I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Puketapapa Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 28 November 2013

6.00pm

Rakiraki Room
Wesley Community Centre
740 Sandringham Road Extension
Sandringham

 

Puketapapa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julie Fairey

 

Deputy Chairperson

Harry Doig

 

Members

David Holm

 

 

Ella Kumar

 

 

Nigel Turnbull

 

 

Michael Wood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Brenda  Railey

Democracy Advisor

 

21 November 2013

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7556

Email: brenda.railey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Restating the Declaration by Local Board Members Pursuant to Schedule 7, Clause 14, of the Local Government Act 2002                                                                                   7

13        Three Kings Precinct Plan: Stage Two                                                                     11

14        Adoption of meeting schedule                                                                                   19

15        Local board members portfolio allocation and urban design champion              23

16        Manukau Harbour Forum                                                                                           27

17        Central Facility Partnerships Committee                                                                  31

18        Central Joint Funding Committee                                                                             41

19        Appointment of Board Members to Outside Organisations and Community Networks                                                                                                                                       55

20        Establishment of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee                       61

21        Urgent Decision Process for the Puketapapa Local Board                                    65  

22        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)         confirm the minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 26 September 2013 and the minutes of its inaugural meeting, held on Thursday, 31 October 2013, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address 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.

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

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

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

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

 

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

 

(a)        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.”

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

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

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Restating the Declaration by Local Board Members Pursuant to Schedule 7, Clause 14, of the Local Government Act 2002

 

File No.: CP2013/26600

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       At the inaugural meeting of the Puketapapa Local Board, the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires local board members to make an oral declaration and sign a written declaration before a witness using set wording (see Schedule 7, clause 14 and 21, LGA). The set wording is attached to this report.

2.       Declarations made by two local board members of the Puketapapa Local Board differed slightly from the set LGA wording.  The declarations unintentionally omitted the phrase “I declare” – instead the declarations used the phrase “I swear on the Holy Bible”.

3.       For the avoidance of doubt, the three local board members will make the oral and written declaration using the set LGA wording at the next business meeting.

4.       Schedule 7, Part 1, Clause 14(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“The written declaration must be signed by the member and witnessed by –

(a)     The chairperson; or

(b)     The mayor; or

(c)     A member of the local authority; or

(d)     The chief executive of the local authority; or

(e)     In the absence of the chief executive, some other officer appointed by the chief executive.

5.       The Local Board Members who will be required to restate the oral declaration and sign a written declaration are: 

-     Nigel Turnbull

-     Michael Wood

Executive Summary

6.       N/A

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Declaration for Member Swearing on the Holy Bible

9

      

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

 

Declaration by Member

Te Whakapuakitanga ā te Mema

 

Ko au, ko <<Member’s Name>>

 

Ko taku oati i runga i te Paipera Tapu, ko taku kupu anō hoki tēnei. Ka tutuki i a au, ki tāku e pono nei, e tōtika nei, e mātau nei ngā kawenga katoa hei painga mō te rohe o Puketāpapa i runga i te mana kua riro mai i a au hei mema o te Poari ā-Rohe o Puketāpapa i raro anō i te Ture Kāwanatanga ā-Rohe o te tau rua mano mā rua, te Ture Pārongo, Huinga Ōkawa ā-Kāwanatanga o te tau kotahi mano iwa rau waru tekau mā whitu, i raro rānei i tētahi atu ture.

 

I whakaritea i Mt Roskill i tēnei, te rā rua tekau waru o Whiringa-ā-rangi 2013

 

 

I, <<Member’s Name>>

 

swear on the Holy Bible and I declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgment, execute and perform, in the best interests of Puketāpapa, the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or imposed upon, me as a member of the Puketāpapa Local Board by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.

 

Dated at Mt Roskill this 28th day of November 2013

 

 

 

………………………………….

Member

 

Signed in the presence of:

 

 

 

…………………………………..

Puketāpapa Local Board Chairperson


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Three Kings Precinct Plan: Stage Two

 

File No.: CP2013/25801

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks that the Puketāpapa Local Board identify their priority design outcomes from the Three Kings Precinct Plan Discussion Document and to progress stage two of the project.

Executive Summary

2.       The purpose of the Three Kings Precinct Plan is to produce a spatial framework to direct the future structure and form of the local area, and to provide a strategic direction for future projects and upgrades.

3.       Stage one of the precinct plan focused primarily on the future use of the quarry site. The discussion document released in May 2013 presented a range of options to explore how the area could be redevelop and the role of council assets could play in shaping the future urban form.

4.       Feedback from the community on the discussion document identified several key design outcomes as being central to ensuring redevelopment makes a positive contribution to the area. Officers have presented this feedback to the Puketāpapa Local Board so that they can make a decision on these in consultation with the community.

5.       Stage two of the precinct plan will build on stage one and focus particularly on the town centre and surrounding council owned land

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      confirm, in consultation with the community, the key design outcomes from the discussion document development options that will form the basis for the final Three Kings Precinct Plan.

b)      endorse the proposed project plan for stage two of the Three Kings Precinct Plan

c)      appoint Julie Fairey, Nigel Turnbull and Harry Doig as the Puketāpapa Local Board delegates to participate in the stage two working group

 

 

Discussion

Stage One:  Discussion Document and Feedback

6.       In February 2013, the Puketāpapa Local Board endorsed the proposed scope and engagement of the Three Kings Precinct Plan. It was agreed that the plan would:

·   provide strategic direction for growth and development within the Three Kings area

·   provide guidance on the integration of the Winstone Aggregates quarry site with the surrounding area to get the best possible design outcomes that support local aspirations

·   provide guidance to development in the Three Kings area with regard to future land use resulting from the Unitary Plan and longer term strategic issues

·   provide a strategic direction and vision for upgrades to the Three Kings town centre

·   identify and plan for project based work that could occur within the town centre and surrounding area to support the vision.

7.       Stage one explored potential options for the redevelopment of the quarry site and the role of council assets (particularly open space) in shaping the future configuration of Three Kings. Some high level consideration was also given to the future growth of the town centre.

8.       In May 2013, a discussion document presenting the issues from stage one was released for public consultation. 114 submissions were received on the discussion document from both community and internal stakeholders. The feedback indicated no clear preferred option from the discussion document however key themes from the feedback included:

·   Most respondents agreed that the Three Kings town centre should grow into a larger more intensive centre

·   Quarry development should be well integrated with surrounding area and well connected to the town centre

·   Multi-unit attached/terraced housing and single housing was preferred for the quarry but taller buildings were considered more appropriately located closer to the town centre

·   It was considered important to provide a mixture of open space options

·   Development should be supported by the necessary infrastructure

9.       Officers presented the content of these submissions to the board at a workshop in November 2013. The local board has indicated a preference to report back to the community before formalising their position on their priority design outcomes identified through the discussion document options.

Stage Two: Option Refinement

10.     Stage two of the precinct plan proposes to continue the work started through stage one but will have a stronger emphasis on the development of the town centre. A draft project work programme is included as Attachment A. A key component proposed for stage two is a Conceptual Development Framework (CDF) applying to the town centre, the quarry site and adjacent council owned (or managed) land.

11.     The purpose of the CDF is to progress the priority design outcomes from the discussion document to a level of detail that will identify the nature and location of the major urban structuring elements. Once completed, the CDF will be included in the final precinct plan document and will inform any future land transactions, detailed master planning and statutory processes. A design brief for the proposed CDF is included as Attachment B.

12.     The more detailed design work covered in stage two will require close collaboration with key landowners and internal subject matter experts and the Puketāpapa Local Board. Once early options have been identified, these will be further refined through targeted community workshops.

13.     Further public consultation is proposed for the refined options in early 2013.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14.     At the time of this report, the Puketāpapa Local Board had not made a formal resolution identifying a priority options or design outcomes from the stage one discussion document.

Maori Impact Statement

15.     Three Kings mana whenua will be key stakeholders in stage two of the Three Kings Precinct Plan. The Draft Engagement and Communications Plan established at the onset of stage one sets out the objectives and principles for engaging with iwi and mataawaka.

16.     Further input from mana whenua is expected to be required for stage two of the precinct plan.

Implementation Issues

17.     There will be a variety of administrative tasks involved in implementing stage two of the precinct plan. The majority of tasks associated with the project will be completed by the project team.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Project Timeline

15

b

Draft Conceptual Development Framework Brief

17

     

Signatories

Authors

Peter Cooper - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Three Kings Precinct Plan

Stage 2: Draft Project Execution Plan

Time

Task

Purpose

Output

Nov

Report to Puketapapa LB 

Update on proposed process, seek political endorsement for work programme

Formal endorsement of process

Dec

Community report back session 

report back session to community

Confirmation of priority outcomes from phase 1  discussion document

Design workshop

Identify opportunities and constraints / preliminary development framework option development

 

Establish broad consensus for design options within parameters of brief. Identify preliminary design option.

Design workshop

Design option development

Generate development options for community stakeholder engagement

Option review by internal technical advisory group

Provide specialist review of design options

Technical feedback to refine design options

Report to Puketapapa LB

Seek political endorsement for to present options at community stakeholder engagement 

Endorsement for target community engagement

Targeted community stakeholder workshop 1

Provide community feedback on design options

stakeholder feedback to refine design options

Targeted community stakeholder workshop 2

Provide community feedback on design options

stakeholder feedback to refine design options

Christmas holiday period

Jan

Design workshop

Design option refinement

Design options refined through technical advice and stakeholder feedback.

 

Late Jan

Report to LB

Seek endorsement of refined design options for public consultation

Refined design options endorsed for public engagement

Early Feb

Public engagement

Seek public feedback on proposed design options

Public feedback on proposed design options

Unitary Plan submission period closes

(feedback review, design revision and endorsement of final development option to be completed March – April,

Final document to be produced May)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Three Kings Precinct Plan: Stage 2

Conceptual Development Framework – Design Working Group Brief

Introduction:

The purpose of the Three Kings Precinct Plan is to produce a spatial framework to direct the future structure and development of the local Three Kings area, and to provide strategic guidance for future projects and infrastructure upgrades.

 

The precinct plan is being developed in a two-stage process. Stage one focused primarily on the redevelopment of the quarry site and its relationship to Te Tatua a Riukiuta (Big King). Stage two will continue the work begun on the quarry, but will include an added emphasis on the form and function of the town centre. A central issue to the precinct plan is the potential for council open space assets to be traded or reconfigured to achieve a better outcome for the area.

 

One of the primary components of stage two will be a Conceptual Development Framework (CDF) applying to the town centre, the quarry site and adjacent council owned (or managed) land. The CDF will become part of the final precinct plan document to be completed in early 2014.

Conceptual Development Framework:

The purpose of the CDF is to translate the principles of the precinct plan into a spatial plan to guide redevelopment.  To do this, the CDF will progress the high-level development options from stage one to a level that identifies the location and nature of the major structuring elements of the urban environment.

 

Once finalised, the CDF will inform future land transactions, detailed master planning and any statutory processes.

 

The CDF will be produced by the design working group (see below), with input from technical specialists and political and community representatives, over three phases between November 2013 and April 2014. 

Scope:

The CDF will show the following information:

·    Proposed land ownership

·    Proposed land use and activity, including:

·    Proposed movement networks, linkages and integration, including:

·    Proposed built form, including:

·    Proposed view shafts             

 

The following information is out of scope of the development framework. It will be presented in other sections of the final precinct plan document or will be addressed through future statutory mechanisms:

·    Building design (exterior or interior)

·    Supporting projects

·    Infrastructure / environmental constraints

·    Discussions with crown

 

Design Working Group

While individuals contributing to the design working group will likely evolve as the CDF is progressed, membership of design working group will be primarily comprised of:

·      Representatives of Antipodean Properties

·      Representatives of Fletcher Developments

·      Representatives of the Puketapapa Local Board

·      Representatives of mana whenua

·      Representatives of Auckland Council

·      Representatives of Auckland and CCOs

Timeframes:

The development framework will be produced by the design working group over three phases between November 2013 and April 2014.

 

 

NB: The Three Kings Precinct Plan and associated CDF is a  non-statutory document intended to create a vision for the future of Three Kings and establish agreement between the various stakeholders.

Further processes (e.g. land swaps, plan changes etc) will be required to give effect to the outcomes identified in the Precinct Plan that may require the approval of the Auckland Council Governing Body, The Department of Conservation or other such authority.

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Adoption of meeting schedule

 

File No.: CP2013/25807

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the adoption of the meeting schedule for the 2013/16 term.

Executive Summary

2.       A draft local board meeting schedule has been developed for the 2013/2016 electoral term; it is attached to this report. It is recommended that the local board adopts this schedule.

3.       The specific times and dates for the hearings process, part of the special consultative process outlined in the Local Government Act 2002, for local board agreements and local board plans are yet to be finalised. Local board meeting schedules may therefore be updated and provision made for these hearings, once the details are confirmed.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)       adopts its meeting schedule for the 2013/2016 electoral term as follows, all beginning at 6pm and held at the Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.

Date

Time

Venue

Thursday, 12 December 2013

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

 

 

 

Thursday, 30 January 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 27 February 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 27 March 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 24 April 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 29 May 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 26 June 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 31 July 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 28 August 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 25 September 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 30 October 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 27 November 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

Thursday, 11 December 2014

6.00pm-9.30pm

Fickling Centre, 546 Mt Albert Rd, Three Kings

 

 

 

Thursday, 29 January 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 26 February 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 26 March 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 30 April 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 28 May 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 25 June 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 30 July 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 27 August 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 24 September 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 29 October 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 26 November 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 10 December 2015

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

 

 

 

Thursday, 28 January 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 25 February 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 31 March 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 28 April 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 26 May 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 30 June 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 28 July 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 25 August 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

Thursday, 29 September 2016

6.00pm-9.30pm

To be confirmed

 

b)       notes that dates and times for hearings and deliberations for local board agreements and local board plans are yet to be finalised.

 

 

Discussion

4.       Clause (5)(d), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a local board to adopt a schedule of business meetings at its first meeting in the electoral term.

5.       Adopting a meeting schedule allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments. It also gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6.       Each local board develops a Local Board Agreement annually and a Local Board Plan every three years. Both documents are subject to public consultation, with Local Board Plans being subject to a special consultative procedure process. The local board will hold hearings to give submitters the opportunity to express their views verbally.

7.       The specific times and dates for the hearings process for the local board plan and agreements are yet to be finalised.  Local board meeting schedules may therefore need to be updated and provision made for hearings, once details are confirmed.

8.       In addition to local board meetings, local boards will hold workshops that are closed to the public. The proceedings of every workshop are recorded and considered at the next business meeting of the local board in accordance with current local board standing order provisions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

10.     There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

General

11.     Clauses 19(4), 19(5) and 19(6), Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints.

(5) Unless clause 22 (extraordinary meeting) applies, the chief executive must give notice in writing to each member of the time and place of a meeting -

(a) not less than 14 days before the meeting; or

(b) if the local authority has adopted a schedule of meetings, not less than 14 days before the first meeting on the schedule.”

(6) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings, -

(a) the schedule –

(i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate; and

(ii) may be amended; and

(b) notification of the schedule or of any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.”

12.     Similarly, the statutory requirement pursuant to clauses 46, 46(A) and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 mentions that:

·       meetings of a local authority are publicly notified

·       agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting

·       local board meetings are open to the public.

Implementation Issues

13.     Meetings of the local boards are supported by Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Local board members portfolio allocation and urban design champion

 

File No.: CP2013/25810

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt a portfolio allocation for board members and appoint Board representatives to provide input into resource consent notifications and urban design matters.

Executive Summary

2.       Portfolios are established by local boards to oversee local board work programmes and consider issues relating to key council activities.

3.       It is recommended that the local board allocates each portfolio area to two members, and nominates a lead and an alternate.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      nominates members as lead and alternate for each portfolio area, where appropriate:

Local Board Portfolio

Portfolio holders

Lead

Alternate

Arts and culture and events

 

 

Children

 

 

Civil defence and emergency management

 

 

Community development and community facilities

 

 

Economic development and Town Centres

 

 

Environment and Sustainability and Infrastrucutre

 

 

Finance

 

 

Heritage

 

 

Libraries

 

 

Parks and Open Spaces

 

 

Planning and Regulatory and Community Facilities

 

 

Three Kings Precinct Plan

 

 

Regulatory, bylaws and compliance

 

 

Safety

 

 

Sport and Recreation

 

 

Transport

 

 

Youth

 

 

 

b)      Appoints member X, and member Y as an alternate, to provide input into notification decisions for resource consent applications that trigger local board input

c)      Appoints member X as the board’s representative as an urban design champion and member Y as the alternate representative.

 

 

Discussion

Portfolio

4.       In the previous electoral term, portfolio areas varied across the local boards.  In that term, officers proposed that local boards consider portfolio areas which reflected the committee and forum structure adopted by the governing body and the key areas the board had a decision-making/input role. The interest and background of local board members also influenced the establishment of some portfolios.

5.       Three years on, local boards have their local board plans with their own priorities; and the organisation has aligned itself to meet the needs of local boards.  Rather than reflecting the governing body’s committee and forum structure as a framework for portfolios, it makes sense to align portfolios to the delegation protocols adopted last year, which guide the organisation in working with and supporting local boards.

6.       A portfolio approach will assist board members in having a strategic overview of programmes and activities rather than feeling they are dealing with issues in an ad-hoc manner.  It also provides for a consistent approach that is familiar to staff working to these delegations and will assist with the running of the portfolio (e.g. regular portfolio briefings/workshops with staff from one activity).  The proposed areas for portfolios are:

·    Local planning, policy and governance

·    Arts, culture and events

·    Community services

·    Libraries

·    Recreation services

·    Parks

·    Built and natural environment

·    Economic development

·    Street environment and town centres

 

7.       Additional portfolios outside of the delegation protocols may be required such as transport, or regulatory, bylaws and compliance.

 

Notification decisions on resource consent applications

 

8.       In the previous electoral term, the governing body considered the role of local boards in regulatory matters, and resolved, amongst other things, that local boards be given the opportunity, within statutory timeframes, to provide their views on whether or not certain applications should be notified.

9.       The council’s Resource Consents department worked with local boards to establish a process for local board input: a portfolio holder or spokesperson provides comments within three working days on applications that the board requested and that trigger local board input. Those comments are then included in the planners' report on the application.

10.     By enabling local boards to have input into notification decision, the local voice can be heard at an early stage in the resource consent process.

11.     Local boards that wish to have input into notification decisions on applications that trigger local board input, should appoint a lead and alternate for this role. These appointees could be the regulatory, bylaws and compliance portfolio holder, if any.

Portfolio holder role

12.     A useful starting point for board members is to consider their role as portfolio holder as that of a “sounding board” on behalf of the board.  Staff from departments across the organisation will need to regularly talk to board members for a number of reasons. This may be to provide a progress up-date to the board on projects and work programmes that have been agreed with the board, to test the level of interest a board has on a particular issue so the department can consider how best to progress matters, or to advise on any issues that may be arising from a project/activity.  Portfolio holders are the key board member contacts for departmental staff and in that way assist staff to progress the work programme.  Board members are not required to give advice to staff on the operational details of projects or activities.  The important consideration for members is that they are appointed to be the local board representative on a particular area – they represent the views of the board (not their own views) to give direction/steer to staff.

13.     If there is no known board view on an issue, board members will need to canvass views of fellow board members and then form the view on what the board position is.  If it is likely to be a contentious issue with competing views, it is best referred to a full workshop to allow board members to discuss the issue and formulate a position.

14.     Portfolio holders should have a lead and an alternate to help share the workload.

 

Communication

 

15.     Feedback from the previous term indicates that communication from portfolio holders back to other board members was an area that could be improved.  Portfolio holders have a responsibility to provide a feedback loop to other board members – this includes updating on how issues are progressing (or not), putting issues on the radar for all members, bringing issues to the table if guidance is needed from other board members.  Local board advisors can provide assistance and advice about how to progress these types of issues.

16.     Communication needs to be regular (for example, monthly) and can be done in a range of ways – scheduled slots on workshop agendas can be an effective way to keep everyone informed about the key things that are happening in the portfolio.

17.     The work on portfolio areas will often eventuate in formal reports to the whole board requesting a decision or providing an update – so it is important for portfolio holders to have provided regular and clear communication on the portfolio area so that all board members are briefed and there are no surprises.

 

Decision-making

 

18.     Decision-making is carried out at formal board business meetings.  However in some cases – generally quite limited – decision-making has been delegated to the portfolio holder – for example when it is a straight forward issue and a decision may be needed quickly such as landowner consents.  Any delegation of decision-making to portfolio-holders would need to be made through a formal business meeting. If a portfolio-holder has delegated decision-making and is asked to consider a significant/complex decision it is advisable to refer to the wider group of board members.

 

Urban Design Champion

19.     Auckland Council has set up local board champions to contribute to the drive toward creating the world’s most livable city. Each of the 21 local boards is asked to appoint a member as the board’s urban design champion or advocate. The governing body will also appoint an urban design champion.

Consideration

Local Board Views

20.     This report asks for the local board view.

21.     The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees members of the local board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and power, with some specific exceptions.

Māori Impact Statement

22.     There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation Issues

23.     The network of design champions is supported by the built environment unit of the Chief Planning Office department, led by Tim Watts, manager built environment. The network is expected to be active for the second term of council from February 2013.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Manukau Harbour Forum

 

File No.: CP2013/25814

 

  

 

Purpose

1.   This report seeks:

·    agreement from the board to re-instate the Manukau Harbour Forum for the 2013/16 term

·    nomination of a board’s representative and alternate representative to the Forum.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      agrees to re-instate the Manukau Harbour Forum joint committee with the Franklin, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Whau, and Waitakere Ranges Local Boards for the 2013/16 electoral term.

b)      nominates member X as the local board’s representative, and member X as the local board’s alternate representative to the Manukau Harbour Forum with appropriate delegated authority to bring the local board on any decisions made by the Manukau Harbour Forum within its Terms of Reference.

 

Discussion

2.   Nine local boards (Franklin, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura, Puketāpapa, Whau, and Waitakere Ranges Local Boards) together formed the Manukau Harbour Forum with the view to form a means of collective local board advocacy on common issues affecting the Manukau Harbour and the adjacent foreshore.

 

3.   The Manukau Harbour Forum was constituted formally as a joint committee of local boards under standing orders 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 (standing orders 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 enable a local board to appoint a joint committee with another local board or boards).  Being a joint committee enables the Forum to conduct business more efficiently, as a local board joint committee can make decisions and provide direction to officers without seeking confirmation and/or ratification from the individual member boards.

 

4.   The 2012/13 Terms of Reference for the Manukau Harbour Forum are presented in Attachment A. They set out the purpose and principles of the Forum. Individual local boards were not asked to endorse the Terms of Reference during the previous term as the Forum is strategic rather than operational and has no budgetary decision-making delegation.

5.   The Forum is made of a member from each of the constituting local boards. The Forum’s first business meeting was held in May 2012. The Forum meets monthly, alternating business meetings and workshops.

6.   The purpose of the Forum is to champion a sustainable management approach for the Manukau Harbour. Over the last two years the Forum has:

·    identified issues, such as mangroves, pacific oysters, coastal erosion, stormwater, recreational access/wharves and Maui Dolphin Sanctuary as high priority

·    developed a ‘Manukau Harbour Forum Vision and Strategy’, undertaken a comprehensive stocktake of all research pertaining to the Manukau Harbour and catchment, produced a set of maps and a list of stakeholders

·    received regular updates on marine monitoring within the Manukau Harbour

·    advocated to central government and Auckland Council (e.g. feedback on the Unitary Plan) on issues affecting the Harbour

·    identified areas of interest and potential projects that the local boards surrounding the Manukau Harbour could progress jointly. The nine local boards of the Manukau Harbour Forum have collectively allocated almost $19 million to projects associated with the Manukau Harbour in the 2012-22 Long Term Plan.

 

7.   In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Forum has been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

8.   The purpose of the Manukau Harbour Forum remains current for the 2013/16 electoral term. Officers recommend that each constituting local board agrees to re-instate the Manukau Harbour Forum for another term and appoints one member plus an alternate to represent the board on the Forum.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.   The Manukau Harbour Forum is a proposed joint committee of the local boards, and a platform for the affected local boards to voice their interests and aspirations for the future of the Manukau Harbour and its adjacent foreshore.

Māori Impact Statement

10. The Manukau Harbour Forum is a joint committee of the local boards and does not have specific Māori representation.

 

11. The Māori Responsiveness Framework outlines Māori outcomes in relation to Auckland’s environment. The Manukau Harbour Forum recognises and values the special relationship that Mana Whenua have in relation to the Manukau Harbour and that iwi and hapū are key partners to deliver positive environmental outcomes.

Implementation Issues

12. Local Board Services provide secretariat services to the Forum.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Terms of Reference

29

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 



Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Central Facility Partnerships Committee

 

File No.: CP2013/25815

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks:

·         agreement to continue the Central Facilities Partnerships Committee for the 2013/2014 year in the absence of a regional policy

·         agreement on the term of reference

·         nomination of a board’s representative and alternate representative to the Committee.

 

Executive Summary

2.       The Central Facility Partnerships Committee was a joint committee established by the seven central local boards. It had decision-making responsibility to allocate the legacy Facility Partnerships funding in support of capital development projects that will assist Auckland Council to meet its identified strategic outcomes.

3.       In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the committee has been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

4.       The Central Facility Partnerships Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/ 14 to administer legacy Facility Partnerships funding. This report seeks the board’s approval to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee for the 2013/ 2014 as a joint committee of the local boards, approval of the Terms of Reference and appointment of a member and an alternate to the Committee.

5.       The Committee will consider applications to the 2013/2014 Facility Partnerships fund at a workshop on 27 November 2013, and hold a meeting in 11 December 2013 to ratify the decisions.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      agrees to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee with the Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, and Waitemata Local Boards, to collectively administer the Facility Partnerships fund.

b)      endorses the Terms of Reference and Guidelines for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee, which will be adopted by the Committee at its first meeting:

i.        The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a member from each of the following Local Boards: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata.

ii.       The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to make funding decisions in 2013/2014 in relation to the Facility Partnerships Guidelines.

iii.      The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will appoint and may remove its own chairperson and deputy chairperson.

iv.      The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged there will be two procedural meetings and no less than one funding decision meeting in each financial year.

c)      Appoints Board Member X, and Board Member Y as alternate, to the Central Facility Partnerships Committee with appropriate delegated authority to bind the board on decisions relating to the Central Facility Partnerships Fund made by the Committee.

d)      notes that the first meeting of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee will be held on 11 December 2013.

 

 

 

Discussion

 

6.       The legacy Facility Partnerships fund invites organisations to submit partnership proposals for capital development projects that will assist Auckland Council to meet its identified strategic outcomes.

7.       Where a proposal fits identified strategic priorities and other criteria, council may contribute to the capital cost of the project. The level of financial assistance is informed by the level of benefit to, and access, the public will have to the facility once the project is completed.

8.       Organisations participating in Facility Partnerships benefit from funding, as it enables them to leverage grants from other donors, and through technical assistance and support. Funding from council allows organisations (many of which are not-for-profit voluntary groups) to meet their objectives sooner and in some cases, develop a better facility than may otherwise have been possible.

9.       Facility Partnerships benefit the council by delivering quality, community accessible facilities, without council providing all the development funding. Facility Partnerships are not limited to sport and recreation facilities, and can be provided for other general or specific community purposes (for example a community hub or arts facility).

10.     The wider Auckland community benefit from Facility Partnerships by having access to a greater number of quality, community facilities.

11.     Auckland Council inherited several different approaches for managing Facility Partnerships. A new, integrated policy is being developed and is expected to be completed for the 2014/2015 year.

12.     In the absence of an integrated regional policy, and to enable facility partnership funding to be allocated, the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) resolved on 24 May 2012 and again on 14 March 2013 that an interim approach be implemented for 2013/14.

13.     RDOC also resolved that the interim approach would be implemented by devolving the legacy Facility Partnerships funding to “local board sub-regional funding committees.”

14.     The seven central local boards consequently established a joint committee of local boards that deals specifically with central Facility Partnerships.  Each of the seven central local boards appointed a representative to the the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to ensure that the Facility Partnerships fund can be implemented in a timely manner.

15.     The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a different focus to the Central Joint Funding Committee, with the latter having a focus on community and heritage funding. In contrast, facility partnership is a capital development fund that establishes partnerships between council and external organisations.

16.     In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the committee has been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

17.     It is recommended that the board agrees to re-instate the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to administer the Facility Partnerships funding. This report also asks the seven central local boards to appoint a representative and an alternate to the Committee, with the appropriate delegated authority to bind the local boards on decisions relating to the legacy Facility Partnerships policy made by the Committee, and to agree the attached terms of reference (unchanged from last term).

Consideration

Local Board Views

18.     This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

19.     Facility partnerships is a general programme of interest that is accessible to a wide range of groups, including Māori. No particular implications for the Māori community or Māori stakeholders have been identified from this report.

Implementation Issues

20.     The Committee will hold its first workshop on 27 November 2013.  The purpose of the workshop is to discuss and seek additional information on the partnership applications.

21.     A first meeting is scheduled on 11 December 2013 to consider procedural matters including but not limited to electing a Chair and Deputy Chair; adopting the Central Facility Partnerships Committee Terms of Reference (attached) and considering funding applications received (Stage 1).

22.     After the Central Facility Partnerships Committee has decided which projects to support, the local board where the project is based will be actively engaged with the project. The local board’s role may include setting expectations for community access to the facility.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Terms of Reference

35

b

Facility Partnerships 2012/2013 Guidelines

37

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Terms of Reference 2013-2014

 

Central Facility Partnerships Committee

 

 

Membership

The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a member from each of the following Local Boards:

·    Albert-Eden

·    Great Barrier

·    Maungakiekie-Tamaki

·    Orakei

·    Puketapapa

·    Waiheke

·    Waitemata

 

Decision Making

The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to make funding decisions in 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 in relation to the Central Facility Partnership Fund.

 

Chairperson

The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will appoint and may remove its own chairperson and deputy chairperson.

 

Meetings

The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged there will be two procedural meetings and no fewer than one funding decision meeting in each financial year.

 

Workshops

Decision meetings will be preceded by a workshop. The purpose of the workshops is to discuss and seek additional information on the applications.

 

Standing Orders of Local Boards

The Standing Orders of Local Boards as set by the Auckland Transition Agency on 27 October 2010 will apply to this Joint Committee.

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 




Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Central Joint Funding Committee

 

File No.: CP2013/25816

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the local board’s agreement:

·      to re-instate the Central Joint Funding Committee to oversee the relevant legacy community funding schemes

·      on the Terms of Reference for the Central Joint Funding Committee

·      to nominate a member and an alternate on the Central Joint Funding Committee.

Executive Summary

2.       The Central Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the seven central local boards with decision-making responsibility for the allocation of grants through the legacy community funding schemes.

3.       In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the committee was automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

4.       The Central Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year to administer legacy community funding budgets. This report seeks the board’s approval to re-instate the Central Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approval of the Terms of Reference and appointment of a member to the Committee.

5.       The establishment of the committee is an interim approach until a region-wide community funding policy is finalised. Financial analysis is currently underway to inform options and a supporting budget structure for the new funding policy. Formal consultation on the draft policy will be undertaken with local boards in 2014. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      agrees to re-instate the Central Joint Funding Committee for 2013/ 2014 to administer the legacy funds as per tche Terms of Reference

b)      endorses the draft Terms of Reference for the Central Joint Funding Committee

c)      appoints member X and member Y as alternate to the Central Joint Funding Committee for 2013/ 2014 with appropriate delegated authority to bind the board on decisions relating to the legacy community funding schemes made by the Committee

d)      notes that a region-wide Community Funding Policy is being developed and will in time replace the current interim funding arrangements. Officers will engage with the board in the coming months.

 

 

Discussion

6.       The Central Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the seven central local boards - Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketāpapa, Waiheke and Waitemata Local Boards. It had decision-making responsibility to allocate grants from the legacy community funding schemes.

7.       Local boards continue to have full decision-making authority over their individual Local Boards Discretionary Grants schemes. These schemes were established as part of the interim funding programme, using budgets inherited from legacy community board funding schemes.

8.       At its March 2013 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to continue the Community Assistance Programme for 2013/2014 within unchanged structural and budgetary parameters, while the region-wide Community Funding Policy is in development.

9.       This means that, as per previous years, legacy community funding budgets are allocated to sub-regional joint funding committees of local boards, and that the Central Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year.

10.     The previous local board agreed to the continuation of the Central Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014, approved amended terms of reference and appointed a member and an alternate to the Committee. Attachment A presents the rationale behind this decision, as well as the details of the funds to be allocated.

11.     In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the committee was automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

12.     Officers recommend that the board re-instates the Central Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approves the Terms of Reference and appoints a member to the Committee.

13.     Each of the legacy councils had a different approach to investing in their communities, and community grant funding is only one of several mechanisms for making this investment. In April 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee requested  comprehensive financial analysis of all community development-related spending, including but not limited to the legacy community funding budgets that local boards are administering through the interim programme (Resolution number RDO/2013/55). The Regional Development and Operations Committee required this work to be completed prior to development of the second iteration of a new Community Funding Policy.

14.     The financial analysis is currently underway, and will be reported to the relevant committee early in 2014. It is anticipated that the findings will provide a clearer picture of current budget distribution and show the variation in inherited community investment models in place around the region. This will provide a valuable basis for developing new policy options and outlining the appropriate budget structures to underpin them. However, any changes to current budget distribution will be proposed as part of the Local Board Funding Policy (not the Community Funding Policy) for implementation as part of the Long Term Plan (from 2015).

15.     Officers will be formally engaging with local boards around further development of the region-wide Community Funding Policy in the coming months.

Consideration

Local Board Views

16.     The legacy funding schemes are a key way for local boards to support their communities.

Māori Impact Statement

17.     The legacy community funding schemes are of general interest to communities and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Māori. No particular implications for the Māori community or Māori stakeholders have been identified as arising from this report.

General

18.     The recommendations contained in this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Implementation Issues

19.     The Central Joint Funding Committee resolved in September 2013 to distribute the 2013/2014 legacy community funding schemes for the purposes of administering the funding, as follows:

Fund

Allocation

Auckland City Natural Heritage Fund $50,000

$40,000 for Great Barrier Island Local Board

$10,000 for Waiheke Island Local Board

For Hauraki Gulf Island projects only and noting that the funding split is based on historical allocation

Auckland City Cultural Heritage Fund $50,000

Five isthmus local boards to administer jointly

 

Community Group Accommodation Support Fund $676,900

$5000 to Great Barrier Island Local Board

$20,000 to Waiheke Island Local Board

Remainder ($651,900) administered jointly by the five isthmus local boards

Community Group Assistance Fund $435,150

$15,000 to Waiheke Island Local Board

Remainder ($420,150) administered jointly by the five isthmus local boards

20.     The Central Joint Funding Committee also resolved that there would be two rounds only for the legacy community funding schemes (Community Group Assistance Fund, Community Group Accommodation Support, Auckland City Cultural Heritage, and Auckland City Natural Heritage):

I.          Round one opened in June 2013 and closed on 15 July 2013 for decisions in September 2013

II.         Round two will open in November 2013 and close on 13 December 2013 (CGAF only) and 28 March 2014 (ACCHF) for decisions in May 2014.

21.     The Central Joint Funding Committee will hold a workshop and a meeting (dates to be confirmed) to consider procedural matters including but not limited to:

i)          electing a Chair and Deputy Chair

ii)         adopting the Terms of Reference (attached)

iii)         considering the applications received.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Agenda report to the local boards May/June 2013

45

b

Draft terms of reference

53

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Community Assistance Programme for 2013 / 2014

 

File No.: CP2013/08757

 

  

 


Purpose

1.       To inform the Local Board of the resolutions made by the Regional Development and Operations Committee at its March 2013 meeting in relation to the continuation of the Community Assistance Programme for 2013 / 2014 within unchanged structural and budgetary parameters.

2.       To seek the Local Board’s endorsement to continue the current sub-regional governance arrangements to oversee the relevant funding schemes unchanged for 2013 / 2014, and to up-date the terms of reference and membership of the Central Joint Funding Committee.

Executive Summary

3.       At its March 2013 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee agreed to continue the Community Assistance Programme for 2013/2014 within unchanged structural and budgetary parameters. Budgets for 2013/2014 will be allocated to region-based joint funding committees of local boards.

4.       As a result of the Regional Development and Operations Committee’s decision to continue the interim funding model for 2013 / 2014, the current decision-making arrangements at sub-regional levels needs to be extended for an additional year. This requires up-dating the terms of reference and membership for the Central Joint Funding Committee.

5.       The Regional Development and Operations Committee also agreed to an operational review of the interim funding model. The purpose of the review is to identify aspects of the 2012 / 2013 interim funding programme that are not working well and take steps to mitigate or minimise these issues for the 2013 / 2014 financial year. The review will be tightly focused on achievable improvements of an operational nature, given the very short timeframe to make changes prior to the commencement of the 2013 / 2014 financial year.  Local Boards, as key stakeholders, will have the opportunity to participate in this review and will be notified of any changes.

6.       As part of these operational changes, minor changes / improvements to the legacy funding schemes criteria might emanate from this operational review.  In order to implement these changes in time for the first 2013 / 14 funding round, it is recommended that the Local Board gives authority to the Central Joint Funding Committee, through the committee’s delegations and terms of reference, to endorse minor changes to the administration of any relevant funds.

7.       Terms of reference with amendments that would implement this authority are included as Attachment B. It is recommended that the Local Board approve these amended terms of reference.   

8.       A region-wide Community Funding Policy is expected to replace the current interim funding model.  Its development has however been delayed, because of the complexity of the range of funding models currently operating across the region, and a lack of consensus on overarching strategic issues.  The Regional Development and Operations Committee will consider the way forward for the development of a Community Funding Policy in a report to its April 2013 meeting.  This report will subsequently be forwarded to all local boards. Depending on the outcomes of the investigation proposed in the April report, it is envisaged that a new funding policy will be in place for the 2014 / 2015 financial year.

 


 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)         Receive the Regional Operations and Development Committee’s report on Community Assistance Programme 2013/ 2014 and note the Committee’s decision to continue the interim community funding approach for 2013 / 2014

b)         Note that relevant community grant budgets will be allocated to sub-regional joint funding committees of local boards

c)         Note that the Central Joint Funding Committee will need to be operational for the 2013 / 2014 financial year and that its terms of reference needs to be up-dated for the year 2013 / 1024

d)         Note that Community Policy and Planning staff are undertaking an operational review of the interim Community Funding programme into which local board members will have an opportunity to input

e)         Approve amended terms of reference of the Central Joint Funding Committee  to up-date the date and to make minor changes to the legacy funding schemes criteria, as per Attachment B

f)          Resolve to appoint a member to the Central Joint Funding Committee for the 2013 / 2014 financial year

g)         Note that officers will be formally engaging with local boards around further development of the region-wide Community Funding Policy in the coming months.

 

 


Discussion

 

Background

 

9.       Over the last two financial years, an interim funding model has enabled Council to deliver the many legacy contestable funding schemes to communities across the region.

10.     Decision-making responsibility to allocate the legacy community funding schemes and the new Local Boards Discretionary Grants funding currently sits with the Local Boards, while both the Community Development, Arts and Culture, and Infrastructure and Environmental Services departments of Council provide operational support.

11.     Where legacy funds sat sub-regionally, the majority of local boards have worked together to disburse grants via geographically-based joint committees or sub-committees.  A different approach has been taken in the south, where each sub-regional fund has been divided into separate local budgets with allocations determined by local boards individually. In the central area, local boards agreed that Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards would receive a percentage of the legacy Auckland Council community funds and the entire legacy Natural Heritage fund to administer independently.

12.    
The
seven Central Local Boards (Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata) have previously agreed to administer the legacy Auckland City community funding schemes according to the following interim funding model for 2011/12:

Fund (as in 2011/12)

Allocation

Auckland City Natural Heritage Fund $50,000

$40,000 for Great Barrier Island Local Board

$10,000 for Waiheke Island Local Board

For Hauraki Gulf Island projects only and noting that the funding split is based on historical allocation

Auckland City Cultural Heritage Fund $50,000

Five isthmus local boards to administer jointly

 

Community Group Accommodation Support Fund $676,900

$5000 to Great Barrier Island Local Board

$20,000 to Waiheke Island Local Board

Remainder ($651,900) administered jointly by the five isthmus local boards

Community Group Assistance Fund $435,150

$15,000 to Waiheke Island Local Board

Remainder ($420,150) administered jointly by the five isthmus local boards

 

13.     The available budget for each community funding scheme the 2013 / 2014 financial year is outlined in to the Long Term Plan.

14.     The Local Boards also resolved on the terms of reference and membership of the Central Joint Funding Committee for the 2012 / 2013 financial year.

 

Community Assistance Programme for 2013/2014

 

15.     The Regional Development and Operations Committee considered the Community Assistance Programme for 2013/2014 at its March 2013 meeting.  The report can be found in Attachment 1.

16.     The Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to (RDO/2013/32):

a)        endorse the continuation of the interim community funding programme for the 2013/2014 financial year, in accordance with current budgets and decision-making delegations, due to the complexity of the range of funding models currently operating across the region, with the expectation that a new funding policy be in place for the 2014/2015 financial year, or before

 b)      note that Community Policy and Planning staff will work with the relevant stakeholder departments to conduct an operational review of the 2012/2013 interim funding programme, in order to determine and implement feasible changes and improvements for the 2013 / 2014 funding year

c)       note that a report will be presented to the committee at its April 2013 meeting, which will:

·    define and clarify the ongoing role of the community assistance political working party established by the Committee in May 2012

·    seek agreement on the expanded scope of the financial investigation into Council’s investment in community services, further to the political working party’s request in November 2012

·    outline a plan for developing long-term community funding policy options

d)      forward this report to local boards for their information

e)      instruct officers to consult with the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) on the development of long-term community funding policy options

f)       agree that a replacement member of the IMSB be appointed to the Community Assistance Political Working Party.

17.     The Committee’s decision to continue the interim community funding programme for the 2013/2014 financial year was primarily driven by the complexity of the range of funding models currently operating across the region.  The Committee expects that a new funding policy be in place for the 2014 / 2015 financial year, or before. The development of this new funding policy is discussed in more details later in this report under the section entitled ‘Long-term community funding policy’.

 

Governance consideration

 

18.     The continuation of the interim community funding programme for the 2013/2014 financial year does not affect budgets or decision-making delegations. Budgets will be allocated to sub-regional joint funding committees of local boards.

19.     For the Central Joint Funding Committee to be operational to administer the relevant community funds during the 2013/2014 financial year, its terms of reference need to be up-dated

20.     The following changes are proposed:

·          dates are up-dated to the next financial year.

·          delegations are amended to include the endorsement of minor amendments to inherited scheme criteria that might result from the operational review described below, and notably the discussion with members from the Central Joint Funding Committee.  This change in delegations would enable feasible improvements to the schemes to be implemented without any delay and in time for the first funding rounds in 2013 / 14.  

21.     The Local Board had previously resolved to appoint a member to the Central Joint Funding Committee for the 2012 / 2013 financial year.  This membership needs to be re-considered for the 2013 / 2014 financial year. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the sub-committee will be automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.  Its re-instatement, as well as its membership, will need to be considered after the elections.

22.     Attachment B presents the proposed amended terms of reference for the Central Joint Funding Committee for the Local Board’s consideration. The proposed amended wording is included in track changes

 

Operational review

 

23.     At its March 2013 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee agreed to an operational review of the interim funding model. The purpose of the review is to identify any aspect of the 2012 / 2013 interim funding programme that are not working well and take steps to mitigate or minimise these issues during the 2013 / 2014 financial year.

24.     Community Policy and Planning staff will work with the local boards and relevant stakeholder departments to conduct an operational review of the 2012/2013 interim funding programme, in order to determine and implement feasible changes and improvements for the 2013 / 2014 funding year.

25.     Issues identified may be primarily operational (e.g. application forms), or primarily policy-related (e.g. legacy scheme criteria). They may be unique to one team or area (e.g. receipting of applications), or be programme-wide (e.g. reporting on the grants programme to local boards). Problems may be newly emerging, be inherited from legacy schemes, or have come about as an unforeseen result of the ‘operational improvements’ introduced last year (reported to all local boards in May 2012). The problems of most interest are those that can be fixed within the existing resources and timeframe for the next funding round, without changing the intent of the inherited schemes or the budget structure, or reducing community access to funding.

26.     Local Board members on the community assistance political working party have indicated that some inherited funding scheme criteria are overly restrictive, add no value and limit the board’s flexibility to respond to community needs. Minor changes to funding scheme criteria (those that do not change the intent of the funding schemes or the community’s ability to access the funds) are within the scope of the operational review.

27.     Engagement with the local boards will aim to identify any problems identified with the 2012/13 funding programme, and to seek suggestions for operational changes and improvements for the 2013 / 2014 funding year.  Engagement will be facilitated via three avenues:

·    Community Policy and Planning staff will contact to the Local Board Relationship Manager seeking feedback.

·    Community Policy and Planning staff will meet with the Central Joint Funding Committee in May to discuss any minor amendments they may wish to make inherited scheme criteria within the scope of the review, and discuss other operational changes proposed by review participants.

·    Local Board Services officers will take part in the working group overseeing the operational review.

28.     Any improvements that result from the operational review should bring Council closer to region-wide best practice in the management of grant programmes, and will be reported to the Board in the form of an information memo in June 2013.

 

 

Long-term community funding policy 

 

29.     A region-wide Community Funding Policy is intended to replace the current interim funding model.  The development of this single Policy has proved more challenging that initially envisaged.  Its development has been delayed, because of the complexity of the range of funding models currently operating across the region, and the lack of consensus on overarching strategic issues (such as determining ‘equity’ in the distribution of funding budgets and the appropriate split between local and regional funding and activities).     

30.     In May 2012, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to defer the delivery of the new funding policy and programme until 2013/14 to allow time for further development of the proposed funding programme, including the distribution of budgets and decision-making powers between regional and local funds and between local boards (RDO/2012/89).

31.     The Regional Development and Operations Committee will consider a report on the long-term community funding model at its April 2013 meeting.  This report will:

·    define and clarify the role and responsibility of the community assistance political working party established by the Committee in May 2012 and which includes seven representatives from local boards

·    seek agreement on the expanded scope for the financial investigation into Council’s investment into community services, further to the political working part’s request in November 2012

·    outline a plan for developing long-term community funding policy options.

32.     Subsequent to the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolving on these issues, the report will be presented to the Board in May / June.

Consideration

Local Board Views

33.     Local Boards are key to the Community Assistance Programme.  While Local Boards members have not been consulted specifically on the options for community funding 2013 / 14, their views have been gathered on the issue of community funding policy in several instances and have been taken into account as part of the recommendations to the Regional Development and Operations Committee.

34.     We note that some Local Boards have expressed their frustration at the lack of progress with the development of a single regional policy. 

Maori Impact Statement

35.     There are no specific implications for Maori or Maori community organisations arising from the recommendations in this report.

General

36.     The recommendations contained in this report fall within the Local Board’s delegated authority.

Implementation Issues

37.     The operational review of the community funding model is expected to be completed in June 2013.  All public facing changes will be in place before the first funding rounds open for 2013 / 2014. Internal changes will be implemented progressively between May and October 2013. The timeframe for the review, as detailed in the report in Attachment 1, is ambitious and affects what can reasonably be addressed through this review.  This timeframe also means that local boards’ involvement needs to happen rapidly.  This engagement will be facilitated during April / May, and may in some instances precede the consideration of this report.

38.     The operational review of the community funding model does not require formal decision-making. Community Policy and Planning staff will be presenting the outcomes of the review to local boards by way of an information memo in June 2013, explaining how feasible changes are being implemented, and giving reasons for any changes that cannot be made. Issues raised that cannot be resolved during the review period or implemented during the 2013 / 2014 financial year will be recorded and will either feed into the development of long-term policy options or inform on-going business improvement initiatives.

39.     Minor changes to inherited schemes criteria will be discussed and formally resolved upon at the extraordinary meetings of the joint sub-committees in May. As discussed, this requires the delegations to the Joint Funding Committees to be amended to include the endorsement of such changes.  

 


Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

RDOC report March 2013

 

b

Up-dated Terms of reference of the Central Joint Funding Committee

 

    

Signatories

Authors

Emma Cordery - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Appointment of Board Members to Outside Organisations and Community Networks

 

File No.: CP2013/25811

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To appoint board members to be representative to outside organisations and community networks within the local board area and Local Government New Zealand.

Executive Summary

1.       Elected members participate on management, governance or networking groups in outside organisations for a number of reasons. This report provides details of the organisations and outlines and networks relevant to the local board. It included the appointment delegated to the local boards by the governing body (Resolution GB/2013/126).

2.       The beginning of the new electoral term generates the need for new appointment. It is recommended that the board appoint one representative, and one alternate representative for each organisation and community network listed in the recommendations.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      allocates board members to outside organisations and community networks, as listed below:

Organisation

Primary

Alternate

Mt Roskill Grammar School Artificial Playing Surface Trust

 

 

Joint Liaison Body (Auckland Council and James Wallace Arts Trust)

0

 

 

Community Network

Primary

Alternate

Roskill Together

 

 

 

 

 

Local Government New Zealand

Primary

Alternate

 

 

 

 

Discussion

1.       A number of external organisations provide for the formal participation of elected members in their affairs. Elected member appointees will have a variety of duties and liabilities depending on the individual organisation. Board members may provide updates of their activities with their allocated organisations at local board meetings.

2.       The reasons for participation in external organisations can be described in a number of ways:

·      a trust deed of an organisation providing for the council to appoint a trustee

·      an organisation of interest to the council simply inviting representation at its meetings

·      associations entered into by the council which provide for representation - such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)

·      organisation governance, or project or programme oversight, such as regional or local parks management groups

·      a statutory or regulatory provision (for example a regulation providing for a community liaison committee)

·      a resource consent requiring the formation of a representative committee

3.       At the commencement of each triennium, committees and local boards recommend appointments to outside organisations as appropriate and the governing body reviews and either makes the appointments it sees fit and delegates the remaining appointments to local boards. At the end of each triennium, appointments to outside organisations must be reviewed by the appropriate officers as to current relevance, and a recommendation made to the appointing body as to whether or not representation should be continued.

4.       It is recommended that the board appoint one representative, and one alternate representative for each organisation and community network listed in the recommendations.

5.       In making decisions about these appointments, it is suggested that local boards are mindful of:

·      Historical relationships

·      Relevance and interest

·      Time commitment.

6.       In addition, the governing body has delegated appointment to the local boards (Resolution GB/2013/126.

Local Government New Zealand

7.       Membership of Local Government New Zealand Zone One (i.e. Auckland and Northland) Committee includes a representative from each of the 21 local boards.

8.       Each local board needs to consider selecting their representative, as well as an alternate.  Meetings take place four times a year and the venue for meetings is shared across the entire Zone One area. 

9.       Further information on LGNZ is available in Attachment A.

Consideration

Local Board Views

10.     This report seeks the local board’s decision on representatives to outside organisations and community networks.

11.     The decisions in this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

12.     This report has no specific impact on Māori. It covers appointments of local board members to outside organisations and community networks to represent the view of local communities, including Māori communities.

General

13.     Members are delegated in their capacity as elected local board members.  Should they no longer be a local board member, their nominations would be automatically repealed.

14.     Elected representatives may be part of any organisation in their private capacity and personal interests.

15.     Elected representatives are encouraged to disclose memberships to external orgasniations in the conflict of interest register.

Implementation Issues

16.     The venues for Local Government NZ Zone One meetings are shared across the entire Zone One area and some travel costs may be incurred by local boards as a result of the appointments.  

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local Government New Zealand

59

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Establishment of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee

 

File No.: CP2013/25813

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To establish the Puketāpapa Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, and to appoint a maximum of four local board members to the committee.

 

Executive Summary

2.       Under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools if satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”.

3.       The decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fences exemptions has been delegated to local boards. To administer this delegation in the 2010 – 2013 political term, local boards formed committees to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications.

4.       In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, all committees have been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

5.       Officers recommend that the local board:

·        Establishes a committee to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

·        Appoints a maximum of four local board members to the Puketāpapa Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      establishes the Puketāpapa Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications.

b)      appoints the following four members to the Puketāpapa Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee: member X, member Y, member Z and member ZZ.

 

Discussion

6.       The purpose of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act) is to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of certain swimming pools.  The Act places an obligation on territorial authorities to ensure that pool owners comply with the Act, both at the time when the pool is built, and subsequently by occasional inspections of pools to ensure ongoing compliance.

7.       Under S6 of the Act, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools.  Territorial authorities can also impose special conditions on a property and a pool.  A territorial authority can only grant an exemption, or impose a special condition, if, after having regard to the characteristics of the pool and the property, it is satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”.  No exemption is required for a new pool fence, or an alteration to an existing fence, if the new or altered fence is at least as safe as one built in accordance with the standard in the schedule of the Act.

8.       The governing body has delegated decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fences exemptions to local boards (resolution GB/2011/163). This decision is documented in the following report: “Auckland Council Long Term Plan 2012-20122.  Volume three: Financial information, policies and fees.  Chapter one: Allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities.  Part one: Source of decision-making responsibilities”.

9.       To administer this delegation, the previous local boards considered two options, as detailed in the table below. 

Option one: Creation of swimming pool fencing exemption subcommittee
(recommended
option)

Description

A subcommittee is created to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications

Benefits

·           enables decision-making to be undertaken in a timely manner as and when applications are received

·           the application and hearing can be the appropriate consideration away from a congested business meeting agenda

·           provides flexibility to organise a meeting as some applications will require a site visit

Costs / risks

·           additional workload for local board members

·           not all local board members will sit on the subcommittee

·           can be difficult to organise a meeting time with members on an ad-hoc basis

Option two: Application considered at local board business meeting

Description

Local board assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications at their business meetings

Benefits

·           consistent and streamlined approach that is considered at the next local board business meeting

·           no additional workload for local board members

Costs / risks

·           item may not be given due consideration amongst congested local board business meeting

·           site visits

 

10.     After consideration, the previous local boards opted for option one and established committees to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications. Under this option, the committee is called together when a suitable number of applications are to be heard. A particular time is set aside to hear the applications, giving each applicant sufficient time to present their case. Some applications for exemption require a site visit; the committee meeting may be adjourned for that purpose, and reconvened following the site visit.

11.     In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, all committees have been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections. 

12.     Officers recommend that in the 2013 – 2016 political, local boards re-establish committees to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

13.     It is also recommended that the boards each appoint a maximum of four local board members to their local board swimming pool fencing exemptions committees.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14.     The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

15.     This report does not specifically impact on Māori population or iwi.

General

16.     The local board’s decision on this matter does not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

17.     Costs associated with the formation of the Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee will be met within internal operating budgets.

18.     The decision of a local board following an exemption hearing is open to challenge by a judicial review process. Members appointed to the Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee will be briefed by Legal Services and Building Control officers regarding the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, the Building Act and the appropriate considerations to take into account when determining an application by a hearings process.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketapapa Local Board

28 November 2013

 

 

Urgent Decision Process for the Puketapapa Local Board

File No.: CP2013/25812

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks the board’s agreement for a process for urgent decisions of the Puketāpapa Local Board on matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

 

Executive Summary

2.       This report details a process for urgent decisions of the local board on matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum. 

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      adopts the urgent decision process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

b)      delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair or any person acting in these roles to make an urgent decision on behalf of the local board.

c)      requests that all urgent decisions be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

 

 

Background

3.       An extraordinary meeting is called when an urgent decision is required on matters that cannot wait until the next scheduled ordinary meeting of the local board.  At times, such as during the Christmas and New Year period, it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

 

4.       An alternative to calling for an extraordinary meeting is to delegate the authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make the decision on behalf of the local board.

 

5.       Urgent decisions are different from emergency decisions, which are only made if there is a risk to public health and safety.

 

Decision Making

It is recommended that the local board delegate the power to the Chair and Deputy Chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the board.

 

7.       Any request for an urgent decision of the local board must be processed through the Local Board Services department, and the Local Board Relationship Manager must endorse the request for an urgent decision before commencing the process. 

 

8.       All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a report stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions are required.  These reports will comply with the standard approval process. 

 

9.       A number of factors are considered before approval to use the urgent decision process is given such as:

 

·   The timing of the next scheduled meeting.

·   Confirmation that the local board has the delegation to make the decision.

·   Consideration of the rationale for urgency.

·   The significance of the decision and whether the urgent decision process is appropriate.

 

10.     Any decision made by delegation will be reported as an information item to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

11.     The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees members of the local board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and power, with some specific exceptions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

12.       This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

13.       There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation Issues

14.     The Local Board Relationship Managers can provide advice as to what might constitute an urgent decision.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager