Agenda of Governing Body - 19 December 2013

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 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.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 29 October 2013,and the extraordinary minutes of its meetings, held on Thursday, 7 November 2013 and Thursday, 14 November 2013, including the confidential sections, as true and correct records.

5 Acknowledgements

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

6 Petitions

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

7 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to 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.

7.1 Public Input - Living Wage Aotearoa

Purpose

1. To provide Living Wage Aotearoa the opportunity to address the Governing Body regarding the proposed Living Wage policy.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the presentation by Living Wage Aotearoa regarding the proposed Living Wage policy.

7.2 Public Input - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath)

Purpose

1. To provide the following organisations the opportunity to address the Governing Body regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath):

· Northcote Residents’ Association, the St Mary’s Bay Association and the Westhaven Marina Users’ Association (two slots)

· Heart of the City

· Cycle Action Auckland.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the presentations made on behalf of the Northcote Residents’ Association, the St Mary’s Bay Association and the Westhaven Marina Users’ Association, Heart of the City and Cycle Action Auckland, regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath).

7.3 Public Input - Lisa Prager

Purpose

1. To provide the opportunity for Lisa Prager to address the Governing Body regarding the accountability of Elected Members.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the presentation from Lisa Prager regarding the accountability of Elected Members

8 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.

9 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 public,-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Notices of Motion

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

Governing Body

19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

File No.: CP2013/26853

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Governing Body on progress on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project.

Executive Summary

2. This report has been prepared in response to resolution from the 9 May 2013 meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee.

3. This report provides updated information on walking and cycling access on the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). Attachment A contains detailed information in relation to this project.

4. The Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust (the Trust) has developed the “SkyPath” proposal to complete the missing link for walking and cycling access across the AHB, which is proposed through a privately financed scenario. The SkyPath proposal is described in more detail in sections a to c of Attachment A.

5. Key updated information in relation to the SkyPath proposal (more detail is provided in paragraph 23 of this report and in sections u to yy of Attachment A) includes:

· A Project Plan was developed for work up to December 2013, with input from all stakeholders. The Project Plan sets out the tasks required and timeframe to report progress back to Council by December 2013.

· Patronage: An independent review of the patronage numbers has been completed and further survey work undertaken. This report is attached in Attachment B.

· A financial model has been developed by Council using these patronage numbers and other base information. This model has been used to compare options and scenarios.

· Internal discussions on the commercial implications have occurred based on the additional information available since May and the financial modelling.

· The Trust has proposed the use of composite materials, as utilised by the marine and aircraft industries, for the structure of SkyPath.

· Capital costs: The change to composite material increases the estimated capital cost from $33 million to $33.5 million. However, the expected advantages of use of this material would be a lighter structure, easier manufacturing and installation processes, a longer service life, less strengthening of the AHB being required, and reduced whole of life maintenance costs.

· A preliminary technical review has been undertaken with a focus on anticipated maintenance obligations.

· Landings: Further design work has been undertaken, and is continuing, to take into account feedback received from residents, other stakeholder groups, the Council family and the New Zealand Transport Agency in respect of the landings at each end. However, the Trust have not undertaken any further consultation with local residents since mid-July 2013, as there was a clear preference from local residents to wait until after the Council decision in December.

· No negotiations have been undertaken. Negotiations will depend on the guidance received from the Governing Body regarding procurement.

6. This report provides an update on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project and is not seeking a decision from the Governing Body. A separate report provides an update on the delivery options relating to the project, and contains commercially sensitive financial and legal information. For these reasons, it is proposed that the second report be considered in the confidential session of this meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the report on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project.

b) request that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Kaipatiki, Waitematā and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards for their information.

Discussion

Background

7. The Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) does not currently have any walking or cycling access over it. This missing connection is a critical gap in Auckland’s Cycling Network (ACN). Past investigations have considered how to provide walking and cycling access over the AHB but no plans have been progressed. For a number of years, the Auckland Harbour Bridge Trust (the Trust) has been championing for a pathway across the AHB. The Trust has considered a range of options and developed the “SkyPath” concept, which is proposed to be privately financed, with all the costs being met by admission fees. An equity partner was sought by the Trust due to lack of available funding within central and local government agencies.

8. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is custodian of the AHB. The existing AHB “clip-on” lanes were strengthened by the NZTA in 2010. This work has considerably extended the life span of the clip-on lanes and consequently the NZTA expects the clip-on lanes to have an indefinite service life (e.g. the next 100 years) providing heavy freight movements are transferred to a new harbour crossing at a certain load trigger point. However, further strengthening would be necessary for a pathway to be attached to the AHB and the NZTA has advised it may consider funding some of this cost.

9. Uncertainties around timing and funding of an Additional Waitematā Harbour Crossing (AWHC) has led the NZTA to put plans for an alternative walking and cycling facility as part of the next harbour crossing on hold in favour of SkyPath. Through the evaluation of the Trust’s concept design, the NZTA has found that the SkyPath concept design is considered to be a feasible engineering solution. However, the NZTA has advised that it is not in a position to fund SkyPath due to budget constraints and its cycling and walking forward programme already being in place. Internal processes within the NZTA require full consideration of a public private partnership (PPP), joint Ministerial approval and compliance with the Better Business Case process. The NZTA have advised that the costs involved with this would be prohibitive for a project of this small scale.

10. Additionally, the NZTA have stated that SkyPath would be compatible with the AWHC. Even with AWHC in place there is likely to be limited space on the AHB to provide for both cycling and walking, and in this situation it is recommended that the modes would be split with SkyPath being used as a covered walkway, while a lane (or a part lane) on the AHB is used by cyclists.

11. Auckland Transport and the NZTA have agreed that funding should be brought forward to construct a cycle and walking connection to the north of SkyPath, if the SkyPath proposal proceeds and subject to a future funding decision by the NZTA. This northern link would be provided for users to access Akoranga/Takapuna and therefore have less impact on local roads.

12. The SkyPath proposal was considered by the Transport Committee on 3 May 2011, 15 August 2011 and 13 February 2013. The transport benefits (and recreational and tourism benefits) were recognised by the Transport Committee in February 2013, and it was resolved that further work would be undertaken and reported back to the Strategy and Finance Committee. This further work was undertaken and a report prepared for the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting on 9 May 2013. The resolutions from the August 2011 and February 2013 meetings are included in sections r to t of Attachment A.

13. There is a zero capital budget for this project in the Regional Land Transport Programme 2012-2015, on the basis that the construction costs would be met by the private sector.

14. At the meeting on 9 May 2013, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved:

… that work continue with internal resources on the Auckland Harbour Bridge pathway and that this be reported back to the Transport Committee at the appropriate time.

15. At the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting on 9 May 2013, regarding the Annual Plan budget, the Mayor Len Brown announced that the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway:

…is a project that I support but believe more work is required before the council can consider the nature of the support we wish to give. I also want to ensure that the affected communities are engaged and supportive of the project. I propose that we use existing resources to continue to work with the relevant parties and that this be taken back to the Transport Committee at the appropriate time.

Proposal

16. SkyPath is an architecturally designed structure which would be attached under the eastern clip-on lane of the AHB. It would be a 4 metre wide shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrians with viewing platforms, and would connect into the existing cycling and walking network and future proposals at each end. Further detail on SkyPath can be found in sections a to c of Attachment A.

17. The Trust has obtained an initial offer to fund the construction of SkyPath from Morrison & Co’s Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund (PIP Fund). The SkyPath proposal is a form of privately financed project. Under this proposal, Council's involvement would be limited to a partial underwrite of the admission fare revenue and assumption of ownership rights and obligations at the end of the concession period.

18. A special purpose vehicle (“SPV”) would be established by the PIP Fund to take all responsibility and risk to design and build SkyPath, initially own the SkyPath structure and associated rights, operate and maintain SkyPath for a term of 20 years and receive all revenues from admission fares and meet all costs associated with SkyPath over that term (subject to the underwrite and sharing of any “up-side” arrangements). At the end of that 20 year term, the SPV would transfer SkyPath and all associated rights required to operate SkyPath to Council for a nominal amount or for free.

19. The PIP Fund is seeking an underwrite from Council should gross revenues from SkyPath users in any year fall below an agreed level. The SPV’s underwrite would permanently fall away upon certain conditions being met. Finally, the PIP Fund has offered a sharing of up-side or “gain share” once the post-tax return of the project has reached a pre-agreed level.

20. Reversionary ownership by Council would mean that the walking and cycling link across the harbour is maintained after 20 years and is a more efficient use of infrastructure than simply removing it. The current design indicates that the life of SkyPath would be a minimum of 50 years. However, it is assumed that the admission fare would cease when Council assumes the ownership obligations at the end of the concession period. The only assumed income here is from naming rights and possibly private leasing arrangements. If Council wishes to continue with an admission fare or charging for entry into the viewing platforms, there is potential to cover the operating costs. The operating costs are currently being updated by quantity surveyors due to the proposed change to composite material and will be available soon.

Progress since Strategy and Finance Committee Meeting

21. Following the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting in May 2013, a Project Sponsor (Brett O'Riley, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED)) and Project Leader (Marguerite Pearson, Transport Strategy Unit, Council) were identified and a Project Plan was developed by Council officers for Stage One (up to December 2013). The Project Plan had input from key stakeholders (Auckland Transport, ATEED, Auckland Waterfront Development Agency (WA), the NZTA and the Trust) and was signed off in July 2013. The purpose of this Project Plan was to identify key pieces of work that needed to be undertaken to report back to Council on, to identify key tasks, and to guide inputs from the Council family, the NZTA and the Trust for the remainder of 2013.

22. The Project Plan identified a number of pieces of work that need to be undertaken for Stage One to enable Council officers to report back to an appropriate Committee in December 2013. The majority of this work has been completed and this assessment has provided sufficient information to guide Council officers to make recommendations on the delivery option as outlined in a second report which is to be considered confidential section of the agenda. A summary of the work undertaken is provided below and further details are provided in sections x to y of Attachment A:

i. Patronage: A review of the potential patronage was essential to clarify revenue projections in order to manage Council’s risks in relation to the potential revenue underwrite. The review was undertaken by independent experts (Angus and Associates) and, while the results are purposefully conservative estimates of patronage, the review has provided increased confidence in patronage expectations. A summary of the process undertaken and results of this work are outlined in sections u to oo of Attachment A, while the patronage report is attached as Appendix B.

ii. Following the patronage review, financial modelling has been undertaken by Council officers. The detail of this work is outlined in the second report in the confidential section on the agenda.

iii. Consideration of commercial elements and governance in relation to the project have been undertaken based on additional information available since May and the financial modelling.

iv. A preliminary technical review of maintenance requirements has been undertaken in regard to the SkyPath design. The purpose of this work is to assist in managing Council’s risks in relation to the resumption of maintenance obligations at the end of 20 years. The proposed use of composite materials by the Trust is being reviewed as part of this work. This work is being led by Auckland Transport and undertaken by Beca and Total Bridge Solutions. This preliminary review identified likely maintenance requirements for SkyPath and areas where SkyPath would affect maintenance of the AHB box girder. In addition, detailed information regarding composite material and its likely maintenance regime was provided by the composite experts in response to a number of questions raised by Beca.

v. A preliminary business case has been developed to support a future decision by Council to enter into a commitment relating to a privately funded project

vi. No negotiations or drafting has occurred. The Council’s Project Plan indicated that upon successful completion of pre-requisite tasks, then discussions to form a non-binding heads of agreement might occur between the interested investor and Council. However, time constraints and a preference to wait for the Council’s guidance in December 2013 regarding procurement meant this did not occur.

Purpose of This Report

23. This report is for information purposes only and is to provide an update of progress to the Councillors. The attachments to this report also provide detailed information about the updated patronage results and the preliminary technical review.

Next Steps

24. The decision currently being sought on this project is approval to move from the current phase of high level assessment to detailed discussions with a single investor. This is highlighted in yellow in the diagram below. The second report (to be considered confidentially) is seeking an in-principle decision of support for the project to enable Council officers to continue advancing this project. Council’s future role in this would be focused on the underwrite and taking reversionary ownership of SkyPath. By necessity, this requires that Council carry out full due diligence and to be satisfied on all elements of the project.

25. Prior to entering into any binding financial commitment (in relation to a partial revenue underwrite and reversionary ownership) on the SkyPath proposal, Council would need to be satisfied that its risks and financial exposure are acceptable and able to be mitigated to an acceptable level. This would involve legal and financial assessments by Council, further detailed discussions in relation to the proposal and procurement procedures, and a review of the robustness of the PIP Fund offer.

26. The project is considered to be not large enough to warrant the transaction costs of a full competitive tender, therefore it is recommended that an independent probity audit will be commissioned to ensure that due process was followed in such a manner to give confidence that the project provides value for money to Council and that the assessment of risks to Council has been properly carried out.

27. If the above steps are undertaken and it is a positive result, then Council officers would seek the Governing Body’s approval before entering into a final binding agreement. However, any discussions would be non-binding and Council could withdraw from the project at any stage if value for money cannot be achieved or there are unforeseen complications. If this were to happen, Council could consider funding the project itself or do nothing.

28. The Trust is currently focussed on the preparation for the resource consent phase and undertaking detailed design. It is anticipated that the Trust would lodge a resource consent application in early 2014 (March) and it has a design team in place for this.

Consideration

Local Board Views

29. The Trust has presented to and met with the relevant Local Boards including Waitematā, Kaipatiki, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards. These Local Boards are supportive of this project and have either included it in their Local Board Plans (as an unfunded item) and/or passed resolutions in support. These Local Boards spoke in support of SkyPath at the Transport Committee meeting in February 2013 and indicated feedback from the community was strongly supportive of the project.

30. Council officers presented to the Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards in late February 2013. Staff from Council and ATEED are currently in the process of briefing the relevant members of each Local Board on this report and reporting on progress since May 2013.

31. The Trust has sent a deputation to each of these Local Boards in February and March 2013, as well as Kaipatiki Local Board and Waitemata Local Boards convening public meetings for residents in their wards to comment on the northern and southern access points respectively in March, April and July. The Trust has held public meetings (with support from the NZTA) with the residents of Princes Street in Northcote, St Mary’s Bay and Northcote Point Residents Associations in February, March and April 2013 to invite comment from local residents. The Trust has also met with the Westhaven Marina Users Association on a number of occasions, the Harbour Master, relevant stakeholder groups and Takapuna Beach Business Association. These meetings resulted in a number of concerns being raised, as well as strong support for the SkyPath concept. The concerns relate to:

· Safety for users on SkyPath and surrounding streets;

· Reliability of patronage forecasts and business case;

· Effects from large number of users on environment (impact on residents, marina users, Te Onewa Stokes Point Reserve and Pa, and availability of car parking); and

· Anti-social behaviour.

32. The Trust has taken these concerns on board and is currently revising their landing designs for both Westhaven and Stokes Point taking into account feedback from the public, the Council family (including WA) and the NZTA. Feedback from the local residents groups was that they did not wish to be further consulted until after the Council decision in December and this preference has been respected.

33. Council officers met with Westhaven Marina Users Association and St Mary’s Bay and Northcote Point Residents Associations on 20 May 2013 and visited each landing location with these groups on 15 June 2013 to discuss their concerns and outline the Council’s due diligence process. Council and ATEED officers have also had correspondence with these groups via email and letter since then. Council has willingly shared the recent patronage work, once it was finalised, with these groups at their request.

Māori Impact Statement

34. The Trust met with Mana Whenua groups (Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua o Orākei, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Paoa) on 3 April 2013. The meetings were positive and, in principle, Mana Whenua groups are supportive of SkyPath. Mana Whenua expressed a desire to have input at preliminary stages of design to ensure SkyPath does not impact on any of the physical remnants at Te Onewa Pa, Northcote, and enhances the area with improved safety, connection and light. In this regard, the Trust is working to achieve alignment with the NZTA programmed restoration work at Te Onewa Stokes Point Reserve which involves Mana Whenua and Council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department. The Trust also met Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua o Orākei and Te Kawerau a Maki, and representatives from the NZTA and Council at Te Onewa Pa on 13 June 2013 to discuss this restoration work (a Ngāti Paoa representative was invited but could not attend).

35. The Mana Whenua groups would like SkyPath to also reflect the values inherent in the southern side of the harbour, with respect for its cultural history and the guardian taniwha present adjacent to the southern abutment. Mana Whenua stated their belief in the value of developing a new architecture for Auckland which stimulates new values (the new bridge at Resolution Point was cited as having positive outcomes).

General

36. The nature of the SkyPath project as local infrastructure falls within the amended purpose of local government under Section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 2002. It will achieve the community outcome of improving pedestrian and cycle access within the region. However, any future decision on commitment to the project would be subject to the outcomes of the further investigations stated above and the Council’s business case.

37. SkyPath would be of potential benefit to all Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland, however under conventional funding arrangements it is unlikely this project could be funded in the next 20 years or before an AWHC was in place. Therefore, the use of private sector funding needs to be considered, in line with the Auckland Plan requirement to investigate alternative funding options for transport projects.

Implementation Issues

38. Before Council can make a formal commitment to become involved in any project a commitment of resources is required to undertake investigation work and negotiation. Council as a potential revenue underwriter requires a commitment of resources to undertake investigation to give comfort in entering into this arrangement, and also resources to negotiate and finalise the contractual arrangements with the relevant parties.

39. Were SkyPath to proceed, Council and its Council Controlled Organisations would need to agree their respective roles in relation to managing Council’s risks in relation to the project. There are a variety of options of where this project could sit for implementation including through ATEED. However, a decision on this matter is not being sought at this time.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Detailed Information on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project	3
b View	Patronage Projection Report for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - November 2013	3

Signatories

Author

Marguerite Pearson - Transport Planner

Authorisers

Brett O’Riley, ATEED Chief Executive

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Doug McKay - Chief Executive

Governing Body

19 December 2013

Adoption of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015

File No.: CP2013/28201

Purpose

1. This report recommends that the Governing Body adopts the Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 for consultation.

Executive Summary

2. Volume 1 (attachment under separate cover) and Volume 2 (circulated on addendum agenda) form part of the information provided publicly to support the Annual Plan 2014/2015 consultation process, which commences on 23 January 2014.

3. Volume 1 contains an overview that includes the key consultation topics for this annual plan. It also sets out the activities and services of Auckland Council, detailed financial information, CCO information and proposed changes to fees. The key consultation topics are:

· Living wage policy

· Auckland’s stadium strategy

· Moving the Auckland Arts festival to an annual event

· Rental charges for social housing

· Health protection licence fees

· Proposed rates for 2014/2015

4. Volume 2 contains draft local board agreements, consultation areas and other supporting context.

5. Volumes 1 and 2 will be finalised to reflect any agreed changes from this meeting. A summary of the consultation topics and proposed plan for 2014/2015 will be produced and distributed to households across the region as part of OurAuckland. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 and summary information will also be available online and at local board offices, Auckland Council libraries, service centres and via the council call centre. The summary will be available online in six other languages, large print and easy read format.

6. The submission period commences on 23 January 2014 and runs through to 24 February 2014. This will be followed by local hearings (17 – 28 March 2014) and regional hearings (7-11 April 2014). Governing body discussions will take place with local boards and CCOs late April to early May, prior to the Budget Committee meeting to make final budget decisions on 8 May 2014.

7. Work on finalising budgets for 2014/2015 will continue through to 8 May next year. Key areas of focus will include Auckland Transport operational funding, CCO capital expenditure timing the Auckland Airport return to stakeholders.

8. The final Annual Plan 2014/2015 documents will be presented to the Governing Body for adoption on 26 June 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) adopt the Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 for consultation.

Discussion

9. The Mayor leads the process for the annual plan. On 7 November 2013, the Mayor set out his proposal for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, which included a range of changes to the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 primarily focused on operating budget and fee changes.

10. The Budget Committee considered the Mayor’s proposal at its meeting on 21 November 2013 and agreed the proposal in its entirety - approving the updated baseline budget prepared by officers, which included efficiency savings and some additional costs. It was agreed that the following areas be included in the draft budget for consultation, resulting in a proposed rates increase for 2014/2015 of 2.5%:

· $1.6 million of operating expenses for the Tamaki Redevelopment Company, subject to further discussions with the company and the Crown

· $1.25 million of operating expenses for a staged implementation of the Living Wage Policy

· 5% increase in social housing for older persons rental charges

· “licence to occupy’” remission scheme to continue in its current form

· the proposed health protection licence fees and building control and property information fees.

11. The Budget Committee also agreed a set of recommended changes to performance measures and targets for inclusion in the draft Annual Plan.

12. The decisions made on 21 November 2013 are reflected in the updated budgets and documentation set out in Volumes 1 and 2.

13. The key consultation areas for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 are:

· Living wage policy

· Auckland’s stadium strategy

· Moving to an annual Auckland Arts festival

· Rental charges for social housing

· Health protection licence fees

· Proposed rates for 2014/2015.

14. A summary of each consultation topic is set out in the front section of Volume 1 of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 and summarised in other material to support the consultation process.

Local board agreements and consultation

15. Each year a local board agreement is developed for each local board that sets out intended provision of local activities, and the capital and operating expenditure required to fund these activities. Local board agreements are agreed between the local board and the governing body as part of the annual plan process, and the draft agreements must be included in Auckland Council’s draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

16. Consistent with last year’s approach, a consultation section has been included for each local board to identify any proposed changes to local budgets and highlight any new areas of advocacy for 2014/2015.

Proposed amendments to the LTP 2012-2022

17. Volumes 1 and 2 contain a small number of proposed changes to year three of the LTP 2012-2022. Whether or not changes proposed in the annual plan are amendments to a long-term plan depends on the extent or the significance of the proposed change.

18. Officers have assessed the proposed changes included in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2014 and concluded that none of the changes are amendments to the LTP 2012-2022.

19. An audit review is not required for any changes proposed in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Improvements to the document

20. A number of changes have been made to this year’s draft annual plan document in order to improve the readability and accessibility of the draft plan. The changes include:

· combining Volumes 1 and 3 into a single volume and removing any duplicated information

· revising the front section of volume 1 to read more like a financial story to improve accessibility

· using the Annual Plan 2013/2014 performance targets as the comparator for the 2014/2015 target, as it provides a more relevant and up to date comparison

· producing a new simpler financial table for each group of activities.

21. Volume 2 remains dedicated to local board content, including the 21 draft local board agreements and supporting information.

Further work on 2014/2015 budgets

22. Work on finalising budgets for 2014/2015 will continue through to 8 May next year. Some key areas of focus will include:

Auckland Transport operational funding

23. Officers reported to the 21 November 2013 Budget Committee meeting on Auckland Transport’s request for an additional $18 million of operational funding relative to the 2014/2015 projections in their Statement of Intent. Since then, discussions have been held with Auckland Transport to address their funding shortfall. It has been agreed that further scrutiny of Auckland Transport’s operating expenditure budgets is required. A joint group of officers will undertake this review over the next few months. Auckland Transport are also reviewing the shortfall in parking revenue where current charges appear to be below market.

Capital expenditure timing

24. On 21 November 2013 the Budget Committee approved an ongoing review of the capital expenditure programmes of the CCOs to identify cost reductions and deferrals. This work will be undertaken as part of the process of finalising 2014/2015 budgets by 8 May 2014.

Auckland Airport return to shareholders

25. As reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 December 2013, Auckland Airport has announced its intention to return $454 million to its shareholders. If all approvals are met, the expected return to Auckland Council Investments Limited (ACIL) would be $84 million over and above the $18 million interim dividend budgeted for the current year. Officers are currently assessing the full impact on the Auckland Council Group from accounting, taxation and financing policy perspectives, and will advise the council in due course on the impacts and options, and any governance decisions required.

Next steps

26. Volumes 1 and 2 will be finalised to reflect any agreed changes from this meeting and will form part of the documentation supporting the Annual Plan 2014/2015 public consultation process. A summary of the consultation topics and proposed changes for 2014/2015 will be produced and distributed to households across the Auckland region as part of OurAuckland. The draft annual plan, supporting summary information and submission forms will also be available online, at Auckland Council libraries, service centres, local board offices and via the council call centre.

27. This year an online ‘sub-site’ (accessed via the council website) has been developed to support the annual plan process and provide enhanced online functionality and flexibility to make it easier for people to make a submission. The sub-site will include a message from the mayor, regional and local board information, information on the council budget, the submission form and an overview of the key consultation areas.

28. The sub-site will also provide summary information that has been translated into six languages (Samoan, Chinese, Hindi, Maori, Tongan and Korean) and large print and easy read format to support accessibility of information and engagement on the draft annual plan.

29. The submission period commences on 23 January and runs through to 24 February. This will be followed by local hearings (17 – 28 March) and regional hearings (7-11 April). Governing body discussions will take place with local boards and CCOs late April to early May, prior to the Budget Committee meeting to make final budget decisions on 8 May 2014.

30. The final Annual Plan 2014/2015 documents will be presented to the Governing Body for adoption on 26 June 2014.

31. A separate report on today’s agenda covers the submissions and hearings process.

Consideration

Local Board Views

32. Each local board is required to prepare a local board agreement every year (as agreed between the governing body and the local board). The draft local board agreements must be included in the Auckland Council’s draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

33. Volume 2 of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 includes the 21 draft local board agreements, along with a consultation section for each local board and supporting contextual information.

Māori Impact Statement

34. Some of the budget changes included in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 relate to Māori and will have a direct impact on Māori outcomes or initiatives. In particular, the draft budget includes additional funding of $1 million for marae development and Māori housing initiatives and $770,000 for identification and protection of significant Māori sites.

35. At its meeting on 21 November 2013, the Budget Committee resolved that officers report back to the Budget Committee on 27 March on the milestones and funding to progress the 2013/2014 Maori priority projects in 2014/2015.

General

36. The proposed changes have been assessed against the significance policy. In all cases, the proposed change is considered either not material or not a significant change.

Implementation Issues

37. There are no issues with implementation at this stage. Adoption of the draft annual plan documents today will enable Auckland Council to consult on what it plans to do in 2014/2015, including its proposed budget.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Volume 1 Our plan for 2014/2015 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Volume 2 Local board information and draft local board agreements (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Tanya Stocks - Local Board Budget Process

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Doug McKay - Chief Executive

Governing Body

19 December 2013

Submissions and Hearings process for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2013/28221

Purpose

1. This report outlines the proposed submissions and hearing processes for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council must use the special consultative procedure in adopting the Annual Plan. The process allows some flexibility for operating the submissions and hearings processes.. This report builds upon the successful operation of the 2013/2014 Annual Plan processes and recommends options that satisfy all legislative requirements.

3. We propose that submissions containing both regional and local content default to local hearings, with ward councillors present to hear regional issues.

4. Hearings can be run following the traditional hearing style, or a forum style. We recommend that local hearings be traditional-style hearings, with the forum option available for local boards with large volumes of submissions. We also propose that regional hearings be predominantly forum style (either stakeholder or topic-based), with very limited and tight criteria for selecting key stakeholders for traditional hearings.

5. For the 2013/2014 Annual Plan, officers provided high level analysis for hearings reports, which was successful. We therefore propose to follow this same process for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.

6. For regional submitters, key stakeholders will be provided with a customised response letter. All other submitters will be provided with a generic response letter which includes key issues and decisions. Local Board Services will prepare responses to local submitters (generic or tailored, decision to be made by each Local Board), with support from subject matter experts where required.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body agree:

a) that annual plan local hearings follow the traditional style hearing process, with the forum option to be assessed for Local Boards that have large volumes of submissions.

b) that regional hearings predominantly use forum style hearings with very limited and tight criteria for selecting key stakeholders who will be heard in traditional style.

c) that forum style regional hearings are divided into days which are allocated to business, community groups and individuals, with the individual hearing possibly having some topic-based tables.

d) that the regional hearings panel divide into panels should the number of key stakeholders become too great for all to be heard in the time allowed for traditional regional hearings, thereby allowing more key stakeholders to be heard in the timeframe available.

e) that submissions containing both regional and local content will default to the local hearings panel to be heard, noting that if a significant volume of regional submissions are received, they may also be allocated to local hearings.

f) that the ward councillor(s) be part of the local hearings panel, with other councillors scheduled where appropriate to ensure a minimum of two councillors are present at each local hearing to hear regional issues. Other councillors will attend voluntarily as schedules allow.

g) that the following reporting requirements be approved:

i) One regional hearing report and 21 local board hearing reports be prepared covering statistics on submissions received locally and regionally, with a brief high-level analysis of key themes and topics.

ii) Analysis of submissions be provided for one regional deliberation report to the Budget Committee, and 21 local board deliberation reports to the relevant local boards.

h) that subject matter expert comments are captured for inclusion in deliberation reports if requested from the hearings process.

i) that response letters be provided as follows:

i) Key stakeholders are provided with a customised response letter signed by the Chair of the Budget Committee.

ii) Other regional submitters are provided with a generic response letter, which includes key issues and decisions.

iii) Local boards will prepare their own responses to local submitters, via Local Board Services, with support from subject matter experts where required.

j) that the Chair of each hearings panel decide on whether late submissions can be heard.

k) that the Deputy Chair of the Budget Committee be delegated to work with officers to make further decisions on the operation of the hearings.

Discussion

Hearings

7. Submissions on the Annual Plan will be heard at a local or regional level depending on whether the submission addresses local or regional issues. Submissions that contain both local and regional content will default to the relevant local hearings panel to be heard, with a soft copy of the submission made available to the regional hearings panel for information. Local hearings panels include local board members and ward councillor(s).

8. As part of the submissions process, local hearing panels will be provided with hard copies of the local submissions that they will be hearing. Soft copies will also be made available for submissions from their local board area covering regional issues and that will not be heard.

9. Likewise, the regional hearings panel will be provided with hard copies of all submissions they will be hearing, with soft copies of all other submissions made available on the Elected Members drive.

10. The following options are available for hearing submissions:

· Traditional style - each submitter who wishes to be heard is provided with a dedicated amount of time (usually 5 – 10 minutes) to speak to the hearings panel on their submission

· Forum style - submissions will be grouped into different categories, for example, business, community groups and individuals, with hearings allowing submitters to discuss their issues with other submitters, members of the hearings panel and a facilitator/subject matter expert.

Forum style hearings have been preferred the last two years, enabling a greater number of submitters to be heard in the same amount of time as traditional hearings. This style is resource-intensive, requiring significant planning with attendance of subject matter experts.

· A mixture of both traditional and forum style

Regional Hearings

11. We recommend a mixture of traditional and forum style hearings.

12. Typically, a greater number of regional submissions are received, and the time constraints to hear these submissions are significant. The recommendation to have submissions that contain both local and regional content heard at local hearings (with regional representation from ward councillors) alleviates this concern.

13. A key stakeholder list will be prepared once all submissions have been received, identifying those submitters for which a traditional style hearing would be more appropriate. This enables key stakeholders to address the entire hearings panel on their submission.

14. Other regional submitters will be grouped into forum-style hearings by category and/or themes to facilitate wider discussion. This format will enable a larger number of submitters to be heard in a smaller period of time.

Local Hearings

15. We recommend that the local hearings be traditional style hearings, with the forum option available for local boards, depending on situation.

16. All Auckland Council Annual Plan and Long Term Plan local hearings to date have been held in the traditional style. Local hearings generally have fewer time constraints, allowing most local boards to hear their submissions in the traditional style within a day.

17. However, some local boards may receive greater numbers, as submissions with local and regional issues are also heard at local hearings. Local boards will consider hearing their submissions in forum style if appropriate.

Reporting – subject matter expert comments

18. In previous submission processes, a substantial amount of effort has gone into seeking subject matter expert comments on submission points. This was an onerous process for Council officers, which did not return equivalent value. We propose that the 2014/2015 Annual Plan follow the same successful process as for the previous Annual Plan, where very high level analysis for hearings reports is provided.

19. Subject matter expert comments will only be captured for inclusion in the 21 local board and Budget Committee deliberation reports if requested from the hearings process.

Response letters

20. Three options for response letters to submitters are outlined in table one overleaf. We propose to use Option A – mixed option. It was the option successfully used for both the 2012-2022 Long-Term Plan and the 2013/2014 Annual Plan process.

Table One – Options for response letters

Option and Approach	Advantages	Disadvantages
Option A – Mixed option (recommended)
§ For regional submitters - key stakeholders will be provided with a customised response letter. Other submitters will be provided with a generic response letter including key issues and decisions § Local boards will prepare their own responses to their submitters (generic or tailored, decision made by each local board).	§ Response to submitters will be achieved within given timeframes. § Key stakeholders will be provided with customised response letters.	§ Possible dissatisfaction from submitters on response. § Key stakeholder letters and tailored local responses will require resourcing and assistance from subject matter experts.
Option B - Customised
§ For regional submitters – all submitters will be provided with customised response letter. § Local Boards will prepare their own customised responses to their submitters.	§ All submitters will receive a response addressing their submission topic/s. § Customer-friendly approach.	§ Impractical for staff to customise all letters and deliver within acceptable timeframe. § Requires significant resourcing. § Time consuming and costly.
Option C - Generic
§ For regional submitters – all submitters will be provided with a generic response letter. § For local board submitters – all submitters will be provided with a generic response letter.	§ Staff can easily process response letters within given timeframes with no constraints. This is the quickest and easiest option.	§ Possible dissatisfaction from key stakeholders and other submitters regarding their response. § Lack of customer focus.

Late submissions

21. Late submissions will be recorded separately and will not have to be included in submission analysis reports. The Chair of each hearings panel can decide whether to hear late submissions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

22. Local Board Services will discuss the hearing options with local boards, recommending that the traditional style be used unless the volume of submissions requires the forum option to be assessed.

Māori Impact Statement

23. Measures have been taken to provide a submission form in Te Reo Maori for iwi and mataawaka authorities. Translators will be available for submissions received in Te Reo Maori, and for submitters wishing to speak at a hearing in Te Reo Maori.

Implementation Issues

24. The Annual Plan project team, in conjunction with Democracy Services and Local Board Services will be responsible for implementation and will manage these processes based on the direction provided by this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jason Marris - Manager Governance Support

Dean McIntosh – Governance Analyst

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Doug McKay - Chief Executive

Governing Body

19 December 2013

Navigation safety review, statement of proposal and bylaw

File No.: CP2013/27202

Purpose

1. This report recommends that the governing body of Auckland Council adopts a statement of proposal that proposes to replace the legacy navigation safety bylaw with the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 through a special consultative procedure that is to be conducted in early 2014.

Executive Summary

2. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 the legacy navigation safety bylaw is deemed to have been made by the Auckland Council. Like all the bylaws inherited by Auckland Council, it remains operative until 31 October 2015, where after it lapses.

3. An assessment of the appropriateness of the legacy bylaw and consultation with the various stakeholders show that the bylaw has contributed to navigation safety but changes should be made for clarity and improve effectiveness. Specifically the review of the regulation of personal flotation devices (“lifejackets”) on vessels with an overall length of less than 6 metres (“small vessels”) to contribute to the saving of lives, proposed by sixteen local boards and endorsed by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

4. The council has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate method to regulate navigation safety issues and the proposed bylaw has been redrafted with a number of differences from the legacy bylaw.

5. However, the majority of the proposed changes are intended to clarify aspects of the legacy bylaw that had caused confusion in the past, to simplify the wording of the requirements and to improve the compliance of the bylaw. The form and layout of the bylaw is similar to the legacy bylaw and the navigation safety bylaws of most regional councils.

6. The statement of proposal (Attachment A) includes the proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and controls made by the harbour master (Attachments B and C) that will regulate the following:

· Part 1- Preliminary provisions (clauses 4 and 5)

· Part 2 – General (clause 6)

· Part 3 – Carriage and wearing of personal flotation devices (clause 7 to 12)

· Part 4 - General navigation safety requirements (clause 13 to 18)

· Part 5 – Activities (clauses 19 to 26)

· Part 6 - Operating Requirements (clauses 27 to 38)

· Part 7- Licenses, permits and administrative matters (clauses 39 to 53)

· Part 8 - Large vessels (clauses 54 to 58)

· Part 9 - Specific restrictions in lanes, zones and areas (clauses 59 to 65)

· Part 10 - Tankers, hazardous cargoes, hazardous works, fuel oil transfers and dangerous materials (clauses 66 to 70)

· Part 11 - Pilot and pilot exempt master operations (clauses 71 to 73)

· Part 12 - Licensing of commercial vessels for hire or reward (clauses 74 to 76)

· Part 13 - Enforcement Powers, Offences, Penalties, Exceptions Transitional Provisions and Revocation (clauses 77 to 86)

7. The following changes in the bylaw are proposed:

· Compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on board small vessels, with exceptions;

· Safety of persons on board a vessel:

o Mandatory appointment of a person in charge of a vessel;

o Prohibition on any person in charge of a vessel being incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs.

· Compulsory carriage on board all vessels of a means of communication.

· Enhanced mooring site management.

8. The proposed navigation safety bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is in the most appropriate form. It meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002. The council proposes the revocation of the legacy bylaw and the making of a new navigation safety bylaw.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) resolve as follows:

i) under section 63(3)(c) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and 156 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Auckland Council proposes to revoke the Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008.

ii) a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing problems relating to navigation safety in Auckland

iii) under section 33M of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, Auckland Council proposes to regulate navigation safety in Auckland through the proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and controls.

iv) under sections 83, 86 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002, Attachment A: Statement of Proposal - Navigation Safety Bylaw that was considered by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on 3 December 2013 and amended to include the draft Statement of Proposal – Lifejackets Bylaw be adopted to be used during the special consultative procedure.

v) the proposed bylaw included in the attachment referred to in item (iv) is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

vi) the proposed bylaw included in the attachment referred to in item (iv) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

vii) Council commences the special consultative procedure pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b) authorise the Manager Policies and Bylaws to make minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal and proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Discussion

9. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires the review of Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008 (the bylaw) by 31 October 2015. As part of the bylaw review programme the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (“the committee”) is responsible for recommendations to the governing body of Auckland Council on special consultative procedures for the making, amendment and revocation of bylaws.

10. At its meeting on 22 September 2013 the committee considered a report from the staff on the progress made on the review of the legacy navigation safety bylaw and resolutions made by sixteen local boards proposing the making of a separate bylaw to regulate the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on small vessels.

11. Local boards expressed concern that the numerous issues that a proposed navigation safety bylaw would have to deal with meant the scale of consultation, or the scale of submissions and the potential for one of those issues to require additional work, might delay the regulation of personal flotation devices.

12. On 3 December 2013 the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee considered a report on the regulation of navigation safety and a separate report on the regulation of personal flotation devices.

13. Staff advised the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that the lifejacket proposal and draft bylaw could be reincorporated into the navigation safety proposal as appropriate consultation (in particular working with Watersafe Auckland and the Auckland Yachting and Boating Association) will be undertaken to ensure that interested persons and the public are made aware of the proposed regulation of personal flotation devices.

14. If, for whatever reason, issues arise with the wider components of the navigation safety bylaw as it goes through the special consultative procedure, the hearings panel may recommend to the governing body the making of a separate lifejacket bylaw at any stage during the bylaw making process.

15. The committee resolved that the draft statement of proposal (Attachment A) and draft navigation safety bylaw and controls (Attachment B and C) be amended to incorporate the draft statement of proposal and draft lifejackets bylaw to allow the development and consultation of a single navigation safety bylaw.

16. Issues regulated by the maritime rules do not require additional regulatory measures by the council. However, the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the maritime rules do enable variation of the regulations by regional authorities to provide for local conditions. The council may make a bylaw, in consultation with the Director of Maritime New Zealand to:

· regulate and control the use or management of ships

· regulate the placing and maintenance of moorings and maritime facilities

· prevent nuisances arising from the use of ships and seaplanes

· prevent nuisances arising from the actions of persons and things on or in the water

· reserve the use of any waters for specified persons, ships, or seaplanes

· in relation to boat races, swimming races, or similar events,—

o prohibit or regulate the use of ships

o regulate, or authorise the organisers of an event to regulate, the admission of persons to specified areas

· regulate and control the use of anchorages

· prescribe ship traffic separation and management schemes

· specify requirements for the carriage and use of personal flotation devices and buoyancy aids on pleasure craft.^{^[1]}

· require the marking and identification of personal water craft

17. The Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008 is enforced through infringement offences made under the Local Government (Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008) Regulations 2009. Following the review of the legacy navigation safety bylaw, steps will be taken to ensure a review of the regulations by the responsible Minister.

18. The process for making a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 requires that the council determine through consultation if a bylaw is the most appropriate response to a problem before proceeding with the special consultative procedure to obtain submissions on its preferred option. A bylaw must also be in the most appropriate format and must not give rise to any adverse implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1991. All bylaws must meet the legal requirements as set out in the Bylaws Act 1910, including not being unreasonable, providing rules that are proportionate to the issues being addressed and must not be beyond the powers of the enabling legislation.

19. While the council has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate method to deal with the issues it faces, the proposed bylaw has been redrafted without major differences from the legacy bylaw. The majority of the proposed changes are intended to clarify aspects of the legacy bylaw that had caused confusion in the past, to simplify the wording of the requirements and to improve the enforcement of the bylaw. The layout of the bylaw is similar to the legacy bylaw and the navigation safety bylaws of most regional councils.

20. The following changes in the bylaw are proposed:

· Compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices (“lifejackets”) on board small vessels.

o the carriage of flotation devices;

o the compulsory wearing of flotation devices whilst on vessels larger than six metres (in times of heightened risk);

o the compulsory wearing of flotation devices whilst on vessels smaller than six metres;

o wearing of personal flotation devices by persons being towed;

o exemptions are provided for safer circumstances (for example position of vessel, training and events) and practical implementation.

· Safety of persons on board a vessel:

o mandatory appointment of a person in charge of a vessel;

o prohibition on any person in charge of a vessel being incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs.

· Compulsory carriage on board all vessels of a means of communication.

· Enhanced mooring site management.

21. The proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is in the most appropriate form. It meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002. The council proposes the revocation of the legacy bylaw and the making of a new Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

22. The review of the legacy bylaw was discussed with local boards at a workshop on 18 July 2013. Whilst comment was obtained from the local boards on the location and management of moorings, most of the interest was in the regulation of personal flotation devices on board small vessels.

23. Sixteen local boards adopted resolutions requesting the making of a separate lifejacket bylaw that requires the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on board small vessels (under 6 metres). Two of these boards suggested detail changes to the bylaw wording, in relation to the exceptions that should apply to the requirement for compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices. In addition, two other local boards expressed support for the idea of compulsory lifejacket wearing. The remaining boards did not support the proposal.

24. The local boards consider that the arguments for notifying a stand-alone bylaw dealing only with personal flotation devices will get the bylaw into force earlier and to bring greater media and public attention to the merits of lifejacket wearing, which will assist public education. These concerns will be addressed during the special consultative procedure by ensuring adequate notice is given to interested persons and the public of the council’s proposal.

25. Local boards expressed similar concerns to mana whenua around the unauthorized placement of moorings inside and outside mooring management areas. Concern was also expressed about the maintenance and use of approved moorings by the users and the impact that this may have on the safety of nearby moored vessels.

Māori Impact Statement

26. Following the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee’s resolution in September 2013, officers have worked closely with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and the Te Waka Angamua team within the council to develop an engagement plan and briefing papers for Māori. The council invited Mana Whenua representatives to give input to the council’s proposal to regulate navigation safety through a bylaw. Following the distribution to 19 iwi of an information sheet on the navigation safety issues, iwi representatives were invited to attend two hui over 21 and 22 October 2013 where they provided their views on the issues regulated by the legacy bylaw.

27. Representatives at the two hui were concerned that as tangata whenua, they be consulted on the location of mooring zones and mooring sites, particularly where these are located in rivers and lakes or at culturally significant areas. Representatives were also able to contribute their practical knowledge as owners and operators of boats on Auckland’s waters on issues such as the wearing of life jackets and the management of moorings.

28. The views expressed at the hui were consistent with the diverse views of other Aucklanders. In particular, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara requested that the council consider the strict wearing of personal flotation devices

29. Iwi representatives also required that the bylaw provisions relating to the temporary reservation of navigable waters to explicitly include events of cultural significance to Māori, for example the TriMāori Umupuia Triathlon to be held on 18 January 2014 at Umupuia, Maraetai.

30. To ensure that the proposed bylaw reaches mataāwaka, officers have contacted 40 organisations representing mataāwaka, offering to engage each marae individually on issues regulated by the bylaw. With support from the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Te Waka Angamua, officers will be assisting iwi and mataāwaka to make submissions as part of the special consultative procedure early next year.

General

31. The list of issues and the proposed bylaws have been developed through pre-consultation with elected representatives, internal and external stakeholders, including the Maritime New Zealand.

Implementation Issues

32. Except for the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on board small vessels, most of the issues covered in the proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 were included in the legacy bylaw. Its is expected to have little additional impact on the harbourmaster in enforcing the proposed navigation safety bylaw.

33. The proposed compulsory regulation of personal flotation devices on board small vessels will be new to Auckland, and to be effective the implementation will require a reallocation of resources of enforcement and education.

34. The Local Government (Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008) Regulations 2009 will remain in effect following the making of the bylaw. The council will consult with the Minister on making new regulations after approval of the bylaw.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal - Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 - Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2014	3
b View	Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 - Ture ā-Rohe Urungi Āhuru 2014	3
c View	Controls made under the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014	3

Signatories

Authors

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Andrew Simon Pickering - Manager, Planning, Policies and Bylaws

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Doug McKay - Chief Executive

Governing Body

19 December 2013

Proposals on the role and functioning of Council’s "demographic” advisory panels

File No.: CP2013/27761

Purpose

1. To present proposals and recommendations for a future model for the five “demographic” panels to be established to provide specialist advice to Council.

2. The Advisory Panels addressed in this report are (with their designated Councillor liaison):

· Disability (Councillor Sharon Stewart)

· Ethnic (Councillor Denise Krum)

· Pacific (Councillor Arthur Anae)

· Seniors (Councillor Cathy Casey)

· Youth (Councillor Linda Cooper)

3. The Business, CBD Advisory Board, Rural, and Heritage Advisory Panels are not included in this report.

Executive Summary

4. In the first term of Auckland Council, four “demographic” advisory panels were established: the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel (DSAP), the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel (PPAP), the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (EPAP) and the Youth Advisory Panel (YAP). The common purpose of the panels was to provide strategic advice to Council on issues of importance to those communities; and to advise Council on how to communicate and engage effectively with communities.

5. The Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel were established under legislation in March 2011 and disestablished on 1 November 2013, allowing the incoming Mayor and Governing Body to decide on any further arrangements for ethnic and Pacific participation in the decision-making process.

6. An independent review of the two panels was carried out by Martin, Jenkins and Associates Ltd. This found the panels had made a valuable contribution, but also identified a range of deficiencies and problems with the current model which were impacting on their effectiveness.

7. At the August 2013 meeting, the previous Governing Body received a report on the external review and resolved to recommend to the new Governing Body that the panels be retained, and a model be developed on the basis that the panels are competency-based strategic advisory panels, linked to a mechanism for engagement with communities and there is a clear annual work programme agreed with Council.

8. The recommendations in this report reflect further officer analysis and discussions and reflections from all the panels. In particular, it has become clear that there are many advantages in considering all of the “demographic” panels together – EPAP, PPAP, YAP, DSAP and the new Seniors panel. Whilst recognising the specific characteristics and issues of each demographic community, there are many common issues, and also challenging intergenerational and cross-cultural issues, that would benefit from joint discussion and integrated work programmes. All the panels have said they would like stronger links with other panels. It would also be more effective use of elected members’ and officers’ time to receive advice collectively, and not duplicate effort across different work programmes.

9. Therefore, the recommendation is that these panels are considered as a group, have broadly similar selection processes and terms of reference (apart from YAP); an integrated work programme, and are supported by a dedicated coordination, brokerage and monitoring role at a senior level.

10. The key factors in increasing the effectiveness of the panels are:

· a robust and rigorous selection criteria and process

· clarity on what the role is and isn’t

· sufficient support from the organisation to carry out the role

11. This will require considerable officer time and an adequate budget and no additional provision has been made in the 2014/15 draft Annual Plan for this. Therefore, there may have to be staged implementation of some recommendations e.g. consistency of fees across panels, and additional budgets to support work programmes.

12. It will be important to have early and clear decisions on the resources available, which are clearly communicated to elected members, prospective panel members and their communities.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body agree:

a) that the demographic advisory panels are considered and supported collectively as part of the Council structure.

b) that the purpose of the panels is to provide strategic advice on issues of significance to their communities; and to advise on effective engagement by Council with those communities.

c) that, subject to consultation with Local Boards, that the Terms of Reference of the panels includes advice to Local Boards; that Local Boards are given opportunities to access panel advice, if they wish.

d) that the Terms of Reference include contribution to Council submissions, but panels do not submit independently to external bodies, except as agreed with the Mayor.

e) that there is an annual work programme for each panel, integrated wherever possible, with other panels and signed-off by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

f) that, as resources allow, budget is available for panels, to support activities that clearly contribute to the agreed work programme.

g) that panels do not access external resources for activities or events, except with the agreement of Council.

h) that a coordinator position be established with appropriate seniority, to negotiate and broker the work programmes, coordinate monitoring and reporting of progress and oversee communications between panels, elected members, officers and communities.

i) that, in principle, all panel members should receive the same fees and allowances, and these are set in accordance with the forthcoming Fees Framework.

j) that the selection process for panels members (apart from the Youth Advisory Panel) is:

· an open call for applications

· a panel of about six, made up of community nominees, the Liaison Councillor and appropriate external agencies

· assessment on a defined set of competencies

· recommendations to the Mayor

· appointment by the Mayor with endorsement by the Governing Body.

k) that direct Council employees and CCO employees be ineligible for selection and Central Government candidates be assessed on case by case basis.

l) that the term for panels (apart from the Youth Advisory Panel) be up to three years within the same term as the current Council and –

· members are not “rolled over” but go through another selection/appointment process

· panels are disestablished one month before Council elections and re-established in the first quarter of the following calendar year.

m) that “community summits” (or other appropriate events) be held to give direction to panel work programmes; that these be integrated with Council’s programme, so that they enhance and inform and do not duplicate, other Council engagement and consultation activities.

n) that the future of the legacy Pacific boards is considered after new panels are appointed and their relationship to Local Boards is clearer.

Discussion

Background

13. In the first term of Auckland Council, four “demographic” advisory panels were established: two by legislation – the Pacific Peoples and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panels and two on the initiative of the Mayor – the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel (DSAP) and the Youth Advisory Panel (YAP). The common purpose of the panels was to provide strategic advice to Council on issues of importance to those communities, and to advise Council on how to communicate and engage effectively with communities.

14. The Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel (PPAP) and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (EPAP) were established in March 2011 under Section 86 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. The Act also disestablished the panels on 1 November 2013, allowing the incoming Mayor and Governing Body to decide on any further arrangements for ethnic and Pacific participation in the decision-making process. The Disability and Youth panels are continuing, and a new Seniors Advisory Panel is included in the Council decision-making structure.

15. An independent review of the two panels was carried out by Martin, Jenkins and Associates Ltd. This found the panels had made a valuable contribution, but also identified a range of deficiencies and problems with the current model which were impacting on their effectiveness. The review recommended that the panels continue as advisory panels; be selected on competency; provide technical, strategic advice, be located in the Chief Executive’s Office, possibly supported by a representative community reference group.

16. On 22 August, the Governing Body received a report on the external review undertaken by Martin, Jenkins and Associates Ltd. (available on request) and resolved:

That the Governing Body:

a) recommend to the incoming Mayor and Governing Body that the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel be retained with such changes as determined by the incoming Council in December 2013.

b) recommend that such changes include the requirement for an annual Output Agreement between the Panels and Council.

c) agree that the model of a competency-based advisory Panel, linked to a mechanism for inclusive and representative engagement with communities, be developed further for consideration by the incoming Mayor and Governing Body, in consultation with the current panels.

d) note that the Panels will be formally disestablished on 1 November 2013, but recommend that current Panel members be invited to a formal meeting with the Mayor immediately after the October elections to discuss new arrangements

Resolution number GB/2013/81

Recommended Future model

17. The recommendations in this report are based on:

· the previous Governing Body resolution

· reflections given by Ethnic and Pacific panel members at their final meetings in October

· reflections from DSAP

· findings from a small survey of YAP members, local youth board or caucus members and staff

· several meetings with representatives from Grey Power and Age Concern about the Seniors Panel

· recommendations from the Executive Leadership Team on 5 November

· discussions at a workshop held on 10 October with Council staff and officials from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and Office of Ethnic Affairs

18. From all these discussions, it became clear that many of the issues raised in the external evaluation of EPAP and PPAP were shared with DSAP and YAP and there were many advantages in considering all of the “demographic” panels together.

Terms of Reference

Purpose of panels

19. Councillors, officers and panel members agree, that the purpose of the panels should continue to be to provide strategic advice on issues of significance to their communities; and advice on engagement with those communities. However, the experience of the first term has shown it is important to have clear and agreed definitions of “strategic”, “advice” and “issues of significance”.

20. “Strategic” does not necessarily mean only advice on regional matters and to the Governing Body. It may include high-level/generic advice to Local Boards and advice about programmes and services; but it is not about operational matters. For example, the panel might give advice on barriers for their particular communities to using leisure centres and the type of leisure programmes and services they need; but not advice on the management of specific leisure facilities and how they are performing. Some panel members have been seen as a channel for resolving individual issues and complaints, and it needs to be made clear that this is not part of the role.

21. Another area needing greater clarity is that “advice” is not “doing” i.e. panels advise on engagement with Council, they do not carry out that engagement for Council. Panel members are expected to draw on their own knowledge and use their own networks and personal contacts to inform their advice to Council; and help build the capacity of Council staff to engage with and respond to diverse communities.

22. Another important issue to clarify is that the panels are not “representative” because, as appointed panels they do not have the community mandate to be so; nor, given the diversity within their communities would this be possible - especially in the case of ethnic communities. The Pacific and Disability panels were strongly of the view that they were there as individuals for their skills and judgment and to provide different perspectives, but were not representative. There can be some flexibility in the selection process to ensure a reasonable balance of gender, ethnic and other perspectives on the panels.

23. The situation is somewhat different for YAP whose members have gone through a selection/election process by local youth and are, therefore, “accountable” to them.

24. There is a view that organisations that have credibility and track record as experts and advocates for their particular demographic community should automatically have a place(s) on the panels. This would fundamentally change the nature of the panels. Many panel members are active in community organisations/NGOs and lobby/advocacy groups which provides some of the expertise and experience they bring to the panel. However, they are expected to take a non-partisan, broader view and declare any conflicts of interest. Panel membership does not preclude them participating in advocacy/lobbying Council as part of an external organisation.

Issues of significance and scope

25. A particular challenge for the panels has been managing community expectations of what they can achieve, especially where Council has limited or no influence over issues of importance to communities e.g. discrimination in employment or elder abuse in rest homes. Developing an agreed work programme should be a negotiated process in which panels are able to work on issues important to their communities, as well as responding to Council’s strategy and policy work programme.

26. However, some clear boundaries need to be agreed. The panels are set up and resourced by Council to advise Council, including Council submissions or advocacy to Central Government and other external parties. Wherever possible, in Council submissions, advice from panels should be identified as such. Panels should not directly submit to or advise other agencies, except when agreed with the Mayor.

Improving relationships

27. It is more helpful to talk about the key relationships the panels will have, rather than who they “report” to or are “accountable” to. To be effective, the panels need to have multiple relationships: Mayor, Governing Body, Local Boards, Council officers and their communities.

Governing Body

28. In the first term, the chairs (of all the panels except YAP) had the opportunity to report quarterly - in writing and/or verbally - to the Governing Body. The chairs appreciated the status they felt this gave the panels, but there was minimal interaction between most Councillors and the panels at those meetings. The Panels would like more contact with all Councillors rather than just the liaison Councillor. It would be better to provide opportunities for “conversations” between panel members and the Governing Body, rather than continue with a “reporting to”, hierarchical relationship. The coordinator role (described below) would help identify those opportunities.

Local Boards

29. Local Boards have had minimal dealings with the panels, (apart from YAP), and have not yet been consulted on the recommendations in this report. Yet it is at this level that panel advice on engagement could be most effective, and all panels have expressed the wish to have stronger relations with Local Boards. Key issues for discussion with Local Boards include:

a. Work programme: any engagement between panels and Local Boards should be focused and realistic in terms of Local Board and panel workloads. The three year Local Board plans provide opportunities to identify issues of common interest and build working relationships. Panels may have issues that they would like to take to all 21 Local Boards; or there may be specific boards they wish to work with.

b. Community engagement: panels have a role in building the organisation’s capacity for engaging with demographic communities. Local Boards are the elected voice of the community and some have established their own mechanisms for engaging with specific demographic communities. Engagement advisors (LBS) and CDAC advisors play a key role in strengthening local community engagement. It is important to avoid duplication and confusion of roles.

Council officers

30. Relationships between the panels and organisation have been variable. Clarity of role and a clear, well-coordinated work programme with clear feedback loops and systematic reporting, will allow panels to focus on productive relationships with officers in the relevant areas. A greater range and number of Lead Support Officers, more clearly linked to panel priorities, is being provided, and will be reviewed once the coordinator position and work programmes are in place.

Communities

31. All panels place great importance on their credibility with their communities. The proposed community summits/forums would provide one important mechanism for panels to engage with and get direction from communities. Panel members would maintain their own networks and additional, specific engagement would be negotiated as part of the work programme.

The legacy Pacific boards

32. Since the establishment of PPAP, there has been strong advocacy from the 4 legacy boards^{^[2]} that they should continue to be resourced by Council. The four chairs were co-opted onto PPAP and the mix of the strategic/competency role with sub-regional/ representative role was a source of tension. One legacy board received Council funding until June 2012, but the others were unfunded. All these boards had difficulties remaining active; although the Southern legacy Board supported their PPAP member throughout the term.

33. It is not immediately obvious what role sub-regional Pacific boards would play, particularly if community summits are held and the Pacific Panel works with specific Local Boards. Further thought is needed to explore options and implications e.g. where Local Boards (like Howick) set-up ethnic reference groups or where there are independent entities like the Waitakere Ethnic Board. This work could be done after new panels are appointed and their relationship to Local Boards is clearer.

Output agreement / work programme

34. A really clear, focused and manageable work programme agreed between panels and Council and with clear reporting and “feedback loops”, is critical to overcoming many of the issues identified in the external review. All the panels acknowledge their programmes were “over ambitious” and needed more focus.

35. To achieve focus, the work programme should be based on the items in the Strategy and Policy Work Programme the panels wish to work on, and other issues of importance to the panels. It will be important to make clear to panels (and communities) what Council is able to deliver on and what it cannot in terms of its mandate and resources.

36. Staffing and budget requirements need to be identified and agreed upfront, as do any specific engagement events beyond normal Council engagement processes. Use of additional budget would be negotiated and clearly linked to the work programme. If panels wished to access additional resources externally to support their work, this should be with the agreement of Council.

37. The work programme should be signed off by and reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee.

An integrated approach

38. Each demographic community has specific characteristics and issues and these are reflected in the composition and priorities of the advisory panels. However, there are many common issues – e.g. employment, accessibility - and also challenging intergenerational and cross-cultural issues that would benefit from joint discussion and integrated work programmes. All the panels have said they would like stronger links with other panels. It would also be more effective use of elected members’ and officer time to receive advice collectively and not duplicate effort across different work programmes.

39. Therefore, the recommendation is that terms of reference are broadly consistent across the panels, work programmes are developed in an integrated way and support to the panels provided in a coordinated way by supported by dedicated staff.

Supporting the panels

Coordination of work programme, reporting and communications

40. At present, there is no obvious position in Council which would negotiate and broker the work programmes, coordinate monitoring and reporting of progress and oversee communications between panels, elected members, officers and communities. The position would have to be full time, of sufficient seniority, with a comprehensive overview of cross-Council work programmes, political agendas and empathy with the different demographic communities.

Administrative support

41. In the first term, Democracy Services provided administration support for business meetings for all the panels and part time secretarial support for the chairs of EPAP and PPAP. The level of support for panels will be reviewed and subject to available resources.

Budget

42. At present, the monthly meeting fees and expenses budget is held by Democracy Services. There are anomalies between panels that should be addressed - in meeting fees, chairs allowances and discretionary budget. It is recommended that, in principle, fees and expenses are consistent across the panels, but that these be reviewed and set in accordance with the forthcoming Fees Framework.

43. The work programme needs to include agreement as to number of meetings paid for and legitimate expenses. It is proposed that, consistent with Council reporting committees, 6 business meetings per year are funded. Any additional meetings would in the agreed work programme and funding identified.

44. Additional budget for the panels to buy-in independent policy/analytical advice is not recommended and should not be required if there is an agreed work programme. If panels are writing their own formal submissions to Council, editorial support should be available from officers.

45. Panels want to be highly visible to their communities, but to avoid confusion, website content and newsletters should be clearly branded as Council communication and produced by officers with advice from the panels (although panel chairs may wish to write their own copy).

Establishing the panels

Size

46. It is generally agreed that the current size - ranging from 9 Pacific, 10 Disability and 13 Ethnic - is manageable and allows for a range of skills and mix of ethnicities/disabilities. There may need to be some flexibility e.g. for the Pacific Panel to address concerns about the mix of ethnicities on that panel; for the Ethnic Panel to retain gender balance and reasonable cultural mix. The Youth Advisory Panel, with 21 members is based on a geographic representation model. As this model is still “bedding in”, no immediate review of size is proposed.

Competencies

47. Current panels were selected on three broad competencies: strategic experience, governance experience, and community links. These need to be better defined and assessed in relationship to the role of the panels within Council’s structure i.e. panel members should demonstrate understanding of the difference between “governance” and “advisory” roles and “sound understanding of local government’s role and decision-making processes”. “Community links” should include not only grass-roots community networks, but research and professional networks, use of IT and social media. Each panel member should have knowledge of strategic issues and trends (at least in some specific areas) and the wider context of their specific issues, including potential “trade-offs”.

Selection process

48. Legally, the Mayor has the power to establish mechanisms for engagement with the people of Auckland. It is recommended that the Mayor continues to appoint the panels, supported by a relevant Council committee or Governing Body resolution.

49. EPAP, PPAP and DSAP used an open “call for applications” process. After that, PPAP had a selection panel made up of representatives from Minister’s Pacific Advisory Panel, legacy Pacific boards, MPIA, Auckland Council and a Councillor. This is acknowledged to have worked well with a high degree of acceptance from the community. DSAP used a similar process. EPAP was selected by a panel of three and it is agreed that this needs to be broader with more input from community leadership.

50. Panels agree, and it is recommended that broadly the same selection process is followed for all the panels (apart from YAP) i.e. an open call for applications and a selection panel of about 6 made up of community nominees, the Liaison Councillor and appropriate government ministry and/or NGOs.

51. The panels also advised that prospective candidates and communities need more prior information to manage expectations especially about the distinction between “representation” and competency-based advice.

Eligibility

52. Eligibility criteria need to be clearer. To minimise conflicts of interest and community confusion as to which “hat” a panel member is “wearing”, it is recommended that Local Board members and Council staff (incl CCOs) are not eligible. For Central Government employees, it would depend on the level and nature of their role e.g. senior policy advisor probably not appropriate, but front line WINZ employment advisor could be.

Term

53. It is the prerogative of an incoming Mayor to decide if and what panels s/he wants and who to appoint. To avoid pressure on the organisation in the triennial election period, and any difficulties with panel members standing for election, it is recommended that panels are disestablished one month before Council elections and re-established in the first quarter of the following calendar year.

54. The panel term should be up to 3 years within the same term as the current Council. Ii is recommended that members would not be “rolled-over” but go through another selection/appointment process. Some concern has been expressed about loss of experience and continuity if some existing members are not retained e.g. through a staged selection process. However, this needs to be balanced with the need for fair and consistent processes, the fact that incumbents have an in built advantage and the feasibility of more than one round of selections in a Council term.

55. No change is recommended for YAP, where the term of office will be two years with the exception of the February 2013 intake where the term will be twenty-seven (27) months. In June 2014, the first intake of ten members will be replaced and in June 2015 the second intake of eleven members will be replaced.

Community engagement mechanism

56. All panels struggled with how to engage with their communities effectively, and to be confident they were providing sound advice to Council on key community issues. Community summits (or other appropriate events) could provide an effective and credible way of giving direction to the panels’ work programmes and for panels to report back to their communities.

57. This is potentially a substantial workload for elected members and staff, in addition to an already full consultation/engagement programme. Panel summits need to be integrated with Council’s own programme so that they enhance and inform and do not duplicate other Council engagement and consultation activities. For example, at a panel summit, participants could learn about Council’s current priorities and upcoming consultation events and how to get involved. Panels can also provide advice on appropriate use of technology and social media, such as Survey Monkey and the Peoples Panel, for their particular communities. Over time, the different summits could perhaps be combined.

Consideration

Local Board Views

58. The Panels were established to provide strategic advice and their role in relation to Local Boards has not been entirely clear. Local Boards were not interviewed for the external review. Any future model must avoid any confusion with the role of Local Boards in engaging with and advocating for their communities. Some Local Boards are establishing establish their own networks and relationships with specific demographic communities, noting that Howick Local Board has an Ethnic Consultative Committee and the Waitakere Ethnic Board is still operating.

Māori Impact Statement

59. The role and activities of the Panels do not directly impact on Māori. However, any future model for Pacific and Ethnic Peoples must be considered in relationship to the unique status of Māori as Mana Whenua and Mataawaka in Auckland and the specific legislative mandate of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB). The IMSB is mandated to give advice on the cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues that are significant for Māori. This is similar to the previous role of EPAP and PPAP. However, IMSB is independent of Council and has the mandate to monitor Council’s compliance with its statutory provisions that refer to the Treaty of Waitangi, including creating suitable documents and processes. It is also mandated to appoint up to two members to selected Council Committees and Forums.

Implementation Issues

60. Once a final decision has been made on the future model for the Panels, considerably more work is required on designing and administrating a selection process, drafting Terms of Reference and establishing adequate support to panel members. If adopted, community summits/forums would require adequate resourcing and time to organise.

61. No additional provision has been made in the 2014/15 draft Annual Plan for this. Therefore, there may have to be staged implementation of some recommendations e.g. consistency of fees and allowance across panels and additional budgets to support work programmes.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Raewyn Stone - Manager, Community and Cultural Strategy

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Doug McKay - Chief Executive

[2] PIAC (Manukau), WPB (Waitakere), PIBAC (Auckland City) NSPAB (North Shore)

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

Author	Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Doug McKay - Chief Executive