Agenda of Governing Body - 26 February 2015

Governing Body

26 February 2015

Report of the Hearings Panel on the proposed Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015

File No.: CP2014/16403

Purpose

1. To adopt the new Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 and to revoke eight legacy bylaws relating to trading and events.

Executive summary

2. On 29 May 2014, the Governing Body approved the proposed Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2014/49). Auckland Transport’s Board of Directors considered these matters at its meeting on 29 July 2014 and approved a similar Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw for joint public consultation. At the close of the submission period, a total of 1409 submissions were received, with a further three submissions obtained after submissions had closed. Twenty submitters made verbal submissions during three days of hearings. The hearings panel held its deliberations in public.

3. The joint hearings panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations. Panel members included Councillors Krum (Panel Chairperson), Penrose, Casey, Member Glenn Wilcox (Independent Māori Statutory Board) and Mr Rabin Rabindran (Auckland Transport).

4. As a result of the submissions, the hearings panel recommend amending a number of clauses to clarify the types of activities the bylaw intends to manage and to correct errors and typographical edits subsequently identified in the notified version of the bylaw. The hearings panel also recommend the inclusion of additional clauses based on submissions and staff advice.

5. The hearings panel recommend that due to the volume of submissions on smokefree outdoor dining spaces (1354 of the 1412 submissions), the Governing Body directs staff to commence the review of the Auckland Council Smokefree Policy in 2015, ahead of the scheduled 2016 timeline, to determine if a bylaw is the most appropriate way for managing smokefree public places.

6. The bylaw is proposed to come into effect from 1 July 2015 to align with the date that the fees and charges associated with a number of trading activities are introduced. The revocation of the legacy bylaw clauses relating to trading and events in public places takes effect from that date.

7. The proposed amended Auckland Council bylaw is attached to this report as Attachment A. A table comparing the notified version and recommended amendments to the bylaw is attached as Attachment B. Auckland Transport’s Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw is attached as Attachment C and is for information purposes only.

Recommendations

That the Governing Body:

a) receive and adopt the recommendations of the hearings panel on the Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015.

b) confirm that pursuant to section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 is the most appropriate way for managing trading activities and events in public places, and that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

c) make the proposed Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 (Attachment A to the agenda report) pursuant to Sections 145,146 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002 and section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 with effect from 1 July 2015.

d) revoke in full the following legacy bylaws relating to trading and events in public places with effect from 1 July 2015:

i) Franklin District Council Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2007

ii) Manukau City Council Chapter 7- Events and Trading in Parks and Public Places 2008

iii) North Shore City Council - Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2007

iv) Papakura District Council - Trading in Public Places Bylaw 2008

v) Rodney District Council Chapter 9 – Trading in Public Places 1998

e) revoke in part the following legacy bylaws relating to trading and events in public places with effect from 1 July 2015:

i) Auckland Regional Council Parks Bylaw 2007 (Part 2,clause 6(1)(f))

ii) Auckland City Council Public Places Bylaw 2007(clauses 20.1, 20.6 and 20.7)

iii) Waitakere City Council Public Places Bylaw 2010 (Part 5, clauses 13 and 14)

f) confirm the delegations proposed in Section 3 of the part entitled “Additional information to Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw” in Attachment A to the agenda report.

g) direct staff to:-

(i) commence the review of the Smokefree Policy during 2015, ahead of the scheduled 2016 timeline, to determine if a bylaw is the most appropriate way to achieve the outcomes of Phase 3 of that policy, which includes smokefree al fresco dining;

(ii) review the resources available to ensure the implementation of any smokefree initiatives.

h) direct staff to report back to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on any guidelines or policies developed in consultation with key stakeholders to guide staff involved in the implementation of this bylaw.

i) authorise the Manager, Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with Councillor Krum, as chair of the hearings panel, to make any minor edits or amendments to the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits or to reflect decisions made by the Governing Body.

Background

8. The hearings panel was appointed to hear submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to the governing body of Auckland Council on the proposed Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw (resolution no. RBC/2014/21) and to the Board of Directors of Auckland Transport on the proposed Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw.

9. On 29 May 2014, the Governing Body approved the proposed trading and events in public places bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2014/49). Auckland Transport’s Board of Directors considered these matters at its meeting of 29 July 2014 (refer agenda item 10(iii)) and approved a similar Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw for joint public consultation.

10. The proposal was publicly notified with a submission period of 4 August 2014 to 4 September 2014. A total of 1409 submissions were received with a further three submissions obtained after the submission period had closed. Twenty submitters made verbal submissions during three days of hearings held on 27 November 2014, and 15 & 19 December 2014. The hearings panel held its deliberations in public on the 19 of December 2014.

Overview of written and verbal submissions

11. Submissions were generally made on the proposed Auckland Council bylaw rather than on both bylaws however the hearings panel treated these as submissions to both. The majority of submitters made submissions, either supporting or opposing specific parts and clauses of the proposed bylaw.

12. The majority of submissions received (1354 or 95 per cent) were on smokefree outdoor dining areas and other public places. Submitters included organisations such as the Cancer Society, Auckland Regional Public Health Services, Heart Foundation, Te Ara Hā Ora: The National Māori Tobacco Control Service and private individuals. While this topic is beyond the scope of the bylaw in terms of creating smokefree outdoor dining spaces, the hearings panel did hear from submitters.

13. Twenty submitters made verbal submissions during three days of hearings held. The panel heard from submitters on a range of issues including:

· smokefree outdoor dining spaces (and other activities such as markets,stalls and, events);

· use of shared space areas;

· requests for exemptions from the requirement to obtain approval for community groups, sports clubs, or produce stalls;

· fundraising activities;

· distribution of promotional material and street marketing;

· a tourist operator and;

· healthy food at markets and stalls.

Deliberations

14. The hearings panel held its deliberations in public on 19 December 2014. To prepare this report, the matters deliberated on by the hearings panel have been categorised into 18 topic areas (Table one) and are presented in the order that they were discussed.

Table one: Deliberations topics and relevant bylaw clause

Deliberation topic	Bylaw clause
Topic 1 – Smokefree outdoor dining	Not applicable
Topic 2 – Title and commencement date	Clauses 1 and 2
Topic 3 - Interpretation	Clause 5
Topic 4 - Exemptions to holding an approval	Clause 7
Topic 5 – Application for approval	Clause 9
Topic 6 – Deciding an application	Clause 10
Topic 7 – Approval conditions	Clause11
Topic 8 – Review of an approval	Clause 14
Topic 9 – Markets and stalls	Clause 15
Topic 10 – Mobile shops	Clause 16
Topic 11 - Outdoor dining	Clause 17
Topic 12 - Fundraising	Clause 18
Topic 13 - Offering commercial services	Clause 19
Topic 14 - Distribution of promotional goods	Clause 20
Topic 15 - Street performance / busking	Clause 21
Topic 16 - Events ( including filming)	Clause 23
Topic 17 - Outdoor displays of goods	Clause 24
Topic 18 – Non-compliance with conditions	Clause 25

Deliberations Topic 1 – Smokefree outdoor dining

Proposal as publicly notified

15. This issue was not explicitly mentioned in the proposed Auckland Council bylaw, although there was a reference to the Smokefree Policy in relation to deciding an application (clause 10). The accompanying Statement of Proposal did refer to smoking in terms of the impact it has on outdoor dining spaces, however the intent was not to include it in the bylaw. The reason for this was because throughout the bylaw development phase staff took into consideration the scheduled review in 2016 of the Auckland Council Smokefree Policy. Part of this review involves determining whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way for achieving the policy’s outcomes such as smokefree outdoor dining.

Matters raised in submissions

16. There were 1354 submissions on smokefree public places. The majority of the submissions were from private individuals and were primarily proformas (this included either an on-line submission formulated by the Cancer Society or a hard-copy form). Common matters raised in the submissions were the negative impacts of smoking on other users of public places and the amenity of an area (littering and odour) and health implications (for both smokers and non-smokers).

17. Ten submitters presented to the hearings panel over the three days of hearings, reiterating the above points about the negative impacts of smoking on users of public places. The panel heard from the Cancer Society, Auckland Regional Public Health and Te Ara Hā Ora: The National Māori Tobacco Control Service as well as verbal submissions from private individuals. All the submissions (both written and verbal) called for the inclusion of smokefree outdoor dining places in the proposed bylaw. Some submitters also requested that markets, stalls and events be included on the grounds there is support for other smokefree public spaces, the bylaw would result in higher compliance rates and, in some states in Australia where it is already regulated it has proven to be an effective approach.

Hearings Panel deliberations

18. The hearings panel deliberated on the views of the submitters and acknowledged both the written and verbal submissions. The panel recognised however that this issue was not explicitly mentioned in the notified bylaw (noting that there is only one reference to the term ‘smokefree’ in the bylaw). As a result interested and potentially affected persons and organisations were unaware that the council may impose restrictions and therefore did not make submissions supporting or opposing such measures. The panel recommend to the Governing Body that the scheduled 2016 review of the Smokefree Policy be brought forward to 2015 and that clause 11 (‘Approval conditions’) be amended to include a requirement that any approval granted must comply with Auckland Council policies and plans, including the Smokefree Policy.

Deliberations Topic 2 – Title and commencement date (clauses 1 and 2)

Proposal as publicly notified

19. The notified version had the title “Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2014” as the time of drafting it was anticipated that the bylaw would be adopted in 2014. The date the bylaw comes into effect is 1 July 2015 to align with when the fees associated with some activities are introduced (as per the Long Term Plan).

Hearings panel deliberations

20. No submissions were received on this. Staff recommended to the panel at deliberations that the dates be amended to reflect when the bylaw will be adopted (in 2015) and when it comes into effect. The panel recommend the proposal as amended.

Deliberations Topic 3 – Interpretation (clause 5)

Proposal as publicly notified

21. Clause 5 contains interpretations of terms used in the bylaw.

Matters raised in submissions

22. Twelve submitters commented on a number of terms in the notified bylaw. Most of the submissions commented that definitions of certain terms were too broad and could be open to mis-interpretation. These included the definitions of:

· ‘commercial services’

· ‘event’

· ‘filming’

· ‘mobile shop’

· ‘outdoor display of goods.’

23. Other terms that were commented on included the notified definition of ‘street furniture’, ‘vehicle’ and ‘trading in public place’. Three submissions recommended the inclusion of new definitions including ‘continuous accessible path of travel’, ‘shared space areas’ and, ‘smoke’, ‘smokefree’ and, ‘smokefree signage’.

Hearings panel deliberations

24. The panel noted the comments from the submitters (both written and verbal submissions) and deliberated on all the clauses (including those that that were not the subject of any submissions but, were recommended by staff for amending).

25. Following deliberations, the panel recommend that definitions be amended or added. These amendments, plus reasons for changes, are outlined on pages 2 to 10 of Attachment B to this report.

Deliberations Topic 4 – Exemptions to holding an approval (clause 7)

Proposal as publicly notified

26. The notified bylaw listed a number of activities that were exempt from the requirement to hold approval. These include outdoor display of goods, council-installed public art, goods or services delivered to private premises and the sale of goods (such as produce) or the offering of services from private premises.

Matters raised in submissions

27. There were seven submissions calling for other activities to be exempt such as small-scale fundraisers and community groups.

28. The panel heard from three submitters on this matter calling for exemptions for the following activities:

· outdoor fitness operators who run boot-camp type activities in parks;

· amateur organised sports clubs such as the North Shore Cricket Club who hold fundraising activities;

· the sale of produce from a produce stall as this is a permitted activity in rural areas in the Unitary Plan.

Hearings panel deliberations

29. The panel recommend that amendments to this clause be made to make it clear that the above activities are exempted from the requirement to obtain approval. In addition, the reference to the sale of goods or offering of services from private premises, as it featured in the notified version, has been removed and replaced with the clause on ‘produce stalls’.

Deliberations Topic 5 – Application for approval (clause 9)

Proposal as publicly notified

30. The notified proposal outlined the process for making an application for an approval including the requirement for it to be made on the prescribed form and the ability for the council to refuse an application based on terms and conditions that the council ‘thinks fit”.

Matters raised in submissions

31. Two submissions were received on this matter. One submission expressed concern that approvals could be granted or refused at the discretion of the council which could potentially lead to unfettered decision making.

Hearings panel deliberations

32. The panel recommend that clause 9(3) – regarding the ability for the council to refuse an application as it thinks fit - be deleted and replaced with a new clause 10(1) to remove any ambiguity.

Deliberations Topic 6 – Deciding an application (clause 10)

Proposal as publicly notified

33. The notified version detailed the process for deciding to grant or refuse an application taking into consideration matters such as location of the activity; specifications of any structures, impact on surrounding environment; the applicant’s suitability and track record and; whether the activity is consistent with any Auckland Council policies and plans, including but not limited to, the Smokefree Policy and gambling policies.

Matters raised in submissions

34. Eight submissions were received on this matter with most stating that there should be an ability for other stakeholders (such as local business associations) to decide an application. A number of submitters expressed concern that decisions could be made based on guidelines developed by the council that may not have been consulted on. Three submitters commented that the provision to be consistent with any council policies or plans may not meet the requirements that the bylaw be reasonable, clear and certain.

Hearings panel deliberations

35. The panel recommend that clause 10(1) be amended with a new clause added (as per comments under paragraph 33) and notified clauses re-numbered to reflect changes. The panel agrees that the reference in the revised clause 10(2) – previously 10(1) - to guidelines approved by the council, should include the terms “by resolution”. The rationale for including “by resolution” is to relieve concerns expressed by some submitters – both in the written and verbal submissions – that guidelines may be made without any consultation with key stakeholders.

36. Other recommendations include replacing “may” with “must” and, amending clause 10(3)(c) to require appropriate mitigation of any potential impact the activity may have on other users of the public place.

Deliberations Topic 7 – Approval conditions (clause 11)

Proposal as publicly notified

37. The notified version outlines the conditions that may be included in an approval ranging from the location of activity, duration and compliance with safety, health and hygiene requirements. There is also a requirement that any trading activity must maintain a minimum unobstructed width of no less than 1.8m.

Matters raised in submissions

38. Eleven submissions were received on this matter. There were a number of comments on the minimum 1.8m footpath clearance with most supporting this requirement. The submission from Skycity stated that this provision is not appropriate for shared space areas on the basis that these areas generally do not have footpaths. The submission from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service recommended that as part of the condition of an approval being granted, any activity involving the sale of food should be required to name the food types.

Hearings panel deliberations

39. The panel recommend the amendments clause 11 to reflect some of the concerns raised by the submitters as well as comments from staff on editing. These amendments, plus reasons for changes, are outlined on pages 14 and 15 of Attachment B to this report.

Deliberations Topic 8 – Review of an approval (clause 14)

Proposal as publicly notified

40. The notified version detailed the process for reviewing an approval. This includes the ability for the council to cancel, amend, or initiate a review of an approval if the activity is likely to interfere with intended council works or urgent action is required to protect health or safety or to minimise nuisances.

Matters raised in submissions

41. One submission was received on this matter calling for the inclusion of the word ‘unreasonable’ before the word “nuisance”.

Hearings panel deliberations

42. The panel recommend, following discussion on this matter and advice from staff, that the word ‘unreasonable’ is inserted before the term “obstruction” rather than “nuisance” as there are some difficulties in determining what an “unreasonable nuisance” is compared to an “unreasonable obstruction”.

Deliberations Topic 9 – Markets and stalls (clause 15)

Proposal as publicly notified

43. The notified version detailed specific conditions that may apply to any person who has approval to run a market or operating a stall (in addition to the general ones outlined in clause 11). Conditions include controls over location of a market and any signs and displays, the type, number and size of stalls within markets and, a requirement to comply with food hygiene regulations where food is to be sold.

Matters raised in submissions

44. Thirteen submissions were received on this matter with most supporting the requirement to obtain approval. The Auckland Regional Public Health Service (ARPHS) recommended the council consider introducing access to health food stalls and markets and they also sought clarification as to who is responsible for non-compliance (the individual stall holders or market organiser). ARPHS and the Cancer Society’s submissions called for smokefree markets and stalls. One submitter commented that the word ‘exact’ (before the word “location” as stated in sub-clause 1(a)) be removed as the council should not be micro-managing locations.

Hearings Panel deliberations

45. The panel noted the submissions regarding smokefree markets and stalls but, as per the comments in paragraph 18, will now be considered as part of the 2015 review of the Smokefree Policy rather than in this proposed bylaw.

Deliberations Topic 10 – Mobile shops (clause 16)

Proposal as publicly notified

46. The notified version detailed specific conditions that may apply to any person who is operating a mobile shop (in addition to the general ones outlined in clause 11). Conditions include controls over the location of a mobile shop and any signs and displays, the hours or days that a mobile shop occupies a space at any one time, types of goods that can be sold and, a requirement to comply with food hygiene regulations where food is to be sold.

Matters raised in submissions

47. Nineteen submissions were received on this topic. Most of the comments focused on the impacts of mobile vendors located in proximity to fixed businesses selling similar products, or near town centres. There were two submissions commenting on the social and economic effects some mobile shop operators who offer a financial service are having on some local areas. Two mobile shop operators commented on the positive impacts they have on the community in terms of offering services such as produce or seasonal products.

Hearings panel deliberations

48. While there were no verbal submissions on this topic, the panel recommend that, based on the written submissions around minimising the effects of mobile shops on local businesses selling similar products, and the impacts on the local environment, that an additional sub-clause (1)(e), be added which requires approved operators to appropriately mitigate any adverse effects.

Deliberations Topic 11 – Outdoor dining (clause 17)

Proposal as publicly notified

49. The notified version detailed specific conditions that may apply to any person who has approval for an outdoor dining area (in addition to the general ones outlined in clause 11). Conditions include the requirement to delineate the outdoor dining area, controls on the number of tables and chairs permitted – including limits on additional seating – and, ensuring that awnings allow for clear visibility.

Matters raised in submissions

50. Seventeen submissions were received on this topic and most were in support of issues such as the requirement to have approval; maintaining a minimum unobstructed width of 1.8m and the need to minimise obstructions from furniture. One submission commented on the requirement for awnings to have clear visibility.

Hearings Panel deliberations

51. The panel deliberated on sub-clause (1)(d) regarding awnings and while they noted the submission on this topic, recommend that based on comments from staff, additional wording be included that they [awnings] should not cause obstructions or compromise safety.

Deliberations Topic 12 – Fundraising (clause 18)

Proposal as publicly notified

52. The notified version detailed specific conditions that may apply to any organisation that has approval to do fundraising (in addition to the general ones outlined in clause 11). Conditions include a requirement that charities are registered with the Department of Internal Affairs, that any collection devices used for appeals are clearly identified, and that information is provided to donors.

Matters raised in submissions

53. There were 27 submissions on this topic. Overall the majority of submissions supported continuing the regulation of this activity by a bylaw. A number of the submissions commented on the role of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA) in regulating and monitoring face to face fundraising. The PFRA in its submission recommended amending one of the clauses to make it a requirement that charities are registered with the Inland Revenue Department.

Hearings panel deliberations

54. The panel noted the written and verbal submission from the PFRA and their comments that the proposed bylaw is an appropriate way for regulating fundraising activities. It also agreed to amend sub-clause (1)(a) to include a reference to the Inland Revenue Department. The panel also recommend the inclusion of an additional sub-clause to manage the location and hours of collections as per the written submission from Heart of the City.

Deliberations Topic 13 – Offering commercial services (clause 19)

Proposal as publicly notified

55. The notified version outlines the specific conditions that may apply to any operator who has approval to offer a commercial service (in addition to the general ones outlined in clause 11). Examples of this activity include the hire of recreational equipment (such as bikes and kayaks) or guided tours. Conditions include controls on location - including whether there are multiple sites – and the quality and standards of services being offered. There were also conditions on minimising the potential impact on local businesses and residential areas.

Matters raised in submissions

56. Nine submissions were received on this topic. Four submitters supported the requirement for these operators to obtain approval and generally agreed with the set of conditions for this activity, in particular the one on minimising the impact on local businesses and the local environment. While one submitter opposed any approvals being given to outdoor fitness operators on the grounds that they should not be able to monopolise public spaces, two submitters recommended exemptions for this activity.

Hearings panel deliberations

57. The panel noted the written and verbal submission from an outdoor fitness operator recommending that this activity be exempted from the requirement to obtain approval on the grounds that it would deter people from engaging in physical activity. The panel recommend that this type of commercial service be included in the activities listed under clause 7 (‘Exemptions’). The panel also noted and accepted the staff’s recommendation that the notified version of sub-clauses (1)(c) and (1)(d) – on minimising the impact on local businesses, local environments and residential areas - be amended to read more clearly.

Deliberations Topic 14 – Distribution of promotional goods and materials (clause 20)

Proposal as publicly notified

58. The notified version outlines the specific conditions that may apply to any person or organisation that has approval to distribute promotional goods and materials (in addition to the general ones outlined in clause 11). Conditions include controls on location - including whether there are multiple sites – and the quality and standards of services being offered. There were also conditions on minimising the potential impact on local businesses and residential areas and that any goods or materials being distributed are not discriminatory, objectionable or cause serious offence.

Matters raised in submissions

59. Twelve submissions were received on this topic. Over half the submitters supported the requirement to obtain approval to minimise any potential impacts such as excessive littering and obstructions. Conversely, one submitter opposed any controls on small businesses that rely on leaflet drops to generate business while a further two submitters objected to any regulation on the content of the material on the grounds that it is inconsistent with freedom of expression. One of the submissions was from an organisation (Experiential Marketing Association of New Zealand – EMANZ) that represents the industry undertaking this activity. Their submission detailed how this is an emerging activity and supported the proposal to regulate it.

Hearings panel deliberations

60. The panel noted the written submissions and verbal presentation from EMANZ and agreed that this activity should be controlled by a bylaw. The panel also noted and accepted the staff’s recommendation that the notified version of sub-clauses (1)(c) and (1)(d) – on minimising the impact on local businesses, local environments and residential areas - be amended to read more clearly.

Deliberations Topic 15 – Street Performance / busking (clause 21)

Proposal as publicly notified

61. The notified version of the bylaw outlined the conditions for street performers / buskers which include restrictions on approaching individuals for money; that all practicable steps must be done to minimise harm and; that any street performances involving the use of dangerous materials or objects obtain a special street performance approval.

Matters raised in submissions

62. Twelve submissions were received on this topic. Five submitters supported the requirement for street performers to obtain approval with a further five commenting that business associations should be able to have a role in approving applications. The submission from the Heart of the City recommended adding another clause requiring street performers to comply with a code of conduct.

Hearings panel deliberations

63. The panel noted the written submissions on this activity and recommend that a new sub-clause be added requiring street performers to follow any code of conduct, approved by the council by resolution, for street performances.

Deliberations Topic 16 – Events (clause 23)

Proposal as publicly notified

64. The notified version of the bylaw outlined additional matters that need to be taken into consideration when deciding to grant approval for an event (in addition to those specified in clause 10 of the bylaw - ‘Deciding an application’). These include considering whether there is a prior booking of the space requested and the two events cannot reasonably take place at the same time and whether there will be significant disruption to traffic flows or any impacts on public safety.

Matters raised in submissions

65. Fourteen submissions were received on this topic. Submitters generally supported the requirement for event (and filming) organisers to obtain approval with a further three in favour of allowing business associations to have a role in approving applications. Two submitters commented on the impact the proposal could have on amateur filmmakers stating that the wording of the bylaw could be interpreted to mean that any person filming in a public place, whether for personal or commercial reasons, would require approval.

Hearings panel deliberations

66. The panel noted the written submissions and have accepted staff’s recommendations that the definition of filming (as defined in clause 5 of the bylaw) be amended to clarify that it does not apply to amateur or private filming. The panel also accepted staff’s recommendation that the term ‘filming’ be added to both the title of the clause and sub-clauses.

Deliberations Topic 17 – Outdoor display of goods (clause 24)

Proposal as publicly notified

67. The notified version of the bylaw outlined the conditions for any person displaying goods outside their business. While this activity is exempt from the requirement to obtain approval (as per clause 7 of the bylaw under ‘Exemptions’) there are still conditions that must be complied with. These include ensuring outdoor displays do impede pedestrian or vehicle movement; are placed immediately adjoining the relevant premises and do not contain weapons or firearms or are dangerous. Additionally, they must not be placed on a carriageway, driveway/footpath, crossing, grass verge or traffic island.

Matters raised in submissions

68. Ten submissions were received on this topic. One submitter opposed the exemption for outdoor displays on the grounds that other activities such as outdoor dining had to gain consent and pay fees. Three submitters commented on the impact of displays on pedestrian movement with one noting that they are not permitted in the Auckland CBD. There were several submissions recommending that the terms ‘footpath’ and ‘driveway’ should be removed.

Hearings panel deliberations

69. The panel noted the written submissions and recommend amending ‘footpath’ and ‘driveway’ as per comments from several submitters. The panel accepted the staff’s recommendation on a minor editing amendment.

Deliberations Topic 18 – Non-compliance with conditions of approval (clause 25)

Proposal as publicly notified

70. The notified version of the bylaw outlines the process for dealing with any person who does not comply with the conditions of their approval. This includes issuing a written warning; reviewing the approval and enforcing any breach of the bylaw as provided for under the Local Government Act 2002, Land Transport Act 1998, Health Act 1956 or Litter Act 1979. It also summarises the result of a review of any approval which could include amendment, suspension or withdrawal.

Matters raised in submissions

71. Two submissions were received on this topic. Skycity’s submission recommended that an additional condition as a result of any review should be that ‘no further action’ is required. The submission from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment suggested that the council look at implementing systems to deal with operators who breach their approval through unsatisfactory trading practices or malpractice.

Hearings panel deliberations

72. The panel noted the written submissions and recommend adding an additional condition.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

73. The views of the local boards were sought through three rounds of workshops (November 2011, August – September 2012 and, October – November 2013) to discuss the review and obtain feedback on the proposed approach to managing trading and events in public places. Staff presented at a Local Board Chairs Forum (March 2014) and local board members were also encouraged to provide feedback on a People’s Panel survey (also conducted in March 2014). The majority of local boards supported the outlined approach - providing regulatory support for the various activities through the trading and events in public places bylaws, requiring approval and charging a fee based on the type of activity.

Māori impact statement

74. Council staff presented at two hui in 2013 to discuss trading and events in public places. No issues were identified as having a significant impact on Māori and most of the feedback focused on ensuring that the any bylaw and associated controls would enable participation in trading activities and events and support individuals and communities to develop and sustain both managerial and entrepreneurial capabilities.

General

75. The proposed bylaw has been developed through pre-consultation with political, internal and external stakeholders, including elected members of the Governing Body (Regulatory and Bylaws Committee Working Party), Auckland Transport, all local boards, council departments and units, and other council controlled organisations, business associations, disability groups, trading operators and key industry stakeholders.

76. The panel would like to thank all those who contributed to the consultation process. The contributions from submitters and other stakeholders have been greatly appreciated.

Implementation

77. The Social Policy and Bylaws unit together with Licensing and Compliance Services are developing an operations policy and procedures manual to guide staff on the implementation of this bylaw. Staff will be reporting back to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on this policy manual and any other guidelines that are developed in relation to this bylaw (such as those for shared space areas and mobile shops).

78. The implementation requirements of any smokefree initiatives that are developed as a result of the review of the Smokefree Policy in 2015 will be a key consideration. This includes reviewing requirements for monitoring and enforcement, signage and public communications.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Council Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015	25
b View	Comparison between notified and amended version of the Auckland Council bylaw.	47
c View	Auckland Transport Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw 2015	71

Signatories

Author	Councillor Denise Krum – Chairperson Hearings Panel
Authoriser	Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

26 February 2015

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Model Review

File No.: CP2015/01490

Purpose

1. To seek endorsement the draft Terms of Reference for the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Model Review.

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (the Act) established a model for providing adequate, sustainable and secure funding to specified regional amenities, and ensuring that the local authorities of the Auckland region contribute to that funding. Initially established in the context of the then city and district councils of the Auckland region, the Auckland Council replaced the Auckland region’s former local authorities in 2010. Issues arising out of the Act’s operation, including litigation, led to a questioning of whether the funding model remains fit for purpose.

3. The Mayor’s proposal for the 2014/15 Annual Plan, adopted by the Budget Committee on 8 May 2014, included a one-off capital grant to the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust and a review of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding legislation.

4. The purpose of the review is to provide advice to Auckland Council on whether the funding model for the specified amenities as established by the Act remains fit for purpose, and identify any changes to the model to enhance its effectiveness. The review will work through the issues, identify evaluation criteria and options, and after evaluation, identify the preferred option.

5. Council staff engaged with the amenities and other stakeholders in the development of the agreed draft Terms of Reference, which incorporates their input. The draft Terms of Reference provide for an open and transparent review and Council staff will work closely with a small group representing the amenities.

6. It is proposed to undertake the review in accordance with the attached draft Terms of Reference, which sets out the purpose, objectives, scope and process for the review.

7. The review’s findings could hold implications for Auckland Council’s financial planning cycle and the cycle of funding rounds required under the Act. The review has therefore been timed to align with these cycles and is targeted to conclude in August 2015.

8. Decisions will be sought from Auckland Council at key stages of the review and Councillors will receive regular updates on progress.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) endorse the Terms of Reference for the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Model Review (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Discussion

Background

9. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (the Act) established a model for providing adequate, sustainable and secure funding to specified regional amenities, and ensuring that the local authorities of the Auckland region contribute to that funding. Initially established in the context of the then city and district councils of the Auckland region, the Auckland Council replaced the Auckland region’s former local authorities in 2010. Issues arising out of the Act’s operation, including litigation, led to a questioning of whether the funding model remains fit for purpose.

10. The Mayor’s proposal for the 2014/15 Annual Plan, adopted by the Budget Committee on 8 May 2014, included a one-off capital grant to the Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust and a review of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding legislation.

11. The review will consider whether the funding model remains fit for purpose, and identify any changes to the model to enhance its effectiveness.

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act

12. The Act established a funding model to “provide adequate, sustainable, and secure funding for” 10 specified regional amenities. Each amenity is described as a part of the fabric of the Auckland region and necessary to make the region vibrant and an attractive place to live:

· Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board

· Auckland Philharmonia

· Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust

· Auckland Theatre Company

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated

· New Zealand National Maritime Museum

· New Zealand Opera Limited

· Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated

· Auckland Festival Trust

· Watersafe Auckland Incorporated

13. The Act created a Funding Board with six members appointed by Auckland Council and four members appointed by an Amenities Board, also created by the Act. The specified regional amenities apply each year to the Funding Board for next year’s funding.

14. The Act prescribes and makes provision for additional funding principles that the Funding Board and Auckland Council must have regard to. The Funding Board confers with Auckland Council and prepares and consults on a funding plan, before recommending a levy to Auckland Council for the next financial year. Auckland Council approves the recommended levy or arbitration results. The Funding Board subsequently receives the levy and allocates funding to the regional amenities.

15. The Act has been successful in meeting its twin purposes; providing adequate, sustainable and secure funding, and ensuring that Auckland Council contributes to funding. However, the establishment of the Auckland Council and matters arising out of the Act’s operation have led to a questioning of whether the funding model remains fit for purpose post-amalgamation.

The Review

16. The review is limited to the funding model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. The Act is stand-alone legislation creating new entities, ascribing roles and functions and specifying the initial ten amenities that “contribute to well-being of the whole region by proving services and facilities to the whole community.”

17. It is proposed that the review be undertaken in accordance with the attached Terms of Reference, which set out the:

· Background

· Purpose

· Objectives

· Scope

· Process to be followed through until August 2015

· Issues identified by the respective parties.

18. The purpose of the review is to:

(a) review the current funding mechanism established by the Act in the context of the Auckland Council as unitary authority for the Auckland region and its legislative framework;

(b) identify the issues associated with the current model/system and the options for addressing the issues;

(d) identify options and their respective advantages and disadvantages;

(e) provide advice on a preferred option or options and recommended changes (if any) to the funding system to enhance its effectiveness.

19. It is intended that the review, so far as practicable, will work towards a high level of agreement across the Auckland Council, the amenities, Amenities Board and Funding Board. The analysis, reports and recommendations will be comprehensive and include the views of all stakeholders. Council staff will work with representatives (3-4) of the Amenities to ensure their views and perspectives are incorporated in reports presented to Council. The review process also provides for two stakeholder meetings if required.

20. At its meeting on 11 February 2015, the Amenities Board confirmed that the representatives of the amenities are:

· Barbara Glaser (Auckland Philharmonia)

· Jonny Gritt (Watersafe Auckland Incorporated)

· Greg Barrow (Auckland Regional Helicopter Trust)

· David Houldsworth (Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board).

21. The Council’s financial planning cycle, particularly the Long Term Plan (LTP), and the cycle of funding rounds under the Act set the timeline for the review, which is intended to be completed by the end of August 2015. The review seeks to ensure that the findings are able to be reflected in respective financial and planning cycles beyond 2015/16. Even so, the implementation of any recommendations may not be able to be fully completed until the next financial year.

22. In addition to decisions sought from Auckland Council at key stages of the review, Councillors will receive regular updates on progress. It is proposed to report as follows:

Confirm evaluation criteria March/April 2015

Confirm options May/June 2015

Update report July 2015

Consideration of preferred option August 2015

Stakeholder Engagement

23. Council staff have worked with the amenities on the development of the agreed Terms of Reference.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

24. All amenities specified under the act are regional and the review is limited to the funding model established under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. The draft terms of reference have been circulated to local boards for their feedback. Further feedback on the review will be sought at the Local Board Chairs meeting in March 2015.

Māori Impact Statement

25. The review is limited to the funding model established under the Act. The process and policy through which specified amenities may be added is out of scope. The specified amenities provide a range of facilities and services to Auckland (including arts, culture, education and water safety) that are of interest to Māori. For this reason the Act requires membership of the Funding Board to include someone to represent the interests of Māori in the Auckland region.

Implementation Issues

26. The outcome of the review is identification of the preferred option. Implementation will be consequential on subsequent reporting and decision making.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Terms of Reference	91

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron – Principal Advisor, CCO Monitoring & External Relationships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - General Manager, Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

26 February 2015

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act Review

Terms of Reference

Background

1. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) is a private Act which sets a separate statutory process or mechanism for the Council to provide funding to certain charitable organisations or “specified amenities” that operate in the Auckland region.

2. The ten specified amenities which receive funding under the Act are:

• Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board

• Auckland Philharmonia

• Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust

• Auckland Theatre Company Limited

• Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated

• New Zealand National Maritime Museum Trust Board

• New Zealand Opera Limited

• Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated

• The Auckland Festival Trust

• Watersafe Auckland Incorporated

3. The Act has two purposes:

(a) To establish a mechanism to provide adequate, sustainable, and secure funding for specified amenities that, by providing arts, education, rescue, or community facilities for or services to the Auckland region,—

(i) contribute to the well-being of the region; and

(ii) contribute towards making Auckland a vibrant and attractive place to live in and visit; and

(b) To ensure that the Auckland Council is part of the mechanism and so contributes towards the funding of the specified amenities.

4. The Act was passed in 2008 to address two main issues:

(a) At the time, the amenities were required to make separate applications to multiple councils and various trusts for funding. The grants were often ad-hoc and short term. The process did not provide adequate and secure funding for the amenities. Several amenities were at risk of financial failure.

(b) Most of the amenities were based in central Auckland and a disproportionate burden fell on the old Auckland City Council even though the benefits were regional and not local.

5. On 1 November 2010, the Auckland Council was formed by amalgamation of the seven legacy territorial authorities and the regional council.

6. Consequential amendments were made to the Act at the time the Council was formed, but a full review of the Act has not been undertaken. The Act continues to provide a mechanism for ongoing funding of the specified amenities, while retaining independent assessment and allocation of funds for operational expenditure of the amenities from an annual levy on ratepayers.

7. The current legislative framework that the Council operates under requires extensive decision making and planning processes and a focus on achieving community outcomes. This framework includes the Auckland Plan and the Long Term Plan adopted under the Local Government Act 2002. The Act sits outside this framework.

8. The Council is of the view that it is necessary and appropriate to review the funding system established by the Act, in the context of the Council’s wider statutory obligations and processes and the needs of the individual amenities, to consider whether the funding mechanism remains fit for purpose.

9. At a meeting chaired by the Mayor, with representatives of the Amenities, the Amenities Board and the Funding Board on 8 December 2014, it was generally agreed that it is an appropriate time for such a review.

10. Further background to, and history of, the Act is set out in the attached Schedule 1.

Purpose of Review

11. The purpose of the review is to:

(a) Review the current funding mechanism established by the Act in the context of the Auckland Council as unitary authority for the Auckland region and its legislative framework;

(b) Identify the issues associated with the current model/system and the options for addressing the issues^{^[1]};

(d) Identify options and their respective advantages and disadvantages;

(e) Provide advice on a preferred option or options and recommended changes (if any) to the funding system to enhance its effectiveness.

Objective

12. The objective is to achieve long term sustainable, affordable and predictable funding of the existing amenities while recognising the Council’s purpose and responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 and other legislation.

13. The review will carefully consider the issues and desired outcomes (set out in the attached Schedule 2) and all the options. There are potentially a wide range of options ranging from maintaining the status quo to amending the Act or replacing the funding mechanism under the Act. Depending on the outcome of the review, legislative changes may be necessary. The assessment of options and any preferences will need to take into account the relevant legislative procedure and the level of support of the Amenities. If required, legislative change may be more easily obtained with the support of the amenities

14. A list of issues that have been identified to date and the desired outcomes of the review from each Stakeholder’s point of view is in Schedule 2. This list is not comprehensive but is intended to provide a context and starting point for the review.

15. The review will consider the following objectives for the funding model:

• enhanced certainty and predictability through consideration of a three year funding / longer term financial planning cycle

• delivery of a secure, base-level of funding that encourages and supports fund raising by the amenities

• addressing the challenge of funding a diverse range of amenities with differing requirements for capital and operational funding

• the ability to leverage Auckland Council’s size, scale and connections to enhance the opportunities to raise funds and secure contributions from other parties

• ensuring decision-making processes are open, transparent and politically accountable.

• enabling alignment between the funding process and the wider legislative framework that sets the Council’s role and responsibilities for community outcomes.

• delivering a “sustainable funding mechanism” that can be sustained financially long term by both Council and the amenities.

Scope

16. The review will consider the current legislative requirements and the funding process under the Act in the context of the Councils’ legislative requirements including the Local Government Act 2002 and any relevant strategies and policies.

17. The review will not consider whether the specified amenities should or should not receive funding. It is assumed that the specified amenities will continue to receive funding from the Council.

18. Other matters which are outside the scope of this review are:

(a) The process and policy through which an organisation could be added or removed to the list of specified amenities under the Act.

(b) The funding models for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology. A separate review concerning museums is being undertaken by Regional Facilities Auckland.

Methodology/Process

19. It is intended, as far as practicable, for the review process to work towards a high level of agreement across the Stakeholders and Auckland Council. The analysis, reports and recommendations will be comprehensive and include the views of all Stakeholders. The Stakeholders, for the purpose of this review are:

· the Amenities specified under the Act

· the Amenities Board

· the Funding Board

20. In undertaking the review, Council staff will work with representatives (3-4) of the Amenities to ensure their views and perspectives are incorporated in reports presented to Council.

21. The process also provides for views to be sought from within Auckland Council, including input by local boards.

22. It is intended that the review will be completed (but the recommendations not necessarily yet implemented) prior to the Funding Plan for 2016/17 being prepared by the Funding Board. The review will therefore be completed and a preferred option or options will be recommended in August 2015.

23. The approach to the review has three phases:

Phase 1 — Current state mapping

· Current state assessment – identify issues and opportunities that the review needs to address

· Gather evidence on the key issues with the current model (ie the Act, in the context of the Council’s statutory framework)

· Develop criteria to assess options (assessment criteria)

Phase 2 — Identification of Issues and Options

· Identify and research options for addressing the issues identified (including maintaining the status quo and repeal of the Act)

Phase 3 — Assessment of options against criteria and reporting

· Evaluate options against assessment criteria

· Identify preferred funding option or options and make recommendations

Process/Timeline

24. The review, through the three phases, will be undertaken between October 2014 and August 2015 as indicated below. In keeping with paragraph 20, there will be on-going engagement between Council staff and the Amenities’ representatives throughout the review. Meetings may be required between the Mayor and all Stakeholders as indicated below:

Phase One — Current state mapping and identification of criteria (October 2014 to April 2015)
· Identification of the key issues, objectives and out-of-scope for the review · Meeting with Mayor and Stakeholders (Stakeholder Meeting) · Outline the process by which the review will be progressed identifying key milestones	Stakeholder Meeting (8 December 2014)	October/ December 2014
· Seek input into Terms of Reference re issues and background from stakeholders (as agreed) · Refinement of Terms of Reference		December 2014/January 2015
Finalise Terms of Reference		January/ February 2015
Reporting the Draft Terms of Reference to Council for confirmation · Report to Governing Body (26 February 2015)	Report to Auckland Council	February 2015
Information gathering: · Identify and investigate the issues		December 2014/ February 2015
Investigations & Criteria · Develop draft criteria for the evaluation of options		March/April 2015
Report to Council · Report to Council on the issues and options · Confirm criteria for the evaluation of options	Report to Auckland Council	March/April 2015
Phase Two — Identification of Issues and Options (May to June 2015)**
· Identify and investigate potential options and associated advantages / disadvantages · Define and describe options · Confirm options		May 2015
Meeting with Mayor and Stakeholders (Stakeholder Meeting) · Introduce options for discussion and comment including relative advantages and disadvantages	Stakeholder Meeting*	May 2015
Report to Council	Report to Auckland Council	May/June 2015
Phase Three — Assessment of options against criteria and reporting (June to August 2015)**
Evaluation of options / identify preferred option: · Evaluation of options against criteria · Identify preferred option · Investigate implementation requirements · Prepare draft-draft report · Circulate draft report to stakeholders		June 2015
Update Report to Council	Report to Auckland Council	June 2015
Meeting with Mayor and Stakeholders (Stakeholder Meeting) · Discuss the evaluation of options, preferred option and potential implications · Discuss and explore the implementation of the preferred option including process and potential timelines · Next steps	Stakeholder Meeting*	July 2015
Report to Council recommending: · Preferred option and recommendations · Process for implementation and associated time frames	Report to Auckland Council	August 2015
Formally report back to stakeholders on the confirmed option	Report back	August 2015

* Please Note – Meeting between Mayor and Stakeholders will only be held if required.

** Please note, that the timeframes will be refreshed at the commencement of each phase.

Schedule 1

Background and History of the Act and the Funding Model

1. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) is a Private Act. A private or a Government Bill is required to amend or repeal the Act.

2. The Act provides a funding mechanism for approved regional amenities in Auckland (Amenities) through the establishment of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board (Funding Board) as an independent body which assesses funding applications from the Amenities, and charges a levy on Auckland ratepayers, via Council, to pay this funding. Currently there are ten Amenities designated under the Act. The Act also provides for the establishment of an Amenities Board (Amenities Board) to make appointments to the Funding Board.

3. The purposes of the Act, as recorded in section 3 (as amended in November 2010 following establishment of Council from the amalgamation of the Legacy Councils), are:

(1)The first purpose of this Act is to establish a mechanism to provide adequate, sustainable, and secure funding for specified amenities that, by providing arts, education, rescue, or community facilities for or services to the Auckland region,—

(a) contribute to the well-being of the region; and

(b) contribute towards making Auckland a vibrant and attractive place to live in and visit.

(2)The second purpose is to ensure that the [Auckland Council]^{^[2]} is part of the mechanism and so contributes towards the funding of the specified amenities.

4. The funding model introduced by the Act was based on similar regional funding frameworks for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the Museum of Transport and Technology except that the Act specifically prohibits funding being provided to the Amenities for capital expenditure^{^[3]}^.

5. Prior to the Act, some of the Amenities were in a very poor financial situation. It is acknowledged that some of the Amenities would not currently exist if it was not for the funding provided pursuant to the Act. The secure funding mechanism that the Act provides has provided a secure financial position from which the Amenities can plan their future activities.

6. The table below gives an indication of the level of financial support that the Amenities have received under the Act:

Amenity	Funding received in 2009/10 (First year of the Act)	Funding received in 20014/15	Increase between 2009/10 and 2014/15 (in %)
Stardome Observatory & Planetarium	$500,000	$1,269,000	153%
Auckland Philharmonic Orchestra	$1,500,000	$2,942,000	96%
Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust	$1,500,000	$450,000	-70%
Auckland Theatre Company	$800,000	$1,415,000	77%
Coastguard	$500,000	$670,000	34%
National Maritime Museum	$1,000,000	$1,975,000	97%
NZ Opera	$500,000	$800,000	60%
Surf Life Saving Northern Region	$700,000	$1,200,000	71%
Auckland Festival Trust	$1,200,000	$2,305,000	92%
WaterSafe Auckland	$500,000	$970,000	94%
Admin Costs	$300,000	$315,000	N/A
Total ratepayer funding	$9,000,000	$14,311,000	59%

The 2014/2015 levy represents 53.5% of the maximum levy permitted under the Act for that year.

Prior to the introduction of the Act the Amenities received funding from the councils in the Auckland region of an estimated $4,839,754.

7. The funding model establishes an annual process under which the Funding Board receives and assesses funding applications from the specified amenities and prepares and consults on a funding plan, having regard to the funding principles of the Act. The Funding Board refers the funding plan to Auckland Council and requests it to approve the recommended levy from which the Funding Board allocates funds to the specified amenities. Auckland Council must consider the Funding Board’s recommendation and, having regard to the Act’s funding principles, decide whether to approve the recommended levy or not. Arbitration results if the recommended levy is not approved.

8. The funding principles are set out in section 21 of the Act and require the Funding Board to have regard to (amongst other things) the following:

· The primary purpose of the funding is to contribute to the expenses that the specified amenity must incur to provide its facilities or services;

· Funding is not available for capital expenditure;

· Funding is not available for any part of facilities or services that the specified amenity provides outside the Auckland region;

· Funding for the retention and preservation of a specified amenities library or collection takes priority over the amenities’ other expenses; and

· Funding is available only if the specified amenity has made all reasonable endeavours to maximise its funding from other available funding sources.

9. Two additional funding principles were added by Auckland Council in 2012:

· Total funding for all specified amenities assessed for a financial year should have regard to Auckland Council’s proposed rates increases for the forthcoming year.

· Funding is available only if the specified amenity has made all reasonable endeavours to align its activities (in the Auckland region, and for which it seeks funding) with the objectives of the Auckland Plan, including by adopting relevant performance measures.

10. Auckland Council also resolved that the “… Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board review any possibility of reducing any ratepayers contributions to any of these amenities that receive other substantial resourcing”.

11. The maximum total levy from contributing authorities was set by the Act for the first three financial years (2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12). From 2012/13 the maximum levy is set by the Act as 2% of the revenue from rates of the Auckland Council in the previous financial year. The 2014/15 levy represents 53.5% of the potential levy amount permitted under the Act.

12. Total ratepayer funding provided under the Act for the ten amenities has increased from $9 million in 2009/10, to $14.311 million in 2013/14, a nominal increase of 59%.

13. In 2010 the Legacy Councils were amalgamated to form the Auckland Council.

14. The Act sets out criteria for the inclusion of new organisations in the funding regime or for assessing whether an amenity should cease to be a specified amenity under the Act. No additional amenity has been specified since the Act came into effect. In October 2012 Auckland Council decided not to invite organisations to apply to become a specified amenity under the Act until a policy and assessment criteria have been developed and adopted by the Council.

15. Auckland Council’s vision is for Auckland to be the world’s most liveable city. The Council has developed and adopted the Auckland Plan, together with a number of other plans and strategies. These plans and strategies set out how Council intends to achieve its vision.

16. Auckland Council is operating in a constrained funding environment, and is required to prioritise its spending across many different areas of activity. The Council is required to ensure that all of the activities that it funds are helping to achieve the vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city, and aligns with the plans and strategies that Council has developed to help achieve that vision.

Schedule 2

Issues identified and Desired Outcomes of Stakeholders

The Stakeholders are aware of several issues associated with the Act and its ongoing operation. The review will identify and consider the key issues (including those listed below).

The issues include:

1. The structure of local government in Auckland has changed substantially while the funding model under the Act for the specified amenities has remained unchanged and not reviewed.

2. The amenities within the funding model are a diverse range of arts, educational, rescue, and community organisations and have differing operating and capital expenditure profiles.

3. The Amenities have differing abilities to raise funds from other sources.

4. The amenities have indicated a preference for a funding regime that provides certainty of funding over the longer term, allowing them to plan appropriately for the future.

5. Most of the amenities have received substantial increases in ratepayer funding since the Act came into force. However, it should be noted that the Act was structured with a lower level of funding in first year and a “ramp up” in funding over the first three years of the Act with the intention that the Amenities should generally be able to achieve a sustainable level of funding over this period.

6. It is noted however, that some traditional charitable funding organisations are less inclined to provide operational funding to the Amenities on account of the funding they receive under that Act. This has been compounded by the lower levels of funds being received by charitable funding organisations which also face increased demands for funding. For example, gaming based charities funds have dropped significantly as a result of the focus on reduction in problem gambling.

7. Both the Funding Board and Auckland Council have expressed concern at the level of funding the amenities have indicated they will seek in future years.

8. The current model, under the Act, has recently been the subject of litigation and the possible risk of litigation going forward should be considered.

The Council wants to ensure that it has a funding model/mechanism:

· Through which funding decisions can be made in relation to agencies that deliver outcomes that cannot be logically compared

· That provides flexibility to respond to changing social trends, innovations and the changing circumstances of the amenity organisations

· That provides a clear connection between expenditure levels and the associated revenue decisions

· That does not disadvantage fundraising efforts from other sources by the amenities

· That involves clear political accountability for decision-making.

· That allows for proportionality between the level of funding provided to the amenities, and other Council funded activities.

· That allows Council to input into the service levels of the Amenities activities that are funded by Council.

· That ensures that the Amenities activities that it funds align to the outcomes articulated in the Auckland Plan, and other relevant Council plans and strategies.

The Funding Board wants to ensure that:

· Any change to the funding mechanism is supported by the Amenities

· The funding mechanism does not support or encourage central government or any other funder/sponsor to remove financial support for Amenities.

The Amenities:

All of the amenities support continuation of the Act and the amenities and the Amenities Board want to ensure that:-

· Any change is necessary, justifiable and enhances the funding model for all parties.

· The Funding Board retains its independence

· The model is sustainable and gives the amenities a level of certainty of funding and sustainability at least equal to that which they have under the Act

· Any change addresses the tensions around capital and operational funding (Capex funding is currently prohibited)

· The funding model acknowledges/recognizes the different nature of the funding requirements of the different amenities.

· Amenities are not penalized for their fundraising and other revenue generating activities (i.e. either in terms of being less able to attract private or other public funding or being more successful at fundraising or generating revenue from other sources)

· The funding model allows the amenities to be able to achieve and retain adequate levels of operating surplus appropriate for the size and nature of each organisation and their ongoing, long term sustainability.

· Better options for addressing depreciation are taken into account in the funding model (the Funding Board has elected not to include depreciation as an operating expense eligible for funding)^{^[4]}

· There is neutrality of funding (i.e. they are not disadvantaged compared to similar activities/entities receiving council funding).

[1] A list of Issues identified to date and some desired outcomes of stakeholders is in Schedule 2. This schedule is not comprehensive but is intended to provide a starting point for the review.

[2] Before amalgamation in November 2010, the Act, including section 3(2) contained references to 'all the territorial authorities in the Auckland Region'. There were also references in the Act to an 'Electoral College' representing all those Legacy Councils. These references were replaced with 'Auckland Council' by the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

[3] Both the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 and Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 permit the inclusion of capital and their annual grants from Auckland Council include funding for capital expenditure.

[4] The Funding Board views the ineligibility of depreciation for funding, as consistent with the Act prescribing that funding is not available for capital expenditure.

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