Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee

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

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:

o Local Board agreements

o Financial policy related to the LTP and AP

o Setting of rates

o 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

· Exercising Auckland Council’s powers as a shareholder or given under a trust deed, including but not limited to modification of constitutions and/or trust deeds, granting shareholder approval of major transactions where required, exempting CCOs, and approving policies relating to CCO and CO governance

· Approving the financial policy of the Council parent organisation

· 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.

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.

1 Apologies

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, 20 March 2018, including the confidential section, 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 Governance 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.

5.1 Public Input - Janet Charman regarding Highbury Triangle and the 3 Guys site in Avondale

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To make a presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding the Highbury Triangle and the 3 Guys site in Avondale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Ms Janet Charman wishes to address the committee to advocate for an immediate stay of the sale of the Highbury Triangle and of the 3 Guys site in Avondale pending a further, urgent, transparent, local community consultation with Panuku.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) receive and thank Ms Janet Charman for her presentation regarding the Highbury Triangle and the 3 Guys site in Avondale.

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 Local Board Input - Whau Local Board regarding Avondale's redevelopment and land sales

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To make a presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding Avondale’s redevelopment and land sales.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Ms Tracy Mulholland, Chairperson of the Whau Local Board wishes to address the committee.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) receive and thank Whau Local Board Chair, Tracy Mulholland for her presentation regarding Avondale’s redevelopment and land sales.

6.2 Local Board Input - Franklin Local Board regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To make a presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Mr Andy Baker, Chairperson of the Franklin Local Board wishes to address the committee.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) receive and thank Franklin Local Board Chair, Andy Baker for his presentation regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

6.3 Local Board Input - Papakura Local Board regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To make a presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Mr Brent Catchpole, Chairperson of the Papakura Local Board wishes to address the committee.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) receive and thank Papakura Local Board Chair, Brent Catchpole for his presentation regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

6.4 Local Board Input - Henderson-Massey Local Board regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To make a presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Mr Shane Henderson, Chairperson of the Henderson-Massey Local Board wishes to address the committee.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) receive and thank Henderson-Massey Local Board Chair, Shane Henderson for his presentation regarding the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

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

There were no notices of motion.

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Corporate Accommodation Disposal Recommendation, Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy

File No.: CP2018/02340

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To obtain approval to dispose of seven council-owned sites that Corporate Property considers suitable for sale as part of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy and for the ring fencing of the sale proceeds to reinvest in the Corporate Property network.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s Corporate Property team have developed a Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy which was approved by Auckland Council executive in February 2018. This seeks to contribute to a more efficient and operationally effective Corporate Property network. It is a self-funding programme of works, which utilises the capital receipts from the divestment of properties that are no longer required for the Corporate Property office network and reinvesting the sale proceeds to undertake a programme works that delivers:

· 1 headquarter at Auckland House

· 3 hubs in the North West (Albany or Westgate), CBD (Bledisloe House) and the South (Manukau Civic)

· 5 new Local Board spaces where displaced by building closures

· 16 refreshed Local Board spaces

· 7 new Customer Service Centre spaces where displaced by building closures

· 16 refreshed Customer Service Centres

· 25 spokes (drop in spaces created in existing council locations)

· 78 leisure centre and library back office areas refreshed

· storage optimisation works including a fit for purpose art storage.

3. Consultation with impacted council departments, Panuku Development Auckland, iwi authorities and the impacted Local Boards has now taken place.

4. As seven sites have been identified as surplus to council’s requirements during development of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy, Corporate Property recommends that the Finance and Performance Committee approve the divestment of these sites.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes and to achieve a self-funded programme, the disposal of:

i) approximately 4,238m2 (subject to survey) of land at 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being the following:

· 4-8 Mayoral Drive: Lot 15, Lot 18 and Lots 23025 DP 21520 and Part Lot 21 DP 212520, contained in computer freehold register NA1589/36.

· 10 Mayoral Drive: Section 1 Survey Office Plan 54203, contained in computer freehold register NA75B/323.

· 10A Mayoral Drive: Allotment 26-27 Section 31 City of Auckland, contained in computer freehold register NA1193/78.

ii) approximately 4,841m2 (subject to survey) of land and associated buildings at 35 Graham Street, Auckland, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Lot 1 DP 47079 and Lot 1 DP 68194 and Part Allotment 9-10 Section 20 Suburbs of Auckland, contained in computer freehold register NA97B/101; and

iii) approximately 16,164m2 (subject to survey) of land and associated buildings at 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Lot 2 DP 370255, contained in computer freehold register 284768; and

iv) approximately 910m2 (subject to survey) of land and associated buildings at 4 Osterley Way, Manukau, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Part Lot 47 DP 69242, contained in computer freehold register NA67C/986; and

v) approximately 19,305m2 (subject to survey) of land and associated buildings at 50 Centreway Road, Orewa, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Lot 1 DP 147350, contained in computer freehold register NA87D/294; and

vi) approximately 5,059m2 (subject to survey) of land and associated buildings at 35 Coles Crescent, Papakura, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Allotment 3-4 and Allotment 4A Section 2 Village of Papakura, contained in computer freehold register NA521/186; and

vii) approximately 13,090m2 (subject to survey) of land and associated buildings at 82 Manukau Road, Pukekohe, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Lot 1 DP 99706, contained in computer freehold register NA54B/1241; and

b) agree that final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

c) notes that the failure to divest these properties and ring-fence these funds will result in an inability to deliver the outcomes of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy and further significant funding will be required to maintain the existing portfolio.

Horopaki / Context

5. On 6 August 2017 Regulatory Services announced that it would create efficiencies through an operating model that rationalises its teams to work from three major hubs in the North West (Albany/Westgate), City Centre (Bledisloe House) and the South (Manukau). Alongside this, Regulatory Services confirmed an approach of delivering more local services via a number of spokes (drop in spaces) across the region. This model was subsequently adopted by other council departments such as the Infrastructure & Environmental Services teams.

6. The Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy identifies the functionality of corporate spaces as follows:

Building type	Functionality	Proposed numbers	Locations
Headquarters	Corporate head office and centre of Governance	1	Auckland House
Hubs	Main home base locations for operational staff	3	Central South North-West
Spokes	Agile drop-in workplaces that enable: · Operations staff to meet customers locally · Provide workspace for inspectors and engineers working in the area · Provide additional local drop in space for council staff	25	Throughout the region
Local Board offices	Local Boards operate in the same way as they do now	21	Same locations (buildings may change)
Service Centres	Service Centres operate in the same way as they do now	23	Same locations (buildings may change)

7. The programme of works associated with the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy has a six-year time frame however, it is imperative that we act quickly due to the financial, programme and operational factors set out below:

Financial

· We have major Capex constraints and are anticipating a significant LTP funding shortfall with the current portfolio

· A significant component to the success of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy is cost avoidance through disposal of under-utilised corporate property

· By selling early in the programme with a short-term lease back we can generate significantly more disposal proceeds

· The Portfolio Programme workstreams are required to be ‘self-funding’ so this dictates that disposals are early in our programme.

Programme

· We have a hard lease expiry deadline at Takapuna in 2021 and we currently pay circa $6m per annum in rent and OPEX

· We need time to secure new development opportunities in the North West and Manukau, as well as new local board spaces where impacted by building closure

· The property market conditions are currently very strong and are considered favourable for disposals.

Operational

· Keeping the current portfolio will mean increased risk and operating problems such as the air conditioning break down at Henderson which closed the entire building for one day with great disruption to the organisation

· By acting now, we can also resolve a number of inter-related dependent issues including refreshing Local Board spaces, refreshing Customer Service Centres, refreshing library and leisure centre back of house spaces, consolidating records, archives and Art storage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

8. In response to the organisation’s goal to move to three hubs and a requirement for local spokes, Corporate Property developed the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy, which describes how this organisational change would manifest in the property network. This included establishing which locations will be retained and which were identified as surplus to requirements. It also contemplated using existing council buildings such as libraries, leisure centres and local board offices where space was available for spokes. The conclusion of the strategy identified several sites that will be surplus to our corporate accommodation requirements and could be sold to enable the proceeds of sale to be reinvested in the corporate accommodation network.

9. The proposed sale of the sites in the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy and ring-fencing of funds will contribute to a more efficient and operationally effective Corporate Property network aligned with the new organization operational requirements and allow the proposed programme of works to be self-funding by utilising the proceeds of the sale.

10. There will be no change to customer service centres or local board accommodation functionality as a result of implementing this proposed strategy. Any local board office or customer service centre impacted by the proposed closure of a building will be relocated to a suitable location within the area, in consultation with the appropriate local board.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

11. Local boards have been informed of the recommendations of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy and there have been 17 workshops with impacted Local Boards and a presentation to the Local Board Chairs Forum.

12. Reports have subsequently been prepared for the impacted Local Board business meetings so that their views can be formalised.

13. Property specific feedback received is included in the “Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views” section of the property attachments to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. Corporate Property has worked with Panuku as the conduit for this communication because Panuku has a robust form of engagement with mana whenua groups across the region. Each relevant mana whenua group was contacted independently regarding the council owned-land being considered for divestment as part of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy and requested to give feedback.

15. Panuku’s engagement directed mana whenua to respond with any issues of particular cultural significance the group would like to formally express in relation to the subject properties. Panuku also request notes regarding any preferred outcomes that the group would like Corporate Property to consider in the formal reporting to council.

16. Mana whenua groups were also invited to express potential commercial interest in the subject properties. Should the properties recommended for divestment as part of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy be approved for sale, all groups will be alerted of the decision and provided with early advice about properties going to the market.

17. Immediately following a decision from Finance & Performance committee, if the recommendation is successful, we will immediately engage with IMSB, Mana Whenua groups and teams like The Southern Initiative to ensure we provide opportunities for Māori to determine their involvement on matters of interest to them and identify opportunities to contribute to Māori wellbeing directly and with others. As we proceed through the process of site selection, functions to be accommodated in the building and in design, we will overlay the Māori Responsiveness Framework objectives and lenses to enable Māori outcomes.

18. Property specific feedback received is included in the “Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement” section of the property attachments to this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19. On 8 February 2018, the Auckland Council Executive Leadership Team approved that the capital receipts from the sale of surplus Corporate Property network properties be reinvested in the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy so that the proposed new network can be implemented and self-funded. This will provide efficiencies and operational effectiveness to the Corporate Property network.

20. Should the recommended disposals of any sites not be approved, there will be a consequential impact in meeting the forecasted costs for the successful implementation of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy from loss of revenue through those site disposals.

21. Cost avoidance opportunity lost: Should the recommended disposal of any sites not be approved, the projected costs of building renewals required for those sites, which form a large component of building renewal works that are currently unfunded deferred maintenance activities, would need to be funded.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22. Delivering new locations for Local Boards and Service Centres which are impacted by potential building closures ensures that the council continues to deliver continuity of service levels in those local board areas.

23. Should the recommended disposal of any sites not be approved, there is a strong risk to the successful implementation of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy, which would not be self-funded and would need to be funded separately.

24. Should the recommended disposal of any sites not be approved, we would need to review additional funding provided (if any is available) for building renewals, and review this against the associated operational and Health & Safety risks and recommend how this could affect services and operations on the site.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. The results of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy review, considering the portfolio as a whole, has concluded that these sites are not required for current or future corporate office requirements. Due to this, we recommend that they be divested.

26. If these sites are approved for sale, Panuku will work with Corporate Property to dispose of the properties. The final terms and conditions would be approved under the appropriate delegations.

27. The Programme team will immediately start the implementation phase of the strategy and re-engage with stakeholders to ensure a successful completion of the Strategy.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	4 Osterley Way - Property Report - 29 03 2018	19
b ⇩	4-10 Mayoral Drive - Property Report - 29 03 2018	21
c ⇩	35 Coles Crescent - Property Report - 29 03 2018	25
d ⇩	35 Graham Street - Property Report - 29 03 2018	29
e ⇩	50 Centreway Road - Property Report - 29 03 2018	33
f ⇩	6 Henderson Valley Road - Property Report - 29 03 2018	37
g ⇩	82 Manukau Road - Property Report - 29 03 2018	43

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sharon Coombes - Manager Workplace Strategy and Partnering

Rod Aitken – Head of Corporate Property

Authorisers

Kevin Ramsay - General Manager Corporate Finance and Property

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Unlock Panmure

File No.: CP2018/03698

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. For the Finance and Performance Committee to approve the disposal of property set out in the Unlock Panmure High Level Project Plan (HLPP), which was endorsed by the Planning Committee on 6 March 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Unlock Panmure is a major regeneration and intensification opportunity for Auckland. The Unlock Panmure HLPP seeks to utilise the large number of council landholdings that are ready for housing and commercial development. The development opportunities identified within the HLPP has the potential to create approximately 1,000 homes in Panmure, subject to the design, typology and market demand.

3. On 6 March 2018, the Planning Committee considered and adopted the HLPP for Unlock Panmure. The Planning Committee authorised Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) as Auckland Council’s lead delivery agency for Panmure (resolution number PLA/2018/1). Panuku will actively collaborate with the wider council group and council controlled organisations to integrate the planned activities in order to align projects and implementation to achieve the outcomes in the HLPP.

4. The Planning Committee also endorsed the disposal of council owned properties in Panmure to enable them to be utilised for the urban renewal and housing outcomes set out in the Unlock Panmure HLPP. The Planning Committee resolutions are contained in Attachment A to this report and the properties endorsed for disposal by the Planning Committee are set out in Attachment B to this report.

5. The Finance and Performance Committee need to approve the disposal of the aforementioned properties to enable Panuku to progress Unlock Panmure.

6. The Planning Committee queried mana whenua engagement undertaken for the above properties. Panuku undertook to report back to the Finance and Performance Committee with information about the mana whenua engagement that has occurred to date relating to these properties.

7. Site specific engagement with mana whenua was undertaken for 59 and 59A Mountain Road, 3 Mountwell Crescent and 3 Kings Road when these properties were going through the standard rationalisation process. In the property information sent to mana whenua for these properties, Panuku advised that koiwi tangata (human remains) were found within the vicinity of Mount Wellington during previous project work. Due to this, an Accidental Discovery Protocol will be registered on the titles of these properties to ensure that if the sites are subdivided or developed in the future, archaeologists and relevant iwi will be notified and appropriate procedures and protocols can be undertaken. The outcome of this site-specific engagement is contained in Attachments C to F of this report.

8. 59 and 59A Mountain Road, 3 Mountwell Crescent and 3 Kings Road were not subsequently presented to the Finance and Performance Committee as standalone property disposal recommendations as Panmure was identified as a priority location. Decision was made to include these properties, along with the others listed in this report, in the Unlock Panmure HLPP.

9. Following Panmure being identified as a priority location, a Mana Whenua Project Charter was activated by the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum in August 2017 to guide the development of the Unlock Panmure HLPP. Between August and December 2017, Panuku has undertaken a site visit and seven project hui with the Mana Whenua Governance group which was open to fifteen iwi authorities. The following eleven iwi authorities expressed interest in the project area and have attended at least one or more project hui:

i) Ngāti Whatua

ii) Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

iii) Ngāti Whatua o Orakei

iv) Te Kawerau a Maki

v) Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki

vi) Ngāti Tamaoho

vii) Te Akitai - Waiohua

viii) Ngāti Te Ata – Waiohua

ix) Ngāti Paoa

x) Ngāti Whanaunga

xi) Ngāti Maru

10. The Unlock Panmure project hui builds on the extensive engagement undertaken by Auckland Transport for the properties which comprised part of the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) project and are now included in the Unlock Panmure HLPP. The mana whenua governance group recognise the extensive engagement undertaken to date in this project area. It endorsed the collective ‘Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) in relation to the AMETI project prepared by Atkins Holm Majurey Limited to be used as a foundation document for the Unlock Panmure project.

11. Panuku has partnered with mana whenua to build on this CVA to develop a cultural narrative specific for the Unlock Panmure. No iwi authorities expressed interest in preparing independent CVA during the Unlock Panmure project engagement. On 20 February 218, the Panuku Mana Whenau Governance Forum endorsed the cultural narrative for inclusion in the Unlock Panmure HLPP.

12. As part of the Unlock Panmure project hui, mana whenua were provided information on council owned properties within the project area. Panuku advised that koiwi tangata (human remains) were found within the vicinity of Mount Wellington during previous project work. Due to this, an Accidental Discovery Protocol will also be registered on the titles of these properties to ensure that if a site is subdivided or developed in the future, archaeologists and relevant iwi will be notified and appropriate procedures and protocols can be undertaken.

13. Panuku has initiated discussions with mana whenua which have expressed commercial interest in the project area. We will continue to work with mana whenua throughout the project implementation and explore this potential interest.

14. The Planning Committee also authorised the redevelopment of 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure (which is the current Panmure library and community hall) for redevelopment in accordance with the Service Property Optimisation criteria. Panuku will work with Auckland Council’s Community Facilities department and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board regarding this. Mana whenua engagement for 7-13 Pilkington Road will be undertaken when this optimisation project commences.

15. 28-30 Pilkington Road, Mount Wellington is a parking reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977. The Planning Committee authorised Panuku to initiate the reserve revocation process for this site. Mana whenua engagement is to be completed as part of the reserve revocation process and will be reported back to council for final approval of the revocation of the reserve status of this site.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve the disposal of the following properties with the objective of contributing strategically and financially to the outcomes of the Unlock Panmure High Level Project Plan objectives of urban regeneration, urban renewal and housing:

i. 59 Mountain Road, Mount Wellington (Lots 67 DP 35427, NA914/60);

ii. 59a Mountain Road, Mount Wellington (Section 1 SO 500055, CFR 797578);

iii. 3 Mountwell Crescent, Mount Wellington (Section 3 SO 471986, CFR 672276);

iv. 7 Mountwell Crescent, Mount Wellington (Section 6 SO 471986, CFR 672277);

v. 3 Kings Road, Panmure (Lots 1 & 2 DP 120243, NA69C/662, NA69C/663);

vi. 15 Forge Way, Mount Wellington (Lot 5 DP 189494, NA119A/744);

vii. 7 and 9 Jellicoe Road, Mount Wellington (Section1-2 SO 458625, CFR 618285);

viii. 30-34 Potaka Lane, Panmure (Lot 1 DP 33816, NA881/95);

ix. 486-492 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington (Lot 8 DP 12992and Lot 4 DP 39291 and Lot 2 DP 61745, NA18A/739 (part-cancelled));

x. 516 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mount Wellington (Lot 48 DP 20306, NA616/17 (part-cancelled));

xi. Former 528 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mount Wellington (legal road status, currently vacant and partially sealed);

xii. 530 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mount Wellington (Section 17 SO 471986, CFR 672278);

xiii. 532-534 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mount Wellington (Section 19 SO 471986, CFR 672280);

xiv. 535 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mount Wellington (Section 29 SO 471986, CFR 672282);

xv. 536 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mount Wellington (Section 21 SO 471986, CFR 672281);

xvi. 7-11 Queens Road, Panmure (Part Lot 2, Lot 3 & Lot 4 DP 36382, NA968/241 (part-cancelled), NA957/203);

xvii. 39-41 Queens Road, Panmure (Lot 18 DP 36382, Lot 19 DP 36382, Lot 21 DP 36382, NA1159/22, NA943/294, NA952/269);

xviii. 11-13 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 3-4 DP 20487, NA2C/740);

xix. 16 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 20 DP 36382, NA1054/224);

xx. 20 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 22 DP 36382, NA951/277);

xxi. 22 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 15-17 DP 57965 and Part Lot 23 DP 36382, NA13D/444);

xxii. 26 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 1 DP 38838, NA1025/92);

xxiii. 28 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 2 DP 38838, NA1186/83);

xxiv. 30 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 2 DP 66584, NA24A/425);

xxv. 32-34 Lagoon Drive, Panmure (Lot 1 DP 75845, Part Lot 11 DP 54283, NA32B/817, NA8A/911);

xxvi. 1-19/10 Basin View Lane, Panmure (LOT 2 DP 92844);

xxvii. 23 Domain Road, Panmure (Lot 1 DP 92844, NA49B/888); and

xxviii. 28-30 Pilkington Road, Mount Wellington (Lots 30 and 31 DP 52157, NA7A/1476, NA7A/1477 (cancelled)), parking reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977;

b) subject to the conclusion of any required statutory processes;

c) subject to agreement with Auckland Transport that properties listed vi)-xxix) are not required for transport purposes,

d) agree that final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Planning Committee resolutions for Unlock Panmure High Level Project Plan	49
b ⇩	Properties endorsed for disposal by the Planning Committee	51
c ⇩	Iwi feedback - 59 Mountain Road, Mt Wellington	53
d ⇩	Iwi feedback - 59A Mountain Road, Mt Wellington	55
e ⇩	Iwi feedback - 3 Mountwell Crescent, Mt Wellington	57
f ⇩	Iwi feedback - 3 Kings Road, Panmure	59

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jessica Laing - Senior Project Planning Leader, Panuku Development Auckland

Letitia Edwards - Team Leader Portfolio Review, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku Development Auckland

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Disposal recommendations report April 2018

File No.: CP2018/01556

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To obtain approval to dispose of six council-owned properties that Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) considers suitable for sale.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. For the 2017/2018 financial year, Panuku’s statement of intent (SOI) requires it to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $60 million, and to sell $100 million of property by 30 June 2018.

3. 156 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale and 2A Stokes Road, Mt Eden are vacant sites that have been identified as potentially surplus to council requirements through a review process. Consultation with council departments and CCOs, iwi authorities, the Whau Local Board and the Albert-Eden Local Board about the subject sites has now taken place. No alternative service uses were identified through the rationalisation process and feedback received was supportive of the proposed disposals. Due to this, we recommend disposal of the subject sites.

4. 570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe and 139 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe are off-street car parks identified by Auckland Transport as having no strategic purpose for retention. Consultation with council departments and CCOs, iwi authorities and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board about the subject sites has now taken place. No alternative service uses were identified through the rationalisation process and feedback received was supportive of the proposed disposals. Due to this, we recommend disposal of the subject sites.

5. 22R Clyde Road, Ōtara and 66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East are vacant sites that were reviewed and identified as potentially surplus to council requirements following purchaser enquiries from members of the public. The subject sites are both reserves subject to the Reserves Act 1977. Consultation with council departments and CCOs, iwi authorities and the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board about the subject sites has now taken place. No alternative service uses were identified through the rationalisation process and feedback received was supportive of the proposed disposals. Due to this, Panuku recommends that the reserve status be revoked and that the subject sites be divested. Final revocation of the reserve status will be subject to completing the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002, including public advertising.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of the land at 156 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Section 2 SO 487786 contained in computer freehold register CFR 755822;

b) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of approximately 110m²(subject to survey) at 2A Stokes Road, Mt Eden, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Allotment 124 Section 6 Suburbs of Auckland contained in computer freehold register NA1061/16;

c) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of land at 570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Lot 2 DP 40086 contained in computer freehold register NA19A/591;

d) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes, the disposal of land at 139 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being Part Lot 2 DP 88139 contained in computer freehold register NA45C/983 (part-cancelled);

e) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes:

i) the revocation of the reserve status of the land at 22R Clyde Road, Ōtara, more or less being Lot 183 DP 50724 contained in computer freehold register NA41D/928;

ii) the disposal of the land at 22R Clyde Road, Ōtara, more or less being Lot 183 DP 50724 contained in computer freehold register NA41D/928;

f) approve, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes:

i) the revocation of the reserve status of the land at 66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East, more or less being Lot 125 DP 49579 contained in computer freehold register NA35D/1304;

ii) the disposal of the land at 66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East, more or less being Lot 125 DP 49579 contained in computer freehold register NA35D/1304; and

g) agree that final terms and conditions be approved under the appropriate delegations.

Horopaki / Context

6. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing review of council’s property assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that are no longer required for council service purposes and may be suitable for potential sale, and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) and the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

7. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council departments and its CCOs through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. 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 Panuku’s Board before a final recommendation is made to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

8. Property specific information is included in the Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice section of the property attachments to this report.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

9. Local boards are informed of the commencement of the rationalisation process for specific properties. Following the close of the EOI period, relevant local boards are engaged with. Panuku attend workshops with the relevant local board and provide information about properties being rationalised in its local board area. A report is subsequently prepared for the local board business meeting so that its views can be formalised.

10. At the completion of the local board engagement for the subject sites, the following formal positions were confirmed.

· The Whau Local Board endorsed the proposed disposal of 156 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale.

· The Albert-Eden Local Board endorsed the proposed disposal of 2A Stokes Road, Mt Eden.

· The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorsed the proposed disposal of 570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe and 139 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe, and endorsed the proposed reserve revocation and disposal of 22R Clyde Road, Ōtara and 66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East.

11. Additional property specific feedback received is included in the Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views section of the property attachments to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. Panuku has a robust form of engagement with mana whenua groups across the region. Each relevant mana whenua group is contacted independently regarding council owned-land subject to rationalisation and requested to give feedback.

13. Panuku’s engagement directs mana whenua to respond with any issues of particular cultural significance the group would like to formally express in relation to the subject properties. We also request notes regarding any preferred outcomes that the group would like Panuku to consider in our formal reporting to council. Possible outcomes could include commemoration or physical acknowledgment in the form of plaques or other mutually agreed means of recognition.

14. Panuku received notification from Ngāti Tamaoho, advising that 570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe and 22R Clyde Road, Ōtara are of cultural significance and requested that it be involved in future development of the sites. Panuku have sought clarification from Ngāti Tamaoho regarding further site specific issues, including kaitiaki recommendations around future management of the land, acknowledgements or other outcomes that council needs to consider as part of a decision to approve the sites for disposal. No response has been received, so Panuku will follow up again with Ngāti Tamaoho if the subject sites are approved for disposal.

15. Mana whenua groups are also invited to express potential commercial interest in the subject properties. In the event a property is approved for sale, all groups are alerted of the decision, and all groups are alerted once a property comes on the market.

16. Panuku received notifications of commercial interest from the following iwi entities.

· Ngāti Tamaoho advised it has potential commercial interest in 570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe should it be approved for disposal.

· Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki advised it has commercial interests in 139 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe and 66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East and signaled an increased interest in council owned property that may come available for sale in their rohe.

· Ngaati Whanaunga Whanaunga advised it has commercial interests in 156 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale, 570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe, 139 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe and 66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East.

17. If the subject sites are approved for disposal, Panuku will follow up with those iwi entities regarding potential commercial opportunities.

18. Additional property specific information is included in the mana whenua engagement section of the property attachments to this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19. Capital receipts from the sale of surplus properties contribute to Auckland Plan outcomes and the LTP by providing the Council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects. In the 2017/2018 financial year, the LTP has forecast the disposal of non-strategic council assets to the combined value of of $67 million.

20. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the annual statement of intent states the activities and intentions of Panuku, the objectives that those activities will contribute to and performance measures and targets as the basis of organisational accountability. For the 2017/2018 financial year Panuku is required to identify properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale to a combined value of $60 million and to sell $100 million of property by 30 June 2018.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. No risks associated with the recommendations contained in this report have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

22. The results of the rationalisation process for the subject site are that they are not required for current or future service requirements. As such, we recommend they be divested.

23. Property specific information is included in the Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps section of the property attachments to this report.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	156 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale property information	65
b ⇩	2A Stokes Road, Mt Eden property information	69
c ⇩	570 Great South Road, Papatoetoe property information	73
d ⇩	139 Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe property information	77
e ⇩	22R Clyde Road, Ōtara property information	81
f ⇩	66R Hallberry Road, Mangere East property information	85

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Anthony Lewis - Senior Advisor, Portfolio Review, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Letitia Edwards - Team Leader Portfolio Review, Panuku Development Auckland

David Rankin - Chief Operating Officer, Panuku Development Auckland

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Approval of the Museum of Transport and Technology levy 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/02101

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To consider the 2018/2019 levy for the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. MOTAT is one of Auckland’s main cultural heritage institutions.

3. The Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 allows MOTAT to levy Auckland Council for funding on an annual basis. Auckland Council through Regional Facilities Auckland can provide feedback on MOTAT’s draft Annual Plan 2018/2019 (draft Annual Plan) but does not have a direct role in monitoring MOTAT’s outcomes or financial performance.

4. This year the MOTAT levy request is for $13,973,339. While this is a decrease on last year’s levy, the 2017/2018 levy included a one-off sum for resolving building issues. This year’s levy is a 6.7 per cent increase (over two years) from the levy in 2016/2017.

5. MOTAT’s draft Annual Plan (Attachment A) clearly sets out its organisational structure, core objectives, performance measures, and supporting financial information. MOTAT continues to pursue improvements in basic museum operations (such as collection care), as well as offering interesting experiences for visitors.

6. Longer-term, MOTAT’s major challenge is to have a clearly defined strategic role within the Auckland cultural heritage sector, and to secure major capital redevelopment funding to support that role. The cultural heritage review which has recently started will assist with defining MOTAT’s role.

7. Staff recommend approval of the MOTAT levy request for 2018/2019, as it meets the purposes of MOTAT as set out in its legislation, and the draft Annual Plan clearly sets out MOTAT’s planned activities for the coming year. Regional Facilities Auckland has worked with MOTAT on the draft Annual Plan and recommends that it be approved (Attachment B).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve the total levy applied for by the Museum of Transport and Technology of $13,973,339 for 2018/2019.

Horopaki / Context

Legislative framework

8. MOTAT operates under the Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000. The Act requires the Board to maintain, manage, and develop MOTAT and its collections and provide for the recording and presentation of the history of transport and technology in Auckland and New Zealand. The Board must also provide maximum community benefit, including providing for education which engages and entertains, promoting historical and scientific research and achieving customer satisfaction through continuous improvement.

9. Council is obliged to fund MOTAT under the levy provisions of the Act, which gives MOTAT security of public funding for its activities, including maintenance and development. These provisions were originally developed in the pre-amalgamation context to ensure that all councils in the Auckland region contributed equitably to MOTAT.

10. The levy must be set by 30 April 2018, either through agreement or arbitration.

Role of Regional Facilities Auckland

11. Regional Facilities Auckland and Auckland Council have an Advisory and Management Agreement under which Regional Facilities Auckland has been appointed council’s advisor for MOTAT’s annual funding process.

12. The legislation requires MOTAT to publish its draft annual plan and publicly consult on the levy request being made to Auckland Council. Regional Facilities Auckland made a submission and MOTAT has considered this along with other submissions received.

13. Regional Facilities Auckland has written to Auckland Council and recommends approval of the levy. Regional Facilities Auckland notes the funding request is within the levy cap. Other elements of Regional Facilities Auckland’s advice, as expressed in the submission and the letter to council, have been incorporated into this report.

Cultural heritage review

14. In 2017, Auckland Council approved the establishment of a review of its investment in cultural heritage institutions. The scope of the review includes Auckland Museum, Auckland Art Gallery, the New Zealand Maritime Museum, Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, the Museum of Transport and Technology, and the role of Regional Facilities Auckland.

15. The review began in early April 2018, and has three purposes:

· set out whether there is a case for change in current sector arrangements to achieve better value from council investment in the cultural heritage sector;

· make recommendations about the key strategic objectives and investment priorities the cultural heritage sector in Auckland should be seeking to meet;

· describe the nature of any sector governance changes which should be made.

16. The review will not consider the quantum of funding for the cultural institutions. The review will conclude in August 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. The levy indicated within the final draft Annual Plan is $13.973 million. While this is a reduction from the 2017/2018 levy, last year’s levy included additional funding to deal with asbestos issues at MOTAT. The requested levy represents a 6.7 per cent increase in two years over the 2016/2017 levy of $13.1 million.

18. The future focussed part of the MOTAT draft Annual Plan begins from page 19. It sets out the three-main organisational ‘hubs’ of MOTAT – Museum Experience, Collections, and Business Services. There is a clear description of what each of these hubs does, and which of the strategic/core objectives they contribute to.

19. MOTAT’s core objectives are to:

· maximise the visitor experience

· empower the MOTAT team

· improve the quality of the collection and its care

· improve business and community sustainability.

20. A summary of the specific projects supporting those objectives is provided in the chair and chief executive’s overview at the beginning of the document.

21. The way MOTAT sets out its organisational structure, core objectives, and performance measures and targets is logical and clear. While the measures are somewhat output focussed, they have a clear link to the objectives, and are relatively consistent with measures used in previous years, which allows progress to be tracked in specific areas. If a clear set of sector-wide outcomes emerge from the cultural heritage sector review, this would assist MOTAT to develop a wider outcomes perspective.

22. The Financial Overview section is similarly clear. The indicative budgets show clear summaries of revenue and expenditure, including on capital projects. Operating expenditure is then shown according to each of the three organisational hubs, making it clear to track what is driving increased expenditure. Two areas show a major reduction (exhibitions and innovation engagement), but this is in order to reallocate money to respectively ensure buildings are maintained for future years, and to integrate engagement processes within other areas.

23. Regional Facilities Auckland has noted that it will continue to ask MOTAT to investigate how it can increase its revenue through existing and new initiatives, as well as considering how further operational efficiencies can be found.

24. Another key focus for MOTAT this year is its ongoing need for more comprehensive capital investment. To that end, MOTAT has placed a bid for investment into the long-term plan process, to develop the first stages of its masterplan. This is a separate matter from the levy process, and will be considered separately by councillors in the long-term plan process.

25. Staff recommend approval of the MOTAT levy request. The other main option is to dispute the levy amount and enter arbitration. However, this is not recommended, because the MOTAT levy request meets the purposes of the museum as set out in its legislation, and the draft Annual Plan has clearly set out MOTAT’s planned activities for the coming year. There are no apparent grounds that would justify rejecting the levy request. Regional Facilities Auckland has worked with MOTAT on the plan and has recommended to Auckland Council that it be approved.

26. MOTAT is keenly awaiting progress on the cultural heritage review, and Regional Facilities Auckland has made clear council’s expectation that MOTAT will participate fully in that process, and to respond to recommendations arising from it.

27. Staff note MOTAT’s participation in the recently initiated ‘Museums of Auckland’ concept, a collaborative effort of Auckland’s five main cultural institutions. The first product of this is a website which brings together information about each of Auckland’s five main cultural institutions, such as current and upcoming exhibitions. This is a useful first step in achieving greater coordination and strategic collaboration between the institutions. As the initiative develops, it will require all parties, including Regional Facilities Auckland as controller of Auckland Art Gallery and now the Maritime Museum, to be open to the collaborative opportunities which may arise.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

28. Decision making and oversight in respect of regional activities is the responsibility of the Governing Body.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29. MOTAT is planning to develop an exhibition specifically focussed on Māori and innovation. However, MOTAT is still working to more fully understand how to integrate a bicultural perspective into its activities, as required by its legislation (s12(c)).

30. Regional Facilities Auckland has asked MOTAT to consider in the coming year how it can further integrate Te Reo and Māori tikanga into its visitor engagement in future years, and to develop an appropriate measure and targets for this.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

31. The levy request for 2018/2019 is $13,973,339. This is within the levy cap provided for by legislation and is within the budget allowed for regional grants in the current Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

32. There are two main risks for council. The first is that MOTAT continues to require long-term decision-making about its capital development plans. In the short term, the condition of buildings at MOTAT means that bids for emergency funding (such as was provided last year to resolve asbestos issues) might arise. If MOTAT is to continue, it will be likely to need investment. The cultural heritage review will help determine the future focus and role of MOTAT within the Auckland museum sector, which will in turn help inform the case for capital redevelopment and its scale.

33. Secondly, there is a financial risk to council from MOTAT seeking increases to its levy in the future. MOTAT has presented relatively moderate increases to its levy, and its levy cap is far lower than that of the Auckland War Memorial Museum, so officers consider the risk to be low at present.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

34. If this committee approves the proposed levy, payment will be made on 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	MOTAT draft Annual Plan 2018/2019 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇩	RFA letter to Auckland Council re MOTAT levy request	93

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Approval of Auckland War Memorial Museum levy 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/02099

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To consider the 2018/2019 levy for the Auckland War Memorial Museum.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland War Memorial Museum (the Museum) is one of Auckland’s world-class cultural institutions.

3. The Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996 (the Act) allows it to levy Auckland Council for funding on an annual basis. Auckland Council through Regional Facilities Auckland can provide feedback on the Museum’s draft Annual Plan 2018/2019 (draft Annual Plan) but does not have a direct role in monitoring the Museum’s outcomes or financial performance.

4. This year the Museum’s levy request is $31.504 million, an increase of 2.5 per cent from last year. This includes $9.41 million to fund depreciation.

5. The Museum has responded well to requests for further information during the development of the annual plan. In particular, the Museum has developed a refreshed five-year Strategic Plan (Attachment B), and its Annual Plan 2018/2019 (Attachment A) reflects the first stage in working towards the strategic priorities set out in the five-year plan.

6. However, staff consider that the Annual Plan could, in future years, continue to be improved. The link between expenditure and outcomes is still not clear, with many of the measures being output and project completion targets. Transparency of financial information could be improved by using traditional categories (such as staff, collections, and public programming). Using strategic priority areas to express financial data makes it difficult to know why costs, and the annual levy request, continues to increase.

7. We recommend the Museum’s levy is approved for 2018/2019. Disputing the levy amount and entering arbitration is the alternative, but this is not recommended. The Annual Plan 2018/2019 meets the requirements of the Museum’s legislation.

8. The Museum remains well-placed to contribute to and be a leader in the cultural heritage sector in Auckland, as its participation in the recently formed ‘Museums of Auckland’ initiative shows.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve the total levy applied for by the Auckland War Memorial Museum of $31,504,000 for 2018/2019, noting that this is an increase of 2.5 per cent from 2017/2018

b) note the improved provision of information by Auckland War Memorial Museum during development of its Annual Plan 2018/2019, but request that the Museum improves the transparency of its financial information so that Aucklanders are better informed about the link between expenditure and outcomes, and what is driving cost increases.

Horopaki / Context

Legislative framework

9. The Museum is, along with Auckland Art Gallery, one of Auckland’s world-class cultural heritage institutions. Its collections are of regional and national significance and it is resourced at a level surpassed in New Zealand only by Te Papa (which is currently funded at $29.6 million operational funding from central government with periodic capital investment). The Act requires the Museum Board to adequately maintain, manage and develop the Museum (Section 12(2)(d)).

10. Council is obliged to fund the Museum under the levy provisions of the Act, which gives the Museum security of public funding, including to fund its depreciation and capital projects. The purpose of the levy is to fund the Museum’s activities, including maintenance, operations and development. The levy must be set by 30 April 2018, either through agreement or arbitration.

Role of Regional Facilities Auckland

12. When last year’s levy report was considered by Finance and Performance Committee, the chair of the Museum invited council to specify additional information it might require to assess the levy. As a result, council wrote to Regional Facilities Auckland suggesting it seek from the Museum:

· more detail about the Museum’s capital programme

· the Museum’s Asset Management Plan

· a refreshed strategic plan

· projected staff costs, to be included in the Annual Plan

· an improved set of performance measures.

13. The legislation requires the Museum to publish its draft Annual Plan and publicly consult on the levy request being made to Auckland Council. Regional Facilities Auckland made a submission and the Museum has considered this along with other submissions received.

14. Regional Facilities Auckland has written to Auckland Council and recommends approval of the levy (Attachment C). Regional Facilities Auckland notes the funding request is within the levy cap. Other elements of Regional Facilities Auckland’s advice, as expressed in the submission and the letter to council, have been incorporated into this report.

Cultural heritage review

15. In 2017, Auckland Council approved the establishment of a review of its investment in cultural heritage institutions. The scope of the review includes Auckland Museum, Auckland Art Gallery, the New Zealand Maritime Museum, Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, the Museum of Transport and Technology, and the role of Regional Facilities Auckland.

16. The review began in early April 2018, and has three purposes:

· set out whether there is a case for change in current sector arrangements to achieve better value from council investment in the cultural heritage sector

· make recommendations about the key strategic objectives and investment priorities the cultural heritage sector in Auckland should be seeking to meet

· describe the nature of any sector governance changes which should be made.

17. The review will not consider the quantum of funding for the cultural institutions and does not impact or influence this levy process. The review will conclude in August 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Key elements of the Annual Plan 2018/2019

18. The Museum’s draft Annual Plan proposes a total levy of $31,504,000, representing an increase of $765,000, or a 2.5 per cent increase over the 2017/2018 levy. The levy request includes $9.41 million for depreciation.

19. If the levy request is approved, Auckland Council’s funding will be approximately 79 per cent of the museum’s total revenue. Future levy requests are projected to increase by 2.5 per cent in each of the next two years, with Auckland Council’s funding being 79 per cent of total revenue in 2019/2020 and 77 per cent in 2020/2021.

20. The Museum is projecting a 20 per cent rise ($780,000) in commercial revenue in 2020/2021, to a total of $4.65 million.

21. The Annual Plan commentary reflects the revised five-year strategic plan which the Museum has developed. This strategic plan still sits within the overall framework of the Museum’s Future Museum Strategy, which is the 20-year strategy the Museum adopted in 2012 but refines the Museum’s medium-term priorities.

22. The five-year strategic priorities are as follows:

· reach out to more people

· transform our building and collections

· stretch thinking

· lead a digital museum revolution

· engage every schoolchild

· grow our income and enhance value for Aucklanders.

· The priorities are designed to align to the New Auckland Plan.

23. More detail about the associated measures is provided in the Annual Plan 2018/2019 document itself, which is attached to this report.

Analysis

24. The Museum continues to perform strongly in contributing to cultural life in Auckland. It is currently embarking on major capital developments which should realise enhanced value for Aucklanders over time and place the Museum in a strong position as a leader in the Auckland cultural sector.

25. The Museum recently initiated and facilitated the concept of a collaborative consortium involving Auckland’s five main cultural institutions. Operating as ‘Museums of Auckland’, the Museum, together with Auckland Art Gallery, Museum of Transport and Technology, New Zealand Maritime Museum and Stardome Observatory has recently launched the ‘Museums of Auckland’ website. Visitors can now see in one place the diverse range of cultural attractions Auckland has to offer, the public experiences they can enjoy, browse highlights of the city’s combined collections, and plan their cultural journey.

26. It is a demonstration that the Museum and the consortium has collaborated strategically to create a new platform for engagement which enables better outcomes for Aucklanders. Additional initiatives are planned, including a pilot for a multisite ticket targeting the tourism market, shared offsite programming and digital collections initiatives. As these develop, it will require all parties, including Regional Facilities Auckland as controller of Auckland Art Gallery and now the Maritime Museum, to be open to the collaborative opportunities that may arise.

27. The Museum has responded well to the requests for additional information following last year’s levy request discussion at Finance and Performance Committee. Additional detail has been provided to Regional Facilities Auckland about the capital programme, and an Asset Management Plan has been provided relating to the heritage building (though not collections or other assets). A refreshed Strategic Plan has been developed. Despite this, there are still improvements it can make in future annual plans to improve financial transparency and to clarify the intervention logic between the Museum’s spending and the outcomes and impact it is having.

28. It is positive to see that the Museum has revised its previously projected levy increases of over 3 per cent to 2.5 per cent for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020.

29. It is also good to see projected increases in commercial revenue in future years (from 2020/2021 onwards especially). This is largely the result of the Museum investing heavily in a capital programme funded from the accrued depreciation portion of the council levy. This will see the levy proportion of the Museum’s overall revenue fall over time, though levy requests are still expected to increase by around $800,000 in each of the next two years. The Museum should continue to seek efficiencies in its operations, so that its efforts to reduce reliance on the ratepayer levy are not solely based on increasing commercial revenue.

30. However, the Museum’s Annual Plan raises two related concerns. The first is that despite efforts to increase non-council revenue, costs continue to increase at the Museum. The table below sets out the levy amounts over the last ten years.

Year	$000	% increase
2018/19 (requested)	31504	2.5
2017/18	30735	3.0
2016/17	29841	3.0
2015/16	28971	3.5
2014/15	27991	2.5
2013/14	27308	2.5
2012/13	26641	4.0
2011/12	25617	5.3
2010/11	24330	4.0
2009/10	23402	4.9

31. The second issue is in respect of the measure on page 22 of the Annual Plan, which states that operational expenditure is to be held to the level of 2017/2018. However, the table on page 25 shows operational expenditure rising by almost $1 million for 2018/2019, with consequent impact on the levy request.

32. It is difficult to determine what is driving these cost increases, because the Annual Plan 2018/2019 presents financial information according to strategic priority areas. Traditional categories of spending in a museum are not provided, such as staffing (as specifically requested through the letter to Regional Facilities Auckland), collections care and conservation, library, exhibitions, public programmes and events, information technology and other business services.

33. Furthermore, the Annual Plan 2018/2019 does not give a strong sense of the cultural value which is being delivered for Auckland. At present, the measures provided for each of the six priority areas are largely output measures, and delivery of specific projects. The Annual Plan could be significantly improved in future years to demonstrate more clearly the outcomes which the Museum is delivering on. This is especially important given the cost increases noted above, which are projected to continue in future years.

Advice

34. There are two main options available to councillors. The first, which is recommended, is to approve the Museum’s levy request. The second is to refuse the request and enter arbitration. This is not recommended, because there is no evidence which would justify rejecting the levy request, which aligns with the broad purposes set out in the Act. For example, the recently announced ‘Museums of Auckland’ initiative demonstrates that the institutions themselves are already considering the benefits of greater coordination of effort with relevant organisations (Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, s11(h)).

35. As noted Te Papa currently receives operational funding of $29.6 million from central government, although the figures are not directly comparable given that Te Papa also receives capital funding when required, whereas depreciation is built into the Auckland Museum levy. Nonetheless, the comparison indicates that Auckland Museum’s levy request is broadly consistent with what would be expected to fund a major cultural heritage institution in a world-class city.

36. Approving the levy will reinforce council’s ongoing commitment and long-term support for the Museum as one of Auckland two world-class cultural institutions.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

37. Decision making and oversight in respect of regional activities is the responsibility of the Governing Body. The views of local boards were not sought.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

38. The Museum aims to be a bicultural organisation and makes positive contributions to Māori aspirations in Auckland and around New Zealand. The Museum’s He Korahi Māori document sets out the nature of the Museum’s Māori dimension, which builds on the structural place of Māori built into the Museum’s governance through its Taumata-a-Iwi (Māori advisory committee).

39. Auckland Museum plays an important role in Auckland’s ability to contribute to meeting Treaty of Waitangi obligations, both through the principle of kaitiakitanga for taonga and by being an example of how genuine partnership can work in the future. To this end, the Annual Plan includes actions across almost all its strategic priority areas to work towards the Future Museum ‘touchstone’ of the Museum being “A bicultural heart connected to our communities”. Examples include:

· a reconfiguring of onsite permanent storage to provide physically and culturally appropriate collection storage for taonga Māori collections, including workspace and space for community, in line with He Korahi Māori

· promote Māori well-being and gain a deeper understanding of Mātauranga Māori and taonga through continuing the collection access programme with the Māori community and sharing the learning

· the Museum’s Te Reo Māori Strategy, which will allow the better integration of te reo into the visitor experience at the Museum.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

40. The levy request for 2018/2019 is $31,504,000. This is within the levy cap provided for by legislation and is within the budget allowed for regional grants in the current Long-term Plan 2915-2025.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

41. There are three main risks. The first is that the Museum is unable to deliver on what is an ambitious capital programme. It is not clear what capability the Museum has to undertake this programme, and how it is managing risks around it. The second is the risk of the Museum’s self-generated revenue targets not being met, especially with the impact the capital programme could have on visitation and commercial income. Thirdly, there is the ongoing risk to council from the Museum seeking large increases to its levy in the future. The increases are relatively moderate at this time, so staff consider the risk to be low at present.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42. If this committee approves the proposed levy, payment will be made on 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Museum Draft Annual Plan 2018/2019 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Auckland Museum Five-Year Strategic Plan 2017-2022 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	RFA Letter to Auckland Council re Auckland Museum levy 2018/2019	101

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Approval of Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act levy 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/01710

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To consider the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) levy for 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) provides for ten regional organisations to submit annual funding applications to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board (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. The Act requires the Funding Board to prepare a draft funding plan that provides any information that is necessary to enable an informed assessment of the annual levy (s25(2)(i)).

3. At its 20 March 2018 meeting, this committee was advised of the operational integration of the Maritime Museum into Regional Facilities Auckland. This committee resolved to provide additional funding of $2,184,500 to Regional Facilities Auckland for 2018-2019 (FIN/2018/37). The Maritime Museum has now withdrawn its 2018/2019 regional amenities funding request, and the Funding Board has reduced the proposed levy by $2,184,500.

4. The Funding Board now seeks a total levy from council of $14,602,000. If funding for the Maritime Museum is excluded, this is $576,000 higher than the levy for 2017/2018.

5. Staff note that the Funding Board believes that the levels of funding proposed in this plan are in line with the key funding principles outlined in the Act, and in accordance with the primary purpose of the Act, being the provision of a mechanism for adequate, sustainable and secure funding for the specified amenities.

6. Staff recommend that council approves the 2018/2019 funding levy request of $14,602,000 as it is consistent with the funding principles in the Act and those established by council.

7. The levy contains $315,000 for the Funding Board’s administration costs. The Funding Board has sought the same level of funding for its administration costs each year since its establishment. As the Funding Board has not spent all of its administration funding each year, it has accumulated some reserves.

8. The Funding Board have advised it will make a distribution to Auckland Council from its accumulated reserves of $350,000. This will effectively reduce the net levy for 2018/2019 to $14,252,000.

9. Staff recommend that the Funding Board, as part of the 2018/2019 funding process, consider what is an appropriate level of administration funding, and what is an appropriate level of reserves for the Funding Board to hold.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve the total levy applied for by Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board of $14,602,000 for 2018/2019.

b) note that the ARAFA Board intends to return $350,000 to Auckland Council, consisting of retained earnings from interest and under-spend of the annual $315,000 administration budget.

c) request that the Funding Board review the:

(i) the funding requirements for its annual administration of the Funding Board current level of $315,000

(ii) an appropriate level of total accumulated reserves that should be held by the Funding Board.

Horopaki / Context

Legislative Framework

10. The Act was put in place to establish a mechanism to provide adequate, sustainable and secure funding for ten specified amenities that provide arts and culture, educational and rescue services throughout the Auckland region.

11. The Act established a Funding Board, which is an independent body whose role is receive annual funding applications from ten amenities identified in the Act, and to assess what would be a reasonable contribution towards the amenities operating costs.

12. The Funding Board assesses the annual funding applications received from the amenities against the funding principles within the Act, and any additional principles adopted by Auckland Council. The funding principles include the following:

· 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

· the Funding Board must have regard to council’s proposed rates increase for the forthcoming year

· the amenities should align their activities to the Auckland Plan, and adopt relevant performance measures.

13. Once the Funding Board has conducted the analysis of the amenities funding applications it is required under the Act to prepare a funding plan, circulate the plan for public consultation, and call for public submissions.

14. The amenities, like council, may provide a submission on the draft funding plan. The Funding Board must consider these submissions when preparing the final funding plan.

15. The Act also requires that the funding plan must provide any information that is necessary for council to make an informed assessment of the annual levy (s25(2)(i)).

16. The Funding Board, having considered the amenities funding requests, and any submissions, proposes a levy to Auckland Council.

17. In regards to decision-making about the levy, council’s role is confined to providing a submission on the Funding Board’s draft funding plan, reviewing the total levy proposed by the Funding Board, and either agreeing to or rejecting the proposed levy. Allocations to individual amenities are the role of the Funding Board, not council.

18. Council staff are not able to comment on the amount of the funding being provided to the individual amenities, as it is the role of the Funding Board to analysis the funding requirements of each amenity.

Sustainability

19. The purpose of the Act is to establish a mechanism to provide adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified amenities providing arts, education, rescue, or community facilities for or services to the Auckland region.

20. During the 2015 review of the ARAFA funding model, council requested the Funding Board to work with council on establishing a framework which defined what sustainability meant for the amenities. The Funding Board led this work and has developed a broad framework within which to consider annual funding applications, in conjunction with the requirements of the Act. This framework was intended to enhance and complement the annual decision-making process.

21. The framework recognises that sustainability is derived from more than just reliable, secure funding, and that there is never a mix of programmes and revenue that will deliver permanent sustainability. Instead, continuous assessment and adjustment to each amenity’s context in its operating environment is required.

22. The Funding Board determined that financial sustainability (effective financial and strategic planning, diverse income streams and sound financial administration) underpins all other components. However, for an amenity to be sustainable other elements or building blocks are required:

(i) stable, effective leadership, governance and management

(ii) assurance of on-going support for services

(iii) community demand for valued services that are relevant

(iv) impact:

· an amenity’s services align strongly with its core mission

· demonstrate excellence in delivery; have a broad reach or deeply impact a smaller number of individuals

· fill an important gap in the community; illustrate strong community building; or

· increase the impact of other programmes in the organisation or community

(v) dynamic response: to avoid crises or failure, an amenity needs to adapt to changes in its operating environment by adapting and innovating.

23. The Funding Board has advised that in addition to the minimum information requirements laid down in the Act, it has been seeking, and will continue to seek, a significant amount of additional information to ensure the components of the sustainability framework are adequately considered with each annual funding application.

Council’s submission on the 2018/2019 Funding Plan

24. As part of the public submission process, the Funding Board considered council’s submission that the committee approved on 27 February 2018 (FIN/2018/6).

25. Council requested that further information should be included in the funding plan to allow council to make an informed consideration of the levy being:

· that each of the amenities funding applications are compliant with the funding principles. This will ensure that council can fulfil its obligations under the Act, when it considers the 2018-2019 Funding Plan and levy in March 2018

· in particular, that the funding principle relating to alignment with Auckland Plan outcomes is being met. We propose that a short summary statement of how each amenity meets Auckland Plan outcomes is included in the Funding Plan submitted to council.

26. The Funding Board have reviewed council’s submission. A response from the chair, Vern Walsh is at Attachment A.

27. The final 2018/2019 Funding Plan is at Attachment B. Staff note that the final 2018/2019 Funding Plan outlines in detail:

(i) the application process which involves provision and review of substantial amounts of information about each specified amenity including a declaration that the application is fully compliant with the funding principles set out in section 21 of the Act (2008) and the two principles added by the council

(ii) that the process may also necessitate requesting additional information be provided to the Funding Board for the purpose of making its assessment.

28. The Funding Board’s independent auditor also conduct their own sample checks annually to verify adherence to the funding principles, which involves reviewing the entire funding application and subsequent reporting processes for an amenity over a two-year period.

29. The Funding Board are satisfied that the 2018/2019 Funding Plan is compliant with the funding principles outlined in section 21 of the Act (2008), and that each of the specified amenities are aligning their activities with the objectives of the Auckland Plan.

Amenities submission on the draft Funding Plan

30. The amenities, like council, may provide a submission on the draft funding plan. The Funding Board must consider these submissions when preparing the final funding plan. Some, but not all, of the amenities made submissions on the draft 2018/2019 Funding Plan.

31. The committee received presentations from nine of the ten amenities (excluding New Zealand Maritime Museum) at its 27 February and 20 March 2018 meetings. Each amenity provided an overview of the highlights, significant achievements and outcomes for the 2017/2018 financial year. The amenities also outlined the challenges that they are facing. Members of the funding board were present at these committee meetings to note the information provided by the amenities.

32. The submissions provided by the amenities helps inform the decision-making of the Funding Board. These submissions are in addition to the substantial amounts of information that the Funding Board receives from each amenity, including historical and project financial information, performance data, and information about planned activities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Key elements of the 2018/2019 Funding Plan

33. The final 2018/2019 Funding Plan proposes a total levy of $14,602,000. This is a reduction from last year’s levy. However, this is due to the withdrawal of the Maritime Museum from the regional amenities funding process. If the Maritime Museums funding is excluded, the proposed levy represents an increase of $576,000 over last year’s levy.

34. By way of comparison, the increases for the previous five years were:

Year	Total Funding Levy	$ increase	% increase from previous year
2017/2018	$16,165,500	$23,000	0.14%
2016/2017	$16,142,500	$994,100	6.56%
2015/2016	$15,148,400	$837,400	5.85%
2014/2015	$14,311,000	$215,000	1.53%
2013/2014	$14,096,000	$344,500	2.5%

35. Increases can vary from year to year due to the needs of the individual amenities, and some one-off factors including an amenity not applying for funding, or a one-off grant being given to an amenity to fund a strategic review of their business.

36. The Act provides a ‘needs based’ funding mechanism, where the amenities receive the funding they require to keep them sustainable. That level of funding will vary over time for each amenity, due to changes in their operating environments. It is therefore difficult to make direct comparisons with previous year’s levies. However, the proposed increase in the levy is not out of line with previous year’s increases.

Funding Board distribution to Auckland Council

37. The Funding Board have advised it will make a distribution of $350,000 to Auckland Council.

38. The $350,000 is made up from retained earnings arising from interested earned on term deposits and under-spending of the annual administration budget.

39. Staff note the annual administration funding of $315,000 has remained static since the 2010/2011 Funding Plan.

40. The Funding Board’s 2017 Annual report notes a surplus of $142,617 and cash on hand was $595,846.

41. Given the Funding Board have advised the distribution is in part due to the under-spending of its annual administration budget, staff therefore recommend that the committee ask that the Funding Board review the:

(i) the total funding requirement for its annual administration of the Funding Board which has remained at a static level of $315,000 since 2009

(ii) appropriate level of total surplus funding that should be available to the Funding Board.

42. To maintain appropriate financial records the Funding Board will make the distribution to the council at the beginning of the 2018/2019 financial year.

43. The effect of the distribution will be to reduce the net rates impact of the levy to $14,252,000.

Analysis

Funding principles

44. The Funding Board have undertaken a rigorous process of assessment and review of each of the specified amenities funding applications and have provided the additional information that council requested in its submission (FIN/2018/6) in the final 2018/2019 Funding Plan.

45. This additional information provides evidence that the levy sought by the Funding Board is consistent with the funding principles.

Allowable levy

46. Under s.34(1)(c) of the Act 2008 the total maximum levy that can be proposed by the Funding Board is the amount equal to two percent of the revenue from rates of the Auckland Council in the previous financial year. This equates to $33,020,000.

47. Staff note that the final 2018/2019 Funding Plan proposes a total levy of $14,602,000 this represents forty-four percent of the maximum amount that could be charged.

Maritime Museum

48. The draft Funding Plan contained a proposed levy of $16,786,500 for the ten specified amenities.

49. At its 20 March 2018 meeting, this committee was advised of the operational integration of one of the specified amenities (the Maritime Museum) into Regional Facilities Auckland. This committee resolved to provide additional funding of $2,184,500 to Regional Facilities Auckland for 2018/2019 (FIN/2018/37), conditional on the Maritime Museum withdrawing its funding application from the Funding Board.

50. The Maritime Museum has now withdrawn its 2018/2019 regional amenities funding request, and the Funding Board has reduced the proposed levy by $2,184,500.

51. The Funding Board now seeks a total levy from council of $14,602,000. If funding for the Maritime Museum is excluded, this is $576,000 higher than the levy for 2017/2018.

Advice

52. In line with council’s role in the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act levy process the following options are outlined below.

· Option One – approve the levy. The submission points requested by the council have been incorporated in the final 2018/2019 Funding Plan, allowing council to fulfil its obligation under the Act to consider the total levy by having consideration to the funding principles.

There is no evidence that the proposed levy is inconsistent with the funding principles, and therefore there would be no grounds for council to reject the levy.

· Option Two – reject the proposed levy. This option is not recommended because there are no appropriate reasons for rejecting the levy because the Funding Board have advised they are satisfied that the specified amenities funding applications.

53. Approving the 2018/2019 Funding Plan will reinforce council’s ongoing commitment and long-term support for the nine specified amenities and support for the Funding Board’s rigorous approach to their work in the assessment and analysis of each specified amenities individual applications.

54. Staff recommend that the committee approves the levy for 2018/2019 being $14,602,000, as staff consider that the levy request is consistent with the Act and therefore there is no reason to dispute the levy.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

55. Local board views have not been sought. Decision-making and oversight about regional activities are the responsibility of the Governing Body. This report relates to the funding relationship between the council, the Funding Board and the amenities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

56. The amenities have the ability to make positive contributions to Māori wellbeing, and to deliver on Auckland Plan outcomes and contribute to effective Māori capacity.

57. In future funding plans, it would be appropriate for the Funding Board to request that each amenity, where relevant, provides a brief summary outlining the specific programme(s) and services delivered that contribute to Māori outcomes and Māori wellbeing in Auckland.

58. However, this report does not consider the amenities contribution to Māori wellbeing, as that is not an issue covered by the draft 2018/2019 Funding Plan.

59. One of the Funding Board members must be a person who is appropriate to represent the interests of Māori in the Auckland region. Therefore, a Māori perspective is considered whenever the Funding Board makes a decision.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

60. Funding will need to be provided for in the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan.

61. The proposed levy is within the levy cap provided for by legislation, and is within the budget allowed for regional grants in the current Long-term Plan (2015-2025).

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

62. The ongoing risk to council is that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding system provides little ability for council to ensure value for money from the amenities. There is also no direct accountability to council for the funding that the amenities receive.

63. There is also the ongoing risk to council from the nine specified amenities seeking large increases to its levy in the future.

64. The indicative grant requests from the nine specified amenities for future years (2019/2020 and 2020/2021) are significant. However, any increases to funding would need to be justified by the amenities in terms of the funding principles.

65. 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, a point which the Funding Board noted when it received councils’ submission on the plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

66. If the committee approves the proposed levy, payment will be made to the Funding Board on 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Submission Letter from ARAFB	111
b ⇨	Draft Funding Plan 2018/2019 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Josie Meuli - Senior Advisor

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

Proposed Shareholder Comments on Draft Council-Controlled Organisation Statements of Intent

File No.: CP2018/04154

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the proposed shareholder comments on the draft statements of intent of the substantive council-controlled organisations (CCOs).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The letters of expectation (sent in January 2018) set out the council’s expectations on the content of the 2018-2021 statements of intent for each of the council’s substantive CCOs. Each CCO has provided a draft statement of intent to the council (Attachments A – E). The three non-substantive CCOs which are required to provide statements of intent to the council have also done so (Attachments G – J).

3. Staff have reviewed the draft statements of intent and propose shareholder comments for each CCO in this report. The proposed shareholder comments have been split into general comments that will be applicable to all CCOs and specific comments for each CCO. In general, the draft statements of intent have mostly reflected the council’s priorities, but there are areas which could be clarified or more ambitious. A common theme of comments is the performance measures; several of the CCOs have deleted measures which are useful for monitoring performance.

4. If the council, as the shareholder, chooses to provide comments, the Local Government Act 2002 requires that these comments are sent to the chairs of each CCO by 30 April 2018.

5. The development of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (LTP) is running parallel with the preparation of the statements of intent. Each CCO will need to reflect the council’s final decisions on funding, priorities and performance measures in the final statement of intent.

6. Each CCO must consider council’s comments before providing council with a final statement of intent by 30 June. Council must then decide whether to agree the statements of intent, or to modify them to better reflect council’s intentions.

7. Council staff will continue to work with CCOs to finalise the statements of intent.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a) approve the proposed shareholder comments on the draft statements of intent 2018 - 2021 for the six substantive council-controlled organisations contained in this report

b) agree that the mayor or chair of the Finance and Performance Committee may finalise the letters to be sent to council’s six substantive council-controlled organisations containing the shareholder comments, and approve amendments and editorial changes to the shareholder comments, provided they are in line with the resolutions of this committee or any other approved council policy

c) note any comments provided by the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board and the Howick Local Board on the draft statements of intent 2018 - 2021 for Mangere Mountain Education Trust and the Contemporary Art Foundation

d) delegate authority to the Manager, CCO Governance and External Partnerships to finalise the shareholder feedback on Mangere Mountain Education Trust, Contemporary Art Foundation and Community Education Trust Auckland.

Horopaki / Context

8. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), each CCO was required to provide a draft statement of intent by 1 March 2018 to its shareholder to:

a. outline its intentions and activities for the forthcoming year

b. provide an opportunity for shareholders to influence the direction of the CCO

c. provide a basis for the accountability of its directors to the shareholders.

9. Auckland Council has adopted a practice of sending a ‘letter of expectation’ to signal the required direction of the statements of intent. This is not a statutory requirement but is considered best practice.

10. Staff have reviewed the draft statements of intent, taking into account statutory requirements, the letters of expectation, the Auckland Plan and other relevant strategies and policies of council. The proposed shareholder comments have been split into general comments that will be applicable to all CCOs, and specific comments for each CCO.

11. If the council chooses to provide shareholder comments, the LGA requires that these comments are sent to the chairs of each CCO by 30 April 2018. Each substantive CCO is required to consider the shareholder comments at a public board meeting, before submitting a final statement of intent to the council on or before 30 June 2018.

The Long-term Plan 2018 - 2028

12. The development of the LTP is running parallel with the preparation of the statements of intent. As noted in the letters of expectation, each of the CCOs will need to work closely with the council before its final decisions on the LTP.

13. Several of the CCOs have included provisional budgets (the proposals that were submitted to the council) or have not included financial information. The council’s final decisions on funding, priorities and performance measures (through the LTP) will need to be reflected in the final statements of intent and staff from the council and the CCOs will work closely together on this.

General comments

The Auckland Plan 2050

14. Each of the CCOs have taken the Auckland Plan 2050 into account to varying degrees. In their final statements of intent, they will need to reflect the final version of the Auckland Plan 2050, including the Development Strategy, relevant performance measures, and any associated guidance.

Māori outcomes

15. Each CCO should include:

· A statement (as Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) have that, as members of Te Toa Takitini, they will work to implement the responses to the findings in the 2017 report commissioned by the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) ‘Assessment of expenditure incurred by Auckland Council to deliver Māori outcomes’.

· A statement about their role in participating and implementing the findings of the current Treaty Audit.

16. The statements of intent should reflect the refined priorities of Te Toa Takitini, the specific project / programme contributions that CCOs agree to make and performance measures. These should be reported on through the CCO quarterly reports.

Climate change

17. In mid-February, the mayor sent a supplementary letter of expectations to each of the substantive CCOs on addressing climate change. Due to the timing of the letter, it has generally not been well-reflected in the draft statements of intent. The shareholder comments provide an opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of this.

Shared services and group-wide solutions

18. Opportunities exist across the group to optimise efficiency and value, remove unnecessary duplication and different approaches to core systems and business processes, to pursue shared back-office delivery where appropriate and to better align our respective ICT investments. The council is looking for an appropriate commitment from each CCO within their statement of intent.

Auckland Transport

19. Auckland Transport’s draft statement of intent demonstrates that it has a good understanding of the strategic issues it is facing, has strong alignment with the Auckland Plan 2050 priorities, and that it has largely responded to the priorities set out in the letter of expectations (especially in light of the uncertainty from the changes to central government policy settings and the refresh of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project).

20. There are some additions or changes that would clarify the focus of the draft statement of intent, drive performance improvement and make it clearer for the general reader. Staff propose that the council provides the following shareholder comments.

· Implementing the priorities in the letter of expectations: Generally, the draft statement of intent reflects the priorities set out in the letter of expectation. However, could be strengthened in some areas:

o providing more detail on how the overlapping interests and activities with New Zealand Transport Agency, including for example how light rail will be progressed (part of the ‘closer integration with central government’ theme)

o in regard to the expectation around allocation of road space to different modes, Auckland Transport should include a commitment to applying the Roads and Streets Framework in all of its projects, including renewals. There should also be more discussion about the ‘place’ value of roads and streets

o including its involvement in the preparation of the Auckland’s Waters strategy to reduce contaminants and stormwater flows

o its commitments to better engagement with elected members, and in particular with regard to place-making and local boards (through the implementation of the Governance Framework Review).

· Māori outcomes: Although Auckland Transport has referred to its Māori Responsiveness Plan in the draft statement of intent, it has not referred to its involvement in Te Toa Takitini. It should also provide tangible examples of transport projects which are expected to improve Māori access to social and economic opportunities.

· Climate change: Auckland Transport should reflect in its statement of intent its involvement in the refresh of Low Carbon Auckland. There is no performance measure or target for carbon emissions. Over the coming year, Auckland Transport should work with the council to develop a benchmark and target for carbon emission reductions to be included in the next statement of intent. In addition, it should describe how it will deliver on the Fossil Fuel Free Streets Declaration, as discussed in the supplementary letter of expectations.

· Work programme and performance measures: The work programme will need to be reviewed and confirmed once the Auckland Transport Alignment Project update has been reported back (late March 2018) to ensure the council and central government priorities are being delivered.

The work programme aligns with the themes of the statement of intent. However, there are a number of performance measures which could be added, more ambitious, or could be split out to improve accountability for performance in different areas. These include arterial road productivity, public transport measures, active transport, sustainable mode share, New Zealand Transport Agency co-funding and safety. Further detail on these is contained in Attachment J. Auckland Transport should work with the council to refine the measures before adopting its final statement of intent.

Watercare Services Limited

21. Watercare’s draft statement of intent has largely addressed the priorities in the letter of expectations. However, it needs to reflect the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan 2050, including which outcomes Watercare contributes towards and how. Other comments on the draft statement of intent are provided below.

· Implementing the priorities in the letter of expectations: The ‘working with council’ section should reflect a more collaborative approach to working with and sharing information with the council as agreed in the ‘value for money’ review. While Watercare is responsible for preparing its own asset management and capital planning, the actions from the value for money review (which were developed jointly and agreed to by the Finance and Performance Committee in February this year) mean that Watercare will need to collaborate with the Healthy Waters department (and Auckland Transport) to achieve the desired improvements.

· Watercare should provide a timeframe for when it has reached an agreement with Veolia Water.

· Performance measures: Watercare has removed several of its previous performance measures in its draft statement of intent. The remaining measures are the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) mandatory non-financial performance measures (together with the previous Auckland Plan measures, which are no longer in the Auckland Plan 2050). It noted in its cover letter that these measures “reflect core service delivery and effective governance oversight”.

Staff consider that while some of the deleted measures are not appropriate or are too operational, the DIA mandatory measures alone are not enough for the council to provide effective oversight of Watercare’s performance , including its debt level relative to revenue, customer satisfaction and complaints resolution. Watercare should work with the council to refine its performance measures for the statement of intent and ensure these support the Long-term Plan and proposed Auckland Plan 20150 performance measures.

Climate change: Although Watercare provided a detailed response to the supplementary letter of expectations (and it reports on its carbon emissions through the Annual Report), there is no reference in the draft statement of intent to climate change. Watercare should include in its statement of intent what work it is doing to contribute to climate resilience and emissions reduction. It should also include the refresh of Low Carbon Auckland in its work programme.

Panuku Development Auckland

22. Panuku Development Auckland’s draft statement of intent is largely consistent with the letter of expectations however, more information could be provided on some of its priorities.

· Giving effect to the council’s priorities: In the draft statement of intent, the contribution that Panuku will make to the Auckland Plan 2050 and the Development Strategy is not as clear as it should be. Panuku should clarify how it gives effect to these outcomes, especially in terms of shared terminology, whether it is a primary or secondary contributor, and how it is contributing to the outcomes and focus areas.

· Implementing the priorities in the letter of expectations: Panuku should provide more detail on how it plans to lead an integrated governance approach to the regeneration of priority areas, including facilitating joint action across the council and other CCOs. For example, it could:

o refer to existing mechanisms for example ‘Alliance Quarterly’ meetings between the Auckland Design Office, Plans and Places and Resource Consents

o include stronger links with local boards

o include stronger links with Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) given their shared mandate to focus more spatially and support economic development.

· Working with the council group: Under the optimisation opportunities, Panuku should consider a more ambitious target than “progressing at least one transport related project with Auckland Transport”.

· Work plan: Panuku’s work plan includes a programme to develop a “best practice process for local board and Governing Body input and decision-making into our transform and unlock locations”. The statement of intent should include a timeframe for this work to be completed.

· Māori outcomes: The statement of intent should better reflect the promotion of Māori identity and Māori design principles.

· The key projects for Māori outcomes are essentially process oriented and ‘means to outcomes’, rather than delivery of ‘on the ground’ projects in specific locations. Panuku should consider whether there are any specific projects it could add into its work programme, including possible work on papakainga and Māori housing, and work with rangatahi development and on kaitiaki programmes (in its placemaking and kaitiaki role).

· In addition, there should be a specific target in relation to the performance measure for Māori engagement.

Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development

23. ATEED’s draft statement of intent has mostly addressed the letter of expectations priorities. In its cover letter, ATEED noted that at the time of writing, the ‘first-principles’ review requested by the mayor was drawing to a close, and while the board was comfortable that its draft statement of intent reflected current thinking it was anticipating further refinements, particularly in relation to ATEED’s work programme and performance measurement.

24. The proposed shareholder feedback takes this into account and has been provided to help the board further refine their statement of intent. The final statement of intent will need to provide greater clarity on what activities have been re-prioritised for the new focus areas arising from the ‘first-principles’ review. ATEED have two new consolidated strategic objectives (previously there were five). This new approach provides a clearer articulation of their purpose and activity, and the work programme identified is at the strategic level.

25. Other comments on the draft statement of intent are provided below.

· Working with the council group: The statement of intent should show evidence of how ATEED will engage with Panuku (including a clearer reference to unlock/transform locations) and the Southern Initiative (TSI) to integrate economic outcomes into their work.

· Work programme: There is an opportunity under the cross-cutting theme ‘enhance spatial focus’ to include working more with Business Improvement Districts. This could also be included under the work programme ‘Support Business Growth’.

· The ‘Drive innovation’ workstream talks about promoting science, technology, engineering, arts and medicine but it is not clear what activity ATEED is proposing to do in this area.

· The ‘support business growth’ workstream (in the preamble) talks about the importance of small business but the work programme activities largely relate to large, multi-national businesses and those that can trade internationally. ATEED should provide more clarity on what it proposes to do for small-medium businesses.

· Māori outcomes: the draft statement of intent includes a greater emphasis on Māori. However, the specific content on Māori outcomes does not appear to reflect a change in the scope or scale of activity relating to Māori economic development. ATEED should include specific detail on additional programmes which would give effect to this.

· Performance measures: ATEED is proposing five new composite measures to assess their performance. With the information provided, staff have not been able to determine the value of these key performance indicators or to determine that the measures will be able to be updated and reported on quarterly. The composite nature of the measures may not provide information on how well ATEED is performing for target sectors, locations and Māori.

Council staff will work with ATEED to further to understand how these measures will be developed. In particular:

o how ‘value’ in the ‘value of investment’ key performance indicator is determined (for example, does it represent additional jobs, revenue or Gross Domestic Product), and how it is calculated

o what is the definition of a new job, and how will the number of new jobs be calculated. Whether a baseline can be created from existing data and past performance in this area, and if so, whether targets could be provided.

o which measures will be incorporated into the long-term plan.

In addition to the five new composite key performance indicators, ATEED are proposing a set of monitoring indicators. It is positive that the indicators align to those in the proposed Auckland Plan 2050. ATEED should consider using the Auckland Plan 2050 measure ‘relative deprivation across Auckland’ as an alternative to ‘a decline in poverty’.

· Climate change: ATEED should reflect in its final statement of intent how it plans to address the council’s climate change priorities and the transition to a low carbon economy.

Regional Facilities Auckland

26. Regional Facilities Auckland’s (RFA) draft statement of intent largely reflects the letter of expectations’ direction to focus on its current activities. However, there are some parts of it which require clarification or additional detail.

· Giving effect to the council’s priorities: The Auckland Plan 2050 will be finalised alongside the LTP and it is possible that there may be some changes to it in the area of arts, culture and events. In the interim, RFA should work with the council to identify ‘second tier’ strategies and policies that it has a role in implementing and reflect these in its statement of intent.

· Letter of expectations: The letter of expectations talked about the limited capital funding for redevelopment of assets, and that RFA should focus on necessary renewals rather than planning for new capital investment. However, the statement of intent refers to ‘strategic investment’ in stadiums (page 11) and ‘strategic capital investment’ (page 12); RFA should ensure that the final statement of intent reflects the decisions in the LTP.

· Working with the council: The statement of intent should have a clearer commitment that RFA will work closely with and seek direction from the council on strategic policy direction and strategic investments.

· Accountability for separate business units: The draft statement of intent does not include any financial information; it states that once the LTP has been approved, the financial information will be updated.

· The statement of intent needs to include planned expenditure, revenue and some performance measures for each of RFA’s business units separately. This is particularly important in light of the proposed additional funding for the Auckland Art Gallery. The council needs to be confident that the funding is going towards the Gallery’s operations. Similarly, the number of visitors for the Gallery, the Auckland Zoo and the New Zealand Maritime Museum should be reported individually, so that the council is able to take the performance of the individual business units into account when deciding on future capital investment.

· Programme of work: the statement of intent refers to an operating model review. There should be more detail about what this will include and the expected timeframe.

· Financial information: RFA needs to work with the council to ensure its targets for non-council revenue are achievable, particularly in light of the planned major capital programmes at the Aotea Centre and the Zoo.

Auckland Council Investments Limited

27. In general, Auckland Council Investments Limited’s (ACIL) statement of intent signals a ‘business as usual’ position. This is appropriate given the proposal in the LTP to disestablish ACIL. However, there are two areas which could benefit from further clarification.

· Giving effect to the council’s priorities: ACIL’s draft statement of intent reflects the outcomes of the previous Auckland Plan. It should identify in its statement of intent how it contributes to the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050.

· Letter of expectations: The draft statement of intent has not addressed the oversight of Ports of Auckland Limited’s capital expenditure programme, which impacts on the council’s group debt. The final statement of intent should address how ACIL plans to address this issue.

Non-substantive CCOs

28. Auckland Council has nine other council-controlled organisations which do not meet the test of being ‘substantive’ CCOs under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The focus of these CCOs is more local in nature than the substantive CCOs, though the Governing Body is still responsible for the governance of these CCOs.

29. Three of these CCOs are required to provide council with a statement of intent (the others are exempt from this requirement): Mangere Mountain Education Trust; Contemporary Art Foundation (Te Tuhi); and Community Education Trust Auckland (COMET Auckland). Their draft statements of intent are attached to this report.

30. Staff have asked the Howick Local Board for their feedback on the Contemporary Art Foundation statement of intent and will consult with the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board on 11 April about the Mangere Mountain Education Trust statement of intent. Their feedback was not available at the time the agenda went to print, and the comments will be tabled at the meeting.

31. With regard to COMET Auckland, staff recommend that in its statement of intent, it should:

· describe how it contributes to the outcomes in the Auckland Plan 2050, including an analysis of how its current work aligns with the strategic directions and specific focus areas.

· provide more evidence of how COMET’s work programme complements or aligns with work in other parts of the council group, including the Southern Initiative and ATEED.

32. Staff recommend that the manager CCO Governance and External Partnerships is delegated the authority to provide these three community-focussed CCOs with shareholder comment on behalf of council, following consultation with the relevant local boards.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

33. In general, the Finance and Performance Committee is responsible for providing shareholder comments on the draft statements of intent, and the practice to date has been not to seek direct feedback from each local board.

34. However, the Local Board Services department has contributed to the proposed comments, including how the CCOs have responded to the letters of expectation requirements in respect of local boards, and their comments have been reflected in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35. The activities of CCOs have potential to impact Māori wellbeing and to influence the achievement of Auckland Plan and LTP outcomes relevant to Māori. The draft statements of intent were separately provided to the Independent Māori Statutory Board and council’s Te Waka Angamua department, and their comments have been reflected in this report.

36. The chief executives of Panuku, Auckland Transport, ATEED and Watercare are part of the Te Toa Takitini executive leadership group and are responsible for delivering on activities within Te Toa Takitini’s work programme.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

37. There are no direct financial implications from providing the shareholder comments. However, the decisions to be made on the LTP in the middle of this year (including the capital and operating budgets for each CCO) will impact on the work programme detailed in the statements of intent and the achievability of the performance measures.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

38. There are no direct risks associated with the proposed shareholder comments. There is a risk that the CCOs may not adequately reflect the shareholder comments; this can be mitigated by working closely with the CCOs. Also, if the shareholder comments are not adequately reflected, the council can modify a statement of intent.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

39. If the committee approves the draft comments, these will be drafted into letters to be sent by the mayor to the chair of each board. These must be sent by 30 April 2018.

40. The final statements of intent must align with the LTP. Each CCO will need to make changes to its final statement of intent when the LTP is approved and council staff will continue to work with CCOs as needed.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Auckland Transport Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Watercare Services Limited Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	ATEED Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Panuku Development Auckland Limited Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Regional Facilities Auckland Limited Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Auckland Council Investments Limited Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Mangere Mountain Education Trust Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Community Arts Foundation - Draft Statement of Intent 2018-2021 (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Community Education Trust Draft Statement of Intent 2018 - 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Detailed Comments on Proposed Auckland Transport Measures (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sarah Holdem – Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Finance and Performance Committee

17 April 2018

FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME TO 30 JUNE 2018

The purpose of the Committee is to control and review expenditure across the Group to improve value for money; to monitor the overall financial management and performance of Auckland Council parent and Auckland Council Group; to make financial decisions required outside the annual budgeting processes and to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary.

Priorities for 2017/18 will be on initiatives which:

1. Strategic Reviews: Long-term Plan 2018-2028 Development

2. Monitoring

3. Acquisitions and disposals

4. Other financial decisions

The work of the committee will:

1. approve the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 including financial policy, the consultation document and supporting information for recommendation to the Governing Body

2. monitor achievement of financial and other measures of performance and services levels and recommend the Annual Report to the Governing Body

3. approve acquisition and disposal of property related to the Committee’s responsibilities.

4. review and approve financial policy and non-budgeted expenditure.

Lead	Area of work	Reason for work	Finance and Performance Committee role - decision or direction	F&P Delegations		Expected timeframes Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known
						FY17/18
						Jul-Sep 26 Jul 15 Aug 19 Sept	Oct-Dec 24 Oct 21 Nov 12 Dec	Jan-Mar 27 Feb 20 Mar		Apr-Jun 17 Apr 15 May 19 Jun
Strategic Reviews: Long-term Plan 2018-2028 Development
Chief Financial Office	Rating and funding policy	· General Rates · Interim transport levy (Remain as a funding source or alternative option implemented) · New targeted rates (water quality and natural environment) · Regional Fuel Tax · Business rates differentials · Local targeted rate (for specific local activities) · Local Board targeted rates (for specific local projects) · Revenue and financing policy · Rates remission and postponement policy · Panuku disposals and reinvestment in unlock locations	Recommend changes for Mayoral Proposal Decide on Mayoral Proposal for inclusion in consultation document Consider submissions Decide on final LTP Progress to date *Long-Term Plan:* 21/11/17 – 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan Refresh – How Aucklanders will provide feedback during the public consultation FIN/207/164 and FIN/2017/165 30/11/17 – Receipt of Mayoral Proposal for the 10-year budget 2018-2018 FIN/2017/181 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2028 – Process Overview FIN/2017/184 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2018 – Mayoral Proposal items for consultation Resolutions FIN/2017/186, FIN/2017/187, FIN/2017/188, FIN/2017/189, FIN/2017/190, FIN/2017/191, FIN/2017/192 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2028 – Other matters for consideration FIN/2017/195, FIN/2017/196, FIN/2017/197 Adopted by Governing Body: 12/12/17 FIN/2017/159 Various workshops and Have Your Say Events held during March 2018 *Panuku Developments Auckland:* 23/5/17 – Unlock Henderson FIN/2017/60 23/5/17 – Transform Onehunga FIN/2017/61 20/6/17 - Panuku Development Auckland Limited debt to equity conversion FIN/2017/89 19/9/17 – Funding of Panuku work in the Unlock locations resolutions - FIN/2017/119 and FIN/2017/120 11/12/17 – Unlock Avondale FIN/2017/168 1/3/17 – Workshop on Progressing Urban development 20/3/17 – Progressing Urban Development FIN/2018/40 *Reporting dates for policies:* 11/12/17 – Approval of Treasury Management Policy FIN/2017/161 7/2/17 – Workshop on Development Contributions and Rates Remission Postponement Policy. 27/2/17 – Council’s debt funding strategy FIN/2018/10 For information on the previous annual plan process, please refer to the table at the end of this document.	Delegations include development of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 including financial policy. Preparation of the consultation document and supporting information for recommendation to the Governing Body	Q1		Q2 Oct		Q3		Q4
Chief Financial Office	Expenditure Review	· Key focus areas for net cost reduction · Identifying programmes for Maori outcomes · Local board ‘one local initiative’ · Governance funding review · Capex review	Recommend changes for Mayoral Proposal Decide on Mayoral Proposal for inclusion in consultation document Progress to date Reporting dates:		Q1		Q2 Oct Nov		Q3		Q4
Chief Financial Office	Long-term Plan process	Statutory process · Consultation process – including hearings for community to be heard and local board engagement meetings (Have Your Say events). Approach to communication of investments in LB areas to be considered · Elected members consideration of feedback · Decision-making for Long-term Plan · Long-term Plan adoption	Agree consultation items Adopt consultation documents and supporting material and recommend to Governing Body Adopt local board agreements Adopt Long-term Plan and set rates and recommend to Governing Body Progress to date Reporting dates: 21/11/17 – 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan Refresh – How Aucklanders will provide feedback during the public consultation FIN/207/164 and FIN/2017/165 30/11/17 – Receipt of Mayoral Proposal for the 10-year budget 2018-2018 FIN/2017/181 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2028 – Process Overview FIN/2017/184 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2018 – Mayoral Proposal items for consultation Resolutions FIN/2017/186, FIN/2017/187, FIN/2017/188, FIN/2017/189, FIN/2017/190, FIN/2017/191, FIN/2017/192 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2028 – Other matters for consideration FIN/2017/195, FIN/2017/196, FIN/2017/197 Adopted by Governing Body: 12/12/17 FIN/2017/159		Q1		Q2		Q3		Q4
Chief Financial Office	Long-term Plan process				See end table for programme
Chief Financial Office	Growth Infrastructure Targeted Rates, Development Contributions, Local Targeted Rate for local activities, Local Board Targeted Rate for specific projects	· Growth Instructure Targeted Rates – if required to be implemented to a specific growth area · Development Contributions – amendment to the Contributions policy · Local targeted rate for local activities – this may be considered dependant on the Governance Review project decisions · Local Board targeted rate for specific projects – if the Local Board would like to consult on implementing a local targeted rate for specific project in their area	Update Recommend changes for Mayoral Proposal Decide on Mayoral Proposal for inclusion in consultation document Consider submissions Decide on final LTP Progress to date Reporting dates: Workshop held 7/2/18 regarding the development contribution policy *Targeted rates:* 27/2/17 – Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate Remission FIN/2018/22 27/2/18 – Rates remission and postponement policy review FIN/2018/23	Delegations include development of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 including financial policy. Preparation of the consultation document and supporting information for recommendation to the Governing Body	Q1		Q2 Oct Nov		Q3		Q4

Proposed 2018 Long-term Plan Schedule
Aug – Nov 2017	Process for early discussions on direction, priorities and prioritisation (within this time period) is currently being prepared and will require Mayoral advice and approval. Discussions include: Infrastructure funding; Infrastructure investment; Service delivery and cost review; Local Boards projects, funding and advocacy; Other budget and non-financial policy issues; Revaluations and rating policy 21/11/17 – 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan Refresh – How Aucklanders will provide feedback during the public consultation FIN/207/164 and FIN/2017/165 30/11/17 – Receipt of Mayoral Proposal for the 10-year budget 2018-2018 FIN/2017/181
Sep - Dec 2017	Audit of consultation material
11 Dec 2017	Mayoral Proposal /Consultation items, including local content agreed 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2028 – Process Overview FIN/2017/184 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2018 – Mayoral Proposal items for consultation Resolutions FIN/2017/186, FIN/2017/187, FIN/2017/188, FIN/2017/189, FIN/2017/190, FIN/2017/191, FIN/2017/192 11/12/17 – 10-year budget 2018-2028 – Other matters for consideration FIN/2017/195, FIN/2017/196, FIN/2017/197 12/12/17 - Adopted by Governing Body FIN/2017/159
21 March 2018	21/3/18 - Consultation Document and Supporting Information, adopted, including local content 21/3/18
28 Feb – 28 Mar 2018	Public Consultation
Apr – May 2018	Processing of consultation feedback and briefing of elected members
May 2018	Budget discussions and decision-making (both locally and regionally)
May - June 2018	Audit of Long-term Plan
27 June 2018	Adoption of Long-term Plan, including Local Board Agreements

Lead		Area of work	Reason for work		Finance and Performance Committee role - decision or direction	F&P Delegations		Expected timeframes Highlight financial year quarter and state month if known
								FY17/18
								Jul-Sep 26 Jul 15 Aug 19 Sept		Oct-Dec 24 Oct 21 Nov 12 Dec			Jan-Mar 27 Feb 20 Mar				Apr-Jun 17 Apr 15 May 19 Jun
Monitoring
Corporate Finance and Property	Quarterly business improvements and performance report			To monitor council parent financial and non-financial performance results	Receive generally no decisions Progress to date Reporting dates: 13/12/16 - Auckland Council organisation report for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 September 2016 FIN/2016/160 21/2/17 - Auckland Council organisation performance report for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 FIN/2017/9 26/5/17 - Auckland Council organisation performance report for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 March 2017 FIN/2017/68 21/09/17 - Organisation Performance 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017 FIN/2017/133 24/11/17 - 1 July 2017 – 30 September 2017 FIN/2017/177 12/03/18 - 1 July 2017 – 31 December 2017 FIN/2018/34		The committee is responsible for monitoring achievement of financial and other measures of performance and service levels		Q1 21 Sep		Q2 24 Nov			Q3 12 Mar				Q4 6 Jun
Corporate Finance and Property	Auckland Council group quarterly financial results			To monitor Auckland Council group financial performance	Receive generally no decisions Progress to date Reporting dates: 13/12/16 - Auckland Council Group first quarter financial results to 30 September 2016 FIN/2016/161 21/3/17 - Auckland Council Group quarterly financial report and financial results to 31 December 2016 FIN/2017/28 26/5/17 - Auckland Council Group quarterly financial report and financial results to 31 March 2017 FIN/2017/70 21/09/17 – Report for adoption of the 2016/2017 Annual Report FIN/2017/132 24/11/17 - Quarterly financial report and financial results to 30 September 2017 FIN/2017/176 12/03/2018 - Six monthly financial results to 31 December 2017 FIN/2018/32				Q1 21 Sep		Q2 24 Nov			Q3 12 Mar				Q4 6 Jun
Financial Strategy and Planning	CCO financial monitoring (separate from governance or strategic planning issues)			To monitor CCO financial and non-financial performance results	Receive validate/challenge Progress to date Reporting dates: 13/12/16 - Council-controlled organisations first quarter report for 30 September 2016 FIN/2016/158 11/4/17 – CCOs second quarter report for 31 December 2017 26/5/17 – Council-controlled organisations third quarter report for 31 March 2017 FIN/2017/69 21/09/17 - Fourth quarter report for 30 June 2017 (public excluded) FIN/2017/130 24/11/17 - First quarter report for 30 September 2017 FIN/2017/178 12/03/18 – Second quarter report ending 31 December 2017 FIN/2018/18				Q1 21 Sep		Q2 24 Nov			Q3 12 Mar				Q4 6 Jun
Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta	Māori Transformational Activity and Expenditure Report			To monitor progress on expenditure and delivery of Maori transformational activity (includes Te Toa Takitini)	Receive generally no decisions Progress to date 23/5/17 - 23/5/17 – Third Quarter of 2016/17 FIN/2017/63 13/12/17 - Te Toa Takitini - Quarter One Māori Responsiveness portfolio report FIN/2016/159 15/08/17 – 2016/2017 Year-End Report FIN/2017/112 12/12/17 – Quarter One Report for 2017/2018 financial year FIN/2017/202 20/03/18 – Quarter Two Report for 2017/2018 financial year FIN/20178/14				Q1 Aug		Q2 Nov			Q3 Feb				Q4 May
Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta	Māori Transformational Activity and Expenditure Report			To monitor progress on expenditure and delivery on projects to deliver Māori outcomes	Receive generally no decisions Progress to date 12/12/17 Report FIN/2017/291 12/3/18 Response Report FIN/2018/45				Q1 Aug		Q2 Nov			Q3 Feb				Q4 May
Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta	Te Tiriti O Waitangi Audit Response Work Programme			To monitor progress in responding to 3 yearly Te Tiriti O Waitangi audit	Receive generally no decisions Progress to date Reporting dates:				Q1		Q2			Q3				Q4
Corporate Finance and Property	Annual Report			Statutory requirement	Recommend to Governing Body Progress to date Reporting dates: 13/12/16 - Approval of the Audit New Zealand audit engagement and review engagement letters FIN/2016/165 13/12/16 – Final Management Report on the audit of Auckland Council for the year ended 30 June 2016 FIN/2016/167 21/9/17 - Auckland Council Organisation Performance 1 July 2016 – 30 June 2017 FIN/2017/133 21/09/17 - Approval and Recommendation for adoption of the 2016/2017 Annual Report and Summary Annual Report for Auckland Council and group FIN/2017/132 28/9/17 – Adopted by Governing Body: GB/2017/112 Note: there is a delegation from the Committee to Chair and Deputy Chair to recommend to the Mayor and CE to release the preliminary results to the NZ Stock Exchange so that Council can meet NZX reporting deadlines.		The committee delegations include recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body		Q1 Sep		Q2			Q3 Mar				Q4
Corporate Finance and Property	Half Year Report			NZ Stock Exchange requirement (for listed companies)	Decision to release the half year report to the NZ Stock Exchange Progress to date Reporting dates: Note: there is a delegation from the Committee to Chair and Deputy Chair to recommend to the Mayor and CE to release the announcement and interim report to the NZ Stock Exchange so that Council can meet NZX reporting deadlines. 13/12/16 - Approval of the 31 December 2016 half year pro forma financial statements and accounting policies FIN/2016/166				Q1 Sep		Q2			Q3 Mar				Q4
Acquisitions and disposals
Panuku	Recommended disposals or acquisitions. These reports are as required, but generally monthly.			Panuku Development Auckland is tasked with identifying council owned land that is surplus to requirements. These disposals may also include Service Property Optimisation.	Decision to proceed with recommended disposals or acquisitions. Progress to date Note: A full list of properties to be disposed or acquired is included at the end of this document.		Delegations include “Acquisition and disposal of property related to the Committee’s responsibilities. Note – this includes parks acquisitions in excess of delegations of Environment and Community Committee		Q1		Q2				Q3			Q4
Other Financial Decisions
CCO/External Partnerships	Auckland Regional Amenities Levy			Statutory process	Decision to approve submission on draft Funding Plan Decision to approve levies Progress to date Reporting dates: 21/2/17 – Presentations from amenities - New Zealand Opera, Auckland Theatre Company, Coastguard Northern Region, Watersafe Auckland and Surf Life Saving Northern Region FIN/2017/4 21/2/17 - Auckland Regional Amenities draft funding plan 2017-2018, proposed Auckland Council submission FIN/2017/5 21/3/17 – Presentations from amenities – Stardome Observatory and Planetarium; New Zealand Maritime Museum; Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust; and Auckland Arts Festival FIN/2017/18 21/3/17 - Approval of Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act levy 2017/2018 FIN/2071/19 27/2/18 - Presentations from amenities – Auckland Festival Trust; Surf Life Saving Northern Region; Auckland Theatre Company; and Stardome Observatory and Coastguard Northern Region FIN/2018/5 27/2/18 - Auckland Regional Amenities Draft Funding Plan 2018/2019 - proposed Auckland Council submission FIN/2018/6 20/3/18 - Integration of NZ Maritime Museum to Regional Facilities Auckland FIN/2018/37 20/3/18 - Presentations from amenities – NZ Opera: Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; Auckland Rescue Helicopter; and Drowning Prevention Auckland/Watersafe Auckland Inc FIN/2018/38		The committee is responsible for 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	Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
CCO/External Partnerships	MOTAT and Auckland War Memorial Museum Levy			Statutory process	Decision to approve levies Progress to date Reporting dates: 21/3/17 – AWMM – approval of 2017/2018 levy FIN/2017/20 21/3/17 – MOTAT – approval of 2017/2018 levy FIN/2017/21 23/5/17 – AWMM letter – approval of 2017/2018 levy			Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
Parks, Sports and Recreation	Loan write-offs and restructuring (as required)			Responding to proposals and recommendations	Decision to approve proposed write-offs and restructuring Progress to date Reporting dates:			Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
Parks, Sports and Recreation	Review of existing community loans and guarantees, consideration of new applications and development of a policy framework			Existing arrangements have been entered into without clear policy direction	Decision on whether Council should continue, change or exit from existing arrangements Progress to date Reporting dates:			Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
Chief Financial Office	Budget Update (as required). This includes significant unbudgeted one-off expenditure.			Financial management	Decision to agree recommended budget changes outside of AP/LTP budgeting cycle. Progress to date Reporting dates: Note: A full list of properties recommended for disposal is included at the end of this document.			Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
Chief Financial Office	Development contributions policy review			Work request by committee	Decision on whether to amend current DC policy Progress to date Reporting dates: 7/2/18 – workshop held		The committee is responsible for approving the financial policy	Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
Procurement/ Treasury & Financial Transactions	Consideration and adoption of Group policies for Treasury, Insurance and Procurement (includes formal Treasury Management Policy)			Mayoral Office request	Decision on whether to amend current policy Progress to date Reporting dates: 13/12/2016 - Delegation for approval of releasing interim and full year group results to New Zealand Stock Exchange FIN/2016/168 11/4/17 - Responsible investment policy and Diversified Financial Asset Portfolio review Resolutions - FIN/2017/44, FIN/2017/45 and FIN/2017/46 20/06/17 - Review of the Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio FIN/2017/88 19/9/17 – Approval of Group Policies FIN/2017/121 11/12/17 – Approval of Treasury Management Policy FIN/2017/161 27/2/17 – Council’s debt funding strategy FIN/2018/10			Q1 Sep		Q2 Oct		Q3				Q4
Chief Financial Officer	Consideration and adoption of Group policy relating to Business Cases			Mayoral Office request	Decision on whether to adopt a new policy Progress to date Reporting dates: 19/9/17 – Approval of Group Policies FIN/2017/121			Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4
Treasury & Financial Transactions / Legal and Risk	Decision on placement of insurance programme			Financial Management	Decision on whether to adopt a new policy Progress to date Reporting dates: 19/9/17 – Approval of Group Policies FIN/2017/121			Q1 Sep		Q2		Q3				Q4 June
Engineering & Technical Services / Treasury & Financial Transactions / Procurement	Consideration and adoption of Group policies for Performance Bonds			Mayoral Office request	Decide whether to amend current policy Progress to date Reporting dates: 12/3/18 – Green Bond Framework Establishment and Potential Green Bond Issuance FIN/2018/31		The committee is responsible for approving the financial policy of the Council parent organisation	Q1		Q2		Q3 Feb				Q4
CCO/External Partnerships	Statements of Intent			Shareholder feedback on draft SOIs	Decide on shareholder comment on SOIs Progress to date Reporting dates: 15/8/17 – Approval of 2017/2020 Statements of Intent FIN/2017/111 19/9/17 – Approval of Watercare Services Limited Statement of Intent 2017-20 FIN/2017/122 12/12/17 - Letters of Expectation for Council-controlled Organisations, 2017-2018 FIN/2016/170 20/3/18 – Letters of Expectation for 2018-2021		Exercising relevant powers under Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002, which relate to the Statements of Intent of CCOs	Q1		Q2		Q3				Q4

Lead	Area of work		Reason for work	Finance and Performance Committee role - decision or direction


Completed
Treasury & Financial Transactions	Review of non-rateable land	Programme required to ensure Council’s policies are being implemented consistently		Decision on whether or not land should be rated Reporting dates: 13/12/16 - Third Quarterly Report on Non-Rateable Property Rating Treatment FIN/2016/162 13/12/16 - Auckland Council's submission on the Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill FIN/2016/163 21/3/17 – Memo - Fourth Quarterly Report 20//6/17 – Memo – Fifth Quarterly Report 19/9/17 – Memo – Sixth Quarterly Report 30/11/17 – Memo 20/3/18 - Memo

Previous annual plan process

13/12/16

Annual Budget 2017/18 – Mayoral Proposal on items for Public Consultation FIN/2016/173

1/6/17

Annual Budget 2017/2018 - Overview to decision-making FIN/2017/73

Annual Budget 2017/2018 - Local Board budget update FIN/2017/74

Annual Budget 2017/2018 – Local Board Feedback FIN/2017/75

Final Annual Budget 2017/2018 – Mayoral Proposal resolutions - FIN/2017/76, FIN/2017/81, FIN/2017/83, and FIN/2017/85

27 June 2018

Adoption of Long-term Plan, including Local Board Agreements

Panuku disposals/service property optimisation/land exchanges and acquisitions resolutions:

Date	Property address(es)	Resolution	Date	Property address(es)	Resolution
13/12/16	Report Units 1-28/150 Mt Wellington Highway, Mt Wellington; and 1/16 Sarona Avenue, Glen Eden	FIN/2016/157	15/8/17	Report 187 Flat Bush School Road, Flat Bush;	FIN/2017/108
21/2/17	Report 523a Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington; and 525-529 Ellerslie-Panmure Highway, Mt Wellington	FIN/2017/3		Report Unlock Old Papatoetoe - 17 St George Street, Papatoetoe; part 27 St George Street, Papatoetoe; 104 St George Street, Papatoetoe; and 109 St George Street, Papatoetoe	FIN/2017/109
21/2/17	Report Land up to 9ha to NZTA for the Northern Corridor Improvements Project	FIN/2017/7		Report 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville	FIN/2017/110
21/2/17	Report Statutory land exchange process – Rosedale Park	FIN/2017/8	24/10/17	Report 19 Anzac Avenue, Browns Bay; 10 Felton Matthew Avenue, St Johns; and part Bombay Road, Bombay	Resolutions FIN/2017/144, FIN/2017/145
21/3/17	Report Part of 770R Great South Road, Manukau	FIN/2017/25	21/11/17	Report Unlock Avondale Unlock Avondale – 93-99 Rosebank Road, Avondale	FIN/2017/168
11/4/17	Report 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay (deferred); 6 Butler Avenue, Papatoetoe; part of 129R Bairds Road, Otara; 315A Glengarry Road, Glen Eden; Section 1 East Coast Road, Redvale; 78a Great South Road, Papakura; Section 1 493 State Highway 16, Kumeu; Allotment 137 Ahuroa Parish, Woodcocks Road, Woodcocks; Allotment 138 Ahuroa Parish, Woodcocks Road, Woodcocks; Allotment 139 Ahuroa Parish, Woodcocks Road, Woodcocks; Allotment 140 Ahuroa Parish, Woodcocks Road, Woodcocks; Allotment 141 Ahuroa Parish, Woodcocks Road, Woodcocks; and Allotment 147 Ahuroa Parish, Woodcocks Road, Woodcocks	Resolutions - FIN/2017/49, FIN/2017/50	12/12/17	Report 80 Vincent Street, Howick (motion lost); 41 Cheshire Street, Parnell; 108 Hepburn Street, Freemans Bay; 9 Matama Street, Glen Eden; and 58/7 Rowlands Road, Mt Wellington	FIN/2017/204
23/5/17	Report 3 Memorial Drive, New Lynn	FIN/2017/57	12/12/17	Report Land exchange at Hillary Crescent, Belmont and Northboro Reserve – Recommendation from the Environment and Community Committee	FIN/2017/207
26/7/17	Report 55a Alnwick Street, Warkworth; 45 Oraha Road, Huapai; 32 Harbourview Road, Te Atatu’ 145a West Tamaki Road, Glen Innes; 343 Swanson Road, Ranui; 24 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington; 26 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington; 27b Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington; 1/77 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington; 93 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington; 134a Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington; and 3/136b Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington	FIN/2017/97	27/2/18	Report 61-117 Clark Road, Hobsonville; and Report 37 New Windsor Road, Avondale (SPO)	FIN/2018/8 FIN/2018/11
			20/3/18	Report 3.8ha of reserve land in Upper Harbour Local Board for New Zealand Transport Agency Northern Corridor Improvements	FIN/2018/18

Budget Update:

Date	Property address(es)	Resolution
13/12/16	Report Additional OPEX budget of up to $104,000 to conduct a by-election for a Howick Local Board Member; and release of $2.7m from existing budget for Putney Way streetscape upgrade, ahead of the Transform Manukau business case	FIN/2016/164
21/3/17	Report Additional CAPEX budget of $960,000 to complete Freyberg Place upgrade; new OPEX budget of $80,000 for Karangahape Road destination marketing; contribution of $300 to the city feature lighting project (led by Heart of the City) – both funded from the City Centre Targeted Rate reserve.	FIN/2017/29
20/6/17	Report Conversion of $3.1m CAPEX budget for multi-purpose community facility in Takanini	FIN/2017/90
26/7/17	Report Purchase of additional trains (rescinded 24/10/17 FIN/2017/189)	FIN/2017/98
19/9/2017	Report Release and allocate Takapuna off-street car park reserve fund $4,269611 to the Gasometer public car park project; release $6.1m form existing Transform Manukau $2.6 CAPEX and $2m OPEX and Transform Onehunga $1.5 OPEX.	FIN/2017/123
24/10/17	Report Approve procurement of 15 3-car electric multiple units of $133m; release of Franklin Parking Reserve Fund ($128,214) for upgrade of carpark at Kitchener Road, Waiuku; OPEX of $828,000 for two by-elections; OPEX budget of $115,400 for by-election for Waitemata Local Board.	FIN/2017/141
12/12/17	Report Update on the purchase of additional trains for Metro Rail	FIN/2017/205
27/2/18	Report Up to $3.2m CAPEX for fit-out for ATEED office and up to $0.8m OPEX for make good of current head office; $3.85m CAPEX for Rawene remedial works; updated city centre targeted rate-funded work programme; and property acquisitions at 155-a167 Fanshawe Street and 100 Halsey Street, Auckland	Resolutions - FIN/2018/17, FIN/2018/18

Chairperson	Cr Ross Clow
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Desley Simpson, JP
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Penny Hulse
	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 Chair David Taipari
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Richard Hills	Cr John Watson
	IMSB Member Terrence Hohneck

Author	Sandra Gordon - Senior Governance Advisor
Authorisers	Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer