RD and Ops Committee June

8/6/2019 RD and Ops Committee June

1/118

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regional Development and OperationsCommittee will be held on:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Wednesday 11 May 20119.30amReception Lounge Level 2Auckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Regional Development and Operations Committee

OPEN AGENDA

VOLUME ONE

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Cr Ann Hartley, JP

Deputy Chairperson Cr Sandra Coney, QSOCouncillors Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Cameron Brewer

Mr James Brown Mayor Len Brown, JPCr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Alf FilipainaCr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Michael GoudieDeputy Mayor Penny Hulse Mr Wayne KnoxCr Mike Lee Cr Des MorrisonCr Richard Northey, ONZM Cr Calum PenroseCr Noelene Raffills, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSMCr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Wayne WalkerCr Penny Webster Cr George Wood, CNZM

(Quorum 12 members)

Barbara WatsonCommittee Secretary

6 May 2011

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/118


3/118


11 May 2011

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

PROCEDURAL

1 Apologies 5

2 Declarations of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of minutes 5

4 Leave of absence 5

5 Acknowledgements 5

6 Petitions 5

7 Deputations 5

7.1 Deputation - Redevelopment of the Auckland City Art Gallery 5

7.2 Deputation - Sigrid Shayer - Tree Protection Issues in Auckland 6

8 Public Forum 69 Extraordinary Business 6

10 Notices of Motion 7

DECISION MAKING

Reports of Officers

11 Protection of Urban Trees 9

12 Interim Community Funding Model for the 2011/2012 financial year -

Feedback from consultation with Local Boards 29

13 Professional Performing Arts Venue Study 2011 47

14 Auckland Theatre Company proposal for waterfront theatre 61

15 Report and resolution from the Waiheke Local Board - Proposed

Auckland Council Designation for Community Facilities 101

16 Submission on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Financial

Assistance Package) Amendment Bill 119

17 Auckland City DP1999: Isthmus Section - Plan Modification 269 - plan

change - 16 Almorah Place, Epsom to be made operative 143

18 Proposed Plan Change 24 to Operative Franklin District Plan - Pokeno

Structure Plan & New Zoning Provisions 151

19 Proposed Plan Modification 55: Additions to the heritage Schedule of the

Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Central Area Section) 2004 157

20 Operative Franklin District Plan - PC25: Hazards, Stormwater, Esplanade

Reserves & Earthworks Plan Change and Variation 3 to Plan Change 14 171

21 Approval of Plan Change 22 and Variations 2, 3 and 4 - Stormwater

Management - North Shore District Plan 2002 267

22 Mangere Gateway Heritage Area - Parts to be approved and made

operative 309

23 Plan Change 20 (Land Use and Transport Integration) to Operative

Franklin District Plan 365


4/118


11 May 2011

Page 4

24 Consideration of Extraordinary Business Items

INFORMATION

25 Consideration of Extraordinary Information Items


5/118


11 May 2011

Page 5

1 Apologies

At the close of the agend applogies had been received from Councillor Anae Arthur Anaeand Penny Webster.

2 Declaration of interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision makingwhen a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private orother external interest they might have.

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

3 Confirmation of minutes

3.1 Meeting minutes Regional Development and Operations Committee, 12 April2011

3.2 Meeting minutes Confidential Meeting of the Regional Development and

Operations Committee, 12 April 2011

4 Leave of absence

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

5 Acknowledgements

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

6 Petitions

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

7 Deputations

7.1 Deputation - Redevelopment of the Auckland City Art Gallery

Executive Summary

Following a site visit in March to view the redevelopment of the Auckland Art Gallery, MrChris Saines, Director Art Gallery has been invited to speak to the Regional Development& Operations Committee to give a brief on this major redevelopment project.

Recommendation/sa) That Chris Saines, Director Art Gallery be thanked for his presentation.


6/118


11 May 2011

Page 6

7.2 Deputation - Sigrid Shayer - Tree Protection Issues in Auckland

Executive Summary

Ms Sigrid Shayer, Chair of the Tree Council, and on behalf of several other interestedgroups (as listed below), recently prepared a consultation report 'Tree Protection Issues inAuckland' with many recommendations for improving tree protection measures for

Auckland in light of the recent changes to the Resource Management Act.

Senior council officers have prepared a report in response to the groups report (item 11 onthis agenda). The group would appreciate the opportunity to speak to Councillors aboutkey elements of their report and the officers' report, and the urgency that they consider isupon us in the light of the 1 January 2012 change in legislation regarding tree protectionrules.

The group will be represented by Sigrid Shayer of The Tree Council and one other, onbehalf of the New Zealand Arboricultural Association; New Zealand Institute of LandscapeArchitects; Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture; Environmental Defence Society;Landscaping New Zealand; Garden Design Society of New Zealand; Department of

Landscape Architecture - UNITEC; Mike Wilcox, Auckland Urban Forest expert; Civic TrustAuckland; and Waitakere Ranges Protection Society (the group).

Recommendation/s

a) That Sigrid Shayer be thanked for her presentation.

8 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public toaddress the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per

item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

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

9 Extraordinary business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) 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 thepublic,-

(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 subsequentmeeting.

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

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

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


7/118


11 May 2011

Page 7

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

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a timewhen 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 itemexcept to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of he local authority for furtherdiscussion.

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

10 Notices of Motion

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


8/118


11 May 2011

Page 8


9/118

Item1

1


11 May 2011

Protection of Urban Trees Page 9

Protection of Urban TreesFile No.: CP2011/02391

Executive Summary

This report updates the Committee on the Councils responses to amendments to the ResourceManagement Act (the RMA) introduced through the Resource Management (Simplifying andStreamlining) Amendment Act 2009 (the Amendment Act) affecting the protection of urban trees.

It updates the Committee on the current proposed tree plan (scheduling) changes that are takingplace. The objective of the work, which is being carried out across several Council departments, isto ensure that the required plan changes to ensure appropriate tree protection, are completed bythe time that the RMA amendments come into force on 1 January 2012.

In addition, the Council has received a report (The Tree Council Report) from the Tree Council(representing itself and other organisations) about appropriate responses to the Amendment Act2009. The Tree Council report was tabled at the 15 March 2011 meeting of the Regional

Development and Operations Committee (RDO), which resolved -

... d) That the issues raised in the document received from The Tree Council go before theappropriate Forum in May 2011.

The issues and recommendations raised in the Tree Council Report are discussed in summaryform and in more detail in Attachment 1 to this report. The Tree Council report was also sent toLocal Boards by the Tree Council, for their consideration during Local Board Annual PlanHearings. A verbal update on the Environment Court declaration on the interpretation of the RMAamendment may also be available at the meeting. This declaration will be key in identifying therange of regulatory mechanisms that the Council will be able to utilise from January 2012 inoperative district plans, and in the new Unitary Plan for the purposes of retaining Aucklands urban

tree cover.

Recommendation/sa) That the report be received.

b) That new Council plans (including the Auckland Plan, Annual Plan, Long Term Planand Unitary Plan) contain appropriate provisions and policies to recognise andprovide for the importance of urban vegetation.

c) That further work to:- promote the education of landowners and the wider public of the benefits of urban

trees; and

- establish what incentives could be used to encourage landowners to retain treesas natural heritage features

be investigated further by officers and reported back to the appropriate Forum.

BackgroundThe Committee will recall that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining)Amendment Act 2009 (the Amendment Act) introduced a restriction on the protection of trees inurban environments. Section 76(4A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) nowspecifies that:

.... a [district plan] rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removalof any tree or group of trees in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees is(a) specifically identified in the plan; or


10/118

Item11


11 May 2011


(b) located within an area in the district that(i) is a reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977); or(ii) is subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategyprepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977.

Section 76(4B) of the RMA defines urban environment for the purposes of this provision to mean:

....an allotment no greater than 4 000 m2(a) that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system;and(b) on which is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes, or a dwellinghouse.

The Amendment Act directs that from 1 January 2012, any existing district plan rule thatcontravenes this restriction is revoked, although the Council must also instigate plan changes toamend the plans as required to give effect to the amendment.

Trees are integral to the quality and character of urban Auckland, and these changes to the RMAhave the potential to affect how the Council achieves its desire of making Auckland the worldsmost liveable city.

Environment Court Declaration Urban Trees

In response to the amendment, several of the previous Auckland Councils1 sought a declarationfrom the Environment Court as to the validity of some of the rules in the Waitakere and NorthShore District Plans. The Auckland Council has become the successor applicant2 to this matter,which was heard by the Environment Court on the 28 th to the 30th of March 2011 in Auckland, withJudge Jackson presiding. At the time of preparing this agenda item, the decision of the Court wasnot available. However Judge Jackson indicated that he would attempt to issue the decisionbefore Easter, and an update on the decision may be available for the meeting. The EnvironmentCourt declaration will be key in determining how the Council responds to the Amendment Act as itwill help the Council to determine what sort of regulatory protection is still available for urban trees.

Proposed District Plan Changes (Trees)

To date approximately 4300 trees have been nominated for scheduling by the Auckland CouncilLocal Boards and members of the public. These are in addition to the 1376 trees nominated priorto amalgamation. These numbers consist of:

Auckland City Council - 2837 treesWaitakere City Council - 766 treesManukau City Council - 482 treesNorth Shore City Council 30 treesRodney District Council 2 treesFranklin District Council 135 treesPapakura District Council 31 trees

Note that this assessment of the number of trees does not include those that may be part of alarger grouping, such as found in a gully or a pocket of bush. The Environment Court declarationis needed to help clarify to what extent current mechanisms to protect such areas of vegetation(as opposed to individual or small groups of trees) will continue to apply, and therefore to whatdegree inclusion of such areas in schedules is required (to the extent that such scheduling canreplace protection currently afforded these areas). Once the Courts decision has been receivedand analysed, a further assessment of the need and potential for scheduling such areas will beavailable.

1The North Shore City Council, the Waitakere City Council and the Auckland Regional Council

2As provided for in section 35 of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009


11/118

Item1

1


11 May 2011


The former North Shore and Rodney Councils carried out a public nomination process for treenominations prior to the formation of the Auckland Council; consequently the nomination figuresfor these parts of the region are low.

The arborist assessments of the 1376 trees nominated prior to amalgamation are 90% completeand now officers are processing the nominations received at the end of March 2011 to establish

how many arborists (including consultants) will be required to assess these tree nominations.Officers will meet with those Councillors delegated to sign off matters related to these planchanges to advise them what trees are proposed for scheduling and those which will not be addedas a result of the previous nominations. Letters will then be sent out to the tree owners/nominatorsto advise them of the outcome of the arborist assessments.

In addition letters will be sent to the owners of the trees subject to this current round ofnominations to provide an explanation of how a tree(s) on their property was nominated; thepurpose of tree schedules and advise them of the upcoming arborist inspections.

The Auckland Council can assign the equivalent of four full time arborists to undertake these treeassessments. In order to make good progress on these assessments it will be necessary to further

engage seven to nine consultant arborists. These consultants will be spread across the (former)Auckland City Council, Waitakere City Council, Manukau City Council, Franklin District Counciland Papakura District Council.

As a result of the large number of trees that have been nominated, it is anticipated that the treeassessments for these areas will now be completed between the middle of June late July 2011.The tree assessments for the northern region will be completed prior to this. Given these dates,officers consider that the proposed tree plan changes for the (former) Auckland City Council,Waitakere City Council and Manukau City Council will not be ready for notification until at leastAugust September 2011. The proposed tree plan changes associated with the other (former)Councils could be ready for notification prior to this. A decision on whether to stagger thenotification of the proposed tree plan changes because of these timing differences and/or to notify

them concurrently has yet to be made. Officers will be in a better position to determine thepreferred option and the notification timeframes once the arborist resources available have beenconfirmed.

Indicative costings associated with the proposed (tree) plan changes

Officers have undertaken an analysis of the costs associated with preparing the eight proposedtree plan changes up to the point of notification. It is estimated that the work behind the eight planchanges will cost approximately $792,400. This figure incorporates external costs ($374,400)including legal advice, heritage assessments, arborist assessments and internal costs ($418,000)such as arborists, planners, mapping and administration. These figures do not include anassessment of any plan changes that may be required to protect larger groupings of trees, suchas the approximately 1000ha of forest in Titirangi/Laingholm or the bush gullies of the NorthShore.

This estimated cost of taking these eight tree plan changes to the point of issuing decisions islikely to exceed $1 million dollars (an average of $125,000 each). As noted previously in theMarch 2011 report to this Committee, a plan change usually costs between $ 30,000 - $100,000 toprocess depending on the number of submissions received and complexity of the issue. Withthese plan changes, the number of nominations already received, has increased the scale andsize of these plan changes and this is reflected in the anticipated costs.

In summary, officers consider that the preparation of these tree plan changes will continue toplace pressure on Councils current staff resources, particularly within the operative plans,resource consents and compliance teams. Officers from these teams, in particular, will need tocontinue to focus most of their attention for the rest of the year on ensuring that these planchanges are progressed in a timely fashion.


12/118

Item11


11 May 2011


Tree Council Report

The amendment to the RMA has provoked a high level of interest in the community, and inresponse to some of the concerns raised about the implications for urban trees, the Tree Council(on behalf of itself and several other interested parties) has been liaising with Council staff on

identifying alternative mechanisms to the use of blanket tree protection rules. This resulted froman approach to the Mayor by the Tree Council, and subsequent endorsement3 by the Council of acollaborative approach with the Tree Council. The report was tabled at the 15 March 2011 meetingof the RDO Committee.

An analysis of the mechanisms suggested by the Tree Council is attached to this item.

In summary the Tree Council is very concerned about the effect of the Amendment Act on urbantrees, including a potential loss of valued mature trees particularly from growth pressures, areduction in the number of future notable trees, and of tree cover generally, and the effects onindigenous biodiversity.

It has identified that the key areas on which tree protection should focus, particularly in light of theprovisions of the Amendment Act, are:

Integrating the need to maintain amenity and natural characteristics through tree cover withsustainable growth and development of the City.

Increasing the profile of urban forest and tree values. Maintaining/enhancing urban forest/city greening (including accommodating climate

change, food loss). Maintaining/enhancing landscape and social amenity (including trees as landmarks, spatial

features, elements of good urban design, for storm water retention, erosion control and forcomfort eg shade, shelter and screening).

Maintaining/enhancing biodiversity. Maintaining/enhancing heritage protection (natural and cultural).

A range of responses are suggested by the Tree Council, which can generally be categorised as:

Ensuring the Council culture recognises the value of urban trees. Developing education material about the effect of the changes, and on what is good tree

management. Providing incentives and advice to landowners to promote better management of trees on

private land. Improving the development, nature and implementation of district plan provisions applying

to urban trees, including standards for management of trees during development etc.

Improved monitoring processes.

These are discussed below, and in more detail in Attachment 1.

Creating a culture within the Auckland Council that recognises the value of urban trees.

The development of policy responses and organisational arrangements to promote goodoutcomes for urban trees is critical. This needs to be addressed in the development of new policy,including the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan, as well as ensuring all Council and CCO staffunderstand how they can improve outcomes through their own work.

The Auckland Plan discussion document Auckland Unleashed places great emphasis on

liveability and ensuring that Auckland is a desirable, beautiful place to live, work and play. Thedocument also proposes that Auckland become an eco-city. Specific proposals include that a

3At the Planning and Urban Design Forum and Governing Body Meetings held in December 2010


13/118

Item1

1


11 May 2011


green pathways/green network approach is adopted. Urban trees are an important component ofAucklands quality and character, including in relation to landscape, shading, privacy andecological values.

The Auckland Plan can further promote these concepts, with explicit recognition of the role ofurban vegetation. This will enable some emphasis in other Council strategies and plans, such as

the Long Term, Annual and Unitary Plans, and should also be reflected in operational policy,standards and practices. The City Centre Master Plan currently under development will alsoexplicitly address the value of urban trees, for example in determining the character of transportnetworks, and the opportunities for them to contribute to increased amenity and character of theCBD and urban villages.

The Councils response to urban tree management issues needs to reflect policy aspirations, byadopting best practice management responses, and by being integrated across the range offunctions undertaken by or on behalf of the Council and CCOs. This includes management ofurban trees in parks, roads, stream reserves etc.

Developing Education Material

The Tree Council identifies that this is critical, both to explain the implications of the amendmentsto the RMA to the public and professional community, as well as to ensure best practice. It isrecommended that officers commence working on appropriate educational material.

Providing Incentives to Landowners

The Tree Council identifies that these are appropriate both to encourage voluntary schedulingand/or covenanting of urban trees, and to promote good management on the ground. This issupported, although such incentives and support need to be considered in the context of broaderCouncil support to landowners.

District Plan Provisions

The Tree Council Report makes recommendations relating to district plan policies, rules and othermethods such as resource consent conditions and standards associated with development.These are directed at the operative district plans as well as other plans and strategies underdevelopment including the Unitary Plan. Some of these measures are already incorporated tosome extent in existing plans, and generally should also be reflected in the Unitary Plan.

Staff are exploring opportunities for better implementation of existing district plan rules, forexample ensuring resource consent conditions are robust and promote good outcomes.Additionally, opportunities for protecting and enhancing urban trees could be more explicitlyconsidered by the Urban Design Panel when advising on important resource consent applications.

However, the current round of tree plan changes will require high levels of staff input, and it isrecommended that, generally, significant changes to the statutory provisions relating to treesshould be undertaken in the Unitary Plan, rather than the operative district plans. Potentially, theEnvironment Court declaration may identify opportunities to relatively simply address deficienciesin existing rules to ensure continued protection, but this is not known at the time of writing.

Improvements in Monitoring

The Tree Council Report recommends an increased emphasis on monitoring the results of

consent processes to ensure compliance and an increased understanding of the effect ofimplementation of the rules, as well as other monitoring undertaken by Council. The reportidentifies a number of ways monitoring could be improved, and staff are exploring these and otheroptions


14/118

Item11


11 May 2011


Currently, work is underway to identify the best ways to assess the effectiveness andappropriateness of provisions developed for the Unitary Plan, and to understand the effects ofgrowth on the environment. For example, it is currently difficult to aggregate information collectedduring consenting processes, to assess plan effectiveness and the state of the environment, andemphasis needs to be placed on developing processes which allow these sources of information

to be better utilised, including in relation to urban trees.

Additionally, opportunities for understanding what is happening to urban trees need to be exploredthrough other Council monitoring, for example utilising GIS and other technologies to obtain regionwider monitoring information, targeted sampling and other methods.

Such monitoring will allow an assessment of the effect of the Amendment Act and of otherprovisions and processes on Aucklands urban trees.

Next Steps

Once the Environment Court declaration is received, staff will assess the implications for existing

and proposed district plan provisions. This will be reported back at a later meeting. TheDeclaration will also help clarify the extent to which alternative mechanisms (to district plan rules)are required, although many of the measures discussed in this report and attachment areappropriately utilised regardless of the nature of rules available to Council.

Additionally, protection and enhancement of urban trees can be emphasised in Council strategiesand plans, such as the Auckland Plan.

Staff will continue to liaise with the Tree Council and other parties on identifying the full suite ofmeasures to improve management of urban trees. Additionally, opportunities for improving theintegration and effectiveness of Council/CCO responses to this matter should be explored.

Decision Making

This is a progress report outlining the Councils response to a change in legislation. Decisions willneed to be made in the forthcoming RMA hearings and decisions process.

Significance of Decision

The recommendations in this report do not trigger the Councils significance policy.

Consultation

Staff from Environmental Strategy and Policy, Regional and Local Planning, Resource Consentsand Compliance, Research, Investigations and Monitoring, and the Legal Team have beenconsulted in the development of this report. Local Board input has not been sought, but it is notedthat the Tree Council has forwarded their report to Local Boards for their consideration duringAnnual Plan Hearings.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

There are financial and resourcing implications for all of the matters considered in this report.

Matters that will be addressed in the development of the Unitary Plan will be resourced from thatprocess.


15/118

Item1

1


11 May 2011


Progressing the tree schedule plan changes will consume significant financial and staff resources.It is estimated that the eight plan changes will cost approximately $792,400. This figureincorporates external ($374,400) and internal ($418,000) costs. The estimated cost of progressingthe changes to issuing decisions is likely to exceed $1 million dollars. This estimate does notinclude an assessment of any plan changes that may be required to protect larger groupings of

trees. Any Environment Court costs resulting from appeals would also be additional to this. Itshould be noted that while funding to undertake this work can be found from existing budgets thiswill limit the opportunities to fund other large plan changes if the need for them arises in the future.

The provision of education material and incentives (eg grants, rates relief) has clear financialimplications. The draft Annual Plan does provide for these types of tools, and several submissionsseek greater emphasis on urban trees.

Continued staff and consultant resources will be required in the development of the policy,monitoring and operational responses signalled here in this report.

Legal and Legislative ImplicationsThis issue has arisen out of amendments to the RMA which affect how local authorities canmanage urban trees.

Implementation Issues

The Environment Court declaration will affect the implementation of the operative district plans, aswell as the future implementation of the Unitary Plan.

Some of the Tree Council report recommendations on plan provisions relate to the implementation

of both the current district plans, and the Unitary Plan.

Many of the matters discussed here relate to the development and implementation of theAuckland Plan, the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans. Additionally, operational policy andpractices (in relation to eg parks and street trees) are of direct relevance.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Assessment of the 'Tree Protection Issues in Auckland' report 16

Signatories

Authors Jenny Fuller, Team Leader Natural Heritage, Enviromental Strategy and Policy

Michael Wood, Prinicpal Planner Operative Plans, Regional and Local Planning

Authorisers Warren McLennan, Manager Operative Plans

Ludo Campbell-Reid, Manager Environmental Strategy and Policy

Penny Pirrit, Manager Regional and Local Planning

Dr Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer


16/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011


Assessment of the Tree Protection Issues in Auckland Report

/

d

dZ K

>

W

d

/

d W

h

d

^

h

t D W

d

d

DW

dW

> d W h W


17/118

AttachmentA

It

em1

1


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

K

W

:

/

:/

E

K

:

^^d

W Z D

h

W

W

/

:

d

:

d


18/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

d

>

:

/

:

&

/

:

h

K

W

d

W

/

d

d


19/118

AttachmentA

It

em1

1


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

h W

K

d

,

h W

/

^

Z

/

/

'

h

Wd

d

>/D

:

d

d

:

dD

d

K


20/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

/ Zd

>/D

:

d

:

,

/

d hW

>

/

D E^DW

E ^

>' >'

^>'

> ' >'


21/118

AttachmentA

It

em1

1


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

d

/

ZD

/ D

ZD>'

ZD

ZD

d

>d W

dW

/

^ W W

W

W

h

W

>d


22/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

WhW

&

W

hW

d

h W

hW

D

d

d

dhW

Z

d

/

thW

/ ^

d

Z

d

hW

K


23/118

AttachmentA

It

em1

1


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

>

Z

/

^dD


24/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

D

K

ZD

h W

^

d

t W >

d >

W

E

^ ^

W d ^ ^

E

KKEZ

d

h W

Z E W >

^/

W

E^ ^ E


25/118

AttachmentA

It

em1

1


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

^

d

d

, K ^

d

d

W

^

/

d

hWd

hW

'

d

/ ^

^/

Z

>W

^/

h

W

^

dhW

EW^

d

D

d

hW


26/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

W d

Yd ^

d

Z

t

^/d

h W

hW

'& h &

>>

d

/

h W ,

d

W

h

D

d


27/118

AttachmentA

It

em1

1


11 May 2011


/

d

dZ K

Z

^

h W

ZW>t

^

Z E^ W >

^/

^/E

ZD

W

^

^/

^

DW

h

W

/

E


28/118

AttachmentA

It

em11


11 May 2011



29/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011

Interim Community Funding Model for the 2011/2012 financial year - Feedback from consultationwith Local Boards

Page 29

Interim Community Funding Model for the 2011/2012financial year - Feedback from consultation with LocalBoardsFile No.: CP2011/02620

Executive SummaryThe purpose of this report is to provide the Regional Development and Operations Committee witha summary of feedback from local boards regarding the interim community funding model for the2011 / 2012 financial year. In addition, this report proposes a number of recommendations for theCommittees consideration.

Throughout March and April 2011, officers presented the interim community funding model to all21 local boards for their feedback, considerations and recommendations. In addition to formallocal board meetings, officers attended a number of local board workshops and subcommittees toexplain the proposal in detail. These meetings provided the opportunity for local boards to raiseadditional concerns and queries regarding the proposal in a less formal setting.

Officers also presented the interim community funding model to the April 2011 meetings of theSocial and Community Development and Culture, Arts and Events forums for their feedback. Thisprocess was to ensure that all elected representatives were informed of the proposal, and toprovide them with an opportunity to signal their initial points of view.

This report seeks recommendations on the:

allocation of discretionary contestable budgets to all local boards creation of four region-based Creative Communities assessment committees for the

distribution of Creative New Zealand funding management of legacy community loans schemes for the 2011 / 2012 financial year allocation of the budget and decision-making responsibility for local board specific funds allocation of the budget and decision-making responsibility for the former Rodney District

Council Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) allocation of decision-making for the budgets associated with the Environmental Initiatives

and Coastal Enhancement funds allocation of responsibility for the former Franklin District Council Community Partnerships

Loan Funding Scheme to the southern region-based funding committee retention of officer delegated decision-making for particular legacy funding schemes.


30/118

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 30


b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

i) allocate discretionary contestable budgets to all local boards in accordance

with option one controlling for local boards with small population bases forthe 2011 / 2012 financial year.

ii) endorse the creation of four region-based Creative Communities assessmentcommittees for the distribution of Creative New Zealand funding for the 2011 /2012 financial year in accordance with the rules and criteria established byCreative New Zealand for the administration of the Creative Communitiesscheme.

iii) allocate budgets for the 2011 / 2012 financial year to region-based joint fundingcommittees of local boards as follows, noting that local boards aligned to eachcommittee will work together to determine an appropriate way to manage thefunding schemes in the interim:

Joint fundingcommittee

Aligned local boards Aligned legacy fundingschemes (legacy council)

Northern Rodney

Hibiscus and Bays

Upper Harbour

Devonport-Takapuna

Kaipatiki

Heritage Item Assistance Fund(RDC)

Large Grants Fund Community(RDC)

Large Grants Fund Youth (RDC)

Large Grants Fund Recreation(RDC)

Small Grants Fund Youth (RDC)

Community Grants Scheme (RDC) Short-term Response Fund (RDC)

Environmental Education Fund(RDC)

Natural Heritage Fund (RDC)

Community Board Local EventsFund (NSCC)

Events Sponsorship Fund (NSCC)

Strengthening Communities Fund Discretionary Grants (NSCC)

Heritage Fund (North Shore HeritageTrust) (NSCC).

Western Waitakere Ranges

Henderson-Massey

Whau

Accommodation Assistance Fund(WCC)

Community Halls and Marae Fund General (WCC)

Community Halls and Marae CapitalWorks Fund (WCC)

Community Wellbeing Fund Local(WCC)

Community Wellbeing Fund Citywide (WCC)

Fee Waivers Fund (WCC)

Youth Programme Fund (WCC)

Waitakere Fireworks Fund (WCC)


31/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 31

General Events Fund (WCC)

Heritage Fund (WCC).

Central Waitemata

Waiheke

Great Barrier Island

OrakeiAlbert-Eden

Puketepapa

Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Cultural Heritage Fund (ACC)

Community Group AssistanceSupport Fund (ACC)

Community Group Assistance Fund(ACC)

Strategic Relationship Fund (ACC)

Natural Heritage Fund (ACC).

Southern Howick

Mangere-Otahuhu

Otara-Papatoetoe

Manurewa

Papakura

Franklin

Heritage Assistance Fund (MCC)

Citywide Social Investment Fund(MCC)

Community Board Social InvestmentFund (MCC)

Marae Assistance Fund (MCC)

School Holiday Programme Fund

(MCC)

Rates Assistance to CommunityOrganisations Owning Land inManukau City Fund (MCC)

School Swimming Pool Fund (MCC)

Crime Prevention Fund (MCC)

Immediate Response Crime/SafetyFund (MCC)

Event Support Fund (MCC)

Christmas Celebration Fund (MCC)

Local Community Grants (PDC)

Community Partnerships LoanFunding Scheme (FDC).

iv) allow officers to publicly advertise the availability of funding in early June2011.

v) do not make any allocation against the former Auckland City Council andWaitakere City Council community loan schemes for the 2011 / 2012 financialyear to allow for the potential development of a region-wide community lendingapproach.

vi) allocate the budget and decision-making responsibility for the Massey MattersProject Fund to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for the 2011 / 2012financial year.

vii) allocate the budget and decision-making responsibility for the former RodneyDistrict Council Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) Fund to the Hibiscusand Bays and Rodney local boards on the basis of percentage of totalpopulation, noting that the Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney local boards wouldreceive 43.9% and 56.1% respectively of the total budget available.

viii) allocate the budget and decision-making responsibility for the EnvironmentalInitiatives and Coastal Enhancement funds to the Environment andSustainability Forum for the 2011 / 2012 financial year.

ix) allocate the budget and decision-making responsibility for the former FranklinDistrict Council Community Partnerships Loan Funding Scheme to the

southern region-based funding committee in accordance with feedbackreceived from the Franklin Local Board.

x) delegate to tier four (or unit) managers the budgets and authority to make


32/118

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 32

funding allocation decisions for the 2011 / 2012 financial year for the followingfunds:

Arts Alive

Christmas Parades Fund

Disaster Relief to Regions of New Zealand and Pacific Island NationsFund

Financial Assistance for Scheduled Trees Fund

Environmental Education Fund

Community Facility Development Fund - Development ContributionsGrants

Resource Consent Subsidy

Secondary Schools Community Leaders Bursary

Manukau Resource Consent Subsidy.

Background

An interim funding approach is required to ensure community groups and organisations continueto have access to funding for the 2011 / 2012 financial year. There is insufficient time for thedevelopment and implementation of a new regional funding policy prior to the start of the 2011 /2012 financial year in July. In the absence of a new regional funding policy, the proposed interimapproach will:

provide relative consistency and continuity for communities within local board areas allow community groups and organisations to access funding at previous levels ensure continuity of specific funding that is set up to target local identified needs avoids decisions being made without proper consultation and engagement with the public

and key stakeholders.

The interim funding model addresses the provision of contestable community funding schemesthrough:

allocating decision-making responsibilities to local boards when legacy funding schemesdirectly align with new local board boundaries

retaining officer delegation in decision-making where applicable creating four region-based funding bodies to make the majority of allocation decisions dividing discretionary funds across all 21 local boards to support local projects and initiatives creating four region-based Creative Communities assessment committees responsible for

the allocation of funding provided by Creative New Zealand.

The provision of community funding is outlined in volume 3 of Auckland Councils Long-Term Plan.The Long-Term Plan notes that although local boards will have more involvement in thedistribution of community funding over time, this activity should be managed regionally untilrelevant processes are in place4. However, the Long-Term Plan also gives local boards theresponsibility to allocate funding and operational grants to local community organisations5, thusmaking it unclear as to whether interim decision-making on this matter is the purview of localboards or the governing body. Officers suggest that the formation of region-based fundingcommittees (as proposed) is a local board decision, whilst the allocation of budgets to theseentities is governing body activity. Due to the overlap in responsibilities, interim decisionsregarding how community funding is managed are required at both the local board and regionallevel.

4 Auckland Council Long-Term Plan 1 November 2010-30 June 2019; vol.3 p.8.5 Ibid, p.103.


33/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 33

Decision MakingSummary

The section outlines the components of the interim community funding model that requirerecommendations by the Regional Development and Operations Committee. These include:

allocate discretionary contestable budgets to all local boards in accordance with option one controlling for local boards with small population bases for the 2011 / 2012 financial year

endorse the creation of four region-based Creative Communities assessment committees forthe distribution of Creative New Zealand funding for the 2011 / 2012 financial year

forgoing all allocation decisions against the former Auckland City Council and Waitakere CityCouncil community loan schemes until a political decision is made regarding the futureprovision of community loans

allocating the budget and decision-making responsibility for the Massey Matters ProjectFund to the Henderson-Massey Local Board for the 2011 / 2012 financial year

allocating the budget and decision-making responsibility for the former Rodney DistrictCouncil Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) Fund to the Hibiscus and Bays and

Rodney local boards in accordance with the recommendations of the former Rodney DistrictCouncil allocating the decision-making for the budgets associated with the Environmental Initiatives

and Coastal Enhancement funds to the Environment and Sustainability Forum for the 2011 /2012 financial year

allocating responsibility for the former Franklin District Council Community Partnerships LoanFunding Scheme to the southern region-based funding committee

retaining officer delegated decision-making for particular legacy funding schemes, anddelegating this responsibility to tier four (unit) managers.

Local board feedback

Discretionary funding

The interim funding model suggests all local boards be given discretionary funding budgets,regardless of whether former councils provided such budgets to community boards. Approximately$689,000 in discretionary funding has been identified to divide amongst the 21 local boards. It isimportant to note the $689,000 identified as part of the interim community funding model is inaddition to the $1.4 million of discretionary funding allocated in the draft Annual Plan. As a result,there is approximately $2.14 million in discretionary funds available to all local boards for the 2011/ 2012 financial year.

The majority of local boards support option one (outlined below), which proposes the allocation of$15,000 to each of the Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards, with the balance allocated to theremaining 19 local boards based on the percentage of population relative to the rest of theAuckland region.

Most local boards acknowledge this option as a fair and equitable compromise to ensure that theGreat Barrier and Waiheke local boards have larger discretionary funding budgets than if thediscretionary funding pool was divided based on population alone. It was also noted thatendorsement of this option does not significantly affect individual local board discretionary budgets(approximately $1,500 per board). The table below outlines the number of local boards in supportof each option presented:


34/118

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 34

Options Number of local boards in support of this option

Option one controlling for local boards with smallpopulation bases

16

Option two equal division by total number of localboards

1

(Waiheke Local Board)

Option three division based on population 1(Orakei Local Board)

Option four distribution by clustering local boardsinto categories by population size

1

(Manurewa Local Board)

Not stated or did not support any option6 2

(Albert-Eden and Great Barrier local boards)

The Great Barrier Local Board opposed all four options presented, stating that their discretionaryfunding allocation for the 2011 / 2012 financial year should mirror the yearly amount receivedunder the former Auckland City Council ($51,000). The board argued that the proposed cut in

budget would have more significant effects on the Great Barrier community than elsewherearound the region, due to heavy community reliance on council funding and increased levels ofisolation and deprivation on the island relative to the rest of the region.

Based on the balance of feedback received, it is suggested that the Regional Development andCommittee endorse the allocation of contestable discretionary funding in accordance with optionone controlling for local boards with small population bases.

Creative Communities assessment committees

Fourteen local boards support the creation of four region-based Creative Communitiesassessment committees, as proposed for the distribution of funding provided by Creative New

Zealand (CNZ). The remaining seven local boards did not explicitly state a position regarding thecreation of assessment committees, although they queried a number of operational componentsregarding the scheme (i.e. how members will be appointed), including:

whether the two elected representatives on each assessment committee be local boardmembers or ward councillors. Most boards believe local board members should bedelegated this responsibility, whilst several boards feel that political representation onassessment committees should consist of one local board member and one ward councillor

concern regarding the appointment process of the two elected representatives, with severalboards requesting information as to when the appointment process will begin

concern as to how the elected representatives will be chosen to participate on assessmentcommittees, with several local boards suggesting the Mayor as the most appropriate person

to approve the appointments7.It was also suggested that Creative New Zealand consider more than four region-basedassessment committees. It is unlikely CNZ will relax their requirements around elected memberrepresentation or the proposed number of assessment committees, as the possibility of fourregion-based assessment committees has already been negotiated and approved by CNZrepresentatives.

6 Not stated refers to local boards that did not provide any formal feedback to officers at the local board meeting or through theirrelationship managers.7 A report on the appointment process of members (i.e. elected representatives, iwi / hapu and arts councils) to the assessmentcommittees is scheduled for presentation to the Regional Development and Operations Committee and local boards in the comingmonths. The report will recommend that the Mayor and a sub-group of ward councillors approve the appointment of CreativeCommunities assessment committee members.


35/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 35

Based on the balance of feedback received, it is recommended that the Regional Developmentand Operations Committee endorse the creation of four region-based Creative Communitiesassessment committees for the distribution of funding provided by Creative New Zealand.

Region-based funding committees

Local boards have conditionally endorsed the creation of region-based funding committees toallocate legacy funding schemes, to ensure local boards control the decision-making process ofthe funds rather than the governing body. Although local boards have conditionally supported thecreation of such bodies, they were very clear in stating that such arrangements should only beconsidered as an interim measure for the 2011 / 2012 financial year and would not be supportedas a potential long-term approach for sub-regional decision-making. Local boards raised thefollowing concerns regarding the creation of region-based funding committees:

the creation of region-based funding committees by legacy council boundaries does notappropriately reflect the co-governance model of Auckland Council

local board members have been elected to serve the interests of their local board area,rather than residents of other local board areas aligned to a particular region-based funding

committee the demography of the proposed region-based funding committee areas is inconsistent, in

particular the grouping together of metropolitan and rural local boards the creation of region-based funding committees is considered a fait accompli by local

boards, as boards will lose the decision-making power over aligned funds if they do notagree to the model as proposed

the voting process within the region-based funding committees will be fragmented, resultingin a process that is not transparent or accountable to the public.

Almost every local board has stated that a future funding approach should not include acompulsory region-based funding committee component. Boards believe that they can and willwork together at their own discretion when the need arises as required by the Local Government(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009. The following table outlines the type of feedbackprovided by local boards regarding the creation of region-based funding committees by number:

Type of feedback Number of local boards in support of this option

Supports on the condition that it is not a long-termapproach

12

Does not support - supports alternate option 5

Supports on the condition that it is not a long-termapproach, but also supports alternate approachproposed by southern boards

3

(Kaipatiki, Papakura and Franklin local boards)

Not stated 1(Great Barrier Local Board)

Alternate approach proposed by southern local boards division of legacy funding schemes bylocal board

Eight local boards (including the six southern boards8, Rodney and Kaipatiki local boards) havesuggested an alternate approach to the proposed region-based funding committees for the interimallocation of funding. These boards have proposed that local boards be allocated a percentage ofeach fund aligned to the region-based funding committees on the basis of estimated population ofeach local board area. In addition, southern local board chairs have proposed the division of

8 At the 13 April 2011 meeting of the Southern local board chairs, the six southern local boards resolved that the alternate option as themost appropriate method to distribute sub-regional funds in the interim. Is it understood that one of southern local board chairs will bepresenting the approach at the 17 May 2011 meeting of the Regional Development and Operations Committee.


36/118

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 36

legacy funding schemes based on the relevance of funds to the respective community whilstretaining scheme criteria. The proposal also suggests the allocation of funding in accordance withlegacy council policies. The effect of the alternate approach suggested by the southern localboards is outlined in attachment two of this report.

Officers originally identified this approach as a potential mechanism to distribute community funds

during the development of the proposed interim funding model. This option is not recommendedbecause it:

proposes the distribution of funds on an ad-hoc approach that is not based on policy orprinciple

will be difficult for council officers to administer and provide funding advice to public, asofficers would be required to manage the number of applications against multiple local boardbudgets for the same fund in the absence of detailed financial information

inadvertently changes the scope, purpose and intent of a number of legacy fundingschemes. Legacy councils originally adopted these funding schemes to provide citywideoutcomes, which have now become sub-regional rather than local in focus. Officersbelieve the most appropriate method for the distribution of sub-regional funds in the interim is

through a sub-regional approach until a new, long-term model can be developed that willdevolve the majority of decision-making to individual local boards

will create insignificant allocations to smaller local boards where funding schemes alreadyhave relatively small budgets. By splitting funding schemes, the amount available to allocateto eligible initiatives is reduced overall, which could negatively affect the ability of communitygroups to deliver projects. Groups intending to deliver a sub-regional project would have toseek funding from multiple local boards rather than one region-based funding committee.

Although the southern local boards have used percentage of sub-regional population as a basisfor the division of funds, a population-centric approach to division may not be consideredappropriate by local boards that have small populations. The table below outlines an example ofhow a legacy funding scheme with a small budget available for the 2011 / 2012 financial yearcould be affected if divided on the basis of population alone:

Local board PopulationPercentage ofpopulationcluster

Amount available infunding scheme

Allocated amount

Local Board A 100,000 25.42% $12,707.80

Local Board B 890 0.023% $113.10

Local Board C 74,000 18.81% $9,403.80

Local Board D 82,300 20.92% $10,458.50

Local Board E 56,800 14.44% $7,218

Local Board F 8,570 2.18$ $1,089.10

Local Board G 70,900 18.02%

$50,000

$9,009.80

Total population 393,460 100.00 $50,000

Local boards not given the opportunity to consider this alternate approach must be given theopportunity to do so in the interest of fairness and equality across the region. It is likely that amajority of local boards will endorse this approach if given the opportunity, as it:

allows local boards to retain decision-making power in the interim until a regional model isimplemented by July 2012

suggests an alternative to region-based decision-making that allows local boards controlover individual schemes and budgets


37/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 37

allows local members to serve the interests of their individual communities rather than thosethey have not been elected to represent.

Based on the balance of feedback received, and in light of the approach endorsed by the southernlocal boards, it is suggested that the Regional Development and Operations Committee allocatebudgets for the 2011 / 2012 financial year to region-based joint funding committees of local boards

as proposed in attachment three. Local boards aligned to each funding committee will worktogether during the month of May to determine an appropriate way to manage these fundingschemes in the interim. It is also suggested that the Committee allow officers to publicly advertisethe availability of funding in early June 2011 to ensure community groups have access to fundingas early as possible in the new financial year.

Other issues and matters for consideration

Whilst the purpose of engaging local boards was to seek feedback on the interim communityfunding model, most local boards raised a number of other issues for consideration for thedevelopment of the long-term approach to community funding. These include:

that a robust, formulaic approach must be developed for the future allocation of discretionaryfunds. Local boards offered a number of variables to include into the formula, including:

o levels of deprivation

o isolationo geography of local board (i.e. number of green; or ecologically significant areas)

o rates revenueo community reliance on social services within local board areas

o projected / expected population growtho increases in seasonal population as a result of tourism or holiday-making.

the bulk of community funding should be allocated at the local level, whilst acknowledgingthe need for a regional component of community funding the allocation of officer-delegated legacy funding schemes to local boards for distribution consideration be given to a fifth region-based funding committee that combines rural local

boards (i.e. Rodney, Franklin and Great Barrier) for the distribution of sub-regional funds that no element of the proposed interim community funding model should set a precedent for

any aspect of a future community funding model post July 2012 where a fund aligns directly to a local board area, it should remain the sole responsibility of

that board9.

Other decisions required

Legacy community loan schemes

Auckland City Council provided small, medium and large loans for the delivery of recreational,community, sporting, arts and cultural facilities. As of February 2010, the community loans poolbalance was approximately $20 million, with $7.4 million available to lend. The former AucklandCity Council also participated in the former Hillary Commission for Sport, Fitness and Leisure loanscheme, which the council had administered since the commission disbanded in 2002. WhenSport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) superseded the Hillary Commission, SPARCallowed councils to retain these funds and granted them autonomy in deciding how the fundsshould be invested. The current balance of the Auckland City Hillary Commission loans pool isapproximately $1.2 million, with over $108,000 on loan.

9 The exception is the former Franklin District Council Community Partnership Loans Scheme the Franklin Local Board suggestedthat this fund be considered for allocation along with those funds earmarked for the southern region-based funding committee.


38/118

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 38

Waitakere City Council administered the Community Sport Fund, which originated through thedisbanding of the Hillary Commission. Interest earned from the fund has contributed to sportdevelopment in Waitakere through a contract with Sport Waitakere. As of 31 December 2009, thebalance of the Community Sport Fund was approximately $975,000.

Based on feedback received during consultation, officers suggest suspending these schemes for

the 2011 / 2012 financial year to allow for the potential development of a region-wide communitylending approach.

Massey-Matters Project Fund

The purpose of the Massey Matters Project Fund was for the former Waitakere City Council towork alongside the local community and other partners to develop a community-driven,neighbourhood development programme. The objectives of the funding scheme were to build andstrengthen community activity and develop a sense of local identity and pride in the Massey area.

It is suggested that the Henderson-Massey Local Board be allocated the budget and decision-making responsibility for the Massey Matters Project Fund for the 2011 / 2012 financial year. This

will ensure that the fund continues to provide for local initiatives and programmes specific to theMassey area through local decision-making.

Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST)

The former Rodney District Council Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) Fund hastraditionally supported arts and culture initiatives across the Rodney district. Prior to the transitionto Auckland Council, Rodney District Council resolved:

that ARST funding be ring-fenced as a special reserve in council accounts, and that theamount be transferred to Auckland Council as such

that the fund be separately apportioned between the Hibiscus Coast subdivision of the

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Rodney ward, based on the population of therespective subdivision and ward10.

It is suggested that the ARST Fund be divided amongst the Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney localboards as requested above. Officers have identified approximately $700,000 in ARST fundingremaining for allocation, which includes both the principle and interest earned. Based on thedivision method suggested by Rodney District Council, the Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney localboards would receive approximately $433,600 and $266,400 respectively in ARST funding toallocate to initiatives that meet the scheme criteria11.

Environmental Initiatives and Coastal Enhancement funds

Most legacy funding schemes inherited by Auckland Council were originally citywide, in that theysupported projects that benefited communities within the administrative boundaries of sevenlegacy councils. As the Auckland region has now expanded, what were once citywide funds arenow sub-regional or local in scope. The only funds that have remained regional are two of theformer Auckland Regional Council funding schemes listed below (scheme details are listed inattachment four):

Environmental Initiatives Fund Coastal Enhancement Fund.

10 Minutes of the Rodney District Council Strategy and Community Committee; item 6, resolutions b and c.11 Population of Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays Local Boards as of 30 June 2010 was 55,200 and 89,990 respectively, with the totalpopulation of the two areas 145,100 (Source: Statistics New Zealand). ARST Fund budget allocated based on percentage of totalpopulation (Rodney 38.05%, Hibiscus and Coast and Bays 61.95%).


39/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 39

It is suggested that the Regional Development and Operations Committee retain decision-makingaround the allocation of these funds based on recommendations and feedback received from theEnvironmental and Sustainability Forum. This will ensure a consistent regional approach toconservation and natural heritage issues until the implementation of a regional strategy.

Franklin District Council Community Partnership Loan Funding Scheme

The Franklin District Council Community Partnerships Loan Funding Scheme assists communitygroups or organisations in providing and developing cultural, social and recreational communityamenities. The scheme provides interest free loans for capital improvements to (or thedevelopment of) new and existing community amenities. There are two categories to whichapplications may be made:

applications from community groups or organisations applications from community hall committees that administer community centres located

within community centre areas12 defined by Franklin District Council.

At its meeting on 19 April, the Franklin Local Board resolved to transfer decision-makingresponsibility for this scheme to the southern region-based funding committee. It is suggestedthat the Regional Development and Operations Committee allocate decision-making responsibilityfor this fund to the southern region-based funding committee in accordance with the boardsresolution.

Officer delegated funds

Several legacy funding schemes have allowed officer delegation in decision-making, and it issuggested that officers retain this decision-making power in the interim. There is approximately$693,000 of officer-delegated funding available for allocation in the 2011 / 2012 financial year.Legal advice has indicated, however, that only chief officers currently retain the delegation to

make such decisions13. It is suggested that the Regional Development and Operations Committeebe asked to delegate this authority to tier four (or unit) managers.

Significance of DecisionAs outlined in the Auckland Council Long-Term Plan (LTP) 1 November 2010 30 June 2019, theprovision of operational grants and support to local community organisations is a local boardresponsibility14. To ensure that community groups and organisations have access to contestablefunding for the 2011 / 2012 financial year, a funding approach must be developed and approvedprior to July of this year to allow the advertisement of funding rounds and criteria, as well as theprovision of advice to applicants. Neither the Local Government (Tamaki MakaurauReorganisation) Act 2009 nor the LTP provide a mechanism for how community funding should be

distributed prior to 30 June 2012, although it is clear that local boards must play a key decision-making role in both the interim and long-term.

Officers investigated the possibility of developing a new community funding policy prior to the startof the 2011 / 2012 financial year. It became evident, however, that there was not sufficient time toallow officers to adequately research, develop, consult upon and present a finalised funding policyfor political approval in time for the start of the new financial year. Therefore, an interim fundingmodel must be adopted for the 2011 / 2012 financial year that will:

12 A community centre area is part of the district from which ratepayers pay a community centre fee. The fee levied enables community centre committees to meet the expenses of managing the community centre

(i.e. general operational expenditures). The fee is collected through the rates process and passed on to the relevant community centre committee.

13 Financial delegation NS8 grants all chief officers the power to commit the council to financial transactions (or projects consisting ofmultiple transactions) relating to goods, services, grants, guarantees, indemnities and the disposal of assets up to $2.5 million.14 Volume 3, page 103.


40/118

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 40

ensure a wide range of community activities, projects, programmes and events which havetraditionally been supported by Auckland region territorial authorities continue to besupported

continue to encourage innovative community programmes and projects that benefit localcommunities

increase the capacity of community groups and organisations to interact and connect with

each other.

ConsultationPrior to the amalgamation of local government in Auckland on 1 November 2010, officers began toinvestigate the different ways councils have supported community groups in order to ensure theirneeds are recognised and accounted for. In 2010, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA)suggested that existing councils distribute all available contestable funding for the 2010/2011financial year prior to 1 November 2010 to ensure that community groups were not adverselyaffected by the transition to Auckland Council. The ATA also suggested that existing councilsextend non-contestable funding arrangements to community groups until 30 June 2012. Thelegacy councils generally followed this advice prior to the transition15.

In early 2010, the ATAs community services workstream undertook an examination of the eightformer councils community assistance policies and funding schemes, which included a stocktakeand analysis of all:

community and recreation leases contestable funding schemes non-contestable funding contracts and agreements in-kind support residual trusts and council-controlled organisations relevant to the provision of community

services relationships with relevant external stakeholders.

This work provided a basis for detailed analysis of funding schemes and discussion with internalsubject matter experts as to how the schemes have been administered. In early January 2011,officers conducted a series of internal workshops with over 50 subject matter experts in the areaslisted below to help identify detailed information about the various funding schemes theyadminister:

community development and partnerships arts and culture sport, recreation and facilities partnerships environment, sustainability and natural heritage

community events and festivals parks and reserves local board relationship managers.

Feedback received during consultation has indicated several areas in which council could improvethe administration of its funding schemes, namely the:

development of a universal application or expression of interest form for all funding schemesnecessary to make the application process less intimidating and easier to understand for thepublic

implementation of one funding system that is accessible by all funding administrators, toensure relevant staff have access to the same information

15 A limited number of contestable funding schemes relating to environment and sustainability outcomes are still available for allocationfor the 2010/2011 financial year.


41/118

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 41

investigation of an online application system to improve customer service and reduce thetime it takes to assess an application.

Officers have attended all local board meetings from 22 March to 19 April 2011 and the April 2011meetings of the Social and Community Development and Culture, Arts and Events forums todiscuss the proposed interim funding model in detail, answer any queries and gather feedback.

Officers have also begun the development of a long-term funding approach that will be completedin time for the adoption of the Long-Term Plan in June 2012. A separate report outlining a draftlong-term approach will be reported to all local boards, relevant forums and the RegionalDevelopment and Operations Committee in the last quarter of 2011.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

The costs associated with implementing the interim community funding model will be met fromwithin existing Planning and Operational budgets.

Legal and Legislative ImplicationsN/A

Implementation IssuesN/A

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Summary of Local Board Feedback for the Interim Community FundingModel

42

B Southern Local Boards Community Funding Proposal 43

C Funding Schemes aligned to Region-based Funding Committees 45

Signatories

Authors Eric Perry, Team Leader Region Wide, Community and Cultural Policy

Authorisers Ruth Stokes, Manager Community and Cultural Policy

Penny Pirrit, Manager Regional and Local Planning

Dr Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer


42/118

AttachmentA

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 42


43/118

AttachmentB

It

em1

2


11 May 2011

Interim Community Funding Model for the 2011/2012 financial year - Feedback from consultation with Local Boards Page 43


44/118

AttachmentB

It

em12


11 May 2011

Interim Community Funding Model for the 2011/2012 financial year - Feedback from consultation with Local Boards Page 44


45/118

AttachmentC

Item1

2


11 May 2011


Page 45


46/118

AttachmentC

Item12


11 May 2011


Page 46


47/118

Item1

3


11 May 2011

Professional Performing Arts Venue Study 2011 Page 47

Professional Performing Arts Venue Study 2011File No.: CP2011/02476

Executive Summary

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Professional Performing Arts VenueStudy 2011 for consideration.

The former Auckland City Council commissioned a Professional Performing Arts Venue Study in2008 to guide its decisions on venue development priorities. Horwath HTL undertook the 2008study and were again commissioned to undertake the 2011 review. The brief was to provide anupdated assessment of: professional performing arts needs and venues throughout the Auckland Council area and an

updated gap analysis of needs not adequately met by available venues the relative need for additional centrally located venues the need for and the role that venues in suburban locations could fulfill, for example as part of

a professional regional network and touring circuit the most appropriate locations for particular venue types in the Auckland Council area venue development options currently planned or suggested and determination of how well

each option addresses the immediate and / or future identified needs and demands of theprofessional performing arts sector, in particular: a refurbished St James Theatre a refurbished Mercury Theatre Auckland Theatre Companys proposal for a theatre at Wynyard Quarter.

The key findings of the 2011 study were: a new 600-seat theatre in the central/CBD is the highest and most urgent priority for the

professional performing arts sector

a refurbished Mercury Theatre or St James Theatre could not adequately meet this specificneed due to physical limitations of the facilities to meet current operational and patron needs

the Auckland Theatre Companys (ATCs) proposal for a new theatre on the waterfront inassociation with the ASB development has the potential to address this need

a refurbished St James Theatre could meet a medium to longer term venue gap for a 1,400 1,500 seat theatre, subject to further analysis of the impact on existing venues (such as theAotea Centre, Civic Theatre and Q Theatre) and pending a decision on the timing andlocation of a proposed national convention centre

there is a shortage of suitable rehearsal space, in particular, for dance and for the AucklandPhilharmonia Orchestra (APO). The APO is currently undertaking a detailed due diligence onthe opportunity for the Mercury Theatre to meet its needs

there are no identified major performing arts venue needs outside of the CBD. A number ofupgrade and development opportunities were identified which are more appropriatelyaddressed through asset management planning processes.

The recommendations of the study were to: evaluate supporting ATC plans for a new theatre centre in the Wynyard Quarter as a matter of

priority as it has the potential to immediately meet the highest priority identified venue needand address ATCs long-term needs

if a proposal is received from APO regarding its potential purchase of the Mercury Theatre asa rehearsal venue, consider supporting this as it addresses APOs long-term need for animproved rehearsal venue and provides a sustainable future use for a heritage listed building

consider supporting a proposed expansion of the facilities at The Auckland Performing Arts

Centre (TAPAC) in Western Springs which would help meet the need for additional rehearsalspace for professional dance companies

keep a watching brief on the St James Theatre to ensure the future potential is not threatenedand undertake further research to understand its potential use and impact on existing venues


48/118

Item13


11 May 2011


work with venue managers of community based performing arts venues in relation to variousminor capital works and clarify their support for development of performing arts throughout thecommunity.

As such officers propose that council progresses the following actions: Undertake an evaluation of the ATC theatre proposal in the Wynyard Quarter which has the

potential to meet the identified high priority need for a 600 seat theatre in the central area. Theproposal provides ATC with the advantages of partnering with ASB Bank and could deliver arange of benefits to the Wynyard Quarter. A report is being considered by the RegionalDevelopment and Operations Committee in May.

Keep a watching brief on the St James Theatre and continue communication with the owner interms of timing for development of the site. Subject to budget provision in 2012/2013undertake further research on the potential use of a restored St James Theatre includingworking with Regional Facilities Auckland on the implications for existing venues.

Work with Regional Facilities Auckland on the development of a masterplan for regionalfacilities incorporating the findings of the 2011 Professional Performing Arts Venue.

Continue to liaise with the APO regarding their rehearsal facility needs and the potential of theMercury Theatre to meet its needs

Continue to work with TAPAC on its development plans Ensure that development opportunities for regional venues are incorporated into asset

management planning processes.


49/118

Item1

3


11 May 2011



b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorse that thefindings of the Professional Performing Arts Study 2011 be used to inform thedevelopment of the councils arts and cultural strategy and the Auckland Plan.

c) That the Regional Development and Operations Committ

Documents

RD and Ops Committee June