I hereby give notice that an extraordinary meeting of the Albert-Eden Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

1.00pm

Albert Eden Local Board Office
135 Dominion Road
Mt Eden

 

Albert-Eden Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Peter Haynes

 

Deputy Chairperson

Glenda Fryer

 

Members

Helga Arlington

 

 

Lee Corrick

 

 

Graeme Easte

 

 

Rachel Langton

 

 

Margi Watson

 

 

Tim Woolfield

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Michael Mendoza

Democracy Advisor

 

9 October 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (021) 809 149

Email: Michael.Mendoza@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 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

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Review of Albert-Eden Local Board's Local Dog Access Rules                             7

13        Adoption of the Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2014                                              33

14        Long Term Plan 2015-2015 feedback on mayoral proposal                                   77

15        Financial Policies Issues for Long-term Plan 2015-2025                                        79

16        Central Facility Partnerships Committee                                                                  81  

17        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 Albert-Eden Local Board:

a)         confirms the minutes of its ordinary meeting, held on Wednesday, 1 October 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

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations.  Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days’ notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Board.  This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda.  Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 

Review of Albert-Eden Local Board's Local Dog Access Rules

 

File No.: CP2014/22530

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to decide on the scope of review of local dog access rules in the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

Executive summary

2.      The Auckland Council Governing Body delegated the review of dog access rules for local parks, beaches and foreshore areas to the relevant local boards in 2012.

3.      The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is to ensure public safety and comfort and to ensure that the needs of dogs and their owners are met.

4.      The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards which identifies what aspects of the process will be funded by the governing body, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification, and signage.

5.      The Albert-Eden Local Board discussed local dog access rules for their area at workshops in 2013, and indicated a medium priority, seeking to review these rules by summer 2015.

6.      The process is intended to start in September 2014 and ends in October 2015. The board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

7.      Dog access issues identified at the Albert-Eden Local Board workshops relate to:

·        a review of the current time and season beach and foreshore dog access rules, including adjacent parks.

·        a review of which dog exercise areas meet the new criteria or are more appropriately referred to as under control off-leash areas (shared spaces).

·        a review of ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus areas’.

·        a review of safe swimming areas or lanes.

8.      The final scope of the review is a matter for the Albert-Eden Local Board to decide.

9.      Depending on the scope of the review, options for pre-consultation and research may include both internal and external engagement activities.

 

Recommendations

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a)      resolve to review local dog access rules in the Albert-Eden Local Board area as follows:

i)       review time and season dog access beach rules;

ii)      clarify rules by identifying:

·        which dog exercise areas meet the new criteria or are more appropriately referred to as under control off-leash areas;

b)      picnic areas’, ‘fitness apparatus areas’, safe swimming areas or lanes, significant ecological areas.

 

 

Comments

 

10.    In 2012, the governing body replaced seven legacy policies and seven legacy bylaws on dogs with a single Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (the policy) and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the bylaw). As part of that process it delegated responsibilities for dog access rules on local park, local beach and local foreshore areas (areas not of regional significance or Department of Conservation[1]) to local boards.

11.    The delegations also contained a specific requirement that local boards review their dog access rules on any beach and foreshore area.

12.    A three year programme (2013-2016) has been established to assist local boards in reviewing local dog beach and foreshore access rules. As part of the establishment of this programme, workshops were held with each board to establish how much of a priority a review would be (low, medium, high) as well as ascertaining whether there were any key issues of concern. Another function of the programme is to also achieve efficiencies by aligning the review programmes across multiple local boards to allow for centralised support and activities.

13.     The Albert-Eden Local Board discussed local dog access rules for their area at workshops in 2013, and indicated a medium priority, seeking to review these rules by summer 2015.

14.    Within the Albert-Eden Local Board area there are approximately 31,815 households[2]  of which approximately 3,539 of households (11%) have dogs. The three primary issues that relate to the review of the local dog access rules is the safety and comfort of the general public, the protection of wildlife and recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dog. 

General considerations

General considerations

15.    The primary issues of dog access under the Dog Control Act 1996, the council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 are balancing the protection of the safety and comfort of the general public, the protection of wildlife and providing for the recreational and exercise needs of dogs and their owners on a region wide basis. This means having regard to:

(a) The need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally

(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults

(c)  the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs

(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners[3].

A more detailed outlined of the requirements is provided in Attachment A.

Safety and comfort of the general public

16.    While the following information is not specific to the Albert-Eden Local Board area, it provides an indicative overview of the general issues.

17.    Primary research undertaken by staff for the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 identified that in 2010 the top three dog related complaints[4] were roaming, barking and dog attacks or aggression.

18.    Key points from this research of common dog related complaints received include:

·    Dogs that roam unaccompanied by their owners account for just over half of all dog related problems.

·    Dogs that persistently bark or howl account for one third of all dog related problems.

·    Dogs that attack, rush or are aggressive to people or animals account for just over one tenth of all dog related problems. Dog attacks on people account for less than three per cent of complaints.

19.    The research (as shown in Figure 1) identified that the most common location of reported dog attacks on people was outside the owner’s property (36 per cent). However, it should be noted that based on ACC injury statistics, the reported incidents are estimated to only account for less than a third of actual dog attacks[5]. A possible reason for lack of reporting, particularly in public places, may be an inability to identify the details of a dog or their owner in order to make a complaint.

20.    Comfort of the general public is more problematic to assess and quantify. The first matter for consideration is whether the general public can utilise a public area without ‘fear of attack or intimidation’. While it is noted that most dog owners consider their pets friendly and would not wilfully harm anyone, to another user the presence of an unknown unleashed dog may engender fear or intimidation. This is particularly within a confined area such as a boardwalk or narrow bush walk where there is no space to avoid coming into contact with the dog.

21.    Secondly, there is the requirement to consider nuisance to the community.  Do users of the space want to be approached by unknown dogs? As part of a survey conducted for the dog access reviews of the Kaipatiki and Orakei Local Board areas, 60 per cent and 65 per cent respectively of non-dog owner respondents did not want unknown dogs approaching them[6].

22.    This would indicate that for the comfort of people to be maintained, dogs need to be effectively controlled in the proximity of non-dog owners, particularly around vulnerable people. Additionally any interactions need to be managed so that they are positive for the owners, their dogs and non-dog owners. Dog access rules can help in managing interactions by identifying areas where dogs are allowed under control off-leash, on-leash or are prohibited.

Wildlife

23.    A number of wetland and shorebirds are vulnerable to dogs as they nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas. Feedback from Auckland Council biodiversity staff indicates that for some species, including the New Zealand Dotterel, the presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting birds to leave the nest resulting in loss of clutches and broods and disrupted feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds.

24.    Dog restrictions in protected wildlife areas are not only about protecting wildlife, but also reducing the risk of associated penalties on owners if such areas are disrupted by dogs.

25.    Under the Dog Control Act 1996, it is an offence to allow dogs to roam or attack protected wildlife. Penalties include seizure and destruction of the dog, owner imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both. Under section 63 of the Wildlife Act 1953 it is an offence to kill or disturb wildlife. Penalties for individuals include imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both.

Recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dogs

26.    Walking a dog is an important form of regular exercise for many dog owners with a study in Manukau showing that for 50 per cent of dog owners it was their main form of exercise[7]. Supervised interaction between dogs and with people is also important for the socialisation of dogs.

27.    It is generally accepted that areas to walk a dog (either on-leash or off-leash) that are easily accessible, desirable, and provide diversity of experience for both the dog and owner is important.

Objectives of review

28.    The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is the safety and comfort of the general public and the recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dogs, is provided in 15 above.

29.    While a local board has the power to determine the full scope of any review in accordance with its delegations, the directive provided by the governing body through the delegations as part of the 2012 policy and bylaw review process provides a framework for this first review of the Albert-Eden Local Board dog access rules. Therefore the secondary objectives are initially informed by that directive which can be used as a basis for discussion about the scope of the review and this is provided in the following section.

What local dog access rules to review

30.    While a local board has the power to determine the full scope of any review in accordance with its delegations, as well as whether to proceed with a review, the directives provided by the governing body through the 2012 policy and bylaw review provides a framework for this first review. Therefore the scope is initially informed by the following three categories:

Category 1 – Review

31.    This relates to the delegated duty to review all local beach and foreshore dog access rules. A proposal must be adopted for public notification[8]. This review includes the following:

·        The identification of possible under control off-leash at all times beaches.

·        The identification of where it is appropriate to use the region wide standard summer times (10am and 5pm) and summer season (Labour Weekend to 1 March).

32.     The identification of marine based significant ecological areas is closely linked to the above rules and is therefore recommended by staff to be considered appropriate for inclusion in the review.

Category 2 – Consider

33.    This relates to public requests for changes to dog access rules on specific parks and beaches during the 2012 policy and bylaw review. It is at a local board’s discretion to include any such requests in a proposal for public notification. The requests for changes to existing rules in the Albert-Eden Local Board area are as follows, with the number of people making the request shown in (brackets):

·        Heron Park. Want dog exercise area (1).  Relocate off-leash area west of current location (2)

·        Point Chevalier Beach. Prohibit dogs (2) versus more off-leash dog access (1)

This issue is already provided for in terms of the category 1 review, but is included here for completeness.

Category 3 – Optional

34.    This category relates to making dog access rules less complicated. During the 2012 policy and bylaw review staff identified a number of issues which, if resolved, would clarify or revoke ambiguous legacy rules and ensure any changes are easier to understand ‘on the ground’ Staff analysis identified the following issues for the Albert-Eden Local Board area (the relevant reference to the dog access rule in Schedule 2 of the Policy on Dogs is shown in [brackets]):

·        review dog exercise areas against the new criteria in Policy Method 3E of the Policy on Dogs [AELB (1)].

·        identify safe swimming areas or lanes in which dogs are prohibited [AELB (2)(c) and (3)(c)]

·        identify or review ‘picnic areas’ and “fitness apparatus areas” in which dogs are prohibited [AELB (4)(b)].

·        identify areas within a park, beach or foreshore (except an area identified as a prohibited area or a dog exercise area) identified by the District Plan as a significant ecological area on which dogs must be under control on a leash and prohibited from the water [AELB (4)(c)].

35.    The current Albert-Eden Local Board dog access rules are provided in Attachment C for completeness.

36.    In developing bylaws that manage activities on beaches, knowing how busy a beach is, is important to deciding whether different uses are compatible. Unfortunately what some residents consider busy, other residents consider empty. A static time-lapse camera will be located at Pointt Chevalier beach to assess use and activity levels throughout the day to help inform the decision making process; these cameras will be placed in situ from October 2014 until after 1 March 2015 to capture this data.

37.    The following tables provide options in relation to the above matters to assist the board to decide what local dog access rules to review.

Table 1: Beach and non-beach coastal area review

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review time and season beach rules, Pt Chevalier

Why?

Targeted review on known areas of concern.

Improve certainty by listing all beaches. Currently only Point Chevalier Beach identified.

Advantages

Targeted review on known areas of concern.

Implementation of the policy.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes (illustration only)

Determine appropriate dog access for Pt Chevalier.

Determine where the standard summer beach time and season is appropriate, if not what the alternatives are, and type of dog access is between time slots.

Rules for adjoining parks clarified (see Table 2).

Possible costs of review (illustration only)

Local board signage costs.

Option 2: Review all coastal areas

Why?

Comprehensive review of all coastal dog access rules. No comprehensive review undertaken since 2009.

Advantages

Comprehensive review of all coastal dog access rules.

Disadvantages

Additional resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review (illustration only)

All those listed under Option 1.

All beaches identified to improve certainty.

Determine whether off-leash access on non-coastal areas are appropriate.

Possible costs of review (illustration only)

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until investigation completed.

 


 

Table 2: Dog exercise areas

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review which dog exercise areas meet the new designated dog exercise area criteria of the policy or are more appropriately referred to as under control off-leash areas.

Why?

The current rule, based on the Legacy Auckland City Council rule uses the term ‘dog exercise area’ to describe 13 under control off-leash parks and beach areas (in general parks are under control off-leash areas)[9]. ‘Dog exercise area’ is a legal term to describe places that dogs classified as ‘dangerous’ can be off-leash (but muzzled). Legacy Auckland City Council area has 18 dogs classified as ‘dangerous’.

Policy defines a ‘designated dog exercise area’ as a place where dog owners are the priority user, with characteristics similar to a ‘dog park’. ‘Under control off-leash areas’ are defined as places shared with other users and in practice this may be the more general usage style of the current dog exercise areas.

Advantages

Removes inconsistency between legacy rules and the approach defined in the policy.

Implementation of the policy.

Continues to provide for under control off-leash dog access.

Does not prevent the future development of a ‘dog park’.

Clarifies the rules ‘on the ground’.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Dog exercise areas that are more appropriately listed as under control off-leash areas.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until review completed. May be minimal as only 13 areas, and would not require removal of off-leash dog symbol.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current list of dog exercise areas)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no cost for signs (if required).

Disadvantages

Retains potentially confusing rules for users.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Continued lack of clarity for dog and non-dog owners. No cost.

 


Table 3: Picnic areas and fitness apparatus

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus’

Why?

Current rule requires dogs on-leash in picnic and fitness apparatus areas.

Neither term defined but many instances of isolated tables and BBQ facilities on parks.

Current rule considered unenforceable by animal management officers as terms not defined. Any actions taken are in response to an uncontrolled dog complaint.

Residents (including dog owners) do not know where this rule applies as terms not defined.

Given the rule is not defined and unenforceable, the question becomes is the rule necessary?

Advantages

Will remove a rule that creates confusion, is not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

 

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review (illustration only)

Rule revoked. Investigation finds rule unnecessary and that underlying rule for the park (typically under control off-leash) is appropriate.

Rule replaced. Investigation finds a small number of particular areas easily identifiable on the ground as picnic areas or fitness apparatus areas. Note: This would not include isolated tables or BBQ facilities but particular areas.

Possible costs of review (illustration only)

Cost of signs.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus’ rule)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no costs for signs (if required).

Disadvantages

Retains a confusing rule that is not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

 

Table 4: safe swimming areas or lanes

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review ‘safe swimming areas or lanes’ rule.

Why?

No identified swimming lanes or areas currently identified, rule unnecessary and potentially confusing.

 

Overlap with areas reserved for swimmers and non-mechanically powered vessels under the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2014.

Advantages

Will remove unnecessary rule.

Remove overlap between bylaws.

Disadvantages

Swimming lanes may be identified in the future.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Remove rule. No local board signage costs.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current rule)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate.

Swimming lanes may be identified in the future.

Disadvantages

Retains unnecessary or confusing rule, difficult to communicate and enforce.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Continued lack of easy to understand ‘on the ground’ rules. No cost.

 

Table 5: significant ecological areas

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1- Review of ‘significant ecological areas’ (SEAs).

 

Why?

The current rule, based on the legacy Auckland City Council rule is based on the ‘sites of ecological significance’ the District Plan. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan also identifies ‘significant ecological areas’.

Current rule does not specify areas, rule is therefore difficult to communicate and enforce.

Advantages

Will clarify rules related to ‘significant ecological areas’ and identifies where dogs should be appropriately restricted for ecological purposes.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Investigation identifies ‘significant ecological areas’ where dog access rules are appropriate and lists them in the bylaw.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until review completed. May be minimal as likely to be existing signage or inaccessible.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current rules)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no costs for signs (if required).

Disadvantages

Retains lack of specifically identified significant ecological areas. Rule difficult to communicate and enforce and may result in lack of protection of habitat and wildlife.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Continued lack of easy to understand ‘on the ground’ rules. No cost.

Process and costs

38.    The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards. The governing body will fund aspects of the standard process, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification, and signage.

39.    The standard process established by the governing body supports changes to dog access rules on an annual basis being integrated with the dog registration process. This process allows for a more timely and robust discussion as well as achieving efficiencies by aligning the review programmes across multiple local boards to allow for centralised support and activities.

40.    The process timeline starts in September 2014 and ends in October 2015. The Albert-Eden Local Board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations, and make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

41.    Attachment B provides an outline of the process together with clarification of responsibilities and funding allocations between the governing body and the local board.

42.    For completeness, the table below summarise the proposed activities covered through the standard process to be undertaken prior to the formal consultation for a statement of proposal using the special consultative procedure of the Local Government Act 2002. The confirmation of the standard initiatives is subject to the finalisation of the scope of the review.

Table 6: Extent of pre-consultation activities

Pre-consultation activities: September 2014 – March 2015

Auckland Council internal stakeholders

Workshops/meetings with representatives from:

·   Parks

·   Animal Management

·   Biodiversity

·   Biosecurity

·   Community Policy and Planning

External interested parties and identified stakeholders

Workshops/meetings (via direct invitation) with representatives from:

·   Ecological groups

·   Specific interest groups (including e.g. residents and ratepayer associations)

 

Survey (on-line survey on beach use only), invitees to include:

·   general public

·   local board identified stakeholders

·   people’s panel members in affected Albert-Eden Local Board area

 

Photo library (beaches within review only)

·   Static time-lapse camera at Pt Chevalier beach

 

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

43.    The views of other local boards have not been sought.

Māori impact statement

44.    The views of 23 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of two hui held on 22 and 23 October 2013. The hui covered five bylaw topics - signs, trading in public places, navigation safety and lifejackets, animal management and dog access, outdoor fires.

45.    Feedback related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

Implementation

46.    Issues related to implementation relate to the local board costs for additional research, engagement, and public notification initiatives; and the cost of any signage.

47.    The costs of implementation are expected to be obtained from existing budgets. The cost of signage will become clearer as the review progresses.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Decision Making Framework

19

bView

Standard Process

27

cView

Current Albert-Eden dog access rules

29

      

Signatories

Author

Toni Ferdinands - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 








Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 



Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 





Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 

Adoption of the Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/23776

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt the Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2014.

Executive summary

2.       Each local board is required to adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2014 under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

3.       On 17 September 2014 the Albert-Eden Local Board formally agreed to changes to the local board plan based on feedback from community consultation. The plan has now been updated to reflect this feedback and is attached for approval.

4.       Pending adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare it for publication. Officers therefore recommend that the Chair be delegated to approve any minor wording changes required as part of this process.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a)      adopts the Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2014.

b)      delegates authority to the Chair to approve any minor wording changes that may be necessary.

 

Comments

 

5.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires each local board to develop a local board plan every three years. The first local board plans were adopted in 2011 and the second plans must be adopted by 31 October 2014.

6.       Local board plans are strategic plans for the following three years and beyond. The plans reflect the priorities and preferences of the community. They guide how the local board:

·    makes decisions on local activities and projects

·    provides input into regional strategies and policies

·    works with other agencies that play a key role in the area, including central government agencies and council-controlled organisations.

Consideration

7.       In developing the plan, the board considered:

·    Auckland Plan objectives and other regional strategies and policies

·    advice from subject matter experts

·    community views and submissions on the draft plan.

 

 

Maori impact statement

8.       The Albert-Eden Local Board has given consideration to Māori outcomes throughout the development of the Albert-Eden Local Board Plan; consequently the implementation of the plan has the potential for positive outcomes for Māori.

9.       Along with other central local boards, the Albert-Eden Local Board met with mana whenua authorities to review its draft local board plan. Views expressed by mana whenua authorities during this hui have been considered in the development of the final Plan.

10.     The Albert-Eden Local Board also aimed to engage with mataawaka through activities that were accessible to the general public, as well as targeted stakeholder events both in the early stages of the Plan’s development and throughout the consultation period.

11.     A number of initiatives in the plan focus directly on issues of importance to Māori such as supporting mana whenua in the future management of the maunga, improving and maintaining the natural environment, and identifying and protecting cultural heritage sites significant to Māori.

Implementation

12.     Pending your adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare it for publication. Officers therefore recommend that the Chair be delegated to approve any minor wording changes required as part of this process.

13.     The long-term plan and the annual plans draw the local board plans together and prioritise the council projects into what is affordable and will best meet the strategic direction and needs of Auckland’s communities. The projects and initiatives contained in each local board plan need to be included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and annual plans if they are to be implemented. This requires discussion and agreement with the governing body though the local board agreement process.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2014

35

     

Signatories

Author

Robyn Allpress, Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 











































Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 

Long Term Plan 2015-2015 feedback on mayoral proposal

 

File No.: CP2014/22987

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the mayoral proposal for the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, as announced on 28 August 2014.

Executive summary

2.       On 28 August 2014, the Mayor announced a proposal for the LTP 2015-2025, outlining high level funding envelopes and key priorities.

3.       Feedback is sought from local boards on the mayoral proposal, including departmental responses, to help inform draft budget and consultation decisions being made by the Budget Committee on 5 and 6 November 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a)      considers the mayoral proposal and whether to provide feedback on the implications of the proposal.

 

 

Comments

 

4.       In March 2014, the Mayor provided direction setting for the LTP 2015-2025.

5.       Between March and August, Auckland Council conducted a thorough assessment of its full work programme, prior to the Mayor announcing a proposal for the LTP 2015-2025 on 28 August 2014.  The mayoral proposal outlined high level funding envelopes and key priorities.

6.       In response, the organisation considered the mayoral proposal at a more detailed project and local level, identifying what could be achieved within funding envelopes and options or trade-offs that may need to be considered.

7.       Local boards have been engaged throughout the LTP 2015-2025 process, including detailed briefings from departments between 23 September and 5 October to discuss responses to the mayoral proposal.

8.       Feedback is sought from local boards on the mayoral proposal, including departmental responses, to help inform draft budget and consultation decisions being made by the Budget Committee on 5 and 6 November 2014.

9.       Local boards also have the opportunity to discuss feedback with the Governing Body on 17, 22 and 24 October 2014.

10.     Following Budget Committee decisions in early November, local boards will hold workshops to develop local consultation material and supporting information, for agreement in business meetings between 1 and 10 December 2014.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Kate Marsh – Financial Planning Manager Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 

Financial Policies Issues for Long-term Plan 2015-2025

 

File No.: CP2014/23816

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       This report advises local boards on financial policy issues that may be considered in the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. It aims to support discussion of these issues at local board workshops in September 2014.

Executive summary

2.       Development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 is the council’s opportunity to consider if it wishes to consult on making changes to its financial policies.  A briefing setting out some of the matters that may be considered in the long-term plan process was provided to a workshop of the governing body on 5 August and to a local boards’ workshop on 18 August.

3.       The workshop identified a range of financial policy issues as possible matters for consideration in developing the draft long-term plan. These included the:

·    rating policy

·    standardisation of the remaining legacy fees and charges

·    development contributions.

4.       The key issues identified in regard to the rating policy were:

·    options for level of UAGC

·    proportion of rates paid by businesses including options for the long term differential strategy

·    proportion of rates paid by rural sector including options for farms and rural townships

·    affordability including consideration of additional support for superannuitants

·    options for further transition

·    standardising legacy rates remission and postponement policies (community, sporting and heritage remission and postponement policies).

5.       The remaining legacy fees and charges that have yet to be standardised are:

·    social housing rentals

·    street trading license fees and rentals

·    163 environmental health and licensing fees

·    some cemetery fees.

6.       The Long-term Plan 2015-2025 presents the council with an opportunity to consider if it wishes to amend its development contributions policy to reflect the changes made to development contributions in the Local Government (Amendment Act) Act 2014 alongside the changes the legislation requires.  Issues the council may wish to consider include refining its:

·    funding areas

·    assessment of residential demand.

 

7.       The timetable for the development of financial policies for the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 is:

·    Budget committee workshop (including modelling of options) – 20 October (morning)

·    local boards workshop – 20 October (afternoon)

·    combined Budget committee and local boards workshop - 24 October

·    Mayor’s rating policy proposal 30 October

·    Budget committee workshop on financial policies – 31 October

·    Budget committee final decisions for draft Long-term plan (including financial policies) – 5 November

·    Budget committee workshop and meeting on rates transition – 17 November

 

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a)      Determines if it wishes to make any recommendations for change to existing financial policies as part of development of the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

 

 

Consideration

Significance

8.       This decisions sought in this report are not significant.

Local board views and implications

9.       The purpose of this report is to facilitate the development and communication of local board views on the matters considered herein.

Māori impact statement

10.     The recommendation in this report have no impact on Maori.

Implementation

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

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Planning Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Financial Officer

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 

Central Facility Partnerships Committee

 

File No.: CP2014/23052

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the local board’s agreement:

 

·     to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to oversee the legacy central facility partnerships funding scheme;

·     on the Terms of Reference 2014/2015 for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee;

·     on the Central Facility Partnerships Guidelines 2014/2015; and

·     to nominate a member and an alternate on the Central Facility Partnerships Committee.

 

Executive summary

 

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

 

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

 

4.       The Central Facility Partnerships Committee needs to be operational for the 2014/2015 to administer legacy central facility partnerships funding scheme.  This report seeks agreement from the seven central local boards to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee, agree its terms of reference, endorse the Central Facility Partnerships 2014/2015 Guidelines, and agree the timing of decisions for 2014/2015 central facility partnership funding scheme. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will consider applications to the 2014/2015 central facility partnerships fund at a workshop scheduled to be held on 3 November 2014 and business meeting on 8 December 2014.

 

5.       The re-establishment of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee is an interim approach until a region-wide community grants policy is finalised. Formal consultation with local boards on the draft policy is taking place at the current time. 

 

Recommendations

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a)      Agree to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee for 2014/2015 with the Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, and Waitemata Local Boards, to collectively administer the legacy Facility Partnerships fund.

b)      Endorse the Terms of Reference 2014/2015 and Guidelines 2014/2015 for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee, which will be adopted by the Committee at its first meeting:

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

ii.       The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to make funding decisions in 2014/2015 in relation to the central facility partnerships guidelines.

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

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

v.       The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to amend the Terms of Reference on the basis of a formal resolution from each participating Local Board that endorses the proposed change.

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

d)      Note that the next meetings of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee for 2014/2015 will be held on 3 November 2014 (workshop), 8 December 2014 (business meeting) and Stage Two: 9 March 2014 (workshop) and 13 April 2014 (business meeting).

 

e)      Note that a region-wide community grants policy is being developed and will in time replace the current interim funding arrangements.

 

 

Comments

 

 

6.       The legacy central facility partnerships fund invites organisations to submit applications for capital development projects and feasibility studies that will assist Auckland Council to meet its identified strategic community outcomes.

 

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

 

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

 

9.       Central facility partnerships benefit the council by delivering quality, community accessible facilities, without council providing all the development funding.

 

10.     The wider Auckland community benefits from facility partnerships funding schemes by having access to a greater number of quality community facilities.

 

11.     Auckland Council inherited several different approaches for managing facility partnerships.  A new, integrated policy is being developed and is expected to be completed for the 2015/2016 year.

 

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

 

13.     On 6 March 2014, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed the rollover of council’s current community funding programmes and grants arrangements for the 2014/2015 financial year (REG/2014/36).

 

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


15.     The following resolutions were made on 24 May 2012 by the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

 

“Resolution number RDO/2012/89

 

 b)        That the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorses in principle the following with regard to the Community assistance programme:

i.          repackaging of the draft Community occupancy policy as guidelines to assist local board decision-making;

ii.         devolving legacy facility partnership budgets for the 2012 / 2013 financial year to existing local board sub-regional (‘cluster’) funding committees for distribution under the appropriate legacy council policy;

iii.        continuation of the interim funding approach for the 2012 / 2013 financial year, noting that there will be no proposed changes to the decision-making or budget structures already in place for the 2011/2012 financial year.”

 

16.     On 14 March 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved that the interim community funding arrangements in place be continued for 2013/2014.

 

“Resolution number RDO/2013/32

That the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

 

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

 

17.       On the 15 May 2013, the Central Facility Partnerships Committee resolved:

 

“Resolution number CFPC/2013/6.

 

 b)        That the Central Facility Partnerships Committee endorse a two stage application process for the 2013/2014 round.

 c)        That the final decision of the 2013/2014 funding round dates and committee meeting dates be delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee.

 d)        That variations, extensions and/or changes to Auckland City legacy facility partnership agreements made by the local boards prior 15 May 2013 be endorsed by the Central Facility Partnership Committee, and that this resolution be forwarded to all relevant local boards for their information.

 e)        That any further variations, extensions and/or changes to Auckland City legacy facility partnership agreements fall under the Central Facility Partnerships Committee.

 f)         That officers report back to the Central Facility Partnerships Committee at its next meeting on progress of all existing facility partnerships.”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21.     It is recommended that the board agrees to re- establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to administer the central facility partnerships funding. This report also asks the seven central local boards to appoint a representative and an alternate to the Central Facility Partnership Committee, with the appropriate delegated authority to bind the local boards on decisions relating to the legacy central facility partnerships policy made by the Central Facility Partnership Committee, and to agree the attached terms of reference.

 

22.     The Committee will hold its next meeting on 8 December 2014 to consider procedural matters including but not limited to:

i)       electing a Chair and Deputy Chair

ii)       adopting the Central Facility Partnerships Committee Terms of Reference (attached)

iii)      agreeing the timing of decisions for 2014/2015 facility partnerships

iv)     endorsing the Facility Partnerships 2014/2015 Guidelines (attached)

23.     Applications for 2014/2015 facility partnerships have been sought from 1 July 2014 – 15 August 2014.  Officers have assessed the applications and the Committee will consider and make decisions on 8 December 2014 regarding Stage one projects to be progressed.

 

24.     After the Central Facility Partnerships Committee has decided which projects to support, the local board where the project is based will have active and ongoing engagement with the project. The local board’s role may include setting expectations for community access to the facility.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

 

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

Māori impact statement

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

General

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

Implementation

 

28.     Funding applications will be called during two rounds for the legacy central facility partnerships funding scheme, as follows:

 

   Central Facility Partnerships Fund 2014/2015

i.        Stage One - Expressions of Interest opened in 1 July 2014 and closed on 15 August 2014 with decisions on projects advancing to stage two on 8 December 2014.

ii)       Stage Two - Process will include only groups who have been progressed from Stage one process and will include all feasibility study applications. Stage two closes on 13 February 2015 for decisions in April 2015.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Terms of Reference 2014/2015

87

bView

Draft Central Facility Partnership Guidelines 2014/2015

89

     

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 


Albert-Eden Local Board

15 October 2014

 

 






    

    



[1] Refer to Governing Body Agenda Item 12, 22 November 2012 (GB/2012/157)

[2] Census 2013 data http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE8094#

[3] Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996

[4] A ‘dog related complaint’ is a dog related service request that relates to a dog incident (e.g. dog attack).  In addition to dog related complaints, dog related service requests include such things as requests for property inspections and lost dog notifications.

[5] Auckland Council (2011)– Dog Control - Issues and options discussion paper.gust 2011

[6] While some caution needs to be taken when interpreting the results of these surveys as they were self-selecting, the results were also mirrored in a statistical study in Adelaide in 2004, which found 43 per cent  of respondents were afraid of dogs. In addition the study found that being frightened by a dog was not related to having been attacked, however being threatened by a dog was a significant indicator of whether a person was likely to be frightened by dogs.

Boyd, C., Fotheringham, B., Litchfield, C., McBryde, I., Metzer, J., Scanlon, P., . . . Winefield, A. (2004). Fear of dogs in a community sample: Effects of age, gender and prior experience of canine aggression. Anthrozoos, 17 (2).

 

[7] Manukau City Council ( 2007) Understanding Dog and Dog Owner Physical Exercise Habits

[8] Refer to Governing Body Agenda Item 12, 22 November 2012 (GB/2012/157)

[9] The dog exercise area at Maungawhau Domain, Owairaka Domain, Tahaki Reserve are now subject to governance by the Tupuna Maunga O Tamaki Makaurau Authority, and therefore excluded from local board decision-making.