Agenda of Rodney Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 20 July 2015, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

Rodney Youth Advisory Panel Changeover

The Rodney Youth Advisory Panel (RYAP) has had a change in chairperson. In 2013, a foundation group of members sought to make a difference in an advisory capacity for the Rodney Local Board. Throughout their first six months a Regional Youth Advisory Panel Representative was elected (Savanna Steele) and she was also given the role of chairperson for the RYAP group. Focus areas for the 2013/2014 year were around play spaces in Matakana, and establishing a vision and direction for RYAP.

Three meetings were held between RYAP and RLB during the 2013/2014 year, to which Sandspit Bird Sanctuary, Matakana Play space and Safety Concerns in Wellsford were the main points of emphasis.

Turnover of membership has been a constant throughout the time RYAP has been up and running. First to leave was Julia Lockwood due to work commitments as a lawyer, then Lana McCarthy due to head prefect commitments at Mahurangi College. After those members resigned in early 2014, the RYAP had a sustained membership for 6 months, until Caitlyn Smith resigned due to University Commitments in Auckland. In the last year, RYAP has also said goodbye to Sam Stevenson, Libby Campbell and Alexis Farr.

Recently Savanna Steele’s term as regional panel representative for RYAP has come to an end after two years of service, and her membership with RYAP has come to an end due to her age. Savanna was a dedicated, persistent and considered leader for RYAP during her term as both the Rodney representative on the regional Youth Advisory Panel (YAP) and chairperson of RYAP.

The RYAP held a vote to determine a new regional appointee to the YAP, with Savannah Cox of Helensville/Kumeu winning the vote. An additional vote was held for the RYAP chairperson position, which Rosa Campbell won. Both are now in these roles as of the 1^st July 2015.

Current membership of the RYAP with the areas they represent are:

Savannah Cox – Helensville/Kumeu
Rosa Campbell – Tomorata/Mangawhai
Michaela McCracken – Te Hana
Jennifer Thomas – Wellsford
Nicole Kettler – Wellsford
Emma Walker – Wellsford
Julia Caulfield – Warkworth

RYAP is actively recruiting for more members from Helensville, Kumeu, Coatesville and Warkworth.

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Carpark Issues, Sunburst Avenue, Snells Beach

Purpose

1. Mrs June Turner and Mr Chas Benest have requested to attend the meeting to make a presentation on carpark issues at Sunburst Avenue, Snells Beach.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Mrs Turner and Mr Benest for their presentation.

8.2 Kumeu Cricket Club

Purpose

1. Mr Stephen Nobilo and Mr Dean Stuart have requested to attend the local board meeting to make a presentation on the Kumeu Cricket Club.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Mr Nobilo and Mr Stuart for their presentation on the Kumeu Cricket Club.

8.3 Waimauku Lions

Purpose

1. Members of Waimauku Lions Club have requested a deputation in regard to a project for the construction and development of a community park/playground in the Waimauku Village.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from Waimauku Lions Club regarding a proposal for the construction and development of a community park/playground in the Waimauku Village.

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

9.1 Helensville Christmas Festival Funding

Purpose

1. Holly Ryan has requested that she address the Rodney Local Board in public forum on Helensville Christmas Festival funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Holly Ryan for her presentation on the Helensville Christmas Festival funding.

10 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.”

11 Notices of Motion

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

Rodney Local Board

17 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13925

Purpose

1. This report seeks direction from Local Boards on the proposed discretionary fund for local board capital expenditure (Capex fund) regarding the:

· model for allocating the fund

· criteria for the fund.

Executive Summary

2. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. Local boards are to work with staff to develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects.

3. The Capex fund enables local boards to deliver small local asset based projects, either directly, in partnership with the community, or through joint agreements between boards.

4. The Capex fund will be managed over three years. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects.

5. Local boards provided views on how funding should be allocated during the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy (LBFP) in 2014. The resulting funding formula for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) allocates 90 per cent based on population, 5 per cent on deprivation and 5 per cent on land area. The same allocation formula can be used for the Capex fund to maintain consistency in the policy. Staff note however that the link between costs and land area is weak and leads to major shifts in the allocation of funding.

6. A formula based approach provides limited funding for the Great Barrier Island and Waiheke boards. Local boards should consider what level of funding over three years is appropriate for these boards. Staff recommend setting funding at one per cent of the fund for Great Barrier and two per cent for Waiheke.

7. Using the Capex fund is preferable to LDI funding as the Governing Body funds the consequential opex. Boards should consider whether they need to continue to use LDI funding for minor (less than $1 million) capital projects. Boards should also consider whether they need to be able to bring forward regionally funded projects using the Capex fund.

8. The proposal to allocate a Capex fund to local boards will require an amendment to the LBFP. This will amend the Long-term Plan and requires the use of the special consultative procedure.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the allocation of Capital expenditure (Capex) funding to local boards.

Comments

Background

9. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. On May 7 the Budget Committee passed the following resolution:

a) Provide a new Local Board discretionary capex fund of $10 million per annum noting that this will incorporate the existing Facilities Partnership Fund.

b) Approve the following parameters for this fund:

i. The fund may be managed as a three year amount

ii. Local Boards may use the fund to build council owned assets, add to an existing council funded renewal or new capital project, work in partnership with an external provider or seed fund a community project.

10. The Budget Committee requested that staff and local boards develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects to report to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Purpose of the Capex fund

11. The purpose of the fund is to ensure locally important projects are given appropriate priority. It is envisaged that the fund will be used for projects similar to those historically funded by the local improvement projects (LIP’s) or small local improvement projects (SLIP’s).

Funding Allocation Model

Principles for funding allocations

12. The core principles for allocating funding to local boards are an:

· equitable capacity for each local board to enhance well-being

· administrative effectiveness

· transparency.

Attributes for funding allocation

13. The Local boards funding policy (LBFP) makes allocations on the following basis:

· 90 per cent based on local board population size

· 5 per cent based on the relative level of deprivation of the board

· 5 per cent based on the land area of the board

· Waiheke and Great Barrier Island are funded for a fixed amount set by the Governing Body.

14. The following table shows the level of local board support for the use of the above factors for allocating LDI recorded during the review of the LBFP.

Local Board Attribute	Local Boards that supported use during last review of LBFP	Relationship to need for funding	Staff Comments
Population	21	Strong	Strongly relates to demand for services
Deprivation	17	Weak	Little objective evidence for relationship to demand for services
Geography	16	Weak	High distortion effect on allocation that does not relate to need for services

15. A key decision for the allocation of the Capex fund will be to determine the appropriate level of capital funding for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke. The discussion document considers the two current allocation models used to fund these boards:

· LDI allocation: Great Barrier Island and Waiheke receive the same proportion of the Capex fund as they currently receive of the total funding pool for Locally Driven Initiatives. (This is 2.3% of the total pool for Great Barrier Island and 2.7% for Waiheke)

· Transport Model: Great Barrier Island receives 1 per cent and Waiheke 2 per cent of the total funding pool.

16. Five models have been considered for allocating the Capex fund between all boards based on the population, deprivation and land area attributes of the boards:

· Model A: All boards funded based on 100% population

· Model B: All boards funded based on 95% population and 5% deprivation

· Model C: All boards funded based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model D: Great Barriers receives 2.3% and Waiheke receives 2.7% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model E: Great Barriers receives 1% and Waiheke receives 2% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area.

17. The following pages present these five models in table and chart form.

18. Other potential funding attributes that have not been included in the modelling are:

· rates paid: there is no relationship with need for services, and support was low for this attribute during the last review, with six boards in favour.

· current levels of capital expenditure: data on regional activities is unavailable at local level. Levels of expenditure on local assets are not relevant to the purpose of the Capex fund. Gaps in the provision of assets will be met through the relevant network facilities plan.

· population growth: growth will be addressed every three years through the proposed allocation formula.

19. The charts show the following:

· Using land area as an allocation factor significantly increases funding to Rodney and Franklin local boards.

· Great Barrier Island receives less than $7,000 under a population based allocation. This rises to $77,000 under the allocation formula that includes deprivation and land area.

· Providing Great Barrier Island and Waiheke with fixed allocations under the LDI allocation and Transport models only has a small impact on the other 19 boards.

20. In determining the appropriate funding levels for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke consideration should be given both to the total value of the funding over three years, and the typical costs of activities likely to undertaken by these boards. The following table shows the level of funding these boards would receive over three years in comparison to the next smallest board, Papakura:

Allocation formula model	Three year capex funding allocation for
Allocation formula model	Great Barrier	Waiheke	Papakura
Board Population size	900	8,400	45,000
A: 100% population	$20,000	$180,000	$970,000
B: 95% population + 5% deprivation	$130,000	$260,000	$1,000,000
C: 90% population + 5% deprivation + 5% land area	$230,000	$290,000	$970,000
D: GBI: 2.3% Waiheke 2.7% (Current LDI allocation)	$690,000	$820,000	$940,000
E: GBI: 1% Waiheke 2% of total fund	$300,000	$600,000	$960,000

21. The average cost for SLIPs projects in the last financial year was $31,000 for Great Barrier Island and $27,000 for Waiheke. Under Model E Waiheke would receive two per cent of the fund, and be able to deliver 20 average cost projects over three years. Great Barrier would receive one per cent of the fund and be able to deliver 10 average cost projects over the same period. They can of course accumulate funds over the three year period to undertake larger projects.

22. Staff consider there is a strong case for using the same formula for LDI and the capex fund to maintain consistency in the allocation. However, there is also a case for excluding land area given its impact on the distribution of funding.

23. Staff consider that allocating Great Barrier and Waiheke the same proportion of funding as they receive from the LDI opex fund would over fund these boards compared to other board areas. Staff recommend an allocation of one per cent of the total fund to Great Barrier, and two per cent to Waiheke would be appropriate.

Decision making process for capex projects

24. The chart on the following page provides an overview of decision making pathways for each type of project.

25. Staff will work with boards to develop guidelines for facilities partnerships (including feasibility studies) and community-led projects.

Bringing future capex allocation forward

26. The governing body has proposed that the fund be managed over a three year period, aligned with the Long-term Plan planning cycle. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects. This provides boards with greater choice in the size and timing of projects they undertake.

27. As a practical consideration, it is unlikely that all 21 local boards would be in a position to bring forward their three years of funding to 2015/16. However, in the event that this was to happen, the projects would need to be assessed against the modified “gateway” process to ensure they were able to be delivered.

28. Budget for the Capex funding is included in the ten year plan. Local boards’ can only bring three years budgets forward however so future decision making is unencumbered.

Role of LDI funding

29. The table below sets out how the Capex Fund and LDI Opex Fund could be used for different types of projects.

Funding Type	Project Type	Capex Fund		LDI Opex fund
Capex	Minor Asset based projects (less than $1M)	ü	GB funds consequential opex	?	LBs fund consequential opex (feedback sought)
	Top-up of regional projects and renewals	ü	GB funds consequential opex	?	LBs fund consequential opex (feedback sought)
	Major Asset based projects (greater than $1M)	ü	GB approval required. GB funds consequential opex.	û	Must use Capex fund for large projects
Opex	Capital grants to community groups	ü	Debt funded opex. Must be included in annual plan	ü	Standard opex expenditure
Opex	Feasibility Studies	ü	Debt funded opex. Must be included in annual plan	ü	Standard opex expenditure

30. Local boards are currently able to fund capital projects using their LDI budget by funding the consequential opex. The capex fund largely does away with the need for this and the Mayor’s report proposed the removal of the ability to fund major new facilities with opex funded by their LDI. This raises the question of whether local boards still need the ability to use LDI to fund minor capital projects. The table sets out the key differences between the Capex fund and the LDI opex fund for capital projects.

Capex fund	LDI opex fund
GB funds consequential opex	LB funds consequential opex
Easier for GB to control and plan for debt (set amount available for three years)	Creates variable unknown capex requirements on an annual basis
Simplified reporting processes	Complex financial reporting required to track LB funding vs regional funding

31. Staff recommend that local boards’ do not fund minor (less than $1 million) capital projects with LDI opex from 1 July 2016. This will not impact projects that boards have already committed to funding.

32. Local boards should provide feedback on whether they see a need to use:

· LDI to fund minor capital projects

· Capex funding to bring regionally funded projects forward.

Transferring LDI to Capex

33. Local boards may transfer their currently approved capex projects paid for by LDI (as outlined in their LB Agreement 2015/16), to the new discretionary fund. This will free up their LDI opex again and remove the need to fund consequential opex.

Deferral of Capex

34. Normal deferral conditions apply to the Capex fund. Projects cannot be planned outside of the three years but funds may be deferred if projects are unable to be completed within this period.

Transition for current Capex allocations

35. There will be no transition mechanism for any existing Capex budgets held by some local boards. The Governing Body has decided that this fund will replace the current Facilities Partnership fund.

36. Projects that have already been committed to through the Facilities Partnership fund will need to be funded from the relevant boards’ Capex fund allocation.

Local Boards Funding Policy

37. The current Local Boards Funding Policy must be amended to provide for the allocation of capex funding. This is an amendment to the Long-term Plan requiring use of the Special Consultative Procedure with a public consultation period of one month.

38. Staff propose to amend the LBFP to provide a general formula for allocating any non LDI funding. This will avoid the need to amend the LBFP every time the Governing Body decides to give local boards funding that is not for Locally Driven Initiatives.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

39. The proposal does not impact the allocation of decision making.

Significance and Engagement

40. The proposed Capex fund is a minor change in the scale of the Council’s budget and funding for Local Activities. As such it is not a significant change. However, creating a new funding allocation for local boards requires an amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy, and consequently the Long-term Plan.

41. The Council is required to undertake a special consultative process for any amendment to the Long-term Plan.

Implementation

42. The proposed amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy is not significant. As such, the amendment to the Long-term Plan will not need to be audited.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy & Budgeting

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Rodney Local Board

17 August 2015

16. Rodney

$Description: \\aklc.govt.nz\Shared\CityWide\Permanent\Monthly Performance Reporting\FY2015\P12 Jun 2015\XX Annual Report\Local Boards\A - 2015 Annual Reporting\Rodney\38-285821.jpg$

Visit your local board website http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/rodney

The year in review

Financial Performance

Key investments in Rodney in 2014/2015 included $1.0 million in the continued development of the Warkworth Showgrounds. This year saw the completion of the netball courts, playground upgrade and toilet.

Achievements

Improvements has been undertaken across several community halls with a total of $0.8 million spent on heating, lighting, kitchens and insulation to ensure these facilities are great places for communities to utilize. Work has commenced on the Helensville Memorial Hall basement with completion July 2015.

The seawalls at Algies Bay and Snells Beach sea walls were repaired and upgraded at a cost of $1.0 million.

We have this year completed upgrades of playgrounds at Snells Beach and Warkworth Showgrounds and began work on Matakana playground. The new skate ramp at Riverhead opened to address the needs of the younger community.

Funding was set aside in the Annual Agreement for the improvement to our much used town centre toilets to date we have managed to undertake work at Wellsford with Helensville and Warkworth being undertaken in 2015/2016

Challenges in our area

The consent has been granted for the restoration of Warkworth Town Hall. A staged approach has been adopted, with the Local Board underwriting the cost of $1.2 million for the second stage. The Community agreed to contribute $0.68 million to the cost through fund raising.

Looking forward

The Warkworth Showgrounds development will continue in stages. There will be a focus on the future multi-sport building which is an important partnership with this community.

Road maintenance and provision of footpaths is a major challenge for the Rodney area. The local board has committed funds in the next three years ($2.0 million) for a number of improvements including construction of new footpaths and footpath extensions.

Message from the chair

Tena koutou katoa

Greetings good people of Rodney

I am pleased to present the Rodney Local Board section of the 2014/2015 Auckland Council annual report. The Rodney Local Board is responsible for $25m that was spent in operating and maintaining local assets such as libraries, parks and community facilities as well as upgrading and building new facilities for its growing population.

We have had a very busy year with some great new projects like – the Warkworth Showgrounds, which now has new netball courts, new toilets, improved car parking and a great a new playground. The Helensville War Memorial Hall basement redevelopment is well underway and this proposed community hub facility will be a fantastic asset. There has also been an upgrade of the Snells Beach playground and a new skate ramp at Riverhead just to mention a few highlights.

A joint vision and clear priorities for Rodney residents resulted through the adoption of our second ever Rodney local board plan. We are rapt with the response from our community during the consultation and the quality of feedback. We are very proud that our local board plan reflects the community’s priorities. This was also a key feature for the Long-term plan 2015-2025 community feedback. We were able to begin putting this vision into action through budget allocations in the Long-term plan and the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2025.

We advocated for more funding for sealing roads, to improve connectivity by building footpath and cycleway extensions in and between our towns and villages, and requested improved and regular public transport services throughout Rodney. We also advocated for additional funding to upgrade town centre toilets in Wellsford, Kumeu and Warkworth and asked for additional renewals funding to upgrade community hard courts and make them useable.

The local board has also prepared the Wellsford Greenways Plan with the community, the first of the greenway plans, for the Rodney area. For the first time we ran a dedicated Community Walkways Grants round and the local board is thrilled with the ideas, enthusiasm and passion shown to progress some great community projects. We are leading the way in empowering our communities’, which is business as usual for Rodney.

Brenda Steele

Chairperson

Performance

16.1 Local libraries

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	22	18
Total operating expenditure	2,706	3,063
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(2,684)	(3,045)
Total capital expenditure	(6)	35

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

We shared resources and collaborated with external partners to enhance language skills for those whom English is not their main language such as speakers of Ikiribati and Tuvaluan. The Kumeu library ran a pilot ‘Books in Cafes’ where withdrawn picture books were gifted to local cafes.

A variety of programmes were offered across all five libraries including craft groups, Seed Exchange in Kumeu, book clubs and the hugely popular Minecraft sessions.

The Dare to Explore program continues to be a success which encourages primary school children to continue to read throughout the summer holiday by incorporating activities and booklists for them to enjoy.

Capital works have included upgrades to the lighting at Helensville Library.

How we performed

This year has seen a continued growth in Libraries being used for programs and increased Wi-Fi use.

16.2 Local community services

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	149	126
Total operating expenditure	1,526	1,314
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(1,377)	(1,188)
Total capital expenditure	1,237	3,307

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

The renewal program for Council-owned halls upgraded heating, lighting and insulation. The basement refit of the Helensville War Memorial Hall will be completed in July 2015.

Grants of $25,000 were paid out to community groups and trusts.

How we performed

The grant obligation measure has been taken at a point in time and does not reflect the final deadline for the return of all accountability reports.

16.3 Local arts, culture and
events services

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	1	0
Total operating expenditure	483	498
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(482)	(498)
Total capital expenditure	77	173

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

The board continued to support our local facilities with grants to run their programmes and provided $51,000 of specific funds by way of contestable grants for events such as Santa parades, A&P Shows and Mahurangi Pasifika festival during the year.

How we performed

The events surveyed included the popular Kowhai Festival and The Mahurangi Regatta

16.4 Local parks service

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	0	0
Total operating expenditure	12,408	12,536
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(12,408)	(12,536)
Total capital expenditure	4,180	4,842

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

Key projects include upgrades and renewal of Snells Beach and Algies Bay Sea Walls, playgrounds at Warkworth Showgrounds and Snells Beach, a footbridge to link walkway at Whangateau. Further walkways have been built at Te Whau and Huapai Domain.

Completion of the netball courts and a new toilet at Warkworth Showgrounds.

Two car parks for local sports were upgraded at Muriwai Green and Centennial Park, Wellsford.

How we performed

The residents perception of service levels in local parks is slightly down on previous years. Factors contributing to this include a change to standardise maintenance across the region and a significant growth in population within Rodney.

16.5 Local recreation services

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	0	0
Total operating expenditure	115	126
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(115)	(126)
Total capital expenditure	0	0

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

There are no council owned or operated recreational facilities in the local board area, however residents are able to use facilities and attend programs in neighbouring local boards.

How we performed

To address the gap a feasibility report has been commissioned on providing a swimming pool in Warkworth.

16.6 Local economic development

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	0	0
Total operating expenditure	726	569
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(726)	(569)
Total capital expenditure	75	21

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

Delivering on the outcomes of the boards economic plan, enhancing the town centres and investigating options to attract visitors to the SH16 corridor were the main focus.

The creation of a Business Improvement District (BID) for Warkworth was explored.

How we performed

Enhancing the town centres, this is a key item in the Rodney Local Board Plan. Options are being developed to meet the public expectations.

16.7 Local built and natural environment

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	0	0
Total operating expenditure	162	191
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(162)	(191)
Total capital expenditure	0	0

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

Following on from our survey of terrestrial ecological ecosystems last year, a number of previously unidentified native plant populations including one with a “Nationally Critical” threat ranking have been identified as a result, further work has been undertaken at a number of reserves during the year including Lake Tomarata, McElroys Scenic reserve and Upper Omeru reserve.

How we performed

The environment continues to be important to the Local Board. The satisfaction results reflect the investment made to support the community protect the sustainability of the large and unique environment within the Rodney boundary.

16.8 Local governance

What we spent

Financial Statement Summary ($000)*	Actual 2015	Annual Plan 2015
Total operating revenue	3	12
Total operating expenditure	1,450	1,574
Surplus (deficit) of operating funding	(1,447)	(1,562)
Total capital expenditure	0	15

*Full financial reports are included at the end of this report.

What we delivered

Key milestones included the adoption of the Rodney Local Board Plan and after extensive consultation the council’s long-term plan (10-year budget) which is reviewed every three years.

How we performed

Extensive engagement and consultation with the community to seek their views on the Local Board Plan and the LTP is reflected in the improved satisfaction results.

Performance measures

16.1 Local libraries

Levels of service	Measures	2015 status	2015 actual	2015 target	2014 actual
Provide safe, welcoming and accessible library facilities for customers to access library services	Percentage of customers satisfied with overall services provided by libraries		96%	90%	94%
	Average number of library visits per capita		8	10	9
	Total library building floor space per 1,000 residents (m²)		33	35	33

16.2 Local community services

Levels of service	Measures	2015 status	2015 actual	2015 target	2014 actual
Provide local community development resources, funds and programmes that build community wellbeing	Percentage of community funding applicants satisfied with information, assistance and advice provided		76%	75%	62%
	Percentage of community funding/grant recipients meeting grant obligations		70%	90%	100%
Provide community halls, centres and houses that meet the recreational and social needs of the local community	Percentage of users satisfied with community centres and community houses		87%	80%	74%
	Percentage of available time community centres and halls are used (actual hours used compared to hours available)		23%	27%	23%
Improve community safety through delivery of programmes and initiatives with partner organisations and the community	Percentage of respondents who perceive that their neighbourhood is reasonably safe in the day time		94%	85%	95%
	Percentage of respondents who perceive that their neighbourhood is reasonably safe at night time		56%	55%	51%

16.3 Local arts, culture and events services

Levels of service	Measures	2015 status	2015 actual	2015 target	2014 actual
Provide opportunities and facilities for the community to experience and enjoy the arts	Percentage of visitors satisfied with council delivered or funded local arts facilities		90%	85%	91%
	Number of visits to local arts facilities per 1,000 residents		322	91	351
	Number of participants in local arts activities per 1,000 residents		146	74	159
	Percentage of participants satisfied with local arts activities		93%	85%	94%
Deliver, facilitate and fund diverse and high-quality arts and cultural programmes	Number of local arts and culture activities that contribute to Māori outcome		8	2	5
Deliver and facilitate events that meet local community needs	Percentage of attendees satisfied with council provided local events overall		94%	85%	91%
	Estimated number of attendees at council delivered and funded local events per 1,000 residents		660	75	883

16.4 Local parks services

Levels of service	Measures	2015 status	2015 actual	2015 target	2014 actual
Develop and maintain local park network to cater for community needs	Percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (location and distribution) of local parks and reserves		62%	75%	63%
	Percentage of residents satisfied with the quality of parks, reserves, sports fields and beaches		74%	75%	74%
	Percentage of residents who visited a local park or reserve in last 12 months		89%	85%	91%
	The playing capacity of sports fields (playing hours per week)		540	604	590
	Percentage of local parks and reserves maintenance standards achieved as per contractual requirements		94%	98%	94%

16.5 Local recreation services

There are no council-owned or operated recreation or leisure facilities located in the local board area

16.6 Local economic development

Levels of service

Measures

2015 status

2015

actual

2015

target

2014 actual

Develop and maintain safe, clean and vibrant commercial town centres and street environments

Percentage of residents satisfied with cleanliness of their local town centre

64%

65%

61%

Percentage of residents satisfied with the quality and maintenance of the street environment

51%

60%

50%

16.7 Local built and natural environment

Levels of service

Measures

2015 status

2015

actual

2015

target

2014 actual

Provide leadership and support to protect and conserve the region's natural environment and cultural heritage

Number of environmental programmes led or supported

Number of environmental programmes with Māori participation

16.8 Local governance

Levels of service	Measures	2015 status	2015 actual	2015 target	2014 actual
Ensure the community can participate and contribute to local board decision-making	Percentage of residents who feel they can participate in local board decision-making		23%	50%	20%
	Percentage of Māori residents who feel they can participate in local board decision-making		6%	50%	7%
	Percentage compliance with statutory requirements for publishing agendas and minutes for local board meetings		100%	100%	100%

Key projects and initiatives

Capital projects

Project	Progress report	2015 status	Est. cost	Our role	Est. timing
Warkworth Showgrounds	Continued work this year saw the completion of the playground, toilets and netball courts		$6 million	Lead	2013-2017
Warkworth Town Hall	Work started on the renovation and extension of the historic hall		$3.1 million	Partner	2016
Helensville Memorial Hall Basement project	Upgrade and completion of Basement of hall		$0.7 million	Lead	July 2015

Financial information

$000	Note	2015 Actual	2015 Annual Plan	2014 Actual

Total operating revenue		175	156	159

Operating expenditure
Local arts, culture and events services		483	498	563
Local built and natural environment		162	191	102
Local community services		1,526	1,314	1,187
Local economic development		726	569	556
Local governance		1,450	1,574	1,471
Local libraries		2,706	3,063	2,445
Local parks services		12,408	12,536	12,959
Local recreation services		115	126	0
Total operating expenditure		19,576	19,871	19,283

Net expenditure		19,401	19,715	19,124

Capital expenditure
Local arts, culture and events services		77	173	a) 2
Local community services	1	1,237	3,307	b) 340
Local economic development		75	21	c) 0
Local governance		0	15	d) 14
Local libraries		(6)	35	e) 38
Local parks services	2	4,180	4,842	f) 3,099
Total capital expenditure		5,563	8,393	g) 3,493

Notes

1. Delays in the consent process impacted on the Warkworth Town Hall restoration.

2. Capital projects of $0.9 million were deferred to future years. This is offset by increased expenditure for the Warkworth Showground.

Rodney Local Board

17 August 2015

Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 January to 30 June 2015

File No.: CP2015/15160

Purpose

1. To give the Rodney Local Board an overview of Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL) activities for the six months 1 January to 30 June 2015.

Executive Summary

2. In May 2015 the governing body voted in favour of merging ACPL with Waterfront Auckland to form Development Auckland (DA). The merger responds to feedback from the wider council organisations and seeks to address some key growth, development, housing provision and funding challenges that Auckland will face over the next 20 years. As a CCO Development Auckland will have a commercial orientation, but it will also have explicit public good outcomes to pursue.

3. Substantive elements of the purpose of DA relate to urban redevelopment, strategic advice on council’s property portfolio and the redevelopment of underutilised council assets to achieve commercial and strategic outcomes.

4. In August 2015 the governing body will receive recommendations from council staff in respect of the proposed locational priorities for DA.

5. It would be anticipated that DA will specifically engage with local boards post the formal establishment on the 1 September 2015 to consider what activities DA can undertake to benefit their local communities.

6. As this will be our final six-monthly update to you as ACPL, we are including both the full business summary as included in previous versions and additionally providing an outline of some of the strategic and organisational changes we will be making as we transition to Development Auckland.

7. ACPL activity detail is broken down by business unit or work-stream, with a focus on local board specific activities where applicable.

8. Local board specific supporting detail is included in Attachments A, B and C.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board six-monthly update 1 January to 30 June 2015.

Comments

Development Auckland

9. Council formally approved the establishment of Development Auckland, being a merger of Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council property Limited, in May 2015.

10. The essential purpose of DA is to contribute to the implementation of the Auckland Plan and encourage economic development by facilitating urban redevelopment that optimises and integrates good public transport outcomes, efficient and sustainable infrastructure and quality public services and amenities. DA will manage council’s non-service property portfolio and provide strategic advice on council’s other property portfolios. It will recycle or redevelop sub-optimal or underutilised council assets and aim to achieve an overall balance of commercial and strategic outcomes.

11. A number of objectives fall within the purpose including facilitating the redevelopment of urban locations and optimising the council’s property portfolio.

12. The process to establish the operating structure of DA is well advanced and a combined work stream between DA and council staff is looking at the future priorities for DA that will provide focus in terms of geographic locations and project priorities. In respect of the locational analysis work recommendations will be made to the governing body in August.

13. It would be anticipated that DA will specifically engage with Local Boards post the formal establishment on the 1 September to consider what activities DA can undertake to benefit their local communities.

Workshops and Meetings

14. A schedule of Rodney Local Board workshops and meetings attended by ACPL representatives from July to December 2015 is included as Attachment A. The list includes property specific meetings and workshops relating to general property management and the ongoing portfolio Rationalisation Process.

Property Portfolio Management

15. ACPL manages property owned by the council and Auckland Transport that are not currently required for service or infrastructure purposes. These are properties that are not immediately required for service delivery or infrastructure development but are being held for use in a planned future project such as road construction/widening or the expansion of parks. This work will largely remain unaffected by the transition to Development Auckland.

16. The property portfolio continued to grow during the last six months and now totals 1347 properties containing 1080 leases, an increase of 41 since our July-December 2014 update. The current property portfolio includes industrial sites and buildings, retail tenancies, cafés, restaurants, offices and a substantial portfolio of residential properties.

17. ACPL’s return on the property portfolio for the year ending 30 June 2015 provides the shareholder a net surplus of $ 6.8m ahead of budget, with an actual surplus of $ 29.8 m against budget of $ 23m. The average monthly vacancy rate for the period is 1.6% which is under the SOI targets of 5%.

18. A Properties Managed schedule is included as Attachment B of this report. The schedule details:

§ Current ACPL-managed commercial and residential property within the Rodney Local Board

§ Each property’s classification or reason for retention

§ The nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with a tenancy in place

§ The budget under which operating expenditure and lease revenue for the property is reported eg regional or local board.

19. A report indicating portfolio movement in the local board area is attached as Attachment C. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

20. ACPL is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. ACPL has a particular focus on achieving housing outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

21. July 2014 to June 2015 Target

UNIT	TARGET	ACHIEVED	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m disposal recommendations	$69 m	These recommendations include $65.9m of sites that are identified for development projects.

22. In setting future disposal targets ACPL is working closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties.

2014/2015 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m gross value recommended for sale	These targets include disposal recommendations and sales for sites that are identified for place-shaping and housing development projects
Development & Disposals	$30 net value of unconditional sales

Process

23. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage Rationalisation Process. The agreed process includes engagement with: the council, CCOs, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with local ward and the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally a governing body decision.

Under review

24. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the Rationalisation Process in the Rodney Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been presented to the governing body and either approved for sale or development and sale or designated for retention. Further details are included in Attachment B.

PROPERTY	DETAILS
118 Rodney Street	Former Wellsford Library. Transferred to ACPL as non-service in July 14. Progressed through the Rationalisation Process to evaluate all potential future use options. A business case was received from CDAC and Community Facilities for site to be retained for community use. The Rodney Local Board supported the business case. The case for the retention of this site was approved by the governing body in February 2015.
35 Mill Road	Legacy approved sale of site currently leased to Downers. Has been under review for future use options. Site presented to the Governing Body for decision on 18 June 2015 and approved for subdivision, with retention of approximately 20sqm as esplanade reserve, 5,500sqm as a resource recovery facility, investigation of a further 300sqm after working with the Rodney Local Board, and disposal of the balance of land. Full report and minutes available on the council website.
55A Alnwick Street, Warkworth	Released from Auckland Council as non-service. The rationalisation process commenced in June 2014. Possible alternative service uses were identified during the internal consultation. ACPL is currently exploring these with relevant parties.
139 Tapu Road, Huapai	Subject to legacy sale decision. Unconditionally sold 16 June 2015.
12 Waimauku Station Road, Waimauku	Vacant strip of land transferred to ACPL from Auckland Council as non-service in June 14. Acquired by Rodney District Council for roading purposes in 2006. Partially vested as road in February 2007. Subject to a drainage easement in favour of the Waitematā County Council. ACPL commenced the Rationalisation Process in September 2014. EOI received from Auckland Transport identifying that road and footpath runs through part of this site. A workshop was held with Rodney Local Board on 2 March 2015 to discuss the site. ACPL will report back in due course.
Horseshoe Bush Road – Sec 1 SO 68946	Access-way through commercial site. Transferred to ACPL as non-service in June 14. Currently leased to Transpacific Industries Group (NZ) Limited. ACPL commenced the Rationalisation Process in September 2014. No alternative services uses were identified. A workshop was held with Rodney Local Board on 2 March 2015 to discuss the site. The site will progress to the local board’s business meeting in due course for official feedback.
Lot 22 DP201990 Riverglade Lane, Matakana	Small reserve site that previously housed a pumping station. Pumping station was decommissioned and property was transferred from Auckland Council property department (ACPD) as non-service. The rationalisation process for this property commenced in September 2014. No alternative service uses were identified during the internal consultation. A workshop was held with Rodney Local Board on 2 March 2015 to discuss the site. The site will progress to the local board’s business meeting in due course for official feedback.

Redevelopment/Regeneration and Housing Supply initiatives

Overview

25. ACPL in its current form is contributing commercial input into approximately 54 region wide council-driven regeneration and housing supply initiatives. Involvement extends from provision of initial feasibility advice through to implementation, with projects ranging in size from $415k to in excess of $100million.

26. ACPL is also actively contributing to the Housing Action Plan, which is a council initiative focusing on non-regulatory efforts to encourage and increase affordable residential development. ACPL has a Statement of Intent target to undertake five housing development projects over three years that will improve housing affordability and the supply of affordable housing encompassing Community Housing Organisation involvement. ACPL is currently actively working on 13 such projects.

27. In our expanded role as Development Auckland we will be extending on this work to play a much stronger role in urban development through greater scale, enhanced capability and the ability to partner with others. We will have a key role in helping deliver the council priority of quality urban living and will have the mandate to deal with the challenge of Auckland’s rapid growth through regeneration and investment.

28. Development Auckland’s roles and responsibilities will be customised to each specific project initiative and location. A few will be of a high custodial nature associated with urban regeneration. Some will be at the other end of the scale with a more facilitative role; and some will be much more able to be delivered in the short term.

29. ACPL already works closely with the local boards on ACPL-led developments to ensure we give effect to the local boards’ place-shaping role. As Development Auckland engagement will in some areas be of a much broader scope, with the potential for involvement in master-planning activities for significant land areas.

Optimisation Update

30. Optimisation is a programme of work aimed to achieve better use of council’s planned and funded service assets. The programme targets housing and urban regeneration outcomes along with the delivery of cost-neutral service investment on appropriate sites. ACPL and ACPD are leading a cross-council project to establish the rules and methodology for service optimisation activity. The programme will be carried across to Development Auckland.

31. Local board engagement and workshops will be provided to demonstrate the scope of optimisation and the benefits of driving optimal asset performance from qualifying service property. Timeframes for these workshops have been pushed out due to Development Auckland transition work. However, ACPL welcomes suggestions of service sites that may have potential for improved service function along with housing or urban regeneration outcomes.

Local Activities

32. There are currently no regeneration and housing initiative proposal activities in the Rodney Local Board area.

Acquisitions

Overview

33. ACPL continues to support council and AT programmes and projects by negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded through approved council or AT budgets. We also provide advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

34. From 1 January 2015 to 31 June 2015, 49 property purchases were completed for the council and AT. All of the property acquisitions met independent valuation thresholds agreed with AT, the council and Public Works Act 1981 requirements.

Council Acquisitions

35. Of the 49 property acquisitions over the past six months, 12 were purchased to meet council legal, open space and storm water requirements and to contribute to City Transformation projects. These included the following acquisitions in or neighbouring the Rodney Local Board area.

PROPERTY	STAKEHOLDER	WORK TYPE	LOCAL BOARD
3202 South Head road, South Head	Community Policy & Planning	Open Space	Rodney
179 Matua Road, Huapai	Parks, Sports & Recreation	Open Space	Rodney
92 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville (part only)	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
90 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville (part only)	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
88 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville (part only)	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
84-86 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville (part only)	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
106-108 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville (part only)	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
82 Karekare Road, KareKare	Parks, Sports & Recreation	Open Space	Waitakere Ranges

Auckland Transport Acquisitions

36. The remaining 37 properties were acquired on behalf of AT. The focus was on acquisitions to support major transport projects including AMETI (five acquisitions) City Rail Link Property Acquisition (seven acquisitions), Redoubt Road Mill Road Corridor Upgrade (six acquisitions) road widening across the region (10 acquisitions) and Northern Strategic Growth Area (one acquisition). Full details of relevant AT projects and associated acquisitions will come to the local board directly from AT.

Business Interests

37. ACPL also optimises the commercial return from assets it manages on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries. A high level update on business interests in the Rodney Local Board area is outlined below.

Araparera Forest

38. Ararapera Forest is joint venture between Te Tumu Paeroa (the new Māori Trustee) on behalf of the landowners and council having started approximately 26 years ago.

39. A formal pōwhiri marked the conclusion of the joint venture following a final meeting of owners. The Maori Trustee on behalf of the Maori landowners has received their share of the profit. Auckland Council has retained the balance which is to be spent on roads within the Northern riding of the ex-Rodney Council area.

Ti Point

40. Ti Point Forest is 14 ha of mature pinus radiata trees located on a site in Whangateau which also includes an ex-quarry and landfill.

A tender process was instigated that has resulted in a preferred purchaser of the cutting rights being selected. An agreement for the sale of the trees is being completed.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

41. This report is for the Rodney Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

42. Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed robust engagement with the 19 mana whenua groups for our core business activities. We are currently working with Waterfront Auckland on a future strategy for Development Auckland.

43. Key engagement activities currently include: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests, development partnering discussions and issues relating to property management such as protection of wāhi tapu or joint management arising from the resolution of Treaty Settlements. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect of development outcomes for ACPL lead projects where appropriate. As Development Auckland we will work with iwi to consolidate and build on strengths from ACPL and Waterfront Auckland’s approaches along with successful work being done elsewhere in the council family.

44. ACPL additionally undertook to be part of council’s Māori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) pilot programme. The project’s key output is an operational document outlining ACPL’s contribution to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Māori. The MRP was finalised and approved by the ACPL Board in December 2014 and is in the implementation phase. A copy of this is available on the ACPL website. This work will be carried over and reflected in the new organisation.

45. As we transition to Development Auckland, the local board can expect to be advised or involved as appropriate in any discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

Implementation

46. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of Meetings and Workshops	131
b View	Properties managed by ACPL in the local board area	133
c View	Property movement in the local board area	137

Signatories

Authors

Caitlin Borgfeldt -Local Board Liaison

Authorisers

David Rankin -Chief Executive

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 August 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards

File No.: CP2015/15940

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months April – June 2015 and planned activities anticipated to be undertaken in the next three months.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Quarterly update to Local Boards.

Comments

Significant activities during the period under review

Strategy and Planning

2. Corridor Management Plans (CMPs) – seven new CMP studies and one CMP review were completed this quarter. These are (1) Gillies Avenue CMP, (2) Henderson Metropolitan Centre Transport Study, (3) Glenfield Road-Birkenhead Avenue CMP, (4) Remuera Road-St Johns Road CMP, (5) Parnell Road-Parnell Rise CMP, (6) Hillsborough Road-Kinross Street CMP, (7) Rosebank Road-Patiki Road CMP and (8) Great South Road Stage 1 (Manukau to Drury) CMP Review.

3. AT Parking Strategy 2015 – The Strategy was approved in April and successfully launched at the end of May.

4. RPTP Variation – Public consultations and hearing deliberations on the Regional Public Transport Plan were completed this quarter.

Investment and Development

5. SMART (Southwest Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit)

· Investigation to identify the best public transport mode (heavy or light rail) to support the employment and passenger growth at the Airport. It also includes the identification of a preferred corridor for protection. Construction has started on the Kirkbride interchange which includes widening for SMART.

PT Development

6. Otahuhu Bus Rail Interchange

· Detailed design is complete and NZTA funding has been approved for construction. The Signal Box was removed and the overhead live line lowered over Queens Birthday weekend. Enabling works are on schedule, with the main works tender deferred until all funding is approved (now approved) and planned for July release. It is expected that main works will begin in October 2015 and be completed in early June 2016.

7. Half Moon Bay New Ferry Facility

· This project includes the design and development of a new passenger ferry facility at Half Moon Bay, including integration with Public Transport, and accessibility and passenger amenity improvements. A site inspection of the pontoon and gangway units was completed in early July prior to placing these units into storage in readiness for the Stage 2 physical works completion. The wharf design is progressing with the submission of the building consent to Auckland Council expected in July/August 2015 .

8. City Rail Link

· Enabling Works Package: Phase 1 ECI design service contracts 1 and 2 have been awarded. Construction is to commence November 2015 with services relocation.

· Main Works: Construction to start in 2018/19, subject to a funding agreement with Government.

9. EMU Procurement

· 54 units have been provisionally accepted and the final three are in transit and due in Auckland in early August. Peak period EMU services began on 8 June from Papakura, and on 20 July the network became fully electric with Papakura and Swanson to Britomart service introduction.

PT Operations

10. Public Transport overall

· For the 12 months to the end of June, patronage was 79.25 million trips which is up 9.5% on the 2014 result. This is an increase of almost 7 million trips over the course of a year and, given the strong weekday growth, likely represents around an extra 30,000 trips being taken each working day. The changes for individual modes were:

· Bus (excluding Northern Express) – 57 million trips, up 6.6%

· Northern Express – 2.8 million trips, up 17.2%

· Rail – 13.9 million trips, up 21.7%

· Ferry – 5.5 million trips, up 8.3%

11. Rail Improvements

· The big performer was rail which reached 13.9 million passenger trips for the year, representing an annual increase of 21.7%. The growth is put down to the enhanced travel experience and additional capacity provided by the new electric trains and greater service frequency introduced over recent years.

· The AT network became fully electric on 20 July, except for the link between Papakura and Pukekohe which will continue to use diesel trains. These will be refurbished over time to provide an enhanced experience. The electric trains will provide improved travel experience and more capacity on all lines.

12. Bus & Ferry Improvements

· June was also a record-breaking month on the Northern Express, with patronage up 17% on the same month last year. The 12 month total patronage reached 2.8 million. It was also a record for other bus services as patronage rose 6.6% to 57 million trips. Ferry numbers for the year totalled 5.5 million trips, up 8.3% on an annual basis.

· Growth on bus services is attributed to increased services and frequency, improving travel times from new bus priority lanes and a significant improvement in service punctuality being achieved by bus operators through new timetables. Further service level increases and punctuality improvements are planned for later this year along with the introduction of double decker buses on a number of routes. New network routes will also be introduced from later this year.

Road Design and Development

13. Te Atatu Road Improvements

· Road Corridor Improvement project on Te Atatu Rd from School Road/Edmonton Road intersection to SH16. The evaluation of the construction tenders is now completed, with the award of the contract being imminent. Construction is targeted to start in August 2015 with completion expected around February 2017. A public open day will be arranged prior to the starting of physical works.

14. Albany Highway

· The Albany Highway North Upgrade project involves widening of Albany Highway between Schnapper Rock Road and the Albany Expressway. Construction is approximately 40% complete. Disruption to land owners and road users due to construction is being well managed, with any issues being quickly resolved. The Rosedale Road intersection signalisation has been brought forward to July to assist with traffic management and pedestrian safety.

15. Lincoln Road Improvements

· The project involves widening Lincoln Road between Te Pai Place and the motorway interchange to accommodate additional transit/bus lanes on both sides. Stakeholder feedback has been received for the 2-D layout plan, and the NZTA funding application for the detailed design is progressing. The designation process is expected to start in late November 2015.

16. Mill Road Improvements

· The Redoubt Road - Mill Road corridor project will provide an arterial road connection east of State Highway 1 between Manukau, Papakura and Drury and includes Murphys Road improvements from Redoubt Road to Flatbush School Road. Submissions to the NOR have closed and AT is now preparing evidence for the formal hearing due at the end of August.

Services

17. Road Safety Highlights

· Over 4,000 young people and their parents have participated in the Crossroads young driver programme.

· The Oi! Mind on the road, not on the phone driver distraction campaign in May targeted 20-29yr old drivers.

· The Love Being a Local road safety campaign enabled rural communities to take a lead role in raising awareness of local speed issues.

18. Schools Travelwise Programme Highlights

· The United Nations Global Road Safety Week took place from 4 to 10 May. 146 teachers registered for Road Safety Week information and resources and 27 schools entered the competition.

· On 25 June 2015, 400 volunteers attended the Walking School Bus (WSB) megastars event to recognize the efforts of WSB volunteers.

· Recently completed research has found that crash rates involving children walking and cycling at schools with Safe School Travel Plans (SSTPs) and Active School Signage were significantly reduced by 37% after the implementation of these measures.

19. Road Safety Education in Schools: (2014/15 Year)

· 79 new Walking School Buses were established, bringing the regional total to 369 and exceeding the target of 347

· 23 schools and 1,683 students received cycle training against a target of 1500

· 4 new schools joined the Travelwise programme, creating a total of 408 schools

· 2 regional ‘Slow Down Around Schools’ campaigns were delivered

· 536 students and 77 teachers attended Travelwise Primary and Secondary school workshops

· 4 high risk schools received rail fare evasion prevention campaigns.

20. Road Safety Promotion and Training: (2014/15 Year)

· A number of Local campaigns were delivered including: 5,275 drivers through local Drink/Drive operations with NZ Police.

· The #Drunksense radio advertisement won the Outstanding Radio Creativity Award and Driver Distractions won the Social and Community Platinum Award.

21. Travel Demand (2014/15 Year)

· The ‘Commute’ programme promotes behavioural change to reduce the reliance on and impact of Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips. Focused on the morning peak period of congestion, the programme works with businesses to support public transport, carpooling and active modes of getting to work. Seventeen new organisations joined the ‘Commute’ programme, and 23 organisations progressed or launched their travel plan activities.

2014/15 Performance Outcomes

22. School Travel Trips Avoided

· The 2015 Community and Road Safety Team target of 16,700 morning car trips avoided through school travel planning activities was exceeded with 17,164 trips avoided.

· The total number of deaths and serious injuries (DSI) on Auckland Local Roads in the 2014 calendar year was 398, representing a 7.4% reduction from 2013. For the 2014 calendar year, the Auckland region had the lowest rate of road deaths and serious injuries (DSI) per capita in New Zealand – 31 DSI per 100,000 population.

Road Corridor Delivery

23. The Asset and Maintenance Group is tasked with the responsibility for a wide range of activities within the Road Corridor. These include but are not limited to:

· The Delivery of roading and streetlight maintenance and renewal programmes.

· Managing the access, co-ordination and traffic management impacts of activities taking place within the road corridor

· Promoting design innovation and efficiency around how work is carried out on the network

· The development of long term asset management plans and modelling which support the decision making process around the management of AT’s roading assets.

April – June Quarter key highlights

24. The Road Corridor Delivery Team have a year to date target (YTD) to deliver 581km of resurfacing (asphalt or chipseals), pavement renewals and footpath renewals. As outlined in figure 1, for 2014/2015 the group delivered 568km, or 98% of the planned programme.

Figure 1: Actual vs planned lengths (km) for June YTD

	YTD Planned Targets (KM)	Actuals (KM)	%
Resurfacing	427.4	418.9
Pavement Renewals	37.4	40
Footpath Renewals	116.7	110
Total	581.5	568.9	98%

25. The new streetlighting contracts have been awarded to Downer (for Central and Southern areas) and Electrix (for North and West areas). The four new contracts align with the road maintenance contracts and replace the nine legacy contracts which have been in place until now. The new contracts are for a four year term with an additional 1+1 year right of renewal at AT’s discretion.

26. .AT’s second asset management plan (AMP) covering the period 2015-2018 will be published in August 2015. This document details the strategies and management systems deployed by AT and sets out the future renewals and maintenance investment required to continue building the assets, infrastructure and delivery systems of a world-leading, transformational, sustainable and affordable urban transport service. The AMP also addresses the shortfalls that will begin to accrue if current budget levels continue over the medium to long term. Electronic copies will be available for download on the AT website and a hard copy will be sent to each local board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the fourth quarter (2014/2015) ending 30 June 2015	145
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	157
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	159
d View	Local board advocacy report	161
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	165

Signatories

Authors	Various Auckland Transport authors
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Rodney Local Board

17 August 2015

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

File No.: CP2015/14920

Purpose

1. To inform local boards about the purpose and content of the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and seek their feedback.

2. To outline the Special Consultative Procedure being undertaken and the anticipated role of local boards in this consultation process.

3. To obtain local board views on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Executive Summary

4. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for approximately 11,000 hectares of Future Urban zone land. This land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB), but outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

5. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (the “Strategy”) (Attachment A) provides direction on the next stage in planning for the following Future Urban zone areas:

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

· North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

· South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe.

6. The Strategy sets out Auckland Council’s intention for when the above Future Urban areas are proposed to be development ready. The Strategy was developed in collaboration with infrastructure providers such as Watercare, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

7. The Strategy has significant implications for Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin Local Boards as they contain areas of Future Urban land which are sequenced for development readiness by the Strategy.

8. At its July meeting the Auckland Development Committee resolved to approve the draft Strategy for public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002) (Attachment B). They also appointed a five person hearing panel consisting of four Councillors and a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

9. The consultation period will run from 17 July to 17 August 2015. Public engagement on the Strategy will include a series of ‘Have your say’ events to be held in Warkworth, Dairy Flat, Drury and Kumeu.

10. The final Strategy will be submitted to the Auckland Development Committee in October for adoption.

11. This report seeks views from the Rodney Local Board for consideration by the Auckland Development Committee and hearing panel in making a determination on if and how the Strategy will be amended.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receives this report

b) provides feedback to the Auckland Development Committee and hearing panel on the Strategy, in particular on:

i) whether the Local Board agrees with the sequencing proposed within the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and, if so, the reasons why

ii) aspects of the sequencing in the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy the Local Board disagrees with and the reasons as to why

c) any further issues on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Comments

Background

12. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for approximately 11,000 hectares of Future Urban zone land. This land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) but outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). The Future Urban zone indicates that this land is appropriate for future urban development.

13. A key goal of the Auckland Plan Development Strategy is to achieve a quality compact form. This requires urban intensification, supplemented by well-managed urban expansion. The Auckland Plan advocates for 70 per cent of growth in the existing urban area and up to 40 per cent of growth in locations outside the 2010 MUL. The Future Urban land is intended to provide a significant portion of the growth outside the 2010 MUL – around 110,000 dwellings. The balance of growth outside the RUB and the satellite towns of Warkworth and Pukekohe, will be accommodated in rural and coastal towns, rural villages, countryside living and general rural areas.

14. The draft Strategy focuses on the Future Urban land areas located in:

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

· North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

· South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe.

15. Local board areas which contain Future Urban land directly affected by this Strategy include Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin.

16. The draft Strategy marks the next step in planning the Future Urban areas that started with the Auckland Plan. The Auckland Plan identified ‘greenfield areas of investigation’ to provide for future growth outside the MUL. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan formalised this concept through the location of the RUB and the proposed zoning of this land as Future Urban.

17. High-level planning was undertaken to provide more detail around possible land use, key infrastructure and potential housing yield and business land location. Based on this, the Strategy sequences the order for when this land is intended to be ready for development over the three decades of the Auckland Plan. It is a proactive approach to long-term planning, infrastructure provision and providing housing and business capacity.

18. Most of the Future Urban areas are predominantly rural and have not previously been identified for urbanisation. Bulk infrastructure will therefore have to be provided to these areas. All Future Urban areas require some degree of bulk infrastructure; development will therefore not be able to occur until this infrastructure is in place. In areas where bulk infrastructure projects are large and complex, longer lead-in times (for design, consenting and build) are required. This affects the timing for when land can be development ready.

Purpose of the Strategy

19. The purpose of the draft Strategy is to provide a robust and logical sequence for when the Future Urban areas are proposed to be ‘development ready’ across the three decades of the Auckland Plan. This will enable coordination of timely structure planning and bulk infrastructure provision to these areas and provide clarity and certainty to all key stakeholders, including infrastructure providers.

Drivers for the Strategy

20. The key driver for the draft Strategy is the significant current and projected growth in Auckland and the pressure this growth places on housing supply and key infrastructure. The Strategy therefore aims to proactively plan for, coordinate and deliver bulk infrastructure so that this land can be brought on stream for both residential and business development i.e. contributing to development capacity across the region.

21. Accommodating this growth will come at a significant cost. Preliminary, high level estimates of bulk infrastructure costs are provided within the draft Strategy; however it does not include costs for any local network infrastructure. The significant costs are primarily driven by the size of the Future Urban areas (these equate to approximately one and a half times the area of urban Hamilton); the scale of the bulk infrastructure that will be required; and the current lack of such infrastructure in these areas. For these reasons it would be prohibitively expensive for Council, CCOs and, more broadly, for central government (e.g. the New Zealand Transport Agency and Ministry of Education) to invest in all Future Urban areas at the same time.

The draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

22. The draft Strategy sets out a logical timed sequence for development readiness. It integrates information on key infrastructure required to get these areas ready for urban development. The sequencing is based on a suite of principles (attached to the Strategy) that include the consideration of the lead-in times for the bulk infrastructure required. Bulk infrastructure refers to water, wastewater, stormwater and the transport network. This draft Strategy will also assist with the forward planning of community facilities and services critical for creating sustainable communities.

23. The sequencing set out in the draft Strategy was developed with input from a number of infrastructure providers including Watercare, Veolia, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

24. The analysis done for this draft Strategy is of sufficient scale and specificity to broadly determine bulk infrastructure requirements. There are two subsequent parallel and inter-dependent processes to get land ready for development – more detailed structure planning, and bulk infrastructure planning and build.

25. Structure planning and plan changes (to urban zones) will be done prior to the areas being ready for development and will be undertaken by the Council (or in partnership with others) in line with the programme set out in the draft Strategy. This is the stage of the process where Local Boards, mana whenua and communities will be involved in the detailed planning of these areas.

26. The sequencing programme ensures the infrastructure costs are distributed over three decades to smooth spikes in capital expenditure, allow all infrastructure providers to forward plan their asset management and assist with prioritising key enabling projects.

27. A monitoring programme is an integral part of the Strategy and will be used to monitor trends over time. This is to ensure that the proposed sequencing remains relevant. This monitoring will be part of an overall strategy to provide information on development capacity in brownfield and greenfield locations. Given the 30-year timeframe, a number of factors could change the proposed sequencing and timing as set out in the Strategy. These include funding constraints, possible alternative funding options and changes to population growth and housing demand. Therefore, for the Strategy to remain relevant and effective, it must be a ‘living’ document, able to respond to changes identified through the monitoring programme.

The Consultation Process

28. The public consultation period will run from 17 July – 17 August 2015. It will follow the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002). This procedure requires all interested parties to be given an opportunity to present submissions in a manner which enables spoken interaction.

29. The Auckland Development Committee has appointed Councillors Cashmore, Darby, Webster and Quax and one member of the IMSB (to be confirmed) to form a hearing panel to receive the spoken submissions.

30. A series of ‘Have your say’ events will be held to provide an opportunity to all interested parties to provide spoken feedback. These events will be held at the following dates, times and locations:

· Monday 3 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Warkworth Masonic Hall

· Wednesday 5 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Drury Hall

· Monday 10 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Dairy Flat School Hall

· Tuesday 11 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Kumeu Community Hall

31. Invitations will be extended to Ward Councillors and Local Board members to attend these events.

32. Public notices will be placed in the New Zealand Herald and relevant local newspapers notifying interested parties about the Strategy itself and the ‘Have your say’ events. The Strategy and a feedback form will be available on the Shape Auckland website and a media release will be distributed at the commencement of the consultation period. A targeted direct mail out will also be undertaken for key stakeholders.

33. Local Board participation at the events and feedback and input to the draft Strategy are welcomed.

34. Feedback received during the period, including that received from Local Boards, will be analysed, summarised and reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel. The panel will then make a determination about amendment of the Strategy.

35. The final Strategy will be submitted for adoption at the Auckland Development Committee meeting in October.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

36. The Strategy has significant implications for Local Boards particularly Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin Local Boards as they contain areas of Future Urban land sequenced by this Strategy. The consultation period and the ‘Have your say’ events provide an opportunity for Local Boards to become involved in the process, hear the views of their communities and form their own views and response to the Strategy.

37. Local Boards were informed about the Strategy at a joint workshop held with the Auckland Development Committee on 16 June 2015. A briefing on the Strategy and the consultation process was held for Local Board members on 15 July 2015. This was to ensure Local Boards have a sound understanding of the Strategy and consultation process prior to the commencement of the consultation period.

38. Preliminary issues raised by attendees included the need to manage community expectation about land purchases in the future urban areas, the need to ensure Council is fully resourced to undertake the structure planning work, a need to forward plan land purchase for community facilities and a proactive engagement approach with central government around provision of education and health facilities and services to deliver the best outcomes for local communities.

39. This report seeks Local Board views on the Strategy and these issues and any other feedback will be reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel.

Māori impact statement

40. This Strategy has significant implications for Maori and has the capacity to contribute to Maori well-being and development of Maori capacity. It is acknowledged that Maori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment. Ongoing liaison has occurred with Te Waka Angamua around the Strategy and the suite of principles which sit behind it. One of the principles reflects Council’s commitment to Maori social and economic well-being as a transformational shift set out in the Auckland Plan. Independent Maori Statutory Board staff were briefed at the commencement of the project, provided with background documentation and invited to workshops as the Strategy was developed. A representative from the IMSB is to be appointed to the hearing panel for this project. A hui was held with mana whenua chairs on 29 June 2015 and individual meetings will occur with interested Chairs who were unable to attend the hui.

41. Iwi responses will be sought as part of the public consultation process outlined in this report. Consultation submissions from iwi will be reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Future Urban Land supply Strategy	175
b View	The Auckland Development Committee Resolution	197

Signatories

Authors

Simon Tattersfield - Principal Growth and Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Jacques Victor - General Manager, Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Rodney Local Board

17 August 2015

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) Funding Model Review - Local Board Input

File No.: CP2015/14937

Purpose

1. Auckland Council is undertaking a review of the funding model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (ARAFA Funding Model Review). Feedback from the local boards is sought on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any).

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) established a distinct model for contributing funds to specified regional amenities (regional amenities). This funding model is now under review to consider whether it remains fit for purpose and to identify how it might be improved. The governing body adopted Terms of Reference for the review on 26 February 2015.

3. Working closely with representatives of the regional amenities, seven funding model options were generated along a spectrum, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework. (The options are discussed in paragraphs 15 - 32)

4. The Finance and Performance Committee endorsed the seven options for evaluation on 18 June 2015. The options will be evaluated against criteria previously endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015. (The criteria is discussed in paragraph 14)

5. When viewed across the spectrum, the options shift the role of Auckland Council from influencing decision-making under the Act (by a Funding Board) to becoming the decision-maker itself. The closer Auckland Council becomes to being the decision-maker the more opportunities there are to align the council’s strategic outcomes with those of the regional amenities. The options also incorporate improvements relating to information flows, longer term planning, communications and relationship building.

6. The options are also associated with a progressively increasing volume of further work that would be required to implement them. The implementation of options requiring legislative change is particularly complex. The necessary trade-offs involved will be teased out and considered through the evaluation of the options.

7. The evaluation is to be completed and will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015. The evaluation will identify the preferred option/s which may be a refined version, comprising different elements of the options proposed.

8. Local board feedback is sought on the level of change proposed in the options as set out in this report and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any).

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any) as an input into the evaluation of options under the Auckland Regional Funding Amenities Act Funding Model Review.

Comments

The Funding Model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008

9. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) has two purposes; to provide adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified regional amenities, and to ensure that local government in Auckland contributes funding.

10 The Act came into force prior to amalgamation of Auckland’s former councils. It was designed to ensure that all councils in the region contributed fairly to funding the regional amenities given the amenities operated across and benefited the whole of the Auckland region. It also sought to ensure that qualifying regional amenities remained financially viable.

11. The regional amenities apply each year to a Funding Board for next year’s funding. 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 and if not, arbitration takes place. The Funding Board subsequently receives the levy and allocates funding to the regional amenities.

12. Auckland Council appoints six of the Funding Board’s 10 members with four members appointed by an Amenities Board, also created by the Act.

13. Only the regional amenities specified under the Act may apply for funding and funding is not available for any part of services or facilities provided outside of the Auckland region. Funding is to contribute towards the operational expenditure that regional amenities must incur and is not available for capital expenditure.

14. The regional amenities must make all reasonable endeavours to maximise funding from other sources. The regional amenities are prohibited from receiving operating funding form Auckland Council, other than via the Funding Board. However, staff are aware that local boards may receive funding requests from groups affiliated with the amenities.

15. The Funding Board and Auckland Council must have regard to the funding principles prescribed in the Act. The Act makes provision for additional funding principles to be adopted.

Regional Amenities

16. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the regional amenities are funded to provide services or facilities that contribute to “the well-being of the whole region” and “towards making Auckland an attractive place to live in and visit”. Organisations that wish to become regional amenities must possess these qualities to satisfy criteria for admission. The Act as enacted specified 10 regional amenities in Schedule 1:

· 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

17. The following examples illustrate the way the regional amenities serve the Auckland region:

· The Auckland Philharmonia (APO) was accorded the status of Metropolitan Orchestra as part of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s Orchestra Review in 2012. In that year the APO presented 31 performances in the Auckland Town Hall and performed in the Bruce Mason Centre (Takapuna) Telstra Events Centre (Manukau), Massey High Schools and Trusts Stadium (West Auckland) and the Holy Trinity Cathedral (Parnell). It also presented chamber concerts in Takapuna, Remuera and Howick and five free community performances and events in west, central, north and south Auckland.

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated has 14 units located across the Auckland region at Waiuku, Papakura, Titirangi, Kaipara, Kawau, Great Barrier, Hibiscus, North Shore, Auckland, Waiheke, Howick and Maraetei, with the Operations Centre and the Auckland Air Patrol operating centrally.

· Similarly, there are 10 clubs in the Auckland Region under the umbrella of Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated, located at Karioitahi Beach, Karekare, Piha (2), Bethels Beach, Murawai, Omaha, Red Beach, Orewa and Mairangi Bay.

The ARAFA Funding Model Review

18. Auckland Council’s establishment and issues arising out of the Act’s operation have raised the question of ‘whether the funding model remains fit for purpose’. Auckland Council agreed to review the ARAFA Funding Model through its deliberations on the Mayor’s proposal for the 2014 Annual Plan. The Governing Body endorsed Terms of Reference (Attachment A) for this review on 26 February 2015. It records stakeholder issues and objectives (Schedule 2) and sets the overarching objective 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.” (paragraph 12):

19. The ARAFA funding model and changes to enhance its effectiveness are the focus of the review:

· The review will not consider whether to add or remove any of the regional amenities from the funding mechanism. That would be a separate piece of work.

· The review will also not consider how much funding each regional amenity currently receives but rather look at the process that determines the amount of funding provided.

20. The Terms of Reference set out the basic process for the review with the identification of criteria for the evaluation of options, identification of options and their subsequent evaluation. In undertaking this review we are working closely with representatives of the amenities and engaging with the Funding Board.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Options

21. The following criteria for evaluating options were endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015:

i. Financial sustainability and certainty

- Addresses the ‘sufficiency’ of the contribution provided by the funding model in terms of “adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified amenities.” It includes the predictability of that funding over the short to medium terms in support of financial planning.

ii. Affordability

- Addresses the affordability of the sum of the contributions allocated under the funding model including the impact on rates.

iii. Independence and continuity

- Considers the extent to which the option provides for objective decision making and the extent it provides for continuity of decision-making over time. These considerations go to the stability of the funding model over time.

iv. Accountability and transparency

- Considers the information and the processes to support decision-making required by an option to ensure there is a clear chain of accountability from the recipient through to the funder. Transparency supports accountability, providing clarity around decision-making processes. Public sector responsibility requires accountability and transparency generally, and particularly in respect of public funds.

v. Administrative efficiency

- Considers the efficiency of the funding model, with regard to the costs associated with the information and processes required by an option. Funding arrangements should have regard to the costs of implementation, and how effective they will be in achieving their objectives.

vi. Alignment of outcomes and goals

- Considers the extent to which the option allows for alignment between the outcomes and goals sought and achieved by the regional amenities and those of the Auckland Council on behalf of Auckland’s ratepayers.

vii. Fairness

- Considers the extent to which the funding model provides for fairness.

viii. Flexibility

- Requires consideration of the extent to which the option provides a funding model with sufficient flexibility to take account of changing circumstances.

Options to Enhance Effectiveness

22. 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.

23. The options were endorsed for evaluation by the Finance and Performance Committee on 18 June 2015.

24. Figure 1 illustrates the options and where they are located on the spectrum. Viewed across the spectrum, the options shift the role of Auckland Council from influencing the Funding Board’s decision-making to becoming the decision-maker itself. Similarly, there are increasing opportunities along the spectrum to align Auckland Council’s strategic outcomes with those of the amenities.

25. The review to date has identified that processes relating to funding bids and reporting have evolved under the existing arrangements. There appear to be further opportunities to pursue improvements through a focus on, information, communication, developing relationships and longer term planning which are being investigated through the final evaluation.

26. Implementation of the options will require further work, some of which is significant. The implementation of options requiring legislative change is particularly complex.

27. Options 1 to 4 are based on current arrangements which provide the pathway for regional amenities to seek operational funding from Auckland Council. Improvements under these options would be available for the 2016/2017 funding year.

28. Option 5 limits opportunities for Auckland Council to scrutinise the funding sought by the regional amenities, whereas Options 6 and 7 increase Auckland Council’s role in decision-making. The level of funding provided under Option 7 would be dependent on the policy and decisions of the governing body. There may therefore be a greater level of uncertainty for the regional amenities which may hold implications for the level of services and facilities they provide.

29. Options 5 to 7 require legislative change through the parliamentary process and it is not possible to indicate when they might become available for implementation.

30. The necessary trade-offs in relation to implementation will be considered through the evaluation of the options.

Figure 1.

31. Option 1 – Status Quo

The existing funding model prescribed by the Act is the benchmark against which the other options will be compared. It is described in paragraphs 1 to 7.

Seeking Improvements from within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

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

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

This option provides a ‘clear pathway for capital funding’ to augment the status quo.

While the amenities can currently apply for capital funding from Auckland Council via the Long Term Plan process, the granting of such funding is considered to be by exception. Under this option, applications for capital could be anticipated from any of the regional amenities. Potential applications would need to be signaled well ahead of time to assist financial planning and to enable the provision of funding.

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

This option introduces financial planning over a longer time frame with a 3 year rolling funding cycle and supporting information, and establishes how the sustainable level of funding for each regional amenity might be determined:

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 seek that year’s funding and identify anticipated funding for the next two years. Annual applications made in the second and third year would be considered in the light of all the relevant information then provided.

Information supporting ‘rolling’ applications

The clarity and timeframe of information accompanying applications would be reviewed to ensure it supports the rolling funding cycle.

‘Sustainability’

A definition of the sustainable level of funding would be developed for application in the context of each of the regional amenities. 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.

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

This option similarly proposes the three year rolling review, maximises opportunities to improve strategic alignment between the regional amenities and Auckland Council and addresses the diverse range of regional amenities.

The three 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 would 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 would be to ensure transparency about the Auckland Council context and any funding constraints the council might face.

Auckland Council supports 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’s web site, through the media centre and/or in publications. This would help rate payers provide feedback and make submissions.

More particular consideration relevant to the type of amenity

This could include:

· 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 could be developed with reference to the activities undertaken by the particular regional amenities.

Modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation

36. 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.

37. 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.

The basis for determining the sustainable level of funding would need to be developed and the implications for the Funding Board explored.

38. Option 6 - Strong Funder

This option remaps the relationship between the regional amenities and the Auckland Council with Auckland Council providing funds directly. Under this option the ARAFA legislative framework would be amended so that:

· the regional amenities apply to Auckland Council directly for funding

· three 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 regional amenities report annually to the Auckland Council.

Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

The funding envelope from which contributions to the regional amenities would be drawn would be set for the 10 year period though the Council’s Long Term Plan process. 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 similar 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 regional amenities.

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

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

40. 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 regional 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 – for example, safety, arts & culture and facilities for example.

· a three year rolling funding cycle with supporting information would apply

· 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 any amendment subsequent Councils may require.

Evaluation

41. The evaluation involves considering the performance of each option against the criteria, relative to the performance of the status quo. Working closely with the amenities representatives, this process is currently underway and the results will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015. The evaluation will identify the preferred option/s which may be a refined version, comprising different elements of the options proposed.

42. Local board feedback on the level of changes proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any) is sought and will be an input into the evaluation along-side feedback received from the Funding Board and Regional Facilities Auckland.

43. From the work completed to date it is clear that Option 4- ‘Alignment/Groupings’ is compromised. The idea of grouping amenities by the nature of their operations is unworkable due to the extent of the difference between each of the regional amenities. The other features of this option continue to offer merit however and will be included in the evaluation.

44. Implementation is a particular consideration in addition to the identified criteria. With the exception of the status quo, each option will require further work to become operational. The amount of work required and the level of complexity is likely to:

· be less from options seeking improvement within existing frameworks (options 2, 3 and 4)

· increase where improvements are sought through amendments to the Act (options 5 and 6)

· further increase with the repeal of the Act and its replacement by an alternative regime (option 7).

45. Seeking amendments to or the repeal of the Act would require sponsorship by a Member of Parliament to drive it through the Parliamentary processes. These include three readings in Parliament and the Select Committee Hearings process. The Act is a private Act. A private bill seeking changes would be subject to parliamentary processes required and it is not possible to indicate the time it might take for it to be enacted.

Next Steps

46. Local Board feedback will be collated and incorporated into the final report to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

47. The ARAFA funding model review considers the funding model established under the ARAFA legislation and will not directly impact on local board funding or decision-making. However, communities across all of Auckland are able to benefit from the services and facilities provided by the amenities funded through the Act.

48. Local board views on the level of change proposed in the options and their impacts on local boards (if any) are being sought via this report. This report follows a memo circulated to Local Board Chairs in February 2015 and a briefing to Local Board Chairs and members on 22 June 2015. This report follows the structure of that briefing while elaborating on the information provided.

Māori impact statement

49. 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

No.	Title	Page
a View	Terms of Reference	209

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron – Principal Advisor, CCO Monitoring & External Relationships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor, Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manger Strategic Advice

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Chairperson	Brenda Steele
Deputy Chairperson	Steven Garner
Members	James Colville
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Thomas Grace
	Beth Houlbrooke
	John McLean
	Phelan Pirrie
	Greg Sayers

Authors	Kathryn Martin – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Sonja Tomovska - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager