I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 21
February 2017
9.30am
Reception
Lounge, Level 2
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
|
|
Finance and Performance Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Ross Clow
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr Desley Simpson, JP
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
|
Cr Mike Lee
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore
|
Cr Daniel Newman, JP
|
|
|
Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
|
Cr Dick Quax
|
|
|
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
|
Cr Greg Sayers
|
|
|
Cr Chris Darby
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
|
|
|
Cr Alf Filipaina
|
IMSB Member David Taipari
|
|
|
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
|
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
|
|
|
Mayor Hon Phil Goff, JP
|
Cr Wayne Walker
|
|
|
Cr Richard Hills
|
Cr John Watson
|
|
|
IMSB Member Terrence Hohneck
|
|
|
|
Cr Penny Hulse
|
|
|
|
Cr Denise Lee
|
|
(Quorum 11 members)
|
|
|
Tam White
Senior Governance Advisor
15 February 2017
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8156
Email: tam.white@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
The purpose of the Committee is to:
(a) control and review
expenditure across the Auckland Council Group to improve value for money
(b) monitor the overall
financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and
Auckland Council Group
(c) make financial decisions
required outside of the annual budgeting processes
Key responsibilities include:
- Advising and supporting the mayor on the development of
the Long Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan (AP) for consideration by the
Governing Body including:
- Local
Board agreements
- Financial
policy related to the LTP and AP
- Setting
of rates
- Preparation
of the consultation documentation and supporting information, and the
consultation process, for the LTP and AP
- Monitoring the operational and capital expenditure of the
council parent organisation and Auckland Council Group, and inquiring into
any material discrepancies from planned expenditure
- Monitoring the financial and non-financial performance targets, key performance
indicators, and other measures of the council parent organisation
and each Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to inform the
Committee’s judgement about the performance of each organisation
- Advising the mayor on the content of the annual Letters of
Expectations (LoE) to CCOs
- Exercising relevant powers under Schedule
8 of the Local Government Act 2002, which relate to the Statements of
Intent of CCOs
- Approving
the financial policy of the Council parent organisation
- Overseeing and making decisions relating to an ongoing
programme of service delivery reviews, as required under section17A
of the Local Government Act 2002
- Establishing and managing a structured approach to the approval
of non-budgeted expenditure (including grants, loans or guarantees) that
reinforces value for money and an expectation of tight expenditure control
- Write-offs
- Acquisition and disposal of property, in accordance with
the long term plan
- Recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body
- Te Toa Takatini
Powers
(a) All powers necessary to
perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:
a. approval of a submission
to an external body
b. establishment of
working parties or steering groups.
(b) The committee has the powers
to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to
make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.
(c) The committee does not have:
a. the power to
establish subcommittees
b. powers that the
Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).
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.
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
ITEM TABLE
OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 9
2 Declaration of
Interest 9
3 Confirmation
of Minutes 9
4 Petitions 9
5 Public Input 9
6 Local Board
Input 9
6.1 Disposal of land at Constellation Reserve
to NZTA and negotiation of a compensation agreement 9
7 Extraordinary
Business 10
8 Notices of
Motion 10
9 Disposals
Recommendation Report 11
10 Presentations from the
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board 17
11 Auckland Regional Amenities
draft funding plan 2017-2018, proposed Auckland Council submission 19
12 Auckland Council
organisation performance report for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 89
13 Re-establishment of the
quality advice political advisory group 125
14 Funding for High
Performance and Community Sailing Centre 135
15 Disposal of land at
Constellation Reserve to NZTA and negotiation of a compensation agreement 153
16 Completion of a statutory
land exchange process - Rosedale Park 163
17 Finance and Performance
Committee - Forward Work Programme to June 2017 173
18 Information Report - 21
February 2017 179
19 Consideration of
Extraordinary Items
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Declaration
of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Finance and Performance Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Tuesday, 13 December 2016, as a true and
correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
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.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 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.
|
6.1 Disposal
of land at Constellation Reserve to NZTA and negotiation of a compensation
agreement
|
|
Purpose
1. Lisa
Whyte, Chair of the Upper Harbour Local Board wishes to address the Committee
in relation to Item 15 Disposal of land at Constellation Reserve to NZTA and
negotiation of a compensation agreement.
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) receive
the presentation and thank Lisa Whyte for her attendance.
|
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item
that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local
authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member
explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the
discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an
item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed
at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor
matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member
explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or
recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to
a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Finance and Performance
Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Disposals
Recommendation Report
File No.: CP2016/24906
Purpose
1. To
obtain approval to dispose of two council-owned properties that Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for
sale.
Executive
summary
2. Capital
receipts from the sale of surplus properties contributes to Auckland Plan
outcomes and the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) by providing the council with
an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its
activities and projects. In the 2016/17 financial year, the
LTP has forecasted the disposal of non-strategic council assets to the combined
value of of $69 million.
3. In
accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the annual Statement of Intent
(SOI) states the activities and intentions of Panuku for the next three years,
the objectives that those activities will contribute to and performance
measures and targets as the basis of organisational accountability. For
the 2016/17 financial year Panuku is required to identify properties from
within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a
combined value $75 million and to sell $50 million of property by 30 June
2017.
4. The properties presented in this report, 523A and 525-529
Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington were acquired for roading
purposes. The roading works for which the properties were acquired have
been completed and the residual land is no longer required for transport or
infrastructure purposes. Both properties are subject to offer back obligations
to the former owners in accordance with the Public Works Act 1981 and further
contractual obligations. The rationalisation process for the subject
properties commenced in November 2016. Consultation with council and its
CCOs, iwi authorities and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has now
taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for the
subject properties through the rationalisation process and the feedback
received has been supportive. As such, it is recommended that the two
properties be divested.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required
statutory processes:
i) the
disposal of 523A Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington comprised of an
estate in fee simple more or less being Section 6 SO 488875;
ii) the
disposal of 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington comprised of an
estate in fee simple more or less being Section 7 SO 488875;
b) agree that final terms and conditions be approved under the
appropriate delegations.
|
Comments
General
5. Panuku and the Auckland Council’s Land
Advisory team in the Community Facilities department work
collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify properties in the
council portfolio that may be suitable to sell. Once identified as a
potential sale candidate Panuku takes the property
through a multi stage engagement process.
6. The
first phase of the process involves engagement with all council departments and
relevant CCOs. The engagement establishes whether a property is needed
for a future funded project or whether it must be retained for a clear
strategic purpose. Once a property has been internally cleared of any
service requirements, Panuku then consults with local
boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All sale recommendations must
be approved by the Panuku board before a final
recommendation is made to the governing body.
Property
information
7. 523A
Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington comprises approximately 7,412m2;
525- 529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington comprises 2,701m2.
The two subject properties were acquired by the former Auckland City Council
(ACC) for the purpose of AMETI transport corridor project in 2007. Both
properties are currently formed and utilised as a 10 Pin Bowling complex and
associated car parking. The Unitary Plan zoning is Business – Mixed
Use Zone.
8. The
property at 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway was formerly mixed commercial and
retail units with car parking. All improvements were demolished in
mid-2012 to make way for the road construction and to provide space for
replacement car parking for the property located at 523A Ellerslie-Panmure
Highway.
9. The
portion of land required for AMETI has been surveyed and the legalisation of
the new road is currently being completed. More than half of the property
originally acquired at 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and approximately 10
percent of 523A Ellerslie-Panmure Highway has now been formed as road. In
November 2015, Auckland Transport Board confirmed that the residue properties
were no longer required by Auckland Transport for its infrastructure or service
requirements.
10. The
subject properties were acquired for a public work in accordance with the
Public Works Act 1981. Therefore, the properties or any parts of the
properties not required for a public work must be offered back to the former
owner in accordance with section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.
11. 523A
Ellerslie-Panmure Highway has a 2014 capital value assessment of
$7,900,000. 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway has a 2014 capital value
assessment of $3,950,000. However, sections of both properties have been
formed as road. A valuation which more accurately reflects the residual
land value is currently underway.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
12. The
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board supported the disposal of the residue land
at 523A and 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington in accordance with
the council’s obligations to the former owners under section 40 of the
Public Works Act 1981 at its 6 December 2016 business meeting.
Māori
impact statement
13. 15
mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of
525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway and 523A Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt
Wellington. The following feedback was received.
a) Ngāti
Maru
No feedback received for the sites.
b) Ngāti
Pāoa
Ngāti Pāoa has reinforced their
desire to be kept informed regarding property disposals.
c) Ngāi
Tai ki Tāmaki
Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has drawn
attention to their recent settlement and signalled an increased interest in
council owned property that may come available for sale in their rohe.
d) Ngāti
Tamaterā
No feedback received for the sites.
e) Ngāti
Tamaoho
No feedback received for the sites.
f) Ngāti
Te Ata - Waiohua
Ngāti Te Ata has expressed cultural
and commercial in the subject sites as they falls within the Maungarei
footprint and the cultural landscape of Waiohua.
g) Ngāti
Whanaunga
Ngāti Whanaunga has expressed
potential cultural interest in the properties and would like to be kept in the
loop as to the progress.
h) Ngāti
Whatua o Kaipara
No feedback received for the sites.
i) Ngāti
Whatua o Orakei
Ngāti Whatua o Orakei has confirmed
potential commercial interest in the subject sites and had other site specific
queries which have been responded to.
j) Patukirikiri
No feedback received for the sites.
k) Te
Ahiwaru
No feedback received for the sites.
l) Te
ākitai - Waiohua
No feedback received for the sites.
m) Te
Kawerau ā Maki
No feedback received for the sites.
n) Te
Runanga o Ngāti Whatua
Te Runanga has confirmed their interest in
the area of proposed development. No site specific feedback received for
the subject sites, noting that as per earlier conversations with Te Runanga
representatives, it is understood that any cultural significance considerations
will be raised at hapū level and that all Ngāti Whatua hapū have
been contacted about properties in their rohe.
o) Waikato-Tainui
No feedback received for the sites.
Implementation
14. The
results of the rationalisation process for the properties located at 523A and
525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington are that they are not required
for current or future service requirements. Due to this, we recommend
that they be divested. Should these sites be approved for divestment, we
will undertake a disposals process which takes account of the offer back
obligations and provides an optimal return to our shareholder.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Images of 523A and 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway,
Mt Wellington
|
15
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Anthony Lewis - Senior Advisor Portfolio Review
Letitia McColl - Team Leader Portfolio Review, Panuku
Development Auckland
|
|
Authorisers
|
Marian Webb - Manager Portfoilio Strategy
Angelika Cutler
– Acting Director Strategy and Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Presentations from the Auckland Regional Amenities
Funding Board
File No.: CP2017/00896
Purpose
1. To
provide an opportunity for the amenities of the Auckland Regional Amenities
Funding Board to present to the Committee on their key achievements since the
last presentation in 2016, details of how the residents and ratepayers of
Auckland are getting good value for money, the benefits that accrue to them and
major initiatives for the year ahead.
Executive
summary
2. The
following amenities of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board will
present:
(i) New
Zealand Opera
(ii) Auckland
Theatre Company
(iii) Coastguard
Northern Region
(iv) Watersafe
Auckland
(v) Surf
Life Saving Northern Region
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) thank
the representatives from New Zealand Opera, Auckland Theatre Company,
Coastguard Northern Region, Watersafe Auckland and Surf Life Saving Northern
Region for their attendance and the information provided.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Mike Giddey - Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Auckland Regional Amenities draft funding plan
2017-2018, proposed Auckland Council submission
File No.: CP2017/00824
Purpose
1. To
approve a submission on behalf of Auckland Council to the Auckland Regional
Amenities Funding Board (Funding Board) draft Funding Plan 2017-2018.
Executive
summary
2. The
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (The Act) provides for ten
Auckland regional organisations to submit annual funding applications to the
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board. The Funding Board must analyse
these applications and prepare a draft Funding Plan, before finalising and
levying Auckland Council for the total amount. Council’s ability to
influence the Funding Board is limited to setting funding principles.
3. This
report seeks approval of council’s submission on the draft Funding
Plan. A report in April will seek council’s approval of the levy itself.
4. This
year’s draft Funding Plan seeks a total levy from council of $16,165,500,
which is an increase of $23,000 from last year (1.4 per cent). Only small
or no increases are proposed for all the amenities.
5. Council’s
submission on the draft Funding Plan is due on 22 February 2017. The
submission (attached) notes the following key points:
· The
amenities have received substantial increases in funding since establishment of
the Act, and should now be reaching a level of funding providing sustainability
· Council
is pleased to see the modest increase in the proposed total levy
· Council
is concerned that indicative funding requests by the amenities for the next few
years show some large increases
· Council
reiterates to the Funding Board the importance of the amenities developing
non-council revenue sources, and that council is a funder of last
resort.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve
the Auckland Council submission (Attachment A) to the Auckland Regional
Amenities Funding Board draft Funding Plan 2017-2018.
b) delegate
to the Manager Council-controlled Organisation Governance and External
Partnerships the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the submission,
to correct errors or reflect decisions made by the Finance and Performance
Committee.
c) authorise
the chair of the Finance and Performance Committee to sign the submission on
behalf of Auckland Council.
|
Comments
6. The
Act was put in place to establish a mechanism to provide adequate, sustainable,
and secure funding for specified amenities that provide arts, educational and
rescue services throughout the Auckland region. It was passed in the
pre-amalgamation context to ensure that all councils in the region contributed
equitably to the funding of the amenities. At amalgamation, the levying
regime passed over to Auckland Council.
7. Ten
amenities were included in the regime at inception:
· Stardome
Observatory and Planetarium
· Auckland
Philharmonia
· Auckland
Regional Rescue Helicopter
· Auckland
Theatre Company
· Coast
Guard Northern Region
· New
Zealand Maritime Museum
· New
Zealand Opera
· Surf
Life Saving Northern Region
· The
Auckland Festival
· Watersafe
Auckland
8. The
Act established a Funding Board, which is an independent body responsible for
allocation of the annual funding provided by Auckland Council for the
amenities. The role of the Funding Board is to assess the annual funding
applications received from the amenities against the funding principles within
the Act and adopted by Auckland Council:
· Funding
is primarily for provision of facilities or services by the amenities (i.e.
operational);
· Funding
is not available for capital expenses
· Funding
is not for any part of facilities or services provided outside the Auckland
region;
· Funding
is available only if the amenity has made all reasonable endeavours to maximise
their funding from other available sources (council is funder of last resort)
· The
Funding Board must have regard to council’s proposed rates increase for
the forthcoming year; and
· The
amenities should align their activities to the Auckland Plan, and adopt
relevant performance measures.
9. Once
the Funding Board has conducted the analysis of the amenities funding
applications, it is required under the Act to prepare a draft Funding Plan
(Attachment A), circulate it for public consultation, and call for public
submissions. The council is permitted to make a submission on the draft
Funding Plan. The deadline for submissions is Wednesday 22 February
2017.
10. Once the
Funding Board has considered public submissions, it makes any amendments it
considers necessary to the Funding Plan. The board then submits the
Funding Plan to Auckland Council for approval. The board needs to adopt
its final Funding Plan by 30 April 2017, so it is likely the proposed levy will
be brought to council for approval at Finance and Performance Committee on 11
April 2017.
11. This report
seeks approval of council’s submission on the draft Funding Plan for
2017-2018.
Main features of the draft
Funding Plan 2017-2018
12. The total
levy sought for 2017-2018 is $16,165,500, representing an increase of $23,000
(or 0.14 per cent) over 2016-2017. 2016-2017 included a one-off contribution
of $180,000 to Stardome. In determining the grant allocations for
2017-2018, this amount was excluded from the assessment by the Funding
Board. Without this amount, the increase is $203,000, or 1.26 per cent.
13. The following
table sets out the amount of funding applied for, the provisional allocation of
funding to each of the amenities and also shows how much they received in
2016-2017. Three amenities (Rescue Helicopter, Surf Lifesaving, and
Watersafe) are proposed to receive no change in their grant, and two are
proposed to receive less than 1per cent (Arts Festival, Philharmonia).
|
Amenity
|
Grant Allocated by Funding Board
2016-17
|
% of amenity’s funding provided by
Council
|
Amenity Funding Application 2017-2018
|
Provisional Allocation of Grant 2017-18
|
Year on Year Change
|
%
|
|
Auckland Arts
Festival
|
$3,325,000
|
31%
|
$3,475,000
|
$3,337,000
|
$12,000
|
0.4
|
|
Auckland
Philharmonia
|
$3,092,000
|
28%
|
$3,332,000
|
$3,112,000
|
$20,000
|
0.6
|
|
Auckland
Regional Rescue Helicopter*
|
$450,000
|
4%
|
$649,273
|
$450,000
|
$0
|
0
|
|
Auckland
Theatre Company
|
$1,490,000
|
24%
|
$1,780,000
|
$1,520,000
|
$30,000
|
2
|
|
Coastguard
Northern Region
|
$698,000
|
14%
|
$711,868
|
$712,000
|
$14,000
|
2
|
|
New Zealand
Opera
|
$975,000
|
11%
|
$1,204,500
|
$1,025,000
|
$50,000
|
5
|
|
Stardome
Observatory and Planetarium
|
$1,389,000
|
24%
|
$1,269,000
|
$1,239,000
|
-$150,000
|
-10
|
|
Surf Life
Saving Northern Region
|
$1,266,000
|
37%
|
$1,415,000
|
$1,266,000
|
$0
|
0
|
|
New Zealand
Maritime Museum
|
$2,092,500
|
46%
|
$2,197,125
|
$2,139,500
|
$47,000
|
2
|
|
Watersafe
Auckland
|
$1,050,000
|
77%
|
$1,102,500
|
$1,050,000
|
$0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
15,827,500
|
|
17,136,266
|
15,850,500
|
23000
|
0.14
|
|
Funding Board
Administration
|
$315,000
|
|
$
|
$315,000
|
$
|
0
|
|
Total Levy
payable by Auckland Council
|
$16,142,500
|
|
$
|
$16,165,500
|
$
|
0.14
|
Indicative Funding Requests
for next two financial years
14. The majority
of amenities have received substantial increases in ratepayer funding since the
Act came into force, and most of the Amenities should now be reaching a level
of funding that provides a high degree of sustainability.
15. The
projected indicative grant requests for 2018-2019 represents a 12 per cent
increase on this year’s grants (a six per cent increase on what the
amenities sought from the board), and another four per cent for
2019-2020. It is staff’s view that the amenities should not expect
large annual increase in ARAFA funding, other than in exceptional
circumstances.
16. Furthermore,
the amenities have a statutory obligation to maximise revenue from other
sources. Council is meant to be the funder of last resort for these
organisations.
17. The
Funding Board is aware of the concerns noted above, and has restated its
awareness of the Act’s principles in the latest Funding Plan (page
6).
Financial sustainability of
the Amenities
18. In its 2016
submission to the Funding Board, Auckland Council asked the board to progress
the work on what sustainability means for each amenity. While not
referred to in the Funding Plan, this work has been completed and a summary of
it will be provided to council at the same time as the levy request is
presented to council for approval in April.
Administration and Board
member fees
19. The Act
provides that Auckland Council must decide how much to pay each member of the
Funding Board after considering a recommendation from the Funding Board.
Auckland Council must decide to pay an amount that is appropriate having regard
to both the public purpose of the board’s functions and the extent of
public funding of the board’s operations.
20. As in
previous years, the Funding Board are recommending a 1.7 per cent increase to
board remuneration for board members, chair and deputy chair. This
additional remuneration would be absorbed within the current administration
fee. No additional increase to the levy is therefore required.
21. We note that
there have been consistent increases in board remuneration over the last few
years, and these are projected to continue. Staff will be undertaking a
remuneration review for CCO boards later in the year, and we propose to include
the ARAFA Board in this review, so that council can benchmark what would be
appropriate remuneration for the ARAFA Board members.
Funding Plan for 2016-2017,
draft Council submission
22. Council staff
have reviewed the draft Funding Plan. We recommend that Auckland Council’s
submission to the Funding Board cover the following areas:
· acknowledge
the Funding Board and the amenities for their contribution towards making
Auckland a vibrant, attractive and safe place to live and visit.
· note
the majority of amenities have received substantial increases in ratepayer
funding since the Act came into force, and most of the amenities should now be
reaching a level of funding that provides a degree of sustainability.
· Note
that council is pleased to see a very modest overall increase in the levy
request
· Note
council’s concern at the large year-on-year increases in funding requests
which are projected. The requests suggest that an expectation of
increasing funding has developed among some of the amenities.
· Request
that the Funding Board ask the amenities to maintain a focus on developing
alternative revenue streams.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
23. Local board
views have not been canvassed. Decision-making and oversight in respect
of regional activities is the responsibility of the Governing Body. This
report relates to the funding relationship between the council, the Funding
Board, and the amenities.
Māori
impact statement
24. Council’s
ability to influence or guide the Funding Board is limited to setting funding
principles. In 2012 council added the funding principle that the Funding
Board should require the amenities to align their activities to the Auckland
Plan. The amenities have the ability to make positive contributions to Māori
wellbeing, and to deliver on Auckland Plan outcomes relating to effective
communication and engagement with Māori and contribute to effective Māori
capacity.
25. We note also
that the Act requires that the membership of the Funding Board must include at
least one member who represents the interests of Māori in the Auckland
region.
Implementation
26. Once the
content of the submission is approved, officials will make any minor edits or
amendments to correct any errors, or to reflect decisions made by the Governing
Body.
27. The chair of
the Finance and Performance Committee will sign the submission on behalf of
Auckland Council.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Draft Council submission on ARAFA funding plan 2017/18
|
25
|
|
b⇩
|
Draft Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board
Funding Plan 2017-2018
|
27
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance &
External Partnerships
Phil Wilson - Governance Director
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Auckland Council organisation performance report for
the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016
File No.: CP2016/25323
Purpose
1. This
report provides an overview of the Auckland Council organisation (the parent
entity) performance results for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016.
Executive
summary
2. The
performance results presented in this report are for the Auckland Council
organisation (the parent entity), not the group. The group financial
results, together with separate reports on the performance of each CCO, will be
presented to the Finance and Performance Committee at the 21 March 2017
meeting.
Highlights
and achievements
3. The
report includes an overview of the highlights and achievements in areas that
are key for achieving organisational objectives. There is a range of
significant highlights and achievements over the quarter, which includes the
following items.
· In
partnership with central government, the council has finalised an extension to
the existing Auckland Housing Accord to enable a small number of Special
Housing Area applicants to complete their plan variations.
· The
Love Food Hate Waste initiative launched at Britomart in November with a
demonstration of the scale of food waste in Auckland. The campaign, which
aims to get people to make a commitment to change that leads to less edible
food ending up in the bin/rubbish bag, has generated significant public
interest at events and on social media. At the conclusion of the
three-year campaign an in-depth survey will be carried out to measure
awareness, changes in behaviour and whether less food waste is ending up in
bins.
· Albany
Stadium Pool opened to the public on 28 January 2017. The facility has
been designed for families, to encourage play and interaction, and provides
something for all ages with a splash pad, water features, a climbing wall and
fitness amenities.
Service
performance
4. For
each of the activities delivered by the council, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025
(LTP) includes level of service statements and associated performance
measures. This report provides interim performance results showing how we
are tracking on the performance measures to-date. Year-end outlook
information is included in the report together with commentary to explain
actions being taken to address any performance gaps.
5. The
latest performance measure results show that 65 per cent of the measures have
either achieved the targets set in the LTP or achieved a result close to
target. The remaining 35 per cent of the performance measures did not
achieve the targeted service levels. The year-end outlook is that 38 per
cent of the performance measures will not achieve the targets set in the LTP.
The reasons for these targets not being achieved are noted in paragraphs 40 to
67 of this report.
6. A
number of performance measures in the regulatory services area are not
achieving the targets set in the LTP. This includes the following key
measures:
· Building
consent and resource consent processing times
· Customer
satisfaction with the overall quality of building control service delivery
· Percentage
of high-risk alcohol premises inspected annually
· Percentage
of food premises graded annually.
7. Economic
data for Auckland (Appendix 1 of Attachment A) continues to show strong growth
occurring. Net migration into Auckland, a key indicator of growth, shows
33,536 people have migrated into Auckland in the last year. The
regulatory services delivered by the council have been impacted by the growth
in the city. Significant increases in activity volumes have been
experienced in both the building control and resource consenting areas.
To cope with the demand for services, there is a range of initiatives that have
been put in place such as the “Consenting Made Easy” programme,
which encompasses a number of online consenting enhancements and new mobile
technology to carry out inspections, as well as better workforce planning.
Financial
performance
8. The
financial performance results provide an indication of how the organisation is
performing against the budget and associated financial risks.
9. The
year-to-date net operating financial results are on track compared to budget,
with a $15 million favourable variance to budget. The year-end
outlook is that the net operating result will be in line with the approved
budget.
10. Capital expenditure delivery performance is progressing with a $188
million investment completed to date, which is 33 per cent of the full
programme of $568 million approved for the year. The latest forecast
indicates that about 90 per cent of the programme will be delivered this year,
with the shortfall being mainly due to project delays.
11. Treasury
management performance is also included in the report. Total borrowings
of $7.2 billion align to Annual Plan projections. In addition, the
average funding costs of debt are in line with the budgeted levels.
12. Employee
numbers have declined in the first six months of the year. While the
full-time equivalent staff numbers for the regulatory areas have been
increasing to cope with the surge in demand for services in this area, there
has been an offsetting decrease in staff numbers in other areas, particularly
the back-office support areas. Despite these decreases in back-office FTE
numbers, the year-end outlook is likely to be a net increase in FTE due to
ongoing recruitment for vacant positions in the regulatory area to meet service
demand.
13. The report
also includes additional information relating to a number of areas including
professional services expenditure, LGOIMAs and customer service, in the
appendices.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) note
the following highlights and achievements for the period 1 October 2016 to 31
December 2016:
i) in
partnership with central government, the council has finalised an extension
to the existing Auckland Housing Accord to enable a small number of Special
Housing Area applicants to complete their plan variations.
ii) the Love Food Hate Waste initiative launched at Britomart in
November with a demonstration of the scale of food waste in Auckland.
The campaign, which aims to get people to make a commitment to change that
leads to less edible food ending up in the bin/rubbish bag, has generated
significant public interest at events and on social media. At the
conclusion of the three-year campaign an in-depth survey will be carried out
to measure awareness, changes in behaviour and whether less food waste is
ending up in bins.
b) note
the Auckland Council parent performance results for the period 1 July 2016 to
31 December 2016, highlighting:
i) that
65 per cent of the Long-term Plan (LTP) performance measures have achieved
the targets set in the LTP or achieved a result close to target.
ii) the
net operating financial results are on track compared to budget, with a
$15 million favourable variance to budget.
iii) capital
expenditure delivery performance is generally on track with a
$188 million investment completed for the six month period, with some
delays expected in the delivery of the full programme budgeted for the year.
|
Comments
14. The
performance results presented in this report are for the Auckland Council
parent, not the group. The group financial results together with separate
reports on the performance of each CCO will be presented to the Finance and
Performance Committee at the 21 March 2017 meeting.
Highlights
and achievements
15. Key
highlights and achievements for the quarter are summarised below. These
are sorted by the service delivery themes as expressed in the LTP.
Auckland development
16. In
partnership with central government, the council has finalised an extension to
the existing Auckland Housing Accord to enable a small number of Special
Housing Area applicants to complete their plan variations.
17. Collaboration
between central government and Auckland Council Group on international activity
was formalised through a memorandum of understanding that establishes protocols
on global engagement activities. This includes sharing market
intelligence, supporting Auckland’s participation in global forums,
facilitating outbound mayoral-led missions and coordinating high-profile visits
to Auckland.
18. Auckland was
awarded the Friendship City Award for Exchange and Co-operation with China at
the China International Friendship Cities Conference in Chongqing in November.
Auckland was selected due to exemplary engagement with Guangzhou since the
establishment of the Tripartite Economic Alliance.
19. The Auckland
Plan refresh programme was signed off by the Planning Committee in
November. Preparatory work is now underway to identify key issues and
develop strategic content that will form the basis of engagement with the
elected members, external stakeholders and central government from February
2017.
20. Auckland
Council presented its case in the High Court in response to appeals relating to
the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel’s assessment of the
scope of zoning submissions.
21. The sale and
purchase agreement with Precinct Properties for Queen Elizabeth Square has now
gone unconditional.
Environmental management and
regulation
22. The Love Food
Hate Waste initiative launched at Britomart in November with a demonstration of
the scale of food waste in Auckland. The campaign, which aims to get
people to make a commitment to change that leads to less edible food ending up
in the bin/rubbish bag, has generated significant public interest at events and
on social media. At the conclusion of the three-year campaign an in-depth
survey will be carried out to measure awareness, changes in behaviour and
whether less food waste is ending up in bins.
23. In the wake
of the 14 November 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, 39 staff from the Auckland Council
family were deployed to support and assist in the Civil Defence response.
24. The Hunua
kōkako recovery project received its final allocation of birds. In
total 19 kōkako have been translocated from the King Country to the
kōkako management area in the Hunua Ranges over the past year.
25. Work has been
completed on an ecosystem map for Auckland that draws on 30 years of survey
data to present detailed descriptions of ecosystems and possible threats.
The map (available as a layer on the council’s Geomaps viewer) and
accompanying technical guide will standardise assessment of native areas.
26. An
independent survey of residents participating in the North Shore kerbside food
waste collection trial was carried out. Findings have been encouraging,
with 80 per cent of people using the service and 93 per cent of users giving
positive feedback. The trial started in 2014 and involves approximately
2,000 households.
Parks, community and lifestyle
27. A wide range
of local and regional projects were completed in time for summer, including:
· Stoney
Homestead and Marlborough Park Youth Facility
· Mahurangi
Regional Park toilet block
· Fairy
Falls and Seibel Scenic Reserve track/bridge renewals
· Sandringham
Reserve and Delphine Reserve upgrades
· Withers
Reserve, Inwards Reserve, Awaroa Park, Marlene Glade, Starling Park, Maungawhau
and Takaranga Reserve playground renewals
· Wenderholm
sun shelter replacement
· Manuka
Reserve, Hinemoa Reserve and Brian Byrnes walkways
· Waterview
skatepark and BMX pump track
28. Auckland
Botanic Gardens nursery completed production of 63,000 native plants for
revegetation programmes in regional parks. 55,000 potted plants will be
grown in the nursery and dispatched from autumn 2017, while another 8,000
seedlings have already been dispatched to nurseries in regional parks.
29. Albany
Stadium Pool opened to the public on 28 January 2017. The facility has
been designed for families to encourage play and interaction. The pool
provides something for all ages with a splash pad, water features, a climbing
wall and fitness amenities.
30. Auckland
Libraries’ Kia Māia te Whai/Dare to Explore summer reading programme
had 9,172 children signed up by 31 December 2016.
31. The
interactive giant-sized dinosaur puppet show Dinosaurs in the Gardens was
launched at Auckland Botanic Gardens in November 2016. This free summer
family activity received a huge public response, with 15,687 registrations so
far and seven shows at over 95 per cent capacity or booked out completely.
32. Urbanesia
celebrated our Pacific arts and artists with performances and exhibitions
throughout November 2016. Social media content has seen strong engagement
with the event, including one video being viewed over 50,000 times.
33. The Auckland
Heritage Festival finished up on 9 October 2016 with positive feedback from
attendees and contributors.
Governance and support
34. Four
‘Getting to Grips with Governance’ days were held in November 2016
for elected members, with good attendance and positive feedback received.
The sessions covered good governance, quality advice, obligations to
Māori, trust and confidence and legal obligations.
35. A project is
underway to consolidate the council’s contact centres into a single
centre of excellence at Manukau supported by a team of remote workers.
The consolidation is planned to be complete by 1 July 2017.
36. Customer
Services received a Highly Commended in the Programme of the Year category at
the New Zealand Association of Training and Development (NZATD) annual
awards. NZATD recognised the size of our change commitment to NewCore and
the success of June’s go-live – making particular reference to our
change readiness, stakeholder engagement and the transfer of learning via
blended learning and onsite support.
Service
performance
37. For each of
the activities delivered by the council, the LTP includes level of service
statements and associated performance measures. This section provides our
performance results to date for 2016/2017 compared to the targets set in the
LTP. These results are unaudited. The year-end audited results for
2015/2016 are available in the Annual Report.
38. The quarterly
performance report presented here includes results for those LTP performance
measures where the information is available at the quarter end. Also
included in the report is a year-end outlook for the performance measure
results, together with commentary from the relevant business unit where there
are performance gaps.
39. As at 31
December 2016, results for 55 per cent of the total number of LTP measures are
available for reporting. The remaining 45 per cent will be reported as
they become available, for example from customer survey results.
40. The latest
results show that 28 regional measures (59 per cent) have achieved the targets
set, three measures (six per cent) have achieved a result close to target
(termed ‘substantially achieved’) and 17 measures (35 per cent)
have not achieved their targets. The year-end outlook is that 38 per cent
of the performance measures will not achieve the targets set in the LTP.
The reasons for these targets not being achieved are included on the following
pages alongside the latest results and outlook information.
41. A number of
performance measures in the regulatory services area are not achieving the
targets set in the LTP. This includes the following key measures:
· Building
consent and resource consent processing times
· Customer
satisfaction with the overall quality of building control service delivery
· Percentage
of high-risk alcohol premises inspected annually
· Percentage
of food premises graded annually.
42. Economic data
for Auckland (Appendix 1 of Attachment A) continues to show strong growth
occurring. Net migration into Auckland, a key indicator of growth, shows
33,536 people have migrated into Auckland in the last year. The
regulatory services delivered by the council have been impacted by the growth
in the city. Significant increases in activity volumes have been
experienced in both the building control and resource consenting areas.
For Building Control in the 12 months to December 2016 the number of building
consents lodged increased by five per cent compared to the previous 12 month
period; the equivalent comparison for resource consents lodged shows an
increase of 15 per cent. Indicative housing information implies that the
construction industry has capacity constraints and this is reflected in the
number of approved residential units actually being constructed.
43. To cope with
the demand for consenting services, there is a range of initiatives that have
been put in place, such as the “Consenting Made Easy” programme,
which encompasses a number of online consenting enhancements and new mobile
technology to carry out inspections, as well as better workforce planning.
44. The symbols
below are used to summarise the results. These align with the symbols
used in the audited Annual Report.
|
Achieved
|
Substantially achieved
|
Not achieved but progress
made
|
Not achieved
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auckland development
|
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual Result
|
|
Percentage of unitary and area plan changes and Notices of
Requirement processed within statutory timeframes
|
100%
|
100%
|
 
|
100%
|
45.
|
|
Regulation
|
|
46. Percentage
of registered food premises graded annually
|
|
 
|
Pressures remain on the licensing area
to meet the workload required under the Food Act 2016. We continue to
focus inspection efforts on high-risk food premises. This approach is in line
with the Act, which provides for frequency of inspections of low-risk food
premises to be decreased to less than annually.
|
|
47. Percentage of D/E graded food
premises re-inspected within one month
|
|
 
|
Re-inspection of all D and E
grade premises has been a key focus area, as shown by the improved results
since FY15.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48. Percentage
of high-risk alcohol premises inspected annually
|
|
 
|
The
targeted service level is expected to be met at year-end. It is normal for
the focus to reduce on this measure at this time of the year, to give
priority to other tasks.
|
|
49. Number of
dwellings and sites consented towards Auckland housing targets
|
|
|
The term of the
original Auckland Housing Accord came to an end in September 2016.
Provisions of the recently passed housing legislation provide for a smooth
transition from the SHAs to the Unitary Plan; the Accord has consequently
been extended to 31 December 2016. In total to September 2016, we
have consented 37,538 net sections and dwellings - 96% of the Accord target
of 39,000.
|
|
50. Percentage
of building consent applications processed within 20 working days
|
|
 
|
The
surge in demand for building control services across the region
continues. Additionally, changes to systems have impacted processing
performance. A range of initiatives has been put in place, such as
“Consenting Made Easy”, which encompasses a number of online
consenting enhancements and new mobile technology to carry out inspections,
as well as increased support and better workforce planning.
|
|
51. Percentage
of customers satisfied with the overall quality of building control service
delivery
|
|
 
|
As described
above in item 48, an improvement programme is being rolled out.
|
|
52. Additional
information
|
|
|
|
|
Median elapsed working days for building consent
processing 2016/2017
|
Elapsed time
|
Number of consents processed
|
|
Building
Consents
|
26 days
|
9,896
|
|
|
53. Percentage
of non-notified resource consent applications processed within 20 working
days
|
|
 
|
There has been a sharp increase in the number of
resource consents lodged this year which has impacted processing times.
A number of initiatives are expected to improve timeframes:
· the Consenting Made Easy programme
· the implementation of NewCore
· online consent processing
· the implementation of the Unitary Plan
· actively addressing resourcing challenges.
|
|
54. Percentage of notified resource
consent applications processed within 70 working days
|
|
 
|
The
number of notified consents is approximately 1.6% of all consents.
These are generally highly complex applications.
Delays
occur for several reasons, including a focus on working with applicants and
parties affected by the project to address any issues and achieve the best
possible outcomes for all parties.
|
|
55. Percentage
of customers satisfied with the overall quality of resource consents service
delivery
|
|
 
|
The FY17 result is an improvement from last year,
due in part to a change from a monthly phone survey to a continuous monitor
that now reaches almost all customers and asks for opinions at all stages of
the process. Direct comparisons of data are therefore not advised.
Improvement programmes are being implemented such as
Consenting Made Easy, including mobile technologies.
|
|
56. Additional
information
|
|
|
|
|
Median
elapsed working days for resource consent processing 2016/2017
|
Resource consent type
|
Elapsed time
|
Number of consents processed
|
|
Fully notified
|
190 days
|
73
|
|
Limited
notified
|
190 days
|
30
|
|
Non-notified
|
35 days
|
6,206
|
The number of
elapsed working days is higher than the number of processing working days due
to:
· requests for further information for
applications that are incomplete or require additional reports or issues to
be addressed by the applicant, resulting in stopping the processing clock
(under S92 of RMA)
· extensions of processing timeframes for
complex applications, or at the request of the applicant (under S37 of RMA).
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual Result
|
|
Percentage of bylaw-related requests
for service (e.g. illegal signs, public nuisance, street trading) responded
to within three days
|
77%
|
80%
|
|
88%
|
|
Percentage of urgent animal management
complaints such as dog attacks responded to within one hour
|
99%
|
95%
|
|
99%
|
|
Percentage of noise complaints
responded to within 30 minutes for urban areas or 60 minutes for rural
areas
|
79%
|
80%
|
|
83%
|
|
Percentage of known dogs that are
registered
|
88%(1)
|
100%
|
|
90%
|
|
Percentage of customers satisfied with
the alcohol licensing service
|
81%
|
67%
|
|
78%
|
|
Percentage of customers satisfied with
the food and hygiene licensing service
|
81%
|
70%
|
|
74%
|
|
Percentage of complainants satisfied
with noise control services
|
54%
|
51%
|
|
48%
|
|
Percentage of requests by iwi that are
relevant and within their area of interest that are responded to within
three statutory days
|
100%
|
100%
|
|
99%
|
57.
|
|
There has been
an increase in the number of known dogs within the quarter which has impacted
registrations. Focus will be applied in the next quarter to improve
results
|
|
Solid waste
|
|
58. Domestic
kerbside refuse (kilograms per capita per annum)
|
|
 
|
The current
levels are expected to continue until most of the new initiatives of the
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan are implemented. The full
regional inorganic service has been introduced, as well as larger, fully
commingled recycling bins for Rodney, Waitākere and North Shore
areas. The Manukau roll out of refuse bins is due mid-2017. These
initiatives will contribute to reducing the amount of waste we send to
landfill.
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual Result
|
|
Total number of Resource Recovery
Facilities
|
3
|
3
|
|
3
|
59.
|
|
Stormwater management
|
|
60. The
median response time (in hours) to attend a flooding event, measured from the
time that Auckland Council receives notification to the time that service
personnel reach the site.
|
|
 
|
In FY16 an audit was undertaken to test the validity
of the on-site timeframes being reported by maintenance contractors. GPS
vehicle tracking evidence was requested and any discrepancy or failure to
provide GPS was adjusted in the results. FY17 has seen improved
controls being put in place, contractors installing GPS and
non-compliance being managed proactively.
|
|
61. Stormwater
manholes that pop open in flood events are made safe within two hours
|
|
|
Performance monitoring of contractors remains a
priority to reinforce the importance of responding to emergency requests for
service within specified timeframes.
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual Result
|
|
The number of flooding events that occur and the
associated number of habitable floors affected per 1000 properties
connected to the Auckland Council’s stormwater network
|
0.1 per 1000 properties
|
1 per
1000 properties
|
|
0.1 per 1000 properties
|
|
The number of complaints received about the
performance of the stormwater system per 1,000 properties connected to
Auckland Council’s stormwater system
|
0.59 per 1000 properties
|
3 per
1000 properties
|
|
0.39 per 1000 properties
|
|
Auckland Council Stormwater compliance with
resource consents for discharge from its stormwater system, measured by the
number of:
a) abatement notices; and
b) infringement notices; and
c) enforcement orders; and
d) successful prosecutions, received
in relation to those resource consents
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
The ratio of length of watercourse consented to be
physically improved versus physically degraded in the current year(1)
|
2.6:1
|
3:1
|
|
2.6:1
|
62.
|
|
a)
This is a new
measure introduced in FY16. The Stormwater Resource Management team is
working closely with the Resource Consents team to improve processes and data
collection. Resources are being applied for sourcing of data for 2017.
|
|
Environmental services
|
|
63.
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual Result
|
|
Percentage of council-controlled closed landfill
discharge consents achieving category one or two compliance rating
|
100%
|
98%
|
|
100%
|
|
Proportion of catchments where sources of key
contaminants are identified and impact mitigation measures are in place
|
11%(1)
|
15%
|
|
11%
|
|
Proportion of catchments with stable or improving
Macroinvertebrate Community Index
|
9.26%(2)
|
11%
|
|
9%
|
|
Length (kms) of waterways protected annually with
riparian planting and/or fencing
|
29.17(3)
|
34.6
|
|
29.17
|
|
Proportion of schools participating in
sustainability education programmes
|
67%
|
58%
|
|
75%
|
|
Number of hectares of new forest or wetland
habitat established on regional parks
|
0
|
8
|
|
8
|
|
Percentage of threatened species under active
management
|
34%
|
34%
|
|
34%
|
|
Percentage of indigenous ecosystems under active
management
|
68%
|
68%
|
|
68%
|
|
Number of hectares under community pest control
|
124,000
|
89,000
|
|
124,000
|
|
Percentage land area with less than 5% residual
trap catch for possums
|
52%
|
51%
|
|
52%
|
|
Proportion of kauri areas on council land that
have active management or exclusion measures in place for kauri dieback
disease
|
68%
|
60%
|
|
68%
|
|
Proportion of environmental programmes led or
supported, with Māori participation
|
43%
|
15%
|
|
30%
|
|
Percentage of Aucklanders covered by Community
Response Plans
|
0%(4)
|
95%
|
|
20%
|
|
|
1. The result has
remained at FY16 levels while the target for FY17 has increased. The
existing mitigation measures for sources of key contaminants have been
reviewed and the implementation of an aligned works programme is being rolled
out in Q3 2017.
2. The result has
slightly improved from FY16 levels while the target for FY17 has
increased. As this year’s work programme is undertaken it is
expected that we will achieve target.
3. This is a cumulative figure for the
length of the LTP 2015-2025. The result is below target as some of the
planting and fencing programmed has been delayed due to adverse soil
conditions. Not all of the planting and fencing carried out by private
landowners using council grants is included in the calculation.
Increased scope of works includes follow-up with private landowners that
planting and site monitoring is in place.
4. The Community Response Programme
has been replaced by a community empowerment model using a community-led,
whole-of-society, evidence-based approach to help support Auckland’s
communities to build resilience. This new approach will focus on how to
best support Auckland’s diverse communities to respond to and recover
from hazards and associated risks. Any strategies must be flexible so
that they can be adaptable and relevant to each specific area, meet the needs
of the wider community and offer different participation choices.
|
|
Parks, community and
lifestyle
|
|
64. Facility
Utilisation - utilisation at peak and off-peak times for council managed
community centres and venues for hire
|
|
Peak
 
|
Off-peak
 
|
|
b)
The
digital booking system, which began recording bookings in FY17 Q1, is
expected to improve customer experience and utilisation, along with a
marketing campaign in Q3. The system allows customers better visibility
of availability, better choice of booking times available in different
venues, and promotes off-peak discount rates
|
|
65. Number of
visits to library facilities per capita
|
|
 
|
The
results show a decline in visitor numbers across all libraries with the
exception of those that had a new library building being opened in the past
two years (Ōtāhuhu, Devonport, Te Atatū, Ranui and
Waiheke). This reflects a significant customer shift towards digital
borrowing. E-issues now make up 10 per cent of all items borrowed from
Auckland Libraries.
|
|
66. Number of
library items borrowed (millions)
|
|
 
|
This
result includes both physical and digital issues. The percentage of e-issues
keeps increasing, with changes in customers’ preferences towards more
digital services.
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual Result
|
|
Number of visitors to community centres and venues
for hire
|
2,234,363
|
2,074,203
|
|
4,840,000
|
|
Percentage of community facilities bookings used
for health and wellbeing related activity
|
22%
|
20%
|
|
21%
|
|
Total permitted events taking place across the
city
|
524(1)
|
1,100
|
|
1,689
|
|
Number of visits to the Auckland Libraries website
(millions)
|
3.4
|
3.6
|
|
7.1
|
|
Use of libraries as digital community hubs: Number
of internet sessions per capita (PC & WiFi)
|
2.4
|
0.9
|
|
4.5
|
|
Percentage of items borrowed that are
e-collections (e.g. eBooks, eAudiobooks)
|
11%
|
10%
|
|
9%
|
|
Percentage of city park service requests completed
on time
|
91%
|
90%
|
|
90%
|
|
Percentage of all assets that are
graffiti free across the city
|
94%
|
93%
|
|
94%
|
67.
|
|
Last year
opportunities were identified for relaxing permitting requirements, to ensure
that permits are only required where there is a clear reason and benefit for
doing so. This reduces administrative cost and effort for event
organisers. These changes mean the number of permitted events is lower
than the target – however the outcome result is positive.
|
|
Governance and support
|
|
68. Rolling 10-year return for diversified financial assets portfolio,
compared to reference portfolio
|
|
 
|
This is the rolling average return for the
diversified financial assets portfolio since amalgamation (October 2010),
then rolling 10 years.
The value of the portfolio is $226m
and reflects the partial sale of $100m this year, as approved by the
Governing Body.
The YTD return on the portfolio was
four per cent compared to the reference portfolio’s 3.9 per cent.
|
|
|
FY17
|
FY16
|
|
Performance measures
|
Actual
Result
Q2
|
Target
Q2
|
YE
Outlook
|
Actual
Result
|
|
Number of complaints
regarding council democratic processes upheld by the Auditor General or
Ombudsman
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
69.
|
|
|
|
Financial
performance
70. This section
provides an overview of the financial performance results for the half year
ended 31 December 2016.
|
$millions
|
YTD
Actual
|
YTD
Revised
Budget
|
YTD
Variance
|
FY
Revised
Budget
|
FY
Annual
Plan
|
YE
Out-
look
|
|
Operating revenue
|
236
|
240
|
(4)
|
(2%)
|
538
|
532
|
|
|
Operating expenditure
|
1,056
|
1,078
|
22
|
2%
|
2,122
|
2,103
|
|
|
Net operating expenditure
|
820
|
838
|
18
|
2%
|
1,584
|
1,571
|
|
|
Rates revenue
|
1,639
|
1,642
|
(3)
|
-
|
1,649
|
1,649
|
|
|
Net operating surplus/(deficit)
|
819
|
804
|
15
|
2%
|
65
|
78
|
|
|
Net non-operating
revenue/(expenditure)
|
130
|
(161)
|
291
|
-
|
(317)
|
(323)
|
|
|
Net surplus/(deficit)
|
949
|
643
|
306
|
-
|
(252)
|
(245)
|
|
Operating revenue
71. The overall result year to date is $4 million (two per
cent) unfavourable to budget mainly due to reduced finance income from lower
cash holdings than budgeted; this is offset by reduced interest costs on debt
(included in the ‘operating expenditure’ category).
Operating expenditure
72. Year-to-date this is $23 million (two per cent) favourable
to budget mainly due to expenditure incurred later than originally planned
across various work programmes and lower interest costs incurred on debt (due
to timing delays on capital projects).
Rates revenue
73. Rates revenue
is slightly lower than budget for the year, mainly due to a fair value discount
accounting adjustment, which will reverse out before year end. The rates
revenue recognition happens at the beginning of the year (July) at the time of
the issuance of ratings notices in accordance with accounting standards.
Net operating surplus/deficit
74. Overall surplus of $819 million is $15 million favourable
compared to budget. The operating budgets for the year include budgeted
savings targets of $25 million. These savings targets are being
progressed through a number of initiatives including smarter procurement,
simpler and better information technology and bringing work in house to reduce
reliance on external providers. The year-end outlook for the net
operating result is expected to align with the overall approved budget for the
year; however, there are challenges and risks associated with delivering the
savings targets for the year.
Non-operating revenue/expenditure
75. $291
million favourable compared to budget. This is mainly due to accounting
(non-cash) adjustments related to the fair value of the treasury derivatives
portfolio together with reduced capital funding to Auckland Transport due to
the timing delays of capital projects. The year-end outlook for the
non-operating results does have some uncertainty mainly due to the impact of
global financial market changes on the fair value of the treasury derivatives
portfolio and the associated accounting (non-cash) adjustments that may be
required.
Net surplus/(deficit)
76. The
overall result shows a surplus of $949 million, which is $306 million
favourable compared to the budget, due to the reasons outlined above. The
large surplus for the half year is mainly driven by the recognition in full of
2016/2017 rates revenue at the time of the issuance of rating notices in July
in accordance with accounting standards. This surplus will reduce as the year
progresses.
Net operating performance
results by theme
77. The next
table provides a split of the net operating result by each of the LTP themes.
Net operating result by theme
|
$million
|
YTD
Actual
|
YTD
Revised
Budget
|
YTD
Variance
|
FY
Revised
Budget
|
FY
Annual
Plan
|
|
Auckland development
|
65
|
70
|
5
|
7%
|
133
|
129
|
|
Economic and cultural
development
|
38
|
46
|
8
|
17%
|
94
|
94
|
|
Environmental management and
regulation
|
142
|
141
|
(1)
|
(1%)
|
290
|
294
|
|
Parks, community and
lifestyle
|
243
|
240
|
(3)
|
(1%)
|
490
|
490
|
|
Transport
|
202
|
202
|
-
|
-
|
416
|
416
|
|
Governance and support
|
130
|
139
|
9
|
6%
|
161
|
148
|
|
Net operating expenditure
|
820
|
838
|
18
|
2%
|
1,584
|
1,571
|
|
Rates revenue
|
1,639
|
1,642
|
(3)
|
-
|
1,649
|
1,649
|
|
Net operating surplus
|
819
|
804
|
15
|
2%
|
65
|
78
|
78. The
‘Economic and cultural development’ theme has a favourable result
year to date mainly due to timing differences in activity. For the
‘Governance and support’ theme, the favourable variance to budget
is largely due to the lower interest costs incurred on debt and timing
differences relating to the CCO funding.
Capital expenditure delivery
performance
79. Over the
first half of the financial year, there was $188 million of capital expenditure
completed, which is 33 per cent of the full programme of $568 million approved
for the year. The latest forecast indicates that about 90 per cent of the
programme is expected to be delivered this year. This forecast will be
revised next quarter as more projects progress, and risks and potential delays
can be more accurately identified. In 2015/2016, 74 per cent of the $556
million work programme was delivered.
Capital expenditure delivery
performance by theme
|
$million
|
YTD
Actual
|
YTD
Revised
Budget
|
YTD
Variance
|
FY
Revised
Budget
|
FY
Annual
Plan
|
%
Complete
|
|
Auckland development
|
23
|
30
|
7
|
110
|
143
|
21%
|
|
Environmental management and regulation
|
47
|
42
|
(5)
|
103
|
117
|
46%
|
|
Parks, community and lifestyle
|
80
|
90
|
10
|
244
|
254
|
33%
|
|
Governance and support
|
38
|
45
|
7
|
111
|
78
|
34%
|
|
Capital expenditure
|
188
|
207
|
19
|
568
|
592
|
33%
|
80. Capital
delivery performance to date is largely on track except for some areas where
there have been delays and projects are expected to be delivered later than
originally planned. Projects progressed over the last quarter include
Albany Stadium Pool, Shore Road Reserve sportsfields upgrade, Wenderholm
Regional Park toilet block, library book purchases, various asset renewals
(e.g. playgrounds, public toilets, car parks, stormwater) and the NewCore
project.
81. The
commercial property portfolio (part of the ‘Auckland development’
theme) is underspent due to delays mainly related to the strategic development
projects. The ‘Parks, community and lifestyle’ theme is
underspent mainly due to delays in land acquisition.
Balance sheet performance
|
$million
|
Actual as at
December
2016
|
Projected
per Annual Plan 2017
|
Actual
audited
June 2016
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
13,490
|
13,059
|
13,410
|
|
Other assets and investments
|
25,004
|
24,550
|
24,226
|
|
Less liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowings
|
7,222
|
8,025
|
6,942
|
|
Other liabilities
|
1,534
|
1,402
|
1,904
|
|
Net assets (ratepayers’ equity)
|
29,739
|
27,182
|
28,790
|
82. Property,
plant and equipment: The increase since June 2016 is mainly a result of capital
expenditure progressing. Asset revaluations at year-end 30 June 2016
resulted in asset values higher than projected in the Annual Plan.
83. Total borrowing at 31 December 2016 was $7.2 billion; forecast
year-end debt is expected to be in line with the Annual Plan projections.
Treasury management
84. Treasury
management information can be found in Appendix 2 - Treasury of Attachment A
report. This report includes treasury compliance information together
with information about the performance of treasury activities against
benchmarks.
85. Funding
costs: The year-to-date average cost of funds was 5.05 per cent, which is lower
than the budgeted level of 5.31 per cent.
86. The
Diversified Financial Assets portfolio totalled $227 million at the end of
December 2016, after a partial sale of $100 million (as approved by the
Governing Body). The short-term return on the portfolio for the year to
date was four per cent, exceeding the benchmark portfolio (return of 3.88 per
cent).
87. Debtors’
management information can be found in Appendix 6 of Attachment A. Rates
debt collection at 31 December is largely on track, with a record number
of customers (30%) paying by direct debit.
Employee numbers
88. There is a
legislative requirement to include employee numbers in the audited Annual
Report each year. This is presented for both the Auckland Council parent
and group (refer to page 76 of the Annual Report 2015/2016, volume 3).
89. As not all
employees work the same number of hours per week a simple head count does not
give meaningful comparatives between years. Instead, full-time equivalent
(FTE) is used, which means everyone is converted to the equivalent of forty
hours per week. For instance a staff member working 20 hours per week
would be shown as a 0.5 FTE.
90. The table
below shows the trend of both FTE and FTE per 1,000 residents in Auckland for
the council parent organisation. Overall the FTEs have declined in
FY17. The FTE for the regulatory areas has been increasing to cope with
the surge in demand for services in this area, while there have been offsetting
decreases in FTE in other areas, particularly the back-office support
areas. When compared with the growing population of Auckland, the FTE is
trending favourably to a lower rate. Despite these decreases in
back-office FTE numbers the year-end outlook is likely to be a net increase in
FTE due to ongoing recruitment for vacant positions in the regulatory area to meet
service demand.
|
|
Q2 FY17
|
Q4 FY16
|
Q4 FY15
|
|
Number of full-time equivalents (FTE)
|
6,068
|
6,102
|
6,088
|
|
FTE per 1,000 residents
|
3.72
|
3.78
|
3.88
|
Information and Communications
Technology (ICT)
91. A separate
report will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee meeting on
21 March 2017 that will provide updated information about the costs of ICT
(including staff costs) and the ICT work programme.
92. Further
information available in the appendices to this report includes:
· Appendix
1 – Auckland economic update
· Appendix
2 – Treasury report
· Appendix
3 – Professional services expenditure information
· Appendix
4 – LGOIMA information
· Appendix
5 – Customer service information
· Appendix
6 – Debtor information
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
93. Local boards
receive their own reporting for their respective areas. The local board
quarterly performance reports have been enhanced to improve the quality of
information presented to the boards in relation to the reporting on the LTP
performance measures. The aim here is to provide an early indication to
the local boards as to how performance is tracking against targeted levels.
Māori
impact statement
94. The content
and recommendations of this report have no particular benefit to or adverse
effect on Māori.
95. The
individual items in the highlights and achievements section may have benefits
or adverse effects on Māori that are specific to those initiatives, but as
this report is intended to provide a high-level summary that information is not
included.
Implementation
96. There are no
legal financial or resourcing implications arising from receipt of this report.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Performance report appendices December 2016
|
109
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Jenny Livschitz - Manager Corporate Performance and
Reporting
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kevin Ramsay - General Manager Corporate Finance and
Property
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Re-establishment of the quality advice political
advisory group
File No.: CP2017/00014
Purpose
1. To
re-establish a quality advice political advisory group and to agree its
membership, purpose and term.
Executive
summary
2. Auckland
Council’s quality advice programme (the programme) aims to lift the
quality of advice given to decision-makers. Elected member survey results
and New Zealand Institute of Economic (NZIER) assessments of our reports, show
the need for these improvements.
3. Anchored
by a set of quality advice standards, the programme’s activities include:
· setting
and communicating expectations
· training
and supporting staff to meet the standards
· measuring
progress.
4. The
programme should help increase elected member trust and confidence in staff and
public trust and confidence in the council.
5. Last
term, a political advisory group provided the programme with the
decision-makers’ perspective.
6. We
recommend re-establishing the political advisory group this term because:
· the
‘end-user’ perspective benefits the programme
· the
programme is in its early stages and requires input from decision-makers
· the
new council may have changing priorities that we need to understand.
7. The
committee is asked to confirm the membership, term and purpose of the advisory
group. The advisory group can adopt its detailed terms of reference.
8. Proposed
membership is: three governing body members; three local board members; and one
Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) member. The group is advisory
only.
9. We
recommend that the committee establish the advisory group for an initial 18
month period, and that the advisory group be given the option to extend this
timeframe if necessary.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) re-establish
the Quality Advice Political Advisory Group as follows:
i) Membership:
three governing body members, three local board members and one Independent
Māori Statutory Board member
ii) Purpose:
to provide advice and guidance to the quality advice programme
iii) Term:
an initial 18 month period to be extended by the advisory group to the end of
the political term if required.
b) appoint
three governing Body members to the Quality Advice Political Advisory Group.
c) request
local boards appoint three Quality Advice Political Advisory Group
representatives.
d) request
the Independent Māori Statutory Board appoint one Quality Advice
Political Advisory Group representative.
|
Comments
Background
and context
10. The council’s quality advice programme aims to lift the
quality of advice provided to decision-makers. The programme is a critical
component of Auckland Council’s Organisational Strategy and its
Performance Plan (2017 to 2019). Quality advice helps support elected
members to make quality decisions for Auckland.
11. The key drivers of this programme, that demonstrate the need to
improve our advice, are:
· The
elected member survey results. The quality of our advice is a key driver of
elected members’ overall satisfaction with the support they
receive. The 2016 survey ratings are:
o overall
satisfaction – 51 per cent
o timeliness
of reports – 32 per cent
o quality
of advice at workshop – 56 per cent
o quality
of advice communicated at council meetings – 53 per cent
o quality
of reports – 55 per cent.
· The
annual, New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) review of
reports. Our Auckland Council Performance Plan has a
target for NZIER assessments of ‘good or better’ (8 out of 10) by
2019. We are currently assessed as ‘adequate’ (7.24 out of 10).
12. The programme is anchored by a set of quality advice standards (see
Attachment A). It includes a range of activities to: set and communicate
expectations; train and support staff to meet the standards; and measure
progress.
13. If successful, the programme will help increase elected member trust
and confidence in staff and public trust and confidence in council.
14. Two executive-level sponsors and a steering group of senior managers
support the programme. In the previous term a political advisory group of
three local board members, three governing body members and one IMSB member,
provided an end-user perspective and helped shape the programme.
15. The Finance and Performance Committee established the Quality Advice
Political Advisory Group in July 2015:
Resolution number FIN/2015/59
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
b) establish a
group of volunteers from the governing body and local boards, including Cr CM
Casey, Cr C Darby and Cr DA Krum, to work with the quality advice team and
report back to the Finance and Performance Committee.
16. The Finance
and Performance Committee was updated regularly.
Opportunity
17. A
political advisory group can help shape the quality advice programme,
communicate expectations, identify issues, contribute ideas and test proposals.
18. While
small in scale, a political advisory group can make a significant contribution
to the programme’s success. This, in turn, can positively impact
the quality of decision-making and council’s reputation.
Previous
political advisory group
19. In summary,
the previous advisory group’s terms of reference were:
· to
operate within their current political term and meet three times a year
· to
provide advice and comment on all aspects of the quality advice programme
· to
consist of three governing body members, three local board members and one IMSB
member
· to
be supported by an executive sponsor plus key council staff.
20. Attachment B
has the original terms of reference for the committee’s information.
21. The political advisory group met three times
and provided useful insights and guidance on:
· the
programme itself
· the
NZIER and elected member survey results
· the
political report template
· the
quality advice standards
· end-user
priorities for improving advice including the need to:
o identify
risks and mitigation strategies
o strengthen
Māori Impact Statements
o lift
competencies around providing verbal advice
o provide
joined-up/integrated advice
o improve
the effectiveness of elected member workshops.
22. The political advisory group was successful. It kept us focused on
the decision-makers’ needs and added value by providing political
insights.
Political
advisory group proposal – options and analysis
23. Two options
are available: to re-establish or not re-establish the Quality Advice Political
Advisory Group. If the decision is made to re-establish, the next step is
to decide membership and terms of reference.
24. We recommend
re-establishing the political advisory group to:
· Enable
the decision-maker’s perspective. The programme must respond to the
advisory needs of our decision-makers.
· Align
with the stage of the programme. The programme is still in its early stages
so input from decision-makers is critical. As the programme matures, and
best practice becomes business as usual, this requirement should drop off.
· Be
responsive to changing needs. The new
council may have different quality advice priorities that we need to
understand.
25. There
are risks associated with not re-establishing the advisory group. In
particular, the programme will lose the benefits of ‘end-user’
insights and may fail to understand and respond to the top priorities of
decision-makers.
Terms
of reference
26. We recommend
that the Finance and Performance Committee agree the membership, general
purpose and term of the political advisory group. This approach sees the
committee set the framework and the advisory group set the detailed terms of
reference.
27. The
membership of the previous advisory group worked well: the numbers and
representation enabled good debate and discussion. The terms also allowed
non-advisory group councillors, local board and IMSB members
to attend at the chair’s discretion.
28. We recommend,
therefore, that the advisory group’s composition remain the same: three
governing body and three local board members with one IMSB member.
29. Likewise, the
purpose of the advisory group worked well and we recommend it continues.
The group had no decision-making authority: it complemented but did not replace
the role of committees, local boards and the IMSB in relation to quality
advice. It provided input, guidance and comment on a range of programme
activities and it raised issues and concerns from the decision-maker’s
perspective.
30. We suggest
one change from the previous terms of reference: to establish the advisory
group for an initial period of 18 months. This timeframe to be reviewed
and extended to align with the full political term if required.
31. This approach
recognises that the need for decision-maker input will reduce as staff embed
quality advice practices. This also ensures effective use of
decision-makers’ time.
Financial
implications
32. The costs of
this proposal, staff and elected member time, are covered by existing budgets.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
33. We collect
local board views and expectations on advice informally through such mechanisms
as the political advisory group, the recent Good Governance seminars for newly
elected members and feedback on reports and workshop sessions.
34. In general,
our quality advice standards reflect the expectations of local board members.
35. A political
advisory group ensures a continued focus on the advisory needs of local board
members. It is also a forum for raising issues and ideas.
Māori
impact statement
36. Our advice
must meet legislative and policy requirements in relation to Māori.
Ideally, implications and issues for Māori will be integrated into advice
and reports. Improvements in this area have been suggested by NZIER in
their benchmarking work.
37. These
improvements are a priority for the quality advice programme. We support
staff to develop these skills through training, intranet guidance and peer
review.
38. An IMSB
representative on the political advisory group will help maintain this focus.
Implementation
39. If the
committee re-establishes the Quality Advice Political Advisory Group, the next
steps are for each of the decision-making groups (governing body, local board
and IMSB) to identify their representatives.
40. An initial
meeting will then be held by 30 April 2017 to adopt the terms of reference,
appoint a chair and seek decision-maker advice.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Auckland Council Quality Advice Standards
|
131
|
|
b⇩
|
Quality Advice Political Advisory Group Terms of
Reference 2015-2016
|
133
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Judith Webster - Quality Advice Programme Lead
|
|
Authorisers
|
Karen Lyons - Quality Advice Business Owner
Phil Wilson - Governance Director
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Funding for High Performance and Community Sailing
Centre
File No.: CP2017/01204
Purpose
1. To seek approval for continuation of up to $3 million in funding
support for the development of a High Performance and Community Sailing Centre
in partnership with Yachting New Zealand and Sport New Zealand in the
Auckland region.
Executive
summary
2. In 2012 the then Strategy and Finance Committee resolved to enter
into a partnership with Yachting New Zealand to develop a National Ocean and
Water Sports Centre (now referred to as the High Performance and Community
Sailing Centre) and contribute up to $3 million in funding towards it. It
was expected that the centre would be substantially developed by 2015 however,
that did not occur.
3. The original location proposed was Takapuna Beach; this is no longer
the case. Yachting New Zealand still wish to pursue a similar development
elsewhere in Auckland and seek council’s renewed commitment to both the
partnership and the funding.
4. The facility will provide for world-class sailing, daily training
environment for elite Yachting New Zealand sailors and coaches plus community ocean water-sport facilities of
value to the host community.
5. This grant of $3 million is currently budgeted for in 2016/2017, and
funded from a non-cash reserve. This means it will have to be funded
ultimately by debt, which has been allowed for in the budget.
6. Sport NZ wrote to Auckland Council on 28 November 2016 with a
request that council “refresh or extend the previous MoU with a new
one”. A copy of this letter is attached at Attachment A. This
report is in response to that request.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve a grant of $3 million from the funding reserve arising
from the NSC Holdings sale proceeds, as allocated by North Shore City
Council, to the development of the High Performance and Community Sailing
Centre.
b) note that the original grant of $3 million for the National Ocean and Water Sports Centre (now known as the High
Performance and Community Sailing Centre), approved through council
resolution SF/2012/124, was never drawn down.
c) delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to negotiate and
finalise the terms of and sign the Relationship Agreement between Auckland
Council and Yachting New Zealand on behalf of Auckland Council.
|
Comments
7. Prior to the local government amalgamation that created Auckland
Council, the North Shore City Council placed the proceeds from the sale of
properties in NSC Holdings into a restricted reserve. North Shore City
Council at the same time identified specific projects for which those proceeds
would be used. One of which was the National Ocean and
Water Sports Centre, with the sum of $3 million
being allocated.
8. In 2012 the then Strategy and Finance Committee resolved to enter
into a partnership with Yachting New Zealand to develop a National Ocean and
Water Sports Centre (now referred to as the High Performance and Community
Sailing Centre) and contribute up to $3 million in funding towards it:
Resolution number SF/2012/124
That the Strategy and Finance Committee
notes:
That council is committed through a
relationship agreement to provide a grant of $3 million towards the National
Ocean Water Sports Centre ($500,000 in 2012/2013, and $2.5 million in
2013/2014). This grant will be funded via borrowings, and increase the rates
requirement in 2013/2014 by $87,000 and in 2014/2015 by $172,000.
9. It
was expected that the centre would be substantially developed
by 2015 however, that did not occur. As the
project has not yet proceeded, the $3 million reserve fund remains as a
specifically identified sum on council’s balance sheet.
10. The original location proposed was Takapuna Beach; this is no longer
the case. Yachting New Zealand still wish to pursue a similar development
elsewhere in Auckland and seek council’s renewed commitment to both the
partnership and the funding.
11. A revised
relationship agreement is being developed between Auckland Council and Yachting
New Zealand. A draft copy is attached at Attachment B.
12. The
revised relationship agreement includes the following key principles:
· Agreement
on the purpose and vision for the facility
· Yachting
New Zealand’s role in developing this facility
· Council’s
role in supporting its development. This is limited to funding and
facilitation through council and public consultation, as appropriate and agreed
· Review
and agreement of the five year operating business plan
· Escalation
· Sunset
clause within three years of signing the Memorandum of Understanding
13. It is proposed that should a facility be built to meet the intended
outcomes within the relationship agreement, then Council makes the amount
available.
14. This grant of $3 million is met by a non-cash reserve.
Therefore, it will have to be debt funded with a corresponding impact on rates,
due to interest cost and principal repayment. However, given the grant is
currently budgeted for in 2016/2017, such impact has already been allowed
for. The effect of not drawing down this grant in subsequent years means
there is a favourable impact on rates for debt not incurred.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
15. In the preparation of this report by council staff, no specific
local board views have been sought. When Yachting New Zealand have
selected a preferred location and at the time of securing any regulatory
approvals, consultation and engagement with the relevant local board and other
stakeholders will be undertaken.
Māori
impact statement
16. The
allocation of money towards a future development does not, in itself, impact
Maori. In Yachting New Zealand’s selection of a
preferred location and at the time of securing any regulatory approvals,
consultation and engagement with the relevant iwi and mana whenua will be
undertaken.
Implementation
17. Implementation
will be managed through existing budgets and resources.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Correspondence from Sport NZ, dated 28 November 2016,
titled 'High Performance and Community Sailing Centre'
|
139
|
|
b⇩
|
Draft Relationship Agreement between Auckland Council
and Yachting New Zealand Incorporated
|
141
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer
|
|
Authoriser
|
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Disposal of land at Constellation Reserve to NZTA and
negotiation of a compensation agreement
File No.: CP2016/25076
Purpose
1. To
seek approval to dispose of approximately nine hectares of Constellation
Reserve by way of transfer to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and
negotiate a compensation agreement under the Public Works Act 1981 for the loss
of the reserve land.
Executive
summary
2. The
NZTA is undertaking the Northern Corridor Improvements Project. This
includes the construction of an interchange providing a direct connection
between the Upper Harbour Highway and the Northern Motorway at Rosedale.
3. Approximately
nine hectares of Constellation Reserve, Rosedale will be required to facilitate
the works. Approval is sought to dispose of this land by way of transfer
to the NZTA, subject to the relocation of affected parties and the council
obtaining appropriate compensation.
4. The
principal affected party is the Harbour Hockey Trust which currently leases
part of Constellation Reserve from Auckland Council. The Upper Harbour
Local Board is responsible for decisions about leases on local parks within its
area and will make decisions concerning the relocation of the trust.
5. Staff
seek approval to negotiate a compensation agreement with the NZTA for any loss
of land at Constellation Reserve under the Public Works Act 1981. A large
part of the compensation would be spent securing comparable alternative
land. Financial compensation equivalent to the value of any land lost may
also be sought.
6. The
NZTA has informally agreed that it will replace the land lost at Constellation
Reserve with comparable land if the council can identify suitable sites.
|
Recommendations
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve
the transfer of up to nine hectares of Constellation Reserve, Rosedale to the
New Zealand Transport Agency, which is required for the implementation of the
Northern Corridor Improvements Project, subject to the council obtaining
appropriate compensation and agreement having been reached on the relocation
of affected parties to suitable alternative sites
b) approve
Auckland Council entering into a compensation agreement with the
New Zealand Transport Agency under the Public Works Act 1981 for the
loss of approximately nine hectares of Constellation Reserve, with the
following forms of compensation:
i) comparable
land within a geographic area encompassing Rosedale as well as parts of
Albany, Paremoremo, Coatesville and Whenuapai
and/or
ii) financial
compensation equivalent to the value of any land lost
c) delegate
authority, through the Chief Executive, to the General Manager, Community and
Social Policy, with the oversight of the Group Chief Financial Officer, to
negotiate a compensation agreement with the New Zealand Transport Agency
under the Public Works Act 1981, in accordance with resolution b) above.
|
Comments
Background
7. The
NZTA is undertaking the Northern Corridor Improvements Project. The
project includes the construction of an interchange which will provide a direct
connection between the Upper Harbour Highway and the Northern Motorway at
Rosedale (refer Attachment A).
8. The
Agency requires approximately nine hectares of Constellation Reserve, Rosedale
(refer Attachment B) to accommodate the interchange.
9. The
NZTA’s requirement for land at Constellation Reserve presents two separate
but interrelated challenges:
· the
relocation of affected parties on the reserve to suitable alternative sites
· ensuring
that the council receives appropriate compensation for any reserve land lost.
Affected parties on
Constellation Reserve
10. The Harbour
Hockey Trust currently lease the western area of Constellation Reserve.
11. A project
group consisting of the council, the NZTA and the affected parties has been
looking at the options available to relocate the Harbour Hockey Trust.
Future sport and active
recreation capacity of Constellation Reserve
12. As well as
impacting on the Harbour Hockey Trust site, approximately six and a half
hectares of undeveloped land within Constellation Reserve will be
affected. This land was acquired by North Shore City Council for future
sportsfield development.
13. The
“Quantifying the Supply and Demand for Winter Sports Fields in the
Auckland Region 2014” study identifies that the council does not
currently own enough suitable land to meet future demands for sport and active
recreation open space in Albany and the surrounding catchment.
14. Any land lost
at Constellation Reserve will need to be replaced with comparable land
elsewhere to avoid further reducing the council’s ability to meet
projected future demand for sport and active recreation open space in the
catchment.
Delegations
15. Table 1 below
explains the decision-making responsibilities and delegations pertaining to the
key processes described in this report.
Table 1: Decision-making responsibilities and delegations
for key processes
|
Decision-maker
|
Decision-making
responsibilities
|
Pertinent
process
|
|
Upper
Harbour Local Board
|
· Activities
on local parks within its local board area, including leases.
|
· Ensure the
Harbour Hockey Trust is appropriately relocated by the NZTA.
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
|
· Decisions
regarding the disposal of parks and reserves.
|
· Approve
disposal of land in Constellation Reserve required by the NZTA.
· Delegate
authority, through the Chief Executive, to the General Manager, Community and
Social Policy, to negotiate a compensation agreement.
|
Compensation options
16. The NZTA
usually financially compensates the council for the loss of reserve land it
requires for public works. The amount of financial compensation is
determined through the prescribed Public Works Act 1981 process, which bases
compensation on current market value at a specified date. The Act allows
for independent arbitration if the value of the land cannot be agreed.
17. The NZTA is
keen to negotiate a compensation agreement with the council as it will help
streamline the process of acquiring the land they require for their proposed
works. Staff support the negotiation approach as it is more likely to
result in a compensation agreement that achieves the best outcome for the
council.
18. Additionally,
if the land compensation agreement is negotiated it can be made conditional on
agreement being reached with the NZTA on relocation of affected parties on the
reserve to suitable sites elsewhere.
19. The
alternative to a negotiated agreement is that the land would be compulsorily
acquired using the Public Works Act 1981. A Board of Inquiry would direct
the level of financial compensation and mitigation required from the
NZTA.
20. Table 2
provides a comparison of compensation options and the associated risks and
benefits of each.
Table 2: Comparison of
compensation options and the associated risks and benefits
|
Compensation
option
|
Risks
|
Benefits
|
|
Negotiated
|
· Agreement
cannot be reached on level/type of compensation and negotiations stall.
|
· The council
negotiates directly with the NZTA and can freely pursue its strategic
aspirations.
|
|
Financial
|
· The time
taken to reach agreement on the value of the land required for the works
could erode the buying power of compensation based on land value at a past
specified date.
· Even if the
land value is agreed quickly, the council may not be able acquire replacement
land of a suitable size or quality if the current rapidly escalating land
prices continue.
|
· Compensation
is not dependent on suitable replacement land being found by the council
prior to the works being implemented.
|
|
Land-for-land
|
· No suitable
alternative land is identified in the proposed search area (a broad
geographic area encompassing parts of Albany, Paremoremo, Coatesville and
Whenuapai).
|
· Comparable
development potential to land lost.
· No loss of
future sportsfield capacity.
· May obtain a
larger piece of land if replacement land is of lesser value per square metre.
· Less
financial risk from land cost escalation.
|
|
Statutorily determined
|
· A Board of
Inquiry determines a compensation package which is not consistent with the council’s
strategic aspirations.
· Unlikely to
be land-for-land compensation
|
· Negotiation
stalemates can be broken and the compensation process expedited.
|
21. Given the
analysis above, staff consider that a negotiated compensation agreement would
be the best option.
22. It should
ensure that the council received at least an equivalent amount of land with
comparable development potential for active recreational purposes and no loss
of future capacity. To manage any risk to council the agreement should
also provide for financial compensation equivalent to the value of any land
lost.
23. The NZTA has
informally agreed that it will administer and fund the purchase of land of
equivalent size and value providing the council can identify suitable land.
Location of compensation land
24. The Upper
Harbour Local Board supports pursuing a land-for-land compensation agreement
with the NZTA.
25. The local
board recommends that any land purchased as compensation for loss of park land
must be in the immediate catchment area unless it is evident that no suitable
site in the immediate catchment is available.
26. As a priority
staff will work to replace the land that will be lost at Constellation Reserve
in nearby location in Rosedale. However, the scarcity of suitable land in
close proximity may make this difficult. If suitable land cannot be
acquired in the Rosedale catchment, staff will seek to negotiate appropriate
financial compensation, which could be ring-fenced for development within the
catchment.
27. Further, if
suitable land cannot be acquired in the Rosedale catchment, staff recommend
that land replacement options are investigated in a broad geographic area
encompassing Albany, Paremoremo, Coatesville and Whenuapai.
28. Staff note
that it may be possible to acquire suitable land in Whenuapai, which is within
the Upper Harbour Local Board area and currently has large undeveloped areas.
Risks
29. The table
below identifies the potential risks of a negotiated agreement.
|
Risks
|
Mitigation
|
|
No
agreement is reached with the NZTA regarding the relocation of affected
lessees.
|
· The transfer
of Constellation Reserve land to the NZTA is made conditional on successful
lessee relocation
· A Board of
Inquiry would determine relocation outcomes in the absence of an agreement.
|
|
No
suitable alternative land is identified in the proposed search area (a broad
geographic area encompassing parts of Albany, Paremoremo, Coatesville and
Whenuapai).
|
· The search
area is extended
· If no
suitable site is located in the extended search area the council accepts
financial compensation as a last resort.
|
Process
and timing
30. The NZTA is
keen to sign a compensation agreement as soon as possible.
31. The proposed
process will comprise the following key components:
· identify
suitable land within the proposed search area
· enter
into an appropriate legal agreement with the NZTA to compensate the council for
the loss of land and relocate affected lessees
· undertake
land transfers to implement the compensation agreement.
32. Given the
complexity of the process, staff anticipate that it could take 18–24
months to finalise the proposed land-for-land compensation agreement.
Costs
33. All costs
incurred by Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Council to facilitate the
land-for-land compensation agreement will be recovered from the NZTA under
provisions of the Public Works Act 1981.
34. The purchase
price and associated costs of acquiring the replacement land for the council
will be borne by the NZTA.
Next
steps
35. If
approved by the committee, staff will:
· instruct Panuku
Development Auckland to look for suitable properties in the proposed search
area
· engage
with the NZTA and other stakeholders to develop a memorandum of understanding
for the process
· finalise
a compensation agreement as soon as practicable.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
36. The Upper
Harbour Local Board has been provided with regular updates and has been engaged
through various workshops with project members from Auckland Council, the NZTA,
Watercare and the Harbour Hockey Trust.
37. The Upper
Harbour Local Board resolved at its 23 August 2016 meeting [UH/2016/159 refers]
to:
a) request
that staff work with affected lessees to find a suitable solution to the
impacts of the NZTA Northern Corridor Improvements Project, and report to the
local board at the earliest opportunity with the outcomes of the discussions
b) grant
land owner consent in order that geotechnical investigations be undertaken on
leased sites at Rosedale Pony Club, subject to satisfactory arrangements with
the pony club
c) recommend
a land-for-land agreement with NZTA be pursued, as compensation for the loss of
land required by the NZTA at Constellation Reserve
d) recommend
to the governing body that any land purchased as compensation for loss of park
land must be in the immediate catchment area
e) not
support a land purchase outside of the immediate catchment area unless it is
evident that no suitable site in the immediate catchment is available
f) recommend
that staff continue researching opportunities to identify any suitable land in
the immediate catchment and bring a report to the local board business meeting
at the earliest opportunity.
38. As a priority
staff will work to replace the land that will be lost at Constellation Reserve
in nearby location in Rosedale. However, the scarcity of suitable land in
close proximity may make this difficult. Financial compensation could
then be negotiated to offset any loss to the local community.
39. Staff would
then investigate land compensation options in a wider area including Albany,
Paremoremo, Coatesville and Whenuapai.
Māori
impact statement
40. There are no
known sites or places of value or significance to mana whenua within
Constellation Reserve.
41. Consultation
with mana whenua will be undertaken by the council when the replacement land is
developed.
42. Māori participation rates in sport and recreation in Auckland
are slightly higher than the national average. Approximately 85.4% of
Māori participate in sport and recreation each month according to 2013/14
Active New Zealand Survey – Auckland Results. This figure is
relatively comparable to other ethnic groups, however, Māori are
disproportionately represented among those with sedentary lifestyles and there
is a higher incidence of mortality and morbidity associated with inactivity.
43. The provision
of quality parks and open spaces facilitates Māori participation in
outdoor recreational activity.
44. Additional benefits include:
· demonstrating
Auckland Council’s commitment to the Active Protection (Tautuaku
Ngangahau) Principle of the Treaty of Waitangi
· helping
make Auckland a green, resilient and healthy environment consistent with the
Māori world view and their role as kaitiaki of the natural environment.
Implementation
45. There are no
implementation issues arising from the recommendations of this report.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Schematic diagram of the proposed Northern Corridor
Improvements
|
159
|
|
b⇩
|
The location of Constellation Reserve, Rosedale, and
the approximate area of the reserve required by the NZ Transport Agency
|
161
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Ezra Barwell - Principal Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Completion of a statutory land exchange process -
Rosedale Park
File No.: CP2016/24610
Purpose
1. To
seek retrospective approval to the exchange of 1154m² of Rosedale Park
with 1154m² of the adjoining private property at 8 Paul Matthews Road,
Albany.
Executive summary
2. In
2010, Atlas Concrete Limited purchased 8 Paul Matthews Road from North Shore
City Holdings, a council-controlled organisation of the North Shore City
Council. Atlas Concrete Limited subsequently sought a land exchange of
1154m² with the adjoining Rosedale Park under Section 15 of the Reserves
Act 1977.
3. No
objections to the land exchange were received through the statutory
consultation process undertaken by the North Shore City Council or through mana
whenua consultation undertaken by the Auckland Council.
4. The
Minister of Conservation approved the land exchange and the authorisation was
published in the New Zealand Gazette on 12 November 2015 [2015-ln6603 refers].
5. Conclusion
of the land exchange requires the adoption of a formal resolution by the
Auckland Council and a request to the Department of Conservation to give effect
to this decision.
6. It
is recommended that these steps are urgently taken. There are
reputational and legal risks to the council arising from any further delays in
concluding the land exchange process.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) note
that the statutory consultation processes have been completed with the public
and mana whenua under Section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 and no
objections to the land exchange were received
b) approve
the exchange of 1154m² (Sec 1 SO 444799) of Rosedale Park, Albany, with
1154m² (Sec 2 SO 444799) of the adjoining private property at 8 Paul
Matthews Road, Albany, shown on Attachment C of this agenda report and that
the resolution be submitted to the Department of Conservation along with
confirmation that no objections were received.
|
Comments
Background
7. In
2010, Atlas Concrete Limited purchased 8 Paul Matthews Road (Pt Lot 2 DP
171142) from North Shore City Holdings, a council-controlled organisation of
the North Shore City Council.
8. At
the time of acquisition a commercially useful and functioning part of the site
encroached onto the adjoining Rosedale Park (see Attachment A) which is
reserved and classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.
9. In
July 2010, Atlas sought a land exchange with the North Shore City
Council. It proposed to swap land at Paul Matthews Road with an
equivalent area of Rosedale Park under Section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977. The
objective was to legalise the encroachment onto the reserve.
10. The North
Shore City Council’s Community Services and Parks Committee, at its 12
August 2010 meeting, approved the notification of the council’s intention
to undertake the land exchange [CSP-138 refers].
11. The proposed
land exchange was publicly notified by the North Shore City Council on
20 August 2010, as required by section 15(2) of the Reserves Act 1977 (see
Attachment B for an outline of the land exchange process).
12. No objections
to the land exchange were received at the conclusion of the statutory
consultation process.
13. Authorisation
for the proposed land exchange was sought from the Minister of Conservation by
the Auckland Council in September 2012.
14. The
Department of Conservation noted that no mana whenua consultation had been
undertaken by the North Shore City Council and requested that the Auckland
Council seek mana whenua views on the land exchange.
15. Mana whenua
were consulted on the proposed land exchange in October 2014.
16. No objections
were received from mana whenua.
17. The
Department of Conservation approved the land exchange and the authorisation was
published in the New Zealand Gazette on 12 November 2015 [2015-ln6603 refers].
Decision
18. The statutory
process for the land exchange has not been completed because neither the North
Shore City Council nor the Auckland Council had made a formal resolution to
approve the land exchange.
19. Until this
step is taken the titles of 8 Paul Matthews Road and Rosedale Reserve cannot be
amended by Land Information New Zealand to reflect the new parcel boundaries.
20. It is
recommended that the Finance and Performance Committee retrospectively approve
the land exchange authorised by the Minister of Conservation in accordance with
the Reserves Act 1977.
Risks
21. There are
reputational and legal risks associated with any further delays in the
completion of the land exchange. Atlas Concrete Limited has recently
requested that the council completes its part of the land exchange process as
soon as possible.
Costs
22. Atlas
Concrete Limited will bear all costs associated with the finalisation of the
land exchange.
Next
Steps
23. Auckland Council
will provide a copy of the Finance and Performance Committee decision and make
a request to the Department of Conservation to give effect to the land
exchange, noting that no objections were made by the public or mana
whenua. The Department of Conservation can then request Land Information
New Zealand to issue new certificates of title for 8 Paul Matthews Road and
Rosedale Reserve showing the amended parcel boundaries.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
24. The Upper
Harbour Local Board has been informed of the proposal to conclude the land
exchange process which should have been completed in 2015. There are no
governance or financial implications for the board.
Māori
impact statement
25. Section 4 of
the Conservation Act 1987 requires that the Reserves Act 1977 is interpreted
and administered in such a way that it gives effect to the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi.
26. No specific
mana whenua consultation was undertaken by the North Shore City Council when it
notified the intention to undertake the land exchange in 2010.
27. The Auckland
Council sought mana whenua views in 2014 on the advice of the Department of
Conservation.
28. The 10 mana
whenua groups were informed of the proposed land exchange, invited to engage
and specifically asked as to whether mana whenua values would be affected by
the proposed land exchange.
29. Responses
were received from Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara and Ngāti
Whātua o Ōrākei and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. None of the
respondents objected to the proposed land exchange.
30. The provision
of quality parks and open spaces has broad benefits for Māori, including:
· facilitating
participation in sport and recreation with a range of health and community
benefits
· helping
make Auckland a green, resilient and healthy environment consistent with the
Māori world view of ancestral connectedness with the natural world and
their role as kaitiaki of the natural environment.
Implementation
31. There are no
implementation issues arising from the recommendations of this report.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Historical aerial photograph of encroachment onto
Rosedale Park
|
167
|
|
b⇩
|
Reserves Act 1977 exchange of reserve for other land
process
|
169
|
|
c⇩
|
Survey plan showing land parcels to be exchanged
|
171
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Ezra Barwell - Principal Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Finance and Performance Committee - Forward Work
Programme to June 2017
File No.: CP2017/01002
Purpose
1. To
provide the Committee with a Forward Work Programme to June 2017.
Executive
summary
2. The
Forward Work Programme to June 2017 was developed by staff and reviewed by the
chairperson and deputy chairperson.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) approve
the Forward Work Programme to June 2017.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Finance and Performance Committee - Forward Work
Programme to June 2017
|
175
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Mike Giddey - Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
|
Finance and
Performance Committee
21 February
2017
|
|
Information Report - 21 February 2017
File No.: CP2017/00939
Purpose
1. To
receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers for
the Committee’s information and any other information that may have been
distributed to committee members since 13 December 2016.
Executive
summary
2. This
is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility
of information circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where
no decisions are required.
3. The
following presentations/memos/reports were presented/circulated as follows:
· 16
January 2017 – ATEED – Response to member questions raised at
Finance and Performance Committee meeting on 13 December 2016
· 17
January 2017 - Information regarding acquisition of land at Crater Hill
4. These
and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council
website, at the following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
· at the top of the
page, select meeting “Finance and Performance Committee” from the
drop-down tab and click ‘View’;
· Under
‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document
entitled ‘Extra Attachments’
5. Note
that, unlike an agenda decision report, staff will not be present to
answer questions about these items referred to in this summary. Committee
members should direct any questions to the authors.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and
Performance Committee:
a) receive
the information report – 21 February 2017.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a 
|
ATEED - Response to member questions raised at Finance
and Performance Committee 13 December 2016 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b
|
Information regarding acquisition of land at Crater
Hill (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Mike Giddey - Senior Governance Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
Sue Tindal - Group Chief Financial Officer
|
