Finance Committee Meeting 13 May 2016 To Consider Annual Plan.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee will be
held on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Friday, 13 May 2016

9:30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
Finance and Performance Committee

OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
Cr Penny Webster
Cr Ross Clow
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Cameron Brewer
Mayor Len Brown, JP
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Bill Cashmore
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Cr Chris Darby
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee
Cr Calum Penrose
Cr Dick Quax
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Member David Taipari
Member John Tamihere
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr John Watson
Cr George Wood, CNZM
(Quorum 11 members)
Mike Giddey
Democracy Advisor
10 May 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8143
Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy
unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact
the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
This committee will be responsible for monitoring overall financial management and the
performance of the council parent organisation and the financial monitoring of the Auckland
Council Group. It will also make financial decisions required outside of the annual budgeting
processes. Key responsibilities include:
Financial management
Approval of non-budgeted expenditure
Write-offs
Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the Committees responsibilities
Monitoring achievement of financial and other measures of performance and service

levels
Recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body
Development of the 2016/17 Annual Plan and amendments to the LTP including:
- Local Board agreements
- Financial Policy related to AP (recommendation to the Governing Body)
- Setting of rates (recommendation to the Governing Body)
- Preparation of the consultation document and supporting information for the LTP and
Annual Plan (recommendation to the Governing Body)
Financial policy outside the LTP and AP
Powers
(i)
All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

Except:
(a)
powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself
(section 2)
(b)
where the committees responsibility is limited to making a recommendation
only
(ii)
Approval of a submission to an external body
(iii)
Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior

to the next meeting of that other committee.
(iv)
Power to establish subcommittees.
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 Mori Statutory Board
Members of the Independent Mori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the
committee remain.
Independent Mori 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.

13 May 2016
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Apologies
Declaration of Interest
Confirmation of Minutes
Petitions
Public Input
Local Board Input
Extraordinary Business
Notices of Motion
Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making
10
Annual Budget 2016/2017 - local board feedback
11
Local Board budget update
201
12
Final Annual Plan 2016/17 - Mayoral Proposal
209
13
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
95
Page 5

13 May 2016
1
Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
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.
Confirmation of Minutes
That the Finance and Performance Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting held on Tuesday, 12 April 2016, including
the confidential section, as a true and correct record.
Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
Public Input
Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the
meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion
to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A
maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)
minutes speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
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) days 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.
Page 7

13 May 2016
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)
(b)
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
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.
Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 8

13 May 2016
Item 9

File No.: CP2016/08912
Purpose
1.
This report provides an overview of the process undertaken to consult and consider
feedback to inform the councils next Annual Budget (the Annual Plan 2016/2017 or AP) and
sets out the decisions now required, including adoption of the Tpuna Maunga Authority
Operational Plan 2016/17.
Executive Summary
2.
Between 15 February and 24 March 2016, Auckland Council undertook public consultation
to inform the Annual Budget 2016/2017. Consultation included potential changes to rating
policies, local board priorities, and the draft Tpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan.
3.
Feedback was received across three broad feedback channels written, in-person and
digital. In summary:
3,321 written submissions were received (2,627 related to regional matters and 2,459
related to local matters), providing around 22,684 feedback points
426 people attended 31 Have Your Say events, providing around 2,345 feedback
points
35 feedback points were provided through digital channels (Twitter and Facebook).
4.
Between 15 to 23 April local boards considered feedback received on local matters. On 26

April the Tpuna Maunga Authority and Governing Body held joint deliberations on the draft
Maunga Authority Operational Plan. On 26 April the Finance and Performance Committee
considered feedback received on regional matters.
5.
On 2 May the Tpuna Maunga Authority approved the Tpuna Maunga Authority
Operational Plan 2016/2017 (Attachment A). The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Tpuna
Maunga Authority, under delegated authority, have subsequently approved the Summary of
the Operational Plan 2016/2017 (Attachment B) for inclusion in the Annual Budget
2016/2017.
6.
Between 2 May and 11 May the Finance and Performance Committee held workshops to
consider key matters for decision-making for 2016/2017 and also held discussions with local
boards.
7.
Decisions are now required in order for staff to finalise financial statements, local board
agreements, and the Annual Budget document ahead of adoption on 30 June 2016.
Recommendation/s
a)
recommend to the Governing Body that it agree the Tpuna Maunga Authority
Operational Plan 2016/17 (Attachment A to the agenda report) and Summary of the
Tpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2016/17 (Attachment B to the agenda
report) for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2016/2017
b)
note that other decisions required to finalise the Annual Plan 2016/2017 are set out
in separate reports on this agenda.
Page 9

13 May 2016
Item 9
Comments
Consultation to inform the Annual Budget 2016/2017
8.
Between 15 February and 24 March 2016, Auckland Council undertook public consultation
to inform the Annual Budget 2016/2017. Key elements of the consultation process
undertaken are set out below.
A consultation document with supporting information was adopted by the Governing

Body on 10 February 2016. The consultation document focussed on the potential
changes for 2016/2017 from year 2 of the 10-year Budget.
Public consultation ran between 15 February 2016 and 24 March 2016 this longer
consultation period provided around four weeks from when the household summary
was delivered to letterboxes in the March edition of OurAuckland.
A public awareness raising campaign was undertaken over early February to midMarch to encourage Aucklanders to participate in the consultation process. This
included the February edition of OurAuckland, March edition of OurAuckland,
advertisements in local and regional newspapers, online banner advertisements,
media releases, targeted stakeholder communications and social media.
Three broad channels were used to collect feedback to make it easy for Aucklanders
to get involved. These were:
o
Written submissions this included a hard copy feedback form (distributed to

Auckland households as part of OurAuckland), an online feedback form and also
any emails, letters, pro forma or other written communications received.
In person events were held across Auckland (largely in the evenings and
weekends) to provide an opportunity for Aucklanders to speak in person to
elected members and subject matter experts.
Digital feedback was also collected through social media channels (Facebook
and Twitter) using #aklbudget.
Consideration of feedback
9.
There were 3,321 written submissions received (including 45 late submissions), providing
around 22,684 feedback points. Of the submissions received:
most was received through the written channel with 75 per cent being provided using
the council consultation feedback form (either online, posted or emailed)
online submissions increased from 25 per cent from consultation on the 10-year
Budget to 31 per cent
2,627 submitters provided feedback on regional topics and 2,459 on local topics.
10.
There were 426 attendees at 31 Have Your Say events, providing around 2,345 feedback
points. Two Have Your Say events and one community event were specifically targeted
towards Mori with a focus on rating of Mori Freehold Land. One Have Your Say event was
held for key stakeholders in a traditional hearing style with all councillors invited to hear
spoken feedback. There were eight community events held by local boards which recorded
feedback (119 feedback points received) and other community events were used for raising
awareness. All attendees at events were also given the opportunity to provide a written
submission. Have Your Say and community events provided a qualitative source of
feedback to consider alongside the qualitative analysis of written feedback.
11.
There were 35 pieces of feedback received through digital channels (Twitter and Facebook).
Page 10
12.
A significant volume of feedback was received in response to the rates related questions.
The three other rates topics did not have specific questions in the feedback form and only a
small volume of feedback was received on these topics. Feedback was also received on
topics that had not been consulted upon.
13.
The following approach was used to ensure decision-makers are well informed about
feedback received on the Annual Budget 2016/2017:
Staff with specific subject matter expertise reviewed feedback received relevant to
their own area and summarised the issues raised to ensure councillors understand
community views.
Two reports were prepared summarising feedback on regional matters and considered
at the Finance and Performance Committee briefing 26 April. These reports did not
contain analysis of the implications of the feedback received. This has been included
in decision-making reports that have been considered through a series of workshops
between 28 April and 11 May.
21 reports were also prepared summarising the feedback for each local board area
and were considered by each local board between 15 and 26 April.
A separate report was prepared summarising feedback received on the draft Tpuna
Maunga Operational Plan. This report was considered on 26 April when joint
deliberations were held between the Tpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority
and Governing Body.
14.
In addition to the summary of feedback reports, all feedback received has been made
available to elected members and have also been made publicly available on the Auckland
Council website.
15.
On 9 May discussions were held between local boards and the Finance and Performance
Committee. These discussions provided an opportunity for local board views to be
considered ahead of the Finance and Performance Committee making final decisions for the
Annual Budget 2016/2017.
Agreeing the Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2016/2017

16.
Auckland Council is responsible for the routine maintenance of the Tpuna Maunga (under the
direction of the Tpuna Maunga Authority) along with associated costs. The Maunga Authority
and Auckland Council must agree the Maunga Authority Operational Plan (Operational Plan)
and a Summary of the Operational Plan every year. The Operational Plan sets out how the
Council will meet its legislative responsibilities.
17.
The Operational Plan for 2016/17 includes capital expenditure of $1.9 million and operating
expenditure of $2.9 million as set out in year two of the 10-year Budget 2015-25.
18.
At Hui 18 (2 May 2016) the Tpuna Maunga Authority approved the Tpuna Maunga
Authority Operational Plan 2016/2017 (attachment A). Under delegation, the Chair and
Deputy Chair of the Maunga Authority have subsequently approved the Summary of the
Operational Plan 2016/2017 (attachment B) for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2016/2017.
Other decision-making
19.
Consultation on the Annual Budget 2016/2017 included the following potential changes to
rates for year two of the 10-year budget:
level of the UAGC
share of the ITL between business and residential ratepayers
rates on farm/lifestyle properties
proposed changes to rating of Mori land.
proposed changes to business improvement district targeted rates
Page 11
Item 9

13 May 2016
Item 9

13 May 2016
proposed pilot programme to finance septic tank replacements and upgrades
proposed introduction of a rural Franklin recycling targeted rate.
20.
Between February and March staff undertook their standard annual review process across
all council budgets for the 2016/2017 year. This included a review of cost pressures,
progress against savings targets and any changes to the capital programme. It also included
an update on planning assumptions for key items such as inflation and dividend
expectations. The key budget decisions are set out in the Budget update report attached to
the Mayoral report.
21.
The Mayoral report for the Annual Budget sets out the Mayors recommendations for
budgets and rates. Staff reports on these areas are attached to the Mayors Report.
22.
In addition, the Finance and Performance Committee will also consider reports on:
local board advocacy for regional decision-making
decisions required to prepare local board agreements.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
23.
Information on local projects and priorities was included in the consultation material to inform
the development of local board agreements for 2016/2017. During the consultation process,
local boards held events to engage with their communities and at least one Have Your Say
event was held in each local board area. These events provided an opportunity for
Aucklanders to provide feedback in person to local board members on local issues.
24.
Reports summarising the feedback received relevant to each local board area were
considered by each local board between 15 and 26 April. Local board views were then
shared with the Finance and Performance Committee during discussions on 9 May.
25.
A separate report on todays agenda covers local board advocacy for the Annual Budget
2016/2017. Local board views are also considered in each of the relevant decision-making
reports on todays agenda.
26.
Local boards will hold workshops following the decisions made today and then meet to
agree final budgets and adopt local board agreements between 6-16 June.
Mori impact statement

27.
In the 10-year Budget, a strategic top down approach was taken to agree and prioritise
activities that contribute to Mori outcomes through clarifying the councils political direction
on priority Mori transformational shift activities and associated budgets.
28.
Consultation on the Annual Budget 2016/2017 has focussed on those issues that the council
potentially considered changing from the 10-year Budget. Decisions on those issues
required to finalise the Annual Budget 2016/2017 are set out in separate reports on todays
agenda. The impact of those decisions on Maori are covered in each report.
Implementation
29.
30.
Decisions on the Annual Budget 2016/2017 are required today in order for staff to:
finalise financial statements
finalise local board agreements local boards will hold workshops in May and then
meet between 6-16 June to adopt local board agreements for 2016/2017
finalise the annual plan document for adoption.
A rates resolution will also be prepared for adoption at the 30 June Governing Body meeting,
for consideration following the adoption of the Annual Plan 2016/2017.
Page 12
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2016-2017
15
Summary Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2016-2017
87
Signatories
Author
Aaron Matich - Acting Programme Director
Authorisers
Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning

Kevin Ramsay Acting Group Chief Financial Officer
Page 13
Item 9

13 May 2016
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 15
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 16
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 17
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 18
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 19
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 20
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 21
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 22
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 23
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 24
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 25
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 26
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 28
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 29
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 30
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 31
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 32
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 33
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 34
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 35
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 36
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 37
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 38
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 39
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 40
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 41
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 42
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 43
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 44
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 45
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 46
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 47
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 48
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 49
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 50
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 51
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 52
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 53
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 54
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 55
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 56
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 57
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 58
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 59
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 60
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 61
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 62
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 63
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 64
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 65
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 66
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 67
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 68
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 69
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 70
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 71
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 72
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 73
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 74
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 75
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 76
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 77
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 78
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 79
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 80
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 81
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 82
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 83
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 84
Attachment A
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 85
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 87
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 88
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 89
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 90
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 91
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 92
Attachment B
Item 9

13 May 2016
Page 93

13 May 2016
Item 10

File No.: CP2016/06927
Purpose
1.
To provide local board feedback on regional financial policy issues with a local impact, key
advocacy issues, local targeted rates and Business Improvement District (BID) targeted
rates, for the Finance and Performance Committees consideration when agreeing
2016/2017 budgets.
Executive Summary
2.
Local boards, in fulfilling their role in councils shared governance model, have been
providing feedback and views on various issues as part of the annual budget process. This
has included considering:
regional issues (the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC), Interim Transport
Levy (ITL), Mori land rates and rates for farm/lifestyle properties over 50 hectares)
key issues the local boards would like the Finance and Performance Committee to
consider prioritising for progression
proposed new/amended local targeted rates and Business Improvement District
(BID) targeted rates.
3.
Local boards provided initial views on these matters to the Finance and Performance
Committee on 27 and 30 November 2015. Local boards have now considered the feedback
received for their local area, from public consultation which took place between 15 February
and 24 March 2016, and resolved on these issues.
4.
This report summarises the feedback from local boards, and focuses on common themes.
As such, it does not include all of the matters raised in local board resolutions. A complete
set of the local board resolutions on regional issues, advocacy, local targeted rates and BID
targeted rates can be found in Attachment A.
5.
Key themes arising from those local boards that resolved on regional issues included:
support for keeping the UAGC at current levels
support for businesses paying a greater share of the ITL and reducing the
residential share
support for the retention of the current allocation of rates for farm/lifestyle sectors.
6.
Local boards had differing views on whether to reduce rates for some Mori land.
7.
In general, the advocacy issues raised by local boards had a focus on what will be required
to cope with the demands of Aucklands projected population growth, development and
intensification. The key themes include:
the need for integrated transport infrastructure to support growth and development,
including various transport improvements and well connected networks
the importance of parks, recreational facilities and open spaces for the liveability of
Auckland, requiring strategic and timely land acquisition and equitable funding
across the region
the provision of community facilities, particularly to accommodate growth.
Regionally fair and consistent levels of service, and adequate operational funding
and funding for renewals, are required. Reinstating a sub-regional fund for
community projects would assist with empowering communities
Page 95

13 May 2016
Item 10
the need for resource to: undertake timely planning, projects and strategic
development; protect heritage sites; and provide infrastructure (including social
infrastructure) to support growth projections
use of development contributions in local areas to deal with growth
addressing environmental concerns, such as coastal erosion, waste and recycling,
pests and water issues.
8.
BID and local targeted rates matters were raised by Henderson-Massey, Waitkere Ranges,
Mngere-thuhu, tara-Papatoetoe, Franklin and Hibiscus and Bays local boards.
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and Performance Committee, when agreeing 2016/2017 budgets:
a)
consider feedback from local boards on regional financial policy issues, advocacy
and proposals for Business Improvement District targeted rates and local targeted
rates.
Comments
9.
Local board views are summarised below and their resolutions can be found in Attachment
A.
The UAGC
10.
Under legislation the council can set the fixed portion of rates (UAGC) at up to 30 per cent of
rates collected, which is around $980. As part of its consultation on the annual budget,
council sought the communitys views on whether to change the UAGC or keep it at $397.
For those that favoured change, views were sought as to the level it should be set between
$350 and $650.
11.
The majority of local boards that provided views on this issue supported keeping the UAGC
at current levels:
the following local boards supported retaining the status quo: Albert-Eden, Waitkere
Ranges, Henderson-Massey, Maungakiekie-Tmaki, Manurewa, tara-Papatoetoe,
Puketpapa, Rodney, Waiheke, Waitemat, Kaiptiki and Whau. These local boards
consider that the UAGC should remain at current levels, in particular, to stabilise rates
and minimise changes for ratepayers
there was support for increasing the level of the UAGC from Devonport-Takapuna,
Hibiscus and Bays, Howick, rkei and Upper Harbour local boards. Hibiscus and Bays
Local Board supported increasing the UAGC to $650. rkei Local Board supported a
minimum UAGC of $450
Mngere-thuhu Local Board considered the level should be decreased. Puketpapa
Local Board considered that if the UAGC is to be changed, it should be decreased to
$350 (but prefers that it remains at current levels).
The ITL
12.
The ITL (targeted rate) runs for three years and will collect $181 million to help fund the
accelerated transport program of $523 million. Consultation sought the communitys views
on two possible changes to the ITL (presently $113.85 (including GST) for residential and
farm/lifestyle ratepayers and $182.85 (including GST) for businesses):
bring the share of the ITL paid by businesses into line with the share they pay of general
rates, 32.7 per cent, increasing the business ITL to $407 and reducing the residential and
farm/lifestyle ITL to $90
share the ITL amongst businesses based on their capital value, whether or not the share
paid by business changes.
Page 96
13.
Most local boards that provided views on this issue supported businesses paying a greater
share of the ITL and reducing the residential share:
the following local boards supported businesses paying a greater share of the ITL and
reducing the residential: Albert-Eden, Kaiptiki, Henderson-Massey, Mngere-thuhu,
Waitemat, Upper Harbour, Puketpapa, Howick, Waiheke, Hibiscus and Bays,
Waitkere Ranges and Whau
not increasing the ITL share paid by businesses was supported by Devonport-Takapuna,
Manurewa, Franklin, Rodney and tara-Papatoetoe local boards
charging businesses based on their capital value was supported by Henderson-Massey,
Waiheke, Maungakiekie-Tmaki, Puketpapa, Waitemat, Kaiptiki and Whau
tara-Papatoetoe and Franklin local boards considered that the share of the ITL paid by
businesses should be retained as a fixed charge
Waitkere Ranges Local Board would prefer that the ITL was not a stand-alone levy,
rather it should be part of the general rates take. However, if the ITL is retained the Local
Board supports the allocation of the ITL across all ratepayers to be on the basis of capital
value rather than via a fixed charge. rkei Local Board does not support the ITL unless
the benefits to its area can be demonstrated by way of support for local transport projects.
Mori land rates

14.
The legal restrictions on Mori freehold land mean that the owners often cannot use the land
optimally. As a result, the share of rates allocated to some Mori freehold land may not be
fair relative to general land. The council consulted on addressing these issues by providing
for additional rates remissions.
15.
The Consultation Document sought the communitys views on a proposal to amend the:
a.
Mori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy to:
b.
16.
adjust rates to the equivalent of those that would have been charged, had the
property been valued excluding any potential use that is unlikely to be achieved
within Mori ownership
adjust rates to the equivalent of those that would have been charged, had the
rateable value of the property been adjusted by 10 per cent (the maximum
adjustment available under the valuation rules); where properties have
significant barriers to development such as owners being deceased or not
succeeded to
remit rates for marae and urup land in excess of the 2 hectare limit for nonrateability
Rates remission and postponement policy to:

remit fixed charges on Mori land on multiple titles used as single property.
The local boards that provided views on this issue had differing views on whether to reduce
rates collected from Mori land:
Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays, Upper Harbour, Howick and tara-Papatoetoe
local boards did not support reducing rates collected from Mori land to reflect restrictions
on its use
Henderson-Massey, Albert-Eden, Mngere-thuhu, Franklin, Waitemat, Waitkere
Ranges and Whau local boards supported reducing rates for some Mori land as there
are significant barriers to development.
Page 97
Item 10

13 May 2016
Item 10

13 May 2016
Rates for farm/lifestyle properties over 50 hectares

17.
Councils consultation sought the communitys views on whether to reduce the rates on
farm/lifestyle properties from 80 per cent of the urban residential rates to 60 per cent. An
option to provide a remission for non-contiguous farm/lifestyle properties managed as a
single unit to bring their rates to the level they would have paid if they were under a single
title i.e. if the combined land area is greater than 50 hectares was also consulted on.
18.
Most local boards that provided views on this issue supported the retention of the current
allocation of rates for farm/lifestyle sectors:
the retention of the current allocation of rates within the farm/lifestyle sectors was
supported by Hibiscus and Bays, Mngere-thuhu, Puketpapa, Whau, taraPapatoetoe, Kaiptiki, Henderson-Massey, Howick, Albert-Eden, Waitkere Ranges
Waitemat, Upper Harbour, Waiheke and Devonport-Takapuna local boards
Franklin and Rodney local board supported the proposed reduction of rates
farm/lifestyle.
Other issues
19.
Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards request that the Great Barrier and Waiheke LDI
budgets be adjusted annually for inflation.
20.
Under the Local Boards Funding Policy, funding for expenditure on local activities for Great
Barrier and Waiheke local boards is agreed with the governing body each year.
Key advocacy themes

21.
Council departments and CCOs have provided information to local boards and the Finance
and Performance Committee on advocacy issues.
22.
After considering this information, and public feedback from consultation, local boards (at
their April business meetings) identified particular projects or initiatives that are a priority for
progression in their local areas for which they would like governing body support in the
annual budget 2016/2017. In general, the advocacy issues raised by local boards had a
focus on what will be required to cope with the demands of Aucklands projected population
growth, development and intensification.
23.
The key themes/issues arising from these priorities are set out below along with a high-level
summary of the relevant information provided to local boards from council departments and
CCOs.
Transport infrastructure
24.
The provision of integrated transport infrastructure to support growth and development was
considered an important issue by a number of local boards.
The provision of integrated transport infrastructure to support growth
Issues raised by
local boards in
November 2015:
transport
improvements
Council department and CCO responses:

consider if issue falls within the Regional Land Transport Plan
(RLTP)
Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency and
Auckland Council are undertaking public consultation on options
for transport improvements for the special housing and future
urban growth areas
Page 98
a safe and
comprehensive
network of
greenways,
cycling and
walking
connections
Auckland Transport is looking at a business and economic case

for light rail within the isthmus
strategic documents such as the Open Space Acquisition Policy,
Community Facility Network Plans and the Proposed Auckland
Unitary Plan, will guide the integration of infrastructure,
development and meeting future community needs
funding in the RLTP and Urban Cycleway Fund for the next
three years will allow AT to deliver almost 52 kilometres of cycle
lanes in Auckland
local boards will be consulted on an Auckland Greenways Plan
prior to the end of the financial year. This plan will include criteria
to inform the allocation of available budget to specific greenways
projects on a rolling three year investment programme.
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on transport
issues:
Hibiscus and Bays, Henderson-Massey, Howick, rkei, Manurewa, Whau, Great
Barrier, Albert-Eden, Maungakiekie-Tmaki, Franklin, Mngere-thuhu, taraPapatoetoe, Devonport-Takapuna, Waitemat, Waiheke, Kaiptiki, Rodney,
Puketpapa and Papakura local boards all seek various transport improvements,
including: protecting land for transport purposes, bus and rail plans, parking and parkand-ride provision, ferry terminals and services, traffic congestion solutions, grade
separation, roading and footpaths, and safe transport options
Maungakiekie-Tmaki, Albert-Eden, Kaiptiki, Puketpapa, rkei, tara-Papatoetoe,
Franklin, Waitemat, Rodney, Waiheke and Whau local boards advocate for further
investment in a safe and comprehensive network of greenways, cycling, bridle and
walking connections. Franklin Local Board emphasised the importance of a regional
approach and network.
Parks, recreational facilities and open spaces

25.
A number of local boards highlighted the importance of parks, recreational facilities and
open spaces for the livability of Auckland.
Parks, recreational facilities and open spaces
Issues raised by
local boards in
November 2015:
funding for
much needed
local parks,
recreational
facilities, sports
fields and open
spaces

a Sports Facility Investment Plan is being developed, to provide
future investment in sports facilities and look at funding models
budget is available in the 2015 Long Term Plan (LTP) to acquire
land for open space to meet the needs of growth. The open
space acquisition programme is both reactive to opportunities to
acquire land as they arise, and proactive in identifying open
space needs in further growth areas and acquiring land to meet
those needs
decision-making for open space acquisition is undertaken
according to the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy and
Interim Level of Provision Guidelines.
Page 99
Item 10

13 May 2016

13 May 2016
Item 10
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on parks,
recreational facilities and open spaces issues:
Henderson-Massey, Albert-Eden, Kaiptiki, Franklin, rkei, tara-Papatoetoe,
Puketpapa, Waiheke and Waitemat local boards request funding and land for much
needed local parks, recreational facilities, sports fields and open spaces. taraPapatoetoe Local Board advocates for a more equitable share of regional funds for local
sports facilities and parks. Upper Harbour Local Board emphasised the need for
strategic acquisition of open space and recreation land to accommodate growth,
particularly in close proximity to Special Housing Areas. Timing and planning is key so
that land is acquired prior to inflated costs and limited availability
Maungakiekie-Tmaki Local Board advocates for improvements to meet community
needs, and tara-Papatoetoe Local Board considers the management of competing
interests important in this respect particularly to protect future generations interests.
Community facilities
26.
Resourcing for community facilities, particularly to accommodate growth, is a key focus for
local boards.
Community facilities
Issues raised by
local boards in
November 2015:
community
houses and
other
community
facilities across
the region to be
fully asset
based funded
to an agreed
basic standard
regionally fair
and consistent
levels of
service
resourcing and
the prioritisation
of actions
identified in the
Community
Facilities
Network Plan
adequate funds
for renewals
resources for
business
cases, needs
assessments,
feasibility
studies,
planning
support
a network of

work on service levels for community centres is being
progressed, and discussions are currently taking place on scope
arts facilities funding is an issue for review as part of the next
LTP, where the varying levels of funding and any inequities
across the region can be considered for harmonisation and
realignment
there are 116 actions identified in the Community Facilities
Network Plan, 50 are priority actions that will be delivered over
the next three years (2015/16-2017/18). 33 actions are currently
underway. The highest priority actions will be completed in time
to inform the next long-term plan discussions. This will enable
any new or additional budget requirements to be considered by
the governing body
to focus resources, actions with capital funding in the first five
years of the LTP 2015-2025, network priority actions in spatial
priority areas and actions with opportunities for optimisation are
being progressed first
Asset Management Plans and baseline service levels agreed by
the governing body are the key drivers of funding for renewals
programmes
resources to conduct feasibility, design, concept and consenting
work will be provided for LTP approved asset based services
projects. The timing and costs to conduct this work will be built
into overall project budgets and timelines. Resources to conduct
this work may come from a variety of departments. For projects
that do not have approved funding, the local board can either
advocate for concept / feasibility funding through the annual plan
process, or allocate LDI opex towards the concept / feasibility
study
council is developing a Sports Facility Investment Plan, which
will provide a policy framework for councils future investment in
sports facilities, including indoor sport and recreation facilities
funding for the Central Facilities Partnership fund ($4m) was
Page 100
indoor sports
and recreation
facilities
development of
multi-use
community
facilities
establish a
fund, similar to
the Central
Facilities
Partnership
Fund (which
has now ceased
to exist/is
incorporated
into the new
local board
discretionary
capex fund), to
provide
community
projects
transferred and incorporated into the new local board

discretionary capex fund. The new capex fund has been further
increased to $10m per year to enable all local boards to make
discretionary decisions about funding local capital projects.
These funds can still continue to be used for the same purpose
as the original Central Facilities Partnership fund.
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on community
facilities:
Maungakiekie-Tmaki, Waitemat, rkei, Franklin, tara-Papatoetoe, Howick, Upper
Harbour, Rodney, Puketpapa and Papakura local boards request prioritising
community facilities, ensuring they are fit for purpose, meet the community needs and
able to accommodate population growth. Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes there is
a gap in the regional information required in order to assess needs and locations for
new community facilities, as growth places pressure on existing assets
Kaiptiki, Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays local boards consider that community
facilities/assets across the region should receive an accurate, appropriate and equitable
level of Asset Based Services operational funding to an agreed service level.
Maungakiekie-Tmaki Local Board advocates for a review of current levels of service of
community centres and halls to ensure they are regionally fair and consistent
Waitemat, rkei, Waiheke and Kaiptiki local boards request that funding (including
funding brought forward) is provided for arts facilities community centres, toilets and
youth centres. Whau Local Board seeks consolidation of funding for community
facilities
Mngere-thuhu, Rodney and Albert-Eden local boards request funding, resourcing
and the prioritisation of actions identified in the Community Facilities Network Plan.
Upper Harbour Local Board advocates for a strategic approach to access and provision
of indoor sports and recreation facilities
Henderson-Massey, Waiheke, and Waitemat local boards advocate for community
swimming pools, Albert-Eden and Howick local boards request funds for aquatics
centres and tara-Papatoetoe local boards advocates for no charges for entry to
swimming pools
Waitemat, Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, rkei and Kaiptiki local boards would like the
governing body to re-instate a sub-regional fund, similar to the Central Facilities
Partnership Fund (which has now ceased), to provide community projects. This
community-led approach would be consistent with the empowered communities
philosophy
Page 101
Item 10

13 May 2016
Item 10

13 May 2016
Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays local boards seek recognition of the contribution that
community owned assets make across the councils network of community facilities
Kaiptiki, Waitkere Ranges, Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays local boards advocate for
addressing reductions in levels of services/a review of levels of service changes; and
committing to quality service levels (in particular, in relation to the rationalisation of
library hours, the change to the method of parks edging from mechanical to chemical
spray and overall reductions in parks standards)
Papakura, Albert-Eden, Rodney and Kaiptiki local boards seek adequate funding for
renewals, for the long term
Rodney and Kaiptiki local boards emphasise the importance of resources for delivery
of projects, e.g. those in a Local Board Agreements.
Growth
27. A number of local boards raised issues they consider important for Aucklands growth.
Aucklands growth
Issues raised by
local boards in
strategic documents such as the Open Space Acquisition Policy,
November 2015:
Community Facility Network Plans and the Proposed Auckland
infrastructure,
Unitary Plan, will guide the integration of infrastructure,
including social
development and meeting future community needs
infrastructure
planning priorities for 2016/17 are the Unitary Plan and Spatial
provision
Priority Areas, however staff will be considering the future work
community led
programme, including requests from local boards for local plans,
planning,
over the next few months
masterplans,
there is a current gap in resourcing concept/design work for
structure
transformation projects, such as mainstreets. Roles and
planning
responsibilities are being worked through as part of the new
funding
structure under Project Reshape. The new Community
(including
Empowerment Unit will also play a key role in supporting these
funding brought
types of initiatives through engagement and capacity building
forward) for
with local community groups. This can include scoping of
town centre
projects, but not resourcing concept/design work for
renewals,
transformation projects or project managing them
rejuvenation
staff have reported to the Finance and Performance Committee
and
in March on a proposal to consult on increasing the number of
transformation
funding areas for stormwater and parks (reserve acquisition,
projects
reserve development and community infrastructure activities).
more localised
Local board feedback has been requested.
development
contribution
catchments
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on Aucklands
growth:
Manurewa, Howick, Franklin, Waitemat and Upper Harbour local boards raise the need
for budget and timely investment and delivery of infrastructure, including social
infrastructure, to support growth e.g. in for Special Housing Areas
Upper Harbour, Waiheke, Howick, Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney, Puketpapa and
Waitemat local boards advocate for resources to support local, community led
planning, masterplans, structure planning, transformation and other projects. Howick
Local Board raised the importance of aligning related projects for efficiencies
Henderson-Massey, Albert-Eden, tara-Papatoetoe, Puketpapa, Manurewa, and
Whau local boards seek funding for strategic, quality development for metropolitan and
town centres, renewals, regeneration and revitalisation projects
Page 102
Maungakiekie-Tmaki Local Board advocates for taking steps to ensure the provision of
a range of quality housing options, Waitemat Local Board recommends an affordable
housing policy. Waiheke and Puketpapa local boards seek options for pensioner,
affordable, social and community housing
tara-Papatoetoe Local Board advocates for targeted use of development and financial
contributions to fund local projects, with local board participation in decisions. Upper
Harbour Local Boards view is that development contributions should consider and
account for current and future population growth requirements for infrastructure and
open space. Franklin and Howick local boards seek to ensure development
contributions are spent in the area from which they are collected. Hibiscus and Bays
supports the increased number of localised development contribution catchments,
requests work towards further localised catchments, advocates that reserve
contributions are set at a level more closely related to the cost of reserve acquisition
and that agreements are made with developers to deliver new assets to meet growth
costs.
Coastal erosion
28.
Management and regulation of the environment to help prevent coastal erosion is an issue
raised by some local boards.
Coastal erosion
Issues raised by
local boards in
a regional approach has been agreed by the Regional Strategy
November 2015:
and Policy Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2015,
coastal erosion,
including the use of coastal compartment management plans
(CCMPs) and a public awareness plan for coastal management
asset
issues, including climate change
degradation and
local board input will be sought.
beach
replenishment
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on coastal erosion:
Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney local boards advocate for funding for priorities in the
Coastal Management Framework - particularly to address coastal asset degradation,
works and a clear well-funded coastal renewals programme
Howick, Maungakiekie-Tmaki and Franklin local boards suggest a regional approach to
address Auckland-wide issues of erosion and beach replenishment coordination will
lead to efficiencies and cost savings.
Page 103
Item 10

13 May 2016
Item 10

13 May 2016
Waste and recycling
29.
How we deal with waste and recycling was highlighted by some local boards.
Waste and recycling
Issues raised by
local boards in
council has adopted a Waste Management and Minimisation
November 2015:
Plan forward work programme and resource recovery network.
the need for
improved waste
management
and more
sustainable
solutions
including the
provision of
hazardous
waste and
recovery and
recycling
facilities
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on waste and
recycling:
Mngere-thuhu, Howick, Great Barrier, Puketpapa, Waiheke and Waitemat local
boards advocate for the provision of resource recovery and local waste and recycling
centres / drop off sites.
Pests
30.
Management and regulation of the environment to help eradicate pests was raised by the
some local boards.
Eradicate pests
Issues raised by
local boards in
November 2015:
animal and
plant pest
management

regional spend on pest management programmes across the
region is allocated to deliver on the Regional Pest Management
Plan and the agreed LTP levels of service. Any additional spend
would require additional budget
a Regional Pest Management Plan review is occurring in 2016
agrichemical use is one of the eight objectives of the Auckland
Councils Weed Management Policy and will be considered in
the renewal of contracts for parks maintenance alongside the
other seven objectives and the levels of service they are
required to meet. Changes to these levels of service could be
funded either by governing body funding changes to the
regional budgets for weed management or by the local board
funding an additional level of service through their LDI.
At their April 2016 business meetings the following local boards resolved on eradicating
pests:
Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards seek support for moving towards herbicide
free weed management practices. Waitemat Local Board seeks minimisation of
agrichemical use in accordance with the Weed Management Policy
Waiheke, Rodney, Howick, Whau and Waitkere Ranges local boards request the
prioritisation of pest management and ecological restoration measures, including for
vegetation/weeds, rabbits, stouts and possums.
Page 104
Other
31.
Other themes raised by local boards at the April 2016 meetings included:
Papakura, Puketpapa, Franklin, Manurewa, and Mngere-thuhu local boards
advocate for hydrodynamic modelling of the Manukau Harbour
Puketpapa and Waiheke local boards seek marine spatial planning and the
development of a network of marine reserves and protected areas
Papakura, Waiheke, Waitemat and Devonport-Takapuna local boards request research
and funds to enable water improvements, including catchment management plans,
stormwater improvements, ensuring recreational amenity and dealing with contamination
Howick, Puketpapa and Waiheke local boards advocate for the procurement of local
services wherever possible
Mngere-thuhu Local Board requests a framework to monitor the implementation of
sale and supply legislation in practice, and consider a request to government for
legislative change. tara-Papatoetoe Local Board supports policies to minimise the
negative impact of alcohol
Maungakiekie-Tmaki, Howick, Puketpapa, Waitemat, Waitkere Ranges, Waiheke
and Papakura local boards seek land acquisition, budget and protection of places of
heritage and historic significance. tara-Papatoetoe Local Board advocates for the
celebration of heritage and cultural diversity
Kaiptiki and Great Barrier local boards request that local boards do not incur the
additional costs imposed under the empowered communities model
Whau and Waitemat local boards advocate for policies that put children and young
people first, and support early childhood education
Puketpapa and Waitemat local boards advocate for budget for provision of a living
wage for council employees.
Local targeted rates and BID targeted rates

32.
BID expansion proposals and changes to other BID rates will be included in the rates setting
report scheduled for 30 June. This will allow time for relevant local boards to consider the
outcomes of the special general meetings that business associations are required to have
prior to adopting an expansion proposal. The rates setting report will note the relevant local
board resolutions. At this stage of the annual budget process, Henderson-Massey, Hibiscus
and Bays and Waitkere Ranges local boards resolved on BID issues.
33.
Local boards proposed the following in relation to local targeted rates:

Mngere-thuhu and tara-Papatoetoe local boards recommend that the governing
body adopts a targeted rate, set as a uniform charge per separately used or inhabited
part of a property, on residential properties in their local areas - for the purpose of fully
subsidising entry to swimming pools for persons 17 years and over. The rate is estimated
to be $31.06 in the Mngere-thuhu Local Board area and $29.37 in the taraPapatoetoe Local Board area. This is a continuation of an existing targeted rate
Henderson-Massey Local Board requests the governing body authorises the release of
Harbourview-Orangihina targeted rate reserve, to fund the development of HarbourviewOrangihina Park
Franklin Local Board supports bringing forward to 1 November 2016 implementation of a
kerbside recycling collection for Franklin residents funded by a proposed targeted rate.
Page 105
Item 10

13 May 2016

13 May 2016
Item 10
Consideration
34.
Local boards have been involved at key stages throughout the development of the Annual
Budget 2016/2017. Local board views and feedback has been provided in this report.

35.
Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Mori. Local board
agreements and the annual budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate
councils responsiveness to Mori. Local board plans, which were developed in 2014
through engagement with the community including Mori, form the basis of local
priorities.There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and
where relevant the wider Mori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards
and Mori to understand each others priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and
encourage Mori participation in councils decision-making processes.
Implementation
36.
The governing body will adopt the Annual Budget 2016/2017 in June 2016.
Attachments
No.
Title
Local board resolutions
Page
107
Signatories
Author
Chantal Creese - Senior Policy Advisor
Authorisers
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Page 106
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 107
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 108
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 109
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 110
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 111
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 112
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 113
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 114
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 115
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 116
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 117
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 118
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 119
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 120
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 121
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 122
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 123
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 124
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 125
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 126
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 127
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 128
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 129
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 130
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 131
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 132
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 133
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 134
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 135
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 136
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 137
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 138
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 139
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 140
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 141
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 142
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 143
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 144
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 145
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 146
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 147
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 148
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 149
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 150
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 151
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 152
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 153
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 154
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 155
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 156
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 157
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 158
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 159
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 160
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 161
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 162
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 163
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 164
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 165
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 166
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 167
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 168
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 169
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 170
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 171
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 172
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 173
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 174
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 175
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 176
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 177
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 178
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 179
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 180
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 181
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 182
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 183
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 184
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 185
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 186
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 187
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 188
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 189
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 190
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 191
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 192
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 193
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 194
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 195
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 196
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 197
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 198
Attachment A
Item 10

13 May 2016
Page 199

13 May 2016
Item 11

File No.: CP2016/08344
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the local board process to finalise the
Annual Plan for 2016/2017 and outline local proposals that require governing body decisions
to enable this process to continue.
Executive Summary
2.
Following the annual plan consultation, briefing reports on local consultation feedback were
provided to local boards in April to inform advocacy and review local priorities.
3.
Discussions were held between the governing body and local boards on key consultation
feedback themes, advocacy and local issues prior to budget decisions being made.
4.
Following budget decisions made on 13 May, local boards will finalise Local Board
Agreements 2016/2017, local fees and charges schedules for 2016/2017 and budgets for
the annual plan. Meetings to adopt these are due between 6-15 June.
5.
In reviewing local priorities, proposals have been identified by local boards where governing
body approval is required to enable local boards to continue developing their local board
agreement. These proposals are detailed in this report.
6.
As part of the local board funding policy, local boards can resolve to defer those projects that
are funded by their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating fund where there was an agreed
scope and cost but have not been delivered. The Local Boards have resolved on 2015/2016
projects that meet the criteria for deferral to 2016/2017.
Recommendation/s
That the Finance and Performance Committee recommend that the Governing Body:
a)
release reserve funds of $1,384,237 held from legacy councils.
b)
approve $3.9 million of capital funding for Locally Driven Initiatives opex to capex
conversion which will be sourced through local discretionary budgets.
c)
approve a Locally Driven Initiatives increase of $57,230 for Great Barrier Local Board
and $29,472 for Waiheke Local Board, who have the option to negotiate their Locally
Driven Initiatives funding annually with the governing body as part of the Local Board
Funding Policy.
d)
approve the operating budget amount of $2,096,600 in Attachment A to the agenda

report to be deferred from 2015/2016 to 2016/2017.
Comments
Process
7.
In mid-April, local boards received local consultation feedback briefing reports reflecting
views of each local board area. This information was used to support advocacy and review
local priorities.
8.
On 6 and 9 May, workshops were held between local boards and the governing body to
discuss key consultation feedback themes, advocacy and local issues.
Page 201
Item 11

13 May 2016
9.
Following budget decisions made on 13 May, local boards will finalise Local Board
Agreements 2016/2017 in workshops between 16 - 25 May. This includes a review of
priorities in light of consultation feedback, consideration of local activity budgets, local fees
and charges, local performance targets and final allocation of locally driven initiatives (LDI)
funds.
10.
Local boards will meet between 6 15 June to adopt Local Board Agreements 2016/2017,
local activity budgets and local fees and charges schedules for 2016/2017.
Local budgets
11.
In alignment to decision-making responsibilities, governing body approval on each following

proposal is required to enable the local boards to continue planning budgets in May.
12.
Release of $1,384,237 special reserve funds.

Local Board
Proposal
Amount
Kaiptiki
Eskdale Reserve Toilet special reserve reallocation to the

development of a new toilet at Rewi Alley Reserve
$238,000
Puketpapa
Signage to improve the visibility of the Dominion Road carpark, and

Roskill South carpark and upgrading car parking in the vicinity of
Harold Long Reserve and Fearon Park
$283,686
Hibiscus & Bays
Release of North Shore parking reserve funds - Browns Bay
$66,000
Hibiscus & Bays
Release of North Shore parking reserve funds - Mairangi Bay
$33,000
Waiheke
Release of the parking reserves funds for off-street parking project
$13,551
Orkei
Release parking fund reserve for the development of Shore Road

Reserve eastern car park.
$500,000
Orkei
Release parking fund reserve for the development of Waiatarua

Reserve car park.
$250,000
Total
13.
$1,384,237
Conversion of LDI operating budgets of $390,000 to $3.9 million capital. As shown in the
table below, in 2016/2017 boards will convert $280,000 of their operating LDI and in
2017/2018 convert a further $110,000 resulting in a cumulative total of $390,000 permanent
LDI conversion.
Proposal
Amount
2016/2017
Amount
2017/2018
Orkei
Develop new multi-use changing rooms and toilets at Michaels
Avenue Reserve
Feeder links to the Orkei Spine
Total Capital Expenditure
LDI Operating budget given up
$950,000
$750,000
$1,700,000
$170,000
$170,000
Albert-Eden
Fowlds Park toilet
$170,000
Edendale Reserve fence around hall
$20,000
Gribblehirst Park bowling green
$75,000
Gribblehirst Park development plan
$75,000
Erin Armishaw Playground
$50,000
Watea Reserve development
$40,000
Chamberlain Park
Signage
$450,000
$450,000
$20,000
$80,000
Page 202
Discretionary budget for minor projects including signage

Upgrade of community facilities
$50,000
$105,000
$150,000
$150,000
Oakley Creek improvements
$250,000
Windmill Park signage and hill track

$65,000
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$110,000
$220,000
$2,800,000
$1,100,000
$280,000
$390,000
Total Local Boards

14.
Additional funding for Great Barrier and Waiheke Local Boards of $86,702 as part of their
annual negotiation process.
Local Board
Proposal
Amount
Great Barrier
Request additional LDI funding to offset the additional costs that arose
from the implementation of the empowered communities model
$57,230
Waiheke
Request additional LDI funding to offset the additional costs that arose
from the implementation of the empowered communities model
$29,472
Total
$86,702
15.
Under the local board funding policy, LDI operational funding for Waiheke and Great Barrier
local boards is agreed with the governing body and able to be negotiated on an annual
basis. For all other local boards the LDI budgets were set under the local board funding
policy using the formula of 90 per cent population, 5 per cent deprivation and 5 per cent land
area and cannot be negotiated annually.
16.
The local boards did not require governing body approval for any further:
New or amended local targeted rate proposal or
Capital projects that were over $1 million
17.
Local boards have identified projects from their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating fund
where there was an agreed scope and cost which have not been delivered totaling
$2,096,600. Details of these projects for deferral can be found in Attachment A.
Consideration
18.
Local board views and advocacy were expressed through a number of workshops held
between local boards and the governing body on 6 and 9 May.
19.
A summary of advocacy, key consultation feedback themes and local priorities is outlined in
the Local Board Advocacy report on the agenda for this meeting. These should be
considered when making final budget decisions.

20.
Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Mori. Local board
agreements and long-term plans are important tools that enable and can demonstrate
councils responsiveness to Mori. Local board plans, which were developed in 2014
through engagement with the community including Mori, form the basis of local priorities.
Page 203
Item 11

13 May 2016

13 May 2016
Item 11
21.
There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where
relevant the wider Mori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and
Mori to understand each others priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and
encourage Mori participation in councils decision-making processes. In particular, local
board plans and budget decisions made today will influence future annual plans and local
board agreements for 2016/2017 and beyond.
Implementation
22.
Following budget decisions being made today, local boards will finalise their allocation of
discretionary locally driven initiatives (LDI) funds to projects and finalise local board
agreements for 2016/2017.
23.
Local boards are meeting to adopt Local Board Agreements 2016/17 and local fees and
charges schedules for 2016/2017 between 6 15 June.
Attachments
No.
Title
Deferrals schedule
Page
205
Signatories
Author
Mark Purdie - Lead Financial Advisor
Authorisers

Page 204
Attachment A
Item 11

13 May 2016
Page 205
Attachment A
Item 11

13 May 2016
Page 206
Attachment A
Item 11

13 May 2016
Page 207

13 May 2016
Item 12

File No.: CP2016/09069
Purpose
1.
To present the Mayoral proposal for the final Annual Plan 2016/17, for deliberation and
decision making.
Executive Summary
2.
The Governing Body adopted a consultation document in February this year which identified
the key issues on which the council was seeking feedback before adopting the Annual Plan
2016/17. The starting point for the consultation was proposed changes from the adopted
Long Term Plan year 2.
3.
The key issues for consultation were changes to the rating policy level of Uniform Annual
General Charge (UAGC), Interim Transport Levy (ITL), reduced differential for farms over 50
hectares and the rates remission and postponement policy for Maori freehold land.
4.
Review of the underlying budgets by CCO and council staff has identified some cost
changes, mostly positive, and a few issues where specific decisions are required. These
specific issues include some aspects of concessionary fares to SuperGold card holders
and senior citizens, additional capital funding for strategic transport land acquisition, and
diversified financial assets funds release. In addition to these issues I am also proposing
the inclusion of a small budget for town and local centre clean-ups.
5.
Earlier on this agenda a report on Local Board budgets has identified a few changes which
are also incorporated in this proposal. The discussions between Local Boards and this
committee held earlier this week may also require some further consideration where there is
little or no impact on the budget.
6.
The net result of the budget changes set out in this proposed budget is an average increase
in rates revenue of 2.4%.
7.
With regard to rating policy, this proposal is based on minimal change. I am firmly of the
view that after 5 years of massive change as a consequence of the amalgamation of the
rating system it is time to have some stability. I acknowledge the work that Cr Clow has done
to look for alternatives in the way the ITL is charged and I think that was a debate worth
having. However, on balance, I feel that this should be a year of minimal change and
therefore my proposal is to remain with status quo for the UAGC, ITL and the differential for
farms over 50 hectares.
8.
I am supporting the recommended changes to the Maori freehold land rates remission and
postponement policy and also to the more local targeted rate issues where supported by
the Local Board. These are all minor and do not undermine the stability principle.
9.
With regard to the budget I am proposing for 2016/17 that we continue to support the
SuperGold card holders and senior citizens in free use of public transport in the current
arrangements. The introduction of the HOP card for these users will enable data gathering
to support any future consideration of this ongoing subsidy. I am disappointed that the
government has withdrawn its support in the absence of such information and I intend to
write to the Minister to express our views. I am proposing that the additional cost of
continuing this level of service is 50% funded from within ATs existing budgets and 50% by
additional funding from rates.
Page 209
Item 12

13 May 2016
10.
I have also proposed partial funding of the additional strategic land acquisition and
supported the drawdown of funds from the diversified financial assets portfolio to manage
our debt within prudent limits. These assets are not, in my view, core to the functions of
council and it is appropriate to utilize them to prudently manage our debt and debt ratios and
by so doing maintain our AA credit rating.
11.
The net result of these proposals is an interest to revenue ratio of 11.5% and a debt to
revenue ratio of 265%.
Recommendation/s
a)
recommend that the Governing Body adopt the following rates policy decisions for
the Annual Plan 2016/2017:
i)
that the UAGC be set at $394
ii)
that the Interim Transport Levy (targeted rate) be set to retain the status quo of
a fixed charge of $113.85 (including GST) for non-business ratepayers and
$183.85 (including GST) for business ratepayers
iii)
that the general rate differential for farm and lifestyle properties be retained at
its present level of 80 per cent of the urban residential rate
iv)
that the Mori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy be
amended to include remissions:
1) to adjust rates to the equivalent of those that would have been charged,
had the property been valued excluding any potential use that is unlikely to
be achieved within Mori ownership
2) to adjust rates to the equivalent of those that would have been charged,
had the rateable value of the property been adjusted by 10 per cent; where
properties have significant barriers to development such as owners being
deceased or not succeeded to
3) for marae and urup land in excess of the two hectare limit for nonrateability
4) for land returned under treaty settlement for commercial redress where the
land is set aside and protected for cultural, historic or natural conservation
purposes or because it is wahi tapu, or used for a marae or urup.
b)
v)
that the Rates remission and postponement policy be amended to remit fixed
charges on Mori land on multiple titles used as single property
vi)
that a two year pilot programme providing financial assistance of up to $35,000

per property to eligible homeowners in Piha, Te Henga, Karekare and Little
Oneroa catchments to replace or upgrade their failing systems be established.
This will be funded by a targeted rate set from 1 July 2017
vii)
that a targeted rate be set (at two thirds of the level set regionally for a full year
recycling service) to fund a fortnightly kerbside fully commingled recycling
collection in rural Franklin
viii)
that the Browns Bay, Glen Eden and North Harbour BIDs are extended
recommend to the Governing Body that the budget for the final Annual Plan
2016/2017 be based on year two of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, adjusted for the
updates set out in the staff reports, and to incorporate the following changes and
specific decisions:
i)
Auckland Council continue its existing public transport concessions for the
2016/2017 financial year
Page 210
ii)
additional funding to Auckland Transport of $1.5 million noting that the

remaining $1.5 million estimated cost of the discontinued government subsidy
to come from internal savings in Auckland Transport
iii)
additional capital funding of $30 million in 2016/2017 and $20 million in

2017/2018 to Auckland Transport to support the early acquisition of land for
future capital projects excluding light rail
iv)
request Auckland Transport to work with NZTA and Kiwirail to retain the land
at the Waterview Tunnel construction site until the decision on the light rail
project has been progressed
v)
additional operating expenditure of $150,000 to deliver town and local centre

clean-ups across the region.
c)
request Auckland Transport to collect data on the usage of the SuperGoldcard and
Senior Citizens card during peak periods over the next 12 months and report this
back to council for further consideration of the current subsidy
d)
request the Mayor write to the Minister of Transport regarding the withdrawal of
public transport subsidy for SuperGold card holders in the afternoon peak and
Auckland Senior Citizen card holders expressing councils disappointment in this
decision, particularly in light of the work that has been undertaken jointly to increase
public transport usage
e)
recommend to the Governing Body that the Group Financial Officer be authorised to
draw down up to $100 million per annum of the Diversified Financial Asset portfolio
for the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 financial years in order to manage the debt ratios
within prudent limits.
Item 12

13 May 2016
Comments
Background
12.
In February this year we adopted a consultation document which set out for the community
the key issues that we wished to receive feedback on before adopting our Annual Plan for
2016/17. The list of consultation issues were the result of several discussions through the
Finance and Performance Committee and, as appropriate for year 2 of the Long Term Plan,
were small in number.
13.
The Long Term Plan 2015-25, went through an extensive consultation process, delivered a
budget that contained a major reset of our financial parameters and enabled us to continue
to deliver on our key strategic platforms. In presenting my proposal for this Annual Plan in
December last year I highlighted the need for us to maintain a steady and consistent
approach based on the LTP.
14.
Also in my proposal last year, while no service reductions were proposed, I signaled my
desire to see further reduction in the proposed rate increase. I congratulate the Chief
Executive and his staff in the work that they have done to achieve this.
15.
The number of submissions received were, as expected, significantly less than the LTP
consultation, but similar to previous Annual Plan years. Having considered the community
feedback and weighed this up with other factors, I am now presenting my proposal for
discussion and decision making.
16.
In addition to the key consultation issues, council and CCO staff have reviewed the LTP year
2 budgets and presented us with an updated picture. There are a few financial matters that
need us to make a specific decision and then these, along with the rating policy decisions,
will form the basis of the Annual Plan 2016/17
Page 211
Item 12

13 May 2016
Rating policy
Note officer reports on these issues are attached at Attachment B
UAGC
17.
The consultation on the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) has delivered similar
results to previous consultations the majority wanted the amount to be the same or lower
than the current level. I also hold the view that there is no compelling reason to look at
change, in fact there is a strong argument that some stability in our rating policy allowing the
average increase to play out equally across all ratepayers is desirable. The shift in the
business differential will impact a little in the annual plan year, but compared to the
significant swings in previous years this is minimal.
18.
I accept that there will always be different views on how we use the UAGC as a tool to
balance rates across different sectors of our community. However, in my view, we struck a
balance at the beginning of our rates transition process which found favour with the majority
around the council table and continues to be an acceptable level with the majority of the
community. On that basis I am recommending that we maintain the UAGC at $394.
Interim Transport Levy

19.
The Interim Transport Levy (ITL) is a targeted rate that we agreed to introduce for a 3 year
period until alternate mechanisms for funding transport infrastructure can be agreed. The
Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) is progressing well and will be completed in
August. This will enable us to have constructive discussion with central government about
the alternative funding options for Aucklands transport needs (bringing to conclusion the
almost five years of work Auckland has undertaken in this area). The ITL allows us to
continue investing in transport infrastructure at an acceptable level in the meantime and was
always intended to be temporary as we took the final steps in aligning Aucklands thinking
with that of the government.
20.
In introducing the ITL through the last Long Term Plan, we set it as fixed charge on both
residential and business ratepayers. The amount is set at $113.85 (incl GST) for nonbusiness ratepayers and $182.85 (incl GST) for business ratepayers.
21.
Through the early stages of this Annual Plan Cr Clow put forward his proposal for changing
the balance of the ITL cost between the residential and business sectors, and also the
option of redistributing the cost within the business sector based on capital value rather than
a fixed charge. The proposed change between the sectors would reduce the non-business
fixed charge to $90 and increase the business charge (if it were to remain fixed) to $407.
22.
This was an idea well worth exploring and attracted a range of views through the
consultation. Slightly more people supported changing the distribution between residential
business and significantly more supported the change to distribution based on capital value
for the business sector. However, having said that, those organisations representing
business, by majority were in favour of leaving the status quo in both respects.
23.
Arguments can be made to either support a change or the status quo. On balance I still feel
that stability in the rating structures outweighs the argument to change. I am also cognisant
of the fact that business will always get outnumbered in a consultation process and we need
to consider the overall picture around this table. For those reasons I am recommending
status quo.
Page 212
Farms and lifestyle properties over 50 hectares

24.
We consulted on the option of lowering the differential for farms and lifestyle properties over
50 hectares from 80% of the urban residential rate to 60%, with the consequent shortfall
being distributed across all other residential and farm/lifestyle properties. As might be
expected the greater number of submissions were opposed to the option. While I
understand the rationale for this proposal, I am still of the view that leaving our rating policy
basically unchanged is a desirable outcome at this stage of the planning cycle. The Long
Term Plan, which coincides with new valuations, is a good time to review significant change
to differentials.
Maori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy

25.
I am supporting the staff recommendations to amend our Maori freehold land rates
remission and postponement policy. The proposal seeks to reflect the limited potential for
development of some land in multiple ownership, remit rates on marae and urupa and
extend the remission of fixed charges for farm land used as a single property to Maori. All of
these recommendations are about achieving fairness and equity and the impact is very
minimal and will not affect the stability of the rating policy. While this was not well supported
by the public consultation, there would not be good understanding of the equity issues.
Miscellaneous other rating changes

26.
The other proposed rating changes are local issues and I am supporting the Local Board
recommendations in this regard. These are as follows:
27.
Financial assistance pilot for on-site wastewater systems (septic tank) upgrade. This would
operate in a similar way to the Retrofit your home scheme i.e. the home owner is loaned the
upfront cost by council and then repays this, including interest costs, through a targeted rate.
28.
Rural Franklin targeted rate for recycling collection. The withdrawal of a free recycling dropoff service by Envirowaste has resulted in the Franklin Local Board consulting on the early
introduction of a fortnightly kerbside recycling collection in the rural area.
29.
Business Improvement Districts. We have consulted on the creation of two new BIDs and
expansion of three others. Following the resolutions of the relevant Local Boards I am
supporting the extension of the Browns Bay, Glen Eden and North Harbour BIDs.
Budget
Note officer reports on these issues are attached at Attachment A
30.
In the major 10 year budget exercise of the Long Term Plan last year, we reset our financial
parameters with significant reductions in both rates and debt levels from the previous Long
Term Plan three years earlier. A general rates cap of 3.5% was put in place and firm
management of debt levels with particular targets around the debt and interest to revenue
ratios. These are key ratios for maintaining our AA credit rating.
31.
In leading out this budget late last year I set the challenge to the Chief Executive and his
staff, as I have every year, to look for further reductions before setting our final Annual Plan
budget. The projected increase in rates revenue for 2016/17 was 3.2% and the staff have
responded well, proposing a minimum rates increase (assuming no additions) of 2.3%. Were
we to add the full amount of the Auckland Transport request this would rise to 2.5%.
32.
Debt to revenue ratios are also a key consideration and are factored in this proposal in order
to ensure that we do not breach those ratios and can maintain our credit rating. The key
issues for decision are as follows:
Page 213
Item 12

13 May 2016
Item 12

13 May 2016
Auckland Transport concessionary fares

33.
NZTA have advised Auckland Transport that the funding for central government subsidy of
some categories of travel will be withdrawn. Currently in Auckland SuperGold card holders
can travel free on public transport after 9am and all day at weekends. Auckland is unique in
allowing free travel in the afternoon peak hours (3.00pm to 6.30pm), elsewhere in the
country this is not part of the arrangement. NZTA have advised they will be withdrawing
subsidy for travel by SuperGold card holders in the afternoon peak.
34.
Auckland is also unique in allowing free travel for senior citizens (65+) who are NZ citizens
or permanent residents but not eligible for the SuperGold card. Again NZTA will be
withdrawing subsidy for this category of travellers.
35.
The additional estimated cost of both of these categories of travel to the ratepayer, were
they to continue, is $3 million.
36.
Early discussion on the options raised a number of concerns from councillors, many of which
cannot be answered as robust information is not currently able to be collected. In order to
qualify for the free travel going forward SuperGold card holders will need a HOP card. If this
is extended to the current senior citizen group good data will be able to be collected over
the next year or so.
37.
Regional uniqueness alone does not necessarily provide a sound public policy rationale for
removal of the NZTA subsidy and I am disappointed that the government has decided to
withdraw this benefit to our seniors without the robust information that we feel we need to
consider this issue properly. However, I am proposing that the current arrangements for free
travel for both the non-gold card seniors and the afternoon peak, stay in place for at least the
next year and that the issue be revisited in light of the better data that will be collected
through the HOP card.
38.
I am proposing that the additional cost of $3 million be split 50/50 with half coming from
savings from the existing AT budget and half ($1.5 million) of additional funding to AT.
39.
I also intend to write to the Minister expressing our disappointment at the withdrawal of this
funding.
Auckland Transport land acquisition

40.
AT have signalled a request for additional capital expenditure provision of $80 million in the
2016/17 year for strategic land purchase. The LTP includes a number of transport projects
which will require land acquisition and largely these are budgeted close to the time when the
project would commence. However, as development is progressing at such speed it has
become apparent that on some sites it would make more sense to designate and potentially
acquire the land now before any development takes place and make the acquisition
significantly more expensive.
41.
There are three categories of acquisition identified projects that are planned and in the
budget but at a later date (effectively this is bringing budgeted expenditure forward); projects
that are identified but beyond the current LTP and there is an opportunity to designate/
secure land now; acquisition associated with a light rail depot that, should that project be
approved in the future, would be the most suitable location and will only be available for a
relatively short period of time. More detailed information is available at Attachment A-4
42.
I am proposing to deal with this request as follows allow an additional $30 million of capex
funding in the 2016/17 year and a further $20 million in the 2017/18 year. This will allow us
to maintain our debt to revenue ratios (subject to the proposal on the diversified financial
asset fund release proposal below), but also allow AT to designate and if required secure
the land required for future projects in the most cost effective manner. The risk associated
with these purchases is relatively low, should projects not proceed then the land can be onsold, most likely at a profit. Note, this funding is to cover existing future projects not light
rail.
Page 214
43.
With regard to light rail, there is still a significant amount of work to do before either
ourselves or the government is ready to give the green light on that project. I recognise the
limited opportunities to identify and designate land in critical spots in the central area. I am
proposing that we enter into discussion with NZTA, who currently own the land in question,
and seek the ability to keep this land available until there is a decision on the future of light
rail. Should this become an urgent matter of consideration before the next budget then it can
be brought back to the council of the day.
Town and local centre clean-up initiatives

44.
During the discussions with Local Boards we heard a lot about dissatisfaction with levels of
service around basics such as mowing and street cleaning. I am aware that there is a
process underway to review the way we deliver some of these services. The outcome of that
is expected to be an improved level of service and this will roll out over the next 12 to 18
months. While this is the underlying issue that needs to be resolved there are other
activities we can leverage fore relatively small amounts of budget.
45.
I am proposing a small budget of $150,000 to deliver a number of town and local centre
clean-ups across the region. Resources will be targeted towards those areas that are in
high demand for graffiti and other clean-ups. Councils service providers will support and
work with business owners, business improvement districts (BIDs), business associations
and others to remove any graffiti vandalism that is outside the scope of councils normal
service delivery. Typically this means graffiti that is on private premises such as storefronts,
rubbish skips, private signs and fences. The clean-ups will also include: litter removal;
weeding; and painting of fascias where possible and permitted. This new initiative will help
to improve the overall look of local business environments across the region. The service
will help to strengthen and enhance councils relationships with business owners, BIDs and
business associations across the region.
46.
The proposed budget of $150K per annum allows for up to fifty clean-ups throughout the
year. At a minimum, and over the first year of operation, 32 clean-up initiatives will be
delivered. Town and local centres will be prioritised based on councils extensive data on
graffiti hot-spot areas as well as call centre information on demand for council services.
The service has been designed to be responsive to local issues and concerns and can be
further targeted based on local needs if required. It is expected that this initiative will
encourage business owners to periodically improve the look of their storefronts, to keep
them up to standard and to work with neighbouring businesses, BIDs and business
associations to help improve their local business environments.
Diversified financial assets funds release

47.
Following the review of alternative sources of funding, one of the areas that we have spent
some time discussing is the continued holding of the diversified financial assets portfolio.
While this has in the past created a good return for the council, there have been periods
where it has been extremely low. Of more impact is the need to manage our debt to
revenue ratios to maintain our AA credit rating and the benefit on borrowing interest rates
that this provides. The portfolio is not, in my view, an asset core to the functions of council
and it should be used in the prudent management of our debt. For that reason I am
proposing that we follow the staff recommendation and authorise the Chief Financial Officer
to draw down up to $100 million per annum in order to manage our debt within prudent
limits.
Local Board funding requests

48.
The Local Board budget update report, also on this agenda, contains four recommendations
with financial implications. Only one has a minor impact on costs in the 2016/17 year and I
intend to support all of those recommendations so they are factored into the proposed
budget.
Page 215
Item 12

13 May 2016

13 May 2016
Item 12
49.
In addition I have listened to the very good discussions between Local Boards and the
Governing Body on Monday 9 May. It is clear that there are some issues that need to be
further progressed. Most of these are not specifically Annual Plan matters and can be dealt
with over the coming months. Due to the timeframe of getting this report to the public
agenda, I intend to present some additional recommendations later in the week that can be
considered at the committee meeting.
Miscellaneous funding requests from community groups

50.
As always we have received a number or requests from various community groups for
additional funding. While it would be easy to justify supporting many of them I am not
proposing that we add further costs to our rating bill.
Summary of changes
51.
The updated budgets as presented by staff give a starting point of an average 2.3% rates
increase, assuming we do not continue to support the afternoon peak free travel for
SuperGold card holders or the free travel of senior citizens not entitled to the SuperGold
card. They are also presented without the changes to capex requested by AT and the
additional funding for town centre clean ups outlined above. The table below sets out the
impact of the changes on the rates increase, debt levels and key debt ratios included in this
proposal.
2016/2017
Average rates
increase
Capital
Programme
Operating
expenditure
Closing debt
Interest to
revenue ratio
S&P ratio
Long-term Plan 2015-2025
3.2%
$1,911m
$3.689m
$8,850m
11.6%
265%
After budget review
2.3%
$1,911m
$3,669m
$8,838m
11.6%
267%
Mayoral Proposal
2.4%
$1,945m
$3,670m
$8,774m
11.5%
265%
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Budget update report
217
Rates related policies
257
Signatories
Author
Mayor Len Brown, JP
Page 216
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 217
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 218
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 219
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 220
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 221
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 222
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 223
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 224
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 225
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 226
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 227
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 228
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 229
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 230
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 231
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 232
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 233
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 234
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 235
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 236
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 237
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 238
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 239
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 240
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 241
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 242
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 243
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 244
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 245
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 246
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 247
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 248
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 249
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 250
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 251
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 252
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 253
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 254
Attachment A
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 255
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 257
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 258
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 259
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 260
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 261
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 262
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 263
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 264
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 265
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 266
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 267
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 268
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 269
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 270
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 271
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 272
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 273
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 274
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 275
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 276
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 277
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 278
Attachment B
Item 12

13 May 2016
Page 279

Finance Committee Meeting 13 May 2016 To Consider Annual Plan.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finance Committee Meeting 13 May 2016 To Consider Annual Plan.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Friday, 13 May 2016

Finance and Performance Committee

Approval of non-budgeted expenditure

Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the Committees responsibilities

Monitoring achievement of financial and other measures of performance and service

Recommending the Annual Report to the Governing Body

Financial policy outside the LTP and AP

All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

Approval of a submission to an external body

Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior

Power to establish subcommittees.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where access

Members of the meeting

Independent Mori Statutory Board

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

Local Board members

Council Controlled Organisations

Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for

Finance and Performance Committee

Local Board Input

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - local board feedback

Local Board budget update

Final Annual Plan 2016/17 - Mayoral Proposal

Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Finance and Performance Committee

Local Board Input

Finance and Performance Committee

The local authority by resolution so decides; and

The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i)

the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time

no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

Finance and Performance Committee

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making

Between 15 to 23 April local boards considered feedback received on local matters. On 26

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making

Finance and Performance Committee

A consultation document with supporting information was adopted by the Governing

Written submissions this included a hard copy feedback form (distributed to

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making

Agreeing the Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2016/2017

level of the UAGC

share of the ITL between business and residential ratepayers

rates on farm/lifestyle properties

proposed changes to rating of Mori land.

proposed changes to business improvement district targeted rates

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making

Finance and Performance Committee

Finance and Performance Committee

proposed pilot programme to finance septic tank replacements and upgrades

proposed introduction of a rural Franklin recycling targeted rate.

local board advocacy for regional decision-making

decisions required to prepare local board agreements.

Mori impact statement

finalise financial statements

finalise the annual plan document for adoption.

Annual Budget 2016/2017 - Overview to decision-making

Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2016-2017

Summary Tpuna Maunga Operational Plan 2016-2017