and Performance Committee. This report will need to take account of the work of the
Local Government NZ Funding Review when this is completed.
FEES AND CHARGES
55. Over the last four years we have been reviewing and standardising our approach to a range of
fees and charges and in this LTP we have another set to consider and approve. Largely I am
supporting the staff views on these which reflect primarily the position on which we consulted the
public.
56. Street trading (Attachments B, B1 to the agenda report)
The proposal is to charge a standardised administration fee for those using the public footpath or
other public areas for outdoor dining, drinking and retailing. Also part of this proposal is charging a
rental for that use of public assets. A transition approach is included to cap any change to $500
per annum for those who have not had these charges previously, or had them at a lower level.
Two changes are proposed by staff; adding an additional category for a six monthly rental to
recognise the seasonal nature of some of these businesses and simplifying the rent calculation for
mobile vendors to reduce administrative costs and minimise the incidence of extreme changes. I
support this proposal with the staff recommended changes.
57. Cemetery fees (Attachments B, B2 to the agenda report)
This proposal is also one of standardisation and to ensure that costs are borne equally by those
using our burial and cremation services. The gulf islands are the most affected by a major
increase in charges for this service. However, while I am prepared to accept that there is a case
for the islands to be subsidised for refuse charges (see below) using that same principle I cannot
Page 74
find any rationale to support island residents not bearing the costs of interment. Therefore I am
supporting the standardisation of these fees.
58. Housing for the Elderly (Attachment D to the agenda report)
I have carefully considered the feedback on this issue. I still believe that our proposal of 30% of
gross income as the basis of setting the rental for our housing for the elderly units is appropriate.
This does enable residents to access the accommodation supplement and reduces the burden on
ratepayers. However, feedback on slowing the rate of change is important and I am proposing that
the transitional increases and decreases are applied at no more than $5 per week each 6 months.
59. Solid Waste targeted rates (Attachment C to the agenda report)

The proposal in the draft budget was for standardisation of the targeted rate for refuse across
areas with a similar level of service. The exception that was proposed was the Gulf Islands. This
would have resulted in quite significant increases in the islands. Costs for services across all of
Auckland will vary, rural areas are inevitably more expensive to service than urban areas.
However, we are proposing to standardise and I think it is only fair that the islands are part of that
standardisation.
60. All other fees and charges (Attachments B, B3-B11 to the agenda report)
The variety of other fees and charges, that were part of the draft budget proposal, have not
generated significant feedback and I am proposing that these be adopted as originally proposed.
DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY
(Attachment E to the agenda report)
61. Following consultation, staff are proposing five amendments to the proposed development
contributions policy:
a)
Replacing the single funding area for reserve acquisition and the seven funding areas for
reserve development and community infrastructure with four funding areas for each. This is
the first step to creating more localised funding areas. Further work will be done for the next
Annual Plan.
b)
Increasing stormwater funding areas from 17 to 22 based on updated analysis
c)
Reducing the unit of demand factor for attached dwellings
d)
Reducing the unit of demand factor for retirement villages and aged care rooms
e)
Allowing discretion to offer reduced contribution charges for stormwater when developers
provide infrastructure that reduces demand for this service.
I support all of these amendments.
RATES POLICY
(Attachment F to the agenda report)
62. The rates policy, as always, has generated a significant amount of feedback and a wide range of
views. Much of the comment is targeted at affordability issues for individuals in different financial
circumstances. As we all know well, rates are a blunt tool, they are a property tax and take no
account of individual circumstance or individual usage of councils services. However having said
that there is high correlation, as demonstrated by some of the work that staff have produced,
between property value and income level. That has guided much of my thinking and I am sure
many others around the council table. Having considered the feedback I am proposing the
following key elements of the rating policy.
i.
UAGC I am proposing that this remains at the $385 level which was the basis of
consultation and received a high level of support. I am comfortable that this is an appropriate
Page 75
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
level and, while I know there is an appetite from some to raise it, when considered alongside
a fixed, targeted levy for transport I think this would be hard to justify.
Business differential as would be expected the feedback from the community has been
strongly against the reduction of the business differential. I am still of the view that it does
need to come down. However, I am also cognisant of the impact on residential ratepayers.
On that basis I am now proposing that we phase the lowering of the business differential
over a longer period so that the impact of this particular shift is no more than 0.5% per
annum on residential ratepayers. This will result in the 25.8% proportion of rates for
business being achieved in 2036/37.
Transition there are no palatable options for transition. Most of the significant change this
time has been driven by the re-valuation which is a fact of life in a funding system based on
property value. I do not see a viable, fair alternative and am therefore supporting no further
transition.
City Centre targeted rate I am comfortable with the proposal that was the basis of
consultation and there seems to be no strong argument to move away from that position.
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board consulted on raising their targeted rate for free swimming
pool entry for adults. They have recommended that this be approved and I am supporting
the Local Board in this.
Rating differential for no road access properties. This has been proposed by staff to
recognise the very small number of properties which have no vehicular access and therefore
very limited ability to use council services. I am supporting this proposal.
Rates postponement We have very limited tools available to assist those on fixed incomes
with escalating property values and the attendant rate increases. Using the rate
postponement option would enable such people to utilise a very small proportion of their
increased equity to alleviate their rating burden. I am encouraging our staff to continue work
on this option and bring back some proposals through the Finance and Performance
Committee.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Budget update
Changes to fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and other
services
137
Solid waste targeted rates and fees and waste management and
minimisation funding
197
Standardisation of social housing (housing for older people) rents
205
Contributions Policy
213
Rates related policy
223
77
Signatories
Author
Mayor Len Brown
Page 76
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 77
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 78
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 79
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 80
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 81
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 82
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 83
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 84
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 85
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 86
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 87
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 88
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 89
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 90
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 91
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 92
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 93
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 94
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 95
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 96
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 97
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 98
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 99
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 100
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 101
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 102
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 103
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 104
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 105
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 106
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 107
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 108
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 109
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 110
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 111
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 112
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 113
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 114
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 115
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 116
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 117
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 118
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 119
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 120
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 121
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 122
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 123
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 124
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 125
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 126
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 127
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 128
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 129
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 130
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 131
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 132
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 133
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 134
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 135
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 136
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 137
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 138
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 139
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 140
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 141
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 142
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 143
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 144
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 145
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 146
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 147
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 148
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 149
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 150
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 151
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 152
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 153
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 154
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 155
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 156
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 157
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 158
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 159
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 160
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 161
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 162
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 163
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 164
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 165
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 166
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 167
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 168
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 169
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 170
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 171
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 172
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 173
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 174
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 175
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 176
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 177
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 178
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 179
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 180
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 181
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 182
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 183
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 184
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 185
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 186
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 187
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 188
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 189
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 190
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 191
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 192
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 193
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 194
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 195
Attachment B
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 196
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 197
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 198
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 199
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 200
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 201
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 202
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 203
Attachment C
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 204
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 205
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 206
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 207
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 208
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 209
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 210
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 211
Attachment D
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 212
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 213
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 214
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 215
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 216
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 217
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 218
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 219
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 220
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 221
Attachment E
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 222
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 223
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 224
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 225
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 226
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 227
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 228
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 229
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 230
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 231
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 232
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 14
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Proposal to establish a new Urban

Development Entity (Development Auckland)
File No.: CP2015/07342
Purpose
1.
To recommend the establishment of a new Council Controlled Agency (CCO) to further the
councils urban development objectives by joining together Auckland Council Property Ltd
(ACPL) and Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd (Waterfront Auckland). The new
entity would be called Development Auckland Ltd.
Executive Summary
2.
The proposal to establish Development Auckland arose out of the 2014 CCO review where
three options for structural change to the way property and redevelopment activity were
delivered were analysed. On 27 November 2014, the Governing Body agreed to consult on
the option to join together ACPL and Waterfront Auckland to create Development Auckland
through the Long Term Plan (LTP).
3.
The consultation with the public resulted in 14,011 feedback points of which 42% supported
the proposal, 33% did not support, 7% reflected partial support and 18% reflected other
views that could not be coded as either supportive or non-supportive. Several property
groups supported the proposal, as did the Auckland Council Youth, Seniors and Disability
Advisory Panels.
4.
During the consultation process, staff from across the council group have undertaken further
analysis to determine if the proposal was robust, feasible and addressed key issues that
were raised by councillors during the CCO review, in particular the level of risk and the costs
associated with transition that the proposal entailed. The analysis concluded that the risks
are outweighed by the benefits and can be adequately managed through existing council
policies and best practice guidelines, noting that the council group has recently strengthened
its risk management procedures and reporting. This analysis is outlined in the Evaluation
Report (Attachment A).
5.
The public feedback showed concern around the costs associated with the proposal, both in
terms of transition costs and longer term funding for the agency. Staff have confirmed that
establishment and transition costs can be met through appropriate adjustments to existing
budgets either through the 2016/2017 Annual Plan or as recommended adjustments during
the 2015/2016 year.
6.
One-off costs associated with transition will be more than compensated for by ongoing
savings associated with the lower remuneration of a single board and executive team. Most
importantly, the cost associated with the transition can be met without any rating impact. The
proposal envisages a simple consolidation of the existing budgets and funding sources of
ACPL and Waterfront Auckland.
7.
The longer term funding model proposed is more cost effective than the current model and
still does not rely on increases in ratepayer funding. An increase in redevelopment activity
can be gained by reprioritisation of existing capital expenditure and productivity gains within
existing operating expenditure. Further increases in redevelopment activity are envisaged by
facilitating private, government, philanthropic and potentially iwi investment into
redevelopment locations by minimising the inherent risks associated with redevelopment.
8.
Minimising risk for others does not involve council taking on additional risk, but rather means
that council uses its significant regulatory powers and existing planned investment to bring
developable brownfield land to market.
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Proposal to establish a new Urban Development Entity (Development
Auckland)
Page 233
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
9.
Further investigation should be undertaken on a value capture mechanism where a

proportion of the windfall gains to landowners that occur from redevelopment activity are
captured in order to reimburse the public purse for the infrastructure that is provided.
10.
Four further meetings and workshops of the CCO Governance and Monitoring committee
are envisaged to review and make recommendations to the Governing Body on the
operating parameters of Development Auckland prior to a proposed establishment date of 1
September 2015.
Recommendation/s
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
agree to establish Development Auckland Ltd by amalgamating Auckland Council

Property Ltd and Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd, having taken into
account the feedback from the public
delegate to the Chief Executive of Auckland Council the ability to undertake all
necessary steps, other than board appointments, to execute the establishment and
transition of Development Auckland Ltd by 1 September 2015
agree that board appointment process for Development Auckland is delegated to the
CCO Governance & Monitoring Committee and will include the following
considerations:
the number of directors required on the board of Development Auckland
the skills requirements for the board of Development Auckland
which skill sets of the existing directors of Auckland Council Properties Limited
(ACPL) and Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd (AWDAL) are likely to
be valuable in the early establishment phase of Development Auckland
agree that the proposed budgets of Auckland Council Property Ltd and Auckland
Waterfront Development Agency Ltd will be consolidated from 1 September 2015 to
30 June 2025 as outlined in a separate report on this agenda
note that the cost of establishment and transition can be met through appropriate
adjustments to existing budgets either through the 2016/2017 Annual Plan or as
recommended adjustments during the 2015/2016 year
agree that the proposed performance measures of Auckland Council Property Ltd
and Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd will be combined to form the
initial performance framework for Development Auckland Ltd as outlined in a
separate report on this agenda
note that further reports will be brought to the CCO Governance and Monitoring
committee to confirm more detailed operating parameters for Development Auckland
Ltd prior to its establishment
agree that further investigation should continue on value capture mechanisms in
order to inform future financial policy.
Comments
Recap on previous decisions about this proposal
11.
The proposal to establish a new CCO by bringing together Waterfront Auckland and ACPL
to form Development Auckland began in February 2014 as part of the CCO review process.
The review tested the rationale for delivering urban redevelopment and property services
through a CCO, and identified that there are benefits and challenges from delivering
services at arms-length. It was noted that CCO delivery is likely to be optimal when the
Auckland)
Page 234
benefits of delivering through CCOs outweigh the challenges, and where the challenges can
be effectively managed.
12.
The benefits included commercial focus, efficiency and cost effectiveness, agility and
flexibility in decision-making, and the ability to attract specialist skills. Challenges include
retaining accountability for ratepayer funding, ensuring that CCO decision-making is
cognisant of political factors, and achieving integration of CCO activities with other council
services and priorities.
13.
On 27 November 2014, the Governing Body evaluated three options for structural change,
those being:
Option A1: (This proposal) - The establishment of a new urban development entity
(Development Auckland) by bringing together Waterfront Auckland and ACPL
Option A2: (not recommended) - The establishment of a new urban development entity
(Development Auckland) and the disestablishment of ACPL. Waterfront Auckland
would remain structurally unchanged
Option B: (not recommended) Enhanced Status Quo - left both ACPL and Waterfront
Auckland structurally unchanged but enlarged the mandate for ACPL to work in
conjunction with council to achieve urban redevelopment in agreed locations.
14.
At that same meeting, the Governing Body agreed that option A1 (conceptual diagram
shown below) was the preferred option. It agreed to progress evaluation of the
establishment of an urban development agency, noting that the proposal for the new agency
would be provided for in the LTP and subject to public consultation.
The LTP process and feedback

15.
16.
The LTP framed this proposal within one of seven key questions, asking Aucklanders
whether they supported council becoming more involved in urban redevelopment activity.
Supporting material outlined the proposal and options that had been considered throughout
the CCO review process.
A Summary of Feedback report (available on the councils website) was compiled and
considered by the Budget Committee on 22 April. It included an overview of the key themes
raised by the public in their feedback.
Auckland)
Page 235
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
17.
Key themes were consistent through all feedback channels. Of the 14,011 feedback
responses, only 6,863 provided comments to justify their opinion. The rest were through the
written feedback channel, where submitters had chosen not to comment. The major issue
that came out through all feedback categories was the cost of the new entity with around
2,500 feedback points.
18.
Overall, 42% (5,943 feedback points) were in support of Development Auckland. The main
reasons given were that submitters believed that establishing the new entity would lead to
increased efficiencies and costs savings with approximately 500 submission points. In
addition, there were around 200 feedback points about the establishment of Development
Auckland how it would lead to better housing outcomes through better affordability, choice,
and quality of the current housing stock.
19.
33% (4,612 feedback points) did not support the establishment of Development Auckland.
The main reasons given were that the establishment would increase the cost to council with
around 900 feedback points. Most of these submission points stated that establishing the
entity would increase the cost to council and increase individuals future rates bills. In
addition, there was also the belief that housing development should not be the role of council
(around 300 feedback points) and believing that council should stick to core roles, reduce its
size and leave development to the private sector.
20.
7% (962 feedback points) partially supported the establishment of Development Auckland. A

majority of points had supported the proposal only if it leads to a long term decrease in costs
and if the cost of amalgamating the two entities is covered by current operational
expenditure (around 600 feedback points). Most submission points outlined increased
efficiencies and the cutting of staff numbers from the amalgamation as their requirement for
support. In addition, there was also support provided there was better housing outcomes
and that the local board/community had input in the decision making.
21.
18% (2,494 feedback points) were categorised into other and covered a broad range of
topics. The main concern raised was that the household summary document did not provide
enough information to develop a clear opinion on the establishment of Development
Auckland. Furthermore, there were multiple feedback points outlining confusion with which
two CCOs would be replaced in the formation of Development Auckland and felt that the
household summary was not clear on this. Around 550 feedback points were received on
both of these themes.
22.
This Summary of Feedback report can be found at

15/Documents/ltpbriefingdevelopmentauckland.pdf
23.
Several property development groups submitted in support of the proposal including the
Property Council and the Kiwi Property Group, and added useful commentary. The Youth,
Seniors and Disability Advisory Panels supported the proposal. This feedback is provided in
Attachment B.
24.
This feedback has been taken into consideration in making the recommendations in this
report, in particular
a.
The feedback on cost. The cost of establishment and transition can be met within
existing budget envelopes and savings driven from the amalgamation of the entities. The
proposed funding model does not require additional rates funding.
b.
The feedback on improved housing outcomes. The purpose of Development
Auckland is to provide a greater focus on improving housing outcomes and this will be
reflected in all establishment documentation including the constitution the Statement of
Intent non-financial performance framework.
c.
The perception that Development Auckland would undertake construction in place
of the private sector. Development Auckland will not build residential and/or commercial
space in town centres, but will facilitate the private sector to build. It will not undertake any
construction, marketing or sales activity in its own right.
Auckland)
Page 236
d.
The feedback that the provision of housing is not a core council role. The purpose
of local government as outlined in the Local Government Act 2002 is to provide good
quality local infrastructure and services for current and future generations. Council has
determined through the Auckland Plan, that a quality compact urban form is the most
effective way to provide infrastructure and services now and in the future. The facilitation
of brownfield redevelopment is the most significant factor in the achievement of quality
compact urban form.
Investigation concurrent with LTP consultation

25.
Since November, at the same time that council was seeking feedback from the public on
the proposal, staff from council, ACPL and Waterfront Auckland have been examining
further detail around the feasibility of achieving these outcomes through the proposed new
CCO.
26.
This work has concentrated on the achievability, the costs, the risks and the high level
funding model for the proposal in order to decide if a recommendation to proceed with
establishment was advisable. The work is summarized in Attachment A and has concluded
that:
a.
the benefits of this proposal outweigh the risks
b.
risks to the council group can be effectively mitigated or controlled
c.
Development Auckland needs to be an empowered agency in order to achieve the

benefits of amalgamation and the objectives sought by council
d.
a conservative estimate of medium term savings brought about by having a single

executive team and board of directors would more than cover one-off transition costs.
These remuneration savings are permanent. The vast majority of transition and
establishment work can be undertaken by existing staff
e.
the proposed funding model is more cost effective than current and does not rely on
increases in ratepayer funding
f.
future funding mechanisms should now be actively pursued in readiness for the first
redevelopment projects and in time for the Annual Plan 2016/17
g.
establishment could occur by 1 September 2015 if a decision to establish was made

today. This timeframe is achievable and encompasses all foundational policy work.
There are several matters that would benefit from a slightly longer timeframe and are
not necessary for day one operations e.g. locational analysis
h.
the final details of establishment include policy decisions that need to be worked
through with councillors and executive teams between now and 1 September.
27.
The more recent analysis has also shown that there is sufficient justification for council to
become more involved in redevelopment activity. It shows that from 2010 to 2014, only 15%
of consents occurred in town centres within the 2010 MUL1. Feedback from the Property
Council on the proposal continues to articulate the difficulty for the private sector in
undertaking comprehensive redevelopment of brownfield locations.
28.
Given the level of investment in infrastructure to support growth in town centres, particularly
public transport, these statistics present a more compelling case for an empowered agency
that can catalyse private sector investment in the most cost effective locations with the best
public transport infrastructure and services.
Decision to establish Development Auckland

29.
On the basis of previous work undertaken via the CCO review, the feedback received from
the public via the LTP consultation, and the subsequent analysis undertaken concurrently
with the LTP, this report proposes that council establish Development Auckland by joining
RIMU data building consents in town centres from Jan 2010- December 2014.
Auckland)
Page 237
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
together ACPL and Waterfront Auckland and that the establishment date be set at 1
September 2015.
30.
Development Auckland is the name that has been used for the new agency. This name is
thought to allow the Waterfront Auckland brand to fit neatly alongside and the word
development describes simply what the agency will be empowered to achieve should the
proposal be approved. Although this name has not been agreed to by the Governing Body
as yet, it has made it easier to discuss with the public throughout the LTP consultation and
has fallen into general usage. Auckland Councils brand advisors reflect that the brand sits
well within the council group and that since the name has been generally accepted, it would
be cost effective to continue to use it.
Objectives for Development Auckland

31. A decision to establish a CCO must be accompanied by councils objectives in relation to
ownership and control of the organisation and an outline of the nature and scope of its
activities. The objectives for Development Auckland are set out in a draft purpose statement
set out in paragraphs 32-35 below. Further opportunity to refine the purpose statement, and
activities, powers and delegations can occur in upcoming meetings and workshops from now
until early August 2015 in order to achieve establishment by 1 September 2015.
Draft purpose statement
32.
Consistent with the urban form and infrastructure objectives in the Auckland Plan, the
purpose of Development Auckland is to increase the supply of affordable living options for
Aucklanders, primarily by facilitating the urban renewal of brownfield town centres towards
quality intensified mixed use town centres with excellent public transport infrastructure and
services. Development Auckland will also achieve this objective by facilitating and/or
delivering quality residential and mixed used redevelopment on under-utilised council
landholdings. This will support council to meet the current and future needs of communities
for good quality2 local infrastructure.
33.
It will harness third sector and private sector investment to deliver vibrant and diverse town
centre locations with a range of household types. This means catering for households with
and without children and includes housing for low to moderate income households. Some
affordability should be met by diversity in typology and availability of smaller dwellings3.
Renewal activity should contribute to the stock of housing options that are fully accessible to
disabled people and meets the needs of an aging population.
34.
Consistent with the Waterfront Plan 2012, Development Auckland will continue to lead the
development of the Auckland waterfront in a way that balances commercial and public good
objectives, including high quality urban design.
35.
Development Auckland will also manage councils non-service properties4 on behalf of the
council group with an increasing focus on a range of policy and commercial outcomes.
Nature and scope of activities of Development Auckland

36. The proposed nature and scope of Development Auckland activities are set out in
paragraphs 37-38 below.
37.
In agreed Development Auckland brownfield redevelopment locations

a. Masterplanning with the community via local boards and with developers
b. Making land available for redevelopment Land purchase, sale and amalgamation in
redevelopment locations
Defined in the Local Government Act 2002 as efficient, effective and appropriate.
Family sized apartments should be provided at a range of price points and will ideally include shared-equity and rentto-buy products
4
Non-service properties are defined in the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Council-controlled
Organisations Vesting Order 2010 as property that is not infrastructure or used to deliver services (for example, property
not used as council offices, a park or reserve, art gallery, library, swimming pool, recreation centre, sporting facility,
community hall, community centre, or other community facility, early childhood centre, public toilet, as housing for
elderly persons, a wharf or boat ramp, or as a heritage property).
3
Auckland)
Page 238
c. Seeking development partners and overcoming financial barriers to participation in

development by de-risking development projects
d. Co-ordinating public infrastructure - collaborating with council and government
departments on design, capacity and the timing of public infrastructure
e. Pre- application resource consent and building consent facilitation
f.
38.
Place management and activation in conjunction with local boards
On council owned land elsewhere within the current Rural Urban Boundary:
a. Management of the current ACPL portfolio of council non-service assets,
including maintenance, leasing, tenancy management, preparation of asset
management plans, and identification of underutilised property assets for disposal
b. Acquisition of property assets on behalf of the council group as directed, in a
commercially robust and legally compliant manner
c. Disposal of underutilised property assets on behalf of the council group in a
commercially robust and legally compliant manner (including Public Works Act offerback provisions). This includes identification of opportunities and actions to enhance
sale price.
d. Provision of commercial property advice to the council group as required
e. Activities of the former Waterfront Auckland - Continuation of planning, management,
operation and development of land, water and public assets within the AWDAL Area of
Ownership.
39.
These activities are described in further detail in Attachment A.
Funding this proposal Establishment costs and operational funding

40. The existing budgets of Waterfront Auckland and ACPL will be consolidated from 1
September 2015 to 30 June 2025 for Development Auckland. Council staff have confirmed
that establishment and transition costs can be met through appropriate adjustments to
existing budgets either through the 2016/2017 Annual Plan or as recommended adjustments
during the 2015/2016 year.
Funding model for Development Auckland.
41.
Through the CCO review, it was recognized that joining together ACPL and Waterfront
provided the greatest economies of scale and scope and was the most efficient and effective
structural model for delivery of councils urban form objectives. The decision to establish
Development Auckland is therefore not dependent on having a fully detailed funding model
for the entity, but rather, this work needs to continue as ancillary to the decision to establish.
Further detail on this can be found in the Evaluation Report provided in Attachment A.
42.
The proposed funding model is being designed to accelerate brownfield redevelopment

without an increased reliance on rates funding. In order to accelerate activity further, council
staff should continue to pursue the ability to capture some of the uplift in land value
associated with redevelopment activity, especially that created by the actions of
Development Auckland.
Any new funding mechanism would need to be analysed alongside current mechanisms
such as development and financial contributions. Although the results of any such study
would have a wider application than Development Auckland, these mechanisms are more
applicable where redevelopment activity is defined within a geographic boundary and where
it is possible to model the relative uplift caused specifically by public sector interventions and
investment. Staff now believe such a modelling is achievable.
43.
44.
45.
Although this work is not required prior to a proposed establishment date of 1 September
2015, it should be pursued in readiness for the 2016/2017 Annual Plan.
Further detail on the funding model for Development Auckland will be brought to the council
in workshops and meetings between now and mid-August.
Auckland)
Page 239
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 14
Risk for the council group

46.
Various levels of risk assessment are needed to proceed with this proposal. These can be
categorised as follows:
Group risk analysis of ongoing risks for the council group arising from having a
development agency. Council will be responsible for the management of these risks
Transition risk risks to the council, ACPL and WA during the transition period which
are additional to those which each organisation is already managing.
Organisational risk risks from the operation of a development agency which will be
the responsibility of Board of Development Auckland to manage.
Project related risk (risks arising from involvement in a particular redevelopment

project) which will be the responsibility of Board of Development Auckland to manage.
47.
An Enterprise Risk Management Framework (ERMF) assessment has been undertaken to

identify and quantify the level of additional risk council may be undertaking as it accelerates
urban redevelopment activity. As noted in the LTP, all of these risks currently exist in the
current portfolio of activities undertaken by the council group, in particular by ACPL and
Waterfront. The analysis for this proposal therefore concentrated on identifying if an
increase in activity was unmanageable, or outside the scope of our current policy settings.
48.
This analysis was comprehensive and has concluded that the risks to the council group that
are associated with Development Aucklands proposed activities can be controlled through
existing council policy and risk management frameworks. Further information on key risks
(financial, strategic and property market, health and safety and business continuity) can be
found in the attachment to this report.
49.
An ERMF will be drafted to identify and manage risks associated with the transition of
Development Auckland should the proposal be approved.
50.
The ERMF developed for this proposal will be used as the basis by which to draft an
organizational ERMF for Development should this proposal be approved. Project Risk will be
managed by the board of Development Auckland in accordance with the council groups best
practice guidelines and policies.
Performance measures
51.
If the proposal to establish Development Auckland is approved, the existing LTP

performance measures that apply to Waterfront Auckland and ACPL will apply i.e. the five
measures contained in the Waterfront Development activity and the two measures contained
in the Property Development activity. It is anticipated that a review of performance measures
will be developed as part of the Annual Plan 2016/2017 in relation to the broader mandate
that Development Auckland will have. The proposed performance measures for
Development Auckland are outlined in another report on this agenda.
Impact on the CCO Accountability Policy

52.
If Development Auckland is established, councils Accountability policy will apply to all six
substantive CCOs including Development Auckland5, and any strategic assets currently
owned or managed by Waterfront Auckland would transfer to Development Auckland. The
same requirements in relation to CCOs management of strategic assets and process for
approval of major transactions in relation to strategic assets would apply.
The sections in the current accountability policy that relate to Waterfront Auckland and ACPL will be removed and a
new section will be drafted that reflects the purpose of Development Auckland
Auckland)
Page 240
Budget Committee
07 May 2015

53.
Of those boards that provided feedback on this proposal the majority supported
Development Auckland being established. Some boards expressed concerns about council
moving into a development role with associated financial risk and a view that it is not core
business. The views of the twelve local boards that provided feedback are summarised as
follows:
54.
Albert-Eden, Mangere-Otahuhu, Waitemata, Waitakere Ranges and Whau Local Boards

support council taking a more active role in the development of Auckland through
Development Auckland. Henderson-Massey Local Board supports the proposed
Development Auckland CCO as a partner in strategic urban regeneration in Henderson.
Papakura Local Board also supports the proposal and is hopeful that the agency will be able
to contribute to the regeneration of Papakura metropolitan centre and the delivery of a
community hub in Takanini.
55.
Upper Harbour Local Board would like to see specific outcomes achieved such as quality
urban form and design, high level amenities, good community provision, good infrastructure
provision, with a focus on open space delivery.
56.
Hibiscus and Bays Local Board supports the merging of ACPL and Waterfront Auckland but
not to create an urban regeneration agency. The board is concerned that council may take
on financial risk that should rest with developers.
57.
Manurewa Local Board feels that councils role is to support and enable rather than develop.
Rodney Local Board does not support the establishment of a development agency as this is
not a core council business. The board feels that council already has a range of vehicles for
helping deliver on these objectives (Waterfront Auckland, City Transformations, ACPL,
Tamaki Redevelopment Company and Housing Project Office).
58.
Orakei Local Board feels that not enough information has been provided and is not clear on
what the benefits are.

59.
The Independent Mori Statutory Board (IMSB) was generally supportive of the progression
the proposal through the CCO review, recognising that the proposed Development Auckland
has the potential to lead to more consistent development outcomes, including providing
opportunity for the council group to take a more comprehensive, efficient approach to:
engaging with the IMSB and addressing Issues of Significance for Aucklands Mori
proactively consulting Mori on development projects
delivering on lifting Mori social and economic wellbeing
increasing the visibility of Mori identity (including the application of the Te Aranga
Mori Design Principles which are incorporated into the Auckland Design Manual)
across Auckland.
60.
The IMSB also asked for further input to establishment, purpose and scope if the proposal to
establish Development Auckland went ahead. It also requested more information on how it
would be funded. This opportunity will be provided to discuss these matters at the upcoming
workshops planned for the CCO Governance and Monitoring committee, on which the IMSB
are represented.
61.
All other points raised by the IMSB will need to be addressed in the later stages of
evaluation. As with other CCOs, the extent to which Development Auckland will be able to
achieve particular outcomes outlined in the Issues of Significance will need to be balanced
with the achievement of its core purpose.
Auckland)
Page 241
Item 14
Consideration
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 14
Implementation
62.
If approved, staff will take all necessary steps to establish Development Auckland and
transition all the current undertakings of ACPL and Waterfront Auckland into the new entity
on 1 September. Four further opportunities are planned for the members of the CCO
Governance and Monitoring Committee between now and mid - August to deliberate and
make recommendations to the Governing Body on the operating parameters for
Development Auckland, including (but not limited to) the following matters:
further opportunity to refine and agree on the purpose, role, functions, powers and
delegations that will be given to Development Auckland
the redevelopment locations that represent the best opportunities for Development
Auckland. The criteria and methodology for choosing redevelopment locations will be
discussed with councillors at the earliest meeting. This work does not duplicate previous
analysis of locations but will build on the data, planning and investigations to date
funding and accounting structures
options for a streamlined regulatory regime including mechanisms used for Special
Housing Areas
further opportunities for productivity improvements in property management and
development activities within the council group
the powers required by Development Auckland for ensuring infrastructure co-ordination in
redevelopment locations
the mechanisms Development Auckland might use for engaging with a local board in a
redevelopment location.
clarification of offer-back provisions under the Public Works Act 1981.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Evaluation report for the establishment of Development Auckland
243
Key stakeholder feedback on Development Auckland from the LTP

consultation
257
Signatories
Author
Rose Leonard - Principal Advisor
Authorisers

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships
Auckland)
Page 242
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 243
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 244
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 245
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 246
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 247
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 248
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 249
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 250
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 251
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 252
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 253
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 254
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 255
Attachment A
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 256
Attachment B
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 257
Attachment B
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 258
Attachment B
Item 14
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Auckland)
Page 259
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 15

File No.: CP2015/04589
Purpose
1.
To provide an update on the planning and implementation of a regional greenways

programme.
Executive Summary
2.
Since 2012, Local Boards have been leading the development and implementation of
greenways plans. 13 local boards have adopted greenways plans, or have draft
greenways plans in preparation.
3.
This report responds to a resolution of the Budget Committee seeking a report on the
regional coordination of the greenways programme.
4.
This resolution was one of a number of initiatives in 2014 to develop a more coordinated
approach to the implementation of the greenways programme .These included:
a Local Board Chairs forum, which shares information and learnings for the delivery of
local board greenway initiative
a staff working group, which is exploring the opportunities for a more coordinated
approach to greenways planning and delivery
5.
This report outlines a coordinated regional approach to the delivery of greenways,

including:
preparation of the regional greenways plan
formation of a greenways advisory group to oversee the development and
implementation of the regional greenways plan
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the development of a regional greenways network plan to complement Local

Board greenways plans
b)
endorse the establishment of a greenways advisory group to oversee the

development and implementation of the regional greenways plan.
Discussion
Background
6.
In 2012, the Puketapapa Local Board initiated the first local board greenways plan. Since
then a further 12 local boards have led greenways plans through to adoption or have
greenways plans in a draft form.
7.
While there is some variation in emphasis across the 13 local board greenways plans,
there is broad consistency in the objectives of the plans. As a collective, the local board
greenways plans identify:
local connections providing recreation opportunities and connecting people to local
destinations
Page 261
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 15
routes that may also serve a commuter transport function

ecological connections
a long term approach to developing a connected network of routes
priority routes for implementation.
regional connections which provide links across more than one local board area
8.
The development and implementation of local board greenways plans have been mainly
funded by local boards or through local board advocacy to Auckland Transport. Projects
have been delivered by building upon existing opportunities either by topping up
Auckland Transport or parks renewal projects, or by funding specific elements in capital
projects, like bridges.
9.
Since March 2014, a Local Board Chairs group has been meeting to discuss a
collaborative approach to the delivery of greenways and to share information and best
practice across local boards. This forum has met on a number of occasions.
10.
The November 2014 meeting of the Budget Committee resolved:

a) consider feedback from local boards on the mayoral proposal and key
advocacy areas before making decisions on draft Long-term Plan 20152025 budgets and consultation material.
b) agree to establish a cross-council working group (with staff representatives
from Parks, Auckland Transport, Local Board Services, Financial Planning,
the Chief Planning Office and the IMSB Secretariat) to report back to the
Budget Committee prior to May 2015 on Developing a Regional Greenways
Network Plan and identification of budgets to support implementation of that
plan at a local and regional level for consideration as part of decisions for
the final LTP 2015-2025.
Comment
Regional Greenways Plan
11.
A regional greenways plan is proposed which will provide an enabling framework for the
greenways initiative. The regional plan would seek to:
promote the delivery of a greenways network as a flagship initiative, setting out
the multiple benefits greenways can deliver and their direct contribution towards
the vision of Auckland as the worlds most liveable city
map a strategic greenway network, which will overlay and complement local
greenways networks
identify priority regional greenways projects and an implementation plan for their
delivery
12.
Regional priority projects would be funded through a strategic allocation of existing

budgets from both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. Significant regional
projects could also be attractive to external funders, including corporate partners and
philanthropic organisations.
13.
The development and implementation of the regional greenways plan will be overseen by
a greenways advisory group. This advisory group would consist of a small number of
representatives from:
Auckland Council Governing Body
Local Boards
Page 262
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 15
Auckland Transport Board

Independent Maori Statutory Board
14.
The purpose of the advisory group would be to:

oversee the development of the regional greenways plan
monitor implementation of the plan
support funding for priority greenway projects
champion the greenways initiative
15.
A virtual greenways project office will be established to resource and coordinate the
development and delivery of the regional greenways plan. The virtual project office will
draw on staff and operational resources from across Auckland Council and Auckland
Transport.
Greenways Funding
16.
A key challenge is to coordinate Auckland Council and Auckland Transport budgets and
potential external funding sources, and to use them in the most efficient way to deliver
greenways outcomes.
17.
The regional greenways plan will provide a basis for allocation of regional funding to
priority greenways projects through the Annual Plan and Long term Plan processes. Local
Boards will continue to fund local priority greenways projects from their discretionary
budgets.
Funding source
Indicative budget
Draft 2015-2015 LTP
Auckland Council Parks, Sport and Recreation

Approved greenways capex programme
A number of specific greenways related projects have
been identified in the draft 2015-2025 LTP
Unallocated greenways capex programme
The draft 2015-2025 LTP includes budget provision
that is currently unallocated to specific projects. It is
proposed a portion of that unallocated budget could
be allocated to deliver a greenways programme.
Funded from development contributions and would
need to support growth related greenways projects.
$14.5 million
$20 million
(indicative allocation)
Renewals capex
Renewals capex can be utilised as a contribution
towards future greenways projects where those
projects involve the replacement of an existing asset
Greenways component not

specified
Open space acquisition

This budget may be available to purchase open space
land to create greenways.
Funded from development contributions, so project
would need to be caused by and benefit the growth
community.
High demand on limited budget provision may limit the
extent that greenways projects can be funded

specified
Page 263
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 15
Other Auckland Council

Projects initiated by a range of departments within
Auckland Council could contribute to the delivery of
greenways outcomes, including Infrastructure and
Environmental Services, City Transformation, and
Waterfront Auckland.

specified.
Auckland Transport
Cycling and walking budget.
Budget level will depend on

council budget decisions
following Regional Land
Transport Plan feedback
Local Board discretionary funding

Locally driven initiatives
This budget can be allocated to specific greenways
projects at the discretion of individual local boards
Budget not yet allocated
Local Board transport fund

This budget can be allocated to specific greenways
projects at the discretion of individual local boards
$10 million per annum divided

across 21 local boards
18.
In addition to Auckland Council and Auckland Transport funding there are external
funders who could fund greenways.
the New Zealand Transport Agency can provide funding for greenways through its
urban cycleways fund and the National Land Transport Fund. This funding is
coordinated and delivered by Auckland Transport
greenways can deliver on local economic development and tourism and are projects
which philanthropic organisations may fund
greenways can also be developed by local communities with seed funding from
council.
19.
By taking an Auckland wide coordinated approach to greenways these funding sources

can be to be targeted to priority greenways investment.
Next Steps
20.
Staff will start the appropriate approval process and set up activities required to develop a
regional greenways plan, establish the greenways advisory group and virtual greenways
project office.
Consideration
21.
Local Board Chairs have been meeting on regular basis to discuss the development of
greenways, the proposal to establish a regional greenways plan and a steering group was
discussed with them at their April meeting.

22.
It is proposed that Mori be represented on the greenways advisory group through

representation from IMSB. Additional mana whenua and matwaka partners and
stakeholders need to be identified as the regional greenways initiative develops.
Page 264
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
23.
Item 15
Implementation
Not applicable.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors
Shyrel Burt - Principal Policy Analyst

Andrew Wood - Team Leader Parks and Recreation Policy - North/West
Authorisers
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Page 265
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 16

File No.: CP2015/06360
Purpose
1. This report presents service options, cost saving and efficiency opportunities for councils
Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) service delivery model.
Executive Summary
2. The Budget Committee at their 5th November 2014 meeting (Resolution BUD/2014/54)
resolved to review the nature and costs of council support services to Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs). The review was to work with BIDs and local boards.
3. Key findings underpinning the options presented are:
That council will continue to provide the BID Partnership Programme in some form
That services provided need to relate to the life cycle of a BID, rather than its size
That efficiencies with the service can be made
That some BIDs are prepared to pay for essential services
That local boards should have the direct relationship with BIDs in their area
That improved accountability mechanisms will be developed as part of the BID

Policy review process
4. Four options are presented. They take in account feedback from both BIDS and local
boards. Each has different savings potential and service provision for both BIDs and local
boards.
5. The option recommended is a mixture of essential service delivery, growth of the
Programme (assistance with new BID establishment) and provision of support on a as
needed basis for existing BIDs.
Recommendation/s
a)
approve Option 3, Differential Services, Needs Based Model, as the service delivery model
for the Business Improvement District Partnership Programme from 1 July 2016
b)
approve charging an annual administration fee per annum, commencing from 1 July 2016,
against all Business Improvement Districts to recover costs relating to essential service
provision.
c)
approve the review of the BID Policy by 1 July 2016 to be undertaken in collaboration with
Business Improvement Districts and local boards.
Comments
6. There are 48 Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the Auckland BID Partnership
Programme (BIDPP). In the current financial year, there is a targeted rate amount of
$14,518,560 dispersed to the BIDs. The annual opex cost to Auckland Council is $1.2
million (staff and corporate overheads), all of which is funded through the general rate.
Page 267
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Appendix 1 provides a snapshot of information about the programme, current activities,
success factors and benefit examples.
7. In response to the Mayoral Proposal for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan, the Chief Planning
Office identified savings to be made in the BIDPP. In particular it recommended charging a
proportional targeted rate that would have recovered $860,000 from BIDs on an ongoing
annual basis, commencing 1 July 2015. This would effectively have made the BIDPP user
pays for the majority of the programme cost.
8. There was significant concern raised by both the BIDs and local boards to this proposal.
The Budget Committee resolved agree that staff carry out work with the Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs) and the relevant local boards on the nature and costs of
council support services for BIDs to ensure services provide value for money and to identify
opportunity for BID amalgamation and sharing of services (BUD/2014/54).
9. A cross council team agreed the following objectives:
Consider the nature and cost of council support services
Identify opportunities for cost efficiencies in the services provided by council to BIDs in
order to ensure services provide value for money
Assess options for cost recovery of the BID programme, including any options for BID
amalgamation and sharing of services.
Demonstrate the value and benefits of BIDs to the region.
10. Feedback was sought from both the BID community and local boards via:
Two facilitated workshops with BIDs managers and Executive Committee members
Four facilitated local board cluster briefings
Post workshop survey sent to all BIDs
High level consultation feedback from BIDS and local boards
11. Full details of feedback from the BIDs and local boards who attended the facilitated
sessions is attached as Appendix 2 (facilitated sessions). Appendix 3 contains the full BID
survey results. The following identify key areas of agreement and feedback.
12. Benefits of the BIDPP, identified from facilitated sessions and common to both local boards
and BIDs:
Regional and local benefits include local economic growth, reduced vacancy
rates, improved business attraction and retention rates
Reduced crime, graffiti and improved safety
Single point of contact for Auckland Council and local boards to connect with
the business community
Coherent and well organised advocacy and submissions to Auckland

Council and local boards as a single voice on behalf of the whole business
community
13. Essential services provided by BIDPP that were common to both local boards and BIDS:
Collection and distribution of the targeted rate
Support at critical times of the BID life-stage
Ensuring accountability of BIDs for use of targeted rate
Connecting with the right people across council and CCOs
Support and advice for BID managers
Page 268
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 16
Providing relevant economic data and information
Other Key Points

14. From the facilitated sessions, it was evident that local boards also valued:
The programmes contribution to place-shaping & presentation of an area
The opportunities for local investment
The independence of BIDs from council
Training and support for managers
Assistance with new BID establishment
Assistance to struggling BIDs
15. Services that some BIDs would be prepared to pay for include:
Collection and distribution of the targeted rate
Some specific advice as needed on issues such as BID expansion and the
BID Policy
16. There was a strong correlation between the facilitated session feedback and the survey
results relating to what benefits BIDs thought the programme provided to the local
economy. Additionally the survey identified it as an incubator for small business growth and
its ability to influence CCO outcomes. 47 respondents- BIDs and Executive Committee
members - completed the survey.
Ideas for improving the service
17. BIDs identified ideas, via the survey, for improving financial efficiency and cost recovery:
Improving access to information about BIDs (through, for example, a greater
online presence, or a dedicated call centre)
Developing different models to suit different BID contexts and needs
Encouraging more shared services and collaboration between BIDs
18. 80% of BID survey respondents thought Auckland Council should cover the costs of
essential services in the future. Respondents also suggested the value of the BIDPP could
be increased by:
The provision of more funding
Improved performance and streamlining of processes (amalgamation of
smaller BIDs, shared learnings)
Greater recognition of the work that BIDs do.
19. The survey found when comparing patterns of response that:
There were few patterns that were consistent. BIDs that had a similar profile
often had widely different views about the services they received
New BIDs valued the services offered more than well-established BIDs
Some services where more valued by those with a higher proportion of
members in the retail category (e.g. specialist advice, facilitation)
20. The majority of respondents did not answer the survey question on whether service could
be provided by a third party or external supplier. Answers provided ranged between all
Page 269
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
services could be externalised (with the exception of the target rate collection) and others
questioned if using external suppliers or third parties would add costs.
Key findings underpinning BID service delivery model options

21. Auckland Council will continue to provide the BIDPP in some form as both BIDs and local
boards place high value on the benefits of the programme to the local economy.
22. The Status Quo is not an option for future service delivery. The current approach of a one
size fits all model is not delivering the best outcomes for all BIDs. The model should be
refined to focus service more effectively. Any future service delivery model will need to be
flexible to respond to different situations, region wide.
23. The services provided need to relate to the life-cycle stage of a BID, rather than its current
size. The life cycle pattern consists of
Business associations wanting to develop into a BID
Business associations on the pre-establishment journey
Newly established BIDs (up to first two years of operation)
Mature BIDs operating effectively independently
24. Some BIDs are willing to pay for the BIDPP but only for essential services.
25. An opportunity for local boards and BIDs to have a direct relationship that does not require
council advisor involvement exists. Local boards have decision making delegation for the
BIDPP.
26. Improved accountability for spending the targeted rate should be developed as part of the
BID Policy review.
Public vs Private Benefits
27. Whilst the prosperity of local businesses serves the interest of the entire region, the benefits
of the BIDPP primarily accrue to local businesses within BID boundaries. The beneficiaries
can be clearly defined; but it is difficult to quantify the exact benefits received by individual
members.
28. One way to recognise the public good being enjoyed by private members of the BID
approach is to consider charging an administration fee to each BID.
29. The administration fee would be charged to recover the cost of essential service provision.
It would be charged annually as a flat fee across all BIDs.
30. Based on 2014/2015 figures, a cost recovery amount of $156,000 would see each BID
charged an administration fee of $3,250.00.
31. The report seeks guidance from the Budget Committee on whether the administration fee
should be charged or not.
32. The administration fee approach would increase the savings identified for each option.
Options
33. These options take account of feedback from BIDs and local boards in their development.
34. There are four options recommended for consideration, including the Status Quo (Option 0)
. Options 1,2 and 3 all:
Provide the essential services agreed through the feedback and outlined earlier in
this report (i.e. services is more fit for purpose)
Provide for maintenance of existing BIDs
Page 270
Require a stronger, more direct relationship between the local board and BIDs with
less council staff involvement
Represent a reduction in staff and change in service focus from the current state
35. Options other than the Status Quo will require up to one years lead in time before savings
are fully recovered. Development of tools, commitments to existing business areas already
engaged in the establishment process, BID Policy development and the operationalisation
of the chosen option will require resources to implement. Savings available from the
proposed service delivery models will therefore not commence until year two of the Long
Term Plan.
Options
Option
Status
Quo
Financial Impact
0 Cost: $1.2M opex annually
Service Impact
Maintain current service provided by 8 FTEs, no
change in service proposed.
Services delivered are: target rate collection and
disbursement, policy, BID development advice
and support, including key account services,
liaison with local boards and connection into
relevant council services.
Feedback that current service offering
Not directed enough to those in most
need
Inconsistent service provision
Option
1 Cost: $308K per annum
Minimal
Services
Savings identified: $924K
for
from 1 July 2016
existing
BIDs
Focus on providing essential services only

Policy development
Accountability
Collection and distribution of targeted
rate
BIDs expected to buy-in all additional support
services from external providers
Struggling BIDs would be expected to selfregulate. Funding would be an issue smaller
BIDs.
Growth in number of BIDs only possible if
business associations can self-organise and
directly approach local boards for seed funding.
Liaison with local boards focused on policy and
accountability issues only
Impact of model on local/regional economy
Staffing reduction from 8 FTEs to 2 FTEs
Page 271
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 16
Lead in time required, commence 1 July 2016
Option 2
Cost: $616K per annum
Minimal
Services
for
existing
BIDS
PLUS

from 1 July 2016
Focus on providing essential services (Option 1)

plus
leveraging Programme scale through

relationship development with service
providers
Focus moves from individual BIDs to the BID

Programme itself
BIDs expected to buy-in all additional support
services from external providers
Struggling BIDs would be expected to selfregulate. Funding would be an issue smaller
BIDs.
Growth in number of BIDs only possible if
business associations can self-organise and
directly approach local boards for seed funding.
Liaison with local boards focused on policy and
accountability issues only
No support for new BID establishment (valued
by local boards)
Expansions fully financed/ supported by BID
Development of information sharing approaches
(online web portal)
Option 3
Cost $770K per annum
Differential
services
needsbased

from 1 July 2016
Focus on providing essential services (option 1)

plus
Limited resources to respond to issues needs based only
Assistance with BID establishment (up to
2 years) and support for first 2 years
strongly valued by local boards
Provision of upskilling / capability
building for managers (governance/
Page 272
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Leveraging Programme scale through

relationship development with service
providers (option 2)
Monitoring of Programme
Development of information sharing
approaches (online web portal)
Redesign of service
Hub model with targeted roles. Staff
from generalists to specialist roles.
Approach precedent other departmental
redesigns.
Greater consistency of service provision
across the region
Responds to feedback that not all BIDs
require all services
Small BIDs with target rates below $50k
would be assisted to amalgamate, align
to an umbrella BID, dis-establish or to
increase revenue.
Expansions fully financed/ supported by BID
Advisor liaison with local boards focused on BID
policy, accountability and governance issues.

36. Local boards value the BIDPP as a way to connect with their business communities and
work together to achieve common local objectives. Local boards have a decision making
role in the BIDPP.
37. The process to review the nature and costs of council support services for BIDs has
received local board feedback through a process with cluster briefings held over February/
March 2015.
38. A summary of local board feedback from briefings is contained in sections 11-13 of this
report.
39. Feedback received from the 24 April workshop was:
Page 273
Item 16
accountability)
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 16
There was some reluctance to the administration fee being charged

There was concern that local boards where not formally consulted
That local boards recognised the value of the BIDPP and its continuation
There was some support for the maintenance of the status quo in terms of service
delivery
40. Additional feedback received will form an addendum to this report for the 7 May Budget
Committee meeting.

41. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of business owners. The impact on Mori
business will be the same as the impact on other businesses within a BID programme who
benefit from a strong local business community.
Implementation
42. Implementation towards embedding a new service delivery model would commence post
the decision of the Budget Committee. Progress steps would include the operational design
of a selected option, the review of the BID Policy and implementation towards a new model.
.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Appendix 1 - Auckland BID Programme Snapshot April 2015
275
Appendix 2 - BID Programme Service Review Engagement - March 2015
285
Signatories
Author
Gillian Plume - Team Leader BID Partnership
Authorisers
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Page 274
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 275
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 276
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 277
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 278
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 279
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 280
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 281
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 282
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 283
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 284
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 285
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 286
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 287
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 288
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 289
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 290
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 291
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 292
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 293
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 294
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 295
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 296
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 297
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 298
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 299
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 300
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 301
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 302
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 303
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 304
Attachment B
Item 16
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 305
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 17

File No.: CP2015/07476
Purpose
1.
This report notes the process to adopt the policies the council is required to include in the
long-term plan.
Executive Summary
2.
Legislation requires the council to include the following key policies and strategies in its longterm plan:
Revenue and financing policy
Allocation of decision making
CCO accountability policy
Local boards funding policy
Summary of the Significance and engagement policy
Financial strategy
Infrastructure strategy.
3.
Drafts of all these policies were included in the Supporting information provided to support
the Consultation Document.
4.
The Governing Body will adopt the Revenue and financing policy at its meeting on 25 June,
before adoption of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, incorporating any changes arising from
budget decisions made at this meeting. The other policies will be updated for decisions
made at this meeting and adopted by the Governing Body at its meeting on 25 June as part
of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Recommendation/s
Staff recommend that the Budget Committee:
a) note that updates to reflect decisions made at this meeting will be included in the:
i. Revenue and financing policy
ii. Allocation of decision making
iii. CCO accountability policy
iv. Local boards funding policy
v. Summary of the Significance and engagement policy
vi. Financial strategy
vii. Infrastructure strategy.
b) note that the Revenue and financing policy will be adopted by the council at its
meeting on 25 June prior to adopting the Long-term Plan 2015-2025
c) note that the other policies and strategies will be adopted on 25 June as part of the
decision to adopt the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Comments
Background
5.
Legislation requires the council to include the following policies in its long-term plan:
Revenue and financing policy
Allocation of decision making
CCO accountability policy
Local boards funding policy
Summary of the Significance and engagement policy
Financial strategy
Page 307
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 17
Infrastructure strategy.
6.
These policies were included in the Supporting information for the Consultation Document.
7.
The Revenue and financing policy will be adopted by the Governing Body on 25 June before
the adoption of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 as required by legislation. All the other
policies will be included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 adopted by the Governing Body
on 25 June.
Feedback
8.
Feedback on matters relating to the Financial strategy and Infrastructure strategy was
discussed in the report entitled LTP Consultation Summary of feedback on investing in
Auckland considered by the Budget Committee at their meeting on 22 April. No feedback
was received on any of the other policies except for the Allocation of decision making.
9.
No specific feedback was received from the public on the allocation of decision-making
policy. There were a small number of general comments that local boards should be more
empowered, and a small number of comments that local boards are unnecessary. There
was also a small number of comments included in a standard response from some
submitters that social housing should be the responsibility of local boards.
10.
The Waiheke Local Board is advocating for more decision-making to be devolved to local
boards to better reflect their view of subsidiarity and their role in placemaking. The board is
also seeking some specific decision-making responsibility, for example delegations from
Auckland Transport and decision making over Matiatia. In its advocacy the board
emphasises its uniqueness as a gulf island and challenges experienced by applying regional
approaches to the islands.
Analysis
11. Staff will update the policies to reflect any decisions made at this meeting. Staff do not
recommend that there be any other changes to the policies as consulted on.
Consideration
12.
Local boards considered the proposals for changes to the policies at their meetings in April
and this is noted above.

13.
The CCO accountability policy has been amended to take into account updates to the Mori
Responsiveness Framework.
Significance
14.
The recommendations in this report are not significant. The policies were consulted on as
part of the Long-term Plan process.
Implementation
15.
There are no implementation issues.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors
Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards
Robert Irvine - Financial Planning Manager CCOs
Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy
Authorisers

Page 308
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Item 18

File No.: CP2015/07542
Purpose
1.
To agree proposed changes to performance measures and targets for inclusion in the final
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP). If required, final performance measures or targets will
also be updated to reflect any significant budget decisions made on 7 and 8 May for
inclusion in the final LTP.
Executive Summary
2.
Staff have reviewed the draft performance measures and targets to ensure accuracy and
measurability for the levels of service intended to be delivered by council group.
3.
A small number of changes are proposed to measures and targets across the council group.
These changes range from minor wording changes, target updates, and addition and
deletion of a few measures. The proposed changes, and supporting rationale, are set out in
Attachment A.
4.
If Council approves the establishment of the new Council Controlled Organisation

Development Auckland, existing LTP performance information and targets related to
Waterfront and ACPL CCOs will be applicable to the new entity. Any modification of this
performance information to reflect the objectives of the new entity will be updated in the
Annual Plan 2016/2017.
5.
Following the formation of the Maunga Authority, new measures have been developed for
the Tpuna Maunga and are included.
6.
Additional funding for Auckland Transport is being considered as part of a separate report on
todays agenda. As a result no amendments have been included for transport at this stage.
These targets will be discussed at the 2nd June CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee
prior to the targets being adopted, with the rest of the LTP targets, on 25th June.
Recommendation/s
a)
agree the proposed changes to performance measures and targets for inclusion in
the final Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Comments
7.
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
consultation document and supporting information were adopted in December 2014. The
focus is to ensure that measures are relevant and provide the community with meaningful
information about how successfully the council group delivers services.
8.
A small number of changes are proposed to measures and targets across the council group.
These are set out in Attachment A, along with the rationale for each proposed change.
These changes range from minor wording changes, target updates, and addition and
deletion of few measures.
9.
Additional funding for Auckland Transport is being considered on a separate report on

todays agenda. As a result no amendments have been included for transport at this stage.
Page 309
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
These targets will be discussed at the 2nd June CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee
prior to the targets being adopted, with the rest of the LTP targets, on 25th June.
10.
If Council approves the establishment of the new Council Controlled Organisation

Development Auckland, existing LTP performance information and targets related to
Waterfront and ACPL CCOs will be applicable to the new entity. Any modification of this
performance information to reflect the objectives of the new entity will be updated in the
Annual Plan 2016/2017.
11.
Any further amendments to measures or targets required to reflect subsequent budget

decisions will be incorporated into the final 2015-2025 LTP.
Consideration
12.
The final targets relating to the local activities measures will be reviewed and agreed by the
Local Boards at their business meetings in June. These measures and targets will be
included in the final LTP for adoption on 25 June 2015.

13.
The process included sharing the development of the measures through Te Waka Angamua
and IMSB representatives.
14.
Following the formation of the Maunga Authority, new measures have been developed for
the Tpuna Maunga.
Attachments
No.
Title
Changes to draft 2012-2025 LTP measures and targets
Page
311
Signatories
Authors
Taryn Crewe - Financial Planning Manager - Council Parent

Robert Irvine Financial Planning Manager CCOs
Tushar Shreyakar Senior Advisor CCOs and Performance Measures
Workstream
Alec Looney Senior Advisor Council Parent
Authorisers

Page 310
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 311
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 312
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 313
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 314
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 315
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
07 May 2015
Page 316

Budget Committee - May 2015

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 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Thursday, 7 May 2015

Mayor Len Brown, JP

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

All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a

Approval of a submission to an external body

Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior

Power to establish subcommittees.

Power to establish panels for the purpose of hearing submissions

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Those who are not members of the public

Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where

Members of the meeting

All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

Local Board members

Local Board Input

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local Board views

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Local Board update

This report will be distributed in an addendum agenda.

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Mayor's Report

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Proposal to establish a new Urban

Greenways - A regional approach to greenways

Review of Business Improvement Districts Service Delivery Model

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Other Policies

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Performance measures

Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Local Board Input

The local authority by resolution so decides; and

The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i)

the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time

no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

1,354 pieces of eligible feedback were provided through digital channels

In addition to collecting feedback on transport issues using the consultation process, an

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

The Governing Body adopted a consultation document and supporting information on

A public awareness raising campaign was undertaken over mid-January to mid-March

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

In addition to collecting feedback on transport issues using the consultation process an

1,354 pieces of eligible feedback were provided through digital channels.

11 Summary of Feedback reports were prepared to summarise the feedback received on

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

confirming (or not) service level changes consulted on in the draft

decisions on transport spending and funding

Mori impact statement

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

Targeted communications to Maori communities, organisations and mana whenua (291)

Te Reo Maori Summary document .

finalise financial statements to reflect decisions made today

Following decisions made today relating to development contributions, the Development

Consultation documentation and tools

Overview of public awareness raising activity to support consultation

Tanya Stocks - Programme Director

Matthew Walker General Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview to decision-making