Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

1 Welcome

Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,

Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho

Rire, rire hau…pai marire

Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby

Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,

Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability

Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.

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 Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Friday, 23 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

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

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 Waiheke 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.

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

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 Driver Education on Waiheke - Fiona Gregory and Patrick Knight

Executive Summary

1. Fiona Gregory, manager of Waiheke Adult Literacy, and Patrick Knight, youth constable, were in attendance to speak to the board about their proposal for driver education on Waiheke.

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.

Waiheke Local Board

13 August 2015

Waiheke Local Board Annual Report 2014/15

File No.: CP2015/15031

Purpose

1. This report compares the actual activities and actual performance with the intended activities and the intended level of service as set out in the Waiheke Local Board Agreement for 2014/15. The information is prepared as part of the Waiheke Local Board’s accountability to the community for the decisions made throughout the year.

Executive summary

2. The Local Board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Board Agreement for 2014/15. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. These requirements include providing comment on actual local activities against the intended level of service and for these comments to be included in the Auckland Council Annual Report.

3. The attached report is proposed for approval from the Waiheke Local Board.

4. The Auckland Council Annual Report will be audited and then reported to the Governing Body for adoption on 24 September 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Notes the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the local board information proposed for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2014/15

b) Approves:

i. The message from the Chairperson, which provides the Local Boards comments on local board matters in the 2014/15 annual report

ii. Achievements by activity and table of Key Capital projects

c) Gives authority to the Chair and Deputy to make typographical changes before submitting for final publication

5. The Local Board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its local board agreement for 2014/15. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, as follows:

Section 23 Monitoring and reporting

(1) Each local Board must monitor the implementation of the local board agreement for its local board area.

(2) Each annual report of the Auckland Council must include, in rep[sect of local activities for each local board area, an audited statement that –

i) Compares the level of service achieved in relation to the activities with the performance target or targets for the activities (as stated in the local board agreement for that year); and

ii) Specifies whether any intended changes to the level of service have been achieved; and

iii) Gives reasons for any significant variation between the level of service achieved and the intended level of service.

6. Each local board must comment on the matters included in the annual report under s subsection (2) in respect of its local board area and the Council must include those comments in the annual report.

7. This report focusses on the formal reporting referred to in Section 23 above. Attachment A provides the draft local board information for inclusion into the Annual Report 2014/15. The draft report contains the following sections:

· message from the Chair

· key achievements

· financial results

· performance measures.

8. Local board comments on local board matters in the annual report will be included in the annual report as part of the message from the Chair.

9. The next steps for the Annual Report are:

· Audit during August 2014

· Report to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17th September

· Report to the Governing Body for adoption on 24^th September

· Full New Zealand Stock Exchange disclosure on 30^th September

· Publication on 23 October

· Copies of the annual Report will be provided to the local board office.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Local Board comments of local board matters are included in the annual report as part of the message from the Chair.

Maori impact statement

11. The annual report provides information on how the Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the annual plan over a 12 month period. This includes engagement with Maori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Maori.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waiheke Annual Report	85

Signatories

Authors

Sugenthy Thomson - Lead FInancial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

13 August 2015

Local and sports parks annual work programme 2015-16

File No.: CP2015/15735

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the draft local and sports parks annual work programme 2015-2016 for the Waiheke Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. The final draft of the local and sports parks annual work programme for the 2015-2016 financial year includes park asset renewals, capital works, locally driven initiatives (LDI), and parks maintenance programmes.

3. The work programme excludes any projects that have not been fully funded. Additional projects may be prioritised for funding from the discretionary CAPEX budget, which has yet to be agreed and will be discussed with the local boards in the next two months.

4. If unforeseen works are needed or work priorities change from the approved annual Local and sports parks work programme the parks advisor will discuss this with the local board park portfolio holder.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve the final draft ‘local and sports parks annual work programme 2015-2016’;

b) delegate approval for changes to work programme to the Park advisor, Local and sports parks, in consultation with the parks portfolio holders of the Waiheke Local Board, except where the parks portfolio holder refers any changes to the full board.

Comments

Background

5. This report presents the final draft of the local and sports parks annual work programme for the 2015-2016 financial year. The work programme includes park asset renewals, capital works, locally driven initiatives (LDIs) and the parks maintenance programme.

6. Officers discussed the first draft of the annual work programme with the local board in May, June and July 2015.

7. In the LTP 2015-2025, the sports field and local park development (growth) programme caters for the development of parks and open space in greenfield and urban areas in anticipation of future population growth. The growth proportion of the budget is funded by development contributions. Projects that are fully funded from this programme have been included.

8. Officers will have ongoing discussions with the board on the priority for other projects that may be eligible for other sources of funding once there is more clarity around how these will be allocated across the region.

Financial implications

9. The annual work programme is not a budget report and therefore budget figures are indicative only.

10. The final draft local and sports parks annual work programme 2015-2016 includes some projects that will be delivered over a number of financial years. Some flexibility is needed in the delivery of long term complex parks projects to adapt to changing situations. These include external factors beyond council control such as weather, or issues that may arise during the detailed design, community engagement and consenting stages. Any of these factors may affect project delivery outcomes singly or in combination.

11. In particular, staff may need to adjust asset renewal priorities if unforeseen renewals or complexities in delivering planned renewals arise.

12. Given the scale of the work programme, the limited amount of time to get the work done, and the dynamic nature of the parks asset base, it is recommended that delegation for changes to the parks work programme be given to the park advisor (particularly urgent or unforeseen works) subject to consultation with the parks portfolio holder of the Waiheke Local Board, on the proviso that the portfolio holder can ask for any item to be reported to the local board if deemed appropriate.

Alignment with strategies and policies

13. The draft annual work programme fits with the following Auckland Council guiding documents.

· Auckland Plan – the world's most liveable city

· Waiheke Local Board Plan

· Sport & Recreation Strategic Action Plan - Aucklanders: more active more often.

· Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Plan - quality open spaces that meet community needs

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. The local board provided feedback on the first draft of the local and sports parks work programme 2015-2016 at workshops in May, June and July 2015. Feedback from these workshops has informed this final draft annual work programme for approval.

15. Completion of the annual work programme 2015-2016 as approved by the Local Board will result in projects that will contribute to the local board objectives for parks.

Māori impact statement

16. Parks and open spaces contribute to Maori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the work programme are anticipated to have an impact on tangata whenua, appropriate engagement and involvement in decision making will follow.

17. It is the aspiration of the park officers to share the long term local and sports parks development plans with mana whenua for comment. Following board approval, officers will engage with iwi to discuss the programme and understand interest in future development. Further engagement will follow these initial meetings as the projects within the programme progress.

Implementation

18. Following approval of the Local and sports park annual work programme staff will begin planning the implementation of projects, ensuring the work programme is completed on time and to budget for the 2015/16 financial year. Monthly updates to the parks portfolio holder will continue and quarterly reports will be sent to the Local Board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local and sports parks annual work programme 2015-2016	101

Signatories

Authors

Gary Wilton - Parks Adviser Hauraki Gulf Islands

Authorisers

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Waiheke Local Board

13 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13896

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 Waiheke 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

Waiheke Local Board

13 August 2015

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

File No.: CP2015/14876

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

1. 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.

2. 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)

3. 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 Finance and Performance on 21 May 2015. (The criteria is discussed in paragraph 14)

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 Waiheke Local Board:

a) Provides 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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):

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

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

Figure 1.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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.

29.
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.

30. 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

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

32. 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

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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).

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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	Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act Review	123
b View	Scope of the options	135

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Chairperson	Paul Walden
Deputy Chairperson	Beatle Treadwell
Members	Becs Ballard
	Shirin Brown
	John Meeuwsen

No.	Title	Page
a View	1 May 2015	139
b View	8 May 2015	141
c View	13 May 2015	143
d View	20 May 2015	145
e View	5 June 2015	147
f View	17 June 2015	149
g View	19 June 2015	151
h View	24 July 2015	153

Authors	Jessica Morris - Local Board PA/Liaison - Waiheke
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager