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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 24 April 2014

6.00pm

Waikowhai Meeting Room
Fickling Convention Centre
546 Mt Albert Road
Three Kings

 

Puketāpapa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julie Fairey

 

Deputy Chairperson

Harry Doig

 

Members

David Holm

 

 

Ella Kumar

 

 

Nigel Turnbull

 

 

Michael Wood

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Brenda  Railey

Democracy Advisor

 

16 April 2014

 

Contact Telephone: 021 820 781

Email: brenda.railey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 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     TSB Bank Wallace Arts Centre celebrates its 400,000th visitor                     5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     Sport Auckland                                                                                                     6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

9.1     Andrew Laird, Central City Baseball                                                                 6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

12        Albert-Eden-Roskill Councillors Update                                                                    9

13        Puketapapa Local Board Community Funding: Round Three 2013-14                11

14        Proposal for Baseball facilities at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park                         15

15        Auckland Transport Monthly Update Report for April 2014                                  21

16        Puketapapa Youth Action Plan budget allocation                                                   33

17        Affected Party Approval Request for Proposed New Housing Development at 22-24 Bremner Avenue, Mt Roskill, Located Adjacent to John Moore Reserve            55

18        LGNZ Conference and AGM 2014                                                                             67

19        Local board input into the council-controlled organisations current state assessment                                                                                                                                       75

20        Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review                   119

21        Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Proceedings                              131

22        Board Member Reports April 2014                                                                          139

23        Chairperson's Report April 2014                                                                             181  

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held Wednesday 27 March 2014, including the confidential section and Annual Plan Deliberations minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 16 April 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       TSB Bank Wallace Arts Centre celebrates its 400,000th visitor

Purpose

1.      To congratulate The James Wallace Arts Trust reaching its milestone 400,000th visitor to the Pah Homestead, TSB Bank Wallace Arts Centre since it opened in August 2010.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      congratulates The Wallace Arts Trust on receiving its 400,000th visitor to the Pah Homestead, TSB Bank Wallace Arts Trust.

 

Attachments

a          Media Release..................................................................................... 195

 

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

8.1       Sport Auckland

Purpose

1.       A presentation from Jacob Cameron, Director of Community Sport, Sport Auckland

Executive Summary

 

2.       Sport Auckland’s presentation will cover Sport Development in the Community and Clubs, Schools programme/kiwisport opportunities and Green Prescription

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)   Thank Jacob Cameron, Sport Auckland, for his presentation.

 

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

9.1       Andrew Laird, Central City Baseball

Purpose

1.       To update the Board on Central City Baseball moving from Fearon Park to Mt Roskill War Memorial Park.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      Thank Andrew Laird, Central City Baseball, for his presentation.

 

 

 

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.

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Albert-Eden-Roskill Councillors Update

 

File No.: CP2014/07320

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide the Albert-Eden-Roskill Councillors to provide a verbal update to the Board.

Executive Summary

2.       The Albert-Eden-Roskill Councillors will provide a verbal update to the Board.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)         Thank the Councillors for their update.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Puketapapa Local Board Community Funding: Round Three 2013-14

 

File No.: CP2014/04816

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report presents applications received under Round Three of the Puketapapa Local Board 2013/2014 Community Funding programme.  The Puketapapa Local Board is required to fund, part fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2.       The Puketapapa Local Board set a total budget of $30,103 for the community funding programme.

3.       On 5 September 2013 the Local Board resolved to transfer $10,000 from its Opex budget to the community funding budget, giving a total budget for 2013/2014 of $40,103.

4.       Grants totaling $28,320 have been approved across two rounds to date, leaving a balance of $11,782 remaining for this third and final funding round.

5.       Eleven applications were received in this round, requesting a total of $49,027.

6.       Members of the Puketapapa Local Board considered these applications at a workshop on 8 April 2014.

 

Recommendation:

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      considers the applications listed in Table 1 and agrees to fund, part fund or decline each application in this round.

            Table 1: Puketapapa Local Board Community Funding Applications

Organisation name

Funds required for

Amount requested

Puketapapa Active Transport Haven Trust

Towards a sign written cargo bicycle that aims to create  public interest in walking and cycling in Mt Roskill

1,612

Coastguard Boating Education

Er equipment and training to deliver the Safe Boating programme

6,938

Hillsborough Playcentre

Towards costs related to construction of a mural to celebrate the playcentre's 60th anniversary

5,250

Getin2life Youth Development Trust

Applying for costs to deliver 6 Underground Street Play sessions in the Puketapapa area

3,288

Fair Food Trust

 For uniforms and equipment to support the programme delivery of collecting excess food from outlets and distributing to community organisations

2,240

Storytime Foundation

Towards the delivery of books (including books in 7 languages) over 12 to 15 months (via well child health providers) to high-deprivation families with newborn children.

2,437

The Peace Foundation

Costs related to a two-day course for existing mediators at Mt Roskill Grammar to up-skill.

4,047

Adullam Wesleyan Church

Towards costs associated with teaching children to read in Tongan, Tongan traditional songs and dances, public speaking skills.  Budget indicates that this includes a camp

5,000

Roopa Aur Aap Charitable Trust

Towards  hall and equipment hire, as well as counsellor costs and volunteer reimbursement to deliver seminars on domestic violence/family disputes, counselling, workshops on health and wellbeing

5,000

Migrant Action Trust

Towards the set up costs for a toy library, based out of Migrant Action Trust rooms. 

6,339

ONKOD Somali Youth Development Incorporated Society

Towards the costs associated with delivering Somali language classes

6,876

Total

49,027

 

Discussion

Community Funding structure

7.       In March 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee agreed to the continuation of the interim community funding approach for the 2013/2014 financial year:

That the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorse the continuation of the interim community funding programme for the 2013/2014 financial year, in accordance with current budgets and decisions-making delegations, due to the complexity of the range of funding models currently operating across the region, with the expectation that a new funding policy be in place for the 2014.2015 financial year, or before.” (RDO /2013/32).

            (RDO/2013/32).

8.       Eleven applications were received in this third (and final round) of the Puketapapa Local Board Community Funding programme.

9.       The Puketapapa Local Board considered these applications at a workshop 8 April 2014.

10.     The total requested is $49,027.

Community Funding Budget

11.     For the 2013/2014 financial year the Puketapapa Local Board set a total community funding budget of $30,103.  On 5 September 2013, the Local Board resolved to transfer $10,000 from its Opex budget to community grants.  This brought the total community grants budget for the 2013/2014 year to $40,103.

12.     Grants totaling $28,320 have been approved across two rounds to date, leaving a balance of $11,782 remaining for this third and final funding round.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13.     Local board feedback on these applications was sought at the 8 April 2014 workshop, along with copies of the current legacy community funding guidelines that apply for the Puketapapa Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

14.     Community funding is a general programme of interest and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Maori. Maori are therefore likely to benefit alongside other groups in the community.

General

15.     The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted annual plan.

16.     The decisions sought by this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

 

Signatories

Authors

Karyn Mcleod – Community Funding Programme Manager, CDAC

Authorisers

Louise Mason – Manager, Community Development Arts and Culture

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Zimmerman - Community Funding Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Proposal for Baseball facilities at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park

 

File No.: CP2014/07573

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To request the allocation of 2014/15 budget by Puketapapa Local Board to construct a permanent baseball diamond at the Mt Roskill War Memorial Park.

 

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council has been working with the Central City Baseball Club (the club) Incorporated since 2010 on identifying an appropriate long term site for baseball in the central city.  The club is currently located on Fearon Park.  The park is not considered a suitable long term site for baseball due to the physical size limitations of the park. 

3.       The Puketapapa Local Board recently endorsed a concept plan for Fearon Park and Harold Long Reserve that does not provide for baseball facilities on Fearon Park.

4.       Mt Roskill War Memorial Park has been identified by the club and Auckland Baseball as an appropriate site to locate permanent baseball facilities.

5.       The club and Auckland Baseball Association have requested the construction of one 90ft baseball diamond including clay pitching mound, bases, running arc and backstop with dugouts. This is estimated to cost approximately $200,000.

6.       Consultation with other sporting codes has been undertaken on the proposed development of a baseball facility at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park. Several codes may be adversely affected in the short term if the proposal is approved.

7.       It should be noted that Mt Roskill War Memorial Park has a high number of both summer and winter sport bookings (both competition and training) in addition to community events and casual bookings. Permanent baseball infrastructure may have a detrimental effect on the number of bookings at the park. Despite these potential minor adverse impacts, on balance, the proposal is supported by the Parks Sports and Recreation Department.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      Supports the relocation of baseball from Fearon Park to Mt Roskill War Memorial Park.

b)      Approves the proposed draft field layout plan that accommodates one 90ft baseball diamond and one smaller diamond that will be shared between softball and baseball.

c)      Notes the allocation of $200,000 in 2014/15 to enable the design and construction of one 90ft baseball facility on Mt Roskill War Memorial Park and associated minor works required to accommodate the needs of Australian Football League (AFL), rugby and lacrosse.

d)      Requests officers to investigate options for long term use of Mt Roskill War Memorial Park.

 

 

Comments

8.       Baseball in Auckland is an emerging and fast growing sport. In the 2011/12 season there were 40 teams.  The level of player participation has doubled since the 2010 to 2011 season.

9.       In 2011, Boffa Miskell prepared the Central Baseball Venue Feasibility Study for Auckland Council. The report investigated 15 parks within the central isthmus and promoted Gloucester Park as a long term option for the Central City Baseball Club.  However, further investigation has proven that Gloucester Park is not suitable due to it being outside the catchment area of the club. Other potential sites investigated in the report have therefore been reassessed with Mt Roskill War Memorial Park being identified as the most suited to meeting the needs of the club.

10.     A draft layout plan has been prepared, suggesting that the site dimensions required for baseball at both senior and junior levels could be accommodated at the park. The draft layout plan allows for one senior baseball diamond and a shared junior baseball/senior softball diamond. Auckland Baseball has indicated that two senior diamonds would fulfil future growth demand.  

11.     The draft layout plan shows how one senior (90ft) baseball diamond could fit, with backstop fence, bases and pitcher’s mound adjacent to the existing playing field perimeter.  The outfield is however situated on the existing playing fields and therefore would impact on Lacrosse and Australian Rules. It is proposed that Lacrosse be moved to Fearon Park. Australian Rules have a light summer fixture schedule with games largely being played on a Sunday. It is therefore anticipated that both Baseball and Australian Rules could be accommodated at the site during the summer season.

12.     As reported to the local board on 28 November 2013, officers have been working with the affected sports codes around the proposed baseball development.  Discussions, particularly in relation to relocating lacrosse, are still on-going.

13.     Initial costing by officers indicates that building permanent baseball infrastructure is estimated at $200,000 including professional services and consent fees. This includes a clay pitching mound, bases and running arc, back stop with dugouts, and irrigation, and is all inclusive of the minor associated works required to alleviate the impacts of the baseball facilities on Australian Rules, rugby and lacrosse.

14.     While there may be some savings made from moving baseball out of Fearon Park this is unlikely to provide for the consequential opex maintenance needs of a new skin diamond at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park. If a permanent diamond is constructed at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park, additional maintenance costs would therefore have to be factored into on-going operational budgets.

15.     Future development priorities have been signalled by Baseball including the construction of a second senior diamond and backstop, installation of batting cages/nets and installation of infield lighting.

16.     There is potential for discussions between Eden Roskill Softball Club and Central City Baseball Club around a combined diamond sports programme and the sharing of diamonds at a junior level. 

17.     A shared clubroom facility could be scoped in the future. This fits within the initiatives of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan around multi-sport and multi-use recreation and sport facilities.

18.     It is proposed that lacrosse would not take place at War Memorial Park during the 2014/15 season and officers suggest working with lacrosse to relocate them to one field at Fearon Park for the 2014/15 season and possibly the 2015/16 season, depending on the timing of the potential field upgrade at Nixon Park. Lacrosse hold the lease for the club room at Nixon Park and in the long term they would like to use Nixon Park as their ‘home ground’.

19.     If one lacrosse field was relocated to Fearon Park, Council would need to provide moveable safety fencing. This is currently estimated at $15,500 and is included in the $200,000 estimate.

20.     The existing Australian Rules field will have to be re-orientated as part of the baseball diamond installation.  This will require the construction of a small fence (approx. 1-1.5m in height) along the path at the N/E goal end of the re-orientated Australian Rules field in order to prevent balls rolling into the creek. This is estimated to cost $5,000 and is included in the $200,000 estimate.

21.     The proposed location of the baseball diamond is currently on the rugby training area so an alternative training area at the park would need to be established.  The training lights would need to be relocated at an estimated cost of $15,000 and is included in the $200,000 estimate.

22.     Construction of the second baseball diamond, that would be shared with softball, is not included in the proposed works and would need to be considered in outer years. 

 

Consultation

23.     The major users of the park have been informally consulted and their feedback is summarised below.

24.     Eden-Roskill Softball Club:  There is potential for the club to co-locate with baseball in the medium to long term. The club also see potential to utilise the proposed shared diamond for both senior softball and junior baseball.

25.     Auckland Softball Association: The Association also currently utilises War Memorial Park as overflow for other clubs’ games and for school softball. The Association currently uses the diamond closest to the proposed baseball diamond. Games could be played concurrently on both diamonds, so there would be no immediate impact on softball. 

26.     A draft Auckland Softball Facility Plan indicates that Mt Roskill War Memorial Park has been identified as a potential National Competition/Training venue. In order to host a national competition, the venue would require at least four senior diamonds in addition to temporary tournament infrastructure. Development of more than one permanent baseball diamond may impact upon this.

27.     Lacrosse: Initial feedback suggests that lacrosse is supportive of the proposal in principle, with a long-term view of relocating to Nixon Park once the proposed artificial turf is constructed. Relocating to either Fearon Park on a temporary basis or Nixon Park would require lacrosse to restructure its competition to play on one field rather than two as is currently the case at War Memorial Park.

28.     Roskill Districts Rugby Club:  A predominately winter code, the club is supportive of the proposed relocation of the baseball club as it will potentially increase availability of Fearon Park.

29.     Mt Roskill Australian Football League Club (AFL): AFL support the proposal in principle but have requested their existing usage rights be supported i.e. Wednesday night training and Sunday games. The club also see potential in long term shared facilities. 

Options

30.     Option One: The local board allocates $200,000 from the 2014/15 budget to allow for the construction of one permanent 90ft baseball diamond and associated infrastructure at War Memorial Park and other minor works to assist lacrosse, AFL and rugby.

31.     Option Two: The local board decline the request and opt to keep the status quo.

32.     Option Three: Defer the relocation of baseball to War Memorial Park to 2015/16 following further investigation by officers.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

33.     Workshops and discussions with the Puketapapa Local Board regarding the relocation have been held but the views of all the board members with regard to the recommendation presented are not known.

Maori impact statement

34.     Maori are major participants in sport and the provision of high quality sporting infrastructure is important to the Maori community.

Implementation

35.     If the installation of permanent baseball facilities at Mt Roskill War Memorial Park is approved then planning works (detailed design, resource consent and procurement) will start immediately. This would be with a view to starting physical works in October 2014 and the facility being operational by end of January 2015.  However, the time lines are tight and there is a possibility that if there are significant delays to the planning process, the start of the physical works will be delayed. 

36.     It should also be noted that an October 2014 to January 2015 construction timeframe may result in disruption to the playing schedules for AFL and lacrosse.

37.     Alternatively construction could start at the end of January 2015 in order to minimize disruption to the other codes who utilize the park.

38.     Officers will continue to work with affected sports codes around the proposal.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Mt Roskill War Memorial Park sportsfield set out - eastern end

19

     

Signatories

Authors

David Barker - Team Leader Parks Specialists and Programmes

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Monthly Update Report for April 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/07615

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an update on local transport matters over the last month for the Puketāpapa Local Board.

Executive Summary

2.       Attached is the Auckland Transport (AT) monthly update, containing a general monthly update on transport matters both locally and from across Auckland and a list of issues currently being addressed by AT for the Puketāpapa Local Board.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)         Receive the Auckland Transport Monthly Update report for April 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Auckland Transport Monthly Report for April 2014

23

bView

Attachment - Dominion Road Newsletter

29

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Report, Puketapapa Local Board, April 2014

File No.:

 

  

 


Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area over the last month.

Monthly Overview

2.       Auckland Transport attended a Local Board stakeholder meeting on 19 March to discuss transport priorities and provided support to feed into the Local Board planning process.

3.       A workshop developing design ideas for the Dominion Road villages took place on 20 March and was attended by Local Board members from Eden-Albert, Puketapapa and  iwi as well as other stakeholder groups.

4.       A site visit to consider matters pertaining to two of the transport capital fund projects took place on 26 March, the results of which were verbally reported to the meeting last month.

5.          The Transport Portfolio Lead briefing on transport matters in the Puketapapa area took place on 24 March.  Matters discussed included:

·    Discussion on the role of the Puketapapa area engineer, current investigations and the process for requests for service

·    The urgency for the Local Board to identify possible transport capital fund projects.

·    Infrastructure Delivery – projects that are likely to be delivered in this financial year including Sandringham Road Extension pedestrian facility, Selwyn/Pah Road intersection safety improvement and O’Donnell Street LATM.

·    Various route optimisation projects in the Local Board area  including Richardson Road;  White Swan/Richardson Road intersection; Hillsborough Road/Mt Albert Road intersection and several other small improvements.

6.          A meeting was held on 3 April with the Transport Portfolio lead and previous Local Board Chair to discuss other possible safety improvements that the Local Board could consider as part of the Transport Capital Fund process.


 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      Receives the report.

b)      Notes the results of the public consultation on the proposed Oakdale/Richardson Road facilities and:

·    Endorses the capital project to proceed with the construction of both the proposed pedestrian facility on Richardson Road, noting the projected loss of five parking spaces for businesses in the vicinity and the Oakdale Road kerb buildout; Or

·    Endorses the capital project to proceed with the Oakdale Road kerb buildout only;

c)      Notes that the draft Auckland Transport Engagement Plan has been received by the Puketapapa Local Board for comment.


Reporting Back

Consultation Report

No consultations have been forwarded to the Local Board for comment in the last month.

Local Board Capital Projects

7.       Auckland Transport is asking Local Boards to Local Boards urgently identify new project proposals for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme by 31 August 2014.  This is to enable  subsequent initial assessment, detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals, and construction to be completed by 30 June 2016.

8.       A report on the capital projects will come to the Local Board shortly  requesting the Local Board to consider which projects they wish to put forward for consideration against the transport capital fund.

Waikowhai School Safety Improvements (Resolution CP2013/27880)

9.       Auckland Transport (AT) has noted the resolution from the March monthly meeting to allocate $15,000 from the Transport Capital Fund to this project.

10.     Auckland Transport are meeting onsite to assess the best location for the  active warning signs.  Once this has been identified consultation  with the school and affected residents will need to take place. This exercise is anticipated to be completed by mid May 2014.

Halsey Drive School Safety Improvements

11.     The amended design for the Halsey Drive proposal as reported last month has now been discussed with the school.

12.     The school expressed support for the amended design which minimizes parking loss. Once its support has been received in writing this project can move forward to implementation as no consultation with residents will be required for the amended design.

 

Mt Albert Road Pedestrian Crossing Facility

13.     The Puketapapa Local Board resolved in March to continue with the upgrade of the existing pedestrian refuge on Mt Albert Road to a zebra crossing and to abandon the installation of the proposed pedestrian refuge island on Mt Albert Road due to the concerns of some submitters until a clear demonstration of the need for the second facility can be provided.

14.     The project to upgrade the existing pedestrian refuge to a zebra crossing can now continue to detailed design. Final approval needs to be gained from Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee.  This is expected to be obtained in April and construction could begin in June (though this will be brought forward if at all possible).

Richardson Road/Oakdale Intersection improvements

15.     The aim of the project is to  improve pedestrian accessibility across Oakdale Road by reducing the width of the crossing by extending the kerb line as this will slow left turning traffic.  Also proposed was  an uncontrolled crossing point (pedestrian refuge island) outside the BP service station to aid crossing across Richardson Road.

16.     Public consultation was conducted in February and generally the results were favourable but  the loss of five on street parking spaces was noted as a concern.  A site visit took place on 26 March with Local Board members to discuss the merits of the project with the project engineer.  

17.     The initial comments supplied from Auckland Transport’s Road Corridor Operation team were as follows:

The proposed kerb build-out along the western corner of Oakdale Road and Richardson Road intersection.

The improvements would:

·    Reduce the pedestrian crossing distance at the intersection;

·    Improve safety of pedestrians crossing the intersection, improving the link for pedestrians walking along the southbound Richardson Road footpath;

·    Square up the intersection, reduce speed of traffic manoeuvring through the intersection.

The Pedestrian Refuge Across Richardson Road

18.     Although pedestrian counts undertaken in the past did not meet the warrant for a refuge island or a zebra crossing, the following points were noted:

·    The car parks outside the service station would have to be removed to accommodate the refuge island, which will improve the visibility for drivers exiting from Service Station and drivers reversing out of the car park north of the service station exit,

·    The refuge will provide a crossing point for pedestrians accessing the bus stops on either side of Richardson Road,

·    The refuge will improve pedestrian connectivity of retail shops either side of Richardson Road.

19.     The Parking Design team reports that there have been no complaints from this area in regard to lack of parking opportunities and note that the parking in Alex Boyd link is well used but has not been observed to be regularly  full.  However parking surveys would need to be completed to properly understand the parking demands of the area.

20.     In light of the concerns of affected businesses, Auckland Transport requires a clear steer from the Local Board on whether they wish to go ahead with both parts of the project or just the Oakdale Road kerb build out.

Mt Roskill Safe Routes Scheme Update

21.     A briefing was held early March  with the Puketapapa Local Board to present the consultation results of the scheme assessment report.  

22.     Auckland Transport is currently evaluating the tenders for the detailed design which is likely to commence in late April.  Any changes to the current scope would need to be resolved as soon as possible in order to avoid cost variations for this project.

 

Dominion Road Main Corridor Update

23.     The project aims to  provide continuous bus lanes along Dominion Road from SH 20 to View Road in an effort to improve bus travel times down this important route and include necessary road widening between Mt Albert Road and SH 20. 

24.     Other features include the removal of indented bus bays, replaced by in line stops to allow bus passengers to board efficiently and buses to continue their journey without having to merge with general traffic. The upgrade will see footpaths upgraded and widened through the three villages, safety improvements for pedestrians and improved optimisation of traffic signals.

25.     The project also aims to underground power lines north of Mt Albert Road and this will be funded by AT as Vector have declined to pay for this. All powerlines south of Mt Albert Road will be undergrounded as part of the road widening works.

26.     Public consultation on this project has begun and will be open until the 30 April. Two open days are planned for:  Thursday 10 April and Saturday the 12 April.  The April newsletter which contains details on the project and the consultation are attached to this report as Attachment A.

27.     Depending on the outcome of the consultation main corridor physical works are expected to commence about August  2014 and take approximately two years to complete, dependent on funding approval and consents.

28.     The detailed design is nearing completion and applications for consents were submitted on 28 March 2014.  A funding application will be submitted in late April following AT Board approval to go to tender on 29 April.

Dominion Road Parallel Cycling Routes

29.     The parallel routes link to reserves in Puketapapa Local Board area and to the proposed Mt Roskill Safe Routes scheme. The parallel routes will need to be in place to provide an alternate route for cyclists before the work on Dominion Road commences.  The cycle route funding from NZTA was approved in February 2014.

30.     The tender process for the cycle routes is currently being worked through and it is expected that construction of infrastructure required for the parallel cycle routes will begin in May 2014 and  is expected to be completed by approximately October 2014.

31.     Consents for the cycle route have been granted.

 

State Highway 20 Cycleway Maintenance

32.     Officers from Auckland Council Parks, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency have agreed on areas of responsibility for maintenance.

33.     Auckland Council Parks conducted a full audit of the cycleway by  cycle recently and reported that there were no hazards detected. Auckland Council Parks currently have a reactive service available for this site. This service is accessed by calling 301 0101 and logging a request for service (RFS).The  City Parks Services will quickly attend to any genuine health and safety issues logged this way.

34.     Auckland Council Parks have also  requested their Asset team to map the areas that Auckland Council Parks are responsible for into the  GIS to ensure in future there is less confusion.

35.     Auckland Council Parks outlined their areas of responsibility as:

·    Maintaining gardens only inside the cycleway fences (containing the hard surface path) and any gardens at exit/entry points into the cycleway.

·    The exception to this rule is the corkscrew outside of Keith Hay Park, as there are small sections next to the hard surface path where the fence stops and is replaced by a line of flax. Auckland Council Parks will manage any overhanging flax here although its encroaching from NZTA space.

Auckland Council Parks noted that there are sections along the cycleway where block retaining walls take the place of the fences, gardens planted on top of these are out of scope for their maintenance teams.

36.     Auckland Transport has stated its areas of responsibility as:

·    Maintenance of all the hard surface areas

·    Maintenance of all the grassed areas within the the cycleway boundary

37.     New Zealand Transport Agency is responsible for the maintenance of the planting beyond the fences on the motorway side.  They have a schedule of maintenance work prepared to be completed in March/April which included the removal of some rows of flax.  At the time of writing it was still to be confirmed if this work had taken place or not.

 

 

Auckland Transport’s Draft Engagement Plan

38.     Recently Local Board Chairs were sent Auckland Transport’s draft of a revision of Auckland Transport’s Local Board Engagement Plan and three annexes.  The Engagement Plan seeks to outline the relationship between Auckland Transport and Local Boards and its operation.

39.     Auckland Transport welcomes your Local Board’s views regarding the revised draft Engagement Plan, and in particular Annex 3, which outlines guidelines as to how Auckland Transport might engage in particular with your board on changes proposed in the road corridor. 

40.     Auckland Transport also offers Local Boards an opportunity to discuss the draft plan with the Council Engagement Manager, if this would be of assistance. It would be helpful to receive feedback on the draft Engagement Plan by the end of April, if possible.

Auckland Transport News

Auckland Transport Completes HOP Card Implementation

41.     Auckland Transport has completed the rollout of AT HOP, its reusable pre-pay smart card for travel on trains, ferries and buses.

42.     There are currently more than 250,000 AT HOP cards being regularly used by customers around the region. AT HOP allows customers to use one travel card on different modes of transport and public transport operators.

43.     The card was first introduced on the region’s rail network in October 2012 and has been progressively rolled out since then.

44.     Public transport users have taken well to the new system which bodes well for on-going patronage growth. Other transformational projects such as the fleet of new electric trains, improved reliability of all services and a major focus on customer needs and satisfaction levels continue to be rolled out.

45.     The implementation of the new network bus services in 2016, along with integrated ticketing will move Auckland closer to a delivering a world class public transport system.

CRL Route Moves to the Next Phase

46.     Five independent commissioners, who heard Auckland Transport’s planning application for the City Rail Link (CRL), have unanimously recommended that Notices of Requirement (NoR) for the land be approved, subject to certain conditions. The commissioners accepted the CRL would result in significant overall benefits to the people and economy of Auckland.

47.     The recommendation adds another layer of certainly to everyone involved including international developers who have indicated their intention to invest in major projects along the CRL route.

48.     The commissioners were satisfied that alternative sites, routes and construction methodologies for the project had been adequately considered.

49.     The recommendation and related conditions will now be considered by AT.  AT has 30 working days to confirm, amend or withdraw the notices.

Relief for North Shore Bus Commuters

50.     The westbound bus lane on Fanshawe Street is to be upgraded following a suggestion from the Campaign for Better Transport and Generation Zero.

51.     Auckland Transport has agreed there are benefits for customers in doing westbound bus lane improvements on Fanshawe St (between Albert St and Halsey St) as soon as practicable. 

52.     More than 8,000 people travel on 173 buses from the city to the North Shore each weekday between 4pm and 6pm.

53.     There are some planning regulatory processes to consider as well as public consultation, however it is anticipated the upgrade can be in place within three months.

54.     Auckland Transport, together with the City Centre Integration Group are currently developing plans that will provide significant benefits for public transport in the Fanshawe corridor from Beaumont Street to the downtown area, however, it will be some time before these will be in place. 

Issues Raised through/ by Board Members

Location or Name of Issue

Description

 

AT Response

Richardson Road

Broken footpath in an area near a school that has caused a scooting accident. Can this footpath be repaired?

This trip hazard has now been made safe.

 

 


Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Dominion Road April Newsletter

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 





Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Puketapapa Youth Action Plan budget allocation

 

File No.: CP2014/06492

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To request approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board for the allocation of their Youth Development Effectiveness budget to key initiatives identified in the Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan (PYAP).

Executive Summary

2.       Officers have now completed the development of the Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan in collaboration with multiple agencies and local youth. This is an initiative started in 2012 with a request from the Puketāpapa Local Board to officers to develop youth initiatives that will address the results of a local board-funded youth needs assessment.

3.       The Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan is a work programme of initiatives based on the Youth Development Strategy of Aotearoa which focuses on the development of young people. This was developed using a community partnership approach.

4.       The Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan encompasses a series of initiatives that will be delivered by the partners. Officers are requesting the Puketāpapa Local Board to fund some of these initiatives from its Youth Development Effectiveness budget which was earmarked for this purpose.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      Allocates $42,000 of its Youth Development Effectiveness budget to implement the following initiatives in the Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan:

i)        Employment programming $20,000

ii)       Aspirational Adolescence Programming $10,000

iii)      PAYD-UP Grants and UP Grants for individuals $9,000

iv)      C-DUB training $1,000

v)      Connect-Ed UP Youth Media Campaign $2,000

 

 

Discussion

5.       In financial year 2012/2013 the Puketāpapa Local Board allocated money towards youth development and instructed officers to develop programmes that will deliver the following objectives:

a)   Increase opportunities for youth-led community development – this has led to the development of a community-owned Youth Action Plan in partnership with youth providers, various organisations and local youth.

b)   Address negative stereotypes of young people by celebrating their strengths and contribution to the community – this has led to the establishment of a leadership programme for the Puketāpapa Youth Caucus & Sportzlife youth development programme

c)   Support youth providers to act as a hub for collaboration, partnerships and information sharing – this has led to the development of the Central West (C Dub) youth providers training plan and monthly hui

d)   Increase access to youth employment opportunities – this is being delivered mainly through Youth Connections, Migrant Action Trust (MAT) youth employment clinic and Dreamweavers aspirational career programme.

6.       This Puketāpapa Local Board 2013 youth budget was spent primarily on the development of the Youth Action Plan. The plan was developed in 2013 by a network of organisations which included representatives from Auckland Council and the local youth caucus. The organisations involved have given their commitment to work together on the joint implementation of this plan by owning and mainstreaming key initiatives into their individual work programmes. Officers have identified a range of key initiatives that require financial support and are in line with the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan and and are proposing these to be funded from the Puketāpapa Local Board budget.

7.       The remaining key initiatives in the Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan that officers recommend for funding from the Youth Development Effectiveness budget are:

·           Employment programming $20,000

This includes the creation of an accessible mobile hub or network of services all committed to the transition of youth into employment opportunities or further education. This funding will also go towards strategic initiatives such as subsidized learners driving licence to address a key barrier to youth employment, homework centres and Project P.E.T.E.R. (Puketāpapa Education Training and Employment Readiness)

·           Aspirational Adolescence Programming $10,000

This initiative funds a collaboration with Youth Action Plan partners Dreamweavers and Sportzlife to continue at-school and afterschool programmes aimed at nurturing leadership qualities, developing resilience and helping young people identify their aspirations and dreams. These programmes are currently happening at Wesley Intermediate and Waikowhai Intermediate over Terms 2 and 3

·           PAYD-UP Grants and UP Grants for individuals $20,000

This initiative is a grant to empower youth to develop projects that enhance their skills and develop leadership abilities. A full proposal is included as Attachment B. The Ministry of Youth Development (MYD) will be contributing $3,000 towards this initiative which will be used to support the administration of the grant.

·           Connect-Ed UP Youth Media Campaign $2,000

Creation of a website which can be used to communicate activities and initiatives being offered by different partners, achievements and other information for youth.

·           C-Dub Training $3,000

The initiative has attracted funding from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) Youth Development Fund and this amount would be used to support attendance at the Aspiring Leaders forum.

8.       The groups that developed and will support the implementation of this action plan include Refugee Youth Action Network (RYAN), Roskill Youth Zone (RYZ), YMCA, Youthtown, YWCA, SENZ, The Tindall Foundation (through Momentum Creators) and the Puketāpapa Youth Caucus.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9.       This project was started with seed funding from the Puketāpapa Local Board and is in line with its objectives in their local board plan.

10.     It has developed into a community plan that is owned by multiple partners and local youth. This is in line with the Puketāpapa Local Board and Auckland Council’s aspirations for creating a sense community ownership over key initiatives that improve the community.

Maori Impact Statement

11.     The Puketapapa Youth Action Plan is designed to support local youth, including youth of Maori descent.

Implementation Issues

12.     The Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan is a work programme that will be delivered by multiple partners. The Puketāpapa Local Board is a key partner and has already signaled a commitment to youth initiatives in their annual budget. Other partners have committed time and some are still in the process of committing resources to the implementation Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan.

13.     Allocating the Youth Development Effective budget to the proposed initiatives of the Puketāpapa Youth Action Plan will aide confidence building amongst the partners and local youth. It will also send a strong signal that the Puketapapa Local Board is committed to a partnership approach for the benefit of local youth.

 

Authors

Roger Earp – Senior Community Development Facilitator

 

Luke Thomas – Community Development Facilitator

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Puketapapa Youth Action Plan Summary

37

bView

Information on PAYD-UP Funding

47

     

Signatories

Authors

Shirley  Atatagi-Coutts - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 











Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 









Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Affected Party Approval Request for Proposed New Housing Development at 22-24 Bremner Avenue, Mt Roskill, Located Adjacent to John Moore Reserve

 

File No.: CP2014/05635

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek affected party approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board in relation to a proposed new housing development at 22-24 Bremner Avenue, Mt Roskill.

Executive Summary

2.       An application has been received from Signature Homes on behalf of Housing New Zealand, to construct a new housing development at 22-24 Bremner Avenue, Mt Roskill. Two of the property boundaries adjoin John Moore Reserve which is administered by Auckland Council. 

3.       Due to the location and number of buildings, the proposal will infringe various rules in the Auckland District Plan (Auckland City Section). The infringements include the height to boundary rule as it relates to the property’s southern boundary, the density limits of the zone, earthworks control, impermeable area control, car parking control, requirement for private open space and the proposal will require the removal of a street tree.

4.       As the adjoining landowner, council is considered to be an affected party and the applicant is seeking approval for the proposal. The Parks Portfolio Holder has requested that the Puketāpapa Local Board use their delegated authority to consider the proposal.

5.       A copy of the proposed plans are included as Attachment A, and a landscape plan is included as Attachment B.

6.       The primary function of John Moore Reserve is for informal recreation (grassed area and playground) and visual amenity. A fenced off section of the reserve in the south western corner contains an unused shed and is isolated from the main body of the reserve so is not currently used by the community.

7.       The proposed infringements have been assessed in terms of the potential visual dominance and shadowing effects, and impact on the general amenity of the adjoining reserve. The infringements are not considered to be large in the context of the proposed development in terms of its scale and character, and will have no more than minor impact on the intrinsic values of the reserve and the user experience. 

8.       Given the nature of the infringements (scale, location and design), and that the section of the reserve adjoining the southern boundary does not appear visually to be part of the reserve, it is considered that the proposal will not detract from the intrinsic values or amenity of the reserve and will not impact on the user experience. It is recommended that the affected party approval is provided.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)         grant of affected party approval for the infringements resulting from the proposed development of new dwellings at 22 and 24 Bremner Avenue, Mt Roskill, as detailed in the plans prepared by Markplan Consulting Limited prepared for Signature Homes and identified as A-001, A-002, A-003, A-004, A-005, and A-006, dated 10 December 2013.

 

 

Discussion

9.       An application has been received from Signature Homes on behalf of Housing New Zealand Corporation, to construct a new housing development at 22-24 Bremner Avenue, Mt Roskill. The proposal is to remove the existing dwellings on the site and construct two, four bedroom dwellings which will utilise a shared driveway on the western third of the site, and construct a terrace of seven two bedroom multi-unit dwellings on the remaining eastern two thirds of the site. The new arrangements for the dwellings on the site will also be subject to subdivision consent. The applicant has stated that the proposal has been designed in response to demand for certain types of housing within the area.

10.     The western and southern boundaries of the property adjoin John Moore Reserve, which is administered by Auckland Council. John Moore Reserve is classified as a recreation reserve and is subject to the Reserves Act. It has a Reserve Management Plan declared operative in 1988. The reserve is approximately 1.5ha in area and is managed as an informal neighbourhood reserve. The majority of the reserve is grass with some amenity tree planting around the edges. A children’s playground is located in the northern portion adjacent to Bremner Avenue. Three concrete pathways run through the reserve providing access to the local schools. It is located within the Oakley Creek catchment and there are a number of overland flow paths that cross the reserve at various points. A section of the reserve (24A Bremner Avenue) is currently fenced off and contains an unused shed which possibly was the old Model builders club building.  

11.     The applicant has provided a landscape plan with a number of trees and native plantings on the site. The landscape plan is considered to be sparse with some utility planting providing a reasonably blank canvas, which the applicant has described as ‘low maintenance’. The applicant has proposed visually permeable ‘pool style’ fencing along the vehicle access located along the eastern boundary shared adjoining the reserve. This is in response to the principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and will provide some activity within the site and a level passive surveillance over the reserve. The removal of the existing hedge within the site of 22 - 24 Bremner Avenue will also contribute to improved sight lines with the reserve.

12.     The proposed development requires resource consent and will infringe the following rules in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Section):

·    Removal of a street tree

·    Construction of four or more residential units which is outside the permitted density limits

·    Earthworks over 250m˛ with 1572m˛ proposed

·    Paved impermeable area control

·    Private open space control for units 1-6

·    Car parking control - 18 parking spaces are required to be provided for the proposal and 11 have been proposed

·    Southern height in relation to boundary rule by a maximum height of 1.267m over a horizontal length of 6.86m.

 

The infringements relevant to the reserve are addressed below.

 

13.     The removal of a Cabbage Tree from the road berm has been proposed by the applicant to provide new site access and egress. Suitable replacement planting will be a condition of the removal and this matter has been assessed by Council’s Arboriculture and Landscape Advisor.   

14.     The applicant has designed the proposal to meet the majority of the bulk and location controls for the zone. It is considered that the infringements are minor and will not visually dominate the reserve nor result in increased shading. Similarly the level of the density control infringement is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the reserve or users.

15.     Suitable earthworks conditions have been proposed by the applicant to control any potential sediment and erosion from the earthworks component of the proposed development.

16.     The height in relation to boundary rule will be infringed by a maximum height of 1.267m over a horizontal length of 6.86m. The infringement relates to the rear of the subject site. The area of reserve that adjoins the southern boundary does not visually form part of the main body of the reserve; it is fenced off and contains an unused shed. The applicant has commenced discussions with Auckland Council Property Limited about the possibility of acquiring the piece of land.  

17.     The District Plan’s height to boundary control provision is in place to prevent adverse effects on adjacent landowners in relation to shading and visual dominance and to, where possible, improve the safety of public spaces through increased casual surveillance.

18.     The proposed infringement has been assessed in terms of the potential visual dominance and shadowing effects, and impact on the general amenity of the adjoining reserve. The area impacted upon contains an unused shed and is isolated form the main body of the reserve. The infringement is not considered to be large in the context of the proposed development in terms of its scale and character, and will have no more than minor impact on the intrinsic values of the reserve and the user experience. 

19.     Visually the development will be in keeping with the surrounding residential scale and form of the immediate area. Overall it is considered that the scale and design of the proposal will not detract from the intrinsic values or amenity of the reserve and will not impact on the user experience. It is therefore recommended that affected party approval be granted.

Consideration

Local Board Views

20.     The Puketāpapa Local Board Parks Portfolio Holder has requested that the application for affected party approval is considered by the local board through their delegated authority. 

Maori Impact Statement

21.     This report relates to work being carried out on a private residential property. In this regard neither the applicant nor the officers have discussed the proposal with iwi.  Furthermore, the proposed works do not impact negatively on the flora and fauna of the reserve.  The protection of native flora and fauna is an important consideration for iwi.  There are no sites of significance to Mana Whenua identified on the reserve.

Implementation Issues

22.     If the Puketāpapa Local Board provides affected party approval, the Council’s Consents team will be able to consider the options of assessing the application without public notification under s95A, or as limited notification under s95B of the Resource Management Act. Additionally, Council’s Consents team would no longer be entitled to consider any effects on the adjoining reserve when deciding the application under s104.

23.     To implement the recommendation of this request, a letter would be prepared, signed and issued to the applicant(s) by the Local and Sports Parks Manager (Central).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Plans

59

bView

Landscape Plan

65

     

Signatories

Authors

Benedict Free - Parks & Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Manager, Recreation Facilities & Service Delivery Central

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

LGNZ Conference and AGM 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/05574

 

  

 

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 Puketāpapa 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 $1,410.00 (incl GST) if paid by 4 June 2013 and $1,510.00 (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 AGM and Conference Programme

71

     

Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 





Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

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

 

File No.: CP2014/06640

 

  

 

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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      delegates to member/s to provide the Board’s input into the council controlled organisations review by 30 April 2014.

 

 

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 organizations

·    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:

i.          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.

ii.          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.

 

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authoriser

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference

79

bView

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

85

cView

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

101

     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 







Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

















Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


















Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

 

File No.: CP2014/06415

 

  

 

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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      agree 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

a

Local Boards Funding Policy Review (Under Separate Cover)

 

bView

Guidelines for local board feedback

129

     

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Chris Carroll - Manager Planning and Policy

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Proceedings

 

File No.: CP2014/07722

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of Puketāpapa Local Board workshop proceedings.

Executive Summary

2.       The attached summary of workshop proceedings provides a record of Puketāpapa Local Board workshops held in March 2014.

These sessions are held to give an informal opportunity for board members and officers to discuss issues and projects and note that no binding decisions are made or voted on at workshop sessions.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      Receives this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Summary of Workshop Proceedings for March 2014

133

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 







Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Board Member Reports April 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/07322

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to inform the Puketāpapa Local Board on Board Members portfolio activities.

Executive Summary

2.       Attaching the Board Member reports for the month of April 2014, providing the Puketāpapa Local Board members a chance to update each other on their portfolio work.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Board Member reports from H Doig, D Holm, E Kumar and M Wood for April 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

H Doig Report, 17 March-13 April 2014

141

bView

D Holm Report, 3 March-3 April 2014

143

cView

E Kumar Report, 20 March-11 April 2014

145

dView

M Wood Report, 27 March-24 April 2014

169

     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 
























Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 













Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

Chairperson's Report April 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/07323

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to inform the Puketāpapa Local Board on the Chairperson’s portfolio activities.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)      receives the Chair’s Report for April 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

J Fairey Report, 15 March-11 April 2014

183

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 









    

  


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 6.1      Attachment a    Media Release                                               Page 195


Puketāpapa Local Board

24 April 2014

 

 

 



[1] Resolution number FIN/2014/11