Auckland Council Budget Committee 5 Nov 2014

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Budget Committee will be held on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Wednesday, 5 November 2014

9.30 am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
Budget Committee
OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
Mayor Len Brown, JP

Cr Penny Webster
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Cameron Brewer
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Bill Cashmore
Cr Ross Clow
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Cr Chris Darby
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee
Cr Calum Penrose
Cr Dick Quax
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Member David Taipari
Member John Tamihere
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr John Watson
Cr George Wood, CNZM
(Quorum 11 members)
Mike Giddey
Democracy Advisor
31 October 2014
Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7565
Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Note:
The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy
unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact
the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
Development of the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans under the chairmanship of the Mayor who
leads these processes including:
Local Board agreements
Local Board Funding Policy
Financial Policy related to LTP and AP (recommendation to the Governing Body)
Setting of rates (recommendation to the Governing Body)
Draft LTP and Annual Plan prior to community consultation
Development contributions policy
Powers
(i)
All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.
Except:
(a)
powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see Governing
Body responsibilities)
(b)
where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only
(ii)
Approval of a submission to an external body
(iii)
Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to
the next meeting of that other committee.
(iv)
Power to establish subcommittees.
(v)
Power to establish panels for the purpose of hearing submissions.
a)
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Apologies
Declaration of Interest
Confirmation of Minutes
Petitions
Public Input
Local Board Input
Extraordinary Business
Notices of Motion
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview
10
Decision-making allocation review
19
11
Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local Board Views
35
12
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Estimated cost of co-governance entities

This report will be provided in an addendum agenda.
13
Long term Plan 2015-2025-Priority proposals for Mori
57
14
City Centre Targeted Rate
77
15
Increasing Business Improvement District (BID) rates to recover BID

support costs
97
16
Harmonisation and increases to social housing rents
103
17
Harmonisation of fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and

other services
115
18
Transport programmes and funding options
173
19
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Budget update
243
20
Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Mayoral Proposal on Rating Policy
281
21
Solid Waste: Inorganic Collection Service methodology and funding:

Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
313
Solid Waste targeted rates and fees 2015/2016 and Waste Management
and Minimisation funding through transition
319
23
Contributions policy
327
24
Performance measures and targets
345
25
CCO Letters of Expectation
413
26
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
22
Page 3
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
1
Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
Declaration of Interest
Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making
when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external
interest they might have.
Confirmation of Minutes
That the Budget Committee:
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 14 August 2014 as a true
and correct record.
Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
Public Input
Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting
and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to
decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A
maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)
minutes speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The
Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,
give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the
discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing
Orders.
This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as
amended) states:
An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if(a)
The local authority by resolution so decides; and

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

Page 5
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
the public,(i)
The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii)
The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as
amended) states:
Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a)
That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i)
That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority;
and
(ii)
the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is
open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further
discussion.
Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 6
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 9

File No.: CP2014/24832
Purpose
1.
The development of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) represents the
most significant review of councils work programmes and budgets since amalgamation.
2.
This report recaps the LTP process to date, provides an overview of the decisions now
required and sets out the next steps that will be undertaken to consult with Aucklanders and
finalise the LTP.
Executive summary
3.
All councils are required by legislation to adopt a long-term plan (LTP) and review it every
three years. The process to develop councils second LTP (2015-2025) began in February 2014.
Led by the Mayor, this LTP provides our most significant opportunity yet to take stock and align
budgets with the direction of the Auckland Plan and ensure we are delivering the right mix of
services and investments for Auckland.
4.
It will take 18 months to develop the LTP 2015-2025. The process to date has been more
strategic and collaborative in its approach, with strong support from senior management to
critically review budgets and respond to the direction and proposal set by the Mayor.
5.
Today the Budget Committee will consider draft budgets, policies and other material for the
purpose of supporting LTP consultation with Aucklanders. The reports on todays agenda fall into
three categories:
Reports supporting decisions on the size and make-up of the draft LTP budget including
consideration of budget envelopes for each council activity theme, advocacy from local boards
and iwi co-governance entities, other proposals that impact on the general rates requirement and
a proposal to fix Aucklands transport issues and options to fund it.
Reports supporting decisions on how Aucklanders will pay for the draft plan - including
rating policy, inorganic waste and solid waste rates and fees, and contributions policy.
Reports setting expectations for performance agreeing draft performance measures and
targets for the council group and setting letters of expectation for CCOs.
6.
Following decisions made today:
Staff will update budgets and finalise a consultation document and set of supporting
material for consultation with Aucklanders. This reflects a new set of legislative requirements and
aims to support a better conversation with Aucklanders on the issues of greatest importance to the
future of Auckland. The primary focus of the consultation document will be to clearly set out the
key issues of importance for Auckland, along with options for addressing each issue, the proposal
to fix the issue and the implications for rates, debt and levels of service. An insert setting out the
key issues for the relevant local board area will also be included.
Local boards will finalise and adopt local material for consultation between 10 November
and 17 December.
An audit process will be completed and the consultation document will include an audit
opinion.
7.
The Governing Body will then meet to adopt the consultation document and supporting
material on 18 December.
Page 7
Item 9
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
8.
The recent changes to legislation also provide opportunity to improve the approach to
consultation for the LTP. The consultation process is currently being developed and will be
considered by elected members in December.
9.
The consultation process will run from late January to late March. Following feedback from
the community, local boards and the governing body will reconsider budgets and make final
decisions before adopting the final LTP in June 2015.
Recommendation/s
a)
note the contents of this report, which sets the context for the other reports and
decisions on todays agenda.
Comments
Background
10.
All councils are required by legislation to adopt a long-term plan (LTP) and review it every
three years. The LTP sets out Councils activities, plans, budgets and policies and must be
adopted before beginning of the first year it relates to, having used a special consultative
procedure to consult with the community.
11.
The LTP 2012-2022 set councils first 10-year budget and financial strategy. It was
developed very soon after the formation of Auckland Council and its CCOs and, by necessity,
largely reflected an amalgamation of legacy budgets.
Developing the LTP 2015-2025
12.
The process to develop councils second LTP (2015-2025) began in February 2014. Led
by the Mayor, this LTP provides our most significant opportunity yet to take stock and align
budgets with the direction of the Auckland Plan and ensure we are delivering the right mix of
services and investments for Auckland.
13.
Attachments B and C set out the key phases and the political engagement process
followed by Council to date. Key elements of the process have been:
A more strategic approach - The Auckland Plan provided the starting point for the LTP with
the mayors direction challenging staff to critically review budgets against the direction set by the
Auckland Plan and to identify opportunities to deliver on the six transformational shifts. Financial
parameters for rates and debt, along with setting budget envelopes and priorities at a theme level
have ensured discussions were maintained at a more strategic level through the first half of the
process.
A more collaborative approach - There has been a strong focus on bringing together
governance and management from across the council group at key points in the process to ensure
a common understanding and the opportunity to share perspectives and debate key issues. Local
boards have been closely involved through the process with a number of joint workshops with the
Budget Committee to discuss challenges and opportunities and provide feedback in a workshop
environment. In addition, numerous workshops were held following the mayoral proposal to
provide opportunity for political debate and discussion of options and implications.
Strong senior management support - Senior managers have led the development of
options and advice to shape discussion on which council activities and investments deliver the
greatest (and least) value to Auckland and where changes could be made.
Page 8
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
14.
Today the Budget Committee will consider draft budgets, policies and other material for the
purpose of supporting LTP consultation with Aucklanders. Attachment A provides an overview of
the reports on todays agenda and how they fit together. The reports fall into three categories:
i.
Reports to support decisions on the size and make-up of the draft budget (what council
delivers, what it invests in and how much it costs) this includes consideration of:
advocacy from local boards, iwi co-governance entities and the IMSB
reports relating to fees, charges and social housing rent where the decisions will have an
impact on the general rates requirement
whether council supports consulting on a proposal to fix Aucklands transport issues

through implementation of the Auckland Plan Transport programme and options to fund this
programme
an LTP Budget Update report which wraps up all of the above reports to support decisions
required to finalise the draft ten-year budget for 2015-2025.
ii.
Reports supporting decisions on how Aucklanders will pay for the expenditure in the draft
budget including rating policy, inorganic waste and solid waste rates and fees and contributions
policy.
iii.
Reports setting expectations for performance agreeing draft performance measures and
targets for the council group and setting letters of expectation for CCOs
Next steps
Preparing for consultation
15.
The Local Government Act 2002 has recently been amended and sets new requirements
for consultation. The new requirements aim to ensure that both the consultation material and
process provide a more effective basis for public to participate in local authority decision-making
processes.
16.
As a result, instead of a draft LTP, on 18 December the Governing Body will meet to adopt
a consultation document and a set of supporting material developed by staff following decisions
made today. The consultation document will be a short document, written in plain language with
graphs and charts. The primary focus of the consultation document will be to set out the key
issues of importance to Auckland and Aucklanders, along with options for addressing each issue,
the proposal to fix the issue and the implications for rates, debt and levels of service.
17.
The supporting material will include the more detailed information relied on to prepare the
consultation document and will made readily available to the public.
18.
Staff will also prepare material to support the communication and engagement campaign
for consultation, including an information pack for elected members.
19.
The consultation document must also include an opinion from the Auditor-General on
whether the document gives effect to its purpose and on the quality of the information and
underlying assumptions. The audit process is underway and will be completed by 15 December.
Finalising the long-term plan
20.
Consultation for the LTP will take place between January and March 2015. The table
below sets out the high level process to finalise the LTP following decisions made today.
Page 9
Item 9
Agreeing a draft budget to support consultation
Item 9
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Table One: Finalising the LTP following decisions made today

Phase
Development of consultation document and supporting material
Budget Committee meets to make decisions on rating transition management
Local boards hold workshops and meetings to finalise local content for consultation
Governing body meets to adopt consultation document and supporting material and agree
the consultation process
Public consultation (special consultative procedure)
Local boards will make decisions to finalise their local board agreement for 2015/2016 and
content for the remaining years of the LTP
The Budget Committee will hold discussions with local boards and CCOs
The Budget Committee will make final decisions for the LTP
Budgets will be updated and all LTP documentation, including local board agreements, will
be updated
Local boards will meet to adopt their local board agreements and 10-year budgets
Governing Body will meet to adopt the final LTP
Documentation will be published and made available to the public and information on the
decisions made will be shared with people who participated in the consultation process.
Timing
7 Nov 15 Dec
Mid Nov
10 Nov 17 Dec
18 December
23 Jan late March
7-24 April
28 April 1 May
7 May
May / June
9-19 June
25 June
July / August
Consideration
Local board views and implications
21.
Local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the LTP to date. All local
board members were invited to attend three joint council group workshops on the LTP at the
scene setting, options development and mayoral proposal stages of the process. Local board
chairs also attended five joint workshops with the Budget Committee to discuss transport, parks,
community and lifestyle (PCL), geographic priorities, mori priorities and general engagement with
councillors. Specific workshops were also held for local boards to discuss financial policies and
PCL budgets.
22.
Local boards have held workshops between 23 September and 16 October to discuss their
locally driven initiatives (LDI) budgets and consider the responses developed by staff to the
mayoral proposal. All local boards have provided feedback on the mayoral proposal and the staff
response, as well as feedback on financial policies. Proposed changes to budgets for parks and
community related activities have been a key area of concern for local boards.
23.
Local boards met with the Budget Committee over three days between 17 24 October to
discuss their priorities, advocacy, feedback on the mayoral proposal and the proposed new model
for delivering community development activities. A separate report (Local board feedback and
advocacy) on todays agenda covers local board feedback and advocacy in addition, local board
views are considered within each of the relevant reports on todays agenda.
Mori impact statement

24.
A top-down approach has been taken to prioritising Mori transformational shift activities
for the draft LTP. Advice provided to the mayor ahead of the mayoral proposal included an
assessment of the relative priorities and commonalities across business cases prepared by the
IMSB, priorities articulated by mana whenua and proposed initiatives from across the council
group co-ordinated by Te Waka Angamua. The mayor identified three priority areas in his
proposal (a significant Mori event, marae development and papakainga development) and also
requested the Councils chief executive work with the council group to progress other opportunities
to deliver on priorities for Mori. A separate report on todays agenda (Priority areas for Mori)
provides further information for consideration by the Budget Committee.
25.
The mayor held two hui with mana whenua ahead of the mayoral proposal to discuss
mana whenua priorities and aspirations and feedback on proposals. A further hui was held with
mana whenua on 23 October to discuss the mayoral proposal.
Page 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
26.
Key risks to be managed over the next phase of the process include:
Development of the consultation document and supporting material As this is the first
time a consultation document and set of supporting materials have been developed staff will work
closely with the Legal department and Audit NZ to ensure documents meet legislative
requirements and provide a sound basis for consulting with Aucklanders to inform the final LTP.
Finalising and implementing the consultation process the new legislation provides an
opportunity to make improvements to the consultation process. Staff will focus on ensuring
changes are well communicated to the public and elected members and actively manage the risks
associated with making changes to an established process.
Finalising local board budgets Taking an envelope approach to budgets, along with the
new local board funding policy coming into effect on 1 July 2015, has meant that there has been a
lot of change in the process to develop local board budgets and local boards are yet to receive
visibility of the proposed capital expenditure programmes for their local area. Further engagement
with local boards will take place following decisions made today to inform the final LTP.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Reports on agenda for 5 and 6 November
13
LTP 2015-2025 overview - direction setting to today
15
Political process overview
17
Signatories
Author
Tanya Stocks Acting Programme Director Annual Plan & Long-term Plan
Authorisers
Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Kevin Ramsay - Chief Financial Officer
Page 11
Item 9
Implementation
Attachment A
Item 9
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 13
Attachment B
Item 9
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 15
Attachment C
Item 9
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 10

File No.: CP2014/25449
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to recommend the draft allocation of Auckland Council nonregulatory decision-making responsibilities for inclusion in the Long-term Plan consultation
supporting material.
Executive summary
2.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (the Act) requires the governing body to
allocate decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities to either the governing body or
local boards. This must be undertaken in accordance with certain legislative principles and after
considering the views and preferences of each local board.
3.
Each Long-term Plan (LTP) and annual plan must identify the non-regulatory activities
allocated to local boards. There is a presumption that local boards will be responsible for making
decisions on non-regulatory activities except where decision-making on a region-wide basis will
better promote the wellbeing of communities across Auckland.
4.
As part of the development of the 2015-2025 LTP, a review of the current decision-making
allocation has been undertaken. The review has been informed by input from across the
organisation and feedback from local boards.
5.
The review concluded that a number of clarifications and text changes are required but no
substantive changes are needed to the allocated responsibilities. The current allocation has
worked well and there has been growing understanding and increasing sophistication of how to
use it.
Recommendation/s
a)
approve the draft allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities

between the governing body and local boards for inclusion in the supporting material
to be adopted by the governing body to support the Long-term Plan consultation
process.
Comments
Background
6.
The Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) was given the task of determining the initial
allocation of the councils non-regulatory activities using the Local Government (Auckland Council)
Act 2009 (the Auckland Council Act). In undertaking this exercise, the question considered by ATA
was not why should the activity be allocated to local boards? but why not?. This was in line with
the Auckland Council Act and reflects that:
local decisions are best made at a local level to ensure local knowledge and community
input are considered
the governing body should focus on region-wide issues
from a practical perspective, with 20 governing body members and a mayor governing a
region the size of Auckland, the governing body needs to retain a focus on big picture issues.
Page 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 10
Current allocation table

7.
The current decision-making allocation was determined as part of the 2012-2022 LTP and
was adopted by the governing body.
8.
The allocation has been written on an inclusive basis. It does not contain an exhaustive list
of all elements that might make up an allocated activity. The items listed are to aid interpretation.
9.
The current allocation has worked well and there has been growing understanding and
sophistication of how to use it.
10. For local decision-making further operational clarity has been provided by the development
of protocols that set out how staff should operate under the delegations provided by local boards
to staff.
Review scope and approach
11. In undertaking the review for the 2015-2025 LTP, the current allocation has been taken as
the baseline. It has focused on:
any major areas where decision-making on an activity needs to be allocated differently to

better meet the requirements of the Auckland Council Act.
areas where the decision-making allocation is appropriate but further clarification may be
needed.
12. During May 2014, council departments were invited to identify relevant issues. These issues
were analysed against the scope of the review. The issues identified mainly focused on
clarifications and changes to the wording of the current allocation. A number of operational issues
were identified, which are out of the scope of the review and will be addressed separately.
13. During July 2014, local boards provided formal feedback on issues identified by the
organisation and any other issues they have experienced with the allocation.
14. Overall local boards support the current allocation. Their feedback on the identified issues is
discussed below. Attachment B includes a copy of local boards formal feedback. Some boards
also made additional comments and the most significant are discussed later in this report.
Decision-making allocation
15. A revised draft allocation table has been prepared and is included at attachment A. The
format of the revised allocation table has followed the same approach as the current allocation
table:
a number of changes have been made to clarify and tighten up the wording of the
allocation. Generally, the wording of the current allocation has been kept.
some of the sections and headings have been amended to reflect the new activity structure
for the draft 2015-2025 LTP.
The next section of the report explains the main proposed changes to the allocation table.
Spatial priorities
16. Through the 2015-2025 LTP a number of regional spatial priority areas have been identified
to support the strategic alignment of council resources over the next 10 years. The emergence of
spatial priority areas requires an addition to the table for clarification.
17. It is proposed that a line is added to the allocation table for the governing body stating that
the governing body has decision-making responsibility for the Auckland Plan, area plans and
regional spatial priority areas focusing on growth, development and key infrastructure priorities.
18. This addition simply clarifies the role of the governing body, while retaining the role for local
boards in place making and planning (within parameters set by regional strategies, policies and
plans) and their input role into regional policies, plans and bylaws.
Page 20
Community development and environmental protection

19. Auckland Councils Thriving Communities Strategic Action Plan places a strong emphasis on
community empowerment and community led development.
20. Given this, it is proposed to add a line for local boards noting their role in facilitating
community-led placemaking and development initiatives. This reflects what local boards tend to
do in these activities already and has been included to provide clarity.
21. Local boards have not provided formal feedback on this change but it is expected that
boards would support the new text.
Submissions and objections
22. In August 2014, the Local Government Act 2002 was amended to expressly note that local
boards do not have separate legal standing from Auckland Council, and therefore may not
commence, be a party to or be heard in legal proceedings1. The change also applies to the
Auckland Council Act.
23. This means that local boards do not have the power to make submissions or objections on
matters where the council is exercising its regulatory responsibilities. This power now needs to be
allocated or delegated to local boards by the governing body (for example, in September 2014, the
governing body delegated to local boards the power to make objections to alcohol licence
applications).
24. The legislative change arose after local board feedback was provided on the decision
making allocation review.
25. The current allocation does not specifically address this issue and so an explanatory note
has been added to the planning, policy and governance section noting that a local board does not
have the power to make submissions or objections on matters where the council is exercising its
regulatory responsibilities unless specifically delegated by the governing body.
Local asset renewals
26. During the review the operations division requested that decision-making responsibility for all
asset renewals be allocated to the governing body. The current allocation table states that the role
of local boards is to maintain the integrity of local assets in accordance with Auckland wide
parameters and standards set by the Governing Body. An example of local assets includes local
parks, libraries, community halls and public toilets.
27. The governing body has decision-making responsibility for regional assets which are often
part of a network such as stormwater infrastructure or libraries collections, as well as setting
Auckland-wide parameters and standards for all asset management planning.
28. Operational staff pointed to the lack of flexibility in the management of local asset renewals
and inappropriate allocation of renewals budgets (based on earlier information) as key issues.
29. In looking at the issues it was concluded no change to the allocation table is needed. It is
recognised that local boards have a high degree of knowledge and understanding of their local
area, the needs of their local communities and the requirements for their local assets and facilities.
They are best placed to make governance decisions on local renewal works, within the planning
and funding framework set by the governing body and supported by the organisation's asset
management plans.
30. Some operational changes are required, such as the setting of regional standards (and
readjusting budget allocations) setting longer time horizons for renewals planning and bundling
1
S12 (3) Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009
Page 21
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
procurement to achieve efficiency. The organisation will be undertaking further work in these
areas which will need to involve discussion with local boards.
Additions to the appendix
31. In August 2013, the governing body adopted a schedule of regional parks and list of parks
subject to Treaty of Waitangi settlements. This is absent from the current allocation table. The
allocation table can now include a more specific definition and list of regional parks and parks
governed by the Maunga Authority.
32. A further addition to the appendix is a list of events categories and definitions. This update
reflects the categories in the Auckland Council Events Policy adopted by the governing body in
April 2013.
Other issues identified by local boards
33. Local boards also raised several non-allocation issues. While they are out of scope of the
review, they reflect how the allocation is working in practice and are relevant for the governing
body to consider.
34. A significant issue for local boards has been the extent to which regional policy constrains or
restricts local decision-making. The current allocation notes that regional strategies and policies
are not intended to be prescriptive or unduly restrict the decision-making role of local boards but
on several occasions draft regional policy has overridden local board decision making. Several
local boards commented that in their experience regional strategies and policies are often too
prescriptive and go beyond setting parameters within which local boards can operate.
35. Local boards raised an issue around the governance implications for local economic
development if this activity moves to ATEED. Currently local boards have governance
responsibility for local economic development, but do not have a governance relationship with
CCOs (this sits with the governing body). Any changes that impact on decision-making for local
economic development would need discussion and input from local boards.
36. Local boards have raised a number of issues around procurement. In particular, how the
decision-making allocation is applied to the procurement of goods and services that relate to local
activities but involve major service delivery contracts and also constraints put on local
procurement. Auckland Councils procurement strategy and policy does request that processes
should support social, environmental, cultural and economic interests in the community but local
boards are not seeing the intent of the policy on the ground. A working group of local board chairs
has been established to look at the issues with the relevant staff.
37. There is also a request to investigate potential delegations from Auckland Transport as local
boards feel their place making role in street environments and town centres is constrained.
Consideration
38. Local board views are discussed above. A copy of local boards formal feedback is provided
in attachment B.
Maori impact statement

39. The decision-making allocation underpins the Auckland Council governance model. Maori
are impacted by both governing body and local board decision-making and need to be engaged
appropriately in Auckland Council decision-making processes.
Page 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 10
Implementation
40. The recommendations in this report confirm the current allocation of decision making with
changes relating to clarification issues. As such there are no significant implementation issues.
The new decision making allocation would come into effect on 1 July 2015.
Please add Alastair Child as author and remove Anna Bray.
Attachments
No.
Title
Attachment A - DRAFT decision making allocation
Attachment B - Local board feedback - DMA review (Under Separate

Cover)
Page
25
Signatories
Author
Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards
Authorisers
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director
Page 23
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 25
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 26
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 28
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 29
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 30
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 31
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 32
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 33
Attachment A
Item 10
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 34
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 11

File No.: CP2014/25550
Purpose
1.
The purpose of this report is to formally note local board feedback on the mayoral proposal
and key advocacy areas, as previously discussed with the Budget Committee, for consideration in
decision making on draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 budgets.
Executive summary
2.
Local board plans informed by extensive community engagement were adopted in October
2014. Legislation requires that they help inform the development of the Long-term Plan 20152025.
3.
Throughout the year, local boards have been involved as part of councils shared
governance model in the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. This has included
workshops, briefings and written material.
4.
In October, local boards held advocacy discussions with the governing body on key
advocacy areas and proposed LTP priorities. The common areas of feedback include that:
No new asset based projects in the parks and community areas for the first five years
(unless contractually committed or 100% development contribution funded) is of concern
Local communities have facilities that are fit for purpose with concern expressed about the
adequacy of renewals budgets
The proposal puts pressure on local programme budgets to fund assets as local boards
have no capital budgets for small projects
Community-led community development is supported, including community environmental

initiatives but planning, transition and resourcing all need careful consideration
The environment is protected, particularly coastlines and waterways
Urban regeneration and planning for growth is not restricted to spatial priority areas but
occurs where it is needed
Local economic development with a focus on youth employment is supported
A well connected and affordable public transport system is a priority
Cycleways and walkways are invested in
5.
In discussions with the Budget Committee on 24 October local board chairs also indicated
while respecting that the final decisions are with the Governing Body, they would value having
visibility of the entire proposed LTP budget, to have a rebalancing discussion and to work together
with the Governing Body in the development of the full LTP.
Recommendation/s
a)
consider feedback from local boards on the mayoral proposal and key advocacy
areas before making decisions on draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 budgets and
consultation material.
Page 35
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Comments
6.
In early 2014 local boards undertook extensive engagement with their communities on local
priorities and preferences for the development of draft local board plans. In July 2014, local boards
consulted with the community on their draft local board plans after which they were adopted in
October 2014. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires that the priorities
identified in the 2014 local board plans should inform the development of the Long-term Plan
2015-2025.
7.
With reference to the community priorities identified in their local board plans, each local
board has considered feedback on the mayoral proposal and has identified key advocacy areas.
Local boards have had the opportunity to discuss these with the Budget Committee on 17, 22 or
24 October. The areas of commonality across the local boards are detailed below with more
information provided in Attachment 1.
8.
Some local boards chose to pass resolutions at business meetings to provide formal
feedback on the mayoral proposal. These resolutions and advocacy sheets were provided to the
Budget Committee on 24 October.
9.
On 24 October local board chairs discussed with the Budget Committee the common areas
of feedback and advocacy across the 21 local boards. Local board chairs also indicated that they
would value a rebalancing discussion with the Governing Body, to ensure that the draft LTP
budget took into account the priorities of local communities. While respecting that the final
decisions are with the Governing Body, local board chairs put forward that they would value
having visibility of the entire proposed LTP budget and to work together with the Governing Body
in the development of the full LTP.
10. Areas of common feedback on the mayoral proposal and advocacy across the 21 local
boards are summarised below with more details in Attachment 1.
Parks Community and Lifestyle

11. Parks, Community and Lifestyle is a key area for boards as it is vital for delivering the
worlds most liveable city at a local level. In their feedback boards have expressed concern that
this area is subject to significant reductions in comparison to other activity areas and would like to
see a more balanced approach considered with reductions in capital works across all activities.
This may include modelling the impact of reprioritisation across the whole budget.
12. As Auckland grows our community and sports facilities, parks and open spaces come under
pressure. Many are reaching their capacity and need upgrades so that they remain fit-for-purpose.
The main focus of local boards advocacy with regards to Parks, Community and Lifestyle is for
upgrades to and extensions of existing assets so that they can continue to serve the needs of the
community.
13. Local boards generally support a more empowered community approach to community
development if it is resourced appropriately and so short term savings are considered unlikely.
14. Walkways, cycleways and greenways also remain a top advocacy priority for local boards.
As these initiatives often leverage external funding and contribute to social, environmental and
transport outcomes they could enable cost effective delivery on Auckland Plan outcomes
Environmental Management and Regulation

15. In their feedback local boards noted the importance of ongoing investment in environmental
management to deliver on the environmental outcomes in the Auckland Plan.
16. The main priorities for local board advocacy with regards to environmental management and
regulation are regional investment in coastal protection and increased focus on water quality,
including the impact of stormwater.
Auckland Development
Page 36
17. Local board feedback shows that boards understand the need to focus investment on
priority areas however, they would like to see some resourcing allocated to smaller scale local
planning and to investment in urban areas outside of spatial priority areas that need revival or
need to accommodate growth.
18. This is also reflected in the priority advocacy areas which focus on support for town centre,
metro centre and area planning as well as the implementation of these.
Economic and Cultural Development

19. Local boards support a focus on youth employment and are advocating for more support for
local economic development. Given the key role that Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) play
in local economic development, boards are concerned about the negative impact the proposed
BID funding model could have on BIDs.
Transport
20. A well-connected and affordable public transport system remains a transport priority for local
boards. Linked with this is the desire to provide real choice in modes of travel whether by road,
water, rail or walkways and cycleways. Investment in walkways and cycleways remains a key
focus of local boards advocacy. Details of this are discussed under Parks, Community and
Lifestyle; there is an obvious link to this activity.
Consideration
21. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of local board feedback on the mayoral
proposal and key advocacy areas for input into the development of the LTP.

22. Many local board decisions are of importance to Mori and there is a need to continue to
build relationships between local boards and relevant iwi. The local board plans have been
developed through engagement with the community, including Mori, and this has formed the
basis for local priorities input into developing the LTP.
Implementation
23. Following Budget Committee decisions on draft LTP budgets in early November, local
boards will be provided with budgets on asset based services.
Attachments
No.
Title
Long-Term Plan 2015-2025: Local Board views Attachment 1
Page
39
Signatories
Author
Karen Titulaer - Senior Policy Advisor
Authorisers
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Page 37
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 39
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 40
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 41
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 42
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 43
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 44
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 45
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 46
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 47
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 48
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 49
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 50
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 51
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 52
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 53
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 54
Attachment A
Item 11
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 55
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13

File No.: CP2014/24502
Purpose
1.
This report responds to the questions asked by the chair of the Independent Mori Statutory
Board (IMSB), Mr David Taipari, in a letter to His Worship the Mayor (dated 14 October 2014).
Executive summary
2.
This report responds to a letter from the chair of the IMSB and describes the top down
approach agreed by the June 2014 Finance and Performance Committee [FIN/2014/34] to clarify
councils political direction on priority Mori transformational shift activities and associated budgets
for the draft 2015-2025 Long-term Plan (LTP).
3.
Proposed priorities for achieving progress on the Auckland Plan Mori transformational shift
significantly lift Mori social and economic wellbeing were identified by the council group; the
IMSB; and Mana Whenua chairs and staff and were provided for the mayors consideration prior to
his LTP proposal.
4.
The mayors LTP proposal included funding for councils co-governance obligations and
identified his top three priorities for the Mori transformational shift as:
A signature Mori event
Marae development
Papakinga development
5.
Options for achieving the mayors top three priorities within current budgets were presented
to the Budget Committee workshop on 8 October 2014. In accordance with the mayors request to
councils chief executive, staff also undertook further work to identify options for achieving the
remaining proposed priorities, within the budget envelopes identified in the mayors LTP proposal.
6.
The options identified are unlikely to achieve the IMSBs priorities or the Auckland Plan
Mori transformational shift. Taking this into account, staff have proposed additional funding for
years 4 -10 of the LTP ($7 million opex and $42 million capex in total) and identified high level
activities which will contribute towards the achievement of the Auckland Plan Mori
transformational shift and IMSBs priorities. This proposal is addressed in the report to this
committee entitled Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Budget Update on todays agenda.
7.
Council staff will work closely with the IMSB secretariat staff over the next month on the
allocation of the proposed additional funding to specific LTP transformational shift priorities prior to
adoption of the LTP consultation document by the Governing Body on 18 December 2014.
8.
Following this, as part of planning and budgeting to implement the agreed LTP Maori
transformational shift priorities, council and IMSB secretariat staff will work together on identifying
activities and budgets within overall budget envelopes and report back to this committee prior to
the LTP being adopted.
Recommendations
a)
note that this report responds to a letter from the chair of the Independent Mori
Statutory Board and describes the top down approach agreed by the June 2014
Finance and Performance Committee [FIN/2014/34] to clarify councils political
direction on priority Mori transformational shift activities and associated budgets for
Page 57
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13
the draft 2015-2025 Long-term Plan.

b)
note that staff have proposed additional funding for years 4 -10 of the LTP ($7 million
opex and $42 million capex) and identified high level activities which will contribute
towards the achievement of the Auckland Plan Mori transformational shift and
IMSBs priorities.
c)
agree that council staff will work closely with the IMSB secretariat staff over the next
month on the allocation of the proposed additional funding to specific LTP
transformational shift priorities prior to adoption of the LTP consultation document by
the Governing Body on 18 December 2014.
d)
agree that, as part of planning and budgeting to implement the agreed LTP Maori
transformational shift priorities, council and IMSB secretariat staff will work together
on identifying activities and budgets within overall budget envelopes and report back
to this committee prior to the LTP being adopted.
Comments
9.
In a letter to His Worship the Mayor (dated 14 October 2014) the chair of the IMSB
requested a report to the Budget Committee with the response to five questions. Mr Taiparis
letter is attached at Appendix A.
10.
Taken together, Mr Taiparis questions seek to understand:
how council has used the strategic top down approach to clarifying its political direction
on priority Mori transformational shift activities and associated budgets in the 2015-2025 Longterm Plan (LTP), as agreed by the June 2014 Finance and Performance Committee (resolution
FIN/2014/34);
how council has considered and taken into account IMSBs proposals for the LTP;
how council has ascertained Mana Whenua priorities for the LTP;
what work has occurred since the mayors LTP proposals were released on 28 August
2014 to address the mayors top three priorities and the remainder of the proposed priorities
identified by IMSB, Mana Whenua and the council group to achieve progress towards the
transformational shift Significantly lift Mori social and economic wellbeing; and
the approach and timeline for council to address the scoping and funding of the
mayors top three priorities and the other proposed priorities, as presented to the Budget
Committee workshop on 8 October 2014.
June 2014 Finance and Performance Committee resolutions (Mr Taiparis questions three
and five)
11. In June 2014 the Finance and Performance Committee made a number of resolutions in
response to a report entitled Independent Assessment of Expenditure incurred by Auckland
Council to achieve Mori outcomes commissioned by the IMSB and undertaken by KPMG. The
committee:
noted that the KPMG report recommendations 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 were

together proposing that the council group took a strategic top down approach to agreeing and
prioritising activities that contribute to Mori outcomes (resolution c);
agreed to support this approach through clarifying the councils political direction on
priority Mori transformational shift activities and associated budgets in the LTP; (resolution d);
requested work to be undertaken to support [this approach] and to ensure that the
councils budgeting, business planning, monitoring and reporting processes identify progress on
priority Mori transformational shift activities through the LTP years (resolution e); and
Page 58

noted that Auckland Councils chief executive will lead a Mori Responsiveness
Leadership team across the Auckland Council group to ensure progress on the agreed actions
arising from this report (resolution h).
12. Resolutions (d) and (e) have guided the work undertaken by council staff in preparing
information for the mayors consideration in his LTP proposals, discussed further below. Councils
chief executive has established the Mori Responsiveness Leadership team, which includes the
Councils Executive Leadership team and the chief executives of the substantive CCOs and IMSB.
13. Other resolutions relating to the development of a new monitoring and reporting framework
for tracking actions and progress towards achieving the Mori transformational shift in the
2014/2015 FY and throughout the 2015-2025 LTP have been, or are being, progressed.
Top down approach to prioritising Mori transformational shift activities in the LTP (Mr
Taiparis question three)
14. The mayor has given clear direction to the council group that the 2015-2025 LTP will align
council group activity to ensure progress towards delivering on Auckland Plan priorities, within a
budget envelope that is affordable for Aucklanders. The Auckland Plan has two geographic
priorities and six transformational shifts, including Significantly lift Mori social and economic
wellbeing.
15. In accordance with resolution (e) noted above, several sources of information were provided
to the mayor for consideration in the development of his LTP proposals. These are described
further below and include business cases prepared by the IMSB, priorities articulated by Mana
Whenua, and proposed initiatives from across the council group, coordinated by Te Waka
Angamua staff. In addition, councils Parks, Sports and Recreation department provided the
mayor with an assessment of costs relating to reserves administered by co-governance entities.
Proposed council group priorities for 2015-2025 LTP
16. Te Waka Angamua staff coordinated the development of proposals from across the council
group for priority Mori transformational shift activities in the 2015-2025 LTP. Councils
obligations and commitments to Mori as expressed in the Auckland Plan, other strategic plans
and the Mori responsiveness framework, the IMSBs Mori Plan, and the views of Mana Whenua
were taken into consideration in developing these proposals. The council group proposals are
attached as Appendix B.
17. The proposals were aligned across five key focus areas for investment, forming the
proposed framework for the LTP top down approach to agreeing priority areas for investment to
achieve Mori transformational shift activities. The five key areas forming the proposed LTP
framework are:
Whai Tiaki Mori Cultural Well-being: To celebrate and sustain Mori cultural
identity, knowledge and practice. Mori cultural well-being is inextricably linked to Auckland
Councils land planning and environmental protection functions. The councils leadership role can
have a transformative effect on the place and sustainability of Mori cultural well-being.
Whai Rawa Mori Economic Well-being: To enable all Mori to contribute to and
benefit from the economic successes of Tmaki Makaurau, Auckland. Through its leadership,
operational activities, and procurement leverage, Auckland Council can both enable and transform
Mori economic well-being.
Whai Painga Mori Social Well-being: To enable all Mori to harness the
opportunities that come from living in Tmaki Makaurau, Auckland. Through place-making,
regulation, public transport and roads, community development policy and activities, bylaws,
operations, and services, Auckland Council plays a significant role in the shaping of communities
which impacts on social well-being.
Whai Tika Mori Effectiveness: To ensure the council has the capability and
capacity to deliver on its commitments and obligations to Mori.
Page 59
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Whai Tahinga Post-Treaty Settlements: To ensure Treaty Settlement outcomes

that mutually benefit mana whenua and the council.
18. These five areas also form the basis of the new monitoring and reporting framework agreed
by the Finance and Performance Committee in September 2014 [FIN/2014/53]. The report to that
committee noted that the new framework is based on:
Clear criteria and a ranking system (developed by Te Waka Angamua in consultation

with the IMSB secretariat) for the identification of projects which significantly contribute to the
Auckland Plan Mori transformational shift significantly lift Mori social and economic well-being;
An improved financial and narrative based reporting system which will enable tracking
of progress on specific Mori transformational shift activities as well as on general activities which
significantly benefit or engage Mori; and
Partnering and support from Te Waka Angamua and Finance staff with business
owners to ensure implementation of the monitoring and reporting system.
19. Many other council general activities contribute towards Mori wellbeing but the specific
benefit to Mori is difficult to measure. Through the LTP years these general activities will be
reported on with explanatory narrative.
Proposed IMSB business cases for 2015-2025 LTP
20. Following the KPMG report Independent Assessment of Expenditure incurred by Auckland
Council to achieve Mori outcomes the IMSB prepared business cases for their top 10 priorities
for the 2015-2025 LTP entitled Leveraging Aucklands Mori point of difference to create the
worlds most liveable city. The top IMSBs 10 priorities were estimated as costing $73 million
opex and $63 million capex.
21. IMSB presented these business cases to the Mayor on 4 August 2014 and they were also
provided to Governing Body members at the joint Governing Body/IMSB meeting on 18 August
2014. IMSBs 10 business cases for the 2015-2025 LTP are proposals for:
1)
Regional marae development
2)
Major signature Mori event
3)
Increasing the visibility of Aucklands Mori identity
4)
Promoting te reo Mori
5)
Regional papakinga development
6)
Developing iwi management plans and environmental projects
7)
Co-governance and co-management arrangements
8)
Increasing Mori engagement in key economic growth activities
9)
Mori contribution to decision-making
10)
Sites of significance to Mana Whenua work programme
22. IMSBs view is that collectively, these business cases will help resolve the six key issues
relating to Mori interests identified in the Auckland Plan:
Establish papakinga in Auckland
Enable tangata whenua to participate in the co-management of natural resources
sites
Explore partnerships with Mana Whenua to protect, identify and manage wahi tapu
Enable Mori aspirations for thriving and self-sustained marae
Support sustainable development of Mori: outcomes, leadership, community and

partnerships
Page 60
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
23.
Facilitating a Mori/iwi economic powerhouse.

A summary of the IMSBs top 10 business case proposals are attached as Appendix C.
Proposed Mana Whenua priorities for 2015-2025 LTP (Mr Taiparis question two)
24. The mayor met with Mana Whenua chairs and staff to discuss their priorities and aspirations
for the 2015-2025 LTP. Mana Whenua representatives also provided some feedback on the
council group proposals and the IMSBs priorities. Staff also met with Mana Whenua chairs and
staff to discuss LTP priorities.
25. Priorities in the table attached as Appendix D reflect those discussions but also reflect Mana
Whenua views submitted in person or by email and priorities and issues raised through Auckland
Plan, Unitary Plan and Local Board Plan submissions. Mana Whenua priorities were included in
the development of the LTP proposal provided to the mayor for consideration.
Development of LTP proposal for the mayors consideration
26. Te Waka Angamua and Finance staff undertook a process of triangulating the LTP
proposals put forward by the IMSB, Mana Whenua and the council group to determine the degree
of consistency between proposals and to identify the relative priority given to different activities
from the three sets of information. These activities were aligned to the five key areas in the
proposed LTP top down framework discussed in paragraph 17.
27. The results of this triangulation exercise were shared with the IMSB and informed the
development of a proposal for the mayors consideration. This proposal (attached as Appendix E)
sought $96 million of new investment ($45 million capex and $51 million opex); and identified $3
million of activities and budgets from across the council group which would need to be
reprioritised; and approximately $23 million of existing activities which would need to continue in
order to achieve meaningful progress on the Mori transformational shift in the 2015-2025 LTP.
28. The mayor has advised that he took into consideration the financial constraints across the
council group and used the information provided by Te Waka Angamua and the Finance staff to
identify the top three priorities that he felt should be included in the LTP. Specific funding was not
identified for each priority in the mayors proposal.
Work undertaken since the mayors LTP proposals were released (Mr Taiparis question
one)
29. On 28 August 2014 the mayor announced his LTP proposals. The mayor noted that the
2012-2022 LTP projected an average annual rates increase capped at 4.9 per cent. For the 20152025 LTP, the mayor has proposed to cap the average rates increases at 2.5 per cent for the first
two years and 3.5 per cent for the remaining years. Achieving this requires a significant reduction
in councils projected operational and capital expenditure budgets and careful prioritisation of
agreed expenditure.
30. Staff from across the council group have identified options to reprioritise capex and opex
budgets in line with the mayors proposals and have discussed these with the Budget Committee
and local board chairs at a series of workshops throughout September and October.
31. To achieve progress towards the transformational shift to Significantly lift Mori social and
economic wellbeing, the mayors LTP proposal included funding for councils co-governance
obligations and prioritised work (without any new funding) on:
A signature Mori event
Marae development
Papakinga development
32. The mayors top three priorities are drawn from the common priorities identified by IMSB,
Mana Whenua and the council group through the triangulation exercise described in paragraphs
Page 61
Item 13
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
26 and 27. A separate report to this committee provides information on the proposed options for
meeting councils co-governance obligations through the LTP.
33. Following the release of the mayors LTP proposals, the IMSB chair and chief executive met
with the mayor to discuss the remaining priorities identified in IMSBs business cases. The mayor
requested that the councils chief executive work with the council group to identify whether and
how progress could be achieved on these.
34. The chief executive wrote to key business owners across the council group, noting the
mayors top three prioritised LTP proposals and expressing his view that significant progress can
be made on these through working together strategically across the council group. The chief
executive requested that business owners work together with Te Waka Angamua and Finance
staff to identify options for delivery on the mayors top three proposals for discussion at a Budget
Committee workshop, with a clear identification of the contribution from different departments and
CCOs towards this.
35. In respect of IMSBs other proposals, the chief executive noted that further work across the
council group would be needed to identify potential options for delivery on these and that his Mori
Responsiveness Leadership team would drive this process.
36. On October 8, the Budget Committee workshop received a presentation, led by Te Waka
Angamua, outlining the process identified in this report; identifying options for achieving the
mayors top three priorities and noting that work was underway to identify potential options for
achieving the other identified priorities arising from the triangulation exercise. Indicative costings
for these were the same as presented to the mayor prior to 28 August 2014.
Approach and timeline for addressing the scoping and funding of the identified [proposed]
priorities. (Mr Taiparis question four)
37. The chair of the IMSB wrote to the mayor following the Budget Committee workshop on
8 October 2014. Mr Taiparis questions one to three and five have been addressed above. The
table attached as Appendix F responds to question four.
38. Appendix F notes proposed delivery options for the mayors top three priorities and the
IMSBs other priorities. In accordance with the mayors request to councils chief executive, staff
also undertook further work to identify options for achieving the remaining proposed priorities,
within the budget envelopes identified in the mayors LTP proposal.
39. The options identified are unlikely to achieve the IMSBs priorities or the Auckland Plan
Mori transformational shift. Taking this into account, staff have proposed additional funding for
years 4 -10 of the LTP ($7 million opex and $42 million capex in total) and identified high level
activities which will contribute towards the achievement of the Auckland Plan Mori
transformational shift and IMSBs priorities. This proposal is addressed in the report to this
committee entitled Long-term Plan 2015-2025 Budget Update on todays agenda.
40. Further work is needed to fully quantify the work programs for the proposed priorities and
this report proposes that council staff work closely with the IMSB secretariat staff over the next
month on the allocation of the proposed additional funding to specific priorities prior to adoption of
the LTP consultation document by the Governing Body on 18 December 2014.
41. Following this, as part of planning and budgeting to implement the agreed LTP Maori
transformational shift priorities, council and IMSB secretariat staff will work together on identifying
activities and budgets within overall budget envelopes and report back to this committee prior to
the LTP being adopted.
Consideration
42. Local boards have not been consulted in the development of this report. This report
responds to five questions from the chair of the IMSB and identifies the process council has
followed to date to help clarify its political direction on priority Mori transformational shift activities
Page 62
in the 2015-2025 LTP; and work undertaken to develop options to respond to the mayors LTP
proposals. The final LTP will be adopted by 1 July 2015 and agreed actions will apply across the
council group including local boards.

43. This report responds to five questions from the chair of the IMSB and identifies the process
council has followed to date to help clarify its political direction on priority Mori transformational
shift activities in the 2015-2025 LTP; and work undertaken to develop options to respond to the
mayors LTP proposals.
44. The attachments to this report identify proposals put forward by IMSB, Mana Whenua and
the council group to achieve the Auckland Plan transformational shift to significantly lift Mori
social and economic wellbeing.
Implementation
45. This report notes that work will continue throughout the LTP development process to identify
options for delivery on the mayors top three priorities and the other activities prioritised by IMSB,
Mana Whenua and the council group to achieve the Auckland Plan transformational shift to
significantly lift Mori social and economic wellbeing.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Appendix A Letter from chair of Independent Mori Statutory Board
65
Appendix B Proposed council group LTP proposals August 2014
67
Appendix C Summary of IMSB LTP business cases August 2014
69
Appendix D Mana Whenua LTP priorities August 2014
71
Appendix E Triangulated LTP proposals August 2014
73
Appendix F Proposed LTP priorities
75
Signatories
Author
Deborah James - Executive Officer
Authorisers
Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive
Page 63
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 65
Attachment A
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 66
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13
Appendix B
Proposed council group LTP proposals August 2014

Economic
Mana whenua
capability and
capacity i.e.
Forum, RMA
training etc.
Marae
development
3.91
Waka Strategy
& Cultural
Centre
3.0
22.12
30.7
Signature
Event
10.0
Papakainga
development
35.3
1.7
Matauranga
Maori
including
mana whenua
planning
documents
Cultural
landscapes
1.08
Maori business
analysis and
sector
strategies
Raise
educational
outcomes
0.4
Maori cultural
heritage ring
fence
0.0
Te reo Maori
0.0
Land &
property
development
opportunities
Trade training
leverage
contractor
relationships
Haere
whakamua
social
enterprise
Maori
economic
growth forum
Total $m
0.0
71
0.4
Social
Post Treaty
Settlements
Affordable
Housing:
Provider
Forum
Post -Treaty
settlements
team
1.0
Leaders
programme
0.25
Maunga
Authority
resourcing
1.8
Internship
programme
2.0
Innovation
Fund
0.5
0.75
0.22
Whanau wellbeing focus

on most
vulnerable
Maori sport and
recreation plan
0.5
Mataawaka
networks and
engagement
1.5
Maori
effectiveness
0.5
Attachment B
Cultural
0.1
2.2
1.7
41.6
3.5
2.8
2.75
Page 67
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13
Appendix C
Summary of IMSB LTP business cases August 2014

Economic
Social
Marae
development
38.95
Major
signature
event
21.23
Papakainga
development
Iwi
management
plans
22.5
2 FTEs
ATEED
Key
Sector
strategies
2.0
Environmental
projects
28.9
7.36
Sites of
significance
Te reo Maori
7.56
Maori
sculpture
and
symposiu
m
Total
104.9
2.85
Maori
contributi
on to
decisionmaking
12.22
Post-Treaty
Settlements
Cogovernance
& comanageme
nt
arrangemen
ts
Maori
Effectiveness
31.16
1.35
Attachment C
Cultural
4.17
31.94
12.22
31.16
Page 69
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13
Appendix D
Mana Whenua LTP priorities August 2014

Economic
Social
Post Treaty
Settlements
Maori
effectiveness
Mana Whenua
capability and
capacity to
respond to the
council
Marae capability
and
development,
including
establishing own
Papakainga
development
Economic
Development
Affordable
Housing
Resourcing for
Maunga Authority
IS solution for
information to
and from mana
whenua
Support for waka

programme,
activities, and
facility
Maori youth
resilience
Enable settlement
outcomes
Internships in
partnership with
mana whenua
and universities
Impacts of
development
Impact of SHAs
on mana whenua
rates ability to
live in Auckland
Partnering with
universities to
leverage
outcomes
(particularly
environmental)
Commercial
development
opportunities
Child poverty
Water quality
Cultural
landscapes and
sites of
significance work
Mana Whenua
involvement in
environmental
monitoring
Maori identity
across the entire
region
Mana Whenua
strategic planning
Attachment D
Cultural
Maternal and
ante-natal care
Address domestic
violence
Page 71
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 13
Appendix E
Triangulated LTP proposals August 2014
Social
Economic
Cultural
Mori
effectiveness
Post Treaty
Settlements
Mataawaka
networks and
engagement
Waka Strategy
Mana whenua
participation in natural
resource
management* $5m
Mori
responsiveness
leadership
programme $0.25m
Maunga
Authority
resourcing
$1.8m
Economic
development
activities* $7m
Marae development
$22.5m capex
$8.2 opex
Innovation fund
Post Treaty
Settlement
Team $1m
Signature Event
$10m
Papakinga
development
$22.5m capex
$12.8m opex
Raise educational
outcomes $0.4m
Cultural landscapes
$0.0
Land & property

development
opportunities $0.4
Mori cultural heritage

fund ringfence $0.0
$1.5m
Whnau wellbeing -most

vulnerable
$0.5m
$1m capex
$2m opex
$0.5m
Attachment E
To be reprioritised
New funding sought $96m
Prioritised transformational activities
Internship
programme Mori
focus $2m
Mori economic
growth forum $1.5m
Current work
programme
Mori sport and

recreation plan
Marae development
$5m
Trade training
leveraging
contractor
relationships
Sites of significance
$7.6
Haere whakamua
social enterprise
Capacity contracts
Ng kete akoranga
learning and
development $1m
$9.5m
Te reo Mori
Page 73
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Proposed
draft LTP
priority
Proposed delivery option
Regional marae
development
Yes one of
Mayors top 3
priorities
Regional
papakinga
development
Yes one of
Mayors top 3
priorities
$10m over LTP life for Marae and Papakainga development

Auckland Council group approach to utilise staff expertise and reduce
burden of planning and consenting costs
Potential dedicated capex fund, ring fenced within Watercare and
Auckland Transport for roading and water infrastructure for marae
development and papakainga development.
Facilitation of joint agency investors forum with other partners to
maximise available support
Major signature
Mori event
Yes one of
Mayors top 3
priorities.
To be developed and delivered by ATEED.
Proposed timeline for scoping and funding
Marae needs analysis is underway and will be completed in

Dec 2014. Results will inform development of detailed work
programme.
Council staff will work closely with the IMSB secretariat staff
over the next month to allocate the proposed additional funding
to specific priorities prior to adoption of the LTP consultation
document by the Governing Body on 18 December 2014.
Explore increasing funding envelope for Mori signature event
to level of council investment in Diwali and the Lantern Festival
ATEED have confirmed $5m over LTP lifetime for this.
Additional funding
proposed
Yes proposed dedicated
budget including provision
within Watercare and
Auckland Transport for
network infrastructure for
marae and papakainga
development.
Yes to leverage off a

signature event to create a
Mori calendar of events.
Attachment F
IMSB
business
case priority
Item 13
Appendix F proposed LTP priorities and identification of additional funding proposals
Explore potential for CDAC budget of $1.4m for Matariki

community events and $1.8m for Waitangi Day events to form
part of the budget to create a Mori calendar of events.
Increasing the
visibility of
Aucklands
Mori identity
Sites of
significance to
Mana Whenua
work
programme
Increasing Mori
engagement in
key economic
growth activities
Yes- led by
Heritage team.
Recommend ring fence currently agreed funding of $7.7m over LTP lifetime.
Yes- needs
further
discussion
regarding
approach
IMSB key recommendation is to establish 2 FTE Economic Growth

Specialists positions at ATEED to ensure growth of Maori business.
Developing iwi
management
plans and
environmental
projects
Mori
contribution to
decision-making
Yes
Yes
Increase support for development of Regional Mana Whenua Forum to

ensure regular opportunities for leadership and officer level discussion.
Co-governance
and co-
Yes
The Mayors LTP proposal identifies funding for council to meet its cogovernance obligations through the LTP.
Council group proposals focus on supporting Maori businesses to engage

with international events, trade delegations and foreign direct investment;
working at marae level to grow social enterprise; Maori business analysis and
Maori economic development forum.
Needs further discussion regarding approach
The work plan for the first year and proposal for the longer
term have been discussed with IMSB secretariat staff and
been agreed to by iwi.
Preliminary work to establish this Forum is underway.
document by the Governing Body on 18 December 2014
A separate report to this committee discusses the estimated
cost to meet councils co-governance obligations through the
No
Yes to ensure sufficient

support and focus for growth
of Maori business.
No
Yes to ensure sufficient

resourcing to ensure Forum
functions optimally.
See separate report.
Page 75
management
arrangements
Promoting te reo Yes
Mori
LTP.
IMSB priorities are proposed Te Reo in libraries programme; dual language
signage and public transport announcements in Te Reo. Renewals
programme and city transformation project creates potential opportunities to
implement.
Yes to address remaining

components.
Attachment F
Item 13
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 76
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 14

File No.: CP2014/25352
Purpose
1.
This report asks the Budget Committee to approve a renewed City Centre Targeted Rate
(CCTR) for the 2016-25 period and to include this rate in the relevant Long Term Plan activity
budgets, financial policies and statements.
2.
The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) wishes to formally request that the
application of the renewed rate to projects is on a significantly different basis to the historic CCTR.
3.
In particular, the ACCAB wants brought to the Committees attention that the City Centre is
self-funding what are becoming standard levels of service and funded via the general rate
elsewhere in the region. The ACCAB is willing to see such capital investments continue to be
funded by City Centre targeted rates, but asks that in return - ongoing depreciation and
consequential opex costs are funded by the general rate.
Mayoral summary
4.
The former Auckland City Council adopted a CBD targeted rate in 2004-05 to develop and
upgrade the City Centre. This rate currently generates at approximately $20 million every year
until 2015-16, after which a residual amount was to be levied to fund the depreciation and
consequential operating expenditure (opex) that arose from targeted rate projects.
5.
The application of this rate to projects is managed by Council and CCO staff and it is
completely separate to the targeted rates that fund Heart of the City and the Karangahape Road
Business Association.
6.
The ACCAB also acts as a ready-made, well informed and representative consultation
forum for Auckland Council on City Centre issues.
7.
The ACCAB has had detailed formal discussion around renewing the targeted rate. It
supports the renewal from 2016-17 onwards, but wishes to remedy what it sees as serious flaws
in the current arrangements. In particular, it wishes to see consequential opex and depreciation
funded from general rates. Depending on how and when this occurs, it would, at most, result in a
one-off increase of 0.69% in the general rate and 0.14% each year thereafter.
8.
The ACCAB has offered to smooth the impact on the general rate of any transition by
recommending that some of the substantial unspent balance, sitting in the targeted rate account,
be used to fund consequential opex and depreciation over a number of years to avoid it hitting the
general rate in the early years of the LTP.
9.
The ACCAB asks the Budget Committee to note that while there is an impact from the
proposed arrangements on the general rate, this is more than offset by the $20 million per annum
(in real terms) to be levied solely on City Centre business ratepayers from 2016-22.
10. As part of its LTP deliberations, it is appropriate that the Auckland Council consider whether
to renew this targeted rate and on what basis it should be renewed.
11. The Budget Committee's attention is drawn to the need to renew the targeted rate if there is
to be any significant transformation of the Region's centre over the first half of the LTP period.
Such transformation is necessary if the City Centre is to be internationally competitive in terms of
attracting tourists, high productivity workers and investment, as well as retaining talented
Aucklanders.
Page 77
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Recommendation/s
That the Budget Committee, for the purposes of the Draft 2015-25 Long Term Plan
approve the following changes to the City Centre Targeted Rate for adoption by the
Governing Body as part of the material to support LTP consultation:
a)
agree to make provision for the City Centre programme in the LTP budget of $20
million each financial year, in real terms, from 2016/2017 to 2024/2025 inclusive
b)
agree that, in general, the additional depreciation and operational costs

(consequential opex) of capital works arising from the City Centre programme cease
to be funded from the City Centre targeted rate, from 2019-20 financial year onwards
and that these be met from general rates, or other appropriate revenue sources
c)
agree that the general rates impact of b above be transitioned in over the early
years of the LTP budget by utilising the unspent funds that have already been raised
from the City Centre targeted rate
d)
agree that the City Centre Targeted Rate can be used to fund projects already
proposed by the Auckland Council Group, but as a general operating principle,
ACCAB retains an active and formal role in early project identification, selection,
prioritisation and design.
e)
agree that a significant proportion of each years targeted rate is available for the
ACCAB to respond by continue to recommend operating or capital project
opportunities.
Comments
12. This report follows a presentation to the Councils Budget Committee on 22 September this
year.
13. At the time of establishing the CCTR, Auckland City also established the CBD Advisory
Board. The Board has been continued by Auckland Council and renamed the Auckland City
Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB). Its terms of reference (Attachment A)include a role in providing
guidance into the portfolio of City Centre projects, including those funded via the City Centre
targeted rate. The board is made up of senior representatives from commercial, business
promotion, residential and education organisations, as well as mayoral, local board and council
ward representatives.
14. The City Centre Advisory Board (ACCAB) exists to assist the Auckland Council, specifically
the governing body and the Waitemata Local Board and Auckland council controlled organisations
to oversee and be a key advisor to the Auckland Council on achieving the vision and strategic
outcomes of the Auckland Plan, the City Centre Masterplan, the expenditure of the city centre
targeted rate, and city centre issues (Extract from the Terms of Reference for the Auckland City
Centre Advisory Board, Attachment A).
15. Since the inception of the targeted rate in 2004, it has been used to fund the mix of
expenditures depicted in the pie graph below:
Page 78
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
16. The advisory board has met over the course of this calendar year to discuss the renewal and
nature of the city centre targeted rate. Discussion has focussed on what the board believe are
necessary changes to what the targeted rate gets spent on. These changes are discussed below.
17. Depreciation and Consequential Opex. Currently, the targeted rate funds any
depreciation and operating costs that arise from targeted rate funded capital projects. This has
two significant implications:
a)
As more projects are funded by the targeted rate, the amount of the targeted rate needed
for resulting depreciation and consequential opex increases. Currently, over $7 million of the $20
million raised in 2014 will be spent on depreciation and consequential opex, leaving only $13
million for new projects. If the current targeted rate regime were to continue, eventually all of the
revenue raised would go to funding depreciation and consequential opex, leaving none for new
projects. This would mean that any new City Centre upgrades would need to be funded by the
general rate2. This depicted in the diagram below.
Targeted Rates (millions)
$20
New Capital & Operating Projects
Consequential Opex and Depreciation
$0
10
Years
b)
Targeted rate projects, such as shared spaces, have the full depreciation and
consequential opex of the asset charged to the targeted rate. For all of the shared spaces, there
were already roads and footpaths in place, for which the depreciation and consequential opex
would have been charged to the general rate. Instead of only paying for the higher level of service
(the marginal costs), the targeted rate picks up the cost of the base/unimproved level of service as
well, thus taking on costs that would have been spread over the whole region via the general rate.
This issue also has implications for how the shared space was funded. Before any upgrade to a
shared space occurs, the existing road, footpaths, streetlights and other Council group owned
2
Other revenue sources, such as development contributions and NZTA financial assistance may also apply.
Page 79
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
assets have had depreciation charged against those assets. This would have been collected as
general rates, NZTA subsidies, etc. and be effectively saved until the time came to renew the
assets. Any accumulated depreciation, therefore, should be used at the time of an upgrade (e.g.
to a shared space) to fund that upgrade.
18. The ACCAB propose that under a renewed targeted rate regime, depreciation and
consequential opex should be funded by the general rate. If that were to happen in 2016-17, it
would mean a one-off 0.69% increase in the general rate, in addition to any programmed rates
increase. In subsequent years, as new projects are funded from the targeted rate, additional
annual rates rises of 0.14% would need to be accommodated.
19. Transition Mechanism to Soften Rates Impact. There is, however, a substantial unspent
balance in the City Centre Targeted Rate account. By the 2014-15 financial year this is expected
to be at $20.3 million and, depending on whether any additional projects to the $15 million capex
are planned for 2015-16, a similar surplus is expected for that year.
20. As it is a targeted rate, this money needs to be spent for the purpose for which it was
collected. The ACCAB have indicated that they are willing to support use of the some of the
targeted rate account balance to fund depreciation and consequential opex in the earlier years of
the LTP period to soften the impact of moving depreciation and consequential opex to the general
rate.
If the targeted rate account balance is used to soften the effect of transitioning depreciation and
consequential opex to the general rate, the effect on the general rate could be scheduled
according to any of the scenario options in Appendix 3. Option 3 is the recommended option.
21. Levels of Service and City Centre General Rate Contribution. The ACCAB have asked
that upgraded streetscapes receive the highest level of service in terms of cleaning frequencies,
refuse pickup, etc. It is the ACCABs expectation that these higher levels of service are funded
from the general rate. The rationale for this is that these streetscapes are regional showcases
and are situated in Auckland's largest and highest productivity employment area. The City Centre
is a regional, as opposed to local, employment centre. The highly developed employment and
residential nature of the City Centre results in high capital values (particularly driven by high rise
buildings) and thus a relatively high share of the general rate is generated by City Centre property.
In addition to the City Centre, Karangahape Road and Heart of the City targeted rates, the area
also generates over $90 million in general rates and uniform annual general charges each year
22. A Broader Range of Projects. In general, the City Centre targeted rate is currently used to
fund projects in addition to, or at a higher level of service than, those that the Council proposes to
fund as part of its business as usual programmes. The ACCAB proposes that this practice could
change so that the targeted rate could fund projects proposed by Auckland Council, CCOs and the
ACCAB, where funding is not available under proposed LTP budgets.
23. As a general operating principle, ACCAB requests that it retains an active and formal role in
early input into project identification, selection, prioritisation and design.
24. The ACCAB, however, also has stressed the importance of retaining some financial
capacity, in the targeted rate account, to respond to emerging opportunities in terms of operating
and capital projects.
25. Depending on the outcome of the LTP budgeting process, targeted rate funding of some
programmed Auckland Council and Auckland Transport projects could make the difference
between having very few transformational projects in the City Centre and a programme that sees
the City Centre sufficiently upgraded to a standard comparable to competing cities in Australia and
further afield.
26. A Broader Base for the Targeted Rate. At the suggestion of the board membership,
consideration should be given to: 1) broadening the types of property liable for the rate to include
residential properties to the degree that they benefit form targeted rate expenditure, and 2)
broadening the geographic area, where appropriate, to include groups of property benefiting from
targeted rate expenditure.
Page 80
27. There are around 16,000 residential units in the City Centre area. A targeted rate of $50
(excluding GST) per unit would generate $800,000, while a targeted rate of $100 (excluding GST)
per unit would generate $1.6 million.
28. The discussions above is intended to reflect the advisory boards formal resolutions.
Relevant resolutions are attached as Attachment B.
Consideration
29. The Waitemata Local Board is directly represented on the ACCAB through the presence of
its chairman as a member. The Local Boards representative has taken an active role in the
ACCABs deliberations.

30. Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Rawa Limited are also represented on the Advisory Board. City
Centre projects are of direct interest to Ngati Whatua, particularly those affecting its own
significant property holdings in Central Auckland.
31. The Advisory Board relies on Auckland Council advisors to ensure that the projects that it
supports are implemented according to any agreements with mana whenua, as well as ensuring
tikanga in general is accommodated.
Implementation
32. The renewal of the targeted rate needs to be implemented via legislated decision making
processes within the overall LTP process. Specifically, the targeted rate needs to be incorporated
into the Funding Impact Statement each year.
33. While the ACCAB has no absolute right to determine the size or nature of the targeted rate,
or what it is to be spent on, it is recommended that Council staff work with the advisory board to
finalise an agreed common position on the targeted rate for inclusion in the LTP.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Terms of Reference for the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
83
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board, 27 August 2014, Confidential

Minutes Page 3
93
City centre targeted rate (CCTR) options for funding depreciation and
consequential opex
95
Signatories
Authors
John Dunshea - Manager City Transformation Projects

Rick Walden General Manager, City Centre Integration
Authorisers

Page 81
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Terms of Reference for the Auckland City Centre Advisory

Board
1.
These terms of reference set out the roles, responsibilities and working arrangements for
the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board.
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
2.
The board is a key advisory body, with no decision-making or autonomous budgetary
authority.
3.
The board will assist the Auckland Council, specifically the governing body and the
Waitemata Local Board and Auckland council controlled organisations to oversee and be a key
advisor to the Auckland Council on achieving the vision and strategic outcomes of the Auckland
Plan, the City Centre Masterplan, the expenditure of the city centre targeted rate, and city centre
issues.
4.
The City Centre Masterplans vision is to grow and consolidate the city centres
international reputation as one of the worlds most vibrant and dynamic business and cultural
centres. The strategic outcome areas supporting the vision are that Aucklands city centre will be:
recognised as one of the Pacific Rims premier business locations
a high quality living urban environment
the most popular destination for Aucklanders and visitors to the region
a world class centre for education, research, innovation and development
a place recognised as the heart of the worlds most liveable city.
Attachment A
Role of the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board

5.
The role of the board is to:
Assist the council to plan, develop, shape and drive the delivery of the city centre
strategies
Report stakeholder views and promote dialogue on initiatives within the city centre
portfolio
Act as a think tank and sounding board for the City transformation projects team on new
and existing initiatives
Champion and provide leadership for city centre strategies in the wider community
Maintain an overview of the strategies and action plans to assist with integration of the
initiatives
Monitor the progress of strategies and action plans relating to the city centre
Provide guidance into the portfolio of city centre projects including those funded via the
city centre targeted rate
Establish, safeguard and promote the pursuit of excellence of all projects in the city
centre portfolio from inception to delivery.
Provide input to or lead other city centre stakeholder reference groups on specific
projects or relevant council strategies impacting the city centre
Review or recommend any proposed changes to the city centre targeted rate policy
Review and provide feedback on the city centre streetscapes and open space upgrade
projects:
a) concept designs
b) developed designs
c) endorse the concept designs prior to going out for public consultation
Provide a sounding board to the designers for the city centre streetscapes and open
space upgrade projects
Page 83
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Ensure a cohesive approach to the designs of the city centre streetscapes and open
space upgrade projects
Note: These roles are also shared by the governing body and the Waitemata Local Board and Auckland council
controlled organisations as appropriate and are not solely the function of the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board.
6.
These roles and responsibilities are detailed below, with an explanation of what they will
mean in practice.
(a)
Assist the council to plan, shape and drive the delivery of the city centre strategies
This means the board members, individually and collectively, will:
come prepared to meetings having pre-read and considered agendas and associated
documents
participate actively in the city centre strategy review process led by Auckland Council
bring their own ideas for programme and process improvements to the boards attention
feed ideas and comments into the councils decision making processes (eg making
recommendations to council committees.
Attachment A
(b)
Report stakeholder views and promote dialogue on initiatives within the city centre portfolio
This means the board members, individually and collectively will:
actively engage their networks in dialogue about city centre strategies and programmes
bring ideas and comments from their networks/stakeholders back to board meetings for
discussion
ensure their networks get feedback on any ideas and issues they raise.
(c)
Act as a sounding board for the City Transformation Projects team on new and existing
initiatives
receive and discuss reports and presentations from the City Transformation Projects team
members
provide comment and feedback on ideas and initiatives brought to it by City Transformation
Projects team members
actively debate issues but seek, ultimately, to develop a single board view on ideas and
initiatives brought to it
request that reviews of projects be conducted for consideration by Council.
(d)
Champion and provide leadership for city centre strategies in the wider community
invest time and effort into understanding the city centre strategies and its programme of
action
seek opportunities to speak positively about the strategies to external audiences
provide media comment if requested by the City Centre Advisory Board Chair.
(e)
Maintain an overview of the strategies and action plans to assist with integration of the
initiatives
familiarise themselves with the three year action plans (with a particular focus on the
current years programme of action/works)
actively monitor opportunities for city centre projects to leverage from/add value to each
other
identify potential conflicts between individual projects and/or project objectives
debate and provide a view on trade-offs between projects and between the objectives of
individual projects
Page 84

identify and bring to the boards attention potential conflicts and synergies between
external (non-council) and the council initiatives, perspectives and programmes.
(f)
Monitor the progress of the city centre portfolio
receive and actively consider progress reports presented to the board
identify any concerns about progress
recommend ways of addressing any progress delays or issues (e.g. reviewing the scope,
quantity, timing, of and/or resources for delivering on projects).
(g)
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Provide guidance into the portfolio of projects funded via the city centre targeted rate
(h)
Establish and safeguard the pursuit of excellence of all projects in the city centre portfolio
from inception to delivery.
demonstrate in themselves and their board input and participation their personal best
expression of the quality of excellence and its pursuit
work collectively to ensure that all board goals seek the best possible inputs into city centre
strategies, action plans and outcomes.
(i)
Provide input to or lead other city centre stakeholder reference groups on specific projects
or relevant council strategies impacting the city centre.
make known to the board their areas of expertise and interest
actively participate in specially convened city centre stakeholder reference groups
convene and lead specially convened city centre stakeholder reference groups
actively participate in consultation on council policies and strategies which have

implications for the city centre.
(j)
Review or recommend any proposed changes to the city centre targeted rate policy
This means the board members individually and collectively, will:
receive and discuss information relating to city centre targeted rate policy annually
make recommendations into councils decision making processes relating to any targeted
rate policy change.
(k)
To review and provide feedback on city centre streetscapes and open space upgrade
projects :
i.
concept designs
ii.
developed designs
iii.
endorse the concept designs prior to going out for public consultation
provide comment and feedback on the designs presented to them by members of the City
Transformation Projects team
feed ideas and comments prior to councils decision making processes.
Page 85
Attachment A
familiarise themselves with the city centre targeted rates supported programme of works
discuss the programme with their networks
invest time and effort into understanding how and to what extent individual projects
contribute to achieving the city centre vision and outcomes
develop an informed view about project priorities.
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
(l)
Provide a sounding board to the designers on city centre streetscapes and open space
upgrade projects
This means the board, individually and collectively, will
provide constructive feedback to designers in advance of formal consultation processes.

(m)
Ensure a cohesive approach to the designs of the city centre streetscapes and open space
upgrade projects
Attachment A
This means the board members, individually and collectively, will
consider the designs from the perspective of their respective sectors, seeking to provide
comments on the designs from a holistic perspective.
Page 86
1.
The board will comprise up to 15 external city centre stakeholder representatives and 3
political representatives.
2.
The board members need to demonstrate the following qualities:

passion and commitment to the development of Aucklands central city
credibility and prominence in the community
an understanding of the city centre and support for Auckland Councils vision
commitment to playing an active role on the board
an ability to effectively chair meetings.
3.
The board will be sought from the following sectors or groups:

City Stakeholders
Representatives
corporate sector including financial and other professional

services
urban design/institute of architects
tourism/travel
Business Improvement Districts
Retail
Education (The University of Auckland & Auckland

University of Technology)
Ngati Whatua
Residents (representatives from the CBD Residents Advisory

Group)
Property Council
Arts and Cultural Sector
Governing Body of Auckland Council (Mayor and Waitemata

Ward Councillor)
Waitemata Local Board
All board members and alternates, either individual or representing an organisation, should
have a city centre focus and support interest.
Selection of Members
4.
Selection of members will follow the Policy for selection and replacement of Auckland City
Centre Advisory Board members process. (see Appendix A)
5.
Each representative should be a person that is able to demonstrate the qualities outlined
above.
Page 87
Attachment A
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board composition
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Chair and Deputy Chair

6.
The roles of Chair and Deputy Chair will be elected from the non elected/political
representatives by the full board at the first board meeting and thereafter annually at a meeting
determined by the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board.
Term of office/resignations/replacements/alternates
Attachment A
7.
Board members may represent their stakeholder group/sector for an unlimited number of
terms, as membership is sought through representative organisations.
A Chair and Deputy Chair will be elected annually.
The Chair and Deputy Chair can be re-elected each year of their term as Board members.
The Policy for Selection and Replacement of Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
Members records how the board will receive and process resignations and subsequent
replacements of members, as well as the selection of new the board members.
Alternates may be nominated for political representatives and representatives of the

following bodies:
Business Improvement Districts,
Auckland University of Technology,
University of Auckland,
Ngati Whatua,
Property Council,
Institute of Architects,
CBD Residents Advisory Group, and
NZ Institute of Landscape Architects.
Meetings
Meeting schedule/timing/nature
8.
Members will meet on an (unpaid) voluntary basis.
The board meets monthly, with the flexibility to meet as and when required on specific
issues/projects.
Meetings will generally be of 2 hours duration unless an alternative duration is agreed

beforehand.
The Democracy advisor will arrange the venue and catering for each meeting.
Meeting agendas will focus on progressing the strategies for the city centre as a whole and
on specific projects.
Subgroups may be formed to expedite progress, with one board member taking
responsibility for championing particular projects or outcome area.
The quorum at a meeting shall be at least half the number of members.
Page 88
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
9.
The Auckland Council is constituted under a co-governance model.
10.
The Auckland City Centre Advisory Board may make recommendations to the governing
body, the Waitemata Local Board, and relevant Auckland Council Controlled Organisations, and/or
the City Centre Integration Group, depending on which of these bodies has decision making
authority over the matter(s) being reported on.
Item 14
Reporting
Agenda distribution/minutes
11.
date.
Agendas for the board meetings will be distributed 3 working days prior to the meeting
Meeting agendas will be set by the chair and/or the deputy chair in consultation with the
City Transformation Team Leader or City Transformation Projects Manager.
Minutes of the board meetings will be distributed to members and public no later than 5
working days after the board meeting.
Staff support/servicing of board

12.
The City Transformation Projects Manager is responsible for the Auckland City Centre
Advisory Board.
The Democracy Advisor, Democracy Services department will act as secretary and will be
the first point of contact for board meetings.
The Democracy Advisor will be responsible for arranging board meetings, catering,
paperwork, reimbursements, council/board communications etc.
The City Transformation Projects Manager will provide a monthly portfolio report to the
board.
A staff member from the City Centre Integration Group will, where practicable, attend
board meetings and report.
Resourcing of the board

13.
$8000 per annum will be allocated to the administration of board meetings catering,
printing, reimbursements etc.
Members will not be remunerated for participation on the board, however reasonable
travel/parking costs may be reimbursed.
Protocols for members/conflicts of interest

14.
The board will work under a code of conduct for their members and meetings (covering
issues such as conflicts of interest, pecuniary interests, qualified privilege etc).
To assist the board members in the above matter, each board member will provide a list of
the organisations they represent and their role within each of these organisations.
Page 89
Attachment A
A proposed agenda item may be submitted by a board member to the board secretary
(Democracy Advisor, up to 15 days prior to a board meeting. If the item is not accepted by the
chair and/or deputy chair, the member will be advised of the reason prior to the agenda being
circulated.
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A
Item 14
Code of conduct
15.
The code of conduct includes protocols around conflicts of interest, respecting
confidentiality and ensuring ones actions and comments do not bring the council into disrepute.
16.
With this in mind, board members are to:
declare any conflicts of interest to the board and then abstain from decisions where there
is a conflict of interest.
(N.B a conflict of interest is likely to occur if a board member has a pecuniary or social interest in a
matter being discussed by the board. In other words, the member may stand to benefit from a
decision made by the board about that particular matter. An example could be a discussion about
a piece of work that the member may propose to carry out as a consultant or contractor. A conflict
may also be perceived rather than actual. Such conflicts need to be considered and a decision
made as to whether they should be treated as actual).
raise their concerns with the board, where there is a lack of clarity around whether there is
a real conflict of interest or where such a conflict could be perceived, and seek a decision on
whether or not the issue is to be considered as if a conflict of interest exists.
keep confidential any matters brought to it in confidence.

(N.B as a public body council must always justify why something is to be heard in confidence. It is
unlikely; therefore, that many confidential matters will be brought to the board)
ensure that their behaviour or actions do not bring the council into disrepute.
(N.B. This does not prevent members from legitimately challenging council policy decisions.)
Recommendation processes
17.
Board recommendations are to be:
based on robust information and debate ensuring that the different perspectives of the
members are considered
developed and presented as the boards view.

(N.B. This does not mean there can be no difference of opinion. What it does mean is that
members are expected to not undermine the boards collective agreed view, even if their personal
view differs from the collective view; although this does not prevent members from legitimately
expressing their individual or representative organisations view on council policy decisions, on the
condition that they do not purport to represent the view of the board.)
Review of Board
18.
The board will be reviewed on delivery of the Auckland Plan, and thereafter, every three
years.
Policy for selection and replacement of Auckland City Centre

Advisory Board members
Selection of new or replacement Board members
Industry representatives
As elected representatives appointed to the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board have
authority to appoint other members.
A list of suitable industry bodies will be identified from the sectors/groups listed in the
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board Terms of Reference, utilising the Auckland City Centre
Advisory Board members knowledge, influence and wider professional networks and in
conjunction with the Manager City Transformation Projects
Page 90

An Auckland City Centre Advisory Board member will then approach the representative
organisation for nomination a suitable representative candidate
The candidate should demonstrate the qualities outlined in the terms of reference
Once a suitable candidate is nominated by the representative organisation, the person is

then formally invited by letter to participate in the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
Acceptance should also be by formal letter.
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Auckland Council political representatives

A report is written to Council that recommends appointment of elected representatives to the
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board, once delegation for Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
are known.
Industry representatives
When a representative ends their term of office (or resigns) from the industry or professional
organisation:
Formal letter of resignation received by the Chair of the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
One month notice should be provided
Chair of Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to table the resignation at the next Auckland
City Centre Board meeting
A formal response/letter to be sent the resigning Auckland City Centre Advisory Board
member
The selection for new or replacement members is then followed.
Page 91
Attachment A
Resignations
1.
Auckland City Centre Advisory Board, 27 August 2014, Confidential Minutes Page 3
C1 Update on City Centre Targeted Rate Policy and Long Term Plan
Resolution number CEN/2014/57
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
MOVED by Chairperson L Baragwanath , seconded by Member AS Swney:

That the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board:
a) receive the City Centre Targeted Rate update report
b) note there is a major omission on the contribution the targeted rate has made in the
presentation to the Budget Committee of $56m, which is in fact $175.5m across a much wider
range of projects
c) reaffirm the resolution of its meeting of 25 June 2014 item C2 b) as follows:
taking into account the indicated support from the city centre business ratepayers through
the Boards Members representing those ratepayers, the City Centre Advisory Board supports, in
principle, a post-2016 City Centre Targeted Rate (CCTR) at an indicative level of $20million per
annum, subject to agreement on revised terms as set out below:
i)
depreciation and consequential opex charges arising from new post- 2016 CCTR
projects are funded by the general rate from 2016 onwards
ii)
consequential opex and depreciation for CCTR projects funded by the current policy
(the tail) are to be funded by the general rate from 2016, but with the possibility of up to the first
three years of a portion of the tail (2016-2019) being funded by the current CCTR, in order to
transitionally mitigate the effect of the policy change on the general rate
iii)
projects funded by the CCTR receive the benefit of the highest level of maintenance and
cleaning commensurate with the approved design, context and asset materials, and consistent
with other Council maintenance and cleaning policies for the city centre
iv)
interest earned or paid by the fund is at the same rate or, alternatively, no interest is
calculated at all
v)
the fund being used for a range of capex and opex projects supported by ACCAB, taking
into account the full breadth of projects being undertaken within the city centre, and ensuring
greater cohesion between CCTR-funded and general rates-funded projects
vi)
future CCTR-funded projects may include a range of larger city centre projects but the
ACCAB will continue to allocate a proportion of CCTR funds to smaller city centre improvement
capex projects and operational expenditure projects, as it currently does
vii)
the ACCAB being included more in the development of plans for the city centre, with
greater input into projects and project choices at an early stage
viii)
the payment of the CCTR being confirmed for a period of six years from 1 July 2016 to 30
June 2022 subject to review concurrently with the triennial timelines associated with the Council
review of the LTP
ix)
improved communications to increase public awareness of city centre business funding of
projects using CCTRs.
CARRIED
Page 93
Attachment B
b) affirm the resolutions (CEN/2014/23, dated April 30 2014) with respect to the proposed targeted
rate, with additions as set out below:
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Option 1 - CCTR continues to fund depreciation and consequential opex

2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Totals
21,012,500 21,537,813 22,076,258 22,628,164 23,193,868 23,773,715 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733
235,411,059
Depreciation to be funded
5,100,000
6,169,304
7,200,396
8,196,798
9,161,813 10,098,538 11,009,882 11,898,573 12,767,180 13,618,117
Consequential opex to be funded

Total on depreciation and
consquential opex
2,130,000
2,536,427
2,928,659
3,308,023
3,675,759
5,378,422
38,144,461
7,230,000
8,705,731 10,129,055 11,504,821 12,837,572 14,131,571 15,390,821 16,619,077 17,819,875 18,996,539
133,365,062
CCTR funding depreciation
5,100,000
6,169,304
7,200,396
8,196,798
9,161,813 10,098,538 11,009,882 11,898,573 12,767,180 13,618,117
95,220,601
CCTR funding consequential opex
2,130,000
2,536,427
2,928,659
3,308,023
3,675,759
5,378,422
38,144,461

consquential opex
7,230,000
8,705,731 10,129,055 11,504,821 12,837,572 14,131,571 15,390,821 16,619,077 17,819,875 18,996,539
133,365,062
General rate funding depreciation
4,033,033
4,380,939
4,380,939
4,720,504
4,720,504
5,052,695
5,052,695
95,220,601
13,782,500 12,832,082 11,947,203 11,123,343 10,356,296
9,642,144
8,977,237
8,358,182
7,781,816
7,245,194
102,045,997
General rate funding

consequential opex
consquential opex
CCTR funds for capital projects
(assumes capex to be cash
funded)
4,033,033
Projected General rates increase

General rates impact for funding
CC depreciation and consquential
opex
General rates increase remaining
for all other services and priorities
2.50%
2.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2.50%
2.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
Option 2 - CCTR continues to fund depreciation and consequential opex for 2016 and 2017 then tranistion to general rate funding over five years
2016
CCTR revenue ($20m pa in real
terms, i.e. increased for inflation
each year)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Totals
21,012,500 21,537,813 22,076,258 22,628,164 23,193,868 23,773,715 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733
235,411,059
5,100,000
6,169,304
7,200,396
8,335,228
9,610,365 11,067,787 12,757,673 14,741,766 16,817,089 18,986,966
2,130,000
2,536,427
2,928,659
3,359,934
3,843,966
7,391,740
43,981,700
Total for depreciation and

consquential opex
7,230,000
8,705,731 10,129,055 11,695,162 13,454,331 15,464,288 17,794,034 20,528,467 23,388,500 26,378,706
154,768,274
5,100,000
6,169,304
5,760,317
5,001,137
3,844,146
2,213,557
28,088,461
2,130,000
2,536,427
2,342,927
2,015,961
1,537,586
879,300
11,442,201
Total for CCTR funded

depreciation and consquential
opex
7,230,000
8,705,731
8,103,244
7,017,098
5,381,732
3,092,857
39,530,662
1,440,079
3,334,091
5,766,219
8,854,229 12,757,673 14,741,766 16,817,089 18,986,966
82,698,112
585,732
1,343,974
2,306,380
3,517,201
32,539,500
2,025,811
4,678,065
8,072,599 12,371,430 17,794,034 20,528,467 23,388,500 26,378,706

consequential opex
Total for general rate funded
depreciation and consquential
opex
funded)
4,396,501
5,036,361
5,036,361
5,786,701
5,786,701
6,571,411
6,571,411
7,391,740
13,782,500 12,832,082 13,973,014 15,611,067 17,812,136 20,680,857 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733

opex
to fund all other services and
priorities
2.50%
2.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
0.00%
0.00%
0.14%
0.17%
0.21%
0.25%
0.30%
0.14%
0.14%
0.14%
2.50%
2.50%
3.36%
3.33%
3.29%
3.25%
3.20%
3.36%
3.36%
3.36%
110,786,574
115,237,612
195,880,397
Page 95
Attachment C
2016
each year)
Item 14
City centre targeted rate (CCTR) options for funding depreciation and consquential opex
Item 14
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Appendix 3
Option 3 - CCTR continues to fund depreciation and consequential opex for 2016 and 2017 then tranistion to general rate funding over three years
2016
each year)
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Totals
21,012,500 21,537,813 22,076,258 22,628,164 23,193,868 23,773,715 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733
235,411,059
5,100,000
6,169,304
7,200,396
8,427,515
9,915,181 11,747,975 13,666,211 15,673,017 17,771,622 19,965,361

consquential opex
2,130,000
2,536,427
2,928,659
3,394,542
3,958,272
7,758,638
45,800,454
7,230,000
8,705,731 10,129,055 11,822,057 13,873,453 16,399,547 19,043,273 21,808,938 24,700,983 27,723,999
161,437,036
5,100,000
6,169,304
4,800,264
2,809,172
18,878,740
2,130,000
2,536,427
1,952,440
1,131,514
7,750,381

consquential opex
7,230,000
8,705,731
6,752,704
3,940,686
26,629,121
2,400,132
5,618,343
9,915,181 11,747,975 13,666,211 15,673,017 17,771,622 19,965,361
96,757,842
976,220
2,263,028
3,958,272
38,050,074
3,376,352

consequential opex
consquential opex
Attachment C
2017

funded)
4,651,572
4,651,572
5,377,062
5,377,062
6,135,921
6,135,921
6,929,361
6,929,361
7,758,638
7,881,371 13,873,453 16,399,547 19,043,273 21,808,938 24,700,983 27,723,999
13,782,500 12,832,082 15,323,554 18,687,479 23,193,868 23,773,715 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733

opex
priorities
2.50%
2.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
0%
0%
0.23%
0.29%
0.37%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
2.50%
2.50%
3.27%
3.21%
3.13%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
115,636,582
134,807,916
208,781,939
Option 4 - The general rate funds the depreciation and consquential opex from 2018
2016
each year)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Totals
21,012,500 21,537,813 22,076,258 22,628,164 23,193,868 23,773,715 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733
235,411,059
5,100,000
6,169,304
7,200,396
8,888,950 10,657,432 12,508,782 14,446,038 16,472,340 18,590,928 20,805,150
2,130,000
2,536,427
2,928,659
3,567,580
8,073,559
47,751,481

consquential opex
7,230,000
8,705,731 10,129,055 12,456,530 14,894,048 17,445,656 20,115,536 22,908,007 25,827,529 28,878,709
168,590,801
5,100,000
6,169,304
2,130,000
2,536,427
4,666,427

consquential opex
7,230,000
8,705,731
15,935,731
7,200,396
8,888,950 10,657,432 12,508,782 14,446,038 16,472,340 18,590,928 20,805,150
109,570,016
2,928,659
3,567,580
0 10,129,055 12,456,530 14,894,048 17,445,656 20,115,536 22,908,007 25,827,529 28,878,709

consequential opex
consquential opex
funded)
4,236,616
4,236,616
4,936,874
4,936,874
5,669,498
5,669,498
6,435,667
6,435,667
7,236,601
7,236,601
8,073,559
13,782,500 12,832,082 22,076,258 22,628,164 23,193,868 23,773,715 24,368,058 24,977,259 25,601,691 26,241,733

opex
priorities
2.50%
2.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
3.50%
0%
0%
0.69%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
2.50%
2.50%
2.81%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
3.35%
120,839,320
11,269,304
43,085,054
152,655,070
219,475,328
Page 96
Increasing Business Improvement District (BID) rates to recover BID

support costs
File No.: CP2014/24982
Purpose
1.
This report recommends that the Auckland Region Business Improvement District (BID)
Policy and BID targeted rates be amended to provide for the cost of support provided to the BIDs
by the council to be funded by the BID targeted rates.
Executive summary
2.
There are currently 48 BIDs in the Auckland region for which the council will collect
$14,518,560 in targeted rates in 2014/2015 to spend on projects they have determined. A BID is
only established where a majority of the businesses in the area vote in support.
3.
The costs of the support provided to the BIDs under the BID programme are $860,000, 70
per cent of the total programme cost of $1.2 million for the 2014-2015 financial year. These are
presently funded from general rates.
4.
The benefits of the BID programme and support provided to BIDs accrue to the member
businesses. Staff recommend that these costs be recovered from the targeted rates levied on
BIDs as follows:
a fixed charge of $2000 for business improvement districts with annual targeted rate
revenue of less than $100,000 per annum
a fixed charge of $5000 for business improvement districts with annual targeted rate
revenue in excess of $100,000 per annum
remainder of the costs allocated based on capital value of the business improvement
districts
5.
This option shares the costs across the BIDs recognizing the additional effort required to
support smaller BIDs by the BID Partnership team. On the other hand the larger BIDs while more
self-sufficient due to their scale, are actively involved in and benefit from wider council
programmes. This will add on average 6 per cent to the revenue to be raised from the targeted
rate.
Recommendation/s
That for the purposes of developing the draft Long-term Plan 2015-25 for consultation, the
Budget Committee adopt the proposed changes to the Auckland Region Business
Improvement Districts Policy and Business Improvement District targeted rates as set out
below:
a)
agree that 70% of the cost to support the business improvement district programme
be recovered from business improvement districts via the existing business
improvement district targeted rates and that the costs be allocated to each Business
Improvement District according to the formula below:
i.
$2,000 for business improvement districts (BIDs) with annual targeted rate
ii.
$5,000 for business improvement districts (BIDs) with annual targeted rate
iii.
remainder of the costs allocated based on capital value of the business
Increasing Business Improvement District (BID) rates to recover BID support costs
Page 97
Item 15
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 15
improvement districts.
Background
Auckland region BID Programme
6.
Under the BID Partnership Programme, $14,518,560 will be collected through the BID
targeted rate and paid out to the BIDs for the 2014/15 financial year. The targeted rate revenue
received by the BIDs ranges between $7,017 to over $4,450,000. Key facts about the BID
programme are:
48 BIDs
More than 25,000 businesses
17,233 properties
Capital value over $24 billion
$187 million general rates in 2014/15.
7.
BID activities include business development, networking, training, branding, marketing and
promotion, local improvement initiatives, business events, strategic planning, website
development and advocacy.
8.
All BIDs have signed Partnering Agreements with Auckland Council and have agreed to
abide by the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy. The policy sets the criteria
for establishment of a new BID, BID operating parameters and reporting requirements.
9.
BIDs are currently holding 2014 Annual General Meetings (AGMs) where they will set a
draft budget for the 2015-2016 financial year. The council levies a rate on the BID members to
fund their agreed budget. Any change to the amount sought under the BID targeted rate will
impact on their 2015-2016 budgets, potentially requiring additional meetings to be held.
Council support to the BID Programme
10. The costs of the BID Programme were $1.2 million for the 2014-2015 financial year. This
was funded by Auckland Council from general rates. Approximately 70% of the BID Partnership
teams time is spent on services to BIDs including; liaison, facilitation and promotion of best
practice. The remaining 30% of the time is spent on servicing local boards, assisting with planning
(for example Local Economic Development Action Plans, spatial planning, Place Audits) and preBID establishment investigations.
Comments
11. Staff recommend that 70 per cent of the costs of support provided to BIDs under the BID
Partnership Programme be funded by the BIDs via a targeted rate. This will provide a cost saving
of $860,000. The targeted rate should be structured as follows:
a fixed charge of $2,000 for business improvement districts with annual targeted rate
a fixed charge of $5,000 for business improvement districts with annual targeted rate
remainder of the costs allocated based on the capital value of the business
improvement districts.
12. Staff will continue to review the costs of providing support to BIDs so that the service meets
the needs of the participants and delivers value for money.
Page 98
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
13. While the prosperity of local businesses serves the interest of the entire region the benefits
of the BID Partnership Programme primarily accrue to local businesses within the Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs). BIDs are only formed when a majority of the relevant businesses
agree which implies they consider the benefits to them exceed the costs. While the beneficiaries
can be clearly defined it is difficult to quantify the exact benefits received by individual members.
14. While staff consider that the benefits of the programme and hence the costs should accrue
to the member businesses this may create affordability issues. Consideration was given to a
range of other cost recovery levels and it was determined that a recovery of 70 per cent
represented the appropriate balance between affordability and benefits. The remaining 30 per
cent of the costs is related to the programme but driven by governance and management
demands from within the organisation.
15. A 70 per cent cost recovery will increase the funding requirement for BIDs by around 6 per
cent; the actual change will vary for individual BIDs and members. The modelling for each cost
recovery option along with the alternative methods for allocating this between BIDs is set out in
Attachment A.
Allocation of costs between BIDs
16. A combined fixed cost and capital value allocation provides the best reflection of the relative
effort required to support the BIDs. It also spreads the costs in a way that provides for a more
manageable level of change. Smaller BIDs require a degree of support not related to their size
given they arent large enough to have sufficient internal expertise to address all the issues they
face. On the other hand the larger BIDs due to their scale are actively involved in and benefit from
wider council programmes. There is often more Auckland Council/local board activity in the areas
of the larger BIDs. Examples of initiatives relevant to two of the largest BIDs are the draft
Integrated Business Precinct Plan, East Tamaki Business Precinct Plan and the City Centre
Master Plan.
Impacts
17. Allocation by the combined fixed and variable charge raises the total target rate by more
than 10% for five BIDs. These are:
2 very small BIDs with low membership and revenue (Mangere East Village, Torbay)
3 large BIDs with high revenue and/or capital value (Uptown, North Harbour and Greater
East Tamaki).
18. The two small BIDs above collect, $7,017 and $16,002 targeted rate revenue respectively.
This is far less than the $50,000 required under the Auckland Region Business Improvement
District policy. These BIDs may need to purchase services from alternative suppliers, including
other BIDs, or seek to amalgamate with larger BIDs.
19. The three largest BIDs, Heart of the City, North Harbour and Great East Tamaki will face
charges of $194,000, $69,000 and $103,000 respectively.
Alternatives
20.
Staff also considered two alternative options for the allocation of the costs across the BIDs:
equal payment by each BID of $18,000
allocation to each BID based on their share of the capital value of total BID properties.
21. An equal payment presents affordability issues for the smaller BIDs with over half the BIDs
facing increases over 10 per cent. It also isnt fair reflection of the effort required to support the
larger BIDs. Conversely allocating the costs on a capital value basis places too much of the costs
on the larger BIDs.
Page 99
Item 15
Benefits of the BID programme and appropriate cost recovery
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 15
Consideration
22. The BID Partnership Programme is regional in nature and there is overall benefit to the
region from a strong partnership with the business sector. However, impacts of any change to cost
recovery will be felt by individual BIDs operating within local board areas.
23. Local boards have been consulted as part of the LTP workshops, with presentations from
CPO managers on the impact of savings proposed as part of the Mayors Proposal on
departments ability to deliver on Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI).

24. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of business owners. The impact on Maori
businesses will be similar to the impact on other businesses.
25. The independent Mori Statutory Board has two members on the Budget Committee who
will consider the Mayors Proposal on financial/rating policies including options for setting the BID
targeted rates.
Significance
26. The recommendations in this report are not significant. However, BID targeted rates must be
included in the Funding Impact Statement and will therefore be consulted on as part of the LTP
process. Staff will write to BIDs advising them of the proposed changes.
Implementation
27.
Implementation issues have been addressed in the report.
Attachments
No.
Title
BID analysis
Page
101
Signatories
Author
Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager
Authorisers
Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Page 100
Attachment A
Item 15
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 101
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 16

File No.: CP2014/25326
Purpose
1. This report recommends harmonisation of social housing rents based on 30% of tenants
gross income.
Mayoral summary and recommendations

2. During the Annual Plan 2014/15 process we considered a report on the levels of rental for our
social housing. There were a wide range of rents being charged by the legacy councils and some
differences in the levels of service. At that time we agreed to consult with the tenants on a 5%
increase in the rental (which had not been reviewed for several years) while also signalling a wider
review at the time of the LTP.
3. This is always a difficult issue to tackle, but we do need to be conscious of ratepayers
(including elderly people on pensions) subsidising our tenants.
4. The staff report canvasses a number of options and recommends an approach based on 30%
of gross income in line with our housing affordability benchmark in the Auckland Plan.
5. This will result in a number of tenants facing increases although some will get decreases.
However, I am also conscious of the fact that for those tenants facing increase that:
it is proposed that the increase be phased in by capping any increase to $15 per week;
the government funded accommodation supplement will become available to many of

these tenants.
6. The additional revenue generated will assist us to ensure that an adequate renewal
programme is funded so that we can maintain our social housing stock to an appropriate level
much of it is quite rundown.
7.
On that basis I am prepared to support the officer recommendations:
Recommendations
8. That for the purposes of developing the draft LTP 2015-25 for consultation, the Budget
Committee adopt the proposed changes to social housing rentals as set out below:
a)
income
the rent on the councils social housing units be set at 30 per cent of tenants pre-tax
b)
for any given year, changes to annual rents (including increases and decreases)
resulting from a) above be capped at $780 per unit (equivalent to $15 cap on weekly rents).
Executive summary
9. The council owns social housing units in five legacy council areas with rents based on six
different polices varying from $52 to $221 per week. Rents had not increased for between three
and six years prior to the application of a region wide 5 per cent increase for the 2014/15 year.
The cost of the service excluding depreciation is $4.8 million and current revenue $6.5 million. The
value of the ratepayers subsidy, foregone revenue, is $12 million or on average $170 per tenant
per week based on the market rental for the units.
10. Staff have considered four options as basis for setting uniform rentals:
1.
30 per cent of pre-tax income (housing affordability benchmark in Auckland Plan)
2.
70 per cent of market (equivalent to non-government social housing providers)
3.
25 per cent of after-tax income (equivalent to Housing New Zealand)
4.
status quo.
Page 103
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
11. Staff recommend the option 1 because all tenants would be paying rent below the housing
affordability benchmark referenced in the Auckland Plan. This option would also provide an extra
$2.4 million of revenue. The proposed policy reduces the cost to ratepayers whilst maintaining a
rent level comparable to Housing New Zealand and affordable to tenants. It is also broadly
consistent with the intent of the policies of the legacy councils.
12. The other options either result in too many tenants facing major rental increases (option 2),
leave rents disparate across the region (option 4), or under-utilise the government funded
Accommodation Supplement by imposing effective rent increases to tenants but generating no
additional revenue to the council (option 3).
13. Staff recommend that tenants be transitioned to their new rentals by capping the change in
rent in any one year to no more than a $15 per week, either up or down. This would reduce the
additional revenue under option 1 to $787,000 for 2015/2016.
14. Staff also recommend that rents under option 1 above be increased each year in line with
changes in tenants income. As 99.7 per cent of tenants are on government benefits, adjustments
would take place when these are changed.
15. The recommended option with transition will generate additional revenue for the council in the
order of $787,000, $1.5 million and $2.1 million in 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018
respectively. This is higher than the $1 million per annum proposed in the Mayors budget
proposal. The additional monies could be used to fund a more extensive renewals budget for the
housing stock.
Recommendation
That for the purposes of developing the draft LTP 2015-25 for consultation, the Budget
Committee adopt the proposed changes to social housing rentals as set out below:
a)
the rent on the councils social housing units be set at 30 per cent of tenants pretax income
b)
for any given year, changes to annual rents (including increases and decreases)
resulting from a) above be capped at $780 per unit (equivalent to $15 cap on
weekly rents).
Comments
Background
16. Auckland Council owns 1,412 housing units which provide affordable long-term
accommodation for eligible older people in Auckland. The rents charged by the council on these
units vary across the region based on legacy council policies. Table 1 below summarises the
legacy policies and the rents charged in each of the former council areas.
17. Central government provides Accommodation Supplement (AS) to eligible tenants whose
rents exceed 25 per cent of their after-tax income. This is administered by Work and Income. The
rent figures in the Table 1 are net rents the actual amount tenants pay after the AS is factored
in (where applicable). It is estimated that a third of Auckland Councils tenants are currently
receiving AS.3
Table 1
Former
council
MCC
Current rent levels based on legacy policies (after AS is factored in)

Legacy policy
25% net
Last
adjustment of
rent prior to
14/15
2010/11
Single tenant
Couple
Ave rent
Range
Ave rent
Range
No of
occupied
4)
units
$83
$62-$116
$124
$99-$128
492
Council does not have access to information on tenants eligibility for Accommodation Supplement. This ratio is an
estimate.
Page 104
PDC
FDC
NSCC
WCC
Superannuation
27% market
60% market
=< 30% net

Superannuation
=< 25% gross

income;
70-80%
market and =< 30%
3)
gross
2008/09
2010/11
$80
$95
$60-$106
$70-$98
$136
$149
$103-$144
$149-$149
71
98
2007/08
$69
$56-$103
$117
$90-$130
422
2010/11
$95
$52-$221
$135
$90-$152
262
Region
$82
$52-$221
$124
$90-$152
1,345
Notes to the table:
1)
All rent figures in the table are based on the tenants effective level of rents after the AS is factored in (where
applicable).
2)
There are no social housing units in the former districts of Auckland City Council and Rodney District Council.
3)
In 2008, the former Waitakere City Council adjusted its rent charges to 70-80% of market capped at 30% of
gross income for tenants moving in after 1 April 2008.
4)
At the time information was extracted for modelling, 67 units were vacant.
18. Prior to 2014/2015, rents for the Auckland Council owned units had remained static for
between three and six years. In 2014/2015, the council introduced a uniform 5 per cent rent
increase across all units as a nominal catchup on council cost inflation. However rents in real
terms still decreased during the period (see Table 2 below).
Table 2
Rent adjustments in comparison with cumulative CPI change

Previous rent
adjustment
(prior to 14/15)
Cumulative change in
CPI between previous
adjustment and 14/15
Rent
adjustment
during the
period
Difference between
CPI and actual rent
adjustment
Average rent
reduction in
real terms
MCC
2010/11
6.2%
5%
-1.2%
$1.0
PDC
2008/09
12.6%
5%
-7.6%
$6.2
FDC
2010/11
6.2%
5%
-1.2%
$1.1
NSCC
2007/08
16.4%
5%
-11.4%
$8.0
WCC
2010/11
6.2%
5%
-1.2%
$1.1
19. Currently the council incurs $4.8 million in operating expenditure excluding depreciation for
social housing. This excludes the cost of capital. The total rent revenue received is $6.5 million.
The full market rental on these units is estimated at around $18-$19 million,4 indicating a ratepayer
subsidy in the form of foregone revenue is in the region of $12 million. The average weekly
subsidy per tenant is $170. This is probably similar to benefit to tenants of Housing New Zealand
properties.
20. Most of the housing units were built in the 1960s and 1970s. 872 units (62 per cent of the total
stock) have been upgraded since 2006. The balance of the stock (predominantly in the north) is
generally in poor condition in terms of size and amenity.
21. In accordance with earlier resolutions of the committee, staff will develop a consistent set of
eligibility criteria to guide the evaluation of tenancy applications. The operational criteria will
consider factors such as age, housing need, connection to place, and independence. Staff will
report on this to the Community Development and Safety Committee by May 2015.
Discussion
22. Staff have identified four options for harmonising the rents. These are assessed in terms of
revenue to council, affordability and change. No consideration has been given to the varying
quality of the units as the council is gradually planning to upgrade this and the level of subsidy
proposed under any of the options more than compensates for lower amenity.
4
Estimation is based on the lower quartile of the most recent bond lodgement data available from the Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment (MBI&E).
Page 105
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 16
Option 1 30 per cent of pre-tax income
Rent for each tenant will be set at 30 per cent of their pre-tax income. This is consistent with the
benchmark for affordable housing referenced in the Auckland Plan.5
Option 2 70 per cent of market rent
Tenants will be charged 70 per cent of the estimated market rent.6 This is the approach typically
used by the non-government social housing providers.
Option 3 25 per cent of after-tax income
Rent will be set at:

25 per cent of tenants after-tax income up to the amount of national superannuation, plus
50 per cent of tenants after-tax income over and above the amount of national
superannuation (if applicable).
This mirrors the approach currently used by Housing New Zealand. The vast majority of the
councils tenants will be paying just 25 per cent of their after-tax income because their income is
no more than national superannuation.
Option 4 status quo
Rents will be set based on legacy council policies which vary across the region (see table 1). Note
that this will result in slightly different rents from the current levels as rents had not been adjusted
for between three and six years prior to 2014/2015.
23. Table 3 below summarises the impact of each of the options on the council as well as the
tenants. The estimated impact of the options on tenants in each of the legacy council areas is
detailed in Attachment A.
Table 3
impact of options
Option number
30% Gross
70% Market
25% Net
Status quo
Rental revenue for council
$8.9m
$ 13.0m
$6.5m
$6.6m
Additional revenue (relative to the current

revenue)
$2.4m
$6.5m
$0m
$0.15m
Ratepayer subsidy
$9.6m
$5.6m
$12.1m
$12m
20%
40%
8%
1.7%
$1.7m
$4.5m
$0
$0.49m
$104
$121
$93
$88
Ave rent as a % of ave net income
27.9%
32.5%
25.1%
23.6%
Ave rent as a % of ave gross income

No of tenants facing change:
24.4%
28.4%
21.9%
20.6%
Description
Average rent increase

AS utilised
3)
Ave weekly rent
Decrease btw $15-$50

5
3
43
0
Decrease btw $0- $15
182
3
469
0
Increase btw $0- $15
335
186
463
1,345
Increase btw $15-$30
581
394
365
0
238
421
2
0
4
338
3
0
Total (excl. vacant units)
1,345
1,345
1,345
1,345
Notes to the table:
1)
All figures are based on the assumption that all tenants (except those in employment) with rent in excess of 25
per cent of their pre-tax income are eligible for AS.
2)
All rent-related figures are based on net rent i.e. after the AS is factored in (where applicable).
3)
Amount of AS available to tenants if all of them are eligible.
Page 269 and 279 of Auckland Plan (Chapter 11).

Estimation will be based on the lower quartile of the most recent bond lodgement data available from the Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment (MBI&E).
6
Page 106
24. Note that all rent figures are based on the assumption that all tenants with rent in excess of 25
per cent of their after-tax income are eligible for AS. It is likely that some of these tenants will not
be eligible for AS due to factors such as bank deposits exceeding the limit set by Work and
Income. Staff do not have access to information on tenants cash assets (hence their eligibility for
AS) and therefore cannot produce a precise estimate of the effective level of rent tenants will pay.
However the analysis should provide some indication as to the degree of change facing tenants
under each of the options.
Option 1 30 per cent of pre-tax income
25. No tenants will be paying rents in excess of the 30 per cent affordability limit set out in the
Auckland Plan. This option generates $2.4 million additional revenue. Assessing the current
service on basis that the council will maintain its ownership of the units staff note that while the
benefits are private it provides social benefits by offering affordable housing to a vulnerable group
and minimising change they may struggle to afford. The proposed policy reduces the cost to
ratepayers whilst maintaining a rent level comparable to Housing New Zealand and affordable to
tenants. It is also broadly consistent with the intent of the policies of the legacy councils.
Option 2 70 percent of market rent
26. Under this option 16 per cent of the tenants will be paying rent above 30 per cent of pre-tax
income, even if all of them are eligible for AS. This option generates $6.5 million extra revenue.
As rent is not directly linked to income affordability varies widely across tenants.
Option 3 25 per cent of after-tax income
27. Under this option most tenants will be paying 22 per cent of their pre-tax income (or 25 per
cent of their after-tax income) as rent. However, under this option it is likely that no tenants will be
eligible for AS. Therefore, while there is no additional revenue to the council the net impact on
tenants (effective rents after AS is factored in) will increase by 8 per cent on average due to the
loss of AS currently available to a third of the tenants.
Option 4 status quo
28. Under this option tenants will face the least change. However rents and rent setting
methodologies will remain disparate across the region. This option generates $150,000 additional
revenue.
Transition
29. Staff recommend that any harmonisation of rents is managed by transition except for option 4
where no tenant will have an increase of more than $5 per week. Staff have considered two
transition scenarios:
1.
spread the increases and decreases evenly over five years
2.
cap increases and decreases to weekly rents at $15 per year.
30. Staff recommend the second scenario. Under this scenario changes in rents are kept at
manageable levels. This will move 99 per cent of the tenants onto harmonised rentals within five
years. The first scenario would add administrative complexity without adding any benefit because
some rental changes are very small. The cap on rent changes would be based on rent before the
AS. Calculating the cap after the AS would add administrative complexity and be difficult for
tenants to understand.
31. The proposed transition would lower the additional revenue for options 1 and 2 to the levels
noted below (for 2015/2016):
30 per cent gross income $787,000
70 per cent market $1 million

32. Under option 3 the proposed transition would increase revenue by $190,000 in 2015/2016 but
this would be roughly offset by revenue reductions over the next six years.
Annual rent adjustment
33. Staff propose that the following approaches be adopted for adjusting social housing rents
annually.
Page 107
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Options 1 and 3: rents adjusted in line with changes to tenants income. (99.7 per cent
of tenants are on some form of government benefit so rents will change in line with changes to
their benefit)
Option 2: market rent set annually using the most recent bond lodgment data7 for the
lower quartile of rents. (This is in line with the general approach used by the non-government
providers)
Option 4: rents adjusted based on legacy council policies.

34. For tenants who are under the transition arrangement discussed earlier (e.g. whose rent
increases are capped), their full rents will be adjusted using the above-mentioned approaches but
will not be applied until their transition (capped) rents have caught up with the level of their full
rents. An example is given in Attachment B.
Consultation
35. If the council decides to propose a change to social housing rentals targeted consultation will
be conducted in November and December 2014 with all tenants and interest groups such as
Auckland Council Seniors Panel and Age Concern. This will prepare those groups for the formal
consultation in January and February 2015.
Consideration
36. Social housing is a regional activity. The governing body has decision making authority for
setting the rents. However, local boards are engaged in the review process:
two representatives of each local board were invited to a briefing on the financial
policies, including social housing, for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on 18 August 2014
a further briefing was provided on 20 October, to which all local board members were
invited
local boards considered their views on financial policy issues at workshops in

September and October and during their formal October meetings. Key themes are noted below.
37. There were mixed views on the proposal for social housing rentals.
there was general support for harmonisation with the exception of one board that did not
support any form of increase
some boards supported the recommended proposal of rentals based on 30% of gross
income and others supported 25% of net income
many boards expressed concern about maintaining affordable rental prices.

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

39. An anonymous survey conducted in 2013/2014 identified approximately 10 per cent of the
council tenants as Maori. They were unevenly distributed across different areas:
Area
Distribution of Maori tenants
North
Shore
Waitakere
Manukau, Franklin and

Papakura combined
Region
6%
15%
79%
100%
40. Staff do not hold information on the ethnicity of individual tenants, therefore cannot identify the
specific impact on Maori tenants when analysing the options. However, since four out of five Maori
tenants are in the south (Manukau, Franklin and Papakura), the impact on Maori tenants overall
will link strongly to the impact on tenants in the south. Please refer to the estimated impact of the
options on each of the legacy council areas, which is outlined in Attachment A.
41. The Independent Mori Statutory Board has two members on the Budget Committee who will
consider the Mayors Proposal on financial/rating policies including options for setting the social
housing rents.
7
Information is available from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Page 108
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
42. Staff consulted with the Seniors Advisory Panel in September. Panel members noted that any
impacts on current tenants should be considered.
Significance
43. The recommendations in this report are not significant. These changes will be consulted on
alongside the LTP to ensure that not only those Aucklanders who are directly affected may
consider the issue. Staff will organise meetings with and write to directly affected parties advising
them of the proposed changes.
Implementation
44. Implementation issues have been addressed in the report.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Impact of options on tenants by former council area
111
Illustrative example of transition & annual adjustment
113
Signatories
Authors
Eric Wen - Advisor

Kat Teirney Manager Community Occupancy
Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy
Authorisers
Kevin Marriott - Manager Community Facilities

Page 109
Item 16
Seniors Advisory Panel
Attachment 1 Impact of options on tenants by former council

area
All figures in the tables are based on the assumption that all tenants (except those in employment)
with rent in excess of 25 per cent of their pre-tax income are eligible for Accommodation
Supplement (AS).
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
No of tenants facing
change
Btw $15-$30
Decrease
Btw $0-$15
Btw $0-$15
Btw $15-$30
Increase
Btw $30-$50
Btw $50-$75
Total
Franklin
0
10
88
0
0
0
98
Manukau
0
45
60
387
0
0
492
North
Shore
0
13
35
137
237
0
422
Papakura
0
8
8
55
0
0
71
Waitakere
5
106
144
2
1
4
262
Sub-total
5
182
335
581
238
4
1,345
Manukau
0
0
0
2
163
327
0
492
North
Shore
0
0
0
0
30
55
337
422
Papakura
0
0
0
11
34
26
0
71
Waitakere
1
2
2
76
167
13
1
262
Sub-total
1
2
3
186
394
421
338
1,345
North
Shore
1
44
14
363
0
0
422
Papakura
1
9
61
0
0
0
71
Waitakere
31
223
1
2
2
3
262
Sub-total
43
469
463
365
2
3
1,345
Papakura
Waitakere
Sub-total
Option 2 70% of market rent

change
Btw $30-$50
Decrease Btw $15-$30
Btw $0-$15
Btw $0-$15
Btw $15-$30
Increase
Btw $30-$50
Btw $50-$75
Total
Franklin
0
0
1
97
0
0
0
98
Option 3 25% of after-tax income

change
Btw $15-$30
Decrease
Btw $0-$15
Btw $0-$15
Btw $15-$30
Increase
Btw $30-$50
Btw $50-$75
Total
Franklin
9
89
0
0
0
0
98
Manukau
1
104
387
0
0
0
492
Option 4 Status quo (current rent plus inflation)

Franklin
Manukau
North
Page 111
Attachment A
Option 1 30% of pre-tax income (recommended option)
change
Increase
Total
Btw $0-$15
98
98
492
492
Shore
422
422
71
71
262
262
1,345
1,345
Attachment A
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 112
Attachment 2 Illustrative example of transition and annual rent

adjustment
For tenants who are under the transition arrangement (e.g. whose weekly rent increases are
capped at $15), their full rents will be adjusted annually but will not be applied until their transition
(capped) rents have caught up with the level of their full rents. Below is an illustrative example
based on the recommended option (rent set at 30 per cent of pre-tax income with $15 cap on
annual increase to weekly rent).
Item 16
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Janes current weekly rent is $90 before Accommodation Supplement (AS). As a superannuitant
her pre-tax income is $421.76 per week. Under the recommended option her full rent will be set at
$126.53 (30 per cent of $421.76). As the change ($36.53) is greater than the $15 cap, Janes
weekly rent in 2015/2016 will be $105 ($90 plus $15 cap).
Weekly superannuation (pre-tax)

Annual increase to
superannuation
Full weekly rent (30% of weekly
pre-tax superannuation)
Current weekly rent
Current weekly rent plus $15 cap
Weekly rent Jane actually pays
Year in which capped rent catches
up with full rent
2014/2015
$421.76
$126.53
2015/16
$430.2
2016/17
$439.66
2017/18
$450.65
2018/19
$461.01
2019/20
$469.31
2%
2.20%
2.50%
2.30%
1.80%
$129.06
$131.9
$135.2
$138.3
$140.79
$105
$105
$120
$120
$135
$135
$150
$138.3
$165
$140.79
$90
$90
Page 113
Attachment B
In the meantime, Janes full rent will be recorded and adjusted annually in line with changes to her
superannuation entitlement. Once her capped rent catches up with her full rent, the full rent will
start to apply. The following schedule shows how this works.
Harmonisation of fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and

other services
File No.: CP2014/25413
Purpose
1. This report recommends the harmonisation of the fees and charges for street trading,
cemeteries and a number of other services.

2. Since the first Auckland Council LTP in 2012 we have progressively been harmonising our
approach to the funding of our activities from the diverse policies of the legacy councils.
3. Most of the major funding policies have been addressed but there are still some areas that
need to be brought together in one pricing structure. This report addresses the areas of street
trading licences, cemetery fees, event and other fees and also introduces a proposal for rental
fees for street trading across Auckland.
Street trading licences and rental fees
4. I am supportive of harmonising the licence fees and, after some reflection, the introduction of
rental for the use of public assets for street trading. Ratepayers pay the cost of maintaining public
assets and, while the commercial use of these assets adds to the vibrancy of our urban centres, it
is only fair that those having use of these assets make a contribution to the ratepayers costs.
Cemeteries
5. The staff proposal is to both harmonise the fees and achieve cost recovery through the pricing
structure. I believe that is appropriate and that the ratepayer should not be subsidising these
activities.
Event fees
6. I am supportive of the staff proposal to have an Auckland wide fee structure based on cost
recovery for commercial and private events, 50% cost recovery for community events and full
subsidy for community events funded by the council.
Other fees
7. There is a proposal to increase our resource and building consent fees in line with our costs
and other metropolitan centres, which I believe is appropriate. The proposed changes to other bylaw and licensing fees are also supported.
8.
On that basis I support the staff recommendations as follows:
Recommendations
9. That for the purposes of developing the draft LTP 2015-25 for consultation, the Budget
Committee adopt changes to the fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and a number of
other services as set out below:
a)
harmonised licensing fees for street trading across Auckland as included in Attachment C
b)
harmonised full rental fees for street trading across Auckland as included in Attachment C
c)
harmonised cemetery fees across Auckland as included in Attachment D
d)
harmonised event permit fees across Auckland as included in Table 10 of this report
e)
harmonised fees for the remainder of the environmental health and licensing services as
included in Attachment E
f)
an average 4-5 per cent increase to fees and charges for building control, resource
consents and property information as included in Attachment F.
Harmonisation of fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and other services
Page 115
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Executive summary
Street trading licenses
10. Staff recommend adoption of harmonised licensing fees and a full rental for use of public
space for street trading, with increases greater than $1,000 for a single licence to be phased in
over two years. This would increase revenue by $1.2 million in 2015/2016.
11. A harmonised street trading bylaw is to be introduced from 1 July 2015. Staff propose a
harmonised set of licensing fees to recover the costs of the activity. These will range from $60 for
distributing promotional materials to $360 for outdoor dining.
12. Staff also propose the introduction of rentals to:
compensate for the reduction in public access
provide a return for the ratepayer from their asset
ensure that businesses trading on private property are not unfairly disadvantaged.
13. Rentals will be set in three tiers (with the city centre as tier one) for outdoor dining and
drinking, mobile vendors and temporary stalls. Staff have developed two options for rentals. The
first recovers the full rental and the second is at a 25 per cent discount to reflect the goal of
developing vibrant town centres. Both options lead to change with the full rental option leading to
increases up to $1,300 for the average outdoor dining area in Orewa. For around 80 to 85 per cent
of the licensees across Auckland the fee increases would be within $1,000 per annum. Staff do
not consider these changes to present affordability issues as they are around $12 per week for
commercial operations (after adjustments for tax deductibility and GST claim-back). For those
facing increases greater than $1,000 a two year transition is recommended.
Cemeteries
14. Staff recommend that the fees are adopted as proposed. This would increase revenue.
15. The council has yet to harmonise fees for:
burial or ash plots
interment (digging)
related facilities hire (chapels, function lounges etc.)

16. As the benefit of these services is private, the fees should be harmonised based on market
prices or to recover costs where the service is contracted out. This will ensure that:
the private sector is not disadvantaged by the councils ability to subsidise user charges
through rates
return on ratepayers investment is optimized and consistent.

17. This will lead to some increase in fees with the largest being on Waiheke and Great Barrier
Island ranging from $1,096 to $1,876 where interments have, in effect, been subsidised. Staff do
not consider that this will raise affordability issues as the cost are one-off and the government
provides funeral grants of up to $1,998 to cover burial, plot, and cremation charges. In some
cases customers can avoid the high charges (e.g. weekend and late fees) by changing the day or
time of their service.
Event fees and other fees

18. Staff also recommend the harmonisation of event permit fees and fees for a range of
environmental health and licensing activities. All of the proposed fees are based on recovering
the councils costs of delivering the licensing related services except for:
the permit fees for community events which will be set on a partial cost recovery basis
to recognise the public benefit these events generate
the permit fees for council (including local board) funded events which will continue to
be free of charge
the fire permit fee which will be set at zero to encourage engagement with the council.
Page 116
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Recommendations
Committee adopt changes to the fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and a
number of other services as set out below:
a)
harmonised licensing fees for street trading across Auckland as included in

Attachment C
b)
harmonised full rental fees for street trading across Auckland as included in
Attachment C
c)
harmonised cemetery fees across Auckland as included in Attachment D
d)
harmonised event permit fees across Auckland as included in Table 10 of this

report
e)
harmonised fees for the remainder of the environmental health and licensing
services as included in Attachment E
f)
an average 4-5 per cent increase to fees and charges for building control, resource
consents and property information as included in Attachment F.
Comments
19. The council has 3,000 fees divided up into 21 categories. Of these, seven categories of fees
have yet to be harmonised. This report advises on the harmonisation of fees in four of the
categories. The harmonisation of social housing and solid waste charges is discuss in other
reports on this agenda. The harmonisation of filming permit fees will be discussed in a report to
the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in December.
Fees for street trading licences

20. Staff recommend the proposed street trading licence fees and the full rental option be
adopted for consultation.
21. Under the full rental option, the proposed licence fees and rents for street trading are
estimated to generate an additional $1.4 million in revenue. The proposed transition would
however reduce this to $1.2 million in 2015/2016.
22. The council regulates street trading activities under seven legacy council bylaws. This
includes managing around 800 licences for outdoor dining and drinking, 600 licences for mobile
vendors and temporary stalls, and 33 licences for market operators. Current licensing fees vary
across Auckland based on legacy council policies.
23. Auckland Council is scheduled to adopt a new Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw
effective from 1 July 2015 that will replace the relevant legacy bylaws.
Proposed licence fees
24. Staff propose that harmonised licensing fees be adopted to recover 100 per cent of the cost of
the service on the basis that the benefit accrues primarily to the licensee. The proposed licence
fees are set out in the table below. The variance between the fees reflects the degree of effort
required to perform the various regulatory functions. Performance on streets (including busking)
will require a licence under the proposed bylaw but a zero fee is proposed on ground of minimal
impact, affordability, and contribution to city vibrancy.
Table 1
Proposed fees for street trading licensing
Licence type
Outdoor dining and drinking
Proposed annual fee for 2015/2016 (incl. GST)

$360
Mobile vendor or temporary stall
$300
Page 117
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Market operator
$360
Distribution of promotional material
$60
Street performance
$0
Note: under the proposed bylaw, outdoor display of goods no longer requires a licence provided the display complies
with the relevant rules and regulations. No fee is proposed.
Proposed rental charges

25. The licence allows the exclusive use of certain public space by the licensee for a period of
time permitted by council bylaws and policies. The occupation of the public space (e.g. for dining
on the footpath) benefits the licensee while reducing accessibility for the general public.
26. Staff consider that the licensee should pay a rental charge in addition to the license fee for the
use of the space to:
compensate for the reduction in public access
provide a return for the ratepayer from their asset
ensure that businesses trading on private property are not unfairly disadvantaged.
27. Other councils in New Zealand (Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton), Australia and the UK
charge for occupancy of public spaces in addition to licence fees. These rents are usually
assessed based on the value of the location. While the former councils did not explicitly identify a
separate rental charge, the fee structure of some implied the presence of a rental component.
28. The council is committed to building vibrant town centres in Auckland and street trading
activities contribute to the vibrancy of town centres. There is therefore a case for not charging a
full rental in order to encourage outdoor trading activities.
29. Staff have developed two options:
full rental
25 per cent discount to full rental to reflect vitality benefit to town centres.
30. Full rental is calculated using the most comparable price information available (see table
below). The rent levels for outdoor dining and drinking include a 40 per cent discount to the
estimated commercial yield reflecting the greater restrictions on this activity in comparison to
trading in privately rented premises.8 While the land value and economic desirability of locations
will vary materially within the proposed tiers the proposed rentals do not justify the administrative
cost of applying a more refined rental calculation. Further details with regard to the estimation of
commercial land value is provided in Attachment A.
Table 2
Basis for calculating rental charges
Licence type
Basis for determining the rental charge

Estimated yield on commercial land
Council parking charges
Market operator
31. The rentals would be applied:
uniformly for market operators and the distribution of promotional material9
in three tiers for outdoor dining and drinking and mobile vendors or temporary stalls.
32. The proposed tiers are based on:
demand measured by the volume of street trading activities
affordability measured by the level of deprivation in the area (to the extent that higher
deprivation in the customer base will translate into lower demand for space as rent rises).
Table 3
Proposed tiers for setting street trading rents
The proposed Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw imposes various restrictions on public trading activities such
as limited trading hours and specific requirements on the furniture and equipment used.
9
The amount of additional effort required to obtain valid data to support the tiered fee structure outweighs the benefit.
Page 118
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Tier 3
City centre
Orewa, Browns Bay, Takapuna, Birkenhead, Devonport, Ponsonby, Herne Bay,
Freemans Bay, Mission Bay, Grey Lynn, Newmarket, Ellerslie, Howick, Epsom,
Kingsland, Milford, Mount Eden, Newton, Parnell, Remuera, St Heliers
All other suburbs
Item 17
Tier 1
Tier 2
33. The proposed rental charges for the options are shown in Table 4 and Table 5 below,
respectively. Street trading activities occupying less than one square metre of public space will not
attract a rent. This saves the council from having to charge minor businesses (such as newspaper
sellers) where administrative costs can easily outweigh rental revenue.
Table 4
Full rental
Licence type
Proposed rent for 2015/16 (incl. GST)

Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
2
2
2
$140/m /yr
$85/m /yr
$20/m /yr
$0.30/m /hr
$0.05/m /hr
Market operator
$0.35/m /day
Table 5
$0.20/m /hr
$75/distribution stand/yr
25 per cent discount
Licence type
Proposed rent for 2015/16 (incl. GST)

Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
2
2
2
105/m /yr
$65/m /yr
$15/m /yr

Mobile vendor or temporary stall (area
2
over 1m )
$0.23/m /hr
$0.15/m /hr
$0.04/m /hr
Market operator
$0.25/m /day
$55/distribution stand/yr
Changes facing licensees

34. The current fee structure varies widely between former council areas and does not explicitly
distinguish between licensing fees and rental charges. The actual amount of fees licensees pay
depends on both the fees set and the size of the area or hours of trading. Consequently, direct
comparison between the current and the proposed fees is difficult. Tables 6 and 7 below provides
an indication of the change facing licensees by comparing current and proposed charges for an
average-size outdoor dining area within each former council district.
Table 6
Comparison between current and proposed charges associated with outdoor
dining/drinking licences full rental option
Current category
City centre
Tier 1
Ave
outdoor
area (m2)
12.7
ACC (excl. city

centre)
Tier 2
8.3
$591
$983
$392
Tier 3
8.3
$591
$507
-$85
Tier 2
7.4
$544
$904
$360
Tier 3
7.4
$544
$488
-$56
Tier 2
11.0
$198
$1,210
$1,012
Tier 3
11.0
$198
$560
$362
Tier 2
12.4
$0
$1,329
$1,329
Tier 3
12.4
$0
$588
$588
WCC
Tier 3
8.8
$262
$516
$254
22
PDC
Tier 3
4.0
$161
$420
$259
FDC
Tier 3
6.5
$0
$470
$470
19
NSCC
MCC
RDC
New
category
Current
fee
Proposed fee (incl. both

licence and rent)
Ave
change
Current
volume
$902
$1,998
$1,096
188
369
120
25
45
Page 119
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Table 7
Comparison between current and proposed charges associated with outdoor
dining/drinking licences full rental less 25% discount
Current category
City centre
Tier 1
Ave
outdoor
2
area (m )
12.7
ACC (excl. city

centre)
Tier 2
8.3
$591
$836
$245
Tier 3
8.3
$591
$470
-$121
Tier 2
7.4
$544
$776
$232
Tier 3
7.4
$544
$456
-$88
Tier 2
11.0
$198
$1,010
$812
Tier 3
11.0
$198
$510
$312
Tier 2
12.4
$0
$1,101
$1,101
Tier 3
12.4
$0
$531
$531
WCC
Tier 3
8.8
$262
$477
$215
22
PDC
Tier 3
4.0
$161
$405
$244
FDC
Tier 3
6.5
$0
$443
$443
19
NSCC
MCC
RDC
New
category
Current
fee
Proposed fee (incl. both

licence and rent)
Ave
change
Current
volume
$902
$1,589
$687
188
369
120
25
45
35. Both options lead to change and in some cases the change is significant. For example, the full
rental option could result in a $1,300 increase for the average trader in the tier 2 area of Rodney
(Orewa).
36. The current fee structure for mobile vendor and temporary stall licences is extremely
complicated. There is no easy way to summarise the changes facing licensees. The following
table provides an indication of the changes through selected examples.
Table 8
Comparison between current and proposed charges for a mobile vendor of
6m2 (a typical coffee cart) operating 20 hours a week for 52 weeks a year
City centre (tier 1)
$1,132
Proposed fee (incl. both licence

and rent)
$2,172
Mt Eden (tier 2)
$1,132
$1,548
Glenfield (teir 3)
$247
$612
Current fee
37. The harmonisation of licence fees and rents for street trading activities are expected to cause
significant fee changes to some businesses. Staff consider that in most cases the changes will be
manageable. It is estimated that under the full rental option 80 to 85 per cent of the licensees will
have an increase of no more than $1,000 (with licence fee and rent combined). Staff do not
consider these changes to present affordability issue as it is within $12 per week for commercial
operations (after adjustments for tax deductibility and GST claim-back). For those facing increases
greater than $1,000, it is proposed that their changes be phased in over two years to help manage
the impact.
38. In some tier three areas the average fees will decrease under both options.
Comparison with other councils
39. Comparing with charges set by other New Zealand councils who do charge for occupancy of
public spaces, the combined licensing and full rental charges proposed in this report for street
trading are:
Tier 1 (city centre)

at the high end of the charges
Tier 2
generally comparable with other councils
Tier 3
at the low end of the charges
40. Staff identified a few samples of street trading locations and investigated the commercial rents
charged on adjacent private premises. The full rental charges proposed in this report are in all
Page 120
cases significantly lower than the commercial rents. More detailed information is included in
Attachment B.
41. The proposed changes to street tranding fees and rents are included in Attachment C.
Fees for cemetery and cremation services

42. Auckland Council operates 30 cemeteries conducting an average of 1,600 burials, 700 ash
interments and 3,000 cremations every year. This accounts for approximately 60 per cent of the
burials and cremations in the region. The balance is provided for by private cemeteries and
crematoriums which compete with the council.
43. The council has harmonised most of the fees it charges for cremation services. Fees for the
following key services still vary across the region, some of which are not recovering costs:
burial or ash plots
interment (digging)
related facilities hire (chapels, function lounges etc.)

44. Staff recommend that the fees be harmonised based on market prices or to recover costs
where the service is contracted out. This will ensure that:
the private sector is not disadvantaged by the councils ability to subsidise user
charges through rates
return on ratepayers investment is maximised.

45. Due to significant misalignment between existing fees and costs in certain areas, the proposal
involves considerable changes to some fees. The proposed schedule of fees and charges are
detailed in Attachment D. The table below provides a summary view of the changes for the key
services.
Table 9
Summary of proposed changes to fees for plots, interment and facilities hire
Service category
Burial plot
Ash plot
Interment (digging)
Summary of proposed changes
Significant changes to some fees
Largest increases in dollar terms are for adult plot in Onetangi Cemetery ($572)
and Manukau Memorial Garden ($536)
Largest decreases in dollar terms are for child plot in Helensville, Wainui and Puhoi
cemeteries ($1,837)
55-84% ($268-$353) increases in Waikaraka and Onetangi cemeteries
47% ($533) decrease in Rodney Urban Cemetery
All other changes between 14% decrease and 19% increase (in dollar terms all
changes are below $170)
Significant changes (up to $1,350) to most fees
Most fees already harmonised
Only change is cremation for 5-12 year-old in Manukau Memorial Garden where
fee will drop by $224
Moderate to significant changes (from 42% decrease to 75% increase)
Chapel and function
lounge hire
In dollar terms no increase exceeds $100
Largest decrease is $141

Cremation
46. The biggest proposed increases in dollar terms are for the burial interment fees in the two
cemeteries below:
Tryphena Cemetery of Great Barrier Island (proposed increase $1,350)
Onetangi Cemetery of Waiheke (proposed increase $1,096 - $1,174)

47. The council provides the interment service through contractors. The proposed fees pass on
the actual costs of interment. Most of the existing interment fees are heavily subsidized by the
Council.
48. Staff do not consider that any transition is necessary. The fees are not an on-going cost. For
customers for whom affordability may be an issue Work and Income provides funeral grants of up
to $1,998 to cover burial, plot, and cremation charges.
49. Staff also recommend harmonising all other miscellaneous related fees (weekend service,
late booking, ash scattering, disinterment, DVD recording, etc). The proposed miscellaneous fees
Page 121
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
are included in Attachment D. Some proposed changes are significant due to the level of subsidy
in existing fees. The biggest proposed increases in dollar terms are in Onetangi Cemetery of
Waiheke:
disinterment fee (proposed increase $1,876)
reinterment fee (proposed increase $1,123)
50. None of these fees are for essential services. Instead they are provided for the special needs
of a limited number of customers. In most cases (e.g. weekend service, late booking) customers
can avoid paying these fees by changing the time or day of their service or choosing an alternative
service.
51. Fees in some cemeteries are proposed to decrease. The most significant decreases are for
the disinterment service in Rodney Cemetery, Howick Cemetery, North Shore Memorial Park,
Waikumete Cemetery and Manukau Memorial Garden where the fee is proposed to drop by
$1,452.
52. The proposed changes are estimated to increase total revenue by approximately $600,000.
53. Staff recommend the proposed fees for cemetery and cremation services be adopted for
consultation.
Fees for event permits

54. Auckland Council issues around 2,200 event permits (excluding events in regional parks)
each year under the relevant legacy council bylaws. The permitting scheme ensures that the
potential nuisance, obstruction or hazard associated with events held in public places are
minimised. In addition to this regulatory service, the council also provides facilitation support for
events.10
55. Out of the 2,200 permits issued across the region, approximately 500 are for commercial or
private events, 400 are for community events funded by the council (mostly local boards), and
1,300 are for community events funded by community groups.
56. The cost of delivering the regulatory and facilitation services is approximately $1.1 million per
annum. Currently permit fees are only charged in the former Auckland City Council area.
57. The legacy bylaws are to be replaced by the new Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw
effective from 1 July 2015. A region-wide regulatory approach will be introduced accordingly.
58. Staff propose a set of standardised fees be applied to commercial and private events across
the region to recover 100 per cent of the regulatory and facilitation costs. This reflects the primarily
private benefit event applicants receive. Staff also propose a set of standardised permit fees be
applied to community events to recover 50 per cent of the regulatory cost. This recognises the
public benefit these events generate. Alternatively, permits may be issued to community events
free of charge. This is however not recommended because the council incurs costs in providing
the service and charging a fee assists customers in appreciating the costs and making informed
decisions about using council services. The exceptions are community events funded by the
council (including local boards). It is proposed the permit fees for these be waived. Applying the
fees to council funded events would not generate additional revenue for the council but would
incur transaction costs and GST charges without adding any benefit of transparency.
59. The proposed permit fees are shown in Table 10 below.
Table 10
Proposed fees for event permits
Impact category
Cost recovered
High (over 5,000 people)
Medium (501-4,999 people)
Proposed permit fee for 2015/16 (incl. GST)

Commercial and private
Community event
Other community
event
funded by council
event
Regulatory + facilitation
None
50% of regulatory
$1,100
$0
330
$600
$0
180
10
This includes advice, guidance and support to event organisers around best practice and navigation of the council
processes.
Page 122
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
$300
$0
90
60. Under each event category, permits will be classed under one of three impact categories and
fees are set accordingly. The permit fee under each impact category is calculated based on the
average number of officer hours required to carry out the permitting function under the bylaw.
61. For commercial and private events held in the former Auckland City Council area, the
proposed fees are comparable with the existing charges. For commercial and private events held
in other areas of the region, this would be a new fee. Staff do not consider it to present a
significant affordability issue as most private events are of low impact and will attract only a small
fee and most high impact commercial events are ticketed and have the ability to pass on the cost
to customers. For the non-council funded community events across the region, they too would
face a new fee. However given the level of the discounted fees ($90-$330) the cost is considered
reasonable.
62. The proposed fees are expected to generate $310,000 of additional revenue.
63. Staff recommend the proposed event permit fees be adopted for consultation.
Filming permit fees

64. ATEED issues around 500 permits each year for filming in public places and collects
approximately $150,000 in fees for these. Current fees and charges are based on legacy council
practices and so vary across Auckland. These are being reviewed with the aim of harmonising
filming charges across the region. Staff will report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee
in December on options and proposals. Any changes will be consulted on as part of the
amendments to the Auckland Film Protocol early next year. The harmonisation of filming charges
is not expected to have an material impact on budgets but will over time benefit Auckland through
making Auckland a more attractive place for filming.
Other environmental health and licensing fees

65. In addition to street trading, event permit and filming permit, there are over 100 other
regulatory fees (divided in 23 sub-categories) that are yet to be standardised. These include:
a)
fees covered by legacy bylaws that are no longer considered necessary (4 subcategories)
b)
fees set for regulatory activities covered by either government legislation or legacy
bylaws currently under review (16 sub-categories)
c)
administration or re-inspection fees associated with the relevant licences (3 subcategories).
66. Fees under a) above will be allowed to lapse on 31 October 2015 along with the relevant
bylaws. Staff propose that the balance of the fees above be standardised and be set at levels to
recover 100 per cent of the cost of delivering the service except for fire permit fee which will be set
at zero to encourage engagement with the council. The detailed fee schedules are included in
Attachment E.
67. The proposed licence fees range between zero and $420 (including GST) based largely on
officer time and degree of expertise required.
68. As an indication, the table below shows the proposed changes in the key fee categories. All
licence fees will be charged annually.
Table 11
Selected examples of proposed changes to other environmental health and
licensing fees
Licence category
Funeral directors
Offensive trades
Camping grounds
Fire permit
Commercial sex
Range of current licence fee (incl. GST)

$263-$448
Proposed licence fee (incl. GST)

$240
$0-$536
$420
$148-$536
$300
$0-$99
$0
$272-$708
$240
Page 123
Item 17
Low (under 500 people)
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
premises
69. Staff recommend the proposed fees for the remainder of licensing services be adopted for
consultation.
Fees for building control, resource consents and property information

70. Staff propose a small increase to building control and resource consents fees to better align
revenue with recoverable cost (cost that the council can legally recover). This includes:
a 4-5 per cent increase to all hourly rates (which makes up over 90 per cent of the councils
revenue from these activities)
an average 4-5 per cent increase to other regulatory fees with the exception of the building
consent authority accreditation fee which is increasing form 20c per $1000 value of work to 30c
per $1000 value of work to reflect the additional costs of compliance.
71. The charges for LIM services and property file CDs are also proposed to increase by between
4 and 5 per cent. The rest of the property information fees will remain unchanged.
72. The changes proposed above will increase council revenue by $4.5 million. The impact on
consent customers will be a 4-5% increase on current charges . The proposed charges will make
our rates comparable with other NZ metropolitan councils.
73. The proposed changes will not require amendment to the councils funding policy for these
services.
74. The schedule of proposed changes to building control, resource consents and property
information fees is included in Attachment F.
Consideration
75. The fees discussed in this report are regional fees and accordingly the decisions proposed
herein are regional.
76. Two representatives of each local board were invited to a briefing on the financial policies,
including fees and charges, for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on 18 August 2014. A further
briefing was provided on 20 October, to which all local board members were invited. Local boards
considered their views on financial policy issues at workshops in September and October and
during their formal October meetings. Key themes are noted below.
77. The Local Boards broadly support the proposals in this report. However, local boards
suggest that the:
third tier of street trading licensing fees receive a higher reduction of 50% and that there
are case by case assessments
the Environmental and health and licensing fees should not become a cost barrier in lower
socio-economic areas.
78. A more detailed report of local board views is in this agenda along with the full text of their

79. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of customers or licensees. The impact on
Maori will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.
80. The Independent Mori Statutory Board has two members on the Budget Committee who
will consider the Mayors Proposal on financial/rating policies including options for setting the
social housing rents.
Page 124
Significance
81. The recommendations in this report are not significant. They will be consulted on alongside
the LTP, to ensure that not only those Aucklanders who are directly affected may consider the
issue. Staff will write to directly affected parties advising them of the proposed changes.
Implementation
82.
Implementation issues have been addressed in the report.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Estimation of commercial land value
127
Private rents on a selected sample of adjacent properties
129
Proposed changes to street trading fees and rents
131
Proposed changes to cemetery fees
135
Proposed changes to other environmental health and licensing fees
143
Proposed changes to building control, resource consents and property

information fees
151
Signatories
Authors
Eric Wen - Advisor

Max Wilde - Manager Bylaws and Compliance
Juliette Jones - Manager - Event Facilitation
Catherine Moore - Manager Auckland Cemeteries
Authorisers
Mace Ward - Acting Manager - Parks, Sports and Recreation

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture
Page 125
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A Estimation of commercial land value

Average commercial land value is used as the basis for calculating the proposed rents for outdoor dining
and drinking, markets and distribution of promotional materials. The use of land value (as opposed to capital
value) is consistent with the characteristics of public space (which has limited improvements).
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Desk-top research on Auckland commercial land yields shows a range of yields between 8.4 per cent and
9.6 per cent. The midpoint is 9 per cent. A 40 per cent discount is applied to the commercial land yield to
reflect the restrictions of council bylaws and policies on street trading such as limited trading hours and
specific requirements on the furniture and equipment used. This leads to an effective proposed yield of 5.4
per cent per annum. Applying this to the average commercial land value per square metre above gives the
per square metre rent for each of the tiers, rounded to the nearest five dollars:
Location
Full rental option
25% discount option
(incl. GST)
(incl. GST)
2
2
Tier 1
$140/m /year
$105/m /year
2
2
Tier 2
$85/m /year
$65/m /year
2
2
Tier 3
$20/m /year
$15/m /year
Page 127
Attachment A
Land value data were extracted from the councils rating database. The average commercial land value for
each of the street trading rent tiers is calculated using the business land value for all the town centres in that
tier. Results are shown below:
2
Tier 1 - $2,228 per m

2
Tier 2 - $1,404 per m

2
Tier 3 - $301 per m
Attachment B Adjacent private indoor rents for a selected

sample of outdoor dining areas
Address
Mexico
164 Ponsonby Rd,

Ponsonby
41A Mangere Town
Centre
141 Queen St,
Northcode
31 Bowen St, Waiuku
Matakana Vallue Rd,
Matakana
4 Pioneer St, Henderson
Jolly Good
Stafford Rd
Wine Bar
Caf Alba
Organic Ice
Cream Caf
Columbus
Caf
Caf Ceo
258 Onehunga Mall,

Onehunga
Est. private
indoor rentals per
2
m per annum
$600-$700
Proposed rent for

outdoor dining/drinking
2
per m per annum
$85
Proposed
tier
$230-$325
$20
$150-$250
$20
$125-$175
$200-$250
$20
$20
3
3
$175-$250
$20
$250-$350
$20
Page 129
Attachment B
Name of
premises
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C Proposed changes to street trading fees and

rents
Table 1
Proposed fees for street trading licences for 2015/2016
Licence type
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Proposed annual fee (incl. GST)

$360
$300
Market operator
$360
$60
Street performance
$0
Note: under the proposed bylaw, outdoor display of goods no longer requires a licence provided the display complies
with the relevant rules and regulations. No fee is proposed.
Proposed rents for street trading for 2015/2016
Licence type
Proposed rent (incl. GST)

Tier 1 *
Tier 2 *
Tier 3 *
2
2
2
$140/m /year
$85/m /year
$20/m /year
$0.30/m /hour
Attachment C
Table 2
$0.20/m /hour
$0.05/m /hour
Market operator
$0.35/m /day

$75/distributor/year
* All suburbs in Auckland are categorised under three tiers as set out in the table below:
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
City centre
Orewa, Browns Bay, Takapuna, Birkenhead, Devonport, Ponsonby, Herne Bay, Freemans
Bay, Mission Bay, Grey Lynn, Newmarket, Ellerslie, Howick, Epsom, Kingsland, Milford, Mount
Eden, Newton, Parnell, Remuera, St Heliers
All other suburbs
Note to Tables 1 and 2:
The proposed licence fees and rents apply to street trading activities across Auckland.
Street trading activities occupying less than one square metre or placing no furniture or equipment
in the public space will not attract a rent. Street trading activities occupying more than one square metre and
with furniture or equipment placed in the public space will be charged based on the full trading area.
Table 3 to 9 below provide a comparison between the existing fees and the proposed fees in each subcategory.
Table 3
Former
council
area
Outdoor dining and drinking areas

Current fee description
ACC
Street trading: On-street outdoor seating (per m2 of

site coverage)
FDC
FDC
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
Proposed fee 2015/2016

$ (incl. GST)
71/m2
360 (plus 140/m2 or

85/m2 or 20/m2)
Trading in public places (6 months)
84
360 (plus 20/m2)
152
360 (plus 20/m2)
MCC
Trading in public places
198
360 (plus
85m2 or 20/m2)
NSCC
Outdoor cafes in public places: Application fee
181
NSCC
Outdoor cafes in public places: Annual licence fee
49/m2
360 (plus 85/m2 or

20/m2)
PDC
Other fees - Street dining approval per year
161
360 (plus 20/m2)
Page 131
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Former
council
area

$ (incl. GST)
RDC
Any licence not specifically covered by a fee

under any chapter of the bylaw or any other
enactment
121
360 (plus 85/m2 or

20/m2)
WCC
Other fees & charges: Outdoor cafe areas
262
360 (plus 20/m2)
Table 4
Mobile vendors
Former council Current fee description

area
Attachment C
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
566/
6 months

$ (incl. GST)
300 (plus 0.30/m2/hr or
0.20/m2/hr or 0.05/m2/hr)
ACC
Street trading: Mobile vendors
FDC
Other licences/registration: Mobile food vehicle
162
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
MCC
Permits trading in public places
198
300 (plus 0.20/m2 or

0.05/m2/hr)
NSCC
Vendor - Mobile Shop Trading Permit
247
300 (plus 0.20/m2/hr or

0.05/m2/hr
PDC
Statute based licenses - Mobile Shops/Roadside

Traders (other charitable or community
organisations)
102/ first month
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
PDC
Statute based licenses - Mobile Shops/Roadside

Traders (other charitable or community
organisations)
54/ subsequent
months
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
RDC
Trading in public places - licence fee: Mobile or

travelling shop
270
300 (plus 0.20/m2/hr or

0.05/m2/hr
RDC
Trading in public places - licence fee: Hawker
148
WCC
Other fees and charges - Mobile Shop Licence
139
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
WCC
Other fees and charges - Inspection fee if food

sold - mobile shops
158
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
WCC
Other fees and charges - Hawkers Licence
41
Table 5
Temporary stalls
Former
council area
ACC
Street trading - Flower sellers
ACC
Street trading - Newspapers - per seller, per site,

per annum
ACC
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
401/ month

$ (incl. GST)
300 (plus 0.30/m2/hr or
0.20/m2/hr or 0.05/m2/hr)
126
300 (plus 0.30/m2/hr or

0.20/m2/hr or 0.05/m2/hr)
Street trading: Pie carts, Newmarket
1114/ month
300 (plus 0.20/m2/hr)
ACC
Street trading: Pie carts, Commerce Street - per

month
1334/ month
ACC
Street trading: Strawberry and vegetable vendors
400/ month
300 (plus 0.30/m2/hr or

0.20/m2/hr or 0.05/m2/hr)
FDC
84
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
FDC
152
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
MCC
Permits markets and stalls
345
300 (plus 0.20/m2 or

0.05/m2/hr)
NSCC
Vendor mobile shop
247
300 (plus 0.20/m2/hr or

0.05/m2/hr)
PDC
Bylaw licences: Non-food stalls (other than

charitable or community organisations)
PDC
Bylaw licences: Non-food stalls (other than

charitable or community organisations) - annual
49/event
319
300 (plus 0.30/m2/hr)
300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)

300 (plus 0.05/m2/hr)
Page 132
Former
council area
ACC
Market operators
Current fee $
(incl. GST)

$ (incl. GST)
Food stalls: Market organisers licence (blanket

licence held by market organiser covers stalls
selling fruit, vegetables and uncooked eggs only)
164
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
FDC
84
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
FDC
152
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
MCC
Permits markets and stalls
345
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
NSCC
(not specifically scheduled)
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
PDC
Other fees street trading approval per year
161
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
RDC
Trading in public places - licence fee: Commercial

open air market (includes single stall) - annual
permit
270
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
RDC
Trading in public places - licence fee: Commercial

open air market (includes single stall) - daily (or
part thereof) permit
83
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
WCC
Markets licence excluding any individual vendor

stall licences
189
360 (plus 0.35/m2/day)
Table 7
Street performance, pavement art and busking
Former
council area
ACC

No existing fee
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
-

$ (incl. GST)
0
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
No existing fee
PDC
No existing fee
RDC
No existing fee
WCC
Buskers licence
189
Table 8
Outdoor display of goods
Former
council area
ACC
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
148/ month
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
0
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
Miscellaneous licenses: Display of goods

exemption - application Fee
181
NSCC
Miscellaneous licenses: Display of goods

exemption - m2
49
PDC
No existing fee
RDC
Occupation fee: business occupying public

footpath Display of goods
83
WCC
No existing fee
Table 9
Former
council area
Street trading - Display of goods
Other street trading fees

Current fee $
(incl. GST)

$ (incl. GST)
Page 133
Attachment C
Table 6
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Former
council area
ACC
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
345

$ (incl. GST)
0
ACC
Street trading - Sports services vendors
236/month
300 (plus 0.30/m2/hr or

0.20/m2/hr or 0.05/m2/hr)
ACC
Street trading - Street Trading Application Fee
181
PDC
Other fees - Street trading approval per year
161
300 or 360 (plus or 20/m2,

or 0,05/m2/hr, or
0.35m2/day)
PDC
Application for dispensation from sandwich

board, street trading & street trading
requirements
493
180
Street trading - Recycling bins - per annum
Attachment C
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 134
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment D Proposed changes to cemetery and cremation

related fees and charges
Burial, plot, cremation and facilities hire
Item
Cemetery
Cremation
Adult
All
Cremation
Child
NSMP &WC
MMG
Burial Plot
Adult
$570
$570
0-1yr
$187
$187
1-12 yr
$346
$346
0-1 yr
$187
$187
1-5 yr
$346
$346
5-12 yr
$570
$346
Waikumete West &

North lawn, Hebrew,
Muslim, Urupa
$3,184
$3,300
MMG
$3,464
$4,000
NSMP double berm
$3,861
$4,000
Waikumete Chapel
View
$4,193
$4,000
Waikumete Waitakere
View
$4,615
$5,000
Waikumete East Berm
$4,711
$5,000
NSMP single berm
$6,129
$6,400
Onetangi
$1,428
$2,000
Papakura South
$1,678
$2,000
Heights Park
$1,853
$2,000
Waikaraka
$2,780
$3,000
Helensville Wainui Puhoi
$2,837
$3,000
Swanson
$2,950
$3,000
Level 3 Te Kapa, Hoteo North,

Kaipara Flats, Tapora,
Kaukapapa, Warkworth,
Wellsford, Franklin Cemeteries
Rodney
$1,817
$2,000
Franklin
$1,853
$2,000
Level 1 North Shore Memorial

Park, Manukau Memorial
Gardens, Waikumete Cemetery
MMG 0-5yr
$497
NSMP 0-1 yr
$507
0-1 year $400

1-12 year $1,000
Waikumete 0-1 mth
$290
Level 1 North Shore Memorial

Park, Manukau Memorial
Gardens, Waikumete Cemetery
Level 2 Helensville, Wainui,

Swanson, Papakura South,
Howick, Waikaraka, Heights Park,
Puhoi, Onetangi
Burial Plot
Child (0-1yr
and 1-12 yrs)
(Applies to all
cemeteries
where child
plots are
available.
Where no child
plots are
available
standard adult
plot prices will
apply)
Current fee
Proposed fee
(incl. GST) 2015/16 (incl. GST)
Level 2 Helensville, Wainui,

Swanson, Papakura South,
Howick, Waikaraka, Heights Park,
Puhoi, Onetangi
Waikumete 1mth 12 yr
$1,367
MMG (6-12 yr)
$1077
NSMP 1-10 yr
$792
Onetangi 0-12 mths &

Stillborn
$290
Onetangi (1-12 yrs)
$1,428
Papakura South
(Stillborn)
$512
Papakura South (0-12

yr)
$543
Page 135
Attachment D
Table 1
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item
Cemetery
Level 3 Te Kapa, Hoteo North,

Kaipara Flats, Tapora,
Kaukapapa, Warkworth,
Wellsford, Franklin Cemeteries
Burial Plot
RSA
Current fee
Proposed fee
Heights Park
$593
Waikaraka (0-1 yr)
$290
Waikaraka (1-12 yr)
$994
Helensville Wainui Puhoi
$2,837
Rodney
$1,817
Franklin
$593
Franklin
$0
$0
MMG
$533
$0
Waikumete
$341
$0
$0
$0
$0
$616
$0
Waikaraka
$0
$0
Helensville Wainui
$0
$0
NSMP
Attachment D
Onetangi
Papakura South
Ash Plot
Lawn
Ash Plot Garden
Onetangi
Onetangi
$326
$600
Waikaraka
Waikaraka
$332
$600
Papakura
Papakura South
$512
$600
Franklin
Franklin
$639
$600
Rodney rural
Rodney rural
$695
$600
NSMP
NSMP
$797
$900
Waikumete
Waikumete
$853
$900
Rodney urban
Rodney urban
$1,133
$600
Waikaraka
Waikaraka
$647
$1,000
Papatoetoe
Papatoetoe
$843
$1,000
Waikumete
Garden
$853
$1,000
Waikumete
Erebus/Chapel View
$1,035
$1,200
Waikumete
Family Octagon
$1708
$1708
Waikumete
Ash Vault
$1874
$1874
Papakura
Papakura South
$1,072
$1,200
NSMP
NSMP
$1,191
$1,200
MMG
MMG
$1,367
$1,200
$331
$331
Ash Plot
RSA
Papakura South
Chapel Hire
Small
NSMP
Kowhai Room
$114
$200
MMG
Magnolia Room
$181
$200
WC
Waikumete Chapel 2
$341
$200
MMG
$333
$400
NSMP
$341
$400
WC
$390
$400
WC
$171
$100
MMG
$207
$300
Chapel Hire
Large
Function
Lounge
All other cemeteries
$0
Page 136
Cemetery
Current fee
Proposed fee
NSMP
Burial
Interment Fee
- Adult
Burial
Interment Fee
Infant 0-1 yr
incl stillborn
Burial
Interment Fee
Child 1-12yr
Ash Interment
Fee
$341
$300
$0
$1,350
Tryphena
Tryphena
Onetangi
Single depth
$176
$1,350
Onetangi
Double Depth
$254
$1,350
Onetangi
Re-open
$880
$1350
Papakura
Single Depth
$543
$1400
Papakura
Double Depth
$631
$1,400
Papakura
Triple Depth
$740
$1605
Papakura
Re-open
$543-$631
$1400
Franklin
Std Depth
$797
$1,400
Franklin
Single Depth
$630
$1400
Franklin
Re-open to single
$630
$1400
Waikaraka
Single Depth
$704
$1350
Waikaraka
Double Depth
$1,035
$1,350
Waikaraka
Re-open
$881
$1350
MMG, NSMP, WC
MMG, NSMP, WC
$1,072
$1,072
Rodney
Single Depth
$1,343
$1,800
Rodney
Double Depth
$1,550
$1,800
Howick
Howick
$1,601
$1,400
Tryphena
Tryphena
$0
$250
Onetangi
Onetangi
$145
$250
Papakura
Neonatal
$171
$250
Franklin
Franklin
$264
$250
Waikaraka
Waikaraka
$145
$250
MMG, NSMP, WC
MMG, NSMP, WC
$187
$250
Rodney
Rodney
$556
$250
Tryphena
Tryphena
$0
$550
Onetangi
Onetangi
$217
$550
Papakura
0-5 yrs
$374
$550
Papakura
5-12 yrs
$561
$550
Franklin
1-5 yr
$264
$550
Franklin
5-12 yr
$492
$550
Waikaraka
Waikaraka
$243
$550
MMG, NSMP, WC
MMG, NSMP, WC
$295
$550
Rodney
0-5 yrs
$556
$550
Rodney
6-12 yrs
$1,343
$550
Tryphena
Tryphena
$0
$340
Waikaraka, Onetangi
Waikaraka, Onetangi
$145
$340
Papakura
Papakura
$171
$380
NSMP, MMG, WC
NSMP, MMG, WC
$207
$300
Franklin
Franklin
$217
$380
Rodney
Rodney
$259
$300
Page 137
Attachment D
Item
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Table 2
Item
Attachment D
Saturday/week
end burial fees
Saturday/week
end cremation
fees
Late booking
fee (burials
commencing
after 3:30 pm
weekdays,
cremation
delivery after
4pm
weekdays)
Other miscellaneous services

Cemetery
Description
Rodney
Ash interment
Current fee
Proposed fee
$171
$75
Rodney
Rodney
Rodney
Saturday
Sunday
Public Holiday
$487
Not offered
Not Offered
$450
$450
$1000
Papakura
Public Holiday
$523
$450
Howick
Public Holiday
$1,067
$450
MMG
Public Holiday
$1,067
$1,000
Waikumete
Public Holiday
$1,072
$1,000
NSMP
Public Holiday
Onetangi
Sat Afternoon
$155
$350
Waikumete
Saturday
$487
$400
NSMP
Sat burials to 3pm only
$487
$400
Onetangi
Sat Morning
$88
$350
Onetangi
Public Holiday
Franklin
Sat/Sun
$341
$350
Franklin
Public Holiday
$450
$650
$341
$500
Waikaraka, Hillsborough,
Saturday
Otahuhu
$523
$350
Papakura
Sunday
$285
$350
Howick
Sunday
$802
$350
Waikumete, MMG
Sunday
$802
$350
MMG
Ash collection Sunday
$341
$100
MMG
Cremation Sunday
MMG
Cremation Public Holiday
MMG
$802
$500
$1,067
$1,250
Ash collection public

holiday
$364
$250
NSMP
Sat Chapel and

Crematorium
$341
$500
Waikumete
Sat Cremation
$341
$500
Waikumete
Sun Cremation
$663
$500
Waikumete
Public Holiday Cremation
$1,067
$1,250
Rodney
After 3pm
$482
$450
$275
$450
$78
$450
After 3.30pm weekdays
Otahuhu
Onetangi
After 3.30pm weekdays
Papakura
After 3pm
$253
$450
Howick
After 3pm
$253
$450
Waikumete
Burial after 3:30pm
$482
$450
NSMP
arrival after 3pm
$482
$450
MMG
Cremation after 5pm Mon Sat
$161
$450
NSMP, Waikumete
Cremation arrival after 4pm
$161
$450
Page 138
Cemetery
MMG
Late arrival fee
(Arrival more
than 30 mins
after booked
time)
Oversize or
oblong casket
fee
Ash scattering
fee
Description
Current fee
Proposed fee
Burial after 3:30pm
Waikaraka, Hillsborough, Arrive 20mins after booked

Otahuhu
time
$450
$145
$100
$119
$100
$52
$100
Franklin
Arrive more than 60mins

after booked time
Onetangi
Arrive 20mins after booked

time
Waikumete
arrival 30 mins after

booked time
$482
$100
arrival 30 mins after

booked time
$0
$100
Rodney
oversize or oblong
$280
$280
Otahuhu
oversize or oblong
$280
$280
Papakura
over 2008 mm x 701 mm
$523
$280
Papakura Central
Oblong casket
$114
$280
Howick
oversize
$280
$280
NSMP, Waikumete
oversize or oblong - single

depth only
$280
$280
MMG
Franklin
Onetangi
over 2008 mm x 701 mm

Oversize 2008 x 701mm
Oversize
$280
$119
$48
$280
$280
$280
$52
$52
$0
$52
Rodney, NSMP, MMG,

Waikumete
Disinterment
fee
$253
Rodney
Adult
$3,742
$2,290
Otahuhu
Adult
$1,538
$2,290
Papakura Central
Adult
$2,278
$2,290
Papakura South
Adult
$2,247
$2,290
Howick
Adult
$3,742
$2,290
NSMP, Waikumete,
MMG
Adult
$3,742
$2,290
Onetangi
Franklin
Adult
Adult
$414
$1,595
$2,290
$2,290
Rodney
Ashes
$259
$300
Papakura Central
Ashes
$171
$380
Papakura South
Ashes
$83
$380
NSMP, Waikumete,
MMG
Ashes
$207
$300
Rodney
Child
$2,138
$2,290
Otahuhu
Child
$1,538
$2,290
Onetangi
Child
$414
$2,290
Howick
Child
$2,138
$2,290
NSMP, Waikumete,
MMG
Child
$2,138
$2,290
Otahuhu
Reinterment
$881
$1,350
Onetangi
Reinterment
$227
$1,350
Page 139
Attachment D
Item
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment D
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item
Other
Cemetery
Description
Current fee
Proposed fee
$1,595
$1,400
Franklin
Reinterment
NSMP
Additional DVD
$21
$21
MMG
Additional DVD
$25
$21
NSMP, Waikumete
Ash collection Sunday
$341
$304
$663
$760
Waikumete
Ash collection outside

operational hours - public
holiday
NSMP, Waikumete
Ash export certificate
$21
$38
MMG
Ash separation
$41
$38
Howick
Ash Separation Fee

(Auckland Council)
$41
$38
Howick
Ash Separation Fee

(Private Crematorium)
$52
$50
NSMP, Waikumete
Burial Rights Transfer
$52
$38
Concrete Breaking
Otahuhu
$181
$0
Franklin
Concrete Breaking
$119
$0
Papakura Central
Concrete Breaking
$129
$0
Papakura Central
Concrete Capping
$129
$0
NSMP, Waikumete
Cremation same day

cancellation
$161
$161
Waikaraka, Hillsborough, Duplicate Certificate of

Otahuhu
Burial Rights
$41
$38
Franklin
Duplicate Certificate of
Burial Rights
$31
$38
Onetangi
Duplicate Certificate of
Burial Rights
$46
$38
NSMP
DVD Recording
$83
$0
MMG
DVD Recording
$0
$0
MMG
Export certificate/
cremation certificate
$21
$38
Howick
Extra urn large
$21
$26
NSMP, Waikumete,
Extra urn large
$26
$26
MMG
Extra urn large
$21
$26
Howick
Extra urn small
$15
$15
NSMP, MMG
Extra urn small
$15
$15
Waikumete
Extra urn small
$16
$15
Papakura Central
Out of District Fee (Ash

plot, niche, children)
$684
$0
Papakura Central
Out of District Fee (Burial

Plot)
$1,367
$0
MMG
Re-issue certificate of title
$31
$38
Franklin
Surrender of Burial Rights
$101
$76
Papakura South
$101
$76
MMG
$101
$76
Transfer of Burial Rights
Otahuhu
$41
$38
Franklin
$52
$38
Onetangi
$46
$38
Papakura South
$52
$38
Page 140
Monument
Permit Fees
Cemetery
Description
Current fee
Proposed fee
MMG
Wainui
Papakura
Papakura
Papakura
Waikaraka

Memorial Wall Purchase
Fee
Memorial Wall Admin fee
Memorial Wall Interment
fee
Memorial Wall re-open fee
Mausoleum Vault
interment fee
$52
$456
$51
$207
$207
$236
$38
$456
$51
$207
$207
$321
Rodney
All memorial permits
$139
$139
Otahuhu
$41
$139
Franklin
$50
$139
Onetangi
$46
$139
Papakura
$139
$139
Howick
$139
$139
$139
$139
NSMP, MMG, WC
Page 141
Attachment D
Item
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment E Proposed changes to other environmental

health and licensing fees
Funeral directors
Former
council area
ACC
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
433
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
240
FDC
MCC
Other licences/registration: Funeral Parlours
263
240
Various other licence types: Funeral director
390
240
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Funeral Director
292
240
PDC
Other premises: Funeral Directors and Mortuaries
448
240
RDC
Health (burial): Registration of funeral director
270
240
WCC
Other fees and charges: Funeral Directors
312
240
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
369
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
420
2)
Funeral directors mortuary licence: Annual fee
Offensive trades
Former
council area
ACC
FDC
Other licences/registration: Offensive Traders
307
420
MCC
Various other licence types: Offensive Trades
481
420
NSCC
No existing fee
420
PDC
Other premises: Offensive Trades
536
420
RDC
Offensive trades: Offensive Trade Licences
270
420
WCC
Other fees and charges: Offensive Trades
270
420
3)
Offensive trades: Renewal
Camping grounds
Former
council area
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
ACC
Camping Grounds: Annual fee
401
300
FDC
Other licenses/registration: Camping Grounds
307
300
FDC
Other licenses/registration: Re-locatable Home

Park Consent - per inspection
307
300
MCC
Various other licence types: Camping Grounds
481
300
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Camping Grounds
231
300
PDC
Other premises: Camping Grounds
536
300
RDC
Camping Grounds: Camping ground
270
300
RDC
Camping Grounds: Remote camp site
148
300
WCC
Other fees and charges: Camping Grounds
333
300
4)
Sale yards
Page 143
Attachment E
1)
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Former
council area
ACC
No existing fee
FDC
Other licences /registration: Sale yards
MCC
300
221
300
No existing fee
300
NSCC
No existing fee
300
PDC
No existing fee
300
RDC
No existing fee
300
WCC
No existing fee
300
5)
Gambling venues and gaming machines
Former
council area
Attachment E
Current fee $ Proposed fee 2015/2016

(incl. GST)
$ (incl. GST)
Current fee
$ (incl. GST)

$ (incl. GST)
ACC
Gambling venues: New class 4 or New Zealand

Racing Board (NZRB) venue consent application
401
360
FDC
Other licenses/registration: Gaming Machine class 4 Venue Consent - per inspection
577
360
MCC
No existing fee
360
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Gambling Venue

Application
440
360
PDC
No existing fee
360
RDC
Rodney District Council gambling venue

application fee: Class 4 venue
412
360
RDC
Rodney District Council gambling venue

application fee: Board venue
412
360
WCC
No existing fee
360
6)
Noise equipment seizure
Former
council area
Current fee $
Proposed fee
(incl. GST) 2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
120 + (200 276
contractors cost)
ACC
Other Fees - Return Fee for seized equipment

(Noise)
FDC
Return fee for seized appliances - Administration fee

per seizure
73
120 + (200 contractors cost)
FDC
Return fee for seized appliances - Per response in

Metropolitan zone
84
FDC
Return fee for seized appliances - Per response in a

Rural zone
152
MCC
Return Fee for seized equipment
276
NSCC
Noise control - Seizure of Equipment
193
PDC
Noise Complaints & Seizure of Equipment - Minimum

fee
161
PDC
Noise Complaints & Seizure of Equipment - Seized

equipment and storage fee
161
PDC
Noise Complaints & Seizure of Equipment - Seized

equipment administration and storage - disposal fee
127
RDC
No existing fee
WCC
Other fees and charges- Return of seized property

(noise) under section 336 RMA
462
7)
Other equipment seizure
Page 144
Former
council area
ACC
Other Fees - Recover cost of seized goods
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
cost
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
360
FDC
No existing fee
360
MCC
No existing fee
360
NSCC
No existing fee
360
PDC
No existing fee
360
RDC
Other fees and charges - Return fee of seized

equipment
389
360
WCC
No existing fee
360
Certificate of inspection
Former
council area
ACC
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
Other fees: Certificate of Inspection
NSCC
No existing fee
PDC
RDC
WCC
9)
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
187
Proposed fee 2015/2016 $

(incl. GST)
240
240
187
240
240
No existing fee
240
No existing fee
240
No existing
240
Other fees: Certificate of Inspection
General inspection
Former
council area
Current fee $
(incl. GST)

(incl. GST)
ACC
Other Fees continued: Re-inspection Fee (Camping

ground, Food premises, Funeral Director,
Hairdresser, Health Protection, Offensive Trade)
187
300
FDC
Other licences/registration: Re-inspection fee for all

Licence or Registered premises - per inspection
123
300
MCC
Other fees: Permit application fee for permits not

specified elsewhere
286
300
NSCC
Re-inspections
Cost
300
PDC
No existing fees
300
RDC
Bylaw administration: (i) Any certificate, authority,

approval, permit, licence, consent from or inspection
by the Council, not specifically covered by a fee
under any chapter of the bylaw or any other
enactment
121
300
Other fees and charges: Charge for any reinspection for any activity not specifically scheduled
139
300
WCC
10)
Commercial sex premises
Former
council area
ACC
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
708
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
240
FDC*
No existing fee
MCC
NSCC
Various other licence types: Brothel permit
272
240
Brothels: Applications for licence
292
NSCC
Brothels: Annual licence fee
292
240
NSCC
Brothels: Application for dispensations - base fee +

actual cost
566
Brothel license: Annual fee
Page 145
Attachment E
8)
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
PDC*
Other premises: Massage Parlour - Minimum fee

plus any additional costs. Charge at appropriate
hourly rate
524
RDC
Brothels and commercial sex premises - licence fee:

Small Owner operated
281
240
RDC
Brothels and commercial sex premises - licence fee:

Brothel
412
240
WCC*
No existing fee
* Licensing is currently only required in legacy ACC,MCC,NSCC,RDC areas due to sign and location requirements of existing bylaw,
that is under review.
11)
Transfer of occupier Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966
Attachment E
Former
council area
Current fee $
Proposed fee
(incl. GST)
2015/2016 $ (incl. GST)
ACC
Transfer fee: All licenses and re-issue of lost

certificate/licence
99
180
FDC
Other licenses/registration: Transfer of licence
73
180
MCC
Other fees: Transfer of licence
118
180
NSCC
Miscellaneous licenses: Licence transfer fees (any

license)
94
180
PDC
No existing fee
180
RDC
Transfer of certificates: Noting or transfer of

registration certificate
148
180
WCC
Other fees and charges: Transfer fee for noting

change of occupier
102
180
12)
Application for dispensation
Former
council area
ACC
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
Dispensation deposit fee
NSCC
PDC
RDC
Processing application for certificate of exemption
WCC
No existing fee
13)
No existing fee
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
-

$ (incl. GST)
180
180
7004
180
No existing fee
180
No existing fee
180
143
180
180
Duplication of licence
Former
council
area
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
ACC
No existing fee
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $
(incl. GST)
120
FDC
Other licenses/registration: Duplicate of licence
39
120
MCC
Other fees: Duplicate of licence
119
120
NSCC
No existing fee
120
PDC
Statute based licences: Duplicate License
71
120
RDC
No existing fee
120
WCC
No existing fee
120
Page 146
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Fire permit
Former
council
area
ACC
No existing fee
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
-
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $
(incl. GST)
0
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Fire permit
99
PDC
No existing fee
RDC
No existing fee
WCC
No existing fee
Item 17
14)
* Civil Defence and Emergency Managements Rural Fire unit issued a further 840 fire permits, for which there is no charge, in order to
facilitate engagement with the public to avoid fire suppression costs.
Keeping of livestock
Former
council
area
ACC
No existing fee
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $
(incl. GST)
240
FDC
No existing fee
240
MCC
No existing fee
240
NSCC
No existing fee
240
PDC
No existing fee
240
RDC
Other fees and charges: Consent Fee Keeping of

bees
240
RDC
2 and up to 2 adult pigs
122
240
RDC
Over 2 and up to 50 adult pigs
143
240
RDC
Over 50 and up to 100 adult pigs
197
240
RDC
Over 100 adult pigs
260
240
RDC
Keeping of more than 12 head of poultry
122
240
WCC
No existing fee
240
16)
Former
council
area
Current fee
$ (incl. GST)
Attachment E
15)
Signage
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $ (incl.
GST)
Applicable Hourly
Rate Charge
ACC
Bylaw dispensation (other than permanent signage): Temporary

sign
142
ACC
Billboard: Billboard dispensation
165
ACC
Street trading Banner, application fee
181
60
ACC
Street trading - Permanent banners - per annum
6607
By Negotiation
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
Various other licence types: Temporary signs permit - general
272
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Signs - Exceeding 1m2 under bylaw
136
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Signs - All other signs under bylaw
77
PDC
Other fees: Single sandwich board approval per year
89
RDC
No existing fee
WCC
No existing fee
Applicable Hourly
Rate Charge
Page 147
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment E
Item 17
17)
Food licence for mobile food vendor
Former
council area
ACC

Food stalls: Letter of Exemption (level one)
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
0

$ (incl. GST)
120
ACC
Food stalls: Level two
126/6 months
300
ACC
Food stalls: Level two
192/ 12 months
300
ACC
Food stalls: Level three
225/6 months
300
ACC
Food stalls: Level three
368/12 months
300
FDC
84
300
FDC
152
300
MCC
Permits markets and stall
345
300
NSCC
Vendor mobile shop
247
300
PDC
No existing fee
300
RDC
Food stalls: Food stalls annual fee
270
300
RDC
Food stalls: Food stalls - one day up to and

including 5 days free
148
300
WCC
Other fees and charges Inspection fee if food

sold food stalls
158
300
WCC
Other fees and charges: Food stalls licence
139
300
18)
Former
council
area
Offering commercial services in regional parks

All regional Application fee, renewal licence fee.(non-publicly

parks
notified)
Current fee $ (incl.

GST)
270 (plus daily per
person charge, or 10
% gross turnover)
All regional Application fee, renewal licence fee (publicly

parks
notified)
19)
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $
(incl. GST)
300 (plus daily per
person charge, or
10% gross turnover)
Applicable hourly
rate charge (plus
daily per person
charge, or 10%
gross turnover)
Other administrative fees
Former
council
area
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
ACC
Inspection fee: Hourly rate (per officer)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $
(incl. GST)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
ACC
Festivals and events: Hourly rate (per officer)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
ACC
Other fees: Officer time (Bylaws)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
ACC
Other fees: Recover cost of works carried out in

default (bylaw notice)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
FDC
No existing fee
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
MCC
Other fees: Hourly Staff Charge-out Rates (for

bylaw related applications where the application
fee is a deposit)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Page 148
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
Proposed fee
2015/2016 $
(incl. GST)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
MCC
Provision of lists of premises
30
NSCC
Pre-purchase checks (any license)
198
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
RDC
Charge for searching for documents, copying

certificates, consents or other authorising
documents and registers
88
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
WCC
Pre-application / license, consent meeting (per

hour)
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Applicable
Hourly Rate
Charge
Item 17
Former
council
area
The existing fees in Tables 20, 21, 22 and 23 below are covered by legacy bylaws that are no longer
considered necessary. They will be allowed to lapse on 31 October 2015 along with the relevant bylaws. No
new fees are proposed.
Former
council area
ACC

No existing fee
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
-

(incl. GST)
No licence or fee proposed
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
Miscellaneous licences: Amusement galleries
231
PDC
Bylaws licences: Amusement galleries
171
RDC
No existing fee
WCC
No existing fee
Attachment E
20) Amusement galleries license
21) Hazardous substance inspections

Former
council
area
ACC

Hazardous substances inspections: Bulk tank demolished
Current
fee $ (incl.
(incl. GST)
GST)
181
ACC
Hazardous substances inspections: LPG storage tank

installed
181
ACC
Hazardous substances inspections: Storage tank installed
181
ACC
Hazardous substances inspections: Tank removal
126
ACC
Hazardous substances inspections: Test pipelines to bulk

storage
137
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
No existing fee
PDC
No existing fee
RDC
No existing fee
WCC
No existing fee
22) Public buildings or places of public resort

Former
council
area
ACC
No existing fee
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
-

(incl. GST)
Page 149
Attachment E
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Former
council
area
FDC

(incl. GST)
No existing fee
Current fee
$ (incl.
GST)
-
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
No existing fee
PDC
No existing fee
RDC
A. Theatres and/or cinemas
170
RDC
B. Public halls:
RDC
1. Public or commercial
170
RDC
2. Non-profit organisations
143
RDC
3. Churches or buildings used solely as places of

worship
RDC
C. Grandstands and stadiums
170
RDC
D. Showgrounds
170
RDC
E. Circuses per month or part thereof
143
RDC
F. Public assembly on the open or marquees, tents

or other temporary structures:
RDC
1. For profit up to and including 2000 persons for

each day or part thereof
170
RDC
2. For profit Over 2000 persons
179 plus 27
per 1000
persons
RDC
3. For non-profit organisations for each day or part

thereof
143
RDC
4. For public worship
WCC
No existing fee
23) Travellers accommodation

Former
council area
ACC

No existing fee
Current fee $
(incl. GST)
-

(incl. GST)
FDC
No existing fee
MCC
No existing fee
NSCC
No existing fee
PDC
No existing fee
RDC
5 30 persons
143
RDC
32 50 persons
197
RDC
Over 50 persons
260
WCC
No existing fee
Page 150
Attachment F Proposed changes to fees and charges for building control, resource consents and
property information
Proposed changes to building control fees and charges
Type
Description
Pre-application - standard
Pre-application
Fire engineering
briefs
LINZ
Regiustration
(Land
Information New
Zealand)
Building
application
Solid fuel
heating
appliances
Current
fixed Fee
(incl. GST)
Current
processing
deposit
Current
inspection
deposit
Total current
deposit
$265
Pre-application meeting complex
Proposed fixed
fees for 2015/16
(incl. GST)
Proposed
processing
deposit for
2015/16
Proposed
inspection
deposit for
2015/16
Total
proposed
deposit for
2015/16
$280
$265
$265
$280
$280
$260
$260
$275
$275
LINZ registration where land

is subject to natural hazards,
or when building across
more than one lot
$351
$351
$351
$351
Building application-National
multiple use approval (based
on project value $100,000$499,999).
Building application-National
multiple use approval (based
on project value $500,000
and over).
Subsidised fee for solid fuel
heating appliance if by an
approved installer, otherwise
fees as per project value
below (includes code
$1,200
based on
project
value
$1,260
based on
project
value
$2,500
based on
project
value
$2,625
based on
project
value
Fire engineering brief

meeting - limited to 1 hour
(hourly rates apply
thereafter)
$182
Attachment F
1)
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
$190
Page 151
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Type
Current
fixed Fee
(incl. GST)
Current
processing
deposit
Current
inspection
deposit
Total current
deposit
Proposed fixed
fees for 2015/16
(incl. GST)
Proposed
processing
deposit for
2015/16
Proposed
inspection
deposit for
2015/16
Total
proposed
deposit for
2015/16
compliance certificate).
Solar or Heat
Pump water
heating devices
Temporary
structures
Foam Insulation
applications
Separation
All other building

applications
Attachment F
Description
Amended plans
Exemption
Subsidised fee for solar or

heat pump water heating
devices.
Application for a temporary
structure.
Application for injected Foam
insulation
Application to separate an
existing building consent that
relates to two or more
buildings on the same site.
Project value up to $1,999.
Project value $2,000 to
$4,999.
$19,999.
$99,999.
$499,999.
Project value over $500,000.
Amended building consent
applications - project value
up to $19,999.
$20,000 to $99,999.
$100,000 and over.
Application for exemption
from building consent
requirements.
$230
$240
$415
$436
$480
$480
$207
$505
$505
$207
$215
$215
$430
$270
$700
$450
$280
$730
$708
$405
$1,113
$740
$420
$1,160
$1,115
$540
$1,655
$1,175
$560
$1,735
$1,650
$675
$2,325
$1,725
$700
$2,425
$2,402
$1,350
$3,752
$2,525
$1,400
$3,925
$4,114
$1,620
$5,734
$4,320
$1,680
$6,000
$305
$305
$320
$320
$545
$545
$570
$570
$865
$865
$900
$900
$415
$415
$435
$435
Page 152
Current
processing
deposit
Current
inspection
deposit
Total current
deposit
Proposed fixed
fees for 2015/16
(incl. GST)
Proposed
processing
deposit for
2015/16
Proposed
inspection
deposit for
2015/16
Total
proposed
deposit for
2015/16
Description
Project
Information
Memorandum
(PIM)
Building
inspections n
Bond
inspection/Street
damage
inspection n
Accreditation
levy n
Issuing Project Information

Memorandum.
$390
$390
$410
$410
Building inspection (per

inspection)
Inspection for refund of
bonds/Inspection for street
damage
$135
$135
$140
$140
Code
compliance
certificate
Project value up to $19,999.
$125
$125
$130
$130

$99,999
$499,999.
Project value $500,000 and
over.
Carrying out product
assessment.
Receiving third party reports
or other information to place
on a property file at the
owners request.
Extension of time to
commence or complete
building work under a
building consent.
Lapsing of building consent.
$285
$285
$300
$300
$455
$455
$475
$475
$755
$755
$790
$790
$1,500
$1,500
$1,575
$1,575
Product
assessment
Filing fee
Extensions of
time
Lapsing
Waiver
Building consent subject to

waiver or modification of
building code.
$78
$82
20c per
$1000
value of
works
30c per $1000

value of works
$175
Attachment F
Current
fixed Fee
(incl. GST)
Type
$185
$92
$92
$95
$95
$92
$92
$95
$95
$107
$107
$110
$110
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 153
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Current
inspection
deposit
Where project value is up to

$19,999.
$245
$595
based on
no. of
inspections
$255
$625
based on
no. of
inspections
Where project value is

$20,000 and over.
$440
$925
based on
no. of
inspections
$460
$970
based on
no. of
inspections
Base charge.
$108
$112
Additional charge per

specified system.
Amendment to compliance
schedule.
Annual Renewal: one
specified system only
$24
$25
$98
$100
$85
$90
Annual Renewal: two or

more specified system.
$128
$135
Registration costs for

Independent Qualified
Person.
Registration for each
specified system
Person.
Registration renewal for
Person.
Advisory Inspection.
$160
$165
$120
$125
$100
$105
$135
$140
Notice to fix
Issuing Notice to Fix.
$230
$240
Certificate for
public use
(CPU)
Issuing consent
report
Certificate.
$460
$480
Extension of time for CPU.
$215
$225
$1,390
$1,460
$670
$700
Certificate of
Acceptance*
Issuing
compliance
schedule
Attachment F
Proposed
inspection
deposit for
2015/16
Current
processing
deposit
Description
Building warrant
of fitness
(BWOF)
Weekly (annual
subscription).
Monthly (annual
subscription).
Total current
deposit
Proposed fixed
fees for 2015/16
(incl. GST)
Proposed
processing
deposit for
2015/16
Current
fixed Fee
(incl. GST)
Type
Total
proposed
deposit for
2015/16
Page 154
Description
Current
fixed Fee
(incl. GST)
Current
processing
deposit
Current
inspection
deposit
Total current
deposit
Proposed fixed
fees for 2015/16
(incl. GST)
Single request.
$130
$135
Title search
Title search.
$37
$40
Liquor (building
code certificate)
Certificate that proposed use

of premises meets
requirements of building
code.
Vehicle crossing permit
(application, processing and
inspection).
Registration as a Producer
Statement Author.
$300
$315
$300
$315
Renewal of registration.
$150
$155
2nd and subsequent

inspections (each).
Applications for exemption
under the Fencing of
Swimming Pool Act.
$125
$140
$435
$455
Construction of
vehicle
crossings
Producer
statement
author register
Swimming/spa
pool compliance
periodic
inspection
$109
$270
$379
Proposed
processing
deposit for
2015/16
$115
Proposed
inspection
deposit for
2015/16
Total
proposed
deposit for
2015/16
$280
$395
Attachment F
Type
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 155
1)
Attachment F
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 156
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Category
Service
Current fee
(incl. GST)
Proposed fee
2015/16 (incl. GST)
LIM reports - residential and

non-residential
LIM reports - residential and
non-residential
Standard service
$265.00
$275.00
Urgent service (where service is available)
$365.00
$380.00
Property information
Property file CD immediate
$100.00
$105.00
Property file CD - standard (5 working

days)
$50.00
$52.50
Property file CD - urgent (4 hours)
$80.00
$84.00
Hard copy property file viewing
$30.00
$30.00
Electronic property file viewing
$20.00
$20.00
Property search web delivery
$30.00
$30.00
Neighbourhood Development Report
$36.00
$36.00
Maps, reports and certificates
Building Consent Status Report per

property
$10.00
$10.00
Site remediation report
$10.00
$10.00
Soil reports
$10.00
$10.00
Private Drainage Plan
$10.00
$10.00
Valuations certified copy
$10.00
$10.00
Building inspection report
$10.00
$10.00
Site consent summary
$10.00
$10.00
Copy of Code Compliance Certificate

(CCC)
$10.00
$10.00
Copy of Building Warrant of Fitness

(BWOF)
$10.00
$10.00
Copy of LIM at the time of purchase of

original LIM
$10.00
$10.00
Combined public drainage & contour map
$51.00
$51.00
GIS maps (including aerial maps) -A4
$7.70
$7.70
GIS maps (including aerial maps) -A3
$10.00
$10.00
District plan - zoning / designation maps.
$10.00
$10.00
Printing
Paper size A0.
$15.00
$15.00
Paper size A1.
$10.00
$10.00
Paper size A2.
$5.00
$5.00
Paper size A3.
$2.50
$2.50
Paper size A4.
$1.00
$1.00
Black and White Paper size A0 Add

$0.50 extra for colour copy.
$0.50
$0.50

$0.50
$0.50

$0.50
$0.50
Photocopies
Page 157
Item 17
Proposed changes to land and property information fees
Attachment F
2)
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Miscellaneous

$0.50
$0.50

$0.50
$0.50
Courier charges will be charged at cost and average costs will be available at
aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. An administration charge of 15 minutes will apply for bulk
requests
3)
Proposed changes to resource consent fees and deposits
a.
Air and water consent fees and deposits
Type
Description
Current fee Current Proposed Proposed deposit

(incl. GST) deposit fee 2015/16 2015/16 (incl. GST)
(incl. GST)
Attachment F
Consents may require further charges that exceed the

initial lodgement deposit
Non-notified applications
Consent
transfers
Transfer of coastal, water or discharge

permits (s135-s137 of the Resource
Management Act 1991) (in part or whole of
consent to another person on the same site)
$220
Water
allocation
$220
$3,500
Transfer of coastal, water or discharge

permits (s135-s137 of the Resource
Management Act 1991) to another site
Surrender of consent
$220
$220
$220
$220
$3,500
$220
$220
Take, use or dam surface water
$3,500
$3,500
Take, use or divert groundwater
$3,500
$3,500
Drill or alter bore
$500
$500
$3,500
$3,500
Divert surface water
$3,500
$3,500
Coastal structures, activities and occupation
$3,500
$3,500
Stormwater Stormwater diversion and/or discharge

management
$3,500
$3,500
Sediment
control
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
Discharge of domestic wastewater (greater

than 6m) and/or contaminants
$3,500
$3,500
Discharge contaminants from industrial or

trade processes (other than to air)
$3,500
$3,500
Farm dairy discharge
$3,500
$3,500
$5,500
$3,500
Lakes, rivers Works in, on, under or over the bed of a lake /
and streams river / stream
Coastal
Sediment control for earthworks, roading,

tracking, trenching and quarries
Water quality Discharge of domestic wastewater (less than

or equal to 6m)
Contaminate Contaminated sites and landfills

d land
Page 158
Type
Description
Current fee Current Proposed Proposed deposit

(incl. GST) deposit fee 2015/16 2015/16 (incl. GST)
(incl. GST)
Consents may require further charges that exceed the

initial lodgement deposit
Air quality
Discharge contaminants to air (where main
discharge is odour)
$15,335
$15,335
$5,500
$5,500
no deposit
No deposit
$250
$250
Limited notification (air and water)
$10,000
$10,000
Notified application (except discharge

contaminants to air where main discharge is
odour)
$20,000
$20,000
Discharge contaminants to air (where main

discharge is odour)
$20,000
$20,000
Discharge contaminants to air (other than

odour)
Contaminated land site enquires
All
Permitted activity review
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
All
Permission to transfer water permit or

discharge permit (in whole or in part) to
another site (notified)
Consolidat
ed into
notified
applicatio
n
Note:
1.
The deposit amount is payable when the application/service request is lodged. Where the actual costs are lower than the
deposit paid, a refund will be made to the original payer. Where the actual costs exceed the deposit paid, the additional costs (including
charges by external specialists) will be invoiced. Interim invoices may be issued to avoid a large invoice at the end of the process.
b.
Consent fees and deposits for other than air and water
Type
Description
Preapplication
Pre-application meeting
standard
Non-notified
Current
fee (incl.
GST)
$265
Current
deposit
Proposed fee
2015/16 (incl.
GST)
$280
Proposed deposit
2015/16 (incl. GST)
Pre-application meeting complex

(initial deposit, with additional
charges by the hour)
$265
$280
Roof-mounted skylight, solar

tubes, roof window, sun
tunnel/solar panels
$500
$500
Single infringement controlled or

restricted discretionary activity (for
example accessory building,
additions and alterations, signs)
$2,500
$2,500
Complex application (for example

density applications, four or more
dwellings units)
$4,500
$4,500
Other residential applications
Consolidated
into single
infringement
Other non-residential applications
Consolidated
into complex
applications
Tree works, where district plan

requires payment of a charge
$615
$615
Page 159
Attachment F
Notified applications
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Description
Subdivisions Boundary adjustment
Attachment F
Item 17
Type
Current
deposit
Proposed fee
2015/16 (incl.
GST)
$2,000
Freehold subdivision around

existing development
Consolidated
into three or
more lots
Other freehold subdivision one or

two lots
Consolidated
into three or
more lots
Proposed deposit
2015/16 (incl. GST)
$2,000
Other freehold subdivision three or

more lots
$3,500
$3,500
Cross lease: first stage, updates or

complete stage
$1,200
$1,200
Cross lease: subsequent stages or

update
Consolidated
into first stage
Unit title: unit development, unit

plan, substituted unit plan or
redevelopment plan
Consolidated
into first stage
Unit title: certificate or complete

unit plan - section 32(2)(a) of the
Unit Titles Act
Consolidated
into unit plan
Unit title certificate; cross-lease or

unit title amendment or variation
Consolidated
into unit plan
Consent to vary or cancel consent

notice condition
$2,000
Approval of survey plan

Certificate for completion of
conditions under section 224(c) of
the Resource Management Act
1991
Subdivisions Certificate under section 226 of
the Resource Management Act
1991
$2,000
Not required
$1,000
$1,000
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Consent for individual disposition

of land held in particular certificate
of title or cancellation of
requirement that allotments be
amalgamated
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Consent to create, surrender,

merge or vary easement and
section 348 of the Local
Government Act 2002 approval
(right of way)
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Consent to alter or cancel building

line restriction
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
one to 10 lots
Combined
land use and 11 or more lots
subdivision
consent (nonnotified)
Liquor
Current
fee (incl.
GST)
$4,000
$4,000
$5,000
$5,000
Resource management certificate

under the Sale of Liquor Act
(reliant on resource consent)
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Liquor Planning Certificate

Permitted Activity
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Liquor Planning Certificate

Existing use rights
Consolidated
into certificate
Page 160
Type
Description
Current
fee (incl.
GST)
Current
deposit
Proposed fee
2015/16 (incl.
GST)
Proposed deposit
2015/16 (incl. GST)
Attachment F
for completion
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 161
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment F
Item 17
Type
Notified
applications
Description
Current
fee (incl.
GST)
$530
Notified application for tree works,
where district plan requires
payment of a charge
Current
deposit
$530
$530
$1,535
$1,535
Limited notification
$10,000
$10,000
Application to change or cancel

conditions of consent (notified)
Consolidated
into notified
application
Review of consent conditions

(notified)
Consolidated
into notified
application
Hearing of resource consent

application
$3,000
$3,000
Other notified applications
$20,000
$20,000
Compliance and monitoring
Deposit
charged when
consent
granted
Other
Certificate of Compliance
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Existing Use Certificate
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Confirmation of compliance with

National Environmental Standards
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Application for extension of

consent
Consolidated
into certificate
for completion
Application to change or cancel

conditions of consent (nonnotified)
Consolidated
into to vary or
cancel
Review of consent conditions

(non-notified)
Consolidated
into to vary or
cancel
Waiver of outline plan

Approval of outline plan of works
$500
$500
$1,000
$1,000
No deposit
Bond or damage deposit as

condition of consent
Annual Coastal Licence renewal
Engineering
Proposed deposit
2015/16 (incl. GST)
Application involving heritage item
Compliance
and
monitoring
Issuing
consent
report
Proposed fee
2015/16 (incl.
GST)
$530
$150
$150
Weekly (annual subscription)
$1,390
$1,390
$1,460
Monthly (annual subscription)
$670
$670
$700
Single request
$130
$130
$135
Approval of minor engineering

works
$500
$500
Approval of major engineering

works
$1,500
$1,500
$500
$500
$1,500
$1,500
Approval of engineering works

common access way
Consent to drainage works
construction of private drains
through adjoining premises or
works on private land
Page 162
Note: 1. The deposit amount is payable when the application/service request is lodged. Where the actual costs are lower than the
deposit paid, a refund will be made to the original payer. Where the actual costs exceed the deposit paid, the additional costs (including
charges by external specialists) will be invoiced. Interim invoices may be issued to avoid a large invoice at the end of the process.
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
c.
Administration, Monitoring and Supervision (AMS) charges and Functions,
Powers and Duties (FPD) charges
Discharges to air
Activity
description
Number of
visits
Minor
AR
Current total charge

(incl. GST) (per annum)
$441.60 + AR
Proposed total charge 2015/16

$451.75 + AR
Very Low
AR
$943.00 + AR
$964.70 + AR
Low
AR
$1,768.70 + AR
$1,809.40 + AR
Medium
AR
$3,536.25 + AR
$3,617.60 + AR
Major - Power
AR
$1,768.70 per visit + AR
$10,856.30 + AR
Major
Manufacturing
AR
$14,475.05 + AR
Major Waste
AR
$14,475.05 + AR
Attachment F
i)
AR means the actual and reasonable costs of undertaking compliance monitoring for a consent
In the event that specific source emission testing or ambient air quality monitoring and analysis is
deemed by the team leader air quality to be necessary, costs will be recovered as an actual and
reasonable additional charge (AR) in arrears..
Minor category includes discharges from small natural gas-fired boilers and consents which have not yet
been exercised.
Very low category includes discharges from intensive livestock farms, larger natural gas-fired boilers,
manufacturing and aggregate-handling processes without significant discharges of hazardous air pollutants
or located in non-sensitive receiving environments.
Low category includes discharges from printing and manufacturing processes, metal processing,
crematoria, waste processes including refuse transfer stations and small wastewater treatment plants, and
dusty processes such as small quarries and concrete batching plants.
Medium category includes discharges from abattoirs, bitumen plants, chemical manufacture, larger
manufacturing processes including galvanisers and metal foundries, large refuse transfer stations, and
dusty processes such as quarries and mineral processing.
Major Power, Major Manufacturing, and Major Waste categories include discharges from thermal
power stations, significant manufacturing processes, rendering plants, hazardous waste processors, landfills
and wastewater treatment plants.
ii)
Coastal acti vities
Page 163
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Activity description
Seawalls

$111.55 + AR

$114.10 + AR
$111.55 + AR
$114.10 + AR
Coastal structures (other

than seawalls)
Coastal activity
Coastal event
Coastal other
Moorings
$88.55 + AR
$90.60 + AR
Dredging, reclamation
$554.30 + AR
$567.05 + AR
Vegetation removal,
disposal / deposit
$872.85 + AR
$892.95 + AR
$1,891.75 + AR
$1,935.25 + AR
$194.35 per ha of farm + AR
$198.80 per ha of farm + AR
Extraction
Marine farm
Attachment F
iii)
Discharges to land and w ater (w astew ater, discharge other, dairy,
landfill, contaminat ed sites, animal w aste)


$71.30 + AR
$72.95 + AR
AR
AR
Dairy Discharges to Ground

Farm Dairy Permitted Activities
(Permitted Activity as per Auckland
Regional Plan Farm Dairy Discharges)
Discharges to Ground
Domestic Dwelling
Low
$77.05 + AR
$78.80 + AR
Medium
$100.05 + AR
$102.35 + AR
High
$154.10 + AR
$157.65 + AR
Major tier 1
$230.00 + AR
$235.30 + AR
Major tier 2
$465.75 + AR
$476.45 + AR
Major tier 3
$925.75 + AR
$947.05 + AR
Major tier 4
$1,850.35 + AR
$1,892.90 + AR
Assessed on individual
basis
Assessed on individual basis
Contaminated Sites - Low
$242.65 + AR
$248.25 + AR
Contaminated Sites- Moderate
$539.35 + AR
$551.75 + AR
Discharges to open coast and

harbours
Low
$106.95 + AR
$109.40 + AR
Medium
$134.55 + AR
$137.65 + AR
High
$188.60 + AR
$192.95 + AR
Major tier 1
$347.30 + AR
$355.30 + AR
Major special
Major tier 2
$701.50 + AR
$717.65 + AR
Major tier 3
$1,384.60 + AR
$1,416.45 + AR
Major tier 4
$2,776.10 + AR
$2,839.95 + AR
Major special
basis
Discharges to Streams/Lakes
Low
$134.55 + AR
$137.65 + AR
Medium
$202.40 + AR
$207.05 + AR
Page 164

$269.10 + AR

$275.30 + AR
Major tier 1
$460.00 + AR
$470.60 + AR
Major tier 2
$931.50 + AR
$952.90 + AR
Major tier 3
$1,805.35 + AR
$1,846.90 + AR
High
Major tier 4
$3,701.85 + AR
$3,787.00 + AR
basis
Assessed on individual basis
Farm Dairy up to 6cmpd
$158.70 + AR
$162.35 + AR
Farm Dairy between 6cmpd and 30cmpd
$226.55 + AR
$231.75 + AR
Farm Dairy greater than 30cmpd
$293.25 + AR
$300.00 + AR
$807.30 + AR
$825.85 + AR
$3,371.80 + AR
$3,449.35 + AR
$943.00 + AR
$964.70 + AR
Watercare Services Rosedale STP
$29,763.44 + AR
$30,448.00 + AR
Watercare Services Mngere STP
$59.526.87 + AR
$60,896.00 + AR
Watercare Services Army Bay STP
$6,131.56 + AR
$6,272.60 + AR
$196,320.21 + AR
$200,835.60 + AR
$6,072.32 + AR
$6,212.00 + AR
$65,479.56 + AR
$66,985.60 + AR
Major special
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Dairy Discharges to Streams
Open Landfills
Small
Medium - Large
Per site
Attachment F
Closed Landfills
Major Discharge Consents
Wastewater Network Overflows

Watercare Services Ltd
United Water
Auckland Network
Watercare Services Ltd existing use
rights
iv)
Discharges of stormw ater

Auckland Council
$714,322.50 + AR
Proposed total charge

2015/16
$730,751.90 + AR
Stormwater Discharge from Industrial/Commercial sites or an Industrial or Trade Activity consent

Private Stormwater
N/A
AR
AR
Minor
Self-regulation
AR
AR
Low
Every five years
AR
AR
Medium
Every two years
$143.75 + AR
$147.05 + AR
High
Every year
$287.50 + AR
$294.10 + AR
Major
>Once a year
$575.00 + AR
$588.25 + AR
v)
Land di sturbance
Vegetation Removal
Permitted Activity as per ARP: Sediment
Control


$47.15 per ha
$48.25 per ha
Page 165
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17

$47.15 per ha + AR

$48.25 per ha + AR
$589.95 + AR
$603.50 + AR
A worked area greater than or equal to 2

ha and less than 5 ha
$848.70 + AR
$868.20 + AR
A worked area greater than or equal to 5

Ha and less than 10 ha
$1,697.40 + AR
$1,736.45
A worked area of 10.0 ha or greater
$2,593.25 + AR
$2,652.90 + AR
Per vegetation removal operation

Quarries
A worked area less than 2 ha
Attachment F
Earthworks
Earthworks operations between 0-0.99

hectare (total land area covered under the
consent)
$287.50 + AR

consent)
$632.50 + AR

consent)
$805.00 + AR

consent)
$862.50 + AR

consent)
$1,150.00 + AR

consent)
$2,300.00 + AR
Earthworks operations over 20 hectare

(total land area covered under the
consent)
$3,450.00 + AR
Riverbed / Stream Works

Length of disturbance less than 50m
Length of disturbance is equal to or
greater than 50m
Diversion Of Surface Water
Diversion of surface water
$556.60 + AR
$569.40 + AR
$1,320.20 + AR
$1350.55 + AR
$560.05 + AR
$572.95 + AR
vi)
Take, use, dam or divert w ater including freshw ater, geothermal
w ater and coastal ( sea) w ater
Consent category
Major Consents
Important monitoring consents
Aquifer
Tomarata Waitemat sandstone aquifer
Current AMS charge

Proposed AMS charge 2015/16
(incl. GST) (per annum) (incl. GST) (per annum)
AR
AR
$196.65
$201.20
Criteria for important

monitoring consents
greater than 5,000 cmp yr
Page 166
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Omaha
Waiwera Geothermal
greater than 10 cmpd
Parakai Geothermal
greater than 10 cmpd
Kumeu Hobsonville aquifer
Auckland Isthmus Aquifers
greater than 20,000 cmp

yr
Waiheke Island Aquifers
Manukau Waitemat aquifers

yr
Manukau Kaawa aquifer

yr
Clevedon Waitemat sandstone aquifer

yr
Drury Sand-Volcanic aquifers
Franklin volcanic aquifers (Pukekohe,

Bombay and Glenbrook)
Franklin Kaawa ( Waiau Pa-Glenbrook

zone) aquifer
Franklin Kaawa (Karaka and Pukekohe

zones) aquifer
Franklin Kaawa (Bombay-Drury,

Pukekohe West and Waiuku zones)
aquifer

yr
South Auckland Waitemat aquifer

yr
Item 17
Current AMS charge

Proposed AMS charge 2015/16
(incl. GST) (per annum) (incl. GST) (per annum)
All
Attachment F
Consent category
Low impact monitoring consents

$62.10
$63.55
Consents to take or divert water that do not fall into any of the above categories and are not a major or
named consent.
Dam water
$196.65
Consents to dam water that do not fall into any of the above
categories and are not a major or named consent have a standard
AMS charge
$201.20
Dam water (engineering inspection

$62.10
$63.55
completed and dam fully compliant or
inspection not required)
Consents to dam water that do not fall into any of the above categories and are not a major or named
consent have a standard AMS charge
Use type
Take fresh water for

vegetable washing and
irrigation of orchards, market
garden, pasture or sportsfield
Special catchments or aquifers

Authorised maximum daily quantity in cubic metres
(cmpd)
T1 T2
T3
T4 T5
T6
T7
Tier 7 $/cmpd
current charge
(incl. GST)
$0.80
0- 176- 351- 526- 701- 1051- 1401175 350 525 700 1050 1400 1750
Tier 7 $/cmpd
proposed charge
2015/16 (incl. GST)
$0.82
0-75 76Take fresh water for

irrigation of hothouse, shade
150
house, nursery, bowling
green , golf course
151- 226- 301- 451- 601225 300 450 600 750
$1.90
$1.95
0-50 51100
101- 151- 201- 301- 401150 200 300 400 500
$2.85
$2.90

industrial use, municipal
supply, communal domestic
Page 167
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
Use type
Special catchments or aquifers

Authorised maximum daily quantity in cubic metres
(cmpd)
T1 T2
T3
T4 T5
T6
T7
Tier 7 $/cmpd
current charge
(incl. GST)
use, stock watering, dairy

shed supply, ground
dewatering, other. Diversion
of groundwater (taken from
aquifer)
Take geothermal water
Attachment F
Tier 7 $/cmpd
proposed charge
2015/16 (incl. GST)
0-20 21-40 41-60 61- 81- 121- 16180 120 160 200
Diversion of groundwater
(remains in aquifer)
all

emergency/standby use only
from an alternative source.
all
Dam water (no take

consent) off stream or
catchment up to 100ha
all
Dam water (no take

consent) on stream and
catchment greater than
100ha
Take coastal water
Use type

vegetable washing and
irrigation of: orchards,
market garden, pasture or
sportsfield
$7.10
$7.25
all
Assessed individually based on authorised maximum daily
amount
Not in special catchments or aquifers

Authorised maximum daily quantity in cubic metres (cmpd)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Tier 7 $/cmpd
Tier 7 $/cmpd current charge (incl.
proposed
GST)
charge 2015/16 (incl.
GST)
0-250 251- 501- 751- 1001- 1501- 2001$0.57
$0.58
500 750 1000 1500 2000 2500
0-100 101- 201- 301- 401- 601- 801Take fresh water for
irrigation of: hothouse,
200 300 400 600 800 1000
shade house, nursery,
bowling green, golf course
$1.45
$1.48

industrial use, municipal
supply, communal
domestic use, stock use,
dairy shed supply, ground
dewatering, other.
(taken from aquifer)
0-70 71- 141- 211- 281- 421- 561140 210 280 420 560 700
$2.05
$2.10
Take geothermal water
0-40 41-80 81- 121- 161- 241- 321120 160 240 320 400
$3.60
$3.70
(remains in aquifer)
all

emergency/standby use
only from an alternative
source.
all
Dam water (no take
all
Page 168
Use type
Not in special catchments or aquifers

Authorised maximum daily quantity in cubic metres (cmpd)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Tier 7 $/cmpd
Tier 7 $/cmpd current charge (incl.
proposed
GST)
charge 2015/16 (incl.
GST)
consent) off stream or

catchment up to 100ha
Dam water (no take
consent) on stream and
catchment greater than
100ha
Take coastal water
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
all
Assessed individually based on authorised maximum daily
amount
1.
Current FPD charge (incl.
GST) (per annum)
Proposed FPD charge 2015/16 (incl.

GST) (per annum)
Functions, Powers and

Duties Tiers
Tier 1
$82.80
$84.70
Tier 2
$163.30
$167.05
Tier 3
$327.75
$335.30
Tier 4
$492.20
$503.50
Tier 5
$656.65
$671.75
Tier 6
$984.40
$1,007.05
Tier 7
$1,313.30
$1,343.50
> Tier 7
Attachment F
Use type charge per cubic

metre per day
2.
Named Consent
Watercare Services Ltd Dam
Take from Dam per consent
$14,940.37
Proposed total charge

2015/16
$15,284.00
Watercare Services Ltd Well
Take from Onehunga well per

consent
$21,494.72
$21,989.10
4)
Notes to building control, resource consents and property information fees
Topic
Accreditation Levy
All Deposits
Bonds

Note
An accreditation levy is payable on all building consents to cover councils costs
of meeting the standards and criteria required under the Building (Accreditation
of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006.
Additional processing and administration charges may apply depending on actual
time taken to process applications. Additional Inspection charges may also apply
if there is a need for additional inspections.
The damage deposit charge with building consent applications will be held by
council to ensure any necessary remediation to councils assets is undertaken.
This includes assets such as drainage, recreation reserves, street trees, street
lights, piped services, road carriageways, kerbs, footpaths and grassed berms.
Any refunds are payable to the original payer.
Significant Project Criteria:
Commercial Development more than $500,000
Vertical or Horizontal attached multi-residential developments with four or more
Page 169
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 17
units
Four or more houses.
Building Inspection
Building Research Levy
Attachment F
Contaminated land site

enquiries
Compliance Monitoring
Inspections
Deposit level
Deposit vs actual charge
Engineering
Financial and development
contributions
Hearings
Hourly rates
Ministry of Business
Innovation & Employment
(MBIE) Levy
Other Services
Pre-application fee
Private plan changes and

notices of requirement
Value of Work
Standard inspection fee includes:

Charges for:
Preparation
System Updating
Travel Time
Review of associated documents
If an inspection taken longer than 45 minutes,
additional charges may apply.
The Building Research Levy Act 1969 requires the council to collect a levy of $1
per $1,000 value (or part thereof) of building work valued over $20,000. GST
does not apply to this levy.
Information relevant to the potential or actual contamination of a given property is
collated and presented in a response letter, which includes records of pollution
incidents, environmental investigations, selected consents, and corresponding
files. The fee varies, depending on the time spent on collating the information.
The fee is charged upon the completion of a response letter to the party making
the enquiry.
Resource consent monitoring fees may be charged at the time of issue of
resource consent. Should additional monitoring be required in excess of that
deposit, additional charges will be invoiced.
For complex and significant applications (including hearing deposits) or if
specialist input is needed, council may require a higher deposit payment before
proceeding. This will be discussed with the applicant in advance.
The processing deposit and the inspection deposit are payable when the
application/service request is lodged. Where the actual costs are lower than the
deposit paid a refund will be made to the original payer. Where the actual costs
exceed the deposit paid, the additional costs (including charges by external
specialists) will be invoiced. Interim invoices may be issued to avoid a large
invoice at the end of the process.
If works are not explicitly noted as being minor, then a major approval
is required.
Financial and/or development contributions may be payable in addition to the
consent processing charges. Please refer to the development or financial
contributions policy and relevant district plan for your development.
The hearing deposit fee is payable prior to the hearing proceeding. The actual
costs of the hearing that exceed the deposit fee will be charged as an additional
charge, e.g. costs arising from the use of a specialist consultant, independent
hearing commissioner(s).
The hourly rates displayed in the Hourly rates table above apply to all resource
management related services including private plan changes and notices of
requirement.
The Building Act 2004 requires the council to collect a levy of $2.01 per $1,000
value (or part thereof) of building work valued over $20,000.
Other services will be charged at cost.
The pre-application meeting standard charge is a fixed fee i.e. there will be no
further charge. Complex meetings will be charged based on the number and
hourly rate of council staff attending. Please refer to the council website for
further information.
The existing deposit requirements for private plan changes and notices of
requirement remain in force. Volume 3 of the councils Annual Plan.
The value of building work will be based on the New Zealand
Building Economist set costs for residential construction and Rawlinsons
New Zealand Construction Handbook set costs for commercial
construction. Council staff will be able to assist with this.
Page 170
5)
Hourly rates for building control, resource consent and property information
services
Description
Specialty
Manager/project
manager/legal services
Team leader
All areas
Specialist/advisor/ senior
Planning, engineering, subdivisions,

environmental health, compliance and
monitoring, urban designer, arborist,
licensing, incident investigators, other
Building processing and inspections
Proposed hourly rate

for 2015/16 (incl. GST)
$177
$185
$162
$170
$162
$170
$159
$167
$146
$153
$135
$98
$141
$103
Planning, engineering, subdivisions,

urban designer, arborist, other
Building, compliance , monitoring,

environmental health, licensing,
incident investigators, other.
All areas
Note: the categories denote descriptions of work performed by council officers. Position titles vary across the Auckland Council
regulatory departments.
Page 171
Attachment F
Senior building
processing and
inspections
Planning, engineering,
subdivisions, urban
designer, arborist, other
(excluding specialist/
advisor/ senior)
Building processing and
inspections, compliance,
monitoring,
environmental health
Administration
All areas
Current hourly
rate (incl. GST)
Item 17
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 18

File No.: CP2014/25417
Purpose
1.
To present the work of the Alternative Transport Funding Independent Advisory Board and
to decide which options will be consulted through the Long-term Plan.
Executive summary
2.
Auckland Transport and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) have developed a refined and
less costly investment programme to deliver the Auckland Plan (the Auckland Plan Transport
Network). They have also developed a much smaller investment programme that represents what
can be achieved with available funding under current policy settings (the Basic Transport
Network). The Auckland Plan Transport Network costs $300 million per year more than the Basic
Transport Network.
3.
The Alternative Transport Funding Independent Advisory Board (IAB) has presented two
transport funding pathways that are designed to raise the additional $300 million per year required
to deliver the Auckland Plan Transport Network. One pathway is based on rates and fuel taxes
increases, the other pathway is the introduction of a motorway user charge.
4.
Auckland faces stark choices about both the level of transport system investment and how it
will fund that investment. The choices are important for addressing future growth pressures and
implementing the Auckland Plan goals.
5.
a)
The two related choices are:

whether to deliver the Auckland Plan Transport Network or the Basic Transport Network
b)
and if the first choice is to deliver the Auckland Plan Transport Network, to decide which of
the funding pathways will be used to provide the additional funds.
6.
The work of the IAB has been designed to support public engagement through the Longterm Plan (LTP).
7.
It is recommended that the Governing Body use the LTP to consult on the choices before
determining how it will proceed.
Recommendations
That for the purpose of developing the draft LTP the Budget Committee agree to consult
with Aucklanders on choices between:
a)
the two levels of transport investment reflected in the Long-term Plan Transport
Proposal (the Basic Transport Network or the Auckland Plan Transport Network),
and
b)
the rates and fuel tax funding pathway or the motorway user charge funding
pathway prepared by the Alternative Transport Funding Independent Advisory
Board.
Comments
8.
In 2012 the Council established the Alternative Transport Funding Consensus Building
Group (CBG) with the objective of building a robust consensus around the preferred revenue
raising tools to support the level of investment in transport projects that is required to implement
the Auckland Plan.
Page 173
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
9.
The CBG completed and presented its report to the Governing Body on 25 July 2013. The
report made eight recommendations.
1. That Auckland Council makes a decision by 2015 to pursue one of the funding pathways
identified in recommendation (2).
2. That Auckland Council further investigates and introduces one of two alternative pathways for
funding the transport gap:
a)
Primary reliance on rates, fuel taxes, tolls to fund major new roads and significant
government contributions and increased fare revenue from public transport, with agreed annual
increases to rates and fuel taxes commencing in 2015; or
b)
Initial increases in rates and fuel taxes and increased fare revenue from public transport
commencing in 2015, followed by the introduction of some form of road pricing and additional
government contributions.
3. That this investigation includes:
a) Primary reliance on rates, fuel taxes, tolls to fund major new roads and significant government
contributions and increased fare revenue from public transport, with agreed annual increases to
rates and fuel taxes commencing in 2015; or
b) Detailed work on the design and impacts of possible road pricing schemes, focussing on the
single cordon and motorway network schemes
c) Further analysis of the affordability and social impacts of the funding alternatives and ways to
mitigate any adverse effects
d) Analysis of possible governance and revenue administration arrangements.
4. That the following should not be pursued further as funding tools: regional lottery, regional
payroll tax, regional GST/sales tax, visitor bed tax, departure tax, a levy on vehicles registered in
Auckland, new forms of parking levies, managed toll lanes, tax increment financing/betterment,
double cordon, area charging, full-distance charging.
5.
That before imposing substantially greater transport costs on businesses and households,
there shouldbe increased investmentin affordable and reliable transport alternatives in place.
These should include improved public transport and a connected network of safe and attractive
walking and cycling options.
6.
That central government increases its funding for transport in Auckland, beyond what can
be expected from the National Land Transport Fund, to reflect Aucklands growing population and
its contribution to the national economy.
7.
That mechanisms are established to achieve on-going agreement between Auckland
Council and the government to align the strategy and funding of transport in Auckland.
8.
That Auckland Council works with Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport
Agency to optimise the sequence and timing of the investment programme, and to ensure
consistency with the Auckland Plan, Unitary Plan and the available funding.
10. At its meeting of 12 December 2013, the Finance and Performance Committee considered a
report which outlined the proposed approach for the next phase of the Alternative Transport
Page 174
Funding project. The report provided an overview of the scope of work that is dealt with in this
paper.
11.
The IAB was established in 2014 with the following objectives:
i.
To complete the analysis, evaluation and reporting necessary to enable the Governing
Body to make an informed and robust decision over which funding pathway to include in the Draft
Long-term Plan in December 2014.
ii.
To facilitate and support the newly formed Independent Advisory Body to provide a robust,
evidence based consensus recommendation to the Governing Body on which funding pathways to
include for consultation in the Draft Long-term Plan.
iii.
To support the Councils engagement and consultation on the Draft Long-term Plan
including providing information and analysis to the people of Auckland, local boards, council
organisation, advisory boards and stakeholders as may be required.
iv.
To support the Governing Bodys transport funding decision making through the adoption
of the Long-term Plan by analysing and reporting on submissions, and undertaking any further
analysis that may be required.
v.
To secure effective government participation and engagement in the consideration of
alternative transport funding and the other matters raised by the IAB.
Delivering the Auckland Plan
12. Auckland Transport worked with NZTA to optimise plans for the delivery of the transport
elements of the Auckland Plan. Their updated Auckland Plan Transport Network includes a
substantial re-working of the sequencing, timing and scope of the projects that are needed to
implement the Auckland Plan. It includes projects designed to support the special housing areas
and the Councils commitments under the Housing Accord. It presents a comprehensive 30 year
plan for the development of the transport system.
13. The revised Auckland Plan Transport Network is both less expensive than the version
initially considered by the CBG and it delivers better outcomes in terms of the objectives of the
Auckland Plan. However, the Auckland Plan Transport Network costs exceed available funding.
14. In addition to the revised Auckland Plan Transport Network, Auckland Transport has also
prepared a second transport programme, named the Basic Transport Network, which is based on
funding that can be expected under current funding arrangements and current funding settings.
The Basic Transport Network presents a very limited level of future investment and will deliver
significantly poorer transport outcomes than the Auckland Plan and the current transport system
when future growth is taken into account.
15. The two alternative levels of investment in the transport system are attached (Attachment A).
They present a starkly different future for Auckland in terms of the performance of the transport
system. Major elements of the Auckland Plan Transport Network would either be delayed
significantly, or undeliverable with the Basic Transport Network level of investment.
Alternative Funding
16. The IAB used the two levels of investment in the transport system developed by Auckland
Transport and NZTA. The IAB were not requested to assess the merits of the Auckland Plan
Transport Network.
17. The IAB estimate a funding gap of approximately $300 million per year between available
funding and that which is required to deliver the Auckland Plan Transport Network. This is based
on the budget parameters from the Mayors proposed LTP budget together with forecasts of future
revenue from development contributions, current fuel excise tax, road user charges, public
transport fares and other charges to estimate the likely level of revenue that will be available over
the next 30 years.
18. The IAB has developed two funding pathways that are each designed to raise the funds
necessary to close the funding gap. They are:
Page 175
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Rates and Fuel Taxes
Motorway User Charges

Transport Network
Status Quo low

investment
Basic Transport
Network
Rates and Fuel Tax

pathway high
investment
Motorway User
Charge pathway
high investment
Auckland Plan
Transport Network
19. The IAB presented its final report to a Council workshop and the public on 29 October 2014.
The final report (Attachment B) sets out the two funding pathways and a high level comparison of
their impact. Detailed consideration of the relative merits and impact of the two funding pathways
is provided in the background information to the IABs report.
20. The two funding pathways are designed to deliver the same amount of revenue over the 30
year period of the Auckland Plan. They represent a choice between two different ways of raising
the necessary funding. They impact Aucklanders in different ways.
21.
In brief, the Rates and Fuel Taxes funding pathway:
would require rates increases of 0.9 percent per year more than the Mayors proposal and
increases in fuel excise duty of 1.2 cents per litre per year (and equivalent increases for road user
charges) each year to 2024/25
is based on a national increase in fuel taxes and road user charges with a proportion
allocated to Auckland
is predictable, known and reliable
is easy and simple to implement
requires no legislation and is consistent with current funding arrangements
has virtually no additional cost of collection
has little impact on the performance of the transport system beyond delivering the
Auckland Plan Transport Network, but would deliver total benefits with an NPV of $510 million
raises 34 percent of additional funds from the business sector
delivers savings to the business community that exceed their additional direct costs
would result in average additional costs per household of $348 in 2026
would raise 15 percent of additional charges from vulnerable households
would result in 12 percent of vulnerable households facing additional charges of more than
1.75 percent of their net income
provides little opportunity for transport users to change their behaviour in order to avoid the
additional charges.
22.
The Motorway User Charges Pathway:
is more costly and difficult to implement, requiring $108.7 million of initial investment in onroad, back-office and other setup costs
would have on-going costs of collection of 10 to 12 percent of gross revenue (around 24

cents per transaction)
has some project design and delivery risk, but would use proven technology
Page 176
over the medium to long term would be able to deliver reliable revenue
requires legislation to implement
has a meaningful impact on the performance of the transport system in its own right,
contributing to net benefits with a NPV of $1.6 (three times the total benefits from rates and fuel
tax)
raises 41 to 47 percent of additional revenue from the business sector
delivers savings to the business community that exceed their additional direct costs
would result in average additional costs to households of between $345 and $371
depending on the charging scheme that is adopted
would result in higher charges for households that are frequent motorway users ($1140 per
year for the flat rate charge and $1500 per year for the peak rate charge) with charges for
infrequent users being as low as $150 per year
would raise 26 percent of additional revenue from frequent motorway users, but these
users would also directly benefit from the improvement in the transport system
would raise 11 percent of additional revenue from vulnerable households
would result in 7 percent of vulnerable households facing increased costs of more than
1.75 percent of their net income
provides ways for transport users to change their behaviour in order to avoid or minimise
the impact of additional charges.
Long-term Plan Consultation
23. The combination of the two transport networks and the two funding pathways are designed
to provide the platform for engaging with Aucklanders over the level of transport system
investment and the way it is funded.
24. Implementing the Auckland Plan transport goals requires an extra $300 million per year, but
delivers significant transport and broader urban development benefits. In order to implement the
Auckland Plan one of the two funding pathways will need to be adopted and implemented.
25. The choices that Auckland faces are important. In the face of expected growth the level of
investment in transport will have a profound impact on Auckland and the ability to achieve the
goals and vision of the Auckland Plan. The lower level of investment reflected in the Basic
Transport Network will not deliver the increases in transport capacity and performance that are
needed to cope with growth. Even delivering the Auckland Plan Transport Network will result in
poorer transport performance by some measures across the 30 year period.
26. The two funding pathways developed by the IAB provide a choice over how Auckland pays
for its transport system. The two funding pathways have very different impacts on both who pays
and how people pay for transport. In particular the Motorway User Charge pathway more closely
aligns increased charges with the use of the transport system, and the benefits of investment.
27. It is important that the Governing Body understands the views and preferences with respect
to both of these choices.
28. The work of the IAB has been designed to support public engagement through the Longterm Plan. The IAB report and related background material provides a strong evidence and
analytical base for engaging with Aucklanders.
Consideration
29. The views of local boards will be an important part of the consultation process on the Longterm Plan if the recommendation in this report are accepted. Their views on transport funding have
not been sought since the initial work of the CBG.
Page 177
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 18

30. The impact of the different funding pathways on Mori will be an important factor in any
decision to proceed. Adopting the recommendations of this report provides a formal way of
seeking the view of Mori on both the level of investment in transport and the funding pathway.
Implementation
31. The framework of the Long Term Plan has been designed to accommodate this issue and
the nested questions that are proposed in this report.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Auckland Council long term transport Proposal
179
IAB report
211
Signatories
Author
Michael Quinn - Executive Officer
Authorisers

Stephen Town - Chief Executive
Page 178
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 179
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 180
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 181
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 182
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 183
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 184
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 185
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 186
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 187
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 188
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 189
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 190
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 191
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 192
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 193
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 194
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 195
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 196
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 197
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 198
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 199
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 200
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 201
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 202
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 203
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 204
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 205
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 206
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 207
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 208
Attachment A
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 209
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 211
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 213
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 214
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 215
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 216
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 217
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 218
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 219
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 220
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 221
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 222
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 223
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 224
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 225
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 226
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 227
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 228
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 229
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 230
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 231
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 232
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 233
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 234
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 235
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 236
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 237
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 238
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 239
Attachment B
Item 18
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 241
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 19

File No.: CP2014/24836
Purpose
1.
This report provides a budget update for the Auckland Council group of organisations and
seeks agreement on draft budgets to support consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025
(LTP).
Executive summary
2.
The Mayoral Proposal for the LTP sought to meet Aucklands long-term investment needs
while keeping rates low and debt affordable.
3.
To ensure that decision-making on the draft budgets for LTP consultation is based on the
best available information, we have reviewed key information and assumptions underpinning the
mayoral proposal.
4.
Contractual commitments and other constraints mean there is less flexibility to immediately
reduce capital expenditure than envisaged in the mayoral proposal, primarily in the areas of
Transport and Parks, Community and Lifestyle. This has resulted in a $14 million increase in
annual net operational costs, which would require a higher rates increase in year two of the LTP
than set out in the mayoral proposal, unless further cost reductions or revenue increases could be
identified. This would mean a 2.5 per cent proposed rates increase in 2015/2016 and 3.5 per cent
thereafter.
5.
On the other hand, updated projections for the outer years have resulted in a forecast of net
debt for the council group in 2025 that is $400 million lower than forecast in the Mayoral Proposal,
along with slightly more favourable outer year operating projections.
6.
Feedback from local boards, along with work on defining regional priorities for growth and
development, has identified that after adjusting for the contractual commitments, additional capex
funding would be required over and above the Mayoral Proposal envelope to achieve key local
and regional aspirations in the Parks, Community and Lifestyle area. This report therefore
includes an alternative option that would address these key aspirations, but which comes with
some implications for rates, development contribution charges and debt levels.
Recommendation/s
a)
agree that the updated Transport funding envelopes and capex schedules included
in Attachment A be incorporated into draft budgets to support consultation on the
Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and also note that:
i) these envelopes and schedules are based on funding the basic transport
network
ii) in the consultation material, these draft budgets will appear alongside any
options for using alternative funding mechanisms to fund the Auckland Plan
transport network that this committee agrees to consult on
b)
agree that the updated Water Supply and Wastewater funding envelopes and capex
schedules included in Attachment B be incorporated into draft budgets to support
consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and also note that:
i) the average increases in water and wastewater charges are currently
projected to be 2.5 per cent for first two years and 3.6 per cent thereafter
Page 243
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 19
c)
Either:
agree that scenario A for the Parks, Community and Lifestyle updated funding envelopes
and capex schedules included in Attachment C be incorporated into draft budgets to
support consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and also agree that these draft
budgets include:
i) proposed average rates increases of 2.5 percent in 2015/2016 and 3.5 per
cent for each year thereafter
ii) no increase in the overall level of development contribution charges
iii) forecast net group debt of $10.6 billion in 2025 (being $400 million lower
than projected in the Mayoral Proposal)
Or:
agree that scenario B for the Parks, Community and Lifestyle updated funding envelopes
and capex schedules included in Attachment C be incorporated into draft budgets to
support consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and also agree that these draft
budgets include:
d)
i)
proposed average rates increases of 3.5 per cent for each year of the plan
ii)
a proposed 16 per cent increase in the overall level of development

contributions charges (an increase of $3,000 for an average household unit)
iii)
forecast net group debt of $11 billion in 2025, consistent with the Mayoral
Proposal
agree that the updated Auckland Development funding envelopes and capex
schedules included in Attachment D be incorporated into draft budgets to support
consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and also note that:
i) these envelopes and schedules are based on the CBD targeted rate funding
$20 million of CBD capex projects per annum
e)
agree that the updated Economic and Cultural Development funding envelopes and
capex schedules included in Attachment E be incorporated into draft budgets to
support consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025
f)
agree that the updated Environmental Management and Regulation funding

envelopes and capex schedules included in Attachment F be incorporated into draft
budgets to support consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025
g)
agree that the Governance and Support funding envelopes and capex schedules
included in Attachment G be incorporated into draft budgets to support consultation
on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and also note that:
i) these envelopes reflect the projected cost of the co-governance entities
ii) these envelopes reflect the identified additional funding requirements for the
Maori priority areas.
h)
agree that staff should not enter into any new contractual commitments that are
inconsistent with these draft budgets, including commitments for planning or design
work for capital projects that would be deferred or stopped under the draft budgets
i) agree to grant staff temporary approval to commit spend up to the level of the
proposed Long-term Plan land acquisition budget to enable the delivery of the
approved local parks acquisition programme and to allow agreements with
developers to be signed which forecast a settlement in future financial years
Page 244
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Background
7.
The Mayoral Proposal for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) sought to meet Aucklands
long-term investment needs while keeping rates low and debt affordable. Some of the key
parameters included:
$11 billion of investment in new assets, notwithstanding reductions in transport and

community investment compared to what was previously planned
$2.7 billion reduction in growth of council debt
interest cost of no more than 12 per cent of revenue
average rates increases of 2.5 per cent for first two years, 3.5 per cent thereafter.
Budget review
8.
To ensure that decision-making on the draft budgets for LTP consultation is based on the
best available information, we have reviewed key information and assumptions underpinning the
mayoral proposal. The scope of this work included budget updates from CCOs, analysis of the
council parents capex requirements, updated forecasts for inflation and depreciation, and a reexamination of outer year cost and revenue forecasts.
9.
A thorough bottom-up review of group budgets will take place early in 2015 to inform the
development of the final LTP.
10. The attachments to this report include updated versions of the budget envelopes set out in
the Mayoral Proposal, along with supporting draft capital project schedules.
11. As recent changes in legislation mean that a draft LTP document is no longer required, we
are recommending that the committee agree to incorporate this updated information into draft
budgets to be used to support LTP consultation. As discussed in other reports on this agenda,
this consultation will be tightly focused on a small number of highly significant issues.
Impact of revised budgets
12. Contractual commitments and other constraints mean that there is less flexibility to
immediately reduce capital expenditure than envisaged in the mayoral proposal. This has resulted
in $160 million of additional rates-funded capex pressure as follows, with an associated $14
million increase in annual net operational costs:
Issue
Rates-funded capex
Revised rates vs development contribution funding mix for Auckland Transport in 2015/16
+$60m
Higher projected 2014/15 capex delivery for Auckland Council
+$50m
Additional Parks, Community and Lifestyle capex required for over first three years due to
contractual commitments, minimum renewals levels and other mandatory requirements (as
reflected in capex scenario A in Attachment C)
+$50m
Total rates-funded capex pressure
+$160m
13. On the other hand, updated projections for the outer years have resulted in a forecast of net
debt for the council group in 2025 that is $400 million lower than forecast in the Mayoral Proposal,
along with slightly more favourable outer year operating projections.
Parks, Community and Lifestyle capex requirements
14. High-priority Parks, Community and Lifestyle capex projects totalling $420 million over six
years have been identified, which could not be accommodated within the Mayoral Proposal. While
Page 245
Item 19
Comments
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
council is not legally obligated to proceed with any of these projects, they have been assessed by
staff as high-priority for one or more of the following reasons:
necessary to support development in a spatial priority growth area
informed by Local Board identified priorities
key projects that are well underway, reflect well established and existing community
expectations and have been committed to (often in writing through resource consents or other
forms of written agreement)
necessary to achieve key regional priorities, such as delivering a quality urban

environment for example through the public art programme and putting children and young people
first by providing additional sportsfield capacity.
15. In addition to these high-priority projects, analysis of the councils agreed open space
guidelines has identified the requirement for a $270m programme of additional growth-related
parks acquisition and development in the second half of the plan.
16. The renewal budgets for Parks, Community and Lifestyle are based on existing budgets
which are at least three years out of date. Analysis of the existing budget data shows a steadily
declining trend in todays dollars, even though the asset base is increasing. To maintain renewals
funding at around current levels (but not provide for the increased requirements identified by the
updated asset management plans), outer year renewals budgets would need to be increase by a
total of approximately $95 million.
17. Altogether, about $790 million of additional high-priority capex requirements have been
identified for Parks, Community and Lifestyle over the next ten years. This $790 million
requirement is included in capex scenario B in Attachment C.
18. Proceeding with all of these priority projects and programmes would further increase annual
net operational costs in the near term by another $14 million, assuming that the additional growthrelated spend would be recovered via development contributions.
19. However, in the outer year the more favourable debt and operating forecasts mean that this
additional expenditure could be accommodated within the outer year rates and debt parameters of
the Mayoral Proposal. Specifically this would mean moderately higher projected debt levels in the
middle years of the plan, but no material increase in prudential ratios and a closing debt in 2025 of
$11 billion which is consistent with the Mayoral Proposal.
Options to address budget pressures
20. One option to address the identified near-term capex budget pressures would be to agree to
higher rates increases. Addressing only the contractual commitments and other mandatory
pressures identified above would require an average rates increase of 2.5 per cent in 2015/2016
and 3.5 per cent thereafter.
21. If all of the high-priority Parks, Community and Lifestyle capex projects and programmes
were also accommodated, then an average rates increase of 3.5 per cent would be required in all
ten years of the LTP period. To cover the additional growth costs associated with those priority
projects, development contribution charges would also need to increase by $3,000 for an average
household unit, an increase of 16 per cent.
22. Alternatively, council could seek to create additional financial capacity through reducing
expenditure elsewhere, increasing revenue and/or disposing of more surplus assets.
Confirming list of priority projects
23. The list of staff identified high-priority Parks, Community and Lifestyle capex projects
included in scenario B in Attachment C is based on the best information available about
community expectations and priorities for growth. New information about expectations or priorities
may result in projects being added to or removed from the list.
Page 246
24. Confirming the precise list of priority projects will involve many discussions and take time.
We therefore recommend that at this stage the Budget Committee agrees a capex envelope for
Parks, Community and Lifestyle and a provisional project schedule to inform consultation, but
make it very clear that this provisional list will be subject to extensive discussion and debate
before being finalised next year.
City Centre programme and targeted rate
25. The former Auckland City Council adopted a CBD targeted rate in 2004/2005 to develop and
upgrade the City Centre. This rate was set at approximately $20 million every year until
2015/2016, after which a residual amount was to be levied to fund the depreciation and
consequential operating expenditure that arose from targeted rate projects.
26. A report from the City Centre Advisory Board (CCAB) included separately on this agenda
formally requests that this targeted rate is renewed on a significantly different basis to the historic
targeted rate. The renewed rate would allow new City Centre service level enhancing projects to
be funded by City Centre targeted rates, but in return ongoing depreciation and consequential
opex costs are requested to be funded by the general rate from year three of the LTP period.
Geographic spatial priorities
27. The Auckland Plan development strategy provides an overview for how and where Auckland
is likely to grow over the next thirty years. Auckland Council cannot fund or complete all the
projects across the region at the same time without significant increases in capex and opex spend.
Spatial priorities and investing in specific areas of Auckland is a method by which council can
prioritise the work programme for the next ten years
28. Further information about the geographic spatial priorities is includes as Attachment H and
the proposed work programmes for each of these areas will be tabled at the Budget Committee
meeting on 5 November 2014.
Renewal requirements
29. The funding available within the basic transport programme will deliver a renewal
programme that is less than the optimal amount determined by Auckland Transports asset
management modelling. While there are a range of asset management strategies available to
manage this issue, careful monitoring will be required. If necessary some Transport capex may
need to be reprioritised if assets deteriorate faster than anticipated and renewal intervention is
urgently required.
30. As discussed above, the Parks, Community and Lifestyle renewal budgets included in the
Mayoral Proposal are based on existing budgets and are less than the requirements assessed
from draft asset management plans. We will continue to review and refine the AMPs and
investigate strategies for addressing this gap, including reviewing the portfolio of assets that we
hold. Even if the additional renewals funding included in capex scenario B in Attachment C is
agreed, this will still leave a funding gap which we will monitor closely.
Other budget requests
31. The following table identifies a number of resolutions recently passed by other committees
and panels requesting that the Budget Committee consider specific budget requests as part of the
LTP process. These resolutions are included in full in Attachment I.
Committee / Panel
Item
Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee
Fukuoka Friendship Garden

Karakare access way
Page 247
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Rural Panel
Balance Farm Awards
Auckland Domain Committee
Auckland Domain masterplan
32. Capital expenditure for the Fukuoka Friendship Garden is included in the draft budget
envelopes for Parks, Community Lifestyle, under both scenarios A and B.
33. As the other items would not materially alter the draft budget envelopes attached to this
report, and because these items do not represent highly significant issues for consultation, we
recommend that the Budget Committee consider these budget requests at a later stage of the LTP
process.
Budget implications of other reports on this agenda
34. A number of other reports on this agenda have actual or potential budget implications. For
ease of reference, the following table summarises the key implications of those reports:
Report
Budget impact
Proposal to fix transport and options to fund the proposal
None the draft budgets to support consultation will be

based on the basic transport programme. Consultation on
a proposal to spend more and on options to fund this will
occur alongside these draft baseline budgets.
City centre programme and targeted rate
The updated budget envelopes and capex schedules

attached to this report have been prepared on the basis
that the Budget Committee agree to continue to fund city
centre projects. If this is not agreed, the capex envelope
for Auckland Development would need to be significantly
reduced.
Iwi / co-governance
The updated opex and capex envelopes for Governance

and Support reflect the projected cost of the cogovernance entities.
Maori priority areas
The updated opex and capex envelopes for Governance

and Support reflect the identified additional funding
requirements for the Maori priority areas.
Business Improvement District (BID) rates
The updated opex envelopes for Auckland Development

have been prepared on the basis that the Budget
Committee agrees that BID target rates be increased to
recover the costs to support the BID programme structure.
Social housing rentals
The updated opex envelopes for Parks, Community and

Lifestyle have been prepared on the basis that the Budget
Committee agrees that rent on the councils social housing
units be set at 30 per cent of tenants pre-tax income, with
changes to annual rents being capped at $15 per week.
Street trading fees
The updated opex envelopes for Environmental

Management and Regulation have been prepared on the
basis that the Budget Committee agrees to harmonise
licensing fees for street trading across Auckland.
Consideration
35. Local Board views on the Mayoral Proposal, and staff response to the proposal, have been
the subject of board workshops and meetings over the past two months. The boards views and
key advocacy items were discussed with the budget committee in recent joint workshops, and are
captured in a separate report on this agenda.
36. Many of the projects in the staff identified list of priority Parks, Community and Lifestyle
projects included in capex scenario B in Attachment C represent key advocacy items for one or
Page 248
more local board. The level of renewals funding for this area was also a key issue for many
boards.

37. Ten business cases reflecting the Independent Maori Statutory Boards view of priority areas
for progressing Maori Outcomes have been considered by council staff in preparing the updated
budget envelopes to support LTP consultation. These priority areas and the identification of the
additional funding requirements are discussed in a separate report on this agenda.
Implementation
38. Once this committee agrees draft budget envelopes and capex schedules for incorporation
into draft budgets to support consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, staff will prepare the
draft budgets and produce a consultation document and supporting consultation material for
council to adopt on 18 December 2014.
39. Recent contractual commitments have limited councils flexibility to fully implement the
proposed capex changes in the Mayoral Proposal. To avoid further loss of flexibility, we
recommend that the committee instructs staff not to enter into any new contractual commitments
that are inconsistent with the draft budgets. To avoid inefficient spending and to avoid
inappropriately raising community expectations, this should include commitments for planning or
design work for capital projects that would be deferred or stopped under the draft budgets.
40. Conversely, to meet the councils obligations under the Housing Accord and achieve desired
housing outcomes, there is an urgent need to agree some working financial parameters with
respect to future year land acquisitions. The Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee has
therefore resolved to:
d)
recommend to the Budget Committee that temporary approval is granted to commit spend
up to the level of the proposed Long-term Plan land acquisition budget to enable the delivery of
the approved local parks acquisition programme and to allow agreements with developers to be
signed which forecast a settlement in future financial years.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Transport
251
Water Supply and Wastewater
255
Parks, Community and Lifestyle
257
Auckland Development
265
Economic and Cultural Development
269
Environmental Management & Regulation
271
Governance and Support
273
Geographic Spatial Priorities
275
Committee and Panel Resolutions
277
Signatories
Author
Ross Tucker Manager Financial Planning and Strategy
Authorisers

Page 249
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 251
Attachment A
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 252
Attachment A
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 253
Attachment B
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 255
Attachment B
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 256
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 257
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 258
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 259
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 260
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 261
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 262
Attachment C
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 263
Attachment D
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 265
Attachment D
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 266
Attachment D
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 267
Attachment E
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 269
Attachment E
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 270
Attachment F
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 271
Attachment F
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 272
Attachment G
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 273
Attachment G
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 274
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
The Auckland Plan development strategy provides an overview for how and where Auckland is
likely to grow over the next thirty years. Not all areas will develop at the same time and at the
same pace. Having the right infrastructure in place at the right time is critical to Aucklands future
and drives the spatial priorities and the LTP.
Item 19
Geographic Spatial Priorities
Auckland Council cannot fund or complete all the projects across the region at the same time
without significant increases in capex and opex spend. Spatial priorities and investing in specific
areas of Auckland is a method by which council can prioritise the work programme for the next ten
years. There are four elements to the spatial priorities:
Geographic spatial priorities (10 proposed areas of focus across Auckland)
Network Requirements (critical, regional infrastructure)
Other (areas or projects outside the geographical spatial priority areas that are critical and
must be completed eg. for safety or environmental reasons or future planning).
The priorities align with the Auckland Plans Development Strategy and six transformational shifts
by further defining them at a more local level. There is a focus on key infrastructure requirements,
optimising and completing existing investment and stimulating economic development. While
council will still invest across all of Auckland, these areas are priorities for development to support
our growing city.
The ten proposed geographic spatial priorities are set out below. The areas are in different stages
of development with each area categorised as Completion, Delivery or Planning.
Geographic
Spatial Priorities
City Centre
NorSGA Stage 1
Flatbush
Greater Tamaki
Inner West
Triangle
PukekoheWesley (Paerata)
OtahuhuMiddlemore
Focus for first 3 years of 2015/25 LTP

Delivery
o
One of two place-based initiatives in the Auckland Plan
o
Is subject to a separate discussion around targeted rate
Completion
o
Legally committed infrastructure (including social infrastructure)
Completion
o
Infrastructure needs to be completed
Delivery
o
Focus on completing stormwater requirements for housing
o
Continue to partner with Central Government and Tamaki Regeneration
Company
Delivery
o
Legally committed infrastructure needs to be completed for New Lynn
o
Leverage off SH20 works to deliver improved parks, walkways, cycleways and
environment around Oakley Creek
o
Working with large land owners eg. Unitec to identify future opportunities
Delivery
o
Focus on delivering wastewater and stormwater infrastructure for future growth
Planning
o
Focus improving skills, training and employment, particularly through ATEED
Page 275
Attachment H
Special Housing Areas (implementing the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act
by fast-tracking the consenting of housing)
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
ManurewaTakaniniPapakura
Greater
Takapuna
Manukau Metro
o
Planning to lead into delivery in the outer years of the LTP
Planning
o
Focus on opex to plan for the future of this corridor e.g. spatial plan
o
Lead to delivery in the outer years of the LTP
Completion and Planning
o
Complete current projects
o
Investigate joint ventures for better utilisation of Council land
o
Plan for next phase of delivery in outer years of LTP as funding becomes
available
Planning
o
Te Papa project with Central Government will be a priority
o
Plan for better integration of centre with surrounding area for delivery in future
LTP
Completion - Final stages of completion.
Attachment H
Delivery - Predominantly about delivering projects but are at the beginning of that process.
Planning - Holistic planning across all sectors required to prepare for growth. There will still be small amounts of
delivery for key infrastructure, but the focus is on preparing for larger scale development in future.
Another key element of spatial priorities is Special Housing Areas (SHAs). There are currently 80
SHAs across Auckland, 52 of which are outside the proposed geographic spatial priority areas.
SHAs will require basic infrastructure such as stormwater and roading to enable the housing
proposed. Some, especially in new greenfield developments, will need parks and community
facilities as well. Infrastructure requirements will be phased over time based on need and
expected delivery of housing.
Proposed work programmes will be tabled at the Budget Committee meeting on 5 November
2014.
Page 276
Minutes of a meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at
9.30am
10
Fukuoka Friendship Garden
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Resolution number PAR/2014/52

MOVED by Cr CM Casey, seconded by Cr J Watson:
a)
endorse the recommendation from the Fukuoka Friendship Garden Steering
Group that the Fukuoka Friendship Garden be re-established at the zoo entrance of
Western Springs Lakeside Park.
b)
acknowledge the Japanese cultural significance of the Fukuoka Friendship
Garden and the relationship the garden represents between Auckland and Fukuoka.
c)
note that timing and implementation of the Fukuoka Friendship Garden will be
subject to budget considerations as part of the Long Term plan 2015-2025 process
d)
support the installation phase of the new garden being considered by the
Budget Committee as part of the Long Term Plan process.
e)
note that following the endorsement of the chosen site and provision of funding
that the detailed design will be developed in consultation with the Fukuoka
Friendship Garden Steering Committee, the Fukuoka Greenery Department, the
Waitemata Local Board and Mana Whenua.
f)
approve the Fukuoka Friendship Garden Steering Group to continue to oversee
the re-establishment of the garden.
g)
refer the report to the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee for
information.
CARRIED
12
Karekare access
Resolution number PAR/2014/54
MOVED by Cr RI Clow, seconded by Member Wilson:
That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:
a)
endorse the development of the concept design as outlined in the report.
b)
note that once more definitive estimates are available as the design is
developed that these costs be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee
and these be considered by council during the 2015 -2025 Long Term Plan process.
c)
note that consultation with the local community will be undertaken once a
concept design is developed.
CARRIED
Page 277
Attachment I
That the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee:
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the Rural Advisory Panel held in the Civic 15 Meeting Room, 1 Greys Ave
Auckland on Friday, 2 May 2014 at 1.00pm.
Rural Advisory Panel recommendations regarding community and environment

incentive awards
Resolution number RUR/2014/85
MOVED by Member G Smith, seconded by Member AQ Cole:
That the Rural Advisory Panel:
Attachment I
a)
agree that by joining with the other regions of New Zealand in advocacy for the
Ballance Farm Environment Awards, that the benchmarked outcomes for
environmental best management in rural Auckland will be enhanced.
b)
recommend to the Budget Committee that provision be made for the inclusion
of the Ballance Farm Environment Awards in the Long Term Plan budgeting
allocation process.
c)
request that officers work with the New Zealand Farm Environment Trust and
regional councils to further improve the awards.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 278
Minutes of a meeting of the Auckland Domain Master Plan Panel on Tuesday, 14 October 2014
Subject
Moved:
Seconded:
Auckland Domain
Item 19
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Councillor Lee
Christopher Dempsey
The Auckland Domain Master Plan Panel (ADMP):

a)
Request that the ADMAP be renamed Auckland Domain Committee and direct staff
to investigate the option of this joint committee being established for Auckland Domain
subject to advice on delegation.
c)
Recommend that the Budget Committee, at its meeting on 5 November 2014,
consider inclusion of $1 million for renewal of the Auckland Domain glasshouses in the
Long Term Plan with such funding to be spread over the 2016 and 2017 financial years.
d)
Recommend that the Budget Committee, at its meeting on 5 November 2014,
consider inclusion of a provisional sum for the implementation of the Auckland Domain
Master Plan, being $100,000 in 2016 and $1 million in each of the years 2017-2019.
CARRIED
Page 279
Attachment I
b)
Request that a report be provided to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and
Waitemata Local Board in early 2015 providing advice and direction on future reporting and
decision making for Auckland Domain in light of the split governance decision of the
Governing Body on August 2013.
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 20

File No.: CP2014/25675
Purpose
1.
To consider the Mayoral Proposal on Rating Policy.
Executive summary
2.
The Mayors Long-term Plan 2015-2025 proposal on rating policy is attached.
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the Mayoral Proposal on Rating Policy.
Attachments
No.
Title
Mayoral Proposal on Rating Policy
Page
283
Signatories
Authors
Aaron Matich Principal Advisor

Andrew Duncan Manager Financial Policy
Authoriser
Page 281
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 283
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 284
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 285
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 287
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 289
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 290
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 291
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 292
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 293
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 294
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 295
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 296
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 297
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 298
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 299
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 300
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 301
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 302
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 303
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 304
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 305
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 306
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 307
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 308
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 309
Attachment A
Item 20
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 311
Solid Waste: Inorganic Collection Service methodology and funding:

Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
File No.: CP2014/25358
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to recommend a new methodology and funding for the inorganic
collections and processing for 2015/2025 to support the implementation of the Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) during the period of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

2. The inorganic collection has been the subject of much debate over the years by the various
legacy councils. There are currently a variety of levels of service and approaches to funding this
service.
3. The staff proposal is for a uniform level of service and approach to funding. The level of
service proposed is an annual on-property, pre-booked pick-up of inorganic material. The funding
approach proposed is a $24 targeted rate for each property in the serviced area.
4. On the basis of the benefits outlined in the report i.e.
diversion of as many materials away from landfill as possible
reduction in the amount of illegal dumping anticipated
cleaner and safer streets creating health and safety benefits for residents and contractors
community involvement and a focus on sustainability
linkages between inorganic collections and the establishment of Community Recycling

Centres.
5.
I support the approach outlined and recommend as follows:
Recommendations
That for the purposes of developing the draft LTP 2015-25 for consultation, the Budget Committee
adopt the proposed changes to the inorganic collection service methodology and funding as set
out below.
a)
The introduction of a standard pre-booked, on property inorganic collection service.
b)
The proposed targeted rates for Solid Waste services include the cost of a regional, prebooked, on-property inorganic collection commencing 1 July 2015.
Executive summary
6. The methodology recommended for the collection of the Inorganics Collection service is an
annual service, pre-booked via an on-line booking schedule booked with the material to be
collected from within the property boundary, not from the kerbside. This is in line with the Waste
Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The improved service will cost $8.4 million per
year. The current services cost $7.2 million.
7. The service change is designed to feed re-usable and recyclable materials to the Resource
Recovery Network to ensure as many materials as possible are diverted from landfill, while also
creating opportunities for local businesses and social enterprises through repair, refurbishment,
dismantling, and sale of items collected. The WMMP intends that once the Resource Recovery
Network becomes fully operational the requirement to offer an inorganic collection will be
eliminated.
8. Staff recommend that the new inorganic service be funded from a targeted rate on all
properties for whom the service is available with this targeted rate estimated to be approximately
$24 per rateable property.
Solid Waste: Inorganic Collection Service methodology and funding: Long Term Plan 2015-2025.
Page 313
Item 21
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 21
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
9. The proposed funding method supports inorganic volumes collected and processed, until the
Resource Recovery Network is developed. This recognises the residents and wider community
support for the new service as developed during the WMMP consultation and reconfirmed during
recent surveys.
10. Current Inorganics collection contracts conclude on the 30 June 2015 and a procurement
process is underway to commence the new service, based on the recommendation of a fully rates
funded, on-property, pre-booked collection. The extension of current contracts is not a viable
option in terms of service continuity. The cost of providing the service in 2014/2015 based on the
legacy council service levels ranging from nil, every two years to annual kerbside, is approximately
$7.2million compared with the consistent regional service of approximately $8.4million.
Recommendation/s
Committee adopt the proposed changes to the inorganic collection service methodology
and funding as set out below.
a)
the introduction of a standard pre-booked on property inorganic collection

service.
b)
the proposed targeted rates for Solid Waste services include the cost of a
regional, pre-booked, on-property inorganic collection commencing 1 July 2015.
Background
11. The current inorganic collection services and funding methods vary across the region. This is
summarised in the table below:
Former TLA areas
Funding Method
Frequency
Auckland City
Rates Funded
Biennial
Manukau City
Rates Funded
Annual
North Shore City
Rates Funded
Annual
Papakura District
Rates Funded
Annual
Waitakere City
Partial User Pays ($25)
Annual
Franklin District
Partial User Pays ($25 of which $10

to charity)
n/a
Rodney District
No service
n/a
12. Only the former Waitakere City offered an on-property collection. In Franklin there are
organised drop off days at pre-arranged sites.
13. The WMMP proposed a consistent inorganic collection service to be introduced across
Auckland from July 2015 funded from a targeted rate. Submissions on the WMMP demonstrated
a strong level of support for a consistent rates-funded inorganic collection, with 72% of all 2035
submitters agreeing with either an annual (55% support) or biennial service (17% support). The
level of support from the different local board areas ranged from between 70-88%.
14. As part of the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 process, further investigation on variations
on, or alternatives to, the proposed annual, pre-booked, on property service have been
Page 314
undertaken. A survey of over 900 Aucklanders was conducted in early October 2014 to test the
support for these variations and options. This was broadly representative of the Auckland adult
population by age, gender, ethnicity, and geographic area. The approximate margin of error was
3.3%.
15. Respondents were provided context around 4 different options, including the total cost of
each option and the comparison with the total cost of the current disparate service which is $7.2m
in 2014/2015. Results to the question: which of the four different options do you most prefer?
were as follows, indicating a strong preference from around 70% of respondents in support of an
annual or biennial rates funded service:
Options Considered
Option 1: Annual booked service
Option 2: Booked service every two years
Option 3: Annual booked service with user charge
Option 4: No service
I dont know
Response rate
43%
27%
20%
4%
6%
Cost
$8.4m
$5.4m
$4.5m
$1.0m
16. To inform the design of this service and to shape procurement activities to support this
service, trials of the proposed methodology were conducted in Pakuranga and Howick during
October and November 2013 with the following results:
over 200 households agreed to participate in the trial
an average of 110kg was collected per household
a large proportion of materials which were put out could be recycled or reused and
therefore diverted from landfill. At least 54% of material collected could be recycled or reused. If
waste timber, which currently has a cost to process into industrial fuel is included, 75% of the
materials collected were considered recoverable when processed through a Community Recycling
Centre
feedback from residents was largely positive, especially after the comparative social/
environmental benefits and costs of the two methodologies were explained to them.
17. In addition the trials supported the benefits anticipated from the proposed new service
including:
diversion of as many materials away from landfill as possible
reduction in the amount of illegal dumping anticipated
cleaner and safer streets creating health and safety benefits for residents and contractors
community involvement and a focus on sustainability
linkages between inorganic collections and the establishment of Community Recycling

Centres.
Comments
Standard regional inorganic collection service
18. Staff recommend the provision of a pre-booked on property inorganic collection service.
This will be available to all eligible residential rateable properties with a predetermined collection
volume, available on an annual basis. The WMMP proposed that this would be targeted ratesfunded. Householders will pre-book a collection service using an on-line scheduling system and
materials will be collected from within the householders property boundary, not from the kerbside
as at present.
19. The new service generates re-usable and recyclable materials for the Resource Recovery
Network currently under development. This will ensure as many materials as possible are
diverted from landfill while also creating opportunities for local businesses and social enterprises
through repair, refurbishment, dismantling, and sale of items.
Page 315
Item 21
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 21
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
20. Consideration was also given to continuing the status quo. However, the current system
results in:
untidy streets where the service is kerb-side
destruction of useable items
an estimated 25,000 tonnes of material collected unnecessarily and sent to landfill
incidences of illegal dumping
health and safety issues for both the public and collection staff and contractors.
Funding
21. Staff recommend that the inorganic service, delivered from 1 July 2015, be funded from the
solid waste targeted rate. The cost of the service adds approximately $24 to each eligible rate or
service property. If take up of the service is greater than assumed in the budget, the provision of
the service will be extended beyond 12 months to ensure the budget is not exceeded in any one
year. If the service is very successful, it will effectively have a slightly longer than 12 month
collection cycle.
This funding method will:
provide one rates funded, on-site, with a set volume per property, pre-booked inorganic
collection per year for every ratepayer, who receives the service from 2015 onwards, as per the
WMMP
address the negative impacts of the current kerbside inorganic collections which include
inconsistency of service levels; untidy streets where the service is kerb-side; destruction of
useable items; an estimated 25,000 tonnes of material collected unnecessarily sent to landfill;
incidences of illegal dumping; and health and safety issues for both the public and collection staff
and contractors
provide recyclable and reusable material for community recycling centres as the
resource recovery network develops
meet the desire expressed in survey responses for the continuation of the new service
ensure continuation of procurement for an award of contract in February 2015 and

service commencement in July 2015.
22. The option of charging those who requested the service directly at around $100 per
collection was also considered. This is because only 1 in 6 residents use this service and the
others subsidise it. This would allow the targeted rate to be reduced by around $17 for each
eligible ratepayer. This directly links a portion of the cost of the service to those who are
benefiting from it. However, the additional cost would likely reduce use of the service and could
impact on the volumes of recyclable material available for the resource recovery network as is
demonstrated in the former Waitakere City area.
23. As council will be providing this service via contracted third parties, if direct user pays was
the preferred option then administration costs would effectively be reduced by exiting the service
completely. Residents would make arrangements for the disposal of inorganic waste directly with
the private sector provider.
24. Local implications in terms of changes from the current inorganic service provision in the
former Territorial Local Authority (TLA) areas against the options considered is summarized in
attachment A.
Consideration
25. The methodology and funding discussed in this report are regional and, accordingly, the
decisions proposed herein are regional.
Page 316
26. Local boards receive regular reports on councils progress towards implementing the WMMP
through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services update reports to the local boards. Solid
Waste staff also present to local boards at relevant workshops and meetings.
27. There were staff supported workshops in October 2014 with local board representatives
where the matters addressed in this report were discussed. However, it was not until the workshop
held 20 October that local boards could consider the proposed fees for 2015/2016.

28. Staff do not hold information on the ethnicity of residents and ratepayers. It is considered
that the impact on Maori will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.
29. As noted in the WMMP, the tangata whenua world view reflects the WMMPs emphasis on
an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of
Zero Waste, waste recovery and waste minimisation.
30. The work to date with Mana Whenua and Maori is the beginning of a journey towards
building collaboration and capacity that create a mind-set and behaviour change to seeing waste
as a resource and minimising waste to landfill. Tailored engagement and development
approaches to working with Mana Whenua and Maori have been developed.
Significance
32. The recommendations in this report are significant as they could generate wide public
interest. Rates must be included in the Funding Impact Statement and will be consulted on as
part of the LTP process.
Implementation
33.
Implementation issues are discussed in the report.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors

Ian Stupple Manager Solid Waste
Authorisers
John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Page 317
Item 21
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Solid Waste targeted rates and fees 2015/2016 and Waste Management
and Minimisation funding through transition
File No.: CP2014/25357
Purpose
1. This report recommends changes to targeted rates and users charges for solid waste services
for 2015/2016 to:
reflect changes in costs

achieve harmonisation where the service offering is similar.
Mayoral Summary and Recommendations

2.
The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is one of our major environmental
initiatives. The proposals in that plan went through an extensive consultation process a couple of
years ago. The implementation of the WMMP will take place in the term of this LTP.
3.
Staff have recently revised the implementation plan and have proposed a more phased
approach. This seems sensible and has been through the Regional Strategy and Policy
Committee.
4.
Alongside this phased implementation, a phased approach to the introduction of changes to
the fees and charges is also proposed. In 2015/16 this involves updating the targeted rate to
incorporate the new contract costs and, where relevant, harmonising these In 2016/17 the former
Auckland City and Manukau City areas will start a user pays approach to refuse collection and full
pay as you throw will be implemented from 2019/20.
5.
The staff report also proposes removing the subsidy from the solid waste services provided
on Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands. Currently these services are subsidised by the ratepayers
of the former Auckland City area. The level of subsidy is identified as approximately $525 per
property. It is proposed to transition to full cost recovery over 3 years.
6.
While I agree generally with the principle that these costs should be recovered from the area
that benefits from the service, some concerns have been raised by the relevant Local Boards
about the accuracy of the cost allocation and staff have indicated that they will be further reviewing
these costs during consultation and therefore I have a slightly different set of recommendations :
Recommendations
7.
Committee adopt the proposed changes to solid waste services funding set out below.
a) The indicative targeted rates for waste services, including the pre-booked, on-property
inorganic collection as recommended in the report in the previous item on this agenda, in the
former council areas for the 2015/2016 year as set out below:
i.
Auckland and Manukau $24211 (adjusted as appropriate in Auckland to provide for
the rates where a ratepayer has opted out of either or both of refuse and recycling services)
ii.
North Shore and Waitakere $80
iii.
Rodney $90
iv.
Franklin and Papakura $100 (adjusted as appropriate in rural Franklin where a
ratepayer does not receive a recycling service).
11
The Auckland & Manukau targeted rate is likely to be in the range of $240 to $245, and may fall by around
$10 over time per property dependant on decisions around gulf islands subsidies, and the ability of certain
property types to opt out of service provision.
Solid Waste targeted rates and fees 2015/2016 and Waste Management and Minimisation funding
through transition
Page 319
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
b)
A targeted rate for the provision of solid waste services, including the pre-booked, onproperty inorganic collection as recommended in the report in the previous item on this agenda,
for the Hauraki Gulf Islands of $418 for 2015/2016.
c)
The introduction of user charges, billed to the property owner, for refuse for the former
Auckland and Manukau City areas be gradually introduced from 2016/2017 financial year.
8.
That staff carry out further work on the costs of the refuse collection on the Hauraki Gulf
Islands and consult with the community on phasing out the subsidy over three years.
Executive summary
9. It is proposed to introduce changes to funding to:
reflect changes in service costs
reflect phasing in of new services
allow sufficient transition to ensure these services are affordable to residents and
ratepayers.
10. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is being implemented in stages with new
services and funding methods to be introduced gradually from 2015/2016 until full implementation
by 2019/2020.
Solid waste targeted rates and fees for 2015/2016

11. It is recommended that the current mix of user pays and targeted rates is maintained for
funding solid waste services for 2015/2016 based on the differing services provided in each of the
former council areas. The charges in each area will change to reflect movement in costs
including, in particular, an increase in contract costs in the former Waitakere City and North Shore
City areas for 2015/2016.
12. It is also intended to stage a harmonisation of targeted rates in former council areas receiving
similar service delivery and/or where similar contracts for service exist. To that extent it is
proposed that harmonised targeted rates are established for legacy Manukau and Auckland City
ratepayers; North Shore and Waitakere ratepayers; and Papakura and Franklin ratepayers.
Targeted rates for 2015/2016 will be affected by the introduction of the regionalised on-property,
pre-booked inorganic collection service. The effect of this service stream is addressed through a
separate report to this committee dealing with both the methodology and funding impacts of a 1
July 2015 service implementation.
Hauraki Gulf Island subsidy
13. It is recommended that council remove the subsidy for the provision of solid waste services
for the Hauraki Gulf Islands with this phased over a three year period. The subsidy is
approximately $525.00 per property. Hauraki Gulf Island ratepayers are charged the legacy
Auckland City targeted rate. The additional costs of providing solid waste services to the Hauraki
Gulf Islands is subsidised across the former Auckland City properties at $20 each. The targeted
rate for Hauraki Gulf Islands residents will increase from a 2014/2015 rate of $242.40 to
approximately $770.00 per annum when the subsidy is fully removed. Staff will conduct further
work during the consultation period on the costs of providing services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
14. The recommendation ensures that the users of services are meeting the cost of those
services and are not subsidised by other ratepayers. With the average Gulf Island Rates expected
to fall in 2015/2016 by approximately $160 for Waiheke Island and $270 for Great Barrier Island,
see rating policy report attached to the Mayors report also on this agenda, it is considered that the
removal of subsidy should not present material affordability issues for those ratepayers. The
remaining net change is between $5 and $7 per week.
15. Council could consider partial removal of this subsidy where the balance of any subsidy would
be funded from the general rate and not just the former Auckland City area.
Future funding for Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

through transition
Page 320
16. It is recommended that the introduction of user charges for refuse be gradually introduced for
the former Manukau and Auckland City Council areas from the 2016/2017 financial year. Full userpays via Pay as you Throw for refuse is expected to operate in these areas from 2019/2020.
Targeted rates will continue to cover the costs of recycling and inorganic collection services and
for the introduction of organic collections and processing where they become available.
17. This transition will enable both ratepayers and tenants in the former Manukau and Auckland
City Council areas to become familiar with the new services, to maximise their diversion of waste
to landfill and therefore manage any affordability issues arising from the change.
18. The cost of the new services for average residential household will be approximately $260 per
year, an increase of $25 per year, or $0.50 per week. The largest impact of the move to the new
services on ratepayers will be approximately $78 per annum, or $1.50 per week, for a large
property in the Manukau area. For tenants, the largest impact will be approximately $187 per
annum, or $3.60 per week, for a large property in the Manukau area. Tenants in the former North
Shore and Waitakere City Council areas are already paying on average $2.25 per week for refuse
as user charges via the current prepaid bag service.
Recommendation/s
Committee adopt the proposed changes to solid waste services funding set out below.
a)
The indicative targeted rates for waste services, including the pre-booked, onproperty inorganic collection as recommended in the report in the previous item on
this agenda, in the former council areas for the 2015/2016 year as set out below:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Auckland and Manukau $24212 (adjusted as appropriate in Auckland to

provide for the rates where a ratepayer has opted out of either or both of
refuse and recycling services)
North Shore and Waitakere $80
Rodney $90
Franklin and Papakura $100 (adjusted as appropriate in rural Franklin
where a ratepayer does not receive a recycling service).
b)
To phase out the subsidy for solid waste services for Hauraki Gulf Island in equal
steps over three years.
c)
A targeted rate for the provision of solid waste services, including the pre-booked,
on-property inorganic collection as recommended in the report in the previous item
on this agenda, for the Hauraki Gulf Islands of $418 for 2015/2016.
d)
The introduction of user charges, billed to the property owner, for refuse for the
former Auckland and Manukau City areas be gradually introduced from 2016/2017
financial year.
Background
19. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is being implemented in stages with new
services and funding methods to be introduced gradually from 2015/2016 until full implementation
by 2019/2020. The phasing for service introduction is
2015/2016 new on-property pre-booked inorganic collection service
12
The Auckland & Manukau targeted rate is likely to be in the range of $240 to $245, and may fall by around
$10 over time per property dependant on decisions around gulf islands subsidies, and the ability of certain
property types to opt out of service provision.
through transition
Page 321
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
2015/2016 commencement of Resource Recovery Network implementation including

development of Community Recycling Centres
2016/2017 enhanced recycling service commencing with the introduction of 240-litre

bins in the former North Shore, Waitakere, rural Franklin, and Rodney areas at current collection
contract term end
2017 user charge refuse and urban organic service in the former Auckland and
Manukau City areas
2017/18 onwards roll-out of urban organics service in remaining areas over twelve to
eighteen months
2019/2020 Pay as you Throw refuse fully implemented across the region, supported by
full regional organics collection service and enhanced recycling
2019/2022 Resource Recovery Network well established.

20. This phasing allows time for:
residents to adjust to new services and payment methods, notably those Auckland and
Manukau residents where refuse is still rates-funded
contractors to plan for investment in services and infrastructure
procurement and service contracts to be established with service providers, or extended

where appropriate with current service providers
refinement of costs through the relevant procurement process, and therefore targeted
rates and fees to be finalised.
21. The following principles have been adopted in developing recommendations:
users of services should pay for the services received
users of services should be able to directly influence the impacts and benefits received
options, such as recycling and organic collection services, for waste minimisation must
be available to support the diversion of waste to landfill targets
charging to the source of refuse should encourage waste minimisation through

behavioural change
affordability considerations including the impacts of change in those areas which are
currently fully rates-funded for waste services.
Comments
Solid Waste targeted rates and fees for 2015/2016
Refuse and recycling service funding
22. The recommended, indicative, targeted rates for solid waste services are set out in the table
below. These are based on the services offered in each area and the current mix of funding
methods, user charges for bags and targeted rates. The rates will vary in the former Auckland
City Council area where ratepayers opt out of services and in the Franklin area where recycling
services arent provided.
Former council area
MCC
ACC
Services
WCC
NSCC
Refuse, Recycling, Inorganics
PDC
FDC
RDC
13
2015/2016 Targeted rate

for services
$242
$242
$80
$80
$100
$100
$90
2014/2015 Targeted rate

for service
$220.68
$242.40
$23.36
$64.05
$111.19
$129.58
$86.93
23. The change per household shown above reflects:
general cost of inflation and growth
proposed introduction of new regional, bookable, on property inorganic collections as

recommended in a separate report.
13
Based on recommendations in the previous report on this agenda.
through transition
Page 322

impact of contract increases for services in the former Waitakere City and North Shore
City Council areas
change in treatment of Waitakere Transfer Station returns now applied to general rates
harmonisation of targeted rates to reflect service standardisation where contracts or

service delivery are consistent
standardisation of refuse bag pricing across the region.

24. The returns from the Waitakere Refuse Transfer Station are no longer deducted from the cost
of services provided across the region. They are credited to the general rates in line with
dividends from other council investments including:
Waste Disposal Services joint venture which operates the Whitford landfill servicing the
Manukau area
Auckland International Airport Limited dividends.

25. Some of the changes also reflect an intention to stage a harmonisation of targeted rates in
former council areas receiving similar service delivery and/or where similar contracts for service
exist. To that extent it is proposed that harmonised targeted rates are established for legacy
Manukau and Auckland City ratepayers; North Shore and Waitakere ratepayers; and Papakura
and Franklin ratepayers.
Inorganic
26. The funding recommendation and options on the inorganic pre-booked, on-property collection
service is covered by a separate report.
Waiheke and Great Barrier Island subsidy
27. It is recommended that council remove the subsidy for the provision of solid waste services
for the Hauraki Gulf Islands and phase this over a three year period. Hauraki Gulf Island
ratepayers are charged the legacy Auckland City targeted rate. The subsidy is approximately
$525.00 per property. The additional costs of providing solid waste services to the Hauraki Gulf
Islands is subsidised across the former Auckland City properties. The targeted rate for these
residents will increase from a 2014/2015 rate of $242.40 to approximately $770.00 per annum
when the subsidy is fully removed.
28. The recommendation ensures that the users of services are meeting the cost of those
services and are not subsidised by other ratepayers.
29. Council could consider partial removal of this subsidy where the balance of any subsidy
would be funded from the general rate and not just the former Auckland City area.
30. This will recover the cost of the services provided on the islands and remove the need for
former Auckland City Council ratepayers to fund the additional $3 million cost of the service. At
present ratepayers in the former Auckland City Council area pay an additional $17.45 each per
year to subsidise the service on the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Staff will conduct further work during
the consultation period on the costs of providing services to the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
31. It is considered that this should not present material affordability issues for ratepayers as it is
expected that the average rates will fall by on $160 on Waiheke and $270 on Great Barrier. The
average net change is $5 per week on Great Barrier and $7 per week on Waiheke.
32. It is noted that locally driven initiative funding per head on Waiheke is $80 and on Great
Barrier $587 whereas the regional average is $18.
Future funding for Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Funding
33. It is recommended that the funding for the implementation of the Waste Management and
Minimisation Plan is as set out in the table below. Officers will advise in detail on the charges for
services in the plan prior to the year of introduction. This will allow more accurate advice.
through transition
Page 323
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Former TLA Area
2015/2016
2016/2017
2019/2020
Auckland/ Manukau
Service Delivery Status

quo plus new
inorganics
User pays or T/R

Refuse Bin and T/R
Organics
PAYT Refuse & T/R

Organics/ Recycling/
Inorganics
North Shore/ Waitakere

quo plus new inorganics
Status quo
(Prepaid Refuse Bag)
240 litre Recycling
introduced
PAYT Refuse & T/R

Inorganics
Papakura/ Franklin

quo plus new inorganics
Status quo
(Prepaid Refuse Bag)
Recycling in rural
Franklin
PAYT Refuse & T/R

Inorganics
Rodney

quo plus new
inorganics
Introduce prepaid
Refuse Bag
240 litre Recycling
introduced
PAYT Refuse & T/R

Inorganics
34. At present multi-unit dwellings may opt out of council provided services in the area of the
former Auckland City Council. Officers will report by June 2015 on whether or not to:
discontinue the current opt-out provision for waste services within the former Auckland
City Council area only
continue the current provision for opt-out within the former Auckland City Council area
only
extend the opt-out provision to the rest of the region not currently eligible.
35. Staff will fully assess the impact of the additional cost of service provision to rural areas and
report back for the 2016/2017 annual plan on whether the cost difference justifies a separate
charge. This will also include the viability and costs of enhanced recycling and other proposed
new services.
Impact of WMMP funding
36. The addition of an organic service and harmonisation of other services:
Improves environmental outcomes by diverting 47,000 tonnes of organic material from

landfill;
Makes a substantial contribution to the achievement of recycling, reuse and waste

minimisation and outcomes;
Increases the total cost of service provision by approximately $24 million per annum;
Provides residents with opportunities to manage and minimise the cost of their waste
stream.
37. Based on current modelling the indicative impact of the overall cost increase on residents
once it is fully implemented is set out in the table below.
Household
size
Additional charge
per annum
Additional charge
per week
Additional charge if dont use

organics or reduce waste volumes
Average
household
$25
$0.50
$50
through transition
Page 324
Average large
household
Average small
household
$46
(ACC $76, MCC
$71)
$12
(High of $60 in
Waitakere)
$0.88
(for ACC $1.50)
$80
$0.23
$29
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
38. Even for a large household the changes in the area of the city most impacted once the full
package of new services area introduced are modest. The level of change is higher for tenants in
those parts of the city which presently have no user pays for refuse. The following section
recommends an approach to transition to address these changes.
Transition
39. Staff recommend a quarterly charge to ratepayers, not a rate, be introduced in the former
Auckland City Council and Manukau City Council areas in 2017 to fund refuse services. Prior to
its introduction staff will test this against other user pays options to ensure the one that best meets
councils objectives for waste minimisation and economic efficiency is implemented. This charge
would cover the provision of:
prepaid bins in the former Auckland City Council area utilising the existing bin allocation
prepaid bags or bins in the former Manukau City Council area.

40. The new organic service would be funded from the targeted rate and introduced at the same
time as the change to direct billing in former Auckland and Manukau.
41. Those ratepayers who were landlords may, if they wished, pass these charges onto tenants.
The introduction of these charges would allow residents and ratepayers to acclimatise to the new
services. User charges for refuse are already in place in all other legacy areas. Once the full
package of services and Pay as you Throw funding for refuse was introduced they will be better
able to manage their waste volumes and associated charges.
42. This aligns with the overall phasing in of new services as set out in the table in section 29
above.
43. At present Watercare Services Ltd charges property owners for its water and wastewater
services in a manner similar to that proposed in paragraph 34, above. Council is advised that
Housing New Zealand (HNZ) may not pass these costs onto its tenants, choosing to absorb them
as a landlord. Irrespective of HNZs cost recovery methods, council will engage with Housing New
Zealand to determine an appropriate approach to billing with this major landlord.
Consideration
44. The fees discussed in this report are regional fees and accordingly the decisions proposed
herein are regional.
45. Local boards receive regular reports on councils progress towards implementing the WMMP
through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services update reports to the local boards. Solid
Waste staff also present to local boards at relevant workshops and meetings.
46. There were staff supported workshops in October 2014 with local board representatives
where the matters addressed in this report were discussed. It was not until the workshop held 20
October that local boards could consider the proposed fees for 2015/2016.

47. Staff do not hold information on the ethnicity of residents and ratepayers. The impact on
Maori will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.
through transition
Page 325
Item 22
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
48. As noted in the WMMP, the tangata whenua world view reflects the WMMPs emphasis on
an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of
Zero Waste, waste recovery and waste minimisation
49. The work to date with Mana Whenua and Maori is the beginning of a journey towards
building collaboration and capacity that create a mind-set and behaviour change to seeing waste
as a resource and minimising waste to landfill. Tailored engagement and development
approaches to working with Mana Whenua and Maori have been developed
Significance
51. The recommendations in this report are significant as they could generate wide public
interest. Rates must be included in the Funding Impact Statement and will be consulted on as part
of the LTP process.
Implementation
52.
Implementation issues are discussed in the report.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors

Ian Stupple Manager Solid Waste
Authorisers
John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

through transition
Page 326
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 23
File No.: CP2014/25336
Purpose
1.
This report recommends amendments to the contributions policy for the Long-term Plan
2015-2025.
Executive summary
2.
This report considers amendments to the cost allocation elements of the contributions policy.
Staff will report to the Budget Committee on 27 November recommending the adoption of a draft
policy for consultation which includes the projects to be funded by development contributions.
This will be based on the capital program the council agrees to consult on for inclusion in the
Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
3.
The Council adopted an integrated contributions policy in 2012 to allow development
contributions to fund the infrastructure investment the council plans to meet the demand arising
from growth. The costs of growth are allocated to developers based on the demand the type of
development places on infrastructure by activity, e.g. transport, in the area in which they are
developing, e.g. stormwater - Mahurangi (RUB).
4.
The current development contribution charge is determined from a baseline for a single
detached house, a household unit equivalent (HUE). The current average charge per HUE is
$18.500. Where development of different type or area places a different demand on investment it
is charged a higher or lower proportion of the HUE e.g. a high-rise apartment is charged 0.6 of
HUE.
5.
The amendments proposed are a refinement of the current policy to improve the link
between the demand development places on infrastructure and the calculation of contributions.
These changes are consistent with the objectives of the changes to development contributions
legislation in the Local Government Amendment Act 2014. The key changes are:
increasing the number of funding areas for stormwater and transport to better reflect the
different infrastructure investment required in different parts of the region
setting residential development charges based on house size as well as type
defining commercial accommodation units as residential accommodation units
including Kaumatua housing in the retirement unit development type
re-defining minor dwellings units as small ancillary dwellings and increasing the demand
factor from 0.5 to 0.6.
6.
Staff have undertaken some preliminary engagement with developers in the development of
this advice. Developers initial feedback is reflected in this report.
Setting funding areas
7.
Staff have reviewed the funding areas used to determine the allocation of growth investment
costs across the region. Staff recommend increasing the number of funding areas for stormwater
and transport to more accurately allocate the costs of additional infrastructure to development in
the areas where that investment is required.
8.
It is recommended that funding areas for stormwater are increased from 4 to 17 to reflect the
differing type and intensity of investment required to serve additional development in different
parts of the region. The investment in stormwater required to support development depends on
the capacity of existing infrastructure and the hydrology and topography of each area.
Page 327
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
9.
Funding areas for transport should also be increased from 2 to 5. Transport services are
provided as part of a network so the funding areas are larger in terms of geographical area than
those for stormwater. For example a major intersection upgrade may benefit improved travel
times for road users over a very wide area. Some investments are also required at a regional
level to meet the needs of a growing population wherever development takes place.
10. The policy will retain the flexibility to create area-specific funding areas on a case by case
basis to manage timing issues and the unique characteristics of areas targeted for growth in the
Auckland Plan and Special Housing Areas.
11. Staff also considered retaining wider regional funding areas or developing a larger number
of smaller funding areas for each activity group. Retaining wider regional funding areas for
stormwater and transport would not reflect some of the broad differences in the cost of providing
for development across the region. However, the use of wider funding areas reduces the councils
flexibility in responding to growth should the need arise to move projects around to meet those
demands.
Charging for residential developments based on house size
12. Staff propose to set the residential demand factor based on both the type of development
and also the size. New demand factors related to size will have three categories; 99m, between
100m - 249m and 250m . For detached and attached low rise14 dwellings demand factors will
be respectively 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 HUE when considering size. Reduced demand factors for
medium/high rise dwellings will be 0.6, 0.75 and 0.9 HUE.
13. Current residential demand factors are based on the type of the building (detached 1 HUE,
low rise 0.8 HUE, e.g. town house, and medium/high rise 0.6 HUE, e.g. apartment). This means a
70m2 detached dwelling pays the same contribution (1 HUE) as a 300m2 detached dwelling.
However, the demand for infrastructure from residential development is driven by the number of
additional residents a property can house. A larger property can provide for more new residents
and hence places more demand on infrastructure.
14. As a result smaller dwellings will pay less than larger dwellings, providing a more equitable
link between construction of new dwellings and the underlying demand for infrastructure.
Other changes to development types

15.
Staff also recommend the following amendments to development types:
create a new accommodation units category for commercial accommodation (hotels and
motels) and allocate an appropriate level of transport and open space cost, but at a lower level
than residential development. The current policy does not require contributions from
accommodation units unless there was also a subdivision of the accommodation units undertaken
because legislation precluded it. However, the amended legislation allows for these changes
include Kaumatua housing in the retirement unit development type as the demand they
place on services is similar
rename minor dwelling units small ancillary dwellings to match the change nomenclature
in the unitary plan and increase the demand factor from 0.5 to 0.6. This will to better reflect the
demand impact these properties place on infrastructure.
Recommendation/s
Staff recommend that for the purposes of developing the draft LTP 2015-2025 for
14
Attached low rise will be charged on it actual impervious surface area (ISA), 292m equating to 1 HUE,
rather than 1 HUE per household as for all detached dwellings.
Page 328
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
a)
Agree to use development contributions as the primary funding source for growth,
retaining the option to use financial contributions in those limited circumstances
where development contributions cannot be applied
b)
Agree to amend the contributions policy to replace the current funding areas with
those set out below:
Reserve Acquisition
ReserveDevelopment
Stormwater
Stormwater
Transport
Community
Infrastructure
Auckland
Wide
Auckland
Wide
Auckland Wide
Manukau
Harbour
(RUB)
Auckland
Wide
Auckland Wide
North
HGI
Manukau
Harbour
(Rural)
North
North
Central
Hibiscus Coast
(RUB)
North East
Central
Central
South
Hibiscus Coast
(Rural)
Tamaki
(RUB)
South
South
West
Kaipara (RUB)
Tamaki
(Rural)
West
West
HGI
Kaipara (Rural)
Wairoa
HGI
HGI
Rural
Mahurangi (RUB)
Waitemata
(RUB)
Mahurangi
(Rural)
Waitemata
(Rural)
Item 23
consultation, the Budget Committee adopt changes to the contributions policy as set out
below:
Rural
West Coast
c)
Agree to amend the contributions policy to adjust the charge for residential
development to reflect development size as follows:
Detached and attached low rise dwellings15
i.
0.8 per household equivalent unit (HUE) for developments at or below 99m2
ii.
1.0 per HUE for developments between 100 m2 and 249 m2
iii.
1.2 per HUE for developments at or over 250 m2.
Attached medium/high rise dwellings
15
Page 329
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
d)
iv.
0.6 per household equivalent unit (HUE) for developments at or below 99m2
v.
0.75 per HUE for developments between 100 m2 and 249 m2
vi.
0.9 per HUE for developments at or over 250 m2.
Agree to amend the contributions policy to:

vii.
establish a new development category, accommodation units which will

include hotels and motels
viii.
include Kaumatua housing in the retirement unit development type category
ix.
rename minor dwelling units as small ancillary dwellings and set the
demand factor at 0.6.
Background
16. The council adopted a regionally consistent contributions policy as part of the Long-term
Plan 2012-2022. This replaced the approaches taken by the 8 former councils to the funding of
growth and the use of development and financial contributions16.
17. The current policy provides that development contributions will be the primary tool for
funding growth but retains the ability to use other funding sources, and in particular financial
contributions, in those limited circumstances where development contributions cannot be applied.
18. The current policy provides for the funding of council activities in the areas set out in the
table below.
Open Space
Land
Acquisition
Stormwater
Transport
Public
Transport
Community
service facilities
Local recreation
facilities
Regional
recreation
facilities
Auckland
Wide
Urban Auckland
Mainland
Auckland
Wide
North
North
Auckland Wide
Rural
development
area
Hauraki Gulf
Islands
Central
Central
Rural
South
South
Hauraki Gulf
Islands
West
West
HGI
HGI
Rural
Rural
19.
The council undertook extensive consultation with developers in establishing its 2012 policy.
20. The policy was amended in September 2014 to reflect changes required by the Local
Government Amendment Act 2014. That Act also provides that the council must consult on a new
contributions policy by 1 December 2014.
16
The previous policies still apply where a consent had been lodged prior to the adoption of Auckland
Councils policy on 1 July 2012.
Page 330
21. Legislation provides that the council must formally state how it proposes to fund growth. If
the council decides to use contributions to fund growth it must state whether and in what
circumstances it will use either development contributions or financial contributions.
22. This report recommends some amendments to the process the contributions policy uses to
apportion the costs of growth between developers. Staff will report to the Budget Committee on
27 November recommending the adoption of a draft policy for consultation including a schedule of
the capital projects that are to be funded from development contributions. This allows time for the
policy to be updated to include the councils decisions on the capital expenditure program to be
consulted on for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and a for full legal review of the draft policy.
Comments
23.
Staff have balanced the principles set out below in reviewing the contributions policy:
purpose and principles of development contributions
equitable sharing of costs of growth between ratepayers, developers and other members of
the community having regard to such matters as who causes the costs and who receives the
benefits
equitable sharing of costs of growth between different types of development and different
funding areas
revenue certainty for the council and cost certainty for developers
alignment with outcomes sought in the Auckland Plan
administrative simplicity
ensuring legislative compliance
accommodation of new development provided for in the Housing Accord and Special
Housing Areas.
24. The review has focused on refining the policy as no need has been identified for any
fundamental changes. However, particular attention has been placed on the first two principles
identified above as these are the key drivers behind the objectives of the changes to development
contributions in the Local Government Amendment Act 2014.
25. Staff have held two meetings with developers between March and October 2014 to discuss
amendments to the Contributions policy. These were attended by over 60 developers in total.
Key comments from these sessions are noted in each section below.
Funding sources for growth

26. Staff recommend that the primary source of funding for investment in infrastructure to
support growth should be development contributions. The council will retain the ability to use
funding from other sources where development contributions cannot be used. For example the
council will have to use rates17 funding to pay for some community infrastructure, such as
swimming pools and libraries that cannot be funded from development contributions.
27. The beneficiaries of investment in infrastructure to provide for growth will be the new
residents of Auckland and the developers who as a result of that investment can construct new
buildings. By funding growth from development contributions the beneficiaries of the investment
pay for the costs incurred on their behalf. It also means that decisions on development are made
by developers taking into account not only the costs of the land and buildings but the costs they
impose on the city. Funding growth from development contributions also helps to ensure rates
remain affordable.
28. Staff considered the case for funding growth from rates but noted that whilst this would
encourage growth it would also place a greater burden on ratepayers and impact on the
affordability of rates.
Developer early engagement comments
17
While these investments will be funded from borrowing the interest costs will be met from rates.
Page 331
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
29. In previous engagement with developers they have acknowledged that it is reasonable that
development funds the reasonable costs of growth. They also accept that the contributions
provide the council with a greater capacity to invest in new infrastructure and hence allow for more
development than if this had to be funded from a constrained rates envelope.
Development contributions or financial contributions

30. Staff recommend that the primary source of funding for investment in infrastructure to
support growth should be development contributions.
31. Development contributions provide funding for the investments the council plans to make to
fund the impacts of growth on the city as a whole. They allow for integrated financial and
infrastructure planning. This ensures that those who use the developments, and existing
residents, will have available to them the level of services the council has committed to providing
the community. They are a strategic funding tool designed to support the councils strategic
response to growth because they can provide for the cumulative effect of multiple developments
and infrastructure investment on a regional as well as local scale.
32. Development contributions provide a certain revenue stream for the council against which it
can plan a wide range of investments. They also give developers certainty about the costs they
will incur.
33. Financial contributions are designed to provide a means to avoid, remedy or mitigate the
adverse effects of developments on the environment by funding the council to provide projects.
They require a more direct casual nexus to be established between the proposed development
and the projects than do development contributions. Further financial contributions are subject to
Environment Court appeals both at the plan change stage and when the council seeks to require
financial contributions on development. Given that the Environment Court might reduce the
financial contributions payable on a case-by-case basis, a reliance on financial contributions could
make it very difficult for the council to provide for the large scale investment required to meet the
very significant growth it is expecting. This in turn would slow the rate of investment the city
requires and therefore slow the rate at which developers could invest.
34. Developers are happy with development contributions overall, however, they would be open
to further investigations in using financial contributions for stormwater projects.
Setting funding areas

35. Staff recommend increasing the number of funding areas for stormwater and transport to
more accurately allocate the costs of additional infrastructure to development in the areas where
that investment is required. The current funding areas will be retained for the other activities. The
proposed funding areas are set out in the table below. Maps showing the funding areas are
included in Attachment 1.
Page 332
Reserve Acquisition
ReserveDevelopment
Stormwater
Stormwater
Transport
Community
Infrastructure
Auckland
Wide
Auckland
Wide
Auckland Wide
Manukau
Harbour
(RUB)
Auckland
Wide
Auckland Wide
North
HGI
Manukau
Harbour
(Rural)
North
North
Central
Hibiscus Coast
(RUB)
North East
Central
Central
South
Hibiscus Coast
(Rural)
Tamaki
(RUB)
South
South
West
Kaipara (RUB)
Tamaki
(Rural)
West
West
HGI
Kaipara (Rural)
Wairoa
HGI
HGI
Rural
Mahurangi (RUB)
Waitemata
(RUB)
Mahurangi
(Rural)
Waitemata
(Rural)
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Rural
West Coast
36. Funding arrangements must align with the way the council plans its infrastructure. The
nature and spread of the benefits of investment differs across the councils activities. Funding
areas are activity-based and distribute the costs of growth across development in different parts of
the region. The councils planned investment to meet the demands of growth varies from major
regional projects that will serve all of Auckland to smaller scale infrastructure to allow development
in particular parts of the city. Many of these investments are part of a network where
enhancements in one location provide benefits to a wider area or across the entire region.
Although individual parts of these programmes may only serve local areas, the programme as a
whole is usually distributed relatively evenly across the region.
37. Regional funding areas are proposed to be retained for regional transport projects and
reserve acquisition. Reserve acquisition provides for access to reserves at a regional level as
residents will travel outside their own catchment to access reserves, and some areas such as
reserves on the coastline, serve the whole city. Each locality has its own characteristics of open
space provision and the spread of reserve land can never be equal given practical considerations.
It is administratively difficult to exactly refine how residents of particular developments will use
reserves and hence impractical to create smaller catchments. However, a little more refinement is
practical for expenditure required to develop reserves given that this will differ at a regional level
even if still on a sub-regional rather than local scale. This also allows the council more flexibility to
alter the location and type of projects within a broad funding area to reflect changes in
development type and speed and community preferences.
Page 333
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
38. Investment in transport projects is regional by design and benefits the entire network through
its impact on congestion and connectivity between different parts of city for both public and private
transport users. However, the remainder of the transport portfolio can be refined into sub-regional
catchments based on the nature of the investments and a broad determination of their benefits.
39. The benefits of investment in stormwater can be more easily identified by location. The
proposed funding areas for stormwater are based on the water catchments and how the council is
planning to meet the investment needs of growth. While further refinement of stormwater
catchments if possible this would lead to too many funding areas making it very difficult to respond
if growth occurs differently from that predicted and would create a large number of uneconomical
funding areas. The proposed funding areas provide the appropriate balance between providing
certainty for developers, averaging out the costs of growth as appropriate, and administrative
efficiency.
40.
The development community indicated some support for using:
single regional catchments for some major regional capital works because of the very wide
community benefits they offer
sub-regional funding areas for some activities because of the size of the region and the
particular characteristics and costs associated with different parts of it
suggest smaller catchments for stormwater
large development contribution funding areas because they provide a realistic approach to
growth funding for Auckland region, avoiding complexity and providing certainty.
41.
Developers noted that:
areas with unique characteristics and costs (such as rural, greenfield and major
transformational areas) may warrant separate contribution catchments
there is a desire to see an alignment between this policy and the main planning directions
and documents (particularly the Auckland Plan).
Residential units of demand

42. Staff propose to set the residential demand factor based on both the type of development
(detached, low rise and medium/high rise) and also the size of the proposed household (with price
points: at or below 99m2, households between 100m2 and 249m2, and households at or greater
than 250 m2). As a result smaller dwellings will pay less than larger dwellings, providing a more
equitable link between construction of new dwellings and the underlying demand for infrastructure.
43. The demand for infrastructure arising from residential development is mainly determined by
the additional residents it will be required to serve. Analysis shows that the occupancy of
residential properties is directly linked to size. Larger properties are likely to have more bedrooms
and have more occupants. However, beyond a certain size larger properties do not have
additional occupants although they presumably provide more amenities for their occupancy.
44. Differences in demand factors by type of development reflects the lower marginal cost of
infrastructure provision through a more compact high density future Auckland.
Current HUE
No size consideration
Detached dwellings
1 HUE
18
Attached low rise
0.8 HUE
Attached med/high rise
0.6 HUE
0-99m
0.8 HUE
0.8 HUE
0.6 HUE
Proposed HUE
100m-249m
1 HUE
1 HUE
0.75 HUE
250m
1.2 HUE
1.2 HUE
0.9 HUE
18
Page 334
45. At present small properties which may have on average 1.6 occupants pay the same
contribution as for larger properties which have a higher average occupancy and, therefore,
generate more demand on infrastructure.
46. Staff also considered charging per bedroom but determined this was impractical as it would
be difficult to enforce given that space can labelled one way on a plan and subsequently used for
other purposes. Charging per square metre was also considered but was considered to be
administratively too inefficient.
47. In some overseas cities much development of residential properties to serve growth has
come from the extension of existing properties. Staff will review the applicability of development
contributions to extensions over the next year. It is not possible at this time to charge
development contributions for extensions as the council does not collect information in the form to
support this administratively in a robust and fair manner.
48. The development community in general indicated support for using both type and size of
development when setting demand factors, positive comments include:
It is positive to have some way to address equality issues

Size of dwelling approach is more manageable than bedroom approach.
49.
Some concerns have been raised:
Jump in price between categories should be limited
Attached low rise dwellings should remain lower than detached dwellings.
Demand factor for commercial accommodation units

50. Staff recommend the establishment of a new category of residential dwelling type
accommodation unit to cover motels, hotels and similar developments. New proposed per unit
demand factors are: Reserves 0.45, transport 0.45 HUE, community infrastructure 0 HUE,
stormwater 292m ISA = 1 HUE.
51. Under current policy, applications for commercial accommodation units are charged as nonresidential development units and are not assessed for reserves. The Local Government
Amendment Act 2014 introduced a new definition accommodation units that covers all types of
developments related to commercial accommodation units. The amended Local Government Act
states that: accommodation units means units, apartments, rooms in 1 or more buildings, or
cabins or sites in camping grounds and holiday parks, for the purpose of providing overnight,
temporary, or rental accommodation. This change allows the council the power to require
contributions for reserves from this development type.
52. Transport trip generation research suggests that the typical accommodation unit will have
just below half the number of trips compared to average detached dwelling units. Staff recommend
that the transport demand factor for accommodation units is set at 45% of the average residential
factor.
53. The LGA change also provides for the council to charge all accommodation units for
reserves on the same basis as residential dwellings. This is important because evidence shows
that the users of accommodation units consume demand for public open spaces. (although may
generate less demand for sportsfields etc.) The demand factor of 0.45 HUE reflect a 75%
reduction from small attached medium/high rise dwelling charges given its lower annual
occupancy rate at 75%.
Page 335
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
54. The development community indicated support for this category of development to share the
cost of growth with residential development.
Demand factor for Kaumatua housing

55. Staff recommend that Kaumatua housing be included in the retirement village development
category.
56. Kaumatua housing generally places the same lower demands on council services as
retirement villages. Research shows the typical characteristics of Kaumatua housing are good
access to on-site social and cultural connections, close proximity to direct family (papakainga) and
the wider Maori community, an onsite health clinic and transport often coordinated through
communal people movers rather than individual car ownership and use.
57. Existing lower retirement unit charges are only offered to units in a retirement village as
retirement villages are governed by the Retirement Village Act (RVA) 2003. The strict rules in the
Act dont match well with the nature of Kaumatua housing. Without a strict set of rules to work
from there may be some additional administrative complexity in determining whether proposed
developments meet the requirements. However, this will allow for housing to be developed for
Kaumatua with easy access to Marae and places of cultural significance (placed on land
administered under the Te Ture Whenua Mori Act 1993 [Mori Land Act] or identified in relevant
Treaty settlement legislation as cultural redress land).
58. The development community have been supportive of the inclusion of Kaumatua housing in
retirement unit category.
Demand factor for small ancillary dwelling unit (previously minor dwellings)
59. Staff recommend that the demand factor for minor dwelling units be increased to 0.6 HUE
and the name of the category changed to small ancillary dwelling unit.
60. The current policy defines minor dwelling units as: The first dwelling unit ancillary to the
primary dwelling unit on an allotment with a floor area of 60m or less and not able to be increased
in size. This definition aligns with some current District Plan rules. The demand factor for minor
dwellings is 0.5.
61. Minor dwelling units have a similar occupancy to small apartments, 1.6 residents. As a
result they should have the same demand factor which is 0.6. In addition draft Auckland Unitary
Plan does not identify this built form separately. To provide clarity during the transition period
between existing and future plan rules the name for this category should be changed to a more
generalised definition small ancillary dwelling unit.
62. The development community have in general been supportive of changes proposed to minor
dwellings. Some concern was raised that the 60m limit does not accurately reflect all district plan
rules that still exist across the city.
Projects to be included in reserves category

63. A comprehensive list of project to be funded from development contributions will be part of
the policy report to the Governing Body on 27 November. Staff will adjust the reserves category to
add the following project types:
development of reserves
sportsfields capacity increases (eg. sand carpeting)
Page 336
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
carparking associated with reserves.
64. The council previously funded project types as specified above (other than acquisition) from
the community infrastructure category. The change to the definition of community infrastructure in
the Local Government Act 2014 now excludes those projects. The council amended its
contributions policy on 8 September accordingly. These projects can be funded from development
contributions in the reserves category. The projects are closely linked to the reserves category as
they are required to develop parks and reserves to provide for the effective use of those services
by the public. The value of these projects under the Mayors proposal is around $40 million.
Under other options for capital investment in Parks, community and lifestyle the value of the
projects in this category increases accordingly.
Significance of Decision
65. Adoption of a contributions policy is a significant decision and will be consulted on alongside
the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Consultation
66.
Consultation with the public will occur alongside the LTP.
Consideration
67. Two representatives of each local board were invited to a briefing on the financial policies,
including the contributions policy, for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 on 18 August 2014. A further
briefing was provided on 20 October, to which all local board members were invited. The 20
October briefing included analysis of options for the contributions policy. Local board chairs and
another board member were invited to participate in a workshop on financial policy issues with the
Budget Committee on 24 October.
68. Local boards considered their views on financial policy issues at workshops in September
and October and during their formal October meetings.
69. Many local boards support a contributions policy that leads to efficient land use and an
approach that sufficiently provides infrastructure for growth in the existing urban area. Some local
boards support expenditure of development contributions in the areas in which they are collected.
70. A more detailed report of local board views is attached along with the full text of their

71. Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Maori will
be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers.
72. The council is developing a grants scheme which will offer funding equivalent to the cost of
development contributions for qualifying Papakainga housing. Maori will also benefit from the
lower demand factor proposed for Kaumatua housing from its inclusion in the retirement unit
category rather than the standard dwelling type.
Financial and Resourcing Implications

74.
There are no financial or resourcing implications.
Legal and Legislative Implications

75. The options presented in this report comply with the requirements of the Local Government
Act 2002 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.
Page 337
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 23
Implementation
76. Issues associated with implementing the options presented in this report have been included
for consideration.
Attachments
No.
Title
Contributions Policy maps
Page
339
Signatories
Authors
Bobbi Parkinson Principal Advisor

Claes Sandstrom Senior Advisor
Authorisers

Page 338
Attachment A
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 339
Attachment A
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 340
Attachment A
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 341
Attachment A
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 342
Attachment A
Item 23
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 343
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 24

File No.: CP2014/24839
Purpose
1.
Agree to the revised set of measures and indicative targets for each group of activity. This
will form the set of draft measures to be adopted by the Governing Body.
Executive summary
2.
We have rationalised and improved the measure sets to ensure they will create a meaningful
basis for accountability for the levels of service intended to be delivered by council group.
3.
The number of council-parent measures for the LTP has reduced 42% from 179 to 103, and
in particular the number of survey measures have reduced 30% from 46 to 32. The reduction in
measures and in particular survey measures, aims for more meaningful and cost effective
performance management.
4.
We have better alignment with the Auckland Plan where 39 key Auckland Plan targets
linkages were identified and aligned to LTP group of activities.
Recommendation/s
That the Budget Committee for the purpose of developing the draft Long-term Plan 20152025 for consultation:
a)
agree the revised set of levels of service statements and performance measures for
each group of activity.
b)
agree the regional indicative targets for each group of activity. Any amendments to
targets to reflect subsequent budget decisions will be adopted as part of the
supporting material for consultation.
c)
note the local indicative targets, which will be considered by local boards in
November/December and will form part of the supporting material for consultation
adopted by the Governing Body on 18 December 2014.
Comments
5.
As part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the Performance Measure
work-stream conducted an in-depth council and CCO wide review of performance measures. The
process included sharing the development of the measures through sub-committees, local board
workshops and IMSB representatives.
6.
A significant amount of feedback has been taken into account to improve the set of levels of
service statements and performance measures being proposed.
7.
This has resulted in a succinct set of community focused performance measures and
pragmatic targets for each group of activities, which is aligned to the Auckland Plan. These
measures and their targets will create a meaningful basis for accountability for the levels of service
intended to be delivered by Council and its CCOs.
Page 345
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 24
Consideration
8.
Local boards have provided input on indicative performance measures in August. Advice on
targets was provided to local boards in September workshops for consideration.
9.
Updated advice on targets will be provided to local boards from departments after budget
committee decisions from 5 6 November 2014. Local boards will discuss these in the Local
Board workshops to be held from 10 to 17 November 2014.
10. Decisions on local performance targets will be made by local boards in business meetings to
be held 1 - 12 December 2014.

11. The process included sharing the development of the measures through Te Waka Angamua
and IMSB representatives.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Council parent measures and targets
347
CCO measures and targets
357
Local Board measures and targets
371
Signatories
Authors
Taryn Crewe - Financial Planning Manager - Council Parent

Robert Irvine - Financial Planning Manager CCOs
Tushar Shreyakar Senior Advisor
Authorisers

Kevin Ramsay Chief Financial Officer
Page 346
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Council parent measures and targets

Auckland Development Theme
Regional Planning
Performance measure
Produce all plans and

Percentage of unitary
agreements according to and area plan changes
legislative requirements and Notices of
Requirement processed
within statutory
timeframes
Percentage of adopted
core strategies, policies
and plans incorporating
Mori outcomes or
developed with Mori
participation
Provide policy and

strategic advice,
leadership, facilitation
and advocacy to support
Aucklands economic
development.
Develop and champion

environmental strategies
and policies for the
present and future
generations of Auckland
that are effective,
evidence-based and
actionable
Protect and conserve
Tmaki Makaurau /
Aucklands historic
heritage and Mori
cultural heritage for the
benefit and enjoyment of
present and future
generations.
Percentage of key
performance indicators in
Auckland Economic
Development Strategy
that are met or improving
Number of economic
initiatives with Maori
Number of economic,
business, and city
building opportunities
facilitated through the
Auckland Council global
engagement programme
Percentage of local
economic development
action plans developed
and reviewed annually
Proportion of actions
from strategies and
action plans that are
being implemented
according to time frames
Number of historic
heritage places and
areas formally protected
in the unitary plan
Number of sites and
places of significance to
mana whenua formally
protected in the unitary
plan
Percentage of
Aucklanders satisfied
with historic heritage
management in Tmaki
Makaurau / Auckland
Long Term Plan targets
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
74%
78%
80%
80%
80%
80%
31
16
Establish
new
baseline
Maintain
or
improve
Maintain
or
improve
Maintain
or
improve
60
N/A
50
50
50
50
N/A
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
N/A
N/A
80%
80%
80%
80%
2177
N/A
2180
2180
2180
2300
61
N/A
61
61
100
550
N/A
N/A
75%
75%
75%
80%
Page 347
Attachment A
Level of service
statement
Attachment A
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Environmental Management & Regulation Theme

Regulation
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
N/A
New
measure
16,000
4,250
N/A
N/A
Facilitate and enable the

building of affordable
and enduring
neighbourhoods
Number of dwellings and

sites consented towards
Auckland housing targets
Provide safe access to

beaches and coastal
areas for recreation
Proportion of time
bathing beaches are
suitable for contact
recreation
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
Deliver a customer
focused building
consents and compliance
monitoring service that
meets statutory
requirements
Percentage of customers
satisfied with the overall
quality of building control
service delivery
44%
60%
53%
54%
55%
56%
Percentage of building
consent applications
processed within 20
statutory days
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
satisfied with the overall
quality of resource
consents service delivery
44%
50%
65%
65%
65%
65%
Percentage of nonnotified resource consent

applications processed
within 20 statutory days
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Percentage of notified
resource consent
applications processed
within 70 statutory days
78%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Percentage of requests
by Iwi that are relevant
and within their area of
interest that are
responded to within three
19
statutory days
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Percentage of noise
complaints responded to
within 30 minutes for
urban areas or 60
minutes for rural areas
82%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
Percentage of
complainants satisfied
with noise control
services
43%
New
measure
50%
51%
52%
53%
satisfied with the food
and hygiene licensing
service
73%
New
measure
70%
70%
70%
75%
Percentage of registered
food premises graded
annually
89%
98%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Deliver timely, cost

effective and customer
focused resource consent
processing services
Respond fairly and

effectively to excessive
noise related incidents
and complaints
Protect public health

through licensing and
compliance of food,
health, and hygiene
premises to legislative
requirements
19
Relevant applications are determined by being identified in the consents received report
Page 348
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Percentage of D/E
graded food premises reinspected within one
month
86%
85%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Protect public health

through licensing and
compliance of alcohol
premises to legislative
requirements.
Percentage of high risk

alcohol premises
inspected annually
TBD
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
satisfied with the alcohol
licensing services
62%
New
measure
66%
67%
68%
69%
Reduce public nuisance

through licensing,
education, and the
enforcement of relevant
bylaws.
Percentage of bylawrelated requests for

service (e.g. illegal signs,
public nuisance, street
trading) responded to
within three days
66%
New
measure
80%
80%
80%
80%
Provide dog, stock, and

other animal
management services to
Aucklanders
Percentage of urgent
animal management
complaints such as dog
attacks responded to
within one hour
98%
80%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Percentage of known
21
dogs that are registered
98%
New
measure
99%
100%
100%
100%
20
Solid waste & environmental services

Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
100%
97%
98%
98%
98%
98%
Manage land use and

development on
Council's closed landfills
to safeguard the region's
environment, productivity
and economic value of
soil
Percentage of Council
controlled closed landfill
discharge consents
achieving Category one
or two compliance rating
Facilitate action to
restore the quality of
Aucklands waterways
and harbours
Proportion of catchments
where sources of key
contaminants are
identified and impact
mitigation measures are
in place
10%
Less than
12.5%
10%
30%
30%
30%
Proportion of catchments
with stable or improving
Macroinvertebrate
Community Index
8%
New
measure
8%
11%
11%
11%
58%
New
measure
58%
58%
58%
58%
Support Aucklanders to
reduce their
environmental footprint
through effective
education,
communications,
programmes and
community driven
projects
Proportion of schools
participating in
sustainability education
programmes
20
Premises are compared against a list of criteria and assign one of four grades: A (High), B (Good), D (Poor) and E (Unsatisfactory).
There is no 'C' grade as all food premises are either above or below 'average' food safety standards
21
Known dogs is a common term in dog control. Whilst the aim is to have 100% of dogs registered there will always be some that have
come to the attention of dog control, but the registration process is not completed
Page 349
Item 24
Actual
2013/14
Performance measure
Attachment A
Level of service
statement
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Number of hectares of
new forest or wetland
habitat established on
regional parks
Percentage of
indigenous ecosystems
under active
management
68%
5%
68%
68%
68%
68%
Percentage of
threatened species
under active
management
34%
29%
34%
34%
34%
34%
Percentage land area

with less than 5%
residual trap catch for
possums
50%
50%
50%
51%
52%
55%
Proportion of kauri areas

on council land that have
active management or
exclusion measures in
place for kauri dieback
disease
N/A
50%
55%
60%
70%
100%
Number of hectares
under community pest
control
85,000
62,000
88,000
89,000
90,000
93,000
Proportion of
environmental
programmes led or
supported, with Mori
participation
15%
New
measure
15%
15%
15%
15%
Plan and provide reliable

household waste
management and
processing service
satisfied with overall
reliability of waste
collection services
N/A
New
measure
75%
76%
76%
76%
Plan and enable reliable

waste minimisation
Domestic kerbside
refuse per capita per
annum
150kg
Less than
or equal
to 150
160kg
160kg
110kg
110kg
Enhance the Regions

biodiversity by actively
managing and improving
the extent of indigenous
ecosystems and species
and by promoting
biodiversity best practice
Attachment A
Reduce the impact of

pest animals, plants and
pathogens on the natural
environment
Performance measure
Total number of
Resource Recovery
22
Facilities
22
A Resource Recovery Facility is a facility in the community where the public can drop off reusable and recyclable items. Resource
Recovery Facilities can vary greatly - from simple drop off stations in small rural areas through to large eco-industrial parks.
Page 350
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Enhance and protect the

stormwater receiving
environments for the
people of Auckland
through sustainable
management of the
stormwater system.
satisfied with Auckland
Councils Stormwater
management
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Percentage of mana
whenua satisfied with
stormwater management
7%
Set
baseline
7%
7%
7%
7%
Manage the stormwater

network to minimise the
risks of flooding to
Aucklanders
The number of flooding

events that occur and
the associated number
of habitable floors
affected per 1000
properties connected to
Auckland Councils
stormwater network
(DIA)
N/A
New
measure
1 per
1000
propertie
s
1 per
1000
propertie
s
1 per
1000
propertie
s
1 per
1000
propertie
s

Aucklanders
The median response

time to attend a flooding
event, measured from
the time that Auckland
Council receives
notification to the time
that service personnel
reach the site (DIA)
1.6 hours
New
measure
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours
2 hours

Aucklanders
Stormwater manholes
that pop open in flood
events are made safe
within two hours
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Aucklanders
The number of
complaints received
about the performance
of the stormwater
system per 1000
properties connected to
Auckland Councils
stormwater system (DIA)
0.91 per
100
propertie
s
New
measure
3 per
1000
propertie
s
3 per
1000
propertie
s
3 per
1000
propertie
s
3 per
1000
propertie
s
Enhance and protect the

stormwater receiving
environments through
sustainable management
of the stormwater system
Auckland Council
Stormwater compliance
with resource consents
for discharge from its
stormwater system,
measured by the number
of:
a) abatement notices;
and
b) infringement
notices; and
c) enforcement
orders; and
d) successful
prosecutions, received in
relation those resource
consents (DIA)
N/A
New
measure
Page 351
Attachment A
Stormwater management
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
The ratio of length of
watercourse consented
to be physically
improved versus
physically degraded in
23
the current year
Actual
2013/14
N/A

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
New
measure
Governance & Support Theme

Governance & democracy
Attachment A
Level of service
statement
Ensure communities can
easily engage in Council
decision making and
have access to
information
To support elected
members, council and
Mori to work together
to achieve better
outcomes for Tmaki
Makaurau Auckland
and enable Council to
effectively contribute to
Mori well-being
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Percentage of residents
who feel they can
participate in Auckland
Council decision-making
N/A
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Percentage of Mori
residents who feel they
can participate in
Auckland council
decision-making
N/A
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Number of complaints
regarding council
democratic processes
upheld by the Auditor
General or Ombudsman
Percentage of Mori
organisations who
consider they have an
appropriate working
relationship with council
27%
75%
80%
85%
85%
90%
Number of formalised
relationship
arrangements between
the council and Mana
24
Whenua
10
19
19
19
19
19
Performance measure
23
Physically Improved - includes daylighting, naturalisation, riparian protection and enhancement, and in stream enhancement
features
Physically Degraded - includes piping, lining and other structures that contribute negatively to the environment.
Excludes: Water quality aspects of watercourse improvement and degradation such as contaminants and temperature
24
Mana whenua organisations currently total 19, reporting as a number was thought clearer than a
percentage
Page 352
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Manage quality and

financially prudent city
park services
Percentage of city park

service requests
completed on time
Ensure readiness to
respond effectively to
emergency civil defence
situations and hazards
Overall CDEM capability

25
assessment score
Provide education,
support, and training to
develop a resilient
community
Provide emergency
management and rural
fire capability to manage
fire and emergencies
quickly and effectively
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
N/A
80%
80%
85%
85%
85%
Percentage of
Aucklanders prepared at
home for an emergency
N/A
27%
30%
33%
36%
39%
Percentage of
Aucklanders covered by
Community Response
Plans
35%
55%
75%
95%
100%
100%
Percentage of incidents
requesting attendance
by New Zealand Fire
Service responded to
within 12 minutes
N/A
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Parks, Community & Lifestyle Theme

Regional community services
Level of service
statement
Provide access to a
broad range of
information in a variety of
formats to support
reading, discovery and
participation.
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
satisfied with the range
of collection items
available
72%
New
measure
70%
71%
72%
73%
Percentage of Maori
satisfied with the range
of collection items
available
68%
New
measure
70%
71%
72%
73%
Number of library items

borrowed (millions)
16.1
New
measure
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Percentage of items
borrowed that are ecollections (e.g. eBooks,
eAudiobooks)
3%
New
measure
5%
10%
15%
25%
satisfied with the
Auckland Libraries
website
79%
New
measure
75%
75%
75%
75%
7.0
New
measure
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
Provide access to a
Number of visits to the
broad range of
Auckland Libraries
information in a variety of website (millions)
formats to support
reading, discovery and
participation.
25
The CDEM score is from the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency annual Colmar Brunton survey. It covers these aspects of Civil
Defence: reduction, readiness, response, and recovery.
Page 353
Attachment A
Organisational support
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Enable Aucklanders and
communities to express
themselves and improve
their well-being through
customer-centric advice,
funding, facilitation and
permitting
Deliver a variety of
events, programmes and
projects that improve
safety, connect
Aucklanders and engage
them in their city and
communities.
Provide safe, reliable

and accessible social
infrastructure for
Aucklanders that
contributes to
placemaking and thriving
communities
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
N/A
New
measure
12%
12%
13%
13%
Total regional and local

events taking place
across the city
2,533
New
measure
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
Percentage of all assets

that are graffiti free
across the city
94%
85%
92%
93%
94%
95%
Percentage of
Aucklanders that feel
Auckland is an eventful,
fun and exciting city
N/A
New
measure
70%
70%
72%
72%75%
Percentage of
Aucklanders that feel art
and culture is part of
their everyday life
N/A
New
measure
60%
65%
70%
75%
75%
80%
75%
75%
75%
75%
Percentage of
successful funding
applications (where the
main beneficiary is Maori
organisations,
individuals or Kaupapa
Maori) as a percentage
of all successful
applications
Percentage of tenants
satisfied with provision
and management of
'housing for older people'
Regional parks sport & recreation

Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
77%
90%
80%
81%
82%
83%
Provide and maintain

cemeteries, memorial
areas and facilities for
families, friends and
visitors
Percentage of visitors
satisfied with the
presentation of
cemeteries
Protect and conserve the

values and features of
Aucklands volcanic
heritage
Percentage of public
satisfied with the quality
of care of volcanic
features
64%
75%
70%
72%
74%
75%
Percentage of Mana
Whenua organisations
of care of volcanic
features
0%
75%
20%
30%
40%
50%
65,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000
Manage the Auckland

Botanic Gardens as a
premier destination for
sustaining the
biodiversity of the
Auckland region through
education and research,
as well as a place for
recreation.
Number of New Zealand

native plants grown for
re-vegetation
programmes in the
Botanic Gardens
Page 354
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Manage regional parks

as part of the open
space network for the
use and enjoyment of
the community
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Percentage of the public

who have used a
regional park in the last
12 months
76%
80%
76%
76%
76%
76%
Percentage of park
visitors satisfied with the
overall quality of their
visit
96%
90%
96%
96%
96%
96%
79,013
92,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
82,000
N/A
New
measure
3 per
annum
3 per
annum
3 per
annum
1 per
annum
Number of volunteer
hours worked in regional
parks each year
Number of formalised
arrangements with Maori
that provide for the
management of specific
cultural sites within
regional parks
Attachment A
Provide, protect,
conserve and enhance
the natural and cultural
features in regional
parks
Actual
2013/14
Performance measure
Item 24
Level of service
statement
Page 355
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
CCO measures and targets

Water Supply & Wastewater Theme
Water Supply
Provide uninterrupted
access to safe, clean
and drinkable water
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
The extent to which the

local authority's drinking
water supply complies
with part 4 of the
drinking-water standards
(bacteria compliance
criteria)
100.0%
New
Measure
100%
100%
100%
2018/1924/25
100%
The extent to which the

local authority's drinking
water supply complies
with part 5 of the
drinking-water standards
(protozoal compliance
criteria)
100.0%
New
Measure
100%
100%
100%
100%
Median response time

for attendance for urgent
call-outs: from the time
that the local authority
receives notification to
the time that service
personnel reach the site.
N/A
New
60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins
Measure

for resolution of urgent
calls-outs: from the time
that the local authority
personnel confirm
resolution of the fault or
interruption
N/A
New
5 hours 5 hours 5 hours
Measure

for attendance for nonurgent call-outs: from the
time that the local
authority receives
reach the site
N/A
New
Measure
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2 days
2 days
2 days
5 hours
2 days
Page 357
Attachment B
Level of service
statement
Level of service
statement
Attachment B
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

for resolution of nonurgent call-outs: from the
time that the local
authority receives
confirm resolution of the
fault or interruption
N/A
New
Measure
5 days
5 days
5 days
2018/1924/25
5 days
The total number of

complaints received by
the local authority about
any of the following:
a) drinking water clarity
b) drinking water taste
c) drinking water
pressure or flow
d) continuity of supply
e) the local authority's
response to any of these
issues
expressed per 1000
connections to the local
authority's networked
reticulation system
N/A
New
Measure
10
10
10
10
The percentage of real

water loss from the local
authority's networked
reticulation system
13.9%
New
Measure
13%
13%
13%
13%
The average
consumption of drinking
water per day per
resident within the
territorial authority
district
270
New
Measure
272 +/2.5%
270 +/2.5%
268 +/2.5%
253 +/2.5%
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Wastewater
Level of service
statement
Provide reliable
wastewater services and
manage discharges to
maintain or improve the
health of the
environment
Performance measure
The number of dry
weather overflows from
the territorial authority's
sewerage system,
expressed per 1000
sewerage connections to
that sewerage system
Actual
2013/14
N/A

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
New
Measure
10
10
10
2018/1924/25
10
Page 358
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
a) 2
b) 2
c) 2
d) 0
a) 2
b) 2
c) 2
d) 0
a) 2
b) 2
c) 2
d) 0
2018/1924/25
a) 2
b) 2
c) 2
d) 0
Compliance with the

territorial authority's
resource consents for
discharge from its
sewerage system
measured by the number
of:
a) abatement notices
b) infringement notices
c) enforcement orders
d) convictions
received by the territorial
authority in relation to
those resource consents
a) 0
b) 0
c) 0
d) 0
New
Measure
Attendance at sewerage
overflows resulting from
blockages or other
faults: median response
time for attendance from the time that the
personnel reach the site
N/A
New
60 mins 60 mins 60 mins 60 mins
Measure
Attendance at sewerage
overflows resulting from
blockages or other
faults: median response
time for resolution - from
the time that the
personnel confirm
resolution of the
blockage or other fault
N/A
New
5 hours 5 hours 5 hours
Measure
5 hours
Page 359
Item 24
Performance measure
Attachment B
Level of service
statement
Attachment B
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
The total number of
complaints received by
the territorial authority
about any of the
following:
a) sewerage odour
b) sewerage system
faults
c) sewerage system
blockages
d) the territorial
authority's response to
issues with its sewerage
system
expressed per 1000
connections to the
territorial authority's
sewerage system
Actual
2013/14
N/A

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
New
Measure
50
50
50
2018/1924/25
50
Economic & Cultural Lifestyle Theme

Economic growth and visitor economy
Level of service
statement
Promote and develop
Auckland as a national
and international visitor
and business destination,
including through the
attraction, facilitation,
funding and delivery of
major events
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
4million
2018/1924/25
New
measure
90%
90%
90%
$86m
$49m
$55m to
$75m
over this
time
period
$47m
85%
85%
85%
85%
2014/15
2015/16
New
measure
3million
3.4million 3.8million
90%
90%
90%
RORI from major

events invested in
$47m
$49m
% customers satisfied
with delivered major
events
85%
85%
Total visits to
www.aucklandnz.com
Percentage of
Customers satisfied with
visitor information
centres and services
26
2016/17
2017/18
26
Note 1: For the purposes of this measure major events refer to all events in ATEEDs event portfolio i.e.
events that ATEED has invested in. RORI is the sum of money that accrues in Auckland from an event, less
the amount that originates within Auckland.
Page 360
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Deliver information,
advice, programmes and
initiatives to attract and
develop investment,
businesses and a skilled
workforce
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Percentage of
stakeholders satisfied
with provision of
business advice, startup, training and
mentoring programmes
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Number of businesses
that have been through
an ATEED programme
or benefitted from an
ATEED intervention
(total businesses and
Maori businesses)
New
measure
Total 1500
including
Maori
business
es - 100
Total 1500
including
Maori
business
es - 100
Total 1500
including
Maori
business
es - 100
Total 1500
including
Maori
business
es - 100
New
measure
Facilitation of the
establishment, or
significant expansion, of
multinational and local
companies in target
sectors
New
measure
New
measure
Number of live
signatories to the Youth
Traction Hub Employers
27
Pledge
New
measure
50
50
50
50
New
measure
2018/1924/25
85%
Regional Facilities
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/1
6
779
2016/1
7
775
We bring people together Number of Commercial

and help provide identity Event Days at
28
through memorable
Stadiums
stadium events
Number of Community
Event Days at
29
Stadiums
519
New
measure
961
New
measure
960
Visitor Satisfaction with

experience at Auckland
Stadiums
88%
New
measure
88%
785
2018/1924/25
785
970
980
990
88%
88%
88%
2017/18
27
The Mayors Youth Employment Traction Plan includes a new office to coordinate youth employment initiatives across
the region, a pledge to boost numbers in Auckland Councils graduate and cadet programmes by more than 50 per cent,
and regular summits to bring together young people, business leaders and youth organisations.
28
Any event with public attendance constitutes at least one event day. A commercial event day is any ticketed event
and also includes non-ticketed events organised by profit focussed entities (Private sport franchises, national and
provincial sports organisations, major concerts)
29
Training sessions organised by Auckland Football, Northern Football, NZ Police etc. staged on a sports field.
Includes OFC by virtue of free access rights and school athletics events. Athletics Auckland, NZ Police Training,
University bookings, AKL City Athletics, Ellerslie Athletics, Blood Services and others.
Page 361
Item 24
Performance measure
Attachment B
Level of service
statement
Attachment B
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
We care for our
collections for today and
for future generations to
enjoy and to bring
cultural awareness of Art
and Wildlife to Auckland
and its visitors
Provider of Convention
events and live arts and
entertainment
experiences for
Aucklanders and visitors
to our city Leader of arts
and entertainment in New
Zealand
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Total number of visitors

to the Auckland Zoo and
Auckland Art Gallery
1,140,711
1,140,000

Zoo and the Auckland
Art Gallery
94%
88%
94%
94%
94%
94%
Number of Maori
projects annually
10.00
New
measure
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Number of publically
available Performing
Arts Performances
programmed by
Auckland Live
825
New
measure
820
825
830
835

Live Events
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Performance measure
2015/1 2016/1
2018/192017/18
6
7
24/25
1,175,0 1,165,0 1,185,00 1,190,000
00
00
0
Auckland Development Theme

Waterfront Development
Level of service
statement
Deliver initiatives to
make the waterfront
dynamic, wellconnected, culturallyrich, safe and
sustainable, for the
enjoyment of
Aucklanders and visitors
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
surveyed satisfied with
their experience of the
public spaces on the city
centre waterfront
81%
New
measure
75%
75%
75%
77%
Percentage of
Aucklanders surveyed
who have visited the city
centre waterfront in the
past year
73%
New
measure
73%
73%
73%
74%
Number of significant
Mori initiatives
implemented per annum
37
New
measure
42
47
52
60
9.4%
New
measure
8.8%
8.4%
8.1%
7.5%
Enhance and manage

assets and services in a
way that attracts private Return on Equity on
investment and
commercial assets and
optimises financial
services
returns, for the benefit of
Auckland Council
Page 362
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Performance measure
Provide a safe marina

environment and world
class facilities
surveyed satisfied
overall with marina
facilities and services
Actual
2013/14
73%

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
New
measure
73%
74%
75%
78%
Item 24
Level of service
statement
Property Development
Performance measure
Properties are managed Return on Investment on

30
for Auckland Council and like for like properties
Auckland Transport
achieves optimum net
returns and are
maintained to be fit for
purpose
Properties are managed Occupancy rate for
31
for Auckland Council and tenantable properties
Auckland Transport
achieves optimum net
returns and are
maintained to be fit for
purpose
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2.2%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2018/1924/25
2.3% to
2.6%
New
Measure
New
Measure
95%
95%
95%
95%
30
Like for like relates to the comparison of Net Return on properties as at 30 June of the reporting
period with those same properties as at the same date two years prior.
31
Properties that are available for rent are those that are tenantable. Tenantable properties are
properties managed by ACPL during the year that excludes untenantable properties below.
Un-tenantable or unrentable properties include:
Properties that are undergoing minor maintenance or capital works (where tenants re not
allow on site)
Properties that are under assessment to ensure they meet legal requirements such as
H&S and BWOF compliance etc.
Properties that are pieces/strips of bare land only
Properties not habitable (cannot be leased/used)
Properties that are undergoing the acquisitions or disposals process (e.g. going through
ACPL's rationalisation process ,awaiting demolition/land clearance/sale, properties
transferring to Council, properties that are not in ACPLs books)
Page 363
Attachment B
Level of service
statement
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Governance & Support Theme

Investment
Level of service
statement
Performance
measure
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
26.5%
12.9%
7.6%
7.6%
13.5%
12.9%
2018/1924/25
8%13.5%
Equal or Equal or Equal or Equal or Equal or

exceed
exceed
exceed
exceed
exceed
return on ROE on
ROE on
ROE on
ROE on
reference reference reference reference reference
portfolio
portfolio
portfolio
portfolio
portfolio
Attachment B
Manage council
Return on equity (ROE)
investments to optimise for ACIL group
returns
Rolling 10 year return
for diversified financial
32
assets portfolio
Actual
2013/14
32
Weighted average of various indices relevant to each asset class included in the portfolio.
Page 364
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Transport Theme
Roads and Footpaths
Note: Table below will be subject to change following further Auckland Transport Board consideration.
Performance
measure
Provide an effective,
efficient and safe road,
cycling and walking
network
Annual number of
morning peak (7am9am) car trips avoided 12,800
through travel planning
initiatives
16,700
17,500
18,400
20,240
22,264
Number of walking
trips into the city centre
5,400
in the morning peak
(on one given day)
5,500
5,600
5,700
5,800
6,000
Annual number of
cycling trips in
designated areas in
Auckland:
- During Morning peak
- All day
129,300
(morning
peak)
871,000
(all day)
156,400
(morning
142,200
(AM peak) peak)
958,000
1,054,000
(all day)
(all day)
172,000
(morning
peak)
1,159,400
(all day)
173,720
(morning
peak)
1,275,340
(all day)
191,092
(morning
peak)
1,402,874
(all day)
Arterial road network

productivity
(Percentage of road
corridor productivity
maintained or
improving on key
33
arterial routes)
51% of the
53% of
ideal
the ideal
achieved
achieved
55% of
the ideal
achieved
55% of
the ideal
achieved
55% of
the ideal
achieved
2014/15
2015/16
54% of
the ideal
achieved
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
33
Airport to CBD (via Manukau Rd)

St Lukes to St Johns (via Balmoral/Greenlane West/Greenlane East/Remuera Rd)
Albany to Birkenhead (via Glenfield Rd)
Henderson to CBD (via Great North Rd)
SH1 to Ti Rakau Dr (via Te Irirangi Dr)
SH20 to Portage Rd (via Tiverton/Wolverton Rd)
Page 365
Attachment B
Actual
2013/14
Level of service
statement
Level of service
statement
Performance
measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
Maintain
travel
times for
85th
percentile
on all
nominated
freight
routes
Maintain
baseline
travel
times for
the 85th
percentile
Maintain
baseline
travel
times for
the 85th
percentile
Maintain
baseline
travel
times for
the 85th
percentile
Maintain
baseline
travel
times for
the 85th
percentile
Fewer
than 340
(2.66%
reduction
from
previous
year)
fewer
than 407
fewer
than 396
fewer
than 385
fewer
than 318
Percentage of
residents satisfied with
71%
the quality of roads in
the Auckland region
70%
70-75%
Not less
than 75%
Not less
than 75%
Not less
than 75%
Percentage of
63%
the quality of footpaths
in the Auckland region
65%
65-75%
Not less
than 75%
Not less
than 75%
Not less
than 75%
Percentage of
the surface of all
68%
sealed roads in the
Auckland region
New
Measure
70%
73%
Not less
than 75%
Not less
than 75%
Percentage of
63%
overall road safety in
the Auckland region
New
Measure
65%
66%
67%
74%
Road maintenance
standards (ride quality)
as measured by
Rural 95
smooth travel
Urban 85
exposure (STE) for all
urban and rural roads
New
Measure
Rural 93
Urban 83
Rural 92
Urban 82
Rural 91
Urban 81
Rural 87
Urban 77
Travel times along key

strategic freight routes
during the inter-peak
(9am-4pm)
The change from the

previous financial year
in the number of
deaths and serious
injury crashes on the
local road network,
expressed as a
number.
Attachment B
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
85% of
trips along
following
routes
travelled in
time
34
specified:
429
34
Neilson St (SH20 to SH1) 16mins

Neilson St (SH1 to SH20) 12 mins
SEART (Sylvia Park to East Tamaki) 11 mins
SEART (East Tamaki to Sylvia Park) 12 mins
Wairau Rd (SH1 to SH18) 8 mins
Wairau Rd (SH18 to SH1) 8 mins
Harris Rd (East Tamaki to SH1) 10 mins
Harris Rd (SH1 to East Tamaki) 11 mins
Page 366
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Actual
2013/14
Percentage of the
sealed local road
network that is
resurfaced
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2018/1924/25
2017/18
10%
New
Measure
10%
11%
11%
12%
Percentage of
footpaths in acceptable
99%
condition (as defined in
ATs AMP)
New
Measure
99%
99%
99%
98%
Percentage of
customer service
requests relating to
roads and footpaths
which receive a
85%
response within the
time frame specified in
Auckland Councils
Long-term Plan.
New
Measure
85%
85%
85%
85%
Public Transport & Travel Demand Management

Level of service
statement
Performance
measure
Provide an
Annual total
effective, efficient public transport
and safe PT
boardings
network that
delivers an
improved
customer
experience
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
72,396,155
73,686,000 79,905,502 82,381,688 84,266,625 103,846,675
Annual rail
boardings
11,435,085
12,100,000 14,824,493 15,887,008 16,999,099 22,419,978
Annual Rapid
Transit Network
busway
boardings
2,426,745
2,511,000
2,850,054
3,205,950
3,365,549
4,056,887
Annual ferry
boardings
5,109,947
5,380,000
5,580,000
5,780,000
5,980,000
7,591,312
Item 24
Performance
measure
Attachment B
Level of service
statement
Page 367
Attachment B
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance
measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
Rail punctuality
(proportion of
scheduled rail
services that
arrived at their
final destination
within five
minutes late of
the scheduled
time)
87.8%
New
measure
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
Range 90%
to 95%
Bus punctuality
(proportion of
scheduled bus
services that
departed their
origin within one
minute early and
five minutes late
of the scheduled
time)
84.2%
New
measure
92.0%
93.0%
94.0%
95.0%
Ferry punctuality
(proportion of
scheduled ferry
services that
were not
cancelled and
that departed
their origin within
one minute early
and five minutes
late of the
scheduled time)
99.7%
New
measure
95%
95%
95%
95%
PT subsidy per
passenger
kilometre
$0.28
$0.29
$0.32
$0.32
$0.32
$0.30
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
83%
84%
85%
85%
Public and
customer safety
and security
incidents across
0.29
PT network per
million passenger
boardings
Percentage of PT
passengers
81.4%
satisfied with their
PT service
0.9
83%
Page 368
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2018/1924/25
2017/18
Percentage of PT
passengers
76.1%
train service
New
measure
80%
83%
85%
85%
Percentage of PT
passengers
81.6%
bus service
New
measure
82%
83%
85%
85%
Percentage of PT
passengers
90.1%
ferry service
New
measure
90%
90%
90%
90%
Parking & Enforcement

Level of service
statement
Ensure optimal use of
parking resources
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/1924/25
Off-street occupancy
rates in city centre (peak 88%
4-hour period)
Within
80% 80-90%
90%
range
80% 90%
80% 90%
80% 90%
On-street occupancy
rates in specified city
73%
centre precincts (peak 4hour period)
Within
70% 70-90%
90%
range
70% 90%
70% 90%
70% 90%
Page 369
Item 24
Performance
measure
Attachment B
Level of service
statement
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Local Board measures and targets

Albert-Eden LB
Facilitate large
transformation projects
and Implement strategies
for enhancing the city
centre
Develop local business

precincts and town
centres as great places
to do business
Provide leadership &

support to protect and
conserve the regions
natural environment,
historic heritage and
Provide safe, accessible,
welcoming library
facilities that support the
delivery of quality
learning programmes
and services relevant to
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
transformation and city
centre masterplan
projects delivered on
time and within budget
Percentage of city
contributing to Mori
outcomes
Percentage of Business
Associations meeting
their Business
Improvement District
(BID) Partnership
Programme obligations
Proportion of local
programmes that deliver
intended environmental
actions and/or outcomes
Use of libraries as digital

community hubs:
Number of internet
sessions per capita (PC
& WiFi)
Number of visits to library
facilities per capita
of library service delivery
satisfied with the library
environment
Percentage of
funding/grant applicants
satisfied with information,
assistance and advice
provided
Percentage of
participants satisfied with
council delivered local
arts activities.
Percentage of
connected to their
neighbourhood and local
community
Percentage of attendees
satisfied with council
delivered and funded
local events
Actual
2013/14
Annual / Long Term Plan targets

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
1.9
Not
available
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Not
available
90%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
88%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
51%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Not
available
Not
available
80%
85%
85%
85%
Not
available
Not
available
70%
72%
74%
76%78%
89%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Page 371
Attachment C
Level of service
statement
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Provide safe, reliable and

accessible social
infrastructure for
Aucklanders that
contributes to
placemaking and thriving
communities
Actual
2013/14
Percentage of
Day: 84%
Night:
their local town centre is
35%
safe
Facility Utilisation utilisation at peak times
Peak:
and off-peak times for
36%
council managed
Off peak:
community centres and
19%
venues for hire
Percentage of
community facilities
Not
bookings used for health
available
and well-being related
activity
Number of visitors to
439,435
venues for hire
Provide a range of
recreational opportunities satisfied with the
catering for community
provision (quality,
TBD
needs on local parks,
location and distribution)
reserves and beaches
of local parks and
reserves
who visited a local park
92%
or reserve in last 12
months
Provide sports fields that Percentage of residents
are fit for purpose and
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
TBD
needs.
of sports fields
Provide programmes and Customers Net Promoter
facilities that ensure
Score for Pool and
TBD
more Aucklanders are
Leisure Centres as a
more active more often
percentage

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Day: 85% Day: 85% Day: 86% Day: 87%

Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
55%
37%
39%
40%
2018/25
Day:
89%
Night:
42%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
37%
37%
37%
39%
available Off peak: Off peak: Off peak: Off peak:
19%
19%
20%
21%
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
20%30%
Not
available
448,095
452,488
456,925
461,405
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
91%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 372
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
4.2
Not
available
9.1
Not
available
88%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
88%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
47%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
applicabl applicabl applicabl applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
81%connected to their
75%
77%
79%
available available
83%
community
77%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Provide safe, reliable and Percentage of
Day:
Day: 93% Day: 85% Day: 93% Day: 93% Day: 93%
accessible social
93%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
41%
55%
43%
45%
46%
Aucklanders that
safe
49%
Page 373
Attachment C
Devonport-Takapuna LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
contributes to
Facility Utilisation placemaking and thriving utilisation at peak times
Peak: 8%
communities
Off peak:
council managed
7%
venues for hire
Percentage of
Not
available
activity
121,771
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
TBD
of local parks and
reserves
95%
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
TBD
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
TBD
percentage

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Peak: 8% Peak: 8% Peak: 8% Peak: 9%

Not
Off peak: Off peak: Off peak: Off peak:
available
7%
7%
7%
8%
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
20%30%
Not
available
124,170
125,388
126,617
127,859
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 374
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
1.0
Not
available
5.3
Not
available
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
91%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
30%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
83%
85%
85%
85%
available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
72%
74%
76%
available available
community
84%
85\%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
28%
55%
30%
32%
33%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
78%80%
85%
Day:
82%
Night:
35%
Page 375
Attachment C
Franklin LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
13%
Off peak:
8%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
14%
14%
14%
15%
8%
8%
8%
9%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
300,088
Not
available
306,002
309,002
312,032
315,091
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
87%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 376
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
Not
available
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.6
Not
available
10
Not
available
89%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
41%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
82%
84%
available available
88%
community
87%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Day:
accessible social
92%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
76%
77%
76%
77%
77%
Aucklanders that
safe
79%
Page 377
Attachment C
Great Barrier LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
contributes to
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
communities
Not
appplicab
appplicab appplicab appplicab appplicab
council managed
available
le
le
le
le
le
venues for hire
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
bookings used for health applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
activity
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
venues for hire
e
e
e
e
e
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
of local parks and
reserves
78%
91%
90%
90%
90%
90%
months
satisfied with the
Not
cater for community
provision (quality,
TBD
70%
70%
70%
70%
available
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
Not
TBD
15%
15%
15%
15%
available
percentage
Page 378
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.7
Not
available
Not
available
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
89%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
87%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
43%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
77%
79%
81%
available available
85%
community
81%
95%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Day:
accessible social
84%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
20%
55%
22%
24%
26%
Aucklanders that
safe
30%
Page 379
Attachment C
Henderson-Massey LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
Actual
2013/14
contributes to
Peak: 3%
communities
Off peak:
council managed
11%
venues for hire
Percentage of
Not
available
activity
115,471
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
TBD
of local parks and
reserves
83%
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
TBD
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
TBD
percentage

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
31%
31%
31%
33%
11%
11%
11%
13%
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
20%30%
Not
available
144,734
146,153
147,586
149,033
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
80%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 380
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
1.7
Not
available
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
9.3
Not
available
94%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
93%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
57%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
85%
85%
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
77%
79%
81%
available available
community
83%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
42%
55%
43%
44%
45%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
83%85%
85%
Day:
95%
Night:
47%
Page 381
Attachment C
Hibiscus and Bays LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
26%
Off peak:
24%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
26%
27%
27%
28%
25%
25%
25%
27%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
57,598
Not
available
58,733
59,309
59,890
60,478
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
91%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 382
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.5
Not
available
Not
available
91%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
89%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
54%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
78%
80%
82%
available available
86%
community
86%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Day:
accessible social
87%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
42%
55%
43%
44%
45%
Aucklanders that
safe
47%
Page 383
Attachment C
Howick LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
32%
Off peak:
18%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
33%
33%
34%
35%
18%
18%
19%
20%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
130,076
Not
available
132,639
133,940
135,253
136,579
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
91%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 384
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.6
Not
available
8.3
Not
available
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
93%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
94%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
51%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
85%
85%
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
75%
77%
79%
available available
community
71%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
33%
55%
35%
37%
39%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
81%83%
85%
Day:
89%
Night:
42%
Page 385
Attachment C
Kaipatiki LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
10%
Off peak:
3%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
11%
11%
11%
12%
3%
3%
3%
4%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
119,657
Not
available
122,015
123,211
124,419
125,639
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
92%
96%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 386
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
4.5
Not
available
9.3
Not
available
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
89%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
84%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
43%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
82%
85%
85%
85%
available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
77%
79%
81%
available available
community
84%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
20%
55%
22%
24%
25%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
83%85%
85%
Day:
77%
Night:
27%
Page 387
Attachment C
Mangere-Otahuhu LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
37%
Off peak:
21%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
37%
38%
38%
39%
21%
22%
22%
23%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
377,000
Not
available
384,429
388,199
392,005
395,848
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
90%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 388
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.0
Not
available
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
7.2
Not
available
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
88%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
87%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
43%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
90%
90%
90%
90%
available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
75%
77%
79%
available available
community
71%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
11%
55%
13%
15%
17%
Aucklanders that
safe
90%
82%84%
85%
Day:
61%
Night:
19%
Page 389
Attachment C
Manurewa LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
32%
Off peak:
16%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
32%
33%
33%
34%
17%
17%
17%
18%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
141,373
Not
available
144,159
145,572
147,000
148,441
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
90%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 390
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
3.1
Not
available
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
8.2
Not
available
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
93%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
90%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
56%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
85%
85%
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
73%
75%
77%
available available
community
89%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
21%
55%
23%
25%
27%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
79%81%
85%
Day:
79%
Night:
29%
Page 391
Attachment C
Maungakiekie-Tamaki LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
27%
Off peak:
15%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
27%
27%
28%
29%
16%
16%
16%
17%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
326,250
Not
available
332,679
335,941
339,235
342,561
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
95%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 392
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
0.9
Not
available
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
6.8
Not
available
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
96%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
91%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
69%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
N/A
N/A
N/A
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
75%
77%
79%
available available
community
71%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
38%
55%
39%
40%
41%
Aucklanders that
safe
N/A
81%83%
85%
Day:
88%
Night:
43%
Page 393
Attachment C
Orakei LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
29%
Off peak:
19%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
30%
30%
30%
31%
19%
19%
19%
20%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
378,275
Not
available
385,729
389,511
393,330
397,187
TBD
85%
75%
75%
75%
75%
93%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 394
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
5.0
Not
available
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
11.5
Not
available
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
85%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
82%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
50%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
90%
90%
90%
90%
available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
75%
77%
79%
available available
community
77%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
18%
55%
19%
20%
21%
Aucklanders that
safe
90%
81%83%
85%
Day:
83%
Night:
24%
Page 395
Attachment C
Otara-Papatoetoe LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
20%
Off peak:
13%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
21%
21%
21%
22%
14%
14%
14%
15%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
207,604
Not
available
211,695
213,771
215,867
217,983
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
85%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 396
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
1.2
Not
available
5.7
Not
available
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
93%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
90%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
59%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
90%
90%
90%
90%
available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
73%
75%
77%
available available
community
75%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
13%
55%
15%
17%
19%
Aucklanders that
safe
90%
79%81%
85%
Day:
66%
Night:
23%
Page 397
Attachment C
Papakura LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
15%
Off peak:
11%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
15%
15%
15%
17%
11%
11%
12%
13%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
97,796
Not
available
99,723
100,701
101,688
102,685
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
87%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 398
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
1.7
Not
available
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
5.2
Not
available
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
87%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
56%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
71%
73%
75%
available available
79%
community
77%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Day:
accessible social
87%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
34%
55%
35%
36%
37%
Aucklanders that
safe
39%
Page 399
Attachment C
Puketapapa LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
35%
Off peak:
24%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
36%
36%
37%
38%
24%
25%
25%
26%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
317,779
Not
available
324,041
327,218
330,427
333,667
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
95%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 400
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.1
Not
available
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
Not
available
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
94%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
93%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
56%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
82%
84%
available available
88%
community
91%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Day:
accessible social
94%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
50%
55%
51%
52%
53%
Aucklanders that
safe
55%
Page 401
Attachment C
Rodney LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
15%
Off peak:
8%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
15%
15%
15%
17%
8%
8%
8%
9%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
30,536
Not
available
31,138
31,443
31,751
32,063
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
91%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 402
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
100%
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
0.8
Not
available
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Not
available
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
96%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
94%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
35%
45%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
85%
85%
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
75%
77%
79%
available available
community
93%
90%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
46%
60%
47%
48%
49%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
81%83%
85%
Day:
91%
Night:
51%
Page 403
Attachment C
Upper Harbour LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
Not
available
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
20%30%
41,728
Not
available
42,550
42,968
43,389
43,814
TBD
76%
75%
75%
75%
75%
93%
98%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 404
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.8
Not
available
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
11
Not
available
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
89%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
40%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
52%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
applicabl
available
e
e
e
e
e
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
82%
84%
available available
88%
community
82%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
Day:
accessible social
95%
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
Night:
82%
55%
82%
82%
83%
Aucklanders that
safe
84%
Page 405
Attachment C
Waiheke LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
13%
Off peak:
8%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
13%
14%
14%
15%
8%
8%
8%
9%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
27,195
Not
available
27,731
28,003
28,277
28,555
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
95%
85%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 406
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
1.9
Not
available
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6.1
Not
available
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
28%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
85%
85%
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
74%
76%
78%
available available
community
92%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
28%
55%
30%
32%
34%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
80%82%
85%
Day:
86%
Night:
37%
Page 407
Attachment C
Waitakere Ranges LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
30%
Off peak:
18%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
31%
31%
32%
33%
19%
19%
19%
20%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
62,189
Not
available
120,498
121,679
122,872
124,077
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
91%
80%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
Page 408
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
10.0
Not
available
19
Not
available
14
14
14
14
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
90%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
52%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
89%
90%
90%
90%
available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
74%
76%
78%
available available
community
84%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
34%
55%
35%
36%
37%
Aucklanders that
safe
90%
80%82%
85%
Day:
90%
Night:
39%
Page 409
Attachment C
Waitemata LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:25
%
Off peak:
10%
Peak:25 Peak:26 Peak:26 Peak:27

Not
%
%
%
%
10%
10%
11%
12%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
532,050
Not
available
542,535
547,854
553,226
558,650
TBD
81%
75%
75%
75%
75%
95%
93%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 410
Level of service
statement
Facilitate large
centre

precincts and town
to do business

welcoming library
delivery of quality
learning programmes
local communities.

permitting
safety, connect
communities
Performance measure
Percentage of
centre masterplan
Percentage of city
outcomes
their Business
(BID) Partnership
Proportion of local

community hubs:
Number of internet
& WiFi)
environment
Percentage of
provided
Actual
2013/14

2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Not
available
75%
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
Not
applicabl
e
TBD
Not
available
80%
85%
90%
90%
2.9
Not
available
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
9.4
Not
available
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
92%
Not
available
85%
85%
85%
85%
36%
75%
75%
76%
78%
80%82%
Percentage of
Not
Not
80%
85%
85%
available available
arts activities.
Percentage of
Not
Not
connected to their
70%
72%
74%
available available
community
71%
85%
85%
85%
85%
local events
accessible social
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
Night:
infrastructure for
24%
55%
26%
28%
29%
Aucklanders that
safe
85%
76%78%
85%
Day:
82%
Night:
31%
Page 411
Attachment C
Whau LB
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment C
Item 24
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Level of service
statement
Performance measure
contributes to
communities
council managed
venues for hire
Percentage of
activity
venues for hire
Provide a range of
provision (quality,
of local parks and
reserves
months
satisfied with the
cater for community
provision (quality,
needs.
of sports fields
Score for Pool and
percentage
Actual
2013/14
2014/15
Peak:
26%
Off peak:
14%
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Peak:
Not
27%
27%
27%
28%
15%
15%
15%
16%
Not
available
Not
20%-30% 20%-30% 20%-30%
available
231,619
Not
available
248,162
250,596
253,053
255,534
TBD
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
92%
80%
90%
90%
90%
90%
TBD
Not
available
70%
70%
70%
70%
TBD
Not
available
15%
15%
15%
15%
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/25
20%30%
Page 412
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Item 25

File No.: CP2014/24838
Purpose
1. To seek approval for the 2015/2016 Letters of Expectation (LoEs) for the substantive Council
Controlled Organisations (CCOs).
Executive summary
2. The annual LoEs are an important accountability document that informs the CCOs of councils
expectations.
3. The LoEs provide direction on:
a)
issues of importance for council to help inform refinement of respective CCOs

behaviours, operations and service delivery
b)
the development of the CCOs Statement of Intent (SOI) for 2015-2018.
4. Following changes to the CCO Accountability Framework approved by the CCO Governance
and Monitoring Committee, the LoEs are now being approved by the Budget Committee. This
is to align discussions and decisions on the Long-term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan with
priorities outlined in the LoE.
5. At the 29 October 2014 Budget Committee/CCO workshop initial feedback was received on
the LoEs. Changes have been made to the attached LoEs to reflect some of the feedback.
Recommendation/s
a)
approve the Letters of Expectation for Auckland Council Investments Limited,

Auckland Council Property Limited, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic
Development, Auckland Transport, Regional Facilities Auckland Limited, Watercare
Services Limited and Waterfront Auckland
b)
authorise the Deputy Mayor to approve the final 2015/2016 Letters of Expectation for
the substantive Council Controlled Organisations, incorporating:
i)
changes agreed by this committee
ii)
changes for final decisions agreed by this committee relating to CCOs on the
draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025
iii)
editorial changes.
Comments
6. The LoEs are an important document that commences the annual accountability process for
the substantive CCOs.
7. The purpose of the LoEs is to outline the direction on:
a)
issues of importance for council to help inform refinement of respective CCO

behaviours, operations and service delivery
b)
the development of the CCOs SOI for 2015-2018.
8. Following a review on the CCO Accountability Framework, it was agreed by the CCO
Governance and Monitoring Committee that the LoEs should be agreed by the Budget
Page 413
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Committee. The reason for the change is to improve the alignment of discussions and
decisions made as part of the LTP or Annual Plan with the direction and priorities set in the
LoE.
9. Significant strategic direction has already been provided to the CCOs through the completion
of the various planning documents that have been approved by council (e.g. the Auckland
Plan, Local Board Plans, the Economic Development Strategy, and City Centre Master Plan).
It is not considered necessary to repeat the relevant priorities from these planning documents
in the LoE.
10. At the 29 October 2014 Budget Committee/CCO workshop initial feedback was received on
the LoEs. Changes have been made to the attached LoEs to reflect some of the feedback.
11. Council operational and governance imperatives on the CCOs that are enduring in nature are
included in other governance documents, and therefore not considered necessary to include in
the LoE and SOI.
12. It is recommended that the LoEs be approved. However, councillors may wish to refine the
LoEs to address other areas of interest.
13. It is recommended that the Deputy Mayor may approve the inclusion of any additional CCO
related decisions made by the Budget Committee as part of agreeing the draft Long-term Plan
2015-2025.
Consideration
14. CCO governance and direction is the responsibility of the Governing Body.
15. However, CCOs should consider the Local Board Plans and advocacy items when developing
their SOIs.
16. In addition, in developing the LoEs, advocacy items raised by the Local Boards through LTP
workshops have been considered.

17. CCO governance documents require the CCOs to take into account of the Independent Maori
Statutory Boards schedule of issues of significance and statutory Treaty of Waitangi
provisions, and where appropriate engage with the board on these matters.
18. For the 2015/2016 LoE, it specifically requests that the CCOs identify initiatives as part of
developing their work plans that contribute to Mori well-being. This is to support councils
priorities of lifting Mori social and economic well-being and promoting Mori identity as
Aucklands point of difference in the world.
Implementation
19. It is the responsibility of the CCOs and relevant council subject matter experts to ensure that
the CCOs have appropriate engagement in, and delivery of council policies, plans and
strategies.
Attachments
No.
Title
ACIL - Letter of Expectation
417
ACPL - Letter of Expectation
419
ATEED - Letter of Expectation
421
Auckland Transport - Letter of Expectation
423
RFA - Letter of Expectation
427
Page
Page 414
Watercare - Letter of Expectation
429
Waterfront - Letter of Expectation
431
Signatories
Author
Robert Irvine - Financial Planning Manager CCOs
Authorisers

Kevin Ramsay Chief Financial Officer
Page 415
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Attachment A
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 417
Attachment A
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 418
Attachment B
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 419
Attachment B
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 420
Attachment C
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 421
Attachment C
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 422
Attachment D
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 423
Attachment D
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 424
Attachment D
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 425
Attachment E
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 427
Attachment E
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 428
Attachment F
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 429
Attachment F
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 430
Attachment G
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 431
Attachment G
Item 25
Budget Committee
05 November 2014
Page 432

Auckland Council Budget Committee 5 Nov 2014

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Auckland Council Budget Committee 5 Nov 2014

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

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

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Mayor Len Brown, JP

All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation only

Approval of a submission to an external body

Power to establish subcommittees.

Power to establish panels for the purpose of hearing submissions.

Local Board Input

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Decision-making allocation review

Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local Board Views

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Estimated cost of co-governance entities

Long term Plan 2015-2025-Priority proposals for Mori

City Centre Targeted Rate

Increasing Business Improvement District (BID) rates to recover BID

Harmonisation and increases to social housing rents

Harmonisation of fees and charges for street trading, cemeteries and

Transport programmes and funding options

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Budget update

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Mayoral Proposal on Rating Policy

Solid Waste: Inorganic Collection Service methodology and funding:

Performance measures and targets

CCO Letters of Expectation

Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Local Board Input

The local authority by resolution so decides; and

The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to

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

That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

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

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Following decisions made today:

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

whether council supports consulting on a proposal to fix Aucklands transport issues

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Agreeing a draft budget to support consultation

Table One: Finalising the LTP following decisions made today

Mori impact statement

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Reports on agenda for 5 and 6 November

LTP 2015-2025 overview - direction setting to today

Political process overview

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 - Overview

Decision-making allocation review

approve the draft allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities

the governing body should focus on region-wide issues

Decision-making allocation review

Current allocation table

any major areas where decision-making on an activity needs to be allocated differently to

Community development and environmental protection

S12 (3) Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

Decision-making allocation review

Maori impact statement

Decision-making allocation review

Attachment A - DRAFT decision making allocation

Attachment B - Local board feedback - DMA review (Under Separate

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards