Agenda of Franklin Local Board

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

Local board decisions and input into the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, draft Auckland Plan 2050 and draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

File No.: CP2018/06157

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve local financial matters for the local board agreement 2018/2019, which need to be considered by the Governing Body in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 (the 10-year Budget) process.

2. To seek feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget, the draft Auckland Plan 2050 and the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget contains 21 local board agreements which are the responsibility of local boards. These agreements set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures. This report seeks decisions on local financial matters for the local board agreement, including:

a) advocacy on local priority projects

b) any new/amended Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates

c) any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

d) proposed Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

e) release of local board specific reserve funds

f) LDI opex projects for deferral to 2017/2018.

4. Auckland Council consulted with the public from 28 February – 28 March 2018 to seek community views on four plans. This report seeks local board views on three of these plans:

· Regional 10-year Budget issues: including the key issues of transport, natural environment, rates and charges and other budget information

· Draft Auckland Plan 2050: including six proposed outcome areas and the development strategy

· Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018: including on the key proposals.

5. Decisions on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be made later in the year. Local boards will have the opportunity to provide input into this plan before then.

6. Local board views on these regional plans will be considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final decisions on the plans.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report;

b) receive the submissions on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the draft Auckland Plan 2050 as tabled at the meeting.

c) approve its advocacy initiatives, including its key advocacy project, for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement.

d) recommend any new or amended Business Improvement District targeted rates to the Governing Body.

e) recommend any new or amended local targeted rate proposals to the Governing Body.

f) recommend that the Governing Body approves any proposed Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects, which are outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility.

g) recommend the release of local board specific reserve funds to the Governing Body.

h) recommend $0 of 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) operating expenditure to be deferred to 2018/2019 to the Governing Body.

i) provide feedback on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

j) provide feedback on the draft Auckland Plan 2050.

k) provide feedback on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

Horopaki / Context

7. Local board agreements form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures. This report details local board decisions and recommendations that need to be made in early May to allow them to be considered by the Governing Body in the 10-year Budget process.

8. Each year local boards also advocate to the governing body for funding for projects that cannot be accommodated within their local budgets. These advocacy initiatives are attached to the local board agreement.

9. Local boards are responsible for providing local input into regional strategies, policies and plans. Local Board Plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide both the development of local board agreements and input into regional plans.

10. Auckland Council publicly consulted on four plans from 28 February – 28 March 2018:

· 10-year Budget (which includes both regional issues and local board key priorities)

· Draft Auckland Plan 2050

· Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

· Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

11. Across the region, 5,374 people attended 100 engagement events, including 440 in the local board area. Feedback was received through written, event and social media channels.

12. Consultation feedback on the Franklin Local Board priorities for 2018/19 and on regional proposals in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and Auckland Plan 2050 from people or organisations based in the Franklin local board area are set out in Attachment A. The feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board before they agree their local board agreement in early June. Redacted submissions will be made available through the Auckland Council website in May; until then redacted submissions are available on request by emailing akhaveyoursay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local financial matters for the local board agreement

13. This report allows the local board to agree its advocacy and recommend other local financial matters to the Governing Body in early May. This is to allow time for the Governing Body to consider these items in the 10-year Budget process (decisions made in June).

Local board advocacy

14. This triennium a three year approach is being taken to progress initiatives that are unable to be funded by local board budgets. The approach aims to better utilise the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and local board plan processes to progress and advise on a narrower range of local board initiatives, in a more comprehensive way.

15. As part of the Annual Budget 2017/2018 process, local boards began narrowing their priorities to one key advocacy project. Council departments provided local boards with information to help inform their position on these initiatives. Local boards then consulted their communities on their key advocacy project in the local board plan and/or the local board agreement process. Local boards will discuss their key advocacy project with the Finance and Performance Committee through the 10-year Budget process, supported by organisational advice.

16. Local boards are requested to approve their advocacy initiatives, including their key advocacy project, for consideration by the Governing body and inclusion (as an appendix) to the 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement.

Local targeted rate and Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rate proposals

17. Local boards are required to endorse any new locally targeted rate proposals or BID targeted rate proposals in their local board area (noting that any new local targeted rates and/or BIDs must have been consulted on before they can be implemented).

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

18. Local boards are allocated funding annually to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. This funding is for ‘Locally Driven Initiatives’ or LDI. Local boards can approve LDI capital projects up to $1 million, projects over that amount need approval from the Governing Body.

19. Local boards can recommend to the Governing Body to convert LDI operational funding to capital expenditure for 2018/2019 if there is a specific need to do so. Or Governing Body approval may be needed for the release of local board specific reserve funds, which are funds being held by the council for a specific purpose.

20. Local boards can defer LDI projects where there was an agreed scope and cost but the project/s have not been delivered. The local board may wish to resolve 2017/2018 projects that meet the criteria for deferral to 2018/2019. Key information on the LDI funded projects that meet the criteria for deferral is provided in Attachment C.

Local board input on regional plans

21. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on three plans, the 10-year Budget, draft Auckland Plan 2050 and the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Regional issues in the 10-year Budget

22. The 10-year Budget sets out Auckland Council priorities and how we're going to pay for them. The regional consultation on the proposed 10-year Budget focused on four key issues:

· Issue 1: Transport

· Issue 2: Natural Environment

· Issue 3: Rates and charges

· Issue 4: Other changes and budget information.

23. The 10-year Budget also included key priorities for each local board area. Decisions on local board priorities will be made when local board agreements are considered in June.

24. The feedback form contained at least one question relating to each issue. Consultation feedback received from the Franklin Local Board area on key regional issues in the 10-year Budget are summarised in Attachment A, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

25. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on these regional issues for consideration by the Governing Body.

Draft Auckland Plan 2050

26. The draft Auckland Plan 2050 sets Auckland Council’s long-term direction and considers how we will address our key challenges of high population growth, shared prosperity, and environmental degradation. It covers:

· Outcome area 1: Belonging and participation

· Outcome area 2: Māori identity and wellbeing

· Outcome area 3: Homes and places

· Outcome area 4: Transport and access

· Outcome area 5: Environment and cultural heritage

· Outcome area 6: Opportunity and prosperity

· Development strategy – How Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years.

27. The feedback form contained a question relating to each outcome area as well as a question on the development strategy. Consultation feedback received from the Franklin Local Board area on the outcome areas in the draft Auckland Plan 2050 are summarised in Attachment A.

28. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on these outcome areas for consideration by the Planning Committee on 5 June 2018.

Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018

29. The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 has been reviewed. The new plan proposes to continue working towards Auckland Council’s vision of Zero Waste to landfill by 2040. Auckland Council will continue to deliver a range of services to households, and to work with mana whenua, communities, and industry to achieve waste reductions.

30. The new draft plan proposes to:

· Work with the commercial sector to find ways to reduce and divert waste from landfill

· Prioritise the three largest waste streams - construction and demolition, plastic and organic waste

· Continue to establish community recycling centres

· Ask central government to introduce container deposit schemes for plastic/glass bottles and cans and product stewardship schemes for hard to dispose products like tyres and e-waste

· Address the needs of the Hauraki Gulf islands through the Tikapa Moana Hauraki Gulf Islands Draft Waste Plan.

31. This report asks for local board input to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

32. Consultation feedback received from the Franklin Local Board area on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is summarised in Attachment B.

33. Local boards may wish to provide feedback on this plan for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee.

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

34. Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland’s Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) was last reviewed in 2007. Significant changes have occurred since the strategy was last reviewed, both in terms of the pests themselves and changes to the Biosecurity Act. Auckland Council is now reviewing the existing RPMS and producing a new plan to align with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015. The new plan will provide a statutory and strategic framework for the effective management of pests in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland.

35. Decisions on this plan are expected later in the year and local board input will be sought prior to decision-making.

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

36. Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. Local boards have a statutory role in providing local board feedback on regional plans.

37. Local boards play an important role in the development of the 10-year Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance committee workshop on key topics and special briefings have been arranged.

38. Local boards have also been involved in, and made a significant contribution to, the refresh of the Auckland Plan during 2017. This involvement included representation at Planning Committee workshops, local board cluster workshops and individual board business meetings and workshops. Local boards passed resolutions in August and October 2017 which helped to inform the draft plan.

39. Local boards provided input into the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan through formal resolutions to business meetings in November 2017. This feedback has been incorporated into the draft plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

40. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori.

41. The Auckland Plan and its contribution to Māori well-being is of interest to Māori. Six hui with mana whenua were held during 2017, focusing on the key challenges and opportunities facing Auckland, and how the plan can best address these. Engagement with mataawaka was carried out through working with Māori organisations. These organisations used their networks to provide feedback to inform the draft plan. The Independent Māori Statutory Board provided formal feedback on early drafts of the plan including the proposed measures.

42. Local board plans, which were developed in 2017 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities.There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community.

43. Attachment A includes analysis of submissions made by mana whenua and mataawaka entities who have interests in the rohe/local board area.

44. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

45. This report is asking for local board decisions on financial matters in local board agreements that need to then be considered by the Governing Body.

46. Local boards are also providing input to regional plans. There is information in the consultation material for each plan with the financial implications of different options.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

47. Local boards need to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the 10-year Budget by 10 May, in order for the Governing Body to be able to make decisions on them when considering the 10-year Budget in June.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

48. Local boards will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes in June.

49. Recommendations and feedback from local boards will be provided to the relevant governing body committees for consideration during decision making as outlined in the table below.

Decision dates for regional plans

Plan	Decision-maker	Scheduled meeting
10-year Budget	Governing Body	27 June 2018
Auckland Plan 2050	Planning Committee	5 June 2018
Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018	Environment and Community Committee	12 June 2018

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	10-year Budget 2018-2028 and draft Auckland Plan 2050 consultation feedback report	15
b ⇩	Draft Waste Management and Minimisation 2018 consultation feedback report	53
c ⇩	Key information on the LDI funded projects that meet the criteria for deferral	59

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Rachel Wilson - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

File No.: CP2018/06220

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide analysis of public feedback on the review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and to seek the views of the local board on the proposed policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Replacement of legacy schemes for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations with grants

2. The Rates Remission and Postponement Policy proposal provides for:

· transfer of current budget for legacy remission schemes to the operating group with relevant expertise (e.g. remissions budget for Natural Heritage will transfer to Environmental Services while those for local community facilities will transfer to the relevant local board as asset based service funding)

· current recipient receives same support (exc GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· development of an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region.

3. 112 submitters opposed the proposal and 28 supported it. 91 submitters, including the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust (QEII) and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, wanted remissions retained for land with a QEII covenant. 27 responses cited the uncertainty of on-going support. 24 thought grants would require more administration. 9 respondents stated they would be worse off as they were not GST registered.

4. Currently there is significant regional variation in the level of support available and how it is provided (for example, remissions, grants, subsidised rentals.) . Depending on location, some properties are receiving multiple forms of council funding. This leads to inequity and a lack of transparency in the use of council funding.

5. This proposal aligns this legacy funding with council’s broader funding for these activities. The proposal is a transitional step that enables the relevant council groups to integrate this legacy funding into regionally consistent support schemes.

6. Officers recommend that the proposal be adopted with the following amendments:

· budget increased by $10,000 to cover the cost of GST for recipients not GST registered

· direct officers to work with sector groups on the development of an integrated approach to council support for these activities.

Introduction of a remission for the accommodation provider targeted rate (APTR)

7. The proposed remission provided for owners of no more than two serviced apartments with long term fixed rental leases to hotel operators to receive a remission of the APTR. The remission would be reduced in equal steps over ten years. 39 submitters supported and 30 were opposed to the proposal. 13 thought the APTR should not be charged while 11 wanted the remission scheme to be more generous.

8. Officers recommend adoption of the APTR remission scheme as proposed.

Amendments to regional remissions

9. 6 submitters were supportive of aspects of the regional schemes, and none were opposed. Officers recommend adoption as proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board endorses the:

a) proposal to:

i. transfer current budget for legacy remissions schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations to the operating group with relevant expertise

ii. transfer current budget for postponements for Great Barrier Island businesses to Great Barrier Island Local Board

iii. grant the current recipient the same support guaranteed for three years

iv. develop an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region

b) Rates Remission and Postponement Policy in Attachment B to this report, which includes the following amendments to the existing policy:

i. introduction of a remission scheme for the Accommodation Provider Targeted rate.

ii. amendments to the remission for residents of residents of licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing to remove references to retirement villages and the Interim Transport Levy

iii. amendments to simplify the remission for rates penalties

iv. removal of the legacy remissions schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations and postponement for Great Barrier Island

c) amendments to the postponement for Manukau Sport Clubs to restrict the scheme to current applicants and to close off the scheme after three years.

Horopaki / Context

10. Council is required to review and consult on its Rates Remission and Postponement Policy every six years. The policy was last reviewed in 2012.

11. The policy offers eleven legacy remissions and postponement schemes that were carried over from the previous councils. These schemes only apply in the district of the originating council. They providing varying levels of support for:

· community and sporting organisations

· rating units protected for natural or historic or cultural conservation purposes

· commercial properties on Great Barrier Island.

12. A summary of the level of funding provided by these remission schemes by local board is in Attachment C. Attachment D provides a list of community and sporting organisations receiving support by local board area.

13. The policy also includes seven regional schemes that provide financial assistance or address anomalies in how rates are applied.

14. When the APTR was adopted in 2017 the council asked officers to consider applications for remissions for properties with long term fixed rental agreements with hotel operators and forward contracts that didn’t include provision for price adjustments. These were considered under the Remission of Rates for Miscellaneous Purposes scheme.

15. A review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy was undertaken by officers. Local Boards provided feedback on the draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy at their December meetings. The draft policy for consultation was agreed by the 27 February meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.

16. Consultation was open to the public from 13 March to 13 April. Notification of the consultation was targeted to:

· current recipients of legacy remission and postponement schemes

· ratepayers currently charged the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate

· administrators for retirement villages currently receiving the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga.

· relevant key stakeholders including the Queen Elizabeth II Trust and Forest and Bird.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. Analysis of feedback and officers responses has been separated into the key issues on which feedback was received. A summary of feedback by Local Board is in Attachment A.

Legacy remission and postponement schemes

Proposal

18. The proposal retained the current budget for each legacy scheme and transferred administration and budget to the operating group with the relevant expertise. Decision making for regional activities would fall under the relevant operating group delegation and local asset based services with local boards.

19. Support would be provided in the form of a grant rather than a remission. Current recipients would receive a grant (exc GST) at the same level as the existing remission for a period of three years adjusted for any changes in their rates.

20. Officers would report back on the integration of these grants with a wider approach to supporting these activities, developed with sector groups, within the three year transition.

21. The draft policy retained the postponement of rates for two Manukau golf clubs for a period three years after which it would expire. At the end of the three years any postponed rates would remain as a liability on the property, to be paid on sale or transfer of the property.

Feedback

22. 153 submitters provided feedback on the proposal for legacy schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations. Responses are summarised in the table below:

Feedback on Legacy Remission	Number of submitters who:
Feedback on Legacy Remission	Responded	Commented	Hold a remission
Supports proposal	28	13	15
Opposes proposal	112	105	58
Other comment	13	13	10
Total	153	131	83

Feedback related to remissions for natural heritage

23. 105 submitters commented on legacy remissions for natural heritage, with 91 opposed to the proposal. Key themes from feedback and officers comments are set out in the table below.

Theme	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
QEII covenanted land should be non-rateable	37	Land is only non-rateable if owned or used by (for example under a lease) the QEII trust. The QEII Trust is empowered by its establishing legislation to pay the rates on land that has a covenant to the Trust
Will be worse off because not GST registered	9	Officers recommend funding the GST component which would leave recipients in the same position as currently. This will cost $10,000.
Ongoing support (after three years) is uncertain	27	Neither grants nor remissions guarantee on-going support, as policies can be changed. All support should be subject to regular review to ensure value for ratepayers in terms of outcomes achieved.
Grants require more administration	24	Grants can provide long-term support with same administration requirements as current schemes. Properties in Waitakere already receive grants for rates
Grants will not encourage people to covenant land in future	29	The incentive value of remissions is minimal compared to the opportunity cost of covenanting land. Council offers grants that can be used for costs associated with covenanting land.
Remissions recognise value to environment of QEII covenants	49	Grants offer flexibility to increase recognition of the beneficial outcomes achieved.
Remissions recognise the cost of maintaining covenanted land	50	Amount of remission is limited to the amount of rates charged to the land and is not related to the costs of maintenance. Grants provide more flexibility in level of support offered. This issue can be considered when options for future support are developed.
Costs of maintaining QE2 land as identified in Waikato study^{^[1]} which put the cost to owners for establishing a covenant at $64,000, and the annual cost of maintain the land at $6000.	12	Figures in the study were derived from a sample of properties with QE2 covenants, of which 11 were in Auckland. For the Auckland sample, the study records an average cost for establishment as $8,457 in cash and $2,818 in non-cash costs. Annual maintenance costs were $319 cash and $1,062 non-cash.
Removing remissions is inconsistent with RMA and/or Unitary Plan	22	Council uses a variety of mechanisms to meet its obligations under the RMA and Unitary Plan.
Extend remissions to SEAs	9	Significant Ecological Area status does not guarantee enduring protection for native habitats

Feedback related to remissions for community and sporting organisations

24. 36 submitters commented on legacy remissions for community and sporting organisations, of which 15 represented organisations receiving a remission. The following table sets out the key themes from submitters commenting on remissions for community groups.

Theme	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
Ongoing support is uncertain	14	Neither grants nor remissions guarantee on-going support, as policies can be changed.
Grants require more administration	11	Grants can provide long-term support with same administration requirements as current schemes.
Support should be continue because of the benefit the organisation provides to the community	13	Feedback reflects concerns for continuation of support rather than the form in which it is received. It is proposed that options for future support be developed with input from relevant sectors within the three years.
Removing support will have significant financial impact on organisation	12
Supports grants or remissions so long as support maintained	2
Rates cost will need to be met through existing funding agreement with council	1	Harmonising funding mechanisms will reduce administration for some organisations

25. No feedback was received on the proposals for postponements for Manukau Sports Clubs that are provided to two golf clubs. One submitter opposed the transfer of rates postponements to Great Barrier Island businesses to grants as they thought any future loss of support may make essential services financially unviable.

Key Stakeholder Feedback

26. The Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust and Forest and Bird, opposed the proposal to replace legacy remissions with grants for QEII covenanted land. The feedback of the QE II Trust and Forest and Bird reflect the key feedback points above. Federated Farmers considered that transitioning legacy remissions for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations to grants would signal a lack of committment by council to these activities. Both the QE II Trust and Federated Farmers supported consideration by the council of grants in addition to remissions for QEII covenanted land.

Remission for the Accommodation provider targeted rate

Proposal

27. The draft policy proposed a new remission scheme to remit APTR for the following:

· properties used as emergency accommodation, in proportion to the amount of time and the part of the property that is put to this use

· ratepayers who own no more than two serviced apartments, who are paid a fixed rent by a hotel operator (with no profit sharing), and who are unable to pass on the cost of the rate and unable to exit the contract before the start of rating year. (A partial remission will apply where the lease to the accommodation operator expires during the rating year.) This remission will be phased out over 10 years, with the amount of remission available declining by a tenth each year.

28. Remissions under this scheme are expected to cost ratepayers $1.2 million in 2018/2019, with this amount declining over the next ten years.

29. 73 submitters provided feedback with 39 in support of the proposal and 30 opposed. Of those opposed, 5 thought the remission should be more generous. The key themes from feedback are shown in the table below:

Response to Remissions	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
Remission assists those who most need it	2	This feedback reflects the key issues for and against adoption of an APTR remission
Remission supported because can't pass on rate to operator	12
Remission shouldn't be offered - everyone should pay	4
No APTR should be charged	13	6 supported and 6 opposed the proposal
Remission should be available to more properties	8	3 supported, 4 opposed proposal
Full remission should be granted until lease ends	3	1 supported proposal
Should use bed tax or similar charge rather than APTR	7	2 supported, 1 opposed proposal

30. None of the key stakeholder organisations notified of the consultation opted to make a submission.

Amendment to regional schemes

Proposal

31. The proposed changes are:

· rates penalties – simplifying the scheme for easier administration

· license to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing – removes references to:

o retirement villages as residents now qualify for central government rates rebates

o Interim Transport Levy (should this levy not be continued.)

· remission for rates transition management policy change properties – this scheme is redundant.

Feedback

32. Two submitters supported the proposed change to the Remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga scheme. Grey Power requested that the scheme remain unchanged until the rates rebate process has been established. 4 submitters broadly supported the policy. Grey Power and 4 other submitters wanted greater support for older/retired residents in general.

33. One submitter supported the changes to the penalty scheme.

Conclusions and Recommendations

34. Officers recommend that for the legacy remissions schemes:

· transfer of the current budget to the operating group with relevant expertise

· current recipient receives same support (exc GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· development of a standardised approach to support of these outcomes across the region

· an increase in the budget of $10,000 to cover GST cost for recipients not registered for GST.

35. The proposal:

· maintains supports for existing recipients with a three year transition

· aligns responsibility for these grants with relevant areas of council

· allows this support to be considered alongside other sources of funding as regionally consistent support mechanisms are developed

· remove the current legacy remissions schemes.

36. Grants are recommended over remissions as they offer greater transparency and oversight for rates expenditure. The proposal provides a first step in transitioning the issue of equitable council support for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations and recognises that support is currently inconsistent across the region. Currently, some areas may be able access remissions while others receive grants, subsidised rents or are directly supported to deliver services for council. For example, two sports facilities receive remissions and community access grants, while 16 of the 42 recipients of the Green Network Grants for rates also claim the rates remission.

37. Officers also recommend the changes to the regional schemes in the Rates remission and postponement policy and the introduction of a scheme for the Remission of the accommodation provider targeted rate be adopted as proposed.

Alternative Options

38. Officers considered the following alternatives but do not recommend them. The council could choose to:

· retain the existing schemes - this will continue the current inequities in regional support.

· remove the schemes without a transition -potential for significant impact for current recipients particularly as other forms of council support are not always consistently available across the region.

· extend the remission schemes to cover the entire region - would require further policy work to develop appropriate options and have substantially increased cost. Does not align support with other council funding mechanisms. Level of support determined by rates (driven by property values) rather than outcomes achieved.

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

39. Implications for local boards are set out in the report. Under the proposal boards will be provided with additional asset based service funding to maintain the existing level of support for local community and sports groups in their board area that currently receive remissions (or postponements in the case of Great Barrier Island).

40. The amount of support provided by the rates remission and postponement policy varies significantly by local board area. (A summary of the amount of remissions, and the individual schemes by board area is in Attachment C.) In other areas, support may be provided to through grants, discounted rentals, and the direct provision of facilities and services by council. Within the three year transition period, officers will report back on options for integrating funding mechanisms across the region.

41. Analysis of feedback by local board area is Attachment A to the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

42. No significant feedback was received from Māori or Māori organisations. Māori land is eligible for support under the Rates remission for Māori freehold land policy. This policy is not under review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

43. The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

44. There are no identified risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

45. Local board feedback will reported to the 30 May meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee for the consideration and adoption of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Feedback by local board	69
b ⇩	Proposed Draft Remission Policy	71
c ⇩	Remission value by local board	81
d ⇩	Community and Sports Remissions by local board (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

Local Transport Capital Fund: options for distribution and size of the fund

File No.: CP2018/06513

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal feedback from the local board on options for the future size and underlying distribution methodology of the local transport capital fund (LTCF) and on the proposal to increase advisory support for the fund from Auckland Transport staff.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In September 2017, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an increase to the local transport capital fund as an outcome of the governance framework review. Staff were directed to undertake further work with Auckland Transport and local boards on the size of the increase, and the distribution methodology.

3. The LTCF was established in 2012 and currently sits at $10.8 million. It is allocated on a pure population basis. Two options for the size of funding increase have been modelled, an increase of $6 million and an increase of $10 million.

4. Staff have also modelled three different distribution options: the current population model, a model applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, and a model that includes a mix of a fixed level of funding per board, along with a variable rate determined by the Local Boards Funding Policy.

5. Each of the options has been assessed against a set of criteria. The pure population model is not supported by staff, while each of the other two models has merits. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy be applied to the distribution of the LTCF, with an additional amount of $10 million being added to the fund. Feedback is sought from local boards on their preferences.

6. It is also recommended that Auckland Transport have funding allocated to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing local transport projects.

7. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board endorse:

a) an increase to the local transport capital fund of $10 million per annum (inflation adjusted) from 1 July 2018

b) the distribution of the entire local transport capital fund to be made according to Auckland Council’s Local Boards Funding Policy from 1 July 2018

c) Auckland Transport receiving additional funding to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing projects for the local transport capital fund.

Horopaki / Context

8. The local transport capital fund (LTCF) was established by resolution of the Strategy and Finance Committee [SF/2012/40] in April 2012, in order to provide local boards with access to funding for local transport projects that had strong local significance, but which were unlikely to be prioritised through the regional transport planning process.

9. The establishment of the fund is consistent with the government’s original policy intent that local boards would have a role in funding local transport projects out of a dedicated local budget [CAB Minute (09) 30/10] and that “local boards will have an advisory role with respect to transport services and a budget for the transport elements of ‘place shaping’ ”.

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

· provide local boards with more direct ability to influence local transport projects.

11. Projects must be deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and not compromise the network. Auckland Transport retains the responsibility for delivering projects delivered through this funding and the budget remains with Auckland Transport. Depreciation and consequential operating expenditure are also the responsibility of Auckland Transport, as is the core administration of the fund.

12. The fund was initially set at $10 million per annum (since adjusted for inflation, and now sitting at $10.8 million) and is currently split between the local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier Island local boards, which receive two per cent and one per cent of the fund respectively. The population figures that the distribution is based on have remained at 2012 levels.

13. At the Governing Body meeting of 28 September 2017, at which the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review Political Working Party were considered, it was agreed [GB/2017/117] that officers would report back to the governing body through the 10-year budget process on options for significantly increasing the LTCF, as well as providing an assessment of options for allocating the additional funding.

14. This report provides options for the quantum of the proposed increase, the method of allocating the proposed increase among the twenty one local boards and issues relating to the administration of the fund. Workshops have been held with each local board to discuss these proposals and now formal feedback is sought through business meetings. Final recommendations will be made to the Governing Body in May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. Issues with the local transport capital fund identified through the governance framework review were grouped under three key themes:

· the overall size, or quantum, of the local transport capital fund

· the methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards

· the administration and support provided by Auckland Transport to local boards in relation to developing options and projects for consideration.

Quantum of funding

16. When the LTCF was initially established at $10 million, the figure was not based on any specific assessment of need, but more on the recognition that smaller, local projects that had a strong place shaping component were unlikely to be funded according to Auckland Transport and NZTA’s prioritisation formulas.

17. While the fund took some time to get established, it is now delivering valuable transport related outcomes for communities across Auckland. The LTCF spend forecast in 2016-17 financial year was $17 million, as boards have been able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant projects. It has delivered 286 projects over the five year period.

18. The LTCF contribution to these many local projects has also been complemented through the input of additional funds from Auckland Transport (as well as NZTA subsidy) with the value of the work they have delivered to their communities being substantially leveraged through this additional funding.

19. Staff have modelled the impact of the proposed increase on individual local boards according to a range of distribution models. In doing so, two different levels of increase have been used – the $10 million figure, initially proposed by Auckland Transport, and a lower figure of $6 million.

20. Neither figure is based on specific needs assessment, but Auckland Transport is of the view that a baseline of approximately six hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year is desirable to give individual boards the resources to support significant local projects. This would require an increase of at least $6 million per annum.

21. Boards that have had access to higher levels of funding have generally found it easier to leverage that to attract NZTA subsidies and additional Auckland Transport funding, for example for projects that are being brought forward as a result of LTCF investment. Successful examples include the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal, the Mt Albert Station Bridge and the Māngere Future Streets project.

Distribution methodology

22. This section provides modelling of three distribution options applied to two levels of overall increase (sub-option A being an increase of $6 million, and sub-option B being an increase of $10 million). The options are:

· Option 1: status quo – simple population based distribution of both the existing fund and any additional funding

· Option 2: applying the current Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the fund

· Option 3: a model that provides for a fixed level of baseline funding for all boards, as well as a variable component based on the Local Boards Funding Policy.

Population based distribution

23. In 2012, the governing body elected to distribute the first iteration of the LTCF purely on a population basis, following consultation with local boards^{^[2]}^. The distribution has not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund was established.

24. We have modelled (Appendix A) the option of applying the population based distribution methodology, based on Statistics NZ 2017 population estimates. As you will see from the modelling, the impact on boards with higher populations is the most significant, in terms of an increase in funding, especially if the additional amount is $10 million.

25. Under this model, however, if the additional amount is $6 million, six boards would still fall short of the $650,000 baseline figure identified by Auckland Transport as being desirable to enable the delivery of viable local transport proposals.

Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the LTCF

26. Following the establishment of the LTCF, work was undertaken to develop the current Local Boards Funding Policy, as required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. This policy was adopted in 2014, and uses an allocation methodology incorporating three factors: population (90 per cent), deprivation (five per cent) and land area (five per cent). This funding policy is currently applied to locally driven initiatives funding, including the local capital fund, but was not retrospectively applied to the LTCF.

27. The development of the funding policy involved significant consultation and engagement with local boards prior to final adoption. There are no current plans to review the policy.

28. We have modelled (Appendix B) the option of applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the LTCF. The modelling has been applied to the existing fund and the additional amounts of $6 million and $10 million. The modelling is also based on 2017 population estimates.

Fixed and variable costs distribution

29. As previously noted, Auckland Transport has the view that in order to deliver transport infrastructure of any significance, a certain level of baseline funding is desirable – around $650,000 per annum, based on practical experience.

30. Many local boards have achieved significant results with their local transport projects, but transport infrastructure is inherently costly and costs tend not to vary according to location. For example, a footbridge and walking path in Pukekohe will tend to cost the same as a comparable one in Glenfield.

31. In considering the distribution methodology for the extended fund, Auckland Transport has put forward the following factors as being relevant:

· the cost of building transport infrastructure is not directly related to the size of the population it serves

· mature areas with high populations tend to already have higher quality and better developed transport infrastructure

· the existing Auckland Transport/NZTA criteria for regional transport spending tend to favour, as would be expected, areas of high density and growth

· the physical size of an area tends to have a correlation with the need for transport infrastructure e.g. the number of settlements, town centres.

32. A distribution model based on a split of fixed and variable costs has also been modelled as an option. The methodology involves fifty per cent of the entire quantum of funding being distributed by an even split (with the exception of Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Boards which receive 1/3 and 2/3 of a single share respectively), thus giving all other local boards the same level of core funding. The other fifty per cent of the funding would be distributed according to the Local Boards Funding Policy.

33. We have modelled (Appendix C) the option of applying this fixed/variable costs model to the distribution of the LTCF.

Assessing the options

34. Each of the three distribution models has elements to recommend it and others that detract from it. In assessing the models, staff applied the following assessment criteria:

· transparency and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders

· equity and fairness of outcomes across the region

· ensuring delivery of good local transport outcomes

· recognising the role of local boards as leaders of place shaping with their communities.

35. Staff assessment of the options against these criteria is set out below.

Options 1a and 1b – population based distribution

36. These options have been modelled on 2017 Statistics New Zealand population estimates.

37. A pure population based approach has the benefits of being objective, transparent and straightforward and means that funding received is proportionate to the number of ratepayers. It was, however, recognised at the time that this approach applied to areas of extremely low population (Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands) would result in those boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve anything practical, hence the application of the one and two per cent formula for the island boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Boards Funding Policy.

38. The limitations of this approach are that it does not address either the level of need in a given local board area, or the underlying cost drivers of transport infrastructure. Hence, large areas of low population density with significant roading networks and multiple population centres are funded at the same, or lower, level as smaller urban communities of interest with already well-developed transport infrastructure, but higher population density.

39. The distribution methodology is simple and transparent and easy for communities and stakeholders to understand. In terms of delivering equity and fairness, this model delivers the widest differential of funding levels across boards, with the highest funded board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded board (excluding the island boards).

40. Option 1a also results in six boards receiving less than Auckland Transport’s benchmark identified as desirable for supporting good local transport outcomes in communities. The model limits the potential for those boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers and to leverage additional investment into their projects. This model, and therefore Options 1a and 1b, is not supported by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

Options 2a and 2b – Local Boards Funding Policy based distribution

41. This distribution method involves application of the current Local Boards Funding Policy. The policy is currently applied to distribution of funding for local activities (including local capex) to local boards and is based on the following factors: ninety per cent population^{^[3]}, five percent deprivation^{^[4]}and five per cent land area^{^[5]}^.

42. Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy is a simple methodology that has a clear rationale, is easily described to the community and is consistent with council’s wider approach to funding local boards. It takes account of multiple factors, delivering a more equitable distribution of funding, especially to boards with lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.

43. Reviewing the projects that have been funded from the LTCF to date, it is clear that much of the local boards’ focus has been on “people centred” transport projects, for example pedestrian safety improvements, walkways and cycleways, footpaths and streetscape improvements. This is consistent with the principles underpinning the Local Boards Funding Policy i.e. that population is the key driver of need for the funding, but that geography and deprivation also need to be taken into account.

44. This distribution methodology evens out the increase in funding across the twenty one boards. The boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the pure population model, and all boards receive the proposed level of baseline funding, but only under the $10 million quantum increase.

45. Under this model, however, the level of funding that accrues to the more populous boards becomes very substantial in relationship to that for the smaller boards, due to the compounding impact of the distribution model. For example, the Howick Local Board would receive over $1.7 million and Henderson-Massey over $1.4 million. Despite these extremes, this option provides an arguably more equitable and nuanced distribution of funding, as well as being consistent with current funding policy.

46. Its variation between the lowest and highest level of funding is still high with the highest funded board receiving 2.57 times the amount of the lowest funded board. Under Option 2a, five boards still receive less than Auckland Transport’s desirable benchmark for delivering good local transport outcomes in communities and it limits the potential for those boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers.

47. This is the preferred option on the basis of consistency with the existing funding policy, assessment against the criteria and recognition of the population focus of projects delivered using this fund. The preferred option is for the $10 million quantum as better providing for good local transport outcomes and delivering local place shaping.

Options 3a and 3b – fixed and variable cost distribution

48. This model is more complex and less transparent to communities and stakeholders than the other models. The identification of the benchmark figure is based on Auckland Transport’s experience of administering the fund over the past five years and the learning that has been gained from this, rather than in-depth financial analysis of infrastructure costs.

49. The results of this distribution are similar to those of applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, in that a similar number of local boards benefit under each model. However, it is different local boards that benefit from each model. In terms of equity and fairness, this model reduces the difference between the highest funded and lowest funded boards and also brings all boards above the $650,000 benchmark, even under Option 3a ($6m increase).

50. The model reduces the impact of population on the distribution of funding, however, which is a core component of current funding policy and the focus of the projects delivered using the LTCF. The model performs well against the criteria of enabling the delivery of good local transport outcomes and supporting the role of local boards as place shapers.

Summary of assessment of options

51. Of the three distribution models assessed, the current model of pure population distribution performed the poorest and is not recommended by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

52. The other two models deliver mixed results against the criteria. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy distribution best meets the criteria and is consistent with current funding policy. The final recommendation to the governing body will also be informed by feedback from local boards through this process.

Administration of the LTCF

53. When the LTCF was established in 2012, it was recognised that there would be an impact on Auckland Transport as the fund administrator. While design costs are capitalised within the cost of a specific project, there are also additional costs in developing options, undertaking feasibility studies, assessing proposals and general administration.

54. It was noted at the time that if each local board proposed 3-4 projects a year that this could place a considerable burden on Auckland Transport and it was recommended that this be reviewed at the time the fund was reviewed. Given the proposed increase to the size of the fund, this issue needs to be revisited.

55. Auckland Transport’s advice on LTCF investment focusses on whether a project put forward by a local board is technically feasible, and whether it is realistic in light of the available funding from the LTCF. During the governance framework review some local board members raised concerns about the nature and quality of advice received from Auckland Transport in relation to LTCF proposals. Boards felt that advice was limited to assessing their proposal against criteria, rather than helping them identify and develop high quality proposals.

56. It is recommended that Auckland Transport be allocated additional opex funding in support of the LTCF to be used to develop a more systematic and responsive work programme with local boards around the application of the LTCF. This will include supporting boards to investigate and develop options for projects for consideration. A sum of $500,000 per annum is recommended to support this deliverable.

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

57. Workshops have been held with every local board and a range of initial feedback has been received. Discussion on collective views has also taken place at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum. While some local boards have given early indication of their preferred options, others have reserved the right to engage in further consideration ahead of providing formal feedback.

58. There was general support for an increase to the fund and for additional funding to be provided to Auckland Transport to provide advice on projects and mixed views on options for allocating the fund. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently.

59. Growth was raised by some boards as a factor that should be considered. Staff’s view is that the population element of each of the models addresses this as current population is the only reliable indicator of growth. Population estimates are updated and will be applied to the fund annually.

60. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently. A recent presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum noted that it would be helpful for the Governing Body to have a clear preference signalled by the majority of local boards, in order to facilitate its decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

61. A move away from a pure population based distribution model would take into account other factors, being deprivation and land area. Both options 2 and 3 include a deprivation component, although this is greater in option 2. This would have some positive impact on local board areas where there is a higher Māori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

62. The source of the additional funding is not addressed in this report, as it is being considered through the overall budget setting process in the 10-year budget. Essentially, however, there are two options that the governing body will need to consider – that additional funding comes from rates and/or borrowing, or Auckland Transport reprioritises within its existing funding envelope.

63. The proposed size of the increase to the fund (both options) is not significant enough within the overall transport budget to be able to enable transparent trade-offs at a detailed level e.g. which specific transport projects might not be funded in the Regional Land Transport Plan in a given year if the LTCF is increased.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

64. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

65. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May. Any new funding and change to the distribution methodology will be applied from 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Population based distribution modelling	103
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	105
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	107

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy

File No.: CP2018/06661

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal local board feedback on the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, the draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and the draft Contributions Policy 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) sets out a ten-year capital and operating programme for transport in Auckland. It covers transport activities delivered by Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Auckland Council and KiwiRail.

3. The draft RLTP has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA. Legislation requires that the RLTP is revised every six years and reviewed after three years. It has been agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full revision of the RLTP.

4. The RLTP will be consulted with the public between 1 and 14 May 2018.

5. Alongside the RLTP, Auckland Council is consulting the public on a draft Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) proposal. The council consulted on a fuel tax to fund transport improvements as part of the 10-year Budget. The regional fuel tax, if introduced, would add 10 cents a litre (plus GST), and generate approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years for transport projects in Auckland. At the time, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) were still under review so the projects proposed to be funded by a regional fuel tax could not be identified. The draft RFT proposal sets out the programmes and projects that the regional fuel tax would fund.

6. The draft RFT proposal is conditional on the enactment of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill which is currently passing through the Parliamentary process.

7. The Council is also consulting on a draft Contributions Policy 2018. The draft Contributions Policy proposes an increase in development contributions to reflect additional investment, including for parks.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Franklin Local Board give formal written feedback on:

a) the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan

b) the draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal

c) the draft Contributions Policy.

Horopaki / ContextRegional Land Transport Plan

8. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires that the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) prepare an RLTP every six years, which sets out the region’s transport priorities for the next ten years and must contribute to the purposes of the Land Transport Management Act and be consistent with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS).

9. At its meeting of 24 October 2017, the Auckland Transport Board agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full review of the RLTP. Since the 2015 RLTP was prepared, Auckland’s population growth has increased at a much faster pace than was envisaged. By 2028, the population of Auckland is expected to be around two million people – four years earlier than projected in 2015. Significant investment in transport infrastructure and services will be required to meet the increasing needs of these additional people both to service new housing required to match growth and to service many more customers.

10. The draft RLTP, included in Attachment A, has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA and was considered by the Regional Transport Committee (a committee comprised of the Auckland Transport Board and a representative of the NZTA convened to adopt the RLTP) on 1 February 2018, and was subsequently approved by the Chair and Deputy Chair under delegation.

11. Preparation of the draft RLTP and consultation were delayed as the GPS and ATAP were still under review, leading to some uncertainty about project priorities. Both the GPS and ATAP have now been released and have informed the draft RLTP.

Regional Fuel Tax

12. In preparing the 10-year Budget 2018-28, the Council considered a range of funding options for its activities. The consultation on the 10-year Budget signalled that in order to achieve the level of investment that Auckland needs to address its transport issues, new funding mechanisms for transport were required. An RFT of 10 cents per litre plus GST was proposed, subject to central government providing a legislative basis for such a tax.

13. While the RFT, as a funding mechanism, was the subject of consultation, there was no ability to identify the projects that might be funded from the RFT at that time, due to the review of the GPS and ATAP.

14. The government has initiated the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. If passed, this will enable Auckland to levy a regional fuel tax of up to 10 cents per litre, plus GST, from 1 July 2018.

15. A draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal, included in Attachment B, has been developed based on the requirements of the draft legislation. While the legislation is still to progress through the full Parliamentary process, the transitional provisions in the legislation mean that Auckland Council can develop a draft proposal, consult with the public, and submit to the responsible Ministers (the Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport) for consideration, once the legislation has been passed.

Contributions Policy

16. Development contributions enable the Council to charge developers for a portion of the cost of growth infrastructure needed as a result of development. The current Contributions Policy expires on 30 June 2018. The policy needs to be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the RLTP.

17. Over the next ten years, the council needs to fund additional infrastructure to enable the construction of 120,000 dwellings to house an expected 300,000 additional Aucklanders. The 10-year Budget also allowed for an increase in investment in parks.

18. The proposed Contributions Policy 2018, included in Attachment C, proposes an increase in both urban and greenfield prices to reflect this additional investment.

19. Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the Council’s ability to use development contributions to fund public swimming pools and libraries. It is not certain when this legislation will be passed so provision for the inclusion of public swimming pools and libraries has not been included in the draft Contributions Policy 2018. Once the legislation has been passed the Council can consider amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure or to prioritise within the expenditure programme for community infrastructure.

20. The timetable for this process is very compressed. Public consultation on the draft RLTP, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy will run for two weeks between 1 May and 14 May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21. The consultation material for the draft 2018-2028 RLTP, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Development Contributions Policy have been attached for local boards consideration. Formal feedback on these consultation documents is being sought from local boards through this report.

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

22. The RLTP sets out a ten-year regional programme. Early engagement with local boards has taken place to ensure that projects of particular interest to local communities could be taken into account in the prioritisation process by which the programme was developed.

23. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to give formal feedback on the capital and operating programmes, and any other aspects of the RLTP, including projects of particular interest to local communities. In particular, feedback from local boards is sought on whether the RLTP places the appropriate emphasis on the priority areas.

24. The draft RFT proposal reflects the priority projects in the RLTP, along with a few specific local board priorities.

25. The draft proposal signals the Council’s intent to exclude Great Barrier Island from the regional fuel tax, in line with council’s submission on the draft legislation and subject to the legislation being amended accordingly. The consultation will also signal council’s advocacy in support of rebates being enabled for fuel that is purchased for off-road use, an issue which has been raised by a few local boards.

26. The draft Contributions Policy price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The capital expenditure programme to be funded by development contributions was included in the draft 10-year budget and local boards can provide feedback on the proposed programme through the LTP process.

27. Local boards have been invited to attend a briefing on the draft RLTP on 30 April 2018, followed by a full day of informal hearings-style sessions on 7 May 2018 with representatives of the Auckland Transport Board to give verbal feedback. This report enables boards to provide formal feedback to inform further decision-making on the RLTP.

28. The draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal and draft Contributions Policy will also be covered in the briefing. Formal feedback from local boards will be considered by the Governing Body and/or the Finance and Performance Committee when making their decisions on the Regional Fuel Tax and the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29. Many components of the RLTP are of importance to and impact on Māori. The RLTP is one of the tools that can enable and can demonstrate responsiveness to Māori. Early engagement with mana whenua took place throughout the region during the development of the draft.

30. The introduction of a regional fuel tax will negatively impact some lower socio-economic communities who do not have access to alternative transport options and rely on their private vehicles. Māori tend to represent a high proportion of these communities, however, many of the projects that will be funded by the regional fuel tax are targeted at improving transport access to jobs and education for these communities as well as providing greater public transport alternatives. In the longer term, this should have a positive impact for these communities.

31. The impact on Māori for the changes to development contributions will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers. The Council’s Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund provides grants to support marae and papakāinga development and can be used to fund development contributions. The Contributions Policy treats Kaumatua housing the same as retirement villages, which generally place lower demands on council services.

32. There is a need to continue to build relationships between the Council, transport agencies, mana whenua, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing engagement will assist the Council and agencies in understanding priorities for Māori, and can encourage Māori participation in decision-making processes.

33. Appropriate engagement on the RLTP, RFT Proposal and Contributions Policy are planned for the consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

34. The financial implications of the draft RLTP, RFT Proposal and Contributions Policy are set out in those documents. There are no specific financial implications from seeking local board feedback.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

35. This report seeks local board feedback on draft regional proposals, which is part of the local board role. There are no specific risks from this process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36. Possible changes to the RLTP, RFT Proposal, and Contributions Policy will be considered following public consultation.

37. The RFT Proposal will be considered by the Governing Body for adoption and submission to Government on 31 May 2018.

38. Decisions on the Contributions Policy will also be made on 31 May 2018, with the final policy document planned to be adopted on 27 June 2018.

39. The final RLTP document will be considered by the Auckland Transport Board for approval prior to 30 June 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Draft 2018-2028 RLTP for consultation (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Draft Contributions Policy (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Franklin Local Board for FY 2016-2017

File No.: CP2018/04785

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Franklin Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association in the Franklin Local Board area for the financial year ending June 2017.

2. To provide information on which the local board will recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for these BID programmes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District programme supports business associations by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a grant to the relevant business association (BID).

4. The BIDs are incorporated societies that are independent of council. For council to be confident that the funds provided to the BIDs are being used appropriately, council requires the BIDs to comply with the The Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

5. The BID Policy was developed to encourage improved governance of BID committees and staff to improve financial management, programme delivery and transparency to their members.

6. This report indicates that Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association in the Franklin Local Board area are in compliance with the BID Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to.

7. The BID programmes covered by this report are operated by Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association in the Franklin Local Board area.

8. Staff therefore recommend that as these BIDs have met the requirements of the BID policy, that the Franklin Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by these BIDs.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Franklin Local Board:

Recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2018-2019 for the following BID programmes operating in the Franklin Local Board area:

· $440,000 for the Pukekohe Business Association

· $122,750 for the Waiuku Business and Development Association

Horopaki / Context

9. Council adopted the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) in 2016. This policy outlines the principles behind the council BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and terminating BIDs; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements. Please see Attachment A for a review of the key elements of the BID programme.

10. BID targeted rates are applied to all commercially-rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct. Those funds are transferred to the business association operating the BID programme.

11. There are currently 48 BID programmes throughout Auckland which represent more than 25,000 businesses and a combined $17.5 million in targeted rates investment. Please see Attachment B for current and proposed targeted rates budgets for all BIDs.

12. Under Auckland Council governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to the BID programme. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. The Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate if they are satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID policy.

13. Recommendations of this report are put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019 and striking of the targeted rate.

14. This report is a requirement of the BID Policy (2016).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. The council BID programme team monitors compliance with the BID Policy on an ongoing basis, and provides governance advice to BID-operating business associations as needed or requested.

16. As BID programmes are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent corporate status, the policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. Officers, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

Compliance with BID Policy

17. The BID Policy is the means for council to ensure accountability for targeted rate funding, and encourage good governance, by requiring regular reporting to council by providing the following documents, and staying in touch with their local board at least once a year:

· Current Strategic Plan – evidence of achievable medium to long-term opportunities.

· Audited accounts - assurance that the BID is managing its members’ targeted rates funds responsibly.

· Annual Report on the year just completed. – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit ratepayers.

· Business Plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the Strategic Plan, to be achieved and resourced.

· Indicative budget for the following year - the Council Annual Plan requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Plan process which sets all rates.

· Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

· Annual Accountability Form – certification that these requirements have been met.

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID and council that embodies basic parameters of the council/ BID relationship.

18. The recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the policy by Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association in the Franklin Local Board area. Please see Attachments C and D for details lf compliance for each of these BIDs.

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

19. Recommending that the Governing Body strikes the targeted rate for Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association in the Franklin Local Board area means that this BID programme will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in its district, and provides services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in its Strategic Plan.

20. By continuing these services and programmes, Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association should better serve the commercial precinct and their members, and support business growth.

21. The Franklin Local Board approved a similar recommendation for Pukekohe Business Association and Waiuku Business and Development Association BID programmes in the Franklin Local Board area last year, as did the 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their areas. (Resolution FR/2017/43)

22. Several local boards provide additional funding to local business associations but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association. Those requirements are apart from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23. This decision will have no adverse effects on, or particular benefits to, the Maori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that district. Council’s financial role is only to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association on a quarterly basis.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25. There are reputational risks to council if ratepayer funds are misused, but this is rare. Otherwise, there are no direct financial risks to the local board or council that could result from this recommendation to approve the BID targeted rates.

26. The requirements of the BID policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds, by requiring the BIDs to plan for the intended use of funds, report on its activities to its members, and to have its accounts audited.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

27. If the local board accepts the recommendation of this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rate be struck as stated in the Recommendation as part of its approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	BID Programme Key Elements	117
b ⇩	All BID Budgets Comparison for 17-18 and 18-19	119
c ⇩	Pukekohe BID Policy Compliance Summary 2018	121
d ⇩	Waiuku BID Policy Compliance Summary 2018	123

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Franklin Local Board for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018

File No.: CP2018/06351

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide Franklin Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2017/2018 work programme.

3. Of significance this quarter, is the completion of a comprehensive Franklin Swim Sport and Fitness renewal, appointment of the Hunua Trail project facilitator and transition of the Kawakawa Bay Community Hall into community Management.

4. Performance against the agreed 2017/2018 work programmes is tracking positively (see attachment A) i.e. 81% of programme items have been assessed as being on track for completion for the end of the 2017/2018 financial year.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. The majority of activities are reported with a status of green (on track) or amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed). The following activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

· Community Safety – Neighbourhood Support & Civil Defence programme,

· Sunkist Bay toilet and changing room renewal,

· Rural Sector valuation project,

· Tongzhou Collaborative Partnership project,

· Wai O Maru Paa reserve management plan,

· Cancelled projects including replacement of Jubilee Pool ladders, Matakawau Beach retaining wall renewal, Whiteside Pool cover installation and Halls Beach access seawall renewal,

· Cancelled community lease programme items including the Pollock Pony Club, Counties Manukau Kindergarten Association (Glenbrook), Waiau Pa Pavilion vacancy and Waiuku Plunket.

6. The financial performance report compared to budget 2017/2018 is attached. There are some points for the local board to note:

· Financial operating performance for Franklin local board area is unfavourable year to date. Operating expenditure is over budget, mainly in the Rima facilities contract, while operating revenue is better than budget, mostly in facility hire and user charges. Capital expenditure this last quarter has largely been on Tamakae Wharf, Franklin Swim centre, major carparks and various other parks assets renewals.

7. The key performance indicators show a trend of delivery that is not meeting the indicators. The year-end outlook is that 55 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 31 March 2018

Horopaki / Context

8. Franklin Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 6 June 2017

· Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 6 June 2017

· Libraries and Information; approved on 6 June 2017

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 6 June 2017

· Community Leases; approved on 6 June 2017

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 6 June 2017

· Local Economic Development; approved on 6 June 2017

9. The work programmes are aligned to the 2014 Franklin Local Board Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Key achievements for quarter three

10. Franklin Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter three period, which include:

· Transition of Kawakawa Bay Community Hall into community management.

· Delivery of local events including the Franklin A&P Show, Children’s Day, Franklin Primary Schools Triathlon Beachlands Trolley Derby, Karaka Vintage Day, Waiuku Duckboat Derby and Movies in Parks at Beachlands and Waiuku.

· Renewal of Franklin Swim Sport and Fitness including lighting, new pool-side doors and frames, replacement ducting, replacement pool tiles, pool painting, replacement dosing pumps, new gym carpets etc.

· Delivery of 42 preschool programmes in Franklin libraries to over 1600 children.

· Appointment of a project facilitator to progress development of the Hunua Trail project plan and establish a Trail governance model.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

11. The following are progress updates against key projects identified in the Franklin Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

· Greenways Plans – the Waiuku Trails committee and Auckland Council staff have defined roles and responsibilities and the process for identifying priority development sites is underway. Trail construction planning was expected to commence late April 2018. Staff have engaged with the Pohutukawa Coast Trails Committee and a draft project plan outlining how the project will progress was due to be presented to the Board in April. The review of the Pukekohe Trails Plan is nearing completion.

· Rural Halls – Management of the Kawakawa Bay Hall has been handed over to the community. Progress has been made to transfer management of the Waiuku Town Hall to the West Franklin Community Trust.

· Waterways Protection Fund, Mauku Stream catchment –funding agreements with communities undertaking water quality initiatives for the Mauku catchment are complete with delivery underway.

· Wairoa River Action Plan implementation – the Friends of Te Wairoa group are in the process of recruiting a new leadership committee and have planned a range of community meetings and workshops for quarter 4. While there are delays in budget spend, implementation objectives are expected to be on track and budgeted allocated by the end of quarter 4.

· Hunua Trail – A project facilitator has been appointed to develop a project plan and establish a governance framework by the end of quarter 4.

· LED Action Plan Refresh – a draft action plan has been completed that will be considered by the Board in early May. This action plan will inform projects for the 2018/2019 work programme.

Key performance indicators

12. The local board agreements include level of service statements and associated performance measures to guide and monitor the delivery of local services. This report provides information on the performance measure year-end outlook for Franklin Local Board’s measures, showing how we are tracking after the third quarter of FY18.

13. The year-end outlook is that 55 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

14. Currently all performance measures are being reviewed as part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

15. Attachment D contains further detailed KPI information

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

16. This report informs Franklin Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 31 March 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. A local Māori Responsiveness Plan project scope has been developed and delivery proposals are being assessed. The project will look at key aspirations and priorities for Māori in the Franklin area, with a view to building stronger relationships and sharing information.

18. A reserve management plan for Wai O Maru Pā is on hold, as the co-management committee has not met.

19. The Auckland Libraries Kaikokiri Ratonga Maori position has been appointed and outreach has commenced activities have commenced.

Financial Performance

20. Financial comments

· Operating Expenditure in Asset Based Services (ABS) overall is overspent $828k particularly in the RIMA facility contract for Franklin. Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) is $353k behind budget as some projects have extended into quarter four. LDI reallocations of unspent funds will occur in the final quarter once the local board receives updates on work progress.

· Operating Revenue is $56k above budget with $26k being increased venue hire revenue in community halls and the Franklin Arts Centre.

· Capital Expenditure is 5.36m year to date achieving 56% of the full year budget. In this last quarter, $1.9m spend has seen further work on Tamakae Wharf, renewals at Franklin Swim centre, various carparks, and other parks asset renewals.

· LDI Capex unallocated budget balance is $404k. The local board has allocated $1.26m in projects from its current Y16 – Y18 fund.

· The Franklin Local Board Financial Performance report is in Appendix C

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications21. This report is for information only therefore has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22. The following risks have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been reported as red – significantly behind budget/time or achievement of outcomes:

ID	Activity	Q3 commentary on red status
#576	Strengthening town centres (town centre CCTV)	Equipment failures impacted upon the available budget
#3404	Neighbourhood Support and Community Defence (Community Safety)	Unlikely to expend all funds as anticipated however officers are returning to the board with an option to achieve through an alternative mechanism.
#2201	Clarks Beach/Halls Beach access seawalls	Cancelled as the asset is not owned by council
#859	Wai O Maru Paa reserve management plan is on hold	Awaiting direction from the co-management committee who have not met this quarter NOTE: budget is at risk
#2195	Jubilee Pool pool ladder replacement	Project cancelled as ladders assessed as being in good condition.
#2218	Matakawau Beach retaining wall	Cancelled and will be dealt with under maintenance/minor works
#3270	Whiteside Pool thermal covers	Cancelled (LDI capex rescinded 22 August 2017)
#2222	Sunkist Bay Reserve toilet and changing room renewal	Project on hold pending approval of the Sunkist Bay Concept plan. Note that this plan has now been approved and detailed design will commence.
#1875, #1885, #1887 #1890	Community leases	Cancelled, grazing licence and not a community lease Cancelled, to be revisited when lease expires Cancelled, building to be demolished Cancelled, booking is done through venue hire
#669	Rural Sector valuation study	Project to be cancelled for delivery in 2017/2018 with objectives built into the Local Economic Development refresh. Officers to identify options for alternative use of budget.
#3370	Tongzhou Collaborative Partnership	No response from Tongzhou. Unlikely to progress in 2017/18. Officers to identify options for alternative use of budget.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23. The Local Board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter four, in August 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Snapshot 20180414 Q3	131
b ⇩	Attachment B: Franklin WP Update Q3	133
c ⇩	Attachment C: Franklin Local Board Quarterly Performance March 18 Financial Appendix	163
d ⇩	Attachment D: Franklin Q3	171

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Georgina Gilmour - Local Board Advisor Franklin
Authorisers	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

08 May 2018

New community lease and commercial licence at Stone Road Forest and Quarry Reserve, Bombay

File No.: CP2018/02467

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Franklin Local Board for a new community lease and commercial licence over the site at Stone Road Forest and Quarry Reserve, Bombay formally described as Allotment 235 Parish of Opaheke.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Stone Road Forest and Quarry Reserve has been reclassified as a Recreational Reserve as of December 2017 and formally published in the New Zealand Gazette on 13 December 2017. The reclassified reserve empowers the Council to grant community or commercial leases, through Panuku Development Auckland Limited, over the reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

3. The Franklin County Archers Incorporated has held a lease at the site since 1987 for the purposes of a field archery course. The last lease was for five years from 1 August 2002 with one five year right of renewal. It expired on 31 July 2012. The club has expressed interest in a new lease and opportunities to share the reserve with other groups have been explored. It is recommended a new community lease be granted for ten years with one ten year right of renewal.

4. Adrenaline Forest is a commercial high wire and adventure company and has expressed strong interest in being granted a licence to pursue a commercial activity within the reserve. No council outlay is required, and with only minor work to be done on the site to improve vehicle parking ability, there is minimal risk to the reserve and to the council.

5. Panuku Development Auckland proposes a licence with a term of five years with two rights of renewal of three years each. The rent is assessed to be $8,000 pa, plus 4% of annual gross turnover, with Consumer Price Index reviews each year and market reviews on licence renewal.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) Grant a new community lease to Franklin County Archers Incorporated for a portion of Stone Road Forest and Quarry Reserve as indicated in the site plan Attachment A subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – 10 years commencing 1 June 2018 with one 10-year right of renewal

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

iii) Exclusive use of the area indicated on the site plan as A and shared use of the area indicated on the site plan as B with Adrenaline Forest Limited. The terms of the shared use to be:

· Exclusive use of the land outside the main practice range at all times.

· Exclusive use of main practice range Mondays to Saturdays until 10:00 a.m. (unless pre-arranged and mutually agreed otherwise to allow for early Adrenaline Forest school group starts at 9:30 a.m.), Sundays until 11:00 a.m., and all days after 18:00.

· Additional use of main practice range and entire parcel for 4 full Sundays and 1 full weekend per year, to be advised no less than 9 months in advance and to take place between May and October if at all possible but never between November 1 December and 31 January.

· Archers to allow Adrenaline Forest staff only use of kitchen in clubrooms. (Adrenaline forest may wish to upgrade the building and use for ticketing purposes, subject to approval from both parties).

· Archers to relocate targets 2 and 7 to alternative site for safety purposes.

iv) A Community Outcomes Plan as approved and attached as a schedule to the lease

v) The public notification of the intention to lease the land under the Reserves Act 1977, with any submissions bought to a hearing of the local board if required

vi) The inclusion of a treaty clause to acknowledge underlying Crown ownership of the land

vii) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

b) Grant a new commercial licence to Adrenaline Forest Limited for a portion of Stone Road Forest and Quarry Reserve as indicated in the site plan Attachment B subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term - five years commencing 1 June 2018 with two 3-year rights of renewal

ii) Final expiry date of 30 May 2029 (if all rights of renewal are exercised)

iii) Rent - $8,000 plus GST per annum plus 4% of gross turnover

iv) Annual Consumer Price Index rent reviews and market reviews on renewal

v) Shared use of the area indicated on the site plan as A with Franklin County Archers Incorporated. The terms of the shared use to be:

Exclusive use of shared area B on Mondays to Saturdays from 10.00 to 18.00 and Sundays from 11.00 to 18.00 unless pre-arranged and mutually agreed with Franklin County Archers Incorporated

To allow the additional use of shared area B by Franklin County Archers Incorporated for four full Sundays and one full weekend per year to be advised no less than nine months in advance between the months of May and November

Adrenalin Forest staff allowed use of the kitchen in the Franklin County Archers Incorporated clubroom

Adrenaline Forest to provide fencing of the shared area and signage which indicate use by both parties

vi) The inclusion of a treaty clause to acknowledge underlying Crown ownership of the land

vii) The public notification of the intention to lease the land under the Reserves Act 1977, with any submissions bought to a hearing of the local board if required

viii) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

Horopaki / Context

6. Franklin County Archers Incorporated is a field archery club with 50 members and 100 affiliated members and is a well- respected club affiliated to the New Zealand Field Archery Association. It provides facilities, training and programmes for archers and promotes the sport of archery. It is involved in local, regional and national tournaments and is often host to national tournaments.

7. The club has held a lease at Stone Road Forest and Quarry Reserve since 1987. The last lease was for five years from 1 August 2002 with one five year right of renewal. It expired on 31 July 2012. The club expressed interest in a new lease of the site but at the time interest from another group for shared or alternative use of the reserve had been received. The club has been holding over on the terms and conditions of its old lease while opportunities to share the reserve were explored.

8. Stone Road Forrest and Quarry Reserve forms a single defined land parcel described as Allotment 235 Parish of Opaheke and comprises of 8.0937 hectares. This allotment was originally declared by the Crown to be a quarry reserve. It was later declared by the Crown to be vested in the Franklin County Council, in trust, for quarry purposes pursuant to Section 9 of the Public Reserves, Domains and National Parks Act 1928.

9. To enable the community and commercial use of the land, Community Facilities through the Stakeholders & Land Advisory department initiated the process to change the classification of the Reserve to a Recreational Reserve.

10. The resolution to reclassify the reserve and agree to select a suitable new name was carried by the local board on 28 November 2017, resolution number FR/2017/205. Formally, the reclassification was published in the New Zealand Gazette on Wednesday 13 December 2017

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. Adrenaline Forrest currently runs three high wire and adventure parks across New Zealand (Wellington, Bay of Plenty & Christchurch) operating on/in Council owned property. The director Jean Caillabet has extensive experience in France running similar operations. The operations at Stone Road Forest will have no negative impact of the regenerating forest.

12. Prior to signing an agreement, Panuku Development Auckland will insist on insurance and health and safety documentation being provided by Adrenalin Forest and approved by our Health and Safety manager. The high wire and adventure park provides a great opportunity to provide a popular outdoors activity for the public to enjoy in the regenerating forest.

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

13. The Local Board has provided initial support to the licence application at a workshop on 14 February 2017 and through the process to change the reserve status.

14. Views of the neighbours of rural blocks surrounding the reserve have been canvassed and there was good support for the use of the land by the archers and opening up the area for other commercial use. Two neighbours did express concern over increased traffic in the area. Due to the agreed hours of use, this should be contained to off peak hours. It is not anticipated this will be a significant impact and there are significant accompanying benefits.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. During the process of the reclassification of the reserve, Iwi consultation of both the land classification and the intention to offer a commercial and community licence was undertaken by Dave Bayley of Land Advisory Services.

16. Eight relevant Iwi groups were initially contacted with two responses from Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati te Ata expressing concern over commercial activity on the reserve. A meeting was held on site on 14 July 2017 to discuss the proposal. Iwi expressed that they were happy with the stewardship of the reserve by the current tenant and were concerned that commercial use could dominate the reserve. At the conclusion of the meeting the groups were in agreement as to the reclassification of the reserve and commercial and community leases as long as buildings and impact on the reserve were contained within the proposed licence area.

17. No formal written objections or submissions were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18. As part of granting the licence, Panuku Development Auckland nor Auckland Council will not be making any financial contribution or incentives to the prospective tenant to enter into the licence. The tenant has previously produced financial statements and we have undergone a credit check on the company and director to minimise risk to Council. Panuku Development Auckland will require a security bond be paid by the tenant and held in trust should the tenant not be able to make meet its obligations in the licence.

19. Costs for the preparation of the lease and licence are borne by Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20. The risks for the commercial licence are minimal as the tenant would be doing minimal works to the environment, with the exception of improving a small area for parking. The tenant relies on the quality environment (trees and land) to be able to provide the service and it is in their best interest to keep it protected and in best condition. There is a risk of injury given the nature of the activity on the site. Despite the company having a good track record in health and safety Panuku Development will be seeking approval from its health and safety manager and insist on the tenant providing insurance documents.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21. Following approval from the Franklin Local Board, Panuku Development Auckland will formally offer licence a produced by Auckland Council Legal for the site on the terms already outlined in this document.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Lease area for Franklin County Archers Incorporated	183

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Matthew Jones - Commercial Property Manager

Authorisers

Pene Jackson - Team Leader Commercial Property Portfolio, Panuku Development Auckland

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

[1] Waikato University: “2017 Investment in Covenanted Land Conservation” prepared for the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust

[2] There was no formal local board funding policy in place at this time

[3] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

[4] Based on Index of Deprivation provided by the Ministry of Health

Chairperson	Angela Fulljames
Deputy Chairperson	Andrew Baker
Members	Malcolm Bell
	Alan Cole
	Brendon Crompton
	Sharlene Druyven
	Amanda Hopkins
	Murray Kay
	Niko Kloeten