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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 17 April 2014

3.30pm

Council Chamber
Henderson Civic Centre
6 Henderson Valley Road
Henderson

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Vanessa Neeson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Shane Henderson

 

Members

Brenda Brady, JP

 

 

Peter Chan, JP

 

 

Warren Flaunty, QSM

 

 

Will Flavell

 

 

Tracy Kirkley

 

 

Luke Wilson

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)

 

 

Busola Martins

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

11 April 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 839 3514

Email: busola.martins@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

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

6.1     Acknowledgement of Te Kawerau a Maki                                                         5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Waitemata Sports Club Community Loan                                                                  7

13        Deed of Lease for Additional Land to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated, 93 Rathgar Road, Henderson                                                                                     59

14        Approval of the Henderson-Masey Local Board Community Lease Renewals Schedule 2013/2014                                                                                                                      67

15        Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities 75

16        Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events                                                     81

17        Local board input into the council-controlled organisations current state assessment                                                                                                                                       89

18        Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review                   133

19        Retrospective approval of submissions: psychoactive substances regulations and draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice                                                                    145

20        Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan                                                 171

21        Draft Annual Plan 2015/2015 submissions analysis and responses to information requests                                                                                                                      187

22        LGNZ conference and AGM 2014                                                                            191

23        Making Good Decisions Course - Local Board Member Attendance                 199

24        Chair's report                                                                                                             201

25        Confirmation of Workshop Records                                                                       205

26        Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards                                                                                                              215  

27        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

Apologies from members Will Flavell and Vanessa Neeson have 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)         Confirms the minutes of its meetings, held on Thursday, 3 April 2014, as a true and correct record.

b)         Confirms the minutes of the Annual Plann Hearing held on 25 March 2014, 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

 

6.1       Acknowledgement of Te Kawerau a Maki

Executive Summary

Tēnei te mihi atu ki te iwi o Te Kawerau a Maki mō to koutou kerēme i te taha o te karauna. Ka tika te mihi atu ki ngā rangatira o te iwi nei mō tō koutou whakapau kaha ki te tutuki pai i taua mahi. Kei te mōhio hoki mātou te poari o Henderson Massey i ngā hara o mua. Nō reira, kua tae mai nei te wā ki te paneke tonu.  Ko te tūmanako, ka mahi tahi tātou ki te tutuki i ngā wawata, i ngā moemoeā hoki o ngā uri o Te Kawerau a Maki i roto i tēnei takiwā, te uru o Tāmaki Makaurau. Ngā mihi mahana, mihi uruhau hoki ki a koutou katoa.

Congratulations to Te Kawerau a Maki for your settlement with the Crown. It is also correct to acknowledge the leaders of Te Kawerau a Maki for your work in achieving this outcome. The Henderson Massey Local Board understands the many historic grievances and therefore this is an opportunity to keep moving forward in the right direction. It is hopeful that we can work together to realise the dreams and aspirations of the descendants of Te Kawerau a Maki in this region.  Warm greetings to you all.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Acknowledges the leaders of Te Kawerau a Maki for their work.

 

 

 

7          Item Withdrawn

 

8          Item Withdrawn

 

9          Item Withdrawn

 

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.

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Waitemata Sports Club Community Loan

 

File No.: CP2014/02665

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to inform the Henderson Massey Local Board about Waitemata City Sports Club’s community loan with Auckland Council and to seek approval from the Henderson Massey Local Board to restructure the loan.

Executive Summary

2.       Waitemata City Sports Club has a community loan of $94,291 with a 7% interest rate.  The Club has failed to make any repayments on this loan since October 1996.  There is no documentation that supports the Club’s belief that the loan was written off by Waitakere City Council. The interest rate on the loan needs to be adjusted to 4.5% to align with Auckland Council community loan interest rates and the Club will need to recommence repayments. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Establishes the starting balance of the loan as $94,291 which does not include any interest accrued.

b)      Approves that the interest rate on the outstanding loan to Waitemata City Association Football Club of $94,291 be changed from 7% to 4.5%.

c)      Approves the recommencement of monthly loan repayments from Waitemata City Association Football Club from 1 July 2014.

 

Discussion

3.       The Waitakere City Sports Club (the Club), previously named Waitemata City Association Football Club, was provided with a Council loan in 1989 of $140,000 to assist in securing full occupancy of their club rooms at McLeod Park.  The Club had constructed its club rooms in a joint arrangement with the Waitemata Cricket Club and the Club wished to fully utilise the clubrooms and grounds as a soccer venue.

4.       The original loan was set at a 10% interest rate and in 1992 it was approved to be reduced to 5%, as it was evident that the cash flow of the Club was never strong enough to service the loan. From 1992, the Club entered into a new arrangement but in 1996 fell behind in payments.  A further one-off payment of $7,500 was received in October 1996.  No further payments have been made following October 1996.

5.       On the 15 September 2010, the Waitakere City Council Chief Financial Officer (Andrew Pollock) submitted a report to Waitakere City Council stating that the Club was sent documentation to recommence payments after it was established that the club had accumulated some funds that would enable repayments to commence. The interest rate established was 7% which was in line with Waitakere City Council community loan interest rates.  The club to date has not made any further repayments and the current amount still owed to Council is $94,291 not including any interest accrued since 1995. The Club has however sent a letter to Council on the 23 October 2010 stating that as far as the Club committee was concerned, this matter was an historic debit which no longer existed.

6.       A meeting was held with the Club committee on the 29 April 2013 and at that meeting it was agreed that Officers would look for any evidence that the loan had been absolved by Waitakere City Council, or further evidence to support the case that the Club would not have to repay the loan. 

7.       From a detailed search through archived documents, no evidence has been found that supports the belief that the loan no longer exists. Therefore it is recommended that Council restructure the loan with a 4.5% interest rate which will align with Auckland Council community loan interest rates.  It is also recommended that the Club recommence monthly repayments from the 1 July 2014 over a period to be established with the Club. It is recommended that any interest accrued on the loan (circa $165,000) not be charged to the club as this will make repayments unrealistic.

Consideration

Local Board Views

8.       There have been no previous resolutions on this subject matter.  The Local Board is currently receiving loan repayments from Badminton Waitakere.

Maori Impact Statement

9.       There is no particular impact on Maori.

Implementation Issues

10.     The Limitations Act 1950 may apply. There is evidence of regular communication between Council and the Club, however there is no documentation that shows Council wrote off the loan with the Club. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Status of Loans to Various Community Type Organisations 15 September 2010

9

bView

Finance and Operational Performance Committee 9 November 2009

35

      

Signatories

Authors

Gabrielle Gofton - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Recreation Partnerships Programmes and Funding

Leigh Redshaw - Strategic Partnerships Advisor

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 



























Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 
























Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Deed of Lease for Additional Land to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated, 93 Rathgar Road, Henderson

 

File No.: CP2014/05427

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks Henderson-Massey Local Board approval to grant a Deed of Lease for Additional Land to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated over part of Glen Norman Reserve, 93 Rathgar Road, Henderson.

Executive Summary

2.       Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated (the Association) has a community lease granted by legacy Waitakere City Council from 1 January 2006 for a term of five years with one five year right of renewal from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016.  The Association owns the building.

3.       At a Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting of 20 June 2013 a resolution was passed granting a renewal and variation of community lease, resolution number HM/2013/106 (Attachment A).

4.       The lease area included in the Deed of Lease dated 9 December 2005 is for the footprint of the building only. The Association has advised that an area of the reserve surrounding the building footprint has been fenced off from the balance of the reserve for many years in order to keep children accompanying their parents safe. Auckland Council legal advice is that the correct procedure to increase an area under lease is by way of a separate deed of lease to cover the additional area, not by way of variation to an existing lease.

5.       This report recommends formally rescinding a) iii) of resolution number HM/2013/106 made by the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 20 June 2013 and granting a deed of lease for additional land to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated.

 

Recommendations

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Formally rescinds a) iii) of resolution number HM/2013/106 made by the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 20 June 2013 to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated;

b)      Approves the grant of a deed of lease for additional land to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated for part of Glen Norman Reserve, 93 Rathgar Road, Henderson, as shown outlined in yellow on the site plan (Attachment B) excluding the building footprint comprised in the existing lease to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated dated 9 December 2005 subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – 5 years commencing 1 January 2012, on the same terms and    conditions as contained in the existing community lease, as varied on 20 June    2013, excluding a right of renewal.

 


Discussion

6.       Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated (the Association) has a community lease granted by legacy Waitakere City Council from 1 January 2006 for a term of five years with one five year right of renewal from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016.  The Association owns the building.

7.       At a Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting of 20 June 2013 a resolution was passed granting a renewal and variation of community lease, resolution number HM/2013/106 (Attachment A).

8.       The lease area included in the Deed of Lease dated 9 December 2005 is for the footprint of the building only.  The Association advises that an area of the reserve surrounding the building footprint has been fenced off from the balance of the reserve for many years in order to keep children accompanying their parents safe.  Auckland Council legal advice is that the correct procedure to increase an area under lease is by way of a separate deed of lease to cover the additional area, not by way of variation to an existing lease.

9.       A deed of lease for additional land is proposed to be granted to the Association for the additional area surrounding the building footprint and within the existing fenced area as shown outlined in yellow on the site plan (Attachment B.) and formally rescinding a) iii) of resolution number HM/2013/106 made by the Henderson-Massey Local Board on 20 June 2013 to Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated.

10.     The Association was registered as an incorporated society on 1 August 1979. The objectives of the Association are:

·    to work with families to provide quality Early Childhood play experiences for children under approved supervision

·    to foster positive parent-child relationships through parent education programmes

·    to honour the commitments embodied in Te Tiriti O Waitangi

·    to assist parents/caregivers/whanau tiaki tamariki (family caring for children) to provide a play environment which acknowledges and incorporates the dual heritage of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

11.     The Association maintains the support of 11 of their associated playcentres through co-ordinating activities, training of staff, record keeping of all Association’s members and promoting safety and personal development for the parents through the workshops that they hold. The training and workshops include:

·    First aid courses

·    Guiding Young Children’s Behaviour

·    Celebrating Culture

·    Te Reo Maori 2

·    Extending 4 Year Olds

12.     The Association maintains the building and have plans to replace some of the decking and repaint the exterior of the building.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13.     Council staff have sought input from the local board portfolio holders.

14.     The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

Maori Impact Statement

15.     The Association has a long standing community lease on the property. It is considered the granting of a renewal of community lease and deed of lease for additional space will not have any adverse impact for Maori. Instead, Maori benefit as members of the Association and users of the facility.

General

16.     The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

17.     Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments.

18.     The Land is held by Auckland Council as a Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Implementation Issues

19.     There are no cost implications for Auckland Council.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Henderson-Massey Local Board Resolution Number HM/2013/106

63

bView

Site Plan for Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated, Glen Norman Reserve

65

     

Signatories

Authors

Donna Cooper - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

 

Attachment B:  Site Plan for Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated, Glen Norman Reserve, 93 Rathgar Road, Henderson

 

Location Map and Lease Area

Park outlined in red and deed of lease for additional land outlined in yellow (excluding building footprint contained in the existing lease)

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Approval of the Henderson-Masey Local Board Community Lease Renewals Schedule 2013/2014

 

File No.: CP2014/04834

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks Henderson-Massey Local Board approval to consider and grant approval of outstanding lease renewals as per the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Lease Workplan 2013/2014.

Executive Summary

2.       On 19 September 2013, the Henderson-Massey Local Board granted approval of the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Lease Workplan 2013/2014 (Attachment A).

3.       The workplan prioritises leases with a final expiry or renewal term expiry up to 30 June 2014 and other lease projects.  Prioritising the workplan allows visibility of the portfolio and establishes direction on expectations and reporting.

4.       As part of the workplan process the Henderson-Massey Local Board is requested to consider and grant approval of the outstanding lease renewals detailed in the Community Lease Renewals (Attachment B).

5.       The renewal process includes confirmation of the tenant’s performance during the course of their lease term to confirm that the tenant is meeting their lease obligations.  Financial sustainability, legal status, compliance requirements, a review of the operation of the group, and a site inspection has been undertaken to ensure the facility is being maintained to an appropriate standard.

 

Recommendations

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Approves the renewal of the leases specified in the Community Lease Renewals schedule for:

-     Henderson Bowls Incorporated

(Deed of Assignment of Lease dated 7 March 2003 from

Henderson Womens Bowling Club Incorporated to Henderson Bowls Incorporated)

-     Henderson Bowls Incorporated

b)         Approves Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated

 

 

Discussion

6.       On 19 September 2013, the Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Lease Workplan 2013/2014 was approved by the Henderson-Massey Local Board. 

7.       As part of the workplan process, the Henderson-Massey Local Board is requested to consider and grant approval of the outstanding lease renewals detailed in the Community Lease Renewals Schedule.

8.       Renewals are subject to evidence (including supporting documents) of ongoing viability over the lease term and community need for what the group provides.

9.       The renewal process includes confirmation of the tenant’s performance during the course of the lease term, financial sustainability, legal status, compliance requirements, a review of the operation of the group and a site inspection to ensure the facility is being maintained to an appropriate standard.

10.     Approval through this report will allow the Deeds of Renewal to be prepared and executed.

11.     Henderson Bowls Incorporated and Henderson Womens Bowling Club Incorporated had two separate leases.  The Henderson Womens Bowling Club Incorporated amalgamated with Henderson Bowls Incorporated and a Deed of assignment of lease was assigned to Henderson Bowls Incorporated on the 7th March 2003.

Consideration

Local Board Views

12.     The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

13.     The workplan and prioritisation has been discussed with the local board portfolio holder.

Maori Impact Statement

14.     Ensuring community facilities are well maintained and accessible for members of the community, is of benefit to all, including Maori.

General

15.     The recommendations within this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

16.     Council staff has sought input from relevant Council departments

Implementation Issues

17.     There are no cost implications for Auckland Council.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Lease Workplan 2013/2014

69

bView

Community Lease Renewals Schedule

73

     

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Knudsen - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board Community Lease Workplan 2013/2014

 

Group

Location

Building Ownership

Renewal Due

Lease Expired

 

Notes

Priority One: Renewals to be granted in this process

Leataata O Le Lumanai O Samoa Trust

Moire Park

Lessee

 

 

Renewed

HM/2013/204

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Two: Renewals, new leases and projects that are already underway

The Order of St John Northern Regional Trust Building

Lloyd Morgan Lions Club Park (Ambulance Station)

Lessee

7/1/2010

 

5 years - $150 + GST per annum

The Order of St John Priory Trust Board

Lloyd Morgan Lions Club Park (Training Rooms)

Lessee

7/31/2007

 

11 years - $5.00 + GST per annum

Waitakere Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc

Waitakere Central Library

Council

1/15/2011

 

5 years - $15,000 + GST per annum

Akld Kindergarten Assc. - Te Atatu Pen

Roby Reserve

Lessee

10/31/2012

 

5 years - $210 + GST per annum

Henderson Bowls Incorporated

Cranwell Park

Lessee

12/1/2004

 

21 years - $1 + GST per annum

Henderson Bowls Incorporated

Cranwell Park

Lessee

12/1/2004

 

21 years - $1 + GST per annum

Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated (On behalf of Massey Playcentre)

Lincoln Park

Lessee

4/1/2011

 

5 years - $210 + GST per annum

Akld Kindergarten Assc. -Te Atatu Village

Kaumatua Reserve

Lessee

10/31/2012

 

5 years - $210 + GST per annum

Akld Kindergarten Assc. - Henderson

Opanuku Reserve

Lessee

10/31/2012

 

5 years - $210 + GST per annum

Akld Kindergarten Assc. - Te Atatu Sth

Divich Reserve

Lessee

10/31/2012

 

5 years - $210 + GST per annum

Girl Guides Assc. NZ - Waipareira

Neville Power Memorial Park

Lessee

 

5/31/2005

 

Tu Wahine Trust

Lloyd Morgan Lions Club Park

Council

 

10/31/2005

 

Girl Guides Assc. NZ - Te Atatu

Durham Green

Lessee

 

1/31/2006

 

Girl Guides Assc. NZ - Swanson

Fairdene Reserve

Lessee

 

2/28/2006

 

Massey Community House Society Inc

Triangle Park

Council

 

3/31/2007

 

Pringle Park Bowling Club Inc

Jack Pringle Sports Park

Lessee

 

5/31/2009

 

Waitemata Rowing Club Inc

Taipari Strand

Lessee

 

 12/31/2011

 

Waitakere Badminton Association

Makora Park

Lessee

 

8/31/2007

 

NZ Motor Caravan Association Inc.

Tui Glen Reserve

Land lease

 

 

Renewed

HM/2014/17

Kiwi Trikers Social Club Inc.

Corban Reserve

Lessee

 

 

Renewed

HM/2014/17

The Massey Athletic Club Incorporated

Moire Park

Lessee

 

 

Renewed

HM/2014/17

Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board

Royal Reserve

Lessee

 

 

New Lease

HM/2014/18

Family Action

(formerly Waitakere Abuse & Trauma Counselling)

Lloyd Morgan Lions Club Park

Council

 

 

Renewed

HM/2014/17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Three: Renewals and new leases that have expired, together with other projects, that will be the next focus area for action

Akld Kindergarten Assc. - Sunnyvale

Kaikoura Reserve

Lessee

 

1/31/2009

 

Waitemata City Sports Club Incorporated

McLeod Park

Lessee

 

4/30/2010

 

Te Atatu Association Football Club Inc

Te Atatu Peninsula Park

Lessee

 

 

Renewed

HM/2014/17

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Four: Lease matters that are on hold due to complicating factors

Henderson Croquet Club Inc

Cranwell Park

Lessee

7/31/2005

 

Currently with legal

Te Atatu Rugby League & Sports Club Inc

Jack Colvin Park

Lessee

 

3/31/2007

Currently with legal due to pending NZTA works. Approval to vary the lease to change the name

Waitemata Rugby League Football Club Inc

Ranui Domain

Lessee

 

3/31/2007

Approval to vary the lease to change the name

Taikata Sailing Club Incorporated

Chapman Strand

Lessee

 

6/30/2008

 Land classification issues

Te Atatu Athletics Club Inc

Ramlea Park

Lessee

 

6/30/2009

Approval to vary the lease to change the name

Waitemata Maori Wardens Trust Inc

Tui Glen Reserve

Council

 

8/1/2009

 Land classification issues

Waitakere BMX Club

Te Rangi Hiroa/Birdwood Estate Winery

Land lease

 

3/31/2010

 Land classification issues

Te Atatu Pony Club

Harbourview/Orangihina

Lessee

 

2/28/2003

Monthly roll over due to NZTA works

Akld Kindergarten Assc. - Hobsonville

Trig Reserve

Lessee

11/1/2012

 

Land classification issues

Henderson Miniature Motor Racing Club

26 Seymour Road, Henderson

Council

 

 

Potential land Disposal

West Auckland Woodturners Guild Inc.

26 Seymour Road, Henderson

Council

 

 

Potential land Disposal

Waitakere Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc

545 Don Buck Road, Massey

Council

7/1/2010

 

On hold at request of Local Board.  5 years - $15,000 + GST per annum

Western Districts Model Railway Club Inc

Te Rangi Hiroa/Birdwood Estate Winery

Council

 

 

No lease on Record

Scout Assoc. of NZ - Endeavour Sea Scouts

Taipari Strand

Lessee

 

 

New Lease

HM/2014/19

West City Darts Association Incorporated

Te Rangi Hiroa/Birdwood Estate Winery

Council

 

6/30/2006

 Land classification issues

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Community Lease Renewals Schedule

Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

 

The Local Board is requested to consider and grant approval of the following lease renewal.  The renewal process includes confirmation of the Tenant’s performance during the course of the lease term and that the Tenant is not in breach of any of their obligations under their lease, checks on financial sustainability, confirmation of legal status, compliance requirements, a review of the operation of the group and a site inspection to ensure the facility is being maintained to an appropriate standard.

 

 

Group and Location

Building Ownership

Renewal due

Renewal Term and current rent

Notes

Henderson Bowls Incorporated

Cranwell Park

Group

01/12/2004

21 years - $1.00 + GST per annum

Approval to change the name from Henderson Bowling Club Incorporated to Henderson Bowls Incorporated

 

Henderson Bowls Incorporated

Cranwell Park

Group

01/12/2004

21 years - $1.00 + GST per annum

Deed of Assignment of Lease dated 7 March 2003 from Henderson Womens Bowling Club Incorporated to Henderson Bowls Incorporated

Te Akoranga Playcentre Association Incorporated (On behalf of Massey Playcentre)

Lincoln Park

Group

01/04/2011

5 years - $210 + GST per annum

 

 

 

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities

 

File No.: CP2014/06513

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Local boards are required to set fees for the hire of local council-managed community venues, centres and arts facilities. The fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Local Board Agreement.

2.       This report seeks to inform the Henderson-Massey Local Board of administrative changes to the fees and charges framework.

3.       It also seeks the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s confirmation of its priority activity types which will be eligible for a maximum discount (i.e. lowest fees per hour).

Executive Summary

1.   Local boards have the allocation of setting hire fees for your local facilities, to support delivery of services, projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.

2.   A project has been under way to develop a more consistent pricing structure for hire of council-managed community venues, centres and houses and arts facilities. Excluded from scope are facilities managed by committees or third parties, and bookable spaces in parks, sport and recreation facilities, or in libraries.

3.   Local boards have been engaged in this project through a series of workshops, providing feedback to inform a new fee structure for the hire of local community facilities, with the following purpose:

“To ensure people can access safe and affordable spaces to pursue their interests.”

 

4.   The project has resulted in three main changes:

a.   administrative changes to standardise terminology and charge fees on an hourly basis

b.   the Henderson-Massey Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect local board Plan priorities.

c.   proposed adjustments to the hire fees, to improve consistency across the portfolio of facilities within each local board area, and in similar facilities in adjoining boards.

 

5.   The fees and charges schedule will be presented for adoption as part of the 2014/2015 Henderson-Massey Local Board Agreement.

 

Recommendations

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Confirms the activity types eligible for priority discounts for hire of local council-run facilities as per attachment A

b)      Notes the administrative changes to facilitate implementation.

 

 

Discussion

Background

6.   Local boards are allocated the setting of fees and discounts for hire of their local council-run community arts venues, halls, centres and houses.  This supports delivery of services, projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.

7.   Historical variations in hire fees, terminology and procedures across the Auckland region led local boards in 2012 to request improvements to the customer experience for hirers of local community facilities, and to improve the transparency and quality of information and advice to guide local boards when you set and vary hire fees.

Local Board Engagement

8.   At workshops during 2013 and 2014, local boards with facilities in scope had a number of opportunities to engage with the project team and to express your preferred approaches to the hire of local facilities.  This report has been informed by the feedback received, and has led to a new hire fee framework and fee structure for the 2014-15 year.

9.   Operational considerations have meant that not all views expressed can be incorporated during 2014-15.  If you wish to consider more substantial changes to hire fees and charges in future years to ensure alignment across your portfolio, the Long Term Plan process offers an opportunity to consult local communities.

Changes to the Hire Fees and Charges Framework

10. The resulting new hire fee framework takes into account the size, condition and quality of each bookable space, levels of staffing, amenities available, and current patterns of utilisation of the spaces. Some adjustments have been proposed to fees for comparable facilities within each local board area or in adjoining boards.

11. The proposed fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Henderson-Massey Local Board Agreement.  While the proposed fee schedules are based on modelling within existing budget parameters, variances may arise due to changing demand and utilisation of facilities.  The proposed changes are intended to be budget neutral for each local board, and in most instances, are considered minor in comparison with value for money.

Proposed Administrative Changes

12. In 2014 at a further series of workshops, local boards were informed of operational changes, including standardised fee-naming, and principles for applying discounts:

i)    all bookings are treated on a first-come first-served basis

ii)   discounts are given for regular bookings and for off-peak times

iii)   all hire fees will be charged on a per hour basis, using six simple naming conventions, as in Table 1.

Table 1: Fee Naming Conventions

Naming Convention

Fee Comparisons

Standard

Full rate, no discounts

Standard Off Peak

Full rate, less a discount for time of day or week

Regular

Discount off standard rate for 10 or more bookings per year

Regular Off Peak

Discount off standard rate for 10 or more bookings per year, and a further discount for time of day / week

Local Board Priority Activities

Maximum discount off standard rate

Local Board Priority Off Peak

Maximum discount off standard rate, and a further discount for time of day / week

Consideration of Henderson-Massey Local Board Priorities

13. In line with 2014/2015 Local Board Agreement priorities, the Henderson-Massey Local Board is now asked to confirm Local Board Priority Activities, i.e. those activity types you wish to be eligible for a maximum discount.

Consideration

Local Board Views

4.       This report reflects the engagement with the local boards

Maori Impact Statement

5.       This will affect or benefit Māori communities in the same way it would any other community user in the local board area.  No specific need for consultation with Māori was identified for the purposes of this report.

General

6.       This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

7.       The new fee framework will be implemented from 1 July 2014.  No particular implementation issues are anticipated.  It is expected that the clarity and simplicity of the approach will enable more effective promotion of the facilities in the future.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Appendix A: Principles for bookings, fees and discounts for Waitakere Local Board

79

     

Signatories

Authors

Kat Tierney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Appendix A: Principles for bookings, fees and discounts for Waitakere Local Board

 

1.   Bookings are made on a first-come first-served basis, and charged at standard rates. 

 

2.   In order to meet demand for use of the facilities, a discount is applied at off peak hours.

 

3.   Regular users (10 or more bookings per year) will be charged at a discounted rate. 

 

4.   Bookings for activities which achieve community outcomes and benefits that the Local Board has prioritised or directly support priority outcomes and transformational shifts of the Auckland Plan, may be eligible for an additional discount, if certain criteria are met.

 

5.   For Waitakere Local Board, the priority activities for maximum discounts are awaiting discussion at the portfolio workshop.

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events

 

File No.: CP2014/07214

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an overview of the current financial management practice for dealing with extreme weather events in local parks assets across the region.  There are a number of issues and inconsistencies with the current practice and therefore it is recommended that a new and consistent approach be adopted. 

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought, all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips.  12 local boards have some funding to deal with land slips and other effects from extreme weather but it is rarely sufficient when serious issues arise.  Nine boards have no inbuilt financial capacity to cope with the impact of weather events.

3.       Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  There is a legal and moral obligation to ensure that some rates funding is set aside for this purpose given that weather damage, while unpredictable in timing and location, is none-the-less a constant in the Auckland region as a whole. 

4.       Three options are considered in this report.  This first is to continue with the ad-hoc funding arrangement i.e. do nothing.  The second is to pool local board funding to essentially develop a regional self-insurance fund (local unallocated budget).  The third is to seek a regional fund, controlled by the governing body, which is applied for on a case by case basis.  The second approach is recommended.  The current arrangement will result in the need for local boards to cut existing budgets from time to time to react to weather events and overspend or approach the governing body regarding unforecast over expenditure.    The second option, which involves funding moving to the area of greatest need, is likely to cover most weather events, without changing existing regional expenditure, and minimizes the time delays/bureaucracy involved.

5.       In 2011, storms affected many areas and resulted in a number of severe slips on Waiheke Island.  In 2012 the Upper Harbour Local Board was hit by a major cyclone event and dealt with the extensive damage via cuts in their current work and over expenditure.  In 2013 all boards were affected by drought and a number of local boards have been affected by slips and erosion.  The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Waitemata Local Board, in particular, are finding their current liabilities well beyond their individual ability to fund the remedies.  In general terms, extreme weather events affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than rural, flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

6.       The financial information relating to events that have occurred in the last three years is poor due to the fact that funds were taken from a variety of Auckland Council sources and expenses were not labelled consistently.  As such the average financial risk for the region over the last three years is not specifically known.  While it is possible for damage to be catastrophic and incalculable (if there is a regional disaster) it is only the common weather occurrence that is contemplated in this report.  Over the last three years costs have been in the realm of six figures every year and the burden has traversed local boards. 

7.       Current budgets are operational.  Damage from extreme weather events often results in the need for the development of new retaining or structures to protect existing assets from ongoing slips or similar.  There is currently no capital funding sitting with local boards specifically tagged for storm damage remediation.  It is recommended that a portion of the existing funding be allocated to capital budgets to provide for this eventuality.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Supports the development of a local unallocated fund to insure against unforeseen impact of extreme weather events to parks and that such funding can be on an as required basis.

b)      Supports a portion of the pooled operating budgets being allocated to local unallocated capital funding.

c)      Notes that expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

 

 

Discussion

8.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips. 

9.       The scale or impact of extreme weather events is particularly felt in urban parks where space is at a premium and landscapes are heavily developed.  Although weather events still have an impact on regional parks the scale of the regional park landscapes and the management of those landscapes (i.e. a lot more fully restored streams and coastal dunes) means the impact of extreme weather events can usually be tolerated without affecting the day to day use of the park.  In general terms, extreme weather events also affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

10.     The financial impact of managing damage associated with extreme weather events in the urban park environment has historically been dealt with in three ways:

·    Self-insurance – a fund is kept to call on for unforeseen damage

·    Reforecasting – no funds are set aside for unforeseen damage and as a result current projects and operational expenses are put on hold while funding is diverted to managing the impact of extreme weather events.

·    Overspend – where neither of the two options above are possible then some costs have been worn as an overspend

11.     Auckland City Council held specific “storm damage” budgets for parks and other Council’s had a level of self-insurance against unforeseen damage.  Others had nothing.

12.     Upon amalgamation the funding pool held by Auckland City Council was divided amongst the local boards in those areas. Local boards in the old Manukau City had some funding allocated to cater for this possibility in their local budgets.  This resulted in very small buckets of money being allocated to 12 local boards. 

13.     This local board budget allocation has largely defeated the purpose of the self-insurance fund as extreme weather events do not happen regularly in any given area. They can affect a localised area or a large scale area that has no correlation to local board boundaries.  This means that individual local boards can go many years without an extreme weather event while its neighbor or another local board may have several events in short succession.  This random occurrence is normal and the current budget allocation does not befit this natural phenomenon.


 

14.     The current operational “storm damage” budgets held across the region are:

 

YTD Actual (Feb)

 Budget

 Albert-Eden

 

                       $77,558

 Maungakiekie-Tamaki

 

                       $96,947

 Orakei

                       $13,101

                    $109,874

 Puketapapa

                          $2,197

                       $64,632

 Waiheke

 

                       $19,389

 Waitemata

                          $7,508

                    $102,894

 Franklin

 

                       $20,371

 Howick

 

                       $30,451

 Mangere-Otahuhu

 

                       $15,515

 Manurewa

 

                       $16,926

 Otara-Papatoetoe

 

                       $16,715

 Papakura

 

                       $11,158

Total

               $22,806

             $582,431

 

Note: there are a number of commitments or costs expected in Waitemata and Orakei that are not yet shown in the these budgets

Consideration

15.     Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  Under property law there is term known as lateral support which is about the right of a landowner to have their land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. There are around 4000 local and sports parks and each of these parks have neighbours.  Any excavation or alteration council makes to park land may, at a later time, damage and affect a neighbour and leave council liable. Our neighbours have a right to enjoy their land in its natural condition.  This includes the right to have their land held in place from the sides by the neighbouring land unless both are subject to unforeseen natural events.

16.     In addition to this legal obligation to neighbours, some extreme weather events come at such a substantial cost that the budget available to an individual board is either unable to wear the cost of the recovery or the cost of recovery affects a range of other activities within a local board area.  This budget shortfall creates a liability and its own set of risks for council and the community.

Options

17.     The following options have been considered for ongoing/future management of storm damage:

 

Option

Pro’s

Con’s

1

Do nothing:

Some boards have limited funds available, others have nothing

·   No change to boards budgets.  A small contingency fund remains available for those boards with funding.

·   No boards have sufficient funding to deal with medium size weather event – this exposes council to a range of risks

2

Create local unallocated fund (self-insurance):

This would be a ring fenced fund for all boards to access allocated to the local and sports parks activity.  It would be established from existing storm damage budgets held by some local boards. 

·   Funding is accessible across the region i.e. funds go where the storm goes

·   The size of the fund, pooled across the region, is more likely to accommodate regional extreme weather events than current arbitrary and small funding base available to those boards that have funding

·   Can be established immediately (providing all the boards agree) thereby helping with current liabilities

·   Risk of the fund being inappropriately used for day to day weather events.  This is a current risk and can be more readily mitigated as a local unallocated fund.  It is recommended that there would be a single Tier 4 manager with a regional view determining a consistency of approach.

·   Some boards contribute to this solution while others benefit without contribution – may be seen as inequitable

3

Ask governing body to cater for most impacts of extreme weather events on a case by case basis.

·   No change needed and governing body would pick up costs of damage (if agreed/funding found).  Local boards that have existing funding would potentially need to show expenditure of current budgets before being eligible.

·   The time delay and bureaucracy involved in making this happen means that most applications will be retrospective and expose the Council to financial risk

·   No funding is currently available at a governing body level.  May take time to advocate for/secure

 

Local Board Views

18.     This report is being circulated to all local boards to canvas their views on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

19.     In many cases extreme weather events can damage archeological sites or sites of significance to Tangata Whenua. This can trigger the need for cultural impact assessments and more careful/expensive restoration works to protect the values of the site.  Without a fund to support rehabilitation or restoration work recently discovered or damaged sites of significance cannot be attended to as there are no funds.  A regional self-insurance fund would help to mitigate risk for council.

General

20.     As previously mentioned a variety of extreme weather events have affected parks over the years.  For instance in 2011 storm damage caused extensive slips across Waiheke.  Repair work is ongoing and existing storm damage funding has been insufficient to cope. In 2012 a tornado hit Hobsonville causing widespread damage to trees and houses.  The arboricultural and general cleanup was unforeseen and no budget for this kind of work was available to the Upper Harbour Local Board.  In this case the cost of repair was funded by savings in the local board budget combined with a budget overspend. 

21.     During September last year, a major storm event hit the east coast beaches, particularly in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area but also affecting Rodney, Orakei and Howick Local Boards.  A storm surge of 0.8 metres on top of high tide caused substantial erosion. Orewa Beach was hit the hardest with significant sand loss and coastal structure damage. 

22.     Weather events are part of the life of Auckland.  The current inconsistent, and in many cases non-existent, planning for extreme weather events is a risk and exposes council to a high likelihood of budget blowout in any given year and local board area. 

23.     The unpredictable nature of extreme weather events means that we cannot anticipate what portion of funding is needed for capital and operational funding.  However, based on the last three years weather events, we know that there is a need for both operational and capital funding.  It is therefore recommended that a portion of the current operational funds be allocated to capital funding to offset these costs.

Implementation Issues

24.     If a regional self-insurance fund, initially created from existing local board funds, is universally supported by formal resolution from all local boards then this fund can be created in the current 2013/14 financial year.

25.     The expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

26.     There are currently several areas affected by storm damage that have projected funding shortfalls that could benefit from immediate implementation of the regional solution. The beneficiaries from this fund will change from year to year. Some recent historical events and current events and associated funding requirements are detailed in Attachment A.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Historical and current events and associated funding requirements

87

     

Signatories

Authors

Jane Aickin, Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Martin Van Jaarsveld, Manager Local and Sports Parks North

Malcolm Page, Manager Local and Sports Parks, South

Grant Jennings, Manager Local and Sports Parks West

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Local board input into the council-controlled organisations current state assessment

 

File No.: CP2014/05694

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks input from the local board into the first phase of the council controlled organisations review: the current state assessment.

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its seven substantive council controlled organisations (CCOs).

3.       The first step of this review consists of an assessment of the current state.  Auckland Council has prepared a preliminary assessment reviewing the experience of the council and its CCOs over the last three years from a council perspective, along with a discussion document to guide input.

4.       Local boards are invited to provide their input based on the discussion document.  Feedback will be reported back to the governing body and will inform the first phase of the CCO review: the current state assessment as well as subsequent phases of the review.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Provides the input into the CCO review current state assessment.

 

Discussion

5.       Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its substantive council controlled organisations (CCOs): Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Property Ltd, Auckland Council Investments Ltd, Auckland Waterfront Development Agency, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, Regional Facilities Auckland, and Waterfront Services Ltd.

6.       The review aims to determine whether there is a need to change the scope of activities and functions within any CCO, the structures that the CCOs operate within, or any accountability mechanisms between the CCOs and Auckland Council.

7.       Governing body members, local board chairs, the CCOs and the Independent Māori Statutory Board were all given the opportunity to provide feedback into the draft Terms of Reference. Common themes amongst the feedback received included:

·         the need to reduce duplication between Auckland Council and CCO activities

·         views as to where responsibility should lie for strategy/policy development

·         questions around effectiveness where an activity is split between Auckland Council and one or more CCO 

·         the need to assess the impact of change on outcomes and delivery

·         the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

·         the need to achieve constructive and positive engagement with Aucklanders.

 

8.       The feedback contributed to the development of the Terms of Reference. The final version was adopted by the governing body on 27 February 2014.  It is presented in Attachment A.

9.       The Terms of Reference specify the objectives of the review of CCOs as follows:

1.   To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

a)   Facilitate appropriate alignment of the CCO operations with the Auckland Plan and other council strategies and policies

b)   Provide an effective and efficient model of service delivery for Auckland Council and Aucklanders

c)   Provide a sufficient level of political oversight and public accountability.

2.   In addition the review will seek to:

a)   Provide clarity of role and responsibilities e.g.  development of strategies, prioritisation of work programmes

b)   Eliminate duplication and gaps between the Auckland Council group organisations

c)   Identify any opportunities for better integration of activities and functions.

10.     The intention is to complete the review and be ready to implement agreed outcomes by 30 June 2015, which aligns the CCO review with the Long Term Plan process.  This timeline is extended from what was initially proposed to allow for full participation and feedback at the appropriate points of the process.

 

Current state assessment: preliminary findings

11.     The first step of the CCO review consists of an assessment of the current state.  Auckland Council has prepared a report reviewing the experience of the council and its CCOs over the last three years from a council perspective.

12.     The report, entitled “Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council Perspective)”, is presented in Attachment B.  It is referred to as the CSA in the rest of this report. The CSA is based on interviews with governing body members and input from Auckland Council staff.

13.     Key preliminary findings in the CSA are as follows:

·       CCOs were seen to deliver well for Auckland, and significant progress has been made over the last three years.

·       Some governing body members are considering fine tuning the model while others expect more significant change.

·       Views differ about the relative role of the council and its CCOs in developing mid-level strategies – i.e. strategies that bridge the gap between the Auckland Plan and implementation plans

·       The majority view is that the formal accountability framework between the council and its CCOs needs to be simplified and streamlined, with more rigorous debate when priorities are being communicated through the letter of expectations.

·       Informal accountability and communication is seen just as important as the formal accountability framework.

·       Feedback was received on the importance of integration within the council group for effective operation, and of a strong culture of collaboration, as well as other integration mechanisms.

14.     The CCOs have prepared a report to reflect their own perspective, with support from PricewaterhouseCooper (PWC) and informed by interviews with CCO board members and staff of each of the seven CCOs.  The CCO perspective was sought in recognition that the experience of the CCOs is different from that of council, and to utilise the considerable skills and experience within the CCOs to help inform the review.

15.     The intention is to augment the current state assessment with input from local boards.

Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

 

16.     CCOs, as delivery agents of Auckland Council, have the potential to have a significant impact on positive outcomes for Auckland residents, ratepayers, and visitors. Local boards have an interest in the extent to which CCOs can contribute to their priorities, in projects being undertaken in their area, and in being kept up-to-date on wider regional projects. While the CCOs are accountable to the governing body as shareholder, they also have relationships with local boards who share decision-making responsibilities of the Auckland Council with the governing body.

17.     Local boards’ views on the CCO current state will enrich the council perspective and local boards are invited to provide feedback based on the discussion document prepared by Auckland Council. The discussion document, entitled “Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards” provide a series of questions addressed to local boards. It is presented in Attachment C.

18.     The local boards are encouraged to:

·    reflect on their experience working with the CCOs over the last three years

·    reflect on what worked well and what can be improved

·    provide feedback on the issues and opportunities that the CCO review may address.

 

19.     In providing their feedback, local board members are invited to base their comments on experience and to provide examples to illustrate the local board’s views.

20.     Local board input will inform the analysis of CCOs and related activities and functions as part of the first phase of the CCO review: the current state assessment as well as informing subsequent phases of the review.

Consideration

Local Board Views

21.     This report seeks the views of the local board, which will inform the CCO review.

Maori Impact Statement

22.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board and Te Waka Angamua will be involved at several points in the process of reviewing the CCOs. They have inputted in the development of the Terms of Reference and have been asked to provide comments on the discussion document

23.     Consultation with Māori, including mana whenua, mataawaka and iwi, would form part of any public consultation, should this occur during the third phase of the review.

Implementation Issues

24.     There are no implementation issues at this stage of the CCO review.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference

93

bView

Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council perspective)

99

cView

Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards

115

     

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 







Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

















Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 


















Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

 

File No.: CP2014/06443

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks formal feedback from local boards on the work to date on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review.

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council is required to adopt a Local Boards Funding Policy. The current policy was developed within a context of retaining and reflecting legacy council service level and funding decisions. After three years more has been learned and a broader policy discussion can be undertaken.

3.       The review seeks to find the most appropriate funding mechanisms for local board expenditure on asset based services such as parks, libraries, recreation and community facilities and non-asset based services (locally driven initiatives). During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised, which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and budgeting process. The review recommends retaining the current funding model for asset based services, but considers options for changing to a fairer funding model for locally driven initiatives.

4.       The timing for the review proposes public consultation in June 2014 to enable a policy to be adopted to form the basis of local board budgets for inclusion in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025. In order to meet that timeframe engagement with local boards needs to take place in March and April 2014. This will enable the council to consider local board views in determining a proposal for consultation with the public.

5.       A report has been produced setting out options for the Local Boards Funding Policy and the key issues that need to be resolved. This report, “Local boards funding policy review” is appended as Attachment A to this report, and will form the basis of engagement with local boards and the Governing Body to inform decision making on the policy.

6.       On 20 February 2014, the Governing Body agreed the parameters for engagement with local boards on the review of the local boards funding policy. These parameters include:

·        no changes being made to the split between regional and local activities or to decision making responsibility for setting service levels for local activities

·        time frame for the review

·        structure of the policy that is to be considered

·        Governing Body, via operational groups, will work on equity issues in regard to asset based service levels as part of long-term plan process

·        options for a formula based funding allocation

·        parameters for the use of local rates

·        undertaking a review of the council rates remission and postponement legacy schemes that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage, alongside the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy.

7.       Informal engagement with local boards has been undertaken throughout February and March 2014, and formal feedback is now sought from local boards via resolution.

8.       Following the engagement phase of the policy, all feedback will be presented to the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party in early May, and subsequently the Governing Body when considering the draft policy for consultation in late May.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Agrees to consider the policy framework for the Local Boards Funding Policy Review and provide formal feedback on the issues discussed and other associated issues.

 

Discussion

9.       At the 20 February 2014 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee[1], the following resolutions were passed to guide the engagement phase of the Local Boards Funding Policy:

a)      agree with the following parameters for the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy for engagement with local boards based on the attached report “Local boards funding policy review”:

b)      note that the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy will not change decision making responsibility for:

i)       the split between regional and local activities

ii)       the setting of service levels for local activities.

c)      note that the proposed model for funding asset based services is the same model that is currently used.

d)      note that the Local Boards Funding Policy cannot resolve issues relating to differing asset based service levels and that the issue will be considered as part of the planning process for the long-term plan

e)      agree to adopt the policy by August 2014 to enable clarity in funding decision making to provide predictability of funding in the preparation of local board plans and budgets for the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025. This will require the policy to be publically consulted on in June 2014.

f)       agree that the policy improve alignment between funding and expenditure decisions, by having separate funding mechanisms for:

i)       asset based services, such as parks and swimming pools, where service levels in each board area are primarily driven by the Governing Body decisions on the number, nature and location of such assets and the budget available for both capital and operational expenditure on these services.

ii)       locally driven initiatives, where local boards undertake activities for the benefit of their local communities, and control decisions on services, service levels and costs. (This may include asset related service level improvements and capital investment within limits approved by the Governing Body).

g)      agree that the costs of operating and maintaining asset based services (as defined in f) (i)); as well as the consequential operating expenditure (interest and depreciation) associated with governing body investment in local assets; will be funded from general rates, in accordance with asset management plans and the regional budgeting process

h)      agree the next stage of the review will consider options for funding locally driven initiatives (as defined in f) (ii)) by either general rates allocated on a formula basis, local rates collected in each board area, or a mix of general rates allocation and local rates

i)        agree that options for determining the relationship between the Governing Body and local boards for the use of local rates are:

i)       local boards advocate to the Governing Body for local rates and the Governing Body makes the final decision.

ii)       local boards make decisions on the use of local rates, within constraints of regional policy determined by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body implements these decisions.

j)        agree that the council’s rates remission and postponement legacy schemes that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage be reviewed alongside the Local Boards Funding Policy to:

i)   ensure consistency between local grants schemes and rates relief schemes

ii)       develop a regionally consistent rates remission and postponement policy. Consultation on amendments to the policy should be undertaken alongside consultation on the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

k)      agree to direct staff to consider service level equity issues for local asset based services as part of the development of the Long-term Plan and Asset Management Plans and engage with local boards on this and report back on a timetable.

10.     A full discussion of the options for, and issues associated with, the development of the Local Boards Funding Policy can be found in the attached report “Local boards funding policy review”.

11.     The following discussion summarises the issues related to the setting of parameters for engagement with local boards on the options for the funding policy.

Time Frame

12.     The adoption of a Local Boards Funding Policy is likely to have an impact on the allocation of council budgets. It is recommended that the Local Boards Funding Policy be adopted by mid-August 2014. This would enable the council to prepare local budgets that reflect the new funding policy for public consultation in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025. Adopting the Local Boards Funding Policy in August will also provide local boards with clarity as to who has decision making authority on the level and source of funding for local activities during the finalisation of budgets for local board plans in September.

13.     To meet this timeline, public consultation on the Local Boards Funding Policy would need to be carried out through a special consultative procedure undertaken in June 2014.

Scope: Policy structure

14.     The Local Boards Funding Policy sets out how local activities are to be funded (the split between rates and fees and charges) and who should pay where rates are used. Decisions on service levels and how much funding is available are made when budgets are prepared each year. The review of the Local Boards Funding Policy does not set, or seek to change, decision making responsibility for:

·        the split between regional and local activities

·        the setting of service levels for local activities.

15.     Expenditure on local activities can be either capital or operational in nature. Capital expenditure is debt funded, but the ongoing costs associated with this expenditure, such as interest charges, depreciation, staff, consumables and maintenance are operational costs.  Local boards allocated capital funding to deliver governing body investment decisions on local assets, are also allocated the consequential operational expenditure associated with that capital expenditure. Operational expenditure is funded from local fees and charges and rates. The rate requirement is therefore gross operational expenditure, less fees, charges and other revenue.

16.     The ability to undertake capital investment depends on the ability to service the subsequent operational costs. While the Local Boards Funding Policy focuses on funding of operating expenditure, it captures capital decisions by including the subsequent operating costs.

17.     Good public policy links decisions on tax with decisions on expenditure (i.e. service levels).  Where possible this review has identified where better alignment can be made between funding decisions and decisions on levels of service. This has resulted in a policy framework that differentiates between:

·        asset based services such as those associated with parks, swimming pools and community facilities where the Governing Body makes decisions on the location, nature and number of local assets and matches this with funding

·        locally driven initiatives, where local boards undertake activities for the benefit of their local communities, and control decisions on who gets funding and the services and service levels to be delivered.

18.     The table following describes the Governing Body’s and local boards’ decision making roles in relation to asset based services and locally driven initiatives.

 

Governing body role

Local board role

Asset based services

·      Allocates capital funding to local boards in accordance with its decisions on new local assets and major upgrades.

·      Decides approximate location, budget and scope for these projects

·      Governing body decisions on investment will be guided by regional strategies, which should identify funding priorities based on the need to address service gaps and growth

·      Engaged and provide feedback on governing body decisions

·      Engaged and provide feedback on regional strategies

·      Decide precise location of new assets

·      Agrees design of project within scope set by the Governing Body. Can propose to fund increases to project scope as locally driven initiatives

·      Oversees delivery of project

·      Allocates operational expenditure to enable local boards to operate and maintain their local assets in accordance with the asset management plans

·      Approves asset management plans

·      Engaged in development of asset management plans

·      Operate and maintain local assets in accordance with the asset management plans

·      Can fund asset related service level improvements as locally driven initiatives

Locally driven initiatives

Approve or reject locally driven projects that exceed governing body set limits on local board capital investment

·      Can undertake capital projects within limits set by the Governing Body

·      May undertake capital projects over limits set by the Governing Body with approval from the Governing Body

·      Decide services and service levels to be provided for community and allocates operating budgets accordingly

·      Oversee delivery of local services

·      Can fund asset related service level improvements

19.     The review proposes that the existing model for funding asset based services be retained as there is no merit in alternative options for funding these. Under this model asset based services will continue to be funded from general rates. As the distribution of asset based service costs between boards does not align with factors such as local board population size, then funding on this basis will not ensure that local boards can maintain their asset base. There is also:

·        a poor relationship between the user catchment for many asset based services and local board populations

·        using local rates to fund asset based services would be inequitable, and for some boards unsustainable.

20.     Under this funding model, the Governing Body determines how much funding is available to fund agreed service level standards. The Governing Body also has the ability to set regional policies on fees and user charges such as free entry to swimming pools for under 17’s. Local boards undertake an advocacy role in changing agreed service levels and will be engaged in the development of the regional strategies on asset based services that will guide governing body decisions on future investment in assets.

21.     Local boards also have decision making on how asset based services are delivered and operated in their board area. They may make decisions on the level of fees and charges within any regional policy set by the Governing Body. In doing so they receive the benefit of increased revenue or fund any shortfall from other funding sources.

22.     During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and budgeting process and will be considered when developing the long-term plan. As part of this process, local boards will be engaged in the development of asset management plans (AMPs) that will determine service levels and capital programmes for asset based services.  Engagement with local boards on the AMPs is currently planned to begin March 2014.

23.     Under the current funding model, funding for locally driven initiatives reflects decisions on service levels made by former councils. The review has found that equity in funding for locally driven initiatives between local boards can be improved in one of three ways. These are by using:

·        general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and remoteness

·        local rates collected within each board area

·        a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

24.     Under a general rate allocation model the amount of locally driven initiative funding available to each local board is determined by the Governing Body. This is affected by decisions made by the Governing Body on the total level of locally driven initiatives funding available each year and the formula used to allocate this to each local board.

25.     A general rate allocation model will see a redistribution of funding between local boards; some will receive more funding while others will receive less. A local board that receives less funding will then have the option to reduce expenditure or to seek an increase in revenue from fees and charges or from local rates.

26.     Under a local rate model, funding for locally driven initiatives is provided entirely from a local rate. The level of funding required from the local rate is determined by the decisions on local fees, charges, services and service levels made by the local board. The local rate will show as a separate line item on the rates invoice.

27.     A combined model will part fund locally driven initiatives via a general rate allocation with the remainder of the funding provided by a local rate.

28.     The proposed Local Boards Funding Policy structure for funding operational expenditure is as follows:

Funding for asset based services

The cost of operating and maintaining asset based services is funded from general rates, and fees and charges revenue associated with individual assets. Funding is allocated to local boards in accordance with asset management plans and the regional budgeting process.

Funding for locally driven initiatives

Locally driven initiatives will be funded from local fees and charges associated with these activities, and from rates funding. There are three options for rates funding locally driven

initiatives:

·      general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and remoteness

·      local rates collected within each board area

·      a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

29.     The above structure for the funding policy was agreed by the Governing Body for engagement with local boards. The focus for engagement is on how to best fund the locally driven initiatives component of the policy.

Scope: how local rates are used

30.     The use of local rates is an option under any funding model. The review of the local board funding policy provides the opportunity to have greater clarity in the roles that the Governing Body and local boards play in setting local rates. This is particularly relevant where funding decisions are aligned with decisions on levels of service. Legislation constrains this process in that only the Governing Body can set a rate. There are two options for determining the relationship between the Governing Body and local boards, these are:

·        local boards advocate to the Governing Body for new local rates or changes to those set by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body makes the final decision. This is a similar process that is currently used for funding of local assets.

·        local boards make decisions on the use of new local rates or changes to those set by the Governing Body, within constraints of regional policy determined by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body implements these decisions. This is a similar process that is currently used for local fees and charges.

31.     The Local Boards Funding Policy is the appropriate place to set this relationship. The Governing Body agreed the above as relationship options for engagement with local boards.

Policy implementation: Capital expenditure

32.     Local boards currently have budgets for capital expenditure from three sources:

·        governing body investment decisions on local assets

·        legacy capital projects inherited from the previous councils

·        an allocation of capital funding for boards to use at their discretion, beginning in the 2012/2013 year.

33.     Governing body provided capital funds for investment in local assets are not discretionary for local boards. While each board has decision making on how specified projects are implemented within their area, projects must be delivered within the scope agreed by the Governing Body.

34.     The review recommends that the Local Boards Funding Policy only allocates operational expenditure to local boards, and does not allocate capital expenditure. Local boards can still undertake capital projects within the limits set by the Governing Body, so long as they can fund the consequential operating expenditure (including depreciation and interest costs) from their operational budgets. Local boards would need to fund this expenditure either by reprioritising their existing budgets (through efficiencies or reduced service levels), or increasing their revenue from rates or fees and charges. This would see local boards funding capital investment in the same way as the Governing Body does.

35.     The review recommends that the few remaining significant legacy capital projects be treated the same as governing body investment decisions. These funds will be considered nondiscretionary, on the basis that it was a governing body decision that these projects continue rather than be reviewed against regional priorities for investment.  Consequential operating expenditure associated with these projects will be part of asset based service funding and will not impact on local board budgets.

36.     The consequential operating expenditure associated with any remaining discretionary capital funds will be treated as funding for locally driven initiatives. This funding will therefore be included in any reallocation of funding for locally driven initiatives.

Scope: Locally driven initiatives - general rate allocation formula options

37.     If the Governing Body determines the total level of funding to be raised through a general rate for locally driven initiatives, some form of allocation method or formula is required. The Strategy and Finance committee agreed at its May 2013 meeting that the following attributes of local boards be considered in the development of the funding policy:

·        population

·        deprivation

·        factors related to rural/geographic isolation

·        rates collected.

38.     It is recommended that the general rate funding allocation formula be restricted to factors related to population, deprivation and rural/geographic isolation only.

39.     Rates collected should not be used as a factor for allocating general rates funding. This is because general rates have an element of both tax and payment for services received. The distribution of rates across groups of ratepayers was a consideration in the development of the rating policy.

40.     If funding local boards based on the level of rates collected in the local board area is desired, then local rates should be used. This would make explicit the link between and rates paid and services received, with each board area paying a local rate for the services undertaken by their board. It also directly links a local board’s decision making on service levels with decisions on the rate revenue required to be collected from their local community.

Scope: Transition

41.     Under the proposed policy, locally driven initiatives can be primarily funded either through local rates, or by general rates allocated to boards based on factors such as population, or a mixture of the two.

42.     A general rate allocation formula will result in significant change in the level of funding for some local boards. As such, the adoption of some form of transition process may be appropriate. The review process will present options for transitioning change as a result of the funding policy over three years, to align with the Long-term plan planning cycle.

43.     The level of change associated with the adoption of local rates for funding locally driven initiatives is smaller. Local boards would also have the opportunity to adjust their local rates revenue requirement by adjusting their service levels. A transition process is unlikely to be of value in this case. However if a mixed funding model is adopted, using both general rates allocation and local rates, there may still be a need to transition the allocated portion of funding. Options for managing this change will be presented.

44.     It is noted that Great Barrier Island local board will experience high levels of change in funding regardless of what funding model is adopted. Options for treating this board as a special case for funding will be presented by the review.

Policy implementation: Local fees and charges

45.     Local boards have the right to set local fees and charges under the allocation of decision making. Under the proposed Local Boards Funding Policy framework, it is recommended that local boards will retain the benefit/bear the cost of any change in fees as a result of their decision making.

46.     Local board decisions on fees and charges related to asset based services needs to be balanced against revenue expectations for those services. These revenue expectations inform the requirement for general rate funding for asset based services in the asset management plans. In this case, it is proposed that operating groups will advise boards on the expected revenue targets for their asset based services starting from the status quo.  Local boards can adjust fees above or below the recommended target, and will then retain the benefit/bear the cost of any resulting change in expected revenue for the service.

47.     In setting fees and charges, there is the risk that actual revenue will vary from expected revenue. If the revenue relates to an asset based service, the operating group will absorb any revenue variance, with any shortfall made up from the groups operating budget. The variance will then be used to inform revenue targets for the service in the following year.

48.     The local board will bear the cost or retain the benefit of any variance in revenue related to locally driven initiatives.

Policy implementation: Rates remission and grants schemes

49.     The council inherited from the former councils a number of mechanisms that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage. These included the direct provision of services by the council, grants to third party organisations, and rates remission and postponement schemes.

50.     In general the provision of these services and grant schemes have been classed as local activities, and continue to operate in those local board areas from which they originated. The rates relief schemes are part of the council’s rates remission and postponement policy, which is managed regionally, but continue to be available to qualifying properties within those former council areas that originally offered the schemes.

51.     As a result of the council retaining these legacy services and schemes, local board areas are providing similar community services using varying delivery models:

·        some boards have services, such as community facilities, provided directly by the council

·        other boards have grants schemes directly controlled by the boards that are used to fund third parties to provide similar types of services, including the provision of community facilities; as well as to provide support to local community groups and other organisations

·        in some board areas, community groups and other organisations have access to rates remission or postponement schemes that are not controlled by the local board in terms of eligibility criteria and approval.

52.     The Local Boards Funding Policy has already considered the issue of the use locally controlled grants, compared to where services are being delivered by the council. It is proposed that under the policy, grants that are used to fund local facilities that in other areas are provided by the council, should be funded on the same basis as other asset based services. Grants that are used to fund more discretionary activities, such as one off grants to community groups, will be treated as locally driven initiatives, and be included in the pool of funding for these activities.

53.     The Review of Community Assistance has now identified all sources of community funding assistance provided by the council, by local board area. This enables a review of the council’s rates remission and postponement schemes to be undertaken, to develop an approach to supporting community and other organisations that is consistent across the region.

54.     The council’s rates remission and postponement policy should be regionally consistent.  However most of the rates relief granted under the remission and postponement schemes for community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage correspond to grants schemes relate to activities that have been treated as a local board responsibility when support is provided as grants. To ensure consistency, options for moving from rates based schemes to locally controlled grants schemes will be considered, though the financial impact of such a move will need to be assessed.

55.     The Governing Body has agreed that the Auckland Council rates remission and postponement policy be reviewed alongside the development of the Local Boards Funding Policy to ensure consistency between local grants schemes and rates relief schemes, and to develop a regionally consistent rates remission and postponement policy.

56.     Amendments to the rates remission and postponement policy will be publically consulted on alongside consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Engagement

57.     Council staff will be undertaking engagement with local boards on the Local Boards Funding Policy through March and April 2014. The attached report “Local boards funding policy review” will form the basis for engagement on the policy options.

Consideration

Local Board Views

58.     This report has been considered by and includes feedback from the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party (LBFP PWP).

59.     The purpose of the working party is to provide a joint forum of the Governing Body and local boards to provide guidance and direction with respect to the development of the local board funding policy. This includes development of comprehensive and robust options for the funding of local activities within the Local Boards Funding Policy.

60.     This report seeks formal feedback from local boards to be considered by the LBFP PWP in early May and will form part if the consideration by the Governing Body when it adopts the draft policy for consultation in late May.

Maori Impact Statement

61.     There are two ways in which Maori could be impacted by the options discussed in this report, these are:

·        under a general rate allocation model the level of locally driven initiative funding available to a local board may change

·        under a local rate funding model the level of rates paid may change.

62.     Maori population is not the same across all local boards. How this will impact on Maori will depend on changes to funding available to local boards and how local boards respond to these changes. This may result in more or less funding being available or lower or higher rates being charged. The impacts by local board will be explored more at the next stage when the draft policy is being considered for consultation.

63.     Within a general rate allocation model the choice of attributes may also have an impact on Maori. Some attributes that can be used in the funding formula, for example deprivation, have a greater alignment with the population distribution of Maori. A funding formula that had greater emphasis on these attributes will provide more funding to local boards with higher Maori populations. How this would impact on Maori would depend on the local boards choose to use this funding.

64.     The review of the Local Boards Funding Policy will not change the Maori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy.

Implementation Issues

65.     There are no implementation issues associated with recommendations in this report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Local Boards Funding Policy Review (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Guidelines for local board feedback

143

     

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Chris Carroll - Manager Planning and Policy

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Retrospective approval of submissions: psychoactive substances regulations and draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice

 

File No.: CP2014/06090

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek retrospective approval of the submissions made by Henderson-Massey Local Board during March 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       Two submissions were made on behalf of Henderson-Massey Local Board on:

·    The Ministry of Health’s psychoactive substances regulations consultation document

·    Auckland Transport’s draft Code of Practice

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Gives retrospective approval to Psychoactive substances regulations submission (attachment A), as its input to Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry of Health’s Psychoactive Substances Regulations consultation document.

b)      Gives retrospective approval to Auckland Transport’s code of practice submission (attachment B), as its input to Auckland Transport’s Code of Practice.

 

Discussion

Psychoactive substances regulations

3.       Henderson-Massey Local Board submitted input to Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry of Health’s Psychoactive Substances Regulations consultation document.

4.       The aim of the proposed regulations is to:

·    Provide a way to effectively regulate psychoactive substances before they reach the market

·    Place controls on the availability of psychoactive products, including purchase age and place of sale

·    Provide information for consumers on product contents, dose and potency

Auckland Transport draft Code of Practice

5.       Henderson-Massey Local Board submitted on The draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice.

6.       The Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP) will apply to all new transport infrastructure, upgrades to existing infrastructure, landscaping and maintenance, including vegetation control and weed management.

7.       The code of practice is some 1200 pages and includes chapters on the following:

1. Introduction

2. Integrated transport planning

3. Innovation

4. Road Classification

5. Special Routes & Road Elements

6. Street Amenities

7. Road Layout & Geometric Design

8. Traffic Calming Devices/LATM

9. Road Restraint Devices (Vehicle and Pedestrian)

10. Traffic Signs & Road Markings

11. Parking

12. Footpaths & Pedestrian Facilities

13. Cycling Infrastructure Design

14. Landscaping

15. Earthworks

16. Road Pavements & Surfacings

17. Road Drainage

18. Structures (incl. Bridges, retaining walls etc.)

19. Street Lighting

20. Public transport - buses

21. Public transport - rail

22. Public transport - ferries/wharves

23. Public transport - trams

24. Vesting of Assets and Asset Data

25. Maintenance

26. Corridor access management

27. Traffic network management

28. Designing for abnormal events

8.       Waitemata Local Board developed a submission with the assistance of local board advisors and Auckland Council transport strategy advisors, which was circulated to all local boards to assist in providing a basis for feedback. Henderson-Massey used it as a basis for their feedback.

9.       The submission period for both consultations closed before the next scheduled business meeting of the local board. To ensure the local board was able to provide input on the matters it had identified as being of interest, the submissions were lodged and are now being reported to the board to seek retrospective approval.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Psychoactive substances regulations submission

147

bView

Auckland Transport Code of Practice feedback

161

     

Signatories

Authors

Wendy Kjestrup - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Henderson Massey Local Board agrees with the key points in the LGNZ submission (see attached) and supports Manurewa Local Board’s input to Auckland Council’s submission, as reported to their 13 March 2014 Local Board business meeting, particularly the 17 points reaffirming the approach presented in its position statement.

Henderson Massey Local Board’s comment to specific consultation questions are in agreement with Manurewa’s comments and are listed here to emphasise their importance in Henderson Massey Local Board’s opinion.

1. Proposed information requirements for licence applications - people applying for licences to sell, import or manufacture approved products should pass at least the same tests that are required to sell alcohol.

11. Other particulars, information, documents etc. that should be prescribed in the regulations - regulations should stipulate that applicants must complete a social impact statement, to list the harms that may result from the sale of the product and how the applicant is planning to mitigate them.

15. Health warnings – As much information as possible should be made available to the user of the approved product. The proposed health warnings should also include warnings about possible side effects.

17. Proposal to restrict a packet to one dose - There should also be quantity restrictions over how much can be sold in a single sale across the counter or via the internet.

 

18. Restrictions on form of product – ideally restrict to tablet or liquid form so that smoking-related harm is not caused. Agree that the regulations should be consistent with existing policies on smoking tobacco for product in a smokeable form.

20. Storage, disposal and display - There should be a restriction on the amount of psychoactive substances and approved products that can be stored at premises at any one time.

24. Signage – health and other warning information should be available at point of sale to people in the languages in use in that community.

25. Place of sale – licenced premises should sell approved products only and there should be clear separation between the shop and any others.

26. Advertising – should be limited to store windows only

31. Fees set for other specific functions – fees should cover the cost of monitoring i.e. regular compliance inspections of retail premises at least twice a year.


 

Local Councils play an active role in keeping our communities healthy.

 

 

Psychoactive Substances Regulations: a consultation document

Local Government New Zealand Submission to the Ministry of Health

§   SUBMISSION DATE 21 March 2014

Contents

Introduction. 2

Key points. 3

Submission. 4

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Compliance with local approved products policies. 4

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Fit and proper person test. 5

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Discretionary conditions  6

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Place of sale   6

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Local government policies for approved products. 6

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Advertising  7

Communications. 7

Conclusion. 7

 


 

Introduction

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input into the development of the psychoactive substances regulations.  This submission has been prepared on behalf of New Zealand’s 67 territorial authorities which have been given the statutory discretion to prepare and adopt locally approved products policies. 

 

LGNZ is the national organisation of local authorities in New Zealand and all 78 councils are members.  We represent the national interests of councils and lead best practice in the local government sector.  LGNZ provides advocacy and policy services, business support, advice and training to our members to assist them to build successful communities throughout New Zealand.  Our purpose is to deliver our sector’s Vision: “Local democracy powering community and national success.” 

 

As an organisation we are committed to ensuring that councils have the policy levers and practical support to fulfil their statutory duties and meet community expectations in all aspects of their responsibilities.  With regard to the regulation of psychoactive substances further development of tools for councils is clearly required than those flagged in the consultation paper and we look forward to working with the Ministry on how these might be reflected in the final regulations.

 

One of the challenges councils are facing is citizens’ lack of awareness of the new legislation, the policy rationale behind it and a lack of knowledge about the nature of local governments’ new regulatory responsibilities.  Councils are perceived by many in the community as having a greater ability to regulate the location of retail outlets than in fact they have.  We believe that the Ministry of Health needs to develop a public-facing communications strategy to inform New Zealanders about the relative roles of the different agencies involved in the regulation of psychoactive substances. 

 

Such a strategy could include but should not be limited to the development of material that councils can use to communicate with their communities.  LGNZ is happy to work with the Ministry on this and the wider community.

 

The ability to regulate the location of retail outlets selling psychoactive substances is new for councils and we comment elsewhere on how the policy and legislative process might have been undertaken differently.  It is important for agencies involved in regulatory implementation to be involved in the design of this legislation and accompanying regulations, for both efficiency and effectiveness reasons.

 

The consultation document has a broad scope and deals with a number of matters that extend beyond the normal focus of councils, such as manufacturing, labelling and importation.  We do have a view on a number of these issues, for example packaging, which we raise as appropriate throughout the submission.


 

Key points

Communications

LGNZ recommends that the Ministry of Health develop a public-facing communications strategy to inform New Zealanders about the nature of the new Psychoactive Substances legislation and the relative roles of the different agencies involved in its implementation.  LGNZ is happy to work with the Ministry on this.

 

Collaboration

LGNZ recommends, in line with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, that local government representatives should work alongside officials from the Ministry of Health on the analysis of submissions and the design of the final retail regulations.

 

Generic policies

LGNZ agrees that generic policies should apply in jurisdictions where councils have not adopted LAPPs.  We also believe that applications for retail licenses should contain evidence of compliance with generic policies.

 

Interim licenses

LGNZ recommends that interim licenses should be subject to an adopted LAPP, noting that interim licenses holders who cannot continue to operate will be able to apply for a full license in a designated area once regulations are notified.

 

Evidence of compliance

LGNZ agrees that applicants for a retail policy must show that their policy complies with the relevant LAPP.  We believe strongly that the Regulatory Authority must not grant a license to any applicant who fails to so comply.

 

Fit and proper test

LGNZ recommends that the Authority consult with the relevant local authority to ascertain the nature of any relevant experience the council might have with the applicant. 

 

Discretionary provisions

LGNZ recommends that:

·    Regulations should specify a minimum amount of an approved substance that might be purchased in a single sale;

·    A sales tax on approved products is introduced to reflect the cost of consumption on the NZ health system and the local community;

·    Regulations specify limits on the hours a retail premise selling approved products may operate.

 

Place of sale

LGNZ recommends that shops licensed to sell approved products should specialise in the sale of these substances and should not be able to sell forms of merchandise not related to the consumption of psychoactive substances. 


 

Submission

LGNZ accepts that Parliament has determined to legalise the production and consumption of certain approved psychoactive substances.  However, many councils have found that communication and the regulatory tools provided in the Psychoactive Substances Act have been insufficient to meet the expectations of communities for the effective control of retail outlets.  We address these gaps at appropriate places throughout the submission.

 

The proposal that the implementation of the regulations should take place in two phases is supported.  LGNZ had previously expressed concern at the prospect of the retail regulations being gazetted before councils had the opportunity of adopting their LAPPs.  Should this have happened there would have been no way policies to have influenced the location of outlets until licenses came up for their three year review.  We are therefore very pleased that regulations governing retail licenses have an expected implementation date of early 2015.  This should provide ample time for those councils that wish to adopt LAPPs to do so before regulations come into force.

 

Implementation of the Psychoactive Substances legislation and its regulatory regime has been challenging for the local government sector.  It is unusual and ineffective for local government to be faced with a new statutory requirement with no ability to contribute to the policy discussion leading up to its adoption.  Early consultation with councils can assist government departments design efficient and effective regulatory regimes, a point strongly emphasised by the Productivity Commission in their recent report Towards Better Local Regulations.  Unfortunately that was not an option in this particular case. 

 

Making policies without knowing the full extent of their powers or the range of national regulations that the Authority itself might apply, such as hours of operating, has made the local policy making process more difficult than perhaps it needed to be.  The result is that councils are in something of a ‘catch-22’ because the regulations that are meant to guide the development of LAPPs are yet to be designed and notified (expected in early 2015).  On the other hand policies need to be in place before the regulations are notified otherwise they may not be able to influence the location of shops once licenses cease to be interim licenses. 

 

Consequently councils have been obliged to take a pragmatic response and face the risk that once regulations are notified LAPPs might need to be amended to either conform to the new regulations or improve local policies.  Officials from the Ministry of Health, LGNZ and councils will need to work collaboratively to ensure the regulations are fully explained and appropriate guideline sand possibly templates are developed to assist councils.  There will also need to be a coordinated communications plan.

 

Compliance with local approved products policies

As noted above LGNZ is pleased that the Government is considering a two-phase implementation of the regulations to allow councils time to develop and adopt appropriate policies.  The consultation document asks whether or not a generic LAPP should be developed for jurisdictions where councils have chosen not to adopt a specific LAPP and how retail licenses should be dealt with when a change of premise is required due to the conditions imposed by an adopted LAPP.  A further question concerns the amount of information to be provided when applying for a retail license and how the process might be undertaken.

Generic policies

The consultation document asks whether a generic policy should be established for those communities where councils have decided not to adopt an LAPP.  LGNZ fully believes that this is a correct response and is happy to work with the Ministry on the development of such a policy.  And yes, applications for retail licenses should contain evidence of compliance with generic policies.

Changing premises

The consultation document raises the issue of how retail premises operating in areas that are outside the provisions of an adopted LAPP should be dealt with. It is assumed that these are premises operating under an interim license prior to the notification of retail regulations in 2015.  The options appear to be:

 

1.   To continue to operate outside the legal zone in a council’s LAPP until the interim period concludes and permanent licenses within the designated area are secured, at which point the licensed premise shifts in order to comply with the policy;

2.   To retain the license to operate but be obliged to shift the premise to a position within the designated zone while still an interim license, presumably within a defined period;

3.   To close down until the end of the interim period and apply for a permanent license within the appropriate zone when that option becomes available.

 

It appears that most councils expect that option three will apply where a premise with an interim license finds itself outside the designated LAPP zone once a policy adopted but before regulations are notified.  This expectation is also shared by many citizens as well.  LGNZ fully supports option three.

Providing evidence of compliance with a LAPP

LGNZ agrees that applicants for a retail policy must show that their policy complies with the relevant local approved products policy.  We believe strongly that the Regulatory Authority must not grant a license to any applicant which fails to so comply.

 

The immediate question for councils concerns the nature of the paper work required for confirming whether or not an application is consistent with a council’s’ LAPP, and how this might be handled in an efficient manner, for both the council itself and the applicant.  The model that might be most appropriate for this purpose is that used in the Gambling Act, in which an applicant seeks from their council written confirmation that their application is consistent with the councils’ LAPP.  LGNZ recommends that the Authority should provide a standard template for providing this level of proof.

 

Fit and proper person test

LGNZ agrees with the consultation document that the Authority should consider the following factors when assessing the fitness of a retail applicant:

·    Whether the applicant has been convicted of a relevant offence;

·    Whether there has been a serious or repeated failure to comply with any requires of the Act;

·    Whether there are grounds for considering the applicant is likely to fail to comply with the requirements of the Act;

·    Any other relevant matters.

 

When determining whether there might be additional matters, or whether there are other grounds for believing an applicant might not comply with the Act’s requirements, we recommend that the Authority consult with the relevant local authority to ascertain the nature of any relevant experience the council might have with the applicant.  It is possible that applicants will have a history of contact with a local authority that either shows them to be either good corporate citizens or, at the other extreme, serial non-compliers.

 

Discretionary conditions

LGNZ believes that the statutory tools in the Act may not go far enough to meet community expectations for the regulation of retail sites.  Feedback from members has highlighted the following matters that should be able to be considered by councils when developing an LAPP or set nationally by the Regulatory Authority:

 

·    A minimum amount of an approved substance that might be purchased in a single sale;

·    A sales tax on approved products to reflect the cost of consumption on the NZ health system and the local community;

·    A limit on the range of non-related products, such as clothing, which is be able to be sold in retail premises licensed to sell approved products;

·    A limit on the hours a retail premise selling approved products may operate.

 

As noted above LGNZ looks forward to working with the Ministry of Health and the Regulatory Authority on designing the appropriate mix of matters that might be taken into account when developing an LAPP, particularly those matters which may be left to councils’ discretion and those that might be determined nationally by the Authority itself.

 

Place of sale

With regard to place of sale, LGNZ wishes to reinforce a point made above that shops licensed to sell approved products should specialise in the sale of these substances and should not be able to sell forms of merchandise not related to the consumption of psychoactive substances themselves.  We believe that this would provide an important deterrent to casual users who are only prepared to access licensed premises kind because they also sell merchandise not related to the approved products.

 

Local government policies for approved products

This section of the consultation document describes the minimum range of matters a council can take into account in the development of an LAPP as provided for in the Psychoactive Substances legislation.  It also notes that phase two of the implementation process has been timed to allow councils to put policies in place before retail regulations are notified.

 

There are a number of matters in the statute that are still to be determined in detail, resulting in councils having to make a number of assumptions, for example:

 

·    What does the phrase “facilities of a particular kind” mean?  Would it include, for example, sites where people congregate while waiting for public transport? 

·    What does “broad areas” mean? For example, would a broad area include a series of specific but non-contiguous streets?

 

An additional matter is the status of an LAPP which has the unintended effect of effectively banning sales by preventing the location of a retail outlet within a particular jurisdiction.  This could occur, for example, in a smaller community where there are multiple places of a particular kind.  We recommend that the Ministry ask Crown Law for a view on the legal status of any policy that inadvertently results in such a situation.

 

In an ideal world councils would know the full extent of their authority, that is the matters they can take into account, before beginning to consult on and adopt a regulatory plan, such as an LAPP.  The problem is that some councils may over-prescribe and expose their policy to legal challenge on ultra vires grounds, while others may under-prescribe and fail to fully meet community expectations.  Both may face a policy amendment processes once the final regulations are announced - a costly process for both councils and communities.

 

Advertising

LGNZ is comfortable with the requirement that on-site advertising is restricted to the inside of premises where approved products are offered and limited to communicating only product information, such as active ingredients.

Communications

We note in the introduction the problem created by a lack of awareness by citizens about the new legislation and the way in which responsibility is distributed between central and local government.  Many perceive councils as having a greater ability to regulate the location of retail outlets than is the case.  As a result we are recommending that the Ministry of Health should develop a public-facing communications strategy to inform New Zealanders about the nature of the new Psychoactive Substances legislation and relative roles of the different agencies involved in its implementation.  LGNZ is happy to work with the Ministry and related agencies on this, which could include:

·      Public relations, such as factual and feature based articles, including background, the policy, results to date, vision and next steps, as well as interviews with the Minister, a selection of our mayors and other associated parties;

·      Forums for community education, feedback and response, including online options;

·      Website information, such Q & As;

·      Printed collateral and advertising.

The communication needs to include a strong evidence base outlining why the changes have occurred and what further changes will occur, and why as well as clear communication of the policy response to date and in the future.

 

Councils will want to see that the policy response is being led and communicated by central government, and accordingly the Ministry needs to be clear about the policy position and the role of LAPPs.  If local variation is acceptable then the Ministry, in the first instance, needs to articulate the reasons for this from a policy perspective.  LGNZ is very happy to work with Ministry officials on developing appropriate strategies.

Conclusion

LGNZ believes it is important that local government representatives have the opportunity to work with officials from the Ministry of Health on the design of the final retail regulations.  This would be in line with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, which called for Government agencies to work closely with local government on the design of new regulations.  LGNZ would be happy to identify appropriate representatives from both elected members and officials to work with the Ministry on these matters. 

 

Such engagement with our members on the draft regulations would be best conducted as part of a cross-sector working group which includes other relevant agencies, for example Police and possibly the Ministry of Justice (who we understand are seeing the end impacts of these substances).  Finally, once the regulations are notified LGNZ looks forward to working with the Ministry of Health on the development of guidelines and templates to both standardise some of the process involved in implementing the regulations and reducing duplication. 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

HENDERSON-MASSEY LOCAL BOARD

FEEDBACK ON THE AUCKLAND TRANSPORT CODE OF PRACTICE

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board support the points made in the submission from the Waitemata Local Board as attached on page 2.

Additional comment:

Cycling infrastructure design

It is the position of the cycling action groups in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area that cycle lanes need to be clearly delineated with more than paint, and this should be the option wherever possible to increase safety and encourage more cycling.

Road layout and Geometric design - roundabouts

While roundabouts need to be carefully designed, the board doesn’t share the same caution about installing them full stop, in that they can be very useful to prevent dangerous right turns and so long as they are designed with the flow of cyclists and pedestrians in mind. Roundabout installation is increasing in many areas of Europe in smaller centres for this reason. An excellent example of a roundabout that works well is the roundabout at the intersection of Edmonton and Te Atatu Road in Te Atatu South.


Feedback on the Auckland Transport “Code of Practice” from the Waitematā Local Board

 

The Waitematā Local Board (the Board) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP). This feedback has been prepared by Christopher Dempsey and Pippa Coom under delegated authority of the Board.

 

The Board is supportive of the development of the ATCOP as a document which sets out the design and construction of transport infrastructure for transport facilities and services in Auckland and brings together seven previous regional engineering standards of the legacy councils, into one overarching document. It is a very comprehensive document which deals with both the principles of transport planning and the associated technical specifications.

 

In providing feedback we focused on whether the implementation of ATCOP will achieve the transformational shifts and targets in the Auckland Plan, in particular the move to outstanding public transport within one network, as well as deliver Local Board plan priorities. 

 

The Board strongly agrees that we need to get ATCOP right so that “Auckland will move forward as a strong, sustainable, safe people-friendly city that will be admired world-wide as an example of a city that successfully integrates land-use planning, transportation and sustainability to create a great place to live, work and play.” (final sentence of the ATCOP introduction).

 

Summary

 

The first three chapters; the introduction, integrated transport planning and innovation chapters are a positive step forward in creating the necessary links between transport, land use and sustainability. The vision of ATCOP is consistent with the Auckland Plan and Waitemata Local Board plan priorities.

 

The Local Board strongly supports the priority and commitment to sustainability and the provision of dedicated space for pedestrians as a fundamental principle. The Local Board also supports the recognition that place function and movement functions are inextricably linked in the direction setting of ATCOP’s introductory chapter.

 

However, overall the draft ATCOP is a “business as usual” document that hasn’t achieved a transformation in the technical specifications. A stronger link must be made between the movement function and place function of our city’s streets and roads in the design standards of the document.  As drafted ATCOP does not provide new tools to deliver the Auckland Plan, City Centre Master plan, or Local Board plan priorities.

 

The Board has reviewed best practice examples from overseas including the New York City Street design manual and the Boston Complete Street guidelines. The Board requests Auckland Transport re-focus ATCOP with similar transformational specifications that will give meaning to the importance of ‘place function’ and prioritise the safe movement of pedestrians particularly in the city centre, and metropolitan and town centres.

 

Direction setting – transport, land use and sustainability

 

The Waitemata Local Board strongly supports the direction setting of Chapter 1 and in particular:

the one system approach in the ATCOP, which includes working through integration, collaboration and taking a holistic approach to transport infrastructure.

Consideration of and linking both the ‘place’ and the ‘movement’ function of streets and recognition that walking at the beginning and the end of the journey are integral parts of any trip

The stated strong commitment to sustainability

Inclusion of the ‘modal hierarchy considerations diagram’

The safe system approach to road safety

The Board also supports the approach to integrated transport planning (chapter 2) in particular:

ATCOP adopting the 7 “Principles” for the development of Auckland Transport projects and the safety and accessibility principles.

Recognition that shared spaces are an important way to integrate place and movement function. Although we note that the concept of shared streets is only one method to deliver the goal of pedestrianizing urban streets and more work needs to be done in this area

The stated objective to deliver the expectations of the Auckland Plan for transport infrastructure

·                     Photo by Sydney, Shared space on Fort Street

The prioritisation of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport

The ATCOP states that “integrated transport planning allows planners of the transport system to find a balance between the competing uses and demands on the transport system.”  However, in relation to pedestrians, the ATCOP needs to be clear about when it is prioritising pedestrians and where it is balancing them with other transport modes.

The Auckland Plan clearly calls for the need to reprioritise transport planning and give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, particularly where there is a strong “place” function eg town centres. The Plan also has the goal of balancing needs between movement and place.

The approach of aiming to balance, rather than prioritise, the transport modes in the ATCOP will have negative implications for the delivery of the Waitematā Local Board priorities. These include: “dedicated, connected cycleways and quality road design that rebalances the priority of road users to all modes of travel (including cyclists, pedestrians, skaters and mobility scooter users).”

Despite the policy direction and the mode hierarchy of Section 1, ATCOP does not seem to clearly set out a priority for walking, cycling and public transport in those sections where actual infrastructure designs are discussed.

 

Best practise standards for international cities

While the ATCOP supports a shift in thinking for the transport network in recognition of pedestrians, this shift is only one aspect of what is currently best practice for international cities. The sense of place in international transport trends is very important. Two international best practice examples include the New York City ‘street design manual” and Boston’s “Complete Streets” guidelines. Both of these documents prioritise the sense of place over the transport infrastructure.

The Boston’s Complete Streets includes a three-pronged approach that informs roadway design to ensure that streets are shared by all users and not dominated by cars. It requires an emphasis on green design elements that promote an environmentally sensitive, sustainable use of the public right-of-way. 

Greener designs incorporate street trees, rain gardens, and technology-assisted design elements incorporate intelligent signals, smart meters, electric vehicle sharing, car and bicycle-sharing, way-finding and social networks for greater system efficiencies and user convenience.

Innovation

The Board is concerned that ATCOP encourages design for movement function resulting in high speed environments (for example on roads classified as arterials).  It needs to be clear in ATCOP where it is possible to innovate and exceed standards as distinct from the situations where compliance with the specifications is strictly required.  For example it needs to be easy to adjust rules for town centres on arterial roads where a slower speed limit is appropriate.

The following feedback looks at how the technical specifications throughout the document will not deliver the direction setting approach that ATCOP commits to up front. We have covered issues of particular concern to the Board as we are not resourced to undertake an exhaustive review of the standards.

We also note there is a need within the document to recognise that the upskilling of engineers in understanding the shifts needed to move from hierarchical use functions to balanced use functions is necessary to give effect to the manual and achieve transformational transport and land use integration.

Place making function of “streets”

The concept of streets as compared to roads goes largely unrecognised in the detailed standards of ATCOP.  As mentioned above one way that cities are beginning to challenge the conventional approach to transport planning is through the introduction of streets manuals, which treat urban streets differently to roads.

The Board requests that a “best practice” approach (as exemplified in the Boston  and NYC guidelines) to transport planning is clearly reflected in the detail of ATCOP.  Generally in ATCOP, there is a tendency to default to primarily providing for movement of motor vehicles (e.g. minimum width for a 16.6 metre tour coach on collector roads such as Richmond Road and an 18m semi-trailer or articulated truck on arterials). Also, it seems there is a general misunderstanding in terms of elements such as design speed, design vehicle, scale of infrastructure, safety considerations and delivering better urban outcomes of progressive street design.

Pro-active street design (as seen within the Boston and NYC guidelines) favours local trips, economic efficiency, non-vehicular trips and a compact urban form. Increasingly, street manuals are being used to deploy new tools focused on delivering broader land use outcomes than simply moving vehicles efficiently, consistent with the Auckland Plan. The Board therefore requests that ATCOP recognises streets as serving a multitude of mobility functions including public transport trips, short trips and economic exchange.

In addition the Board requests that a clear set of principles and subsequent technical standards which communicate the vision of how streets are critical to place-shaping, community building, and economic vitality (rather than just access and mobility) is incorporated within ATCOP. 

Road classifications

The road classifications used in ATCOP reinforces the one-dimensional traffic planning of roads and design for movement function.  This doesn’t properly address the complexity of urban contexts, and the high place function of roads (such as arterials like Ponsonby Road). 

The Board notes that  the language suggests that the classes are not ‘set in stone’ and encourages wider planning consideration, which is positive, as we know, road functions change over time e.g. trams to trolley buses to cars. In further chapters, however, there are references to road classification that do not contain the same disclaimer about design flexibility and judgement and this is a concern. Road design standards should be consistent with citywide goals for urban design, economic growth and safety.  The Board therefore requests that a wider range of road classifications is introduced to ATCOP that better reflect community contexts and desired land use outcomes.

The high “place function” for arterials also needs to be recognised, so that they are not solely viewed as having movement functionality (for example as set out in Figure 5). Where there are arterials in town centres, their function needs to be set below the current standards. For example the width of town centre streets designated as an  arterial roads are designed to a maximum rather than a minimum width. However, if tighter intersections in town centres were designed then this would ensure narrower widths and therefore lower speeds.

The road corridors through our town centres preform a function as social space as well as movement. Our town centres are the most extensive public realm that Council manages and although town centres frequently  fall into the category of “road corridor” they need to be designed to recognise their vital function as social space.

Speed limits need to be reduced around schools and town centres. The standards need to easily allow for these reductions in speed to occur. Additionally, the tools to allow this to take effect need to be incorporated in the document.

Road layout and Geometric design

The design speed of a road in ATCOP (chapter 7) is based solely on “the maximum speed that a vehicle can safely travel on that road under perfect conditions”. Once again, place function is given less priority and the provision for cyclists and pedestrians are not commented on. Through these statements in this chapter, the vehicle (assumed to refer to motor vehicles rather than the legal definition of “vehicles” which includes bicycles) is given priority.

The road layout chapter incorporates design standards for slip lanes. As it is no longer international best practice to have slip lanes there should only be limited circumstances for slip lanes due to the safety impact on pedestrians and cyclists.

Roundabouts also need to be carefully designed for pedestrians and cyclists with slow approaches and slow departures. Again, there should only be limited circumstances where these are installed due to the confusion they create for all users and lack of safety.

The Board requests that greater weight is given in the ATCOP to cyclists and pedestrians, as equal users of the road/street space in all road layout designs.


Cycling infrastructure design

The Board is supportive of design standards, which are similar to international best practice.  Segregated cycle lanes need to be the default design option for all new roading projects. We also request the following additional cycling specifications:

cycle detection equipment at signalised crossings – particularly on Auckland Cycle Network routes.

Advanced stop boxes supported at signalised junctions, although feeder lanes need to be provided to maximise the benefits to cyclists.

Cycle lanes routed around bus stop bays where feasible.

Operation (hours) of bus/bike lanes should be maximised to benefit cyclists

Cycle parking standards should include defined distances from parking to destination e.g. train station entrance.

Provision of informal parking alongside cycle storage guidance

We also support the shared street provision for cyclists in chapter 5 but request the ability for innovation and focus on pedestrian amenity and safety is included. 

Separated cycle lanes through intersections is an example of innovative design that we would like ATCOP to encourage such as this protected intersection design recently proposed by a Portland planner (http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/video-argues-that-protected-bike-lanes-need-protected-intersections)

·                     Image by Nick Falbo, Alta Planning and Design.Portland, USA

The Board notes that the routes and classifications for the Auckland Cycle Network (chapter 5.2) still has not been consulted on with Local Boards and that the Waitematā Local Board has requested Auckland Transport’s “Cycle feeder” routes are renamed “Greenways” and that the standards align with Local board aspirations for a Greenways network.

Vehicle Types

We are concerned with some design matters related to vehicle types and the effects of potential over-design of intersections. The Board requests that Auckland Transport look to include international best practice design guidance based around a new base design vehicle being identified that better represents a typical urban vehicle delivering goods related to urban scale, for example, “Keep intersections as compact as possible.”

Some evidence is emerging of ‘vehicle inflation’. As vehicle sizes get larger, infrastructure gets larger to accommodate this size. Vehicle size is directly related to marketing strategies by vehicle manufacturing companies. We request that Auckland Transport disregard the effect of vehicle inflation and its impact on engineering standards.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. We look forward to seeing ATCOP finalised with the technical standards and specifications that will move Auckland forward as a strong, sustainable, safe people-friendly city.

 

 

31 March 2014

Pippa Coom and Christopher Dempsey for the Waitematā Local Board

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/06325

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides guidance for local boards on finalising budgets and other decisions required for local board agreements and the Annual Plan 2014/2015. 

Executive Summary

1.   This report provides information to support local boards to make decisions required in order to finalise local board content for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

 

2.   The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was released for public consultation in January, with local board hearings held in March as part of the special consultative procedure.  Following consultation, local boards have considered all new and updated information now available in relation to budgets, advocacy areas and regional proposals for 2014/2015. 

 

3.    Local boards are now asked to:

i)    agree a final balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years

ii)   agree an updated set of advocacy areas to the Governing Body and CCOs for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015

iii)   agree a local fees and charges schedule for 2014/2015

iv)  resolve on any regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Agrees a balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years for the Annual Plan 2014/2015 that reflect the allocation of decision-making

b)      Confirms an updated list of advocacy areas for the Governing Body and council-controlled organisations, for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 

c)      Agrees a local fees and charges schedule for 2014/2015

d)      Resolves on any feedback on regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan process for Governing Body consideration

e)      Notes:

i)        local board budgets for 2014/2015 and outer years are required to balance in every year

ii)       if budgets do not balance in every year, the Budget Committee will respond to any advice provided by the local board about how to balance its budget if required.  If this has not occurred, budgets will be balanced by proportionately reducing the budgets for the local boards discretionary projects to address the overspend

iii)      local board budgets will be updated in May to reflect local board prioritisation decisions, any final decisions made by the Budget Committee on 8 May, and updated central cost allocations.  Updated financial statements for 2014/2015 will be provided to local boards in time for local board agreement adoption meetings in June.

 

 

Discussion

4.    The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was released for public consultation in January, with local board hearings held in March as part of the special consultative procedure.  Following consultation, each local board has reviewed its 2014/2015 and outer year budgets and considered what, if any, reprioritisation is required in order to finalise budgets for the annual plan.   

 

5.    This report provides information on:

·    key budget refresh movements to local board budgets

·    local board decisions required in April to support the annual plan process  

·    next steps to finalise local board budgets and agreements for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.

 

6.    Local boards are now required to make decisions following the consultation and reprioritisation phases to enable local board content to be updated and finalised for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.   Local boards are asked to:

i)    agree a final balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years

ii)   agree an updated set of advocacy areas to the Governing Body and CCOs for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015

iii)   agree a local fees and charges schedule for 2014/2015

iv)  resolve on any other feedback relating to regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.

 

Budget Refresh

 

7.    A budget refresh was undertaken in February to reflect the most accurate budget based on the latest available information and any changes in the business.  Movements are based on factors such as performance year to date and forecast changes in the operating environment. 

 

8.    A summary of key areas of impact on local board budgets is set out in Attachment A.   There is no impact on service levels as a result of budget refresh movements.  Variance analysis for this local board is provided in Attachment B.

 

Next steps to finalise local board agreements  

 

9.    Discussions between the Budget Committee and local boards will occur between 29 April and
1 May. 

 

10.  Reports will be prepared for the Budget Committee meeting on 8 May providing an update on local board budgets, advocacy and other feedback and seeking any further decisions required to finalise the Annual Plan 2014/2015.  At this meeting, the Committee will formally consider local board feedback and advocacy.

 

11.  Between 9 and 30 May, local board agreements will be updated and financial statements prepared.  Financial statements will reflect budget prioritisation decisions made by local boards, any further decisions made by the Budget Committee and include central cost allocations, such as depreciation, interest and staff costs. 

 

12.  Local boards will meet to adopt their local board agreements between 9 June and 19 June, with the Governing Body meeting to adopt the final annual plan, including the 21 local board agreements, on 26 June.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13.  This report sets out the decisions local boards need to make in order to finalise budgets and agree advocacy areas for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.  Local boards may also provide feedback on region-wide policies and proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.

Maori Impact Statement

14.  Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Maori. The annual plan and local board agreements are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Maori. The local board agreement is based on the local board plan and the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 which have both been developed through engagement with the community, including Maori.

 

15.  There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes. In particular, the 2014 Local Board Plans and the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 will influence relevant annual plans and local board agreements.

Implementation Issues

16.  Local boards’ financial statements reflect the full cost of undertaking local activities within each board’s area.  However, some of these costs are not directly under the control of local boards (e.g. staff costs, corporate overhead, interest and depreciation) and are therefore subject to change outside of the local board’s prioritisation process. 

 

17.  These central costs will alter as final budget decisions are made by the Budget Committee on 8 May.  As these central costs change, the total funding for each local board will change by the same amount.  These changes will have no impact on a local board’s level of discretionary funding.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Budget Refresh – A summary of key movements

175

bView

Budget refresh – Movements for Henderson-Massey Local Board

177

cView

Fees and charges schedule

181

     

Signatories

Authors

Wendy Kjestrup - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Budget Refresh – A summary of key movements

 

This is a summary of key budget refresh changes applied in February 2014 that impact local board budgets.  There are no level of service impacts as a result of these changes.

 

1.   Depreciation forecasts have been updated to realign with the fixed asset model, taking into account actual capital programme spend to date and deferral of projects.

 

2.   Commercial lease expenditure and revenue has been aligned to local boards in response to a Strategy and Finance resolution passed in June 2013 to ensure financial treatment of the Auckland Council lease portfolio is aligned to an agreed set of principles.

 

3.   Library budget forecasts have been improved by removing duplicated revenue budgets, realigning staff budgets based on a position-by-position review, fixing minor historical errors and identifying the allocation of efficiency savings.

 

4.   CDAC budgets were reviewed to correct legacy budget errors.

 

5.   Some regional activity budgets incorrectly allocated to Local Boards have been corrected.

 

6.   Local parks budgets were reviewed including:

 

a.   street amenities budgets aligning with actual costs based on historical data and current level of service provided;

b.   allocation of budgets for new park purchases and correction of allocation of scheduled/response maintenance contracts across local boards;

c.   identifying the allocation of efficiency savings; and

d.   correction of historical budget errors.

 

7.   Local facility property budgets (both revenue and expenditure) have been correctly aligned to local boards.

 

8.   Leisure facility budgets were reviewed to remove revenue budgets containing legacy errors, unachievable revenue forecasts due to capital project delays, correct legacy errors in marketing budgets and allocate efficiency savings as a result of the RFP for contracted facilities.

 

9.   General budget forecast updates have been applied to some projects based on current and historical information of spend and current levels of service provided.

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Appendix B – Henderson-Massey Local Board budget refresh movements

The below tables reflect budget refresh movements only. 

Opex

Local Board

Activity

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015
Budget ($)

Revised 2014/2015
Budget ($)

Variance

Henderson-Massey

Local libraries

3,377,143

3,304,913

-72,230

 

Local community services

2,144,520

1,702,666

-441,855

 

Local arts, culture and events services

773,601

759,346

-14,256

 

Local parks services

9,235,187

9,354,358

119,171

 

Local recreation services

1,016,783

1,688,301

671,518

 

Local economic development

295,320

181,735

-113,585

 

Local built and natural environment

142,309

129,827

-12,483

 

Local governance

1,094,432

1,093,449

-982

Total

 

18,079,296

18,214,595

135,299

 

 


Capex

Activity and Project

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Budget ($)

Revised 2014/2015 Budget ($)

Variance

Local arts and culture facilities

31,558

92,550

60,992

Art facility renewals

31,558

92,550

60,992

Local community facilities

243,168

1,118,874

875,706

Community facility (Glendene)

395,081

395,081

Community facility renewals (West Harbour school)

384,695

384,695

Community facility renewals

85,728

254,721

168,993

Community house renewals (Ranui)

84,377

84,377

Community house renewals (West Harbour)

157,440

0

-157,440

Local environment and heritage protection

389,722

389,722

Project Twin Streams

382,596

382,596

Keep Waitakere Beautiful trees for babies

7,127

7,127

Local library facilities and services

12,739,695

13,529,695

790,000

Library build (Ranui)

580,000

580,000

Library build (Te Atatu Peninsula)

4,460,872

4,660,872

200,000

Local library renewals

91,595

101,595

10,000

Library build (Massey North)

7,936,000

7,936,000

Library furniture and fitting renewals

251,228

251,228

Local parks

7,429,381

6,647,528

-781,853

Land purchase and development (Tui Glen)

1,000,000

1,000,000

Sandfields (Te Atatu South Park)

199,060

199,060

Sportsfield renewals

442,368

538,168

95,800

Park improvements (general)

819,115

902,873

83,758

Local park car park renewals

278,528

340,516

61,988

Sportsfield development

244,849

265,849

21,000

Local park structure development

20,000

20,000

Local park structure renewals

170,491

189,783

19,292

Walkway (Sunhill Scenic Reserve)

61,148

65,000

3,852

Courts (Te Pai Park)

51,200

51,200

Local park playspace renewals

30,720

30,720

Local park public convenience renewals

245,760

245,760

Changing rooms (Massey Domain)

40,960

40,960

Play space (Te Pai Park)

204,800

204,800

Local park walkway and cycleway renewals

13,312

13,312

Open spaces (Massey North)

2,723,840

2,723,840

Sports park structure renewals

3,072

0

-3,072

Local park horticultural renewals

14,224

0

-14,224

Sports park car park renewals

22,528

0

-22,528

Local park furniture and fixture renewals

29,696

0

-29,696

Sports park furniture and fixture renewals

30,720

0

-30,720

Sports park renewals

30,720

0

-30,720

Upgrade existing fields (Starling Park)

56,320

0

-56,320

Park improvements (Kingdale Reserve)

71,680

0

-71,680

Croquet club (Cranwell Park)

263,936

23,936

-240,000

Reserve restoration Waterview Connection (SH16/20)

0

-259,025

-259,025

Development stage two playground (Royal Reserve)

388,514

0

-388,514

Development (Royal Reserve)

1,190,879

50,775

-1,140,104

Local planning, policy and governance

7,282

14,486

7,204

Local board it hardware (staff)

7,282

14,486

7,204

Local recreation initiatives and facilities

94,833

2,424,165

2,329,332

Recreation centre (Te Rangi Hiroa)

1,790,517

1,790,517

Aquatic facility building renewals

0

312,374

312,374

Aquatic facility equipment renewals

94,833

247,658

152,825

Hockey turf (Henderson)

73,616

73,616

Grand Total

20,935,639

24,217,020

3,281,381

 

Capex figures are uninflated.

Please refer to Appendix A for a high level summary explanation of these changes.  Your financial advisor can provide further detail throughout the prioritisation process.

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Text Box: Draft local fees and charges schedule 2014/2015

Henderson-Massey                      
Text Box:  Text Box: Notes to fees and charges in this schedule:
•	All fees include GST.
•	Unless otherwise specified, proposed fees include a 1 per cent inflationary adjustment which aligns with the increase in user charges revenue budget for all local boards for 2014/2015. 
•	Some fees are adjusted slightly more or less than 1 per cent due to practicality reasons (e.g. rounding to the nearest 10c or dollar).
•	A small number of fees have been proposed to change by significantly more or less than 1 per cent. The rationale for the change is included in the ‘Rationale for change / officer advice’ column of the fee schedule. 
•	The fees for community and arts facilities have been revised following a comprehensive review and workshops with the local boards. The proposed standard fees (included in this schedule) were calculated based on a standardised approach across the region.

 

 

I.        LIBRARY ROOM HIRE

 

Description

Current fee

Proposed fee for 14/15

Rationale for change / officer advice

Estimated impact on revenue budget (outside of inflation)

Commercial - Per Hour - Massey

$10.60

$10.70

inflation adjustment

Nil

 


 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

II.       Leisure and recreation facilities

 

 WestWave Pool and Leisure Centre

 

Description

Current Fee

Proposed Fee for 14/15          

Rationale for change/Officer advice

Estimated Impact on revenue budget (outside of inflation)

Casual Admission

$6.90

$7.00

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Admission - Senior

$4.80

$4.80

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Admission - Student

$4.80

$4.80

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Fitness Squad casual

$9.20

$9.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Fitness Centre entry

$18.00

$18.20

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Fitness Centre entry Senior

$13.70

$13.80

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Fitness Centre entry Student

$13.70

$13.80

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Adult Special Needs

$3.40

$3.40

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Recreation Centre Entry

$4.60

$4.60

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Recreation Centre Entry - child

$3.70

$3.70

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Recreation Centre Entry - Alt Ed

$2.30

$2.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Fitness Centre Assessment

$33.80

$34.10

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Supervising Adult (Pool)

$4.80

$4.80

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Spectator

$1.00

$1.00

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Dive board

$2.00

$2.00

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Casual Hydro-slide - Adults and child

$2.00

$2.00

plus pool entry for Adult

Nil

Hydrotherapy Pool

$6.90

$7.00

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Facility Hire - Main Pool per lane per hour

$34.00

$34.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

25m Pool Hire -per hour

$246.00

$248.50

Inflation adjustment

Nil

25m Pool plus Divewell - Per Hour

$332.60

$335.90

Inflation adjustment

Nil

33m Pool Hire - per hour

$357.00

$360.60

Inflation adjustment

Nil

50m Pool Hire - per hour

$505.00

$510.10

Inflation adjustment

Nil

50m Pool plus Divewell - per hour

$609.50

$615.60

Inflation adjustment

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description

Current Fee

Proposed Fee for 14/15          

Rationale for change/Officer advice

Estimated Impact on revenue budget (outside of inflation)

Divewell Exclusive - per hour

$116.70

$117.90

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Divewell Half - per hour

$59.00

$59.60

Inflation adjustment

Nil

LTS Pool Half Pool - per hour

$59.00

$59.60

Inflation adjustment

Nil

LTS Pool Whole Pool - per hour

$116.70

$117.90

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Hydro Pool Regular Group - per hour

$40.00

$40.40

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Hydro Pool Non Regular Group - per hour

$80.00

$80.80

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Divewell film Crew Hire - per hour

$185.00

$186.90

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Hireage Rec Facility - Canteen room 1 - per hour

$24.80

$25.00

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Hireage Rec Facility - ASP room 2 per hour

$14.50

$14.60

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Activity room small Room 3 per hour

$16.50

$16.70

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Activity room large Room 10 with kitchenette per hour

$28.00

$28.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Martial Arts/Dance Room 20 per hour

$27.00

$27.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Floor B both Basketball courts x 2 per hour

$47.00

$47.50

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Per court  per hour

$27.00

$27.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Floor C 3x Badminton court area per hour

$26.00

$26.30

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Badminton Court x 1 - pr hour

$18.00

$18.20

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Floor D volleyball court area per hour

$22.00

$22.20

Inflation adjustment

Nil

Gym Pit / Trampoline Area per hour
* only to authorised hirers

$22.00

$22.20

Inflation adjustment

Nil

 


 

III.        LOCAL COMMUNITY AND ARTS FACILITIES

 

Proposed rate

as of 1 July 2014

Facility

Room

Standard Peak

per hour

Standard Off-Peak

per hour

Kelston Community Centre

Activity Room 1

$34

$  27

Activity Room 2

$34

$  27

Committee Room

$34

$  27

Main Hall

$39

$  31

Te Atatu South Community Centre

Activity Room 1

$39

$  31

Main Hall

$44

$  35


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Draft Annual Plan 2015/2015 submissions analysis and responses to information requests

 

File No.: CP2014/06308

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide analysis of the annual plan submissions from the Henderson-Massey Local Board area, and further information to support the board in its decision-making.

Executive Summary

2.       The Henderson-Massey Local Hearings Panel heard submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on Tuesday, 25 March 2014.

3.       Local boards need to consider any amendments to Local Board Agreements 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals prior to discussions with the Governing Body on 29 and 30 April, and 1 May 2014.

4.       This report contains analysis of the submissions from the Henderson-Massey Local Board area, including local and regional submissions.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Considers any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising from the special consultative procedure for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

 

 

Discussion

5.       The Local Government Act 2002 requires Auckland Council to undertake a special consultative procedure (SCP) as part of the development of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including draft Local Board Agreements 2014/2015.

6.       The submission period for the draft Annual Plan SCP ran from 23 January to 24 February 2014. 

7.       In total, the Council received and processed 1,967 submissions of which 90 were received from the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.  Seven submitters in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area indicated they wished to be heard.

8.       The Henderson-Massey Local Hearings Panel held its hearings on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the Local Board’s draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on Tuesday, 25 March 2014.

 

Local submissions from the Henderson-Massey Local Board area

Key themes and issues from the submissions commenting on local issues are included in table 1 below. This table shows whether respondents agree, disagree or were unsure about the proposed budget changes in the draft Henderson-Massey Local Board Agreement 2014/2015.

There were no strong local themes that emerged from other comments in the submissions.


Table 1 – submission on proposed budget changes

Proposed budget change

Support

Do not support

Unsure

No response

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

Henderson BID

15

16.9%

2

2.2%

0

0.0%

72

80.9%

Henderson town centre coordinator

10

11.2%

7

7.9%

0

0.0%

72

80.9%

CCTV installation

15

16.9%

3

3.4%

0

0.0%

71

79.8%

Ranui Action Project funding

12

13.5%

4

4.5%

1

1.1%

72

80.9%

 

Regional submissions from the Henderson-Massey Local Board area

 

Feedback on regional proposals:

·    30 submitters expressed support for the Auckland Arts Festival proposal

·    Of the 62 submitters commenting on the stadium strategy, 40 commented that Western Springs should continue to be used for speedway and music.

 

There was also feedback on the following:

·    Social housing proposal - 14 submitters did not support the proposal to increase social housing rental charges by 5%.

·    12 pro forma submissions were received opposing fluoridation of water supply

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       The Local Board needs to consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising out of the SCP process.

10.     A separate report on this agenda will address the requirement to agree a final balanced budget, advocacy areas for 2014/2015, and if required, resolve on feedback on regional proposals.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     The draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 sets out the local activities that Auckland Council will undertake in the Local Board area over the coming year. These activities are likely to have an impact on Māori and iwi in the local board area. Māori and iwi have had the opportunity to submit on the content of the draft Local Board Agreement as part of the SCP process.

Implementation Issues

12.     The content of the final Local Board Agreement will set out the local activities to be undertaken by Auckland Council in the Local Board area. Implementation issues will vary depending on the activities undertaken.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Wendy Kjestrup - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

LGNZ conference and AGM 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/06695

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report informs Local Boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and conference in Nelson from Sunday 20 July 2014 to Tuesday 22 July 2014 and invites boards to nominate a representative to attend as relevant.

Executive Summary

2.       The Local Government New Zealand annual conference and AGM takes place in Nelson from Sunday 20 July to Tuesday 22 July 2014.

3.       The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference.  Auckland Council is entitled to 4 official delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate.  The Governing Body will consider this at their meeting on 27 March 2014.  The 4 official delegates are likely to be the Mayor as a member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor as the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster as Chair LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council, and the Chief Executive.

4.       In addition to the official delegates, local board members are invited to attend.  Local boards should consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance, with the expectation that no board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Nominates a representative to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2014 annual general meeting and conference from 20 July 2014 to 22 July 2014 on the basis that the conference programme is relevant to the Local Board’s work programme.

 

 

Discussion

5.       The LGNZ Conference and AGM are being held in Nelson. The conference commences with the AGM and technical tours from 10.00 am on Sunday 20 July 2014 and concludes at 4.30 pm on Tuesday 22 July 2014.

6.       The theme of this year’s conference is “Powering Local Economies – building community vibrancy”.  The programme includes:

·    Paul Pisasale, Mayor of Ipswich, Transforming towns and cities to build strong local economies and vibrant communities

·    Rod Drury, Factors that make Wellington based Xero a global success and why businesses locate where they do

·    Craig Stobo, Andrew McKenzie and Arihia Bennett, Lifting governance and financial performance

·    Caroline Saunders and Ganesh Nana, Future economic thinking: how will the changing social and economic landscape impact on our future development patterns

·    Lawrence Yule, LGNZ’s 2014 elections manifesto

·    Jonar Nader, Innovation: Something ‘new’ is not always something ‘better’

·    Therese Walsh, National events from metro to grass roots – needs, opportunities and key success factors for a town hosting a major event

7.       The programme also includes a number of Master Class sessions including:

·    New generation funding models for infrastructure

·    Funding models and the economic impact of cycle ways

·    Transforming local government through smart digital investment

·    Improving governance through strengthening capacity and capability

·    How do we engage with youth?

Annual General Meeting

8.       The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference.  Auckland Council is entitled to have four delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate.  The 4 official delegates are likely to be the Mayor (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Penny Webster (as Chair of Zone 1) and the Chief Executive (or his nominee).

9.       The Mayor is a member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor is the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster is the Chair of LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council and Cr Cashmore is a member of the Regional Sector Group of LGNZ.   The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at their meeting on 27 March 2014.

10.     In addition to the official delegates, Local Board Members are entitled to attend.  Local boards should consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance, with the expectation that no board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.

Costs

11.     The Local Board Services Department budget will cover the costs of one member per local board to attend the conference.

12.     Registration fees are $1410.00 (incl GST) if paid by 4 June 2013 and $1510.00 (incl GST) after that.  Additional costs are accommodation around $150 per night, plus travel.  Local Board Services will be co-ordinating and booking all registrations and accommodation and investigating cost effective travel.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13.     This is a report to the 21 local boards.

Maori Impact Statement

14.     The Local Government NZ conference will better inform local boards and thereby support their decision-making for their communities including Maori.

Implementation Issues

15.     There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations in this report.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

2014 LGNZ AGM and Conference Program

195

     

Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 





Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Making Good Decisions Course - Local Board Member Attendance

 

File No.: CP2014/07201

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek formal approval for the Chairperson, Vanessa Neeson and Deputy Chair, Shane Henderson to attend the Making Good Decisions – Chair Recertification and the Making Good Decisions – foundation courses. The course is run by Opus Environmental Training Centre for resource management decision makers.

Executive Summary

2.       Opus Environmental Training Centre delivers the “Making Good Decisions Programme” to help councillors, local board members and independent commissioners make better decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It provides RMA decision makers with the skills needed to run fair and effective hearings and to make informed decisions. The aim of the programme is to provide participants with the skills and knowledge to guide them through the ethical, legal and practical requirements of decision making under the Resource Management Act 1991.

3.       Deputy Chairperson, Shane Henderson has requested to attend the Making Good Decisions Programme Foundation Course in Auckland on 5 August 2014 at a cost of $1,906.09 + GST, which covers 10 modules and is run over two days. An assessment is required to be completed prior to attendance and an assessment completed within one month post attendance.  Once the course work has been completed and certification has been obtained Shane Henderson will be able to sit as an accredited member of a hearings panel.

4.       Chairperson, Vanessa Neeson, has requested to attend the Panel Member Recertification course on either 21 May 2014 at a cost of $1,113.981 + GST each.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Approves member Shane Henderson’s attendance at the Making Good Decisions – Foundation Course 2014 for Resource Management decision makers run by Opus Environmental Training Centre in Auckland on 5 August 2014, at a cost of $1906.09 + GST.

b)      Approves Chair of Henderson-Massey local board, Vanessa Neeson’s attendance at the Making Good Decisions – Panel Recertification 2014 on 21 May 2014 at a cost of $1,113.91 + GST.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Chair's report

 

File No.: CP2014/00103

 

  

 

Executive Summary

1.       To provide an opportunity to the Chairperson of Henderson-Massey Local Board to update the board on her activities, projects and issues since Monday, 24 March 2014.

 

 

Monday
24 March

Make a Difference on Neighbours Day

 

Community-led Place-making Champions Group

 

Local Board Chairs Forum meeting

 

Members’ Art and Craft Exhibition

 

Tuesday
25 March

Henderson-Massey Local Board Weekly Update

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board Workshop

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board - Annual Plan Hearings

 

Wednesday
26 March

Discussion re Youth Connections

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board Workshop

 

Thursday
27 March

Local Board Urban Design Champions Quarterly Meeting

 

Brent Toderian talk - Balancing heritage protection with city intensification

 

Discussion re Local Board Funding

 

Friends of Harbourview

 

Friday
28 March

Massey Means Business

 

WEST Councillors and Chairs LB Funding Policy

 

 

 

Saturday
29 March

Our Amazing Place Treasure Hunt

 

Neighbours Day Picnic

 

50th Anniversary Celebration - Children’s Bible Ministries

 

Sunday
30 March

Biz Kids Presentation

 

Monday
31 March

Library Catch up with Henderson/Massey Board Chair

 

 

Mayor Len Brown visiting Henderson

 

 

Tuesday
1 April

Parks Portfolio Catch-up

 

 

Transport Portfolio Catch-up

 

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board Workshop

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday
2 April

Seminar for Youth Connections Local Board Chairs, champions and interested Local Board members

 

 

Bus Stop Art

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday
3 April

Local Board Funding Policy - Local Boards PWP members meeting

 

 

Projects Update re Arts and Culture

 

 

Discussion re Social Procurement Policy

 

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board
Business Meeting

 

 

Friday
4 April

Community Facilities Network Plan workshop

 

 

Community Waitakere Programme 2014/2015 and Council Review

 

 

Community Grants Policy workshop

 

 

Saturday
5 April

Ban Synthetic Waitakere Rally

 

 

Sturges West Community House Open Day

 

 

Calibre

 

 

 

 

Monday
7 April

Henderson-Massey Local Board - Weekly Update

Waitemata Loan

Tuesday
8 Apirl

Discussion re Winter Festival

Discussion re Finance

Henderson-Massey Local Board Workshop

Invitation to Totally Horse

Swimming NZ and the NZ Swimming - Trust Invite

Wednesday
9 April

Unitec Student presentation for Henderson Central

Massey Matters Community Network Meeting

Community Facilities-Community Development Portfolio Catch up

Henderson Business pre-BID Survey Report

Thursday
10 April

New Network West Auckland consultation

Rail Bridge Glazing Report discussion

Friday
11 April

Early Engagement on Transport Planning - Workshop with AT Senior - Management

Parent Aid Waitakere Inc. 20th Anniversary Celebration

Birdwood Depot - Wood Yard

Waitakere Sport and Recreation - Advisory Group

Sunday
13 April

Mystics Game

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Receives the chair’s report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Confirmation of Workshop Records

 

File No.: CP2014/07442

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report presents records of workshops held by the Henderson-Massey Local Board on:

-     4 March 2014

-     11 March 2014

-     18 March 2014 and

-     25 March 2014

Local Board Standing Orders require that workshop records be confirmed at the next meeting of the local board.

 

Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Confirms that the records of the workshops held on the following dates are true and correct: 

-     4 March 2014

-     11 March 2014

-     18 March 2014 and

-     25 March 2014

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Workshop record for 4 March

207

bView

Workshop Record for 11 March 2014

209

cView

Workshop record for 18 March 2014

211

dView

Workshop record for 25 March 2014

213

    

Signatories

Authors

Linda Smith - Senior Local Board Advisor (West)

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Record of Workshop -
Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

Date:               Tuesday, 4 March 2014

Time:               12.00 pm - 5.00 pm

Venue:             Council Chambers, Henderson Service Centre, 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson

 

 

PRESENT:

 

Members:       Vanessa Neeson, JP (Chair)

Shane Henderson (Deputy Chair)

Brenda Brady, JP

Peter Chan, JP

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Will Flavell

Tracy Kirkley

 

Apologies:     Luke Wilson

 

MATTERS DISCUSSED

 

 

ITEM

PRESENTER

1.0

THE LOCAL BOARD PLAN - SPORTS & RECREATION

Discussion of sport and recreation issues with the view to their inclusion on the Local Board Plan 2014-2017.

Andrew Pragnell
Lynette Adams
Sarah Natac

2.0

HISTORIC HERITAGE PLAN AND HERITAGE ASSETS STEWARDSHIP POLICY

Provided local boards with an opportunity for input and feedback.

Rebecca Hadfield
Rebecca Fogel
Elizabeth Pischief

3.0

PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCES

Spoke to the Board and furnished them with Ministry of Health consultation document on Psychoactive substances regulations, for feedback to input into Auckland Council’s submission. 

Wendy Kjestrup

4.0

BOARD CATCH-UP

General discussion about Local Board Plan process

Linda Smith

5.0

LOCAL BOARD PLAN - ENVIRONMENT

Spoke to the Board on environmental programmes for the Local Board Plan 2014-2017. Working towards improved environmental outcomes, Maori outcomes, economic development and the community.

Theresa Pearce
Karen Summerhays

6.0

CATHERINE PLAZA  - PROPOSED PROJECTS

Updated the Board on proposed UNITEC student design project in Catherine Plaza/Henderson Town Centre.

Wendy Kjestrup
Jarcinda Stowers-Ama
Paul Woodruffe (Unitec)
Rebecca Kunnin
MattAppleyard

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Record of Workshop -
Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

Date:               Tuesday, March 11 2014

Time:               1.00 pm - 5.00 pm

Venue:             Council Chamber, Level 2, 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson

 

 

PRESENT:

 

Members:       Vanessa Neeson, JP (Chair)

Shane Henderson (Deputy Chair)

Brenda Brady, JP

Peter Chan, JP

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Tracy Kirkley

Luke Wilson

 

 

Apologies:     Will Flavell

 

 

MATTERS DISCUSSED

 

 

ITEM

PRESENTER

1.0

LOCAL BOARD PLAN - DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND CDAC PLACE BASED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING OLDER ADULTS

Spoke to the Board on investing in Community Wellbeing.

Paul Prestidge
Kim Conway
Jacqueline Puna-Teaukura
Tracey Logan

2.0

LOCAL BOARD PLAN - YOUNG PEOPLE

Spoke to the Board on Youth and Children

·    How do we work with young people

·    Transport issues for youth

 

Susie Trinh

Paul Prestidge

Tracy Logan

3.0

RECREATION FACILITIES

Spoke to the Board on community contract outcomes for Massey Leisure

Susan Johns
Grant Helleur
Cameron Kerr
Romina Veseli (Westwave)

4.0

LOCAL BOARD PLAN VISION STATEMENT

Options for “Vision” statement for Henderson-Massey Local Board

·    Diverse

·    Beautiful

·    Place to grow, work and have fun

Linda Smith

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Record of Workshop -
Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

Date:               Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Time:               1.00 pm - 5.00 pm

Venue:             Council Chambers, Level 2, 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson

 

 

PRESENT:

 

Members:       Vanessa Neeson, JP (Chair)

Shane Henderson (Deputy Chair)

Brenda Brady, JP

Peter Chan, JP

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Will Flavell

Tracy Kirkley

Luke Wilson

 

 

Apologies:    

 

 

MATTERS DISCUSSED

 

 

ITEM

PRESENTER

1.0

PROGRESS ON HENDERSON FRAMEWORK

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WITH BECA LTD

Presented to the board a snap-shot presentation on the Henderson Town Centre Implementation Plan.

Carl Lucca
Douglas Sadlier

2.0

LOCAL BOARD PLAN

Discussion of the draft Plan

Linda Smith

3.0

WESTGATE DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

The Board was given an update on Westgate progress

James Copley

4.0

AIR QUALITY           

Presentation to the Board on a proposed Air Quality Bylaw for Local Board feedback

Colin Craig
Mike Harvey

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Record of Workshop -
Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

Date:              Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Time:             12.30 pm - 2.45 pm

Venue:           Manukau Room, Level 2, 6 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson

 

PRESENT:

 

Members:       Vanessa Neeson, JP (Chair)

Shane Henderson (Deputy Chair)

Peter Chan, JP

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Will Flavell

Luke Wilson

 

Apologies:     Brenda Brady, JP,  Tracy Kirkley

 

 

MATTERS DISCUSSED

 

 

ITEM

PRESENTER

1.0

SIGNAGE

Gathering the views of the Board around the level of decision making around signage in Henderson-Massey.

Richard Stuckey

2.0

LOCAL BOARD PLAN - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT   

Discussion of Economic Development in the plan

Linda Smith

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards

 

File No.: CP2014/06351

 

  

 

Purpose

 

1.    The purpose of this report is advise all twenty-one Local Boards of the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund Programme, in particular the need to identify new project proposals that will enable the total budget that needs to be spent in the electoral term of the current Local Boards to be spent by the end of June 2016.

Executive Summary

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)   Receives this report.

b)   Identifies new project proposals for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme by 31 August 2014 so that subsequent initial assessment, detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals, and construction can be completed by 30 June 2016.

 

 

 

Discussion

Background

 

2.    The total annual budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is $10M. This was assigned to the twenty-one Local Boards based on population, except for the Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards who received nominated sums.

 

3.    The programme commenced in September 2012 following resolution of the use of the fund by the Auckland Council Strategy and Planning Committee in August 2012.

Budget Considerations

 

4.    One of the requirements of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is that the budgets must be spent within the same electoral term. Budgets can be moved from year to year within the electoral term, subject to Auckland Transport having the ability to manage the cash flow, but carry forwards to subsequent political terms are not allowed.

 

5.    The total amount spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the 2012-13 financial year was $1.3M. This was due to the late start of the programme in that year so Auckland Council was asked to relax the “no carry forward” rule in this inaugural year of the programme. This one-off carry forward of the unspent balance of $8.7M was subsequently approved.

 

6.    Therefore the total budget that must be spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the current political term is as follows:

·           The carry forward from 2012-13 = $8.7M

·           The 2013-14 Budget = $10M

·           The 2014-15 Budget = $10M

·           The 2015-16 Budget = $10M

This is a total of $38.7M

 

7.    In order to fully spend this amount by 30 June 2016 the following spending profile will be required.

·   2013-14 Forecast =   $8.6M (actual current forecast)

·   2014-15 Forecast = $10.1M (latest forecast)

·   2015-16 Forecast = $20.0M (latest forecast)

 

8.    The 2013-14 figure is the currently expected end of year result for 2013-14. The end of the 2013-14 financial year is the end of the second year of the four year Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be completed by 30 June 2016, and only $9.9M of the $40M will be spent. i.e. only 25% spent in half the available time.

 

9.    Conversely, the required spend in the last two years (2014-15 and 2015-16) is $30.1M, being a threefold increase in the spend compared to the first two years. At the current rate of spending this $30.1M target will not be achieved.

 

10.  In addition, the current Local Boards are allowed to spend some or all of the 2016-17 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget as their elected term finishes three months into this financial year on approximately 30 Sept 2016. This means there is an additional $10M available that could also be spent.

 

Value of Projects

 

11.  Of the 228 proposals submitted to date 64 are not proceeding (not meeting criteria, funded elsewhere, deferred to future years, or not chosen by Local Boards). The total value of the remaining 164 projects that range from being in the initial assessment phase to having the construction fully complete is $14.9M.

 

12.  Assuming that all of these projects are completed they represent only 37% of the total Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be delivered in the current electoral term.

 

13.  Conversely an additional $25.1M worth of projects need to be identified in order to deliver the programme by 30 June 2016.

 

Forward Planning to Ensure Programme Delivery

 

14.  Additional project proposals need to be identified urgently by Local Boards in order for the programme to be delivered on time.

 

15.  As the spending of the budget is heavily weighted towards the 2015-16 financial year and to a lesser extent the 2014-15 financial year, the issue of Auckland Transport being able to manage the work in those years and the contracting industry being able to carry out the large volume of work become factors in the overall delivery of the programme.

 

16.  Accordingly construction approval will be required for all projects in the programme by 30 May 2015 at the latest so that the last of the physical works construction of the works (in fact half of the whole programme) can be spread out over the entire 2015-16 financial year. Many of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10M of work in the 2014-15 year.

 

17.  In order to achieve the 30 May 2015 construction approval date, detailed design approval will need to be provided for all projects no later than 30 November 2014 in order to allow six months for detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals to be completed so that construction approval can be provided on time.  As with the construction approvals, much of this detailed design has to happen much sooner in order to deliver the 2014-15 programme.

 

18.  Accordingly the identification of new projects by Local Boards to the total value of at least $25.1M needs to happen by 31 August 2014 at the latest in order for them to be assessed and project scopes and rough orders of cost provided back to the Local Boards for their consideration for detailed design approval.  Ideally more projects need to be identified in case some don’t meet the necessary criteria.

 

19.  As the four year programme budgets for each Local Board can be considered as a single budget there is opportunity for Local Boards to consider larger projects that can be funded over more than one year, or that are funded jointly between more than one Local Board. A fewer number of larger projects will be easier to manage and will make delivery of the programme much easier.

 

20.  If the above programme timing is not met Auckland Transport cannot guarantee that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme will be able to be fully delivered in the current electoral term.

 

Project Management Process

 

21.  The time required for managing the various stages of a project can vary significantly depending on the nature and size of the project.

 

22.  Initial assessments of project proposals including the development of Rough Orders of Cost can be relatively quick in the case of simple projects such as new footpaths or the installation of new bus shelters where the work is straight forward and is carried out on a regular basis under other Auckland Transport work streams. In these cases typical costs are known and a turn-around of a few weeks can be achieved.

 

23.  However other one-off projects that may have safety implications that require the gathering of data (site specific surveys, and information such as traffic counts) to determine whether or not the project meets traffic warrants, standards or regulatory requirements, or projects that require initial community input can take up to three months to assess.

 

24.  Detailed design and the development of Firm Estimates of Cost can also vary significantly in terms of the overall time required. Some simple projects require very little design and can take a matter of a few weeks.

 

25.  Other more complex projects require time to gather detailed site information, to carry out consultation with stakeholders, to carry out design including inputs from specialists, to apply for resource consents, and to obtain regulatory approvals such as traffic resolutions or speed limit changes. These projects can take more than six months to design.

 

26.  Construction timeframes can vary significantly depending on the size of the project. Lead time to supply specialist materials for construction, often from overseas, can delay projects. Timing of works to avoid the wetter winter months can also impact on when tenders are let. Delaying of weather sensitive works to construct them at the right time of the year can impact on the overall timing of project delivery.

 

27.  In addition, spreading out the delivery of the construction of works over the whole year can provide a more even workload to the contractors which can result in more favourable overall costs to AT and the Local Boards.

 

28.  All of the above highlights that the timing of the various stages of projects can vary significantly. Straight forward projects can be delivered in a single year; whereas it is not possible to deliver more complex projects within a single year. Many of the Local Board projects fall into this second category.

 

Auckland Transport Programme Management Process

 

29.  A review of the internal Auckland Transport processes has highlighted a number of improvements that will be made in order to assist with the delivery of this programme of work.

 

30.  Timing of responses back to the Local Boards on initial assessments and on the completion of detailed designs will be monitored more closely to ensure there is no slippage in these approval processes.

 

31.  Rough Orders of Cost and Firm Estimates of Cost will be provided in ranges of price rather than a single dollar figure because of the uncertainty of providing exact figures in the early stages of projects. Rough Orders of Cost carried out at the start of the project can vary by up to 30%, whereas Firm Estimates of Cost carried out in the detailed design phase can vary by 15%.

 

32.  There are examples where previous estimates that have been provided have been too low and additional approvals have been required from the Local Boards. This has caused problems with the Local Board expectation of project costs. More care will be taken in future to provide accurate estimates.

 

33.  It should be remembered that these figures are still estimates and the true cost of the work will only be known when the construction is complete. The reason for this is that there are many factors that can affect the final cost of a project compared to the Firm Estimate of Cost. Three of these are the tendered price from the contractor, unforeseen ground conditions, and relocation/protection of underground services. Every endeavour will be made to keep project costs within the approved budgets.

 

Consequences of not Delivering the full Programme

 

34.  Auckland Transport CAPEX underspend including from within the Local Board Transport Capital Fund remains under sustained scrutiny by Auckland Council.

 

35.  Auckland Transport is accountable for the current underspend on this significant budget allocation, and reports every quarter to Auckland Council on the accuracy of its CAPEX spend forecasts.

 

36.  It is important that this fund is fully spent each year to ensure that neither its amount nor its process are put at risk when consistently reporting underspends to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

 

Local Board

Total Budget 2012-13 to 2015-16

(four years)

Total Value of all Approved Projects and Proposals Being Assessed

Value of New Projects Still to be Identified

Albert Eden

$2,659,732

$1,302,567

$1,357,165

Devonport Takapuna

$1,540,120

$1,104,960

$435,160

Franklin

$1,739,864

$946,555

$793,309

Great Barrier

$400,000

$278,476

$121,524

Henderson Massey

$2,993,512

$1,012,988

$1,980,524

Hibiscus and Bays

$2,399,540

$763,330

$1,636,210

Howick

$3,487,612

$1,147,000

$2,340,612

Kaipatiki

$2,318,064

$1,244,711

$1,073,353

Mangere Otahuhu

$2,071,016

$609,364

$1,461,652

Manurewa

$2,373,256

$472,116

$1,901,140

Maungakiekie Tamaki

$1,979,028

$800,000

$1,179,028

Orakei

$2,199,796

$852,633

$1,347,163

Otara Papatoetoe

$2,197,168

$1,098,584

$1,098,584

Papakura

$1,224,736

$904,747

$319,989

Puketapapa

$1,526,468

$373,000

$1,143,468

Rodney

$1,477,044

$733,000

$744,044

Upper Harbour

$1,348,264

$674,132

$674,132

Waiheke

$800,000

$211,943

$588,057

Waitakere Ranges

$1,324,608

$140,000

$1,184,608

Waitemata

$1,879,156

$192,470

$1,686,686

Whau

$2,071,016

$0

$2,071,016

TOTALS

$40,000,000

$14,862,576

$25,137,424

 

37.  It should be noted that the possible spend of the 2016-17 budget is not included in the above figures.

Suggestions of Projects to be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund

38.  Attached is the Pick List of the types of projects that could be funded from the LBTCF programme that has previously been circulated to Local Boards for their information. This list will assist Local Boards to identify potential projects in their areas.

Consideration

 

Local Board Views

This report is for the Local Board’s action.

 

Maori Impact Statement

No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

 

General

The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

 

Implementation

There are no implementation issues.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Projects that could be considered by Local Boards.

221

bView

Financial Updates for the individual Local Boards

227

     

Signatories

Authors

Phil Donnelly, Team Leader East, Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Andrew Scoggins, Group Manager Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 






Henderson-Massey Local Board

17 April 2014

 

 

    

    



[1] Resolution number FIN/2014/11