2 Apologies
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration
of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from
decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any
private or other external interest they might have.
The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code)
requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere
to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest
Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:
i)
A financial conflict of interest, which
is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to
an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and
ii)
A non-financial conflict interest, which
does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for
example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation,
or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.
The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help
elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority
(Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of
conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples
and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.
Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected
Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for
inspection by members upon request.
Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed
to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.
4 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Tuesday, 20 March 2018, as a true and correct
record.
|
5 Leave
of Absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of
the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
7 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
8 Deputations
Standing
Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required
to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are
approved by the Chairperson of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board. This means
that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda.
Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the
meeting.
At the close of the agenda no
requests for deputations had been received.
9 Public
Forum
A period of
time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to
address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3
minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
10 Extraordinary
Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt
with at that meeting if-
(a) The
local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The
presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the
public,-
(i) The reason why
the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The
reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.”
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item
may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That
item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority;
and
(ii) the
presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is
open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no
resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item
except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for
further discussion.”
|
Devonport-Takapuna
Local Board
17 April 2018
|
|
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Community
Grants Programme 2018/2019
File No.: CP2018/05029
Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report
1. To
adopt the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Community Grants Programme for
2018/2019.
Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary
2. The
Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The
policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant
programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and
services that benefit Aucklanders.
3. The
Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own
local grants programme for the next financial year.
4. This
report presents the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Community Grants Programme
2018/2019 for adoption (refer Attachment A).
|
Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation
That the Devonport-Takapuna
Local Board:
a) adopt
the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 as
presented at Attachment A to the agenda report.
|
Horopaki / Context
5. The
Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The
policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grants to
groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that
benefit Aucklanders.
6. The
Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own
local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board grants
programme guides community groups and individuals when making applications to
the local board.
7. The
local board community grants programme includes:
· outcomes
as identified in the local board plan;
· specific
local board grant priorities;
· which
grant types will operate, the number of grant rounds and opening and closing
dates;
· any
additional criteria or exclusions that will apply; and
· other
factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.
8. Once
the local board community grants programme for the 2018/2019 financial year has
been adopted, the types of grants, grant rounds, criteria and eligibility with
be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach which
includes utilising the local board channels.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice
9. The
new Devonport-Takapuna Community Grants Programme has been workshopped with the
local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2018/2019.
10. The new grant
programme includes:
· new
outcomes and priorities from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan 2017; and
· the
same number of grant rounds for 2018/2019, as are available in 2017/2018.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te
poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views
11. The Community
Grants Programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of
their grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact
statement
12. All grant
programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving
Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive
outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to
increase Māori outcomes in the application process.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications
13. The
allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long term Plan
2015 -2025 and local board agreements.
Ngā raru tūpono / Risks
14. The
allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community
Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. Therefore, there is minimal
risk associated with the adoption of the grants programme.
Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps
15. An
implementation plan is underway and the local board grants programme will be
locally advertised through the local board and council channels. Targeted
advertising and promotion will be developed for target populations, including
migrant and refugee groups, disability groups, Māori and iwi organisations
Ngā
tāpirihanga / Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Devonport-Takapuna Community Grants Programme
2018/2019
|
19
|
Ngā kaihaina / Signatories
|
Author
|
Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Shane King - Operations Support Manager
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager
|
|
Devonport-Takapuna
Local Board
17 April 2018
|
|
Local Transport Capital Fund: options
for distribution and size of the fund
File No.: CP2018/05031
Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report
1. This
report seeks formal feedback from the local board on options for the future
size and underlying distribution methodology of the local transport capital
fund (LTCF) and on the proposal to increase advisory support for the fund from
Auckland Transport staff.
Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary
2. In
September 2017, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an increase to the
LTCF as an outcome of the governance framework review. Staff were directed to
undertake further work with Auckland Transport and local boards on the size of
the increase, and the distribution methodology.
3. The
LTCF was established in 2012 and currently sits at $10.8 million. It is
allocated on a pure population basis. Two options for the size of funding
increase have been modelled: an increase of $6 million and an increase of $10
million.
4. Staff
have also modelled three different distribution options: the current population
model, a model applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, and a model that
includes a mix of a fixed level of funding per board, along with a variable
rate determined by the Local Boards Funding Policy.
5. Each
of the options has been assessed against a set of criteria. The pure population
model is not supported by staff, while each of the other two models has merits.
On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy be applied to
the distribution of the LTCF, with an additional amount of $10 million being
added to the fund. Feedback is sought from local boards on their views and
preferences.
6. It
is also recommended that Auckland Transport have funding allocated to provide
an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing local
transport projects.
7. Final
decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget
process in May.
|
Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s
That the Devonport-Takapuna
Local Board:
a) endorse
an increase to the local transport capital fund of $10 million per annum
(inflation adjusted) from 1 July 2018.
b) endorse
distribution of the entire local transport capital fund to be made according
to Auckland Council’s Local Boards Funding Policy from 1 July 2018.
c) endorse
Auckland Transport receiving additional funding to provide an increased level
of support to local boards in developing and assessing projects for the local
transport capital fund.
|
Horopaki / Context
8. The
LTCF was established by resolution of the Strategy and Finance Committee
(resolution number SF/2012/40) in April 2012. This was to provide local boards
with access to funding for transport projects that had strong local
significance, but which were unlikely to be prioritised through the regional
transport planning process.
9. Establishment
of the fund is consistent with the government’s original policy intent
that local boards would have a role in funding local transport projects out of
a dedicated local budget (Cabinet Minute (09) 30/10), and that “local
boards will have an advisory role with respect to transport services and a
budget for the transport elements of ‘place shaping’[1]”.
10. The
objectives of the fund are to:
· ensure
locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority; and
· provide
local boards with more direct ability to influence local transport projects.
11. Projects must
be deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and not compromise the network.
Auckland Transport retains responsibility for delivering projects delivered
through this funding and the budget remains with Auckland Transport.
Depreciation and consequential operating expenditure are also the
responsibility of Auckland Transport, as is the core administration of the
fund.
12. The fund was
initially set at $10 million per annum which has since been adjusted for
inflation, and now sits at $10.8 million. Funding is currently split between
local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier
Island local boards, which receive 2 per cent and 1 per cent of the fund
respectively. The population figures that the distribution is based on have
remained at 2012[2]
levels.
13. At the
Governing Body meeting of 28 September 2017, at which the recommendations of
the Governance Framework Review Political Working Party were considered, it was
agreed (resolution number GB/2017/117) that officers would report back to the
Governing Body through the 10-year budget process on options for significantly
increasing the LTCF, as well as providing an assessment of options for
allocating the additional funding.
14. This report
provides options for the quantum of the proposed increase, the method of
allocating the proposed increase among the 21 local boards, and issues relating
to the administration of the fund. Workshops have been held with each local
board to discuss these proposals and now formal feedback is sought through
business meetings. Final recommendations will be made to the Governing Body in
May 2018.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice
15. Issues with
the LTCF identified through the Governance Framework Review were grouped under
three key themes:
· the
overall size, or quantum, of the LTCF;
· the
methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards; and
· the
administration and support provided by Auckland Transport to local boards in
relation to developing options and projects for consideration.
Quantum of funding
16. When the LTCF
was initially established at $10 million, the figure was not based on any
specific assessment of need, but more on the recognition that smaller, local
projects that had a strong place shaping component were unlikely to be funded
according to Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA)
prioritisation formulas.
17. While the
fund took some time to get established, it is now delivering valuable transport
related outcomes for communities across Auckland. The LTCF spend forecast in
the 2016‑17 financial year was $17 million, as local boards have been
able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant
projects. LTCF funding has delivered 286 projects over the five-year period.
18. The LTCF
contribution to these local projects has also been complemented through the
input of additional funds from Auckland Transport (as well as NZTA subsidy)
with the value of the work they have delivered to their communities being
substantially leveraged through this additional funding.
19. Staff have
modelled the impact of the proposed increase on individual local boards
according to a range of distribution models. In doing so, two different levels
of increase have been used – the $10 million figure as initially proposed
by Auckland Transport, and a lower figure of $6 million.
20. Neither
figure is based on specific needs assessment, but Auckland Transport is of the
view that a baseline of approximately $650,000 a year per local board is
desirable to give individual boards the resources to support significant local
projects. This would require an increase of at least $6 million per annum.
21. Local boards
that have had access to higher levels of funding have generally found it easier
to leverage LTCF budget to attract NZTA subsidies and additional Auckland
Transport funding, e.g. projects that are being brought forward as a result of
LTCF investment. Successful examples include the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal,
the Mt Albert Station Bridge and the Māngere Future Streets project.
Distribution methodology
22. This section
provides modelling of three distribution options applied to two levels of
overall increase (sub-option A being an increase of $6 million, and sub-option
B being an increase of $10 million). The options are:
· Option
1: status quo – simple population-based distribution of both the existing
fund and any additional funding;
· Option
2: applying the current Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the
fund; and
· Option
3: a model that provides for a fixed level of baseline funding for all boards,
as well as a variable component based on the Local Boards Funding Policy.
Population-based distribution
23. In 2012, the
Governing Body elected to distribute the first iteration of the LTCF purely on
a population basis, following consultation with local boards[3]. The distribution has
not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund
was established.
24. The option of
applying the population-based distribution methodology has been modelled (refer
Attachment A) based on Statistics New Zealand 2017 population estimates.
As is evident from the modelling, the impact on boards with higher populations
is the most significant in terms of an increase in funding, especially if the
additional amount is $10 million.
25. Under this
model, however, if the additional amount is $6 million, six boards would still
fall short of the $650,000 baseline figure identified by Auckland Transport as
being desirable to enable the delivery of viable local transport proposals.
Applying the Local Boards
Funding Policy to the LTCF
26. Following
establishment of the LTCF, work was undertaken to develop the current Local
Boards Funding Policy, as required under the Local Government (Auckland
Council) Act 2009. This policy was adopted in 2014 and uses an allocation
methodology incorporating three factors: population (90 per cent), deprivation
(5 per cent) and land area (5 per cent). This funding policy is currently
applied to locally driven initiatives funding, including the local driven
initiatives capital funding, but was not retrospectively applied to the LTCF.
27. Development
of the Local Boards Funding Policy involved significant consultation and
engagement with local boards prior to final adoption. There are no current
plans to review the policy.
28. The option of
applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the LTCF has
been modelled (refer Attachment B). This modelling has been applied to
the existing fund and the additional amounts of $6 million and $10 million and
is also based on 2017 population estimates.
Fixed and variable costs
distribution
29. As previously
noted, Auckland Transport has the view that to deliver transport infrastructure
of any significance, a certain level of baseline funding is desirable –
around $650,000 per annum per local board, based on practical experience.
30. Many local
boards have achieved significant results with their local transport projects,
but transport infrastructure is inherently costly, and costs tend not to vary
according to location. For example, a footbridge and walking path in Pukekohe
will tend to cost the same as a comparable one in Glenfield.
31. In
considering the distribution methodology for the extended fund, Auckland
Transport has put forward the following factors as being relevant:
· the
cost of building transport infrastructure is not directly related to the size
of the population it serves;
· mature
areas with high populations tend to already have higher quality and better
developed transport infrastructure;
· the
existing Auckland Transport/NZTA criteria for regional transport spending tend
to favour, as would be expected, areas of high density and growth; and
· the
physical size of an area tends to have a correlation with the need for
transport infrastructure e.g. the number of settlements, town centres.
32. A
distribution model based on a split of fixed and variable costs has also been
modelled as an option. The methodology involves 50 per cent of the entire
quantum of funding being distributed by an even split (except for Great Barrier
and Waiheke Island local boards which receive one third and two thirds of a
single share respectively), thus giving all other local boards the same level
of core funding. The other 50 per cent of the funding would be distributed
according to the Local Boards Funding Policy.
33. Options have
been modelled (refer Attachment C) to apply this fixed/variable costs
model to the distribution of the LTCF.
Assessing the options
34. Each of the
three distribution models has elements to recommend it and others that detract
from it. In assessing the models, the following assessment criteria have been
applied:
· transparency
and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders;
· equity
and fairness of outcomes across the region;
· ensuring
delivery of good local transport outcomes; and
· recognising
the role of local boards as leaders of place shaping with their communities.
35. Assessment of
the options against these criteria is set out below.
Options 1a and 1b –
population-based distribution
36. These options
have been modelled on 2017 Statistics New Zealand population estimates.
37. A pure
population-based approach has the benefit of being objective, transparent and
straightforward and means that funding received is proportionate to the number
of ratepayers. It was however, recognised at the time that applying this
approach to areas of extremely low population (Waiheke and Great Barrier
Islands) would result in those boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve
anything practical, hence the application of the 1 and 2 per cent formula for
the island boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Boards Funding
Policy.
38. The
limitations of this approach are that it does not address either the level of
need in a given local board area, or the underlying cost drivers of transport
infrastructure. Hence, large areas of low population density with significant
roading networks and multiple population centres are funded at the same, or
lower, level as smaller urban communities of interest with already
well-developed transport infrastructure, but higher population density.
39. The
distribution methodology is simple, transparent, and easy for communities and
stakeholders to understand. In terms of delivering equity and fairness, this
model delivers the widest differential of funding levels across boards, with
the highest funded board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded
board (excluding the two island boards).
40. Option 1a
also results in six boards receiving less than Auckland Transport’s
benchmark identified as desirable for supporting good local transport outcomes
in communities. The model limits the potential for those boards to actively
implement their role as local place shapers and to leverage additional
investment into their projects. This model, and therefore Options 1a and 1b, is
not supported by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.
Options 2a and 2b –
Local Boards Funding Policy based distribution
41. This
distribution method involves application of the current Local Boards Funding
Policy. The policy is currently applied to distribution of funding for local
activities (including local capital expenditure) to local boards, and is based
on the following factors: 90 per cent population[4],
5 percent deprivation[5]
and 5 per cent land area[6].
42. Applying the
Local Boards Funding Policy is a simple methodology that has a clear rationale,
is easily described to the community and is consistent with council’s
wider approach to funding local boards. It takes account of multiple factors,
delivering a more equitable distribution of funding, especially to boards with
lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.
43. Reviewing the
projects that have been funded from the LTCF to date, it is clear that much of
the local boards’ focus has been on ‘people-centred’
transport projects, for example pedestrian safety improvements, walkways and
cycleways, footpaths and streetscape improvements. This is consistent with the
principles underpinning the Local Boards Funding Policy, i.e. that population
is the key driver of need for the funding, but that geography and deprivation
also need to be considered.
44. This
distribution methodology evens out the increase in funding across the 21
boards. The boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the
pure population model, and all boards receive the proposed level of baseline
funding, but only under the $10 million quantum increase.
45. Under this
model, however, the level of funding that accrues to the more populous boards
becomes very substantial in relation to that for the smaller boards, due to the
compounding impact of the distribution model. For example, the Howick Local
Board would receive over $1.7 million and Henderson-Massey over $1.4 million.
Despite these extremes, this option provides an arguably more equitable and
nuanced distribution of funding, as well as being consistent with current
funding policy.
46. Its variation
between the lowest and highest level of funding is still high, with the highest
funded board receiving 2.57 times the amount of the lowest funded board. Under
Option 2a, five boards still receive less than Auckland Transport’s
desirable benchmark for delivering good local transport outcomes in
communities, and it limits the potential for those boards to actively implement
their role as local place shapers.
47. This is the
preferred option based on consistency with the existing funding policy,
assessment against the criteria and recognition of the population focus of
projects delivered using this fund. The preferred option is for the $10 million
quantum as better providing for good local transport outcomes and delivering
local place shaping.
Options 3a and 3b –
fixed and variable cost distribution
48. This model is
more complex and less transparent to communities and stakeholders than the
other models. The identification of the benchmark figure is based on Auckland
Transport’s experience of administering the fund over the past five years
and the learning that has been gained from this, rather than in-depth financial
analysis of infrastructure costs.
49. The results
of this distribution are similar to applying the Local Boards Funding Policy,
in that a similar number of local boards benefit under each model. However, it
is different local boards that benefit from each model. In terms of equity and
fairness, this model reduces the difference between the highest funded and
lowest funded boards and also brings all boards above the $650,000 benchmark,
even under Option 3a ($6 million increase).
50. The model
reduces the impact of population on the distribution of funding however, which
is a core component of current funding policy and the focus of the projects
delivered using the LTCF. The model performs well against the criteria of
enabling the delivery of good local transport outcomes and supporting the role
of local boards as place shapers.
Summary of assessment of
options
51. Of the three
distribution models assessed, the current model of pure population distribution
performed the poorest and is not recommended by either Auckland Council or
Auckland Transport staff.
52. The other two
models deliver mixed results against the criteria. On balance, staff recommend
that the Local Boards Funding Policy distribution best meets the criteria and
is consistent with current funding policy. The final recommendation to the
Governing Body will also be informed by feedback from local boards through this
process.
Administration of the LTCF
53. When the LTCF
was established in 2012, it was recognised that there would be an impact on
Auckland Transport as the fund administrator. While design costs are
capitalised within the cost of a specific project, there are also additional
costs in developing options, undertaking feasibility studies, assessing
proposals and general administration.
54. It was noted
at the time that if each local board proposed three or four projects a year
that this could place a considerable burden on Auckland Transport, and it was
recommended that this be reviewed at the time the fund was reviewed. Given the
proposed increase to the size of the fund, this issue needs to be revisited.
55. Auckland
Transport’s advice on LTCF investment focusses on whether a project put
forward by a local board is technically feasible, and whether it is realistic
in light of the available funding from the LTCF. During the Governance
Framework Review, some local board members raised concerns about the nature and
quality of advice received from Auckland Transport in relation to LTCF
proposals. Local boards felt that advice was limited to assessing their
proposal against criteria, rather than helping them identify and develop high
quality proposals.
56. It is
recommended that Auckland Transport be allocated additional operating
expenditure funding in support of the LTCF, to be used to develop a more
systematic and responsive work programme with local boards around the
application of the LTCF. This will include supporting boards to investigate and
develop options for projects for consideration. A sum of $500,000 per annum is
recommended to support this deliverable.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te
poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views
57. Workshops
have been held with every local board and a range of initial feedback has been
received. Discussion on collective views has also taken place at the Local
Board Chairs’ Forum. While some local boards have given early indication
of their preferred options, others have reserved the right to engage in further
consideration ahead of providing formal feedback.
58. There was
general support for an increase to the fund and for additional funding to be
provided to Auckland Transport to provide advice on projects. There were mixed
views on options for allocating the fund. As noted in the assessment of options,
each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology
affects individual boards differently.
59. Growth was
raised by some boards as a factor that should be considered. Staff’s view
is that the population element of each of the models addresses this, as current
population is the only reliable indicator of growth. Population estimates are
updated and will be applied to the distribution criteria of the fund annually.
60. As noted in
the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and
the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently. A recent
presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum noted that it would be
helpful for the Governing Body to have a clear preference signalled by the
majority of local boards in order to facilitate its decision making.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact
statement
61. A move away
from a pure population-based distribution model would take into account
deprivation and land area factors. Both options 2 and 3 include a deprivation
component, although this is greater in option 2. This would have some positive
impact on local board areas where there is a higher Māori population.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications
62. The
source of the additional funding is not addressed in this report, as it is
being considered through the overall budget setting process in the 10-year
budget. Essentially however, there are two options that the Governing Body will
need to consider:
· that additional funding comes from rates
and/or borrowing; and/or
· Auckland Transport reprioritises within its existing funding
envelope.
63. The proposed
size of the increase to the fund (both options) is not significant enough
within the overall transport budget to be able to enable transparent trade-offs
at a detailed level e.g. which specific transport projects might not be funded
in the Regional Land Transport Plan in a given year if the LTCF is increased.
Ngā raru tūpono / Risks
64. No
significant risks have been identified
Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps
65. Final
decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget
process in May. Any new funding and change to the distribution methodology will
be applied from 1 July 2018.
Ngā
tāpirihanga / Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Population-based distribution modelling
|
55
|
|
b⇩
|
Local board funding policy distribution
|
57
|
|
c⇩
|
Fixed and variable cost distribution 50 50
|
59
|
Ngā kaihaina / Signatories
|
Author
|
Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework
Review
|
|
Authorisers
|
Phil Wilson - Governance Director
Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services
Eric Perry - Relationship Manager
|
