I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 19 March 2020

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Kōmiti ā Pūtea, ā Mahi Hoki /
Finance and Performance Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Shane Henderson

 

Members

Cr Josephine Bartley

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

 

IMSB Member Renata Blair

Cr Richard Hills

 

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Pippa Coom

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

IMSB Chair David Taipari

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Cr Chris Darby

Cr John Watson

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

 

Sandra Gordon

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua /

Senior Governance Advisor

 

12 March 2020

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8150

Email: sandra.gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

The purpose of the committee is to:

 

a)    advise and support the mayor on the development of the Long-term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan (AP)

b)    monitor the overall financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council group

c)    make financial decisions required outside of the annual budgeting processes.

 

The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         advising and supporting the mayor on the development of the LTP and AP for consideration by the Governing Body including:

o   local board agreements

o   financial policy related to the LTP and AP

o   setting of rates

o   preparation of the consultation documentation and supporting information, and the consultation process, for the LTP and AP

·         monitoring the operational and capital expenditure of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council Group, and inquiring into any material discrepancies from planned expenditure

·         approving the financial policy of the council parent organisation

·         establishing and managing a structured approach to the approval of non-budgeted expenditure (including grants, loans or guarantees) that reinforces value for money and an expectation of tight expenditure control

·         approve the council insurance strategy and annual insurance placement for Council

·         performance measures and monitoring

·         write-offs

·         acquisition of property in accordance with the LTP

·         disposals in accordance with the LTP

·         recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body

·         funding for achieving improved outcomes for Māori.

 

Powers

 

(i)         All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)        approval of a submission to an external body

(b)        establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)        The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)       If a decision is a budgetary or financial decision that relates primarily to the Finance and Performance Committee responsibilities, the Finance and Performance Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on matters that would otherwise be decided by other committees. For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to multiple committees for decisions.

(iii)       The committee does not have:

(a)        the power to establish subcommittees

(b)        powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

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

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

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

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

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

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

 

Members of the meeting

 

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

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

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

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

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

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

 

Staff

 

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

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

 

Local Board members

 

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

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

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

 

 

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Presentation from the Eden Park Trust Board                                                           9

9          Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council quarter two performance report to 31 December 2019                                                                                                       11

10        Waitematā Local Board, One Local Initiative, Ponsonby Park Detailed Business Case                                                                                                                               91

11        MOTAT Annual Plan 2020-2021                                                                                115

12        Auckland War Memorial Museum 2020/2021 levy (Covering report)                   175

13        Approval of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Levy 2020-2021           177

14        Boundary adjustment between 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland and 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland                                                                                               239

15        Finance and Performance Committee Forward Work Programme                      251

16        Summary of Finance and Performance Committee information memoranda and briefings, including the Forward Work Programme - 19 March 2020                  259  

17        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

18        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               261

C1       Woodhill Sands Trust - Guarantee (Loan Reset Request)                                    261

C2       Community Loans Under $1 million                                                                        261

C3       Built Heritage Acquisition Fund                                                                               262  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 3 December 2019, including the confidential section and the extraordinary minutes of its meetings, held on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 and Wednesday, 12 February 2020, as a true and correct record.

 

 

4          Petitions

 

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

 

 

5          Public Input

 

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

 

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

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Presentation from the Eden Park Trust Board

File No.: CP2020/01786

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an opportunity for the Eden Park Trust Board funded by the Auckland Council to present to the committee on its performance and financial projections.

2.       To provide an update on progress since the 19 March 2019 Finance & Performance Committee meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       The Eden Park Trust Board were provided with funding on 19 March 2019 (Resolutions FIN/2019/24, FIN/2019/25, FIN/2019/26 and FIN/2019/27) as follows:

a)      authorise and delegate all necessary powers to the chief executive to:

i)       reach an agreement with Eden Park Trust and ASB Bank for Auckland Council to take over the $40 million loan from ASB Bank to Eden Park Trust together with other facilities provided by ASB Bank to Eden Park Trust before 30 September 2019.

ii)       reach an agreement with Eden Park Trust to consolidate the loans acquired from ASB Bank and Auckland Council loans into one or more new facilities on commercial terms including:

A)      first-ranking security over Eden Park Trust’s assets

B)      a term of up to ten years

C)      an interest rate set at council’s cost of funds plus a margin.

b)      authorise the chief executive to agree a grant to fund capital expenditure of up to $9.8 million over a three-year period from 1 July 2019 under a Development Funding Agreement.

c)      agree that the chief executives of Auckland Council, Eden Park Trust and Regional Facilities Auckland jointly prepare an operational partnering proposal to be completed by March 2020.

d)      invite Eden Park Trust Board to report to the Finance and Performance Committee on at least a six-monthly basis to outline its performance and financial projections.

e)      initiate discussions with the Government to seek amending the Eden Park Trust Deed to appropriately align the governance of Eden Park with funding.

4.       In accordance with clause d), representatives of the Eden Park Trust Board will attend the meeting.

5.       The Eden Park Trust 2019 Annual Report can be found at the following link - www.edenpark.co.nz/annualreport

Update on previous resolutions

6.       Resolution a) – Loan: Auckland Council took over ASB Bank loans and facilities to Eden Park Trust:

a)      On 30 September 2019, Auckland Council took over ASB Bank loans and facilities to Eden Park Trust by paying ASB Bank $40 million (the par value of all amounts outstanding from Eden Park Trust to ASB Bank as at 30 September 2019) and consolidating $6.5 million of existing Council loans into one loan of $46.5 million.

b)      The loan is made available by Council to Eden Park Trust under a revolving cash advance facility with a term of 10 years and facility limit of $54 million. The loan’s interest rate is 2.4575% fixed for 10 years with interest paid quarterly. The interest rate reflects a margin of 1.25% over the 10 year interest swap rate on 30 September 2019 of 1.2075%. The loan balance as at 29 February 2020 is $43.3 million. Council also acquired from ASB Bank all security it held over Eden Park’s assets including first ranking mortgages over Eden Park Trust’s land and buildings.

c)      Council’s guarantee to ASB Bank was terminated on 30 September 2019.

7.       Resolution b) – Funding: A Development Funding Agreement was executed with Eden Park Trust in late 2019. The Trust has been drawing down against the grant – a total of $669,283 for replacement of emergency lighting and new turf has been paid to date.

8.       Resolution c) – Operational Partnering Proposal: An operational partnering proposal has yet not been finalised but work continues between the parties in good faith. 

9.       Resolution d) – Eden Park reporting to Finance & Performance Committee: first reporting to the committee at this meeting, to continue on at least a six-monthly basis.

10.     Resolution e) – Governance: We are continuing to engage with government officials from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. The views of the Eden Park Trust trustees and trustee appointers are critical to any changes to the governance of the Eden Park Trust Board, and we are working through some options. We will provide a further report to the Governing Body in due course.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      thank the representatives of the Eden Park Trust Board for their attendance and the information provided.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Anita Furniss - Executive Officer - Finance Division

Authoriser

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council quarter two performance report to 31 December 2019

File No.: CP2020/02421

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on the financial and non-financial performance for the Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council against the 10-year Budget (as updated by the Annual Budget 2019/2020) for the six months to 31 December 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 was adopted in June 2018 and subsequently updated by the Annual Budget 2019/2020 in June 2019.

3.       Approved within the 10-year budget is a $26 billion capital investment programme to address growth pressures on transport, water, environment and community infrastructure over the next decade. It also included additional operating budgets to address areas such as the natural environment.

4.       There has been solid capital progress with $1.2 billion of capital investment over the
six-month period. This is a $337 million increase compared to the same period last year.

5.       There has also been strong operating performance for the six-month period. Direct revenue was $66 million ahead of budget due to positive results from Watercare, Auckland Transport and Regulatory Services. Direct expenditure was in-line with budget. Overall, there was a $61 million favourable result against the net direct operating budget.

6.       Full-time equivalents (FTEs) for the Group and Auckland Council increased by 294 and 158 respectively since 30 June 2019. Majority of the increase primarily relates to an uplift in seasonal workers to manage increased demand on services.

7.       The Auckland Council Group balance sheet remains healthy, with net debt currently at $9.2 billion. Total assets increased by $1.8 billion over the six-month period resulting in net debt to total assets of 17 per cent.

8.       Representatives of the substantive council-controlled organisations (CCOs) boards, chief executives and chief financial officers will be presenting their performance results at the 24 March 2020, Council Controlled Organisations Oversight Committee meeting.

9.       The interim statutory accounts for Auckland Council Group for the six months to 31 December 2019 was released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX) on 28 February 2020 and is attached to this report.

10.     The statutory results are prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles for Public Benefit Entities. The Auckland Council Group performance packs in this report consider key management metrics. A reconciliation between the statutory results from the interim report and management performance results is provided as an attachment to this report.

Other key points on Auckland Council Group performance

11.     Over the six-month period, development contributions were lower than budget due to changes in the Development Contributions Policy. The change in policy was to support housing developers increase the housing stock in Auckland. These changes allow developers to delay development contributions and has resulted in lower than expected revenue within this period. Future year variances should reduce as timing changes play out and any changes from policy reviews are implemented.

12.     Additionally, NZTA capital subsidies were below budget. We are continuing to work with central government on accessing the agreed funding levels.

13.     The group is on track to deliver $2.7 billion of capital investment by the end of the financial year. However, lower than anticipated capital revenue may result in upward pressure on debt levels.

14.     We expect the group debt to revenue ratio to remain within the internal debt policy limit and be broadly consistent with our 2019/2020 annual budget projection of 253%.

Key points on Auckland Council performance

15.     Capital expenditure over the six-month period for Auckland Council was $294 million, which was up $58 million from the same period last year. This was largely driven by steady progress on America’s Cup capital works and Water Quality Targeted Rate funded projects.

16.     Net direct expenditure was broadly on track against budget with strong consenting revenue from Regulatory Services outpacing one-off redundancy costs that will remove duplication and see improved efficiency and enduring savings for the organisation.

17.     Auckland Council FTEs have increased primarily due to an uplift in seasonal workers for summer, particularly in leisure, parks and consenting activities. Offsetting these increases was a significant reduction in staff from Finance division as a result of organisational changes. Seasonal FTEs are also expected to reduce in March 2020.

18.     Over the six-month period, 19 of 30 reported performance measures have met target. There was a significant improvement in the percentage of assets that are graffiti free, a result of 96 per cent achieved, the highest since 2011. 

19.     Regulatory performance measures have steadily improved for consent applications processed within statutory timeframes as well as customer satisfaction as a result of ongoing system and process improvements.

Summary of report attachments

20.     Attachment A and B report on the second quarter results for Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council performance against the Annual Budget 2019/2020.

21.     Attachment C is a copy of the interim statutory accounts for the period ended 31 December 2019.

22.     Attachment D provides a reconciliation between the statutory results from the interim report and the management performance results.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23.     Progress against the Auckland Climate Action Framework is reported in Attachment B.

24.     The decisions being sought in this report will not have a climate change impact.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

25.     The Auckland Council Performance report provides an update on both local and regional projects.

26.     The decisions being sought in this report will not have an impact on local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

27.     Māori outcomes is one of our group strategic focus areas. Attachment A provides key information and progress of delivery on the agreed programmes.

28.     Contribution towards Māori outcomes are also outlined within the Auckland Council Performance pack and reported in Attachment B.

29.     The decisions being sought in this report will not have an impact on Māori.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      receive the Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council quarterly performance report for the period ended 31 December 2019.

b)      receive the Auckland Council Group Interim Report for the period ended 31 December 2019. 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Group performance pack for the period ended 31 December 2019

15

b

Auckland Council performance pack for the period ended 31 December 2019

33

c

Auckland Council Group Interim Report for the period ended 31 December 2019

49

d

Reconciliation of statutory and management results

89

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

David Gurney - Manager Corporate Performance & Reporting

Pramod Nair – Head of Group Financial Planning

Authorisers

Nicola Mills - General Manager Financial and Business Performance

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator

 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Waitematā Local Board, One Local Initiative, Ponsonby Park Detailed Business Case

File No.: CP2020/01042

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for $5.5 million from the from the Town Centre Revitalisations funds to enable the development of the full site at 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The detailed business case has confirmed a strong case for change and delivery of the Ponsonby Park development from a strategic, commercial, financial and management perspective.

3.       The project budget of $11 million is to be obtained from the below two sources:

·    $5.5 million has been allocated to the Ponsonby Park project in the 2018-2028 LTP but is contingent on business case processes and obtaining funding approval from the Finance and Performance Committee.

·    $5.5 million has been allocated to the Ponsonby Park project from the sale of an endowment property at 200 Victoria Street West but is contingent on confirmation by the Auckland Council Legal Services team that the Ponsonby Park project is consistent with the purpose of the original endowment in accordance with sections 140 and 141 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.       The Ponsonby Park project at 254 Ponsonby Road aligns strongly with the strategic goals of Auckland Council and the Waitematā Local Board. An investment of $11 million is recommended to realise the project goals whilst providing value for money and internal rate of return for capital and operational investment.

5.       254 Ponsonby Road was acquired by the former Auckland City Council in 2006 to address the need for more civic space within the Ponsonby precinct that had been strategically identified in 2000.

6.       The need for more civic space has been consistently confirmed as a high priority through extensive local community consultations. It has also been represented through the local community’s sustained passion, involvement and interest in the delivery of the Ponsonby Park project, the parallel support of the Waitematā Local Board for the project and the selection of the project as the local board’s key advocacy project and subsequently as a One Local Initiative (OLI).

7.       The preferred concept identified for Ponsonby Park: -

·    Provides value for money due to onsite commercial revenue generation and the significant improved social, environmental and cultural benefits that will be realised;

·    Will meet the needs and expectations of the local community and local board;

·    Will be deliverable within the $11 million budget envelope; and

·    Can be delivered in FY20-21 in alignment with OLI funding timeframes and the proposed project schedule with minimal risk to time or cost. This has been largely due to the local community and local board giving their support for a final development option that is most appropriate from a cost, design, construction and end outcomes perspective.


 

8.       The preferred development ‘Option 5’ includes: -

·    The Park (a grassed lawn and gardens, 1410 m2)

·    The Pavilion (outdoor sheltered area, 222 m2)

·    The Plaza and Lane (outdoor paved area, 807 m2)

·    O’Neil Street Upgrade (734 m2)

·    New building (190 m2 including a 130m2 retail / commercial space)

·    Public toilet block (60 m2)

·    Refurbished Lighthouse (1st storey structure, 120 m2)

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      approve an allocation of $5.5 million from the Town Centre Revitalisations funds to enable the development of the full site at 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby.

Horopaki

Context

9.       The OLI 10 Year Programme process was initiated through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan in order to improve the local board advocacy process, including providing more comprehensive advice on local board advocacy projects. Whilst there was no guarantee of funding, the process was designed to give local board projects a better opportunity to be progressed through investigation, business cases and to be considered for funding.

10.      The former Auckland City Council acquired 254 Ponsonby Road in 2006 for $7.7 million to create an urban square. Since 2006 the site has been tenanted, delivering a commercial return to council while various plans have been developed for the space.

11.     In 2007 preliminary design options were provided for a mixed-use site which incorporated a civic square and public open space. The project was deferred by the former Auckland City Council Strategy and Finance Committee for three years.

12.     In 2011 the Waitematā Local Board requested that options for the development of 254 Ponsonby Road to be re-investigated. Auckland Council’s in-house landscape architects created a new set of potential design options for the site.

13.     In 2013, as a part of the Ponsonby Road Plan development, two development options were consulted upon. Due to the diverse views that were received, the board resolved to uncouple the project from the Ponsonby Road Plan and to progress the project independently.

14.     In 2016 there were several consultations and exhibitions to further define the community’s vision for the site. Through these public consultations the local community showed that they wanted:

·    an inclusive space that would encourage and foster social connections;

·    a place to sit and relax;

·    an urban green space;

·    a place to hold markets and events;

·    a play space;

·    an area to host public art; and

·    a place which demonstrates sustainable design.

15.     A design brief was created and taken to professional designers and the local community to submit a pro bono concept design for the site. A community vote was held on the concept designs received for the 254 Ponsonby Road site. The concept design developed by LandLab received the highest percentage of the final votes (30%) and was selected as the community preferred option in February 2017. The concept was presented to the Waitematā Local Board in April 2017 and received the board’s endorsement.

Resolution number WTM/2017/40

a)      thank Chris Bailey, Keith Maddison and Jennifer Ward for their attendance and presentation about 254 Ponsonby Road.

b)      receive the tabled 254 Ponsonby Road: Community Led Design Project report.

c)      thank the 254 Ponsonby Road Facilitation Group for their contribution and work to achieve a community-led design outcome.

d)      refer the chosen design to Parks, Sports and Recreation officers and request that they progress a development design and report back to the board on costs and funding options for completion of the development.

16.     The design involves the development of the full site as a civic space, re-use of existing buildings and structures as well as a village green.  Development of 254 Ponsonby Road, in accordance with the preferred design, was then selected in 2017 by the Waitematā Local Board as their OLI for funding as part of the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028.

Resolution number WTM/2018/42

That the Waitemata Local Board:

h)      approve its advocacy initiatives, including its key advocacy project, for inclusion as an appendix to its 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement as set out in the tabled Attachment D to this report.

Figure 1 Attachment D to Waitemata Local Board meeting WTM/2018/42

17.     The original LandLab concepts proposed opportunities to re-use the existing buildings and structures on the site to enable the creation of new spaces to foster opportunities for cafés, retail, art galleries and community buildings. The Pavilion was identified as the intended focal point to support a diverse range of informal and programmed activities from meetings to markets.

18.     Investigations were undertaken into disposal of a portion of the site to offset the initial purchase costs but in December 2018 the Environment and Community Committee approved the retention and development of the whole site (2326m2).

Resolution number ENV/2018/167

a)      support the retention of the whole site located at 254 Ponsonby Road (2326m2), Ponsonby, currently held by Auckland Council in fee simple under the Local Government Act 2002, for the purpose of developing a civic space.

19.     The estimated cost to deliver the project was $11 million and the Waitematā Local Board originally proposed the development of the civic space in two phases:

·    Phase 1: $5.5 million - Deliver the essential elements of the civic space, including landscaping, repurposing the existing structure, and toilet facilities

·    Phase 2: $5.5 million – Repurpose existing building and improve streetscape

20.     In August 2019 the Finance and Performance Committee approved, subject to due legal process, allocation of funding up to $5.5 million from the sale of 200 Victoria Street West to the project which enables the delivery of both stages together.

Resolution number FIN/2019/88

b)      approve the allocation of the proceeds of sale from 200 Victoria Street West, Auckland Central to the following projects, subject to confirmation by the Auckland Council Legal Services team that the projects identified are consistent with the purpose of the endowment pursuant to which this property was vested and are is in accordance with sections 140 and 141 of the Local Government Act 2002:

i)       up to $5.5 million to the development of a civic space at 254 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby;

23.     Staff from Panuku Development are currently undertaking negotiations for the sale of 200 Victoria Street West with the expectation of an outcome during April 2020.

24.     The findings of the LandLab concept analysis were presented to the Waitematā Local Board, Ponsonby Park Community Led Design group (CLD) and other interested members of the community in August 2019.  At this meeting the decision was made to progress with the development of refined concept options in partnership with LandLab. The Waitematā Local Board gave direction to remove the Tole Street entry from the project and this was supported by the CLD members.

25.     A Project Control Steering Group (PCSG) meeting consisting of representatives from the Waitematā Local Board, Community Led Design group, LandLab and council officers in attendance was held during October. At this meeting LandLab proposed five refined design options.

26.     Each option was analysed and ranked based on a Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) assessment analysing the options performance against 14 metrics.

27.     Three final preferred options were selected for further community and local board consideration and during November and December 2019 the CLD initiated a community consultation process to select a final preferred design solution. 171 responses were received with Option 5 receiving 61% of the community vote.

28.     The three options and the community survey results were subsequently presented to the Waitematā Local Board at a workshop held on 12 December 2019. Support was given by the local board for the consultation process and to progress the business case on the basis of the new building Option 5.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

29.     The proposed civic space responds to two Auckland Plan focus areas:

Belonging and Participation - Focus area 1

Create safe opportunities for people to meet, connect, participate in and enjoy community and civic life

Homes and Places - Focus area 5

Create urban places for the future.

The open space provision policy sets out the requirements for civic spaces

30.     The Open Space Provision Policy 2016 informs decision-making on the type, size and location of parks and open space.

31.     Civic spaces are a specific type of open space with a range of amenity values, including:

·    Meeting and socialising opportunities

·    Event space

·    Landscaping and gardens

·    Public artworks.

32.     The extent of the network and sizes of civic space should reflect the urban centres in which they are located.

33.     Ponsonby is defined as a ‘Town Centre’. It will be well served by one or more small civic spaces (<1000m2) and one medium civic space (1500m2 to 2000m2).

34.     Staff have undertaken an assessment of 254 Ponsonby Road against the policy which concludes that:

·    There is a shortfall of civic space in Ponsonby

·    The site and proposed community design can deliver the desired amenity values

·    Development of the full site would meet the policy provision target

·    The retention of the site is a high priority as it would meet current and future community needs

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35.     Subject to funding approval, climate impacts will be fully assessed and addressed for the Ponsonby Park development through planning, design and implementation.

36.     This will include due consideration of the usage of green building materials in the project and alternatives for and/or mitigation of any proposed activities that will use a lot of fossil fuels. Demolition materials will be recycled wherever possible and construction debris disposal will also be streamlined by careful site management and the use of materials that are quickly and efficiently recycled.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37.     Collaboration across staff within Community Facilities, Parks Sports and Recreation, Panuku Development and Auckland Transport will be ongoing to ensure that the Ponsonby Park project will be appropriately developed and integrated into operational maintenance and asset management systems once completed.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

38.     The OLI is the Waitematā Local Board’s key advocacy project identified through the 2018-2028 Long-Term Plan and the development will deliver multiple benefits for the Ponsonby precinct.

39.     Development of the civic space will enhance amenity and recreational opportunities in Ponsonby. The community has anticipated the achievement of this outcome since 2006.

40.     Multiple rounds of public consultation have created a high degree of public engagement in the development of 254 Ponsonby Road. Public feedback has consistently found majority support the development of the whole site.

41.     A community-led design process has resulted in a high sense of local ownership of the proposed civic space design.

42.     The Waitematā Local Board has confirmed that development of 254 Ponsonby Road aligns with community aspirations and is a key priority in the 2017 Local Board Plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43.     In 2015 Auckland Council commissioned a report on Māori heritage values and opportunities to better engage with relevant mana whenua for the Ponsonby Road master plan and this report has informed the concept designs being prepared for the site.

44.     The delivery of Ponsonby Park will provide spaces to highlight Māori heritage, stories and exhibit Māori art to future users and visitors of the civic open space.

45.     In June 2016 engagement was undertaken with representatives of the Ngati Whatua Ōrākei Trust Ltd in relation to the development of the Ponsonby Road Masterplan Maori Heritage Report.

46.     In July 2016 correspondence was sent to representatives of 16 iwi with an interest in the Waitematā area. Responses were received from Ngati Whatua o Ōrākei and Ngati te Ata to be kept informed of the Ponsonby Park project through meeting minutes and press releases.

47.     Since the initial notification in 2016, the CLD group have sent all meeting minutes and event invitations to the interested iwi groups.

48.     In September 2019 correspondence was sent to Ngati Whatua o Ōrākei and Ngati te Ata to provide an update on the project progress and offer the availability of a workshop to further engage on the project.

49.     Subject to the Finance and Performance Committee funding approval there will be early engagement with Ngati Whatua o Ōrākei and Ngati te Ata as preliminary designs are developed.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

50.     Through refinement of the Ponsonby Park design, Option 5 was reviewed by Millard Construction Cost Consultants Ltd.

Option 5

The Park (1410 m2)

$1,744,000

The Pavilion (222 m2)

$1,408,000

The Plaza and Lane (807 m2)

$1,560,000

O’Neil Street Upgrade (734 m2)

$1,152,000

New building, including toilets (250 m2) and new lighthouse (120m2)

$2,936,000

25% Contingency

$2,200,000

Total

$11,000,000

 

Figure 3 – 2019 Option 5 shortlisted design cost estimates


 

51.     A commercial rental revenue of $60,000 per annum and an operational cost of $50,000-$70,000 per annum have been estimated in the financial analysis for the project.  These estimates do not include:

·    potential revenue that may be realised from the site as a result of other uses of the space (such as a weekly market)

·    maintenance cost-savings resulting from the local community taking ownership of some maintenance aspects.

52.     A rental revenue estimate is based on the market rate research shown below:

·    Colliers 2009 rental rates: A-grade rental rate of $435/m2. Using this rate an onsite revenue generation of $56,550 is reasonable.

·    Rental comparisons with nearby properties

14 Jervois Road - $80,000 for 114 m2 of retail space

273 Ponsonby Road - $154,000 for 154 m2 of retail space (and 103 m2 of storage and other space)

53.     The proposed whole of life cost of the project is $11,524,300 over the 50 years of the expected lifetime of the asset at a public sector discount rate of 6%. This is based on a project implementation cost of $11 million in FY2020-2021, an annual OPEX cost of $50,000-$70,000 and an annual rental revenue of $60,000 starting in FY2020-2022.

54.     The change of 254 Ponsonby Road from a carpark and liquor store to Ponsonby Park will significantly increase the desirability of the area for residents and visitors. The development will also attract further commercial activity and development in the area. Auckland Council will be the benefactor of any further increases in commercial rental rates and land value. In 2006, the land and existing building were purchased for $7.7 million. By 2019, the property valuation had increased to $15 million (Land Value comprising of $13.75 million).

55.     Through the development of the OLI programme, the early stage project estimate was $3-6 million with an additional $3 million funding from the proposed sale of a portion of the site.  The whole site is now approved for development and with the $5.5 million allocation from the sale of 200 Victoria Street West, the remaining $5.5 million funding required has been included within the LTP 2018-2028.

56.     Given the outcomes planned to be achieved in this project it aligns with civic space improvement, it is recommended that the funding be allocated from Town Centre Revitalisations unallocated budgets rather than the OLI unallocated funding.

57.     The Town Centre Revitalisations fund is unallocated funding which sits in the latter half of the 2018-2028 LTP and is provision to improve town centres across the region.  There is currently no active programme looking at allocating this funding as this was anticipated to be addressed through the 2022-2032 LTP.  This is a potential funding stream for other OLIs that have a town centre focus.

58.     The indicative funding phasing is outlined below and this require bringing forward funds from 2024-2025 into 2021-2022:

Apr – Jun 2020

July – Dec 2020

Jan – Mar 2021

Apr – Sept 2021

Oct 2021 – Mar 2022

$300,000

$550,000

$550,000

$4,800,000

$4,800,000

Design and Consents*

Construction*

*Includes contingency.  Design and construction timelines may be subject to change through efficiencies and earlier delivery

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

59.     The following risks and mitigation have been identified.

Risk Description

Mitigation

Date Identified

Owner

Project may run over time or budget if project management of the project is poor and / or if value management processes are not carried out.

·    Ensure there is an adequately experienced project manager involved.

·    Ensure a project schedule is regularly updated.

·    Ensure project documentation and correspondence is recorded.

July 2019

Project Manager

Lack of support / engagement from key stakeholders and community groups if consultation and engagement is not implemented appropriately.

·    Ensure stakeholders and community groups are identified early.

·    Communicate with stakeholders and community groups on a regular basis though a reliable medium.

·    Set up a PCSG as a decision making and consultation body.

July 2019

Project Manager

Project scope is limited due to the already allocated budget.

·    Refer to the local board resolution made in 2018 to identify and align the scope of work

·    Avoid scope creep and endeavour to progress the project as per the delivery timeline agreed with the Waitematā Local Board

July 2019

Project Manager

Potential negative public / media reaction for the project, particularly if the communication is ineffective.

·    Ensure communication is clear and well timed with the project.

·    Communicate effectively via the established PCSG.

August 2019

Project Manager

Delayed delivery of the project due to project history and high expectations from the stakeholders and community.

·    Ensure communication is clear and well timed with the project.

·    Communicate effectively via the established PCSG.

·    Ensure project team communicates and meets project milestones.

August 2019

Project Manager

Expectation that the ‘chosen’ LandLab design will progress. A revision / refinement of the concept design may be objected to by stakeholders and community groups.

·    Ensure communication is clear regarding project decisions.

·    Engage a Quantity Surveyor to justify the project costs.

·    Refer to the local board resolution made in 2018 to deliver the project in 2 phases / stages.

·    Re-consult with the local community for any significant concept changes

August 2019

Project Manager

Quantity Surveyor

The project budget has been allocated and fixed before the design has been developed / completed so actual costs are not yet defined.

·    Engage a Quantity Surveyor to ensure project element budgets are accurate.

·    Refer to the local board resolution made in 2018 to identify and align the scope of work for stage 1 and stage 2.

·    Avoid scope creep and manage the budget closely.

TBC

Project Manager

Quantity Surveyor

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

60.     Subject to the Finance and Performance Committee decision, the next steps in the development of 254 Ponsonby Road as a civic space are outlined below.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option - Ponsonby Park

101

b

Ponsonby Park Detailed Business Case Summary

107

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Roscoe Webb - Programme Principal

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Ian Maxwell - Director Community Services

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 



Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

MOTAT Annual Plan 2020-2021

File No.: CP2020/02611

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider the 2020/2021 levy for the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT). 

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

3.       The Museum of Transport and Technology Act 2000 (the Act) allows MOTAT to levy Auckland Council for funding on an annual basis.  Auckland Council through Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) can provide feedback on MOTAT’s draft Annual Plan. 

4.       MOTAT’s Board monitors outcomes and financial performance, with RFA and the council only having an indirect role in this. 

5.       This year the MOTAT levy request is for $17,087,900.  This year’s levy is an 8 per cent increase from the levy in 2019/2020.  This increase reflects a request for specific project funding within the levy.  This is for an additional $800,000 (for each of the next two years) for installation of a SciTech facility within one of the existing (and recently refurbished) buildings.

6.       There are three key reasons why this request is justified:

·    the SciTech centre will involve the development of an inspiring and interactive space inside Building 5 (MOTAT’s main exhibition hall at its Great North Road site).

·    It is in line with MOTAT’s organisational strategy to develop as a science and technology institution, building on its transport and technology foundation. MOTAT has been clear and transparent with RFA in developing the concept, and RFA has indicated its support for it.

·    MOTAT operates a financial model where it comes to the council through the levy process for specific project funding on an as-needs basis.  This is one of those occasions.

7.         More generally, MOTAT works closely with RFA as its draft Annual Plan develops, and is open about its cost structure and drivers. Council can be confident that the levy request reflects the cost of operating MOTAT. 

8.       Staff recommend approval of the MOTAT levy request for 2020/2021, as it meets the purposes of MOTAT as set out in the Act, and the draft MOTAT Annual Plan for 2020/2021 clearly sets out MOTAT’s planned activities for the coming year.  There is therefore no reason not to approve the levy. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      approve the total levy applied for by the Museum of Transport and Technology of $17,087,900 for 2020/2021. 

 

Horopaki

Context

Legislative framework

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

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

11.     The levy must be set by 30 April 2020, either through agreement or arbitration. 

Role of Regional Facilities Auckland

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15.     The levy indicated within the final draft MOTAT Annual Plan for 2020/2021 is
$17.1 million.  The requested levy represents an 8 per cent increase over the 2019/2020 levy of $15.8 million.  This is made up of: a base operational levy of $15.3 million (increase of 3 per cent on the previous year) and an additional $1.8 million per year for two specific projects:

·    continuation of the ‘Approach 2’ works (a set of projects in the larger MOTAT masterplan) funding within the levy for which the council approved last year at a rate of $1m per year for ten years

·    a new request of $800,000 for each of the next two years, to develop a SciTech centre within MOTAT. 

16.     There are three key reasons why this proposal is justified:

·    the SciTech centre will involve the development of an inspiring and interactive space inside Building 5 (MOTAT’s main exhibition hall at its Great North Road site). The centre will be filled with physical and digital interactive experiences which bring the principles of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (“STEAM”) to life. Play-based and for a multi-generational audience, the centre will also showcase heritage objects that reinforce the importance of past, present and future New Zealand technology and innovation.


 

·    The SciTech centre is in line with MOTAT’s organisational strategy, which it developed following a review of MOTAT by former Te Papa chief executive Dame Cheryll Sotheran.  This is, among other things, to transform MOTAT into a science and technology focused institution, building on its existing transport and technology foundation.  RFA has worked closely with MOTAT on the proposed project and consider it a prudent investment while awaiting longer term decisions about more substantial capital investment in the cultural heritage sector. 

·    MOTAT operates a different funding model from Auckland Museum, despite the similarities in their legislation.  Where the Museum is funded for depreciation and saves this money for use at its own discretion, MOTAT typically comes to the council (through the levy process) for specific project funding when required.  MOTAT has been open and transparent with RFA about this, and RFA is comfortable that what is proposed is consistent with MOTAT’s purpose under the Act.

17.     Staff recommend approval of the MOTAT levy request, as the MOTAT draft Annual Plan 2020/2021 aligns with MOTAT’s purposes under the Act. 

18.     The other option is to dispute the levy amount and enter arbitration.  This is not recommended, for two reasons.  Firstly, we consider there are no grounds for disputing the levy amount, because the MOTAT levy request meets the purposes of the museum as set out in its legislation, and the draft Annual Plan 2020/2021 has clearly set out MOTAT’s planned activities for the coming year.  It is clear that MOTAT’s levy request fairly reflects the actual costs of operating the institution.  As noted above, MOTAT has worked closely with Regional Facilities Auckland on the plan, and RFA has recommended to Auckland Council that it be approved. 

19.     Secondly, if the council was successful at arbitration, this would leave MOTAT in a position where it was likely unable to move forward with the SciTech Centre.  This work appears to be well aligned with what Auckland should expect from a science and technology museum.  While MOTAT’s origins lay in a focus on transport and other technology, this sort of development is important to ensure MOTAT remains relevant in the modern era. 

20.     Longer-term, MOTAT is awaiting progress on the cultural heritage review.  MOTAT has been very supportive of this work, and has expressed its willingness to think openly about the future, while being appropriately cautious about ensuring the strengths of MOTAT within the Auckland cultural heritage sector are maintained. 

21.     Finally, staff note that Auckland Council is acknowledged clearly and appropriately in the draft Annual Plan (page 46 of the draft Plan). 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

22.     There are no particular climate implications in approving this levy. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23.     Regional Facilities Auckland agrees with the levy, as noted in the report. 

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

24.     Regional museum levies are a matter for the governing body.  Local boards have therefore not been sought for this report. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25.     MOTAT is working towards promoting a bicultural approach within the museum. This is referred to on page 21 of the Plan. Approving the levy will allow MOTAT to continue developing itself in this regard.

26.     MOTAT is also a key contributor to the cultural heritage review.  A key aim of this review is for the Auckland cultural heritage sector to make a leading contribution to the Auckland Plan directions around Māori as Auckland’s point of difference in the world, including ensuring a genuine governance role in the sector. 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27.     The financial implications have been discussed in the main part of the report. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28.     There is one main risk for council.  This is that MOTAT continues to require long-term decision-making about its strategic purpose and capital development plans. 

29.     The request for money for the SciTech centre reinforces the need to resolve the long-term situation of MOTAT – its purpose in the group of council-funded institutions, and its capital needs to fulfil that role.  This in turn demonstrates the ongoing risk to council from MOTAT seeking increases to its levy in the future.  Given the current levy systems imposed on council by legislation, there is little council can do to mitigate this risk except to work closely with MOTAT to minimise the ongoing requests and ensure that they are aligned with MOTAT’s likely strategic future role.  In this regard, Regional Facilities Auckland plays a key role.  The relationship between Auckland Council, Regional Facilities Auckland and MOTAT is strong and cooperative at present.  

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

30.     If the levy is approved, it will be paid by Auckland Council on or before 1 July 2020. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft MOTAT Annual 2020-2021

119

b

RFA submission on draft MOTAT Annual Plan 2020-2021

167

c

RFA advice to Auckland Council on draft MOTAT Annual Plan 2020-2021

171

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


 


 


 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


 


 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Auckland War Memorial Museum 2020/2021 levy (Covering report)

File No.: CP2020/03517

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider the 2019/2020 levy for the Auckland War Memorial Museum (the Museum).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a late covering report for the above item. The comprehensive agenda report was not available when the agenda went to print and will be provided prior to the 19 March 2020 Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

The recommendations will be provided in the comprehensive agenda report.

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Approval of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Levy 2020-2021

File No.: CP2020/01438

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To consider the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) levy for 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (ARAFA, or the Act) provides for ten regional organisations to submit annual funding applications to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board (Funding Board).  Nine amenities have made applications for funding through the Act, with New Zealand Maritime Museum now part of Regional Facilities Auckland.

3.       The Funding Board must analyse the funding applications from the nine remaining regional organisations and prepare a draft funding plan.  Following a period for submissions the final Funding Plan (attachment A) has been approved by the Board.  This is for a total of $16,714,500.  A further letter has been received (attachment B) advising Coastguard Northern Region have withdrawn its funding request ($824,000) thereby reducing the overall request to $15,890,500.

4.       The committee should note three aspects of the Funding Plan in particular.

5.       First, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust (ARHT) is to receive an additional $150,000 from what was proposed in the Funding Board’s draft annual plan.  The final Funding Plan states that this additional funding is to assist with relocation of the Trust’s helicopters.  However, it should be noted that the ARHT made a submission to the draft funding plan that suggested that the Board match a $150,000 grant from another donor.  Staff would have concerns about a ‘matched-funding’ agreement, as it could arguably be inconsistent with the funding principles in the legislation, which notes that the ARAFA system is funding of last resort.  It would be extremely concerning if this became a precedent for other such arrangements with other entities.   

6.       Secondly, Coastguard Northern Region (CNR) has elected to join with other regional coastguard organisations and the national body in a merger.  This is intended to come into effect from 1 July 2020, which will mean CNR ceases to exist as it will be part of Coastguard New Zealand.  As CNR is a specific amenity under the Act, it will no longer be able to receive funding as it will no longer exist. The Funding Board has received notification of an affirmative vote to merge all coastguard operations and withdrawing its funding application for 2020-2021 and any subsequent years.  Staff have discussed with CNR providing an equivalent amount from council as would have been allocated by ARAFA ($824,000) by way of a funding agreement, for one year. Funding for future years would need to be discussed through the Long-term Plan or by Coastguard New Zealand seeking an amendment to the Act. 

7.       Thirdly, the Plan includes a $200,000 refund to Auckland Council from the Board’s retained earnings.  The refund is deducted from the 2020/2021 levy request which would otherwise have been $16,914,500, thus reducing the total amount payable to $16,714,500.  While staff support the Funding Board’s decision in this regard, we note that the Funding Board has at the same time increased the administration budget requirements by a further $10,000 which seems unnecessary and contradictory given the surplus return of funds to council. However, we note that the Funding Board is developing a ‘retained earnings’ policy which will guide the administration funding requirements of the Funding Board. 

8.       The proposed levy is within the levy cap provided for by legislation but is more than what is allowed for in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 because there was no allowance made for increases.  If approved, the levy amount will need to be included in the 2020/21 annual plan.  

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      approve the total funding levy of $15,890,500

b)      note that staff will discuss with the Funding Board reservations about “match funding” arrangements, and whether they would contravene the ‘funder of last resort’ principle in the Act

c)      approve staff to develop a one-year funding agreement between Auckland Council and Coastguard New Zealand for $824,000 covering the 2020/2021 financial year subject to the following terms and conditions noted below:

i)          funding must only be used for activities in the Auckland region

ii)         for monitoring purposes must be subject to at least the same terms and conditions as required under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008

d)      note that the Funding Board is developing a ‘retained earnings’ policy to guide the administration funding requirements of the Funding Board.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

·   funding is primarily for provision of facilities or services by the amenities (i.e. operational)

·   funding is not available for capital expenses

·   funding is not for any part of facilities or services provided outside the Auckland region

·   funding is available only if the amenity has made all reasonable endeavours to maximise their funding from other available sources

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

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

12.     Once the Funding Board has conducted the analysis of the amenities’ funding applications it is required under the Act to prepare a funding plan. The Board must then call for public submissions. Council may provide a submission on the funding plan, as may the amenities themselves. The Funding Board must consider the submissions received when preparing the final funding plan.

13.     The Funding Board, having considered any submissions, proposes a total levy to Auckland Council for approval. 

14.     Council’s decision-making role regarding the levy is confined to providing a submission on the Funding Board’s draft funding plan, reviewing the total levy proposed by the Funding Board, and either agreeing to or rejecting the proposed levy.  Allocations to individual amenities are the role of the Funding Board, not the council. The Act requires that the funding plan must provide any information that is necessary for council to make an informed assessment of the annual levy (s25(2)(i)). Council is not able to comment on the amount of the funding being provided to the individual amenities, as it is the role of the Funding Board to analyse the funding requirements of each amenity.

Council’s submission on the 2020/2021 Funding Plan

15.     The committee at its 3 December 2019 meeting approved delegation of the council’s submission on the Funding Board’s draft annual plan to the chair and deputy chair of this committee (FIN/2019/122).  This submission (attachment C) noted the contribution provided by the Funding Board and the nine regional amenities in making Auckland a better place to live and visit.

16.     The submission noted that Auckland’s ratepayers have provided generous financial support to these regional amenities since 2008 (in excess of $166 million over a ten-year period).  The submission also highlighted to the Funding Board that there are increasing funding demands on Auckland’s ratepayer budget. 

17.     The Funding Board’s role in analysing each individual amenities’ allocation is noted and the council appreciates that the conditions which have been applied to the provisional allocation of some grants is highlighted in the draft plan. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Key elements of the 2020/2021 Funding Plan

18.     The final 2020/2021 Funding Plan proposes a total levy of $15,890,500.  This represents an overall increase of 2.4 per cent compared to 2019/2020.  This amount excludes the $824.000 levy previously requested by Coastguard Northern Region.

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

Year

Total Funding Levy

$ increase / decrease

% increase / decrease
from previous year

2020/2021*
(proposed)

$15,890,500

$386,000 

2.4%

2019/2020

$15,504,500

$877,500

6.14%

2018/2019

$14,602,000

$576,000
(across nine amenities)

% increase in previous years across ten amenities.  Is not relevant due to NZ Maritime Museum’s funding moving to RFA.

2017/2018

$16,165,500

$23,000

0.14%

2016/2017

$16,142,500

$994,100

6.56%

2015/2016

$15,148,400

$837,400

5.85%

2014/2015

$14,311,000

$215,000

1.53%

2013/2014

$14,096,000

$344,500

2.5%

*Excludes the Coastguard Northern Region levy.

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

Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust (Helicopter Trust)

21.     The Funding Plan published by the Funding Board proposed a $460,000 grant to the Helicopter Trust.  This was a similar amount to the previous year. 

22.     Through the public submission process a letter to the Funding Board from the Helicopter Trust outlined a proposal for a one-off $150,000 increase in their grant from the Funding Board to match funding provided by a Helicopter Trust donor (attachment D).    

23.     Council notes an increase of $150,000 to this amenity in the final Funding Plan approved by the Funding Board. The final Funding Plan notes the increased allocation is for costs associated with commission and deployment of new helicopters into the Auckland region.

24.     Staff would be concerned if the Funding Board had responded to the Helicopter Trust’s submission by increasing their grant on a ‘matched-funding’ basis, as it could arguably be inconsistent with the funding principles in the legislation, which notes that the ARAFA system is funding of last resort.  It would be concerning if this became a precedent for other such arrangements with other entities.

25.     The Funding Principles outlined in the Act, specifically Section 21(f), state that:

funding is available only if the specified amenity has made all reasonable endeavours to maximise its funding from other available funding sources. 

          It is therefore incumbent on each amenity to make all reasonable endevours to raise the funds necessary for their operation, with the Funding Board to consider how much additional funding is required to make an amenity sustainable.  It is not clear how a ‘matched funding’ arrangement would be consistent with this funding principal. 

26.     Staff will discuss this further with the Funding Board as ‘matched funding’ may not be consistent with the Act, and may set a precedent which other amenities may seek to use in future years. 

Coastguard Northern Region

27.     Coastguard Northern Region (CNR) provides search and rescue capability throughout the Auckland region from its centre at Mechanics Bay, Auckland.

28.     Auckland Council through the ARAFA system has provided funding to this amenity since 2008.  CNR has recently approved the merger into Coastguard New Zealand from 1 July 2020, which means that CNR will cease to exist as a legal entity.  Coastguard New Zealand is  not eligible to apply for funding under the Act or receive any levy money from the Funding Board.

29.     Staff recommend that funding for coastguard services in the Auckland region for the financial year 2020/2021 be established through a direct Funding Agreement between Auckland Council and Coastguard New Zealand to the same amount which would have been provided through ARAFA ($824,000).  Council will in effect be making the financial contribution that the Funding Board assessed as being appropriate. The services that Coastguard New Zealand will provide to Auckland will be the same as CNR have been providing to Auckland.   

30.     Entering into a funding agreement will allow Coastguard New Zealand time to investigate how it might become part of the ARAFA regime, or to discuss a longer term funding arrangement with council.


 

Return of retained ‘earnings’

31.     The Plan includes a $200,000 refund to Auckland Council from the Board’s retained earnings.  Retained ‘earnings’ are the sums left over after Board administration and director fees have been paid.  These are typically kept to provide the Board with money should there be legal challenges to its decisions.  These funds have been steadily increasing over time and the Board has made the decision that it should return some of these monies to Council as they are in excess of what it requires as a backstop.

32.     The refund is deducted from the 2020/2021 levy request which would otherwise have been $16,914,500, thus reducing the total amount payable to $16,714,500.  With the late advice of CNR’s withdrawal from the 2020/2021 levy allocation the final total amount payable by Auckland Council to the Funding Board is $15,890,500.

33.     Staff support the Funding Board’s decision in this regard.  However, we note that the Funding Board has at the same time increased the administration budget requirements by a further $10,000 which seems unnecessary and contradictory given the surplus return of funds to council.

34.     Staff note that the Funding Board is developing a retained earnings policy for the administration requirements of the Funding Board.

Options

35.     Under s.34(1)(c) of the Act 2008 the total maximum levy that can be proposed by the Funding Board is the amount equal to two percent of the revenue from rates of the Auckland Council in the previous financial year.  This equates to $36,040,000.  The final 2020/2021 Funding Plan proposes a total levy of $16,714,500 which represents 46 percent of the maximum amount that could be charged.

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

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

38.     The first option is to approve the levy.  Staff have no reason to believe that the proposed levy is contrary to the funding principals contained in the Act, and therefore there is no reason for council to not approve the levy. 

39.     However, staff note that if the proposed funding increase for the Helicopter Trust was based on a ‘matched funding’ arrangement, then this could potentially be in breach of the funding principles in the Act. However, the Funding Plan does not actually describe the increase as ‘matched funding’. We have therefore proposed a recommendation expressing Council’s concern about the sort of ‘matched funding’ arrangement which appears to have been encouraged by the Helicopter Trust.

40.     We also note that the Funding Board has resolved that, given the decision of Coastguard Northern Region to amalgamate into Coastguard New Zealand, it will fix the final levy by removing the funding allocation to CNR at its 28 April 2020 meeting.  This will have the effect of reducing the levy by $824,000.

41.     The second option is to reject the proposed levy.  The Act only gives Council the ability to reject the entire levy, even if it only disagrees with a part of it.  Rejecting the levy is not recommended, despite the discussion above about the Helicopter Trust allocation.  There is no clear evidence that this allocation was contrary to the Act, and all other allocations appear to satisfy the criteria in the Act. 


 

42.     We therefore recommend the levy is approved. This will reinforce council’s ongoing commitment and long-term support for the work, services and programmes that each amenity provides to Aucklanders across the region.  Nonetheless, it is important that each amenity remember that its funding comes from ratepayers, and is ‘funding of last resort’. 

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

43.     There are no direct impacts or emissions affecting the climate over the lifetime of the decision to approve the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board levy for 2020/2021. 

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

44.     There are no direct impacts for the council group that result from approving the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board levy for 2020/2021. 

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

45.     Decision making and oversight on regional activities is the responsibility of the Governing Body.  This report relates to the funding relationship between the council, the Funding Board and the nine regional amenities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

47.     Some amenities have outlined the various programmes delivered that contribute to Maori wellbeing. 

48.     Additionally, a Funding Board member (Precious Clark) has been appointed to represent the interests of Maori in the Auckland region.  Therefore, Maori wellbeing and perspectives are criteria for consideration throughout the Funding Board discussion at meetings.  

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49.     The proposed levy is within the levy cap provided for by legislation but is more than what is budgeted for in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 because there was no allowance made for increases. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

52.     The Funding Board works directly with the individual amenities.  As well as analysing the funding applications of the amenities, the Funding Board also reviews the amenities’ annual and half year reports.  Council would request that the risk be mitigated by the Funding Board continuing to exercise rigorous scrutiny of the amenities’ activities.

53.     There is also the ongoing risk to council from the indicated funding requests from the specified amenities for future years.  The indication from the amenities is that they will be seeking substantial increases in future years.  This risk is mitigated by the scrutiny that the Funding Board applies to the annual funding applications submitted by the amenities.  Any increases to funding would need to be justified by the amenities in terms of the Act’s funding principles.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54.     If the committee approves the proposed levy, payment will be made to the Funding Board on or before 1 July 2020.  As discussed in the report, this amount is anticipated to be the approved levy, minus the allocation for Coastguard Northern Region. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2020-2021 Funding Plan

185

b

Chair’s letter to Auckland Council 9 March 2020 (CNR)

231

c

Auckland Council Submission to 2020/2021 Draft Funding Levy

233

d

Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust - Public Submission 10 Feb 2020

235

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Josie Meuli - Senior Advisor

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


 


 


 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Boundary adjustment between 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland and 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland

File No.: CP2020/02535

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval to undertake a boundary adjustment at 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland and 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland by amalgamating approximately 140m2 of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 which is currently included in the title for 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland into the title for 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland is formed as an at grade car park known as the Bledisloe car park. It borders the council owned Bledisloe House, located at 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland. 

3.       4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland was approved for sale on 15 May 2018 as part of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy. 

4.       It has been identified that approximately 140m2 of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520, which is part of the title for 24 Wellesley Street, protrudes into 4-10 Mayoral Drive. This 140m2 portion of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21 DP 21520 physically appears to be part of 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland (image contained in Attachment A). It was included in the designation and resource consent granted for 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland of the over-station development at the planned Aotea Station (see image contained in Attachment B). 

5.       We seek to undertake a boundary adjustment at 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street West by amalgamating the approximately 140m2 portion of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 into the title for 4-10 Mayoral Drive. This will result in straight boundaries for both properties, regularize the parcel size and shape for both properties and allow the existing resource consent to be implemented.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      approve the amalgamation of approximately 140m2 of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520, 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland currently contained in certificate of title NA128C/83 into the title for 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland.

b)      amend resolution number FIN/2018/188 to include within clause a) i), a new sub-clause e) as follows: approximately 140m2 of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520, 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland currently contained in certificate of title NA128C/83 but which will be amalgamated into the title for 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland.

 


 

Horopaki

Context

6.       On 15 May 2018, the Finance and Performance Committee approved the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy (resolution FIN/2018/73).

7.       The Finance and Performance Committee provided a subsequent approval on 20 November 2018 (resolution FIN/2018/188). This was to include the disposal of the land at 32-42 Wellesley Street West, Auckland that was previously inadvertently omitted from the recommendation on 15 May 2018.

8.       The resolution (FIN/2018/188) stated:

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      amend resolution number FIN2018/73 by delegating authority to Panuku Development Auckland Limited to approve the final terms and conditions of sale, and to enter into the required sale documentation, for the following properties in accordance with Panuku Development Auckland Limited’s internal delegations and subject to the satisfactory conclusion of any required statutory processes:

i)       approximately 4,691m2 (subject to survey) of land at 4-10 Mayoral Drive and the balance of 32-42 Wellesley Street West, Auckland which is not to be transferred to City Rail Link Limited, comprised of an estate in fee simple more or less being the following:

A)    4-8 Mayoral Drive, Auckland being Lot 15, Lot 18 and Lots 23-25 DP 21520 and Part Lot 21 DP 212520, contained in computer freehold register NA1589/36;

B)    10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland being Section 1 Survey Office Plan 54203, contained in computer freehold register NA75B/323;

C)   10A Mayoral Drive, Auckland being Allotment 26-27 Section 31 City of Auckland, contained in computer freehold register NA1193/78; and

D)   the balance of 32-42 Wellesley Street West, Auckland being Lot 19 DP 21520 contained in computer freehold register NA485/235 which is not to be transferred to City Rail Link Limited;

9.       The Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy is a self-funding programme of works which utilises the capital receipts from the divestment of seven legacy corporate accommodation properties that were no longer required for the corporate property office network. It re-invests the sale proceeds to undertake a programme of works that delivers a fit-for-purpose and future-proofed corporate property network aligned to the structure of Auckland Council.

10.     Approximately 4,238m2 (subject to survey) of land at 4-10 Mayoral Drive was approved for sale as part of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy. When undertaking due diligence for the sale of 4-10 Mayoral Drive, it was identified that Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 is contained within the title for 24 Wellesley Street West, but that approximately 140m2 of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 protrudes into 4-10 Mayoral Drive.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

11.     Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 is a 341m2 parcel of land that was part of a configuration of small lots that were formed in the 1920s (image from the historic title NA1887/49 is contained in Attachment C). There were originally old buildings on Lot 17 & Part Lot 21 and the adjacent Lot 16. The land has essentially remained unchanged, apart from a small area of land along the boundary of the Civic Theatre and the Sky World Entertainment Centre, which was incorporated into the Sky World Entertainment Centre redevelopment. 

12.     Due to the lack of change in Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 and the adjacent lots being in the same ownership, there has historically been little need to adjust and regularize the boundary between 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street West

13.     To all intents and purposes the 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21 DP 21520 appears to be part of 4-10 Mayoral Drive. It does not appear to have any value or associated connection with the adjacent Bledisloe house. It was included in the designation and resource consent at 4-10 Mayoral Drive for the over-station development at the planned Aotea Station.  It is intended that 4-10 Mayoral Drive will be sold with the resource consent for the over-station development in place.  In accordance with the resource consent, the 140m2 parcel will form part of a public laneway and there will be an easement in favour of council to protect the public walkway.

14.     We seek to undertake a boundary adjustment between the two contiguous properties located at 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street West by amalgamating the approximately 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 into the title for 4-10 Mayoral Drive.  This will result in straight boundaries for both properties and it will regularize the parcel size and shape of both 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street West. Additionally, it will give effect to council’s existing resource consent.

15.     The benefits of undertaking this boundary adjustment include:

·        It will regularize the parcel size and shape for both properties

·        it will create straight boundaries for both properties

·        it will allow the existing resource consent to be implemented, including the public laneway consistent with the Waitematā Local Board resolution (WT/2018/31)

·        the parcel in its current form provides no additional value to the property at 24 Wellesley Street West (Bledisloe House), but value can be attributed to the parcel by including it in the planned sale of 4-10 Mayoral Drive.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

16.     There is not anticipated to be any climate impact or emissions from implementing the proposed boundary adjustment between 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street West.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17.     Consultation was undertaken on the sale of 4-10 Mayoral Drive as part of the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy. This consultation included the 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 that protrudes into 4-10 Mayoral Drive. The consultation that was undertaken with the council group and impacted staff was supportive of the sale of 4-10 Mayoral and the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

18.     Staff engaged with the Waitematā Local Board about the proposed sale of 4-10 Mayoral Drive and the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy in March 2018. The 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 that protrudes into 4-10 Mayoral Drive was included in the information provided to the Waitematā Local Board.

19.     The Waitematā Local Board resolved (WTM/2018/31) that it noted the recommendation to dispose of 4-10 Mayoral Drive and requested four matters be considered as part of any decision to sell 4-10 Mayoral Drive. The only issue raised by the Waitematā Local Board that relates to the proposed boundary adjustment was that the Waitematā Local Board wanted to


ensure the laneway between 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street West is retained and is of a sufficient width. The boundary adjustment proposed in this report will enable the laneway required as part of the resource consent for 4-10 Mayoral Drive to be retained.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20.     15 mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland on 5 April 2018. The 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 that protrudes into 4-10 Mayoral Drive was included in the information provided to mana whenua.  The following feedback was received.

a)      Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

No feedback received for this site.

b)      Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

No feedback received for this site.

c)      Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei

No feedback received for this site.

d)      Te Kawerau a Maki

No feedback received for this site.

e)      Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

No feedback received for this site.

f)       Ngāti Tamaoho

No feedback received for this site.

g)      Te ākitai - Waiohua

No feedback received for this site.

h)      Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

No feedback received for this site.

i)        Te Ahiwaru

No feedback received for this site.

j)        Ngāti Paoa

No feedback received for this site.

k)      Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for this site.

l)        Ngāti Maru

No feedback received for this site.

m)     Ngāti Tamatera

No feedback received for this site.

n)      Te Patukirikiri

No feedback received for this site.

o)      Waikato-Tainui

No feedback received for this site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21.     The 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520 provides no additional value to the property at 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland.  However, value can be attributed to the parcel by including it in the planned sale of 4-10 Mayoral Drive.

22.     The proceeds of sale from this will be utilised for the Corporate Property Portfolio Strategy, with funds to be re-invested into the Corporate Accommodation network in accordance with the Finance and Performance Committee’s decision of 15 May 2018 (resolution FIN/2018/73).

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23.     If we cannot complete the boundary adjustment, the resource consent for the planned over-station development at 4-10 Mayoral Drive would need to be amended as it could not be given effect to without the inclusion of the 140m2 parcel of Lot 17 & Part Lot 21, DP 21520.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24.     Subject to the Finance and Performance Committee approval, Panuku will undertake the boundary adjustment between 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland and 24 Wellesley Street West, Auckland in accordance with s52 Public Works Act 1981.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Image of 4-10 Mayoral Drive and 24 Wellesley Street, Auckland

245

b

Consented plan for Aotea Station 'over-station' development at 4-10 Mayoral Drive, Auckland

247

c

Historic title of 24 Wellesley Street West

249

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Rod Aitken, Head of Corporate Property

Authorisers

Robert Irvine - Head of Group Financial Planning

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 



Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 



Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Finance and Performance Committee Forward Work Programme

File No.: CP2020/01217

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the Finance and Performance Committee’s forward work programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This committee controls expenditure across the Auckland Council Group and deals with the overall financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council Group and makes financial decisions outside of the annual budgeting processes.

3.       Areas of work are briefly described and identified as requiring either decision or direction.  Where possible, likely timeframes for coming before the committee have also been identified.

4.       The forward programme will be updated and reported monthly for information as part of the summary information report.

5.       Staff recommend that the forward work programme be reviewed on a six-monthly basis, commencing September 2020.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      approve the Finance and Performance Committee’s forward work programme.

b)      agree that the Finance and Performance Committee’s forward work programme be reported monthly for information and reviewed on a six-monthly basis, commencing September 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Finance and Performance Committee draft work programme

253

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Anita Furniss - Executive Officer - Finance Division

Authoriser

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

 



Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

 

Te Komiti ā-Pūtea, ā-Mahi Hoki/Finance and Performance Committee
Forward Work Programme 2020

This committee controls expenditure across the Auckland Council Group and deals with the overall financial management and performance of the council parent organisation and Auckland Council Group and makes financial decisions outside of the annual budgeting processes.  The full terms of reference can be found here: Auckland Council Governing Body Terms of Reference

This committee meets bi-monthly commencing in March 2020

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

2020

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Planning and funding

Annual Budget

General Manager Financial Strategy and Planning

Statutory Process including review of rating policies

Decision to agree to the Consultation items

Recommend consultation document to consult with public (Feb)

Adopt consultation document to consult with public (Governing Body)

Consultation period – 21 February 2020 – 22 March 2020

Hear feedback and deliberate budget scenarios (Apr)

Decisions made for Annual Budget (Jun)

Recommend final Annual Budget (Jun)

Adopt final Annual Budget (Governing Body) (Jun)

Progress to date:

Mayoral Proposal for the Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Link to decision

Annual Budget 2020/2021 – consultation material overview - Link to decision

Rates and Fees Issues for Annual Budget 2020/2021 - Link to decision

Annual Budget 2020/2021 – consultation materials overview (GB) - Link to decision

Rates and Fees Issue for Annual Budget 2020/2021 (GB) - Link to decision

Adoption of consultation Material: Annual Budget 2020/2021 – Link to decision; Link to GB decision

Amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy – Link to decision; Link to GB decision

Annual Budget 2020/2021 communication and engagement approach – Link to decision; Link to GB decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

2020

No meeting

No meeting

Mar

No meeting

May

No meeting

Jul

No meeting

Sep

No meeting

Nov

No meeting

Half-yearly and annual reporting

Group Treasurer and Group Financial Controller

Statutory requirement and NZX listing requirement

Receive and approve half-year and preliminary full year NZX release (delegation to chair and deputy chair) (March)

Receive annual report (Sept)

Recommend adoption of annual report to Governing Body (Sept)

Note:  

·    NZX announcements are presented to the Audit and Risk Committee

·    There is a delegation from the Committee to Chair and Deputy Chair of Finance and Performance to approve the release of the interim and full year Auckland Council group financial results to the NZX for each reporting period through to 30 June 2022.

·    Formal adoption of annual report is by the Governing Body

Progress to date:

Delegation for approval for releasing the interim and full year Auckland Council Group results to the NZX – Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget Updates

General Manager Financial Strategy and Planning

Financial management

Decision to agree recommended budget changes outside of the Annual Budget/Long-term Plan, as required

Note:   This includes significant unbudgeted one-off expenditure.

Progress to date:

 

 

 

As required

Insurance Strategy and Placement

Chief Risk Officer

Financial management

Approve the council insurance strategy

Approve the annual insurance placement for Council

Progress to date:

Collection for data for insurance renewals currently underway and preparations being made for insurance roadshows where deductibles, limits and policy coverage will be assessed against market expectations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 June 2019
(extraordinary)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loan guarantees and grant funding

Group Treasurer

Financial management

Review information and make decisions on loan guarantees and restructuring (including Parks)

Receive an update on the Eden Park loan guarantee and grant funding

Receive progress update memos when appropriate

Progress to date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Contributions policy

General Manager Financial Strategy and Planning

Policy review

Review development contribution policy

 

Progress to date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

2020

No meeting

No meeting

Mar

No meeting

May

No meeting

Jul

No meeting

Sep

No meeting

Nov

No meeting

Reporting and performance

Performance reporting quarterly – parent

General Manager Financial and Business Performance and Manager Corporate and Local Board Performance

Financial management

Monitor council parent financial and non-financial performance results on a quarterly basis, including Māori outcomes expenditure.

Q1 (Nov), Q2 (Mar), Q3 (May), Q4 (September)

Note:   Reporting in September must be considered as a confidential report until results are sent to NZX at the end of September.

Progress to date:

Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council 2019/2020 quarter one performance report to 30 September 2019 – Link to decision – Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance reporting quarterly – group

General Manager Financial and Business Performance and Manager Corporate and Local Board Performance

Financial management

Monitor Auckland Council group financial requirements on a quarterly basis.

Q1 (Nov), Q2 (Mar), Q3 (May), Q4 (Sept)

Progress to date:

Auckland Council Group and Auckland Council 2019/2020 quarter one performance report to 30 September 2019 – Link to decision – Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disposals

Auckland Council and Panuku Development Auckland

Panuku, working with all areas of council, is required through its Statement of Intent to identify and recommend to council properties that are surplus to requirements and can be considered for disposal.  These include general disposals to fund Long-term Plan projects.

Properties are recommended for acquisitions and disposal to the committee for approval in accordance with the Long-term Plan.

Agree to proceed with recommended disposals or acquisition, as required.

Progress to date:

 

 

 

As required

Area of work and Lead Department

Reason for work

Committee role

(decision and/or direction)

Expected timeframes

2020

No meeting

No meeting

Mar

No meeting

May

No meeting

Jul

No meeting

Sep

No meeting

Nov

No meeting

Operational

Funding and Levies (including Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, Museum of Transport and Technology and Auckland War Memorial Museum)

Manager CCO/ External Partnerships team

Statutory process

Approve annual funding levies for Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, Museum of Transport and Technology and Auckland War Memorial Museum (Mar)

Approve Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board (Mar)

Receive presentations from amenities (May/July)

Progress to date:

Auckland Regional Amenites Funding Board: Delegate approval of Auckland Council’s submission for the 2020/2021 Funding Levy – Link to decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of committee forward work programme

Governance

Regular reporting

Approve forward work programme (Mar)

Receive updates (bi-monthly, commencing May))

Review content of the forward work programme (six-monthly, commencing Sept)

Progress to date:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Updated: 12 March 2020



Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

Summary of Finance and Performance Committee information memoranda and briefings, including the Forward Work Programme - 19 March 2020

File No.: CP2019/21546

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda or briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to Finance and Performance Committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memoranda/briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following information has been circulated to members:

Date

Subject

2/12/2019

Memo from Rod Aitken, Head of Corporate Property relating to 50 Centreway Drive, Orewa – Attachment A

19/12/2019

Memo from Nicola Mills, General Manager Financial and Business Performance relating to Quarter One performance reporting queries – Auckland Council – Attachment B

17/1/2019

Memo from Rod Aitken, Head of Corporate Property relating to the sale of Henderson buildings – Attachment C

5/2/2020

Memo from Claire Gomas, Principal Advisor relating to the engagement for the Council-Controlled Organisations Review – Attachment D

7/2/2020

Memo from John Bishop, Group Treasurer relating to the Retrofit Your Home Programme – Attachment E

26/2/2020

Councillor approval of results announcement to the market for the half year ended 31 December 2019 – NZX Half Year Announcement – Attachment F

4.       The following workshops/briefings have taken place:

Date

Workshop/Briefing

27/11/19

Finance and Performance Committee confidential workshop (Annual Budget 2020/2021 and Waste Collection contracts 2020 – planning, procurement and mobilisation (no attachment)

4/12/2019

Finance and Performance Committee confidential workshop (Annual Budget 2020/2021 – Mayoral Proposal)

5/2/2020

Finance and Performance Committee confidential workshop (Annual Budget 2020/2021 – consultation document and supplementary information

11/3/2020

Finance and Performance Committee workshop (Annual Budget 2020/2021 – Have Your Say Event for Regional Stakeholders – Attachment G

These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

at the top left of the page, select meeting/Te hui “Finance and Performance Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

5.       Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary.  Committee members should direct any questions to the authors.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Finance and Performance Committee information memorandum and briefings as at 19 March 2020.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2 December 2019 – Memo from Head of Corporate Property regarding 50 Centreway Drive, Orewa (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

19 December 2019 – Memo from Nicola Mills, General Manager Financial and Business Performance relating to Quarter One performance reporting queries – Auckland Council (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

17 January 2019 - Memo from Rod Aitken, Head of Corporate Property relating to the sale of Henderson buildings (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

5 February 2020 – Memo from Principal Advisor relating to the engagement for the Council-Controlled Organisations Review (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

7 February 2020 - Memo from John Bishop, Group Treasurer relating to the Retrofit Your Home Programme (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

26 February 2020 - Councillor approval of results announcement to the market for the half year ended 31 December 2019 – NZX Half Year Announcement (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

11 March 2020 - Finance and Performance Committee workshop (Annual Budget 2020/2021 – Have Your Say Event for Regional Stakeholders (Under Separate Cover)

 

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

      

 


Finance and Performance Committee

19 March 2020

 

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

That the Finance and Performance Committee

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

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

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

 

C1       Woodhill Sands Trust - Guarantee (Loan Reset Request)

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains information on the background to an on-going dispute and negotiations with objectors to the Trust's outstanding application for a new resource consent in respect of the site it owns and occupies.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C2       Community Loans Under $1 million

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains comments and information pertaining to the financial position of community groups, which if released may impact on the credit ratings, operational lines of credit used by the organisations in their daily activities and their ability to continue trading successfully

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C3       Built Heritage Acquisition Fund

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains specific information on the extent of properties proposed for purchase which could affect any purchase offer.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.