Agenda of Budget Committee

Budget Committee

08 May 2014

Attachment B: Analysis of key draft annual plan submission themes and responses

1,967 submissions were received on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. Around 10,230 total submission points were extracted from the submissions. Analysis of the submissions on the Arts Festival, budget related (including requests for additional funding) and financial policies/fees and charges are considered in other reports to this agenda.

An overview by theme of the submissions is provided below and submission points requiring a response are set out in Table One. The themes include the key submission themes identified in the Summary of public submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 –Regional overview report to the 8 April Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings Committee.

The most common submission topic themes are:

a. Fluoridation

b. Regional arts, culture & events

c. Transport – Public transport and roads

d. General comments about the plan

e. Regional environment & heritage (including environmental strategy, policies and programmes)

Other submission themes analysed are:

f. Regional libraries

g. Economic strategy & initiatives

h. Planning & strategy

i. Financial strategy / living wage

j. Bylaws

k. Regulation

l. Governance and democratic process

m. Regional recreation services

n. Regional communities

o. Regional park services

p. Stormwater management

q. Auckland Waterfront Development Agency

r. Watercare Services Ltd

s. Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development

t. Waste & recycling services

u. Emergency management

a.
Fluoridation

There were 242 submitters that raised the issue of fluoridation of water supply with 241 opposing it. The majority (217) of submissions opposing fluoridation were on a pro forma outlining that they object to the addition of fluoride chemicals to the public water supply and want the practice to stop. The pro forma stated that fluoridation is a violation of human rights, that it poses a health risk and they do not want their rates spent on an outdated practiced. It also stated that if people want fluoride they can get it from brushing their teeth with fluoride toothpaste.

24 submitters made their own submissions, with The Fluoride Action Network NZ (FANNZ), and Health Professionals Opposing Fluoridation providing detailed submissions.

Overall the main reasons for opposing fluoridation of water supply were:

· That it is unethical and a violation of basic human rights as people are not given the right to choose what they consume. Related to this was the view that fluoridation of water supply is forced medication and that the removal of fluoride is expensive.

· The chemical used to fluoridate water, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFA) is highly toxic poison, which is a by-product of the fertilizer industry and has no evidence of safety.

· Belief that the ingestion of fluoride is linked to various health impacts including lower IQ, weaker bones, dental fluorosis, endocrine system dysfunction and other health problems, particularly those with challenged immune systems, the young and the elderly. Linked to this is that there is no control over who gets it and how much they consume.

· Questioning its effectiveness and that it is only effective in preventing tooth decay when applied topically not ingested. Recommended more effective ways of delivering fluoride or addressing tooth decay such as providing free toothpaste, floss, toothbrushes, and fluoride tablets to those most in need, subsidizing dental care, and addressing dietary causes.

The issue will be formally considered as part of the review of water services in the region, i.e within the Water Strategic Action Plan currently being developed.

b. Regional arts, culture & events

Of the 54 submissions that commented on this topic, 48 were requests for council to consider annual investment and assistance for Massive Theatre Company. The Theatre has also made a request for funding which is considered as part of the budget requests on today’s agenda, along with other budget requests raised through the submissions process.

c. Transport – Public transport and roads

A large number of submissions were received. Some of these covered multiple points meaning that, in all, around 150 points were made by submitters. This is not surprising given the scale of transport operations and the level of public interest. Submissions came from a broad spectrum of organisations (such as Local Boards, AA and Federated Farmers) and from individuals from across the whole geographic area served by Auckland Council.

Some issues were perennial (such as cycling and congestion), while others were more topical such as the CRL and introduction of electric trains. Given the wider range of views expressed, it is difficult to say that a consensus exists, except in a few areas.

Walking and Cycling. There was overwhelming support for improvement in this area with more than 20 points made in support and no submitters suggesting we were investing inappropriately in this area. Comments universally sought more investment and speedier progress. Specific points ranged from the need to link the existing network, use of the rail corridor for cycle-ways and safety concerns including lighting, traffic calming and intersections.

In addition to the submissions noted above, nine submitters wanted the Auckland Harbour Bridge Skypath to proceed. One submitter was against this on the basis of cost.

City Rail Link. Ten comments were made against investment in CRL with eight in favour. Those against cited limitation of benefits to a few Aucklanders, cost and the need for better analysis before proceeding. Those in favour generally expressed the view that it was part of a desirable public transport system.

Public Transport (PT). Twenty-two comments were made making recommendations for greater investment in public transport. These ranged from support for public transport generally/ greater investment to specific suggestions around integrated fares, better service frequency, ferry services to new locations, rural services, more bus lanes and bus feeder services. In contrast only two submissions contained negative comments on public transport; being that we are investing too much and benefits accrued only to some people while roads provide services to freight and a broader group of users.

Roads. Four submissions were against further spending on roads with a similar number wanting to increase investment. The need to address rural roads and freight corridors was raised. Nine similar submissions were received seeking investment in sealing of rural roads.

Environmental Issues. All the six comments in this area were supportive of tighter standards and reducing emissions with some supporting specific initiatives such as electric trains and cars.

Parking. Several submitters raised parking issues. Several commented on the need to consider suburban parking or the need for resident parking in central suburbs. Other comments included the need to require more parking per dwelling in the Auckland Plan, the possibility of selling parking buildings to pay for park & rides and the need for consultation before raising parking charges.

Financial. Ten submitters raised financial issues. Some of these commented on the current priorities (in addition to the specific comments noted above suggesting more investment in walking & cycling, public transport and roads) while several mentioned the need for alternative funding mechanisms. These included use of development levies for PT, levying new residents and road use charging. Two submissions raised the need to reduce cost across the board and the existence of unnecessary spending (on road maintenance).

Electric Trains. The small number of comments on investment in electric trains were evenly split between those who saw these as expensive relative to other modes or beneficial to only a few people, to those who saw environmental and congestion reduction benefits of this service.

A large number of submissions dealt with specific issues. Of these, eight submitters wanted AMETI accelerated while one wanted it stopped. The four submissions on Penlink were evenly split. Three wanted acceleration of the East/ West link while one was opposed. Two were in favour of a NW bus-way.

Some submissions showed innovation with suggestions for a digital strategy, improved transport information for decision-making, speed limit reductions, micro cars and a monorail.

All other comments reflected a single view on a specific issue. Examples include Franklin Road, motorway extension to Warkworth, growth in Pukekohe, Ellerslie’s main street and gold card concessions.

Summary. Generally progress is already being made, or is incorporated into the Annual Plan, on many of the issues raised. A number of issues belong more correctly in the debate on the forthcoming long term plan. The strategic intent to give priority to public transport is clearly well supported. There is a need to continue progress on walking and cycling initiatives.

d. General comments about the plan

There was a fairly small response stating the plan is “prejudiced” or that there was no point in responding as the decisions are a “foregone conclusion”. There was both praise and complaints about the information within the document. Some found the document too complex and too long and therefore didn’t read it. Two submissions requested visibility in the plan of how much money is being spent on consultants. It was noted to alert organisations of the accessible options we have in place and the Blind Foundation found it difficult to access the accessible version. Staff are meeting with the Blind Foundation to explore options for the LTP. There was some negative feedback generally around the online submission form from local boards, which will also be explored to remedy for the LTP.

e. Regional environment & heritage

Submissions provided general support for heritage protection. In particular:

· support for increased assistance, including financial, to owners of heritage buildings

· support for surveying and identification of heritage

· support for a heritage incentives policy

· support for identification of sites of value to mana whenua and request an increase in the number of identified sites of significance.

Five submitters specifically raised air quality in their submissions. These included the Regional Public Health Service (AP141447), Te Rununga o Ngati Whatua (AP141434), Heart of the City (AP141126), Ellerslie Residents Association (AP1410383) and a local resident (AP140107). Points raised included reducing emissions from industry and transport, reducing exposure to poor air quality, providing air quality data/information, additional funding for air quality monitoring and general support for policies to improve air quality in Auckland.

f. Regional libraries

6 submission points were raised for regional libraries, with the key themes being the planning and development of library buildings and associated expenditure, and accessible library buildings, collection material and services. Responses to specific submission requests are included in Table One.

g. Economic strategy & initiatives

The submissions cover a range of issues related to the Auckland Economic Development Strategy, with strong support for council’s collaborative approach and ambitions for economic growth generally.

There are no particular trends in the responses relating specifically to economic strategy and initiatives. The issues raised of greatest relevance to economic strategy and initiatives refer to local economic development (Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)), digital enablement and the business-friendly dimensions, including council efficiency and fees. Comments of particular interest to economic strategy and initiatives are set out below.

Local Economic Development:

· Support for better integrated business precinct in industrial south

· Concern about lack of accountability and value for money relating to the BID programme

Business Friendly:

· Requests for more transparent charging of staff time against client fees

· Opposition to increased fees and charges for building control and consents

· Advocacy for Auckland ‘gigazone’ (higher internet speeds within CBD and/or city fringe

· Request for faster rollout of business-friendly initiatives

Skills and local workforce:

· Support for council partnering with businesses to better match skills supply and demand

Internationally connected:

· The view that council should not own the Auckland Film Studios Ltd

None of the submission points require revision to the content of the Annual Plan.

h. Planning & strategy

Submissions relating to spatial, strategic and infrastructure strategy address the wide range of challenges with managing population growth in Auckland. Several submissions dispute the amount of growth Auckland Council is planning for in the Auckland Plan and other key planning documents and ask for this to be reviewed. Concerns are raised about the implications of this growth scenario, the risk of poor quality developments being built and inability of Council to ensure good outcomes. Issues of fairness in terms of providing and paying for the infrastructure needed to support growth also feature.

Suggestions for addressing the demands of accommodating population growth included encouraging and supporting people to settle elsewhere, not allowing people to move to Auckland, additional restrictions on immigration, and planning for reducing the population. A number of submissions support intensification in areas of Auckland (particularly the isthmus) and further “building up” of the city as approaches to these issues. Capture of land value uplift as a result of rezoning and direct involvement of Council in exemplar housing developments is also suggested.

A range of views on the form and intensity of development proposed through the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) were received, including comments both in support and opposed to proposed environmental and cultural heritage protections. The Annual Plan process is not the vehicle for considering such matters. Many of these issues are expected to have also been raised by submitters to the PAUP. Submissions on the PAUP closed on 28 February 2014. Submissions will be considered by an Independent Hearings Panel.

i. Financial strategy and living wage

The key topics identified within this theme were comments on the level of council’s expenditure and debt. 38 submitters made comments around expenditure being too high with a number specifically mentioning council sticking to “core services”, “essentials” or “main council elements”. How submitters defined these varied slightly but generally included roads, transport, water, sewage, waste collection, and parks. 22 submitters made comments around the level of borrowings being too high with many concerned about the rate at which it is growing.

Following the discussion around the living wage concept in the lead-up to the adoption of the Draft Annual Plan a number of submitters included comments on this in their submissions. Support for a living wage policy for council staff was expressed in 14 submissions with a number of these indicating this should be extended to contracted workers. Three submitters noted specifically that they did not support a living wage policy whilst a number made other comments around staff costs and salary levels.

j. Bylaws

8 submissions were received on bylaws, relating to Alcohol licensing laws, dog by-laws and other general bylaw suggestions. Specific responses are provided in Table One.

k. Regulation

These submissions relate to alcohol licensing, noise control, and the control of animals. They also relate to the fees charges for various licences. Responses are set out in Table One.

l. Governance and democratic process

There were 44 submissions in this category. Key themes were agreement for a review of CCOs and comments on annual plan governance related measures. Specific responses are provided in Table One.

m. Regional recreation services

Seven submissions expressed support for the implementation of the Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan. (SARSAP). Submitters acknowledged existing council investment, encouraging both continued and increased investment as a means of delivering Auckland Plan outcomes.

Three submissions also requested consideration of a skating rink to expand provision and provide increased access for inline skating leagues. Sport and recreation facility and provision planning forms part of the actions of SARSAP under the Infrastructure theme.

n. Regional communities

25 submissions were received; most responses were supporting social housing. Specific responses to each point are provided in Table One.

o. Regional park services

The submissions highlight the special role regional parks and the maunga play as part of Auckland’s unique natural and cultural identity and in making Auckland the world’s most liveable city. The submissions are generally supportive of the continued acquisition, development and maintenance of regional parks.

The submissions support gaining World Heritage status for the maunga and seek to increase the level of service the maunga offer and the funding necessary to achieve this.

Submissions support the management of cemeteries and the need to ensure their management aligns with the relevant health regulations and the recent review of the Burial and Cremations Act, which the council participated in.

p. Stormwater management

The main theme from the submitters is that Stormwater Management is a core Council service and that more priority is required in relation to Stormwater management. In particular a number of submissions focussed on stormwater maintenance and upgrades in relation to erosion and flooding. Two submissions made reference to the need for holistic water management and one submitter supported cost effective delivery of services.

q. Auckland Waterfront Development Agency

Submissions on waterfront redevelopment highlight the on-going tension between the provision of public open spaces and public buildings, and the development of commercial and residential buildings. Waterfront Auckland is required, through its Statement of Intent, to provide Auckland Council with a return on investment on its landholdings on the waterfront. Waterfront Auckland has a strategic plan, and provisions via the District Plan and Unitary Plan along with very stringent development guidelines to ensure that the balance between commercial and public buildings and open space is achieved. Waterfront Auckland has a strong track record of successfully creating and activating public spaces such as Queens Wharf, Karanga Plaza, North Wharf and Silo Park. The same approach will be translated into the new public spaces being created in the area. In addition, Waterfront Auckland undertakes a very intensive public engagement programme to ensure that current and future development will meet the needs of local residents and businesses, the wider region, and visitors to Auckland.

r. Watercare Services Ltd

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

s. Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development

Key submission themes relating to ATEED included:

· General support of work to promote Auckland as a tourist/visitor destination (Auckland Visitor Plan). In particular

o Improved online promotion of Auckland required

o Increased recognition of economic value of tourism/heritage tourism

o Support for domestic marketing partnership with HOTC

o Support required for local i-SITE (Franklin)

· General support for holistic economic development approach

· Support for promotion of sectors such as equine

· Support for the creation of a Gigazone within Auckland

t. Waste & recycling services

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

u. Emergency Management

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

Table One: Responses to specific queries or requests raised in submissions

Theme: Fluoridation of water supply
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
Requests Council to incorporate one of the following in its Annual Plan 1) End water fluoridation permanently, and pass a by-law prohibiting the use of public water supply for medical intervention purposes, (recommended) OR 2) Suspend water fluoridation indefinitely, until such time as the international scientific community has reached a consensus that water fluoridation is safe	1123 (FANNZ)		The current practice of fluoridation of water supply will continue. However, Council will consider how it will address the issue of fluoridation of water supply through the Water Strategic Action Plan being developed. i.e. whether there will be a review of policy.
Requests Council to cease fluoridation of water supply	1123 (FANNZ), All pro forma submissions, 1264, 1429		As above. Council to consider how it will address the issue of fluoridation of water supply.
Request for a review of water fluoridation policy for Auckland	1349 (NZ Health Professionals Opposing Fluoridation), 1987, 622		A review of fluoridation policy is required as currently Watercare has adopted legacy policies thus there is no consistent policy across Auckland, and due to increasing public concern on the issue. Council will undertake a review of fluoridation policy as part of its Water Strategic Action Plan, currently in development. A review of policy, however, may trigger Council’s Significance Policy requiring a certain level of consultation. This may have cost implications.
Theme: Regional arts, culture & events
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
37.2 Regional arts & culture initiatives. 48 responses supporting investment in Massive Company.	48 submissions		Massive Company delivers regional arts programmes with active participation by diverse young Aucklanders. They have a track record of successful project delivery with Arts Alive & Creative Communities Scheme grants. The budget request will be considered through the mayoral proposal.
37.2 Regional arts & culture initiatives. 3 of 4 responses don’t support any Pride Parade funding	160, 397, 421, 1045		The Pride Parade have applied for funding from the Major Events Baseline Sponsorship Fund. Decisions on 2014/15 funding are expected to be made in the next few weeks.
Theme: General comments
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
In the final Annual Plan statistics on pages 110 and 111, provide a reference to another section of the Plan where more detail is available. In the final Annual Plan separate out consultants fees from other operating expenses and provide the comparison figures for last year’s Annual Plan.	1049		The Local Government Act requires that our Funding Impact Statement is laid out in a specific way, this does not allow for the separation of consultancy costs from other applications of operating funding. Our Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Income is formatted to be consistent with the Annual Report. The key purpose of an Annual Plan (or a Long-term Plan) is to discuss with the community options around the costs and funding of activities to be undertaken by the local authority. The focus of this document, therefore, is on what services are being delivered, at what cost, rather than how the services are delivered. In an organisation such as Auckland Council that delivers different programmes and services from one year to the next, inter-year comparisons can be misleading. This is particularly true with respect to consultancy expenditure which, by its nature, is predominately used for one-off specialist pieces of work rather than the delivery of continued levels of service. Further details of actual expenditure (including separating out consultancy expenditure and inter-year comparisons) can be found in the Annual Report.
1) Requests greater cross-referencing between the large number of plans and reports produced by Council. 2) Seek realistic population projections and consistency between annual plan and unitary plan projections. 3) A better understanding of council operations would be achieved if other operating expenditure were further analysed by separating out consultant’s costs and property costs.	1090		1) Greater cross-referencing can be increased for the LTP. 2) The population projections used by Auckland Council are sourced from the Statistics New Zealand. The Unitary Plan is based on the Auckland Plan. The Auckland Plan states the population of the region could be between 2.5 and 1.7 million people at 2041. The high growth scenario is used (2.5 million) is assumed as the base planning for the Auckland Plan. For the purposes of the LTP a medium population growth scenario has been assumed. 3) Same response as the above submission 1049
Submission window should be 6 weeks.	1211		The tight timeframes and legislative parameters make it difficult to extend the submission period, however this will be considered for future processes.
The Blind Foundation suggests that public awareness campaigns be established to alert organisations to barriers and solutions to include people who have significant vision loss in their planning for cultural and arts initiatives. We suggest that those who are involved in the design and construction of entertainment products and services have, and make use of, access to adequate knowledge and information on the specific needs and requirements of people who are blind or have low vision.	1275		Staff will work with the Blind foundation to improve the public awareness, specifically with visually impaired members of the public.
Theme: Regional environment and heritage
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
Request to increase financial assistance (rates rebates) and advice to owners of historic buildings.	1049, 1074, 1144, 1338		Work is underway to develop a heritage incentives policy for Council consideration.
Requested funding for additional air quality (and noise) monitoring in the CBD. (Heart of the City)	141, 1126		A strategy for air quality monitoring and investigations is being prepared which considers priority pollutants, key air quality issues, good practise methods and the monitoring network overall (including in the CBD). Funding will be considered in light of this strategy (and overall in the context of other environmental monitoring).
Requested air quality monitoring data be more accessible (e.g. on line or summary reporting), including at a local level (Heart of the City, Ellerslie Residents Association, Te Rununga o Ngati Whatua, Regional Public Health Service)	141, 1126, 1410, 383, 1434, 1447		Agree that air quality monitoring data is not easily accessible (although it is available on request). Over the long term it is intended that the data will be publically available on-line.
Supports Council policy to improve air quality and requested that Council reduce air emissions. (Heart of the City, Ellerslie Residents Association, Te Rununga o Ngati Whatua, Regional Public Health Service)	1126, 383, 1434, 1447		Noted. Improving air quality is a council responsibility under the Resource Management Act. Actions that are being taken include policies in the Unitary Plan, development of an air quality bylaw, resource consents, advocacy (e.g. council submissions), working with other organisations to reduce emissions, etc.
Resolve discrepancy between the AP air quality targets and the key priorities. (Te Rununga o Ngati Whatua)	1434		While there is no specific “key project” for air quality outlined in the annual plan text, it is included in the Environmental Strategic Action Plan and in business as usual activities. “Key projects” for air quality in the next year include the Unitary Plan and the air quality bylaw, and we will start to work again on transport emissions.
Progressively reduce air quality performance targets (Regional Public Health Service)	1447		Noted. This is something that could be considered for the LTP.
Auckland Council is a member of the Inter Council Working Party on GMO’s, and that budget from this Annual Plan should be allocated to support the Council’s obligations.	1352		At this stage, no budget requirement is anticipated to be needed to meet Auckland Council’s obligations to help with the collaborative work programme of the ICWP for 2014/15. If this situation changes, additional funds could be requested through the 2015/25 LTP.
More money needs to go to environmental protection and less to rail and the purchasing of trains which only services a very small area of Auckland.	141		The share of funding allocated to each category of council service is a question that will be considered through the next long-term plan process.
Theme: Regional libraries
Specific submission query	Sub #	Response
Region wide library facility strategy Current library build capital expenditure	517 46	Auckland Libraries is in the process of developing a library facility strategy that will inform both the long term plan and asset management plans. The following library builds are under construction and were planned and budgeted by legacy councils – the builds were subsequently approved to proceed by Auckland Council: · Ranui Library Replacement ($6.4m) · Waiheke Library Replacement ($8.2m) · Te Atatu Library Replacement ($10.3m) · Devonport Library Replacement ($7.9m) · Otahuhu Library Replacement ($5.5m) · Westgate Library (growth) ($13.4m) construction imminent The libraries below are either in the planning and design phase (P/D), early consultation (C) or a placeholder (P) for future planning. They are still going through the council approval process. · Flatbush Library (P/D) ($15.7m) · Takanini Library (C) ($5.8m) · Albany (P) ($8.7m) · Highland Park (P) ($3.5m) Library buildings are more than book repositories; they are key place-making facilities that connect people with each other, their communities and with the world of information. For many, the technology provided in the library also enables access to the world of online information. Libraries buildings serve as civic hubs that facilitate active participation in the democratic process and are for many people their place of choice for leisure and relaxation. Since amalgamation libraries have on average welcomed 36,500 visitors per day to library buildings. This number remains consistent even with the growth in online resources.
Toilet upgrade in the central library	645	The toilets in the central library are currently being upgraded. All work should be complete by June 2014.
Restore Freegal Music Service	1120	As part of the 2013/2014 annual plan, Auckland Council's governing body resolved to end the Freegal downloadable music service. The Naxos and Music Online e-resources were not affected by this reduction. Libraries would like to provide this type of service to our customers as we think that access to downloadable music is a core future service. At this stage Council has no plans to reinstate this service; but will considered through the LTP process (indicative cost would be $205,000 in operational funding per annum). In the meantime Auckland Libraries is continuing to build the amount of downloadable/accessible content available to Aucklanders in the form of e-books and e-audiobooks. In December the number of titles available rose to more than 40,000. More will be added throughout 2014, and the dramatic increase in the use of these collections means that customer demand requires the library progressively to apply more of its budget to e-content.
Accessible Libraries	1275	Through the approved Library Strategic Plan, the council has made a commitment to the use of universal access principles in the delivery of Library services: · Universally accessible – a place for me, open for everyone · Universally understandable – a world of ideas simply arranged · Universally appealing – to connect with my family, my community and our future This commitment is reflected in the design of new buildings and the expansion of downloadable/accessible content available to Aucklanders in the form of e-books and e-audiobooks. In December the number of titles available rose to more than 40,000. Libraries are also applying universal access principles to the design of the new library website.
Public heritage service available in each library	1322	There are currently 4 specialist research and heritage centres around the Auckland region. The Whau local board is serviced by the research and heritage centre located in the Henderson Library. Auckland Libraries do not support the implementation of a ‘heritage office’ in each library. There are however, local history collections at each branch and staff are happy connect local historians with specialist staff to preserve the unique cultural history of the different areas of Auckland.
Theme: Organisation support
Specific submission query	Sub #	Response
Also as regards the Built and Natural Environment theme, NWO raises issue with the relatively low target of 61 sites of significance to Maori to be protected, especially when compared with the target of 2,600 for historic heritage (presumably non-Maori) resources to be protected.	1175	NWOs support across other points is noted and appreciated. It is acknowledged that a target of 61 is not high, but it reflects the complexity and resourcing required for this process. As noted, it is intended to significantly augment this in coming years.
We suggest that Auckland Council engage more closely with NZHPT to capitalise on the considerable amount of knowledge held and opportunities identified by the Trust.	1074	Auckland Council already works closely with NZHPT on a variety of fronts including archaeological assessments, work related to waahi tapu and koiwi discovery. There are also statutory requirements in the Historic Places Act that require local bodies to engage with NZHPT in particular situations. The Maori Department within Council has an established relationship with its counterpart service in NZHPT and often work together on projects.
Theme: Economic strategy and initiatives
Specific submission query	Sub #	Response
Suggestion that Mangere-Otahuhu is recognised as the ‘gateway’ to Auckland	042	The Mangere Gateway Programme is a legacy Project initiated by the former Manukau City Council. The Programme aims to create an international Visitor Gateway in the large area to the west of SH20, from the Auckland Airport in the South to the Mangere Bridge/ Manukau Harbour in the North. The project involves a range of initiatives which focus on promoting Auckland’s point of distinction – with Maori economic development a key aspect of the Gateway work – including the creation of a new Visitor / Heritage Centre within the area. It has been envisaged that the culturally significant Otuataua Stonefields site would be the site for such a centre – however, the project is on hold pending further discussion with iwi / Mana Whenua and could involve an alternative location. Other projects include cultural walks, cycle ways, heritage trails ETC. The Mangere Gateway Programme is progressed by City Transformation South (budget also) but is currently “on hold” pending discussions with The Southern Initiative Team around the best “home” within Council for the work.
Request for higher prioritisation of digital and telephony infrastructure to Anawhata (West Auckland)	710	Anawhata falls within the remit of the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI). This is central government’s investment in providing DSL broadband (offering 5 megabits per second [Mbps]) to 86% of rural New Zealand homes and businesses through a combination of wireless and fixed line solutions. However, it is unclear if RBI will impact services in Anawhata. Any service improvements depend on the telecommunications industry. Outside of RBI there is limited appetite from the telecommunications industry to invest in infrastructure for rural and remote areas. However, Council does advocate for the telecommunications industry to enhance coverage and services in rural and remote Auckland and the Waitakere Ranges are noted as a priority area.
Support for the development of an integrated precinct plan for the industrial south	818	The Local Economic Development team are currently developing an Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South. This has involved extensive consultation with Local Boards, the Southern Initiative, Business Improvement Districts and Business Associations, major developers and land holders and large firms within key sectors. The Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South will be available in draft form later in 2014.
Concern about discussion by the Business Advisory Panel not translating into action and change at officer level within council	090	The Business Advisory Panel was established to complement and inform implementation of the Auckland Economic Development Strategy. The panel is a useful medium for the exchange of ideas and issues. The Panel’s effectiveness is subject to regular scrutiny and opportunities for improvement – in keeping with the council’s overall approach to such initiatives. This includes how areas of discussion might best inform council’s economic growth agenda and translate into action.
Recommends review of Business Improvement District (BID) programme, including: · Update of BID targeted rate budgets against BID decisions in time for the AP and rate-setting in June · Review of accountability arrangements and value for money of services received by council	114	The adopted 2014/15 Annual Plan will incorporate the BID targeted rate amount as approved by BIDs at their Annual General Meetings. The BID Partnership Programme approach is a public-private partnership between Auckland Council and business associations that have a commitment to develop and promote their local business environment. The Council does not receive services through the BID programme. The BID Partnership Programme is funded through BID target rates collected by Auckland Council and administered by the Business Association to achieve agreed objectives. Governance and accountability arrangements are set out in the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (2011).
Recommend that Auckland Council adopt a collaborative approach with the private sector, central government and other key stakeholders.	114	Noted. The newly established Business Leadership Group, chaired by Michael Barnett illustrates this approach.
Recommends council use Health Impact Assessment (HIA) for health planning, including economic dimension.	447	Council supports evidence-based decision making, to meet the current and future needs of communities with regards to good quality local infrastructure, public services and performance of regulatory functions in a cost-effective manner. Evidence based decision making includes an assessment of the likely intended and unintended effects of a policy against various criteria, including equity, social, environmental and business impacts, among others, to the extent that it is possible. As such, we consider that aspects of Health Impact Assessment will be included in council policy analysis, albeit not under the formal designation of a “Health Impact Assessment”.
Theme: Planning and Strategy
Specific submission query	Sub #	Response
Reconsider introduction of Zoning Charge Levy to ensure community share in large windfall profits arising from zoning changes	1457	The idea of capturing part of the windfall gain made by landowners resulting from decisions to re-zone land to urban or to substantially up-zone land in order to fund infrastructure or affordable housing was consulted on as part of the Draft Unitary Plan in 2012. Following consideration of the feedback on this and other funding options it was decided, on balance, that this was not a preferred method of funding infrastructure or affordable housing in Auckland.
We submit that (whether through a change to the draft Annual Plan or otherwise) council should engage with Counties Power to re-establish a co-ordinated liaison channel and a mutual no surprises policy.	1268	Auckland Council is committed to liaison with groups like Counties Power through active involvement in the Auckland Utility Operators Group and the Infrastructure Providers Forum. Utility providers are consulted as a matter of course if proposals and initiatives come up that are likely to affect them.
NZAA broadly supports the integrated "One System" approach that the Draft Plan takes. We are concerned, however, that the Draft Plan fails to identify the relationship between transport capital projects and the plans that sit below the Auckland plan, eg City Centre Masterplan or the Waterfront Plan.	1273	Clear links between the transport capital projects and the underlying plans like the City Centre Masterplan, the Waterfront Plan and Auckland Plan are very important. It is intended that further explanation of the linkages between spending and specific elements of Council’s strategic documents will be proposed in the Long-term Plan 2014-2025.
Grey power asks that a full review of the basic assumptions of the Auckland Plan be carried to ensure current planned development and expenditure levels are in line with what is now anticipated Auckland population changes will be.	1457	The Auckland Plan provides for three scenarios for the future of Auckland’s population – high, medium and low growth. Auckland Council will periodically review with Statistics New Zealand, the appropriateness of the high growth model base adopted for land supply related planning and the medium growth model base adopted for investment decisions on infrastructure.
Given the decision of the Hearing Panel to implement Plan Change 28 for the urban development of Kingseat, I seek that the Annual Plan and the LTP make appropriate budget allocations to provide for the planning and construction of the necessary infrastructure, including roading, water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater, parks, riparian reserves and community facilities.	1177	The Council’s decision to approve Plan Change 28 to the Operative Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section) has been appealed the Environment Court in its entirety. Consistent with due process, decisions on funding to support growth in Kingseat should await the decision of the Court on these matters.
Recommend that the council give consideration to developing a program for upgrading village centres.	1256	The Auckland Plan provides direction on the prioritisation of centres throughout the Auckland region. Council will continue to work with Auckland Transport and other entities to give effect to the Auckland Plan outcomes for centres.
Spatial-based projects such as the Southern Initiative and Tamaki Redevelopment should not just focus on new housing. Much of the existing housing is cold, damp and unhealthy which leads to poor social and health outcomes.	1331	The Southern Initiative focuses on seven work streams or priority areas over the next five years. Housing is one of these priority areas. There are also some longer term outcomes such as a safe community and healthy community which are systemic but takes longer than five years to achieve.
Theme: Bylaws
Specific submission query	Sub #	Response
We request that, in revising and harmonising the bylaws, the focus be on increasing access by all to the community and not just on what might be the least expensive solutions to implement.	1120	The council is committed to providing the information on the development of the bylaws and through its public consultations, material that can be used effectively by those with impaired vision. In addition, during the development of a number of the bylaws disability groups are actively consulted for their advice and experience.
NRC notes and supports the initiative to review and implement a single set of Auckland-wide bylaws to replace the 158 former council bylaws, and makes the following requests and recommendations: • Requests that the review includes consultation with NRC. • Recommend that a consolidated summary of bylaws affecting the performance of the freight sector be published as a key output of the review process.	942	The council is reviewing the remaining 80 legacy bylaws over the next two years, and will add the National Road Carriers (NRC) to its database of interested stakeholders and will keep the NRC informed of progress. Council staff has passed on the NRC’s request for a consolidated summary of bylaws affecting the performance of the freight sector to Auckland Transport for their information and response, and the traffic related bylaws are the jurisdiction of Auckland Transport.
We recommend Council keep ARPHS informed and engaged with Bylaw reviews	1447	The council is committed to maintaining the relationships with our external stakeholders as the council reviews its bylaws and various codes of practice.
Theme: Regulation – Licencing & compliance
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
No increase of liquor outlets at all. I want to see them decreasing.	169		This will be considered as part of the Local Alcohol Plan
My submission relates to industrial noise. I think we need serious consideration given to localised heavy nidustries which operate next to residential areas. eg Winstone Gib and Hansells in Oranga Penrose operations. Any factory that 'needs' to operate machinery all night long does NOT belong in a city. Noise Control Officers are very helpful but they are constrained by by-laws that make nonsense of liveability. Until everyone in our city has the right to a restful night's sleep - without machinery vibrating continuously even while oberating within the bylaw decibel limit - Auckland will never be the world's most liveable city.	639		The current district plan and the proposed unitary plan, possess specific rules designed to protect residential properties and their occupants from any unreasonable noise that may be generated from any commercial or industrial activity, regardless of where that commercial or industrial activity is located. Historically a lot of industrial and commercial activities were located together in specific locations away from residential areas. In some instances residential developments have been established next to existing commercial and industrial businesses. With modern advances in acoustic engineering technology, a requirement for a specific distance separation, between residential properties and industrial or commercial properties, cannot be justified in terms of achieving a desired noise reduction, because industrial and commercial activities can be designed and engineered to operate adjacent to residential properties without adverse noise effects.
Increases in licensing fees are just a rip off.	680		All licensing fees are based on the ‘user-pays’ principle. License holders are the primary beneficiary (i.e. ‘users’) of the licensing service as the receipt of a licence and the associated compliance inspections, allows a licence holder to operate. Accordingly the licence fees are a direct reflection of the cost of providing the licensing service and in that context are inherently reasonable and appropriate.
Massive shame that formulating a noise policy for the CBD was mostly submitted against last year. CBD has very different needs to the rest of the region, not to mention a requirement for more tolerance of noise from those who choose to live in the CBD	703		It is recognised that certain areas of Auckland should have higher permitted noise levels than others. This is reflected in the current district plan and proposed unitary plan, which includes higher permitted noise levels in the central business districts than the in other areas, such as residential.
Why do we not have any dog free beaches in central auckland? Please make Pt. Chev beach dig free. There is not enough room for dogs at high tide as well as other users. Dogs can be walked at Meola Reserve very nearby. This could be developed into a proper "doggie park" with all the facilities.	677		The Albert-Eden local board is scheduled to complete a review of selected local dog access rules in 2015.
Theme: Governance and democratic process
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
The Annual Plan target of 40% is too low and should be increased to 45%.	1144		Historical voter turnout has been around 30-35%, so 40% is a stretched target. Council is working with central government to raise awareness for future local government elections, including online voting.
The blind community wish to be able to cast votes in the election on equal terms with the sighted community. This includes equal access to information about candidates and being able to cast our votes in a confidential secret manner.	1120		Council provides some of the election material is readable by the sight impaired. E-voting, once introduced will alleviate most of the sight impaired issues.
Ngati Whatua O Orakei (NWO) support the intended performance measure under the theme of Governance "percentage of Maori residents who fee/ they can participate in local board decision-making" (page 29). The intended target of 50% still appears low and indeed, active engagement and partnership with NWO at the outset will contribute to achieving a greater percentage of participation in decision-making by Maori.	1175		This measure is the same as non-Maori and needs to remain linked to that. Staff agree that engagement and partnership will deliver a greater percentage. This is the first year that this measure has been implemented, so will be reviewed through the LTP process.
Grey Power Auckland Region: 1) Of particular concern is the very high number of staff the Council currently has, and also the large numbers receiving high salaries. 2) Auckland Council is asked to set a freeze on current staff levels and costs and initiate a full review aimed at reducing staff levels to 7,500 by 2015 and holding salary costs levels as part of this process. 3) It would be very helpful to have an Ombudsman type office who has the ability to sort out ratepayers issues when the initial Council response is inadequate.	1457		Legislation now provides for the Governing Body to determine a remuneration policy for the Council. In December 2013, the Governing Body resolved that the Auckland Council prepare a remuneration policy for the 2014/15 financial year.
The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society submits that the Governing Body should investigate and rectify the apparent loss of the Te Henga Bethells Quarry rehabilitation fund. The former Waitakere City Council collected royalties from quarry operators over many years for quarry remediation upon closure.	911		This is a legacy council fund, and is not ‘lost’. The fund was an accounting entry to record a “non-restricted fund” intended to be used for future rehabilitation. In 2010, Auckland Council decided that the Rehabilitation fund for Te Henga Quarry should be released back to Equity in the new Council’s accounts. Good accounting practice requires that we recognise as a liability (a provision) for its obligations to rehabilitate the Quarry. At 30 June 2013, staff undertook a preliminary assessment of rehabilitation costs. This indicated a cost in the range of $300,000 to $400,000. This was not entered as a provision as the level was not material and insufficient evidence was available to support the provision. However, once the final use of the site has been determined by Auckland Council, a provision for the rehabilitation will be entered in the Council’s accounts. This will then be funded. Council will drive this process to develop a rehabilitation plan, once the end use is determined, and will fund it accordingly. The royalties paid from the quarry have and continue to be treated as income to Council and is used as part of the funding of services of the Council.
The Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) need to be reviewed to ensure more accountability and transparency, with input from the stakeholders and public	1090, 1114, 1120, 1268, 1393		The Governing Body has instigated a review of the CCOs with terms of reference decided and has agreed that consideration be given to a public submission process.
Theme: Regional communities
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
32.5 Regional social housing - Housing in rural areas.	151, 516		Auckland Council as a provider of social housing owns and operates 1412 Housing for Older Persons (HFOP) dwellings. The dwellings are unevenly distributed across the city, with provision concentrated in the south, west and north. HFOP supports people being active and independent within their communities. This approach is commonly referred to as “aging in place”, and recognises the social and economic advantages of enabling citizens to be part of their communities. To support independent living HFOP villages are located close to amenities such as shopping centres and public transport. There are currently villages in Waiuku, Pukekohe and Torbay, there are no villages in the legacy Rodney area due to Rodney District Council decisions to divest.
32.2 Regional community development policy - Ageing Strategy policy document.	1457		While an Ageing Strategy is not currently on the policy forward work programme, the issue of policy and strategy relating to older people will be discussed with the Seniors Advisory Panel and their recommendations on this issue will be brought to council for consideration.
32.3 Regional community development initiatives. Council provides Literacy programs and work related skills programs.	1375		Council’s major support for literacy is through library provision and funding of COMET Auckland. Further council involvement in literacy tends to be indirect and through working in partnership with central government and the community sector (for example through the provision of council facilities from which organisations may provide literacy programmes). Youth employment is a Mayoral priority and council is increasing its graduate programme from 17 to 50 people and its cadets from 10 to 20 in 2015. Council considers youth employment to be a major issue for Auckland and is committed to supporting positive transitions for young people from school, in partnership with central government and others. Council has received confirmation from the Tindall Foundation of 1.85 million over the next three years for the Youth Connections youth employment initiative across Auckland.
32.2 Regional community development policy - Alcohol policy.	1434		Council is committed to reducing alcohol related harm, through local alcohol policy development and the range of other policy and operational activity undertaken by council. Any council generated policy will support the aims of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and this recommendation to include a reference to alignment of council policy and activity with this Act in the Annual Plan is supported.
Theme: Regional park services
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
More drinking fountains needed	81		The need for and location of drinking fountains are considered as part of the concept planning for new parks or the redevelopment of existing parks.
No one is able to tell me how to apply for access to land for garden allotments. As an apartment dweller, I'd like to have an allotment. Please consider an initiative on this topic and put unused land to good use.	160		The council does not provide for “garden allotments” however there are a number of “community gardens” dotted around the region, which make provision for citizens to participate in gardening activities. Reference to community gardens and volunteer programmes can be found on the council website.
Submitter wants to ensure there is adequate support and funding for volunteers and conservation parks. Also requests that greater funding is put into the acquisition of regional parks and volcanic landscapes.	494		The council budgets for and supports an extensive volunteer programme on its parks, including some of the volcanic landscapes, and will continue to do so .
Submitter requests that funding to support and resource volunteers is shown in Auckland wide parks (volcanic cones and regional parks).	494		The council budgets for and supports an extensive volunteer programme on its parks, including some of the volcanic landscapes, and will continue to do so . These are incorporated in the operational budgets for the management of parks and open space across the city.
Concern that the area commonly referred to as the Horse Paddock remains in the ownership of the party that owns the Sugar Refinery. Council will have Right of First Refusal for purchase of the Horse Paddock. Request that Council initiate contact with the Owner of the Refinery and commence negotiations to purchase the Horse Paddock. Once the Horse Paddock is brought into public ownership, it should be made part of the Chelsea Heritage Park.	530		The “ horse paddock” adjacent to the Chelsea Heritage Park has been identified as a potential purchase should it become available on the market. The decision to purchase will depend on priorities for other purchases and the value this land will contribute to the existing open space network.
Request for smoke free public open spaces.	716		The council has adopted a “smoke free” policy for public open spaces and buildings At this stage it is an educational programme involving signage informing people of the policy and encouraging them not to smoke in the vicinity of other people with a particular focus on areas where children congregate, such in the vicinity of playgrounds.
We support the Regional Parks budget of $28,492m opex and $14,241m capex for additional Regional Parks acquisition and submit that provision should be made for additions to the Waitakere Ranges Regional Parkland.	911		The council will continue to provide strong support for the creation and maintenance of its regional parks, including the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, as an essential component of Auckland’s unique natural and cultural identity and in making Auckland the world’s most liveable city.
The council states that keeping the tree-scape is important as providing a benefit for the general public but there is no provision for assisting residents with the costs incurred in maintaining large trees in a residential area. Action: Divert part of the funds devoted to Parks to provide a fund to assist with the pruning and shaping of designated trees.	1049		The council does not currently have the capacity to help manage trees within private land. The council has over 55,000 hectares of parkland currently under its care. As a priority the council devotes resources to the management of this asset through pest animal and weed control and will provide private land owners with assistance with these programmes on private land. But apart from some arborist advice the council does not normally involve itself in pruning and shaping of designated trees on private land.
Botanic Gardens - maintaining the Auckland Botanic Gardens, including creating opportunities for outdoor recreation, accommodation and events.	1074		The council will continue to provide strong support for the creation and maintenance of the Auckland Botanic Gardens, in recognition that the Botanic Gardens are one of Auckland’s major visitor and recreational attractions with over 1 million visits each year.
Recommend that the council not make any further investment in acquiring new regional parks at this time.	1256		The council uses criteria to assess the need for additional parkland, including regional parkland. These criteria look at the strategic need as well as the suitability of the land for its recreational and the protection of its natural and cultural heritage values. Land that does not satisfy these criteria will not be purchased.
Recommend a new design for children's playspaces be incorporated to include nature, fantasy, adventure. The planting budget now needs to increase e.g. for fruit tree communities, food and forests on public reserves.	1322		The council recognises the need for children to experience and learn from natural settings. The Auckland design manual currently under development will explore opportunities for play-spaces that incorporate nature, fantasy and adventure. The council also acknowledges the need for community gardens and will continue to support and grow these initiatives.
I am concerned that only $1 million has been allocated to Auckland's maunga. How does this square with the plans for World Heritage status by 2020? Do not support level of focus on visitor experience and recreational use aspects of volcanic cones policy.	1385		The future management of the volcanic cones is currently being established through the co-management framework with the Tamaki Collective. The need for future expenditure will be determined as part of developing management plans for the cones and will be reflected in future annual plans
Edge Trimmers dangerous need guards on	1408; 1420		The council and its contractors adhere to recognised health and safety standards.
We recommend the DAAP should signify that all expansion and upgrading of burial sites must not be adverse to the details and limitations as posed by the recent review of the Burial and Cremations Act.	1434		The council has participated in the review of the Burial and Cremations Act and is aware of the implications of this legislation.
In terms of Cemeteries, we recommend Council recognises public health risks and engagement issues.	1447		The council has participated in the review of the Burial and Cremations Act and is aware of the implications of this legislation and its responsibilities under the relevant health related legislation. The council would welcome engagement and collaboration on these matters of common interest with the submitter.
Theme: Watercare Services Ltd.
Specific submission query	Sub #		Response
Water and waste water charges unfair.	231		Watercare is required by legislation to be a minimum cost provider of water and wastewater services and is prohibited from paying a dividend to its shareholder the Auckland Council. The cost of water and wastewater services reflect the actual cost of delivering those services to the people of Auckland while maintaining a high standard of public health and environmental protection.
The Huapai sewage treatment plant is decommissioned. It is not appropriate that a sewage treatment plant is positioned in a park (public area) or next to a waterway that flows to the Kaipara harbour. There have been constant issues with this plant including smell & overflow. This is a health & safety issue.	526		Ever since commissioning of the new wastewater main from Kumeu, Huapai and Riverhead Watercare has experienced challenging odour issues as a result of the low number of connections and low wastewater volumes in the connected networks. Low wastewater flows and increased retention times cause septicity which raises the potential for odours to be generated. In response Watercare has mitigated this issue by reinstating pre-treatment at the Huapai wastewater treatment plant. As more growth and connections come on-line in this area these problems will reduce and the use of the plant for pre-treatment will be stopped.
Discharge from sewage/overflow needs to be handled on a community level - i.e. it is not acceptable for overflow from Waitemata harbour area to be discharged into Manukau Harbour. It has taken years to finally have a clean up of the Manukau - sort out your area, don't dump in ours!!	543		The Mangere Wastewater Treatment plant is Auckland’s largest wastewater treatment facility and treats existing flows from a large part of the Auckland isthmus. Old combined networks across the city have carried wastewater and stormwater to the treatment plant for treatment for many decades. The new central interceptor will continue to take these flows as well as picking up some additional wet weather overflows. However, the actual increase in average flows to the treatment plant is expected to increase by only 2%. Furthermore, additional flows from the north and west will be diverted to the Rosedale Wastewater Treatment Plant taking pressure of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant and allowing for continued growth across Auckland while continuing to protect the Manukau and Waitemata Harbours.
Water rates are not fair and need overhaul. Why should I pay for waste water rates on my garden and be prevented from having water stored from roof and gutterings?	544		The domestic wastewater tariff is only charged on 78.5% of the metered water use. In effect there is an allowance made for water use in gardens and other situations where it does not go down the drain. This figure is based on BRANZ research on average household water use. Households are free to install and use water tanks and will need to make decisions on whether there is benefit in doing so.
We believe in a greater allocation of money to construct water dams for Auckland for the future rather than relying on the Waikato River.	683		Unfortunately the major dam sources for Auckland have already been utilised and there are few remaining opportunities for dams. Building new dams is also very expensive realtive to the water yield which can be obtained and consenting would also be very difficult and expensive to achieve. Watercare is required by legislation to priovide services at minimum cost, collectively, to all the people of Auckland. Infrastructure, including a world class treatment plant, is already in place for a water take from the Waikato River and this source will continue to become more important as the region grows.
Reduce water charges which are hugely overpriced.	1108		At the time of integration in 2010 Watercare reduced water prices, in some cases significantly so. Watercare is rerquired by legislation to be a least cost provider of water and wastewater services and is prohibited from paying a dividend to Auckland Council. The cost of water and wastewater services reflect the actual cost of delivering those services to the people of Auckland while maintaining a high standard of public health and environmental proection.
Property owners should be encouraged to install storage tanks to collect rainwater for gardens, vehicle washing and toilet flushing.	1113		Sustainability initiatives are good in principle but the arguments for Watercare as a regional service provider are not always compelling in terms of cost and protection of public health. Watercare continues to design and build infrastructure to meet Aucklands peak demand when rain tanks are typically dry and customers fall back on the public supply network. The provision of bulk services remains consistent with Watercare's commitments to be a minimum cost provider and households who wish to install rain tanks continue to able to do so.
Re: Central Interceptor - should seek to stop wastewater overflows rather than just reduce	1113		Overflow structures are a standard component of modern wastewater networks and are designed for emergencies to protect private property and public health. Regional plans permit an average of two overflows from a controlled structure per annum and the central interceptor will result in a significant reduction in overflows along the network. These limits balance the adverse environmental effects of overflows which tend to be short lived, against the cost to build infrastructure to reduce them. Reducing overflows to zero, even if technically feasible, would cost many billions of dollars. The main emergency overflow for the central interceptor tunnel will be located near the Mangere wastewater treatment plant. However, due to the scale and potential risks, this has been designed with sufficient redundencies and contingencies that it is unlikely to ever be needed. Furthermore, Watercare has listened to the Consent Commissioners and agreed to install standby power generation.
The electronic versions of Watercare Services invoices are not fully accessible to blind and vision impaired readers.	1120		Watercare has worked with blind disability services to improve the way in which water and wastewater billing information was made available electronically. To date Watercare has done the best it can with the technology available. Watercare will continue to review and improve these services as billing and customer information systems are upgraded.
KIPT is supportive of fair volumetric charging for water and a mix of fixed charge and volumetric water charges for waste water calculation.	1133		Noted.
Request that Auckland Council extends the sewerage line to make a direct connection with: · Oratia District School · the Settlers' Hall · the Small Hall · the cluster of buildings which includes the Oratia Superette and Dragiceviches' Orchard buildings and allocates funding for this from the $38,000,000 allocated to Collection System Expansion and the $25,100,000 allocated to Collection System Improvement in the Wastewater section of the Capital Projects List7 (see 6).	1328		The provision of wastewater services to new areas is dependent on detailed Council planning (structure planning) or private plan changes. Much of Oratia is currently zoned countryside living and until such time as Council determines that such areas are a priority for growth and are accompanied by coordinated structure plans that determine the nature , mix and layout of growth and accompanying services, then Watercare is unable to service these new areas.
Beacon supports projects to manage demand for services, create a more resilient, localised and diverse network, and, where appropriate, maintain the network	1331		Noted.
Hunua water supply scheme is an important core service and we approve this.	1375		Noted. The Hunua dams have the greatest storage capacity of all our regional dams and along with the Ardmore water treatment facility represent some of most important Auckland water supply infrastructure.
I do not support the changes to having the Manukau Harbour used as a dumping ground for Auckland city's waste water. The environment could be adversely affected. Please pump it out past the Manukau Heads into ocean currents and keep our harbour a place for swimming and community enjoyment.	1390		The Mangere Wastewater Treatment plant is Auckland’s largest wastewater treatment facility and treats existing flows from a large part of the Auckland isthmus. Old combined networks across the city have carried wastewater and stormwater to the treatment plant for treatment for many decades. The new central interceptor will continue to take these flows as well as picking up some additional wet weather overflows. However, the actual increase in average flows to the treatment plant is expected to increase by only 2%. Furthermore, additional flows from the north and west will be diverted to the Rosedale Wastewater Treatment Plant taking pressure of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant and allowing for continued growth across Auckland while continuing to protect the Manukau and Waitemata Harbours. The option to discharge past the Manukau Heads was considered by the public and discounted many years ago. As a result the harbour discharge is of such high quality that contact recreation continues to be available. Watercare is commited to protecting the Manukau and has invested half a billion dollars in upgrades and improvements to the harbour including the removal of the old oxidation ponds and creation of new beaches. This commitment continues with ongoing upgrades to the plant, development of new walkways and Watercare's purchase of Puketutu Island to become a future park.
Watercare should be actively encouraging Aucklanders to reduce their water consumption as similar organisations do in other communities faced with water supply limitations such as the Australian cities. I see little sign of this. The CEO of Watercare is significantly overpaid for what must be a relatively straightforward job especially compared to the CEO of Auckland Council.	1393		Aucklanders already have the lowest water consumption rates compared with other urban parts of New Zealand. The cost of our water is also significantly lower than in Australia. However, Watercare remains focused on achieving by 2025 a 15% per capita reduction in water use throughout the region. This work includes updating the regional demand management plan and creating a free water audit service for households, in partnership with EcoMatters Environment Trust. The latest addition to this programme is the 'Be Waterwise' booklet aimed at helping households save water and money. It is available on Watercare’s website.
Opposes wastewater charges	1402		Watercare is required by legislation to be a least cost provider of water and wastewater services and is prohibited from paying a dividend to Auckland Council. The cost of water and wastewater services reflects the actual cost of delivering those services to the people of Auckland while maintaining a high standard of public health and environmental protection.
Upgrade sewer capacity	1440		Watercare is planning to spend approximately 2 billion dollars over the next 10 years building new wastewater infrastructure to increase capacity.
Most people I know are very unhappy with Watercare. I think Council should open up discussion on unpopular department instead of ignoring them. 1. We don't want bills for water every month. 2. We do not like the way they pit our bill up the month they estimate usage. 3. We do not like paying for water down the drain, when we water the garden.	1473		At the time of integration in 2010 Watercare reduced water prices, in some cases significantly so. Watercare is required by legislation to be a least cost provider of water and wastewater services and is prohibited from paying a dividend to Auckland Council. The cost of water and wastewater services reflect the actual cost of delivering those services to the people of Auckland while maintaining a high standard of public health and environmental protection. Monthly billing was implemented to help customers avoid large quarterly or six monthly bills and to help identify water leakages. Estimates are used every second reading based on past water use figures. All customers in Auckland are charged in the same way for domestic water and wastewater services. Wastewater charges include an allowance of 21.5% for garden watering that does not go down the drain.
water meters should be installed free of charge.	1969		Watercare must recover all costs for services. Costs are typically directed to those who create the demand for services including water meter installations. Infrastructure growth charges are also levied to those who create demand for new services such as water and wastewater connections which require additional investment.
The Local Board also needs to advocate heavily on the issue of commercial water rates which according to our calculations will see some businesses facing a $10,000 increase in rates, which is simply not sustainable. These changes take place from the 1st July 2014 and we need to be aware? that this will have a large impact on many of our businesses? This July water rates for commercial premises will be going up. We argued against this as there is no competition in the water sector meaning there is a monopoly of power that Watercare has. Furthermore, by our calculations a large majority of our businesses will once again be facing huge increases. We hope there is some support in place for this change!	1990		Watercare’s new standardised non-domestic wastewater tariff will remove charging anomalies and bring greater fairness to the region. The 44 wastewater tariffs currently paid by non-domestic users were set by the former councils which each approached charging differently, eg wastewater charges based on variables such as land value or number of toilet pans. As a result, the cost of wastewater – and therefore the cost of doing business – varies depending on where in Auckland a business or organisation is located. Standardising the tariff will address this important issue of fairness. Changes to the non-domestic wastewater tariff will not generate additional revenue for Watercare.
Theme: Waste and Recycling
Specific submission query	Sub #	Response
WMMP implementation - Levels of service, green waste, hazardous waste	Various	The WMMP will introduce a consistent service across Auckland as a phased implementation. The main service requirements will consist of: 1) a pay as you throw refuse collection differentiated by bin size. It will not be charged by weight but per lift. 2) An enhanced recycle service 3) An organic collection in urban areas 4) An on property inorganic collection supported by a number of sites providing a resource recovery network 5) Fixed sites for hazardous waste collection to ensure safe handling and disposal. The implementation will be supported by appropriate communications and education A specific green waste service will not be provided by Council as there is already a mature private sector industry providing this service Until the implementation, existing service levels including funding arrangements will prevail.
Council’s responsibility for landfill remediation on private land	1434	Private land utilised for landfill purposes is managed through the consenting process. Council’s responsibility is to monitor the consent conditions to ensure compliance, however responsibility to address the conditions rests with the owner. Council does have responsibility to manage a number of historic sites which are on council land.
Specific hygiene matters relating to organic collection	138	The method of using a kitchen caddy and a larger bin is utilised in a number of sites overseas and is a proven method. There are remedies if there are odour concerns and these issues will be dealt with as part of the communication and education component.
Waste initiative seed funding to include disabled community	1120	The funding available distributed by Council from the waste levy is available to all applicants. However the suggestion of targeted promotion of the fund to disability consumer organisations and service providers should be explored.
Theme: Emergency management
Areas where a response is required	Submission #	Advice from business
If something urgent has suddenly happened, how can we quickly find our coordinator while it is not office hours? [In this situation] can there be a person coming together, which can translate it in Cantonese or Mandarin?	1127	CDEM has a 24/7 Duty Officer system to respond to events. They have access to Language Line and a data base of council staff who can be contacted to communicate in various dialects.
Reinstate civil defence emergency management facilities and capability north of the harbour bridge in association with other local boards in the northern region. Progress the implementation of disaster warning systems. Should include retention/reinstatement of 400 East Coast Bays as a key site in the CD infrastructure.	1336	The facility in 400 East Coast Bays is still important to Civil Defence and it is used for training, housing of staff, and as a radio communications hub. We have no plans to close it.
In light of the recent Christchurch disasters we recommend future proofing the procedures, processes as well as the resource arrangements particularly insurance facilities to prevent a repeat of the debacle currently being played out particularly with respect to insurance payouts.	1434	Private insurance claims are dealt with the various insurance companies. For larger events The Insurance Council appoints a coordinator to work with CDEM. The service that individuals receive will depend on the resources available within the various insurance companies. Auckland Council has an insurance portfolio in respect of its own buildings to cover any resultant material damage (net of deductible). In the event of a natural catastrophe such as earthquake the Earthquake Commission (EQC) would underwrite any council, and private insurance claims in line with the EQC policy (‘EQC cover’) and property owner’s underlying material damage policy. For any damage to Council property, our insurance brokers would provide claims management services. EQC cover insures losses for earthquake, natural landslip, volcanic eruption, hydrothermal activity, tsunami and storm and flood (within limits). The EQC would administer their own claims through appointed loss adjusters.
Lastly, we highlight potential shortcomings of the Annual Plan in the event of unexpected regional emergencies.	1447	The size and scale of Auckland has resulted in greater capacity to respond to a regional emergency.

Budget Committee

08 May 2014

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Local board advocacy

File No.: CP2014/08662

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on local board advocacy areas to the governing body and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). Advocacy areas are areas for which local boards do not have decision making responsibilities but reflect community needs and priorities identified by the local boards through engagement processes.

Executive summary

2. The updated advocacy areas are a combination of some initiatives that local boards have advocated for over the last 3 years and some new initiatives. They have been informed by recent community engagement undertaken by the local boards on the 2014 local board plans. A summary of all local board advocacy areas is attached.

3. The advocacy areas will form part of the local board plans, the strategic documents that complement the Auckland Plan and will help inform the Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025.

4. The local board advocacy areas align well with the transformational shifts in the Auckland Plan. The common advocacy areas across the local boards include:

· Transport, including a well-connected and accessible public transport system, safe and uncongested roads and road corridor planning

· Access to safe walking and cycling routes for health and wellbeing, to enjoy and preserve our green spaces and as an alternative means of transport to cars and public transport

· Community development and safety, including adequate operating funds for community centres and community facilitators, and reductions in alcohol, gambling and psychoactive substances outlets

· New and upgraded community facilities, particularly for growth areas, including community centres, sports facilities, aquatic centres, arts and culture centres and libraries

· Developing and implementing town centre and area plans and protecting our natural and built heritage

· Implementing local economic development plans including tourism initiatives

· Environmental management such as weed and pest control and improving the quality of our waterways

· Ensuring that our communities have access to open spaces and parks and enabling local boards to facilitate community led place shaping

5. Auckland Transport continues to have the greatest share of local board advocacy areas to CCOs. Local boards see transport as key to unlocking economic development opportunities, improving the quality of urban living and place shaping to create a community identity. In large infrastructure projects local boards play an important role in not only advocating for action on behalf of their communities but also bringing together the main stakeholders to ensure that community led development occurs where possible.

6. Community facilities and community development has the greatest share of advocacy areas to the governing body. This reflects the role of local boards in leading on community development and placemaking. Local boards engage and empower their communities to participate in local decision making and provide a range of activities, events and services that build community cohesion and identity. Through their advocacy areas local boards are voicing a concern that more planning should occur for social infrastructure in growth areas.

7. Key advocacy points were covered in the governing body and local board discussions on 29 and 30 April. In addition to the common themes mentioned above, local boards raised the importance of the local board funding policy, planning effectively for growth, the need to address service level equity issues and some service delivery issues, and role that local procurement can play in achieving local outcomes.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Budget Committee:

a) note:

i) the advocacy areas to the governing body and CCOs that local boards have identified for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 as set out in Attachments A and B.

ii) that the advocacy areas, read in conjunction with local board plans, reflect the priorities for the communities that local boards represent, and therefore should inform the development of the Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025.

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

Comments

9. Local boards have a statutory requirement to engage with their communities and are well placed to understand their community’s priorities and aspirations. The advocacy role of local boards is key to informing the governing body, CCOs, council departments and external agencies of local priorities.

10. Local boards have been identifying advocacy areas through community engagement on Council planning processes (local board plans, annual plans and long-term plan) and ongoing dialogue with their communities. These advocacy areas have been refined through political meetings, business meetings, workshops and informal processes since establishment.

11. The updated advocacy areas are a combination of some initiatives that local boards have advocated for over the last 3 years and some new initiatives. At their April meetings, local boards confirmed an updated list of advocacy areas for CCOs and the governing body for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

12. The complete set of local board advocacy is extensive, with over 500 specific issues identified across all local boards. Analysis of the key themes identified across all local board advocacy is provided below. Attachment A contains all current advocacy areas to the governing body by local boards. Attachment B contains all the current local board advocacy areas to CCOs.

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

Dramatically accelerate the prospects of Auckland’s children and young people

14. Local boards have a strong sense of responsibility to the children and young people of their communities. Most local boards are working with local youth advisory forums on youth led engagement approaches. This engagement results in community facilities that meet the needs of children and young people and initiatives that build a sense of belonging and identity. A common advocacy area is for new or upgraded community facilities, including community centres, parks, libraries, sports facilities and pools, arts and music centres. Local boards also stress the importance of adequate operating funds for these facilities.

15. Another focus area for local boards is working with community groups and external agencies to deliver programmes to foster wellbeing and capacity building. This model of community development follows an international trend which enables local government to both deliver more with less and increase community engagement. An engaged, cohesive community is more likely to provide for the needs of its children and young people. Ongoing funding to support community groups and community led engagement is important for this sustainable approach to building strong communities.

16. Educational opportunities, youth employment and training opportunities are also common advocacy areas with local boards asking for secure funding for Youth Connections.

17. The impact of alcohol, gambling and psychoactive substances on communities continues to be a concern for local boards particularly those in the south, with many advocating for sinking lid policies in these areas.

Strongly commit to environmental action and green growth

18. Core to Auckland’s liveability is its stunning natural environment and coastline. Local boards are keen that access to and quality of these are not lost with population growth and development. Most Auckland communities have people who are passionate about protecting our environment and prepared to volunteer their time. Local boards are active in working with these volunteers, external agencies and iwi, who have a kaitiaki role, to deliver significant environmental programmes. This work often brings the communities together and creates a sense of pride and belonging.

19. Management of the environment is a key advocacy area for many boards with particular focus on weed and pest control. Some boards have emphasised the need for more regional and local collaboration along with continuing support for community groups that contribute to environmental outcomes. In addition to council departments, CCO’s are seen to play an important role, such as Auckland Transport for roadside weed control.

20. Many local boards advocate for improved management of our waterways, particularly the Manukau harbour, although lagoons, streams and lakes are also mentioned. Most advocacy areas relate to managing the input into waterways although some also relate to weed control, daylighting of streams and beach restoration. Waiheke Local Board are advocating for the establishment of marine reserves.

Move to outstanding public transport within one network

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

Access to well-connected and affordable public transport is the most prevalent area of transport advocacy for local boards. Local boards would like to see:

· Connected public transport through frequent feeder services and the provision of new or improved park and rides, such as at Glen Eden, Paerata, Drury, Silverdale, Manurewa, Homai, Puhinui, Papakura and Takanini

· Increased bus services and reviewed bus routes

· Rail and bus station and ferry terminal upgrades taking into account urban design and community led place shaping

· Strategic direction provided for water transport and increased ferry services. This includes determining ownership and management responsibilities for the Port Fitzroy wharf on Great Barrier.

22. The prioritisation of specific road projects feature highly with key projects including road sealing (Great Barrier and Rodney), development of specific routes or initiatives, plans to reduce congestion, improved interchanges and better connections between state highways. The importance of roads for economic development is also raised such as roads for quarries and linking business areas. The impact of road development on the community is a common theme including the role of road corridors in place shaping, ensuring community involvement in infrastructure project planning, considering urban design and safety.

23. Many local boards are advocating for transport safety initiatives in their communities including safer rural roads and rail crossings, ensuring safe pedestrian and cycle routes and traffic calming measures, such as slow speed zones.

Cycling and walking

24. Providing access to safe and enjoyable walkways and cycleways for wellbeing and recreation or for transport is a key area of focus for local board advocacy action plans.

25. For some local boards the focus is on providing and promoting an alternative mode of transport to cars and public transport. This may include safe pathways along key commuter routes with features such as over-bridges. Walkways and cycleways can contribute to outstanding public transport within one network by ensuring connectivity with public transport such as providing lockers and bike racks at stations and terminals. Some local boards also see promoting cycling and walking as a means to ease congestion on the roads.

26. For other local boards the focus is on community wellbeing and recreation in addition to the environmental benefits of providing an ecological corridor alongside a pathway.

27. With the majority of local boards adopting, or in the process of developing, greenways plans, this is a shared initiative that local boards are seeking support for from the governing body.

28. These initiatives tend to link pathways across parks and open spaces with pathways built into existing or developing transport infrastructure. As such the development of these paths may involve teams in transport, parks, environmental and planning areas working together. There is also potential for pathways to cross a number of local board areas creating a network of greenways routes across Auckland.

29. Local board chairs have met to discuss how to progress greenways including the potential for collaborative working between local boards.

30. The Governing Body could assist with progressing this area through:

· Providing resource for a co-ordinated approach which brings all the stakeholders together, enables learnings to be shared across local board areas and connects pathways across local board areas where appropriate.

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

Radically improve the quality of urban living

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

Community development and facilities

32. Community development and safety is fundamental to the role of local boards to foster strong, cohesive communities. An overarching focus of local boards is to develop community cohesion through building a sense of identity and belonging. The advocacy areas relating to these points span a wide variety of issues from safety initiatives to increased support for Citizens Advice Bureau.

33. The need for new or upgraded community hubs that are adequately funded is an important issue for local boards. There are a number of requests for increased operating budgets including funding for community facilitators. Local boards see this as sustainable investment which builds capacity in the community through enabling community groups to deliver more.

34. An emerging advocacy area is funding to support migrant communities including requests for regional funding for Auckland Regional Migrant Services Trust.

35. Sports facilities are a key area for many local boards with a focus on Auckland maintaining world class facilities. Advocacy points include upgrading existing facilities, the acquisition of land for new facilities and the development of specialist centres such as a table tennis centre in Waitemata and equestrian facilities in Henderson Massey.

36. Aquatic Centres are seen as an important community facility with local boards advocating for new pools in areas such as Beachlands, Waiheke, Westgate and Warkworth or upgrades of pools. Henderson-Massey Local Board are advocating for schools to be supported in making their pools available to the wider community.

37. The majority of advocacy areas for arts and culture relate to continued or increased support for existing facilities. Manurewa Local Board are advocating for a music and arts centre to nurture young and budding artists and Rodney Local Board is advocating for more arts centres across the local board area.

38. Local boards see libraries as an important community service which builds community identity and cohesiveness. Some boards are advocating for new libraries, a number of local boards are advocating for extensions to mobile library services or existing libraries. More digital services available at libraries, including enhanced internet connectivity and wireless, is another advocacy area.

Planning and infrastructure

39. Local boards play a central role in planning to ensure that development reflects the aspirations of the local community. Increased focus on planning is seen as essential to ensure a holistic, co-ordinated approach to radically improving the quality of urban living.

40. A number of local boards have advocated for support in the development or delivery of area plans or precinct plans including Albert-Eden Area Plan, Henderson Lincoln Rd Area Plan, Howick development planning, Hobson Bay Action Plan, Mission Bay Precinct Plan, Otara-Papatoetoe Area Plan, Papakura, Stoddard Road/May Road development plans, Three Kings Precinct Plan, Matiatia Master Plan, Aotea Quarter Plan, Waitemata Area Plan and Rodney Area Plan.

41. Thriving town and metro centres are seen by local boards as important for social, economic and cultural reasons. Local boards are advocating for support in developing and implementing town centre plans for growth areas or revitalising town centres or main streets.

42. The need for social and physical infrastructure planning for growth areas is another concern for a number of local boards. Social infrastructure includes community centres and facilities such as libraries or sports fields. Physical infrastructure refers to transport or water services.

43. A number of local boards have advocated for a greater proportion of development and financial contributions to be invested in the local area where the fees are raised, to enable the impacts of growth to be offset.

44. Maintaining built and natural heritage is a priority area for a number of boards who are advocating for support in developing heritage assessments or funding for the preservation of specific heritage sites.

45. Affordable housing and housing for the elderly is an area of concern for some boards who are advocating that this be considered in planning for Special Housing Areas. Other boards are focusing on the importance of quality urban design in housing development.

46. A number of local boards have advocacy requests for prioritisation of stormwater and waste water projects including to address flooding issues.

47. Other advocacy points relating to water services include the provision of water to rural communities and the relocation of filling stations.

Parks, open spaces and recreation

48. A number of boards have advocated for the purchase of land for parks and open spaces, particularly in growth areas.

49. Some local boards have asked for reserve or park management plans to be reviewed to enable local boards to lead on community development and placemaking.

50. Local boards are keen to ensure that their communities continue to have access to open spaces and harbours with particular focus on managing this in areas of development. Advocacy areas include ensuring that boat access and dredging maintain recreational use of the harbours of Auckland.

51. The development of walkways through our open spaces and foreshores is a common advocacy point, this is linked to the cycling and walking section above with a focus on the recreational use of our open spaces to promote health and wellbeing. These initiatives are often connected with the aspiration for better environmental management of these ecologically important areas.

Substantially raise living standards for all Aucklanders and focus on those most in need

52. Local economic development is a focus for local boards who aim to increase local prosperity, raise living standards and provide opportunities for young people. Another key driver is to provide the option for people to work closer to home.

53. A number of local boards have advocated for more support for local economic development, including for local tourism. This is particularly important for areas further away from the city centre.

54. Local boards have prioritised discretionary funding to develop local economic development plans, tourism plans or visitor strategies. These plans reflect the needs and opportunities of the local communities and contribute to the overall economic development objective articulated in the Economic Development Strategy. As local boards move into delivery, many encounter difficulties in implementing the actions, due to limited support and discretionary funding. Local boards are advocating for more support for local economic development.

55. Economic development advocacy areas include identifying and supporting growth sectors and developing local investment attraction strategies. Specific tourism advocacy areas relate to the promotion of local areas through the development of visitors centres and the availability of tourism information. Some local boards support the current prioritisation of specific initiatives such as innovation precincts and fast broadband.

56. While the specific needs of local boards in economic and tourism development vary greatly from board to board, there is a need to clarify how projects are prioritised, and to clarify how delivery is supported by the council departments and ATEED.

Significantly lift Māori social and economic wellbeing

57. Many local boards are further building on their relationships with iwi and see them as an important partner, in particular some local boards are exploring options for enhancing Māori input into local board decision making. Working with Māori ratepayers and residents is also important for many boards; they support urban marae and work with them on community wellbeing initiatives.

58. The importance placed by many boards on engaging with the local Māori population means that the advocacy areas discussed above will inherently impact on this transformational shift. For example initiatives such as Youth Connections often target young Māori and some local economic development plans have a particular focus on opportunities for Māori.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

59. This report summarises local board advocacy areas for 2014/2015 as consulted on as part of the draft annual plan. Local boards are currently drafting the 2014 local board plans, which are also likely to reflect the advocacy areas in this report. The local board plans will in turn inform the Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025.

Māori impact statement

60. Many local board decisions are of importance to Māori and continuing to build relationships with mana whenua and Māori residents and rate payers is an ongoing focus. The recent informal engagement on draft local boards plans included innovative and successful approaches to engaging with iwi through joint hui. Particular areas of focus for local boards engagement and partnership work with mana whenua and Māori residents and rate payers include environmental management, community development and economic development.

Implementation

61. The Mayor has signalled that the Long-term Plan 2015 – 2025 provides an opportunity to review the focus of council activities to better align with delivery of the Auckland Plan. The local board advocacy areas as well as other local strategic priorities developed in the local board plans will be an important component of the Long-term Plan discussions.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local board advocacy to governing body	85
b View	Local board advocacy to CCO's and external agencies	107

Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Karen Titulaer – Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Budget Committee

08 May 2014

Annual Plan 2014/2015 - Budget Update

File No.: CP2014/08787

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the budget context and related issues to inform the mayoral-led process of deciding on the final budgets for 2014/2015 on 8 May 2014.

2. This report is a revised version of a report to 27 March 2014 Budget Committee meeting which provided a preliminary view of the budget context prior to regional hearings on the draft annual plan.

Executive summary

3. The current long-term plan sets out a programme of significant capital investment to help achieve the Auckland Plan.

4. The long-term plan also identifies the funding streams and efficiency savings necessary to support council’s delivery of core services alongside the capital investment programme in a way which is affordable for current ratepayers and financially sustainable for future ratepayers.

5. The Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 represented an update and refinement of year three of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 (LTP).

6. Since the adoption of the Draft Annual Plan, budgets have been refreshed to better reflect the true cost of delivering the activities and projects planned for 2014/2015. Performance measures and targets, and schedules of user fees and charges have also been reviewed.

7. A total of 1,967 public submissions were received on the draft annual plan with a sizeable number commenting on the council’s financial strategy, expenditure levels and proposed rates increases. A number of these submissions were requests for additional funding.

8. Projected capital expenditure for the group for 2014/2015 has been revised down by about $80 million to $1.70 billion. Along with the return of capital from Auckland Airport and capex reductions for 2013/2014, this has resulted in the projected net debt for the group at 30 June 2015 being revised down by about $120 million to $7.31 billion.

9. Since adoption of the draft plan, council has approved $4.4 million of additional expenditure. In addition, about $20 million of additional cost pressures have been identified including:

· a budget shortfall for Auckland Transport with a rates impact of $15.6 million. This budget shortfall is primarily driven by lower projections of public transport revenue as a result of lower than expected patronage, and lower than anticipated car parking revenue

· additional expenditure requirements relating to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· budget shortfalls for Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED), Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL) and Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).

10. The 2.4 per cent average rates increase proposed in the draft annual plan^{^[2]} can still be achieved after accommodating all of these cost pressures due to a range of favourable budget movements including:

· higher projected dividends for Ports of Auckland

· interest savings associated with the capital return from Auckland Airport

· Auckland Transport deferring $50 million of capital expenditure

· changing the approach to funding the future replacement of Auckland Transport’s Electric Motor Units to better align this with the approach to replacing other assets

· Waterfront Auckland paying a one-off dividend to return higher than expected after-tax earnings back to the council parent

· proposed increases in parking charges for the Central Business District.

11. The final average rates increase for 2014/2015 could range between 2.4 and 2.7 per cent, depending on the decisions council makes on the following discretionary items:

· $2.5 million of cross-council economic development initiatives proposed to be led by Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED)

· $1.8 million of additional funding for The Southern Initiative

· $365,000 of additional democracy services support for the Advisory Panels

· $150,000 for Waitakere Ranges possum control as referred from the February 2014 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.

12. Looking ahead to 2015/2016, we are currently projecting budget pressures of about $30 million which would need to be addressed to achieve the 4.9 per cent average rates increase projected for that year in the current Long-term Plan. This is primarily the result of a lower than anticipated increases in public transport revenue combined with the impact of the electric trains become operational earlier than previously anticipated.

13. The lagged impact of changes in the capital programme on operating budgets mean that it would be very challenging to significantly lower the average rates increase for 2015/2016 by cutting capital expenditure in that year.

14. One option to mitigate the high projected average rates increase for 2015/2016 would be to reduce or defer capital expenditure during the 2014/2015 financial year. While there is not sufficient time to undertake another full review of capital expenditure budgets in time for the adoption of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, such a review could be undertaken over the next few months as part of the Long-term Plan work programme.

15. If council were to target a $300 million reduction or deferral of capital expenditure in 2014/2015, then the rates requirement for 2015/2016 could be reduced by approximately $23 million as a result of lower interest and depreciation costs.

16. Auckland Transport has proposed some material changes to their performance targets for public transport patronage and customer satisfaction.

17. Once this committee has decided on the final budgets for the Annual Plan 2014/2015 officers will prepare the annual plan document (incorporating 21 Local Boards Agreements) for agreement and adoption by 30 June 2014.

Recommendation/s

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

Discussion

Background

Investing in Auckland

18. The Long-term Plan 2012-2022 (LTP) set out a programme of significant investment in Auckland, with an average of $1.15 billion to be spent on new assets for the first three years.

19. Some of the key capital project budgets included over the three year period were:

· $528 million for local activities, including local parks, libraries and cultural, community, and recreation facilities

· $461 million for the City Rail Link

· $323 million to purchase electric trains

· $184 million for the Panmure transport corridor as part of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI)

· $58 million to upgrade the Albany Highway

· $31 million to develop cycleways

· $154 million for the Hunua Number 4 water supply scheme

· $49 million for North Shore trunk sewer upgrades

· $35 million for strategic property developments.

20. Total assets were projected to increase by $6 billion over the first three years of the long-term plan and be $41.7 billion at 30 June 2015.

21. The LTP also sets out the council’s strategy and policies for funding this investment, based on the key principles of fairness, prudence, affordability and efficiency.

22. Debt is used to fund investment in new assets after netting off other sources of capital funding specific to those assets such as subsidies and development contributions. Asset sales are used to reduce the overall level of debt and consequential operating costs. The use of debt to fund new assets promotes the principle of fairness as the benefits from those assets are spread over time.

23. In accordance with the principle of prudence, the LTP included limits on its borrowing to maintain debt at a sustainable level and provide flexibility to deal with unforeseen events. While debt was projected to increase substantially over the 10 year period of the plan, it was projected to remain within prudent levels in comparison to the council’s income and able to be managed within the limits on rates and debt.

24. Net debt was projected to increase by $2.7 billion over the first three years of the long-term plan and be $7.5 billion at 30 June 2015.

25. The following chart shows the projected movements in assets and net debt over these three years:

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015

26. The Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 represented an update and refinement of year three of the long-term plan, focusing on maintaining the momentum generated over the first two years of the LTP.

27. The capital programme for the council group in the draft annual plan was as follows:

$ million	2014/15
New works	1,230
Renewals	550
Total capex	1,780

28. To help fund the $1,230 million investment in new assets, net debt for the group was projected to increase by $920 million. As a result, net debt at 30 June 2015 was projected to be $7.4 billion, just slightly lower than the LTP projection.

29. The group’s sizeable capital investment programme has resulted in depreciation and interest expense growing much faster than the rate of inflation.

30. Over the first three years of the long-term plan, depreciation was projected to grow at an average rate of 7 per cent per annum while interest expense was projected to grow by an average rate of 16 per cent per annum. This means that the capital investment programme places considerable pressure on operating budgets.

31. These cost pressures, along with $17 million of new cost pressures related to increasing customer expectations and additional legislative compliance requirements, were able to be accommodated in the draft annual plan with a projected 2.4 per cent average rates increase through the identification of further efficiency savings.

32. Auckland Transport signaled an $18 million budget shortfall for 2014/2015, in part driven by lower projections of public transport revenue as a result of lower than expected patronage. However, no provision was made for covering this shortfall in the draft annual plan. Instead, the mayor proposed holding robust discussion with the board and senior staff on the underlying issues before considering any increases in funding.

Budget refresh

33. Since the adoption of the draft annual plan, budgets have been refreshed to better reflect the true cost of delivering the activities and projects planned for 2014/2015. Performance measures and targets, and schedules of user fees and charges have also been reviewed.

34. The following sections present the key results from this budget refresh, along with other new information such as the results from the analysis of public submissions.

Public submissions

35. A total of 1,967 public submissions were received on the draft annual plan. These submissions have been analysed and the following key points are noted:

· 81 submissions commented on the council’s financial strategy, with 38 of these specifically commenting that the proposed expenditure was too high and 22 of these specifically commenting on debt being too high

· 53 submissions commented on rates, with 44 specifically commenting that the proposed rates increase was too high

· 51 submissions opposed the proposed 5 per cent increase in charges for social housing on the basis of affordability

· 48 submissions requested annual funding for Massive Theatre Company and funding to assist them with finding a home

· 7 submissions requested additional funding to support Auckland Sport in implementing their priority actions identified in the Sports and Recreation Strategic Action Plan

· a submission was received from Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board for reserve maintenance and development under the new co-governance arrangements

· 25 other submissions requested funding for other various arts, culture, community and sports organisations.

36. Of the 25 general funding request submissions received, 13 of these were for local board consideration as they related to services determined by the local boards. The remaining 12 requests plus the requests for the Massive Theatre Company, Auckland Sport and Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board, have been summarised and included in Attachment A, together with staff commentary on any current context around the particular requests.

37. For those submissions requesting specific amounts, the total capital grant funding requested was $1,421,316 and the total operational funding requested was $576,000 in respect of the 2014/15 financial year.

Capital budgets and debt levels

38. The capital budgets and debt levels set out in this section are generally unchanged from those reported on 27 March. The one exception is the proposed new capex for animal management services, where a proposal to in-house some services has already been agreed to by the Finance and Performance Committee on 16 April, while the proposals to co-locate other services has been deferred to the next long-term plan.

39. The budget refresh process has resulted in projected 2014/2015 gross capital expenditure for the group of about $1.90 billion. This figure represents the sum of the individual capital projects in the plan. Because we assume that about $200 million of these projects will not be delivered during 2014/2015, we are projecting that $1.70 million will actually be spent in that year. Later in this report we discuss the option of further reducing capex delivery for 2014/2015.

40. The revised $1.70 million projection for capital expenditure is about $80 million lower than the $1.78 billion in the draft plan. This is primarily the result of:

· Colin Maiden Park being acquired in 2013/2014 rather than 2014/2015

· deferral of land acquisitions for the City Rail Link

· capital expenditure deferrals for Watercare and Waterfront Auckland.

These reductions were partially offset by:

· $57 million of proposed additional capex for Ports of Auckland’s commercial operations

· $9.5 million of proposed new capex for integrated bylaw implementation

· $5 million proposed capex timing change for ACPL’s Yard 37 development at Hobsonville Point

· $2 million of agreed new capex to in-house some animal management services

· $1.5 million of proposed additional capex for ATEED’s fit out of the Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct and $200,000 for a mobile i-SITE.

· $0.4 million of proposed new capex for animal management services for asset renewals and minor upgrades to support day-to-day operations.

41. In addition to the net reduction in projected capex for 2014/2015, the group’s borrowing requirement has also reduced as a net result of:

· deferral of city rail link property acquisitions from 2013/2014

· the return of capital from Auckland Airport

· lower projections for weathertightness claims

· partially offset by lower development contributions and reduced capital revenue from Yard 37.

42. Overall, if all the proposed additional capital expenditure is approved, the closing net debt balance for 2014/2015 would now be about $7.31 billion, which is about $120 million lower than the $7.43 billion in the draft plan.

43. Given the commercial nature of the proposed additional $57 million capex for Ports of Auckland, no detail is included in this report. Whether or not to proceed with this investment is a commercial investment decision for the board of Ports of Auckland. Given the scale of the investment, Auckland Council Investments Limited will discuss this when they present their 2014/2015 budget submission at the Budget Committee on 5 May.

Operating budgets

44. On 27 March we reported on $25 million of cost pressures and funding requests not provided for in the draft annual plan, along with $9 million of mitigating items. We therefore advised that further mitigating budget movement of about $16 million would need to be identified over the following six weeks to achieve the average rates increase of 2.4 per cent proposed in the draft annual plan.

45. Following further work on cost pressures and mitigating items we now advise that all cost pressures can be accommodated with a 2.4 per cent average rates increase for 2014/2015. However, there are still some funding requests which could require a higher average rates if council decides to approve those requests.

46. An average rates increase of 2.4 per cent refers to the average across all ratepayers. The council’s long-term differential strategy reduces the rates burden on business payers and increases it on other ratepayer groups. For 2014/2015 the reduction in the differential from 2.53 to 2.43 will shift $11.1 million of rates requirements to other differential groups. An overall 2.4 per cent average increase for 2014/2015 will mean that the average increase for business ratepayers of 0 per cent and an average for residential and other ratepayer groups of 3.6 per cent.

Approved budget changes

47. Since the draft annual plan was adopted, council has approved budget changes that increase the rates requirement for 2014/2015 by about $4.4 million as follows:

Organisation	Budget item	Rates requirement $000
Auckland Council	Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel -agreed by the Budget Committee on 27 March	3,140
	Unitary Plan geographical information systems -agreed by the Budget Committee on 27 March	730
	Decisions of the Finance and Performance committee -primarily the interest impact of decisions to spend additional operating expenditure in 2013/2014	575
	Total	4,445

Additional cost pressures

48. Overall $20 million of additional cost pressures have been identified which were not provided for in the draft annual plan, but which could now be accommodated with a 2.4 per cent average rates increase. A full breakdown of these cost pressures is set out in the following table:

Organisation	Budget item	Rates requirement $000
Auckland Council	Independent Maori Statutory Board -a separate report on this agenda proposes a funding agreement that is higher than the existing budget provision for 2014/2015	150
	Removal of commercial revenue budget in relation to the redevelopment of the Pioneer Women's and Ellen Melville Hall	140
	Consequential opex associated with the new capex for implementation of the Bylaw Review Programme	310
Auckland Transport	Budget shortfall primarily due to lower than anticipated increases in public transport and parking revenue (before any increases to parking charges)	15,600
ATEED	Budget shortfall due to Foodbowl contractual commitments	1,000
ATEED	Additional depreciation funding requirement for Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct	210
Auckland Council Properties Limited	Yard 37 (Hobsonville Point) rate funded interest expense increase due to timing change	400
	Budget shortfall due to changes to the property portfolio	860
	Overstatement of the Whitford Quarry surplus in ACPL and Auckland Council	850
RFA	Budget shortfall due to the ongoing costs of operating the upgraded Auckland Art Gallery	1,000
	Total	20,520

49. Investment proposals and supporting information for each of these items, as well as the proposed increases in capital expenditure outlined above, is included as Attachment B.

50. A separate report on this agenda addresses the funding agreement for the Independent Maori Statutory Board. A separate report on local board budgets addresses the item related to the redevelopment of the Pioneer Women's and Ellen Melville Hall.

Mitigating items

51. These cost pressures are fully mitigated by the following items that have not yet been included in the annual plan budgets:

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

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

New funding requests

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

Organisation	Budget item	Rates requirement $000
Auckland Council	Additional funding for The Southern Initiative (TSI)	1,800
	Democracy services support for advisory panels	365
	Waitakere Ranges possum control -referred from the February 2014 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting	150
ATEED	Establishment of an Auckland Investment Office (AIO)	1,300
	Developing global brand positioning for Auckland	500
	Commercial partnerships (Partnerships for Auckland)	500
	Additional funding to support the Skypath project	160
	Total	4,775

54. Investment proposals and supporting information for each of these items are included as Attachment C, along with ATEED’s new capex funding request for a mobile i-SITE.

55. If council agrees to accommodate these or any other funding requests then an average rates increase for 2014/2015 may be required that is higher than the 2.4 per cent proposed in the draft annual plan.

Other potential budget issues

56. At this stage the following potential budget issues have been excluded from the annual plan projections:

· the funding requests from public submissions outlined above

· local board advocacy items

· additional funding for the development of the Maunga and other reserves under new co-governance arrangements

· additional funding for the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust

· the cost of inspecting and strengthening of any council owned earthquake-prone buildings

· the possible outcomes of the CCO review.

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

Looking ahead

58. On 26 March, we provided the results of financial modelling in response to the mayoral direction for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. The primary conclusion from that modelling was that it will be a significant challenge to reduce the projected future average rates increase from 4.9 per cent per annum to 2.5 or 3.5 per cent. We discussed four available options available for addressing that challenge:

i. Reducing or deferring capital expenditure

ii. Reducing service levels

iii. Increasing non-rates revenue

iv. Further efficiency savings and/or more sales of surplus assets

59. A secondary conclusion was that it would not be possible to reduce the average rates increase for 2015/2016 (the first year of the new plan) down to these levels solely by reducing or deferring capital expenditure in that particular year.

60. We are currently projecting budget pressures of about $30 million which would need to be addressed to achieve the 4.9 per cent average rates increase projected for that year in the current Long-term Plan. This is mainly due to lower than anticipated increases in public transport revenue, slightly lower projected growth in the rating base, and higher interest funding requirements associated with the electric trains becoming operational earlier than previously anticipated.

61. The lagged impact of changes in the capital programme on operating budgets mean that it will not be possible to significantly lower the average rates increase for that particular year by cutting capital expenditure in the 2015-2025 period of the next Long-term Plan.

62. One option to mitigate the high projected average rates increase for 2015/2016 would be to reduce or defer capital expenditure during the 2014/2015 financial year. While there is not sufficient time to undertake another full review of capital expenditure budgets in time for the adoption of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, such a review could be undertaken over the next few months as part of the Long-term Plan work programme.

63. If council were to target a net $300 million reduction or deferral of rates funded capital expenditure in 2014/2015, then the rates requirement for 2015/2016 could be reduced by approximately $23 million as a result of lower interest and depreciation costs.

64. This $300 million reduction or deferral would be in addition to the $200 million under-delivery already factored into the annual plan projections. It would mean delivering $1.40 billion of the individual capex projects which total $1.90 billion.

Performance measures and targets

65. As part of continuous improvement, Auckland Council departments and the CCOs have undertaken further reviews on the current performance measures and targets since the draft annual plan.

66. Following this review, Auckland Transport has proposed adjustments to their public transport patronage and customer satisfaction targets for 2014/2015. These proposed changes are outlined below.

67. In addition, some minor changes are proposed to some measures and targets across the council group. These are set out in Attachment D. These changes range from minor wording changes to the addition of one new measure for road quality.

68. As part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, council departments and CCOs are undertaking detailed reviews of their measures. The focus is to ensure that measures are relevant and provide the community with meaningful information about how successfully the council group delivers services.

Auckland Transport public transport patronage

69. Auckland Transport have proposed changes to their public transport patronage targets for 2014/2015 based on current results that are lower than previously anticipated.

Measure	Actual 2012/13	Annual Plan target 2013/14	Rolling 12 months to March 2014	Draft Annual Plan target 2014/15	Proposed Annual Plan target 2014/15
Rapid Transit Network rail boardings per annum (000's)	10,039	14,423	11,051	13,041	12,100
Rapid Transit Network busway boardings per annum (000's)	2,279	2,618	2,371	2,588	2,511
Quality Transit Network and Local Connector Network bus boardings per annum (000's)	51,251	56,305	52,430	56,627	53,695
Ferry boardings per annum (000's)	5,506	5,744	5,149	5,899	5,940
Total	69,075	79,090	71,001	78,155	74,246

70. The proposed target for 2014/2015 represents a 9 per cent increase on the rolling 12 month result to March 2014, compared with an 18 per cent increase projected in the draft annual plan.

71. These proposed targets are aligned to Auckland Transport’s revised revenue projections.

72. As Statement of Intent measures, Auckland Transport has proposed changes for the three years from 2014/2015 to 2016/2017. The proposed changes beyond 2014/2015 are set out in Attachment E. While significant annual increases are proposed for the following two years, the proposed increases will not catch up to patronage targets previously anticipated for 2016/2017.

Auckland Transport customer satisfaction

73. Auckland Transport has proposed an amendment to their 2014/2015 targets to reflect removal of neutral responses from the satisfaction targets. In calculating historical targets, Auckland Transport had included neutral in the targets. This also follows a change in survey methodology from a 5-point scale to an 11-point scale.

74. Targets now reflect the new methodology and recent results using the new scale. The reduction in these targets is primarily due to the change of methodology.

75. It is also proposed that ‘percentage of residents satisfied with the quality of footpaths in their local area’ be removed in order to keep in line with other transport customer measures. Customer perceptions of the quality of footpaths in the Auckland region inevitably cover the perceptions of footpaths in their local area.

Measure	Actual 2012/13	Annual Plan target 2013/14	Draft Annual Plan target 2014/15	Proposed Annual Plan target 2014/15
Percentage of public transport passengers satisfied with their PT service	85%	87%	87%	83%
Percentage of residents satisfied with the quality of roads in the Auckland region	46%	75%	75%	70%
Percentage of residents satisfied with the quality of footpaths in their local area	43%	75%	75%	Removed
Percentage of residents satisfied with the quality of footpaths in the Auckland region	41%	75%	75%	65%

Fees and charges

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

78. None of the revised budget projections covered by this report have been identified as having any material new implications for the delivery of Māori outcomes and initiatives. A separate report on this agenda provides an update on progress on the Māori priority project areas identified in the Annual Plan 2013/2014.

General

79. Some of the budget matters covered by this report may be significant under the council’s significance policy. Any decisions on these matters are considered to be within the scope of the statutory decision-making process for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Implementation

80. Decisions will need to be made on the annual plan budgets on or about 8 May 2014 in order for staff to prepare financial statements, co-ordinate the sign-off of the local board agreements and prepare the annual plan document for final adoption by the statutory deadline.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Funding requests from public submissions	139
b View	Further information on budget pressures	145
c View	Further information on new funding requests	187
d View	Minor changes to performance measures	217
e View	Public Transport changes	221

Signatories

Author

Ross Tucker - Team Leader Capital Planning

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Organisation	Measure	Target	Change	Reason for change
Auckland Council	Percentage of Kauri dieback spread on closed tracks in the Waitakere Ranges	n/a	Reword measure to: Percentage of closed tracks in the Waitakere Ranges that have Kauri dieback disease.	The changing of the wording of the measure better reflects the measures being carried out and aligns to the target set in the draft Annual Plan.
Auckland Council	Percentage of Kauri dieback spread on open tracks in the Waitakere Ranges	n/a	Reword measure to: Percentage of open tracks in the Waitakere Ranges that have Kauri dieback disease.	The changing of the wording of the measure better reflects the measures being carried out and aligns to the target set in the draft Annual Plan.
Auckland Council	Lost time injury frequency rate	4.5	Amend target from 5 to 4.5	Amend target to recognise improvement in current performance which is already at 5.
Auckland Council	Percentage of customers satisfied with animal management service	70%	Amend target from 78% to 70%	Majority of Council interactions with customers involve a negative experience, such as dog impounding or late fee requests. As such, the baseline level of satisfaction is likely to be quite low. Current satisfaction rate is 60%, officers feel 70% is an appropriate target and 78% is not achievable.
Auckland Council	Percentage of urgent animal management complaints responded to within one hour (dog attacks etc.)	98%	Amend target from 80% to 98%	The initial set target was not based on substantial baseline data. The new target is based on better baseline data and allows a marginal 2% for more distant travel times and traffic.
ACIL	Return on equity (ROE) for ACIL group	12.9%	Amend target from 13.1% to 12.9%	The reduction in the expected 2014/15 ROE (total comprehensive income of ACIL group over total shareholders’ funds) was due to the shareholders’ funds now forecast to be higher than previously anticipated. This is not due to decreased returns in dollar terms, rather due to the larger denominator of the ratio
ATEED	Spend by visitors in Auckland ($million)	5,194	Amend target from 3,898 to 5,194	The change in the visitor spend figures reflect a new methodological approach taken by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for reporting regional tourism expenditure. Electronic card transactions have now been combined with the International Visitor Survey and the Tourism Satellite Account to provide a more accurate measure of domestic and international visitor spend.
Waterfront Auckland	Number of employees working in Wynyard Quarter area	4,810	Amend target from 6,120 to 4,810	The rate of commercial development (and therefore employment growth) is subject to market conditions. Assumptions that were made for non-WA land have not been realised and the termination of leases to enable redevelopment has led to some short-term loss of employment. Significant employment growth is expected in 2015-2017.
Auckland Transport	Off-street parking occupancy rates (All day)	n/a	Change measurement basis from all day to 4-hour peak period	Measuring parking occupancy over the 4-hour peak period will be more useful for management of parking space availability.
Auckland Transport	On-street parking occupancy rates (All day)	n/a	Change measurement basis from all day to 4-hour peak period	Measuring parking occupancy over the 4-hour peak period will be more useful for management of parking space availability.
Auckland Transport	Road maintenance standards (ride quality) as measured by smooth travel exposure (STE) for all urban and rural roads	Not less than 82% for urban roads and not less than 92% for rural roads	New measure	As there is limited measures for tracking the quality of roads, Auckland Transport have proposed to add a new measure to supplement customer satisfaction. This is also one of the Department of Internal Affairs mandatory measures from 2015/2016. Targets reflect actual performance for 2012/2013.
Auckland Transport	Public transport subsidy per passenger kilometre (CPI adjusted to June 2012)	$0.26	Amend target from $0.26 to $0.29	Revised target based on current performance
Auckland Transport	Number of morning peak (7-9 am) car trips avoided through travel planning initiatives	13,400	Amend target from 13,400 to 16,700	Revised target based on current performance
Auckland Transport	Arterial road network productivity	52%	Amend target from 52% to 53%	Revised target based on current performance
Auckland Transport	Public and customer safety and security incidents across public transport network per 100,000 passenger boardings	n/a	Change measurement basis to incidents per 1,000,000	Minor adjustment to improved clarity
Auckland Transport	Percentage reduction in total fatal and serious injuries on local road network	n/a	Change measurement basis from percentage to number of injuries	Minor adjustment to improved clarity

Budget Committee

08 May 2014

Rates related policies and changes to fees and charges

File No.: CP2014/08782

Purpose

1. This report considers the submissions and the local boards’ feedback received on the proposed changes to the policies included in, or consulted on alongside, the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, and advises on the adoption of changes to:

· rates related policies

· fees and charges.

2. The report also advises on other rates and fees related issues that require the attention of the Committee.

Executive summary

Rating policy

3. The rating policy in the draft annual plan was the same as the policy in the long-term plan except for changes proposed to BID targeted rates by business associations. The draft plan also set out the early payment discount, the instalment dates and penalties to be applied for 2014/2015.

4. No submissions were received on any of the changes proposed. The rates related matters raised in submissions had been considered in the development of the rating policy for the Long-term Plan 2012-2022.

5. The proposed changes to BID targeted rates required undertaking ballots with the business ratepayers in the respective areas. The ballots for Devonport, Otahuhu, and State Highway 16 were successful. The ballots for Dominion Rd and Manukau Central were unsuccessful. The Mission Bay Business Association decided not to proceed with joining the BID programme at this stage.

6. Officers recommend that the extended boundary for the Otahuhu Business Association targeted rate and that new targeted rates for Devonport and State Highway 16 business associations be included in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 (pending local board ratification) and the BID targeted rates for 2014/2015 be set accordingly.

Fees and charges

7. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 implements the council’s decisions on fees and charges including

· an annual inflation adjustment of 1.0 per cent made under the revenue and financing policy

· the final transition to target fee levels that recover 60 per cent of the animal management cost

· the continuing transition to uniform fee levels for food premises licensing.

8. In addition, the draft included the following proposed changes to fees and charges:

· a uniform 5 per cent increase to all social housing rents

· standardisation of health protection licensing fees across the region and increases to some fees and charges to meet the target of recovering 90 per cent of the cost of providing the service

· changes to some of the building control fees to better align revenue with cost.

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

10. 83 per cent of the submissions on social housing opposed the change on affordability grounds and 5 per cent supported it. council staff also met with residents of all 66 Housing for Older Persons villages. Most residents did not oppose the increase during site meetings and one on one meetings. At some village meetings concerns were raised on affordability.

11. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to fees be approved. Even after the 5 per cent increase the rentals will be considerably lower than the market level.

12. The full schedule of regulatory fees and charges for 2014/2015 will be adopted as part of the final Annual Plan 2014/2015. The fees for animal management and environmental health and licensing for 2014/2015 need to be adopted earlier to allow sufficient time for implementation. Officers recommend that these be adopted at the Governing Body meeting scheduled to follow this meeting.

Recommendation

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

Comments

Rating policy

13. The rating policy in the draft annual plan was the same as the policy in the LTP except for changes proposed to BID targeted rates by business associations. The draft plan also set out the early payment discount, the instalment dates and penalties to be applied for 2014/2015.

14. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 included possible new BID targeted rates for the Devonport, State Highway 16 and Mission Bay areas and possible extensions to the existing BID programmes in Dominion Rd, Otahuhu, Manukau Central. These changes required undertaking ballots with the business ratepayers in the respective areas.

Submissions

15. There were no submissions on any of the changes proposed. The submissions on other rates related matters are analysed in the table below.

Submissions on rating policy

Subject	No of Submissions	Percentage	Key comment
Rural differential	1	4%	Lower differential to better reflect service levels available
UAGC	14	54%	Too low: should reflect minimum cost of services provided to all rate payers
Business differential	9	35%	Too high given level of services used by businesses
Transition	1	4%	Use a higher UAGC to reduce impact of change
Targeted rates for swimming pool entry	1	4%	Adults should pay for entry
Total	26	100%

16. Other comments included:

· need for better balance between a minimum payment for services and “tax” element of rates

· more differentials to recognise differences in the use of council services (public goods)

· limit council activities to core services.

Conclusion

17. The issues raised in these submissions had been considered in the development of the rating policy for the Long-term Plan 2012-2022.

18. Officers note that the council cannot make any changes to the rating policy that have not been consulted on. The matters raised in the submissions will be included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 work program for consideration by the council.

19. The ballots for BID programmes for Devonport, Otahuhu, and State Highway 16 were successful. The ballots for Dominion Rd and Manukau Central were unsuccessful. The Mission Bay Business Association decided not to proceed with joining the BID programme at this stage.

20. Staff recommend that the extended boundary for the Otahuhu Business Association targeted rate and that new targeted rates for Devonport and State Highway 16 business associations be included in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 (pending local board ratification) and the BID targeted rates for 2014/2015 be set accordingly.

Key impacts of existing policy

21. The rates transition management policy sets a maximum of 10 per cent increase for non-business rate payers. However, 35,000 of former Auckland City Council ratepayers who are capped at 10 per cent will pay around $14 over the cap for the biennial inorganic collection service.

22. The council’s long-term differential strategy (LTDS) reduces the rates burden on business ratepayers and increases it on other ratepayer groups. For 2014/2015 the reduction in the differential from 2.53 to 2.43 will shift $11.1 million of rates requirement to other differential groups. The table below shows the percentage change for the main differential categories in 2014/2015. These estimates are based on an overall rates increase of 2.4 per cent included in the draft Annual Plan 2014/0215.

Category	Average rates increase	LTDS impact	Net average increase
Business	2.4%	-2.4%	0.0%
Non-business	2.4%	+1.2%	3.6%

Local activity targeted rates

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

Fees and charges

Overview of submissions

24. Through the draft annual plan the council consulted specifically on:

· social housing rents

· health protection fees

· building control fees.

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

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

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

Social housing rent

27. For the 2014/2015 year the council proposed to increase the rent on social housing for older persons by 5 per cent as a nominal catch up pending a wider review of social housing rentals, as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Engagement with stakeholders

28. During February 2014, council staff conducted meetings across 66 Housing for Older Persons’ villages to seek feed-back on the proposed increase. This was supplemented by letters sent to 1,412 residents.

29. During site meetings and one on one meetings, most residents did not oppose the increase. During some village meetings in the west and the south, there was vocal opposition to the change on affordability grounds. In particular, 11 residents and 2 stakeholders at the Otara Court meeting and 20 residents and 5 stakeholders at the Hills Court meeting raised concerns about the increase.

Submissions

30. The proposal to increase rent on social housing was supported by 5 submitters (8 per cent). The majority (52 or 83 per cent) did not support the proposed increase. Approximately half of the submitters who opposed the change said the increase would not be affordable. Other reasons cited for opposition included disparity of rents across the region and the absence of service level increases to justify the rent change.

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

Local boards’ comments

31. No local boards made any comment on this issue.

Conclusion

32. The primary support for social housing is provided by the government through Ministry of Social Development subsidy (formerly Housing New Zealand) with Housing New Zealand being the principal landlord. The council supplements central government assistance through its social housing portfolio. Social housing rents have remained unchanged for between three and six years. Even with this increase, rents will still be considerably lower than the market rents for similar properties.

33. As noted by some submitters there are differences in rent levels and assessment criteria across the region partly reflecting the policies inherited from former councils. The council will consider the options for harmonising rents and assessment process/criteria for social housing as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

34. Officers recommend that the 5 per cent increase in social housing rent proposed alongside the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 be adopted.

Building control fees

35. A number of changes are proposed to building control fees. The changes are to:

· fully pass on external charges

· more accurately recover full costs including some reductions

· cover the cost of new regulatory requirements.

Submissions

36. There were three submissions on building control fees. One submission opposed fees increases in excess of the inflation rate. The other two submissions:

· sought clarification of the rationale for the increase in building control fees

· suggested the need for more transparency in charging staff costs against consent related activity

· recommended elimination of peer reviewing professional engineering reports submitted by applicants.

Local boards’ comments

37. No local boards made any comment on this issue.

Conclusion

38. Under the Building Act 2004 the council can recover the cost of processing applications through user charges. The overall cost of the service needed to operate the business e.g. petrol prices, insurance, electricity, phones costs etc has increased. While efforts are made to offset these price increases with internal efficiency gains, the net change to costs is passed back to the user of the services through changes to the user charges. The fees and charges that typically make up the vast majority of the fees for a building consent (the hourly charge out rates) have increased marginally to reflect those changes. The fees that have increased by more than inflation are generally deposits which have no impact on the end cost, but give a better indication of the cost of the application.

39. As part of a larger programme of work to consolidate council’s IT systems the council is also investigating options for providing better clarity of what individual charges relate to on invoices.

40. In order to grant a building consent, the council is required to be satisfied that the application meets the building code standards. In some instances it is necessary to peer review some or all of an external specialist report in order to be able to determine compliance with the building code. We recommend that applicants approach the council regarding engineering reports they intend to commission to discuss possibilities.

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

Health protection licence fees

42. In the draft annual plan the council proposed to:

· standardise the fees for health and hygiene licencing across the region; and

· increase some fees to meet the target of recovering 90 per cent of the cost of providing the service.

Submissions

43. The council received only one submission which supported 100 per cent cost recovery.

Local boards’ comments

44. No local boards made any comment on this issue.

Conclusion

45. The proposed cost recovery rate of 90 per cent reflects the cost of licencing and associated administrative activities which benefit licensees. The balance reflects the cost of handling complaints associated with health and hygiene issues where investigations by council officers often result in no action against any individual party.

46. Officers recommend that the proposed changes to health protection license fees be adopted alongside the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Early adoption of animal management fees and environmental health fees

47. The full schedule of regulatory fees and charges for 2014/2015, including the amended regulatory charges discussed in this report and the other regulatory fees and charges which are to increase by the council rate of inflation, will need to be adopted by the governing body as part of the annual plan.

48. The registrations of approximately 100,000 dogs and 4,900 premises licensed with the council will expire on or before 30 June. The registrations of a further 4,000 premises will expire between 31 July and 30 August. The fees and charges for animal management and environmental health and licensing for 2014/2015 will need to be adopted earlier than the adoption of the full annual plan to allow sufficient time for data testing and the printing and mailing of renewal notices before those registrations expire.

49. Officers recommend that the fees and charges for animal management and environmental health and licensing services, which are included in Attachment A and B respectively, be adopted at the governing body meeting scheduled to follow this meeting.

Water and wastewater charges

50. The average price increase for water and wastewater is set at 2.4 per cent for 2014/2015. This is down from 3.5 per cent for water and 3.75 per cent for wastewater in the Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. The reduction in the price increase reflects reduced operating costs from continued business efficiencies and improved borrowing costs.

51. Following extensive consultation as part of Annual Plan 2013/2014, Watercare's new non-domestic wastewater tariff will begin to come into effect on 1 July 2014. This new tariff regime combines an annual fixed charge (per water meter) and a volumetric charge. The volumetric charge is based on a percentage of the volume of water that flows through the customer’s water meter.

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

Local board fees

53. As part of the process for finalising their Local Board Agreements for 2014/2015, local boards have reviewed the 2014/2015 fee schedules for their local area. As part of this process, the local boards considered a proposal to standardise the approach for administering fees for the use of local community, arts and cultural facilities. This includes:

· applying consistent naming convention across the region for the various fees

· a consistent approach for local boards to apply extra discounts to particular activities (e.g. religious practice, or sport and fitness) in line with their Local Board Plan priorities

· adjustments to the fees and charges themselves where necessary to improve consistency across the portfolio of facilities within a local board area, or for similar facilities in adjoining boards.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

54. Where local boards have provided feedback by way of resolution on the matters consulted on through the draft annual plan, this has been incorporated in the corresponding section of this report.

Māori impact statement

55. The issues supporting decisions on rates related policies and fees and charges were extensively canvassed as part of the LTP. The Independent Māori Statutory Board is represented on the Budget Committee and will also be able to provide feedback on the proposed policies as part of annual plan process.

56. The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers or patrons to council services, so is not able to identify the exact impact of policy changes on Māori. The impact of the policy options on Māori will be similar to that on other residents in Auckland.

Implementation

57. There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations included in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Animal management fees	231
b View	Environmental health & licensing fees	233

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Eric Wen - Modeller User Charges

Ariya Randeni - Policy Advisor Financial

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Budget Committee

08 May 2014

Attachment B Environmental health and licensing fees and charges for 2014/2015

Food premises licensing

b) As approved by the council during the Annual Plan 2013/2014 process, licensing fees for food premises will be standardised across the region over a period of five years (2013/2014 – 2017/2018), with cost recovery rate for the food licensing service increasing from 63 per cent to 90 per cent over the period. The tables below show the fees that will be applied for 2014/2015 (the second year of the transition period). The fee levels vary depending on which former council area the premises are located in.

c) Premises that have a registered Voluntary Implementation Programme – Food Control Plan with council will be charged an annual fee based on the risk rating of the food premises (determined by Council) and using the Grade category they achieve in the previous year.

Auckland central and islands

Transitional fee category ⁽¹⁾	Standardised fee category ⁽¹⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽²⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
Small high – risk A grade	Grade A, High risk	1,024	921
Small high – risk B grade	Grade B, High risk	1,206	1,145
Small high – risk D grade	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,369
Small high – risk E grade	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,712
Large high – risk A grade	Grade A, High risk	1,024	1,024
Large high – risk B grade	Grade B, High risk	1,206	1,206
Large high – risk D grade	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,378
Large high – risk E grade	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,748
Small medium – risk A grade	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
Small medium – risk B grade	Grade B, Medium risk	892	802
Small medium – risk D grade	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	988
Small medium – risk E grade	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,240
Large medium – risk A grade	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
Large medium – risk B grade	Grade B, Medium risk	892	892
Large medium – risk D grade	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	1,109
Large medium – risk E grade	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,399
Small low – risk A grade	Grade A, Low risk	398	338
Small low – risk B grade	Grade B, Low risk	452	409
Small low – risk D grade	Grade D, Low risk	615	524
Small low – risk E grade	Grade E, Low risk	832	680
Large low – risk A grade	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
Large low – risk B grade	Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Large low – risk D grade	Grade D, Low risk	615	615
Large low – risk E grade	Grade E, Low risk	832	832
Re-grading and re-inspections	Re-grading	577	577
New premises fee	New premises fee ⁽³⁾	241

Notes:

1. These two columns provide an indicative mapping between the transitional (legacy) fee categories and the standardised fee category under the new grading system. The actual risk and performance grade of a specific licensee (and hence the standardised fee category that it falls under) will be determined by the council, during the year prior.

2. The fees shown in these columns apply to new premises and existing premises being transferred to new owners, where the transition arrangement does not apply. Fees for other premises will be subject to the transition arrangement. These are displayed in the two right most columns of the table.

3. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition arrangement does not apply to this fee.

Franklin

Fee category	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽¹⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
Grade A, High risk	1,024	619
Grade B, High risk	1,206	692
Grade D, High risk	1,387	766
Grade E, High risk	1,748	913
Grade A, Medium risk	530	418
Grade B, Medium risk	892	565
Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	653
Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	771
Grade A, Low risk	398	364
Grade B, Low risk	452	387
Grade D, Low risk	615	453
Grade E, Low risk	832	541
Re-grading	577	374
New premises fee ²	241

Notes to previous table:

1. The fees shown in these columns apply to new premises and existing premises being transferred to new owners, where the transition arrangement does not apply. Fees for other premises will be subject to the transition arrangement. These are displayed in the two right most columns of the table.

2. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition plan does not apply to this fee.

Manukau

Transitional fee category ⁽²⁾	Standardised fee category⁽²⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽³⁾		Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
Up to 50m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	742
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	816
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	889
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,036
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	689
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	777
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	894
	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
	Grade B, Low risk	452	452
	Grade D, Low risk	615	576
	Grade E, Low risk	832	664
Up to 200m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	825
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	899
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	973
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,119
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	772
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	860
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	977
	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
	Grade B, Low risk	452	452
	Grade D, Low risk	615	615
	Grade E, Low risk	832	747
Up to 400m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	893
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	967
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,040
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,187
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	839
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	927
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,045
	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
	Grade B, Low risk	452	452
	Grade D, Low risk	615	615
	Grade E, Low risk	832	815
Up to 800m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	963
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	1,037
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,110
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,257
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
	Grade B, Medium risk	892		892
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109		998
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399		1,115
	Grade A, Low risk	398		398
	Grade B, Low risk	452		452
	Grade D, Low risk	615		615
	Grade E, Low risk	832		832
Over 800m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024		1,024
	Grade B, High risk	1,206		1,132
	Grade D, High risk	1,387		1,205
	Grade E, High risk	1,748		1,352
	Grade A, Medium risk	530		530
	Grade B, Medium risk	892		892
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109		1,092
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399		1,210
	Grade A, Low risk	398		398
	Grade B, Low risk	452		452
	Grade D, Low risk	615		615
	Grade E, Low risk	832		832
Regrading	Regrading	577		317
New premises fee	New premises fee ⁽⁴⁾	241

Notes:

1. Fees applied in the former Manukau City Council area were based on size as opposed to risk and performance grade. Specific fees were subject to a discount or surcharge up to plus or minus 20 per cent based on historical grades.

2. These two columns provide an indicative mapping between the transitional (legacy) fee categories and the standardised fee category under the new grading system. The actual risk and performance grade of a specific licensee (and hence the standardised fee category that it falls under) will be determined by the council, during the year prior.

3. The fees shown in these columns apply to new premises and existing premises being transferred to new owners, where the transition arrangement does not apply. Fees for other premises will be subject to the transition arrangement. These are displayed in the two right most columns of the table.

4. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition plan does not apply to this fee.

North Shore

Transitional fee category ⁽¹⁾	Standardised fee category ⁽¹⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽²⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
Food premises – category 2	Grade A, High risk	1,024	732
Food premises – category 2	Grade B, High risk	1,206	846
Food premises – category 2	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,387
Food premises – category 2	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,748
Food premises – category 1	Grade A, Medium risk	530	477
Food premises – category 1	Grade B, Medium risk	892	642
Food premises – category 1	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	982
Food premises – category 1	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,165
Food premises – category 1	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
Food premises – category 1	Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Food premises – category 1	Grade D, Low risk	615	615
Food premises – category 1	Grade E, Low risk	832	832
	Re-grading	577	352
	New premises fee ⁽³⁾	241⁽³⁾

Notes:

1. These two columns provide an indicative mapping between the transitional (legacy) fee categories and the standardised fee category under the new grading system. The actual risk and performance grade of a specific licensee (and hence the standardised fee category that it falls under) will be determined by the council, during the year prior.

2. The fees shown in this column apply to new premises and existing premises being transferred to new owners, where the transition arrangement does not apply. Fees for other premises will be subject to the transition arrangement. These are displayed in the two right most columns of the table.

3. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition plan does not apply to this fee.

Papakura

Transitional fee category⁽¹⁾		Standardised fee category⁽¹⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽²⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
Category	Description of premises	Standardised fee category⁽¹⁾
Existing premises with A or B grading	General food retailing	Grade A, High risk	1,024	715
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	514
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1,206	788
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	661
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Existing premises with A or B grading	Multi-licence premises (e.g. supermarkets), registration of basic premises	Grade A, High risk	1,024	715
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	514
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1,206	788
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	661
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Eating houses (A or B grading)	Take-away retailer	Grade A, High risk	1,024	715
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	514
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1206	788
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	661
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Eating houses (A or B grading)	Tea-rooms, coffee-bars, restaurants & licensed premises with seating for not more than 50 persons	Grade A, High risk	1024	715
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	514
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1206	788
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	661
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Eating houses (A or B grading)	Tea-rooms, coffee-bars, restaurants & licensed premises with seating for more than 50 but not more than 100 persons	Grade A, High risk	1024	774
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1206	848
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	721
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Eating houses (A or B grading)	Tea-rooms, coffee-bars, restaurants & licensed premises with seating for more than 100 persons	Grade A, High risk	1024	833
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1,206	907
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	780
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Eating houses (A or B grading)	Wholesale manufacturing (including Section 5 of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 premises)	Grade A, High risk	1,024	745
		Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
		Grade A, Low risk	398	398
		Grade B, High risk	1,206	819
		Grade B, Medium risk	892	691
		Grade B, Low risk	452	452
Fee for new premises or registration and if premises have not been graded or has a D or E grading	General food retailing	Grade D, High risk	1,387	954
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	841
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,101
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	959
		Grade E, Low risk	832	729
Fee for new premises or registration and if premises have not been graded or has a D or E grading	Multi-premises (e.g. Supermarkets) Registration of basic premises	Grade D, High risk	1,387	954
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	841
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,101
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	959
		Grade E, Low risk	832	729
Eating houses (if premises have not been graded or have a D or E grading)	Take-away retailer	Grade D, High risk	1,387	954
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	841
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,101
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	959
		Grade E, Low risk	832	729
Eating houses (if premises have not been graded or have a D or E grading)	Tea-rooms, coffee-bars, restaurants & licensed premises with seating for not more than 50 persons	Grade D, High risk	1,387	954
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	841
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,101
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	959
		Grade E, Low risk	832	729
Eating houses (if premises have not been graded or have a D or E grading)	Tea-rooms, coffee-bars, restaurants & licensed premises with seating for more than 50 but not more than 100 persons	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,000
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	887
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,147
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,005
		Grade E, Low risk	832	775
Eating houses (if premises have not been graded or have a D or E grading)	Tea-rooms, coffee-bars, restaurants & licensed premises with seating for more than 100 persons	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,066
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	953
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,213
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,071
		Grade E, Low risk	832	832
Eating houses (if premises have not been graded or have a D or E grading)	Wholesale manufacturing (including Section 5 of the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 premises)	Grade D, High risk	1,387	935
		Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	822
		Grade D, Low risk	615	615
		Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,082
		Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	940
		Grade E, Low risk	832	710
	Re-grading	Re-grading	577	401
	New premises fee	New premises fee ⁽³⁾	241

Notes:

1. These three columns provide an indicative mapping between the transitional (legacy) fee categories and the standardised fee category under the new grading system. The actual risk and performance grade of a specific licensee (and hence the standardised fee category that it falls under) will be determined by the council, during the year prior.

3. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition plan does not apply to this fee.

Rodney

Transitional fee category (assessment banding) ⁽¹⁾	Standardised fee category ⁽¹⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽²⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
1-3	Grade A, Low Risk	398	321
1-3	Grade B, Low Risk	452	403
>3-5	Grade A, Medium risk	530	375
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	581
	Grade D, Low risk	615	586
	Grade E, Low risk	832	733
>5-7	Grade A, High Risk	1,024	576
	Grade B, High Risk	1,206	708
	Grade D, Medium Risk	1,109	787
>7-9	Grade D, High Risk	1,387	899
>7-9	Grade E, Medium Risk	1,399	963
>9	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,105
Premises reassessment	Re-grading	577	322
	New premises fee ⁽³⁾	241

Notes:

3. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition plan does not apply to this fee.

Waitākere

Transitional fee category ⁽¹⁾	Standardised fee category ⁽¹⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for new premises and existing transferred to new owners (incl. GST) ($) ⁽²⁾	Fee from 1 July 2014 for other existing premises (incl. GST) ($)
Food Premises Up to 50m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	682
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	756
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	829
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	976
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	482
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	628
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	716
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	834
	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
	Grade B, Low risk	452	450
	Grade D, Low risk	615	516
	Grade E, Low risk	832	604
Food Premises 51-100m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	796
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	870
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	944
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,090
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	530
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	743
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	831
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	949
	Grade A, Low risk	398	398
	Grade B, Low risk	452	452
	Grade D, Low risk	615	615
	Grade E, Low risk	832	719
Food premises >100m²	Grade A, High risk	1,024	913
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	987
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,060
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,207
	Grade A, Medium risk	530	538
	Grade B, Medium risk	892	860
	Grade D, Medium risk	1,109	948
	Grade E, Medium risk	1,399	1,065
	Grade A, Low risk	398	404
	Grade B, Low risk	452	459
	Grade D, Low risk	615	624
	Grade E, Low risk	832	835
Eating houses Seating capacity up to 25 persons	Grade A, High risk	1,024	715
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	789
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	862
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,009
Eating houses Seating capacity between 26 and 50 persons	Grade A, High risk	1,024	844
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	918
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	992
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,138
Eating houses Seating capacity over 50 persons	Grade A, High risk	1,024	913
	Grade B, High risk	1,206	987
	Grade D, High risk	1,387	1,060
	Grade E, High risk	1,748	1,207
Fee premises and eating houses re-grading	Re-grading	577	379
	New premises fee ⁽³⁾	241

Notes:

3. This is a one-off charge applied to new premises, in addition to the annual fees charged against risk and performance grade. The transition plan does not apply to this fee.

Health protection licence

f) The fees and charges included in this section apply to premises providing a service that either, as determined by the council,

· pierces the skin,

· risks breaking the skin, or

· risks burning the skin.

g) Premises will be assessed and registered with the council as providing either a single basic service, multiple basic services, or high risk service(s), defined as below:

Category of health protection licence	Description
Single basic service	Premises providing a single service which is categorised as being at risk of breaking or burning skin
Multiple basic services	Premises providing more than one service which is categorised as being at risk of breaking or burning skin
High risk service(s)	Premises providing one or more services which are categorised as piercing the skin e.g. acupuncture, body piercing , derma rolling, electrolysis, extractions, red vein treatment, stamping, tattooing and traditional tattooing

i) The changes to health protection licence fees under each category are displayed below. Only one annual registration fee is required for each licensee.

I. Single basic service

Former council area	Current fee description	Fee from 1 July 2014 (incl. GST)
Auckland central and islands	Health protection licence: Basic (single service)	$240
Franklin	No existing fee	$240
Manukau	No existing fee	$240
North Shore	Miscellaneous licences: health and beauty	$240
Papakura	No existing fee	$240
Rodney	No existing fee	$240
Waitākere	Other fees and charges: Application fee for premises subject to the Health Act 1956 registration	$0
Waitākere	Other fees and charges: Beauty therapy clinic	$240

Note to table:

Where inspection or re-inspection is required, council’s normal hourly rates for regulatory services apply.

II. Multiple basic services

Former council area	Current fee description	Fee from 1 July 2014 (incl. GST)
Auckland central islands	Health protection licence: Multi basic (multiple services)	$300
Franklin	No existing fee	$300
Manukau	No existing fee	$300
North Shore	Miscellaneous licences: health and beauty	$300
Papakura	No existing fee	$300
Rodney	No existing fee	$300
Waitākere	Other fees and charges: Application fee for premises subject to the Health Act 1956 registration	$0
Waitākere	Other fees and charges: Beauty therapy clinic	$300

Note to the table:

Where inspection or re-inspection is required, council’s normal hourly rates for regulatory services apply.

III. High risk service(s)

Former council area	Current fee description	Fee from 1 July 2014 (incl. GST)
Auckland central islands	Health protection licence: (involving skin penetration)	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site
Franklin	No existing fee	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site
Manukau	Skin-piercing operation	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site
Manukau	Additional fee per additional skin-piercing operation	$0
North Shore	Miscellaneous licences: Skin Piercer	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site
Papakura	No existing fee	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site
Rodney	No existing fee	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site
Waitākere	Other fees and charges: Application fee for premises subject to the Health Act 1956 registration	$0
Waitākere	Other fees and charges: Tattoo/Body Piercing Premises	Either $240 or $300 depending on number of services operated on site

Notes to the table:

1. An annual registration fee of $360 plus council rate of inflation will apply to high risk premises from 1 July 2015. In the period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015, high risk premises will temporarily be registered as providing either a single basic service or a multiple basic service and be charged the relevant fee.

2. Where inspection or re-inspection is required, council’s normal hourly rates for regulatory services apply.

IV. Changes to fees for premises no longer covered by the health and hygiene bylaw

j) The changes below apply only if none of the services provided at the premises, as determined by the council,

· pierces the skin,

· risks breaking the skin, or

· risks burning the skin.

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

Other environmental health and bylaw licensing

k) The fee structures for all other environmental health and bylaw licensing services (except liquor licensing) are to be maintained for 2014/2015 with a small increase to all fees to reflect the cost of inflation (one per cent). These are based on fee structures inherited from the seven former councils. Fees applied within a former council boundary are displayed below under that former council heading. These fees are proposed to be regionally consolidated in the future.

l) The liquor licensing fees are currently set by the government. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was passed in December 2012, and has replaced the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The new act will affect the way that alcohol is sold, supplied and consumed across New Zealand. Licensing fees will also change to include an annual fee and premises will be charged according to the cost/risk category that they fall under.

m) Follow the link below to read answers to some of the frequently asked questions regarding changes to alcohol licensing fees:

n) http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/licencesregulations/liquor/Documents/alcohollicensingchangesfeesFAQ.pdf

Auckland central and islands

Type	Description	Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
All licences (excludes food, hairdressers and health protection licences)	New premise application (excludes food and hairdressers premises)	181
Brothel licence	Annual fee	708
Camping grounds	Annual fee	401
Funeral directors – mortuary licence	Annual fee	433
Gambling venues	New class 4 or New Zealand Racing Board (NZRB) venue consent application	401
Hazardous substances – inspections	Bulk tank demolished	181
	LPG storage tank installed	181
	Storage tank installed	181
	Tank removal	126
	Test pipelines to bulk installations	137
Food Stalls	Annual market organisers licence (blanket licence held by market organiser covers stalls selling fruit, vegetables and uncooked eggs only)	164
	Letter of exemption	No fee
	Level two – 6 months	126
	Level two – 12 months	192
	Level three – 6 months	225
	Level three – 12 months	368
Festival and Events	Hourly rate (per officer)	See hourly rates
Inspection Fee	Hourly rate (per officer)	See hourly rates
Offensive trades	Renewal	369
Street trading	Banner	181
	Display of goods - per month	148
	Flower sellers- per month	401
	Newspapers - per seller, per site, per annum	126
	Permanent banners - per annum	6,607
	Recycling bins - per annum	345
	Sports services vendors - per month	236
	Street Trading Application Fee	181
	Coffee vendors – per six months	566
	On-street outdoor seating (per m2 of site coverage)	71
	Pie carts, Newmarket – per month	1,114
	Pie carts, Commerce Street – per month	1,334
	Strawberry and vegetable vendors – per month	400
Transfer fee / duplicate / re-issue of certificate/licence	Transfers of ownership, all licences and re-issue of lost certificate/licence	99
Bylaw dispensation (other than permanent signage)	Temporary sign	142
Billboard	Billboard dispensation	165
Other Fees	Certificate of Inspection	187
	Return Fee for seized equipment (Noise)	276
	Amusement Device Fee	Refer to the Amusement Devices Regulations 1980
	Re-inspection Fee (Camping ground, Food Premises, Funeral Director, Hairdresser, Health Protection, Offensive Trade)	187
	Recover cost of seized goods	Based on actual cost and hourly rates
	Recover cost of works carried out in default (bylaw notice)	Based on actual cost and hourly rates
	Officer time (Bylaws)	Based on actual cost and hourly rates

Franklin

Type	Description	Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
Return fee for seized appliances	Administration fee per seizure	73
	Per response in a Metropolitan Zone	84
	Per response in a Rural Zone	152
Trading in public places	Up to 6 months	84
Trading in public places	6-12 months	152
Other licences/registration	Camping Grounds	307
	Umbrella Low Risk Food Licence Fee	743
	Food premises Day Licences (excepting those operated by non-profit organisations)	72
	Mobile food vehicle	162
	Offensive Traders	307
	Funeral Parlours	263
	Transfer of Licence	73
	Duplicate of Licence	39
	Sale yards	221
	Re-inspection fee for all Licence or Registered premises - per inspection (except food premises)	123
	Gaming Machine - class 4 Venue Consent - per inspection	577
	Relocatable Home Park Consent - per inspection	307

Manukau

Type	Description	Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
Various other licence types	Camping Grounds	481
	Funeral Director	390
	Permits – trading in public places	198
	Permits – markets and stalls	345
	Offensive Trades	481
	Temporary signs permit - general	272
	Brothel Permit	272
Other fees	Transfer of licence	118
	Duplicate licence fee	119
	Certificate of Inspection	187
	Inspection fee (excludes food premises)	138
	Provision of lists of premises	30
	Return Fee for seized equipment	276
	Permit application fee for permits not specified elsewhere in Listing of Fees and Charges	286
	Objection	483
	Dispensation Deposit Fee	7,004
	Hourly Staff Charge-out Rates (for bylaw related applications where the application fee is a deposit)	As per hourly rates

North Shore

Type	Description	Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
Mobile shop Health Licence		198
Re-inspections		Based on actual cost and hourly rates
Vendor	Mobile Shop Trading Permit	247
Noise control	Seizure of Equipment	193
Brothels	Applications for licence	292
	Annual licence fee	292
	Application for dispensations - base fee + actual cost	566
Outdoor cafés in public places	Application Fee	181
Outdoor cafés in public places	Annual Licence Fee – m2	49
Miscellaneous licences	Amusement galleries	231
	Camping Grounds	231
	Funeral Director	292
	Signs - Exceeding 1m² under bylaw	136
	Signs - All other signs under bylaw	77
	Fire permit	99
	Display of goods exemption - application Fee	181
	Display of goods exemption - m²	49
	Licence transfer fees (any licence)	94
	Pre-purchase checks (any licence)	198
	Gambling Venue Application	440

Papakura

Type	Description	Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
Other premises	Funeral Directors and Mortuaries	448
	Offensive Trades	536
	Camping Grounds	536
	Brothel Application - minimum Fee plus any additional costs. Charge at appropriate hourly rate	524
Bylaw licences	Non-food stalls (other than charitable or community organisations) - licence per event	49
	Non-food stalls (other than charitable or community organisations) – annual	319
	Amusement Gallery	171
	Special Events and minimum Fee	524
Statute based licences	Mobile Shops/Roadside Traders (other charitable or community organisations) - first month	102
	Mobile Shops/Roadside Traders (other charitable or community organisations) - per month after the first month	54
	Circuses (with menagerie)	522
	Duplicate licence	71
Noise Complaints & Seizure of Equipment	Minimum fee	161
	Seized equipment administration and storage fee	161
	Seized equipment administration and storage - disposal Fee	127
Call out to deactivate building security alarm system that is causing excessive noise	Attendance plus any other fees	177
Other fees	Street trading approval per year	161
	Street dining approval per year	161
	Single Sandwich Board approval per year	89
	Application for dispensation from sandwich board, street trading & street trading requirements	493

Rodney

Type	Description			Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
Food stalls	Annual fee			270
Food stalls	one day up to and including 5 days fee			148
Camping grounds	Camping ground			270
Camping grounds	Remote camp site			148
Offensive trades	Offensive Trade licences			270
Transfer of certificates	Noting or transfer of registration certificate			148
Health (burial)	Registration of funeral director			270
Bylaw administration	(i) Any certificate, authority, approval, permit, licence, consent from or inspection by the Council, not specifically covered by a fee under any chapter of the bylaw or any other enactment			121
	(ii) Charge for searching for documents, copying certificates, consents or other authorising documents and registers			88
	(iii) Where the application for a licence is for a period of less than 12 months the fee payable shall be reduced by 1/12 [one twelfth] for every complete month by which the term of the licence is less than one year, but so as not in any case less than:			105
Occupation fee: business occupying public footpath	Display of goods (per m² per annum) – applies where an applicant wishes to occupy the footpath and a 1.5 metre gap cannot be maintained			83
Trading in public places – licence fee	Hawker			148
	Mobile or travelling shop			270
	Commercial open air market (includes single stall)		Annual permit	270
	Commercial open air market (includes single stall)		Daily (or part thereof) permit	83
Brothels and commercial sex premises – licence fee	Small Owner operated brothel			281
Brothels and commercial sex premises – licence fee	Brothel			412
Rodney District Council gambling venue application fee	Class 4 venue			412
Rodney District Council gambling venue application fee	Board venue			412
Other fees and charges	Return Fee of Seized Equipment			389
	Processing application for Certificate of Exemption			143
	Licence fee
	(i) Keeping of pigs (over 10 weeks old)	2 and up to 2 adult pigs		122
		Over 2 and up to 50 adult pigs		143
		Over 50 and up to 100 adult pigs		197
		Over 100 adult pigs		260
	(ii) Keeping of more than 12 head of poultry			122
	Assessment fee
	(i) Travellers accommodation	5 – 30 persons		143
		32 – 50 persons		197
		Over 50 persons		260
	(ii) Public buildings or places of public resort	A. Theatres and / or cinemas		170
		B. Public halls
		1. Public or commercial		170
		2. Non-profit organisations		143
		3. Churches or buildings used solely as places of worship		No fee
		C. Grandstands and stadiums		170
		D. Showgrounds		170
		E. Circuses per month or part thereof		143
		F. Public assembly in the open air or in marquees, tents or other temporary structures:
		1. For profit
		Up to and including 2,000 persons for each day or part thereof		170
		Over 2,000 persons		$170 plus $27 per 1,000 persons
		2. For non-profit organisations for each day or part thereof		143
		3. For public worship		No fee

Waitākere

Description	Fee from 1 July 2014 $ (incl. GST)
Offensive Trades	270
Funeral Directors	312
Camping Grounds	333
Transfer fee for noting change of occupier	102
Hawkers licence	41
Mobile Shop licence	139
Inspection fee if food sold – mobile shops	158
Inspection fee if food sold – food stalls	158
Pre-application / licence, consent meeting (per hour)	As per hourly rates
Charge for any re-inspection for any activity not specifically scheduled	139
Return of seized property (noise) under section 336 RMA	462
Buskers licence	189
Markets licence – excluding any individual vendor stall licences	189
Food Stalls licence	139
Outdoor Café areas	262

Hourly rates

p) Charges set out in the table below are generally applicable to the entire region. Where a different hourly rate is set for a specific activity identified in ‘Other environmental health and bylaw licensing’, the rate in that schedule will apply.

Description ⁽¹⁾	Specialty	Hourly rate from 1 July 2014 (incl. GST)
Manager/project manager/legal services	All areas	$177
Team leader	All areas	$162
Specialist/advisor/ senior	Planning, engineering, subdivisions, environmental health, compliance and monitoring, urban designer, arborist, licensing, incident investigators, other	$162
Building processing and inspections, compliance, monitoring, environmental health	Building, compliance , monitoring, environmental health, licensing, incident investigators, other	$135
Assistant/technician	Assistant planner, graduate development engineer, graduate resource consent planner, planning technician	$126
Administration	All areas	$98

Note:

1. The categories denote descriptions of work performed by council officers. Position titles vary across the Auckland Council regulatory departments.

Hairdresser premises licensing

q) The annual licensing fees for hairdresser premises is standardised across the region. All fees are charged annually and cover the cost of inspections, i.e. there will be no separate inspection fees (unless there is significant non-compliance).

Fee from 1 July 2014

(incl. GST) $

Region wide hairdresser licence fee

209

[1] MS = Mt Smart, WS = Western Springs, EP = Eden Park

[2] The proposed average rates increase of 2.4 per cent refers to the average across all ratepayers. As a result of the council’s long-term differential strategy, the average increase for business ratepayers is 0 per cent and the average for residential and other ratepayer groups is 3.6 per cent.

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

[4] The total 2012-2013 ARAFA levy was $14.1 million.

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

Priority Area	Annual Budget 2013/2014 ($000)	Actual spend (to date) 2013/2014 ($000)	Draft Annual Budget 2014/2015 ($000)	Status update
1.Major event - explore a Māori event	13	8	37	Full feasibility study is expected to be completed by ATEED during the 2014/2015 financial year with the aim of putting the Māori Signature event in the LTP. $8k spend to date is for consultation with mana whenua undertaken during Nov/Dec 2013
2. Transport walking and cycling infrastructure - Te Reo signage/narrative, Māori design and public artworks	230	386	Detail is being defined with project managers	Auckland Transport (AT) has engagement planned for 2014/2015 and budget definition will be completed by the end of May 2014. Summary of actual spend: · AMETI $291k; · Dominion Rd $42k; · East West Link and Mill Rd $38k; · Road Safety promotion $6k; · City Rail Link $5k; · Walking and Cycling programme $4k.
3. The Southern Initiative (TSI) - scope a project to address Māori interests	177	149	232	In the current financial year there is no specific budget for Māori specific projects, but all TSI work streams incorporate a Maori dimension.
4. Unitary Plan - funding of mana whenua engagement, use of iwi management plans, sites of significance and other Māori Provisions	200	28	770	$35k for payments to iwi is still anticipated for the current financial year to complete engagement with Mana Whenua. Budget is in the draft AP 2014/2015 for identification and assessment of Māori sites of significance for protection / management. Total budget over 10 years of $7.56m.
5. Tamaki Transformation Programme - opportunities for affordable housing, marae and associated education and cultural facilities	93	93	Yet to be defined	TRC is preparing a business case for the council and Crown, which is to be completed by 30 May 2014. The council, Crown and TRC will need to determine allocation of funding for the 2014/15 financial year. Should further funding be allocated, TRC will continue to operate under the Tãmaki Strategic Framework, which includes projects with specific Māori outcomes. Summary of actual spend: · Cultural mapping with three iwi $30k; · Tamaki Learning champions programme $30k; · Tamaki Youth Employment programme $33k;
6. Stormwater - incorporate Matauranga Māori	3,334	2,396	3,850	The Stormwater Unit has projects in a number of categories that protect and / or enhance streams, estuaries and marine receiving environments and therefore contribute positively towards the mauri of water in the Auckland region.

Priority Area	Status Update	Annual Budget 2013/14	Actual (to date) 2013/14	Annual Budget 2014/15
1. Event - explore a Maori event	ATEED has been asked by the mayor to assess the concept of a Maori signature event for Auckland and is committed to delivering feasibility investigations of Maori event proposals. In March and April 2014, ATEED held cross-council meetings with Community Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) and Te Waka Angamua (TWA) to discuss next steps for the project with the view of agreeing an approach to inform an ATEED feasibility. Feedback from these sessions has been beneficial: firstly to stock-take the existing Maori event landscape and understand the Maori event calendar; and secondly, to begin to develop a strategic framework to facilitate a joint understanding of what a Maori signature event should deliver. This will provide a mechanism to assess event proposals against. CDAC and TWA are supportive of a strategic and consultative approach to determine core event principles before assessing any individual applications. Following agreement on strategic direction and iwi engagement options, a project plan is being prepared, which will break down project milestones required to achieve project goals. ATEED expects to work with CDAC and TWA on this next phase. Future milestones will include involvement from the Independent Maori Statutory Board in developing assessment criteria in 2013/14 and requesting proposals from professional event organizers in 2014/15. ATEED estimated $50,000 would be required for feasibility assessment in 2013/14, allocating these funds from its Major Event Fund - $8,300 was spent on mana whenua consultation undertaken during November and December 2013. ATEED anticipates it will conduct a full feasibility study on one or two proposals next financial year using forecast budget from its Major Event Fund ($50,000 has been assigned). The current aim is to put the Maori signature event in the Long Term Plan.	$13,000	$8,300	$37,000
2. Transport walking and cycling infrastructure - Te Reo signage /narrative, Maori design and public artworks	(Consolidated budget and actual spend) AMETI - Mana Whenua (Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Te Ata) worked with Auckland Transport on the design within the completed Panmure Rail Station, including signage (including street signs) and landscape aspects. Dominion Road - A cultural landscape design plan for Dominion Road (including walking and cycling) was completed in 2013 by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Maru and Te Akitai Waiohua. The landscape plan incorporates Māori cultural heritage, Māori values and narratives, as well as ecological footprints such as planting and bird habitat. The next phase of work has now commenced around implementation of the cultural landscape plan. East West Link and Mill Road - Mana Whenua have been engaged early on the East West Link, with input into the business case development (which includes criteria for Māori Urban Design). Mana Whenua who have completed initial Māori Value Assessments within this reporting period include Te Akitai Waiohua, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau a Maki. Mana Whenua are in the process of completing Māori Value Assessments for Mill Road. Road Safety promotion - Community Transport works with a small number of Māori groups to provide road safety education and information targeted at identified high risk themes. This includes drivers licence education, and educational tools, including a te reo booklet designed for the Travel Wise school programme on safety on the way to school that was launched in August 2013. City Rail Link - A mana whenua forum comprising of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, has been established to achieve the conditions of the City Rail Link Notice of Requirement which require input by Mana Whenua into relevant aspects of this project. This includes interpreting and applying the Mana Whenua design principles imbedded in the Urban Design Framework which influence the design of this project. The project team has recently completed a video about the project in Te reo Māori. Walking Cycling programme - Further engagement in upgrading and reconstructing assets for the Domain Walking and Cycle project has resulted in the construction of mana whenua inspired retaining walls, fencing and footpath, speed hump design, which celebrates and acknowledges Mana Whenua history in the area. Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei assisted in leading this input. Mana Whenua were consulted on the Mt Roskill Safer Routes and Pt England to Panmure walking and cycleway projects.	$ 230,000	$ 385,900 $ 291,000 $ 42,300 $ 37,400 $ 6,300 $ 4,700 $ 4,200	Detail is being defined with project managers
3. The Southern Initiative (TSI) - scope a project to address Maori interests	The Terms of Reference to incorporate the appropriate reference to the Treaty of Waitangi were discussed at the December meeting and not resolved. The TSI has provided in kind support to the Weymouth/ Waimahia special housing development for its community open day/ launch in December and is in regular liaison with the development partners to identify other opportunities for Council or government agencies to provide co-ordinated services to the project. The TSI is not aware of any further progress over the vacation period on the Otara papakainga housing development. The budgets for 2014/2015 remain in draft. In the current financial year there is no specific budget for Maori specific projects but all work streams incorporate a Maori dimension.	$177,000	$149,000	$232,120
4. Unitary Plan - funding of mana whenua engagement, use of iwi management plans, sites of significance and other Maori Provisions	No new activities have been planned and $35,000 is still anticipated by the end of this financial year to complete the budget spend for 2013/2014.	$200,000	$ 28,377	$ 770,000
5. Tamaki Transformation Programme - opportunities for affordable housing, marae and associated education and cultural facilities	No new activities have been planned since the update provided on 27 March 2014. The council is still in discussion and negotiation with the Crown and TRC. TRC is preparing a business case for the council and Crown, which is to be completed by 30 May 2014. The council, Crown and TRC will need to determine allocation of funding for the 2014/15 financial year. Should further funding be allocated, TRC will continue to operate under the Tãmaki Strategic Framework, which includes projects with specific Maori outcomes.	$93,000	$93,000	Yet to be defined
6. Stormwater - incorporate Matauranga Maori	The Stormwater Unit has projects in a number of categories that protect and / or enhance streams, estuaries and marine receiving environments and therefore contribute positively towards the mauri of water in the Auckland region. In delivering stormwater projects, the Stormwater Unit consults and works collaboratively with iwi to achieve mutual beneficial outcomes where appropriate. Consultation with iwi is undertaken on individual stormwater projects with letters sent directly to iwi as identified by local board boundaries that the relevant project is located within. The assistance of iwi staff within Council has assisted in getting more targeted consultation on individual projects. In addition, at a regional level the Stormwater Unit notifies iwi about forthcoming projects that are likely to require resource consent. Further progress on keeping iwi informed of forthcoming projects is expected now that the restructure of the Stormwater business is now complete. Early consultation with relevant iwi allows identification and confirmation on whether a Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA), is required and allows iwi early input into the stormwater solution. No new activities have been planned since the update provided on 27 March 2014.	$3,334,322	$2,395,847	$3,850,000

	2013/2014	2014/2015
Direct funding to IMSB	2,374,500 (opex and capex)	2,710,000 (opex- no capex)
Contribution from other council budgets	176,000 (seconded staff)	-
Total	2,551,000	2,710,000

		2013/2014 Agreement	Proposed 2014/2015	Refer paragraph
Board remuneration and expenses		663,600	782,500	15

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

	Expenses, including audit fees	119,000	119,000

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

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

	Research, managing and monitoring Māori Plan outcomes	100,000	70,000
Specialist Māori expertise for council projects		0	100,000	19

Total direct opex funding		2,324,500	2,710,000

CAPEX		50,000	0

Total direct funding (opex and capex)		2,374,500	2,710,000

Contribution from other council budgets	Seconded staff	176,500	0
Total direct funding		2,551,000	2,710,000

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

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

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

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

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