Agenda of Governing Body

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

Apologies from Cr CE Fletcher and Cr ME Lee have been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 29 May 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements

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

6 Petitions

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

7 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

8 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

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

9 Extraordinary Business

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

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Notices of Motion

10.1 Notice of Motion - Councillor Cathy Casey - Housing New Zealand memorandum of understanding

In accordance with Standing Order 3.10.14, the following Notice of Motion to revoke a previous decision has been received from Cr Cathy Casey for inclusion on the agenda for the Governing Body meeting being held on Thursday, 26 June 2014:

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) revoke the following decision made at the 1 May 2014 Governing Body meeting:

Resolution number GB/2014/30

o) authorise the Auckland Council Chief Executive to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with Housing New Zealand and discuss options to:

i, provide the choice to existing Housing New Zealand tenants to remain in existing communities.

ii. investigate ways to increase social housing stock within Auckland.

iii undertake community (including tenant) engagement processes in all Housing New Zealand redevelopments to achieve the best possible outcomes.

To be substituted with the following motion:

That the Governing Body:

a) establish a political working party, comprising of three councillors, to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with Housing New Zealand with regards to the Housing Monitoring Report and to discuss options to:

i. provide the choice to existing Housing New Zealand tenants to remain in existing communities.

ii. investigate ways to increase social housing stock within Auckland.

iii undertake community (including tenant) engagement processes in all Housing New Zealand redevelopments to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Cr Cathy Casey’s Notice of Motion is appended as Attachment A and is also signed by Councillors:

John Watson

Arthur Anae

Alf Filipaina

Mike Lee

Ross Clow

Wayne Walker

Chris Darby.

Attachments

a Cr Cathy Casey signed Notice of Motion.............................................. 73

10.2 Notice of Motion - Councillor Chris Darby - Lower city centre and central waterfront

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Councillor Chris Darby for inclusion on the agenda for the Governing Body meeting being held on Thursday, 26 June 2014:

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body direct the Chief Executive to undertake the following to fully inform decision-making on the lower city centre and central waterfront:

a) progress an open space needs assessment, reflecting projected city centre population (residents, workers, students and visitors), to inform development proposals for the lower city centre and central waterfront areas.

b) undertake an independent and objective evaluation of existing and potential values of Queen Elizabeth Square, taking into account historical consents and covenants and mana whenua interests.

c) request Precinct Properties progress the ‘enhanced’ Queen Elizabeth Square development design option, as contemplated in the City Centre Masterplan and Auckland Council design brief, and this be independently evaluated against Precinct’s preferred ‘incorporated’ option and within the context of the wider development framework.

d) reflect the Waterfront Auckland Sustainable Development Framework in strategy, design briefs and design responses pertaining to public land in the city centre.

Councillor Chris Darby’s signed notice of motion is appended as Attachment A. A document with background information is appended as Attachment B. The related Auckland Development Committee decision of 15 May 2014 is appended as Attachment C.

Attachments

a Councillor Chris Darby's signed notice of motion.................................. 77

b Background Information - Councillor Chris Darby's notice of motion... 79

c Auckland Development Committee 15 May 2014 decision.................. 83

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Setting of rates 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/12488

Purpose

1. To recommend to the governing body the setting of rates for 2014/2015.

Executive summary

2. The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LG(R)A) requires that rates are set by resolution of the council. The rates figures were not available in time to meet the agenda close off for this meeting. This report contains the text of the resolutions only (not including the rates figures) needed to set the rates for the Auckland Council for 2014/2015. The resolutions with the rates figures will be tabled at the meeting on 26 June 2014.

3. On 8 May 2014 the Budget Committee considered the feedback from the consultation on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. The committee recommended to the governing body that only changes to Business Improvement District targeted rates be made to the rating policy for 2014/2015.

4. The council has adopted a rates transition management policy that limits rates increases to no more than ten percent for non-business properties for the first three years of the long-term plan. Legislation requires that where the cap on decreases is different from the cap on increases then the net impact on rates revenue must be zero. To meet this requirement for 2014/2015 the cap on decreases for non-business properties needs to be minus three percent. Businesses will be fully transitioned to their new rates in 2014/2015 and no transition adjustments will apply.

5. The Annual Plan 2014/2015 includes sections that contain rates set for 2014/2015. These sections will be updated to reflect the resolutions made by the governing body at this meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) resolve under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to set rates for the 2014/2015 financial year and to authorise the addition of penalties as follows:

i) that a Uniform Annual General Charge be set, for all rateable land, at $[to be inserted] (including GST) per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit

ii) that a general rate be set for all rateable land based on the capital value of the land and at different rates in the dollar for different categories of land as set out in the table below:

Category	Rate in the dollar of capital value (including GST)
Urban business	[to be inserted]
Franklin urban business	[to be inserted]
Rural business	[to be inserted]
Franklin rural business	[to be inserted]
Urban residential	[to be inserted]
Rural residential	[to be inserted]
Farm/lifestyle	[to be inserted]
Sea-only access	[to be inserted]
Uninhabitable islands	[to be inserted]

iii) that a Waste Management targeted rate be set differentially for different categories of land at different fixed amounts as set out in the table below:

Category	Basis for charging	Amount of rate (including GST)
Full waste service for land in the district of the former Auckland City Council	Per available service to the rating unit	[to be inserted]
Waste service where opt out of refuse service applies for land in the district of the former Auckland City Council	Per available service to the rating unit	[to be inserted]
Waste service where opt out of recycling service applies for land in the district of the former Auckland City Council	Per available service to the rating unit	[to be inserted]
Waste service where opt out of both the refuse and recycling services apply for land in the district of the former Auckland City Council	Per available service to the rating unit	[to be inserted]
Waste service where an additional recycling service applies for land in the district of the former Auckland City Council	Per available service to the rating unit	[to be inserted]
Waste service for recycling collection for land in the district of the former Franklin District Council where the service is available	Per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP)	[to be inserted]
Waste service for refuse collection for land in the district of the former Franklin District Council where the service is available	Per SUIP	[to be inserted]
Waste management for land in the district of the former Manukau City Council where the service is available	Per SUIP	[to be inserted]
Waste management for land in the district of the former North Shore City Council where the service is available	Per SUIP	[to be inserted]
Waste management for land in the district of the former Papakura District Council where the service is available	Per SUIP	[to be inserted]
Waste management for land in the district of the former Rodney District Council where the service is available	Per SUIP	[to be inserted]
Waste management for land in the district of the former Waitakere City Council where the service is available	Per SUIP	[to be inserted]

iv) that a City Centre targeted rate be set for all rateable land in the urban business differential category, as defined for the purposes of the general rate, in the central area, of an amount of [to be inserted] (including GST) per dollar of the capital value of the rating unit

v) that Business Improvement District targeted rates be set for all rateable land in the business differential categories, as defined for the purposes of the general rate, within the defined Business Improvement District area, as set out in the table below:

BID area	Fixed amount per rating unit (including GST)	Rate in the dollar of capital value (including GST)
Avondale	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Birkenhead	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Blockhouse Bay	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Browns Bay	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Devonport	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Dominion Road	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Eden Terrace	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Ellerslie	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Glen Eden	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Glen Innes	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Greater East Tamaki	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Heart of the City	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Howick	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Hunters Corner	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Karangahape Road	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Kingsland	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Mahunga Drive	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Mairangi Bay	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Mangere Bridge	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Mangere East Village	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Mangere Town	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Manukau Central	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Manurewa	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Milford	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Mt Eden Village	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
New Lynn	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Newmarket	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
North Harbour	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Northcote	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Old Papatoetoe	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Onehunga	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Orewa	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Otahuhu	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Otara	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Panmure	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Papakura	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Parnell	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Ponsonby	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Pukekohe	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Remuera	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Rosebank	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
St Heliers	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
State Highway 16	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Takapuna	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Te Atatu	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Torbay	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Waiuku	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]
Wiri	[to be inserted]	[to be inserted]

vi) that the Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu swimming pool targeted rates be set for all rateable land in the residential differential categories, as defined for the purposes of the general rate, located in the respective Māngere–Ōtāhuhu Local Board and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board areas as set out in the table below:

Local board area	Fixed amount per SUIP (including GST)
Māngere–Ōtāhuhu	[to be inserted]
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	[to be inserted]

vii) that the Riverhaven Drive targeted rate be set on the properties in Riverhaven Drive which benefit from the construction of a road that gives access to the properties, of an amount of $[to be inserted] (including GST) per rating unit

viii) that the Glorit Flood Gate Restoration targeted rate be set on the three properties detailed below, based on the area of land within the rating unit benefiting from the facility (as assessed by council), of an amount set out in the table below:

Valuation number	Legal description (abbreviated)	Area of benefit (Ha)	Amount of rate (including GST)
00910-00102	Sec 27 SO 59120	245	[to be inserted]
00910-00502	Lot 5 DP 127940	2	[to be inserted]
00910-00400	Sec 2 SO 69274	17.5	[to be inserted]

ix) that the Waitakere Rural Sewerage targeted rate be set for all land in the district of the former Waitakere City Council which has an on-site waste management system and in respect of which the council has available the service of pumping out the system and which is scheduled to take place within the 3-year period commencing 1 July 2014, of an amount of $[to be inserted] (including GST) for each such on-site waste management system.

x) that the Retro-fit Your Home targeted rate be set on land in respect of which the council has provided financial assistance under the Retro-fit your home scheme, at different levels for each year that the ratepayer has started repaying the financial assistance by this targeted rate, of an amount set out in the table below:

Year of repayment	Rate in the dollar of value outstanding as at 1 July 2014 (including GST)
1	[to be inserted]
2	[to be inserted]
3	[to be inserted]

xi) that the Kumeu Huapai Riverhead Wastewater targeted rate be set on land in respect of which the council has provided financial assistance to connect to the Kumeu Huapai Riverhead pressurised wastewater scheme, of an amount based on the extent of that financial assistance and calculated as [to be inserted] (including GST) of the outstanding balance (dollars) as at 1 July 2014.

xii) that the Point Wells Wastewater targeted rate be set on land in respect of which the council has provided financial assistance to connect to a pressure wastewater collection system in Point Wells, of an amount per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit based on the extent of the financial assistance as shown in the following table:

Total assistance provided	Amount of fixed rate (including GST)
$10,000	[to be inserted]
$ 9,500	[to be inserted]
$ 9,000	[to be inserted]
$ 8,500	[to be inserted]
$ 8,000	[to be inserted]

xiii) that the Jackson Crescent Wastewater targeted rate be set on land in respect of which the council has provided financial assistance to connect to a wastewater collection scheme in the Jackson Crescent, Martins Bay areas, of an amount of $[to be inserted] (including GST) per rating unit

xiv) that in 2014/2015 the rates be due in four instalments as set out in the table below:

Instalment	Due Date
1	29 August 2014
2	26 November 2014
3	26 February 2015
4	27 May 2015

xv) that a penalty of 10 per cent will be added to rates assessed in the 2014/2015 year that are not paid by the due date

xvi) that further penalties of 10 per cent will be added to rates assessed in previous financial years that are unpaid on 4 July 2014; and then again on 4 January 2015

xvii) the discount for the early payment of rates be set at 1.1 percent of the 2014/2015 rates if those rates, together with any outstanding prior years’ rates and penalties, are paid in full on or before the due date of the first instalment (29 August 2014).

b) set the non-business decrease cap at minus three percent for 2014/2015 in the Rates transition management policy.

c) direct officers to amend the Funding Impact Statement, Rating policy and Rates transition management policy to reflect the resolutions in this report for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Comments

Background

6. For 2012/2013 the council adopted a uniform rating policy for the Auckland region. At the same time the council adopted a Rates transition management policy to manage the level of change experienced by ratepayers due to the transition to the uniform rating system. The key issues relating to these policies were considered during the development of the long-term plan.

Decision Making

Rates resolution

7. For the council to assess rates for the 2014/2015 financial period section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LG(R)A) requires the council to set the rates by resolution. The council must also set its rates in accordance with the relevant provisions of the transition legislation and the long-term plan. The resolutions contained in this report are consistent with the relevant legislation and the Long-term Plan 2012-2022.

8. The budget is set based on the assumption that rates will be invoiced on time. A delay in setting the rates may cause issues in delivery of the rates assessment/invoice in time for the first instalment due date. It will also cause delays to when the arrears penalty can be applied. Delaying the setting of rate may result in increased administrative costs to council.

9. A copy of the rates resolution must be sent to the Secretary of Local Government within 20 working days of adopting the rates resolution.

10. The LG(R)A requires that the instalment due dates must also be set in the same resolution as those used to set the rates. The resolutions necessary for the Governing Body to set the rates and instalment due dates for the 2012/2013 financial period are included in the recommendations in this report.

Rates transition management policy 2014/2015

11. The council has adopted a rates transition management policy that sets the maximum change in rating liability permitted in relation to an unchanged rating unit. The policy applies for three years from 1 July 2012.

12. Rates increases for non-business properties (residential, farm or lifestyle, and sea only access) are limited to no more than 10 per cent of the previous year’s rates^{^[1]}, for each year in which the policy applies. The cap on decreases must be calculated each year to ensure that the overall financial impact on the council is neutral. It is based on the final budget for the year and set by council resolution at the same time as the rates are set. To ensure that the policy complies with legislation a cap on rates decreases of minus 3 percent is required for the 2014/2015.

13. For business properties, rate changes have been phased in over three years. In 2014/2015 businesses will be fully transitioned to their new rates and no transition adjustments will apply.

14. The resolution necessary for the governing body to set the decrease cap at minus 3 percent for the rates transition management policy for the 2014/2015 financial period is included in the recommendations in this report.

Business Improvement District targeted rates

15. The council uses targeted rates to fund Business Improvement District (BID) programmes where businesses have agreed to work together, with the support of council to improve their business environment.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. The resolutions necessary for the governing body to set the BID rates for 2014/2015 are included in the recommendations of this report.

Early payment discount, late payment penalties and instalment dates

19. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 proposed that rates will be payable in four equal instalments on:

· instalment 1: 29 August 2014

· instalment 2: 26 November 2014

· instalment 3: 26 February 2015

· instalment 4: 27 May 2015

Ratepayers can pay more regularly if they wish to.

20. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 proposed a 10 per cent penalty for late payment of rates for each rates instalment due date, and that a 10 per cent penalty on the previous years’ rates arrears be added at the beginning of the financial year (or five days after the rates resolution, whichever is the later) and then again six months later. It is necessary to set the penalty rate at 10 percent, as used by all the previous councils, to discourage the use of the council as a bank by ratepayers. Costs incurred by the council from the late payment of rates must inevitably be met by those ratepayers that pay on time. Most councils use a 10 percent penalty.

21. The early payment discount policy is available to ratepayers who pay their full years rates before the due date of the first rates instalment. The policy sets out that the council will provide a discount based on the council’s short term borrowing cost. This returns the interest cost saving to the council to those ratepayers who pay early. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 consulted on an early payment discount of 1.1 per cent. For the early payment discount to remain cost neutral the discount amount should remain at 1.1 percent.

22. The resolutions necessary for the governing body set the early payment discount, late payment penalty, and instalment dates are included in the recommendations of this report.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Local boards had the opportunity to comment on the policies proposed in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 as part of their deliberations. Relevant feedback from these sessions was provided to the Budget Committee on 8 May 2014.

Maori impact statement

24. The council does not hold information on the ethnicity of ratepayers so is not able to identify the exact impact of the policy options on Māori. The recommendations in this report will have a similar impact on Maori as it will on other ratepayers.

Implementation

25. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Eric Wen - Modeller User Charges

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Adoption of the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/12356

Purpose

1. To adopt the Auckland Council Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the adoption of the 21 Local Board Agreements.

Executive summary

2. The Annual Plan 2014/2015 document has been prepared to reflect the decisions made at the Budget Committee meeting held on 8 May 2014, and adopted by the Governing Body at a meeting held later that day. These decisions included approving the budget for the plan as well as decisions relating to fees and charges, rates and performances measures and targets.

3. Following these decisions, staff have prepared the final Annual Plan documents for presentation to the Governing Body for adoption today.

4. Local boards are considering adoption of their updated local board agreements for 2014/2015 during business meetings between 9 and 19 June 2014. An update on the status of local board agreements is provided under a separate report on today’s agenda. The 21 local board agreements, and related content, make up Volume 2 of the Annual Plan 2013/2014.

5. On 8 May 2014, the Governing Body also resolved that the Chief Executive would immediately review the group capital programme with a target of reducing or deferring $300 million of rates-funded capital expenditure in 2014/2015.

6. This was in response to advice from staff about significant budget pressures in 2015/2016. The lagged impact of changes to capex budgets means that action would need to be taken in the 2014/2015 year to provide a timely response to pressure on rates increases for 2015/2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) adopt the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including 21 local board agreements

b) delegate the authority and responsibility for agreeing minor editorial changes and the correction of minor errors to the Annual Plan 2014/2015 document to the Chair or Deputy Chair of the Budget Committee, and the Chief Finance Officer

c) note that staff will report to the Finance and Performance Committee in July with the results of the Chief Executive’s review of the 2014/2015 group capital programme.

Comments

7. Auckland Council received 1967 submissions covering around 10,230 submission points on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. 283 submitters wished to be heard, of which 44 were scheduled to be heard by the Governing Body. The hearings phase of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 took place between 17 March and 11 April 2014. There were 21 local hearings and two days of regional hearings.

8. Between 28 April and 1 May 2013, the Budget Committee met with all local boards to discuss the key issues for local board agreements and advocacy areas for the council and the Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs). On 5 May 2014, the Budget Committee met with all substantial CCOs to discuss 2014/2015 budgets, proposals and local board advocacy areas.

9. At its meeting on 8 May 2014, the Budget Committee considered the Mayors Proposal for the annual plan and made recommendations to the Governing Body on the proposed budget, changes to fees and charges, changes to performance measures and targets and rates. These recommendations were adopted by the Governing Body at a meeting held later on the same day (Resolution number GB/2014/33 – Refer to Attachment A).

10. The setting of rates for 2014/2015 will be considered in a separate paper on today’s agenda.

11. Following the decisions made on 8 May 2014, staff have updated all annual plan documentation. This includes updating the council’s financial information and Annual Plan statements as well as updating projections for the remaining years of the Long-Term Plan 2012-2022 to reflect the impact of all budget decisions on outer year budgets. The revised financial projections for 2015 -2022 are included in the financial overview in Volume 1 of the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Local board agreements

12. An update on local board agreements is covered by a separate report on today’s agenda (late report due to the timing of local board meetings). Local board agreements and budgets have been updated to reflect local board reprioritization decisions and recommendations made by the Budget Committee on 8 May 2014. Local boards are considering adoption of their local board agreements for 2013/2014 during business meetings held between 9-19 June, along with capital project lists and advocacy areas. The 21 local board agreements, and related content, make up Volume 2 of the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Capex review

13. On 8 May 2014, the Governing Body also resolved that the Chief Executive would immediately review the group capital programme with a target of reducing or deferring $300 million of rates-funded capital expenditure in 2014/2015.

14. This was in response to advice from staff about significant budget pressures in 2015/2016. The lagged impact of changes to capex budgets means that action would need to be taken in the 2014/2015 year to provide a timely response to pressure on rates increases for 2015/2016.

15. Staff will report to the Finance and Performance Committee in July with the results of the Chief Executive’s review of the 2014/2015 group capital programme.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. The views of the Local Boards on the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including Local Board Agreements contained in Volume 2, are covered in a separate report on this agenda.

Māori impact statement

17. Many of the budget changes that formed part of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 specifically identified and described any direct impact on Māori outcomes or initiatives. The consultation process on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was inclusive of Māori. Mana whenua and mataawaka were encouraged to submit on the draft plan. 21 versions of the summary document including submission forms were translated into Te Reo Māori, and translators were available for submissions received, as well as for submitters wishing to speak at the hearing in Te Reo Māori.

Implementation

18. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the council to adopt the Annual Plan and set rates for 2014/2015 by 30 June 2014.

19. The Annual Plan 2014/2015 will be tabled at the Governing Body workshop on 24 June 2014.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	8 May Governing Body decisions for Annual Plan 2014/2015	23
b View	Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Volume 1 (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Volume 2 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Tanya Stocks - Local Board Budget Process

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Project update, analysis of services against criteria, and local board input to current state assessment.

File No.: CP2014/12637

Purpose

1. To present the analysis of services against criteria which is a step in the review of council controlled organisations (CCOs). The analysis helps establish and test the rationale for delivering services through a CCO. The report also presents the local board input to council’s current state assessment, undertaken to inform the CCO review.

Executive summary

2. This report:

· Summarises the CCO review process to date and next steps.

· Provides an overview of the service analysis that has been considered at councillor workshops on 14 May and 4 June 2014.

· Summarises and comments on the local board input to the current state assessment.

3. The Governing Body received the CCO review current state assessment and adopted the terms of reference for the review at its meeting of 27 February 2014. At its meeting of 2 May 2014, the Governing Body adopted a set of criteria to assist in its assessment of the rationale for delivering services through CCOs.

4. The service assessment has been discussed at two workshops on 14 May and 4 June 2014. The full assessment is attached (Attachment A) and this report summarises the key findings and points of discussion.

5. The analysis will be one input to the next stage of the review which will consider delivery and configuration options, including the option of “no change”. Other inputs include:

· Further analysis of overlaps between council and CCO activities.

· Desktop reviews of international models for delivering economic development outcomes, urban development outcomes, and regional sports/arts/cultural facilities and services.

· A review of the linkages between stormwater, wastewater, and water supply.

6. Local boards have provided their input to the council’s current state assessment which they considered at their business meetings in March and April. A summary of their feedback is provided as Attachment B.

7. The report also considers the key issues raised in the local board assessment and identifies the issues that may be addressed by the CCO review.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the analysis of services being delivered by council controlled organisations against criteria (Attachment A) and agree that this work will inform delivery and configuration options developed at the next stage of the review.

b) receive the local board input to the current state assessment and note the ways in which the council controlled organisation review may address matters raised.

Comments

8. This report:

· Summarises the CCO review process to date and next steps.

· Provides an overview of the service analysis that has been considered at councillor workshops on 14 May and 4 June 2014.

· Summarises and comments on the local board input to the current state assessment.

CCO Review Process to Date and Next Steps

9. At its meeting of 27 February 2014, the Governing Body received two current state assessment reports; one prepared from a council perspective, and one from a CCO perspective, and adopted the terms of reference for the review.

10. The current state assessment reports helped inform the terms of reference by outlining issues and opportunities for the review to address. While the reports indicated that there was a reasonable degree of comfort with the CCO model there were a range of matters raised that the review needed to address. Some of these have possible structural implications such as reviewing and removing duplication, while other issues relate to making the CCO model work well – e.g. through improving and streamlining accountability mechanisms, and reviewing governance policies.

11. The terms of reference defined the scope of the review, including that major structural change for Auckland Transport was out of scope. The scope covers all other activities currently being delivered through CCOs, as well as council activities that overlap with these.

12. At its meeting of 2 May 2014, the Governing Body considered a report outlining the benefits of delivering some of its activities and services through an arm’s length structure such as a CCO, as well as some of the challenges. At this meeting the Governing Body adopted a set of criteria to assist in its assessment of the rationale for delivering services currently being delivered by CCOs, through CCOs.

13. Councillors and IMSB members from the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee attended workshops on 14 May and 4 June to review the assessment of services against criteria. The Governing Body is now being asked to receive this analysis (attachment A) and agree that it will be used to inform the development of delivery and configuration options in the next stage of the review.

14. In addition to the service analysis there is other work underway that could influence options. This includes:

· Further analysis of overlaps between council and CCO activities.

· Desktop reviews of international models for delivering economic development outcomes, urban development outcomes, and regional sports/arts/cultural facilities and services.

· A review of the linkages between stormwater, wastewater, and water supply.

· Some of this work has been discussed at workshops on 4 June and 10 June and will be formally reported to the Governing Body when completed.

15. The next stage of the review is to develop options for change, noting that ‘no structural change’ will form one of the options to be tested. Workshops have been scheduled for 2 July, 6 August, and 13 August, with the Governing Body currently scheduled to adopt draft options on 28 August. This allows for a period for consultation with CCOs, local boards, and the IMSB prior to identifying preferred options in October. If any of the options involve significant structural change, this timetable would allow for consultation through the LTP process.

16. As noted in paragraph 10, the terms of reference for the review covers a number of issues that do not relate to structural change. This work is progressing in parallel to the work on delivery and configuration, although over a longer timeframe as resources are currently being prioritised to work that could have structural implications. Some of this work was discussed at the 10 June workshop including the role of the council and CCOs in the strategy development process, and ways of enhancing and streamlining the CCO accountability framework.

Analysis of Services Against Criteria

17. An important step in the review is to assess the services currently being provided by CCOs against a set of seven criteria that were adopted at the Governing Body meeting of 2 May 2014. The criteria reflect that there are benefits and challenges for the council from delivering activities through an arm’s length entity.

18. The reason for undertaking this assessment is to test whether the services currently being delivered through a CCO, are appropriate to be delivered in this way – in other words whether the characteristics of the services suggest that benefits can be maximised, while minimising the challenges. Assessing services against criteria is a step in the process and will be one input into delivery and configuration options. Analysis of this kind has a risk of oversimplifying and is only a guide to decision making. Any option to change delivery of an activity would require more in depth analysis at the next stage.

19. This report summarises the key findings of the analysis and points of discussion at the workshops on 14 May and 4 June. The analysis has minor amendments from that presented at councillor workshops, to correct inconsistencies and a small number of minor errors.

20. Commercial focus – this criteria recognises that a CCO with a commercially focused board can apply commercial acumen to running a business, particularly where there are opportunities to grow external revenue or leverage private investment. These conditions may favour arm’s-length delivery.

21. The analysis suggests that commercial acumen is very important for a number of services currently being delivered by CCOs, such as commercial property development at the waterfront; ACPL’s place-shaping and acquisition/disposal functions; management of Auckland Council’s ownership interests in POAL and AIAL; tourism development, attracting business and investment, major events; and the management and operation of regional facilities. A degree of commercial focus is needed for all activities but to a lesser degree for services such as provision of public infrastructure on the waterfront; skill development and talent attraction; and water and wastewater services, as Watercare is precluded from paying a dividend and must provide services at minimum cost.

22. Efficiency – this criteria recognises that by grouping related activities in a separate entity, there is an opportunity to focus on an area of activity that is a priority for council. This may help to achieve better outcomes or produce faster results than would be possible within a council department with a wider range of activities to manage and priorities to balance.

23. The analysis suggests that this is one of the strongest reasons for delivering services through a CCO structure. The ability to focus on a discrete service or related group of services was considered important for all activities currently being delivered by CCOs. It has been assessed as particularly important for the delivery of major events and Auckland brand and identity; water, wastewater and tradewaste services; regional facilities management and operation; waterfront commercial property and marina development; and ACPL’s place-making and property acquisition/disposal functions.

24. Flexibility – this criteria recognises that arm’s length entities may be more agile and nimble in their decision-making and able to respond to opportunities more quickly. The need for flexibility in decision-making may favour arm’s length delivery.

25. The analysis suggests that the ability to make quick decisions and/or respond to opportunities is of high importance for some activities being delivered by CCOs, particularly those with a development focus rather than a management and operational focus. However flexibility was also considered important for regional facilities management and operations as there is a need to respond quickly to commercial opportunities, for example when dealing with promoters.

26. There was discussion at the workshops that CCOs were sometimes not as flexible as the council might expect them to be. For example, there were comments that some CCOs were not innovative in their response to council’s sustainability objectives. Note that contribution to council’s broader strategic outcomes is picked up under integration rather than flexibility. There was also a comment that CCOs may be able to respond more rapidly to risk – not just to opportunities.

27. Specialist skills – this criteria recognises that for some activities there are benefits from having the expertise of a professional board of directors with sector knowledge and experience. CCOs may also be in a stronger position to attract staff with particular skills, than a local authority. The need for specialist skills may favour arm’s length delivery.

28. The analysis suggests that most activities being delivered by CCOs benefit from having specialist expertise on the board and in some cases from having an enhanced ability to attract specialist skills at the staff level. This is particularly true for all activities currently being delivered by ATEED; commercial property development on the waterfront; management of regional facilities and performing arts, events and conferencing venue hire; and Watercare’s laboratory services.

29. Accountability for ratepayer funding – this criteria recognises that the council is ultimately accountable for the money that it collects from ratepayers. The relationship that council has with CCOs which receive significant ratepayer funding is more complex as the council has interests both as a shareholder and funder. Significant ratepayer funding may favour in-house delivery.

30. The analysis shows that some activities being delivered by CCOs are fully or largely funded from ratepayer funding, or receive high levels of ratepayer funding in addition to other revenue. These include public good/benefit activities such as public infrastructure on the waterfront and waterfront activation; all services delivered by ATEED; regional facilities management, operation of the art gallery and management of art collections. Services operating with less ratepayer funding or with a high proportion of external revenue include the operation of sports, performing arts and events venues; and commercial property management and development on the waterfront.

31. This criteria was difficult to apply for ACIL which is a net funder of council but must be highly accountable for this funding. It was also difficult to apply to Watercare which raises its own revenue from customers.

32. Stakeholder, iwi, and political interest in decision making – this criteria recognises that it can be more difficult for council to deliver services through an arm’s length entity where there is a significant and ongoing requirement for public engagement and consultation, and where the activity generates political or public interest. High local board interest is often an indicator of high public interest. High public interest in decision making may favour in-house delivery.

33. The analysis suggests that activities which can generate significant public and/or political interest or the requirement to consult, include ACPL’s place-shaping functions and property acquisition/disposals; major events; and water and wastewater services. Other activities may generate interest periodically.

34. Discussion regarding this criteria suggests that there may be merit in distinguishing between the need for widespread engagement or consultation, versus the need to engage and partner with specific groups. CCOs tend to be well placed to develop partnering relationships with specific stakeholders – for example ATEED has relationships with business sector groups and government departments. In some circumstances they can be better placed to develop such partnerships. They can also engage effectively with specific stakeholder groups. However, where general public engagement is needed, council tends to have well developed processes and expertise.

35. There was also some discussion that because of their distance from council, CCOs can make hard but necessary decisions.

36. Integration – this criteria recognises that for activities with high levels of connectedness with other council services, or which contribute to multiple Auckland Plan outcomes, delivery through an arm’s length entity can create barriers and encourage focus on core objectives at the expense of other council objectives. Highly connected activities may favour in-house delivery.

37. The analysis suggests that the level of connectedness with other council activities and contribution across multiple Auckland Plan outcomes is low for services provided by ACIL, and relatively low for management of regional facilities and collections, and hireage of sporting facilities. It is relatively high for most of the activities provided by ACPL including place-shaping and property acquisition/disposal; for most activities provided by Watercare due to the linkages with land-use planning; for waterfront commercial property development, public infrastructure and activation; and for attracting business and investment.

38. The workshop discussion focussed on the desire to see better integration of CCO activities with council activities rather than achieving integration by bringing activities in-house.

39. Overall, the workshop discussion across all services and criteria reflected a general expectation that accountability for ratepayer funding, effective public engagement where required, and integration with council activities, should be possible to achieve within a CCO structure.

Local Board input to Current State Assessment

40. The council perspective, current state assessment report did not include input from local boards as they were given a longer timeframe to respond. All local boards considered a discussion document at their March/April business meetings, and 20 local boards provided input. Attachment B provides an overview of the input from local boards. Copies of the detailed feedback are available to councillors in the councillors’ lounge.

41. The following is the executive summary of the overview report.

· The general theme from the local boards’ feedback suggests that the CCO model needs refining but is a well-functioning model. High-level comments are as follows:

· Overall, there is a widespread recognition that the CCOs have achieved some success in their first three and a half years of operation.

· Local boards have the most dealings with Auckland Transport (AT), Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED), Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL), and to a lesser extent Watercare. Consequently local boards have provided more detailed comments in relation to these CCOs.

· The improvements in the relationship between the local boards and the CCOs over the last three years are widely acknowledged. Several local boards mentioned the value of having dedicated CCO liaison advisors. However, local boards would like to see further improvements in the area of communication, project up-date and reporting, and engagement with communities. They also would like to see the CCOs consistently adhere to the ‘no surprises’ policy. Many references to improvement potential relate particularly to AT reflecting that it is the CCO with the highest level of interaction with the local boards.

· The vast majority of local boards consider that strategy needs to sit with Auckland Council with it being Auckland Council’s role to set the vision and strategic direction for the whole of Auckland Council group. The local boards also pointed to the importance of having close and trusted working relationships with the CCOs to enable good strategy development.

· Five local boards suggested that the accountability framework could be improved (for example simplified) and some requested an investigation of the processes or tools to enable local boards to be more genuinely involved in the direction setting of the CCOs.

· The local boards remarked that the CCOs can operate as functional silos, which at times adversely affects project delivery. While examples of collaboration existed, many local boards advocated for the CCO review to investigate ways to better promote a culture of collaboration within the Auckland Council group and avoid functional silos.

· Generally, the local boards feel that improving collaboration, rather than making structural changes, was the best way forward to improve cohesiveness within the Auckland Council group and to improve delivery to the community. Local boards identified gaps and duplication in relation to two activity areas: place making, and economic development.

· Local boards have a significant role in place making. They would like a stronger recognition of their role in place making, as well as stronger collaboration between agencies involved in place making, that is AT, ACPL, Auckland Council’s Regional and Local Planning and City Transformation departments and Auckland Council’s Housing Project Office.

· The local boards’ role in place making means that they have a strong interest in the road corridor. All aspects of the road corridor sits under AT’s jurisdiction. Local boards would like to investigate potential delegations to local boards from AT during this electoral term.

· The large majority of local boards commented that the split of economic development activities between ATEED and Auckland Council was confusing and warranted a change: either through improved collaboration and alignment or through structural change. It was also commented that while both ATEED and Auckland Council delivered economic development activities, support for local economic development was insufficient.

· Local boards would welcome the opportunity to be further engaged in the CCO review.

42. This report provides some comment on the key issues raised and how, and the extent to which, the CCO review may address them.

Communication and no surprises

43. CCOs are required to keep local boards well informed of local projects on a regular basis, and adhere to a ‘no surprises’ policy with respect to local issues and impacts (such as road closures).

44. The council has clear requirements regarding CCOs communications with local boards. Each CCO is required to prepare a Local Board Engagement Plan (LBEP) and update it regularly. The Shareholder Expectation Guide (SEG) has detailed specifications about the contents of those plans.

45. The council has also specified how, and how often, a CCO will keep local boards informed. Auckland Transport is of the greatest interest to local boards, and therefore reports monthly to local boards. At the other extreme, ACIL writes to local boards offering to attend a meeting at which the chief executive provides a briefing.

46. The council has also specified that all CCOs must adequately resource liaison with and reporting to local boards. All CCOs have responded to this with responses depending on the level and nature of local board interest in their activities. For example, Watercare has a staff member dedicated to local board engagement, and Auckland Transport has a large elected member liaison team.

47. The local board feedback is that communication has improved over the last three years and is generally well resourced. Many boards would like to see further improvements in communications.

48. At its meeting of September 2013, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved to survey local boards annually on the quality of CCO engagement with local boards and on CCOs responsiveness to local boards.

49. Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department is considering the inclusion of a question on CCOs in the 2014 local board member survey. This would provide baseline data and would allow a performance target to be included in 2015/2016 statements of intent. As the council already has clear requirements on communications, this would seem an appropriate response rather than further addressing the issue through the CCO review.

Consultation and engagement

50. Council’s guidelines are clear that in addition to keeping local boards informed, CCOs are expected to engage and consult on decisions affecting a local board’s governance role, having local impact, and/or requiring a CCO to undertake community consultation.

51. The feedback indicates that some local boards still think that there is a gap between communication and engagement, and that community consultation by CCOs is not always adequate. Note that Auckland Transport is undertaking work to improve its consultation processes and has been piloting a new approach with the Waitakere Ranges local board.

52. The survey referred to in paragraph 49 can also be used to measure the local board members views about the quality of engagement and consultation. In addition, it is proposed that the CCO review considers how CCOs could be encouraged to follow council guidelines and standards for community consultation, including the role of local boards when CCOs undertake community consultation.

Local board priorities – transport

53. All CCOs are required to consider local board priorities when developing their work programmes. Many of the issues that have arisen between local boards and Auckland Transport over the last three years relate to Auckland Transport’s prioritisation of projects of interest to local boards.

54. While there will always be tension between local board priorities and Auckland Transport’s ability to fund these, it is important that there is a robust process for Auckland Transport to consider local board priorities and communicate with local boards in relation to this.

55. This has been addressed by council in a number of ways. Auckland Transport has a fund of $10 million per annum to fund local board capital projects that would not otherwise meet Auckland Transport’s funding criteria. This fund is underspent to date and there appear to be a variety of reasons for this including that local boards may need some support to identify the projects that can be funded from the fund. Another issue is that some local board projects do not quality for funding from this fund. The criteria for the fund are to be considered by the Infrastructure Committee and this is not a CCO review issue.

56. With respect to regional priorities, Auckland Transport held cluster workshops with local boards in 2013 to explain how they prioritise projects and then met with each local board regarding their priorities.

57. Some local boards have asked for the review to investigate how local boards can be more involved in the direction setting of CCOs. The appropriate mechanism for local boards to be involved in direction setting of CCOs is through the LTP process. This will be considered through the CCO review work that is being undertaken on achieving stronger linkages between the LTP and statement of intent process.

58. The review could also consider whether workshops on local board priorities should become a regular requirement for Auckland Transport, and potentially other CCOs as part of the LTP and/or annual plan process.

Local board priorities – local economic development

59. Local boards are responsible, as set out in the allocation of decision-making for non-regulatory activities, for local economic development plans, projects and initiatives within parameters set by regional strategies and policies.

60. Local boards have voiced concern over the last three years that ATEED has a regional focus and is not able to provide resourcing for local economic development priorities. The issues are quite complex and include:

· There is limited funding for local economic development initiatives. ATEED is currently not funded to deliver local economic development programmes, although it can tailor its regional programmes, for example, in relation to skills, tourism, and youth employment, to local needs.

· There is a perceived confusion about the role of ATEED and the role of council’s economic development department, in relation to local economic development.

· Local boards do not have a direct governance relationship with CCOs and so cannot hold them accountable in relation to local boards’ economic development responsibilities.

61. These issues are being explored through a number of processes including workshops between local board members, governing body members, ATEED staff and Auckland Council staff. The lack of support for local economic development has been documented during a workshop between local board and governing body members supported by ATEED and Auckland Council staff.

62. While the LTP will need to address the funding issue, the CCO review will need to clarify responsibilities. Any decision on who is responsible for delivering local economic development plans, projects and initiatives, will need to consider governance implications.

Place making

63. Local boards have a significant role in place making and a strong interest in the road corridor. Many Auckland Transport functions have place making implications. Local boards are seeking a greater acknowledgement of their role, and would like to investigate delegations of some Auckland Transport functions.

64. The CCO review will include a review of the split of operational responsibilities between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. There are a number of issues that cause problems for both entities, and a need to ensure that the split of responsibilities is clear and optimal. This work will include responsibilities for functions that impact on place making.

65. ACPL also has direct place making functions. The feedback on the current state assessment indicates that ACPL has a good relationship with most local boards over its place making functions.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

66. This report reflects feedback from local boards on the current state assessment.

67. In relation to the service assessment, one of the criteria requires council to consider the degree of political, stakeholder and public interest in the decisions.

Māori impact statement

68. The IMSB input to current state assessment were tabled at the Governing Body meeting of 27 February.

69. In relation to the service assessment, one of the criteria requires council to consider the degree of political, stakeholder and public interest in the decisions.

Implementation

70. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	CCO Services Assessment Overview	35
b View	Reivew of CCOs - Local Board Views	59

Signatories

Authors

Catherine Syme - Principal Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers

Mark Butcher - Treasurer

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

26 June 2014

Appointments to the Mutukaroa (Hamlin's Hill) Trust

File No.: CP2014/12709

Purpose

1. To nominate a Governing Body member to the Hamlin’s Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust.

Executive summary

2. Mutukaroa is a regional park. It is managed through a trust structure to provide co-management of the park pending the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims.

3. Auckland Council inherits the right to nominate two members of the Trust. In the previous term the Governing Body nominated Sandra Coney and delegated the right to nominate the second member to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. The Board nominated Chris Makoare, who has continued as a member of the Board following the 2013 elections.

4. Sandra Coney was not a candidate for the Governing Body for the 2013 elections and has advised she now wishes to give priority to her responsibilities in Waitakere Ranges. The Governing Body is invited to nominate a member to replace her.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) nominate a member to replace Sandra Coney on the Hamlin’s Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust.

Comments

Hamlin’s Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust

5. The Trust was established in 1996 by Deed between the then Minister of Lands as settlor and Phil Warren (ARC), Hugh Kawharu (Ngāti Whātua), Hariata Gordon (Ngāti Pāoa), Robert Mahuta (Tainui), Les Mills (ACC), Richard Northey (MP).

6. In the deed, the primary object of the Trust related to the land described in the schedule to the deed, being Crown Land. The Trust was to contribute to the control, management, protection and enhancement of the park as a regional park by leasing it to the ARC (now Auckland Council), participating in the statutory management planning of it, offering general advice and raising funds to support selected projects.

7. The trust structure is a mechanism for co-management of Mutukaroa pending the resolution of Treaty of Waitangi claims. Consideration was given to including Mutukaroa in the Tāmaki Collective redress legislation. This has not eventuated, due largely to the fact that not all claimants are represented on the Tamaki Collective.

8. The Trust is required to hold one annual meeting within three months of the end of the financial year and may hold other meetings as required. It has currently been meeting once or twice per year.

9. The name of the Trust on the trust deed is “Hamlin’s Hill (Mutukaroa) Management Trust”. The Trust is seeking to change the name to give prominence to “Mutukaroa” and this is the name of the park that is displayed on signage on the park.

Membership of the Trust

10. The deed requires the Trust to comprise of six trustees. Five are appointed by the Trust’s appointments committee on the nomination of the:

· Auckland Regional Council

· Ngāti Whātua Trust Board

· Ngāti Pāoa Trust Board

· Tainui Maori Trust Board

· Auckland City Council

11. The sixth trustee is the Member of Parliament representing the electorate in which Hamlin’s Hill is located.

12. The Auckland Council inherited the nomination rights of both the Auckland Regional Council and Auckland City Council. The Governing Body has nominated one member, whom it deems to replace the ARC representative, and has delegated the nomination of the other member to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board.

13. The current trustees are:

· Sandra Coney (Auckland Council- nominated by the Governing Body)

· Chris Makoare of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board (Auckland Council – nominated by the Local Board)

· Rangimarie Rawiri (Ngāti Whātua)

· George Kahu (Ngāti Pāoa)

· Tom Roa (Waikato-Tainui)

14. Member of Parliament Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga is a member by virtue of his position.

15. The term of office of trustees is five years. A vacancy arises on a trustee ceasing to hold the office on which the nomination was based. Other grounds include a trustee: becoming bankrupt; being convicted of an offence and liable for a term of imprisonment; having an unsound mind; resigning by notice in writing; failing to attend three consecutive meetings without leave of the chairperson; or being ousted on two-thirds of the votes.

Nomination of a Governing Body member

16. The Governing Body nominated Sandra Coney and delegated the nomination of the other member to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board. Ms Coney did not stand for election to the Governing Body at the 2013 elections and is now the Chairperson of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board. She has indicated that she does not wish to continue on the Trust as she wants to give priority to her responsibilities in the Waitakere Ranges.

17. This report asks the Governing Body to nominate one of its members to the Trust.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. The chairperson of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board has advised that Chris Makoare is continuing as the Board’s nominee to the Trust.

Māori impact statement

19. The trust structure was created as a means of co-managing Mutukaroa, pending resolution of Treaty of Waitangi claims. It provides for representation from Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Pāoa and Waikato-Tainui.

Implementation

20. The appointment will be finalised through the Trust’s appointments committee in time for the annual meeting of the Trust, which will be held within the next three months.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

[1] The transition management policy does not cap changes for some excluded rates. Excluded rates are listed in the policy.

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

Authors	Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Stephen Town - Chief Executive