Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Thursday, 18 June 2015

9.30am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Finance and Performance Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

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

(Quorum 11 members)

Mike Giddey

Democracy Advisor

11 June 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8143

Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will be responsible for monitoring overall financial management and the performance of the council parent organisation and the financial monitoring of the Auckland Council Group. It will also make financial decisions required outside of the annual budgeting processes. Key responsibilities include:

· Financial management

· Approval of non-budgeted expenditure

· Write-offs

· Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the Committee’s responsibilities

· Monitoring achievement of financial and other measures of performance and service levels

· Recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

IMSB

· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

CCOs

Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

1 Apologies

Apologies from Cr AM Filipaina, Cr JG Walker and Deputy Mayor PA Hulse have been received.

2 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.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 May 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 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.

6 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.

7 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.”

8 Notices of Motion

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

Finance and Performance Committee

18 June 2015

Disposals Recommendation Report

File No.: CP2015/10451

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval to sell one non-service council owned property that Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) considers suitable for sale. This report also presents a council owned property that is currently used for both service and non-service purposes. ACPL considers that this site should be subdivided, and that the non-service part of the site is suitable for sale.

Executive Summary

2. ACPL is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $30 million by 30 June 2015. ACPL and Auckland Council Property Department (ACPD) work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify such properties. Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties will contribute to all Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

3. The first property presented for disposal in this report, 29 Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga has been through the agreed consultative process including organisation wide internal officer consultation, local board and Iwi engagement. The feedback has been supportive of the proposed disposal of this site. A detailed overview of the rationalisation process undertaken for this site is outlined in the Comments, Local Board Views and Implications, and Maori Impact Statement sections of this report. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment A to this report.

4. The second property presented in this report, 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville has been through the agreed consultative process including organisation wide internal officer consultation, local board and Iwi engagement. Part of the site is required for planned and funded services purposes. The balance of the site is not required for service purposes. The organisational feedback has been supportive of the proposed disposal of the non-service part of this site. However the Rodney Local Board (RLB) is of the view that the non-service part of this site should be retained in case it is needed for future service purposes. The relevant business unit does not support this proposal. A detailed overview of the rationalisation process undertaken for this site is outlined in the Comments, Local Board Views and Implications, and Maori Impact Statement sections of this report. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment B to this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes:

i) the disposal of the land at 29 Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga comprised of an estate in fee simple comprising approximately 718m² more or less being Lot 54 Deposited Plan 48712 and contained in certificate of title NA1943/53;

ii) the subdivision of the land at 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville comprised of an estate in fee simple containing 2.3932 hectares more or less being Lot 2 Deposited Plan 83926 and contained in Certificate of Title NA40B/424 and:

1. the retention of approximately 20m² as esplanade reserve;

2. the retention of approximately 5,500m² as a resource recovery facility;

3. the disposal of the balance of the land;

b) agree that final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

Comments

5. ACPL and ACPD work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify properties in the council portfolio that may be suitable to sell. Once identified as a potential sale candidate ACPL takes the property through a multi stage engagement process.

6. The first phase of the process involves engagement with all council departments and relevant CCOs. The engagement establishes whether a property is needed for a future funded project or whether it must be retained for some clear strategic purpose. This is determined by an Expression of Interest (EOI) process whereby officers can request that all or part of a property is retained. Alternatively officers may request that the property be encumbered or covenanted as part of the disposal process. If the EOI sets out a robust financial analysis and evidence based rationale to retain the properties, then the EOI is endorsed.

7. If however the reasoning is more subjective a thorough business case is required. An inter-disciplinary council and ACPL steering group comprised of senior managers, called the Property Review Steering Group (PRSG) meets on a monthly basis to assess the business cases. The PRSG provides an opportunity for properties to be considered in a cohesive and integrated manner by relevant council departments and CCOs.

8. The Heritage Unit is invited prior to the EOI process to flag any sites of particular archaeological merit that need to be assessed further. ACPL also engages with the Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response team prior to the EOI process commencing to ensure any possible contamination issues that may be associated with a property are identified. The EOI process also provides the Maori and Strategy Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Maori in connection with the potential disposal of a site.

9. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, ACPL then consults with Local Boards, Ward Councillors, Mana Whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

10. All sale recommendations must be approved by the ACPL Board before it makes the final recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

11. Local Boards are informed of the commencement of the rationalisation process for specific properties. Following the close of the EOI period, relevant Local Boards are engaged with. ACPL attend a workshop with the relevant Local Board and provide information about properties being rationalised in their local board area. Local Boards may then request that ACPL prepare a report for their business meeting so that their views can be formalised.

12. If a Local Board wishes to retain a site, its’ views are considered by ACPL and if necessary referred to relevant council departments for consideration. The local board may be asked to prepare a business case which sets out the clear service need that will be met by retaining the site, along with how the use will be funded.

13. ACPL and relevant council departments or CCOs work with local boards in preparing the business case. The business case is then considered by the PRSG. If the PRSG accepts the business case and funding is identified, the property is transferred back to the service portfolio. If the PRSG does not accept the business case, the business case is included in the report to the Finance & Performance Committee for a political decision.

14. The views of the relevant local board are contained in the respective property attachments.

Māori impact statement

15. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed a robust form of engagement with Mana Whenua groups across the region. Each relevant mana whenua group is contacted independently by email based on a contact list which is regularly updated. Each group is provided general property details, including a property map, and requested to give feedback within 15 working days. Contacts are sent reminder notices a week out from the due date, and alerted of the passing of the due date in the week following if no feedback has been submitted. Confirmation of any interest expressed is sent in writing and recorded for inclusion in the disposal recommendation report. A feedback spreadsheet is provided to facilitate responses. Any requests for extensions of a due date are handled on a case by case basis.

16. ACPL’s engagement directs mana whenua to respond with any issues of particular cultural significance the group would like to formally express in relation to the subject properties. We also request express notes regarding any preferred outcomes that the group would like us to consider as part of any disposal process.

17. From discussions with our Māori and Strategy Relations team we are developing an understanding of what could amount to a ‘matter of significant cultural relevance’ to Iwi. We are also developing a range of reasonable outcomes that could be employed when such a matter of cultural significance is raised in relation to a potential disposal property. Possible outcomes could include commemoration or physical acknowledgment in the form of plaques or other mutually agreed means of recognition. In the event of any issues of particular cultural significance being raised, ACPL will work with the relevant council departments to assess the merits of any such requests and keeps the interested parties informed along the way.

18. Mana whenua groups are also invited to express potential commercial interest in any sites and are put in contact with ACPL’s Development team for preliminary discussions if appropriate to the property. This facilitates the groups’ early assessment of the merits of a development opportunity to their Iwi. In the event a property is approved for sale all groups are alerted of the decision, and all groups are alerted once a property comes on the market.

19. Lastly a report is presented to the Independent Māori Statutory Board ahead of presenting any recommendations to sell to the Finance and Performance Committee detailing how Māori have been engaged throughout the process.

Implementation

20. As part of the overall review process each property is also legally assessed to see if there are any impediments to sell or if there is a prescribed legal way in which it must be sold. The last stage of the process is triggered once a resolution to sell is obtained. This involves a robust ‘add value’ assessment as part of the development of the final sales strategy. There is specific attention applied to the possible suitability of the site for housing purposes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Property information for 29 Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga	13
b View	Images of 29 Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga	15
c View	Property information for 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville	17
d View	Images of 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville	21
e View	Indicative road across 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville on Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011	23

Signatories

Author

Letitia McColl, Senior Engagement Advisor, Portfolio Review, Property Asset and Development, Auckland Council Property Limited

Authorisers

David Rankin, Chief Executive, Auckland Council Property Limited

Ian Wheeler - Manager Property

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

18 June 2015

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) Funding Model Review - Options

File No.: CP2015/09978

Purpose

1. This report identifies the scope of options to be considered as a part of the review of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (ARAFA) Funding Model Review.

Executive Summary

2. This report seeks the endorsement of options for evaluation following the adoption of the Terms of Reference on 26 February 2015 and the endorsement of criteria on 21 May 2015.

3. The identification of options has focused the range of possibilities that offer the potential for improvement. Working closely with representatives of the amenities, seven options have been generated along a spectrum, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo without change,

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA framework,

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework.

4. The options outlined in this report represent a set of ideas that will be subject to detailed consideration and evaluated against the criteria endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015. The results of this evaluation, including the preferred option or options, will be reported back to the Finance and Performance Committee at its meeting on 20 August 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) endorse the following options for evaluation against the criteria endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015:

i) Status Quo (No change to existing ARAFA framework)

ii) Enhanced ARAFA – ‘Clear Pathway to Capital’

iii) Enhanced ARAFA – ‘Sustainable Funding’

iv) Enhanced ARAFA – ‘Alignment/Groupings’

v) Baseline Plus CPI

vi) Strong Funder

vii) Auckland Council Dedicated Fund

b) endorse the report back of the evaluation of these options to the Finance and Performance Committee at its meeting on 20 August 2015, identifying the preferred option or combination of options.

Comments

5. Following the adoption of the Terms of Reference on 26 February 2015 and the endorsement of criteria on 21 May 2015, this report seeks the endorsement of options for evaluation.

Options

6. The identification of options has focused on generating options across the range of possibilities, offering the potential for improvement. Working closely with representatives of the amenities, seven options along a spectrum have been generated, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending the legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA legislative framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework.

7. This report merely introduces the options for consideration and does not indicate the preferences of the amenities or Council staff. The options outlined in this report represent a set of ideas that have not been considered in terms of their costs, implications or implementation. This consideration will occur through the evaluation of the options against the criteria endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015.

Retaining the Status Quo

8. Option 1 – Status Quo

This option is that as currently set out in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008. Under this framework, annual funding applications are received by the Funding Board which prepares a Draft Funding Plan, confers with Auckland Council, publicly notifies the Draft Funding Plan, receives submissions, considers the Draft Funding Plan and recommends a levy to Auckland Council. Auckland Council may accept the recommended levy or arbitration automatically results. The Funding Board adopts the Funding Plan.

This option sets the benchmark against which others will be compared. Its defining features include:

· Applications for operational expenditure ‘that must be incurred’ (opex only/contributions towards capital is expressly excluded)

· Funding Board (10 members - 6 appointed by Auckland Council and 4 by an Amenities Board) and an Amenities Board (made up of representatives of the ten amenities)

· Annual applications with specified supporting material and with additional longer term information being optional

· Auckland Council transfers funds to Funding Board which distributes to amenities

· Applications for capital funding made to Auckland Council are considered the exception. (There is not always a policy framework to assist decision makers relating to capital grants.)

Seeking Improvements from within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

9. The following three options seek to introduce changes to enhance the legislative framework and sharing of information between the specified amenities, the Funding Board and Auckland Council.

10. Option 2 – Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Clear Pathway to Capital Funding’

This option is the same as the status quo except for the addition of a ‘clear pathway for capital funding’.

While the amenities can currently apply for funding from Auckland Council via the Long Term Plan process, the grant of such funding is considered to be by exception. This would be reversed under this option, so that applications for capital could be anticipated from any of the specified amenities. Additional information and process would be required to signal potential applications well ahead of time to enable the provision of funding, and financial planning.

11. Option 3 - Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Sustainable Funding’

Under this option, refinements within the existing framework would be:

Introduction of a three year ‘rolling’ funding cycle – This cycle would align with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan/Annual Plan cycle. Applications for the first year of funding (the year of application) would confirm that year’s funding and agree funding for the next two years ‘in principle’. Applications made in the 2^nd and 3^rd year would confirm the agreed sums or could, in limited circumstances, seek variations. Variations (up or down) by the amenities or the Funding Board would be considered within strict criteria. It is anticipated that the cycle would recommence at 18 month intervals^{^[1]}.

Information supporting ‘rolling’ applications - The information accompanying applications would be reviewed to support the rolling funding cycle, with particular emphasis on the clarity of the information provided over the medium and longer term.

‘Sustainability’ – The determinants and the level of funding that would be ‘sustainable’ for each amenity would be identified. This would also establish appropriate levels of reserves amenities would be able to build-up and maintain to help manage the peaks and troughs of the funding requirements. Reserves could assist to alleviate difficulties arising from the distinction between opex and capex (though still respecting the distinction) and consider the treatment of deprecation.

12. Option 4 – Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Alignment/Groupings’

Under this option changes would be sought to the existing framework to provide opportunities to improve alignment with the Council’s planning cycle, strategic alignment between the amenities and Auckland Council and to better take account of the diversity across the amenities.

The 3 year ‘rolling’ funding cycle / Information supporting applications becomes available as set out in the previous option.

Auckland Council and the Funding Board confer - Auckland Council could be more explicit in clarifying its expectations, its funding constraints and its intentions when conferring with the Funding Board on the draft Funding Plan. The purpose is to ensure transparency about the Auckland Council context and any funding constraints the Council might face. This provision seeks to align the Council’s strategic objectives for the Auckland region where relevant to the activities/services or facilities provided by the amenities.

Auckland Council support public notification - Auckland Council supports public notification of the Draft Funding Plan. The Council could support the notification of the Draft Funding Plan on the Council web site, through the media centre and/or in publications with the intention of helping rate payers understand the contribution made by their rates.

More particular consideration relevant to the type of amenity – the existing funding principles would be reviewed with a view to clarification and guidance. Areas to be examined include the possibility of:

· Criteria and considerations as relevant to different types of amenities – e.g. safety, arts & culture, and facilities

· Clarification and guidance around what might be meant by ‘sustainability’ and the sustainable contribution required, balancing the sums of funding required to ensure continuity and what is affordable. This seeks to amplify the concept of ‘expenditure that must be incurred’ within the ARAFA framework.

Modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation

13. The two following options amend the ARAFA legislative framework, proposing specific amendments to the way funding is determined or the roles of institutions and the processes through which they work.

14. Option 5 – Baseline Plus CPI

Under this option the specified amenities would determine the ‘sustainable’ level of funding required for year 1, which would be CPI adjusted for the next two years. The level of sustainable funding would then be reset for the next (4^th) year and CPI adjusted in each of the next two years.

This would have significant implications for the roles of the Funding Board and Auckland Council which require more detailed exploration.

15. Option 6 - Strong Funder

This option remaps the relationship between the amenities and the Auckland Council with Auckland Council becoming the provider of funds sourced from the region’s ratepayers. Under this option the ARAFA legislative framework would be amended so that:

· The amenities apply to Auckland Council directly for funding

· 3 year rolling funding cycle / supporting information applies

· Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

· Auckland Council prepares and adopts the Funding Plan

· The role of the Funding Board becomes one of providing expert advice to Auckland Council

· The amenities report annually to the Auckland Council.

Auckland Council sets the funding envelope – The funding envelope from which contributions to the amenities would be drawn would be set for the 10 year period though the Council’s Long Term Plan process. Once set, the envelope may only be changed in specific, limited circumstances. This longer term approach to funding would likely require a review of the information required in support of setting the envelope.

Auckland Council prepares and adopts the Funding Plan - The Funding Plan mechanism could be continued in a similar way to the status quo or be modified in terms of the process and matters to be taken into consideration.

The role of the Funding Board – The Funding Board’s role would change to one of providing expert advice to assist Auckland Council. Appointments may still be made by Auckland Council and by the amenities.

Repeal of the existing ARAFA framework and replacement with an Auckland Council policy framework

16. Under this model the existing ARAFA legislative framework would be repealed and replaced with a policy framework established and maintained by Auckland Council.

17. Option 7 - Auckland Council Dedicated Fund

The repealed ARAFA legislative framework would be replaced by a specific policy of Auckland Council where:

· Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

· There is no Funding Board and the amenities apply to Auckland Council for funding

· Auckland Council considers applications and determines the funding allocated following public consultation

· There is separate policy and consideration for different types of amenity – such as safety, arts & culture and facilities for example.

· 3 year rolling funding cycle / supporting information would become available

· The amenities annually report to the Auckland Council.

This option replicates many of the policy intentions of the Strong Funder option within Auckland Council formulated policy, though without the legislation or the Funding Board. As Council policy, the funding model/policy framework would be amenable to such amendment as subsequent Councils may require.

Next Steps

18. The next step will be the evaluation of the endorsed options against the criteria endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015. The evaluation against these eight criteria will generate a significant amount of information from which preferences can be identified for recommendation in the final report. The results of this evaluation, including the preferred option or options, will be reported back to the Finance and Performance Committee at its meeting on 20 August 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. The ARAFA funding model review considers the funding model established under the ARAFA legislation and will not impact on local board funding or decision-making. Even so Local Boards may wish to reflect their communities’ interest in the benefits they receive from the services and facilities provided by the specified amenities.

20. A local board briefing is being scheduled, the date of which is yet to be finalised. The Committee will be updated verbally at the meeting. The briefing will be followed by a report to local boards. Local board views and resolutions received will be included in the final report in August 2015.

Māori impact statement

21. The ARAFA funding model review focuses on how Auckland Council’s funding contribution to the specified amenities is determined. Using Whiria Te Muka Tangata: The Māori Responsiveness Framework as a lens there do not appear to be any statutory or treaty obligations, direct Māori or value Te Ao Māori outcomes affected by this review. Enquiries were made of mana whenua in March 2015 to ascertain whether the ARAFA funding model review held any interest. No interests were identified.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor, CCO Monitoring & External Relationships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor, Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

18 June 2015

Asset transfer of pavilion on Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park to Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated

File No.: CP2015/10315

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Finance and Performance Committee approval to the asset transfer of the pavilion on Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park, Matakana to the Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated.

Executive Summary

2. The Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park is situated on the Western side of Matakana Valley Road. The Park is held in fee simple by Auckland Council and classified as a recreation reserve and subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

3. The Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated (the Club) has occupied the pavilion and a large portion of the Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park for the past 30 years.

4. To date, the Club has not held a formal occupancy agreement with council. Notwithstanding the lack of a formal occupancy arrangement, the Club has maintained and undertaken improvements to the pavilion including lining the interior, erecting laser light sheeting, installation of a toilet, septic and water tank. During the last decade, the Club has outlaid in the region of $30,000 for maintenance and improvements to the pavilion.

5. The Club has applied to council for a community lease as it has plans to upgrade the pavilion which includes having electricity connected from the road frontage.

6. In the absence of evidence as to actual ownership of the pavilion, council staff have made the assumption that the pavilion was erected by the Domain Board for the purposes of all users of the park.

7. In the absence of any executed contractual arrangements for use of the park or the pavilion, council retains ownership of the pavilion and has no legal obligation to the Club for any expenditure it has outlaid on the pavilion.

8. Council staff have undertaken a brief condition survey of the pavilion and estimates that there is approximately 15 to 20 years life left in the building although with ongoing repairs and maintenance, its life could be extended further. The financial value of the pavilion is estimated to be in the region of $40,000.

9. The Rodney Local Board at its business meeting of 20 April 2015 resolved to support the asset transfer of the pavilion on the Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park to the Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated (Attachment C being action memo from resolution number RD/2015/46).

10. This report seeks the Finance and Performance Committee approval to the asset transfer of the pavilion on Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park to the Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated.

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve the asset transfer of the pavilion building only on the Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park, Matakana described as Part Allotment 3 Parish of Matakana Deeds Plan C19 (3.8066HA) to the Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated (Attachment A shows a GIS image of the Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park on which the pavilion is identified and also an image of the pavilion building).

Comments

11. The Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated has occupied the grounds and pavilion on an informal basis for 30 years. The Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park Management Plan (approved 31 January 1996) contemplates the Club’s use of a large portion of the site for its activities. Further, the plan states that encouragement should be given to regularising the use of the park by the Club.

12. The Club inherited the pavilion on the park with the understanding that the pavilion was originally owned by the cricket club who previously utilised the site. The pavilion measures 98.5m² with an area of 81m² of fenced grass area directly in front of the structure (Attachment A).

13. Despite the lack of a formal occupancy arrangement with council, the Club has maintained and undertaken improvements to the pavilion including lining the interior, erecting laser light sheeting, installation of a toilet, septic and a water tank.

14. The Club has applied to council for a community lease as it has plans to upgrade the pavilion which includes having electricity connected from the road frontage.

15. Council staff have ascertained that:

· the pavilion is not protected in relation to the operative Rodney District Plan

· the pavilion is not protected under the provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· the pavilion was not listed on the asset register of the former Rodney District Council and as a consequence, was not insured.

16. Subject to the Finance and Performance Committee approval to the asset transfer, this would allow the Rodney Local Board to approve a community ground lease and licences to occupy to Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated. Further, this action in effect would legally bind the Club in terms of responsibilities, to insure and maintain the pavilion. (Attachment B shows a site plan detailing proposed lease and licenses to occupy to Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated on Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park, 207 Matakana Valley Road, Matakana).

17. As is the case with all pony clubs located on the outskirts of residential areas, the reserve land is increasingly in demand. Matakana has gone through tremendous growth and needs of the wider community are to be considered. One such group in the Matakana community is progressing with broad concept plans that outline the potential for improving and expanding the existing tennis courts, construction of a ‘green’ community building and possibly other multi-use of the green space.

18. Council staff have worked alongside representatives for the Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated and the Matakana based community group progressing concept plans for the park to ensure cooperative use of the available green space on the Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. The Rodney Local Board at its business meeting of 20 April 2015 resolved to support the asset transfer of the pavilion on the Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park to the Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated (Attachment C being action memo from resolution number RD/2015/46).

20. The recommendations within this report fall within the Finance and Performance Committee’s allocated authority relating to the divesting of Auckland Council assets.

Māori impact statement

21. There is no significant change or impact for Māori associated with the recommendations in this report.

Implementation

22. The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

23. There are no cost implications for Auckland Council.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A GIS view image of Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park showing the pony club pavilion and image of pony club pavilion	35
b View	Attachment B Site plan for Matakana Branch Pony Club Incorporated on Matakana Diamond Jubilee Park	37
c View	Attachment C Rodney Local Board Parks, Culture and Community Development Committee Resolution RODPC/2015/17	39

Signatories

Author

Karen Walby - Advisor Community Lease

Authorisers

Graham Bodman – GM, Community Development, Arts and Culture

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

18 June 2015

Delegation to commence consultation for new funding areas to be incorporated within the contributions policy

File No.: CP2015/11193

Purpose

1. This report recommends that the Finance and Performance Committee delegate to staff the power to commence consultation regarding the proposed establishment of new funding areas within the contributions policy (DC policy). Any proposed change to the DC policy following consultation would then come back to the Finance and Performance Committee for approval.

2. The implementation of the recommendations, contained in this report, will enable a reduction to the timeframe for the current process by at least four weeks.

Executive summary

3. From time to time developers approach the council to unlock development potential for land. This requires the council and developers to work in partnership to provide necessary infrastructure to service the land.

4. In many circumstances the council needs to respond quickly to these requests to ensure that the appropriate cost and risk sharing mechanism can be entered into.

5. These developments can come in the form of proposed special housing areas (SHAs) or large scale non-residential development and are usually driven from the Housing Project Office (HPO) or the Plans and Places Department.

6. At present the council’s primary mechanism for recovering the upfront cost of growth infrastructure is the DC policy.

7. Changes to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) in August 2014 allow for the council to publicly consult on changes to its DC policy outside of a special consultative process. Instead, the council can choose the length and form of the consultation process (under section 82A of the LGA).

8. The principles relating to development contributions in the LGA promote more localised funding areas where possible. When large scale development is ready to occur in a new area, the council can consult with affected parties and determine a new funding area localised to where the new development is located. This provides additional certainty to both the development community and the council on infrastructure provision and cost recovery.

9. The consultation will occur in accordance with the council’s Significance and Engagement policy. A proposed variation to the DC policy (including the new funding area and required changes) will need to be created for consultation.

10. After consultation a report containing any proposed changes to the DC policy will be submitted to the Finance and Performance Committee for review and adoption.

11. It is estimated that the implementation of the recommendations will reduce the response time by at least four weeks from the timeframe for the current process.

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) delegate to the Chief Financial Officer the authority to decide to publicly consult on the proposed establishment of a new funding area within the DC policy, and the process for that consultation.

b) agree to receive regular progress reporting, from council staff, to provide an overview on the status of new funding areas that are being consulted on.

Comments

Unlocking land potential in Auckland

12. We have 83 SHAs approved to date. Where any of these require significant investment in infrastructure to support their development and have fragmented ownership, a new funding area may be the most appropriate mechanism for funding.

13. For the avoidance of doubt, the sole purpose of the recommendation to delegate to staff the decision to commence consultation for proposed funding areas is to enable the council to gain administrative efficiency by being able to provide a more timely response. It is estimated that this will be achieved by reducing the timeframe associated with the current process by at least four weeks.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The governing body has decision making authority for setting the DC policy.

15. Local boards considered the proposals for changes to the DC policy at their meetings in April. A number of local boards consider that funding areas need to be more locally focused, and contributions need to cover growth requirements for both new and existing areas.

Maori impact statement

16. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Maori will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.

Implementation

17. If through the consultation process it is determined that a variation to the policy is recommended a report will be sent to the relevant committee for approval and adoption.

Financial and Resourcing implications

18. Any financial and resourcing implications identified will be included in the report for variation to be received by the relevant committee.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Shelby Young – Senior Advisor

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy & Budgeting

Sue Tindal - Chief Financial Officer

[1] The 3 year rolling funding cycle is common to a number of options.