I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Manurewa Local Board will be held on:




Meeting Room:



Thursday, 10 April 2014


Manurewa Local Board Office
7 Hill Road


Manurewa Local Board









Angela Dalton


Deputy Chairperson

Simeon Brown



Michael Bailey



Angela Cunningham-Marino



Hon George Hawkins, QSO



Danella McCormick



Ken Penney



Daryl Wrightson



(Quorum 4 members)




Lee Manaia

Local Board Democracy Advisor


4 April 2014


Contact Telephone: (09) 262 5421

Email: lee.manaia@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz




Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014



ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE


32        Local board input into the Council-Controlled Organisations current state assessment                                                                                                                                         5

33        Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events                                                     49 



Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014



Local board input into the Council-Controlled Organisations current state assessment


File No.: CP2014/06456





1.       This report seeks input from the Board into the first phase of the Council-controlled organisations review - current state assessment.

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its seven substantive Council-controlled organisations (CCOs).

3.       The first step of this review consists of an assessment of the current state.  Auckland Council has prepared a preliminary assessment reviewing the experience of the Council and its CCOs over the last three years from a Council perspective, along with a discussion document to guide input.

4.       Local boards are invited to provide their input based on the discussion document.  Feedback will be reported back to the Governing Body and will inform the first phase of the CCO review (current state assessment) as well as subsequent phases of the review.



That the Manurewa Local Board:

1)      provide input into the CCO review current state assessment, OR

2)      delegate to member XX to provide the Board’s input into the review by 30 April 2014.



5.       Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its substantive Council-controlled organisations (CCOs): Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Property Ltd, Auckland Council Investments Ltd, Auckland Waterfront Development Agency, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, Regional Facilities Auckland, and Waterfront Services Ltd.

6.       The review aims to determine whether there is a need to change the scope of activities and functions within any CCO, the structures that the CCOs operate within, or any accountability mechanisms between the CCOs and Auckland Council.

7.       Governing body members, local board chairs, the CCOs and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) were given the opportunity to provide feedback into the draft Terms of Reference. Common themes amongst the feedback received included:

·      the need to reduce duplication between Auckland Council and CCO activities

·      views as to where responsibility should lie for strategy/policy development

·      questions around effectiveness where an activity is split between Auckland Council and one or more CCO

·      the need to assess the impact of change on outcomes and delivery

·      the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

·      the need to achieve constructive and positive engagement with Aucklanders.

8.       The feedback contributed to the development of the Terms of Reference. The final version was adopted by the Governing Body on 27 February 2014 and is presented in Attachment A.

9.       The Terms of Reference specify the objectives of the review of CCOs as follows:

·      To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

§ Facilitate appropriate alignment of the CCO operations with the Auckland Plan and other council strategies and policies

§ Provide an effective and efficient model of service delivery for Auckland Council and Aucklanders

§ Provide a sufficient level of political oversight and public accountability.

·      In addition, the review will seek to:

§ Provide clarity of role and responsibilities e.g.  development of strategies, prioritisation of work programmes

§ Eliminate duplication and gaps between the Auckland Council group organisations

§ Identify any opportunities for better integration of activities and functions.

10.     The intention is to complete the review and be ready to implement agreed outcomes by 30 June 2015, which aligns the CCO review with the Long Term Plan process.  This timeline is extended from what was initially proposed to allow for full participation and feedback at the appropriate points of the process.

Current state assessment: preliminary findings

11.     The first step of the CCO review consists of an assessment of the current state.  Auckland Council has prepared a report reviewing the experience of the Council and its CCOs over the last three years from a Council perspective.

12.     The report, entitled “Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council Perspective)”, is presented in Attachment B.  It is referred to as the CSA in the rest of this report. The CSA is based on interviews with governing body members and input from Auckland Council staff.

13.     Key preliminary findings in the CSA are as follows:

·      CCOs were seen to deliver well for Auckland, and significant progress has been made over the last three years.

·      Some governing body members are considering fine tuning the model while others expect more significant change.

·      Views differ about the relative role of the Council and its CCOs in developing mid-level strategies – i.e. strategies that bridge the gap between the Auckland Plan and implementation plans.

·      The majority view is that the formal accountability framework between the Council and its CCOs needs to be simplified and streamlined, with more rigorous debate when priorities are being communicated through the letter of expectations.

·      Informal accountability and communication is seen just as important as the formal accountability framework.

·      Feedback was received on the importance of integration within the Council group for effective operation, and of a strong culture of collaboration, as well as other integration mechanisms.

14.     The CCOs have prepared a report to reflect their own perspective, with support from Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) and informed by interviews with CCO board members and staff of each of the seven CCOs.  The CCO perspective was sought in recognition that the experience of the CCOs is different from that of Council, and to utilise the considerable skills and experience within the CCOs to help inform the review.

15.     The intention is to augment the current state assessment with input from local boards.


Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

16.     CCOs, as delivery agents of Auckland Council, have the potential to have a significant impact on positive outcomes for Auckland residents, ratepayers, and visitors. Local boards have an interest in the extent to which CCOs can contribute to their priorities, in projects being undertaken in their area, and in being kept up-to-date on wider regional projects. While the CCOs are accountable to the governing body as shareholder, they also have relationships with local boards who share decision-making responsibilities.

17.     Local boards’ views on the CCO current state will enrich the Council perspective, and local boards are invited to provide feedback based on the discussion document prepared by Auckland Council. The discussion document, entitled “Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards” provide a series of questions addressed to local boards and is presented in Attachment C.

18.     Local boards are encouraged to:

·      reflect on their experience working with the CCOs over the last three years

·      reflect on what worked well and what can be improved

·      provide feedback on the issues and opportunities that the CCO review may address.

19.     In providing their feedback, local board members are invited to base their comments on experience and to provide examples to illustrate the local board’s views.

20.     Local board input will inform the analysis of CCOs and related activities and functions as part of the first phase of the CCO review (current state assessment) as well as informing subsequent phases of the review.


Local Board Views

21.     This report seeks the views of the Local Board, which will inform the CCO review.

Maori Impact Statement

22.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and Te Waka Angamua will be involved at several points in the process of reviewing the CCOs. They have provided input into the development of the Terms of Reference and have been asked to provide comments on the discussion document

23.     Consultation with Māori, including mana whenua, mataawaka and iwi, would form part of any public consultation should this occur during the third phase of the review.

Implementation Issues

24.     There are no implementation issues at this stage of the CCO review.






Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference



Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council Perspective)



Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Question for Local Boards





Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services


Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services


Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014



Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014



Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014



Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014



Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events


File No.: CP2014/06879





1.       This report provides an overview of the current financial management practice for dealing with extreme weather events in local parks across the region.  There are a number of issues and inconsistencies with the current practice and therefore it is recommended that a new and consistent approach be adopted. 

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought, all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips.  12 local boards have some funding to deal with land slips and other effects from extreme weather but it is rarely sufficient when serious issues arise.  Nine boards have no inbuilt financial capacity to cope with the impact of weather events.

3.       Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  There is a legal and moral obligation to ensure that some rates funding is set aside for this purpose given that weather damage, while unpredictable in timing and location, is none-the-less a constant in the Auckland region as a whole. 

4.       Three options are considered in this report.  This first is to continue with the ad-hoc funding arrangement i.e. do nothing.  The second is to pool local board funding to essentially develop a regional self-insurance fund (local unallocated budget).  The third is to seek a regional fund, controlled by the governing body, which is applied for on a case by case basis.  The second approach is recommended.  The current arrangement will result in the need for local boards to cut existing budgets from time to time to react to weather events and overspend or approach the governing body regarding unforecast over expenditure.    The second option, which involves funding moving to the area of greatest need, is likely to cover most weather events, without changing existing regional expenditure, and minimizes the time delays/bureaucracy involved.

5.       In 2011, storms affected many areas and resulted in a number of severe slips on Waiheke Island.  In 2012 the Upper Harbour Local Board was hit by a major cyclone event and dealt with the extensive damage via cuts in their current work and over expenditure.  In 2013 all boards were affected by drought and a number of boards have been affected by slips and erosion.  However the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Waitemata Local Board, in particular, are finding their current liabilities well beyond their individual ability to fund the remedy.  In general terms, extreme weather events affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than rural, flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

6.       The financial information relating to events that have occurred in the last three years is poor due to the fact that funds were taken from a variety of Auckland Council sources and expenses were not labelled consistently.  As such the average financial risk for the region over the last three years is not specifically known.  While it is possible for damage to be catastrophic and incalculable (if there is a regional disaster) it is only the common weather occurrence that is contemplated in this report.  Over the last three years costs have been in the realm of six figures every year and the burden has traversed boards. 

7.       Current budgets are operational.  However damage from extreme weather events often results in the need for the development of new retaining or structures to protect existing assets from ongoing slips or similar.  There is currently no capital funding sitting with local boards specifically tagged for storm damage remediation.  It is recommended that a portion of the existing funding be allocated to capital budgets to provide for this eventuality.



That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      agree to allocate the current (less expenses to date) and future “storm damage” budget of $16,926 to a local unallocated “extreme weather event” self-insurance budget, which can be utilized by the board for repair or rehabilitation of areas affected by extreme weather events on an as required basis.

b)      support a portion of the pooled operating budgets being allocated to local unallocated capital funding.

c)      note that expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.




8.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips. 

9.       The scale or impact of extreme weather events is particularly felt in urban parks where space is at a premium and landscapes are heavily developed.  Although weather events still have an impact on regional parks the scale of the regional park landscapes and the management of those landscapes (i.e. a lot more fully restored streams and coastal dunes) means the impact of extreme weather events can usually be tolerated without affecting the day to day use of the park.  In general terms, extreme weather events also affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

10.     The financial impact of managing damage associated with extreme weather events in the urban park environment has historically been dealt with in three ways:

·    Self-insurance – a fund is kept to call on for unforeseen damage

·    Reforecasting – no funds are set aside for unforeseen damage and as a result current projects and operational expenses are put on hold while funding is diverted to managing the impact of extreme weather events.

·    Overspend – where neither of the two options above are possible then some costs have been worn as an overspend

11.     Auckland City Council held specific “storm damage” budgets for parks and other Council’s had a level of self-insurance against unforeseen damage.  Others had nothing.

12.     Upon amalgamation the funding pool held by Auckland City Council was divided amongst the local boards in those areas, and local boards in the old Manukau City had some funding allocated to cater for this possibility in their local budgets.  This resulted in very small buckets of money being allocated to 12 local boards. 

13.     This local board budget allocation has largely defeated the purpose of the self-insurance fund as extreme weather events do not happen regularly in any given area. They can affect a localized area or a large scale area that has no correlation to board boundaries.  This means that individual local boards can go many years without an extreme weather event while its neighbor or another local board may have several events in short succession.  This random occurrence is normal and the current budget allocation does not befit this natural phenomenon.

The current operational “storm damage” budgets held across the region are:


YTD Actual (Feb)










































Note: there are a number of commitments or costs expected in Waitemata and Orakei that are not yet shown in the these budgets


15.     Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  Under property law there is term known as lateral support which is about the right of a landowner to have their land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. There are around 4000 local and sports parks and each of these parks have neighbours.  Any excavation or alteration Council makes to park land may, at a later time, damage and affect a neighbour and leave Council liable. Our neighbours have a right to enjoy their land in its natural condition.  This includes the right to have their land held in place from the sides by the neighbouring land unless both are subject to unforeseen natural events.

16.     In addition to this legal obligation to neighbours, some extreme weather events come at such a substantial cost that the budget available to an individual board is either unable to wear the cost of the recovery or the cost of recovery affects a range of other activities within a local board area.  This budget shortfall creates a liability and its own set of risks for Council and the community.


17.     The following options have been considered for ongoing/future management of storm damage:






Do nothing:

Some boards have limited funds available, others have nothing

·   No change to boards budgets.  A small contingency fund remains available for those boards with funding.

·   No boards have sufficient funding to deal with medium size weather event – this exposes council to a range of risks


Create local unallocated fund (self-insurance):

This would be a ring fenced fund for all boards to access allocated to the local and sports parks activity.  It would be established from existing storm damage budgets held by some local boards. 

·   Funding is accessible across the region i.e. funds go where the storm goes

·   The size of the fund, pooled across the region, is more likely to accommodate regional extreme weather events than current arbitrary and small funding base available to those boards that have funding

·   Can be established immediately (providing all the boards agree) thereby helping with current liabilities

·   Risk of the fund being inappropriately used for day to day weather events.  This is a current risk and can be more readily mitigated as a local unallocated fund.  It is recommended that there would be a single Tier 4 manager with a regional view determining a consistency of approach.

·   Some boards contribute to this solution while others benefit without contribution – may be seen as inequitable


Ask governing body to cater for most impacts of extreme weather events on a case by case basis.

·   No change needed and governing body would pick up costs of damage (if agreed/funding found).  Local boards that have existing funding would potentially need to show expenditure of current budgets before being eligible.

·   The time delay and bureaucracy involved in making this happen means that most applications will be retrospective and expose the Council to financial risk

·   No funding is currently available at a governing body level.  May take time to advocate for/secure


Local Board Views

18.     This report is being circulated to all Local Boards to canvas their views on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

19.     In many cases extreme weather events can damage archeological sites or sites of significance to Tangata Whenua. This can trigger the need for cultural impact assessments and more careful/expensive restoration works to protect the values of the site.  Without a fund to support rehabilitation or restoration work recently discovered or damaged sites of significance cannot be attended to as there are no funds.  A regional self-insurance fund would help to mitigate risk for Council.


20.     As previously mentioned a variety of extreme weather events have affected parks over the years.  For instance in 2011 storm damage caused extensive slips across Waiheke.  Repair work is ongoing and existing storm damage funding has been insufficient to cope. In 2012 a tornado hit Hobsonville causing widespread damage to trees and houses.  The arboricultural and general cleanup was unforeseen and no budget for this kind of work was available to the Upper Harbour Local Board.  In this case the cost of repair was funded by savings in the Local Board budget combined with a budget overspend. 

21.     During September last year, a major storm event hit the east coast beaches, particularly in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area but also affecting Rodney, Orakei and Howick Local Boards.  A storm surge of 0.8 metres on top of high tide caused substantial erosion. Orewa Beach was hit the hardest with significant sand loss and coastal structure damage. 

22.     Weather events are part of the life of Auckland.  The current inconsistent, and in many cases non-existent, planning for extreme weather events is a risk and exposes Council to a high likelihood of budget blowout in any given year and local board area. 

23.     The unpredictable nature of extreme weather events means that we cannot anticipate what portion of funding is needed for capital and operational funding.  However, based on the last three years weather events, we know that there is a need for both operational and capital funding.  It is therefore recommended that a portion of the current operational funds be allocated to capital funding to offset these costs.

Implementation Issues

24.     If a regional self-insurance fund, initially created from existing local board funds, is universally supported by formal resolution from all boards then this fund can be created in the current 2013/14 financial year.

25.     The expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

26.     There are currently several areas affected by storm damage that have projected funding shortfalls that could benefit from immediate implementation of the regional solution. The beneficiaries from this fund will change from year to year. Some recent historical events and current events and associated funding requirements are detailed in Attachment A.








Historical and current events and associated funding requirements





Jane Aickin, Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Martin Van Jaarsveld, Manager Local and Sports Parks North

Malcolm Page, Manager Local and Sports Parks, South

Grant Jennings, Manager Local and Sports Parks West


Ian Maxwell, Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services


Manurewa Local Board

10 April 2014