Agenda of Governing Body

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term council community plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b) Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation

(c) Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d) Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e) Relationships with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees.

(f) Approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) Overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

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

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

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

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

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

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

Members of the meeting

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

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

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

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

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

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

Local Board members

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

Council Controlled Organisations

· Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

1 Affirmation

His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

2 Apologies

An apology has been received from Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Governing Body:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meetings, held on Thursday 28 April 2016 and Friday, 13 May 2016, as true and correct records.

5 Acknowledgements and Achievements

His Worship the Mayor will acknowledge the passing of Chris Parkinson and Penina Latu.

6 Petitions

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

7 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

7.1 Public Input - Kevin Clarke, representing Northcote Residents’ Assocation - SkyPath appeal

Purpose

Kevin Clarke, representing Northcote Residents’ Assocation will attend to make a presentation regarding the funding of SkyPath’s defence of the current SkyPath appeal.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) thank Kevin Clarke for his presentation regarding the funding of the SkyPath appeal.

7.2 Public Input - Barbara Cuthbert, representing Bike Auckland - SkyPath

Purpose

Barbara Cuthbert, representing Bike Auckland will attend to make a presentation regarding the SkyPath Project.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) thank Barbara Cuthbert for her presentation regarding the SkyPath project.

8 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

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

9 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Notices of Motion

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

Governing Body

25 May 2016

SkyPath - Project Update

File No.: CP2016/09836

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on progress on the SkyPath project.

Executive summary

2. The SkyPath project was last reported to the Governing Body in December 2013. It was resolved at that meeting that the proposal was worthy of proceeding with.

3. The project is to complete the missing link in the walking and cycling network across the Waitematā Harbour. The Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust (the Trust) developed the “SkyPath” concept in 2011. SkyPath would be attached to the eastern side of the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB).

4. The project has progressed since then and this is summarised in paragraph 10 below.

5. There is also a confidential report on this agenda which discusses the commercial proposal presented by the Morrison & Co’s Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund (the PIP Fund) and the Trust to provide private sector financing for the construction and operation of SkyPath.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) receive the update report on the SkyPath project.

Comments

Background

6. The SkyPath project was proposed by the private sector in August 2011 to complete the missing link for walking and cycling access across the Waitematā Harbour. It would attach to the eastern (southern clip-on) side of the AHB.

7. SkyPath is a walking and cycling pathway for commuters, recreational users and tourists. It will be 4m wide and is approximately 1km long. It has been designed with five viewing platforms and would be open for 16 hours per day from 6am to 10pm. It is proposed to be constructed out of composite material due to its light weight and durable nature, as well its ability to handle conditions in the marine environment.

8. The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) is the custodian of the AHB. NZTA would need to provide a licence to occupy for the SkyPath structure to be attached to the AHB. This is similar to the AJ Hackett facility. It is proposed that the licence would be issued to Council and then Council would sub-license it to the PIP Fund with conditions. NZTA will have a high interest in the implementation, operation and maintenance of SkyPath, however NZTA has consistently and clearly stated it does not wish to be involved in the actual procurement. NZTA’s method of control is through the licence to occupy.

9. While route protection work is underway for lodgement of an updated notice of requirement for the Additional Waitematā Harbour Crossing (AWHC), a decision when to proceed with that project will not be made until after the notice of requirement is obtained and the detailed business case has been completed. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project’s (ATAP) Foundation Report states it is anticipated that AWHC (if proceeded with) would be completed in the 2035-45 decade. In that situation, it has been considered that the modes could be split with SkyPath being used as a covered walkway, while a lane (or part of a lane) on the AHB would be used by cyclists.

10. The SkyPath proposal presented by the PIP Fund and the Trust is to provide private sector financing for the construction and operation of SkyPath, while Council provides a limited revenue underwrite in return for a reversionary interest in the SkyPath asset at the end of the concession term. The confidential report relates specifically to the SkyPath proposal by the PIP Fund to fund the project using a hybrid public private partnership (PPP) approach. It is confidential because of the commercially sensitive nature of the information.

Progress update

11. Since December 2013, there has been progress on a number of matters for the project and these are summarised below:

a) Commercial

This is one of the first PPP type projects that Council is considering. Further due diligence has been undertaken by Council, non-binding key terms negotiations have occurred with the PIP Fund, and a business report has been developed on the SkyPath proposal by Council. This work is the subject of the confidential report.

b) Technical

NZTA has indicated that the current SkyPath proposal is technically feasible, subject to the review of wind tunnel testing results and appropriate user demand management controls.

Wind tunnel testing was completed in April 2016 and did not identify any significant concerns. NZTA’s consultants are currently reviewing the results of the wind tunnel testing and advise it has not identified any significant issues. A verbal update on this will be provided at the Governing Body meeting.

c) Resource consent

Resource consents for the SkyPath proposal were granted by Independent Hearing Commissioners, appointed to hear the application on behalf of Council’s regulatory arm, in July 2015. Three parties have filed appeals in the Environment Court against the decision to grant consents. Mediation did not resolve the appeals and it is now expected that this matter will proceed to a hearing later this year.

d) Connections

Auckland Transport (AT) is working on the design for the Northcote Safe Cycle route from Smales Farm to Northcote Point taking into account feedback from consultation last year.

AT will begin consulting the local community in early June on a number of options for a parking scheme at Northcote Point, to be implemented if SkyPath proceeds.

The design of the SkyPath structure has been taken forward into concept design. Panuku Development Auckland has worked with the designers to enable the southern landing to be located under the AHB at Westhaven, and for good connections to be provided to Harbour Bridge Park and the Westhaven Promenade.

SeaPath is a cycling and walking facility proposed by NZTA between Esmonde Road, Takapuna, and Northcote Point. NZTA undertook public consultation on the preferred (landward) alignment, and two connection points to SkyPath, in March and April 2016. NZTA advise that there was overwhelming public support for a walking and cycling facility in the area.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The Waitematā, Kaipatiki, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards are supportive of the project and have either included it in their Local Board Plans (as an unfunded item) and/or passed resolutions of this nature. These Local Boards spoke in support of the SkyPath at the Governing Body meeting in December 2013 and indicated feedback from the community was overall supportive of the project.

Māori impact statement

13. Mana whenua have a strong interest in the pathway because it would be located near to a wāhi tapu site at Point Erin and would traverse over Te Onewa Pa site. At Point Erin or Harbour Bridge Park, there is a wāhi tapu site where Ureia (a taniwha) used to sleep. Although much of Te Onewa Pa has been destroyed, the site is considered to retain strong cultural, spiritual, heritage and archaeological values, and these values are of high significance.

14. All iwi with mana whenua connections were contacted in 2013 and 2014 by the Trust. Those groups that expressed an interest were engaged though a number of hui. Over the course of the design process for the resource consent, the Trust met with mana whenua groups (Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua o Orākei, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Paoa). These meetings were positive and, in principle, were supportive of SkyPath. They expressed a desire to have input at preliminary stages of design to ensure SkyPath does not impact on any of the physical remnants at Te Onewa Pa, enhances the area, and reflects the values inherent in the southern side of the harbour. The design of each landing was undertaken in coordination with artists nominated by mana whenua, and the inclusion of art and design features recognise the mana whenua connections at each landing.

Implementation

15. This is discussed in the confidential report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Marguerite Pearson – Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 May 2016

Proposed response to Local Government Commission's request for alternative applications in relation to the Northern Action Group re-organisation proposal

File No.: CP2016/09803

Purpose

1. This report proposes Auckland Council’s response to the Local Government Commission request for alternative applications in relation to the Northern Action Group’s proposal to create a Unitary Council.

Executive summary

2. The Northern Action Group (NAG) has applied to the Local Government Commission for local government re-organisation in the North Rodney area. Attachment A is a map showing the area of the proposed North Rodney Unitary Council. Attachment B outlines the Commission’s assessment process and indicates where NAG application is in the process.

3. On 14 April 2016, the Commission determined that the whole Auckland Council area is the affected area for the NAG application. The Local Government Commission has now called for alternative applications to NAG’s proposal. Alternative applications can come from any person, body or group and must reach the Commission by 24 June 2016.

4. Alternative applications are effectively a counter-proposal to the NAG application. An alternative application must explain how it would lead to improvements and what the changes are designed to achieve. Alternative applications are not an opportunity to lobby for the status quo.

5. Following receipt of alternative applications, the Commission must consider them alongside the original application and the existing council structure; consider all reasonably practical options (based on statutory criteria); and determine its preferred option for a structure that promotes good local government. The Commission determines its own timeframe for this part of the process.

6. In December 2015, the ‘Our Waiheke’ group submitted a re-organisation application to the Commission to create a unitary authority for Waiheke Island. The Commission has yet to determine if this application is processed as an alternative application to the NAG proposal, or a completely separate application.

7. Council’s governance division is leading a programme of work designed to optimise our governance model and ensure that organisational support to both arms of our governance model allows them to function optimally. One project in this work programme is looking at a range of matters relating to the local board/governing body relationship.

8. This report recommends that

· Council does not submit an alternative re-organisation application to the Local Government Commission;

· Council advises the Local Government Commission that council is actively considering how best to support the local board/governing body relationship to function optimally and will consider relevant concerns as part of this work.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) note that the Local Government Commission has called for alternative applications in relation to the Northern Action Group’s proposal to create a unitary council.

b) agree to advise the Local Government Commission that council is actively considering how best to support the local board/governing body relationship to function optimally and will consider relevant concerns as part of this work.

Comments

9. The Northern Action Group (NAG) has applied to the Local Government Commission for local government re-organisation in the North Rodney area. Attachment A is a map showing the area of the proposed North Rodney Unitary Council (NRUC). Attachment B outlines the Commission’s assessment process and indicates which stage the NAG application has reached.

10. On 2 December 2015, in response to a request from the Commission, council provided information demonstrating that NAG’s proposal would have a material impact on council’s operational scale, scope and capability. On 14 April 2016, the Commission determined that all of the Auckland Council area is the affected area for the NAG application. In doing so, the Commission determined that the operational scale, scope or capability of Auckland Council would be materially affected if local government in the North Rodney area were to be reorganised as proposed by NAG.

11. The Local Government Commission has now called for alternative applications in relation to the Northern Action Group’s proposal to create a unitary council. Alternative applications can come from any person, body or group and must reach the Commission by 24 June 2016.

12. Alternative applications are effectively a counter-proposal to the NAG application. An alternative application must explain how it would lead to improvements and what the changes are designed to achieve. Alternative applications are not an opportunity to lobby for the status quo.

13. Following receipt of alternative applications, the Commission must consider them alongside the original application and the existing council structure and determine its preferred option. The Commission determines its own timeframe for this part of the process and this step could take some time.

14. When considering its preferred option, the Commission must consider all reasonably practicable options, which may include:

· status quo

· one of the alternative proposals

· a combination of options

· a different option, developed by the Commission.

15. Reasonably practicable options must meet several statutory criteria, including

· have the resources necessary to enable it to carry out effectively its responsibilities, duties, and powers

· have a district or region that is appropriate for the efficient performance of a local authority’s role

16. If there are two or more reasonably practicable options the Commission must be satisfied that its preferred option facilitates improved economic performance (including efficiencies, cost savings, productivity improvements and simplified planning processes) and best promotes the purpose of local government which includes:

· enabling democratic local decision-making by and on behalf of communities.

· meeting current and future needs for good-quality (i.e. efficient, effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances) local infrastructure, public services and regulatory functions.

Our Waiheke

17. In December 2015, the ‘Our Waiheke’ group submitted a re-organisation application to the Commission to create a unitary authority for Waiheke Island. The Commission has yet to determine if this application is to be processed as an alternative application to the NAG proposal, or as a completely separate application.

Governance centre of excellence

18. Council’s governance division is leading a programme of work designed to optimise our governance model and ensure that organisational support to both arms of our governance model allows them to function optimally. One project in this work programme is looking at the local board/governing body relationship and considering matters such as:

· the decision-making framework (allocation between the governing body and local boards, delegations) and the extent it strikes the appropriate balance of regional decision-making versus local decision-making

· funding mechanisms to the extent they support the responsibilities and accountabilities of the respective governance arms, and provide incentives for effective regional and local governance, and what other funding options exist

· organisational processes/policy parameters to the extent they balance taking into account local preferences and needs versus regional approaches and consistency

· processes for making decisions on regional policy to the extent that they have supported the governing body and local boards come to agreements on issues such as service levels, service specifications, and renewals

· the responsiveness of the organisation to best balance regional and local decision-making

· the ability of the governing body and local boards to influence CCOs in their delivery of council activities.

Summary

19. This report recommends that council:

· does not submit an alternative re-organisation application to the Local Government Commission;

· advises the Local Government Commission that council is actively considering how best to support the local board/governing body relationship to function optimally and will consider relevant concerns as part of this work.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. The recommendations in the report have been discussed informally with the chairperson of the Rodney Local Board but due to timing constraints there has not been an opportunity to discuss this report or the recommendations with the Rodney Local Board. The earlier feedback from the local board on the NAG proposal endorsed the council’s position in its report dated 26th November 2015.

Māori impact statement

21. On 14 April 2016, the Commission determined that the operational scale, scope or capability of Auckland Council would be materially affected if local government in the North Rodney area were to be reorganised as proposed by NAG. The Commission stated that “Auckland Council has a number of specific relationships with iwi/hapu, which would be materially affected by implementation of the application. The application would have an effect on the operational scale, scope or capability of Auckland Council to effectively manage such specific, established relationships with iwi/hapu that would become cross regional should the application be implemented”.

Implementation

22. If the Governing Body agrees to recommendation b), a letter will be prepared to the Local Government Commission for the Mayor’s signature.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Map of proposed North Rodney Unitary Council area	19
b View	Local Government Commisssion process	21

Signatories

Author

Deborah James - Executive Officer

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 May 2016

Independent Māori Statutory Board - proposed funding agreement for the 2016/17 financial year

File No.: CP2016/04710

Purpose

1. To approve the 2016/17 funding agreement between Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

Executive Summary

2. For the IMSB board to carry out its purpose, perform its functions and exercise its powers, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires Auckland Council to meet the reasonable costs of the IMSB board’s operations, secretariat, the establishment of committees, and seeking and obtaining advice (Schedule 2, clause 20, subclause 1, LGACA).

3. The IMSB has drafted its work plan and proposed budget for the 2016/17 financial year. It includes projects such as informing council’s Māori Economic Development Strategy and Te Tiriti o Waitangi audit, and other costs of the board’s operations such as salaries and remuneration.

4. The Governing Body established a political working party at its meeting of 27 February 2014 to conduct negotiations with the IMSB and develop a recommended funding agreement, for approval by the Governing Body in each financial year of this electoral term (Resolution no. GB/2014/18).

5. The working party has considered IMSB’s budget proposal and is satisfied that the proposed total direct funding of $2,898,000 for the 2016/17 financial year is appropriate and falls within the parameters agreed through the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan. The working party recommends that the Governing Body approve the proposed funding for the 2016/17 financial year.

6. The working party also recommends that the Governing Body agrees that variations to the funding agreement of no more than $50,000 in the financial year (subject to budget being available to cover the variations) can be agreed by the Chief Executives of Auckland Council and the IMSB.

7. Auckland Council and the IMSB also have a Service Level Agreement which records shared services between council and the IMSB, and support services provided by third parties through council to the IMSB, such as finance, information technology and property. This is similar to the shared services agreement council has with its Council-Controlled Organisations. The 2016/17 Service Level Agreement between council and the IMSB is currently being reviewed and updated.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) approve the 2016/17 funding agreement between Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, which comprises a total direct funding of $2,898,000 (opex).

b) agree that variations to the 2016/17 funding agreement between Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board of no more than $50,000 in the financial year can be agreed between the chief executive of the Auckland Council and the chief executive of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, subject to budget being available to cover the variations.

c) note that following approval of the proposed funding by the Governing Body, the 2016/17 funding agreement between Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board will be prepared and signed by the Mayor and council’s Chief Executive and the Independent Māori Statutory Board Chair and Chief Executive.

Comments

8. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) requires Auckland Council to meet the reasonable costs of the IMSB board’s operations, secretariat, the establishment of committees, and seeking and obtaining advice (Schedule 2, clause 20, subclause 1, LGACA).The key components of the proposed 2016/17 budget submitted by the IMSB and considered by the working party cover these requirements and are outlined below.

2016/17 Budget proposal

9. The table below summarises the total direct funding (opex) in IMSB’s proposed 2016/17 budget, including a comparison with previous years and percentage increase from previous year. Overall, there is little change from the budget agreed for the current financial year. The 2.42 per cent increase for the 2016/17 financial year from 2015/16 is within the parameters agreed through the 2015-2025 LTP.

	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017 (proposed)
Total direct funding (opex)	2,710.0	2,829.5	2,898.0
% increase from previous year	6.23%	4.41%	2.42%

10. The proposed budget covers costs of the IMSB board’s operations such as salaries and remuneration, and costs of strategic projects outlined in the work plan, such as monitoring and informing council’s Māori Economic Development Strategy.

11. Details of the budget proposal for both IMSB board’s operations and work plan projects are provided in the two tables below, including comparisons with the 2015/16 financial year and percentage increases.

IMSB board operations	2015/16	2016/17 Proposed	% increase
Board remuneration and expenses	$818,000	$832,000	1.71%
Secretariat salaries	$1,298,000	$1,321,000	1.77%
Expenses (including audit fees)	$119,000	$119,000	nil
Professional Services	$130,000	$130,000	nil

12. Increases in the proposed funding are limited to board remuneration and expenses, and secretariat salaries.

13. As it is required by legislation, an independent review of remuneration for the IMSB board members has been conducted by Strategic Pay.

14. The independent reviewer recommends that the IMSB members’ remuneration be set at 68 per cent of elected members’ remuneration, with additional allowances for the Chair and Deputy Chair of the IMSB. If the Remuneration Authority determines an increase for elected members’ remuneration within the next six months, the IMSB members’ remuneration will be adjusted accordingly.

Work Plan	2015/16	2016/17 Proposed	% increase
Engagement and reporting to Māori and stakeholders	$141,000	$141,000	nil
Engagement of specialist Māori expertise for IMSB’s input into council projects/plans work program	$123,500	$125,000	1.21%
Te Tiriti o Waitangi Audit	$30,000	$30,000	nil
Research, management and monitoring of Māori Plan outcomes	$70,000	$105,000	50%
Monitoring and information of the council’s Māori Economic Development Strategy	$100,000	$100,000	nil

15. The main increase sought in the work plan is for research, managing and monitoring Māori Plan outcomes. This reflects a new initiative in the work plan to report progress on headline wellbeing indications from the Māori plan with the support of an independent data strategy expert panel.

16. Produced by the IMSB in 2012, the Māori plan is a long-term, action-based plan that provides a framework for monitoring outcomes and measuring changes to Māori wellbeing in the social, cultural, economic and environmental areas. The IMSB envisage that the work of the data strategy expert panel will assist the board to perform its statutory obligations of promoting issues of significance to Māori in Auckland via an evidence-based prioritisation based on high quality and relevant information.

Other budgetary considerations –funding held in council’s budgets

17. In addition to direct funding outlined in the proposed funding agreement, up to $130,000 will be held in council’s budgets for the engagement of specialist Māori expertise to assist council, as necessary. This compares with a budget of $131,500 for 2015/16 financial year.

18. As in the 2015/16 financial year, there will be an agreed sign-off process between the chief executives of Auckland Council and the IMSB for that expenditure to ensure that this resource is committed to appropriate projects and that there is no duplication of effort between council and the IMSB.

Shared Services

19. Alongside the Funding Agreement, Auckland Council and the IMSB have a SLA which records shared services agreed between council as a supplier and the IMSB as the customer, and support services provided by third parties through council to the IMSB. These are services such as finance, information technology and property.

20. This is similar to the shared services agreement council has with its CCOs. The IMSB SLA is currently being reviewed and updated.

21. There are no actual payments from the IMSB to council for the services covered in the SLA. However, to meet accounting standards, the budget for the support services provided by third parties to the IMSB and paid through council (property, insurance and telecommunications) will be included as a separate line item in the 2016/17 funding agreement.

Variations of the funding agreement

22. The IMSB or council may initiate a review of the funding agreement by giving written or electronic notice to the other party stating the terms of the review (Schedule 20, clause 2, LGACA).

23. To remove the need to formally negotiate an amendment to the 2016/17 agreement as envisaged by LGACA, a process is proposed where variations of no more than $50,000, can be agreed by the chief executives of Auckland Council and the IMSB, subject to budget being available. The Finance and Performance Committee agreed the same process for the 2015/16 funding agreement.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24. Local board views have not been sought in relation to this matter as the governing body is responsible for negotiating the funding agreement with the IMSB.

25. However, the IMSB work supported by the funding and related to council’s policies and plans can have outcomes that are relevant to local boards.

Māori impact statement

26. The funding provided through the annual funding agreement supports the IMSB to give effect to its statutory purpose of promoting cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau, and ensuring that the council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Implementation

27. Following approval of the funding by the Governing Body, the 2016/17 funding agreement between Auckland Council and the IMSB will be signed by the Mayor and council’s Chief Executive, and IMSB Chair and Chief Executive.

28. The 2016/17 funding agreement will take effect from 1 July 2016.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Rita Bento-Allpress - Senior Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron – Manager, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Marguerite Delbet – Acting Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 May 2016

Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal - Adoption of Consultation Document, Supporting Information, and consultation approach

File No.: CP2016/09349

Purpose

1. This report recommends that the Governing Body adopt the Housing for Older People (HfOP) partnering consultation material including the Consultation Document, Supporting Information and the public consultation approach.

Executive Summary

2. The council currently owns 1,412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. The council’s Significance and Engagement Policy describes the “social housing network including housing for the elderly” as a strategic asset. The council’s HfOP portfolio also falls within the “strategic asset” definition in the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002.

3. In June 2015 the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) resolved to explore changing how the council would deliver the HfOP service. Namely, to explore a partnership approach where the council would partner with a third party social housing provider in the management of the portfolio, and to establish a new community housing provider (CHP). This would allow the CHP to gain access to both the Income-Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) and additional expertise to be drawn upon. This proposal would result in the council transferring control over its portfolio to the new CHP through a management agreement and long-term lease.

4. In December 2015 the ADC endorsed Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with the preferred partner on the partnering proposal.

5. Panuku, on behalf of Council, issued a request for proposal and the council currently has a non-binding arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation as the potential third party social housing provider that council may enter into partnership arrangement with.

6. The proposal, in summary, is for the council to:

· partner with a third-party social housing provider to form a new legal entity in the form of a new CHP. The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, including responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services through a long-term lease, and will seek access to government subsidies;

· delegate to Panuku the authority to work with the third party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio under a framework arrangement; and

· adopt a new policy on “Housing for Older People partnering” to apply to all decision-making on the proposal.

7. As the HfOP portfolio is a strategic asset, under both the LGA 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy the proposal to transfer control of the portfolio triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult on the proposal, and to amend the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 through a special consultative procedure, before the council can agree to adopt the proposal. Prior to the council starting the consultation process, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is required to provide an audit opinion on the consultation material.

8. Staff have drafted an enabling policy to be included in the amended LTP 2015-2025 in support of the proposal.

9. The policy addresses the key parameters for the partnership arrangements the council proposes to enter into regarding the HfOP portfolio. The parameters were developed by taking into account the actions and directives in the Auckland Plan and the Housing Action Plan, as well as the objectives agreed to by the ADC in June.

10. A consultation document and supporting information has been prepared so the council can consult with the public regarding the proposal to transfer control of the HfOP portfolio to a CHP and redevelop the current housing units. The consultation document lists the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal as well as the two key alternatives in page 8. The assumptions underlying the proposal, including risks and details on the options analysis, are set out in the supporting information in pages 53, 54 and 56.

11. In the document three main options have been identified for the delivery of the council’s HfOP service, with the preferred option being to partner with a third party to gain their expertise and access to government funding (i.e. IRRS).

12. Staff have considered the Significance and Engagement Policy to assist with identifying the content to be included in the consultation document and the consultation process.

13. The consultation document would be finalised for print and distributed to local board offices, libraries, service centres and made available online on ShapeAuckland in time for the start of the consultation process on 1 June 2016.

14. The ShapeAuckland website will act as the engagement hub for the consultation and will house the consultation document, supporting information and feedback form. Communication activities are in place to raise awareness of the proposal and also point people to ShapeAuckland for more information.

15. The council has established a tenant reference group which has provided guidance and endorsed our approach to consultation.

16. Key elements of the communication campaign include:

· the May edition of OurAuckland raising general awareness of the proposed change to the HfOP portfolio

· advertising (print and online) between 1 June 2016 and 1 July 2016

· ShapeAuckland – ongoing updates, events pages and social media

· media releases, monitoring and reactive media responses.

17. A report containing consultation feedback and recommendation on the proposal including a delegation to Panuku to carry out the partnering arrangement, will be presented to the Governing Body at the meeting on 28 July 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Governing Body:

a) adopt the Supporting Information for the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal to support the consultation process.

b) adopt the Consultation Document for the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal.

c) delegate authority to the Deputy Mayor and the Group Chief Financial Officer to approve any editorial changes in finalising the Consultation Document and Supporting Information for printing and distribution.

d) approve the public consultation approach for the Housing for Older People noting that:

i) public consultation will run from 1 June 2016 to 1 July 2016

ii) feedback can be provided through written feedback, in person and digital channels

iii) Have Your Say events to be held across the region to allow Aucklanders to provide feedback and have their views heard by decision makers (or their delegates)

iv) a summary of the final decisions made and how Aucklanders views were considered in the decision-making process will be made publicly available in September.

e) delegate to the following elected members and staff the power and responsibility to hear from the public through “spoken interaction/NZ sign language interaction” at the Have Your Say events for consultation on the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal:

i) Councillors

ii) Local board chairs and local board members

iii) Tier 1 - 4 staff and any additional staff selected by the Chief Executive

f) delegate to the Deputy Mayor and the Group Chief Financial Officer, the power to make any required process decisions for the events, including Council representative attendance.

Comments

Background

18. The council currently owns 1,412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectare of land. The portfolio is currently operated by Auckland Council’s Arts, Community and Events (ACE) and Community Facilities departments.

19. In 2013 the government changed how social housing would be delivered in New Zealand by making a number of reforms. This included providing third party social housing providers with an IRRS, which was historically only provided to Housing New Zealand. Councils and council-controlled organisations are still unable to access this subsidy.

20. In June 2015 the ADC resolved to explore changing how the council would deliver the HfOP service. Namely to explore a partnership approach, where the council would partner with a third party social housing provider in the management of the portfolio and to establish a new CHP. This would allow the CHP to gain access to both the IRRS, and additional expertise to be drawn upon. This proposal would result in the council transferring control over its portfolio to the new CHP through a management agreement and long-term lease.

21. In December 2015 the ADC endorsed Panuku to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with the preferred partner on the partnering proposal.

22. Panuku, on behalf of Council, issued a request for proposal and the council currently has a non-binding arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation as the potential third party social housing provider that council may enter into partnership arrangement with.

23. As the HfOP portfolio is a strategic asset, under both the LGA 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the proposal to transfer control of the portfolio triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult on the proposal, and to amend the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 through a special consultative procedure, before the council can agree to adopt the proposal. Prior to the council starting the consultation process, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) is required to provide an audit opinion on the consultation material.

24. To support the proposal the staff have drafted an enabling policy to be included in the amended LTP 2015-2025.

Details of the Policy

25. The policy addresses the key parameters for any partnership arrangement the council could enter into regarding the HfOP service. The parameters were developed by taking into account the actions and directives contained within the Auckland Plan and the Housing Action Plan, as well as the objectives agreed to by the ADC in June.

26. The policy sets key decision making criteria that are designed to ensure that council will maintain or improve the quality of housing and tenant satisfaction without overly exposing the council to financial impacts and risk through:

· general decision making on the council’s HfOP portfolio

· the management of the HfOP portfolio by the new CHP

· the development arrangements for the possible redevelopment and/or sale of parts of the HfOP portfolio.

Details of the Proposal

27. The details of the proposal as outlined in the consultation document are that the council:

· partner with a third party social housing provider to form a new legal entity in a form of a CHP to manage the council’s HfOP portfolio and seek access to government subsidies

· delegate to Panuku the authority to work with the third party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio under a framework arrangement

· adopt a new policy on “HfOP partnering”.

28. Three main options have been identified for the delivery of the council’s HfOP service, with the preferred option being to partner with a third party to gain their expertise and access to government funding (i.e. IRRS) for the management our HfOP portfolio.

29. There are two parts to the proposed arrangements with the third party social housing provider. This relates to the management and development of the portfolio.

Management agreement

30. The council will partner with a third party social housing provider to form a new legal entity, in which the council will have a minority interest. This will be a new CHP to manage the council’s HfOP portfolio.

31. The legal structure of this CHP will likely be in the form of a limited partnership (NZ registered) between Auckland Council and the third party social housing provider under a framework arrangement.

32. The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, which includes responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services. Legal ownership will remain with the council.

33. It will include a long-term lease to the CHP of the council assets which from an accounting perspective requires a write-off of the assets from the council balance sheet.

34. The CHP will be structured to be able to receive the government’s IRRS. The council will provide a $32.5 million capital grant to the CHP, which is equivalent to the current LTP budget for the portfolio renewal maintenance.

Development agreement

35. The council will delegate to Panuku, a council-controlled organisation, the authority to act on behalf of Auckland Council to work with the third party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio.

36. Panuku, as council’s development agency will provide skills and expertise to support the development of HfOP portfolio. This includes over time selling some land and buildings to help fund the improvement of the quality of the HfOP portfolio.

37. The council will provide a $20 million development loan facility which will support the development until sales proceeds can be realised. The sales proceeds will cover repayment of the facility and any associated interest.

Additional contents of consultation document

38. The proposal also outlines further detail on:

· how tenant satisfaction will be affected

· choosing the preferred partner

· detail on the proposed partnering structure

· impact of the proposal on rates and debt (compared to the current LTP)

· how we will ensure success including the monitoring and accountability arrangements and how conflicts of interest will be managed

· how the Long-term Plan will change

· where you get more information.

Consultation documentation and supporting information

39. It is an important legal requirement that both the consultation material and process provide a more effective basis for the public to participate in local authority decision-making processes. As a result, the council is required to develop a consultation document and a set of supporting material that provide the basis for consultation with the community and provide the Auditor-General with sufficient information to produce the required audit report.

40. A consultation document and supporting information have been prepared so that the council can consult with the public regarding the proposal to transfer control of the HfOP portfolio to a new CHP. The consultation document lists the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal as well as the two key alternatives in page 8. The assumptions underlying the proposal, including risks and details on the options analysis are set out in the supporting information in pages 53, 54 and 56. The purpose and content of the documents are:

· Consultation Document – sets out the potential changes that the council is seeking public feedback on to inform the HfOP Partnering policy and subsequent Long-term Plan (LTP) amendment.

· Supporting Information – includes the detailed information relied on to prepare the Consultation Document.

41. Staff have considered the Significance and Engagement Policy to assist with identifying the content to be included in the consultation document.

42. A feedback form will be included in the consultation document and also available online through ShapeAuckland.

Approach to consultation and engagement

Building public awareness

43. The ShapeAuckland website would act as the engagement hub for the HfOP and will house the consultation document, supporting information and feedback form. Communication activities are in place to raise awareness of the HfOP Partnering Proposal and also point people to ShapeAuckland for more information.

44. The tenant reference group provided guidance and endorsed our approach to consultation.

45. Key elements of the communication campaign include:

· the May edition of OurAuckland raising general awareness of the proposed change to the HfOP portfolio

· advertising (print and online) between 1 June 2016 and 1 July 2016

· ShapeAuckland – ongoing updates, events pages and social media

· media releases, monitoring and reactive media responses.

Collecting public feedback

46. The consultation document will be delivered to 1,412 units, local board offices, service centres and libraries by 1 June 2016. Public consultation runs until 1 July 2016. The consultation document will include a feedback form. Aucklanders will be encouraged to go online to read the Consultation Document and Supporting Information or to complete an online feedback form.

47. The feedback form is expected to be the primary mechanism Aucklanders use to provide their feedback on the HfOP Partnering Proposal. Feedback forms will be attached to the consultation document and will be available online, in local board offices, service centres and libraries. Feedback forms can be submitted via freepost, email or completed online.

48. The Have Your Say (HYS) events are planned across the region. The locations are easily accessible for HfOP tenants to attend.

Venue	Date	Time
Takapuna Library	7 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Devonport Library	8 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9am – 1pm
Northcote Library	9 June 2016 (Thursday)	11am – 3pm
Glenfield Library	10 June 2016 (Friday)	10am – 11am
New Lynn War Memorial Library	14 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Titirangi Library	15 June 2016 (Wednesday)	11am – 3pm
Waitakere Central Library	16 June 2016 (Thursday)	9am – 1pm
Te Atatu Peninsula Community Centre	17 June 2016 (Friday)	2pm – 3pm
Mangere Town Centre Library	21 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Sir Edmund Hillary Library, Papakura	22 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9am – 1pm
Sector Reference Group	22 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9:30am – 11am
Tenant Reference Group	22 June 2016 (Wednesday)	12:45pm – 2:30pm
Pukekohe Library	23 June 2016 (Thursday)	9am – 11am
Waiuku Library	23 June 2016 (Thursday)	12pm – 2pm
Otara Senior Citizens’ Club	24 June 2016 (Friday)	10am – 11am

49. Public feedback will also be collected at HYS events scheduled from 7 to 24 June 2016. The primary purpose of these events is for elected members or delegates to listen to the views of Aucklanders. Staff will ensure public feedback is accurately recorded.

50. The role of elected members (and delegates) at these events is to listen and to provide members of the public with an opportunity to provide their views verbally.

51. Staff recommend that delegations are made to councillors, local board members and staff to hear feedback. This is to ensure there is a sufficient number of people able to have spoken interaction with public.

52. Staff will be in contact with tenants to coordinate logistics to ensure that they have the opportunity to attend the HYS events.

53. The ShapeAuckland website will be the digital hub for the HfOP communications and engagement campaign. There are a variety of ways in which digital and social media channels will be used to support the communications campaign.

Analysis and advice

54. Public feedback will be collected and processed from all channels:

· written feedback received through feedback forms, emails, letters and proformas will be processed through the Feedback Management system by Democracy Services

· feedback from HYS events will be collected by trained note-takers and processed through the Feedback Management System by Democracy Services

· feedback from digital/social media will be collected and processed by Communication and Engagement.

55. Feedback from all channels will be analysed by the Social Housing team. A summary of the feedback received across each channel through consultation will be presented to the Governing Body at its 28 July 2016 meeting.

56. Local board feedback will derive from local board meetings between 13 June 2016 to 14 July 2016. A summary of this feedback will also be presented to the Governing Body at its 28 July 2016 meeting.

Decision-making and closing the loop with Aucklanders

57. The council has to make sure that people who provide views have access to a clear decision made on the HfOP portfolio. We plan to provide this information on the website and then communicate this by:

· tenant reference group newsletter, which is delivered to all tenants

· emailing to people who have participated in the process

· social media

Next steps

58. The consultation document and supporting information will be finalised for print and distributed to local board offices, libraries, service centres and made available online on ShapeAuckland in time for the start of the consultation process on 1 June 2016.

59. A report containing consultation feedback, recommendation to adopt the HfOP Partnering Policy to amend the LTP 2015-2025 and a delegation to Panuku to carry out the partnering arrangement will be presented to the Governing Body at the meeting on 28 July 2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

60. Local board members were provided with a briefing paper and supporting material outlining the new region-wide initiative being led by Panuku to investigate options to partner with community housing providers to manage and develop the HfOP portfolio.

61. A briefing for local board members was held on this initiative on 30 November 2015.

62. Local board members will receive a memo outlining the consultation process by the end of May 2015. All local boards will be invited to submit a formal feedback through its business meetings in June 2016 and July 2016.

63. A report covering local board feedback on the proposal will be presented to the Governing Body at the meeting on 28 July 2016.

Māori impact statement

64. The new CHP will have a role in giving effect to outcomes directed by the council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. This includes recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tāmaki Makaurau and addressing and contributing to the needs and aspirations of Māori. In order to do this, throughout the development of this proposal various Māori groups have been consulted with. To progress this engagement Panuku has established a Mana Whenua Governance Group comprising four senior representatives of Mana Whenua, plus senior representatives of Panuku and the preferred partner.

Implementation

65. Decisions to adopt the Consultation Document, Supporting Information and consultation and engagement process are required at this meeting. This is to enable sufficient time for staff to finalise the necessary consultation materials in time for the start of public consultation on 1 June 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Consultation Document	41
b View	Supporting Information	71

Signatories

Author

Robert Irvine - Financial Planning Manager CCOs

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning

Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body

25 May 2016

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Governing Body:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Financing and business report for SkyPath

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution