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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

4:00pm

Onehunga Community Centre,
83 Church Street,
Onehunga

 

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Chris Makoare

 

Deputy Chairperson

Debbie Burrows

 

Members

Don Allan

 

 

Bernie Diver

 

 

Nerissa Henry

 

 

Alan Verrall

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Tracey Freeman

Democracy Advisor

 

17 May 2018

 

Contact Telephone: 021 537 862

Email: Tracey.Freeman@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

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

8.1     Ruapotaka Marae Redevelopment Design Team                                             5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                           6

12        Governing Body Member's Update                                                                              7

13        Chairperson's Report                                                                                                    9

14        Board Member's Reports                                                                                            19

15        Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 grant allocations  21

16        Auckland Transport May 2018 Update                                                                    133

17        Riverside Community Centre future governance and management                   153

18        Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for FY 2016-2017                                           159

19        Review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections                                                                                                                                      173

20        Record of Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local board Workshops                                   205

21        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                      211  

22        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               215

C1       Unlock Panmure: FY2019-2021 Work Programme                                                215

C2       CONFIDENTIAL:  Ngāti Paoa - Treaty Settlement redress (Covering report)     215  

 


1          Welcome

 

Chairperson C Makoare will open the meeting.

 

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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 8 May 2018, including the confidential section, 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local 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.

 

8.1       Ruapotaka Marae Redevelopment Design Team

Providing the Ruapotaka Marae Redevelopment Design Team the opportunity to present to the board regarding a proposal for redevelopment of the marae.

 

Attachments

a          Ruapotaka Marae Presentation................................................................... 219

b          Ruapotaka Marae Images............................................................................ 231

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Governing Body Member's Update

 

File No.: CP2018/07513

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board an update on local activities that the Governing Body representative is involved with.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Opportunity for the Governing Body representative to update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on projects, meetings, events and issues of interest to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board and its community.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Governing Body Member’s update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Freeman - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Chairperson's Report

 

File No.: CP2018/07848

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To keep the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board informed on the local activities that the Chairperson is involved with.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Providing the Chairperson with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Chairperson’s report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chair's Report

11

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Freeman - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Board Member's Reports

 

File No.: CP2018/07850

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To keep the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board informed on the local activities that the local board members are involved with.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Providing Board members with an opportunity to update the local board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      receive the board members report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Freeman - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 grant allocations

 

File No.: CP2018/07486

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grants, Round Three 2017/2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report presents applications received in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grants, Round Three 2017/2018. (see Attachment B and C).

3.       The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board adopted the Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 23 May 2017 (see Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4.       The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $120,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A further $15,106 was allocated to the community grants budget from the “Arts in Public Spaces Opportunities and Actions” budget (MT/2017/231). A total of $96,413 has been allocated in two local grant rounds, leaving a total of $38,693.00 to be allocated in the third local grant round.

5.       Twenty-three applications were received for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018, including seven multiboard applications, requesting a total of $176,953.56.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      Agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018

Table One: Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications

Application ID

Organisation

Main focus

Requesting funding for

Amount requested

Eligibility

LG1811-301

Tongan Health Society Incorporated

Community

Towards the Pacific elderly day programme, including transportation,
food, resources,
‍speakers, exercise instructors and
advertising

$10,000.00

Eligible

LG1811-307

The Synergy Project Trust

Community

Towards facilitator and tutor fees for music and dance workshops, venue hire and administration costs.

$4,080.00

Eligible

LG1811-308

The Parenting Place

Community

Towards the cost of delivering 17 mental health and wellbeing presentations, plus providing 'Hardwired' a drug and alcohol education handbook

$2,062.00

Eligible

LG1811-309

Panama Road School

Community

To purchase a sterilizer for the school kitchen.

$6,172.00

Eligible

LG1811-317

Chinese New Settlers Services Trust

Community

Towards the employment assistance programme including resources and
‍promotion

$13,440.00

Eligible

LG1811-318

Saint Marys School Board of Trustees

Sport and recreation

Towards a fleet of bikes and a secure storage facility and an integrated bike track.

$10,000.00

Eligible

LG1811-320

Communicare-Civilian Maimed Association (Auckland) Incorporated

Community

Towards the rental costs for the Communicare office in Royal Oak.

$10,000.00

Ineligible

LG1811-321

Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust

Community

Towards triage clinical staff costs for the youth crisis intervention support service.

$3,000.00

Eligible

LG1811-325

Auckland Kids Achievement Trust trading as Graeme Dingle Foundation Auckland

Community

Towards wages for three staff for the “Kiwi Can” programme in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki area.

$2,500.00

Ineligible

LG1811-329

Glen Innes Chinese Friendship Group Incorporated.

Community

Towards hall rental for the groups’ activities including English study, dancing, physical fitness, and games also
costumes for Chinese culture events.

$9,996.00

Eligible

LG1811-331

Auckland Basketball Services Limited

Sport and recreation

Towards hall hire costs and three coaching sessions

$10,000.00

Eligible

LG1811-332

Dance Therapy NZ

Community

Towards “Arts 4 Us” arts initiative for children including art therapist facilitation costs,
‍facilitation assistant costs, the programme co-ordination salary, materials,
supervision
‍and overheads.

$9,909.36

Eligible

LG1811-334

Onehunga District Council Of Social Services (ODCSS)

Community

Towards a logo designer and a new logo for the Onehunga District Council of Social Services.

$1,000.00

Eligible

LG1811-337

Auckland Action Against Poverty

Community

Towards operating costs, wages, printing and advocacy training for the advocacy service.

$5,000.00

Eligible

LG1811-341

Kids Safe With Dogs Charitable Trust

Community

Towards the printing of activity books, administration and instructor fees

$9,500.00

Ineligible

LG1811-343

Ruapotaka Marae Society

Arts and culture

Towards the site scope, a health and safety report,
‍workshops,
‍a concept design and production plan, mural production,
materials and
‍ladder platforms for a mural.

$5,000.00

 

Total

 

 

 

$111,659.36

 

 

b)      Agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018 multiboard applications

Table Two: Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018 multiboard grant applications

Application ID

Organisation

Main focus

Requesting funding for

Amount requested

Eligibility

LG1815-212

Project Litefoot Trust

Environment

Towards the overall cost of the project, tagged towards the cost of materials, equipment, advertising and promotion.

$1,219.00

Eligible

LG1805-226

Age Concern Auckland Incorporated

Community

Towards the provision of health promotion, accredited visitor service and field social support services across west and central Auckland.

$7,000.00

Eligible

LG1807-314

Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust

Community

Towards the cost of running an elderly support programme, specifically volunteer travel reimbursement, venue, bus hire, festival celebrations and guest speakers

$2,310.80

Eligible

LG1806-234

Kelly Group (NZ)

Sport and recreation

Towards coaching fees and resource kits to deliver a traditional Maori games programme to 29 schools in Auckland.

$20,264.40

Eligible

LG1811-338

LifeKidz Trust

Community

Towards support worker wages and resources for after school and school holiday programme care for children with disabilities and special needs.

$3,000.00

Eligible

LG1818-114

One Green Nut

Environment

Towards initial set up and trial phase of four reverse vending machines

$30,000.00

Eligible

LG1809-132

Maggie Gould

Arts and Culture

Towards musicians’ fees, hire of equipment, venue hire, publicity costs, media promotion costs, travel and printing of material for student workshops

$1,500.00

Eligible

Total

$65,294.20

 

 

 

 

Horopaki / Context

6.       The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

7.       The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme. The local board grants programme sets out:

·     local board priorities

·     lower priorities for funding

·     exclusions

·     grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

·     any additional accountability requirements.

 

8.       The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2017/2018 on 23 May 2017 and will operate three local grants rounds for this financial year. 

9.       The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10.     The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

11.     Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants.  The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

12.     The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

13.     A summary of each application received through Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grant Round Three 2017/2018 is provided (see Attachment B and C).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14.     The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

15.     The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-Term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

16.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $120,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A further $15,106 was allocated to the community grants budget from the “Arts in Public Spaces Opportunities and Actions” budget (MT/2017/231). A total of $96,413 has been allocated in two local grant rounds, leaving a total of $38,693.00 to be allocated in this third grant round.

17.     In Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018, twenty-three applications were received, including seven multiboard applications, requesting a total of $176,953.56.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18.     The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

19.     Following the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board allocating funding for round three local grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Grant Programme 2017/2018

29

b

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications

31

c

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Grants Round Three 2017/2018 multiboard grant applications

105

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Helen Taimarangai - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport May 2018 Update

 

File No.: CP2018/07999

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update to the Maungakiekie Tamaki Local Board on transport related matters in their area including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       A resolution for the allocation of transport capital funds to contribute to the Jubilee Bridge project being delivered by Auckland Council community facilities department;

3.       There are a number of transport capital fund project requests for rough order of cost (ROC) these are included in the report;   

4.       Update on the Local board one local initiative (OLI) for Onehunga;

5.       Auckland Transport has shared proposals for bus layover works in the Glen Innes area with the local board, as part of an ongoing commitment. Feedback was supportive;

6.       Auckland Transport is also investigating a number of transport related issues brought to their attention by the local board. These include the intersection of Church Street and Victoria Street, angel parking at the cul-de-sac of Onehunga Mall and slippery pavers in Panmure.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie Tamaki Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport May 2018-update report;

b)      Request $700,000 from the transport capital fund be available for Auckland Council community facilities to contribute to the upgrade of Jubilee Bridge in Panmure;

c)      Request a rough order of cost for a speed table on Quadrant Road (between Arthur Street and Grey Street);

d)      Request a rough order of cost of installation of a driver feedback sign on Grey Street (by Golden Grove School), Apirana Avenue (between Castledine Crescent and St Heliers Bay Road), Elstree Avenue and Kings Road;

e)      Request a rough order of cost for a raised crossing on Tripoli Road (between Matapan Road and Stuart Avenue;

f)       Request a rough order of cost for the installation of a roundabout on Barrack Road (between numbers 20 -28).

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       Report addresses transport related matters in the local board area and includes information on the status of the LBTCF.

8.       Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in the Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within and on behalf of their local communities. 

9.       The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. Projects must also:

·   be safe

·   not impede network efficiency

·   be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

10.     Attached for the board’s information is information on Auckland Transport’s activities over the past quarter (Jan – Mar 18).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

11.     Financial summary

Jubilee Bridge

12.     Auckland Council has approached the board and Auckland Transport to contribute to the Jubilee Bridge rebuild. The board have agreed to allocate $700,000 from the fund to this project. This project meets the requirements of the fund as it provides a pedestrian connection to Lagoon Drive. A resolution for the funding to be allocated is included in this report. Once the resolution has be passed, Auckland Transport will provide Auckland Council with the funding. Auckland Council community facilities department will manage the project.

Quadrant Road speed table

13.     The board have concerns about speed on Quadrant Road (between Grey Street and Arthur Street) they have asked Auckland Transport to provide a rough order of cost (ROC) to install a speed table on Quadrant Road, with the intention that this will slow traffic approaching the intersections.

 

 

Driver feedback signs

14.     The board are concerned about speed on a number of roads in the Maungakiekie Tamaki area. The board have asked Auckland Transport to provide a ROC for the installation of driver feedback signs on Grey Street (by Golden Grove School) Onehunga, Apirana Avenue (between St Heliers Bay Road and Castledine Crescent) Glen Innes, Elstree Avenue Glen Innes and King Road Panmure.

15.     Driver feedback signs have shown to be effective on roads where speed tables are unable to be installed, for example, bus routes and arterial roads, or where engineering solutions are too expensive. The signs have reduced speed on roads in Auckland where they have been installed, for example College Road in Stonefields.

 

Raised Crossing on Tripoli Road

16.     The board have requested that Auckland Transport provide a ROC for a raised crossing on Tripoli Road between Stuart Avenue and Matapan Road. This would provide speed calming and a safe crossing point for vulnerable pedestrians who need to cross a busy road.

Roundabout on Barrack Ave

17.     The board have requested that Auckland Transport provide a ROC for a roundabout between the numbers of 20 – 28 Barrack Road. The board acknowledge that this would not be a priority for Auckland Transport’s minor safety budget, as that budget is required to focus on death and serious injury crashes. However, there are concerns that the traffic volumes on Barrack Road have reached a point where speed and traffic flow are an issue.

Local Board Advocacy

One local Initiative (OLI) – Onehunga Interchange

18.     Auckland Transport’s General Manager of Strategy meet with Board Member Burrows to discuss how to progress the boards OLI. This meeting included a representative of Pānuku. The proposal is this project be investigated as a transport orientated development (TOD) which would include mixed-use commercial and residential opportunity with in the development. The next steps for this project is for Pānuku and Auckland Transport to complete a feasibility and options report. Auckland Transport will continue to update the board with timelines and milestones for this project, as they are available.

Progress being made on investigations

Church Street and Victoria Street intersection

19.     Auckland Transport has been asked to investigate as solution to the serious crashes at this intersection. It has a significant crash history and a solution is currently in design. Further updates will be provided once internal consultation has been completed and the board has been advised of design options.

Onehunga Mall Cul-de-sac

20.     The board and a local resident have asked for formal angle parking to be installed at the end of the cul-de-sac on Onehunga Mall. Previously there has been illegal informal angle parking, this changed recently when Auckland Transport began to enforce the illegal parking.

21.     Initial site visits from the parking team indicate there is not enough room to reverse within the lane, which is the current legal standard required for angle parking. The resident has provided evidence, of other streets in Onehunga with angle parking that does not meet the current legal requirement and Auckland Transport is still investigating options.

 

Pavers in Panmure Town Centre

22.     The Panmure Business Association through the board have approached Auckland Transport concerned about the slippery pavers in the town center. This is becoming an increasing issue as the weather worsens.

23.     Auckland Transport is working with community facilities to increase leaf collection and sweeping and Pānuku have offered to provide some solutions that would need to be funded from the transport capital fund. At the time of this report, no further information was available, but the board will be updated, as information is available.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

24.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no local, sub-regional or regional impacts.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28.     Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Maungakiekie-Tamaki A

137

b

Maungakiekie-Tamaki B

151

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Freeman - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Riverside Community Centre future governance and management

 

File No.: CP2018/03905

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve the operational model and funding for the governance and management of the Riverside Community Centre.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       In May 2016 Maungakiekie Tamaki Local Board resolved (MT/2016/101) that programmes and services from the Riverside Community Centre would be managed by Auckland Council for two years, starting July 2016. This period is due to end in June 2018.

3.       As part of the co-design project 21 members of the local community, including local board members, were interviewed. The findings from these interviews showed a strong desire in the local community for the centre to be ‘run by locals, for locals’.

4.       The community members of the project team have subsequently established a local leadership group, known as the ‘Panamasians’, who continue to be an active voice of the community in Riverside.

5.       Staff recommend co-delivery with the Panamasians as the next phase of governance and operations for the Riverside Community Centre. This option will support:

·    local community aspirations, voiced through the co-design process

·    delivery on outcomes and initiatives within the local board plan

·    development of local residents to have a strong voice and participate in delivery of a local service

6.       Staff recommend a continuation of $20,000 per annum be allocated from the local board Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget to the Riverside Community Centre’s operating budget to support continued local engagement, development and support of the Panamasians.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      approve the co-delivery operational model with the Panamasians for the governance and management of Riverside Community Centre.

b)      approve the allocation of $20,000 from from the local board Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget  to support continued local engagement, development and support of the Panamasians at the Riverside Community Centre.

c)      note that a 36-month capacity and capability plan to support the development of the Panamasians will be reported  to the local board in quarter one of the 2018/2019 financial year.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       In October 2015 the local board requested staff commence a review of the Riverside Community Centre to understand and address the long-term sustainability and future direction of the centre. The review highlighted that to improve outcomes for the Riverside community there will need to be long-term, coordinated support for the centre and any community organisation or agency delivering programmes there.

8.       After a period of operational instability it was determined that further understanding of the long-term needs and makeup of the Riverside area was required, and could be gained through engagement with the community by co-designing a long-term operational model.

9.       Under Auckland Council management staff were able to better understand operational issues and increase service delivery by providing additional programme activities to the community. Council management  was accompanied by an allocation of $20,000 per annum for the two-year period from the local board LDI budget.

10.     Auckland Council employed a full-time staff programme coordinator to activate the Riverside Community Centre and grow participation from July 2016. This led to an increase in the hours that the centre was utilised and the number of participants engaging in the centre, as illustrated in Table 1:

Table 1

 

July 2015 to June 2016

July 2016 to June 2017

July 2017 to Feb 2018

(8 months)

Participation numbers

 

6,990

8,604

9,305

Utilisation

(100%= 10 hour x 7 days)

30%

32%

45%

 

11.     Once the initial period of activation and programming had been completed staff initiated a co-design project with the Riverside community in August 2017.

Riverside Co-Design Project

12.     A preliminary series of community engagement activities were run where individuals from the local community could register interest to “be the voice of their community”. Six members of the Riverside and Panama community were identified to be part of the project team, along with three council representatives.

13.     The intensive co-design programme was initiated by council staff in August 2017, bringing together the project team for weekly, three-hour sessions over a 12-week period.

14.     The project team developed an intent statement for the co-design process:

·    to demonstrate working together across community and council to support transition to a community-led centre

·    to understand the roles that contribute to a vibrant centre with locals who are involved, connected and engaged

·    to develop models for how the community wants to run the centre

15.     Through the co-design process key people from the community were interviewed. From the interviews the project team identified the community aspiration to guide, protect and govern the way we work together from the centre.

16.     The findings of the interviews were summarised by the project team as:

·    we want a centre that is run by local people

·    we want our centre to be a safe place for children youth and adults of all ages. We want the centre to be a place for us to be together as a community

·    Panama is paradise but noisy with fast cars and motor bikes. We want everyone to be proud of the centre and be supported to keep our people happy and safe

·    I want to give back to my community. Share my knowledge, time and skills

·    I want quality education, employment opportunities, local business support, social services and leisure activities

·    we want to use the space differently

17.     The project team further refined the findings into three priority areas which have been used as themes for new activations and programmes in the centre. These areas are:

·    connection

·    safety

·    inclusive programming

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

18.     June 2018 will see the end of the two-year period of council management of the Riverside Community Centre, initially recommended by staff and adopted by the local board in May 2016 (MT/2016/101).

19.     There are three options available for governance and operation of the Riverside Community Centre as detailed in Attachment A.

20.     Staff recommend option two: Co-Delivery with Panamasians as the governance and management option. This will support both the local community’s aspirations, as voiced through the co-design process, and will support delivery on outcomes and initiatives within the local board plan.

21.     Through the co-design process no existing groups emerged as strong contenders to take on governance or management of the centre.

22.     Of the six initial community members of the co-design team, there are three members who continue to be actively engaged. This core group is seeking to grow in numbers and hopes to continue to work closely with council and the local board until they are in a position to take on the governance and management of the centre.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

23.     As part of the co-design project 21 members of the local community, including local board members, were interviewed. The findings from these interviews showed a strong desire in the local community for the centre to be ‘run by locals, for locals’.

24.     The 2017/2018 Local Board Plan identifies an active, engaged community as an outcome. A key initiative in the plan is to champion initiatives that raise awareness, encourage people to participate and to be engaged citizens, celebrate cultural diversity and help bring people together.

25.     Option Two: Co-Delivery with Panamasians will support the aspiration of the local community and will support delivery of outcomes and initiatives within the local board plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

26.     Staff engaged with Ngati Paoa prior to initiating the co-design project. The mana whenua group supported the project and agreed to continue to participate when necessary.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

27.     Historically the Riverside Community Centre was managed by a community organisation for around $50,000 per annum. In 2014 it was identified by staff and the local board that this was not the optimum amount to sustainably deliver the service and a range of additional funding was supplied.

28.     In May 2016 staff recommended council management and the allocation of $20,000 per annum for the two year period from the local board Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget.

29.     Staff recommend a continuation of $20,000 per annum be allocated from LDI to the centres operating budget to support continued local engagement, development and support of the Panamasians.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

30.     Risks to governance and management options are detailed in Attachment A.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31.     Auckland Council staff and the Panamasians will work to develop a 36-month capacity and capability plan to support the development of the Panamasians and to identify key areas of responsibility for management of the Riverside Community Centre that could be transferred over the 36-months to the community group.

32.     Staff will provide a progress update to the local board in quarter one of the 2018-2019 financial year.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

 Riverside Community Centre Options Analysis

157

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Kat Teirney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator



Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for FY 2016-2017

 

File No.: CP2018/05812

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide information to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Glen Innes, Onehunga and Panmure business associations for the financial year ending June 2017.  

2.       To provide information on which the Local Board will recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for these three BID programmes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) programme supports business associations by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area.  The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a grant to the relevant business association (BID).

4.       The BIDs are incorporated societies that are independent of council.  For council to be confident that the funds provided to the BIDs are being used appropriately, council requires the BIDs to comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy. 

5.       The BID Policy was developed to encourage improved governance of BID committees and staff to improve financial management, programme delivery and transparency to their members. 

6.       This report indicates that the Glen Innes, Onehunga and Panmure business associations are in compliance with the BID Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date. 

7.       Staff therefore recommend that as the BIDs have met the requirements of the BID Policy, that the Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates sought by the BIDs.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      Recommends to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2018-2019 for the following BID programmes:

·        $166,000 for Glen Innes Business Association;

·        $405,000 for Onehunga Business Association; and

·        $422,759 for Panmure Business Association.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

8.       Council adopted the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) in 2016.  This policy outlines the principles behind the council BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and disestablishing BIDs; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements.  Please see Attachment A for a review of key elements of the BID programme.

9.       BID targeted rates are applied to all commercially-rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct. Those funds are transferred to the business association operating the BID programme.

10.     There are currently 48 BID programmes throughout Auckland which represent more than 25,000 businesses and a combined $17.5 million in targeted rates investment.  Please see Attachment B for current and proposed targeted rates budgets for all BIDs.

11.     Under the Auckland Council co-governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities.  One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.  The Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID Policy.

12.     Recommendations of this report are put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019 and striking of the targeted rate.

13.     This report is a requirement of the BID Policy (2016).

Compliance with the BID Policy

14.     The BID Policy is the means for council  to ensure accountability for BID targeted rate funding and encourage good governance. This is achieved by requiring regular reporting by BID-operating business associations specifically by providing to council the following documents, and staying in touch with their local board(s) at least once a year:

·   Current Strategic Plan – evidence of achievable medium to long-term opportunities.

·   Audited accounts – assurance that the BID-operating business association is managing its members’ BID targeted rates funds responsibly.

·   Annual Report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit BID targeted ratepayers.

·   Business Plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the Strategic Plan, to be achieved and resourced.

·   Indicative budget for the following year – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Budget process which sets all rates.

·   Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

·   Annual Accountability Agreement – certification that these requirements have been met.

·   Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15.     The council BID programme team monitors compliance with the BID Policy on an ongoing basis, and provides governance advice to BID-operating business associations as needed or requested.

16.     As BID programmes are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to their members’ stated priorities.  In recognition of their independent corporate status, the policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness.  Officers, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

17.     The Glen Innes, Onehunga and Panmure business associations are in compliance with the BID Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date. 

18.     Staff recommend that as the BIDs have met the requirements of the BID Policy, that the Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates sought by the BIDs.

19.     The recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the BID Policy by the Glen Innes, Onehunga and Panmure business associations in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. Please see Attachments C, D and E for details.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

20.     Recommending that the Governing Body strikes the targeted rates for the Glen Innes, Onehunga and Panmure business associations in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their districts, and provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their strategic plans.

21.     By continuing these services and programmes, the Devonport, Milford and Takapuna Beach business associations should better serve their town centres and members, and support business growth.

22.     The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the BID programmes last year (Resolution MT/2017/60), as did the 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their areas. 

23.     Several local boards provide additional funding to local business associations but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association.  Those requirements are apart from the requirements of the BID Policy and are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

24.     This decision will have no adverse effects on, or particular benefits to, the Māori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25.     There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that district.  Council’s financial role is only to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association on a quarterly basis.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26.     There are reputational risks to council if ratepayer funds are misused, but this is rare.  Otherwise, there are no direct financial risks to the local board or council that could result from this recommendation to approve the BID targeted rates.

27.     The requirements of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds, by requiring each BID to plan for the intended use of funds, report on its activities to its members, and to have its accounts audited. 

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28.     If the Local Board accepts the recommendation of this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rates be struck as stated in the Recommendation as part of its approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A

163

b

Appendix B

165

c

Attachment C

167

d

Attachment D

169

e

Attachment E

171

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul  Thompson - BID Programme Specialist

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections

 

File No.: CP2018/07510

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board an opportunity to give formal feedback on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council’s representation arrangements have to be reviewed this year. The outcome will apply at the 2019 elections.

3.       The Governing Body finalised the process for conducting the review in December 2017, following consultation with local boards.

4.       The Joint Governance Working Party established by the mayor will develop a proposal for reporting to the Governing Body in July 2018.

5.       The local board is now invited to provide its formal feedback on the review, for consideration by the Joint Governance Working Party.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      endorse the general approach to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections, which is to make changes on an issue-by-issue basis and to not seek significant change.

b)      endorse the Joint Governance Working Party’s position on the following matters with respect to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections:

i.        that all Governing Body members are to continue to be elected by ward as decided by the Governing Body

ii.       that the current number of members in each ward is retained

iii.      that the Waitematā and Gulf ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be addressed by reducing the size of the isthmus part of the ward on both the east and the west of the ward as in ‘Option 1’, with the resulting changes for neighbouring wards as set out in that option

iv.      that the Rodney ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be retained on the basis that compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

v.       that the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not have a community of interest with Warkworth, and that the Rodney Local Board is invited to provide feedback on the alternative options for subdivision arrangements.

c)      endorse the following recommendations with respect to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections, noting that they have yet to be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party:

i.        that the Botany subdivision non-complying variance (population per member) should be addressed by moving the southern boundary of the Howick ward southwards and that the Howick Local Board is invited to provide feedback on the two alternative options

ii.       that the Manurewa-Papakura ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be retained on the basis that compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

iii.      that the Waitematā Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the board area are appropriate

iv.      that the Upper Harbour Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the Board area are appropriate.

d)      provide any other feedback on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.

e)      delegate authority to the Chairperson to represent the board’s views on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections should the Joint Governance Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the board prior to reporting to the Governing Body with a proposal in July 2018, or during the consideration of submissions following public notification.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

There are statutory deadlines

6.       All councils must, under the Local Electoral Act 2001, review their representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council, under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, must conduct a review of its representation arrangements no earlier than the 2013 elections and no later than September 2018.

7.       The Governing Body considered conducting a review for the 2016 elections but resolved to defer this.

8.       The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the following timeline and process:

·        public notice of the council’s proposals by 8 September 2018

·        consideration of submissions

·        public notice of the council’s final proposals within six weeks of the closing date for submissions. 

·        if there are no objections or appeals, the council’s proposals stand and are implemented

·        if there are objections or appeals, they are forwarded to the Local Government Commission for a decision.

9.       Staff are planning to report the Joint Governance Working Party’s proposals to the Governing Body meeting on 26 July 2018.

Role of the Joint Governance Working Party and the process for developing the Auckland Council proposal

10.     In 2017, the Governing Body endorsed a process for the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections that was then recommended to local boards. Local board feedback, which was generally supportive of the proposed process, was reported back to the Governing Body in December 2017.  

11.     The Governing Body, after considering local board feedback, made the following decision:

That the Governing Body:

a)  receive the feedback from local boards.

b)      note the mayor’s appointments to the Joint Governance Working Party as follows:

Cr Cathy Casey (Central), Cr Linda Cooper (West), Cr Daniel Newman (South), Cr Wayne Walker (North), Angela Dalton (South), Phelan Pirrie (Rural North), Richard Northey (Central) and Shane Henderson (West).

c)      approve the draft terms of reference for the Joint Governance Working Party for inclusion in the Auckland Council Committee Terms of Reference.

d)      approve the following process for conducting the review of representation arrangements:

i)        the Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council’s initial review of representation arrangements and present it to local boards and the Governing Body for comments before the Governing Body makes the statutory resolution for public notification for submissions.

ii)       the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and report its findings to local boards and the Governing Body before the Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals.

iii)      the Governing Body will review the process for hearing submissions under (ii) at the time the initial proposals for change are known.

12.     The rationale for (d)(iii) in the decision was to respond to some local board feedback regarding the hearing of submissions. The legislation requires a final proposal to be publicly notified within six weeks of the submission closing date. This may require a centralised process. However, this will be reviewed once the nature of changes being proposed is known.

Representation arrangements that may be reviewed

13.     For the Governing Body, it is possible to review for members other than the mayor:

·        whether members are elected by ward or at-large or by a mixture

·        if by ward, the number of wards, names, boundaries and number of members for each ward.

14.     For each local board it is possible to review:

·    whether members are elected by subdivision or at-large or by a mixture

·    if by subdivision, the number of subdivisions, names, boundaries and number of members for each subdivision

·    the number of members for the local board

·    the name of the local board.

Matters that are required to be taken into account

15.     The Local Electoral Act 2001 (Act) requires the council to take into account:

·    the effective representation of communities of interest

·    fairness of representation.

16.     Other requirements in the Act include:

·    ward boundaries should align with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

·    boundaries must align with mesh-block boundaries

·    when the council gives public notice of its proposal, it needs to give reasons for any changes from the 2016 elections.

17.     The concept of effective representation of communities of interest can be explained by considering a single electorate which has two quite different communities and two elected representatives. The outcome of each election might mean that both representatives are elected by one of the communities with the result that the other community will not be represented. This might be solved by splitting the total electorate into smaller electoral areas, each having one representative. In the case of territorial local authorities, those smaller electoral areas are known as ‘wards’ and in the case of local boards, those smaller areas are known as ‘subdivisions’.

18.     The concept of fairness means that the ratio of population to elected member for wards, in the case of the Governing Body, and subdivisions, in the case of local boards, should not vary across the region or local board area respectively. The legislation allows for a variance of up to 10 per cent. It further allows the council to not comply if compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest. The final decision on a proposal to not comply is made by the Local Government Commission.

19.     A practical consideration is the distribution of voting documents. Each voter receives a pack of voting documents which is relevant to that voter (the pack contains voting papers for the Governing Body positions and local board positions relevant to that voter). Misalignment of boundaries can create additional combinations of Governing Body and local board positions. This leads to additional cost in terms of voting documents. This reinforces the legal requirement for ward and local board boundaries to align as far as is practicable.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The general approach is to not make significant change

20.     The Local Government Commission determined the current arrangements in 2010, following 736 submissions on its first proposal. There was a lot of public interest and the process was robust. There are no significant issues with the current arrangements.

21.     There have been discussions at local board cluster meetings and by the Joint Governance Working Party. Significant change has been considered (such as some Governing Body members being elected at large) but the outcome of these discussions to date is to basically retain the status quo except where changes are required.

22.     One significant issue though, which has been considered by the Governing Body, is the number of Governing Body members. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets this at 20 members, in addition to the mayor. All other councils are able to review the number of councillors.

23.     The Governing Body, when it considered conducting a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, decided instead to seek legislative change to allow it to review the number of Governing Body members. It also sought provision for re-aligning local board boundaries with ward boundaries, should ward boundaries need to change, and if there was support from local boards to keep boundaries aligned.

24.     This submission was not successful. The Governing Body is not able to review the number of Governing Body members. Local board boundaries are not able to be changed other than through the separate process of applying for a local government reorganisation.

25.     The council is continuing to advocate change, however any legislative change in the short term is unlikely to be effective for the 2019 elections.


 


Wards

Wards that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

26.     Based on statistics provided by the Local Government Commission (being a 2017 estimate) population ratios are as follows:

Ward

Population

Members

Population per member

Difference from quota

% Difference

from

quota

Rodney Ward

64,300

1

64,300

-18,560

-22.40

Albany Ward

169,800

2

84,900

2,040

2.46

North Shore Ward

156,800

2

78,400

-4,460

-5.38

Waitākere Ward

176,500

2

88,250

5,390

6.50

Waitematā and Gulf Ward

119,100

1

119,100

36,240

43.74

Whau Ward

84,700

1

84,700

1,840

2.22

Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward

172,200

2

86,100

3,240

3.91

Ōrākei Ward

91,500

1

91,500

8,640

10.43

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward

79,700

1

79,700

-3,160

-3.81

Howick Ward

150,200

2

75,100

-7,760

-9.37

Manukau Ward

168,900

2

84,450

1,590

1.92

Manurewa-Papakura Ward

148,900

2

74,450

-8,410

-10.15

Franklin Ward

74,600

1

74,600

-8,260

-9.97

Total

1,657,200

20

82,860

 

27.     Final statistics will eventually be based on data provided by Statistics New Zealand at mesh-block level. Staff expect that final statistics will be very close to those that have been used in the review to date.

28.     As stated above, one of the matters that must be taken into account in the review is fairness of representation. The legislation requires that the ratio of population to member should not vary by more than 10 per cent unless there are reasons for not complying with this requirement (on the basis of splitting communities of interest or uniting disparate communities of interest). 

29.     There are four wards that do not comply:

·        Waitematā and Gulf ward

·        Rodney ward

·        Ōrākei ward

·        Manurewa-Papakura ward.

Review of the Waitematā and Gulf ward and neighbouring wards

30.     The Waitematā and Gulf ward has a population approximately 28,000 above the 10 per cent quota. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered three options to address this (maps are in Attachment A):

·    Option 1:  boundaries on both the east and west of Waitematā are moved

·    Option 2: the eastern boundary with the Ōrākei ward is not changed and there is substantial change on the western boundary with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

·    Option 3: the western boundary with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward is not changed and there is substantial change on the eastern boundary with the Ōrākei ward.

31.     Each option has different flow-on effects to neighbouring wards.

32.     The Joint Governance Working Party recommends Option 1. The other options disrupt communities of interest to a greater extent. 

33.     For example, Option 2 takes areas around Ponsonby and Grey Lynn away from the central city into the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

34.     Option 3 places large areas of Ōrākei into Maungakiekie-Tāmaki. In the Local Government Commission’s first proposal for wards, Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki were combined.  Following submissions, the Local Government Commission determined that Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki were distinct communities of interest and created separate wards.  The commission took into account socio-economic differences and voting patterns. 

35.     The effect of Option 1 on the 10 per cent rule is as follows:

Ward

% Difference from quota

Whau

9.5%

Waitematā and Gulf

9.5%

Albert-Eden-Roskill

9.8%

Ōrākei

11.0%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

10.6%

Waitākere

6.5%

 

Review of the Rodney ward

36.     The Rodney ward needs to gain about 10,000 population to be only 10 per cent under the quota. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered three options (maps are in Attachment B):

·    Option1: the area north of the Whangaparaoa peninsula which is currently in the Albany ward is moved into Rodney (Orewa, Hatfields, Waiwera)

·    Option 2: the southern boundary of Rodney ward is moved southwards

·    Option 3: the council proposes the status quo, which is not complying, on the basis that any options to increase the population in the Rodney ward split communities of interest.

37.     The Joint Governance Working Party recommends Option 3. Both Option 1 and Option 2 split communities of interest. 

38.     In Option 1, the area from Orewa to Waiwera shares a community of interest with the Hibiscus Coast. 

39.     Option 2 is difficult to achieve without splitting a community of interest. Option 2 as shown, moves the Rodney ward boundary south to include Whenuapai and Paremoremo and it borders Ranui and Westgate. The Whenuapai area is assumed to be south-looking rather than north-looking; for example, residents in Whenuapai would tend to go south for key activities like retail shopping or business, rather than north. Another option for a boundary is along the Upper Harbour motorway. However, this splits the Hobsonville community.

40.     Further reasons for keeping the status quo include:

·    ward and local board boundaries remain aligned (the Local Electoral Act requires alignment as far as is practicable)

·    the current boundaries are the boundaries originally set by the Local Government Commission as representing communities of interest

·    population is increasing and will continue to increase over time.

Review of the Manurewa-Papakura ward

41.     The Joint Governance Working Party has not yet considered options for changing the Manurewa-Papakura ward boundaries. 

42.     In order to be only 10 per cent different to the average population to member ratio, the ward needs to gain a population of about 250. The Franklin ward cannot lose population, or it will become non-complying. Any change to the ward boundary will need to be at the northern end.

43.     Staff have provided two options for local board comment back to the Joint Governance Working Party, in Attachment C:

·    Option 1: move the northern boundary of the ward on the western side of SH1 motorway up to Cavendish Drive

·    Option 2: move the northern boundary of the ward on eastern side of SH1 motorway northwards, just over the Redoubt Road ridge

·    Option 3: the status quo, which would need to be promoted to the Local Government Commission on the basis that it is not possible to achieve compliance without splitting communities of interest or uniting disparate communities of interest. 

44.     Staff recommend Option 3, given it is the least disruptive option, and that the degree of non-compliance is minimal. It also means that the ward and local board boundaries remain aligned (the Local Electoral Act requires alignment as far as is practicable).

Review of the number of members in wards

45.     Wards are currently either single-member or double-member wards. 

46.     The Joint Governance Working Party has considered larger wards; for example, a southern ward based on the current Manukau, Howick and Manurewa-Papakura wards and having six members. Implications include:

·    the cost of a by-election across such a large ward if a vacancy occurs

·    voter turnout – those elected will tend to be elected by areas with higher turnout, meaning there will not be as much a spread of representation as there is now

·    the cap on campaign expenditure is increased

·    each of the six members will have the same large electorate to service.

47.     The Joint Governance Working Party also considered splitting current double-member wards into single-member wards. If this was done using local board boundaries as defining communities of interest, only the Manukau ward, if split into two, would continue to comply.  The Joint Governance Working Party is recommending no change to current ward arrangements.

 

Local boards

 

Local board population

 

48.     The following table provides the population for each local board and the number of board members:

 

 

Board

Population

Members

Population per member

Rodney

       64,300

9

7,144

Hibiscus and Bays

     104,500

8

13,063

Upper Harbour

       65,300

6

10,883

Kaipātiki

       94,000

8

11,750

Devonport-Takapuna

       62,800

6

10,467

Henderson-Massey

     122,300

8

15,288

Waitākere Ranges

       54,200

6

9,033

Great Barrier

         1,000

5

200

Waiheke

         9,630

5

1,926

Waitematā

     108,500

7

15,500

Whau

       84,700

7

12,100

Albert-Eden

     109,200

8

13,650

Puketāpapa

       63,000

6

10,500

Ōrākei

       91,500

7

13,071

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

       79,700

7

11,386

Howick

     150,200

9

16,689

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

       81,100

7

11,586

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

       87,800

7

12,543

Manurewa

       94,500

8

11,813

Papakura

       54,500

6

9,083

Franklin

       74,600

9

8,289

Total

  1,657,330

 

49.     This table is provided for information. There is no legal requirement that the number of members should reflect the size of population. The 10 per cent rule only applies between internal boundaries of subdivisions. Staff are not aware of any reasons for changing the existing number of board members.

Local board subdivisions that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

50.     A table showing local board subdivisions in relation to the 10 per cent rule is in Attachment D.

51.     There are two subdivisions that do not comply:

·        Botany subdivision of the Howick Local Board (at 16.84 per cent, which needs to reduce its population)

·        Wellsford subdivision of the Rodney Local Board (at -10.69 per cent, which will be addressed in response to a suggestion to change the Warkworth subdivision).

Review of the Botany subdivision in the Howick Local Board area

52.     Maps showing the current subdivision boundaries and two alternative options are contained in Attachment E.

53.     It is clear that the only way for the Botany subdivision to lose population is through the Howick subdivision extending southwards. There are two options proposed for consideration by local boards.

54.     One option expands the Howick subdivision southwards on the eastern side of Botany Road only, while the second option expands the Howick subdivision southwards on both sides of Botany Road. Each option results in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule. 

55.     The Howick Local Board is invited to indicate its preferred option. This would be the option which has the least disruptive effect on existing communities of interest.

Review of the subdivisions in the Rodney Local Board area

56.     A submission has been received from a resident, Mr Grant Kirby, living near the Kaipara Harbour, pointing out that the Warkworth subdivision extends from coast to coast. Mr Kirby was a former chair of the Local Government Commission. The submission states that the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not share a community of interest with Warkworth and suggests extending the Kumeu subdivision boundary northwards, to follow the Helensville electoral boundary.

57.     Maps showing current subdivisions, the option of extending the Kumeu subdivision northwards and an option of extending the Wellsford subdivision southwards, are contained in Attachment F. Both options result in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule.

58.     The Joint Governance Working Party agrees that those near the Kaipara Harbour do not share a community of interest with Warkworth and invites the Rodney Local Board to recommend its preferred option in view of its knowledge of current communities of interest.

Waitematā Local Board subdivisions

59.     A suggestion has been received that the Waitematā Local Board should have a central subdivision. A map is contained in Attachment G showing what this might look like.

60.     The Waitematā Local Board is invited to recommend whether subdivisions should be created in order to promote more effective representation of communities of interest and, if so, whether it supports the proposed option.

Upper Harbour Local Board subdivisions

61.     A suggestion has been received that the Upper Harbour Local Board should have subdivisions to ensure there was representation from the western end of the local board area. A map is contained in Attachment H showing an arrangement of three subdivisions that complies with the 10 per cent rule.

62.     The Upper Harbour Local Board is invited to recommend whether subdivisions should be created to improve effective representation of communities of interest and if so, whether it supports the proposed option.

Review of local board names

63.     Staff noted comments at local board cluster meetings and other meetings that some current names may not be appropriate. These include:

(i)         Howick Local Board and Ward: ‘Howick’ is only part of the local board area

(ii)        Waitematā Local Board and Ward: Some people associate ‘Waitematā’ with a different area (for example the area of the Waitematā District Health Board)

(iii)       Ōrākei Local Board and Ward: ‘Ōrākei’ is only part of the local board area

(iv)       Albany Ward: ‘Albany’ is only part of the ward area.

64.     The Great Barrier Local Board has recommended adding ‘Aotea’ to its name. This acknowledges a recent Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngati Rehua - Ngatiwai ki Aotea.

65.     Apart from the Great Barrier Local Board proposal, staff are not aware of any other specific proposals and are not researching alternative names. Local boards should note that a name change has the potential to confuse the electorate and there are budgetary implications with changing associated stationery and signage.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

66.     The Auckland Council’s review of representation arrangements for the 2019 elections has implications for local boards. These are discussed in the body of the report. The report also provides comments on changes that affect the Governing Body, for local board information and feedback.

67.     Local boards have supported a process where a Joint Governance Working Party develops the Auckland Council proposal for presentation to the Governing Body. The Joint Governance Working Party has joint local board and Governing Body representation. The Governing Body will make the resolution required by the legislation which will be notified for public submissions. 

68.     Following the closing date for submissions, the Governing Body must make the final statutory resolution within six weeks. The Joint Governance Working Party will consider submissions. So that the working party may liaise effectively with local boards, the local board is invited to delegate authority to the Chairperson or another member to represent the board’s views on the review. This is in the event that the Joint Governance Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the board prior to reporting to the Governing Body with a proposal in July 2018, or during consideration of submissions following public notification. 

69.     There will be an opportunity for the Governing Body, when it makes its first resolution, to further consider a process for local board involvement in commenting on submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

70.     The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for councils to establish Māori wards for electing Governing Body members. There is no similar provision for local board elections. The process for electing local board members is no different for Māori as for others. 

71.     The Auckland Council Governing Body has considered the possibility of creating a Māori ward. A resolution to do so was required by 23 November 2017. The Governing Body supported the creation of a Māori ward in principle but decided not to proceed further until the number of Governing Body members was able to be increased.

72.     When considering subdivisions and communities of interest within its area, it may be relevant to take into account tribal rohe boundaries.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

73.     The review process is supported in-house. There will be costs associated with public notices and a payment to the Local Government Commission for preparing plans of boundaries and having them certified by the Surveyor-General. These costs are budgeted city-wide. 

74.     There are no financial implications for local boards. There will be down-stream council costs if the total number of local board members is increased (salary and support costs) or if there are changes to local board names resulting in costs associated with changing signage and stationery. 

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

75.     The legislation requires deadline dates for certain decisions and public notification.  Auckland Council has the greatest number of governance entities in the country (one Governing Body and 21 local boards) and there is a risk of not meeting these deadlines due to the need to involve all entities in the review.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

76.     The Joint Governance Working Party will consider local board feedback in June 2018 and develop proposals for consideration by the Governing Body at its July meeting, when it will make its statutory resolution for public notification. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to have input. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Waitemata ward boundary options

185

b

Rodney ward boundary options

187

c

Manurewa-Papakura ward boundary options

189

d

Local board subdivisions and the 10 per cent rule

191

e

Botany subdivision boundary options

193

f

Rodney Local Board subdivision options

197

g

Waitemata Local Board subdivision option

201

h

Upper Harbour Local Board subdivision option

203

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Record of Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local board Workshops

 

File No.: CP2018/07840

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a summary of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops for 1, 8 and 15 May 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The workshops are held to give an information 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.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      note the local board record of workshops held on 1, 8 and 15 May 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Record of Workshops

207

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Freeman - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


 


 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2018/07851

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the board with the governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board is in Attachment A.

 

3.       The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

·    ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is required and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

4.       The calendar is updated every month. Each update is reported to business meetings. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      note the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Calendar

213

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tracey Freeman - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

     

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

a)               

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       Unlock Panmure: FY2019-2021 Work Programme

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report outlines the forward work programme which contains timing for strategic acquisitions and site disposals that are commercially sensitive.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

C2       CONFIDENTIAL:  Ngāti Paoa - Treaty Settlement redress (Covering report)

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

In particular, the report contains information provided by the Crown to council in confidence on the understanding the information is negotiation sensitive between hapū / iwi and the Crown. If confidential information is made available, it will rejudice both those negotiations and the provision of similar information to council in the future

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    Ruapotaka Marae Presentation                    Page 219

Item 8.1      Attachment b    Ruapotaka Marae Images                             Page 231



Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018

 

 


Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

22 May 2018