Governing Body 12/2013

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Governing Body will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Thursday, 19 December 2013 10.00am 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 Chris 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 16 December 2013 Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6328 Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Those powers which cannot legally be delegated: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) the power to make a rate; or the power to make a bylaw; or the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term council community plan; or the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or 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.
(g)
Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct Relationships with the Independent Maori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees. Approval of the Unitary Plan 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 19 December 2013 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Affirmation Apologies Declaration of Interest Confirmation of Minutes Acknowledgements Petitions Public Input 7.1 7.2 7.3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Public Input - Living Wage Aotearoa Public Input - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath) Public Input - Lisa Prager PAGE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 9 141 155 157
Local Board Input Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report Resolution from Orakei Local Board - Mission Bay streetscape upgrade targeted rate Local Board Agreements 2014/2015 Adoption of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Due to its size, the attachment for this report has been circulated to Governing Body members only and will be available on the Auckland Council website as an attachment to the agenda.
15 16 17 18 19
Submissions and Hearings process for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan Navigation safety review, statement of proposal and bylaw Proposals on the role and functioning of Councils "demographic advisory panels Inquiry into the 2013 Local Elections - Issues Paper Consideration of Extraordinary Items
163 169 237 247
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
20 C1 C2 C3 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Confidential Report Recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee - Appointment of External Co-opted Committee members to the Audit and Risk Committee Shareholder Approval of Wynyard Quarter transaction 249 249 249 250
Page 3
Governing Body 19 December 2013 1 Affirmation His Worship the Mayor will read the affirmation. 2 Apologies At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. 3 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. 4 Confirmation of Minutes That the Governing Body: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 29 October 2013,and the extraordinary minutes of its meetings, held on Thursday, 7 November 2013 and Thursday, 14 November 2013, including the confidential sections, as true and correct records.
Acknowledgements 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. 7.1 Public Input - Living Wage Aotearoa
Purpose 1. To provide Living Wage Aotearoa the opportunity to address the Governing Body regarding the proposed Living Wage policy. Recommendation/s That the Governing Body: a) receive the presentation by Living Wage Aotearoa regarding the proposed Living Wage policy.
Page 5
Governing Body 19 December 2013 7.2 Public Input - Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath)
Purpose 1. To provide the following organisations the opportunity to address the Governing Body regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath): Northcote Residents Association, the St Marys Bay Association and the Westhaven Marina Users Association (two speakers) Heart of the City Cycle Action Auckland. Recommendation/s That the Governing Body: a) receive the presentations made on behalf of the Northcote Residents Association, the St Marys Bay Association and the Westhaven Marina Users Association, Heart of the City and Cycle Action Auckland, regarding the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project (SkyPath).
7.3
Public Input - Lisa Prager
Purpose 1. To provide the opportunity for Lisa Prager to address the Governing Body regarding the accountability of Elected Members. Recommendation/s That the Governing Body: a) receive the presentation from Lisa Prager regarding the accountability of Elected Members
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.
Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:
Page 6
Governing Body 19 December 2013 An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if(a) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,(i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and 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
(ii)
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.
10
Notices of Motion At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 7
Governing Body 19 December 2013
Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

File No.: CP2013/26853
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to update the Governing Body on progress on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project.
Executive Summary
2. 3. 4. This report has been prepared in response to resolution from the 9 May 2013 meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee. This report provides updated information on walking and cycling access on the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB). Attachment A contains detailed information in relation to this project. The Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust (the Trust) has developed the SkyPath proposal to complete the missing link for walking and cycling access across the AHB, which is proposed through a privately financed scenario. The SkyPath proposal is described in more detail in sections a to c of Attachment A. Key updated information in relation to the SkyPath proposal (more detail is provided in paragraph 23 of this report and in sections u to yy of Attachment A) includes: A Project Plan was developed for work up to December 2013, with input from all stakeholders. The Project Plan sets out the tasks required and timeframe to report progress back to Council by December 2013. Patronage: An independent review of the patronage numbers has been completed and further survey work undertaken. This report is attached in Attachment B. A financial model has been developed by Council using these patronage numbers and other base information. This model has been used to compare options and scenarios. Internal discussions on the commercial implications have occurred based on the additional information available since May and the financial modelling. The Trust has proposed the use of composite materials, as utilised by the marine and aircraft industries, for the structure of SkyPath. Capital costs: The change to composite material increases the estimated capital cost from $33 million to $33.5 million. However, the expected advantages of use of this material would be a lighter structure, easier manufacturing and installation processes, a longer service life, less strengthening of the AHB being required, and reduced whole of life maintenance costs. A preliminary technical review has been undertaken with a focus on anticipated maintenance obligations. Landings: Further design work has been undertaken, and is continuing, to take into account feedback received from residents, other stakeholder groups, the Council family and the New Zealand Transport Agency in respect of the landings at each end. However, the Trust have not undertaken any further consultation with local residents since mid-July 2013, as there was a clear preference from local residents to wait until after the Council decision in December. No negotiations have been undertaken. Negotiations will depend on the guidance received from the Governing Body regarding procurement.
5.
Page 9
Item 11
Item 11
6.
This report provides an update on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project and is not seeking a decision from the Governing Body. A separate report provides an update on the delivery options relating to the project, and contains commercially sensitive financial and legal information. For these reasons, it is proposed that the second report be considered in the confidential session of this meeting.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body: a) b) receive the report on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project. request that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Kaipatiki, Waitemat and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards for their information.
Discussion
Background 7. The Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) does not currently have any walking or cycling access over it. This missing connection is a critical gap in Aucklands Cycling Network (ACN). Past investigations have considered how to provide walking and cycling access over the AHB but no plans have been progressed. For a number of years, the Auckland Harbour Bridge Trust (the Trust) has been championing for a pathway across the AHB. The Trust has considered a range of options and developed the SkyPath concept, which is proposed to be privately financed, with all the costs being met by admission fees. An equity partner was sought by the Trust due to lack of available funding within central and local government agencies. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is custodian of the AHB. The existing AHB clip-on lanes were strengthened by the NZTA in 2010. This work has considerably extended the life span of the clip-on lanes and consequently the NZTA expects the clip-on lanes to have an indefinite service life (e.g. the next 100 years) providing heavy freight movements are transferred to a new harbour crossing at a certain load trigger point. However, further strengthening would be necessary for a pathway to be attached to the AHB and the NZTA has advised it may consider funding some of this cost. Uncertainties around timing and funding of an Additional W aitemat Harbour Crossing (AWHC) has led the NZTA to put plans for an alternative walking and cycling facility as part of the next harbour crossing on hold in favour of SkyPath. Through the evaluation of the Trusts concept design, the NZTA has found that the SkyPath concept design is considered to be a feasible engineering solution. However, the NZTA has advised that it is not in a position to fund SkyPath due to budget constraints and its cycling and walking forward programme already being in place. Internal processes within the NZTA require full consideration of a public private partnership (PPP), joint Ministerial approval and compliance with the Better Business Case process. The NZTA have advised that the costs involved with this would be prohibitive for a project of this small scale. Additionally, the NZTA has stated that SkyPath would be compatible with the AWHC. Even with AWHC in place there is likely to be limited space on the AHB to provide for both cycling and walking, and in this situation it is recommended that the modes would be split with SkyPath being used as a covered walkway, while a lane (or a part lane) on the AHB is used by cyclists.
8.
9.
10.
Page 10
11.
Auckland Transport and the NZTA have agreed that funding should be brought forward to construct a cycle and walking connection to the north of SkyPath, if the SkyPath proposal proceeds and subject to a future funding decision by the NZTA. This northern link would be provided for users to access Akoranga/Takapuna and therefore have less impact on local roads. The SkyPath proposal was considered by the Transport Committee on 3 May 2011, 15 August 2011 and 13 February 2013. The transport benefits (and recreational and tourism benefits) were recognised by the Transport Committee in February 2013, and it was resolved that further work would be undertaken and reported back to the Strategy and Finance Committee. This further work was undertaken and a report prepared for the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting on 9 May 2013. The resolutions from the August 2011 and February 2013 meetings are included in sections r to t of Attachment A. There is a zero capital budget for this project in the Regional Land Transport Programme 2012-2015, on the basis that the construction costs would be met by the private sector. At the meeting on 9 May 2013, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved: that work continue with internal resources on the Auckland Harbour Bridge pathway and that this be reported back to the Transport Committee at the appropriate time.
12.
13. 14.
15.
At the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting on 9 May 2013, regarding the Annual Plan budget, the Mayor Len Brown announced that the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway: is a project that I support but believe more work is required before the council can consider the nature of the support we wish to give. I also want to ensure that the affected communities are engaged and supportive of the project. I propose that we use existing resources to continue to work with the relevant parties and that this be taken back to the Transport Committee at the appropriate time.
Proposal 16. SkyPath is an architecturally designed structure which would be attached under the eastern clip-on lane of the AHB. It would be a 4 metre wide shared pathway for cyclists and pedestrians with viewing platforms, and would connect into the existing cycling and walking network and future proposals at each end. Further detail on SkyPath can be found in sections a to c of Attachment A. The Trust has obtained an initial offer to fund the construction of SkyPath from Morrison & Cos Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund (PIP Fund). The SkyPath proposal is a form of privately financed project. Under this proposal, Council's involvement would be limited to a partial underwrite of the admission fare revenue and assumption of ownership rights and obligations at the end of the concession period. A special purpose vehicle (SPV) would be established by the PIP Fund to take all responsibility and risk to design and build SkyPath, initially own the SkyPath structure and associated rights, operate and maintain SkyPath for a term of 20 years and receive all revenues from admission fares and meet all costs associated with SkyPath over that term (subject to the underwrite and sharing of any up-side arrangements). At the end of that 20 year term, the SPV would transfer SkyPath and all associated rights required to operate SkyPath to Council for a nominal amount or for free. The PIP Fund is seeking an underwrite from Council should gross revenues from SkyPath users in any year fall below an agreed level. The SPVs underwrite would permanently fall away upon certain conditions being met. Finally, the PIP Fund has offered a sharing of upside or gain share once the post-tax return of the project has reached a pre-agreed level.
17.
18.
19.
Page 11
Item 11
Governing Body 19 December 2013 20. Reversionary ownership by Council would mean that the walking and cycling link across the harbour is maintained after 20 years and is a more efficient use of infrastructure than simply removing it. The current design indicates that the life of SkyPath would be a minimum of 50 years. However, it is assumed that the admission fare would cease when Council assumes the ownership obligations at the end of the concession period. The only assumed income here is from naming rights and possibly private leasing arrangements. If Council wishes to continue with an admission fare or charging for entry into the viewing platforms, there is potential to cover the operating costs. The operating costs are currently being updated by quantity surveyors due to the proposed change to composite material and will be available soon.
Item 11
21.
Progress since Strategy and Finance Committee Meeting Following the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting in May 2013, a Project Sponsor (Brett O'Riley, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED)) and Project Leader (Marguerite Pearson, Transport Strategy Unit, Council) were identified and a Project Plan was developed by Council officers for Stage One (up to December 2013). The Project Plan had input from key stakeholders (Auckland Transport, ATEED, Auckland Waterfront Development Agency (WA), the NZTA and the Trust) and was signed off in July 2013. The purpose of this Project Plan was to identify key pieces of work that needed to be undertaken to report back to Council on, to identify key tasks, and to guide inputs from the Council family, the NZTA and the Trust for the remainder of 2013. The Project Plan identified a number of pieces of work that need to be undertaken for Stage One to enable Council officers to report back to an appropriate Committee in December 2013. The majority of this work has been completed and this assessment has provided sufficient information to guide Council officers to make recommendations on the delivery option as outlined in a second report which is to be considered confidential section of the agenda. A summary of the work undertaken is provided below and further details are provided in sections x to y of Attachment A: i. Patronage: A review of the potential patronage was essential to clarify revenue projections in order to manage Councils risks in relation to the potential revenue underwrite. The review was undertaken by independent experts (Angus and Associates) and, while the results are purposefully conservative estimates of patronage, the review has provided increased confidence in patronage expectations. A summary of the process undertaken and results of this work are outlined in sections u to oo of Attachment A, while the patronage report is attached as Appendix B. Following the patronage review, financial modelling has been undertaken by Council officers. The detail of this work is outlined in the second report in the confidential section on the agenda. Consideration of commercial elements and governance in relation to the project have been undertaken based on additional information available since May and the financial modelling. A preliminary technical review of maintenance requirements has been undertaken in regard to the SkyPath design. The purpose of this work is to assist in managing Councils risks in relation to the resumption of maintenance obligations at the end of 20 years. The proposed use of composite materials by the Trust is being reviewed as part of this work. This work is being led by Auckland Transport and undertaken by Beca and Total Bridge Solutions. This preliminary review identified likely maintenance requirements for SkyPath and areas where SkyPath would affect maintenance of the AHB box girder. In addition, detailed information regarding composite material and its likely maintenance regime was provided by the composite experts in response to a number of questions raised by Beca. A preliminary business case has been developed to support a future decision by Council to enter into a commitment relating to a privately funded project
Page 12
22.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Governing Body 19 December 2013 vi.
Purpose of This Report 23. This report is for information purposes only and is to provide an update of progress to the Councillors. The attachments to this report also provide detailed information about the updated patronage results and the preliminary technical review.
Next Steps 24. The decision currently being sought on this project is approval to move from the current phase of high level assessment to detailed discussions with a single investor. This is highlighted in yellow in the diagram below. The second report (to be considered confidentially) is seeking an in-principle decision of support for the project to enable Council officers to continue advancing this project. Councils future role in this would be focused on the underwrite and taking reversionary ownership of SkyPath. By necessity, this requires that Council carry out full due diligence and to be satisfied on all elements of the project.
25.
Prior to entering into any binding financial commitment (in relation to a partial revenue underwrite and reversionary ownership) on the SkyPath proposal, Council would need to be satisfied that its risks and financial exposure are acceptable and able to be mitigated to an acceptable level. This would involve legal and financial assessments by Council, further detailed discussions in relation to the proposal and procurement procedures, and a review of the robustness of the PIP Fund offer. The project is considered to be not large enough to warrant the transaction costs of a full competitive tender, therefore it is recommended that an independent probity audit will be commissioned to ensure that due process was followed in such a manner to give confidence that the project provides value for money to Council and that the assessment of risks to Council has been properly carried out.
26.
Page 13
Item 11
No negotiations or drafting has occurred. The Councils Project Plan indicated that upon successful completion of pre-requisite tasks, then discussions to form a nonbinding heads of agreement might occur between the interested investor and Council. However, time constraints and a preference to wait for the Councils guidance in December 2013 regarding procurement meant this did not occur.
Item 11
27.
If the above steps are undertaken and it is a positive result, then Council officers would seek the Governing Bodys approval before entering into a final binding agreement. However, any discussions would be non-binding and Council could withdraw from the project at any stage if value for money cannot be achieved or there are unforeseen complications. If this were to happen, Council could consider funding the project itself or do nothing. The Trust is currently focussed on the preparation for the resource consent phase and undertaking detailed design. It is anticipated that the Trust would lodge a resource consent application in early 2014 (March) and it has a design team in place for this.
28.
Consideration
Local Board Views
29. The Trust has presented to and met with the relevant Local Boards including Waitemat, Kaipatiki, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards. These Local Boards are supportive of this project and have either included it in their Local Board Plans (as an unfunded item) and/or passed resolutions in support. These Local Boards spoke in support of SkyPath at the Transport Committee meeting in February 2013 and indicated feedback from the community was strongly supportive of the project. Council officers presented to the Kaipatiki and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards in late February 2013. Staff from Council and ATEED are currently in the process of briefing the relevant members of each Local Board on this report and reporting on progress since May 2013. The Trust has sent a deputation to each of these Local Boards in February and March 2013, as well as Kaipatiki Local Board and Waitemata Local Boards convening public meetings for residents in their wards to comment on the northern and southern access points respectively in March, April and July. The Trust has held public meetings (with support from the NZTA) with the residents of Princes Street in Northcote, St Marys Bay and Northcote Point Residents Associations in February, March and April 2013 to invite comment from local residents. The Trust has also met with the Westhaven Marina Users Association on a number of occasions, the Harbour Master, relevant stakeholder groups and Takapuna Beach Business Association. These meetings resulted in a number of concerns being raised, as well as strong support for the SkyPath concept. The concerns relate to: Safety for users on SkyPath and surrounding streets; Reliability of patronage forecasts and business case; Effects from large number of users on environment (impact on residents, marina users, Te Onewa Stokes Point Reserve and Pa, and availability of car parking); and Anti-social behaviour. 32. The Trust has taken these concerns on board and is currently revising their landing designs for both Westhaven and Stokes Point taking into account feedback from the public, the Council family (including WA) and the NZTA. Feedback from the local residents groups was that they did not wish to be further consulted until after the Council decision in December and this preference has been respected. Council officers met with Westhaven Marina Users Association and St Marys Bay and Northcote Point Residents Associations on 20 May 2013 and visited each landing location with these groups on 15 June 2013 to discuss their concerns and outline the Councils due diligence process. Council and ATEED officers have also had correspondence with these groups via email and letter since then. Council has willingly shared the recent patronage work, once it was finalised, with these groups at their request.
30.
31.
33.
Page 14
Mori Impact Statement

34. The Trust met with Mana Whenua groups (Ngai Tai Ki Tmaki, Ngti Whtua o Orkei, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngti Paoa) on 3 April 2013. The meetings were positive and, in principle, Mana Whenua groups are supportive of SkyPath. Mana Whenua expressed a desire to have input at preliminary stages of design to ensure SkyPath does not impact on any of the physical remnants at Te Onewa Pa, Northcote, and enhances the area with improved safety, connection and light. In this regard, the Trust is working to achieve alignment with the NZTA programmed restoration work at Te Onewa Stokes Point Reserve which involves Mana Whenua and Councils Parks, Sports and Recreation department. The Trust also met Ngai Tai Ki Tmaki, Ngti Whtua o Orkei and Te Kawerau a Maki, and representatives from the NZTA and Council at Te Onewa Pa on 13 June 2013 to discuss this restoration work (a Ngti Paoa representative was invited but could not attend). The Mana Whenua groups would like SkyPath to also reflect the values inherent in the southern side of the harbour, with respect for its cultural history and the guardian taniwha present adjacent to the southern abutment. Mana Whenua stated their belief in the value of developing a new architecture for Auckland which stimulates new values (the new bridge at Resolution Point was cited as having positive outcomes).
35.
General
36. The nature of the SkyPath project as local infrastructure falls within the amended purpose of local government under Section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 2002. It will achieve the community outcome of improving pedestrian and cycle access within the region. However, any future decision on commitment to the project would be subject to the outcomes of the further investigations stated above and the Councils business case. SkyPath would be of potential benefit to all Aucklanders and visitors to Auckland, however under conventional funding arrangements it is unlikely this project could be funded in the next 20 years or before an AWHC was in place. Therefore, the use of private sector funding needs to be considered, in line with the Auckland Plan requirement to investigate alternative funding options for transport projects.
37.
Implementation Issues
38. Before Council can make a formal commitment to become involved in any project a commitment of resources is required to undertake investigation work and negotiation. Council as a potential revenue underwriter requires a commitment of resources to undertake investigation to give comfort in entering into this arrangement, and also resources to negotiate and finalise the contractual arrangements with the relevant parties. Were SkyPath to proceed, Council and its Council Controlled Organisations would need to agree their respective roles in relation to managing Councils risks in relation to the project. There are a variety of options of where this project could sit for implementation including through ATEED. However, a decision on this matter is not being sought at this time.
39.
Attachments
No. A B Title Detailed Information on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project Patronage Projection Report for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - November 2013 Page 17 29
Page 15
Item 11
Item 11
Signatories
Author Authorisers Marguerite Pearson - Transport Planner Brett ORiley, ATEED Chief Executive Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 16
Page 17
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 18
Page 19
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 20
Page 21
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 22
Page 23
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 24
Page 25
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 26
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 28
Page 29
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 30
Page 31
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 32
Page 33
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 34
Page 35
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 36
Page 37
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 38
Page 39
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 40
Page 41
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 42
Page 43
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 44
Page 45
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 46
Page 47
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 48
Page 49
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 50
Page 51
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 52
Page 53
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 54
Page 55
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 56
Page 57
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 58
Page 59
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 60
Page 61
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 62
Page 63
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 64
Page 65
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 66
Page 67
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 68
Page 69
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 70
Page 71
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 72
Page 73
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 74
Page 75
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 76
Page 77
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 78
Page 79
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 80
Page 81
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 82
Page 83
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 84
Page 85
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 86
Page 87
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 88
Page 89
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 90
Page 91
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 92
Page 93
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 94
Page 95
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 96
Page 97
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 98
Page 99
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 100
Page 101
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 102
Page 103
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 104
Page 105
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 106
Page 107
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 108
Page 109
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 110
Page 111
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 112
Page 113
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 114
Page 115
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 116
Page 117
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 118
Page 119
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 120
Page 121
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 122
Page 123
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 124
Page 125
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 126
Page 127
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 128
Page 129
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 130
Page 131
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 132
Page 133
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 134
Page 135
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 136
Page 137
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 138
Page 139
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 140
File No.: CP2013/28069
Purpose
1. To present a resolution of the Orakei Local Board regarding a targeted rate for the Mission Bay streetscape upgrade to the Governing Body for inclusion in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.
Executive Summary
2. On 12 December 2013, the Orkei Local Board considered whether to support a proposal to fund the Mission Bay footpath upgrade via the use of a targeted rate on local businesses and resolved as follows: Resolution number OR/2013/264 MOVED by Chairperson DEC Simpson, seconded by Member KH Baguley: That the Orkei Local Board: a) supports the use of a targeted rate to fund the upgrade of Mission Bay footpaths. b) requests the Governing Body to fund Auckland Transport for the delivery of the footpath upgrade in Mission Bay to be funded from a targeted rate that will be consulted on via the 2014/2015 Annual Plan process. c) notes that this project aligns with the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, Mission Bay Precinct Plan, the Orkei Economic Development Plan, the Orkei Visitor Strategy and the Orkei Local Board Plan priorities. d) notes that Retail Holdings has received verbal support for the targeted rate from owners representing 92% of affected business owners while accepting that a full consultation process will take place as part of the 2014/2015 Annual Plan process. e) notes that Retail Holdings has confirmed that it will not pass on any rates increase to its tenants. 3. A rate may only be adopted by the Governing Body and must be included for consultation in the draft annual plan. If the Orakei Local Board supports the proposal, then the Governing Body needs to consider whether it will agree to the inclusion of this rate in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 at its 19 December 2013 meeting. The report to the 12 December 2013 Orakei Local Board meeting is appended as Attachment A. It should be noted that the report contains the following officers recommendations: that the use of the targeted rate not be supported that Retail Holdings deal directly with Auckland Transport that Auckland Transport be directed to negotiate an arrangement with Retail holdings to undertake the work.
4.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body: a) consider the resolutions of the Orkei Local Board.
Resolution from Orakei Local Board - Mission Bay streetscape upgrade targeted rate
Page 141
Item 12
Attachments
Item 12
No. A
Title Report to 13 December 2013 Orakei Local Board - Mission Bay streetscape upgrade targeted rate
Page 143
Signatories
Author Authorisers Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services Grant Taylor - Governance Director Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 142
Page 143
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 144
Page 145
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 146
Page 147
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 148
Page 149
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 150
Page 151
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 152
Page 153
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 154
Local Board Agreements 2014/2015

File No.: CP2013/28690
Purpose
1. To provide an update on Local Board Agreements as part of the Annual Plan 2014/2015 process.
Executive Summary
2. This report was not available at the time the agenda went to print and will be distributed separately, prior to the meeting.
Recommendation/s
The report will contain the recommendations relating to this matter.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Author Authorisers Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Local Board Agreements 2014/2015
Page 155
Item 13
Adoption of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015

File No.: CP2013/28201
Purpose
1. This report recommends that the Governing Body adopts the Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 for consultation.
Executive Summary
2. Volume 1 (attachment under separate cover) and Volume 2 (circulated on addendum agenda) form part of the information provided publicly to support the Annual Plan 2014/2015 consultation process, which commences on 23 January 2014. Volume 1 contains an overview that includes the key consultation topics for this annual plan. It also sets out the activities and services of Auckland Council, detailed financial information, CCO information and proposed changes to fees. The key consultation topics are: 4. 5. Living wage policy Aucklands stadium strategy Moving the Auckland Arts festival to an annual event Rental charges for social housing Health protection licence fees Proposed rates for 2014/2015
3.
Volume 2 contains draft local board agreements, consultation areas and other supporting context. Volumes 1 and 2 will be finalised to reflect any agreed changes from this meeting. A summary of the consultation topics and proposed plan for 2014/2015 will be produced and distributed to households across the region as part of OurAuckland. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 and summary information will also be available online and at local board offices, Auckland Council libraries, service centres and via the council call centre. The summary will be available online in six other languages, large print and easy read format. The submission period commences on 23 January 2014 and runs through to 24 February 2014. This will be followed by local hearings (17 28 March 2014) and regional hearings (711 April 2014). Governing body discussions will take place with local boards and CCOs late April to early May, prior to the Budget Committee meeting to make final budget decisions on 8 May 2014. Work on finalising budgets for 2014/2015 will continue through to 8 May next year. Key areas of focus will include Auckland Transport operational funding, CCO capital expenditure timing the Auckland Airport return to stakeholders. The final Annual Plan 2014/2015 documents will be presented to the Governing Body for adoption on 26 June 2014.
6.
7.
8.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body: a) adopt the Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 for consultation.
Page 157
Item 14
Discussion
Item 14
9.
The Mayor leads the process for the annual plan. On 7 November 2013, the Mayor set out his proposal for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, which included a range of changes to the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 primarily focused on operating budget and fee changes. The Budget Committee considered the Mayors proposal at its meeting on 21 November 2013 and agreed the proposal in its entirety - approving the updated baseline budget prepared by officers, which included efficiency savings and some additional costs. It was agreed that the following areas be included in the draft budget for consultation, resulting in a proposed rates increase for 2014/2015 of 2.5%: $1.6 million of operating expenses for the Tamaki Redevelopment Company, subject to further discussions with the company and the Crown $1.25 million of operating expenses for a staged implementation of the Living Wage Policy 5% increase in social housing for older persons rental charges licence to occupy remission scheme to continue in its current form the proposed health protection licence fees and building control and property information fees.
10.
11. 12. 13.
The Budget Committee also agreed a set of recommended changes to performance measures and targets for inclusion in the draft Annual Plan. The decisions made on 21 November 2013 are reflected in the updated budgets and documentation set out in Volumes 1 and 2. The key consultation areas for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 are: Living wage policy Aucklands stadium strategy Moving to an annual Auckland Arts festival Rental charges for social housing Health protection licence fees Proposed rates for 2014/2015.
14.
A summary of each consultation topic is set out in the front section of Volume 1 of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 and summarised in other material to support the consultation process. Local board agreements and consultation
15.
Each year a local board agreement is developed for each local board that sets out intended provision of local activities, and the capital and operating expenditure required to fund these activities. Local board agreements are agreed between the local board and the governing body as part of the annual plan process, and the draft agreements must be included in Auckland Councils draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. Consistent with last years approach, a consultation section has been included for each local board to identify any proposed changes to local budgets and highlight any new areas of advocacy for 2014/2015.
16.
Page 158
Proposed amendments to the LTP 2012-2022 17. Volumes 1 and 2 contain a small number of proposed changes to year three of the LTP 2012-2022. Whether or not changes proposed in the annual plan are amendments to a long-term plan depends on the extent or the significance of the proposed change. Officers have assessed the proposed changes included in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2014 and concluded that none of the changes are amendments to the LTP 2012-2022. An audit review is not required for any changes proposed in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. Improvements to the document 20. A number of changes have been made to this years draft annual plan document in order to improve the readability and accessibility of the draft plan. The changes include: combining Volumes 1 and 3 into a single volume and removing any duplicated information revising the front section of volume 1 to read more like a financial story to improve accessibility using the Annual Plan 2013/2014 performance targets as the comparator for the 2014/2015 target, as it provides a more relevant and up to date comparison producing a new simpler financial table for each group of activities. 21. Volume 2 remains dedicated to local board content, including the 21 draft local board agreements and supporting information. Further work on 2014/2015 budgets 22. Work on finalising budgets for 2014/2015 will continue through to 8 May next year. Some key areas of focus will include: Auckland Transport operational funding 23. Officers reported to the 21 November 2013 Budget Committee meeting on Auckland Transports request for an additional $18 million of operational funding relative to the 2014/2015 projections in their Statement of Intent. Since then, discussions have been held with Auckland Transport to address their funding shortfall. It has been agreed that further scrutiny of Auckland Transports operating expenditure budgets is required. A joint group of officers will undertake this review over the next few months. Auckland Transport are also reviewing the shortfall in parking revenue where current charges appear to be below market. Capital expenditure timing 24. On 21 November 2013 the Budget Committee approved an ongoing review of the capital expenditure programmes of the CCOs to identify cost reductions and deferrals. This work will be undertaken as part of the process of finalising 2014/2015 budgets by 8 May 2014. Auckland Airport return to shareholders 25. As reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 12 December 2013, Auckland Airport has announced its intention to return $454 million to its shareholders. If all approvals are met, the expected return to Auckland Council Investments Limited (ACIL) would be $84 million over and above the $18 million interim dividend budgeted for the current year. Officers are currently assessing the full impact on the Auckland Council Group from accounting, taxation and financing policy perspectives, and will advise the council in due course on the impacts and options, and any governance decisions required.
Page 159
18. 19.
Item 14
Item 14
Next steps 26. Volumes 1 and 2 will be finalised to reflect any agreed changes from this meeting and will form part of the documentation supporting the Annual Plan 2014/2015 public consultation process. A summary of the consultation topics and proposed changes for 2014/2015 will be produced and distributed to households across the Auckland region as part of OurAuckland. The draft annual plan, supporting summary information and submission forms will also be available online, at Auckland Council libraries, service centres, local board offices and via the council call centre. This year an online sub-site (accessed via the council website) has been developed to support the annual plan process and provide enhanced online functionality and flexibility to make it easier for people to make a submission. The sub-site will include a message from the mayor, regional and local board information, information on the council budget, the submission form and an overview of the key consultation areas. The sub-site will also provide summary information that has been translated into six languages (Samoan, Chinese, Hindi, Maori, Tongan and Korean) and large print and easy read format to support accessibility of information and engagement on the draft annual plan. The submission period commences on 23 January and runs through to 24 February. This will be followed by local hearings (17 28 March) and regional hearings (7-11 April). Governing body discussions will take place with local boards and CCOs late April to early May, prior to the Budget Committee meeting to make final budget decisions on 8 May 2014. The final Annual Plan 2014/2015 documents will be presented to the Governing Body for adoption on 26 June 2014. A separate report on todays agenda covers the submissions and hearings process.
27.
28.
29.
30. 31.
Consideration
Local Board Views
32. Each local board is required to prepare a local board agreement every year (as agreed between the governing body and the local board). The draft local board agreements must be included in the Auckland Councils draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. Volume 2 of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 includes the 21 draft local board agreements, along with a consultation section for each local board and supporting contextual information.
33.

34. Some of the budget changes included in the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 relate to Mori and will have a direct impact on Mori outcomes or initiatives. In particular, the draft budget includes additional funding of $1 million for marae development and Mori housing initiatives and $770,000 for identification and protection of significant Mori sites. At its meeting on 21 November 2013, the Budget Committee resolved that officers report back to the Budget Committee on 27 March on the milestones and funding to progress the 2013/2014 Maori priority projects in 2014/2015.
35.
General
36. The proposed changes have been assessed against the significance policy. In all cases, the proposed change is considered either not material or not a significant change.
Page 160
37. There are no issues with implementation at this stage. Adoption of the draft annual plan documents today will enable Auckland Council to consult on what it plans to do in 2014/2015, including its proposed budget.
Attachments
No. A B Title Volume 1 Our plan for 2014/2015 (Under Separate Cover) Volume 2 Local board information and draft local board agreements (Under Separate Cover) Page
Signatories
Author Authorisers Tanya Stocks - Local Board Budget Process Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 161
Item 14
Submissions and Hearings process for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2013/28221
Purpose
1. This report outlines the proposed submissions and hearing processes for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.
Executive Summary
2. Auckland Council must use the special consultative procedure in adopting the Annual Plan. The process allows some flexibility for operating the submissions and hearings processes.. This report builds upon the successful operation of the 2013/2014 Annual Plan processes and recommends options that satisfy all legislative requirements. We propose that submissions containing both regional and local content default to local hearings, with ward councillors present to hear regional issues. Hearings can be run following the traditional hearing style, or a forum style. We recommend that local hearings be traditional-style hearings, with the forum option available for local boards with large volumes of submissions. We also propose that regional hearings be predominantly forum style (either stakeholder or topic-based), with very limited and tight criteria for selecting key stakeholders for traditional hearings. For the 2013/2014 Annual Plan, officers provided high level analysis for hearings reports, which was successful. We therefore propose to follow this same process for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan. For regional submitters, key stakeholders will be provided with a customised response letter. All other submitters will be provided with a generic response letter which includes key issues and decisions. Local Board Services will prepare responses to local submitters (generic or tailored, decision to be made by each Local Board), with support from subject matter experts where required.
3. 4.
5.
6.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body agree: a) that annual plan local hearings follow the traditional style hearing process, with the forum option to be assessed for Local Boards that have large volumes of submissions. that regional hearings predominantly use forum style hearings with very limited and tight criteria for selecting key stakeholders who will be heard in traditional style. that forum style regional hearings are divided into days which are allocated to business, community groups and individuals, with the individual hearing possibly having some topic-based tables. that the regional hearings panel divide into panels should the number of key stakeholders become too great for all to be heard in the time allowed for traditional regional hearings, thereby allowing more key stakeholders to be heard in the timeframe available. that submissions containing both regional and local content will default to the local hearings panel to be heard, noting that if a significant volume of regional submissions are received, they may also be allocated to local hearings. that the ward councillor(s) be part of the local hearings panel, with other councillors scheduled where appropriate to ensure a minimum of two councillors are present at
Page 163
b) c)
d)
e)
f)
Item 15
Item 15
each local hearing to hear regional issues. Other councillors will attend voluntarily as schedules allow. g) that the following reporting requirements be approved: i) One regional hearing report and 21 local board hearing reports be prepared covering statistics on submissions received locally and regionally, with a brief high-level analysis of key themes and topics. Analysis of submissions be provided for one regional deliberation report to the Budget Committee, and 21 local board deliberation reports to the relevant local boards.
ii)
h) i)
that subject matter expert comments are captured for inclusion in deliberation reports if requested from the hearings process. that response letters be provided as follows: i) ii) iii) Key stakeholders are provided with a customised response letter signed by the Chair of the Budget Committee. Other regional submitters are provided with a generic response letter, which includes key issues and decisions. Local boards will prepare their own responses to local submitters, via Local Board Services, with support from subject matter experts where required.
j) k)
that the Chair of each hearings panel decide on whether late submissions can be heard. that the Deputy Chair of the Budget Committee be delegated to work with officers to make further decisions on the operation of the hearings.
Discussion
Hearings
7. Submissions on the Annual Plan will be heard at a local or regional level depending on whether the submission addresses local or regional issues. Submissions that contain both local and regional content will default to the relevant local hearings panel to be heard, with a soft copy of the submission made available to the regional hearings panel for information. Local hearings panels include local board members and ward councillor(s). As part of the submissions process, local hearing panels will be provided with hard copies of the local submissions that they will be hearing. Soft copies will also be made available for submissions from their local board area covering regional issues and that will not be heard. Likewise, the regional hearings panel will be provided with hard copies of all submissions they will be hearing, with soft copies of all other submissions made available on the Elected Members drive. The following options are available for hearing submissions: Traditional style - each submitter who wishes to be heard is provided with a dedicated amount of time (usually 5 10 minutes) to speak to the hearings panel on their submission Forum style - submissions will be grouped into different categories, for example, business, community groups and individuals, with hearings allowing submitters to discuss their issues with other submitters, members of the hearings panel and a facilitator/subject matter expert.
8.
9.
10.
Page 164
Forum style hearings have been preferred the last two years, enabling a greater number of submitters to be heard in the same amount of time as traditional hearings. This style is resource-intensive, requiring significant planning with attendance of subject matter experts. A mixture of both traditional and forum style Regional Hearings 11. 12. We recommend a mixture of traditional and forum style hearings. Typically, a greater number of regional submissions are received, and the time constraints to hear these submissions are significant. The recommendation to have submissions that contain both local and regional content heard at local hearings (with regional representation from ward councillors) alleviates this concern. A key stakeholder list will be prepared once all submissions have been received, identifying those submitters for which a traditional style hearing would be more appropriate. This enables key stakeholders to address the entire hearings panel on their submission. Other regional submitters will be grouped into forum-style hearings by category and/or themes to facilitate wider discussion. This format will enable a larger number of submitters to be heard in a smaller period of time.
13.
14.
Local Hearings 15. 16. We recommend that the local hearings be traditional style hearings, with the forum option available for local boards, depending on situation. All Auckland Council Annual Plan and Long Term Plan local hearings to date have been held in the traditional style. Local hearings generally have fewer time constraints, allowing most local boards to hear their submissions in the traditional style within a day. However, some local boards may receive greater numbers, as submissions with local and regional issues are also heard at local hearings. Local boards will consider hearing their submissions in forum style if appropriate.
17.
Reporting subject matter expert comments

18. In previous submission processes, a substantial amount of effort has gone into seeking subject matter expert comments on submission points. This was an onerous process for Council officers, which did not return equivalent value. We propose that the 2014/2015 Annual Plan follow the same successful process as for the previous Annual Plan, where very high level analysis for hearings reports is provided. Subject matter expert comments will only be captured for inclusion in the 21 local board and Budget Committee deliberation reports if requested from the hearings process.
19.
Response letters
20. Three options for response letters to submitters are outlined in table one overleaf. We propose to use Option A mixed option. It was the option successfully used for both the 2012-2022 Long-Term Plan and the 2013/2014 Annual Plan process.
Page 165
Item 15
Governing Body 19 December 2013 Table One Options for response letters
Item 15
Option and Approach Option A Mixed option (recommended) For regional submitters - key stakeholders will be provided with a customised response letter. Other submitters will be provided with a generic response letter including key issues and decisions Local boards will prepare their own responses to their submitters (generic or tailored, decision made by each local board). Option B - Customised For regional submitters all submitters will be provided with customised response letter. Local Boards will prepare their own customised responses to their submitters. Option C - Generic For regional submitters all submitters will be provided with a generic response letter. For local board submitters all submitters will be provided with a generic response letter.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Response to submitters will be achieved within given timeframes. Key stakeholders will be provided with customised response letters.
Possible dissatisfaction from submitters on response. Key stakeholder letters and tailored local responses will require resourcing and assistance from subject matter experts.
All submitters will receive a response addressing their submission topic/s. Customer-friendly approach.
Impractical for staff to customise all letters and deliver within acceptable timeframe. Requires significant resourcing. Time consuming and costly.
Staff can easily process response letters within given timeframes with no constraints. This is the quickest and easiest option.
Possible dissatisfaction from key stakeholders and other submitters regarding their response. Lack of customer focus.
Late submissions
21. Late submissions will be recorded separately and will not have to be included in submission analysis reports. The Chair of each hearings panel can decide whether to hear late submissions.
Consideration
Local Board Views
22. Local Board Services will discuss the hearing options with local boards, recommending that the traditional style be used unless the volume of submissions requires the forum option to be assessed.

23. Measures have been taken to provide a submission form in Te Reo Maori for iwi and mataawaka authorities. Translators will be available for submissions received in Te Reo Maori, and for submitters wishing to speak at a hearing in Te Reo Maori.
24. The Annual Plan project team, in conjunction with Democracy Services and Local Board Services will be responsible for implementation and will manage these processes based on the direction provided by this report.
Page 166
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Jason Marris - Manager Governance Support Dean McIntosh Governance Analyst Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services Grant Taylor - Governance Director Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 167
Item 15
Attachments
Navigation safety review, statement of proposal and bylaw

File No.: CP2013/27202
Purpose
1. This report recommends that the governing body of Auckland Council adopts a statement of proposal that proposes to replace the legacy navigation safety bylaw with the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 through a special consultative procedure that is to be conducted in early 2014.
Executive Summary
2. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 the legacy navigation safety bylaw is deemed to have been made by the Auckland Council. Like all the bylaws inherited by Auckland Council, it remains operative until 31 October 2015, where after it lapses. An assessment of the appropriateness of the legacy bylaw and consultation with the various stakeholders show that the bylaw has contributed to navigation safety but changes should be made for clarity and improve effectiveness. Specifically the review of the regulation of personal flotation devices (lifejackets) on vessels with an overall length of less than 6 metres (small vessels) to contribute to the saving of lives, proposed by sixteen local boards and endorsed by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee. The council has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate method to regulate navigation safety issues and the proposed bylaw has been redrafted with a number of differences from the legacy bylaw. However, the majority of the proposed changes are intended to clarify aspects of the legacy bylaw that had caused confusion in the past, to simplify the wording of the requirements and to improve the compliance of the bylaw. The form and layout of the bylaw is similar to the legacy bylaw and the navigation safety bylaws of most regional councils. The statement of proposal (Attachment A) includes the proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and controls made by the harbour master (Attachments B and C) that will regulate the following: Part 1- Preliminary provisions (clauses 4 and 5) Part 2 General (clause 6) Part 3 Carriage and wearing of personal flotation devices (clause 7 to 12) Part 4 - General navigation safety requirements (clause 13 to 18) Part 5 Activities (clauses 19 to 26) Part 6 - Operating Requirements (clauses 27 to 38) Part 7- Licenses, permits and administrative matters (clauses 39 to 53) Part 8 - Large vessels (clauses 54 to 58) Part 9 - Specific restrictions in lanes, zones and areas (clauses 59 to 65) Part 10 - Tankers, hazardous cargoes, hazardous works, fuel oil transfers and dangerous materials (clauses 66 to 70) Part 11 - Pilot and pilot exempt master operations (clauses 71 to 73) Part 12 - Licensing of commercial vessels for hire or reward (clauses 74 to 76) Part 13 - Enforcement Powers, Offences, Penalties, Exceptions Transitional Provisions and Revocation (clauses 77 to 86)
3.
4.
5.
6.
Page 169
Item 16
Item 16
7.
The following changes in the bylaw are proposed: Compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on board small vessels, with exceptions; Safety of persons on board a vessel: o Mandatory appointment of a person in charge of a vessel; o Prohibition on any person in charge of a vessel being incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs. Compulsory carriage on board all vessels of a means of communication. Enhanced mooring site management. The proposed navigation safety bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is in the most appropriate form. It meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002. The council proposes the revocation of the legacy bylaw and the making of a new navigation safety bylaw.
8.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body: a) resolve as follows: i) that under section 63(3)(c) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 and 156 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Auckland Council proposes to revoke the Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008. that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing problems relating to navigation safety in Auckland
ii)
iii) that under section 33M of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, Auckland Council proposes to regulate navigation safety in Auckland through the proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 and controls. iv) that under sections 83, 86 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002, Attachment A: Statement of Proposal - Navigation Safety Bylaw that was considered by the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on 3 December 2013 and amended to include the draft Statement of Proposal Lifejackets Bylaw be adopted to be used during the special consultative procedure. v) that the proposed bylaw included in the attachment referred to in item (iv) is the most appropriate form of bylaw.
vi) that the proposed bylaw included in the attachment referred to in item (iv) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. vii) that Council commences the special consultative procedure pursuant to section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. b) authorise the Manager Policies and Bylaws to make minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal and proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.
Discussion
9. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires the review of Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008 (the bylaw) by 31 October 2015. As part of the bylaw review programme the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee (the
Page 170
10.
At its meeting on 22 September 2013 the committee considered a report from the staff on the progress made on the review of the legacy navigation safety bylaw and resolutions made by sixteen local boards proposing the making of a separate bylaw to regulate the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on small vessels. Local boards expressed concern that the numerous issues that a proposed navigation safety bylaw would have to deal with meant the scale of consultation, or the scale of submissions and the potential for one of those issues to require additional work, might delay the regulation of personal flotation devices. On 3 December 2013 the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee considered a report on the regulation of navigation safety and a separate report on the regulation of personal flotation devices. Staff advised the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that the lifejacket proposal and draft bylaw could be reincorporated into the navigation safety proposal as appropriate consultation (in particular working with Watersafe Auckland and the Auckland Yachting and Boating Association) will be undertaken to ensure that interested persons and the public are made aware of the proposed regulation of personal flotation devices. If, for whatever reason, issues arise with the wider components of the navigation safety bylaw as it goes through the special consultative procedure, the hearings panel may recommend to the governing body the making of a separate lifejacket bylaw at any stage during the bylaw making process. The committee resolved that the draft statement of proposal (Attachment A) and draft navigation safety bylaw and controls (Attachment B and C) be amended to incorporate the draft statement of proposal and draft lifejackets bylaw to allow the development and consultation of a single navigation safety bylaw. Issues regulated by the maritime rules do not require additional regulatory measures by the council. However, the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the maritime rules do enable variation of the regulations by regional authorities to provide for local conditions. The council may make a bylaw, in consultation with the Director of Maritime New Zealand to: regulate and control the use or management of ships regulate the placing and maintenance of moorings and maritime facilities prevent nuisances arising from the use of ships and seaplanes prevent nuisances arising from the actions of persons and things on or in the water reserve the use of any waters for specified persons, ships, or seaplanes in relation to boat races, swimming races, or similar events, o prohibit or regulate the use of ships o regulate, or authorise the organisers of an event to regulate, the admission of persons to specified areas regulate and control the use of anchorages prescribe ship traffic separation and management schemes specify requirements for the carriage and use of personal flotation devices and buoyancy aids on pleasure craft.1 require the marking and identification of personal water craft
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008 is enforced through infringement offences made under the Local Government (Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008) Regulations 2009. Following the review of the legacy navigation safety bylaw, steps will be taken to ensure a review of the regulations by the responsible Minister.
S33M of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

Page 171
Item 16
committee) is responsible for recommendations to the governing body of Auckland Council on special consultative procedures for the making, amendment and revocation of bylaws.
Governing Body 19 December 2013 18. The process for making a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 requires that the council determine through consultation if a bylaw is the most appropriate response to a problem before proceeding with the special consultative procedure to obtain submissions on its preferred option. A bylaw must also be in the most appropriate format and must not give rise to any adverse implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1991. All bylaws must meet the legal requirements as set out in the Bylaws Act 1910, including not being unreasonable, providing rules that are proportionate to the issues being addressed and must not be beyond the powers of the enabling legislation. While the council has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate method to deal with the issues it faces, the proposed bylaw has been redrafted without major differences from the legacy bylaw. The majority of the proposed changes are intended to clarify aspects of the legacy bylaw that had caused confusion in the past, to simplify the wording of the requirements and to improve the enforcement of the bylaw. The layout of the bylaw is similar to the legacy bylaw and the navigation safety bylaws of most regional councils. The following changes in the bylaw are proposed: Compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices (lifejackets) on board small vessels. o the carriage of flotation devices; o the compulsory wearing of flotation devices whilst on vessels larger than six metres (in times of heightened risk); o the compulsory wearing of flotation devices whilst on vessels smaller than six metres; o wearing of personal flotation devices by persons being towed; o exemptions are provided for safer circumstances (for example position of vessel, training and events) and practical implementation. Safety of persons on board a vessel: o mandatory appointment of a person in charge of a vessel; o prohibition on any person in charge of a vessel being incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs. Compulsory carriage on board all vessels of a means of communication. Enhanced mooring site management. 21. The proposed bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is in the most appropriate form. It meets the requirements of section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002. The council proposes the revocation of the legacy bylaw and the making of a new Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014.
Item 16
19. 20. 22.
Consideration
Local Board Views
The review of the legacy bylaw was discussed with local boards at a workshop on 18 July 2013. Whilst comment was obtained from the local boards on the location and management of moorings, most of the interest was in the regulation of personal flotation devices on board small vessels. Sixteen local boards adopted resolutions requesting the making of a separate lifejacket bylaw that requires the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on board small vessels (under 6 metres). Two of these boards suggested detail changes to the bylaw wording, in relation to the exceptions that should apply to the requirement for compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices. In addition, two other local boards expressed support for the idea of compulsory lifejacket wearing. The remaining boards did not support the proposal.
23.
Page 172
Governing Body 19 December 2013 24.
25.
Local boards expressed similar concerns to mana whenua around the unauthorized placement of moorings inside and outside mooring management areas. Concern was also expressed about the maintenance and use of approved moorings by the users and the impact that this may have on the safety of nearby moored vessels.

26. Following the Regulatory and Bylaws Committees resolution in September 2013, officers have worked closely with the Independent Mori Statutory Board, and the Te Waka Angamua team within the council to develop an engagement plan and briefing papers for Mori. The council invited Mana Whenua representatives to give input to the councils proposal to regulate navigation safety through a bylaw. Following the distribution to 19 iwi of an information sheet on the navigation safety issues, iwi representatives were invited to attend two hui over 21 and 22 October 2013 where they provided their views on the issues regulated by the legacy bylaw. Representatives at the two hui were concerned that as tangata whenua, they be consulted on the location of mooring zones and mooring sites, particularly where these are located in rivers and lakes or at culturally significant areas. Representatives were also able to contribute their practical knowledge as owners and operators of boats on Aucklands waters on issues such as the wearing of life jackets and the management of moorings. The views expressed at the hui were consistent with the diverse views of other Aucklanders. In particular, Ngti Whtua o Kaipara requested that the council consider the strict wearing of personal flotation devices Iwi representatives also required that the bylaw provisions relating to the temporary reservation of navigable waters to explicitly include events of cultural significance to Mori, for example the TriMori Umupuia Triathlon to be held on 18 January 2014 at Umupuia, Maraetai. To ensure that the proposed bylaw reaches matawaka, officers have contacted 40 organisations representing matawaka, offering to engage each marae individually on issues regulated by the bylaw. With support from the Independent Mori Statutory Board and Te Waka Angamua, officers will be assisting iwi and matawaka to make submissions as part of the special consultative procedure early next year.
27.
28.
29.
30.
General
31. The list of issues and the proposed bylaws have been developed through pre-consultation with elected representatives, internal and external stakeholders, including the Maritime New Zealand.
32. Except for the compulsory wearing of personal flotation devices on board small vessels, most of the issues covered in the proposed Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 were included in the legacy bylaw. Its is expected to have little additional impact on the harbourmaster in enforcing the proposed navigation safety bylaw. The proposed compulsory regulation of personal flotation devices on board small vessels will be new to Auckland, and to be effective the implementation will require a reallocation of resources of enforcement and education. The Local Government (Auckland Regional Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2008) Regulations 2009 will remain in effect following the making of the bylaw. The council will consult with the Minister on making new regulations after approval of the bylaw.
Page 173
33.
34.
Item 16
The local boards consider that the arguments for notifying a stand-alone bylaw dealing only with personal flotation devices will get the bylaw into force earlier and to bring greater media and public attention to the merits of lifejacket wearing, which will assist public education. These concerns will be addressed during the special consultative procedure by ensuring adequate notice is given to interested persons and the public of the councils proposal.
Item 16
Attachments
No. A B C Title Statement of Proposal - Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 - Ture -Rohe Urungi huru 2014 Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 - Ture -Rohe Urungi huru 2014 Controls made under the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014 Page 175 201 231
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws Andrew Simon Pickering - Manager, Planning, Policies and Bylaws Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 174
Page 175
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 176
Page 177
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 178
Page 179
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 180
Page 181
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 182
Page 183
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 184
Page 185
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 186
Page 187
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 188
Page 189
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 190
Page 191
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 192
Page 193
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 194
Page 195
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 196
Page 197
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 198
Page 199
Attachment A
Item 16
Attachment A
Item 16
Page 200
Page 201
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 202
Page 203
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 204
Page 205
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 206
Page 207
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 208
Page 209
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 210
Page 211
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 212
Page 213
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 214
Page 215
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 216
Page 217
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 218
Page 219
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 220
Page 221
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 222
Page 223
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 224
Page 225
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 226
Page 227
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 228
Page 229
Attachment B
Item 16
Attachment B
Item 16
Page 230
Page 231
Attachment C
Item 16
Attachment C
Item 16
Page 232
Page 233
Attachment C
Item 16
Attachment C
Item 16
Page 234
Page 235
Attachment C
Item 16
Attachment C
Item 16
Page 236
File No.: CP2013/27761
Purpose
1. 2.
To present proposals and recommendations for a future model for the five demographic panels to be established to provide specialist advice to Council. The Advisory Panels addressed in this report are (with their designated Councillor liaison): Disability (Councillor Sharon Stewart) Ethnic (Councillor Denise Krum) Pacific (Councillor Arthur Anae) Seniors (Councillor Cathy Casey) Youth (Councillor Linda Cooper)
3.
The Business, CBD Advisory Board, Rural, and Heritage Advisory Panels are not included in this report.
Executive Summary
4. In the first term of Auckland Council, four demographic advisory panels were established: the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel (DSAP), the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel (PPAP), the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (EPAP) and the Youth Advisory Panel (YAP). The common purpose of the panels was to provide strategic advice to Council on issues of importance to those communities; and to advise Council on how to communicate and engage effectively with communities. The Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel were established under legislation in March 2011 and disestablished on 1 November 2013, allowing the incoming Mayor and Governing Body to decide on any further arrangements for ethnic and Pacific participation in the decision-making process. An independent review of the two panels was carried out by Martin, Jenkins and Associates Ltd. This found the panels had made a valuable contribution, but also identified a range of deficiencies and problems with the current model which were impacting on their effectiveness. At the August 2013 meeting, the previous Governing Body received a report on the external review and resolved to recommend to the new Governing Body that the panels be retained, and a model be developed on the basis that the panels are competency-based strategic advisory panels, linked to a mechanism for engagement with communities and there is a clear annual work programme agreed with Council. The recommendations in this report reflect further officer analysis and discussions and reflections from all the panels. In particular, it has become clear that there are many advantages in considering all of the demographic panels together EPAP, PPAP, YAP, DSAP and the new Seniors panel. Whilst recognising the specific characteristics and issues of each demographic community, there are many common issues, and also challenging intergenerational and cross-cultural issues, that would benefit from joint discussion and integrated work programmes. All the panels have said they would like stronger links with other panels. It would also be more effective use of elected members and officers time to receive advice collectively, and not duplicate effort across different work programmes. Therefore, the recommendation is that these panels are considered as a group, have broadly similar selection processes and terms of reference (apart from YAP); an integrated work programme, and are supported by a dedicated coordination, brokerage and monitoring role at a senior level.
Page 237
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Proposals on the role and functioning of Councils "demographic advisory panels
Item 17
Governing Body 19 December 2013 10. The key factors in increasing the effectiveness of the panels are: a robust and rigorous selection criteria and process clarity on what the role is and isnt sufficient support from the organisation to carry out the role 11. This will require considerable officer time and an adequate budget and no additional provision has been made in the 2014/15 draft Annual Plan for this. Therefore, there may have to be staged implementation of some recommendations e.g. consistency of fees across panels, and additional budgets to support work programmes. It will be important to have early and clear decisions on the resources available, which are clearly communicated to elected members, prospective panel members and their communities.
Item 17
12.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body agree: a) b) c) that the demographic advisory panels are considered and supported collectively as part of the Council structure. that the purpose of the panels is to provide strategic advice on issues of significance to their communities; and to advise on effective engagement by Council with those communities. that, subject to consultation with Local Boards, that the Terms of Reference of the panels includes advice to Local Boards; that Local Boards are given opportunities to access panel advice, if they wish. that the Terms of Reference include contribution to Council submissions, but panels do not submit independently to external bodies, except as agreed with the Mayor. that there is an annual work programme for each panel, integrated wherever possible, with other panels and signed-off by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. that, as resources allow, budget is available for panels, to support activities that clearly contribute to the agreed work programme. that panels do not access external resources for activities or events, except with the agreement of Council. that a coordinator position be established with appropriate seniority, to negotiate and broker the work programmes, coordinate monitoring and reporting of progress and oversee communications between panels, elected members, officers and communities. that, in principle, all panel members should receive the same fees and allowances, and these are set in accordance with the forthcoming Fees Framework. that the selection process for panels members (apart from the Youth Advisory Panel) is: an open call for applications a panel of about six, made up of community nominees, the Liaison Councillor and appropriate external agencies assessment on a defined set of competencies recommendations to the Mayor appointment by the Mayor with endorsement by the Governing Body. that direct Council employees and CCO employees be ineligible for selection and Central Government candidates be assessed on case by case basis. that the term for panels (apart from the Youth Advisory Panel) be up to three years within the same term as the current Council and members are not rolled over but go through another selection/appointment process panels are disestablished one month before Council elections and re-established in the first
Proposals on the role and functioning of Councils "demographic advisory panels Page 238
d) e) f) g) h)
i) j) k) l)
Governing Body 19 December 2013 quarter of the following calendar year. m) that community summits (or other appropriate events) be held to give direction to panel work programmes; that these be integrated with Councils programme, so that they enhance and inform and do not duplicate, other Council engagement and consultation activities. that the future of the legacy Pacific boards is considered after new panels are appointed and their relationship to Local Boards is clearer.
n)
Discussion
Background 13. In the first term of Auckland Council, four demographic advisory panels were established: two by legislation the Pacific Peoples and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panels and two on the initiative of the Mayor the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel (DSAP) and the Youth Advisory Panel (YAP). The common purpose of the panels was to provide strategic advice to Council on issues of importance to those communities, and to advise Council on how to communicate and engage effectively with communities. The Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel (PPAP) and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (EPAP) were established in March 2011 under Section 86 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010. The Act also disestablished the panels on 1 November 2013, allowing the incoming Mayor and Governing Body to decide on any further arrangements for ethnic and Pacific participation in the decision-making process. The Disability and Youth panels are continuing, and a new Seniors Advisory Panel is included in the Council decision-making structure. An independent review of the two panels was carried out by Martin, Jenkins and Associates Ltd. This found the panels had made a valuable contribution, but also identified a range of deficiencies and problems with the current model which were impacting on their effectiveness. The review recommended that the panels continue as advisory panels; be selected on competency; provide technical, strategic advice, be located in the Chief Executives Office, possibly supported by a representative community reference group. On 22 August, the Governing Body received a report on the external review undertaken by Martin, Jenkins and Associates Ltd. (available on request) and resolved: That the Governing Body: a) recommend to the incoming Mayor and Governing Body that the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel and Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel be retained with such changes as determined by the incoming Council in December 2013. recommend that such changes include the requirement for an annual Output Agreement between the Panels and Council. agree that the model of a competency-based advisory Panel, linked to a mechanism for inclusive and representative engagement with communities, be developed further for consideration by the incoming Mayor and Governing Body, in consultation with the current panels. note that the Panels will be formally disestablished on 1 November 2013, but recommend that current Panel members be invited to a formal meeting with the Mayor immediately after the October elections to discuss new arrangements
14.
15.
16.
b) c)
d)
Resolution number GB/2013/81 Recommended Future model 17. The recommendations in this report are based on: the previous Governing Body resolution reflections given by Ethnic and Pacific panel members at their final meetings in October
Item 17
Governing Body 19 December 2013 reflections from DSAP findings from a small survey of YAP members, local youth board or caucus members and staff several meetings with representatives from Grey Power and Age Concern about the Seniors Panel recommendations from the Executive Leadership Team on 5 November discussions at a workshop held on 10 October with Council staff and officials from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and Office of Ethnic Affairs 18. From all these discussions, it became clear that many of the issues raised in the external evaluation of EPAP and PPAP were shared with DSAP and YAP and there were many advantages in considering all of the demographic panels together.
Item 17
Terms of Reference Purpose of panels 19. Councillors, officers and panel members agree, that the purpose of the panels should continue to be to provide strategic advice on issues of significance to their communities; and advice on engagement with those communities. However, the experience of the first term has shown it is important to have clear and agreed definitions of strategic, advice and issues of significance. 20. Strategic does not necessarily mean only advice on regional matters and to the Governing Body. It may include high-level/generic advice to Local Boards and advice about programmes and services; but it is not about operational matters. For example, the panel might give advice on barriers for their particular communities to using leisure centres and the type of leisure programmes and services they need; but not advice on the management of specific leisure facilities and how they are performing. Some panel members have been seen as a channel for resolving individual issues and complaints, and it needs to be made clear that this is not part of the role. Another area needing greater clarity is that advice is not doing i.e. panels advise on engagement with Council, they do not carry out that engagement for Council. Panel members are expected to draw on their own knowledge and use their own networks and personal contacts to inform their advice to Council; and help build the capacity of Council staff to engage with and respond to diverse communities. Another important issue to clarify is that the panels are not representative because, as appointed panels they do not have the community mandate to be so; nor, given the diversity within their communities would this be possible - especially in the case of ethnic communities. The Pacific and Disability panels were strongly of the view that they were there as individuals for their skills and judgment and to provide different perspectives, but were not representative. There can be some flexibility in the selection process to ensure a reasonable balance of gender, ethnic and other perspectives on the panels. The situation is somewhat different for YAP whose members have gone through a selection/election process by local youth and are, therefore, accountable to them. There is a view that organisations that have credibility and track record as experts and advocates for their particular demographic community should automatically have a place(s) on the panels. This would fundamentally change the nature of the panels. Many panel members are active in community organisations/NGOs and lobby/advocacy groups which provides some of the expertise and experience they bring to the panel. However, they are expected to take a non-partisan, broader view and declare any conflicts of interest. Panel membership does not preclude them participating in advocacy/lobbying Council as part of an external organisation.
21.
22.
23. 24.
Issues of significance and scope 25. A particular challenge for the panels has been managing community expectations of what they can achieve, especially where Council has limited or no influence over issues of importance to communities e.g. discrimination in employment or elder abuse in rest homes.
26.
However, some clear boundaries need to be agreed. The panels are set up and resourced by Council to advise Council, including Council submissions or advocacy to Central Government and other external parties. Wherever possible, in Council submissions, advice from panels should be identified as such. Panels should not directly submit to or advise other agencies, except when agreed with the Mayor. It is more helpful to talk about the key relationships the panels will have, rather than who they report to or are accountable to. To be effective, the panels need to have multiple relationships: Mayor, Governing Body, Local Boards, Council officers and their communities.
Improving relationships 27.
Governing Body 28. In the first term, the chairs (of all the panels except YAP) had the opportunity to report quarterly - in writing and/or verbally - to the Governing Body. The chairs appreciated the status they felt this gave the panels, but there was minimal interaction between most Councillors and the panels at those meetings. The Panels would like more contact with all Councillors rather than just the liaison Councillor. It would be better to provide opportunities for conversations between panel members and the Governing Body, rather than continue with a reporting to, hierarchical relationship. The coordinator role (described below) would help identify those opportunities. Local Boards 29. Local Boards have had minimal dealings with the panels, (apart from YAP), and have not yet been consulted on the recommendations in this report. Yet it is at this level that panel advice on engagement could be most effective, and all panels have expressed the wish to have stronger relations with Local Boards. Key issues for discussion with Local Boards include: a. Work programme: any engagement between panels and Local Boards should be focused and realistic in terms of Local Board and panel workloads. The three year Local Board plans provide opportunities to identify issues of common interest and build working relationships. Panels may have issues that they would like to take to all 21 Local Boards; or there may be specific boards they wish to work with. b. Community engagement: panels have a role in building the organisations capacity for engaging with demographic communities. Local Boards are the elected voice of the community and some have established their own mechanisms for engaging with specific demographic communities. Engagement advisors (LBS) and CDAC advisors play a key role in strengthening local community engagement. It is important to avoid duplication and confusion of roles. Council officers 30. Relationships between the panels and organisation have been variable. Clarity of role and a clear, well-coordinated work programme with clear feedback loops and systematic reporting, will allow panels to focus on productive relationships with officers in the relevant areas. A greater range and number of Lead Support Officers, more clearly linked to panel priorities, is being provided, and will be reviewed once the coordinator position and work programmes are in place. Communities 31. All panels place great importance on their credibility with their communities. The proposed community summits/forums would provide one important mechanism for panels to engage with and get direction from communities. Panel members would maintain their own networks and additional, specific engagement would be negotiated as part of the work programme.
Page 241
Item 17
Developing an agreed work programme should be a negotiated process in which panels are able to work on issues important to their communities, as well as responding to Councils strategy and policy work programme.
Governing Body 19 December 2013 The legacy Pacific boards 32. Since the establishment of PPAP, there has been strong advocacy from the 4 legacy boards2 that they should continue to be resourced by Council. The four chairs were co-opted onto PPAP and the mix of the strategic/competency role with sub-regional/ representative role was a source of tension. One legacy board received Council funding until June 2012, but the others were unfunded. All these boards had difficulties remaining active; although the Southern legacy Board supported their PPAP member throughout the term. 33. It is not immediately obvious what role sub-regional Pacific boards would play, particularly if community summits are held and the Pacific Panel works with specific Local Boards. Further thought is needed to explore options and implications e.g. where Local Boards (like Howick) set-up ethnic reference groups or where there are independent entities like the Waitakere Ethnic Board. This work could be done after new panels are appointed and their relationship to Local Boards is clearer. A really clear, focused and manageable work programme agreed between panels and Council and with clear reporting and feedback loops, is critical to overcoming many of the issues identified in the external review. All the panels acknowledge their programmes were over ambitious and needed more focus. To achieve focus, the work programme should be based on the items in the Strategy and Policy Work Programme the panels wish to work on, and other issues of importance to the panels. It will be important to make clear to panels (and communities) what Council is able to deliver on and what it cannot in terms of its mandate and resources. Staffing and budget requirements need to be identified and agreed upfront, as do any specific engagement events beyond normal Council engagement processes. Use of additional budget would be negotiated and clearly linked to the work programme. If panels wished to access additional resources externally to support their work, this should be with the agreement of Council. The work programme should be signed off by and reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee. Each demographic community has specific characteristics and issues and these are reflected in the composition and priorities of the advisory panels. However, there are many common issues e.g. employment, accessibility - and also challenging intergenerational and cross-cultural issues that would benefit from joint discussion and integrated work programmes. All the panels have said they would like stronger links with other panels. It would also be more effective use of elected members and officer time to receive advice collectively and not duplicate effort across different work programmes. Therefore, the recommendation is that terms of reference are broadly consistent across the panels, work programmes are developed in an integrated way and support to the panels provided in a coordinated way by supported by dedicated staff.
Item 17
Output agreement / work programme 34.
35.
36.
37.
An integrated approach 38.
39.
Supporting the panels Coordination of work programme, reporting and communications 40. At present, there is no obvious position in Council which would negotiate and broker the work programmes, coordinate monitoring and reporting of progress and oversee communications between panels, elected members, officers and communities. The position would have to be full time, of sufficient seniority, with a comprehensive overview of crossCouncil work programmes, political agendas and empathy with the different demographic communities.
PIAC (Manukau), WPB (Waitakere), PIBAC (Auckland City) NSPAB (North Shore)
Page 242
Budget 42. At present, the monthly meeting fees and expenses budget is held by Democracy Services. There are anomalies between panels that should be addressed - in meeting fees, chairs allowances and discretionary budget. It is recommended that, in principle, fees and expenses are consistent across the panels, but that these be reviewed and set in accordance with the forthcoming Fees Framework. 43. The work programme needs to include agreement as to number of meetings paid for and legitimate expenses. It is proposed that, consistent with Council reporting committees, 6 business meetings per year are funded. Any additional meetings would in the agreed work programme and funding identified. Additional budget for the panels to buy-in independent policy/analytical advice is not recommended and should not be required if there is an agreed work programme. If panels are writing their own formal submissions to Council, editorial support should be available from officers. Panels want to be highly visible to their communities, but to avoid confusion, website content and newsletters should be clearly branded as Council communication and produced by officers with advice from the panels (although panel chairs may wish to write their own copy).
44.
45.
Establishing the panels Size 46. It is generally agreed that the current size - ranging from 9 Pacific, 10 Disability and 13 Ethnic - is manageable and allows for a range of skills and mix of ethnicities/disabilities. There may need to be some flexibility e.g. for the Pacific Panel to address concerns about the mix of ethnicities on that panel; for the Ethnic Panel to retain gender balance and reasonable cultural mix. The Youth Advisory Panel, with 21 members is based on a geographic representation model. As this model is still bedding in, no immediate review of size is proposed. Competencies 47. Current panels were selected on three broad competencies: strategic experience, governance experience, and community links. These need to be better defined and assessed in relationship to the role of the panels within Councils structure i.e. panel members should demonstrate understanding of the difference between governance and advisory roles and sound understanding of local governments role and decision-making processes. Community links should include not only grass-roots community networks, but research and professional networks, use of IT and social media. Each panel member should have knowledge of strategic issues and trends (at least in some specific areas) and the wider context of their specific issues, including potential trade-offs. Selection process 48. Legally, the Mayor has the power to establish mechanisms for engagement with the people of Auckland. It is recommended that the Mayor continues to appoint the panels, supported by a relevant Council committee or Governing Body resolution. 49. EPAP, PPAP and DSAP used an open call for applications process. After that, PPAP had a selection panel made up of representatives from Ministers Pacific Advisory Panel, legacy Pacific boards, MPIA, Auckland Council and a Councillor. This is acknowledged to have worked well with a high degree of acceptance from the community. DSAP used a similar process. EPAP was selected by a panel of three and it is agreed that this needs to be broader with more input from community leadership.
Page 243
Item 17
Administrative support 41. In the first term, Democracy Services provided administration support for business meetings for all the panels and part time secretarial support for the chairs of EPAP and PPAP. The level of support for panels will be reviewed and subject to available resources.
Governing Body 19 December 2013 50.
Item 17
Panels agree, and it is recommended that broadly the same selection process is followed for all the panels (apart from YAP) i.e. an open call for applications and a selection panel of about 6 made up of community nominees, the Liaison Councillor and appropriate government ministry and/or NGOs. The panels also advised that prospective candidates and communities need more prior information to manage expectations especially about the distinction between representation and competency-based advice.
51.
Eligibility 52. Eligibility criteria need to be clearer. To minimise conflicts of interest and community confusion as to which hat a panel member is wearing, it is recommended that Local Board members and Council staff (incl CCOs) are not eligible. For Central Government employees, it would depend on the level and nature of their role e.g. senior policy advisor probably not appropriate, but front line WINZ employment advisor could be. Term 53. It is the prerogative of an incoming Mayor to decide if and what panels s/he wants and who to appoint. To avoid pressure on the organisation in the triennial election period, and any difficulties with panel members standing for election, it is recommended that panels are disestablished one month before Council elections and re-established in the first quarter of the following calendar year. 54. The panel term should be up to 3 years within the same term as the current Council. Ii is recommended that members would not be rolled-over but go through another selection/appointment process. Some concern has been expressed about loss of experience and continuity if some existing members are not retained e.g. through a staged selection process. However, this needs to be balanced with the need for fair and consistent processes, the fact that incumbents have an in built advantage and the feasibility of more than one round of selections in a Council term. No change is recommended for YAP, where the term of office will be two years with the exception of the February 2013 intake where the term will be twenty-seven (27) months. In June 2014, the first intake of ten members will be replaced and in June 2015 the second intake of eleven members will be replaced.
55.
Community engagement mechanism 56. All panels struggled with how to engage with their communities effectively, and to be confident they were providing sound advice to Council on key community issues. Community summits (or other appropriate events) could provide an effective and credible way of giving direction to the panels work programmes and for panels to report back to their communities. This is potentially a substantial workload for elected members and staff, in addition to an already full consultation/engagement programme. Panel summits need to be integrated with Councils own programme so that they enhance and inform and do not duplicate other Council engagement and consultation activities. For example, at a panel summit, participants could learn about Councils current priorities and upcoming consultation events and how to get involved. Panels can also provide advice on appropriate use of technology and social media, such as Survey Monkey and the Peoples Panel, for their particular communities. Over time, the different summits could perhaps be combined.
57.
Page 244
Consideration
Local Board Views
58. The Panels were established to provide strategic advice and their role in relation to Local Boards has not been entirely clear. Local Boards were not interviewed for the external review. Any future model must avoid any confusion with the role of Local Boards in engaging with and advocating for their communities. Some Local Boards are establishing establish their own networks and relationships with specific demographic communities, noting that Howick Local Board has an Ethnic Consultative Committee and the Waitakere Ethnic Board is still operating.

59. The role and activities of the Panels do not directly impact on Mori. However, any future model for Pacific and Ethnic Peoples must be considered in relationship to the unique status of Mori as Mana Whenua and Mataawaka in Auckland and the specific legislative mandate of the Independent Mori Statutory Board (IMSB). The IMSB is mandated to give advice on the cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues that are significant for Mori. This is similar to the previous role of EPAP and PPAP. However, IMSB is independent of Council and has the mandate to monitor Councils compliance with its statutory provisions that refer to the Treaty of Waitangi, including creating suitable documents and processes. It is also mandated to appoint up to two members to selected Council Committees and Forums.
60. Once a final decision has been made on the future model for the Panels, considerably more work is required on designing and administrating a selection process, drafting Terms of Reference and establishing adequate support to panel members. If adopted, community summits/forums would require adequate resourcing and time to organise. No additional provision has been made in the 2014/15 draft Annual Plan for this. Therefore, there may have to be staged implementation of some recommendations e.g. consistency of fees and allowance across panels and additional budgets to support work programmes.
61.
Attachments
Signatories
Author Authorisers Raewyn Stone - Manager, Community and Cultural Strategy Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 245
Item 17
Inquiry into the 2013 Local Elections - Issues Paper

File No.: CP2013/28755
Purpose
1. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into the 2013 local election. Auckland Councils submission requires approval by the Governing Body.
Executive Summary
2. 3. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee is inviting submissions as part of its inquiry into the 2013 Local Government Election. There was a workshop of Governing Body members and Local Board representatives on Thursday 12 December 2013. A submission will be prepared following the workshop and distributed under separate cover. Submissions close on 20 December 2013.
Scope of the Inquiry 4. The terms of reference for this inquiry are to examine the law and administrative procedures surrounding the conduct of the 2013 local authority elections, with specific focus on: Identification of factors behind the low voter turnout Voting methods and processes Matters in regulations (including voting documents and informal votes) Methods of increasing voter participation in future local authority elections The appropriateness of the three week voting timeframe The potential for voter confusion when voters are presented with two voting systems on the same ballot paper The security of, and potential for increased participation as a result of the introduction of, electronic voting Identification of other initiatives that would lift voter turnout Conduct and performance of the electoral institutions including the Electoral Commission. 5. 6. There will be a report to the Governing Body in the New Year covering the Auckland-specific issues and learnings in relation to the election. Aucklands local electoral system is unique in New Zealand and these elections generated some specific issues not experienced elsewhere in the country. Therefore, officers recommend that Council present to the Select Committee.
Recommendation/s
That the Governing Body: a) b) endorse the submission to the Inquiry into the 2013 Local Elections. agree who should present the submission to the Select Committee.
Page 247
Item 18
Attachments
Item 18
The attachment to this report will be distributed under separate cover.
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Bruce Thomas Electoral Officer Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services Grant Taylor - Governance Director Doug McKay - Chief Executive
Page 248
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
That the Governing Body: a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows. This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows: C1 Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Confidential Report
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). In particular, the report contains information that is commercially sensitive and may relate to Council's future negotiating position. Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C2
Recommendations from the Audit and Risk Committee - Appointment of External Co-opted Committee members to the Audit and Risk Committee
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person. In particular, the report contains private information pertaining to an individual that is not to be disclosed to the protect the privacy and confidentiality of a potential appointment. Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Public Excluded
Page 249
Governing Body 19 December 2013 C3 Shareholder Approval of Wynyard Quarter transaction

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information. The disclosure of this information would compromise Waterfront Auckland's negotiating position. Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7. Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Public Excluded
Page 250

Governing Body 12/2013

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Governing Body 12/2013

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Governing Body OPEN AGENDA

163 169 237 247

Public Input - Lisa Prager

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013 vi.

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Mori Impact Statement

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Governing Body 19 December 2013

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Project - Information Report

Governing Body 19 December 2013