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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 21 November 2018

04:00pm

Kaipātiki Local Board Office
90 Bentley Avenue
Glenfield

 

Kaipātiki Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

John Gillon

 

Deputy Chairperson

Danielle Grant

 

Members

Paula Gillon

 

 

Ann Hartley, JP

 

 

Kay McIntyre, QSM

 

 

Anne-Elise Smithson

 

 

Adrian Tyler

 

 

Lindsay Waugh

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Jacinda Short

Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

 

14 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 484 6236

Email: jacinda.short@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

6.1     Bob Doran                                                                                                             5

6.2     Malcolm Fisher                                                                                                     6

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          6

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    7

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  7

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

11        Endorsement of the developed design of the school edge portion of the greenway in Northcote                                                                                                                        9

12        Landowner approval for alteration works at Bayview Community Centre          13

13        Playspace Provision Assessment and Sunshade Study                                        21

14        Auckland Transport Monthly Update                                                                        27

15        Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Work Programme 2018/2019                      59

16        Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Quarterly Report                                         63

17        Kaipātiki Community Places Quarterly Reports                                                      83

18        Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Kaipātiki Local Board for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018                                                                                      109

19        Renewal of community lease to Shakti Community Council Incorporated at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield                                                                          119

20        Renewal of community lease to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield                                                                                           125

21        Renewal of community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust at 13A Chartwell Avenue, Glenfield                                                                                                      131

22        Renewal of community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust at McFetridge Park, 115 Archers Road, Glenfield                                                                                    137

23        Draft Contributions Policy                                                                                        143

24        Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy   203

25        Funding food scraps collection service through a targeted rate                        221

26        Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes                                                                                                                       233

27        Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections                                                   283

28        Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents        297

29        Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson's Report                                                         307

30        Members' Reports                                                                                                     309

31        Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update   317

32        Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board - October 2018                                319

33        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     327  

34        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.

 

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy.  The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

 

                  i.        A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

 

                 ii.        A non-financial conflict of interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component.  It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

 

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968.  The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

 

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.   

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 17 October 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

6.1       Bob Doran

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The Kaipātiki Local Board wishes to acknowledge the passing of Bob Doran.

 

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       As well as being a good friend and neighbour to many, Bob was well known in Island Bay as the unofficial custodian of Muriel Fisher Reserve. He had a wide interest and knowledge about plants, both native and exotic, which is exemplified in his own garden. Bob spent much of his spare time exploring and working to control pest-plants Muriel Fisher Reserve and was totally familiar with the various informal tracks and the locations of important species. He was particularly intrigued with the old homestead, with its ditches and terraces, as well as the gum-digging holes from years ago. Bob’s dream for the Reserve was to ultimately have it recognised by the Council as a Pioneer Heritage Park.

3.       In September, Bob attended the unveiling ceremony for the Fred Anderson memorial, by the Island Bay Progressive League. The concept for which was proposed by an earlier Committee, back in 2007. The League is so pleased that Bob was present for the ceremony but the league will miss their “guiding light” going forward.

4.       The board is deeply saddened by his passing and extends its condolences to his family.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      acknowledge the passing of Bob Doran and express its condolences to his family.

 

 

6.2       Malcolm Fisher

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The Kaipātiki Local Board wishes to acknowledge the services of Malcolm Fisher to Fernglen Gardens.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Malcolm Fisher retired as a curator of Fernglen Gardens at the end of September 2018. He worked in the part time curator position for approximately 17 years. Prior to this role, he worked in the gardens with his parents Bill and Muriel Fisher when it was a nursery in the 1970s and later helped landscape and shape the property into public gardens and bush walk they are today. Malcolm also volunteered his time and shared environmental knowledge in the local community.

3.       Malcolm could often be found working in the gardens and taking interested parties on guided tours around numerous native plant collections. His extensive knowledge of native plants and their origins within New Zealand added value to these tours and he was particularly popular with visiting local school groups.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      acknowledge and thank Malcolm Fisher for his services with Fernglen Gardens.

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 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 Kaipātiki 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.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Endorsement of the developed design of the school edge portion of the greenway in Northcote

 

File No.: CP2018/21305

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse the developed design of the school edge portion of the greenway in Northcote.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The greenway in Northcote is a joint project, delivered by Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) and Homes, Land and Community (HLC).

3.       The developed design for the school edge portion of the greenway builds on the Awataha Greenway Design Guide, which was endorsed by the local board in December 2017 (resolution number KT/2017/184). 

4.       Staff from Panuku, Healthy Waters, HLC and Isthmus Group have worked collaboratively with the local board, mana whenua, local schools and the Greenway Community Reference Group to progress the design through a co-design process. Refer to Attachment B for the engagement summary.

5.       The design has been developed in close collaboration with the council family including Healthy Waters, Community Services, Community Facilities, Auckland Transport and the Development Programme Office. Any outstanding issues for further consideration or resolution will be resolved during the detailed design phase.

6.       The developed design summary provided as Attached A represents the outcomes of this process, and the proposed design to be progressed to detailed design.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      endorse the developed design summary for the school edge portion of the greenway in Northcote, as detailed in Attachment A.

b)      endorse the school edge portion of the greenway in Northcote progressing to the detailed design phase.

c)      note that ongoing standard maintenance budget will be met by Community Facilities operational budget.

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       The local board recognises the significance of a greenway in Northcote, in terms of its cultural, ecological, and recreational importance to the community.

8.       The greenway will comprise a series of ‘connected’ spaces to form a contiguous and continuous public space network through Northcote. The ten spaces that make up its length consist of reserves, walkways and streetscapes.

9.       In December 2017, the Kaipātiki Local Board endorsed the Greenway Design Guide which provides a high-level concept design vision for the greenway (resolution number KT/2017/184). The developed design of the school edge portion builds on the principles and concept design established in the Greenway Design Guide.

10.     The school edge portion of the greenway is a significant open space asset due to its proximity to Northcote Intermediate, Onepoto Primary, future housing and the town centre. It consists of controlled day-lighting of the Awataha Stream (currently piped) and functions as a critical over-land flow path. As such the design has both a significant storm-water function alongside ecological, social and amenity outcomes.

11.     Technical design aspects, including health and safety, have been further refined and agreed with Healthy Waters, Parks, Sport and Recreation and Community Facilities during the developed design phase.

12.     The design outlined in the developed design summary, provided as Attachment A was developed in consideration of past and recent community and stakeholder consultation and engagement as outlined in the attached Engagement Summary. Panuku and HLC in collaboration with Auckland Council and relevant council controlled organisations have engaged and involved the community, stakeholders and partners on the developed design of the school edge portion of the greenway.

13.     The developed design of the school edge balances technical stormwater requirements with the needs and inputs of a wide range of stakeholders. The developed design has been reviewed by the council family technical experts through workshops in April, May, August and October 2018.

14.     On completion, the school edge portion of the greenway will be vested in the council as a local purpose (drainage) reserve.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Design considerations

15.     The school edge portion of the greenway is 590m long and ranges between 10m and 30m wide. Key amenity features have been focused at minor and major nodes (puna) along the greenway length. These nodes occur at key points of access to the greenway, and represent a layering of ecological, connectivity and amenity features.

16.     The greenway is a key element of walking and cycling connectivity for Northcote. The developed design follows Auckland Transport Local Path Guidelines and has a continuous three-metre-wide shared path linking the schools, housing and town centre. Where the path intersects access and crossing points, a change in paving indicates a need to slow down and take caution. The developed design has been undertaken in consideration of the proposed future edge conditions including changes to the schools, future residential area, changes to adjoining park areas and town centre (including new street frontages).

17.     Crossings and access points to the greenway respond to both existing and future adjacencies and are designed to support natural desire lines in and around the project.

18.     The greenway design balances open space amenity with ecological function and habitat. This includes provision for both flora and fauna within the in-stream and bankside design. The design incorporates Matauranga Māori knowledge in the provision of plant species and placement, fish habitat and ecological learning opportunities.

Planting and vegetation

19.     An arborist report has informed the proposed removal and retention of existing mature trees (largely exotic). Where possible, mature, healthy trees will be retained or relocated, however due to the scale and location of required earthworks some trees will be removed as part of the greenway works. Where appropriate, the timber from the removed trees will be repurposed for use within the greenway design as informal habitat and play elements. 

20.     The proposed planting palette has been closely informed through consultation with mana whenua ecological specialists. The planting consists of native (endemic) and edible species, with several seasonal markers spaced throughout the greenway. Some specialist planting areas provide opportunity for cultural harvesting and use (i.e. flax and rongoa planting). Plant selection and location will account for Crime Preventions Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, providing for clear sightlines into the key public areas and pathway.  

Play elements

21.     Play experiences have been built into the greenway design. The school edge portion of the greenway provides an opportunity to focus on natural play and interaction with the water. As such a meandering play trail is integrated within the physical infrastructure of the greenway. There are many opportunities for further dedicated play elements in the surrounding opens spaces at Cadness Reserve, Cadness Loop and (yet to be formally vested and named) ‘Richardson Reserve’.

School and community

22.     Local schools have been closely involved in the developed design of an outdoor classroom. This is a learning space located adjacent to Cadness Loop Reserve and the two neighbouring schools. The outdoor classroom presents an opportunity for groups to gather, interact, and learn about the stream and natural ecology.

23.     A standalone shade structure has been provided in the outdoor classroom. Further shade has been provided through the placement of canopy trees within the planting design. 

24.     There has been strong stakeholder support in lighting for safety and amenity, current Community Services policy seeks to only light parks afterhours that are well used, have clear entry/exit points, and have no entrapment areas. The suggested approach is for the lighting design to be progressed as part of the detailed design to ensure alignment with council policy, with the potential that implementation could be staged as surrounding development is established and greenway usage patterns develop.

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

25.     Local board workshops relating to this endorsement have been undertaken throughout the developed design process. All feedback received has been considered and incorporated within the design.

26.     The local board provided recommendations and feedback in relation to the provision of open space and play equipment both within this project and wider areas of the greenway; these will be taken into consideration for both the school edge and remaining greenway design progresses. 

27.     Throughout the workshops the local board has raised queries regarding the ongoing maintenance of the greenway. This design has undergone a thorough review by the Community Facilities maintenance team who have provided written feedback which will be incorporated within the detailed design phase.

28.     The local board was informed and provided with the opportunity to be involved in the community and stakeholder engagement sessions.

29.     Engagement and involvement of the local board is ongoing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30.     Mana whenua have been key partners from the outset of the greenway project. The stream-daylighting is a key outcome of their involvement. Mana whenua were engaged through the development of the design guide to ensure their concerns and aspirations were acknowledged and integrated into the high-level concept design and principles.

31.     Mana whenua have remained closely involved in the developed design phase. Through the Panuku Kaitiaki Working Group, Iwi have worked with the project team to co-design clear indicators of success (lifting the mauri of this place), and the physical design elements represented in the attached developed design.

32.     Mana whenua will remain involved as the project progresses into detailed design.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

33.     This asset will be vested to Auckland Council as a local purpose (drainage) reserve. Annual maintenance costs have been estimated by Community Facilities to be $43,000 with a range between $31,000 and $101,000. The developed design has been reviewed by the Community Facilities team and currently sits largely within their existing levels of service, with any required maintenance of the waterway being covered under a Service Level Agreement with Healthy Waters.

34.     Maintenance of the hard and soft landscaping will be covered under the construction contract for three years following practical completion. Practical completion is expected to be in the 2020/21 financial year. It is anticipated that the play items will transfer to the council for maintenance at practical completion for health and safety reasons. Remaining maintenance costs will transfer to council at the completion of the construction contract, anticipated in financial year 2023/24.

35.     The developed design of the school edge portion of the greenway has undergone a construction cost estimate, and the proposed funding split is currently being confirmed by Healthy Waters, HLC and Panuku. 

36.     Construction cost and funding split for this portion of the greenway will be confirmed after the detailed design phase. The precise funding allocation and split is contingent on future greenway stages and wider stormwater works underway within Northcote including contribution from the Park’s Growth Fund and renewals programme.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

37.     A risk in the timing of delivering the school edge portion of the greenway includes potential delays due to the required acquisition of land process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38.     Earthworks to deliver this portion of the greenway are planned to commence in October 2019. Following the local board’s endorsement, the project team will progress the project into detailed design to enable required consenting.

39.     The following issues remain to be resolved and further defined during the detailed design phase: lighting, construction timing / methodology, shade provision and waste strategy.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Developed Design Summary (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Engagement Summary - School Edge (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sara Zwart – Greenway Amenity Project Lead, Panuku Development Auckland

Elliot Egan – Senior Asset Information Advisor, Community Facilities  

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Manager Stakeholder Engagement, Panuku Development Auckland

Raymond Tan - Head of Asset Mmgt Intelligence Support

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Landowner approval for alteration works at Bayview Community Centre

 

File No.: CP2018/21798

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant land owner approval to Bayview Community Centre Incorporated to undertake alteration and extension works to the Bayview Community Centre building and surrounds.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Bayview Early Learning Centre, being the ground floor level of the Bayview Community Centre and Creche at 72-74 Bayview Road, Bayview, is leased by the Bayview Community Centre Incorporated.

3.       The Bayview Community Centre Incorporated was granted landlord consent in December 2016 to undertake renovation works in the building. These works did not progress due to financial constraints.

4.       Bayview Community Centre Incorporated has revised their plans for alterations to the building and now seeks approval from the board to execute these works from the new plans. Landowner approval is required instead of landlord consent as the new plans propose to modify the internal footprint of the existing building and alter the exterior grounds.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      revoke landlord consent granted to the Bayview Community Centre Association Incorporated on 14 December 2016 to carry out the proposed extension and reconfiguration of the early learning centre resolution number KT/2016/182.

b)      grant land owner approval to the Bayview Community Centre Incorporated to undertake alteration works to the interior of the ground floor level and exterior landscaping works at the Bayview Community Centre and Creche building at 72-74 Bayview Road, Bayview as shown in the plans appended as Attachments A and B.

 

Horopaki / Context

5.       Bayview Community Centre Incorporated holds a current community lease for the land legally described as Part Lots 2 and 3 DP 79494 as well as the building situated upon these lots at 72-74 Bayview Road, Bayview. The lease commenced 1 September 2000 for a term of 10 years and provides for a right of renewal for a further term of nine years and 364 days effecting the final expiry of the lease on 31 August 2020.

6.       The community centre offers before school care, after school care, school holiday programmes and a fully equipped early learning centre (ELC).

7.       The community centre has requested permission to carry out the alteration and extension works within its leased area. The project will involve alterations to the existing ELC on the ground floor level only and development of the exterior grounds in which the community centre currently uses as an outdoor area for children enrolled in the ELC’s activities. The intention of the alteration works is to provide better utilisation of the space in the ELC to meet the growing demand for childcare in the local area.

8.       The ELC is significantly funded by the Ministry of Education and these resources have been laid aside over the last couple of years to fund the proposed project.

9.       Landlord approval was given in December 2016 via a resolution passed by the Kaipātiki Local Board for an earlier project based on plans by C4 Architects described as Project No 015 (Sheets no. WD-101-105) dated April 2016 (resolution number KT/2016/182).

10.     These plans did not progress due to financial constraints and now the community centre is seeking landowner approval to implement a new design based on Harbour City Plans described as Project 17034 Revision No 01 dated 27 September 2018 (pages 12 and 16 are appended as Attachment A).

11.     The community centre is also seeking to implement a better utilised and functioning space for the outdoor area currently used for ELC activities. The landscaping design includes a compost area, native plants and a vegetable garden, as well as new footpaths, storage, wet-weather coverage and an open space for increased play area. The modifications are designed to improve safety and provide a better functioning outdoor space for the children.

12.     The design for the exterior will be based on drawings by Peter Fry Landscapes described as Bayview Early Learning Centre Preliminary Landscape Concept for Discussion (refer Attachment B). The community centre has confirmed that they will implement the design appended as Attachment B.

13.     Under clauses 1.14 and 2.6 of the deed of lease between Auckland Council and the community centre, the community centre may apply for landlord consent or landowner approval for alterations to their leased area on the basis that the community centre will pay for all costs associated with the alteration and do not commence works until approval is granted.

14.     Landowner approval is required instead of landlord consent as the new plans propose to modify the internal footprint of the existing building and alter the exterior grounds.

15.     All improvements made to the building and exterior grounds at 72074 Bayview Road, Bayview become the property of council at the completion of the works. The investment by Bayview Community Centre Incorporated does not guarantee a further lease of the building upon final lease expiry in 2020.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16.     Community Facilities staff have consulted the following specialists for the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

·        Community Lease Advisor

·        Senior Renewals Coordinator

·        Principal Asset Assessor

·        Senior Asset Information Advisor

·        Senior Maintenance Delivery Coordinator.

17.     All specialists are supportive for the community centre to undertake the alteration works as depicted in Attachments A and B, as the designs will allow for the better utilisation of the ELC space to meet the growing demand for childcare in the Bayview area.

18.     Ministry of Education and council staff will inspect the building after the works are completed. The dual inspection will check for both building consent compliance as well as statutory requirements for childcare. As such, the quality of the proposed works must be of a compliant standard and functionable for both building and childcare purposes.

19.     The asset and renewal specialists will have further input into the final designs at the regulatory stage of the community centre application. After obtaining landowner approval, the community centre will be required to obtain a building permit, which Community Facilities staff will contribute to the review of before consent can be granted.

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

20.     The alteration works proposed by the community centre meet Outcome 6 of the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017:

·        “Our community facilities and infrastructure are high quality and well managed.”

21.     As the lessee of the ELC building, the community centre is seeking approval to implement a new design which will contribute to the quality and utilisation of the existing space. The outcome of the proposed works is for the ELC users, being children of Kaipātiki, their whānau and staff, to all benefit from a new space that allows for better surveillance, an increased play area and an overall better functioning space. The Kaipātiki Local Board encourages the effective maintenance and renewal of its community centres and the community centre’s proposal is aligned with this objective.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22.     The proposed alternation works will benefit all staff, children and their whānau who are currently using the ELC building or will do so in the future. The proposed works have a positive outcome for the ELC building and are expected to benefit all, including Māori, who are either enrolled, employed or associated with the ELC at Bayview.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23.     The community centre is wholly contributing to the proposed alteration works using funds sourced mostly through grants from the Ministry of Education over several years. As the community centre can finance the proposed works independently, there are no financial implications for council or the Kaipātiki Local Board to consider acting as the landowner for the proposed works.

24.     The community centre has not been charged an application fee to apply for landowner approval to undertake the proposed works as they are a community group seeking to improve a council-owned community asset.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25.     Staff have assessed the risk of the proposed works not being completed to an appropriate standard and the effect of inheriting a poor asset. Staff do not consider this risk to be a probable outcome as the community centre will be required to meet building consent compliance standards as well as statutory requirements mandated by the Ministry of the Education. As such, staff are confident the quality of the works will be of a high standard following regulatory assessments and inspections, as well as it being in the community centre’s best interests to uphold the quality of the ELC building asset.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

26.     Following the grant of landowner approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board to the community centre to undertake the proposed alteration works as shown in Attachment A and B, staff will issue the community centre with landowner approval subject to the following conditions, including but not limited to that the Bayview Community Centre Incorporated:

·        obtain and provide staff with proof of public liability insurance

·        participate in a pre-works site meeting with staff

·        implement health and safety measures that are compliant with the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

·        obtain all regulatory approvals, including building consent, as required, and

·        provide staff with a final copy of the design plans following consent being granted and the works completed.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Internal alteration plan pgs. 12 & 16

19

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- External landscaping plan

21

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Bianka Lee - Community Facilities Graduate

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator



Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Playspace Provision Assessment and Sunshade Study

 

File No.: CP2018/19591

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Kaipātiki Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment 2018 for adoption.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Kaipātiki Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment 2018 (refer Attachment A) was undertaken to identify opportunities to improve the network of play experiences and shade provision across playgrounds within the Kaipātiki Local Board area. The assessment identifies key outcomes through the analysis of the current parks play network and shade provision at these facilities. 

3.       The purpose of the Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment is to:

a)      analyse and assess the current parks network provision in the Kaipātiki Local Board area, to identify areas where projected population increase will place a demand on the parks network

b)      identify and evaluate opportunities and gaps in the network, to prioritise areas with most opportunity for development

c)      highlight opportunities for improving the diversity of experience across the network, including expression of mana whenua values, provision for cultural diversity, accessibility and environmental considerations in any potential upgrade

d)      develop high-level options, illustrating opportunities in the priority areas

e)      provide a tool for discussion and feedback between the Kaipātiki Local Board, Auckland Council, mana whenua and communities.

4.       The Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment proposes a programme to improve levels of service and provision, responding to key outcomes in the 2017 Kaipātiki Local Board Plan and Auckland Council and nationally/internationally accepted strategic documents. The assessment provides strategic planning context to the provision of play equipment and shade across the parks network.

5.       The assessment will guide parks specific improvements to the provision of play experiences and shading of play areas in the Kaipātiki area. Feedback received from the local board has been incorporated into the assessment and has informed the next steps that will enable projects to progress to investigation and design, including detailed engagement with the local board.

6.       Broad indicative costings within the assessment are intended as a guide only, to inform Members of the scale of proposed service provision opportunities. The detailed investigation and design phase will identify accurate costings for future work programmes.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      adopt the Kaipātiki Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment 2018, as provided in Attachment A, to inform decisions to improve their network of play experiences and shade provision at playgrounds.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       Play is what children and young people do when they follow their ideas and interests, in their own way and for their own reasons. It is how they explore and make sense of the world and learn to take responsibility for their own decisions. Play takes many varied forms and happens in a wide variety of settings. Play can be boisterous and noisy, quiet and contemplative, creative, imaginative, physically challenging, thoughtful, enjoyed alone or in the company of others, and may seem to have no purpose at all to the outside onlooker.

8.       Places people play, range from individual backyards, neighbourhood streets, local parks to formal play spaces, beaches, regional parks and town centres. A play network consists of a group of interconnected places, where play is encouraged both formally and informally, throughout a neighbourhood, community and the wider city.

9.       Playgrounds, particularly good quality playgrounds, attract children, resulting in increased exposure to the sun and harmful Ultra-Violet (UV) rays.  Medical professionals continue to release studies that show the harmful effects caused by too much exposure to the sun. Any sunburn can increase the chances of the development of skin cancer, making it a necessity to protect children and adults. Sun safety often requires more than simply applying sunscreen. Parents want to do as much as possible to keep their children safe and playing in naturally or structure formed shade is one way that they can do so.

10.     The parameters in the Kaipātiki Strategic Play Provision Assessment enabled the appraisal and classification of play and SunSmart provision relative to the following categories:

·    planned renewal

·    type (Open Space Typology)

·    location and access

·    age group

·    play value

·    overall condition

·    sunsmart provision

·    site amenity and heritage provision.

11.     The provision assessment (refer Attachment A) was executed in five stages to establish gaps in provision and priorities at playspace and network level:

i)    establish assessment parameters, as outlined above, to form the basis of individual site assessments

ii)   visit each site to conduct individual playspace assessments to collect raw data on play and SunSmart provision, resulting in detailed Individual Playspace Assessment Sheets included within the document

iii)   collate raw data and prepare Network Map to articulate gaps in play provision and relationships between individual playspaces

iv)  undertake analysis of play and SunSmart provision based on site observations, evaluating data to establish priorities based on relevant scoring criteria specific to each category

v)   prepare commentary and recommendations at network and individual playspace level, moderating priority outcomes where necessary to accurately reflect network relationships and condition assessment renewal triggers.

12.     The assessment is aligned strategically to the following Auckland Council guiding documents:

·    Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017

·    Tākaro - Investing in Play (draft)

·    The Auckland Plan

·    Parks and Open Spaces Acquisition Policy 2013

·    Auckland Council Open Space Provision Policy 2016

·    Open Space Strategic Asset Management Plan 2015-2025

·    Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013

·    Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024

·    Auckland Design Manual

·    Greenwood JS, Soulos GP, Thomas ND (1998). Under cover: Guidelines for shade planning and design. NSW Cancer Council and NSW Health Department Sydney.  (Adapted for New Zealand use by the Cancer Society of New Zealand, 2000)

13.     The purpose of the potential development options is to provide a starting point for discussion with the local board and community and guide renewals and potential improvements, to fulfil an even distribution of play and Sunsmart provision across the network. These potential development options are high-level only and require further feasibility studies to fully understand the site opportunities and constraints.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Play and Sunsmart network assessment synopsis

14.     There are clear gaps in playspace provision in central and southern Kaipātiki, as indicated on the Network Analysis Map within the assessment (refer Attachment A, pages 11 and 12). There are some opportunities to install playspaces within existing reserves, however, some areas would require potential property acquisition to address gaps due to absence of suitable reserves. 

15.     Conversely, there are instances of over supply within northern Kaipātiki (Bayview and Totaravale) and Northcote due to the proximity and associated catchment overlap of facilities. Where appropriate, it is recommended that facilities in close proximity to each other are developed in a complementary manner, or decommissioned. Refer to ‘Playspace Analysis and Recommendations’ for specific commentary (refer Attachment A, pages 13-38).

16.     Provision of shade within the Kaipātiki study area is predominantly in the form of respite, provided by mature tree planting, with limited provision of supplementary structures (such as shade sails).  Most playspaces require investment to improve existing shade provision. Refer to the assessment’s ‘Sunsmart Analysis and Recommendations’ for specific commentary (refer Attachment A, pages 41-48).

17.     There are several gaps in activity play provision in the Kaipātiki study area including:

i)    creative, sound / music play activities that are consistently absent in play facilities

ii)   considerable gaps in balance / jumping activities (39% of playspaces)

iii)   role play / collaborative play, although accommodated in most instances, the provision and quality of elements is limited

18.     The gaps in activity play provision is generally symptomatic of limitations associated with the provision of legacy modular equipment, the era of manufacture and style of implementation.

19.     Whilst researching individual playspaces, it was discovered that several playspaces (at least six) contain equipment that is more than eighteen years old and/or remain completely unchanged since original install.

20.     Age provision within the Kaipātiki study area has very minor gaps in early childhood (0-4 years) and no gaps in childhood (5-9 years), with majority of age gap associated with the junior (10-12 years) and senior (13+) age group categories.

21.     A range of approaches to investment are identified, from full redevelopment to installation of additional equipment to address gaps in provision.

22.     Specific areas of opportunity are outlined in detail in the assessment (pages 13-48) and its appendices, namely ‘Appendix B Individual Playspace Assessment Sheets’ and ‘Appendix C Play and Sunsmart Priority Schedule’. The individual playspace assessments inform the Play and Sunsmart Priority Schedule which provides a well-informed basis for renewal and developed priorities. 

23.     Staff are recommending that the local board resolves to adopt the Kaipātiki Strategic Play Provision Assessment, to inform future playground and Sunsmart renewal and development, and help guide the decision-making process. This will also enable informed responses to enquiries about the provision of play experiences in Kaipātiki.

24.     There is an opportunity in the future to undertake community consultation to include community aspirations in the document.

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

25.     The projects align to the following outcomes in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan:

·    Outcome 6: Our community facilities and infrastructure are high quality and well managed

·    Outcome 7: Services are well managed and meet community needs.

 

26.     The Parks Sport and Recreation (PSR) 2017/18 Work Programme was approved by the Kaipātiki Local Board on 21 June 2017 (resolution number KT/2017/75).

27.     Subject to formal local board approval of the outcomes defined for play in the Kaipātiki Local board area, and inclusion within the Community Facilities Work Programme, detailed investigation and design will be initiated.

28.     A workshop was held with the local board on 11 July (90% draft) and 12 September 2018, when the Parks and Places Specialist presented the draft Strategic Play Provision Assessment/ Based on feedback received at these workshops, staff prepared the attached amended draft for adoption.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29.     The PSR 2017/18 Work Programme was presented to the Parks Sport and Recreation North-western area Mana whenua Hui on 2 September 2017.

30.     The work undertaken in the Parks and Places Team Work programme has been designed to enable meaningful engagement with Iwi by outlining the potential project and the how it will deliver on the outcomes identified in the Local Board Plan. The intention is to provide enough information for Iwi to efficiently provide input into the direction of the project before the design process begins.

31.     The projects that are initiated by the programme will be presented again to the North-western area Hui. Iwi will have the opportunity to express interest in the projects and indicate how they would like to be involved in the project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

32.     Broad indicative costings within the assessment are intended as a guide only, to inform Members of the scale of proposed service provision opportunities.  The detailed investigation and design phase will identify accurate costings for future work programmes.

33.     To initiate projects based on activities in Community Parks and Places work programme further Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) investment may be required. If recommended outcomes are agreed, staff will work with the local board to identify possible opportunities for funding as part of the proposed Community Facilities work programme.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

34.     There is an inherent risk in investing in investigation and design to initiate a project when there is no capital funding identified to deliver the physical work components.

35.     The investigation and design phase of project delivery may identify issues that require the feasibility of the project to be reassessed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36.     The Strategic Play Provision Assessment is designed to agree on desired play and sunsmart outcomes at a network level. Detail on the activities that will deliver on the agreed outcomes will require detailed investigation and community engagement.

37.     The adopted Community Facilities 2018/2019 Work Programme includes investigation and design across a number of the identified playspaces. Staff will continue to work with the Local Board to progress the projects and where applicable undertake public engagement to refine the scope of each project and inform design elements.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Kaipātiki Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

George McMahon - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport Monthly Update

 

File No.: CP2018/20344

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The Auckland Transport Monthly Update Kaipātiki Local Board November 2018 report is attached.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the Auckland Transport Monthly Update Kaipātiki Local Board November 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Auckland Transport Monthly Update November 2018

31

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Work Programme 2018/2019

 

File No.: CP2018/21521

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) work programme for the 2018/2019 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) delivers community-led development programmes for Kaipātiki.

3.       The KCFT work programme for 2018/2019 aims to deliver a range of neighbourhood-based, community-wide programmes and activities including youth programmes, community development activity, youth employment, community networking, events and environmental activities.

4.       On 20 June 2018, the local board allocated $251,000 to KCFT for the delivery of lines 1028 and 1029 in the Arts, Community and Events 2018/2019 work programme (resolution number KT/2018/114).

5.       The KCFT work programme aligns with outcomes in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017, specifically Outcome 1: Our people identify Kaipātiki as their kāinga (home), Outcome 2: Our natural environment is protected for future generations to enjoy, Outcome 3: Our people are active and healthy, Outcome 4: Getting to and around Kaipātiki is easy, Outcome 5: Our urban centres are vibrant, and Outcome 7: Services are well managed and meet community needs.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      receive the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust work programme for the 2018/2019 financial year (Attachment A to the agenda report).

 

Horopaki / Context

6.       KCFT is a community organisation that delivers community-led development programmes, which support the local board with community engagement activities.

7.       In April 2015, the local board and KCFT signed a Memorandum of Understanding  partnership agreement, which outlines how the two parties intend to work together to support Kaipātiki residents and communities to thrive.

8.       On 20 June 2018, the local board allocated $251,000 to KCFT for the following work programme lines (resolution number KT/2018/114):

·      to increase diverse community participation in the Kaipātiki Local Board area –  $228,000 (line 1028)

·      to increase diverse participation, in particular youth voice and youth-led initiatives in the Kaipātiki Local Board area – $25,000 (line 1029).

9.       Attached to this report is KCFT’s work programme for 2018/2019 (Attachment A). The schedule of work achieved and completed for the first quarter by KCFT in accordance with Schedule 1 will also be provided to members in the KCFT quarterly report at the 21 Nov business meeting.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10.     The objective of the funding is to support KCFT to deliver on local board community empowerment outcomes through project lines 1028 and 1029 in the local board 18/19 work programme. Project lines 1028 and 1029 focus on increasing diverse community participation, including youth voice and youth-led initiatives, to enable collaborative action and deliver inspirational community initiatives and projects.

11.     This funding will support community-led projects in the local board area including placemaking, community safety, community networking, engagement, youth leadership and employment programming.

12.     The schedule of programme outcomes detailed in the work programme was negotiated between the KCFT Manager, Local Board Services, and Community Empowerment Unit staff.

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

13.     The KCFT work programme aligns with the following local board plan priorities:

·      Our people identify Kaipātiki as their kāinga (home)

·      Our natural environment is protected for future generations to enjoy

·      Our people are active and healthy

·      Getting to and around Kaipātiki is easy

·      Our urban centres are vibrant

·      Services are well managed and meet community needs.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14.     Improving outcomes for Māori is a priority for the local board. KCFT is highly engaged with local rangatahi in particular in the areas of Māori youth employment, youth voice and Māori student support.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

15.     The KCFT work programme 2018/2019 highlights the following activities undertaken for the funding amount of $253,000 which covers:

·      to increase diverse community participation in the Kaipātiki Local Board area –  $228,000 (line 1028)

·      to increase diverse participation, in particular youth voice and youth-led initiatives in the Kaipātiki Local Board area – $25,000 (line 1029).

16.     The funding agreement was negotiated and processed in October 2018.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17.     There are no identified risks currently associated with this activity.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18.     A review of the current partnership agreement between KCFT and the local board by an external contractor is scheduled for 2018/2019. The outcomes of the review will be brought to the local board by June 2019.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Schedule 1 - Schedule of deliverables and objectives Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) 2018-2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Schedule 2 - KCFT workprogramme and reporting template Y19 (proposed) (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Ayr Jones - Team Leader – Community Advisors South

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Quarterly Report

 

File No.: CP2018/18979

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to update members on the schedule of work achieved and completed by the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT), aligned to Schedule 1 of the Kaipātiki Local Board contract delivery partnership.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The attached report provides members with an oversight of Kaipātiki Local Board and Auckland Council’s shared community development partnership with the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT). The Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust leads and supports collaborative responses to improve community wellbeing in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      receive the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Quarter Four report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Schedule 1: Accountability Reporting Q1 July  - September 2018

67

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 



Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator



Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Kaipātiki Community Places Quarterly Reports

 

File No.: CP2018/18978

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide a quarterly update to members on the activities and achievements of the community places in Kaipātiki.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The attached reports provide members with an oversight of the activities and achievements of the community places in the Kaipātiki Local Board area. The reports contain updates on:

·        Glenfield Community Centre;

·        Kaipātiki Youth Development Trust;

·        Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project;

·        Bayview Community Centre; and

·        Highbury House.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      receive the Kaipātiki community places quarter four 2017/2018 reports.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Glenfield Community Centre 1st Quarterly Summary (July - September 2018)

87

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Kaipātiki Youth Development Trust 1st Quarterly Summary

93

c

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated - July - September 2018 Summary

99

d

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Bayview Community Centre - 1st Quarterly Summary

103

e

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Highbury House 1st Quarterly Summary

105

f

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Highbury House Repair Cafe

107

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Kaipātiki Local Board for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21720

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.         To provide the Kaipātiki Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.         This report includes information relating to financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2018/2019 work programme for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018.

3.         The work programme is produced annually and aligns with the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan outcomes.

4.         The key activity updates from this quarter are:

·     one local and multi-board grant round has been completed and $79,869.45 was allocated;

·     the Lauderdale Bridge and Brunton Place sections of the Eskdale Reserve track network are complete;

·     the renewal of pathways, carpark and entrance plinths at Glenfield Cemetery have been completed;

·     Marlborough Park Hall roof replacement has been completed;

·     a number of school and community planting days have taken place across the local board area with a total of 3,693 plants planted on community parks in Kaipātiki;

·     kauri dieback preventative measures have included the temporary/partial closure of a number of reserves; and

·     the Sunnynook Plan was approved by for publication.

5.         All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (see Attachment A). Most activities are reported with a status of green (on track). Some activities are reported with a status of amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) and one is reported with a status of grey (cancelled, deferred or merged). There are no activities with a red status this quarter.

6.         The full financial performance report compared to budget 2018/2019 is provided as Attachment B. There are some points for the local board to note:

·      the overall operational net cost of service was $3.1 million, a variance of $9,000 above budget;

·      capital investment of $1.3 million for the quarter is concentrated on projects that were in train last financial year, such as the sauna and spa at Glenfield Leisure Centre and the Highbury Mainstreet upgrade; and

·      a timing misalignment of funding distribution and expected delivery with the Highbury House top up grant requires re-allocation of the 2018/2019 funding amount for timing to be brought back into line.

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      receive the performance report for the 2018/2019 financial quarter 1 July – 30 September 2018.

b)      reallocate $20,000 of 2018/2019 operational Locally Driven Initiative budget currently allocated to Highbury House to the contestable community grants budget, so that future Asset Based Service and Locally Driven Initiative grants to Highbury House can be included in one funding agreement and paid at the same time.

c)      note the Chairperson has exercised his delegated authority to approve changes to the following work programme activity that was presented by staff, as per Attachment D to the agenda report as follows:

i)        ID#1796 - Kaipātiki – Install Shade Sails.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.         The Kaipātiki Local Board has an approved 2018/2019 work programme for the following operating departments:

·      Arts, Community and Events;

·      Parks, Sport and Recreation;

·      Libraries and Information;

·      Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration;

·      Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew;

·      Community Leases;

·      Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

·      Local Economic Development;

·      Plans and Places.

8.         Work programmes are produced annually to meet the Kaipātiki Local Board outcomes identified in the three-year Kaipātiki Local Board Plan. The local board plan outcomes are:

·      Our people identify Kaipātiki as their kāinga (home) / He kāinga a Kaipatiki ki tō tātou iwi o reira

·      Our natural environment is protected for future generations to enjoy / Kei te tiakina tō tātou taiao hei painga mō ngā uri whakaheke

·      Our people are active and healthy / He ngangahau he ora tonu ō tātou iwi

·      Getting to and around Kaipātiki is easy / He māmā te haere atu me te haereere noa i Kaipātiki

·      Our urban centres are vibrant / He wāhi hihiri te pokapū tāone

·      Our community facilities and infrastructure is high quality and well managed / He rangatira, he tōtika te arataki i ō tātou urunga hapori me ōna kaupapa whakahaere

·      Services are well managed and meet community needs / He tōtika te arataki i ngā ratonga kia eke ai ngā hiahia o te hapori

 

9.         Graph 1 below shows how the work programme activities meet Kaipātiki Local Board Plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

 

Graph 1: Kaipātiki work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

10.       The work programme activities have two statuses; RAG (red, amber, green and grey) status which measures the performance of the activity (amber and red show issues and risks); and activity status which shows the stage of the activity. These two statuses create a snapshot of the progress of the work programmes.

11.       Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery and this is provided as Attachment A.

12.       Graph 2 below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey). It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph 2: Kaipātiki Work Programme by RAG status

 

13.       Graph 3 below identifies work programme activity by activity status and department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes. 

 

Graph 3: Kaipātiki work programme activity by activity status and department

Capital expenditure carry forwards

14.       The Community Facilities capital expenditure carry forwards were approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 October 2018. A list of the carry forwards has been provided (see Attachment C), however as this was after the end of quarter one commentary was not able to be provided. Commentary on these activities will be included in the quarter two update.

 

Key activity updates from quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018

15.       The key activity updates to report from the quarter one period are as follows:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Quarter 1 update

Community Grants (KT)

Green

In Progress

Round One Local Grants and Multi-board Grants have been allocated in Quarter One. $79,869.45 was allocated. Two local grant rounds and one multi-board grant round remain to be allocated in this financial year. There is an available budget of $110,030.55 to be allocated.

Kaipatiki Full Facilities Contracts

Green

Approved

Kauri dieback became a focus in Kaipatiki, with a confirmed case identified. Kauri Park and Muriel Fisher Reserves were closed to the public in late July. Early September saw many tracks closed as a precautionary measure to protect the remaining healthy kauri. Three playgrounds were handed over to Operational Management and Maintenance from Project Delivery after the completion of their renewal - Teviot Reserve, Tui Park and Lancelot Reserve. Two pool shutdowns for renewals and maintenance were completed during this quarter. The full facilities contractor has managed the spring flush very well this year with mowing performance within acceptable performance levels. Maintenance of open space assets, parks and reserves is within agreed performance measures. Sportsfield renovations completed exceptionally well. Built space assets are being maintained within acceptable performance levels.

Kaipatiki Ecological Restoration Contracts

Green

Approved

During the first quarter the annual update of the Site Assessment Reports, a large portion of the pest animal monitoring, and the majority of the first pulse of the rat control programme have been completed. Various unscheduled activities were completed which included a mixture of pest animal control and pest plant control. Request for service work orders received continue to be seasonally normal, with an increasing trend in activity becoming apparent during the late stages of the quarter.

Eskdale Reserve Network - renew tracks and furniture

Green

In Progress

Current status: The Lauderdale Bridge and Brunton Place sections are complete. Work is progressing on the sections at the top of the reserve. These are expected to be completed in October. Next steps: Complete the site construction of the tracks and structures.

Glenfield Cemetery - renew pathways, carpark and entrance plinths

Green

Completed

Project completed.

Marlborough Park Hall - replace roof

Green

Completed

Project completed.

Verran Road Reserve/ Castleton Reid/ Ridgewood Reserve track network

Green

In Progress

Current status: Physical works are progressing. Approximately a third of the paths are completed to date. Next steps: Continue with the physical works. Due to be complete by mid-November 2018.

KT: Ecological Volunteers and Environmental Programme FY19

Green

In Progress

It has been a busy quarter for the ecological volunteers in the Kaipātiki area with over 1,300 volunteer hours recorded . A number of school and community planting days have taken place across the local board area with a total of 3,693 plants planted on community parks in Kaipātiki. Kauri dieback preventative measures have included the temporary/partial closure of a number of reserves where volunteers are historically active. Training days have been provided for volunteers (via Pest Free Kaipatiki) to provide certified hygiene training for volunteers working in areas with kauri.

The Sunnynook Plan - Totara Vale component

Green

In Progress

Sunnynook Plan approved by the local board on 19 September 2018 for publication.

 

Activities with significant issues

16.       There are no activities with a red status this quarter.

Activities on hold

17.       The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold as of 30 September 2018:

 

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Quarter 1 update

Hellyers Creek Reserve and Shepherds Park - renew walkways

Amber

On Hold

The project is on hold pending a strategic assessment from Community Services.

Current status: Awaiting the strategic assessment to inform the outcomes required. The physical works for this project will be planned in stages to match budget allocations.

Next steps: Scope options and prepare the business case.

Chelsea Estate Heritage Park – renew Colonial Road track and bridge

Amber

On Hold

Project is on hold awaiting alternative bridge design and confirmation, if a new alignment has been taken then a change of project scope would be investigated.

Current status: Project is on hold. Project name and scope has changed, seeking clarification before proceeding.

Elliott Avenue Reserve - renew park assets

Amber

On Hold

On hold until wider study completed.

Current status: A concept design was presented to the local board at a March workshop. The local board expressed concerns about the preliminary concept for stage one.

Next steps: This will be reviewed once the wider Kaipātiki play and sunsmart provision analysis has been completed by Community Services. Outcomes will be reported back to the local board once ready.

Birkenhead War Memorial Park Master Plan

Amber

On Hold

On hold since April 2018 to enable pools, leisure and recreation assessment to be incorporated as an input. Masterplan to commence shortly. Final completion anticipated in quarter four.

 

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

16. There are no activities that have been deferred from the 2018/2019 work programme.

 

Cancelled activities

18.       The following activities are cancelled:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Quarter 1 update

AF Thomas Park - replace judder bars

Grey

Cancelled

The car park asset is part of the North Shore Events Centre (Eventfinda Stadium) lease area managed by Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).

Current status: This project has been cancelled. A site meeting was held with the North Shore Events Centre (Eventfinda Stadium) management staff and consultant engineer only to discover that the car park is managed by Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) as part of the events centre.

 

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

19.       There are no activities that have been merged with other activities.

 

Activities changed under delegation of the local board Chairperson

20.       When adopting its work programmes, the local board delegated authority to the Chairperson to make changes to the work programme. Each departmental work programme delegation has a unique resolution to this effect but generally follows the format as below:

“That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

x)         delegate authority to the Chairperson to approve any changes presented by staff on the [Department name] work programme 2018/2019, noting that:

i.          any decisions will be made in consultation with the Deputy Chairperson;

ii.          any changes deemed ‘significant’ by the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson will require consideration and decision making by the full board; and

iii.         any changes approved by the Chairperson will be reported back to the full board.

23.       To satisfy the condition of reporting back work programme changes to the full board, this report includes any changes approved under delegation by the Chairperson. At the time of writing this report, the Chairperson exercised his delegated authority to approve changes to the following work programme activities, as detailed in Attachment D:

 

·    ID#1796 – Kaipātiki - Install Shade Sails, approved 5 November 2018.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

24.       This report informs the Kaipātiki Local Board of the performance for quarter one of the 2018/2019 financial year, 1 July – 30 September 2018.

Key performance indicators

25.       As most of the key performance indicators in the Long-term Plan are annual measures and do not change quarterly, staff have removed them from the quarterly performance report. Staff will instead present the key performance indicators only once in the annual report at the end of the year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

26.       A number of the activities in the local board work programmes positively impact Māori. Below are the updates on the activities that have a direct Māori outcome focus:

Activity name

RAG status

Activity status

Quarter 1 update

Manaakitanga

Green

In Progress

Scoping for a business analyst to report on Māori aspirations of Kaipātiki at an upcoming Māori aspirations hui have started. The hui will support community organisations in the Kaipātiki area. Timing of the hui is yet to be determined.

Celebrating Te Ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori. Whakatipu i te reo Māori - Kaipātiki

Green

In Progress

This year's Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori was the most successful yet across New Zealand and the Kaipātiki libraries were no exception. Customers embraced the spirit of championing Te Reo Māori and events in Te Reo and incorporating aspects of Māori culture, such as weaving, at all libraries were well attended, indicating a great interest in regular programming with a Te Reo Māori component. Matariki also provided opportunities to share Te Ao Māori with Kaipātiki communities, Tamati Ihaka presented four educational sessions on Matariki at Glenfield Library. The Māori collection is being re-labelled at Northcote Library, improving its appearance and accessibility. All libraries include a 'kōrero corner', a space where speaking and practicing Te Reo is encouraged and welcomed, or signage acknowledging speaking Te Reo is welcome throughout the whole library. Staff are proud of the  commitment to growing usage of and normalising Te Reo Māori within Kaipātiki’s libraries.

KT: Māori Naming of Reserves and Facilities Phase Two

Green

In Progress

Parks specialists and the Chairperson have reviewed a draft parks list for further discussion and consideration with the local board.

A local board workshop is scheduled in quarter two to provide all elected members an opportunity to input prior to the development of a formal report for consideration.

 

Financial Performance

27.       Kaipātiki Local Board’s net operating expenditure for the quarter was $3.1 million, in line with the year to date budget.

28.       Operating revenue was below budget in the quarter due to lower visitor numbers at Birkenhead Leisure Centre.

29.       The LDI (Locally Driven Initiative) opex programme is on track in the first quarter. One item to note in the Arts, Community and Events work programme regarding ID# 73 Highbury House Funding, is that there is still a misalignment in terms of the year the ABS (Asset Based Service) and LDI grants are funding. As Highbury House has received correct funding up to the end of this financial year, staff recommend reallocation of the current year’s budget of $20,000 to the contestable community grants budget. 

30.       Capital investment for the quarter was $1.3 million. The renewal of the sauna and spa at Glenfield Leisure Centre ($222,000 for the quarter) is progressing with completion estimated to be the end of October. Highbury Mainstreet is also progressing with expenditure of $164,000. Track renewals underway at Verrans Road Reserve/ Castleton Reid/ Ridgewood Reserve ($133,000) and Eskdale Reserve ($64,000) are due for completion next quarter. The installation of the new toilet at Rewi Alley Reserve was completed in the quarter.

31.       The full financial performance report compared to budget 2018/2019 is provided as Attachment B.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

32.       This report is for information only, and therefore there are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

33.       While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects, for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and market conditions.

34.       Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section of this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

35.       The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter two, 1 October – 30 December 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Kaipātiki work programme update, quarter one 2018/19 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Kaipātiki financial performance, quarter one 2018/19 (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Kaipātiki capital projects carried forward to 2018/19 (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Kaipātiki changes to work programme activities approved under delegation, quarter one 2018/19 (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Renewal of community lease to Shakti Community Council Incorporated at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield

 

File No.: CP2018/21140

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant a renewal of the community lease to Shakti Community Council Incorporated at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The council-owned Mayfield Centre provides accommodation for several community groups. Shakti Community Council Incorporated (Shakti) currently occupies room two in the Mayfield Centre.

3.       Shakti has applied to renew their lease for the one-year renewal period provided for in the lease.

4.       Staff recommend the Kaipātiki Local Board grant a renewal of the community lease to Shakti.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      grant the renewal of the community lease to Shakti Community Council Incorporated for room two with an area of 9.9 m² being the premises in the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield, and shown outlined red in Attachment A of the report subject to the following:

i)        term – one year commencing 1 May 2018

ii)       rent – $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

iii)      an operational charge (including utilities) – $247.50 per annum plus GST.

b)      note all other terms and conditions be in accordance with the original lease dated 19 April 2017.

 

Horopaki / Context

5.       Shakti has a lease of room two at the Mayfield Centre that commenced 1 May 2017 for a term of one year. The initial one-year term of the lease expired on 30 April 2018 and there is one right of renewal available.

6.       Shakti has requested a renewal of the lease and this report deals with this and recommends approval of the renewal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7.       The Mayfield Centre is on land that is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified local purpose (community buildings) reserve. The classification permits the proposed activity offered by Shakti.

8.       Shakti Community Council Incorporated is a non-profit organisation that has been occupying the premises at the Mayfield Centre since 2008.

9.       Shakti specialises in women’s development, empowerment and domestic/family violence intervention, prevention and awareness. The group provides culturally competent support services for women, children and families of Asian, African and Middle Eastern origin.

10.     Shakti operates Monday to Friday and provides drop-in and crisis call centre services daily. There is no membership requirement for the group.

11.     Shakti has an excellent working relationship with the North Shore Women’s Centre and Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated, the other tenants at the Mayfield Centre. The services offered by Shakti compliment those offered by the North Shore Women’s Centre.

12.     Shakti has complied with all the conditions of the lease. The financial accounts provided indicate that it has sufficient funds to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately. Shakti receives support and limited funding from the Department of Labour, Work and Income, Child Youth and Family Services, and the Lotteries Grant Board.

13.     Shakti holds all necessary insurance including public liability cover.

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

14.     The lease renewal to Shakti Community Council Incorporated is contemplated in the Kaipātiki Community Lease Work Programme 2018/2019.

15.     The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities. This report asks the local board for a decision to grant a renewal of a community lease

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

17.     Support for Maori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Te Toa Takitini, Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase targeted support for Maori community development projects.

18.     There is no statutory requirement for public notification or Iwi engagement for this lease renewal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19.     There are no cost implications for the local board approving a new lease to Shakti Community Council Incorporated.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20.     Should the Kaipātiki Local Board resolve not to grant a renewal of the community lease to Shakti Community Council Incorporated this decision will materially affect the group’s ability to undertake its core activities

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21.     Subject to the grant of a renewal of a community lease, council staff will work with the group to finalise the deed of renewal.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Site Plan and lease area for Shakti Community Council Incorporated

125

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Phillipa Carroll - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Renewal of community lease to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield

 

File No.: CP2018/21423

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant a renewal of the community lease to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated at the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The council-owned Mayfield Centre provides accommodation for several community groups. Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated currently occupies rooms 14,15 and 16 in the Mayfield Centre.

3.       Seniornet has applied to renew their lease for the one-year renewal period provided for in the lease.

4.       Staff recommend the Kaipātiki Local Board grant a renewal of the community lease to Seniornet.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      grant a renewal of the community lease to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated for rooms 14,15 and 16 with an area of 71.66 m² (more or less) in the Mayfield Centre, 5 Mayfield Road, Glenfield, and shown outlined red in Attachment A of the report subject to the following:

i)     term – one year commencing 1 May 2018

ii)     rent – $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

iii)    an operational charge (including utilities) – $1,791.00 per annum plus GST.

b)      note all other terms and conditions be in accordance with the original lease dated 19 April 2017.

 

Horopaki / Context

5.       The Seniornet lease of rooms 14,15 and 16 at the Mayfield Centre commenced 1 May 2017 for a term of one year. The initial one-year term of the lease expired on 30 April 2018 and there is one right of renewal available.

6.       Seniornet has requested a renewal of the lease and this report deals with this and recommends approval of the renewal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7.       The Mayfield Centre is on land that is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified local purpose (community buildings) reserve. The classification permits the proposed activity offered by Seniornet Glenfield.

8.       Seniornet Glenfield is a non-profit organisation that has occupied the premises at the Mayfield Centre since 2002.

9.       Seniornet Glenfield provides members with the opportunity to gain information and technology skills. It is open Monday to Friday and runs four sessions daily offering a variety of programmes as well as workshops as required. There are currently 298 members.

10.     Seniornet Glenfield has an excellent relationship with the North Shore Women’s Centre and Shakti, the other tenants at the Mayfield Centre.

11.     It has complied with all conditions of the current tenancy agreement. The financial accounts provided indicate that it has sufficient funds to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

12.     Seniornet Glenfield holds all necessary insurance including current public liability.

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

13.     The lease renewal to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated is contemplated in the Kaipātiki Community Lease Work Programme 2018/2019.

14.     The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities. This report asks the local board for a decision to grant a renewal of a community lease.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

16.     Support for Maori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Te Toa Takitini, Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase targeted support for Maori community development projects.

17.     There is no statutory requirement for public notification or Iwi engagement for this lease renewal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18.     There are no cost implications for the local board approving a new lease to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19.     Should the Kaipātiki Local Board resolve not to grant a renewal of the community lease to Seniornet Glenfield Incorporated this decision will materially affect the group’s ability to undertake its core activities

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20.     Subject to the grant of a renewal of a community lease, council staff will work with the group to finalise the deed of renewal.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- The Mayfield Centre

131

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Phillipa Carroll - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Renewal of community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust at 13A Chartwell Avenue, Glenfield

 

File No.: CP2018/21162

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant a renewal of the community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust at 13a Chartwell Avenue, Glenfield.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust hold a community lease for a building and tennis courts in Marlborough Park, Glenfield. The current term of the lease expired on 30 November 2016. The lease is still operative on a month-by-month basis.

3.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust has applied to renew the lease for the 10-year renewal period provided for in the lease. The building and improvements on the site are owned by the trust.

4.       Staff recommend the Kaipātiki Local Board grant a renewal of the community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      grant a renewal of the community lease to The Marlborough Recreation Trust at 13a Chartwell Avenue, Glenfield described as part Lot 152 DP 49525 and part Lot 20 DP 47205 shown on Attachment A on the following terms and conditions:

i)     term – ten (10) years commencing 1 December 2016 with no further right of renewal with final expiry on 30 November 2026

ii)     rent -$1.00 plus GST per annum, if demanded

b)      note all other terms and conditions will be accordance with the deed of lease dated 2009.

 

Horopaki / Context

5.       The Marlborough Recreation Trust has a lease for their building and tennis courts at Marlborough Park that commenced 1 December 2006 for a term of 10 year. The initial 10 -year term of the lease expired on 30 November 2016 and there is one right of renewal available.

6.       The Marlborough Recreation Trust has requested a renewal of the lease and this report deals with this and recommends approval of the renewal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust lease area is on land that is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified Recreation Reserve. The classification permits the proposed activity offered by The Marlborough Recreational Trust

8.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust was incorporated on 21 December 2005. The trust was established by the North Shore Rock Hounds Club Incorporated, the Marlborough Park Tennis Club Incorporated, and the Glenfield Rovers Association Football Club & Sports Club Incorporated to “promote, provide and maintain recreational facilities in the Glenfield area”.

9.       The trust building and tennis courts on Marlborough Park are owned by the trust and occupied by the North Shore Rock Hounds Club Incorporated and the Marlborough Park Tennis Club Incorporated.

10.     The financial accounts provided indicate that the trust’s funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

11.     The trust has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance in place

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

12.     The recommendations within this report fall within local boards’ allocated authority.

13.     The trust’s activities align with the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017 outcome of “Our people are active and healthy”.

14.     The lease renewal to the trust is an item on the Kaipātiki Community Lease Work Programme 2018/2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The Council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tamaki Makaurau context.

16.     These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans. The purpose of community leases is to encourage participation and create local benefits for all communities.

17.     Ensuring community facilities are well maintained and accessible for all members of the community, will be of benefit to all, including Māori.

18.     There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19.     There is no direct cost to council associated with the granting of a renewal of the community lease.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20.     Should the Kaipātiki Local Board resolve not to grant a renewal of community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust this decision may materially affect the trust’s ability to undertake its core activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21.     Subject to the grant of a renewal of a community lease, council staff will work with the trust to finalise the respective deed arrangements.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- The Marlborough Recreational Trust

137

  

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Phillipa Carroll - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Renewal of community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust at McFetridge Park, 115 Archers Road, Glenfield

 

File No.: CP2018/21179

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant a renewal of the community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust at McFetridge Park,115 Archers Road, Glenfield.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust hold a community lease for the changing rooms in McFetridge Park, Glenfield. The current term of the lease expired on 30 November 2016. The lease is still operative on a month-by-month basis.

3.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust has applied to renew their lease for the 10-year renewal term provided in the lease. The building is owned by the council.

4.       Staff recommend the Kaipātiki Local Board grant a renewal of the community lease to The Marlborough Recreational Trust.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      grant a renewal of the community lease to The Marlborough Recreation Trust at McFetridge Park, 115 Archers Road, Glenfield described as part Lot 1 DP 48238 as shown on Attachment A on the following terms and conditions:

i)     term – ten (10) years commencing 1 December 2016 with no further right of renewal with final expiry on 30 November 2026

ii)     rent -$1.00 plus GST per annum, if demanded

b)      note all other terms and conditions will be accordance with the deed of lease dated 2009.

 

Horopaki / Context

5.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust has a lease of the council owned changing rooms at McFetridge Park that commenced 1 December 2006 for a term of 10 years. The initial 10-year term expired on 30 November 2016 and there is one right of renewal available.

6.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust has requested a renewal of the lease and this report deals with this and recommends approval of the renewal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

7.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust lease area is on land that is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve. The classification permits the proposed activity offered by The Marlborough Recreational Trust.

8.       The Marlborough Recreational Trust was incorporated on 21 December 2005. The trust was established by the North Shore Rock Hounds Club Incorporated, the Marlborough Park Tennis Club Incorporated, and the Glenfield Rovers Association Football Club & Sports Club Incorporated to “promote, provide and maintain recreational facilities in the Glenfield area”.

9.       The council owned changing rooms are used by the Glenfield Rovers Association Football Club & Sports Club.

10.     The building adjacent to the subject changing building is owned and used by the Glenfield Rovers Association Football Club and Sports club Incorporated with a separate ground lease.

11.     The changing rooms are well maintained and utilised regularly by the members of the football club.

12.     The financial accounts provided indicate that the trust’s funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

13.     The trust has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance in place.

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

14.     The recommendations within this report fall within local boards’ allocated authority.

15.     The trust’s activities align with the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2017 outcome of “Our people are active and healthy”.

16.     The lease renewal to the trust is an item on the Kaipātiki Community Lease Work Programme 2018/2019.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The Council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tamaki Makaurau context.

18.     These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans. The purpose of community leases is to encourage participation and create local benefits for all communities.

19.     Ensuring community facilities are well maintained and accessible for all members of the community, will be of benefit to all, including Māori.

20.     There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

21.     There is no direct cost to council associated with the granting of a renewal of the community lease.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22.     Should the Kaipātiki Local Board resolve not to grant a renewal of community lease The Marlborough Recreational Trust this decision may materially affect the trust’s ability to undertake its core activities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23.     Subject to the grant of a renewal of a community lease, council staff will work with the trust to finalise the respective deed arrangements.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- The Marlborough Recreational Trust McFetridge Park

143

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Phillipa Carroll - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Draft Contributions Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/20758

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       It is estimated that the Auckland region has a shortfall of 45,000 dwellings to meet current demand for housing. A further 313,000 dwellings and work places to support 250,000 jobs will be required by 2050 to meet expected growth. To manage this growth, the council has identified the:

·        location and nature of growth - through the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

·        location and type of infrastructure required to support growth - through the Development Strategy and structure plans

·        when and where it will invest $7.2 billion of growth-related infrastructure in the next 10 years to support development - through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (10-Year Budget).

3.       Growth-related capital expenditure has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget. The council has also updated its projection of development growth across the next 10 years. The council will repay the borrowing raised to pay for the investment in infrastructure through general rates, targeted rates, user charges, third party funding (like New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) subsidies) and development contributions (DCs).

4.       A review has been undertaken of the current contributions policy and the council has adopted a draft Contributions Policy 2019 (refer Attachment A) for consultation, which includes a number of changes.

5.       To recover the increased investment in growth-related infrastructure, the indicative urban DC price rises from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excluding GST).  As a result, the DC revenue the council expects to collect will rise to $2.7 billion, from $2.23 billion under the current policy.

6.       The demand placed on transport by different types of development has been reviewed. The analysis shows that retail and commercial development place substantially higher demand on transport infrastructure than is reflected in the current policy. The draft policy includes higher unit of demand factors for transport, and hence prices, for retail and commercial development, with smaller decreases for other development types. This would more fairly reflect the demand different development types place on the need to invest in infrastructure.

7.       The draft Contributions Policy 2019 also proposes:

·        extending the timeframe for the payment of DCs on residential construction; this will better align the time that residential builders pay DCs to the time they sell the developments

·        refining and changing funding areas to better match investment with beneficiaries, including adding areas for:

transport, to reflect areas where significant local infrastructure investment is planned

reserves, to provide more detail on projects and their location

·        minor amendments, including changes to development types.

8.       Consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is taking place from 19 October until 15 November 2018, including:

·        five have-your-say events held across the region

·        engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·        opportunity for submitters to personally present their feedback to councillors on 23 November 2018.

9.       Local board November meetings will consider the draft Contribution Policy 2019 and resolve feedback to inform the Governing Body’s decision-making in December.

10.     Consultation is supported by consultation document and supporting information (refer Attachments B and C respectively), which set out:

·        an overview of how the council is responding to growth and how DCs fit within this context

·        a description of how the council sets DC charges

·        the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why these have been proposed.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      resolve feedback on the Contributions Policy 2019.

 

Horopaki / Context

11.     The current policy is known as the Contributions Policy 2015 (Variation A) and reflects the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. DCs have recovered approximately $400 million of funding for growth projects in the last three years.

12.     Council reviewed the current policy and recommended that it be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-Year Budget. At its meeting on 30 April 2018, the Governing Body agreed to consult on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018.

13.     Feedback from the development community requested more detailed supporting information and a longer period for consultation on the draft policy. In response, at its meeting on 27 June 2018, the Governing Body agreed to extend the current policy until 31 January 2019 so that additional supporting information for the policy could be prepared and further consultation on the 2019 policy undertaken.

14.     The policy has been reviewed in accordance with the following principles:

·        purpose and principles of DCs under the Local Government Act 2002

·        equitable sharing of costs of growth between ratepayers, developers and other members of the community, having regard to such matters as who causes the costs and who receives the benefits

·        equitable sharing of costs of growth between different types of development and different funding areas

·        revenue predictability for the council and cost certainty for developers

·        administrative simplicity

·        ensuring legislative compliance.

15.     Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 considers the appropriateness of DCs as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Auckland Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy sets out how the council will fund capital and operating expenditure for each of its activities, including its decisions to use DCs to fund growth capital expenditure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Capital expenditure and funding for Auckland’s growth

Capital investment and DC revenue

16.     The following table below sets out the changes in DC revenue by activity between the current policy and the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

DC revenue by activity ($ billion)

Current DC policy

Draft DC policy 2019

 Transport

0.7

1.1

 Stormwater

0.5

0.5

 Parks and community infrastructure

1.0

1.1

Total

2.2

2.7

Contributions pricing

17.     The 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 assumes that a Contributions Policy 2019 will be adopted reflecting the Revenue and Financing Policy position that growth-related infrastructure investment should be funded from DCs. The 10-Year Budget assumes that the policy will provide for DCs to recover $2.7 billion of the cost of the planned investment in growth infrastructure.

18.     The indicative urban DC will rise from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excluding GST). DCs vary widely depending on the type of development and the infrastructure needed to support growth in different locations.

19.     Some infrastructure investments provide benefits across the region or respond to cost pressures driven by growth, regardless of location. Under the proposed policy to recover these costs, every development would pay $8090 per housing unit equivalent (HUE) for regional infrastructure. However, the sub-regional and local requirements for infrastructure vary depending on the infrastructure required to support growth in that area and the capacity of existing infrastructure. As a result, DC prices would vary across the region, for example:

·        Manurewa-Papakura - new DC price will be $42,182 to reflect increase in stormwater and parks investment

·        Manukau Central - new DC price will be $22,572 as there is capacity available in existing network infrastructure.

Impact of increasing DC price

20.     Raising the price of DCs:

·        better aligns DCs with actual cost of infrastructure

·        increases certainty that infrastructure will be delivered

·        encourages developers to more accurately price land purchased for development to reflect future DC costs

·        negatively impacts developers who have paid for land based on current DC prices.

21.     Economic research indicates that increasing the DC price does not generally increase house prices. House prices are determined by the balance of supply and demand. Development is only cost plus where the value of land for housing is the same as its value in alternative uses, i.e. agriculture. The price of land that can be developed for housing or business use in Auckland is much higher than its value in agricultural use.

22.     Developers generally establish the price they will pay for land based on:

·        expected sale price of finished house (as set by the market – supply and demand)

-    less land development costs

-    less construction costs

-    less council cost, including DCs

-    less profit margin

-    equals the price paid for land.

Alternative options considered

23.     There are two alternatives to the proposed increase in DCs:

·        defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

·        increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

24.     The increase in DC price over the period of the 10-Year Budget is forecast to provide an additional $500 million of revenue. Without this revenue, the council would need to reduce its planned capital expenditure by between $1 billion and $4 billion, depending on which projects were prioritised. This sum exceeds the loss in revenue because DCs make up varying proportions of the funding of individual projects[1]. This option was not adopted as these investments are vital to:

·        maintain service levels in the face of growth pressures

·        support making land available for new development in both the greenfields and brownfields.

25.     To maintain the planned level of investment without increasing DCs would require an increase in rates funding of between $50 million and $200 million per annum. This is equivalent to an additional general rate increase of between 3 and 13 per cent. Land owners, developers and the owners of new construction are the beneficiaries of the portion of investment in infrastructure that supports growth. This option was not proposed as it is appropriate that the growth share of funding comes from the beneficiaries via DCs, not general ratepayers.

Possible legislative changes to funding of community infrastructure

26.     Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the council’s ability to use DCs to fund a broader range of community infrastructure (including for example, public swimming pools and libraries). If this legislation passes, the council can consider changing its capital budgets and amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure.

Unit of demand factors

27.     Different types of development place different demands on infrastructure. The council uses unit of demand factors to fairly share the cost of infrastructure across development types.

28.     Demand factors are set relative to the standard residential dwelling of between 100m2 and 249m2. A standard residential dwelling is referred to as a household equivalent unit (HUE).  For example, a retirement unit is charged at 30 per cent of the rate for transport that a residential dwelling pays, i.e. 0.3 HUE.

Non-residential transport

29.     Transport demand factors are calculated using data on the daily volume of trips generated from each development type. For residential development, the demand factor is adjusted for relative occupancy levels between residential development types.

30.     A review of the statistical trip generation data shows that retail and commercial developments generate substantially more trips than residential and other development types. These results are consistent with staff experience of case-by-case analysis undertaken by the former councils of the transport impacts from this type of development.

31.     The transport demand factors proposed are set out in the following table. Because non-residential developments are usually larger than residential dwellings, the demand factors are translated into HUEs per 100m2.

Units of demand per 100m2

Development type

Current DC Policy

Draft DC Policy 2019

Commercial

0.37 HUE

0.73 HUE

Retail

0.47 HUE

2.79 HUE

Education and health

0.37 HUE

0.37 HUE

Production and distribution

0.29 HUE

0.10 HUE

Other non-residential not specified above

0.36 HUE

1.00 HUE

32.     These transport demand factors are comparable with those for other councils. Hamilton sets the rate for high demand non-residential at 2.75 HUEs (which includes retail), and Queenstown 2.83 HUEs. Christchurch and Wellington also use higher factors for commercial and retail development.

33.     The demand factors derived from the analysis above produce substantial price changes for retail and commercial development. As this type of development represents a small proportion of overall development, the price reduction for other development types is lower.

34.     As the transport component of DCs varies across the region based on the need for investment in each area, the exact price effects will vary. In broad average terms, the DC transport price for retail will rise by $18,000 per 100m2, and $2900 for commercial, if the proposed demand factors are used in comparison to the current factors. These will fall by $1450 per 100m2 for production and $500 for a standard residential dwelling. The impact is illustrated below with examples based on two recent developments:

·        5,000m2 retail mall development in the north would pay $1.3 million under the proposed demand factors, whereas it would be $224,000 under the current demand factors

·        50,000m2 production development in the south would pay $410,000 under the proposed demand factors, whereas they would pay $1.15 million under the current demand factors.

35.     Two alternative options to making the changes to non-residential transport unit of demand factors were considered:

·        retaining the status quo

·        move to the new factors in equal steps over a three-year period.

36.     Retaining the status quo was rejected on the basis that the evidence clearly shows that transport demand is much higher for retail and commercial development than for other development types. At present, other development is effectively subsidising retail and commercial development. Large developers operating nationwide will be aware of these differences in DC prices.

37.     As the price increases are substantial, the council could consider a three-year transition.  This option was rejected as it would extend the current subsidisation. The price changes are substantial; however, the subsidisation is also large. It is likely that developers operating nationwide will have been expecting this change for some time.

38.     It was also noted that a transition could create administration issues and present revenue risks that may be difficult to forecast. Developers often lodge consents early when they become aware of pending changes to contributions prices. A transition of this nature would create incentives for all development types around the staging of transitional price changes.  Retail developers may try to lodge consents prior to the date of changes and others may delay applications. This is likely to have implications for both our revenue forecasts and our consenting and DC assessment teams.

Reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities

39.     The council’s unit of demand factors for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities are based primarily on the relative occupancy of different types of residential development compared to a standard residential dwelling.

40.     Council staff are reviewing the relative use of reserves and community facilities by the occupants of different residential development types. Part of this review involves undertaking an extensive survey of usage of reserves and community facilities by Aucklanders. This is to ensure this survey provides the best information it needs to cover Aucklanders’ use across seasons.

41.     The results of the survey are expected to be available early next year. Council staff will report the results of the review, including the survey data, in the first quarter of next year. If the review suggests changes should be considered to the units of demand for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities, the policy can be amended at that time following consultation, if appropriate.

Remissions for Māori development and social housing

42.     The current contributions policy does not provide for remissions or waivers of DCs.  Feedback from Māori and social housing developers is that the requirement to pay DCs is an additional challenge to overcome that presents a further barrier to development. Iwi have raised the many difficulties associated with developing Māori land, as well as noting their recent gifting of land for parks and the historic confiscation of land for public works.

43.     Council staff do not recommend the use of DC remissions. Support for Māori development and social housing is better made transparently from a fixed grant budget or considered on a case-by-case basis. Grants enable the council to make decisions on the relative merits of individual proposals rather than automatically supporting or rejecting applications on predetermined criteria.

44.     The council currently offers support for DCs for Māori development through the Marae and Papakāinga grant made available through the Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund. The policies governing the fund are currently being reviewed and will be considered by the Community Development and Safety Committee later this year.

45.     Council does not currently offer a regional grant scheme that enables funding of DCs for social housing. The council’s position to date has been that social housing is a government responsibility. However, the council did provide a one-off grant of $475,000 to the City Mission for the development of the HomeGround facility. The grant was based on an estimate of DCs and consenting costs. Council staff recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for DCs for social housing, this should be through the development of a grants scheme as part of the Annual Plan 2019/2020. A grant can be used to fund any development costs and not just council fees, as was the case with the HomeGround grant.

46.     DCs are set to recover the cost of planned growth infrastructure from developers. Any remission of DCs would reduce revenue. The loss of revenue from a remission scheme cannot be recovered from other developers as they are only required to pay the cost of the demand they place on infrastructure. Remission of DCs for some developers do not change the level of demand for infrastructure from other developers.

47.     Revenue would instead need to be made up by reductions in expenditure or increases in general rates. Remissions administered under the Contributions Policy would need to provide for automatic trigger tests and hence an unconstrained budget.

48.     Further discussion of remissions for Māori development and social housing is set out in Attachment D.

Payment timing

49.     Developers prefer to pay DCs as close as possible to the potential realisation of their investment e.g. sale of land or buildings. The current payment timing for the main development types (other triggers make up a very small proportion of DCs) are at the issue of:

·        land title for subdivisions – around one year before sale

·        building consent for residential development – around six to 12 months before sale

·        code compliance certificate for non-residential development – around time of sale.

50.     DCs invoiced on building consent for residential development are approximately 25 per cent of total DC revenue. Residential developments are currently required to pay DCs when the building consent is issued. Council staff propose to adjust the payment timing for residential developments as follows:

·        A consent that creates five or more dwelling units will be treated as a non-residential development. This will allow the DCs to be invoiced at the time the Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) is applied for. This will extend the time until council receives payment by an average of 12 months.

·        All other residential consents will be invoiced six months after building consent is issued.

51.     This change will support residential developers by better aligning the requirement to pay DCs with developers’ cash flows. Reducing the amount of capital investment required prior to construction will make it easier for developers to finance and progress residential projects.  This proposal formed part of the consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018 and was supported by all 17 submissions that commented on it.

52.     The proposed changes will lead to a one-off reduction in the council’s DC revenue of $10 million for 2018/2019. The council can manage this change within its present budget. The change is not material over the 10-Year Budget period as all developments will still pay, just slightly later.

53.     The council includes the interest cost of the difference between the receipt of DCs and the timing of investment in growth-related projects. The cost of receiving DC payments on residential building development slightly later will be factored into the DC price. The proposal will increase the DC price by between $100 and $200 (or less than 1 per cent) on average, depending on the units of demand used for transport.

54.     Consideration was also given to retaining the status quo. However, preference was given to easing the cash flow demands on residential builders, rather than land developers focusing on subdivision and non-residential builders. Residential builders are often operating at a smaller scale with more limited access to capital. Providing them additional time eases their cash flow demands and supports the dwelling construction the council is seeking.

55.     Neither the proposal or the status quo present any risk to the council in terms of payment security. The council has statutory powers to recover unpaid DCs, including registering a statutory charge on property where DCs have not been paid. While the council has some aged DC debt, this is a very small proportion of the DCs invoiced over the last eight years. In this time, the council has written off less than $100,000 of DC debt out of $740 million invoiced.

56.     Two administrative changes are also proposed to payment timing and enforcement.  Developers who require a land use consent, but cannot be assessed for DCs on a resource consent or building consent, will be required to pay on land use consent. At present, non-residential developments are required to pay on the issue of a CCC or certificate of public use (CPU). Some developments do not require a CCC or CPU to operate and are avoiding payment. It is proposed that all non-residential developments will be required to pay 24 months after the issue of a building consent at the latest. This provides sufficient time for developers to realise their investment whilst ensuring securing of payment for council.

Other proposed changes to the Policy

Funding areas

57.     The draft Contributions Policy 2019 includes seven additional funding areas for transport. These funding areas allocate the cost of transport infrastructure to the priority growth areas in the north-west, Dairy Flat/Wainui/Silverdale, Greater Tamaki and Albany, and transport infrastructure (mainly road sealing) for the benefit of rural areas in the north, west and south.

58.     Changes have also been made to the funding areas for reserves to provide a more refined allocation of these costs to development areas. The greenfield, urban and rural funding areas have been replaced with Northern Greenfield, Southern Greenfield, North-west Greenfield and Urban funding areas. As a result, the DC costs better reflect the differences in investment required to meet the needs of future growth. A new funding area has also been created for reserves and community facilities in Greater Tamaki to reflect the specific needs and plans for that area.

59.     Two new stormwater funding areas have also been added where investment is now planned; Hauraki Gulf Islands and Omaha/Matakana.

Development Types

60.     Amendments are also proposed to the following development types to better reflect the demand they place on infrastructure or clarify definitions. Maintaining the status quo for these areas was rejected to ensure an appropriate level of cost was recovered and to reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.

Student accommodation

61.     Create a new ‘student accommodation units’ category for student accommodation (to be administered by schools/universities). This category will have a lower price for transport and open space than a standard residential dwelling because of lower occupancy.

Small ancillary dwelling units

62.     Change the size definition of small ancillary dwelling units to those with a gross floor area less than or equal to 65m². This aligns the Contributions Policy with the definition in the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Retirement villages

63.     Amend the definition of a retirement village to align with the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Accommodation units for short term rental

64.     Amend the definition of accommodation units to clarify that they include properties used for short term rental. Long-term rentals will continue to be treated as dwelling units.

A long-term view of growth infrastructure costs

65.     The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2018-2028 includes over $26 billion of investment for Auckland including significant investment to support new development over the next 10 years. This investment is not, however, sufficient to enable all future urban areas to be developed now or all of the intensification projects to proceed immediately.

66.     The proposed contributions policy seeks to recover a fair share of the infrastructure costs currently planned from developments that are enabled by or benefit from this planned infrastructure. In areas that already have sufficient infrastructure, or where it is planned within the next 10 years, the policy describes the contribution to the cost of this infrastructure that will be charged to different types of development.

67.     For areas where the infrastructure provision is not already provided or scheduled for the 2018-2028 period, development cannot yet proceed due to the infrastructure constraints. The council will continue to work on determining the cost and funding arrangements for the infrastructure required. The development charges included in the draft Contributions Policy 2019 do not yet fully reflect the true cost of providing infrastructure in those areas. For some of these development areas, particularly greenfield areas, the council infrastructure cost per house has been estimated at around $70,000. Once the costs and funding arrangements are clear, growth charges will be updated to ensure they are paying their fair share when the areas are able to be developed.

68.     Limits on the council’s ability to borrow mean that additional investment, even if it is eventually funded by developers, would require new or alternative financing mechanisms. Council continues to work on new ways to partner with others to build and finance infrastructure. If council can do this successfully, it will enable more development areas to be supported earlier.

Public consultation

69.     Public consultation will run from 19 October to 4pm on 15 November 2018.

70.     Five have-your-say events (HYSE) have been planned to take place during the public consultation period:

·        South - Manukau

·        North - Takapuna

·        Central – CBD

·        Retirement village developers - CBD

·        Western Springs Garden Hall (evening).

71.     The location and timing of HYSE are scheduled to provide for developers and the public to engage with the council at locations and timings organised to suit their needs and preferences. These five HYSE provide an opportunity for developers and other interested parties to learn more about the draft policy and provide feedback. All comments will be captured and reported through to the Finance and Performance Committee to help inform decision-making on the final policy.

72.     It is planned to ask those providing written feedback if they would like to register their interest in personally presenting their feedback to councillors on Friday 23 November 2018. This will provide time for 30 presentations, allowing 15 minutes for each presentation including questions. Seventeen submitters expressed an interest to be heard following the May 2018 consultation. The invitation will note that it may not be possible to make time to hear everyone if the event is over-subscribed given the need to manage costs and limitations on councillors’ available time. If necessary, slots would be allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.

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

73.     The DC price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The funding areas are set out in the attached policy documents.

74.     Council staff provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board cluster meetings in October 2018. 

75.     Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to give input on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

76.     Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report to inform the Governing Body’s consideration of the adoption of the Contribution Policy 2019 in December 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

77.     Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Māori will be similar to the impact on other developers.

78.     Feedback from Māori received in the May 2018 consultation has been considered as part of the development of the revised draft Contributions Policy 2019. Key issues raised were that the Contributions Policy should:

·        reflect the Auckland Plan 2050 outcome to support Māori identify and wellbeing, for example by exempting (remitting) DCs for Māori developments 

·        include specific development types for Māori development.

79.     The remission of DCs for Māori development is discussed in this report.

80.     Development types are created based on evidence that different types of development generate different levels of demand for infrastructure. The policy does not currently contain specific Māori development types. Māori developments are categorised under broader development types based on the demand they generate. For example, kaumātua housing is treated the same as retirement villages, and marae fall under community facilities. As more Māori developments occur, evidence of demand generation can be used to reclassify developments or create new development types.

81.     Māori have expressed aspirations for their land that include new forms of development that may not fit into existing development types. Legislation provides for the reconsideration of DC assessments for individual developments where evidence is available to show that the demand it will generate is less than its classification under the existing policy. Council also proactively reviews the availability of evidence for demand, and amends the Contributions Policy for new or adjusted development types and demand factors as evidence becomes available. Council will continue to work with Māori to ensure that the Contributions Policy, in its design and its application, appropriately reflects the realities of Māori development.

82.     Feedback from iwi on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 will be sought as part of public consultation and via engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. Mana whenua will also be invited to present their feedback to councillors through the formal engagement for stakeholders referred to in the public consultation section above.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

83.     The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

84.     Investment in DC funded growth-related infrastructure carries the risk of development projections, and therefore DC revenue, not being met. These risks will be managed through monitoring consent applications and DC revenue.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

85.     Public consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is to be held from 19 October to 15 November 2018 as above.  Feedback would be reported to the Governing Body workshop on 29 November 2018. Council staff would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December 2018 meeting of the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Contributions Policy 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Consultation document

157

c

Supporting information

179

d

Remissions of development contributions for Māori development and social housing

199

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Felipe Panteli - Senior Policy Advisor

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

 

File No.: CP2018/21747

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

3.       In response to these challenges, the Environment and Community Committee approved the scope of a strategy for Auckland’s waters at its June 2018 meeting (resolution number ENV/2018/78). The strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved management for water in all its forms. It will establish the outcomes needed for Auckland’s waters, as part of implementation of the Auckland Plan.

4.       Staff from across Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport have started developing the draft Auckland Water Strategy by first identifying Auckland’s water issues.

5.       A comprehensive engagement programme has also commenced. This has included mana whenua engagement through the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, as well as separate workshops with operational kaitiaki.

6.       Staff have also attended workshops with all 21 local boards, the Governing Body and subject matter experts to present the progress of the strategy, and to introduce key topics to be addressed in the strategy.

7.       A draft discussion document is now being developed. This document will set out the key water topics and propose a framework for the water strategy for public feedback. 

8.       This report provides an update on the development of the strategy and requests formal feedback from the local board on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy (refer Attachment A). A template to guide local board feedback has been included as Attachment B to this report.

9.       Feedback from local boards will be summarised as part of a report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of a water strategy discussion document ahead of public consultation from February to April 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

b)      note that local board feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy will be included in a report to the Environmental and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of the draft Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation in early 2019.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     The health of Auckland’s waters is a significant issue. Decades of pressure have had negative impacts on water quality and on freshwater and marine environments. This pressure will continue to increase if changes are not made to the way that water is valued and managed. Population growth and climate change will further amplify the challenges, with greater demand for water services and an increased risk of flooding and coastal inundation.

11.     The Auckland Plan notes a key challenge of ‘environmental degradation’ and identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions (focus area five of the Auckland Plan’s environment and cultural heritage outcome). Other focus areas of the Auckland Plan speak to the need to future-proof Auckland’s infrastructure, make sustainable choices, and fully account for past and future impacts of growth.

12.     The Environment and Community Committee agreed to the development of the Auckland Water Strategy at its 12 September 2017 meeting. The committee noted that water is often described and managed in categories, such as stormwater, wastewater and drinking water. An overarching strategy for Auckland’s waters, in all their forms, was identified as a way of ensuring the full range of desired outcomes for water are defined and achieved in an integrated way.

13.     Several drivers give weight to the timely development of this strategy. These include heightened public awareness of water quality risks, and strong support from the public for improvements to water quality through the 10-year Budget, central government initiatives (such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Department of Internal Affairs review of three waters outcomes) and the need to update existing strategies due to significant population growth. It also responds to mana whenua aspirations surrounding te mauri o te wai.

14.     Since the strategy’s initiation in September 2017, staff have undertaken preliminary analytical work and engagement across the council group. This includes resolving the intersection of the strategy with the section 17A three waters review, mapping the council group’s current water-related activities, and analysing the public feedback on the proposed Auckland Plan and 10-year Budget.

15.     An extensive local board and mana whenua engagement programme has been undertaken. In September and October 2018, staff presented the proposed topics to be addressed through the water strategy to all 21 local boards. Mana whenua have been engaged at both a governance and operational level. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum provided strategic direction, while operational kaitiaki provided direction on the values. Subject matter experts from across the council group, local boards and the Governing Body have also provided feedback on the key topics.

16.     This report provides a progress update on the development of the strategy and also provides an opportunity for the local board to provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy (refer Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Purpose and proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

17.     The Auckland Water Strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group in how to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved water management. It is expected that the strategy will define the approaches taken around water in other strategies and plans as they are subsequently developed and reviewed.

18.     The proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (refer to Attachment A) were developed through the review of the existing policies and strategies, and through a series of workshops and discussions with staff from Auckland Council, including Watercare and Auckland Transport.

19.     Attachment A describes the current strategic context, purpose, vision, values, issues, processes and principles that are proposed to inform the development of the discussion document for the draft Auckland Water Strategy.

Request for local board feedback

20.     Further to the workshops held with local boards in September and October 2018, local boards are formally requested to provide feedback on the draft topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy ahead of the Environment and Community Committee’s consideration in December 2018. Attachment B provides a template to guide local board feedback.

21.     The draft vision for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy is ‘Te mauri o te wai – the life supporting capacity of water – is protected and enhanced’. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether this vision is right for the communities they represent.

22.     The draft values for inclusion in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback around whether these values cover the aspects of water that are most important to the boards:

·    ecology

·    water use

·    culture

·    recreation and amenity

·    resilience.

23.     The draft issues to be addressed through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the issues that are of greatest concern to them:

·    cleaning up our waterways

·    meeting future water needs

·    growth in the right places

·    adapting to a changing water future.

24.     The draft processes to be worked on through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the processes that they are most concerned with:

·    creating our water future together

·    setting priorities for investment

·    achieving net benefits for catchments

·    applying a Māori world view.

25.     The draft principles to be included in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether or not they agree with these principles:

·    recognise that water is a taonga

·    work with natural ecosystems

·    deliver catchment scale thinking and action

·    focus on achieving the right-sized solutions with multiple benefits

·    work together to plan and deliver better water quality outcomes

·    look to the future.

26.     As the development of the strategy has progressed, it has become clear that it will need to be developed in stages. Many of the water challenges that have been identified require more analysis and public engagement before a strategy can be agreed. For this reason, the discussion document that is proposed to be released in early 2019 will be focused on identifying and agreeing the water issues that Auckland faces within a proposed framework of vision, values and principles. From there, the Governing Body will be able to review and agree a staged programme that builds on the framework towards a final strategy.

27.     Local board feedback on the draft topics outlined in Attachment B will be summarised as part of the report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, requesting approval of a draft discussion document for public consultation. A further update on the Auckland Water Strategy will be provided to local boards in February 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

28.     Local boards have a strong interest in improving water quality across the Auckland region and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

29.     Staff attended a local board chairs’ meeting on 13 November 2017 to introduce the concept of the strategy and expected range of activities arising from the strategy. Board chairs indicated their interest in continued involvement.

30.     Staff presented the scope, summary and the progress on the strategy’s development to all 21 local boards between 30 August 2018 and 23 October 2018. Key themes in the feedback provided by local boards at these workshops included the need to:

·    acknowledge water as being a precious commodity that needs to be preserved as the population grows

·    increase the focus on the health of Auckland’s harbours

·    identify future drinking water sources

·    educate people around resilience, water usage, and the impacts of their activities on the environment

·    strengthen regulation and compliance to protect waterways.

31.     This report presents the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy, and seeks formal feedback from local boards ahead of the Environment and Community Committee approval of a discussion document in December 2018 for public consultation in early 2019. Key questions to guide local board feedback have been included as Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32.     Mauri (life force) is a fundamental concept of the Māori world view. The state of mauri is an indicator of overall environmental, cultural and social wellbeing. All water sources have an inherent mauri that can be diminished or enhanced.

33.     Enhancing the mauri of waterways is of key significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s waters. Early engagement with mana whenua to promote kaitiakitanga and embed mana whenua values into this work will be critical to the success of the actions outlined in this report.

34.     The development of the Auckland Water Strategy has been guided by the strategic advice provided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Governance Forum. The forum has determined it will provide its own strategic advice, to ensure that core mana whenua principles and values are given the attention they need. The forum requested that one of their members be included on the governance group for the development of the strategy. This has been achieved with Auckland’s Water Political Reference Group, and recognises the longstanding whakaaro and kōrero that mana whenua have provided on this kaupapa.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35.     The budget to develop the Auckland Water Strategy was included as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This budget covers operational expenses (primarily staff time) and will be used to support public engagement.

36.     The budget required to deliver any actions arising from the strategy will be sought through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process. 

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

37.     An initial risk assessment for the programme has been carried out, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Auckland Water Strategy work programme risks and proposed mitigations

Risk type

Risk description

Consequence description

Rating

(High-Medium-Low)

Mitigation/ Control

Scope expansion

Water is a broad subject and the level of detail and number of topics to cover can grow and change rapidly.

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Guidance from the Political Reference Group and Executive Steering Group

Central government changes to legislation and policy

There are several central government work programmes underway focusing on water, such as the Department of Internal Affairs Three Waters review and the Office of the Auditor Generals Water Programme. The strategy will need to adapt to any changes in direction from central government.

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Anticipate, where possible, communication plans to include government stakeholders

Inconsistent practices and adoption of the strategy

The strategy is not adopted and reflected in the plans of the operational and delivery organisations of the council group.

Outcomes of the strategy are not delivered, substantive actions to deliver the strategy are not undertaken

Medium

Ensure that the delivery teams of the council group are engaged in the development of the strategy

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38.     The next steps in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy have been outlined in Table 2:


 

 

Table 2: Timeframes for the development of the Auckland Water Strategy

Activity

Expected timeframe

Formal local board feedback sought on proposed topics of the Auckland Water Strategy for the discussion document

November 2018

Internal discussions on the topics for inclusion in the draft discussion document, and presentations to the Watercare and Auckland Transport boards

November-December 2018

Draft discussion document reported to Environment and Community Committee for approval ahead of public consultation

December 2018

Public consultation on the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document

February-April 2019

Public engagement feedback presented to elected members

April 2019

Draft options for the finalisation of the Auckland Water Strategy, and associated work programmes to be presented to the Environment and Community Committee

June 2019

39.     Local boards will receive a further update on the Auckland Water Strategy in February 2019.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

211

b

Local board feedback template for proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

219

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Funding food scraps collection service through a targeted rate

 

File No.: CP2018/20921

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on providing a food scrap collection service to the North Shore trial area households, and funding this through a targeted rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 commits to a weekly food scrap collection service to be introduced to urban areas from 2018, starting in Papakura. The service will be delivered to 85 per cent of the region’s population.

3.       To support the development of a region wide service, a trial collection service was introduced to 2,000 North Shore households in May 2014, including parts of Northcote, Milford and Takapuna. It included 550 houses in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

4.       The aim of the trial was to generate data and learnings that could then be applied to the wider regional service roll out.

5.       Since this trial started, a food scrap collection service has also been provided to approximately 18,000 households in the Papakura Local Board area since March 2018.

6.       As part of the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028, the council agreed to fund the kerbside collection of food scraps through a new targeted rate. This is currently $67 per household per year.

7.       With regards to the North Shore trial, the council is now considering three options:

·     Option one: Continue to deliver the food scraps collection service to households in the trial area and continue to fund this through the waste levy.

·     Option two: Continue to deliver the food scraps collection service to households in the trial area and fund this through introduction of a new targeted rate of $67 per year.

·     Option three: Discontinue the food scraps trial in the North Shore area. Households will not receive a service or pay a targeted rate until the full regional roll out in 2021.

8.       Option two: The targeted rate is recommended to continue the food scraps collection and waste levy. This is because it will:

·     Support residents to continue their current positive waste minimisation behaviours, diverting 170 tonnes of waste from landfill per year.

·     Be consistent with the provision of the service in the Papakura Local Board area (where it is funded through a targeted rate) and other areas, as the service is rolled out.

·     Respond to strong public and elected member support for continuing the service.

9.       Staff will recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 29 November 2018, that a proposal to continue the food scraps collection service in the trial area and fund this through a targeted rate be included in the consultation on the Annual Plan 2019/2020. The local board’s feedback is sought to inform governing body decision making.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      support option two to consult in the 2019/2020 Annual Plan on providing a food scrap collection service to households in the trial area, with the funding necessary to implement this service collected through levying a targeted rate of $67 per annum on all households within the trial area.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     In June 2018, Auckland Council approved Te Mahere Whakahaere me to Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste (referred to throughout this document as the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan).

11.     The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan outlines how Auckland aspires to be zero waste by 2040, while taking care of the region’s people and the environment, and turning waste into resources.

12.     Organic material, particularly food scraps, make up the largest portion of waste by weight in the average Auckland household refuse bin. It is the largest domestic contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from waste. Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan outlines a four-tiered approach to food waste to ensure it is valued as a resource:

·    prevent food waste in the first place;

·    support redistribution of food through food rescue initiatives;

·    encourage home composting and community composting where possible; and

·    collect the remainder with the kerbside collection of food scraps service.

13.     Auckland will continue leading on the management and minimisation of domestic waste by introducing a three-bin system for refuse, recycling and food scraps across the region. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan outlines that refuse collection will be funded through a ‘pay-as-you-throw system’, whereas recycling and food scraps collection will be funded through a targeted rate.

14.     One key action in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is that a weekly food scraps collection service will be introduced to urban areas from 2018. The service will be delivered to 85 per cent of the region’s population.

North Shore trial

15.     In preparation for this food scraps service, in May 2014 an organics pilot trial was introduced to 2,000 households across the Milford, Takapuna and Northcote areas of the North Shore. The areas chosen were representative of the wider regional Auckland demographic.

16.     The intention of the trial was to establish best practice for an Auckland food scraps collection. Overall, the trial has had high satisfaction and participation rates of 78 per cent.

17.     Findings from the trial have also provided data and learnings for the full-scale roll-out.

18.     Although the May 2014 trial was initially designed to cover a 12-month period, its success, and the learning opportunities gathered from participants has seen this timeframe extended up until the present day.

19.     The current cost of the food scraps collection in the Milford, Takapuna and Northcote trial area is approximately $190,000 per annum. The service is funded through waste levy funding.

Integration with regional service roll out

20.     In June 2018, the food scraps collection service was started in Papakura, which signaled the beginning of the regional service roll out, due to be fully implemented by 2021.

21.     Given that the food scraps collection service is now being rolled out regionally, this raises the issue of whether (and how) to best deliver and fund the North Shore trial. Initial discussions and recommendations proposed that the trial finish in September 2018.

22.     A memo regarding the proposal to finish the trial was issued to the local boards in July 2018. Feedback received from local board members and councillors at that time indicated a strong desire to continue with the collection in the North Shore areas.

23.     The local community has also expressed strong support for the service, with qualitative research conducted in 2016 suggesting that 83 per cent of respondents would be unhappy if the service stopped. The research also showed that residents are motivated and understand the personal benefits to their household and Auckland’s environment from reducing their household waste and diverting waste from landfill.

24.     To respond to this feedback, staff have engaged in an analysis of various options relating to whether to continue the collection, and if it is continued, how it should be funded.

25.     This report outlines the options that will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 29 November 2018. The local board’s feedback is sought to inform governing body decision making.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

26.     Staff have analysed three options for funding the food scraps collection on the North Shore. The three options that were analysed are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Options analysis for food scraps collection service and funding

Option

Pros

Cons

One: Keep the service and continue to fund it from the waste levy (status quo)

 

The residents in the trial area continue to receive the service.

170 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill per year

Inconsistency: The trial area residents receive this service at no cost whilst residents in other parts of Auckland receiving the same service pay a targeted rate.

$190,000 funds from waste levy cannot be used for other purposes.

Two: Keep the service and charge a food scraps targeted rate to these properties ($67+inflation) with no opt out (recommended)

 

A regionally consistent approach to charging for this service.

Residents who have been a part of the food scraps trial since 2014 can continue their waste diversion behavior and do not have to stop and wait until the regional roll out is applied in their area.

170 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill.

Some residents in the trial area may be unhappy about being charged for the service, after receiving this for free for several years.

Administrative burden: The trial households are spread across three suburbs. The targeted rate will need to be applied to each of the individual properties within the trial area, whether they use the service or not.  

Three: Discontinue the service and wait for the regional roll out in this area

Households in the trial area would not need to pay any additional rates.

The full $190,000 cost of the trial service will become available to Auckland Council to use for other waste minimisation initiatives.

Residents who have been a part of the food scraps trial since 2014 will have to stop their food scraps diversion behavior and wait for the service to be rolled out regionally. This is inconsistent with overall zero waste goal of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

170 additional tonnes of waste will go to landfill. The cost of this will fall to residents, as this area has an user-pays system for rubbish collections.

27.     Option one is not preferred, as it is not in alignment with the service funding decisions made through the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. It also creates an inconsistency in charging methodology for the food scraps collection throughout the region. Continuing to fund the food scraps trial through waste levy funding also means this funding cannot be used for other waste minimisation initiatives.

28.     Option three is also not recommended, as it is not reflective of the feedback received to date from residents, local board members and councillors expressing strong support for continuing the service. While this option does not require residents to pay an additional rate, it will have other financial implications as they will need to cover the costs of the disposal of food scraps through their user-pays funded rubbish collection. There is also a risk that residents will become disengaged from waste minimisation behaviours and revert to poor waste disposal practices.

Recommended option

29.     Option two is recommended as it allows for residents in the North Shore trial area to continue proactively diverting their waste in a way that is in alignment with the regional service roll out. While residents in the trial area will see an increase in their rates they will be able to continue using the food scraps service.

30.     There is a risk that some of the residents within the trial area, who are not currently utilising the service, will be unhappy about the charge. This is a risk that the governing body considered during adoption of the last Long-term Plan. They determined that the food scraps service should be regionally consistent and applied to all residents, to achieve the best outcomes in terms of participation rates and diversion of waste from landfill.

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

31.     As outlined above, feedback from local residents and informal feedback from the local board has shown support for retaining the food scraps collection service.

32.     The purpose of this report is to formally request local board feedback on the proposal to consult in the next Annual Plan on continuing the food scraps collection service and levying a targeted rate to fund this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

33.     Although no consultation has been undertaken with iwi on this specific decision, extensive discussions were held with iwi through the development of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

34.     The adopted Waste Management and Minimisation Plan recognises the intrinsic connection between mātauranga and tikanga Māori and how the proposed model of reusing food scraps aligns with a Te Ao Māori world view in which resources should be reused, rather than being treated as ‘waste’.

35.     Feedback on waste targeted rates was also sought through the recent Long-term Plan consultation. Of the 15 iwi organisations who made submissions, only one commented specifically about the proposed changes to waste rates. Ngāti Tamaoho expressed support for both the food scraps collection targeted rate and the pay as you throw waste charge.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

36.     At present the trial is fully funded by Auckland Council and is free of charge to the 2,000 North Shore trial participants. The trial operating cost is $190,000 per year. This is funded through income that Auckland Council receives from the national waste levy.

37.     If Auckland Council introduces a food scraps targeted rate (currently set at $67 per year) to the 2,000 households in the trial area, as per option two, this will raise $134,000 per year. Approximately $54,000 of the costs will still need to be funded through the national waste levy.

38.     The shortfall in funding from the targeted rate is because the trial collection service does not have the same economies of scale as the larger service in Papakura or regionwide. When the food scraps collection is introduced to the whole North Shore area the cost of providing the service per household will likely decrease.

39.     If the trial was discontinued, as per option three, then households in the trial area would not need to pay any additional rate. However, householders would likely have to pay more to dispose of their food scraps through the user-pays refuse collection. The full $190,000 cost of the trial service will also become available to Auckland Council to use for other waste minimisation initiatives.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

40.     There are relatively few risks for the local board in providing feedback on the proposal to continue the food scraps collection service and levy a targeted rate at this stage.

41.     Any final decision will be subject to a full consultation process through the Annual Plan 2019/2020. This will enable the local board to hear from their community before giving final feedback on the proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42.     Local board views provided in response to this report will be presented to the governing body to inform their decision making on 2019/2020 Annual Plan consultation documents.

43.     If the governing body supports the staff recommendation, a proposal to continue the food waste trial and levy the associated targeted rate will be included in the draft Annual Plan 2019/2020 for public consultation and feedback.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Map of Proposed Pilot Area 1

229

b

Map of Proposed Pilot Area 2

231

c

Map of Proposed Pilot Area 3

233

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sophien Brockbank – Team Leader Strategic Planning, Waste Solutions

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 



Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 



Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

 

File No.: CP2018/21010

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary of consultation feedback from local board residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan, and to provide feedback on recommended changes to the document.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council is currently developing a new Regional Pest Management Plan. This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest plants, animals and pathogens that will be managed in Auckland. It provides a framework to minimise the spread and impact of those pests and manage them through a regional approach. Once operative, the Regional Pest Management Plan will provide a regulatory framework to support the council’s biosecurity activities, including those funded through the natural environment targeted rate.

3.       The Proposed Regional Pest Management plan was approved for public consultation by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167) and consulted on in February and March 2018 alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

4.       A workshop was held with the board on 5 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5.       Kaipātiki Local Board residents provided 98 submissions on the plan, representing eight percent of overall submissions. The views of local board residents were similar to regional views, with high levels of support across all topics excluding the addition of cats as a pest. The extent of cat control resulting from the plan is likely to be less extensive than the concerns noted in many submissions. Staff are exploring options to mitigate submitter concerns in the wording of the final plan.

6.       This report requests the board’s formal feedback on recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan arising from key submission themes. Submission themes and corresponding changes are summarised in Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      receive a summary of consultation feedback from Kaipātiki residents on the Proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan.

b)      provide feedback on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan based on consultation feedback.

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy. The new Regional Pest Management Plan will prescribe council’s approach to pest management to reflect best practice and changes to various pest plants and animals in the Auckland region. The review is also in direct response to, and compliant with, the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

8.       The review of the Regional Pest Management Plan began with an issues and options paper discussed with elected members, followed by a public discussion document which was used as a basis for engagement with mana whenua, stakeholders and elected members.

9.       At its November 2017 meeting, the Environment and Community Committee approved the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan for public consultation alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10.     Consultation on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan took place in February to March 2018 alongside consultation on the Long-term Plan and other statutory planning documents. A total of 1,262 submissions were received, which represents a significant increase on the approximately 400 submissions that were received on the 2015 discussion document. The breakdown by submission type is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan breakdown by submission type (Auckland-wide)

Submission type

Number of submissions

Percentage of submissions

Online form

1035

82%

Hardcopy form

183

15%

Non-form (e.g. email, letter)

44

3%

 

11.     Of the 1,262 submissions received, 23 were pro-forma submissions from Forest and Bird. The number of submissions received by local board area is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan submissions by local board area

Local board

Number of submitters

Percentage of submitters

Albert-Eden

116

9%

Devonport-Takapuna

53

4%

Franklin

50

4%

Great Barrier

24

2%

Henderson-Massey

46

4%

Hibiscus and Bays

85

7%

Howick

52

4%

Kaipātiki

98

8%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

17

1%

Manurewa

18

1%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

51

4%

Ōrākei

64

5%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

7

1%

Papakura

21

2%

Puketāpapa

12

1%

Rodney

162

13%

Upper Harbour

41

3%

Waiheke

37

3%

Waitākere Ranges

87

7%

Waitematā

51

4%

Whau

41

3%

Regional

5

0%

Not Supplied

69

5%

Outside Auckland

55

4%

Total

1,262

 

 

12.     The consultation feedback form included eight questions relating to key programmes in the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan that were described in a summary document (see Attachment B for details around each of the proposed approaches). The responses received for each question from residents of the Kaipātiki Local Board area are summarised below in Table 3 and show a high level of support across all these topic areas.

Table 3: Feedback from Kaipātiki residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

Question

Response

Percentage of submissions local board

Percentage of submissions regional

1. What is your view on the proposed approach to pest plant management in parks?

Full support

20%

26%

Partial support

27%

17%

Partial do not support

2%

3%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

51%

53%

2. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing kauri dieback?

Full support

31%

27%

Partial support

24%

29%

Partial do not support

6%

5%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

38%

37%

3. What is your view on the proposed approach to prevent the spread of pests to the Hauraki Gulf Islands?

Full support

51%

46%

Partial support

17%

19%

Partial do not support

13%

12%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

19%

21%

4. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Aotea/Great Barrier?

Full support

33%

44%

Partial support

25%

20%

Partial do not support

0%

4%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

42%

30%

5. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Kawau Island?

Full support

49%

43%

Partial support

24%

23%

Partial do not support

1%

7%

Full do not support

0%

4%

Other comments

26%

23%

6. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Waiheke Island?

Full support

52%

44%

Partial support

22%

21%

Partial do not support

2%

5%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

25%

28%

7. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of rural possums?

Full support

43%

38%

Partial support

31%

28%

Partial do not support

1%

7%

Full do not support

3%

4%

Other comments

22%

23%

8. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of freshwater pests?

Full support

53%

46%

Partial support

25%

23%

Partial do not support

0%

4%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

22%

25%

 

13.     In addition to the eight themed questions covered in Table 3, a further open-ended question elicited responses about a wide range of other topics covered in the proposed plan.

14.     The most commonly raised topic in the open-ended question was the issue of cat management. A wide range of views on this topic were expressed, including requests for increased cat management beyond that in the proposed plan. The majority of submissions on this topic voiced concerns about cats being included as pests. These submitters cited animal welfare issues and concerns that domestic cats throughout Auckland would be at risk under the proposed plan. Staff are exploring options for mitigating these concerns, which in many cases reflect a perception of more extensive cat control than was envisaged in the plan. Options for mitigating concerns include clarifying the spatial extent of the proposed approach in the final plan, and alternatives to the use of the term ‘pest cat’.

15.     Staff have worked through submissions to determine any changes to be recommended for the final plan. Attachment A identifies key themes where amendments to pest management programmes in the proposed plan were sought by submitters, along with proposed staff responses. Feedback themes have been grouped according to the questions in Table 3 (above), along with an ‘other’ category to capture feedback related to other topics.

16.     This report seeks formal feedback from the board at its November 2018 business meeting on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan in response to consultation feedback.

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

17.     During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. In addition to these regional issues, the Kaipātiki Local Board provided feedback on locally specific issues of importance to the area, including pigeons, weeds on council land, rabbits, and the importance of education around pests.

18.     Proposed approaches to be taken in relation to these issues were workshopped with the board 26 July 2017. At its August 2017 business meeting the board provided formal feedback on these proposed management approaches. A copy of this feedback is appended in Attachment C.

19.     A recent workshop with the board was held on 5 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and the recommended amendments to the plan, as set out in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

20.     Section 61 of the Biosecurity Act requires that a Regional Pest Management Plan set out the effects that implementation of the plan would have on the relationship between Māori, their culture, their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, maunga, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and taonga.

21.     Engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland region during development of the plan, and formal submissions were received from the mana whenua groups listed below. In addition, staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, providing opportunities for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga, through direct involvement in the protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species.

·      Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·      Te Kawerau ā Maki

·      Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

·      Te Uri o Hau

·      Te Tira Whakamātaki - Māori Biosecurity Network

22.     Submissions were largely supportive of the approaches set out in the proposed plan, and key themes noted in feedback from mana whenua included:

·      the need to enhance rather than protect ecosystem function and resilience

·      the need to recognise ecological value outside Significant Ecological Areas

·      the need to identify performance measures to enable people to readily evaluate success

·      the need to adopt management strategies that incentivise good management approaches

·      the importance of community education and involvement in pest management

·      mana whenua participation in pest management in collaboration with Auckland Council.

23.     Staff have prepared a summary of mana whenua feedback, including proposed staff responses. This document will be circulated to mana whenua submitters for their consideration in November and December 2018. This content will be included in the final submission summary that is reported to the Environment and Community Committee in March 2019, alongside the final plan. This content will be made available to all local boards prior to the committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24.     The Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan presents a major change in pest management in Auckland, and therefore requires a significant increase in investment. As part of consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the council sought community views on two options for increased investment in the natural environment funded by a targeted rate.

25.     On 31 May 2018, the Governing Body approved the introduction of a natural environment targeted rate to raise $311 million for environmental initiatives. These initiatives include addressing kauri dieback and targeted ecological protection (resolution GB/2018/91).

26.     This level of investment allows substantial (approximately 80 per cent), but not full, implementation of the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan. Some changes to the proposed plan will be made to fit the funding envelope, most notably reducing the spatial extent of parks supported by pest plant control in buffer zones and removing the moth plant good neighbour rule from the Hauraki Gulf Islands. These changes are addressed in further detail in Attachment A.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     There are no significant risks arising from the board giving feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. However, if the board chooses not to give feedback this would create a risk that their views will not be reflected in the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

28.     If adoption of the Regional Pest Management Plan is delayed, this will create significant risks to the council’s ability to achieve targets for protecting native biodiversity, through effectively regulating the control of pest plants, animals and pathogens.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29.     Attachment A has been prepared to facilitate local board feedback on the recommended changes to the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

30.     Staff will progress development of the final Regional Pest Management Plan in line with the process and indicative timeframes outlined in Table 4 below. A copy of the final plan and supporting information (including a full submissions analysis report and staff recommendations) will be provided to local boards for information prior to Environment and Community Committee adoption in March 2019.

Table 4: Timeframes for the finalisation of the Regional Pest Management Plan

Action/Milestone

Indicative timeframe

Mana whenua engagement to address changes proposed in submissions

September – October 2018

Local boards resolve formal feedback at business meetings

November – December 2018

 

Environment and Community Committee workshop

November 2018

Staff draft final plan

December 2018 – February 2019

Environment and Community Committee adopt plan

March 2019

 

Closing the loop with local boards and submitters

April – May 2019

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Key submission themes and recommended amendments to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback

243

b

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - Summary Document

253

c

Kaipātiki Local Board Feedback Summary

265

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor  

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter – Director Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager, Local Board Services

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

 

File No.: CP2018/20669

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board feedback on:

·      the trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

·      the subset of voters to participate in the online voting trial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The postal system is declining. The frequency of postal deliveries is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. An alternative method to postal voting must be put in place to secure the future of local democracy over time. Following the overall trend of transactions and activities moving online, online voting is the natural progression. It will increase convenience and accessibility for voters and has the potential to increase voter turnout.

3.       Following the 24 May 2018 Governing Body’s in-principle support for an online voting trial at the 2019 local body elections, Auckland Council has entered into a collaborative agreement with eight other councils to work together towards the trial.

4.       The project comprises three phases. The first phase, from now to December 2018, includes a procurement process aimed at selecting a preferred provider and all participating councils, seeking their Governing Body’s approval to proceed with the trial based on a full business case.

5.       The security of the online voting solution is paramount. The participating councils are committed to offering a similar or higher level of security than postal voting. The solution will fulfil stringent security requirements and will be designed, implemented and tested with the assistance from external Information and Communications Technology (ICT) security experts.

6.       In the case of Auckland Council, only a specified class of electors (a subset) will be offered to participate in the online voting trial. The other eight councils are intending to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

7.       The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that the specified class of electors can be defined according to one or a combination of geographical areas or another common factor, like overseas residence or disability.

8.       The size of the subset is still to be confirmed by the Minister of Local Government, but will likely include between 10 and 30 per cent of Auckland’s voting population.

9.       The subset needs to be representative of the overall voting population. Staff have conducted an analysis of the population across the 21 local board areas based on a range of criteria. The preliminary results (refer Attachments A and B) show that no individual area is perfectly representative, and that a combination of several areas will increase the representativeness of the sample of electors.

10.     Staff recommend also including in the subset the voters that are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the sole postal method, i.e. the overseas and disabled voters.

11.     This report seeks local board feedback on the participation of Auckland Council in the trial and on the subset of voters eligible to participate in the trial.

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on:

i)        the trial of online voting at the 2019 elections; and

ii)       the subset of voters to participate in the trial.

 

Horopaki / Context

12.     For several years, Auckland Council has been supportive of trialling online voting for local body elections. At its December 2016 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to ‘request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot trial of an electronic voting system including by-elections’ [resolution number FIN/2016/164].

13.     On 27 July 2017, the Governing Body approved the council’s submission on the previous parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections (which has not concluded yet). The submission advocated for councils to be able to trial online voting [resolution number GB/2017/83]. Local boards provided feedback and input into the submission, with several boards expressing support for online voting.

14.     At its 24 May 2018 meeting, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an online voting trial for the 2019 local body elections, subject to the following conditions:

·      the costs being acceptable

·      the legislation and regulations being in place on time

·      identified risks being manageable

·      the council giving its final approval to proceed.

15.     The Local Electoral Matters Bill, which amends the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 to enable the conduct of trials of new voting methods is still before Parliament. Councillor Richard Hills and staff made an oral presentation to the Justice Select Committee on Auckland Council’s submission on the bill on 29 August 2018. The select committee is due to report back on 9 November 2018.

16.     The enabling regulations are being drafted. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) released an exposure draft of the regulations on 19 October 2018, which is open for consultation until 2 November 2018. Two engagement events for community representatives and stakeholders were organised in Wellington on 26 October 2018 and Auckland on 31 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Future-proofing local democracy

17.     The internet has become an integral part of everyday life. Many of the transactions that used to be carried out by post have long been replaced by online options, to the extent that people expect online facilities to enable the undertaking of their day-to-day activities. Online voting is therefore a natural progression and constitutes an opportunity to modernise the operation of local democracy in New Zealand.

18.     The current postal voting method relies entirely on New Zealand Post providing an effective and reliable service. It is a reality that the postal service is declining. Fewer New Zealanders choose to communicate via post, particularly first time and younger voters, many of whom have never posted a letter. The frequency of delivery is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. The postal cost for the 2019 Auckland local elections will increase by an estimated 77 per cent compared with 2016, because of a postage price increase of almost 60 per cent and an increase in the number of electors of approximately 70,000.

19.     It will become increasingly difficult to deliver postal voting effectively and affordably. Therefore, it is crucial to have a viable alternative to postal voting in place, and online voting is the obvious choice.

Online voting has the potential to increase voter turnout

20.     Voter turnout has been dropping in both national and local elections in New Zealand. In the Auckland 2016 local elections, the voter turnout was 38.5 per cent. This means that almost two out of three eligible electors did not vote.

21.     Online voting has the potential to enhance participation in elections. Auckland Council conducted voter awareness research after the 2016 local elections[2]. The results strongly indicate that if online voting was available, electors would be more inclined to vote.

22.     When asked ‘If you had the choice of online voting or postal voting in the future, which would you prefer?’, 74 per cent of the respondents across all age groups in the 2016 survey said they would prefer online voting to postal voting. Focusing on the non-voter group alone, 82 per cent of respondents said they would prefer online voting to postal voting and 25 per cent said online or app-based voting would make them more likely to vote.

23.     The results reflect an appetite for online voting, particularly when faced with the inconvenience of postal voting: 13 per cent of non-voters (4 per cent of all respondents) completed voting papers but did not post them. Factors such as not knowing where to find a post box, the additional effort of physically taking papers to a post box and the confusion caused by the postal deadline and the actual close of the voting period a few days later, created further barriers to voter participation. Removing these barriers alone would potentially have pushed the overall voter participation in Auckland’s 2016 local elections from 38.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent.

24.     International experience and research demonstrates the positive effect that online voting can have on voter turnout. Some non-voters and infrequent voters are drawn to internet voting in Canada and European countries, such as Estonia and Switzerland. This means that some electors who have not voted previously voted for the first time, or on a more regular basis, because online voting was an option.

25.     In Estonian parliamentary elections, turnout has increased by 2.3 per cent since online voting was introduced in 2005. Post-election surveys in Estonia show a large proportion of people indicated they wouldn’t have voted if online voting wasn’t offered.

26.     At the municipal level in Canada, researchers examining online voting over time found that internet voting increased voter turnout by 3.5 per cent.

27.     The introduction of electronic voting for overseas military voters in various United States (US) jurisdictions has resulted in significant improvements in turnout. In Cook County, one of the largest electoral jurisdictions in the US, turnout increased from 11 per cent to 53 per cent after the introduction of internet voting in 2012.

Online voting improves accessibility

28.     Currently, a large part of the disability community requires support to complete and post voting papers. People with vision impairment, for example, cannot vote secretly and without the assistance of a support person. Online voting, coupled with screen-reading technology, would allow them to vote unaided.

29.     International postal timeframes can make it difficult for overseas voters to submit their votes in time. For them as well, online voting would make it easier to participate in the New Zealand local elections.

Online voting offers a better voting experience

30.     Online voting will make the voting process easier and faster, increase the speed and accuracy of results and reduce costs of local elections over time.

31.     Estonia, where online voting has been used in elections from 2005 and is now well established nationwide, has attempted to quantify the efficiency gain for using online voting as opposed to booth voting. It calculated that, in the Estonian parliamentary elections of 2011, the cumulative time savings in online voting were 11,000 working days, or €504,000 ($890,000) in average wages.[3]

32.     Online voting offers the potential to reduce voter errors. Technology can help prevent a voter from accidentally spoiling their ballot or submitting an incorrect or invalid vote.

33.     International experience suggests that a real tangible benefit of online voting is to substantially improve the voting experience of voters, making it more convenient to vote when, where and how they want.

34.     Online voting also offers potential for greater information and engagement. It provides end-to-end verifiability so that a voter is able to verify that their vote was received. These benefits will improve the experience of those who were already intending to vote and has the potential of addressing some of the barriers for non-voters.

Booth voting is not a viable option

35.     Booth voting is provided for in the Local Electoral Act 2001 and is authorised under regulations. However, reverting to booth voting on a single election day as an alternative or complementary option to postal voting is not a viable solution.

36.     Election day is increasingly losing its meaning for people as they want the convenience to vote when it suits them, as shown by the growth in advance voting in recent years’ general elections, with a significant 47 per cent of advance voting at the 2017 general election compared with 29 per cent in 2014 and 15 per cent in 2011.[4]

37.     A third argument against using booth voting for local elections is the complexity of the local election voting process. Compared with parliamentary elections, voting in local government elections takes more thought and more time, making booth voting impractical.

38.     In Auckland for instance, electors need to vote for the Mayor, one or two councillors for their ward, between five and eight local board members, as well as District Health Board (DHB) members and, in some cases, licensing trust members. Using an actual example from the 2016 local elections, a Waitākere Ward/Henderson-Massey Local Board elector had to make a choice between 74 candidates standing for 21 positions, as follows:

·      Mayor: 19 candidates for one position

·      Waitākere Ward: nine candidates for two positions

·      Henderson-Massey Local Board: 24 candidates for eight positions

·      Waitākere Licensing Trust (Ward 2): six candidates for three positions

·      Waitematā DHB: 16 candidates for seven positions.

Making the trial happen

39.     To organise the trial, Auckland Council is partnering with eight other councils. They are Gisborne District Council, Marlborough District Council, Matamata-Piako District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Selwyn District Council, Hamilton City Council, Tauranga City Council and Wellington City Council.

40.     The nine councils have obtained in-principle political and executive approval to trial online voting at the 2019 elections, have formally entered into a participation agreement and have formed an Online Voting Working Party.

41.     The working party is working closely with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to ensure the necessary legislative and regulatory framework is in place on time to enable the proposed trial in 2019.

42.     The working party is following a three-phase approach to organise the trial as detailed below.

Phase 1 – July to December 2018

43.     The working party is currently developing a business case, which will define the scope and costs of the proposed trial, and explain how any risks to the security and integrity of the solution will be managed. The business case will also outline how the nine councils will share the costs of the trial.

44.     As part of the business case development, the working party issued a request for a proposal to potential suppliers in September 2018. Responses are being evaluated by a panel of representatives from the working party and ICT experts. A preferred provider will be selected by mid-November 2018.

45.     Based on the business case, the governing bodies of the nine councils will be asked to confirm their participation in the trial in December 2018.

46.     In the case of Auckland Council, the business case and report seeking the approval of the Governing Body will be presented at the 13 December 2018 meeting and will include feedback from local boards.

47.     During this phase, the participating councils are also engaging with the parties that will be involved in the trial, including regional councils, district health boards (DHBs) and licensing trusts. Auckland Council staff have started engaging with representatives from all Auckland DHBs and licensing trusts. Overall, their reaction to the trial has been positive, but the additional costs will ultimately be a decisive factor in securing their support.

Phase 2 – January to ‘go/no-go’ date

48.     After the list of participating councils has been confirmed, the councils will enter into an agreement with the provider and start developing the online voting solution.

49.     The trial can only proceed if the regulatory framework is in place on time, otherwise there will be insufficient time to be ready by October 2019. The working party and the supplier will agree the date by which regulations need to be in place for the trial to proceed – the ‘go/no‑go’ date.

50.     If the decision is ‘no-go’, the working party will negotiate with the supplier how to proceed. Options will be to either continue to develop a system to use for any by-elections, or shelve the work for a future trial.

Phase 3 – ‘Go’ date to October 2019

51.     If regulations are in place on time, phase 3 will include:

·      development, testing and audit of the online voting solution

·      deployment of the solution for the elections

·      evaluation of the trial after the elections. 

How it will work in practice

52.     Full details of how the online solution will work and how it will integrate with the election providers’ systems to ensure the integrity of the whole election process is maintained will only be available once the tender process is completed and a vendor has been selected.

53.     The chart below provides an overview of the experience of an elector choosing to cast their vote online:

Security and integrity

54.     No information technology (IT) or voting system is 100 per cent secure, but the Online Voting Working Party is committed to developing an online voting solution that will guarantee a similar or higher level of security than currently offered by postal voting.

55.     The request for proposal to vendors includes stringent requirements to ensure that the integrity and security of the online voting solution will be maintained at all times.

56.     The solution will be independently audited by international IT security experts.

57.     The participating councils are assisted by the former Chief Information Officer for the New South Wales Electoral Commission, which has been using online voting in their state elections, as well as ICT security experts from the Government Chief Digital Office. The participating councils have also enlisted additional external ICT security resources to assist with the evaluation of the vendors’ proposals and, in a later stage, with the design, implementation and testing of the online voting solution.

Selecting a subset of electors eligible to vote online

Why a subset, and what subset

58.     Any new voting system must meet the test of being free, fair and regular, provide for universal, equal and secret suffrage, and be fully trusted by voters. It therefore needs to be robustly tested and trialled.

59.     A trial will also increase public awareness of online voting and enable users to become familiar with the new technology, thereby building trust and credibility in the system. Building trust and gaining support is one of the most critical parts of the process. Without trust, the system will be unusable, and the integrity of the whole electoral system could be called into question.

60.     The Central government considers that trialling online voting for the whole Auckland electorate, equalling approximately a third of the New Zealand electorate, is too big a risk. Auckland Council will only be allowed to trial online voting with a specified class of electors (a subset). Choosing a representative sample of eligible voters is therefore important to ensure that evaluation of the trial is robust.

61.     The other eight councils participating in the trial intend to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

62.     The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that it is the regulations that will authorise the use of online voting by a specified class of elector for the trial. The bill defines a class of electors as:

·      an area or subdivision in which the specified class of electors is eligible to vote, or

·      any other characteristic that makes online voting suitable for the specified class of electors.

63.     The recommendation to the Governing Body will be to ask central government that the subset of Auckland electors eligible to vote online be made of:

·      overseas voters

·      people with a disability

·      voters in specific local board areas.

Selection parameters for the subset

Size

64.     The first consideration for defining the subset is its size. The subset should be of reasonable size for implementation and risks to be manageable, but significant enough to enable testing, research and a robust evaluation.

65.     The initial thinking presented to the Governing Body was to include in the sample approximately 110,000 voters, or 10 per cent of the voting population. Estimating the potential uptake based on overseas experience with online voting, it is believed a maximum of 30 per cent of voters within the subset would actually use the solution and vote online. This means an online voting solution would be built for a potential 33,000 voters using the solution; or only around 3 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

66.     It is now being considered to increase the size of the subset to approximately 330,000 voters, or 30 per cent of the voting population. With the same estimated uptake of 30 per cent, approximately 99,000 voters would use the online voting solution, or about 9 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

67.     Confirmation is pending from the DIA as to how large a subset the Minister of Local Government would allow Auckland Council to include in the trial.

68.     For comparison purposes, the other larger participating councils are the Wellington city and Hamilton city councils, with respectively an approximate 153,000 and 103,000 voters eligible to participate in the online voting trial.

Accessibility

69.     It is considered the trial should benefit those who are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the single postal method. Therefore, it is recommended having overseas and disabled voters as part of the subset. This group constitutes an estimated 30,000 voters.

70.     Because overseas and disabled voters will be enrolled across the Auckland region, they will potentially vote online for all the wards and local boards.

Representativeness

71.     The subset must be defined in such a way that it cannot call into question the neutrality and integrity of the electoral process or of the elections results.

72.     It needs to be representative of the Auckland voting population, based on a range of criteria that correlate with voter turnout. These include:

·      age

·      ethnicity

·      income

·      education level.

73.     Having a representative sample will also help conduct a more robust evaluation of the trial.

Other considerations

74.     The cost and ease of implementation of the solution must also be considered. The more voters take part in the trial, the higher the cost. Offering online voting as an option to a subset of electors will also require a targeted communication campaign. A complex subset will make communication and logistics costlier and has the potential to confuse voters. Therefore, it is preferable to avoid geographical areas where the boundaries between wards and local boards are no longer aligned, following the review of representation arrangements which is to be implemented for the 2019 local elections.

75.     It was considered whether internet accessibility needed to be a criterion. The most recent data available, which comes from the State of the Internet report released by Internet New Zealand in 2017, shows that 93 per cent of New Zealanders have access to the internet, either at home, work or both. Therefore, it is not a belief that internet accessibility will be an issue for Auckland, except for Great Barrier Island.

Selecting the geographic area(s)

76.     The council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) has conducted in-depth statistical analysis of the population across Auckland’s 21 local boards. The analysis compares the population in each local board area against the overall Auckland population using age, ethnicity, income and qualification levels. The results of the analysis are included in Attachments A and B.

77.     The analysis considered the average voter turnout in each area compared to Auckland overall, but this added parameter did not impact the results, so it was therefore removed from the graphs provided for simplicity purposes.

78.     The analysis shows that certain local board areas have a more diverse population make up than others, and that no single board is perfectly representative of the overall Auckland population. The subset will therefore need to be made up of a combination of local board areas, allowing larger discrepancies to cancel each other out and making the sample representative as a whole.

79.     The final combination will depend on the total number of voters allowed in the subset and will be finalised once DIA confirms that number.

80.     The final recommendation on the subset will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting. As part of this report, local board feedback is being sought on the possibility of this local board area being included in the final subset, to be reported to the Governing Body when they are considering the final recommendation.

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

81.     Trialling online voting will impact elections in all local board areas.

82.     Local board feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for its consideration when making the final decision regarding the selection of the subset and the continued participation in the trial.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

83.     Voting turnout has historically been lower among Māori than non-Māori. Māori who are younger and less well-off are the least likely to vote.

84.     Findings from a recent qualitative research project focusing on Pacific and Māori revealed that online voting was popular among a large majority of participants. Participants did not express concerns about online voting, and some saw the solution as more secure than postal voting.

85.     A representative sample of the Auckland Māori population will be included in the subset to participate in the trial, as Māori ethnicity is one of the criteria used to choose the geographic subset.

86.     At this stage, no formal engagement has been conducted with Māori groups and community.  Staff will engage with communities and stakeholders, including Māori, as part of the development of an online voting system should a trial be confirmed to proceed for the 2019 local elections.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

87.     The full costs of implementing an online voting solution will be known after the tender process is completed and a vendor selected.

88.     The budget for the online voting trial is not included in the long-term plan and will require approval from the Governing Body, as the financial decisions relating to election costs is part of its responsibilities. A business case detailing the costs and benefits of participating in the trial will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

89.     Risks and mitigation measures are covered in the analysis section of this paper.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

90.     Feedback from the local boards will be reported to the meeting of the Governing Body on 13 December 2018.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards A-M

297

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards O-W

299

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

 

File No.: CP2018/21753

 

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order

·        random order.

3.       Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order, and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4.       Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5.       The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013 and 2016 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6.       Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

 

 

Horopaki / ContextOptions available

7.       Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

(1)       The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2)       Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3)       If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4)       If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5)       In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

8.       In 2013, the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order.

9.       In 2016, there was only a minimal additional cost to use random order due to changes in printing technology. An analysis of the 2013 election results was conducted to assess whether there were any effects due to being listed first. The analysis showed there was no compelling evidence of bias towards those listed first. Most local board feedback was to continue listing candidates alphabetically and the Governing Body resolved to use alphabetical order.

10.     All district health boards (DHBs) in the Auckland Council area decided to use random order of names. In the voting pack that Auckland electors received, voting documents for Auckland Council elections were alphabetical and voting documents for district health board elections were random.

11.     The following table shows the order decided by city and regional councils for the 2016 elections:

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Invercargill City Council

Alphabetical

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Upper Hutt City Council

Alphabetical

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Canterbury Regional Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Otago Regional Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Waikato Regional Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

Wellington Regional Council

Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

12.     Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

13.     A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion, as it is not possible for the supporting documents (such as the directory of candidate profile statements) to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter from taking part.

Alphabetical order

14.     The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar and easier to use and understand. When there is a large number of candidates competing for a position, it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

15.     It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

16.     The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

17.     An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013 and 2016 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

·        impact on vote share (did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected?)

·        impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

18.     The analysis shows that for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be statistically expected if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

19.     There is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last three elections.

20.     Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that statistical analysis of previous election results show does not exist. 

Online voting

21.     Auckland Council intends to offer online voting to specified classes of electors for the 2019 elections, which is the subject of a separate report on this agenda. An online voting solution has the potential to improve the voting experience, even if names are ordered randomly.

22.     Online voting should present the same voting document to users as the paper equivalent. If names are in random order on the voting document, then the same random order will need to be presented to the online user. This could increase the complexity of the voting solution.

23.     On balance, staff consider that alphabetical order of names is preferable for an online voting trial.

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

24.     Feedback from local boards will be reported to the Governing Body when the Governing Body is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25.     The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26.     There are no financial implications associated with the options for order of names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     If names are ordered alphabetically, there is the risk of perceived bias. If names are randomised, there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The statistical analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28.     The feedback from the local board will be reported to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Order of names on voting documents

305

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason – GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson's Report

 

File No.: CP2018/20318

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       An opportunity is provided for the Kaipātiki Local Board Chairperson to update members on recent activities, projects and issues since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the chairperson’s report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Members' Reports

 

File No.: CP2018/20319

 

 

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1.       An opportunity is provided for members to update the Kaipātiki Local Board on the projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the report from Member A Smithson.

b)      note any verbal reports of members.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Anne-Elise Smithson Member report

315

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update

 

File No.: CP2018/20321

 

  

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1.       An opportunity is provided for Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board members to update the board on Governing Body or Independent Maori Statutory Board issues, or issues relating to the Kaipātiki Local Board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board members’ verbal updates.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board - October 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/20322

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is to record the Kaipātiki Local Board workshops held on Wednesday 3 October, Wednesday 10 October and Wednesday 24 October.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At the workshop held on Wednesday 3 October 2018, the Kaipātiki Local Board had briefings on:

·      Film Protocols

·      Arts, Community and Events

-     Empowered Communities Approach Framework

-     Community Empowerment Unit work programme

·      Kaipātiki workshop format and scheduling update

·      Libraries

3.       At the workshop held on Wednesday 10 October 2018, the Kaipātiki Local Board had briefings on:

·      Development of a work programme

·      Community Facilities work programme update

-     Marlborough Park

-     Onewa Domain

-     Kauri Kids and Birkdale Hall

-     Onepoto Domain

·      Northcote redevelopment update

-     Public Art

-     Placemaking

-     Homes, Land, Community

-     Greenway (Public Excluded Item)

·      Auckland Transport

4.       At the workshop held on Wednesday 24 October 2018, the Kaipātiki Local Board had briefings on:

·      Rosie Bolt Reserve (Public Excluded Item)

·      Arts, Community and Events (ACE)

-     Age friendly community research

·      Infrastructure & Environmental Services (IES)

-     Normanton Reserve Draft development plan

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the records for the Kaipātiki Local Board workshops held on Wednesday 3 October, Wednesday 10 October and Wednesday 24 October 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Wednesday 3 October Workshop Record

325

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Wednesday 10 October Workshop Record

327

c

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Wednesday 24 October Workshop Record

329

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2018/20326

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on reports to be presented to the board for 2018 and an overview of workshops scheduled for the month ahead.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar was introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme. The calendar aims to support local board’s governance role by:

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

·      clarifying what advice is expected and when; and

·      clarifying the rationale for reports.

3.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to local board business meetings, and distributed to council staff.

4.       The December 2018 – March 2019 governance forward work calendar for the Kaipātiki Local Board is provided as Attachment A.

5.       The December 2018 – February 2019 workshop forward work plan for the Kaipātiki Local Board is provided as Attachment B. Scheduled items may change at short notice depending on the urgency of matters presented to the local board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a)      note the Kaipātiki Local Board December 2018 – March 2019 governance forward work calendar and December 2018 – February 2019 workshop forward work plan.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Governance Forward Work Calendar December 2018 - March 2019

333

b

21 November 2018 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting

- Workshop Forward Work Plan December 2018 - February 2019

335

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jacinda  Short - Democracy Advisor - Kaipatiki

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Kaipātiki Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator

    

    

 



[1] The proportion of DC funding differs for different projects i.e. reserve acquisitions are primarily DC funded whereas transport projects have a mix of general rates, NZTA and DC funding.  Lower DC funding for parks would reduce capex by a similar amount.  Lower DC funding for transport would remove projects of a higher value as we would lose access to the associated NZTA funding.

[2] Awareness of and attitudes towards voting in the 2016 Auckland Council elections, by Auckland Council, Citizen Insight and Engagement, 2017. Available on http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=1657&DocumentType=1&

[3] Frequently Asked Questions on i-voting, https://e-estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/faq-a4-v02-i-voting-1.pdf

[4] Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2017 General Election: Provided in accordance with section 8(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 (April 2018) p.13