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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 23 May 2018

6.00PM

Whau Local Board Office
31 Totara Avenue
New Lynn

 

Whau Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Tracy Mulholland

 

Deputy Chairperson

Susan Zhu

 

Members

Derek Battersby, QSM, JP

 

 

Catherine Farmer

 

 

Duncan Macdonald, JP

 

 

Te'eva Matafai

 

 

David Whitley

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)

 

 

Riya Seth

Democracy Advisor

 

17 May 2018

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 826 5193

Email: riya.seth@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               6

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          6

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       6

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          6

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

8.1     Deputation - Whau Coastal Walkaway Environmental Trust - Te Whau Pathway - Tony Miguel                                                                                                          6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  7

9.1     Citizens Advice Bureau New Lynn Branch                                                       7

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

12        Whau Ward Councillor Update                                                                                    9

13        Auckland Transport Update  - May 2018                                                                  11

14        Whau Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications                             29

15        Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Whau Local Board for Financial Year 2016/2017                                                                         145

16        Proposed Establishment of Auckland Food Alliance                                           161

17        Review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections 175

18        Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Whau Local Board for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018                                                                                        207

19        Governance Forward Work Calendar - May 2018                                                  265

20        Confirmation of workshop records - 21 March 2018 to 2 May 2018                    269  

21        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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of the Whau Local Board.

 

Board Member

Organisation / Position

Tracy Mulholland

·           New Lynn Business Association – Business Associate/Contractor

Susan Zhu

·           Chinese Oral History Foundation – Committee member

·           The Chinese Garden Steering Committee of Auckland – Board Member

Derek Battersby

·           Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust –Trustee

·           New Lynn Tennis Club – Patron

·           West Lynn Gardens – Patron

·           Tag Out Trust – Chairman

·           New Lynn Bowling Club - Patron

·           Avondale RSA - Member

Catherine Farmer

·           Avondale-Waterview Historical Society – Member

·           Blockhouse Bay Historical Society – Member

·           Portage Licensing Trust – Trustee

·           Blockhouse Bay Bowls – Patron

·           Forest and Bird organisation - Member

Duncan Macdonald

·           Avondale Business Association – Chairman

·           Avondale Community Society – Chairman

·           Avondale RSA – Treasurer

·           Avondale-Waterview Historical Society - Member

·           Avondale Jockey Club – Member

Te’eva Matafai

·           Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust - Co-Founder

·           Miss Samoa NZ - Director

·           Malu Measina Samoan Dance Group - Director/Founder

·           Pasifika Festival ATEED - Samoa Village Coordinator

·           Aspire Events – Director

David Whitley

·           Rosebank Business Association - Member

·           Pathways to the future  - Past trustee

·           REINZ - Member

·           Don Oliver Youth Sports Foundation  - Past trustee

·           Chamber of Trade - Mentor

·           Lopdell House - Trustee

·           Amalgamated Hardware Merchants (AHM)Apprenticeship Trust – Trustee

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Whau Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 9 May 2018, 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 Whau 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       Deputation - Whau Coastal Walkaway Environmental Trust - Te Whau Pathway - Tony Miguel

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.         Tony Miguel, Chairperson of Whau Coastal Walkaway Environmental Trust (WCWET) will be in attendance to request the local board to consider:

·      Providing a contribution of up to $15,000 towards Whau Coastal Walkaway Environmental Trust (WCWET) operating costs.

·      Support the WCWET submission to the 10 year Budget (2018-2028) for funding of $ 25.19 million required to complete 12km.

·      Nominating a Board member to participate in the development of an Environmental Management for the Whau River Catchment.

Background:

i)         Te Whau Pathway is a 12 km shared path for pedestrians & cyclists of sub-regional significance linking transport networks, the Waitematā & Manukau Harbours (portage), covering the Whau & Henderson-Massey Local Boards.

ii)        The project is a partnership project involving: Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust (WCWET) , Henderson-Massey Local Board, Whau Local  Board Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

iii)        Since 2014, WCWET has facilitated investment of 7.9 million enabling construction of 2.2 km of pathway and a pontoon at Archibald Park.

iv)       It will not be possible to continue the project without operating and capital funding.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      receive the deputation from Tony Miguel, Chairperson of Whau Coastal Walkaway Environmental Trust (WCWET) regarding Te Whau Pathway and thank him for the presentation.

 

Attachments

a          Presentation - Te Whau Pathway ....................................................... 283

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

9.1       Citizens Advice Bureau New Lynn Branch

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Elizabeth Tuck, Manager Citizens Advice Bureau New Lynn branch will be in attendance to request the local board to advocate on behalf of CAB to Auckland Council/Transport to re-instate the prior parking agreement for volunteers (as agreed by legacy Waitakere City Council) or seek alternatives in the area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      receive the public forum submission from Elizabeth Tuck, Manager Citizens Advice Bureau and thank her for her attendance.

 

Attachments

a          Citizens Advice Bureau New Lynn - Parking for volunteers............... 287

 

 

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.

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Whau Ward Councillor Update

 

File No.: CP2018/08019

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Whau Ward Councillor to have an opportunity to update the Whau Local Board on regional matters.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      thank Whau Ward Councillor Ross Clow for his update.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport Update  - May 2018 

 

File No.: CP2018/07944

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       This report:

a)   Responds to Whau Local Board (the Board) resolutions; 

b)   Provides updates to the Board on the status of its transport capital fund projects and brief updates on other Auckland Transport (AT) projects of interest to the board.

c)   Provides general information on AT’s activities in the Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       In particular, this report:

a)   Provides a progress update to the Board on its current transport capital fund projects, along with financial information indicating how much budget the board has remaining in this political term.

b)   Provides updates to the Board on how it can provide input into the Regional Land Transport Plan.

c)   Notes consultation information sent to the Board for feedback and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee as they affect the Board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      receive Auckland Transport’s May 2018 update report.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

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

4.       Auckland Transport continues to deliver a number of strategic projects in the Board area and they are discussed below.

 

Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)

5.       The most important strategic project at this time is a development of the RLTP.  It is a plan for how transport delivery agencies (Auckland Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency, and Kiwi Rail) intend to respond to growth and other challenges facing Auckland over the next 10 years.  It includes a 10-year prioritized delivery programme of transport services and activities.  Essentially, it is a budget for Auckland’s transport expenditure.

6.       It is a statutory plan describing how these agencies intend to respond to growth and other challenges facing Auckland over the next ten years.  It will include a ten-year, prioritised, delivery programme of transport services and activities. Auckland Transport prepares the draft RLTP jointly with the New Zealand Transport Agency and Kiwi Rail. 

7.       RLTP consultation has changed now being scheduled for early May 2018.  It is very important that all Local Boards participate in the consultation and make their feelings about Auckland Transport’s work programme known.

8.       Details of the process are as follows:

·     RLTP consultation began on Tuesday 1 May 2018 and closes on Monday 14 May 2018.

·     Members from all 21 local boards were invited to an information, question and answer session on Monday 30 April 2018.

·     Each local board had an opportunity to give verbal feedback on the plan to representatives of the Regional Transport Committee (the decision makers for RLTP) on 7 May 2018.

·     There were also a number of public information sessions:

Monday 7 May 6pm – 8pm: Takapuna War Memorial Hall, 7 The Strand, Takapuna. 

Tuesday 8 May 6pm – 8pm: Manurewa Intermediate School, 76 Russell Road, Manurewa.

Saturday 12 May 10am – 12 pm: New Lynn Community Centre, Main Hall 45 Totara Avenue, New Lynn.

Saturday 12 May 2pm – 4pm:  Grey Lynn Library Hall, 474 Great North Road, Grey Lynn.

Quarterly report on Auckland Transport projects and activities

9.       Information about Auckland Transport’s activities over the past quarter (January – March 2018). Is included as Attachment’s A and B:

·     Attachment A – Whau Local Board Auckland Transport Activity Report.

·     Attachment B – Whau Local Board– School Community Transport Report

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

10.     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 may be considered if they support a transport outcome).

11.     The Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects of approximately $550,000 per annum.

12.     The Board’s current Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are summarised in the table below.

Project

Description

Status

Projected Cost

Whau Bridge

This is part of the New Lynn to Waterview shared path.

 

The contribution by the Whau Local Board is for a footbridge that is 3.5m wide and 76.5m long.

This is currently in review. A update  to the Board is expected in June 18.

$2,000,000 (expended from last terms budget)

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

Consultation Items

13.     The Board’s views are considered during consultation on proposed project schemes. The following project proposals were consulted and feedback sought by the Board in April 2018:

·     Proposed changes to Patiki road

Traffic Control Committee report

14.     Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Whau Local Board area in April 2018.

Street/Area

Description

Decision

Great North Road

Lane Arrow Markings, No Stopping At All Times, Clearway, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter

Carried

Hetana Street, Puriri Street

 

 

 

 

No Stopping At All Times, No Right Turn, Lane Arrow Markings, Traffic Island, Stop Control, Flush Median

Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15.     No specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16.     With regards to transport the Whau Local Board’s only budget implications are related to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.  The current financial status of the Local Transport Capital Fund is recorded below.

Whau Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary

Total Funds Available in current political term

$4,305,779

Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction

$2,199,369

Remaining Budget left

$2,106,410

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17.     The “Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications” section of this report summarized the Boards LBTCF financial situation. This situation creates a risk that if the $ 2,106,410 currently unallocated, is not allocated quickly, it may be difficult to deliver before the end of the current electoral term.

18.     It is suggested that this risk could be mitigated by:

·    Confirm the Panuku Unlock Avondale projects

·    Intergrate AT Relationship Manager New Lynn Civic Space upgrade  - potential to include covered walkways

·    Workshopping other options for the LBTCF spend

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport activites in the Whau Local Board area and regionally for the January - March 2018 quarter

15

b

Travelwise Schools activites in the Whau Local Board area for the January - March 2018 quarter

27

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Felicity Merrington, Elected Memebr Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 



Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Whau Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications

 

File No.: CP2018/06269

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for the Whau Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report presents applications received in Whau Local Board Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications (refer to Attachment B and Attachment C).

3.       The Whau Local Board adopted the Whau Local Board Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 26 April 2017 (see Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4.       The Whau Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $150,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. The local board has allocated a total of $69,064 in Local Grants Round One and Quick Response Rounds One and Two, leaving a total of $80,936 to be allocated to Local Grants Round Two and Quick Response Round Three.

5.       Seventeen applications were received for Whau Local Board Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, requesting a total of $92,720.

6.       Eleven applications were also received as multi-board applications, requesting a total of $68,700.50.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in the Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 applications as outlined in Table One:

Table One:  Whau Local Grants Round Two 2017/18 applications

Application ID
Applicant

Focus area

Requesting funding for

Amount requested

LG1821-201

New Lynn Kelston Community Patrol

Community

Towards the operational cost towards voluntary services to patrol the Whau area.

$2,000.00

LG1821-203

Connected Media Charitable Trust

Arts and culture

Towards a portion of the annual rental costs from May 2018 to April 2019.

$5,000.00

LG1821-206

The Auckland Performing Arts Centre at Western Springs

Arts and culture

Towards theatre tickets, bus transport and pre-show workshop costs.

$5,840.00

LG1821-208

May Leaoseve

Community

Towards project costs to hold a bronchiectasis family carers evening.

$2,000.00

LG1821-209

Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust

Community

Towards salary costs for key triage clinical staff for Youthline Services.

$3,000.00

LG1821-211

KidsCan Charitable Trust

Community

Towards the purchase of food for the KidsCan programme in the Whau local board area.

$10,000.00

LG1821-212

Tuatara Collective

Arts and culture

Towards wages for actors for Maori theatre work

.

$4,000.00

LG1821-213

Auckland Kids Achievement Trust trading as Graeme Dingle Foundation Auckland

Community

Towards wages, for two weeks, for two staff to lead the Kiwi Can Programme.

$2,500.00

LG1821-214

Green Bay Youth Work

Community

Towards the purchase of food, cutlery and plates for the breakfast programme.

$5,500.00

LG1821-215

Glenavon Community Trust

Community

Towards hall hire, craft costs, supper, gifts and goodie bag costs for the Glenavon Ladies Night.

$1,630.00

LG1821-218

Sophia Fariq

Community

Towards for food costs for the Eid celebration on 26 June 2018.

$1,000.00

LG1821-221

New Zealand Centre for Gifted Education Limited

Community

Towards salary costs for the MindPlus programme for gifted children from 5 June 2018 to 31 May 2019.

$4,000.00

LG1821-222

New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust (The New Zealand Dance Company)

Arts and culture

Towards venue hire and wage costs for the youth engagement programme from 1 June 2018 to 31 May 2019.

$5,000.00

LG1821-223

Glenavon Early Childhood Centre

Community

Towards safety matting, a new playground structure and see-saw for the early childhood centre.

$5,000.00

LG1821-224

Kelston Community Hub

Community

Towards tutor, material, sewing resources and equipment costs for an evening sewing class.

$3,795.00

LG1821-226

Church of the Saviour

Events

Towards stage, advertising, equipment hire, band hire and traffic management costs for Christmas at the Beach 2018.

$27,533.00

LG1821-229

Kids Safe With Dogs Charitable Trust

Community

Towards printing and wage costs for the “Kids Safe with Dogs” programme.

$4,922.00

 

Total Requested

$92,720.00

b)      agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in the Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 applications as outlined in Table Two:

Table Two:  Whau Local Grants Round Two 2017/18 multi-board applications

 

Application ID
Applicant

Focus area

Requesting funding for

Amount requested

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.

$8,400.00

LG1821-204

Kelston Girls' College

Arts and culture

Towards the marketing, set up and facilitators' costs for ArtWest 2018.

$12,000.00

LG1821-219

Te Pou Theatre

Arts and culture

Towards the cost for the Koanga Festival, including management, marketing, kaumatua and whanau day costs.

$5,000.00

LG1805-218

Zeal Education Trust

Community

Towards uniform, transport, wage, event, catering, data gathering, reporting and evaluation costs to support the West Auckland Street Youth Work project.

$3,468.50

LG1805-219

Interacting

Events

Towards venue hire, disabled access ramps and portaloo, art workshops and face-painter costs for the 2018 InterAct Festival 2018.

$2,344.00

LG1805-220

Fix Up, Look Sharp

Community

Towards operational costs to empower men to achieve their employment goals.

$5,000.00

LG1805-234

Violence Free Communities

Community

Towards event costs for the Toddler Day Out on September 2018.

$5,000.00

LG1805-236

Chinese New Settlers Services Trust

Arts and culture

Towards dancing coaches, venue hire, promotion, coordination, facilitation, health and safety management and evaluation costs for 20 training sessions and three community performances.

$4,000.00

LG1807-314

Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust

Community

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

$2,310.80

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.

$16,177.20

LG1819-224

Waitakere WEA trading as WEST - West Auckland Enterprise Skills and Training

Community

Towards a contracted convenor, administration support and venue costs for housing and homelessness co-ordination.

$5,000.00

 

 

Total Requested

$68,700.50

 

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       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.

8.       The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme.

9.       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.

10.     The Whau Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2017/2018 on 26 April 2017 and will operate two local grants rounds and three quick response rounds for this financial year. 

11.     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

12.     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 assesses 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

13.     Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants.  The Whau 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.

14.     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.”

15.     A summary of each application received through Whau Quick Response, Round Two is provided (see Attachment B).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16.     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

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

18.     The Whau Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $150,000.

19.     A total of $69,064 was allocated for one local grant and two quick response rounds leaving a total $80,936 to be allocated for one local grant round and one quick response round.

20.     Twenty-eight applications were received for Whau Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, including eleven multi-board applications requesting a total of $161,420.50.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21.     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

22.     Following the Whau Local Board allocation of funding for Local grants Round Two, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision and facilitate payment of the grant.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Whau Community Grants Programme 2017/2018

35

b

Whau Local Grant Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications

39

c

Whau Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 multiboard grant applications

101

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Lincoln Papali'i - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Whau Local Board for Financial Year 2016/2017

 

File No.: CP2018/06711

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide information to the Whau Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Avondale, Blockhouse Bay, New Lynn, and Rosebank Business Associations in the Whau Local Board area for the financial year ending June 2017.  

2.       To provide information on which the local board can consider when deciding whether to recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for these BID programmes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3.       Auckland Council’s Business Improvement Districts 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.       The BID programmes covered by this report are operated by the Avondale, Blockhouse Bay, New Lynn, and Rosebank Business Associations in the Whau Local Board area.  Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date. 

7.       Staff recommends that the Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by the Avondale, Blockhouse Bay, New Lynn, and Rosebank Business Associations, as they have substantively complied with the BID Policy.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      recommend to the governing body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the 2018-19 Annual Plan/Budget for the following BIDs:

·                $140,000 for the Avondale Business Association

·                $58,000 for the Blockhouse Bay Business Association

·                $176,091 for the New Lynn Business Association

·                $430,000 for the Rosebank 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 terminating 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 serve more than 25,000 businesses and represent 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 Auckland Council co-governance arrangements, local boards have several decision-making responsibilities. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. 

12.     Recommendations of this report are put into effect with the governing body’s approval of the 2018-2019 Annual Plan/Budget and striking of the targeted rates.

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

Compliance with BID Policy

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

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

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

·   Annual Report on the year just completed. – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit 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 - the Council Annual Plan requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Plan process which sets all rates.

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

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

·   Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID and council that embodies basic parameters of the council/ BID relationship.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15.     The council BID team monitors compliance with the BID policy on an on-going basis, and provides governance advice to BIDs as needed or requested.

16.     As BIDs are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to 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 recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the policy by the New Lynn and Blockhouse Bay Business Associations in the Whau Local Board area. Please see Attachments D and E for details of compliance for these BIDs.

18.     As the New Lynn and Blockhouse Bay Business Associations in the Whau Local Board area have complied with the BID policy for the year ending June 2017, staff advice is that the Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate to the Governing Body.

19.     The Avondale Business Association did not submit an Accountability form, and Rosebank Business Association submitted theirs on 22 March, after the deadline of 12 March.  Please see Attachments C and F for details of compliance for these BIDs.

20.     The late submission of these document is not considered grounds to justify not recommending to strike the targeted rate for each of these BIDs, and staff advice is that the Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate to the Governing Body.

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

21.     Recommending that the governing body strike the targeted rate for the Avondale, Blockhouse Bay, New Lynn, and Rosebank Business Associations in the Whau Local Board area means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their districts, and will provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their Strategic Plans.

22.     By continuing these services and programmes, the Avondale, Blockhouse Bay, and New Lynn town centres and Rosebank commercial area should better serve residents and visitors, and support business growth.

23.     The Whau Local Board approved a similar recommendation for these BIDs last year, as did the seventeen other local boards that have BIDs in their areas.  (Resolution WH/2017/20)

24.     A number of local boards provide additional funding to local BIDs but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the BID.  Those requirements are apart from the requirements of the BID policy so are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26.     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

27.     There is the possibility of 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 targeted rates. 

28.     The requirements of the BID policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds by requiring the BIDs 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

29.     If the local board accepts the recommendation of this report, it will recommend to the governing body that the targeted rates for these BIDs be struck as stated in the Recommendations as part of its approval of the 2018-2019 Annual Plan/Budget.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Key Elements of BID Programme

149

b

BID Rates 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 Comparison

151

c

Avondale BID Compliance Summary Table

153

d

Blockhouse Bay BID Compliance Table Summary

155

e

New Lynn BID Compliance Summary Table

157

f

Rosebank BID Compliance Summary Table

159

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor  

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Proposed Establishment of Auckland Food Alliance

 

File No.: CP2018/06510

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek endorsement for the development and implementation of a pilot Auckland Food Alliance with an initial focus on five local board areas including Whau Local Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Our existing food system is based on mass production and mass consumption, making it hard to access healthy, affordable and locally produced food. This often comes with unsustainable social, economic and environmental side effects including poor farming practices, small local enterprises unable to compete with large multinationals, high rates of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and obesity, food waste, and high levels of greenhouse gas emissions (19-29% of total emissions globally[1]).

3.       Meanwhile our ability to meet future demand is subject to a range of pressures including rapid population growth, a changing climate, and loss of productive soils to land development.   

4.       There is currently no holistic strategic direction for Auckland’s food system, however, its cross-cutting nature means that it is partially addressed in several council plans (Attachment A). The Chief Sustainability Office and The Southern Initiative have reviewed local, national and international best practice and feedback from internal and external stakeholders to identify options that address policy gaps and improve coordination, across these plans and the wider food system.

5.       Based on this analysis, staff propose to develop a pilot Food Policy for council called the Auckland Food Alliance. The Alliance would bring together 10-15 influential stakeholder organisations from across the food system (production, distribution, processing, consumption and waste) to address regional systemic issues and remove the road blocks that can sometimes impede the success and ‘scaling up’ of local initiatives.

6.       The Auckland Food Alliance will provide expert strategic advice to council and other stakeholders on inter-related regional food policy development and advocate on national food policy issues.

7.       It is proposed that the pilot focus in five local board areas; Waitakere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Mangere-Otahuhu and Manurewa. These areas have been chosen to build on existing momentum of communities who are actively engaged in food initiatives, and because they are within the Healthy Families operational boundaries and therefore have a predetermined need.

8.       Workshops held in the pilot local board areas in March 2018 have provided valuable feedback that has informed the recommendations proposed and have established further context, needs and barriers for consideration by the Alliance.

9.       This top down policy approach will complement the grass-roots movement of local communities by considering systemic issues that are often difficult to address at a local level such as complex regulation, unsustainable business practices and loss of productive land. Local boards in the pilot area would further benefit from the highlighting of local issues.

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      endorse establishment of a pilot Auckland Food Alliance for a period of two years from August 2018.

b)      endorse the approach for Auckland Food Alliance, once established, to focus on Whau Local Board during the pilot phase.

c)      request a minimum of six-monthly updates from the Alliance on progress. 

 

 

Horopaki / Context

Problem definition

10.     Research and consultation with local boards had identified significant issues with the food system that cut across economic, environment and social wellbeing.

11.     For example, in Auckland we have:

·        Poor access to affordable fresh and nutritious foods.  Research in New Zealand has found that those who are food insecure (i.e., a lack of access to safe, nutritious and affordable food) report higher levels of psychological distress, as well as wider impacts on nutrition and physical health.

·        Loss of productive soils to urbanisation – only one per cent of the Auckland Region’s soils are considered Class 1 (elite) and suitable for vegetable production. Approximately 86 per cent of this is in the Pukekohe area, a renowned powerhouse of outdoor vegetable production for New Zealand.[2] This is also an area under pressure from urban development where 14 per cent of Class 1 soils have been or will be encroached upon by 2040.

·        High volumes of food waste (45 per cent of household kerbside collection)[3] representing missed opportunity to feed people, animals and plants, and producing greenhouse gas emissions.

·        Health inequality - high rates of obesity (Auckland = 28 per cent; Asian = 13.4 per cent; European/other = 24.6 per cent; Maori = 44 per cent; Pasifika = 68 per cent)[4], non-communicable diseases such as diabetes (Auckland = 7.5 per cent; Mangere = 17.3 per cent)[5] and malnutrition.

·        Environmental degradation due to non-sustainable production methods, particularly water quality, with elevated levels of nitrates in surface and ground water[6], and nearly a third of Auckland’s rivers classified as poor on the swimmability scale[7].

12.     There are already a large number of successful, local activities being undertaken across Auckland by council, community groups, non-profit organisations and government agencies with the support of local boards. These activities are predominantly focused around urban production/community gardens, food waste and health education.

13.     However, engagement across stakeholders, including the Sustainable Business Network, EcoMatters, Kai Auckland, Auckland Regional Public Health Service, Healthy Families, Gardens4Health and C40’s global cities network, has highlighted a gap at the regional policy level, with missed opportunities to address regional systemic issues and further support local programmes.

14.     Additionally, there are significant and complex underlying issues (such as unsustainable business practices, complex regulation, lack of understanding of resilience across the system) that will require collaboration across stakeholders to address.

Food Policy Councils

15.     Internationally there is a growing number of successful food governance structures tackling these issues such as the Los Angeles Food Policy Council, Toronto Food Policy Council, Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Food Policy Council (Seattle), and Melbourne’s Food City. 

16.     These Food Policy Councils and others like them have been established to bring together stakeholders to examine how a local food system is functioning and develop opportunities to improve it.  The councils review and look at the system as a whole, influencing decision makers and remove the road blocks that can sometimes impede the success and ‘scaling up’ of local initiatives to deliver healthy, equitable and resilient outcomes.

17.     Based on this analysis, it is proposed that a Food Policy Council be created for Auckland called the Auckland Food Alliance.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Auckland Food Alliance proposal

18.     The Alliance proposal is for an independent advisory group that provides expert, strategic advice to Auckland Council and other stakeholders, and advocates on national policy.

19.     It would operate on the following principles:

·        Foster collaboration and innovation among diverse stakeholders.

·        Operate on a strategic level, ensuring a holistic overview of regional issues.

·        Advise on interrelated policy-making to council and other stakeholders and advocate on national policy issues.

20.     Membership would comprise 10-15 member organisations representing a cross-section of Auckland’s food system across public, voluntary and private sectors. Member organisations would appoint a suitable senior representative to participate in Alliance activities.

21.     The Alliance would be supported by a smaller working group and secretariat services will be provided by Auckland Council through the Chief Sustainability Office and The Southern Initiative.

22.     Staff will initially support the Alliance to develop terms of reference, a food charter clearly stating its purpose and objectives to guide its work (in line with international best practice), and a preliminary action plan identifying a small number of discrete actions to focus Alliance efforts.

Pilot areas

23.     It is proposed that the initial focus of the Alliance be in five local board areas: Waitakere Ranges; Henderson-Massey; Whau; Mangere-Otahuhu; and Manurewa. These areas were chosen as they are all within the Healthy Families operational boundaries and therefore a predetermined need exists, and because these communities and local boards are actively engaged in local food initiatives.

24.     Healthy Families Waitakere is engaged in a programme of community food projects being rolled out across the western local boards including the My Backyard Garden Project, Fresh Choice (recipes and ingredient lists to feed a family of six for under $50), a Food Banks Network and are in the process of forming a Local Food Network group. In addition to these, there are a number of location specific projects led by various community stakeholders, for example:

·          Waitakere Ranges – Glen Eden Transition Towns Veggie Swap Meet and composting workshops; Hoani Waititi Marae Maara Kai (edible garden and workshops with a focus on Maramataka, the Maori lunar calendar)

·          Henderson-Massey – Vision West’s Social enterprise café, food bank and proposed food store; The Kitchen Project in Henderson; Triangle Park and Woodside Road Community Gardens.

·          Whau - Ecomatters community garden and educational workshops; Avondale Community Fridge; Generation Ignite Food Bank including cooking and nutrition training.

25.     The Southern Initiative in partnership with Healthy Families South are also involved in a programme of food projects across southern local boards including development of Food and Beverage Guidelines for public facilities, The Kitchen Project, a social supermarket and Fresh Choice South (recipes and ingredient lists to feed a family of six for under $50). There are also location specific projects being undertaken by various community stakeholders including: 

·          Mangere-Otahuhu – Old School Reserve Teaching Gardens; Cook Island Development Agency New Zealand community garden and community food enterprise support; Fale Kofi social enterprise café at Otahuhu Station

·          Manurewa – Manurewa Marae Para Kore and community garden; Manurewa Community Teaching Gardens; Clendon Pride Project Community House teaching gardens and Clendon Shopping Centre community fruit orchard.

26.     A targeted focus in the first instance will enable clear direction and an opportunity to deliver regional actions of importance to priority local board areas. However, the Alliance will be established with a clear remit for delivery on wider regional issues in the longer term.

27.     A short list of priority policy actions will be identified with the assistance of local stakeholders, ensuring a complementary top down approach that could assist the implementation or upscaling of local initiatives.

28.     If agreed, it is proposed that the Alliance will report to the Environment and Community Committee and that the committee is represented on the Alliance to maintain a strong link to decision makers.

Proposed method of communication with local boards

29.     Based on feedback from local board workshops, 6-monthly updates to local board business meetings are the proposed method of communication between local boards and the Alliance.

Options analysis

30.     From analysis of international and local food policy councils, a key learning has been that form and function vary widely but the most defining success factor is the relationship to a local government entity. That is, how structural ties or the level of support provided, bear on the perceived level of independence from decision makers, the ability to influence decision makers, and the sustainability of a food policy council.

31.     As many successful food policy councils have some link to a government entity, two of the options explored (2 & 3) have strong links to council with differing levels of independence. Table 1 provides a summary of options considered.

 

Table 1: Options Analysis Summary

Option

Description

Options 1: Do nothing

No costs or staff time required, but regional systemic issues are not addressed leading to reduced resilience, environmental, economic and social outcomes.

Option 2: Establish Auckland Food Alliance following the One Voice: Sports and Recreation model (recommended option)

Attachment B contains the One Voice terms of reference

This is an independent, voluntary group endorsed by council. The Alliance is accountable to the Environment and Community Committee (ECC) and has ECC representation on the group. It is based on an existing model with demonstrated successes.

Independence allows greater flexibility in its work programme and potential to apply for external funding in future.

 

Option 3: Establish Auckland Food Alliance as an Auckland Council Advisory Panel

This group is embedded within councils existing structure of advisory panels. As such it has a strong mandate from council and visibility of council work programme. The panel has elected member representation and funding is secured through the LTP from the next LTP review cycle.

The work programme is more directed, largely based on council’s work programme.

 

32.     Options were assessed against a set of criteria including the flexibility of the work programme, their accountability and reporting requirements, likely funding and administration support, flexibility of operational structure, attractiveness to prospective members and opportunity for community engagement.

33.     Option 2, the Auckland Food Alliance based on the One Voice model is recommended because it is independent of council’s structure, enabling more freedom in work plan development (e.g. to advise on regional policy gaps, advocate on national issues and partner with other stakeholders) and is likely to invoke a greater level of trust from the community. This option also includes the key benefits of Option 3 with strong links to decisions makers and support from council staff.

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

34.     At the time of writing this report, workshops had been held with Waitakere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, Whau, Mangere-Otahuhu and Manurewa.

35.     The purpose of the workshops was to introduce the concept of food systems thinking, introduce the Auckland Food Alliance proposal and obtain feedback on local issues, potential regional of national policy solutions, local stakeholders and preferred method of communication with the Auckland Food Alliance.

36.     Feedback has informed this report and learning will also be integrated into the work programme of the Alliance.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

37.     At the time of writing this report, no official consultation with Māori had been undertaken, however, consultation is planned. 

38.     Initial review of available literature indicates that Māori and Pasifika groups are disproportionately impacted by an ill performing Auckland food system and that food is of significant cultural value.

39.     In response, the Auckland Food Alliance concept will be piloted in local board areas representative of high Māori and Pasifika occupancy and adverse food system impacts.

40.     Council is committed to working through any impacts of the proposal with Maori and involving Māori in development of the Auckland Food Alliance and in the membership.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

41.     The estimated cost to council will be met within existing budgets and primarily involve staff time and provision of secretariat support through the Chief Sustainability Office and The Southern Initiative.

42.     Ongoing operational costs and staff time will be approximately $1500 per annum and eight hours per month.

43.     Additional funds and staff time will be required during the implementation phase of the Alliance (first six months). Estimated costs are $3000 for two facilitated workshops and four days staff time per month.

44.     In terms of direct financial implications for local boards, no funding is requested. Broader local board funding decisions with food-related outcomes may benefit from being joined up and aligned with Alliance initiatives to better amplify local impact.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

45.     The proposed Alliance is a low risk initiative overall due to the small financial commitment required from council and measures incorporated in the design to support long-term sustainability.

46.     The key risk associated with the recommended Option 2 relates to the long-term sustainability of the Alliance due to its independent and largely voluntary structure. It is proposed that this risk be mitigated by adopting best practice and lessons learned from One Voice: Sports and Recreation model (that has been operating for more than 6 years) and analysis of international food policy councils, provision of staff support, and regular ‘fit for purpose’ reviews.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

47.     If endorsed, a proposal will be submitted to the Environment and Community Committee in June 2018 and pending approval, implementation will begin in August 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Council Food Related Plans and Strategies

167

b

One Voice terms of reference

171

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Lauren Simpson - Principal Sustainability & Resilience Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

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

 

File No.: CP2018/07785

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Whau 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 Whau 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

187

b

Rodney ward boundary options

189

c

Manurewa-Papakura ward boundary options

191

d

Local board subdivisions and the 10 per cent rule

193

e

Botany subdivision boundary options

195

f

Rodney Local Board subdivision options

199

g

Waitemata Local Board subdivision option

203

h

Upper Harbour Local Board subdivision option

205

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Whau Local Board for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/07826

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Whau Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report includes financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2017/2018 work programme.

3.       Of significance this quarter,

·        Economic Development Plan refresh work commenced in February 2018. Review is due for completion in May 2018.

·        Parks:

§ Olympic Park one of 18 Green Flag Award winners;

§ Craigavon playground re-opened

·        Whau Local Board hosted High Tea at New Lynn RSA on 8 March 2018

4.       Performance against the agreed 2017/2018 work programmes is tracking positively with the work programme being 89% on track. Refer to snapshot - attachment A.

5.       All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (attachment B). The majority of activities are reported with a status of green (on track) or amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed). The following activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

·        Blockhouse Bay Recreation Reserve #1

·        Park fence renewal Tony Segedin Esplanade Reserve & Taunton

·        Park signage renewals

6.       The events planning undertaken in third quarter for delivery of ANZAC events in local RSAs to a prescribed level in fourth quarter revealed a shortfall in budget. This was covered by underspend in other areas.

7.       The Post Event Debrief paper circulated to Whau’s 9 May workshop identified the cancelled Riversdale Movies in Park event due to bad weather. Once contractual agreements were settled, $5,414.60 remained unspent.  The board recommendation is to carry this balance forward to enhance the of 2018/19 movie events by increasing the children’s activities at each of the events.

8.       The financial performance report compared to budget 2017/2018 is attached. There are some points for the local board to note.

·        Operating expenditure is $1562k above budget. The majority of the over spend relates to the full facility maintenance contract where fluctuations are expected until baselines at local board level are established over the year.

·        Operating revenue is as per budget in community facility hire, mainly due to greater utilisation of New Lynn community centre offset by lower use at Avondale community centre.

·        Capital Expenditure of $3.3m is $342k above budget due mainly to on sand carpeting at Brains Park and Ken Maunder park offset partly by resource consent and tendering issues on the development of the Te Whau Pathway and Holly Street to Heron Park walkways as well as parks asset renewals.

·        The Whau Local Board Financial performance report, refer attachment C

9.       The key performance indicators show a trend of delivery that is meeting the indicators, without exception.  For detailed information, refer attachment D.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      receive their quarterly performance report for quarter three 2017/18 year.

b)      recommend $5,414.60 from unspent 2017/2018 Movies in Parks operating budget, be deferred to 2018/2019 Movies in Parks series to enhance the children’s entertainment activities pre-screening.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     The Whau Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

·        Arts, Community and Events; approved on 28 June 2017

·        Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 24 June 2017

·        Libraries and Information; approved on 24 June 2017

·        Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 28 June 2017

·        Community Leases; approved on 28 June 2017

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 28 June 2017

·        Local Economic Development; approved on 28 June 2017

11.     The work programmes are aligned to the 2014 Whau Local Board Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Key achievements for quarter three

12.     The Whau Local Board has a number of key achievements in the quarter three period, which include:

·        Parks:

§ Olympic Park one of 18 Green Flag Award winners across New Zealand - marking international excellence in park provision;

§ Craigavon playground renewal – took longer than originally intended challenging project due to higher than usual rain fall and theft of equipment from site – re-opened over the Easter weekend.

§ Holly Street to Heron Park Walkway – (c/fwd from 16/17) physical works started in March for pathway, including boardwalk over marine esplanade, that links Holly Street in the Whau to Heron Park in Albert/Eden.  Completion due July 2018. This is stage 1 of the Motumanawa Walkway.

·        Whau Local Board hosted High Tea at New Lynn RSA on 8 March 2018 – primarily to offer a free outing to the Whau’s seniors – aged 65+; secondarily to invite senior perspective submissions to LTP or to give general feedback to the Local Board.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

13.     The following are progress updates against key projects identified in the Whau Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

·        Drinking fountains: seven Whau locations identified; consultation with sports clubs completed; quotes received. Instalment expected June 2018.  Whau Local Board Plan objectives: support more people to be more active more often; make our existing local paths even better

·        Bike Hub at the EcoMatters precinct – a multifaceted programme that delivers bike mechanical education, bike skills, education on active transport and the Whau River environment, promotes Te Whau Pathway.  Several events delivered in Q3 – highlight being “Pedal and Pizza”. The Hub attracted 500 visitors in the third quarter.

·        Whau Local Board Plan objectives: more people more active more often; our children and young people are supported to lean and be active

Key performance indicators

14.     Performance measure targets are different for each local board. It is important to remember this when comparing results presented in the summary performance results table. Targets were set by considering service expectations as well as previous performance results.

15.     As new performance measures were introduced in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, some of the measures had no previous performance results. This made it challenging to set some of the targets.  Auckland Council will continue to refine future performance targets in the next long-term plan (for 2018-2028). Attachment D contains further detailed KPI information.

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

16.     This report informs the Whau Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 31 March 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17.     Third quarter activities in the Maori responsiveness space include:

·    January meeting involving CEU staff, LBS staff to discuss and respond to Toitu report recommendations in Q2 resulting in informing aspects of the 2018/19 work programme.

·    Discussions with Kelston Hub and Community Waitakere leading to:

Te Ara Reo classes based at Kelston Hub

Whakawhanautanga and korero to begin local kaumatua and kuia toward development of a roopu for maori elders across the Whau.

·    Kelston Hub Manager and Whau Arts Broker planning Whau “Matariki event with a difference” in coming two years

·    Whau funding support toward Green Bay Community House Te Reo Maori classes started in mid-February.

Financial performance

18.     Whau Local Board capital investment for the period was $3.3m and net operational cost of service was $9.0m.

19.     Operating expenditure is 20% above budget the main driver continues to be higher full facility contract maintenance than planned.

20.     Operating revenue is per budget due to a compensating increase at New Lynn community centre offset lower utilisation at Avondale community centre.

21.     Capital expenditure was (11.5%) above budget due to higher sports-field development than planned at Brains Park and Ken Maunder park offset by parks renewals and walkway development projects.

22.     Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23.     This report is for information only therefore has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24.     While there are no high-risk factors for this quarter, operating departments did give red performance indicators to signal the following project status:

·        Blockhouse Bay Recreation Reserve #1 – cancelled proposed development of new sand field plus hybrid – investigation revealed no need for upgrade at this point.

·        Park fence renewal Tony Segedin Esplanade Reserve & Taunton Terrace – cancelled, no renewal necessary at this point.

·        Park signage renewals on hold pending completion of the dual Maori park names project investigations.

·        ANZAC and Local Civic Events – Planning in third quarter for delivery of ANZAC events in fourth quarter to prescribed standard entailed an additional $2000. This deficit was drawn from unspent funds in other areas.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25.     The Local Board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter four, August 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Work programme snapshot

213

b

Work programme update

215

c

Financial performance

249

d

Key performance indicators

257

     

 

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Antonina Georgetti - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 



Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 



Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar - May 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/07980

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1.       This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the upcoming months. The governance forward work calendar for the board is included in Attachment A.

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

·    ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is required and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

3.       The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. 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 Whau Local Board:

a)      note the updated Governance Forward Work Calendar for May 2018 (attachment A).

 

Horopaki / Context

4.       Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

5.       Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

6.       This initiative is intended to support the boards’ governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

7.       The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

·    Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

·    Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

·    Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

Governance role

Examples

Setting direction/priorities/budget

Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan

Local initiatives/specific decisions

Grants, road names, alcohol bans

Input into regional decision-making

Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans

Oversight and monitoring

Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects

Accountability to the public

Annual report

Engagement

Community hui, submissions processes

Keeping informed

Briefings, cluster workshops

 

8.       Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

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

9.       All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

10.     The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

11.     Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Calendar - May 2018

267

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

Confirmation of workshop records - 21 March 2018 to 2 May 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/07979

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       This report presents records of workshops held by the Whau Local Board on:

·      21 March 2018

·      4 April 2018

·      18 April 2018

·      2 May 2018

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At the workshop held on Wednesday, 21 March 2018, the Whau Local Board had briefings on:

·        Margan Ave Layover – Consultation

·        Local Board Agreement Planning process - Workshop 5

3.       At the workshop held on Wednesday, 4 April 2018, the Whau Local Board had briefings on:

·        Community Facilities update (bi-monthly update)

·        Blockhouse Bay Beach noise concerns

·        AT update - new bus routes for Central Auckland/Isthmus area

·        Parking Study for New Lynn

·        LED Action Plan refresh

·        Community Facilities - Various items

·        18/19 works programme budgets

4.       At the workshop held on Wednesday, 18 April 2018, the Whau Local Board had a briefing on:

· Fees and charges Performance measures

· Panuku Development (bi-monthly)

5.       At the workshop held on Wednesday, 2 May 2018, the Whau Local Board had a briefing on:

· Local Board Agreement Planning process - Workshop 6

6.       The workshop records are attached to this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Whau Local Board:

a)      confirm the records of the workshops in Attachments A to D held on the following dates: 

· 21 March 2018

· 4 April 2018

· 18 April 2018

· 2 May 2018

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Records of workshop 21 March 2018

271

b

Records of workshop 4 April 2018

273

c

Records of workshop 18 April 2018

277

d

Records of workshop 2 May 2018

279

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor

Mark Allen - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

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

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

    

  


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    Presentation - Te Whau Pathway                   Page 283

Item 9.1      Attachment a    Citizens Advice Bureau New Lynn - Parking for volunteers                                                                       Page 287


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 


 


Whau Local Board

23 May 2018

 

 


 

 

 



[1] The Annual Review of Environment and Resources - environ.annualreviews.org

[2] Auckland’s Prime and Elite Soils 2013:TP2013/050, Auckland Council

[3] Most recent draft inventory, Waste Solutions, Auckland Council

[4] http://www.healthyaucklandtogether.org.nz/assets/Summary-Reports/HAT-Monitoring-Report-2017.pdf

[5] https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2016/vol-129-no-1436-10-june-2016/6915

[6] Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in Franklin Surface and Groundwater: A Review: TP2016/015

[7] LAWA: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/fresh-water/about-freshwater/auckland