I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:

Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:

Thursday, 27 November 2014

9.30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Governing Body
OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Mayor
Deputy Mayor
Councillors

Len Brown, JP
Penny Hulse
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Cameron Brewer
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Bill Cashmore
Cr Ross Clow
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Cr Chris Darby
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee
Cr Calum Penrose

Cr Dick Quax
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr John Watson
Cr Penny Webster
Cr George Wood, CNZM

(Quorum 11 members)
Elaine Stephenson
Democracy Advisor
20 November 2014
Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6328
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Website: [Link]

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

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a)

the power to make a rate; or

(b)

the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)

the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with
the long term council community plan; or

(d)

the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)

the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f)

(g)

the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local
Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose of
the local governance statement; or
the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a)

Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b)

Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation

(c)

Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001,
including the appointment of electoral officer

(d)

Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and
Code of Conduct

(e)

Relationships with the Independent Maori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement
and appointments to committees.

(f)

Approval of the Unitary Plan

(g)

Overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic
projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and
receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and
performance measures.

Governing Body
27 November 2014
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Affirmation

Apologies

Declaration of Interest

Confirmation of Minutes

Acknowledgements and Achievements

Petitions

Public Input

Local Board Input

Extraordinary Business

10

Notices of Motion

11

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan

2015-2025 Recommendations

12

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

13

Adoption of Contributions Policy

33

This report was not available when the agenda was compiled and will be distributed in an
addendum agenda.
14

Long-term Plan Performance Measures and Targets for Transport Theme

This report was not available when the agenda was compiled and will be distributed in an
addendum agenda.

15

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

51

16

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO

Configuration Options and Delivery of Services Review

57

17

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

93

18

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban

Development Entity and Proposal to Transfer Management of Diversified
Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

193

19

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

231

20

Significance and Engagement Policy

311

21

Governing Body decision-making during the 2014/2015 Christmas recess

period

343

22

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

345

23

Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Page 3

Governing Body
27 November 2014
1

Affirmation
His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation.

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 Governing Body:
a)

confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 5 November 2014
as a true and correct record.

Acknowledgements and Achievements

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

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

Public Input
Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days 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 3.22 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 two (2) 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 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

Page 5

Governing Body
27 November 2014
9

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)

10

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 6

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan

2015-2025 Recommendations
File No.: CP2014/27228

Purpose
1.

To consider recommendations from the Budget Committee relating to the Long-term Plan
2015-2025.

Executive Summary
2.

The report considers the 18 November 2014 Budget Committees recommendations to the
Governing Body. The reports and attachments can be found in the agenda for the 18
November 2014 Budget Committee meeting. The original agenda reports only, are attached
to this report.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

for the purpose of supporting the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 consultation:

i)

Item 11 - Rates transition management option

a) agree not to adopt a rates transition management policy (Option 1).

ii)

Item 9 - Solid Waste targeted rates and fees 2015/2016 and Waste
Management and Minimisation funding through transition
a)

the indicative targeted rates for waste services, including the pre-booked,
on-property inorganic collection in the former council areas for the
2015/2016 year as set out below:
i)

Auckland and Manukau $2421 (adjusted as appropriate in Auckland

to provide for the rates where a ratepayer has opted out of either or
both of refuse and recycling services) [1 The Auckland & Manukau
targeted rate is likely to be in the range of $240 to $245, and may
fall by around $10 over time per property dependant on decisions
around gulf islands subsidies, and the ability of certain property
types to opt out of service provision.]

ii)

North Shore and Waitakere $80

iii)

Rodney $90

iv)

Franklin and Papakura $100 (adjusted as appropriate in rural

Franklin where a ratepayer does not receive a recycling service).

b)

to phase out the subsidy for solid waste services for Hauraki Gulf Island
in equal steps over three years

c)

a targeted rate for the provision of solid waste services, including the prebooked, on-property inorganic collection for the Hauraki Gulf Islands of
$418 for 2015/2016

d)

the introduction of user charges, billed to the property owner, for refuse
for the former Auckland and Manukau City areas be gradually introduced
from 2016/2017 financial year.

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 7

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

iii)

iv)

Item 10 - Solid Waste: Inorganic Collection Service methodology and funding:

Long-term Plan 2015-2025
a)

the introduction of an annual standard pre-booked on property inorganic

collection service

b)

the proposed targeted rates for Solid Waste services include the cost of
an annual regional, pre-booked, on-property inorganic collection
commencing 1 July 2015.

Item 13 - Performance measures and targets

a)

agree the revised set of levels of service statements, performance

measures and targets, including amendments tabled for each group of
activity (with the exception of Transport which will be the subject of a
separate report to the 27 November Governing Body meeting).

Attachments
No.

Title

Page

Item 11 Budget Committee 18 November Agenda - Rates transition

management option

Item 9 Budget Committee 18 November Agenda - Solid Waste targeted

rates and fees 2015/2016 and Waste Management and Minimisation
funding through transition

17

Item 10 Budget Committee 18 November Agenda - Solid Waste: Inorganic

Collection Service methodology and funding: Long-term Plan 2015-2025

25

Item 13 Budget Committee 18 November Agenda - Performance

measures and targets

31

Signatories
Authors

Mike Giddey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 8

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 9

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 10

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 11

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 12

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 13

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 14

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 15

Attachment A

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 16

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 17

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 18

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 19

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 20

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 21

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 22

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 23

Attachment B

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 24

Attachment C

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 25

Attachment C

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 26

Attachment C

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 27

Attachment C

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 28

Attachment C

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 29

Attachment D

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 31

Attachment D

Item 11

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Adoption of the 18 November 2014 Budget Committee's Long-term Plan 2015-2025

Recommendations

Page 32

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 12

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

File No.: CP2014/25336

Purpose
1.

This report recommends amendments to the contributions policy for the Long-term Plan
2015-2025.

Executive summary
2.

This report has been deferred to this Governing Body meeting by the Budget Committee on
its 5 November 2014 meeting.

3.

This report considers amendments to the cost allocation elements of the contributions policy.
Staff will report to the Governing Body on 27 November recommending the adoption of a
draft policy for consultation which includes the projects to be funded by development
contributions. This will be based on the capital program the council agrees to consult on for
inclusion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

4.

The Council adopted an integrated contributions policy in 2012 to allow development

contributions to fund the infrastructure investment the council plans to meet the demand
arising from growth. The costs of growth are allocated to developers based on the demand
the type of development places on infrastructure by activity, e.g. transport, in the area in
which they are developing, e.g. stormwater - Mahurangi (RUB).

5.

The current development contribution charge is determined from a baseline for a single
detached house, a household unit equivalent (HUE). The current average charge per HUE
is $18.500. Where development of different type or area places a different demand on
investment it is charged a higher or lower proportion of the HUE e.g. a high-rise apartment is
charged 0.6 of HUE.

6.

The amendments proposed are a refinement of the current policy to improve the link
between the demand development places on infrastructure and the calculation of
contributions. These changes are consistent with the objectives of the changes to
development contributions legislation in the Local Government Amendment Act 2014. The
key changes are:

6.

increasing the number of funding areas for stormwater and transport to better reflect the
different infrastructure investment required in different parts of the region

setting residential development charges based on house size as well as type

defining commercial accommodation units as residential accommodation units

including Kaumatua housing in the retirement unit development type

re-defining minor dwellings units as small ancillary dwellings and increasing the demand
factor from 0.5 to 0.6.

Staff have undertaken some preliminary engagement with developers in the development of
this advice. Developers initial feedback is reflected in this report.

Setting funding areas

7.

Staff have reviewed the funding areas used to determine the allocation of growth investment
costs across the region. Staff recommend increasing the number of funding areas for
stormwater and transport to more accurately allocate the costs of additional infrastructure to
development in the areas where that investment is required.

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 33

Governing Body
27 November 2014
It is recommended that funding areas for stormwater are increased from 4 to 17 to reflect the
differing type and intensity of investment required to serve additional development in
different parts of the region. The investment in stormwater required to support development
depends on the capacity of existing infrastructure and the hydrology and topography of each
area.

9.

Funding areas for transport should also be increased from 2 to 5. Transport services are
provided as part of a network so the funding areas are larger in terms of geographical area
than those for stormwater. For example a major intersection upgrade may benefit improved
travel times for road users over a very wide area. Some investments are also required at a
regional level to meet the needs of a growing population wherever development takes place.

10.

The policy will retain the flexibility to create area-specific funding areas on a case by case
basis to manage timing issues and the unique characteristics of areas targeted for growth in
the Auckland Plan and Special Housing Areas.

11.

Staff also considered retaining wider regional funding areas or developing a larger number
of smaller funding areas for each activity group. Retaining wider regional funding areas for
stormwater and transport would not reflect some of the broad differences in the cost of
providing for development across the region. However, the use of wider funding areas
reduces the councils flexibility in responding to growth should the need arise to move
projects around to meet those demands.

Item 12

8.

Charging for residential developments based on house size

12.

Staff propose to set the residential demand factor based on both the type of development
and also the size. New demand factors related to size will have three categories; 99m,
between 100m - 249m and 250m . For detached and attached low rise2 dwellings
demand factors will be respectively 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 HUE when considering size. Reduced
demand factors for medium/high rise dwellings will be 0.6, 0.75 and 0.9 HUE.

13.

Current residential demand factors are based on the type of the building (detached 1 HUE,
low rise 0.8 HUE, e.g. town house, and medium/high rise 0.6 HUE, e.g. apartment). This
means a 70m2 detached dwelling pays the same contribution (1 HUE) as a 300m2 detached
dwelling. However, the demand for infrastructure from residential development is driven by
the number of additional residents a property can house. A larger property can provide for
more new residents and hence places more demand on infrastructure.

14.

As a result smaller dwellings will pay less than larger dwellings, providing a more equitable
link between construction of new dwellings and the underlying demand for infrastructure.

Other changes to development types

15.

Staff also recommend the following amendments to development types:

create a new accommodation units category for commercial accommodation (hotels and
motels) and allocate an appropriate level of transport and open space cost, but at a lower
level than residential development. The current policy does not require contributions from
accommodation units unless there was also a subdivision of the accommodation units
undertaken because legislation precluded it. However, the amended legislation allows for
these changes
include Kaumatua housing in the retirement unit development type as the demand they
place on services is similar

Attached low rise will be charged on it actual impervious surface area (ISA), 292m equating to 1 HUE,
rather than 1 HUE per household as for all detached dwellings.
Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 34

rename minor dwelling units small ancillary dwellings to match the change nomenclature in
the unitary plan and increase the demand factor from 0.5 to 0.6. This will to better reflect the
demand impact these properties place on infrastructure.

Recommendation/s
That, for the purposes of developing the draft LTP 2015-2025 for consultation, the
Governing Body adopt changes to the contributions policy as set out below:
a)

agree to use development contributions as the primary funding source for growth,
retaining the option to use financial contributions in those limited circumstances
where development contributions cannot be applied

b)

agree to amend the contributions policy to replace the current funding areas with
those set out below:

Reserve Acquisition

ReserveDevelopment

Stormwater

Stormwater

Transport

Community
Infrastructure

Auckland
Wide

Auckland
Wide

Auckland Wide

Manukau
Harbour
(RUB)

Auckland
Wide

Auckland Wide

North

HGI

Manukau
Harbour
(Rural)

North

North

Central

Hibiscus Coast
(RUB)

North East

Central

Central

South

Hibiscus Coast
(Rural)

Tamaki
(RUB)

South

South

West

Kaipara (RUB)

Tamaki
(Rural)

West

West

HGI

Kaipara (Rural)

Wairoa

HGI

HGI

Rural

Mahurangi (RUB)

Waitemata
(RUB)

Mahurangi
(Rural)

Waitemata
(Rural)

Rural

West Coast

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 35

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 12

c)

agree to amend the contributions policy to adjust the charge for residential
development to reflect development size as follows:
Detached and attached low rise dwellings3:
i)

0.8 per household equivalent unit (HUE) for developments at or below 99m2

ii)

1.0 per HUE for developments between 100 m2 and 249 m2

iii)

1.2 per HUE for developments at or over 250 m2.

Attached medium/high rise dwellings:

d)

iv)

0.6 per household equivalent unit (HUE) for developments at or below 99m2

v)

0.75 per HUE for developments between 100 m2 and 249 m2

vi)

0.9 per HUE for developments at or over 250 m2.

Agree to amend the contributions policy to:

i)

establish a new development category, accommodation units which will

include hotels and motels.

ii)

include Kaumatua housing in the retirement unit development type category.

iii)

rename minor dwelling units as small ancillary dwellings and set the demand
factor at 0.6.

Background
16.

The council adopted a regionally consistent contributions policy as part of the Long-Term
Plan 2012-2022. This replaced the approaches taken by the eight former councils to the
funding of growth and the use of development and financial contributions4.

17.

The current policy provides that development contributions will be the primary tool for
funding growth but retains the ability to use other funding sources, and in particular financial
contributions, in those limited circumstances where development contributions cannot be
applied.

18.

The current policy provides for the funding of council activities in the areas set out in the
table below.

Open Space
Land
Acquisition

Stormwater

Transport

Public
Transport

Community
service facilities

Local recreation
facilities

Regional
recreation
facilities

Auckland
Wide

Urban Auckland

Mainland

Auckland
Wide

North

North

Auckland Wide

Rural
development
area

Hauraki Gulf
Islands

Central

Central

Attached low rise will be charged on it actual impervious surface area (ISA), 292m equating to 1 HUE,
rather than 1 HUE per household as for all detached dwellings.
4
The previous policies still apply where a consent had been lodged prior to the adoption of Auckland
Councils policy on 1 July 2012.
Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 36

Rural

South

South

Hauraki Gulf
Islands

West

West

HGI

HGI

Rural

Rural

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

19.

The council undertook extensive consultation with developers in establishing its 2012 policy.

20.

The policy was amended in September 2014 to reflect changes required by the Local
Government Amendment Act 2014. That Act also provides that the council must consult on
a new contributions policy by 1 December 2014.

21.

Legislation provides that the council must formally state how it proposes to fund growth. If
the council decides to use contributions to fund growth it must state whether and in what
circumstances it will use either development contributions or financial contributions.

22.

This report recommends some amendments to the process the contributions policy uses to
apportion the costs of growth between developers. Staff will report to the Governing Body
on 27 November recommending the adoption of a draft policy for consultation including a
schedule of the capital projects that are to be funded from development contributions. This
allows time for the policy to be updated to include the councils decisions on the capital
expenditure program to be consulted on for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and a for full
legal review of the draft policy.

Comments
23.

Staff have balanced the principles set out below in reviewing the contributions policy:

purpose and principles of development contributions

equitable sharing of costs of growth between ratepayers, developers and other members of
the community having regard to such matters as who causes the costs and who receives the
benefits
equitable sharing of costs of growth between different types of development and different
funding areas
revenue certainty for the council and cost certainty for developers
alignment with outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan
administrative simplicity
ensuring legislative compliance
accommodation of new development provided for in the Housing Accord and Special
Housing Areas.
24.

The review has focused on refining the policy as no need has been identified for any
fundamental changes. However, particular attention has been placed on the first two
principles identified above as these are the key drivers behind the objectives of the changes
to development contributions in the Local Government Amendment Act 2014.

25.

Staff have held two meetings with developers between March and October 2014 to discuss
amendments to the Contributions policy. These were attended by over 60 developers in
total. Key comments from these sessions are noted in each section below.

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 37

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 12

Funding sources for growth

26.

Staff recommend that the primary source of funding for investment in infrastructure to
support growth should be development contributions. The council will retain the ability to
use funding from other sources where development contributions cannot be used. For
example the council will have to use rates5 funding to pay for some community
infrastructure, such as swimming pools and libraries that cannot be funded from
development contributions.

27.

The beneficiaries of investment in infrastructure to provide for growth will be the new
residents of Auckland and the developers who as a result of that investment can construct
new buildings. By funding growth from development contributions the beneficiaries of the
investment pay for the costs incurred on their behalf. It also means that decisions on
development are made by developers taking into account not only the costs of the land and
buildings but the costs they impose on the city. Funding growth from development
contributions also helps to ensure rates remain affordable.

28.

Staff considered the case for funding growth from rates but noted that whilst this would
encourage growth it would also place a greater burden on ratepayers and impact on the
affordability of rates.

Developer early engagement comments

29.

In previous engagement with developers they have acknowledged that it is reasonable that
development funds the reasonable costs of growth. They also accept that the contributions
provide the council with a greater capacity to invest in new infrastructure and hence allow for
more development than if this had to be funded from a constrained rates envelope.

Development contributions or financial contributions

30.

Staff recommend that the primary source of funding for investment in infrastructure to
support growth should be development contributions.

31.

Development contributions provide funding for the investments the council plans to make to
fund the impacts of growth on the city as a whole. They allow for integrated financial and
infrastructure planning. This ensures that those who use the developments, and existing
residents, will have available to them the level of services the council has committed to
providing the community. They are a strategic funding tool designed to support the councils
strategic response to growth because they can provide for the cumulative effect of multiple
developments and infrastructure investment on a regional as well as local scale.

32.

Development contributions provide a certain revenue stream for the council against which it
can plan a wide range of investments. They also give developers certainty about the costs
they will incur.

33.

Financial contributions are designed to provide a means to avoid, remedy or mitigate the
adverse effects of developments on the environment by funding the council to provide
projects. They require a more direct casual nexus to be established between the proposed
development and the projects than do development contributions. Further financial
contributions are subject to Environment Court appeals both at the plan change stage and
when the council seeks to require financial contributions on development. Given that the
Environment Court might reduce the financial contributions payable on a case-by-case
basis, a reliance on financial contributions could make it very difficult for the council to
provide for the large scale investment required to meet the very significant growth it is
expecting. This in turn would slow the rate of investment the city requires and therefore slow
the rate at which developers could invest.

While these investments will be funded from borrowing the interest costs will be met from rates.

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 38

Governing Body
27 November 2014

34.

Developers are happy with development contributions overall, however, they would be open
to further investigations in using financial contributions for stormwater projects.

Setting funding areas

35.

Staff recommend increasing the number of funding areas for stormwater and transport to
more accurately allocate the costs of additional infrastructure to development in the areas
where that investment is required. The current funding areas will be retained for the other
activities. The proposed funding areas are set out in the table below. Maps showing the
funding areas are included in Attachment 1.

Reserve Acquisition

ReserveDevelopment

Stormwater

Stormwater

Transport

Community
Infrastructure

Auckland
Wide

Auckland
Wide

Auckland Wide

Manukau
Harbour
(RUB)

Auckland
Wide

Auckland Wide

North

HGI

Manukau
Harbour
(Rural)

North

North

Central

Hibiscus Coast
(RUB)

North East

Central

Central

South

Hibiscus Coast
(Rural)

Tamaki
(RUB)

South

South

West

Kaipara (RUB)

Tamaki
(Rural)

West

West

HGI

Kaipara (Rural)

Wairoa

HGI

HGI

Rural

Mahurangi (RUB)

Waitemata
(RUB)

Mahurangi
(Rural)

Waitemata
(Rural)

Rural

West Coast

36.

Funding arrangements must align with the way the council plans its infrastructure. The
nature and spread of the benefits of investment differs across the councils activities.
Funding areas are activity-based and distribute the costs of growth across development in
different parts of the region. The councils planned investment to meet the demands of
growth varies from major regional projects that will serve all of Auckland to smaller scale
infrastructure to allow development in particular parts of the city. Many of these investments
are part of a network where enhancements in one location provide benefits to a wider area
or across the entire region. Although individual parts of these programmes may only serve
local areas, the programme as a whole is usually distributed relatively evenly across the
region.

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 39

Item 12

Developer early engagement comments

Governing Body
27 November 2014
Regional funding areas are proposed to be retained for regional transport projects and
reserve acquisition. Reserve acquisition provides for access to reserves at a regional level
as residents will travel outside their own catchment to access reserves, and some areas
such as reserves on the coastline, serve the whole city. Each locality has its own
characteristics of open space provision and the spread of reserve land can never be equal
given practical considerations. It is administratively difficult to exactly refine how residents of
particular developments will use reserves and hence impractical to create smaller
catchments. However, a little more refinement is practical for expenditure required to
develop reserves given that this will differ at a regional level even if still on a sub-regional
rather than local scale. This also allows the council more flexibility to alter the location and
type of projects within a broad funding area to reflect changes in development type and
speed and community preferences.

38.

Investment in transport projects is regional by design and benefits the entire network through
its impact on congestion and connectivity between different parts of city for both public and
private transport users. However, the remainder of the transport portfolio can be refined into
sub-regional catchments based on the nature of the investments and a broad determination
of their benefits.

39.

The benefits of investment in stormwater can be more easily identified by location. The
proposed funding areas for stormwater are based on the water catchments and how the
council is planning to meet the investment needs of growth. While further refinement of
stormwater catchments if possible this would lead to too many funding areas making it very
difficult to respond if growth occurs differently from that predicted and would create a large
number of uneconomical funding areas. The proposed funding areas provide the
appropriate balance between providing certainty for developers, averaging out the costs of
growth as appropriate, and administrative efficiency.

Item 12

37.

Developer early engagement comments

40.

The development community indicated some support for using:

single regional catchments for some major regional capital works because of the very wide
community benefits they offer
sub-regional funding areas for some activities because of the size of the region and the
particular characteristics and costs associated with different parts of it
suggest smaller catchments for stormwater
large development contribution funding areas because they provide a realistic approach to
growth funding for Auckland region, avoiding complexity and providing certainty.

41.

Developers noted that:

areas with unique characteristics and costs (such as rural, greenfield and major
transformational areas) may warrant separate contribution catchments

there is a desire to see an alignment between this policy and the main planning directions
and documents (particularly the Auckland Plan).

Residential units of demand

42.

Staff propose to set the residential demand factor based on both the type of development
(detached, low rise and medium/high rise) and also the size of the proposed household (with
price points: at or below 99m2, households between 100m2 and 249m2, and households at or
greater than 250 m2). As a result smaller dwellings will pay less than larger dwellings,
providing a more equitable link between construction of new dwellings and the underlying
demand for infrastructure.

43.

The demand for infrastructure arising from residential development is mainly determined by
the additional residents it will be required to serve. Analysis shows that the occupancy of
residential properties is directly linked to size. Larger properties are likely to have more

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 40

bedrooms and have more occupants. However, beyond a certain size larger properties do
not have additional occupants although they presumably provide more amenities for their
occupancy.
44.

Differences in demand factors by type of development reflects the lower marginal cost of
infrastructure provision through a more compact high density future Auckland.

Current HUE
No size consideration
Detached dwellings
1 HUE
6
Attached low rise
0.8 HUE
Attached med/high rise
0.6 HUE

0-99m
0.8 HUE
0.8 HUE
0.6 HUE

Proposed HUE
100m-249m
1 HUE
1 HUE
0.75 HUE

250m
1.2 HUE
1.2 HUE
0.9 HUE

45.

At present small properties which may have on average 1.6 occupants pay the same
contribution as for larger properties which have a higher average occupancy and, therefore,
generate more demand on infrastructure.

46.

Staff also considered charging per bedroom but determined this was impractical as it would
be difficult to enforce given that space can labelled one way on a plan and subsequently
used for other purposes. Charging per square metre was also considered but was
considered to be administratively too inefficient.

47.

In some overseas cities much development of residential properties to serve growth has
come from the extension of existing properties. Staff will review the applicability of
development contributions to extensions over the next year. It is not possible at this time to
charge development contributions for extensions as the council does not collect information
in the form to support this administratively in a robust and fair manner.

Developer early engagement comments

48.

The development community in general indicated support for using both type and size of
development when setting demand factors, positive comments include:
It is positive to have some way to address equality issues
Size of dwelling approach is more manageable than bedroom approach.

49.

Some concerns have been raised:

Jump in price between categories should be limited

Attached low rise dwellings should remain lower than detached dwellings.

Demand factor for commercial accommodation units

50.

Staff recommend the establishment of a new category of residential dwelling type

accommodation unit to cover motels, hotels and similar developments. New proposed per
unit demand factors are: Reserves 0.45, transport 0.45 HUE, community infrastructure 0
HUE, stormwater 292m ISA = 1 HUE.

51.

Under current policy, applications for commercial accommodation units are charged as nonresidential development units and are not assessed for reserves. The Local Government
Amendment Act 2014 introduced a new definition accommodation units that covers all
types of developments related to commercial accommodation units. The amended Local
Government Act states that: accommodation units means units, apartments, rooms in 1 or
more buildings, or cabins or sites in camping grounds and holiday parks, for the purpose of
providing overnight, temporary, or rental accommodation. This change allows the council
the power to require contributions for reserves from this development type.

Attached low rise will be charged on it actual impervious surface area (ISA), 292m equating to 1 HUE,
rather than 1 HUE per household as for all detached dwellings.
Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 41

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014
52.

Transport trip generation research suggests that the typical accommodation unit will have
just below half the number of trips compared to average detached dwelling units. Staff
recommend that the transport demand factor for accommodation units is set at 45% of the
average residential factor.

53.

The LGA change also provides for the council to charge all accommodation units for
reserves on the same basis as residential dwellings. This is important because evidence
shows that the users of accommodation units consume demand for public open spaces.
(although may generate less demand for sportsfields etc.) The demand factor of 0.45 HUE
reflect a 75% reduction from small attached medium/high rise dwelling charges given its
lower annual occupancy rate at 75%.

Developer early engagement comments

54.

The development community indicated support for this category of development to share the
cost of growth with residential development.

Demand factor for Kaumatua housing

55.

Staff recommend that Kaumatua housing be included in the retirement village development
category.

56.

Kaumatua housing generally places the same lower demands on council services as
retirement villages. Research shows the typical characteristics of Kaumatua housing are
good access to on-site social and cultural connections, close proximity to direct family
(papakainga) and the wider Maori community, an onsite health clinic and transport often
coordinated through communal people movers rather than individual car ownership and use.

57.

Existing lower retirement unit charges are only offered to units in a retirement village as
retirement villages are governed by the Retirement Village Act (RVA) 2003. The strict rules
in the Act dont match well with the nature of Kaumatua housing. Without a strict set of rules
to work from there may be some additional administrative complexity in determining whether
proposed developments meet the requirements. However, this will allow for housing to be
developed for Kaumatua with easy access to Marae and places of cultural significance
(placed on land administered under the Te Ture Whenua Mori Act 1993 [Mori Land Act] or
identified in relevant Treaty settlement legislation as cultural redress land).

Developer early engagement comments

58.

The development community have been supportive of the inclusion of Kaumatua housing in
retirement unit category.

Demand factor for small ancillary dwelling unit (previously minor dwellings)
59.

Staff recommend that the demand factor for minor dwelling units be increased to 0.6 HUE
and the name of the category changed to small ancillary dwelling unit.

60.

The current policy defines minor dwelling units as: The first dwelling unit ancillary to the
primary dwelling unit on an allotment with a floor area of 60m or less and not able to be
increased in size. This definition aligns with some current District Plan rules. The demand
factor for minor dwellings is 0.5.

61.

Minor dwelling units have a similar occupancy to small apartments, 1.6 residents. As a
result they should have the same demand factor which is 0.6. In addition draft Auckland
Unitary Plan does not identify this built form separately. To provide clarity during the
transition period between existing and future plan rules the name for this category should be
changed to a more generalised definition small ancillary dwelling unit.

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 42

Governing Body
27 November 2014

62.

The development community have in general been supportive of changes proposed to minor
dwellings. Some concern was raised that the 60m limit does not accurately reflect all district
plan rules that still exist across the city.

Projects to be included in reserves category

63.

A comprehensive list of project to be funded from development contributions will be part of

the policy report to the Governing Body on 27 November. Staff will adjust the reserves
category to add the following project types:

development of reserves

sportsfields capacity increases (eg. sand carpeting)

carparking associated with reserves.

64.

The council previously funded project types as specified above (other than acquisition) from
the community infrastructure category. The change to the definition of community
infrastructure in the Local Government Act 2014 now excludes those projects. The council
amended its contributions policy on 8 September accordingly. These projects can be funded
from development contributions in the reserves category. The projects are closely linked to
the reserves category as they are required to develop parks and reserves to provide for the
effective use of those services by the public. The value of these projects under the Mayors
proposal is around $40 million. Under other options for capital investment in Parks,
community and lifestyle the value of the projects in this category increases accordingly.

Significance of Decision
65.

Adoption of a contributions policy is a significant decision and will be consulted on alongside

the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Consultation
66.

Consultation with the public will occur alongside the LTP.

Consideration
Local board views and implications
67.

Two representatives of each local board were invited to a briefing on the financial policies,
including the contributions policy, for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on 18 August 2014. A
further briefing was provided on 20 October, to which all local board members were invited.
The 20 October briefing included analysis of options for the contributions policy. Local board
chairs and another board member were invited to participate in a workshop on financial
policy issues with the Budget Committee on 24 October.

68.

Local boards considered their views on financial policy issues at workshops in September
and October and during their formal October meetings.

69.

Many local boards support a contributions policy that leads to efficient land use and an
approach that sufficiently provides infrastructure for growth in the existing urban area. Some
local boards support expenditure of development contributions in the areas in which they are
collected.

70.

A more detailed report of local board views is attached along with the full text of their
resolutions on these issues.

Mori impact statement

71.

Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Maori will
be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 43

Item 12

Developer early engagement comments

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014
72.

The council is developing a grants scheme which will offer funding equivalent to the cost of
development contributions for qualifying Papakainga housing. Maori will also benefit from
the lower demand factor proposed for Kaumatua housing from its inclusion in the retirement
unit category rather than the standard dwelling type.

73.

The Independent Mori Statutory Board has two members on the Budget Committee who
will consider the Mayors Proposal on financial/rating policies including options for setting the
social housing rents.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

74.

There are no financial or resourcing implications.

Legal and Legislative Implications

75.

The options presented in this report comply with the requirements of the Local Government
Act 2002 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

Implementation
76.

Issues associated with implementing the options presented in this report have been included
for consideration.

Attachments
No.

Title

Contributions Policy maps

Page
45

Signatories
Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Claes Sandstrom, Senior Advisor
Bobbi Parkinson, Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 44

Attachment A

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 45

Attachment A

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 46

Attachment A

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 47

Attachment A

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 48

Attachment A

Item 12

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Contributions Policy Cost Allocation Amendments

Page 49

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 15

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

File No.: CP2014/26484

Purpose
1.

To receive information about the costs of a referendum and other issues relating to
engagement with the public on LTP provisions for transport investment and funding options.

Executive summary
2.

At its meeting on 5 November 2014, the Budget Committee considered a report on

Transport programmes and funding options. The Committee resolved:
That staff report to the next Budget Committee meeting on the costs of a referendum
and general issues relating to engagement on this matter.

3.

A formal referendum would have to be conducted under the Local Electoral Act 2001 which
makes specific provision for referendums. Many of the provisions that exist for the running
of elections also apply to the running of a referendum. Those eligible to vote are all resident
and non-resident ratepayer electors on the electoral roll.

4.

The process would involve compiling an electoral roll and making that available for public
inspection. The roll would then be closed and voting packs posted to electors to return over
a three week period.

5.

Regardless of whether a referendum is held, a consultation document for the Long-term

Plan (LTP) will be delivered to each household for feedback. Aucklanders will be able to
provide feedback using a structured feedback form, through online channels or in person at
a range of events. The referendum would not replace the Councils separate obligations to
consult on the LTP and costs would be in addition to those incurred to support the LTP
consultation process.

6.

The total estimated cost of an Auckland-wide referendum is $1.5 million. This includes the
cost of conducting the referendum, approximately $1.10 (plus GST) per elector or in the
vicinity of $1.156 million (plus GST), as well as costs relating to advertising and
communication of explanatory information other than what is provided in the voting pack.
This cost is estimated to be around $0.3 million based on a similar level of promotion
undertaken to support the Unitary Plan process. This assumes only one referendum is
required.

7.

If the council wished to conduct a referendum, a further report would be necessary setting
out the resolutions required by the Local Electoral Act 2001.

8.

In order for results to be known in time for the Budget Committee meeting on 7 May 2015,
the process would need to commence in late January 2015.

9.

Related engagement issues include the need to consult on the LTP at the same time as hold
a referendum and the potential for confusion as to whether Aucklanders should take part in
one or the other or both. The LTP process is likely to lead to more informed feedback.

10.

A non-binding referendum has the benefit of informing councillors of the wish of the
electorate (or at least those who participate) and councillors can take this into account when
making decisions. However, based on an assessment of the costs and related issues, and
given the concurrent LTP process, staff do not recommend that a referendum is used to
seek feedback from Auckland electors on transport investment and funding options.

11.

As an alternative, if members are seeking greater clarity about public opinion, in addition to
the LTP engagement, we recommend a survey is commissioned. The survey would be
statistically reliable and independent and less costly than a referendum.

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

Page 51

Item 15

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Recommendations
That the Governing Body:
a)

agree to not undertake a referendum to seek feedback from Auckland electors on

transport investment and funding options.

b)

direct the Chief Executive to commission an independent statistically reliable survey

to help inform choices about transport funding.

Comments
Costs
12.

Independent Elections Services advise that the cost of a referendum would equate to $1.10
(plus GST) per elector or in the vicinity of $1.156 million (plus GST). This includes one A4
double-sided explanatory insert. As at 23 September 2014 there were 1,043,153 residential
electors for Auckland Council and there are currently 403 non-resident ratepayer electors
outside the Auckland Council area who would be entitled to vote.

13.

Costs would also arise from additional advertising and communication of explanatory
information. This cost is estimated to be around $0.3 million based on a similar level of
promotion undertaken to support the Unitary Plan process.

Example timetable
14.

In terms of timing, if polling day was Friday 24 April 2015:

(a) Roll would open (28 days before roll closes): 29 January 2015
(b) Roll would close (57 days before polling day): 26 February 2015
(c) Delivery of voting documents: 2 - 7 April 2015
(d) Polling day: 24 April 2015 (results available same day)
(e) Budget Committee meets to make final decisions for the LTP: 7 May 2015.

Requirements for neutrality

15.

The referendum proposal should be accompanied by appropriate explanatory information

and both the proposal and the accompanying explanatory information should be as clear,
accurate, and neutral as possible, so that the persons being polled can make a free and
reasonably informed decision. The Council must not attempt to influence the outcome of the
referendum by making public statements, or utilizing Council funds/facilities, either in support
of or against any particular position. The Electoral Officer determines what information is
appropriate, in consultation with others.

16.

Clause 46 of the Local Electoral Regulations states:

(1)

The electoral officer may, if he or she considers it appropriate to provide neutral

information on the matter or matters that are the subject of a poll, decide that
every voting document for that poll that is issued to a voter in person or posted
or otherwise delivered to an elector must be accompanied by neutral information
on the matter or matters.

(2)

For the purposes of deciding whether to provide neutral information under

subclause (1), or ensuring that any information provided is neutral, the electoral
officer may seek advice from any person he or she considers appropriate.

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

Page 52

Governing Body
27 November 2014
However, individual elected members are free to express their own views, so long as:

Item 15

17.

(a) They make it clear that the views are theirs, not the Councils
(b) They consider the results of the referendum with an open mind when making
subsequent decisions and
(c) They do not use Council funds/resources to express their views.
Background to previous community engagement
18.

There has been relatively high engagement with Auckland stakeholders on the policy
development for alternative funding for transport. The process to investigate alternative
funding for transport infrastructure started in late 2011.

19.

In February 2012 the Getting Auckland Moving Alternative Funding Discussion

Document was released and consulted on alongside the 2012-22 Long Term Plan Process.

20.

As a result of that work, in July 2012 Council agreed to bring together an independent group
of stakeholders (the Consensus Building Group CBG) to work on a broad consensus on
the funding sources needed to improve Aucklands transport network.

21.

In April 2013 the CBG released a discussion document Funding Aucklands Transport
Future. This second discussion document was the subject of extensive public and targeted
stakeholder consultation. This resulted in recommendations to Council in July 2013 on
funding pathways that warranted further consideration.

22.

In December 2013, councillors considered a report on the next steps which led to the
development of detailed policy and business cases for two potential funding options.

23.

The Independent Advisory Body (IAB) reported to council in October 2014. On the basis of
the IAB report the Budget Committee determined to consult on the two funding programmes
as a formal part of the 2015-25 LTP process.

Analysis of benefits and cost of a referendum

24.

A referendum has the benefit of informing councillors of the wish of the electorate (or at least
of those who vote) and councillors can take this into account when making decisions.

25.

However, after considering the various costs and related issues associated with a
referendum, staff do not recommend a referendum is used to seek feedback on the views of
Auckland electors on transport investment options and funding options.

26.

This advice is based on the following considerations:

(a) A referendum would not replace councils obligation to consult on transport investment
and funding options through the LTP process.
(b) The total cost of the referendum is estimated to be around $1.5 million. This cost would
be in addition to the costs associated with the LTP consultation process.
(c) The LTP consultation process is likely to be a more effective means of engaging with
Aucklanders than a referendum because there is greater flexibility in the provision of
information to support the consultation process (delivering more informed feedback) and
the LTP process will also engage Aucklanders on the total council budget and the
concept of trade-offs across different types of services and investments. The LTP
process also supports better analysis of the feedback received, for example, the ability to
understand the differing views of specific segments of the population.
(d) A referendum is available to electors only; community groups, business associations and
other organisations will need to use the LTP consultation process.
(e) Running two processes to ask about the same issue is likely to be confusing for
Aucklanders.

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

Page 53

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 15

(f) To ensure the results of the referendum are available to support decision-making, the
process of setting up the referendum would need to begin in late January 2015. The
timetable would be very tight.
(g) Undertaking a referendum process in addition to the LTP consultation process would
place considerable pressure on staff required to support both processes.
(h) At the time of writing this report, it is not clear whether one or two referundums would be
required. This would be dependent on the information being sought.
Procedural requirements under the Local Electoral Act 2001
27.

The following sets out the requirements of the legislation.

Referendum to be on a proposal
28.

The key provision for conducting referenda is section 9 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
Subsection 9 (1) provides for a local authority to direct its electoral officer to conduct a
referendum on
(a)

(b)

29.

any matter relating to

(i)

the services that are provided or that may be provided by the local
authority; or

(ii)

any policy or intended policy of the local authority; or

any proposal relating to

(i)

the current or future activities or objectives of the local authority; or

(ii)

the current or future well-being of its local government area.

In this case, a referendum would relate to a proposal in terms of the Councils future
activities and objectives.

Affected area
30.

Subsection 9 (2) states:

The local authority

31.

(a)

must determine whether the matter that is the subject of the referendum affects
all or part of its local government area; and

(b)

must direct the electoral officer to conduct the referendum for all or the
appropriate electors of the local government area accordingly.

The Council would direct the electoral officer to conduct the referendum over the whole of
the Auckland Council area.

A referendum is a poll
32.

Subsection 9 (5) states:

A referendum conducted as a consequence of a direction under this section is a poll
to which this Act applies.

33.

Thus, the requirements in the Local Electoral Act 2001 that apply to polls also apply to
referenda.

Whether binding
34.

Subsection 9 (7) states:

The result of any referendum conducted as a consequence of a direction under this
section is not binding on the local authority unless it resolves otherwise or any
enactment provides otherwise.

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

Page 54

35.

The referendum would be intended to elicit the views of electors on matters which will form
part of the LTP. The results of the referendum would be taken into account by the Council
when making decisions on the LTP but should not be binding, if the effect of the referendum
would make redundant the Councils separate LTP consultation process.

Voting method
36.

The Council must determine the voting method. If there is no determination, the default
method is postal voting (s 36). The Local Electoral Regulations only provides for postal
voting or ballot box voting or a combination of the two.

Notice of poll
37.

The same requirements under section 52 that apply to giving notice of elections also apply
to polls. In addition, section 54 further requires:
In the case of a poll, a notice under section 52 must also

38.

(a)

state the proposal or subject matter of the poll; and

(b)

in the case of a binding poll, state the consequences of each possible result of
the poll; and

(c)

in the case of a non-binding poll, state the intentions (if any) of the local authority
or other body on whose behalf the poll is conducted in respect of each possible
result of the poll.

It is necessary to state any intention of the Council as regards to the result of the poll. The
Council would take the results of the referendum into account when making decisions on the
LTP.

What voting documents for polls must contain (s 76)

39.

Section 76 sets out what the voting document must contain in terms of giving directions to
the voter.

40.

Section 77 states:
A voting document may not be used at an election or poll unless it is consistent with
at least one of the general formats that have been approved for use by the Secretary
for Local Government or a person appointed by the Secretary for the purpose of
approving formats for voting documents under this section.

41.

Thus, a voting document must be set out in the prescribed way.

Electoral systems for polls (s35)

(1)

(2)

Every poll conducted for a local authority must be conducted using an electoral
system adopted by resolution of the local authority
(a)

for the purposes of the particular poll; or

(b)

for the purposes of 2 or more polls that are to be conducted at the same
time.

If a poll is to be conducted for a local authority and there is no applicable

resolution, that poll must be conducted using the electoral system commonly
known as First Past the Post.

An alternative to a referendum
42.

As an alternative, if committee members are seeking greater clarity about public opinion, in
addition to the LTP engagement, we recommend a survey is commissioned. The survey
would be statistically reliable and independent and less costly than a referendum.

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

Page 55

Item 15

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 15

43.

A survey has the benefits of providing more information to respondents to help inform a
more comprehensive response.

Consideration
Local board views and implications
44.

This report provides the Committee with information it has requested on the implications of
conducting a referendum. The views of Local Boards have not been sought.

Mori impact statement

45.

This report provides the Committee with information it has requested on the implications of
conducting a referendum. If a referendum is conducted, there will not be a specific impact
on Mori as distinct from the rest of the community.

Implementation
46.

If the Council decides to hold a referendum, the Electoral Officer would need to be instructed
to conduct a poll. This would be administered and run through the Councils election
services provider, Independent Election Services.

Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories
Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Tanya Stocks Programme Director, Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Referendum on transport investment and funding options

Page 56

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 16

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO

Configuration Options and Delivery of Services Review
File No.: CP2014/19676

Purpose
1.

To provide an overview of the council controlled organisation (CCO) review process and key
options considered but not recommended for further investigation.

2.

This report also covers the new legislative requirement under the Local Government Act
2002 to undertake, at least once every six years, a review of the most cost effective way of
delivering services. The report covers this requirement only for services currently being
delivered by CCOs.

3.

This report in one of three reports on this agenda relating to the CCO review. The other two
reports are:
Council Controlled Organisation Review Summary of Feedback. This report
summarises feedback on the review from CCOs, local boards, the Independent Maori
Statutory Board (IMSB) and the Public Services Association (PSA)
Council Controlled Organisation Review Proposal for New Urban Development Entity
and Proposal to Transfer Management of the Diversified Assets Portfolio from ACIL to
Auckland Council. This report recommends that the council forms a new CCO to
facilitate urban development outcomes, and transfers responsibility for managing the
councils diversified financial assets portfolio (DFAP) from Auckland Council Investments
Limited (ACIL) to Auckland Councils treasury team.

Executive summary
4.

The Governing Body adopted a terms of reference for the CCO review on 27 February 2014.
The following table summarises the key steps, findings and decisions to date.
Aspect of CCO
Review

Reporting

Key Findings and Decisions

Terms of
reference

Governing Body
27 February
2014

Current state
assessment

Governing Body
27 February
2014

Terms of reference defined review objective to

ensure that CCO governance structures are aligned
with Councils strategies and provide an efficient and
effective model of service delivery.
Council report and CCO report mainly found CCO
model not broken and many issues were
transitional, reflecting the scale of change.

Governing Body
local board input
26 June 2014

Local board feedback acknowledged improvements,

with many wanting further improvements.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 57

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 16

Why deliver
through
CCOs?

Governing Body
1 May 2014

Criteria adopted to test whether services being

delivered through CCOs are suited to this mode of
delivery.

Governing Body
26 June 2014

Analysis found that services currently being delivered

through CCOs are suited to this mode of delivery and
any challenges can be adequately managed within a
CCO structure.
Structural change options not being progressed.

Does the
council have
the right CCOs
delivering the
right activities?

Governing Body
27 November
2014 (this
agenda)

Getting the
most out of the
CCO model

Audit and Risk

Committee 22
July 2014

Decision to require CCOs to report to Audit and Risk

Committee prior to the council adopting its annual
report. This took place at the September meeting.
Further work on risk reporting is underway and will be
reported in December.

CCO
Governance and
Monitoring
Committee 2
September 2014

Agreement to align statement of intent and with Long

Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan process to ensure
that statement of intent process is strongly linked to
funding decisions.

Proposals to establish a new urban development

entity and transfer responsibility for DFAP to council
(separate report on this agenda).

CPO review
Decision to transfer council economic development
September 2014 implementation activities to Auckland Tourism,
Events and Economic Development (ATEED) (except
local economic development).
5.

This report provides an overview of the options for structural change considered at
workshops from August to October, and recommends that four options are not progressed
because analysis suggests that any advantages would be outweighed by disadvantages.

6.

Option transfer responsibility for water supply, and wastewater from Watercare to
Auckland Council. The integrated delivery of water supply, wastewater and stormwater
services may generate some benefits but the option has significant drawbacks. It would
involve the transfer of a major business with significant cost of change.

7.

Option transfer responsibility for stormwater from Auckland Council to Watercare.

This is an alternative method for achieving the benefits from integrated delivery. The option
also has some major disadvantages including that it would be very difficult to transfer soft
assets such as overland flow paths from the council to Watercare.

8.

Neither option is recommended. Notably, many of the benefits of integrated management of

three waters can be achieved by closer collaboration between Watercare and Auckland
Council, building on work already underway.

9.

Option expand the role of ACIL by transferring other investments or business

interests. This option was considered because the range of investments managed by ACIL
is relatively small compared to some other local government holding companies. However,
analysis did not identify any other major investments that could be transferred to ACIL. The
option is not recommended.

10.

Option Regional facilities, tourism and major events CCO. Combining some functions
of Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and ATEED was considered as both entities have a

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 58

focus on tourism and major events. However, while the option could improve utilisation of
council facilities, this may be at the expense of what is best for Auckland. Due to the
potential for conflicting objectives, the option is not recommended.
11.

The remaining options considered are:

enhanced status quo
new redevelopment entity
transfer responsibility for the DFAP from ACIL to Auckland Council.

12.

Options for a new redevelopment entity, and to transfer responsibility for the DFAP are
covered by a separate item on this agenda.

13.

Enhanced status quo will involve reviewing the purpose and role of each CCO where no
significant structural change is proposed. It will also address some specific issues such as
whether ATEED takes on additional responsibility for local economic development. This
work will take place in the first half of 2015, and will form part of a wider body of work
focused on how the council can get the most out of the CCO model.

14.

This report also covers the new legislative requirement under the Local Government Act
2002, to undertake at least once every six years, a review of the most cost effective way of
delivering services. The report covers this requirement only for services currently being
delivered by CCOs.

15.

The report concludes that the current arrangements of governance and council funding
being council responsibility, and delivery being an Auckland Council CCO responsibility, is
cost effective when compared with other options.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

b)

agree that the following options for structural change to council controlled
organisations have been considered and will not be progressed because analysis of
the options suggests that any advantages would be outweighed by the
disadvantages:
i)

transferring responsibility for water supply and wastewater services from

Watercare Services Limited to Auckland Council

ii)

transferring responsibility for stormwater services from Auckland Council to

Watercare Services Limited

iii)

transferring new major investments or business activities to Auckland Council

Investments Limited

iv)

transferring responsibility for major events and tourism from Auckland Tourism,
Events and Economic Development Limited to Regional Facilities Auckland.

agree that after consideration of options, the council is satisfied that for services
currently being delivered by council controlled organisations, the current model of

Auckland Council retaining responsibility for governance

Auckland Council council controlled organisations being responsible for

delivery

Auckland Council retaining responsibility for funding (where not covered by

external sources of funding)

is a cost-effective arrangement for meeting the needs of communities within the

Auckland region for good quality local infrastructure, local public services and
performance of regulatory functions.
Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 59

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Comments
Review background and scope
16.

The governing body adopted a terms of reference for the CCO review on 27 February 2014.
The terms of reference sought to ensure that CCO governance structures were aligned with
Councils strategies and provided an efficient and effective model of service delivery. Other
objectives included:
the rationale for delivery of an activity/function by council, a CCO, or another mechanism
ensuring sufficient political oversight and public accountability of CCOs
providing clarity about roles and responsibilities
eliminating duplication
better integrating services and functions and providing a positive interface between the
Auckland Council Group organisations and Aucklanders.

17.

The terms of reference reflect three distinct areas of focus:

i.

Why should the council deliver services through arms length entities such as CCOs?

ii. Does the council have the right CCOs delivering the right services?
iii. Getting the most out of the CCO model.
18.

Major structural change for Auckland Transport was identified as out of scope. This was
because Auckland Transport is a statutory entity governed by specific legislative provisions.

19.

Any major proposals for structural change will be consulted on as part of the Long Term
Plan 2015-2025 (LTP). The review is due to be completed by June 2015.

Current state assessment

20.

The terms of reference were informed by two current state assessment reports, one
prepared from a council perspective and one from a CCO perspective.

21.

The council report found that there was a reasonable degree of comfort with the CCO
model. It acknowledged that early issues were mainly transitional and reflected the scale of
change following the establishment of Auckland Council. However, there was also an
expectation that the review would improve strategic alignment, address duplication,
streamline accountability processes and consider governance policies.

22.

Subsequent input to the current state assessment from local boards acknowledged
significant improvements in their interactions with CCOs over the three year period. The
feedback indicated most were looking for further improvement.

23.

The CCO report was prepared by PwC. It also acknowledged the progress made over the
last three years. CCOs raised a range of issues including a common theme that there was a
lack of understanding within Auckland Council of the respective roles of management,
governance and ownership.

Why deliver through CCOs?

24.

The first step in the review was to test the rationale for delivering services through an arms
length entity such as a CCO. The work identified that there are benefits and challenges from
delivering services through CCOs. CCO delivery is likely to be optimal when the benefits of
delivering through CCOs outweigh the challenges, and/or where the challenges can be
effectively managed.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 60

25.

Benefits include commercial focus, efficiency and cost effectiveness, flexibility in decisionmaking, and ability to attract specialist skills. Challenges include retaining accountability for
ratepayer funding, ensuring that CCO decision-making is cognisant of political factors, and
achieving integration of CCO activities with other council services and priorities.

26.

At its meeting of 1 May 2014, the governing body adopted a set of criteria to help test
whether the services being delivered through CCOs were well suited to this mode of
delivery. The criteria reflected these benefits and challenges.

27.

Overall, the analysis of CCO services suggested that there were likely to be more benefits
than disadvantages from continuing to deliver the services through a CCO. Where
challenges were identified, the view was that these can be adequately managed within a
CCO structure.

28.

The governing body received the final analysis at its meeting of 26 June 2014.

Does the council have the right CCOs delivering the right services?
29.

The second step was to identify whether any changes to the grouping of activities was likely
to deliver better outcomes than the current CCO configuration.

30.

To inform this stage of the review, staff undertook or commissioned a number of pieces of
desktop research summarised in the following table. These reports have been previously
provided to councillors and are available on request.
Report

Purpose

Desktop research report: Regional

economic development, tourism and
events delivery model

To identify international models for delivering

similar activities and assess whether there is a
best practice model.

Desktop research report: Urban

development agencies
Desktop research report: Regional
sports/arts/culture facility management
and operation delivery models
Water supply, wastewater and
stormwater linkages, Syngerine Group
Limited

To identify the linkages between the three

waters and between stormwater and other
activities of the council.

Desktop research report: Holding

companies

To provide an overview of the activities and

structures of other New Zealand local
government holding companies.

Critical gaps and overlaps between

Auckland Council and its CCOs

To assess whether there are any significant

areas of duplication that might justify structural
change.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 61

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 16

31.

Staff identified a number of options for structural change. These were discussed at
governing body workshops from August to October. The following drivers for change
informed these options:

opportunities to address issues raised in the current state assessment

opportunities to increase effectiveness/improve results

opportunities to improve strategic alignment

opportunities to increase efficiency/reduce cost

evidence from international delivery models, or other desktop research.

Options considered but not progressed

32.

The council discussed four options in workshops on 6 August, 13 August and 2 September
that have not been progressed. There was little or no support expressed at the workshops
for further work on these options.

33.

Summary of options not progressed:

Option

Description

Drivers for change

Three waters delivered

by Auckland Council

Water supply services and

stormwater services
transferred from Watercare to
Auckland Council

Three waters delivered

by Watercare

Stormwater services
transferred from Auckland
Council to Watercare

Enhanced commercial
CCO

Additional commercial
investments or business
activities transferred to ACIL

Regional facilities,
tourism, and major
events CCO

Combine some functions of

RFA and ATEED as both
entities have a focus on
tourism and major events

Synergine report found that

there may be some benefits
from the integrated
management and delivery of
three waters
Synergine report found that
there may be some benefits
from the integrated
management and delivery of
three waters
Desktop review suggests the
range of investments managed
by ACIL are narrow compared
to some other New Zealand
local government holding
companies
Report on critical gaps and
overlaps suggested possible
overlaps between these two
CCOs
Potential opportunities to
increase efficiency and/or
effectiveness

Integrated delivery of three waters

34.

The report prepared by Synergine Group Limited found that there could be some benefits
from the integrated management of three waters. For example, integrated management
could improve catchment management planning.

35.

Auckland Council currently delivers stormwater services and Watercare delivers wastewater
and water supply services. The options of Auckland Council and Watercare delivering the
three waters were both considered.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 62

36.

The evaluation of the Auckland Council delivery option suggested that the option could help
better align water and wastewater network planning with council strategy. However, these
benefits are already being realised through greater collaboration between Watercare and the
council. This option would also have some major disadvantages including the significant cost
of change and the risk of reduced commercial focus on water and wastewater services.

37.

Transferring stormwater to Watercare would also provide the benefits of an integrated

approach to management of three waters. It may achieve some operational efficiencies and
greater commercial focus.

38.

However, as with the in-house option, some of these benefits could be achieved in other
ways and there are some major drawbacks. Many stormwater assets are soft infrastructure
such as overland flow paths in parks, including local parks which are the responsibility of
local boards. It would not be practical to transfer these assets to Watercare. This means that
the option would require complex agreements between Auckland Council and Watercare.
Another disadvantage is that stormwater planning needs to be highly integrated with land
use planning which could be more difficult to achieve within Watercare.

39.

Neither option has been progressed as both have significant disadvantages that are likely to
outweigh any benefits.

Enhanced commercial CCO

40.

Consideration was given to other investments or business interests that could be transferred
to ACIL. However no other significant opportunities were identified. Two possibilities
considered were:
City Parks Services, which is currently a business unit of council, providing maintenance
and related services to Auckland Council. This was not progressed as there would be tax
implications from transferring this to a CCO.
Councils non service property portfolio, currently managed by ACPL. This was not
progressed because the proposal to create a new urban development entity includes the
entity making strategic use of the property portfolio.

41.

As no significant opportunities were identified, no further evaluation of this option has been
undertaken.

Regional facilities, tourism and major events CCO

42.

This option was considered because both RFA and ATEED have a focus on tourism and
major events including conferences. By removing apparent duplication, there could be
opportunities to increase efficiency or effectiveness.

43.

Further investigation suggested that the two CCOs have quite different objectives. ATEEDs
focus on is maximising benefit for Auckland, while RFAs main objectives are to maximise
utilisation of their assets. While the option could offer benefits in terms of return on council
assets, this could be at the expense of benefits to the wider Auckland economy. The option
has not been progressed because of concern over conflicting objectives.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 63

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 16

Options still under consideration

44.

The following options are still being considered:

Option

Description

Enhanced status quo

Review CCO purpose and

address key issues.

New urban
development entity

Management of the
DFAP transferred from
ACIL to Auckland
Council

Drivers for change

Optimise current arrangements

for CCOs where no major
structural change is proposed.
Three options are being
Strategic alignment, removal of
considered. The recommended duplication, and
option is to create a new entity efficiency and effectiveness.
which combines the activities
of ACPL, Waterfront Auckland,
and some related activities of
Auckland Council.
Auckland Councils treasury
Efficiency and cost savings.
team takes over management
of the portfolio.

Enhanced status quo

45.

Workshop discussions indicated support for a review of the purpose and role of each CCO
where no significant structural change is proposed7. This work will be undertaken in the first
half of 2015.

46.

The enhanced status quo will address specific issues such as:
whether ATEED takes on additional responsibility for local economic development
the relative roles of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport in the provision of
strategic advice
whether ACIL should retain responsibility for Auckland Film Studios Limited
the role of Auckland Transport in local place-making and its interface with local boards.
Local boards have decision-making responsibility for local place-making. They have
provided feedback that their role in place-making is not well understood or recognised
and they seek greater collaboration with CCOs to deliver
responsibility for management of three facilities located on the Waterfront - the Cloud,
Shed 10, and the Viaduct Events Centre (VEC). Waterfront Auckland currently manages
the Cloud and Shed 10, while RFA manages the VEC
ACPLs role in relation to property acquisitions and disposals for Auckland Transport.
ACPL currently undertakes some acquisitions for Auckland Transport but not the
acquisitions for the City Rail Link (CRL). Both CCOs have asked for these
responsibilities to be clarified.

47.

Work on the first two bullet points is underway. Work on the remaining issues will be
reported by June 2015. The proposal for a new urban development entity may have
implications for the last three issues on the list.

Urban development agency proposal

48.

One significant structural change proposal has come out of the review. The proposal is to
form a new urban development entity, referred to as Development Auckland, to help
radically improve the quality of urban living in Auckland.

For Auckland Transport and Watercare this does not include reviewing the statutory provisions which define their
purpose and high level responsibilities.
Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 64

49.

This proposed change is detailed in a separate report on this agenda. If the council agrees
to the proposal to establish a new entity to further the councils urban development
objectives, this will be provided for and consulted on in the LTP. Staff will undertake further
work on the detailed evaluation and implementation of this proposal in early 2015.

ACIL and diversified assets portfolio

50.

Another proposed change is to transfer responsibility for managing the DFAP from ACIL to
Auckland Council. The councils treasury team would take over the role of managing the
fund. This proposed change is detailed in a separate report on this agenda.

Feedback from local boards, IMSB, CCOs and the PSA

51.

During September and October the views of local boards, the IMSB and CCOs have been
sought in relation to various aspects of the review. The PSA also approached the council
requesting an opportunity to make a submission. A separate report on this agenda
summarises the feedback and key themes.

52.

There was some feedback from local boards relating to the recommendations in this report.
For example, a small number of local boards agreed that major events and tourism should
not be transferred to ATEED, while others felt that this needed further consideration. Some
local boards felt that integrated delivery of three waters also warranted further consideration.
A few local boards pointed to activities that they felt should be brought in-house including
those currently delivered by ATEED and ACIL.

Local Government Act 2002 requirement to review delivery of service options

53.

All local authorities have a new requirement to review, at least every six years8, the cost
effectiveness9 of arrangements for providing good quality local infrastructure, local public
services, and regulatory functions. This requirement arises from an amendment to the Local
Government Act 2002 that was one of a number Better Local Government amendments
enacted in August 2014. Previous CCO review reports have signalled an intention to ensure
the review addresses this requirement for services currently being delivered by CCOs.

54.

The changes are designed to facilitate and encourage more efficient service delivery
arrangements, including where efficiencies can be achieved by collaborating with other local
authorities. Cabinet papers indicate that the changes were primarily targeted at small local
authorities who may have opportunities to gain economies of scale from pooling resources.
Nevertheless the requirement applies to all councils including the Auckland Council10.

55.

In order to meet the requirements the council is required to consider the cost effectiveness
of a range of options including, but not limited to:
responsibility for governance, funding, and delivery is exercised by council (in-house
delivery)
responsibility for governance and funding exercised by council and delivery undertaken
by
a CCO
a jointly owned CCO
another local authority
another person or agency

There are some exceptions to this including where an activity is in legislation or covered by an agreement that cannot
reasonably be changed within the next two years. For example, the Auckland Council would not be expected to review
services delivered by Auckland Transport.
9
The Auditor-General has defined cost effective to be the relationship between the level of resources used and
progress towards a predetermined outcome. This can be broader than just value for money. To assess cost
effectiveness, the council should consider whether (over time) the costs of services are justified by the impact and
outcome results produced.
10
Notably, guidance from the Department of Internal Affairs states that the reviews should not be too onerous.
Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 65

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014
governance and funding delegated to a joint committee or other shared governance
arrangement and delivery undertaken by any of the options in the previous bullet point.
56.

The terms of reference for the review sought to ensure that CCO governance structures
were aligned with Councils strategies and provided an efficient and effective model of
service delivery. This explicitly included considering the rationale for delivery of an
activity/function by council, a CCO or another mechanism.

57.

The analysis of CCO services against review criteria, referred to in paragraphs 24 to 28 and
considered by Governing Body in June 2014, focused on the advantages and disadvantages
of in-house delivery versus delivery by a CCO.

58.

Staff background analysis has considered other options required by legislation. The analysis
is provided at Attachment A.

59.

The key finding of this analysis is that the current model of

Auckland Council retaining responsibility for governance

Auckland Council CCO being responsible for delivery

Auckland Council retaining responsibility for funding (where not covered by external
sources of funding)

is a cost-effective arrangement for meeting the needs of communities within the Auckland
Region for good quality local infrastructure, local public services and performance of
regulatory functions.

CCO Review Next Steps getting the most out of the CCO model
60.

The CCO review will continue throughout the first half of 2015. The matters raised in
paragraphs 45 and 46 will form part of a wider body of work about how the council can get
the most out of the CCO model. This work will also include a review of CCO governance and
accountability policies.

61.

Changes that have been introduced so far, as a result of the review or alongside the review
include:
improved alignment of the LTP, letter of expectation, and statement of intent (SOI)
processes, so that the SOI process is strongly linked to decisions about what funding
council is providing
new requirements for CCOs to report on financial and other risk (initial steps
implemented and other work in progress)
transfer of some economic development implementation responsibilities from Auckland
Council to ATEED to remove duplication.

62.

Further strengthening of the accountability framework will continue and a new Governance
Manual will be prepared in 2015. A draft of this manual will be reported to the CCO
Governance and Monitoring Committee in April 2015, alongside the draft SOIs.

63.

The review of governance policies will include board member remuneration, and director
recruitment policies including diversity policies and practices.

Consideration
Local board views and implications
64.

Local boards have considered a report on the CCO review at their October/November
meetings. The report included an overview of options not being progressed and an overview
of the proposal to establish a new urban development entity. It outlined other aspects of the
review, including those likely to be of particular interest to local boards, such as
responsibility for local economic development. A separate report on this agenda provides an
overview of feedback received from local boards as well as from other parties.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 66

65.

Local board members were also invited to attend a workshop on the review on 8 October
2014. This was well attended and provided local board members with an overview of the key
aspects of the review.

Mori impact statement

66.

The recommendations in this report do not have specific implications for Mori wellbeing.

67.

The council has statutory obligations to Mori arising from a range of legislation. The Council
also has a Mori Responsiveness Framework which makes further commitments to enable
Mori outcomes and value Te Ao Mori. The council expects CCOs to act consistently with
the councils statutory obligations, apply the Mori Responsiveness Framework, and
contribute to Mori outcomes to the extent that their funding permits.

68.

These matters have been highlighted by the IMSB and mostly relate to the getting the most
out of the CCO model. The IMSB has signalled that it would like to be involved in work on
the accountability framework, governance policies and other workstreams. A separate report
on this agenda summarising feedback received on the review, includes further comment on
the IMSB submission.

Implementation
69.

There are no implementation implications associated with the recommendations in this

report.

Attachments
No.

Title

Delivery of Service Review - Analysis

Page
69

Signatories
Authors

Catherine Syme - Principal Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships
Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 67

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 69

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 70

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 71

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 72

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 73

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 74

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 75

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 76

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 77

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 78

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 79

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 80

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 81

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 82

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 83

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 84

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 85

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 86

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 87

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 88

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 89

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 90

Attachment A

Item 16

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Process Overview, CCO Configuration Options and
Delivery of Services Review

Page 91

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 17

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

File No.: CP2014/26517

Purpose
1.

To provide an overview of feedback on the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) review

received from CCOs, local boards, the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB), and the
Public Services Association (PSA). The report highlights key themes and comments on how,
and the extent to which, the CCO review can address issues raised in the feedback.

Executive summary
2.

CCOs, local boards and the IMSB have had an opportunity to provide input to the CCO
review prior to the council making decisions on any structural change. The PSA also
requested the opportunity to provide feedback.

3.

The proposal to establish Development Auckland was broadly supported by CCOs, by the
IMSB and by some local boards, with the majority of feedback highlighting matters for further
consideration that reflect the specific interests of those providing the feedback. Some local
boards do not support the Development Auckland proposal, and others would like further
detail. Further analysis of feedback is provided in the separate report on that proposal in this
agenda.

4.

Local boards were specifically asked for comment on whether ATEED should take on further
responsibility for delivering local economic development, including the functions performed
by the councils Local Economic Development team.

5.

Feedback from local boards suggests there is no consensus among local boards for or
against this proposal. Some local boards are concerned that the regional focus of ATEED
means that local economic development would not be a priority for ATEED even if the
function was transferred. Many of the local boards that supported the idea wanted to see
more detail on how accountability could be ensured.

6.

Feedback was not restricted to providing comments on structural change. Much of the
feedback from local boards, the IMSB and the PSA will be of relevance to the final stage of
the review, getting the most out of the CCO model.

7.

Local boards highlighted issues over CCO engagement; whether CCOs adequately took
account of local board priorities; and lack of accountability of CCOs to local boards. Most of
these issues have been raised previously and require monitoring of existing policies and
requirements. The recent elected member survey included a series of questions for local
board members about CCOs that will provide baseline data.

8.

The IMSB also highlighted issues raised previously including that it expects the review to
consider how CCOs will address matters raised in its Issues of Significance to Mori in
Tmaki Makaurau and recommendations of its 2012 Treaty Audit and the 2014 KPMG report
on Auckland Council expenditure on Mori outcomes.

9.

The IMSB notes that there is a general need to improve current arrangements across CCOs
in terms of their approach to engaging Mori, working with the board and their contribution to
Mori outcomes and wider Mori wellbeing. The IMSB highlights the importance of
monitoring CCO contribution to Mori outcomes and tracking CCO expenditure incurred on
delivering on Mori outcomes.

10.

The PSA has reservations about the CCO model but is not looking for major structural
change at this time. It has suggested some areas of focus for improvement including
employment and remuneration issues, removing duplication of functions and strengthening
accountability.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 93

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 17

11.

The next phase of work will include further work on the CCO accountability framework,
review of governance policies, and adoption of a CCO governance manual. Many of the
issues raised by local boards, the IMSB and PSA will be considered in these workstreams.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

note the feedback on the Council Controlled Organisation review provided by Council
Controlled Organisations, Local Boards, the Independent Mori Statutory Board, and
the Public Services Association.

Comments
12.

The CCO review commenced in February 2014. The terms of reference for the review reflect
three distinct areas of focus:
i.

Why should the council deliver services through arms length entities such as
CCOs?

ii. Does the council have the right CCOs delivering the right services?
iii. Getting the most out of the CCO model.
13.

A separate report on this agenda provides a full overview of the review process to date. The
current focus of the review is on completing the part of the review covered by ii. This review
of structure will ensure that the council has the right CCOs delivering the right services to
meet councils objectives and priorities.

14.

CCOs, local boards and the IMSB have had an opportunity to provide input to the CCO
review prior to the council making decisions on any structural change. The PSA also
requested the opportunity to provide feedback.

15.

Feedback was not restricted to providing comments on structural change. Much of the
feedback will be of relevance to the final stage of the review, getting the most out of the
CCO model.

16.

This report highlights key themes, and comments on how, and the extent to which, the CCO
review can address issues raised in the feedback. The report only includes high level
feedback on specific proposals relating to Development Auckland and to the diversified
financial assets portfolio (DFAP). Further detail is included in the separate report about
these proposals on this agenda.

17.

A summary of local board feedback and the feedback from each board is attached
(Attachment A).

18.

Councillors held a joint workshop with local boards on 8 October 2014. Local boards have
also considered a report on the CCO review at business meetings and workshops during
October and November. Both the councillor/local board workshop and the report discussed
the progress to date of the CCO review, options for structural change and other aspects of
the review of interest to local boards. Feedback from local boards was particularly sought
on:

the concept of Development Auckland including considerations that the governing

body should take into account from a local perspective when developing the concept
further

ATEED taking on additional responsibility for the delivery of local economic

development.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 94

Governing Body
27 November 2014

19.

Local boards had mixed views about the Development Auckland concept with some in
support of it and others not. Local boards want their role and decision-making responsibility
for place-shaping to be considered as the concept is further progressed. Some local boards
also raised the importance of ensuring that the work of Development Auckland does not
come at the expense of other council and community priorities.

Local economic development

20.

One of the issues to be addressed in the CCO review is whether ATEED should take on
additional responsibility for delivering local economic development.

21.

Local boards are responsible, as set out in the allocation of decision-making for nonregulatory activities, for local economic development plans, projects and initiatives within
parameters set by regional strategies and policies. Responsibility for delivery is currently met
by ATEED and a number of council departments including the Local Economic Development
team; Community Development, Arts and Culture; and City Transformation.

22.

Following the recent review of councils Chief Planning Office (CPO), a number of Auckland
Council staff involved in implementing economic development, were transferred from
Auckland Council to ATEED. This excluded the Local Economic Development team. This
team is responsible for preparing local economic development plans and coordinating their
implementation.

23.

The CPO review signalled agreement in principle to transfer the team and its activities to
ATEED subject to the findings of the CCO review. It was referred to the CCO review
because currently CCOs are not accountable to local boards for delivery.

24.

The report to local boards asked for comment on whether they would support the local
economic development team transferring to ATEED subject to finding a suitable mechanism
for ATEED to be accountable to local boards.

25.

Feedback from local boards suggests there is no consensus among local boards for or
against this proposal. Some local boards are concerned that the regional focus of ATEED
means that local economic development would not be a priority for ATEED even if the
function was transferred. Many local boards wanted to see more detail on how accountability
could be ensured.

26.

The report to Governing Body of 26 June 2014 noted that the issue was broader than role
clarity. There is also insufficient funding to meet local board expectations. Apart from staff
costs there is no funding specifically allocated for local economic development activities in
the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP). Previously some local boards have prioritised using
some of their discretionary funding for local economic development activities, and it
expected that this will happen in the next LTP.

27.

Staff will continue to develop and analyse options. The timing for reporting back on this issue
has not yet been confirmed.

Other feedback
28.

Local board feedback on other matters included:

support for changes to the accountability framework including a new governance manual
for CCOs. Some local boards would like to provide further input to this work
interest in being further involved in work on Auckland Transport and local place-making,
with some local boards looking for improved relationships and/or Auckland Transport
delegating responsibilities to local boards
a desire to see CCOs engage effectively with local boards and take into account local
board priorities when developing their work programmes and statements of intent

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 95

Item 17

Development Auckland

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014
a view that CCOs did not always understand and appreciate local boards role as
governors. Some suggested investigating options for a stronger accountability
mechanism between themselves and CCOs
an interest in seeing the CCO review lead to efficiency gains and cost savings.
29.

Staff will consider local board feedback in the next stage of review as work continues on
getting the most out of the CCO model. Further consultation with local boards over specific
issues such as place-making, is likely to be required.

30.

The council already has clear policies in relation to many of the general matters raised by
local boards including that CCOs must engage with local boards prior to developing their
work programmes; keep local boards well informed of projects with a significant local impact;
appropriately resource their engagement with local boards; and consult with local boards
over matters affecting local communities.

31.

A previous report on the CCO review to the 26 June 2014 Governing Body explained that
the review would be unlikely to revisit matters relating to local boards where there are
already clear requirements. The recent elected member survey included up to three
questions for local board members about each CCO, with the exception of ACIL. The
questions covered reporting, general engagement, and engagement over work programmes.
The baseline data collected in this survey can be used by CCO boards and by council to
monitor progress in the future.

CCO feedback
32.

CCO feedback is attached (Attachment B). Six CCOs provided formal feedback, with RFA
providing informal feedback that it supports the Development Auckland proposal.

33.

All CCOs were invited to comment on the Development Auckland proposal and any other
aspect of the review. ACIL was also offered the specific opportunity to comment on the
proposal to transfer management of the DFAP from ACIL to Auckland Council.

34.

Watercare has written in support of the review process and findings as they relate to
Watercare. They have provided examples of collaborative working relationships with the
council family, including with regard to special housing areas, integrated consenting and the
unitary plan. They have also signalled willingness to work with council management on other
opportunities for a more integrated approach.

35.

Auckland Transport, ACPL, Waterfront Auckland and ATEED have all provided feedback in
support of the Development Auckland proposal.

36.

ACILs feedback relates to the proposal to transfer management of the DFAP from ACIL to
Auckland Council which ACIL does not support.

IMSB
37.

The IMSB has written to Mayor Len Brown (Attachment C). Advice previously supplied in
February 2014 is part of the attachment.

38.

The IMSB has commented in support of further exploring a new urban development entity
and has stated that it does not have a formal position on the proposal to transfer the DFAP
from ACIL to Auckland Council.

39.

The IMSB notes that many of its concerns about CCOs can be addressed through the nonstructural workstreams of the review.

40.

The letter asks that the CCO review addresses Issues of Significance to Mori in Tmaki
Makaurau, specifically issue 7.0, relating to CCOs. The IMSB notes that there is a general
need to improve current arrangements across CCOs in terms of their approach to engaging
Mori, working with the board and their contribution to Mori outcomes and wider Mori
wellbeing.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 96

Governing Body
27 November 2014
Specific issues that the IMSB has highlighted are

Item 17

41.

CCO board and committee reports should include a Mori impact statement
policies for the governance and operations of CCOs that are accessible to Mori
CCOs to provide appropriate resourcing for Mori involvement in CCO activities
assisting the board to have robust and meaningful relationships with CCOs at a decisionmaking level including creating protocols for ongoing relationship management and
engagement.
42.

The letter also asks that further work on the CCO accountability framework includes setting
out expectations of all CCOs in relation to Mori outcomes and wider Mori wellbeing, with
particular consideration of recommendations of the 2012 Treaty Audit and the 2014 KPMG
report on council expenditure on Mori outcomes. The IMSB highlights the importance of
monitoring CCO contribution to Mori outcomes, and tracking CCO expenditure incurred on
delivering on Mori outcomes.

43.

Many of the issues highlighted by the IMSB can be addressed through the next phase of the
review, getting the most out of the CCO model, particularly the accountability framework
and governance workstreams. Note that the CCO review will not directly address matters
that require additional council funding. However, the recent changes to the accountability
framework, to better link the statement of intent and budgeting process, are intended to help
highlight where council funding is insufficient to deliver on priority outcomes including Mori
outcomes. Previously such matters have been debated through the statement of intent
process in April, in isolation from budget decisions.

PSA
44.

The PSA has made a submission to the CCO review (Attachment D).

45.

The PSA submission expresses some reservations about the CCO model including whether
there is sufficient democratic accountability and whether commercial focus threatens public
good objectives.

46.

However, the PSA acknowledges that substantial change at this point is unlikely and would
probably not be supported by members following the disruption of the 2010 changes to
Aucklands governance.

47.

The submission highlights some areas of change that the PSA would like to see addressed.
Three of these relate to more integrated and consistent employment and remuneration
policies and processes across the group. These matters are largely outside the scope of the
CCO review and have been referred to the Auckland Council People and Capability Director.

48.

The submission also calls for reducing duplication of functions which has been a focus of the
review. For example, the proposal to bring ACPL and Waterfront Auckland into a wider
urban development entity would help reduce the number of different mechanisms the council
has for delivering urban development outcomes.

49.

Finally, the PSA has suggested that the review should consider whether there should be
improved councillor responsibility for each CCO based on a ministerial model. This could be
considered during the next phase of the review. However, there are some significant
differences between CCOs and government entities. The biggest difference is that ministers
are shareholders of state owned enterprises and crown entities, while the Auckland Council,
rather than individual councillors, is the shareholder of CCOs.

Consideration
Local board views and implications
50.

This report reflects the feedback from local boards on the CCO review.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 97

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 17

Mori impact statement

51.

This report reflects the feedback of the IMSB on the CCO review, which highlights how it
wishes to see CCOs contribute further to Mori outcomes and Mori wellbeing.

Implementation
52.

There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments
No.

Title

Page

Local board feedback

CCO feedback

135

IMSB feedback

165

PSA feedback

183

99

Signatories
Authors

Catherine Syme - Principal Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships
Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 98

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 99

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 100

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 101

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 102

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 103

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 104

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 105

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 106

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 107

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 108

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 109

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 110

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 111

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 112

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 113

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 114

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 115

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 116

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 117

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 118

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 119

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 120

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 121

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 122

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 123

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 124

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 125

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 126

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 127

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 128

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 129

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 130

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 131

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 132

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 133

Attachment A

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 134

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 135

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 136

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 137

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 138

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 139

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 140

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 141

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 142

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 143

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 144

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 145

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 146

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 147

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 148

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 149

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 150

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 151

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 152

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 153

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 154

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 155

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 156

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 157

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 158

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 159

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 160

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 161

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 162

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 163

Attachment B

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 164

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 165

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 166

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 167

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 168

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 169

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 170

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 171

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 172

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 173

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 174

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 175

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 176

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 177

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 178

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 179

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 180

Attachment C

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 181

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 183

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 184

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 185

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 186

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 187

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 188

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 189

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 190

Attachment D

Item 17

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Summary of Feedback

Page 191

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban

Development Entity and Proposal to Transfer Management of
Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council
File No.: CP2014/26519

Purpose
1.

To recommend the following decisions to the governing body arising from the review of
council controlled organisations (CCOs):
To publicly consult on, and include in the Long term plan 2015-2025 (LTP), the proposal
to establish a new CCO to further the councils urban development objectives
to transfer responsibility for the diversified financial assets portfolio (DFAP) from
Auckland Council Investments Limited (ACIL) to Auckland Council and reduce the
number of directors of ACIL from five to three.

Executive summary
2.

The CCO review process, outlined in a separate report on this agenda, has resulted in two
proposals for structural change.

3.

The most significant recommendation of the review is to include in the LTP consultation, a
proposal to establish a new CCO to deliver on councils urban development outcomes. The
proposal includes bringing together Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Properties
Limited (ACPL) to form a new urban redevelopment agency. For the purposes of this report,
the new entity is named Development Auckland.

4.

The Development Auckland proposal and options analysis that has taken place to date is
outlined in Attachment A. It is envisaged that further evaluation of the proposal will take
place concurrently with LTP consultation.

5.

This proposal is estimated to save approximately $1.5 million per year primarily through the
reduced requirement for board and executive staff remuneration. These savings will offset
establishment costs of Development Auckland within approximately 2 years. No additional
operational funding will be required.

6.

The nature of locations chosen for Development Auckland to operate in would determine
whether there was a need for additional capital expenditure for infrastructure11. Infrastructure
costs would also be confirmed as part of a masterplan and business case process for a
chosen location.

7.

The masterplan and business case processes would have also identified the assets in a
location that were surplus to councils service requirements, and therefore appropriate sites
for partnership opportunities with private developers for residential and mixed use buildings.
Any surplus created by the uplift in value that could be captured from redevelopment would
be used for future redevelopment projects.

8.

Feedback from CCOs, local boards and the IMSB on this proposal has been provided in the
report entitled Council Controlled Organisation Review Summary of Feedback.

9.

A second recommendation is to transfer responsibility for the DFAP from ACIL to Auckland
Council and to reduce the number of directors of ACIL from five to three.

11

It is likely that infrastructure readiness and cost would also be two of the many criteria used to determine which
locations were prioritised for Development Auckland intervention.
Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 193

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014
10.

ACIL currently manages the $326 million DFAP on behalf of council. This report
recommends that councils in-house treasury team have responsibility for managing the
portfolio from 1 July 2015.

11.

The treasury teams expertise in managing financial investments and liabilities, make this
role a natural fit. The team would continue to manage the portfolio by utilising fund
managers and advisors. No change in performance is expected. Performance is measured
relative to a reference portfolio.

12.

The recommendation includes reducing the size of the board from five to three members to
reflect the reduced workload. The combination of savings in staff costs and board member
fees is expected to be around $250,000 per annum.

13.

The councils Treasury Management Steering Group (TMSG) will provide additional
oversight of the portfolio. There are plans to add at least one independent member to the
group which currently has one independent member. These plans are unrelated to the
proposal to transfer the management of the DFAP to Auckland Council, but will help provide
sufficient independent oversight.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

agree to progress evaluation of the establishment of an urban development agency

in order to further the councils urban development objectives.

b)

agree that the option to establish an urban development agency by combining

Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Properties Ltd is the preferred option.

c)

note that the proposal for a new council controlled agency will be provided for in the
Long Term Plan and subject to public consultation.

d)

agree to transfer responsibility for managing the councils diversified financial assets
portfolio from Auckland Council Investments Limited to Auckland Council treasury
team, from 1 July 2015, and to reduce the number of Auckland Council Investments
Limited Board members from five to three, from November 2015.

Comments
14.

The CCO review process, outlined in a separate report on this agenda, has resulted in two
proposals for structural change. Other minor changes in responsibilities are possible in the
final stage of review, from February to June 2015.

15.

The most significant recommendation of the review is to include in the LTP a proposal to
establish a new CCO to deliver on councils urban development outcomes. The proposal
includes bringing together Waterfront Auckland and ACPL to form a new urban development
agency. It is necessary to consult on this proposal as the establishment of new CCOs
triggers the need for consultation. This proposal also signals an increase in activity in
brownfield redevelopment.12

16.

A second recommendation is to transfer responsibility for the DFAP from ACIL to Auckland
Council and to reduce the number of directors of ACIL from five to three.

12

Increases in activity levels also trigger the need to consult under the amended Local Government Act 2002.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 194

Governing Body
27 November 2014

17.

The Auckland Plan determined that that the achievement of a quality compact urban form
provided the best way to accommodate future population growth and the best platform for
increased productivity and economic growth13. The Auckland Plan assumes a high level of
future housing being provided within redeveloped and intensified town centres and outlines
some important goals as follows:

Realise quality, compact urban environments14 - The Auckland Plan has signalled
the intention to accommodate 60 - 70 % of the future population growth of Auckland
within the 2010 urban boundary much of it within town centres in order to
consolidate activity around key infrastructure nodes

Integrate transport planning and investment with land use development some
of the best opportunities for redevelopment exist in the town centres on the western
and southern railway line because it would make the best use of the investment in rail
electrification and the service improvements to be brought about by the city rail link

Cost effective infrastructure provision best use of existing and committed

infrastructure to accommodate population growth. These opportunities primarily exist
within the current urban boundary and within town centres. This is particularly true for
water and wastewater infrastructure

Strengthen Aucklands network of centres so they are well connected and meet
community needs for jobs, housing and goods and services, on a variety of scales

Increase housing supply to meet demand

Increase housing choice to meet diverse preferences and needs

Improve housing affordability and the supply of affordable housing

Create a stunning and economically dynamic city centre full of life and activity
that residents can call their home and business will flock to

Demand good design in all development a renewed focus on good design that
better contributes to our sense of place.

18.

Throughout the CCO review, council has been considering options for improving its
capability and capacity to achieve urban development outcomes and minimise infrastructure
costs. It has, particularly focussed on improving its ability to partner with others to achieve
brownfield redevelopment.

19.

Council currently has two CCOs involved in property redevelopment, those being:

Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL). Established by Order in Council in 2010,

its purpose is to manage council property assets, facilitate private sector collaboration
in property projects, bring a commercial perspective to the councils planning initiatives
and manage councils rights and interests in relevant properties, projects and business
activities. The Board of ACPL may have up to 7 directors

Auckland Waterfront Development Agency (known as Waterfront Auckland).

Established by Order in Council in 2010 to (consistent with Auckland Councils vision
for the waterfront) lead a strategic approach to developing the Auckland waterfront,
develop property that it controls and act in a commercial way in its development
projects including investing in projects that achieve high quality urban transformation
outcomes. The Board of Waterfront Auckland may have up to 7 directors.

13

It also is the most cost effective way to provide public infrastructure, especially transport infrastructure enabling the
best use of existing networks and minimising the need to build new assets.
14
Page 42 Auckland Plan outlines the key benefits of a quality compact urban form.
[Link]
spx
Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 195

Item 18

Proposal to increase the capacity of the council group in urban redevelopment

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 18

Options considered
20.

21.

The following three options have been considered:

option A1: (recommended proposal) - The establishment of a new urban development

entity (Development Auckland) which brings together Waterfront Auckland and ACPL
and other functions of Auckland Council

option A2: The establishment of a new urban development entity (Development

Auckland) and the disestablishment of ACPL. Waterfront Auckland would remain
structurally unchanged

option B: Enhanced Status Quo. Leaves both ACPL and Waterfront Auckland
structurally unchanged but enlarges the mandate for ACPL to work in conjunction with
council to achieve urban redevelopment in agreed locations.

Under both options A1 and A2, Development Auckland would also have the ability seek
partnership opportunities with private developers to redevelop individual council owned
surplus sites that were outside of town centre redevelopment projects. ACPL already has
this ability so option B would only require a restatement of this mandate. This more
opportunistic type of work would need to be balanced with more comprehensive
redevelopment projects.
Initial analysis

22.

Each option has been compared to the existing processes, tools and vehicles for the
delivery of urban redevelopment projects within council (i.e. the current state).

23.

Options A1 and A2 could be transformational in their ability to deliver brownfield land

supply and intensified housing development.

Both options would achieve this by using a comprehensive suite of tools to overcome
identified barriers to redevelopment. These barriers include fragmented land holdings,
and consenting and construction timeframes that can make comprehensive
redevelopment unprofitable or too risky for developers.

Option A1 takes advantage of enhanced resourcing and capability by bringing together

the skill sets currently residing in APCL and Waterfront Auckland to focus on existing
and new redevelopment locations.

Option A2 could only achieve the same benefits as option A1 with additional
resourcing. For option A2 to deliver the same benefits as option A1, additional and
duplicate resourcing would be required, which would have a LTP impact.

Option B would deliver some benefits compared with the status quo, but is not
expected to achieve additional brownfield land supply and intensified housing at the
scale envisaged by the Auckland Plan. Change would be incremental rather than
transformational.
Initial high level analysis supports option A1 because it is a model more likely to achieve
successful brownfield redevelopment. It has the advantage of combining the skills of
Waterfront Auckland with those of ACPL and of combining other resources more cost
effectively. More detail on the initial analysis is provided in the appendix 1 to Attachment A.
Funding this proposal Establishment costs and operational funding

24.

Estimates of the cost savings of the proposed option amount to approximately $1.5 million
per year. This is largely made up of a reduced requirement for board and executive staff
remuneration. Staff have also estimated that establishment costs (e.g. legal and
recruitment costs) are likely to be recouped within the first two years of operation of the new
entity.

25.

It is not anticipated that option A1 will require additional operational funding initially. In
addition to bringing together the existing budgets and resources of Waterfront Auckland and
ACPL, the Strategic Development Fund would be used to make surplus council sites ready
for redevelopment and the Development Fund would be used for site investigations.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 196

26.

Requirements for additional capital expenditure cannot be determined until redevelopment

locations are chosen and an assessment of the value and likely yield of surplus assets (e.g.
underutilised off-street carparks) is established. A proportion of the capital requirements for
redevelopment will be funded through the uplift in value associated with council these
council owned sites.

27.

Total redevelopment location costs (including infrastructure costs) and benefits will be
established via the masterplanning and business case process and would become part of
the normal LTP budgeting process. Infrastructure would be funded by development
contributions, development agreements or general rates in some cases. The deferral of
development contributions might be necessary to attract partners in some locations.

28.

The local board and community could propose a targeted rate if they wished to secure
significant additional facilities or services as part of the redevelopment process.
An evolutionary approach to building capacity and capability

29.

The best examples of urban development agencies overseas also focus on lifting the socioeconomic status of the local communities undergoing redevelopment, by building in
opportunities for job creation and the provision of social services. It is extremely likely that
over time council will also need to work in locations where a high degree of this broader
activity is necessary. In the establishment phase of Development Auckland, the focus will
be firmly fixed on building capacity and capability to deliver physical redevelopment in
brownfield locations.

30.

International best practice also shows that having a balanced portfolio of redevelopment
locations can be beneficial those that have the ability to generate a surplus, and those
that do not but are still important for other reasons. Staff will consider this and a number of
other matters when undertaking location intervention analysis and in recommending the
best locations for council approval for Development Auckland to operate in.

31.

It is envisaged that location intervention analysis would be led by council staff with input
from many parties including Development Auckland staff. Once locations had been
approved by council and the Board of Development Auckland, the masterplanning and
business case process would be led by Development Auckland staff with council staff input.

32.

Over time it is also likely that Development Auckland will build a more sophisticated
understanding of property and development dynamics in the Auckland market. Since it will
become a key player in this market, it will seek to foster learning within the broader
development industry wherever possible.

Proposals in relation to ACIL

33.

ACIL was established in 2010 to hold the Auckland Councils 100% shareholding in Ports of
Auckland Limited and 22.4% shareholding in Auckland International Airport Limited. It is also
the sole shareholder of the Auckland Film Studios Limited (AFSL) and manages the $326
million DFAP on behalf of council.

34.

ACIL was established by the Auckland Transition Agency with the following establishment
objectives:

35.

to bring a strong commercial focus to the ownership and governance of the Auckland
Councils major investment assets

to provide an efficient structure for the ownership of those assets.

Throughout the CCO Review there has been strong support by councillors for retaining
separation between the Auckland Council governing body and the Board of Ports of
Auckland. The significant improvement in productivity and financial performance of the port
company under ACILs governance is clearly acknowledged. There are good reasons to
retain ACIL to manage the councils strategic assets.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 197

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 18

36.

Two options in relation to ACIL have been considered as part of the CCO Review.

whether there are other investments or business interests that could be transferred to
ACIL

whether ACIL should continue to manage the diversified financial assets portfolio
(DFAP) on councils behalf.

37.

A separate report on this agenda explains that other business interests were investigated
but no other significant opportunities were identified.

38.

Note that ACIL has previously suggested that management of the AFSL should be
transferred to another more appropriate part of council, as it is not primarily a commercial
investment. ACIL Boards submission indicates that the board has changed its view and can
see value in it retaining ownership of the studios. Although the issue has not yet been
considered, the preliminary view of council staff view is in support of ACIL continuing to
manage AFSL.
Diversified financial assets portfolio

39.

The primary goal of the DFAP is to provide a portfolio of assets held in reserve to meet any
unforeseen liquidity or funding events. The portfolio is owned by the council and managed
by ACIL, which manages it in accordance with the councils statement of investment policy
and objectives (SIPO) and ACILs operational investment policies and objectives (OIPO).

40.

ACIL appoints a custodian and advisor; monitors performance of the DFAP; makes
decisions about asset allocations within the parameters set by the SIPO and OIPO; and
appoints fund managers. Auckland Council pays ACIL a fee of 0.04% of the portfolio per
annum to perform these services.

41.

ACILs statement of intent has a key performance indicator to meet or exceed returns from a
reference portfolio. The return since March 2012, when the SIPO was implemented, has
been 12.9%, which is exactly the same as the return on the reference portfolio.

42.

This report recommends transferring responsibility for management of the DFAP to council.
The council has an in-house treasury team which already manages a small trust and
reserves fund. ACIL expertise is in managing business investments, while the treasury team
has expertise in managing financial investments and liabilities. The treasury team would
continue to manage the portfolio by utilising fund managers and advisors. No change in
performance is expected. Performance is measured relative to a reference portfolio.

43.

The report also recommends reducing the size of the board from five to three members to
reflect the reduced workload.

44.

The main benefit of the proposal is that it will save an estimated $250,000 per annum. The
savings include staff cost and director fees. The council treasury team has capacity to
manage the portfolio without increasing staffing. The council would expect the ACIL Board to
review its staffing requirements and consider options for reductions. This could include resizing of the chief executives role.

45.

Reducing the size of the board would contribute approximately $70,000 per annum to the
savings. Note that councillors have discussed whether senior council staff could be
appointed to two board positions to further reduce costs, but there was little support for this.

46.

It is also acknowledged that the option has some disadvantages. ACIL has provided
comment to council on the proposal which it does not support. ACILs feedback is attached
to the separate report on this agenda Council Controlled Organisation Review Summary
of Feedback. The staff view is that the risks raised by ACIL can be managed.

47.

The portfolio was initially transferred to ACIL to give it critical mass and transfer of the
portfolio to council will mean some disruption for ACIL while it resizes after the loss of this
function.

48.

ACIL has raised a concern that there would be a loss of independent oversight.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 198

49.

As noted, the treasury team would retain the use of independent advisors. The councils
TMSG would also provide oversight. The current members of the TMSG are Chief Finance
Officer, Treasurer, Manager Financial Policy and Planning, Manager Finance, Chief
Economist, Chief Finance Officer Auckland Transport and an independent member from
PwC. The Auckland Council Chief Executive is also invited to attend meetings. There are
plans to add at least one more independent member to this group, which would have the
benefit of providing additional independent oversight. These plans are not dependant on the
DFAP transferring to council.

50.

ACIL has also raised a concern that it will be difficult to achieve the required mix of skills,
experience and diversity on the board with three members. They cite research that large
institutions operate more effectively with a board of six or seven.

51.

ACIL is a holding company rather than a large institution. The council staff view is that the
board size and mix of skills is more important for Boards of Ports of Auckland Limited and
Auckland International Airport Limited, than for ACIL. However, if there was a concern during
the recruitment process about the ability to recruit the required skill mix, the decision to
reduce the number of directors could be reconsidered. Under the terms of the constitution
ACIL can have a maximum of seven directors with no minimum specified.

52.

Further detail on the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal is
attached (Attachment B).

Consideration
Local board views and implications
53.

The views of local boards in relation to Development Auckland are mixed some being in
support of a development agency approach, and others not. Almost all wish to see more
detail on the proposal. Many have noted that their role and decision-making responsibility
for place-shaping should be considered as the concept is further progressed. Some local
boards also raised the importance of ensuring that the work of Development Auckland does
not come at the expense of other council and community priorities.

54.

The implications of the options for local boards have been outlined in appendix 1 of
Attachment A (for all options) and appendix 2 of Attachment A (for options A1 and A2) of this
report.

55.

In both A options, local boards will play a key role in redevelopment projects at the
masterplanning stage by assisting with shaping the vision for the location. In addition to the
masterplanning stage there is an important role for the local board to continue to champion
the vision and be an effective conduit of information with the community as things progress.
This role has been well progressed by the Whau local board in the redevelopment of New
Lynn.

56.

Community resistance to redevelopment would be almost impossible to overcome if a local

board was not involved and willing to play a part in the process. Not all communities reject
changes to their town centres however, in fact many are very happy to see private and
public sector investment where little has occurred for decades.

57.

Transferring responsibility for management of the DFAP has no implications for local boards.
Local boards were not specifically directed to comment on this issue.

Mori impact statement

58.

The Independent Mori Statutory Board (IMSB) is generally supportive of the progression of
Development Auckland, recognising that it has the potential to lead to more consistent
development outcomes, including providing opportunity for the council group to take a more
comprehensive, efficient approach to:

engaging with the IMSB and addressing Issues of Significance for Aucklands Mori

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 199

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

proactively consulting/engaging Mori on development projects

delivering on lifting Mori social and economic wellbeing

increasing the visibility of Mori identity (including the application of the Te Aranga
Mori Design Principles which are incorporated into the Auckland Design Manual)
across Auckland which is its point of difference in the world.

59.

The IMSB would like to see more detail on the proposal before taking a final position on the
option. In particular they would like to see more detail on how Development Auckland will be
funded, its structure, the efficiency of the model and the specific functions it will undertake.
The IMSB has asked for further input into the establishment, purpose and scope if the option
is progressed.

60.

To the extent possible, the request for more information on how Development Auckland will
be funded, has been answered in this report. As previously stated, the exact funding
arrangements for each location would be determined at a later date once all variables are
known and would be subject to a business case.

61.

All other points raised by the IMSB will need to be addressed in the later stages of
evaluation. As with other CCOs, the extent to which Development Auckland will be able to
achieve particular outcomes outlined in the Issues of Significance will need to be balanced
with the achievement of its core purpose.

62.

In addition to the points raised by the IMSB, staff have considered that many iwi have large
property development companies that may be interested in achieving their outcomes in
partnership with Development Auckland. Typically these property companies act as long
term investors in a region and therefore would make ideal development partners.

63.

Transferring responsibility for management of the DFAP is unlikely to have implications for
Mori outcomes or wellbeing.

64.

The IMSB advice to the CCO review asked for more detail about the councils capability and
capacity to manage the portfolio, and the cost savings. This information is provided in this
report.

65.

The advice also questioned how the council intends to address Issue of Significance 7.7
(facilitating a direct relationship between Mori, ACPL and ACIL concerning management,
acquisition and divesting of land, and other strategic assets) if the remit of ACIL changes. As
the DFAP is not a strategic asset and does not involve land holdings, this specific proposal
does not impact on this Issue of Significance.

Feedback from CCOs

66.

Formal feedback has been given by the Boards of ACPL and Waterfront Auckland which has
been provided in the report entitled Council Controlled Organisation Review Summary of
Feedback on this agenda.

67.

In summary, the Board of ACPL are in support of an urban development agency approach,
noting that care must be taken to keep momentum going during any transition to a new
agency. Amongst other things, they also note that there are many gains to be made by
establishing a property centre of excellence within the new entity.

68.

The Board of Waterfront Auckland supports the progression of Option A1 and make many
useful observations about the next stages of evaluation, noting the critical success factors
for Development Auckland to be able to advance councils goals.

69.

Auckland Transport, ATEED and RFA have also indicated their general support of LTP
consultation on option A1. They see many advantages to advancing a more comprehensive
approach to urban redevelopment. Watercare has provided feedback on the CCO review
more generally and ACIL provided comment on matters directly relevant to their entity.

70.

The assistance of ACPL and Waterfront Auckland in the development and analysis of
options throughout the CCO Review has been invaluable, insightful and greatly appreciated.

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 200

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Next steps for the urban development proposal

71.

Although there are still a number of details to be considered in the Development Auckland
proposal, the opportunity for early public engagement is important.

72.

The proposal to establish Development Auckland does not require legislative change15 but
rather seeks to address some of the remaining barriers to brownfield redevelopment by
taking advantage of the considerable scale and scope of the Auckland Council group.

73.

Subject to council approval to consult on this proposal in the LTP, an evaluation report on
any proposed change would need to be carried out. This evaluation report and other
investigations on the approved option would encompass:

More detailed financial analysis

a high level implementation timetable and plan

investigation on which redevelopment locations would be the most likely candidates

for this type of intervention

a full risk assessment to understand the long-run risks of operating in the Auckland
property market and how these can be mitigated as much as possible

further work on partnering with social housing providers

further work on value capture mechanisms and the development contribution regime
for redevelopment locations

further work on other redevelopment tools such as reduction of subdivision costs or

development contributions

consideration of how much flexibility should be given to the new entity

further investigation of a streamlined consenting process (including examination of

what should happen in a Special Housing Area)

key stakeholder consultation (including Central Government Ministers)

an investigation of Auckland Transports (ATs) current activity in urban design and

property and the future synergies with Development Auckland

any clarification or change to the activities and role of the City Transformation Unit of
Auckland Council and the Housing Project Office.

74.

It is envisaged that much of this work would take place concurrently with public consultation
and prior to a final decision in line with the finalisation of the LTP.
ACIL proposal

75.

The proposal to transfer management of the DFAP from ACIL to council does not require
public consultation. The transfer would take place on 1 July 2015, at the start of the
2015/2016 financial year. The treasury team would start working with ACIL in early 2015 to
facilitate the transfer. Three directors of ACIL are due to retire in November 2015. Planning
for the November appointment round will start in May 2015. The CCO Governance and
Monitoring committee can decide how to reduce the board from five to three at that time.

Attachments
No.

Title

Page

CCO Review: Urban Development Options

203

Evaluation Options for DFAP

229

15

It is possible that legislative reform may be necessary at a later date, once more difficult redevelopment locations are
being considered.
Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 201

Item 18

Implementation

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 18

Signatories
Authors

Rose Leonard - Principal Advisor

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Authorisers

Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 202

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 203

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 204

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 205

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 206

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 207

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 208

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 209

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 210

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 211

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 212

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 213

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 214

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 215

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 216

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 217

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 218

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 219

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 220

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 221

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 222

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 223

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 224

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 225

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 226

Attachment A

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 227

Attachment B

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 229

Attachment B

Item 18

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review - Proposal for New Urban Development Entity and Proposal
to Transfer Management of Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio from ACIL to Auckland Council

Page 230

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 19

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

File No.: CP2014/26522

Purpose
1.

To approve a new policy for the management and pricing of council owned off-street
carparking across the region and a further delegation to Auckland Transport (AT) to manage
council off-street parking assets in line with this policy. The ratification of previous off-street
carparking decisions is also sought.

Executive summary
2.

The recommendations in this report are necessary interim arrangements in advance of a

comprehensive framework for the strategic and effective management of on-street
carparking and council owned off-street carparking across the region being completed by the
middle of next year.

3.

Council (legislatively responsible for council controlled off-street carparking) and AT

(legislatively responsible for on-street carparking) have been working in tandem towards this
comprehensive framework.

4.

Interim arrangements are needed because they will enable changes to off-street parking
controls to be made without further delay. This will support council and AT objectives being
progressed, and is considered necessary and prudent as occupancy levels are exceeding
targeted thresholds in some council owned off-street carparks at present.

5.

This report contains recommendations relating to:

adoption of an Off-street Parking Price Adjustment Policy (the Off-street Policy) which
is provided as Attachment 1 and Parking Triggers Table (the Triggers Table) which is
provided as Attachment 2

a further interim delegation from council to AT to manage region-wide off-street

carparking assets in line with the Off-street Policy and the Triggers Table

ratification of historical AT off-street parking management and enforcement decisions.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

note that on 25 November 2014 the Auckland Transport Board was asked to approve
certain aspects of a Parking Discussion Document and has approved the Off-street
Parking Price Adjustment Policy and Parking Triggers Table

b)

note that Auckland Transport has legislative responsibility for on-street parking and
that council is legislatively responsible for off-street parking, and council has
delegated certain off-street parking powers to Auckland Transport

c)

approve the Off-Street Parking Price Adjustment Policy for the management of all
council-owned off-street carparking assets across the region except those associated
with community facilities

d)

approve the off-street and general policy aspects of the Parking Triggers Table for
incorporation into the final parking strategy and for use as a guideline for changes to
parking restrictions until the parking strategy is completed

e)

revoke and replace all existing delegations from Auckland Council to Auckland
Transport in relation to the management and control of off-street parking facilities
owned by the Auckland Council with this new delegation. Without limitation, this
includes the following:

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 231

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 19

i)

delegations from the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

in relation to Dove-Myer Robinson, Pt Erin and Victoria Parks dated 16

August 2012;

in relation to Council parks dated 14 March 2013;

in relation to New Lynn town centre dated 14 March 2013;

in relation to Anzac Street carpark dated 17 April 2013;

in relation to Claris Airport dated 24 July 2013;

ii)

delegation from the Council's Chief Executive in relation to off-street parking

dated 31 January 2014

iii)

delegation in relation to libraries and the Central Business District from the
Regional Strategy and Policy Committee dated 3 July 2014

f)

delegate to Auckland Transport its responsibilities, duties and powers relating to the
management and control of off-street parking facilities owned by the Auckland
Council, including all regulatory and enforcement powers related to that function, as
set out in the November 2014 Off-street Parking Delegation Terms. This delegation
takes effect immediately, remains in force until further decision by Auckland Council
and may be reviewed or revoked by Auckland Council at any time

g)

hereby ratifiy all decisions made and actions undertaken by or on behalf of Auckland
Transport in relation to the management and control of off-street parking facilities
owned by the Council, in the period from 1 November 2010 to 27 November 2014,
including (without limitation) all regulatory and enforcement decisions.

Comments
Responsibility for parking in Auckland
6.

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA 2009) expressly provides that
AT are responsible for on-street parking and council are responsible for council owned offstreet parking.

7.

LGACA 2009 also provides that council may delegate the control and management of
council owned off-street parking to AT.

8.

Responsibility for off-street parking controls within council sits with Governing Body (or its
committees) because parking controls are a part of Aucklands transport networks and
infrastructure and are a regulatory matter.

9.

Council and AT have been working in tandem to develop a comprehensive framework for
the strategic and effective management of council owned carparking (on-street and offstreet) across the region. The comprehensive framework is making progress towards final
completion mid next year. This framework will replace legacy council mechanisms for onstreet and off-street carparking management and once completed, will consist of:

16

a strategy16 for on-street and off-street carparking for the region, setting out the
objectives for the best use of these publically owned assets under the control of the
council group

two bylaws that enable the setting and enforcement of carparking restrictions (an AT
bylaw for the management of on-street carparking, and a council bylaw for the
management of off-street carparking)

the necessary delegations from council to AT in relation to the management, control

and operation of off-street parking assets.

The final name of the strategy document is not yet decided.

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 232

Governing Body
27 November 2014

10.

Parking restrictions are able to be put in place by council or AT by adopting bylaws using the
special consultative procedure.

11.

LGACA 2009 provides that AT has responsibility for transport related bylaws but only in
relation to roads (on-street parking). On 8 July 2012, the Board of AT adopted a traffic bylaw
pursuant to section 22AB of the Land Transport Act 1998 to set requirements for parking
and control of traffic on roads under the care, control or management of AT. This bylaw
revoked and replaced the road-related (on-street) parts of the legacy transport bylaws.

12.

Council retains responsibility for bylaws controlling council owned off-street parking e.g.
council owned carparks, library carparks, and carparks associated with community centres
or recreation areas. Council has commenced the development and consultation on a traffic
bylaw that will work in parallel with the AT Traffic Bylaw 2012. This will replace the off-street
carparking provisions in legacy council bylaws when it is complete in mid-2015 (estimated
adoption April or May).
Strategy supports bylaws

13.

The content of bylaws are normally supported by strategic objectives from strategy or policy
documents which have had public input.

Proposed new strategy

14.

AT have been consulting with the public on future strategic parking objectives and
approaches through the AT Draft Parking Discussion Document 2014 (the discussion
document) (Attachment 3). Feedback has been received and incorporated into the Offstreet Policy and Triggers Table.

15.

The objectives contained in the parking discussion document align with Auckland Plan and
are listed in page 7 of the discussion document as follows:

16.

a.

facilitate a transformational shift to public transport

b.

support the economic development of the Auckland City Centre, metropolitan and
town centres

c.

prioritise the safe and efficient movement of people, services and goods on the road
network

d.

provide an outstanding customer experience at AT operated on and off-street facilities

e.

support place-making, amenity and good urban design outcomes

f.

ensure the efficient use of land in centres

g.

ensure a fiscally responsible approach to providing, managing and pricing parking

facilities and that benefits cover costs.

The principles for the achievement of the above objectives that have been carried through
into the new Off-street Policy are as follows:
a.

pricing policies should be consistent with the organisations strategic objectives by

supporting visitation to the CBD, promoting public transport use, discouraging
commuter trips at peak times and reducing congestion

b.

prioritise short stay parking over long stay parking

c.

use a consistent, simple, rules-based, transparent and data-driven approach for

setting parking rates

d.

use demand responsive pricing and charge the lowest rates possible to achieve
occupancy targets

e.

ensure the peak demand for short-term parking is met most of the time

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 233

Item 19

Bylaws allow parking restrictions to be made

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014
f.

use discounts to achieve strategic outcomes such as discouraging peak commuting

and reducing congestion

g.

use specific parking management measures during special events and short seasonal
peaks such as school holidays.

17.

The Triggers Table sets out thresholds and interventions for changes to parking controls in
off-street at-grade car parks and would form part of a final parking strategy.

18.

The Off-street Policy and Triggers Table recognise that transitioning from an approach that
focused on the commuter market to one that prioritises short-stay off-street parking is a
significant policy change. The Off-street Policy sets out a methodology for setting prices so
that short-term off-street parking is prioritised and commuter off-street parking prices are
increased as off-street car parks become full. The Off-street Policy also proposes travel
demand pricing to further discourage driving during peak traffic times.

19.

In order for AT to respond effectively to manage off-street parking it will also be necessary to
have the flexibility to change prices and customer products from time to time to ensure that
AT and council transport objectives are best met. For example, the early bird and lease
parking rates are considerably less than competitor rates and ratepayers are in effect
subsidising the cost of commuter car travel into the city centre.

20.

On 25 November 2014, after consultation with the public, and in anticipation of the
finalisation of a final parking strategy, the board of AT was asked to approve the Off-street
Policy and Triggers Table for all council owned off-street carparking buildings, and all
council-owned at-grade off-street car parks across Auckland.

21.

Council adoption of the Off-street Policy is recommended. It would apply to all council owned
off-street parking throughout the region, including libraries but not other community facilities
(e.g. community halls and pools). Policy relating to community facilities will be looked at
when a final parking strategy is considered.

22.

Council adoption of both the off-street parking and general parking policy aspects of the
Triggers Table is recommended.

Delegations
23.

Prior to amalgamation, the transition Chief Executives of Auckland Council and AT signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which set out responsibilities for each organisation in
relation to road activities. In the MoU, council agreed that AT would be generally
responsible for council controlled off-street carparks (other than those specifically associated
with other council facilities e.g. libraries and community centres).

24.

In 2013 uncertainty arose as to whether the MoU effectively delegated off-street parking
responsibilities from council to AT.

25.

As a consequence, various delegations have been given by council to AT for off-street

parking responsibilities as has been necessary to enable the effective management and
operation of council owned off-street parking as part of the region wide parking network.

Delegations currently in place

26.

Because of the wording of the residual legacy bylaws, and the provisions of the Land
Transport Act 1998, there are currently some off-street parking matters that can be
delegated by the Chief Executive, and some matters which cannot be delegated unless by a
resolution of council.

27.

The Auckland Council Chief Executive has previously delegated to AT powers and duties for
the management and control of council owned off-street parking throughout Auckland
except:
a.

areas specifically dedicated to council facilities e.g. libraries and community

centres

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 234

28.

b.

the ability to change or set new restrictions or make changes to parking charges

c.

the ability to enforce off-street parking in areas that require a council resolution to be
delegated.

Auckland Council has, by resolution, also delegated certain off-street parking responsibilities
to AT, namely:
a.

the establishment and enforcement of restrictions in the carparks situated in local and
regional parks (subject to a request from the Parks Manager after Local Board
consultation). This does not include the ability to set charges

b.

the enforcement of parking restrictions and a change to pay and display at 40 Anzac
Street, Takapuna

c.

the enforcement of parking in the short-term and long term parking areas at Claris
Airport

d.

the establishment of restrictions and the ability to control and manage parking on
council owned land and assets within the New Lynn Town Centre

e.

a delegation to AT to set and enforce restrictions at community library off-street

carparks in accordance with a protocol that requires the manager of the library to
initiate the discussion on setting restrictions and also requires local board input

f.

a delegation to AT for the management, control and enforcement of all off-street car
parking which can only be delegated by a council resolution

g.

a delegation to AT to implement the Central Business District (CBD) Price Adjustment

Policy by adjusting prices in four inner city off-street car parks owned by council in
accordance with the interim policy adopted on 3 July 201417.

Delegations and ratification sought in this report

29.

To consolidate the various existing delegations and to expand them to include wider powers
to set charges and restrictions, this report recommends a further interim Auckland wide
delegation to AT in relation to off-street parking. This requires resolution of council18.

Options
30.

The following options for the further interim delegation have been considered:
option A: Council could wait until the parking strategy is complete (potentially as early as
December 2014) until the new broader delegation is given. This option is not
recommended at it is not certain that the strategy will be complete by December, which
would leave a number of assets exceeding occupancy targets for a longer time period
(e.g. Matiatia and Kingsland town centre)
option B: Council could wait until the strategy and council Traffic bylaw were complete in
mid-2015 (estimated April/May). Whilst this option would mean less duplication (no
need for a renewed delegation under the new bylaw) it would also leave a number of
assets exceeding occupancy targets for a much longer time period. This option is
therefore not recommended

17

On 3 June 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy committee of council adopted as an interim measure, the Price
Adjustment Policy for Council Owned Off-street Parking in the Central Business District (Downtown, Victoria Street,
Fanshawe Street and the Civic carparks) until the discussion document could be finalised into a strategy. The CBD
Price Adjustment Policy adopted by committee is almost identical to the Off-Street Price Adjustment Policy
recommended for adoption in this report. The differences are not substantive.
18

Refer to paragraph 27 for an explanation of why some matters require a Council resolution.

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 235

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 19

option C: (recommended) Council could approve the Off-street Policy and Triggers
Table via this report (to be incorporated into the final strategy when it is complete); and
delegate to AT the powers to implement those policies until both the strategy and
council traffic bylaw have been put in place in mid-2015 (estimated April/May). This
option is recommended as it allows AT to manage council assets in the most cost
effective way and will relieve the pressure on assets that require changes to parking
restrictions (e.g. Matiatia and Kingsland town centre).
31.

Council and AT agree that the delegation does not include power to adopt parking policy for
Council controlled off-street parking (because issues relating to responsibility for policy
between council and AT are being resolved in the CCO Review).

32.

AT have confirmed that AT will consult with affected parties regarding any changes to
parking restrictions and charges, including seeking and having regard to the views and
preferences of local boards.

33.

In order to consolidate the numerous existing delegations, the recommended delegation will
replace all previous delegations from council to AT in relation to off-street parking. This
report also recommends revocation of the previous delegations. However, council and AT
have agreed that if there were any particular locational conditions or limitations in the
previous delegations, that these conditions or limitations would continue to apply in the new
delegation. The details of the recommended delegation are in Attachment 4.

34.

The recommended delegation would remain in place until the comprehensive framework can
be completed. When the parking strategy has been approved (potentially as early as
December 2014), and a council Traffic Bylaw is adopted mid-2015, a final delegation will be
recommended.

35.

The delegations that have previously been given, and the proposed new (interim) delegation
have effect prospectively. This means that there is a historical period of time (from
amalgamation until the Auckland wide delegations in January 2014 and July 2014) where
some AT off-street parking management and enforcement decisions may have been subject
to challenge, but are presumptively valid.

36.

In order to remove any doubt, and to retrospectively confirm that AT had all requisite
authority at any appropriate historical time, this report recommends ratification of all previous
AT off-street parking management and enforcement decisions .

Consideration
Local board views and implications
37.

Local board views and preferences have been sought on the parking discussion document
alongside that of the general public. A summary of this feedback is provided as Attachment
5. This feedback summary provides an overview of submissions received about off-street
parking changes within the wider context for changes to on-street and off-street parking
proposed in the discussion document.

38.

Changes have been made to the Triggers Table as a result of this feedback by specifying
additional interventions that should be used before shifting to charging for parking. These
changes provide an effective response to the feedback received.

Mori impact statement

39.

There are no particular impacts on Mori which are different from general users of the
council owned off-street car parks.

Implementation
40.

Any surplus revenue generated from changes to off-street parking charges will be used to
reduce the annual funding requirement from council. Under this interim delegation, council

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 236

will continue to meet the costs of the setting the restrictions in local and regional parks,
including signage.

Attachments
No.

Title

Page

Off-steet Price Adjustment Policy

239

Parking Triggers Table

243

AT Parking Discussion Document

245

November 2014 Off-street Parking Delegation Terms

305

Parking Discussion Document Feedback

307

Signatories
Authors

Rose Leonard - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships
Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 237

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Attachment A

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 239

Attachment A

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 240

Attachment A

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 241

Attachment A

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 242

Attachment B

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 243

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 245

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 246

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 247

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 248

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 249

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 250

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 251

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 252

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 253

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 254

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 255

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 256

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 257

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 258

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 259

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 260

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 261

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 262

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 263

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 264

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 265

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 266

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 267

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 268

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 269

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 270

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 271

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 272

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 273

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 274

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 275

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 276

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 277

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 278

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 279

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 280

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 281

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 282

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 283

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 284

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 285

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 286

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 287

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 288

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 289

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 290

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 291

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 292

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 293

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 294

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 295

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 296

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 297

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 298

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 299

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 300

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 301

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 302

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 303

Attachment C

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 304

Attachment D

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 305

Attachment D

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 306

Attachment E

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 307

Attachment E

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 308

Attachment E

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 309

Attachment E

Item 19

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Off street parking - discussion document and further interim delegation

Page 310

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 20

Significance and Engagement Policy

File No.: CP2014/27210

Purpose
1.

To adopt the Significance and Engagement policy.

Executive Summary
2.

At its meeting on 18 November 2014, the Budget Committee agreed to recommend to the
Governing Body of Auckland Council that it adopt the Significance and Engagement Policy
Resolution BUD2014/68 (d).

3.

In addition, the Budget Committee requested minor amendments to the policy as follows:

4.
5.

More clarity about the councils commitment to the Independent Mori Statutory Board
More details about which Pacific peoples there are in Auckland (in line with the other
diverse communities sections)
The Significance and Engagement policy document for adoption updated to reflect the
amendments requested by the Budget Committee is contained in Attachment A.
A copy of the original report to the Budget Committee is contained in Attachment B.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

adopt the Significance and Engagement policy.

Attachments
No.

Title

Page

Significance and Engagement Policy

313

Budget Committee Report

339

Signatories
Authors

Carol Hayward - Senior Specialist Engagement & Consultation

Authorisers

Karl Ferguson - Communication & Engagement Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 311

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 313

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 314

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 315

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 316

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 317

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 318

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 319

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 320

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 321

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 322

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 323

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 324

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 325

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 326

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 327

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 328

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 329

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 330

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 331

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 332

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 333

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 334

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 335

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 336

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 337

Attachment A

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 338

Attachment B

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 339

Attachment B

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 340

Attachment B

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 341

Attachment B

Item 20

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

Page 342

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 21

Governing Body decision-making during the 2014/2015 Christmas

recess period
File No.: CP2014/25869

Purpose
1.

To establish a process for urgent political decision-making over the 2014/2015 Christmas
recess period.

Executive summary
2.

Council needs to be prepared to manage unforeseen circumstances and respond to any

statutory requirements over the Christmas recess period.

3.

This report recommends the same delegation system as previous years for making urgent
decisions over this period.

Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body:
a)

delegate to any two of either the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, and a Chairperson of a
Committee of the Whole, the power to make urgent decisions on behalf of the
Governing Body or its committees between the last scheduled Governing Body
meeting in December 2014 and the first meeting of the Governing Body or other
relevant Committees in 2015.

b)

agree that if a matter of major significance arises during the 2014/2015 Christmas
recess period, an extraordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be called.

Comments
4.

Part 6 of the Local Government Act sets out the obligations of local authorities in relation to
decision-making. Council needs to be able to make urgent decisions during the Christmas
recess period. This is simply a procedural decision to enable efficient decision-making to
occur. Existing delegations will remain in place for all non-urgent decisions.

5.

The Christmas recess period starts from the last Governing Body meeting in December
2014 to the first scheduled meeting of the Governing Body or its committees in 2015.

6.

Any decisions to be made under this delegation will be advised to decision-makers via the
Chief Executive or his delegate, who will supply the necessary background and reasons for
urgency. The decision will also be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the Governing
Body or relevant committee.

7.

If the matter is of major significance, an extraordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be
called.

8.

The Governing Body has made this delegation for all previous years of Auckland Council.

Consideration
Local board views and implications
9.

Consultation is not required.

Governing Body decision-making during the 2014/2015 Christmas recess period

Page 343

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 21

Mori impact statement

10.

Consultation is not required.

Implementation
11.

Democracy Services will administer this process.

Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories
Authors

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Support

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Governing Body decision-making during the 2014/2015 Christmas recess period

Page 344

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 22

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

File No.: CP2014/20785

Purpose
1.

To adopt a schedule of meetings from January 2015 through to the election in October 2016.

Executive summary
2.

The Governing Body needs to adopt a meeting schedule. The schedule has been created
for the period from January 2015 through to the election in October 2016. This report
outlines the approach used to create it.

3.

The Mayor recognises that elected members have an interest in contributing to improved
effectiveness and efficiency of governance in 2015. The Mayor has indicated that he wishes
to hold a building momentum workshop over two days in late January or early February
2015. Alongside looking at priorities and direction for 2015, he intends that there be some
joint reflection on Committee structure and meeting frequency.

Recommendations
That the Governing Body:
a)

adopt the meeting schedule for 2015 through to the election in October 2016, as
contained in Attachment A of the agenda report

b)

authorise the Manager Democracy Services to amend the schedule if required, in

consultation with the chair of any affected committee, and subject to the Mayors or
Deputy Mayors approval if a formal meeting has to be held on a Monday or Friday.

c)

note that the meeting schedule could be subject to amendment if the Governing
Body agrees to committee scheduling changes early in 2015.

Comments
4.

In preparing this schedule the following principles have been taken into account, in line with
previous schedules:
Formal business of the Governing Body has been confined to Tuesdays, Wednesdays
and Thursdays each week.
Thursdays are reserved for Governing Body and Committees of the Whole with no other
meeting scheduled after these. There are exceptions to this in April and December 2015
and April and July 2016 because of Long Term Plan and Annual Plan consultation
processes.
The Governing Body continues to meet on the final Thursday of the month.
One-week meeting recesses have been scheduled during the school holiday periods.
Workshop times have been scheduled on Wednesday afternoons where there is space
available.
As much as possible, Committee membership has been taken into consideration to
optimise Councillors time.
Dates for joint quarterly meetings of the Governing Body and the Independent Mori
Statutory Board, and the Governing Body and Local Board Chairs have been set.
The WWI Steering Group, the Election Working Party and the Standing Orders Working
Party also form part of the meeting schedule.

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 345

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 22

5.

The following scheduling periods have been used:

Monthly

Six Weekly

Quarterly

Fortnightly
Other

6.

7.

Auckland Development Committee

CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee
CEO Review Committee
Finance and Performance Committee
Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority (Maunga Authority)
Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee
Regional, Strategy and Policy Committee
Regulatory and Bylaws Committee
WWI Steering Group
Arts, Culture and Events Committee
Community Development and Safety Committee
Economic Development Committee
Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee
Infrastructure Committee
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
Disability Advisory Panel
Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel
Heritage Advisory Panel
Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel
Rural Advisory Panel
Seniors Advisory Panel
Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Working Party
Youth Advisory Panel
Audit and Risk Committee
Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee
Governing Body/Independent Mori Statutory Board
Governing Body/Local Board Chairs
Hauraki Gulf Forum
Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board
Southern Initiative
Tenders and Procurement Committee
Unitary Plan Committee
Budget Committee (as and when required)
Elections Working Party
Standing Orders Working Party

Other events scheduled include:

LTP regional consultation events have been scheduled in the second week of the school
holiday period in 2015. Budget Committee/Local Board and Budget Committee/CCO
engagement meetings have also been scheduled for the end of April 2015 (this will
include Friday 1 May). These dates are subject to change depending on future decisions
on the consultation process.
The Annual Plan consultation events have been scheduled for April 2016. These are
also subject to change.
Past experience has indicated that amendments to the meeting schedule are inevitable.
The Governing Body is therefore asked to authorise the Manager Democracy Services to
amend the schedule, in consultation with the chair of any affected committee, and subject to
the Mayors or Deputy Mayors approval if any formal meeting has to be held on a Monday
or Friday.

8.

Consultation with the Independent Mori Statutory Board has taken place and dates for
quarterly joint meetings with the Governing Body have been agreed.

9.

Some meetings in the schedule are not council committee meetings but are included
because they involve councillors or other committee members.

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 346

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Item 22

Consideration
Local board views and implications
10.

Consultation with Local Board Services has taken place and dates for quarterly joint
meetings between the Governing Body and Local Board chairs have been agreed.

Mori impact statement

11.

Many of the meetings listed in the schedule will be of relevance to Mori, are co-governance
bodies or otherwise involve Mori representatives. Examples include the Independent Mori
Statutory Board, the Hauraki Gulf Forum or the Tupuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau
Authority.

Implementation
12.

The Mayor recognises that elected members have an interest in contributing to improved
effectiveness and efficiency of governance in 2015. The Mayor has indicated that he wishes
to hold a building momentum workshop over two days in late January or early February
2015. Alongside looking at priorities and direction for 2015, he intends that there be some
joint reflection on committee structure and meeting frequency.

Attachments
No.

Title

Draft Schedule of Meetings for 2015 and through to Election 2016

Page
349

Signatories
Authors

Sarndra O'Toole - Team Leader Governance Support

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director
Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 347

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 349

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 350

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 351

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 352

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 353

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 354

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 355

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 356

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 357

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 358

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 359

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 360

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 361

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 362

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 363

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 364

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 365

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 366

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 367

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 368

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 369

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 370

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 371

Attachment A

Item 22

Governing Body
27 November 2014

Meeting Schedule 2015 through to Election 2016

Page 372