Agenda of Rodney Local Board - 18 November 2013

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Ahuroa Playground Request 5

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Declaration by Local Board Member Pursuant to Schedule 7, Clause 14, of the Local Government Act 2002 7

13 Ward Councillor Update 9

14 Urgent Decision: Local Events Support Fund 11

15 Urgent Decisions: Applications for exemptions under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 15

16 Local Event Discretionary Fund - Round 2 2013/2014 21

17 South Head Community Hall Car Park 39

18 Request for additional payment to Joy Bell for Warkworth Clock Tower Project 43

19 Quarterly Performance Report for Rodney Local Board for the Quarter ended September 2013 45

20 Adoption of meeting schedule 57

21 Local board members portfolio allocation 63

22 Appointment of Board Members to Outside Organisations and Community Networks 67

23 Appointment of Rodney Local Board Member to Kaipara Harbour Joint Political Committee 73

24 Parakai Recreation Reserve Board 75

25 Northern Joint Funding Committee 77

26 Establishment of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee 91

27 Urgent Decision Process for the Rodney Local Board 95

28 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 4 November 2013, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

8.1 Ahuroa Playground Request

Purpose

1. Theressa Butler (representing Ahuroa School), and Nadine Stucky and Nicky Berger (representing Ahuroa Playgroup and Ahuroa Hall Committee) will be in attendance to address the Rodney Local Board on a proposal to use Council land at 1345 Ahuroa Road in which to situate new playground equipment which will be funded by the community.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Theressa Butler (on behalf of Ahuroa School), Nadine Stucky and Nicky Berger (representing Ahuroa Playgroup and Ahuroa Hall Committee) for their presentation on a proposal to use Council land at 1345 Ahuroa Road to situate new playground equipment which will be funded by the community.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Local Event Discretionary Fund - Round 2 2013/2014

File No.: CP2013/25058

Purpose

1. This report presents a summary of applications received in round two of the Local Event Discretionary Fund for 2013/2014 for the Rodney Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. A Local Events Discretionary Fund of $52,813, is available to the Rodney Local Board for distribution over two funding rounds in the 2013/2014 financial year. In round one the Rodney Local Board distributed $28,363, leaving a balance of $24,450 for disbursement in round two.

3. In late October the Rodney Local Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson met under urgency to assess two applications and a decision was made to allocate $3,500 to these events. The decision made under urgency on event funding is the subject of a separate report to the Local Board meeting of 18 November. This leaves a total of $20,950 for disbursement in round two.

4. This now leaves 10 applications totalling $69,193 for consideration (Attachment A) in round two.

5. Since approving the decision under urgency to fund the Warkworth Santa Parade for $1,500 a further application has been received from the Warkworth Area Business Association seeking $600 for advertising road closure for the Warkworth Santa Parade (Attachment B). In previous years there was no requirement to publicly advertise the parade route. The further application from the Warkworth Area Business Association seeks funding to cover the advertising costs, which is an unbudgeted expenditure for the Association. This brings the total applications to $69,793.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) agree to fund the round two, 2013/2014 Local Event Discretionary Fund applications as follows:

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Lazy Dude Media T/A Running Events	Coatesville Classic	Coatesville Reserve	16 March 2014	$5,014	$0
Warkworth A and P Show Inc	Warkworth A&P Show	Warkworth A&P Showgrounds	25-26 January 2014	$10,000	$4,000
Mahurangi Action Inc	Mahurangi Regatta	Sullivans Bay	25 January 2014	$7,000	$4,000
Mahurangi Community Sport & Recreation	Might Mahu Tryathlon	Snells Beach Reserve	23 March 2014	$2,100	$950
Black Pearl Limited	Murwai Waitangi Day Festival	Muriwai Surf Club	6 February 2014	$16,615	$6,000
Helensville Athletic Club Inc	Helensville Athletics Prize Giving	Helensville Primary School	9 April 2014	$1,850	$0
Older Women’s Network	Ideas of March Festival	Positive Aging Centre	15 March 2014	$1,000	$0
Warkworth 160^th Anniversary Committee	Warkworth 160^th	Warkworth	8 – 19 November 2013	$1,180	$0
North West Orienteering Club	Woodhill to Whaka Mountainbike Challenge	South Head & Riverhead Forest	4 – 11 January 2014	$6,634	$500
Helensville A&P Association	Helensville A&P Show	Helensville Showgrounds	22 February 2014	$17,800	$5,000
Warkworth Area Business Association	Warkworth Santa Parade	Warkworth	8 December 2013	$600	$500
TOTAL				$69,793	$20,950

b) notes the decisions made under urgency in October 2013 to fund the following two applications:

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Taupaki School Parent Teacher Association	Taupaki Monster Fireworks	Kumeu Showgrounds	1 November 2013	$2,205	$2,000
Warkworth Area Business Association	Warkworth Christmas Parade	Warkworth	8 December 2013	$1,500	$1,500
TOTAL				$3,705	$3,500

Discussion

5. The Local Event Discretionary Fund provides the opportunity for the Rodney Local Board to work in partnership with local event organisers to develop an events programme that reflects the aspirations of the community and supports the local board plan.

6. The Local Event Discretionary Fund has two funding rounds, which close at specified times during the 2013/2014 financial year, as follows:

Round	Applications Close	Assessment	Decision Making
1	31 May 2013	June 2013	July/August 2013
2	31 October 2013	November 2013	November 2013/February 2014

7. Round 2 of the 2013/2014 local events fund received a total of 13 applications (two of which were reviewed under urgency) - (Attachment A). A summary of these is as follows:

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested
Lazy Dude Media T/A Running Events	Coatesville Classic	Coatesville Reserve	16 March 2014	$5,014
Mahurangi Action Inc	Mahurangi Regatta	Sullivans Bay	25 January 2014	$7,000
Black Pearl Limited	Murwai Waitangi Day Festival	Muriwai Surf Club	6 February 2014	$16,615
Warkworth A&P Show Inc	Warkworth A&P Show	Warkworth A&P Showgrounds	25-26 January 2014	$10,000
Mahurangi Community Sport & Recreation	Might Mahu Tryathlon	Snells Beach Reserve	23 March 2014	$2,100
Taupaki School Parent Teacher Association	Taupaki Monster Fireworks	Kumeu Showgrounds	1 November 2013	$2,205
Warkworth Area Business Association	Warkworth Christmas Parade	Warkworth	8 December 2013	$1,500
Helensville Athletic Club Inc	Helensville Athletics Prize Giving	Helensville Primary School	9 April 2014	$1,850
Older Women’s Network	Ideas of March Festival	Positive Aging Centre	15 March 2014	$1,000
Warkworth 160^th Anniversary Committee	Warkworth 160^th	Warkworth	8 – 19 November 2013	$1,180
North West Orienteering Club	Woodhill to Whaka Mountainbike Challenge	South Head & Riverhead Forest	4 – 11 January 2014	$6,634
Helensville A&P Association	Helensville A&P Show	Helensville Showgrounds	22 February 2014	$17,800
Warkworth Area Business Association	Warkworth Santa Parade	Warkworth	8 December 2013	$600
TOTAL				$73,498

8. Local Event Discretionary Funding criteria guidelines for 2013/2014 have been established to assist applicants in understanding the focus of this fund and to guide decision-making. The applications have been assessed in accordance with the Local Event Support Fund guidelines.

9. The Rodney Local Board has the opportunity to refer applications to a more appropriate fund.

Consideration

10. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board event funding including the Local Event Discretionary Fund. The Rodney Local Board has identified key priorities for the local area within its Local Board Plan, some of which could be achieved through events.

11. The Rodney Local Board seeks to engage with diverse communities and provide for social and cultural needs. Rodney is a desirable place for people to live, work and play with an increasing family focus and a great community spirit. Supporting local community events assists in building a strong sense of community and ensures that each community maintains its own identity.

Local Board Views

12. A Local Board workshop was held on 11 November 2013 to consider the applications to the Local Event Discretionary Fund round two. This report reflects the views of Local Board members expressed at the workshop.

Maori Impact Statement

13. This fund does not specifically target Maori groups, however Maori communities are likely to benefit from the events supported by the local board, alongside other groups in the community.

General

14. The decisions sought within this report fall within the Local Board delegations.

15. The decisions sought do not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

16. Once the Rodney Local Board has resolved the funding applications, staff will contact all applicants to notify them of the outcome, and commence contracting and payment.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Funding Application Cover Sheets - R2 2013/2014	25
b	Additional Funding Application for Warkworth Santa Parade	37

Signatories

Authors

Barbara Cade - Team Leader Events North/West

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

South Head Community Hall Car Park

File No.: CP2013/25488

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek clarification of the capital budget available for the renewal of the South Head Community Hall car park.

Executive Summary

2. The South Head Community Hall does not have a formal car park and hall users currently have to park on the grass verge on Donahue Road.

3. The Rodney Local Board approved a capital expenditure (CAPEX) budget of $40,000 for a new car park in the Local Board Agreement 2012/2013.

4. The scope of the project was considered by the Rodney Local Board Halls, Reserves and Kawau Island Committee. The Committee recommended a new scope and that an additional $53,000 be made available from the existing renewals budget to fund these works.

5. Confirmation is required from Rodney Local Board of the confirmed scope and budget for this project in order that it can proceed.

Recommendation

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) confirms the project scope for the South Head Community Hall and approves an additional $53,000 from funds available in the Rodney Local Board Community Facilities capital renewal budget.

b) approves the design and location for the South Head Hall carpark works as per Attachment A to the agenda report.

Discussion

6. The South Head Community Hall does not have a formal car park and hall users have to park on the grass verge of Donahue Road. The grass verge becomes muddy during the winter and this prevents community members from using the hall. The Rodney Local Board approved a capital expenditure (CAPEX) budget of $40,000 for a new car park in the 2012/13 annual plan.

7. Officers from the Community Development Arts and Culture Unit as well as the Capital Works Project Manager from the Property Department, met with the South Head Hall Advisory Committee to discuss a new car park. As a result, five car park options were developed and costed.

Description

Option 1

10 car spaces

Option 2

16 Car spaces

Option 3

20 car spaces Metal Surface

Option 4

20 car spaces

Gobi blocks

Option 5

20 car spaces

Gravel surface

Engineer’s Estimate

$37,400

43,400

$48,100

$114,600

$71,700

8. The cost of the consulting engineer to date to develop the car park is $15,887 (excl GST), which means that there is not enough budget to develop any of the options. This issue was discussed with the Rodney Local Board Halls, Reserves and Kawau Island Committee at its meeting on 25 July 2013. The Committee confirmed Option 5 as the preferred option and recommended:

That the Halls, Reserves and Kawau Island Committee recommend to the Rodney Local Board that:

a) the Community Facilities Work Programme include the allocations of $53,000 towards the upgrade of the car park and associated lighting at the South Head Hall.

When the Community Development Arts and Culture Work Programme was resubmitted to the Rodney Local Board for approval at the meeting on Monday 9 September 2013, it was noted that the Community Facilities Renewals Programme 2013/2014 Attachment B, had not been updated to include the $53,000 for South Head Hall carpark. The programme submitted had a capex renewal budget of $747,004 and identified renewal projects totalling $506,481. There are funds available for the additional funding sought. This report seeks the Rodney Local Board’s approval for an additional $53,000 to be added to the budget for the South Head Hall car park.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9. The need for further budget to enable this work was discussed at the 25 July 2013 meeting of the Halls, Reserves and Kawau Island Committee of the Rodney Local Board, which recommended that $53,000 be added to the budget for this project.

Maori Impact Statement

10. There are no specific implications arising from this report for Maori.

General

11. This report seeks funding for a capital project approved by the Rodney Local Board in its 2012/13 but not progressed because of insufficient budget.

Implementation Issues

12. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Plan of Option 5	41

Signatories

Authors

Peter Loud - Team Leader Community Facilities

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Request for additional payment to Joy Bell for Warkworth Clock Tower Project

File No.: CP2013/25398

Purpose

1. This report seeks endorsement for the granting of $1,809.67 in extra funding to Joy Bell for the completion of the Warkworth Clock Tower Mosaic Project from the Arts Embellishment budget line.

Executive Summary

2. At the Rodney Local Board Meeting held on Monday 13 August 2012, artist Joy Bell was granted $26,760 to undertake and complete the Warkworth Clock Tower Mosaic Project. In July 2013, Joy Bell advised council that costs were higher than anticipated. This report seeks endorsement to grant $1,809.67 in extra funding to Joy Bell for the completion of the Warkworth Clock Tower Mosaic Project from the Arts Embellishment budget line.

Recommendation

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the granting of $1,809.67 in extra funding to Joy Bell for the completion of the Warkworth Clock Tower Mosaic Project from the Arts Embellishment budget line.

Discussion

3. At the Rodney Local Board Meeting held on Monday 13 August 2012, the following was resolved:

That the report on the Warkworth Clock Tower Mosaic – Auckland Regional Services Trust Fund Application be received. b) That the Rodney Local Board Confirms the Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) fund application from Joy Bell (R63) for $26,760 for the Warkworth Clock Tower mosaic project. (RD/2012/173)

4. The full amount of funding from the Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST) grant was paid to Joy Bell on the 22^nd of November 2012.

5. In July 2013, Joy Bell advised Council that costs were higher than anticipated. The cost overruns are detailed below:

Item

Difference

1. Emerald green tiles, 8.5m for the entire back of the clock tower.

Original tile quoted on at $1,060 had only 6 meters available by the importers with no further shipment. The next comparable tile called 'crystal' due to a deep glass glaze has cost $1,779.79

$720.00

2. Surface preparation:

The many coats of white paint on the clock tower have been identified by trade experts as the 'weak link' in the adhesive guarantee. We need to get down to the concrete base to enable the adhesive to do its job. Grinding the paint off manually with a grinder will give the best result. A builder has agreed to do this for me with an estimate of 2 days work. At a cost of: $700

$700.00

3. The Adhesive system recommended

The best system offered for tile to concrete with extremely high flexibility, tensile strength and life span is Gripflex at $92.92 for a 20kg bag. With an additive called 'Kemcrete" (Primer/ bonding and waterproofing additive) I purchased 5 L (which will just be enough for the entire clock tower) for: $117.67. The adhesive I quoted on for the proposal was Ultrapro at $59 for a 20kg bag. The variable in the adhesive is $34 bag. The coverage estimate on the bag indicates that 8 bags will be needed. $34 x 8. Which results in an over run of: $272

$117.67

$272.00

$1809.67

Consideration

Local Board Views

6. The Rodney Local Board resolved to allocate funds to artist Joy Bell to undertake and complete the Warkworth Clock Tower Mosaic Project.

Maori Impact Statement

7. This project integrates art into the everyday life of community members, benefiting all including Maori.

General

8. This report does not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

9. Staff do not anticipate any significant implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Kunin – Arts and Culture Advisor North West

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Quarterly Performance Report for Rodney Local Board for the Quarter ended September 2013

File No.: CP2013/25399

Purpose

1. To update the Rodney Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2013 to 30 September 2013 as set out in the Local Board agreement.

Executive Summary

2. The Net Cost of Service for the year to date is $4,326k against a budget for the same period of $4,822k which equates to 10.0% actual favourable variance to budget. Operating revenue results are lower than budget by $14k and this is mainly due to lower income received in Local Libraries. Operating expenditure is under budget overall by $572k mainly in Local Community Service $152k, Local Parks $155k, and Local Economic Development $130k.

3. Capital expenditure for the year is $489k against a budget for the same period of $74k which equates to 560% variance to budget. This is due to projects being brought forward from last financial year and the profile of the capital budget not matching project timeframes.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Quarterly Performance Report

Discussion

1. Financial Overview

The net cost of service and capital expenditure relating to the local board is summarised below discussed in respect of each Group of Activity.

Table 1: Financial Overview

Comment:

The net cost of service for the current quarter (July to September) variance is $496k less than budget compared to August where the variance was $216k indicating that expenditure has slowed against budget profile this is largely due to the elections and other mitigating factors detailed below.

· Operating Revenue variance is $14k, 30% lower than budget being mainly Libraries.

· Operating Expenditure variance is $572k, 12% lower than budget

Capital expenditure variance in the current quarter July to September is $489k higher than budget due to projects being carried over from the last financial year and the budget not being phased to match this expenditure.

Although the expenditure to date only reflects 5% of the total budget anticipated to spend this financial year. A capital steering group has been established to focus on improving delivery of the capital program.

2. Local libraries

Table 2: Financial Overview: Local library facilities and services

Comment:

The net cost of service variance for the year is $97k, 14% lower than budget.

· Revenue variance is $10k lower than budget for the year to date as anticipated due to the assumption for increased revenue as part of corporate savings/improvement initiatives which have not been realised.

· Operating expenditure variance is $107k, 16% lower than budget is mainly due to lower spend in:

Helensville: $9k Invoices have not been received ytd for Cleaning, or Scheduled maintenance,

Kumeu: $14k Invoices have not been received ytd for Cleaning, Security or Scheduled Maintenance lower response maintenance than budget ytd.

Mahurangi: $21k Staffing costs $6k, no security or Scheduled maintenance

Warkworth: $27k staffing $27k under budget

Wellsford: $17k staff 9k, no utilities or maintenance costs

Due to our investigations it has been discovered that there are errors in both in the mapping and coding of Utilities, and security costs across all properties which is why these variances are showing ytd this will be corrected in time for next quarters report.

· Capital expenditure is $14k credit or 2692% against budget this is the accrual for the retention at Wellsford Library that was accrued last year but the costs have not been processed.

3. Local community services

Table 3: Financial Overview: Local community services

Comment:

The net cost of service variance for the year is $145k, 42% lower than budget.

· Operating revenue is unfavourable to budget by $2k which equates to 8% this is mainly in at Wellsford Village Hall although there are small variances across all lines of revenue.

· Operating expenditure variance for the year is lower than budget by $148k or 39% due to Invoices for Repairs & Maintenance not being received as well as Response Repairs and maintenance budgets across all halls except Leigh, Waimauku and Mahurangi not yet utilized ytd. As stated above other variances in cleaning, Utilities and Security have been miscoded or not mapped correctly these problems will aim to be fixed before the next time I report to you.

Capital expenditure variance for the year to date is $11k against a zero budget, $8k of this is for works at Boiler works @ Leigh Hall.

4. Local arts, culture and events services

Table 4: Financial Overview: Local arts, culture and events services

Comment:

The net cost of service for the year to date is favourable to budget by $44k or 46% lower than budget.

· Operating expenditure is favourable to budget due to low expenditure to date on local events and local community art programs.

Capital expenditure actual spend for the year to date is zero against a zero budget work

5. Local parks services

Table 5: Financial Overview: Local parks

Comment:

The net cost of service variance for the year is $153k or 5% lower than budget.

· Expected Operating Revenue from Legacy projects not materialized.

· Operating expenditure is favourable to budget by $155k. This is due to zero or very little expenditure on Arboriculture, capital funding, Ecological Restoration & Park Public conveniences.

· Capital expenditure is an unfavourable variance for the year to date of $511k, 1371% higher than budget. This is due to projects being carried over from last year and the budget profile not being adjusted to reflect these projects currently underway include:

· Warkworth Showgrounds $220k, versus $0k budget year to date (full year budget $2365k),

· Park Playspace Renewals $106k spend for immediate Health & Safety work versus $0K budget (full year budget $80k),

· Local Coastal Structures renewals for Manaakura Sea wall $108k spend versus $0k budget year to date (full year budget $726k),

· Sports car park renewals $52k versus $0k budget and full year budget of $16k for Edward Street, Riverhead.

Another contributing factor to take into account is the Council’s Policy surrounding the treatment of ‘Green Assets’ and will continue to impact the budget this year. Green assets are to be classified as operating expenditure now and not as capital items. Any perceived saving must still show against budget in the Local Board Capex reports as the offset is in Opex where there is no budget against this spend.

Martins Bay Matakana

Alan Gibbs sculpture Park Shelly Beach

6. Local economic development

Table 8: Financial Overview: Local economic development

Comment:

The net cost of service variance for the year is $130k or 99% under budget.

· Operating expenditure variance is $130k lower than budget mainly due to the duplicate accruals for local job skills $67k and $15k for Economic development. This is offset by the expenditure to date for Street Amenities maintenance costs of $61k.

Capital expenditure spend is zero year to date.

7. Local built and natural environment

Table 9: Financial Overview: Local environment and heritage protection

Comment:

The net cost of service variance for the year is $14k or 56% lower than budget.

· Operating expenditure in Environmental/Community Led programs at $8k lower than budget and no expenditure has been against Ecological Survey $6k budget year to date.

8. Local governance

Table 10: Financial Overview: Local planning, policy and governance

Comment:

The net cost of service variance for the year is $32k or 8% lower than budget.

· Operating expenditure is under budget due to communication work programmes and elected members professional development not being fully utilised.

The capital expenditure actual spend for the year to date is $19k versus $58K budget in Local Board discretionary fund projects. This is due to a duplicate accrual for Kumeu art centre and an accrual for Huapai skate ramp $10k. The remainder of the budget for the year $39k has yet to be allocated.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9. This report is for the Local Board’s information.

Maori Impact Statement

10. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

Implementation Issues

11. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Jane Koch - Business Performance Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Adoption of meeting schedule

File No.: CP2013/25828

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the adoption of the meeting schedule for the 2013/14 year.

Executive Summary

2. A draft Local Board meeting schedule has been developed for the 2013/2014 year; it is attached to this report. It is recommended that the Local Board adopts this schedule.

3. The specific times and dates for the hearings process, part of the special consultative process outlined in the Local Government Act 2002, for Local Board Agreements and Local Board Plans are yet to be finalised. Local Board meeting schedules may therefore be updated and provision made for these hearings, once the details are confirmed.

4. At the business meeting on 9 September 2013, Member Flaunty raised a matter of extraordinary business in regard to the frequency of business meetings. Under Standing Orders 3.7.6 minor items on the agenda may be discussed however no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to the next business meeting of the Local Board for further discussion. Member Flaunty suggested that the incoming Rodney Local Board should give consideration to holding two business meetings per month.

5. The Rodney Local Board discussed a proposed meeting schedule at a workshop on Monday, 11 November and considered that one business meeting per month would be conducted, with two of those meetings taking place in the community. Off-site meetings have been scheduled for March in Warkworth and for August in Muriwai. In addition the Local Board will consider holding informal meetings where the public can come and along and speak to the Local Board in the community. Three such meetings are proposed for 2014, the date and location to be determined.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) adopts its meeting schedule for the 2013/2014 year:

Date	Time	Venue
Monday, 18 November 2013	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 9 December 2013	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 10 February 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 10 March 2014	1.00pm	Old Masonic Hall, 3 Baxter Street, Warkworth
Monday, 14 April 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 12 May 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 9 June 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 14 July 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 11 August 2014	1.00pm	Muriwai Surf Club 100 Jack Butt Lane Muriwai Regional Park Muriwai
Monday, 8 September 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 13 October 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 10 November 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa
Monday, 8 December 2014	1.00pm	Council Chamber Orewa Service Centre 50 Centreway Road, Orewa

b) notes that dates and times for hearings and deliberations for Local Board Agreements and Local Board Plans are yet to be finalised and that additional business meetings will be held as and when required throughout the term.

c) trials holding three additional informal meetings to give the public the opportunity to speak to the Local Board at a variety of locations within the Local Board area throughout the 2014 year.

Discussion

6. Clause (5)(d), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a Local Board to adopt a schedule of business meetings at its first meeting in the electoral term.

7. Adopting a meeting schedule allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures Local Board members have clarity about their commitments. It also gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

8. Each Local Board develops a Local Board Agreement annually and a Local Board Plan every three years. Both documents are subject to public consultation, with Local Board Plans being subject to a special consultative procedure process. The Local Board will hold hearings to give submitters the opportunity to express their views verbally.

9. The specific times and dates for the hearings process for the Local Board Plan and Local Board Agreement are yet to be finalised. Local Board meeting schedules may therefore need to be updated and provision made for hearings, once details are confirmed.

10. In addition to Local Board meetings, Local Boards will hold workshops that are closed to the public. The proceedings of every workshop are recorded and considered at the next business meeting of the Local Board in accordance with current Local Board standing order provisions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

11. This decision falls under the Local Board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

12. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

General

13. Clauses 19(4), 19(5) and 19(6), Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints.

(5) Unless clause 22 (extraordinary meeting) applies, the chief executive must give notice in writing to each member of the time and place of a meeting -

(a) not less than 14 days before the meeting; or

(b) if the local authority has adopted a schedule of meetings, not less than 14 days before the first meeting on the schedule.”

(6) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings, -

(a) the schedule –

(i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate; and

(ii) may be amended; and

(b) notification of the schedule or of any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.”

14. Similarly, the statutory requirement pursuant to clauses 46, 46(A) and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 mentions that:

· meetings of a local authority are publicly notified

· agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting

· Local Board meetings are open to the public.

Implementation Issues

15. Meetings of the Local Board are supported by Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Rodney Local Board meeting schedule 2013-2014	61

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Local board members portfolio allocation

File No.: CP2013/25837

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to adopt a portfolio allocation for Local Board members.

Executive Summary

2. Portfolios are established by local boards to oversee Local Board work programmes and consider issues relating to key Council activities.

3. It is recommended that the Local Board allocates each portfolio area to two members, and nominates a lead and an alternate or alternates.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) appoints members as lead and alternate(s) for each portfolio area, where appropriate:

Local Board Portfolio	Portfolio holders
Local Board Portfolio	Lead	Alternate
Planning, policy and governance (includes relationship with Kawau Island Advisory Committee)	Brenda Steele	Steven Garner
Iwi	Phelan Pirrie	Brenda Steele
Arts and culture and events	Greg Sayers	Phelan Pirrie
Events	Beth Houlbrooke	Warren Flaunty
Community services	Steven Garner	James Colville Brenda Steele
Libraries	Warren Flaunty	Steve Garner
Recreation services (pools, multi-sport facilities)	Greg Sayers	Beth Houlbrooke
Parks	Brenda Steele	James Colville Phelan Pirrie Steven Garner
Built and natural environment	Thomas Grace	Phelan Pirrie
Economic development	Beth Houlbrooke	Steven Garner Brenda Steele
Street environment and town centres	Phelan Pirrie	John McLean
Transport and infrastructure	Thomas Grace/ Steven Garner	Phelan Pirrie
Civil defence and emergency management	Phelan Pirrie	Warren Flaunty
Regulatory - resource consents comments	Warren Flaunty (West/Dairy Flat) Steven Garner (Warkworth/Wellsford)	N/A
Regulatory - Bylaws	N/A or to be confirmed	N/A or to be confirmed
Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee	Warren Flaunty	James Colville Beth Houlbrooke John McLean
Communications and engagement	Phelan Pirrie	Beth Houlbrooke
Finance	Steven Garner	Phelan Pirrie

Discussion

Portfolio

4. In the previous electoral term, portfolio areas varied across the local boards. In that term, officers proposed that local boards consider portfolio areas which reflected the committee and forum structure adopted by the governing body and the key areas the Local Board had a decision-making/input role. The interest and background of Local Board members also influenced the establishment of some portfolios.

5. Three years on, local boards have their local board plans with their own priorities; and the organisation has aligned itself to meet the needs of local boards. Rather than reflecting the governing body’s committee and forum structure as a framework for portfolios, it makes sense to align portfolios to the delegation protocols adopted last year, which guide the organisation in working with and supporting local boards.

6. A portfolio approach will assist Local Board members in having a strategic overview of programmes and activities rather than feeling they are dealing with issues in an ad-hoc manner. It also provides for a consistent approach that is familiar to staff working to these delegations and will assist with the running of the portfolio (e.g. regular portfolio briefings/workshops with staff from one activity). The proposed areas for Rodney Local Board portfolios are:

· Local planning, policy and governance

· Iwi

· Arts, culture

· Events

· Community services and facilities

· Libraries

· Recreation services

· Parks

· Built and natural environment

· Economic development

· Street environment and town centres

· Transport

· Regulatory – resource consents comments

· Regulatory - Bylaws

· Communications and engagement

· Finance

· Civil Defence/emergency management

Notification decisions on resource consent applications

7. In the previous electoral term, the governing body considered the role of local boards in regulatory matters, and resolved, amongst other things, that local boards be given the opportunity, within statutory timeframes, to provide their views on whether or not certain applications should be notified.

8. The Council’s Resource Consents department worked with local boards to establish a process for Local Board input: a portfolio holder or spokesperson provides comments within three working days on applications that the Local Board requested and that trigger Local Board input. Those comments are then included in the planners' report on the application.

9. By enabling local boards to have input into notification decision, the local voice can be heard at an early stage in the resource consent process.

10. Local boards that wish to have input into notification decisions on applications that trigger local board input, should appoint a lead and alternate for this role. These appointees could be the regulatory, bylaws and compliance portfolio holder, if any.

Portfolio holder role

11. A useful starting point for Local Board members is to consider their role as portfolio holder as that of a “sounding board” on behalf of the Local Board. Staff from departments across the organisation will need to regularly talk to Local Board members for a number of reasons. This may be to provide a progress up-date to the Local Board on projects and work programmes that have been agreed with the Local Board, to test the level of interest a Local Board has on a particular issue so the department can consider how best to progress matters, or to advise on any issues that may be arising from a project/activity. Portfolio holders are the key Local Board member contacts for departmental staff and in that way assist staff to progress the work programme. Local Board members are not required to give advice to staff on the operational details of projects or activities. The important consideration for members is that they are appointed to be the Local Board representative on a particular area – they represent the views of the Local Board (not their own views) to give direction/steer to staff.

12. If there is no known Local Board view on an issue, Local Board members will need to canvass views of fellow Local Board members and then form the view on what the Local Board position is. If it is likely to be a contentious issue with competing views, it is best referred to a full workshop to allow Local Board members to discuss the issue and formulate a position.

13. Portfolio holders should have a lead and an alternate to help share the workload.

Communication

14. Feedback from the previous term indicates that communication from portfolio holders back to other Local Board members was an area that could be improved. Portfolio holders have a responsibility to provide a feedback loop to other Local Board members – this includes updating on how issues are progressing (or not), putting issues on the radar for all members, bringing issues to the table if guidance is needed from other Local Board members. Local Board advisors can provide assistance and advice about how to progress these types of issues.

15. Communication needs to be regular (for example, monthly) and can be done in a range of ways – scheduled slots on workshop agendas can be an effective way to keep everyone informed about the key things that are happening in the portfolio.

16. The work on portfolio areas will often eventuate in formal reports to the whole Local Board requesting a decision or providing an update – so it is important for portfolio holders to have provided regular and clear communication on the portfolio area so that all Local Board members are briefed and there are no surprises.

Decision-making

17. Decision-making is carried out at formal board business meetings. However in some cases – generally quite limited – decision-making has been delegated to the portfolio holder – for example when it is a straight forward issue and a decision may be needed quickly such as landowner consents. Any delegation of decision-making to portfolio-holders would need to be made through a formal business meeting. If a portfolio-holder has delegated decision-making and is asked to consider a significant/complex decision it is advisable to refer to the wider group of Local Board members.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. This report asks for the Local Board view.

19. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees members of the Local Board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and power, with some specific exceptions.

Māori Impact Statement

20. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation Issues

21. The network of design champions is supported by the built environment unit of the Chief Planning Office department, led by Tim Watts, Manager Built Environment. The network is expected to be active for the second term of council from February 2013.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Appointment of Board Members to Outside Organisations and Community Networks

File No.: CP2013/25888

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to appoint Local Board members to be representative to outside organisations and community networks within the Rodney Local Board area, including Local Government New Zealand.

Executive Summary

1. Elected members participate on management, governance or networking groups in outside organisations for a number of reasons. This report provides details of the organisations and outlines and networks relevant to the Local Board. It included the appointment delegated to the local boards by the governing body (Resolution GB/2013/126).

2. The beginning of the new electoral term generates the need for new appointment. It is recommended that the Local Board appoint one representative, and consider the appointment of one alternate representative, for each organisation and community network listed in the recommendations.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) allocates Local Board members to outside organisations and community networks, as listed below:

Organisation	Primary	Alternate
Redvale Landfill Commuinity Liaision	John McLean
Northern Healthlink	Steven Garner
NZ Police Tactical Coordination Team	Steve Garner	James Colville

b) appoints Member Brenda Steele as the Rodney Local Board Local Government New Zealand Zone 1 representative.

c) notes that Member Beth Houlbrooke, with Member Steven Garner as an alternate, is the Rodney Local Board point of contact for the Puhoi Community Forum.

Discussion

1. A number of external organisations provide for the formal participation of elected members in their affairs. Elected member appointees will have a variety of duties and liabilities depending on the individual organisation. Local Board members may provide updates of their activities with their allocated organisations at Local Board meetings.

2. The reasons for participation in external organisations can be described in a number of ways:

· a trust deed of an organisation providing for the Council to appoint a trustee

· an organisation of interest to the Council simply inviting representation at its meetings

· associations entered into by the council which provide for representation - such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)

· organisation governance, or project or programme oversight, such as regional or local parks management groups

· a statutory or regulatory provision (for example a regulation providing for a community liaison committee)

· a resource consent requiring the formation of a representative committee

3. At the commencement of each triennium, committees and local boards recommend appointments to outside organisations as appropriate and the governing body reviews and either makes the appointments it sees fit and delegates the remaining appointments to local boards. At the end of each triennium, appointments to outside organisations must be reviewed by the appropriate officers as to current relevance, and a recommendation made to the appointing body as to whether or not representation should be continued.

4. It is recommended that the board appoint one representative, and one alternate representative for each organisation and community network listed in the recommendations.

5. In making decisions about these appointments, it is suggested that local boards are mindful of:

· Historical relationships

· Relevance and interest

· Time commitment.

6. In addition, the governing body has delegated appointment to the local boards (Resolution GB/2013/126).

Local Government New Zealand

7. Membership of Local Government New Zealand Zone One (i.e. Auckland and Northland) Committee includes a representative from each of the 21 local boards.

8. Each local board needs to consider selecting their representative, as well as considering to select an alternate representative. Meetings take place four times a year and the venue for meetings is shared across the entire Zone One area.

9. Further information on LGNZ is available in Attachment A.

Consideration

Local Board Views

10. This report seeks the Local Board’s decision on representatives to outside organisations and community networks.

11. The decisions in this report fall within the Local Board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

12. This report has no specific impact on Māori. It covers appointments of Local Board members to outside organisations and community networks to represent the view of local communities, including Māori communities.

General

13. Members are delegated in their capacity as elected Local Board members. Should they no longer be a Local Board member, their nominations would be automatically repealed.

14. Elected representatives may be part of any organisation in their private capacity and personal interests.

15. Elected representatives are encouraged to disclose memberships to external organisations in the conflict of interest register.

Implementation Issues

16. The venues for Local Government NZ Zone One meetings are shared across the entire Zone One area and some travel costs may be incurred by local boards as a result of the appointments.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Local Government New Zealand	71

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Parakai Recreation Reserve Board

File No.: CP2013/25490

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is for the Rodney Local Board to nominate a replacement for Tracey Martin, who did not seek re-election at the recent local government elections, to the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board and to re-confirm the appointment of Member Steele to the Board.

Executive Summary

2. The Parakai Recreation Reserve Board was established by legislation and required that Auckland Council appoint three representatives to the Board and Auckland Council appointed one governing body and two Rodney Local Board representatives for the Auckland Council. Legislation also required that iwi representatives be included on the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board. Councillor Penny Webster is the governing body representative on the Board and Brenda Steele and Tracey Martin were appointed as representatives from the Rodney Local Board. As Tracey Martin did not seek re-election at the latest local government elections the Rodney Local Board need to appoint someone to this vacancy and re-confirm the appointment of Member Steele to the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) re-confirm the appointment of Member Steele and appoint Member Pirrie as members of the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Discussion

3. The Rodney Local Board appointed the iwi portfolio holders (Brenda Steele and Tracey Martin) on to the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board. Councillor Penny Webster was appointed as the governing body representative. These appointments were confirmed on 23 April 2013. As Tracey Martin is no longer elected to the Rodney Local Board the iwi portfolio holder(s) need to be re-confirmed as the Rodney Local Board representatives to the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Consideration

Local Board Views

4. This report seeks the views of the Rodney Local Board on the appointments to the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Maori Impact Statement

5. Iwi has representation on the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board along with representatives from Auckland Council which included members from the governing body and two members from the Rodney Local Board.

General

6. The Parakai Recreation Reserve Board was established by legislation and the Rodney Local Board needs to re-confirm its representatives to the Board as Tracey Martin did not seek re-election in the latest local government elections.

Implementation Issues

7. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Northern Joint Funding Committee

File No.: CP2013/25832

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Rodney Local Board’s agreement:

· to re-instate the Northern Joint Funding Committee to oversee the relevant legacy community funding schemes

· the Terms of Reference for the Northern Joint Funding Committee

· to nominate a member and an alternate on the Northern Joint Funding Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The Northern Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the five northern local boards and has decision-making responsibility for the allocation of grants through the legacy community funding schemes.

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

4. The Northern Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year to administer legacy community funding budgets. This report seeks the Local Board’s approval to re-instate the Northern Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approval of the Terms of Reference and the appointment of a member and an alternate to the Committee.

5. The establishment of the committee is an interim approach until a region-wide community funding policy is finalised. Financial analysis is currently underway to inform options and a supporting budget structure for the new funding policy. Formal consultation on the draft policy will be undertaken with local boards in 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) agrees to re-instate the Northern Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014 to administer the legacy funds as per the Terms of Reference.

b) endorses the draft Terms of Reference for the Northern Joint Funding Committee.

c) appoints Member Steele to the Northern Joint Funding Committee with Member Garner as the alternate for 2013/ 2014 with appropriate delegated authority to bind the Local Board on decisions relating to the legacy community funding schemes made by the Committee.

d) notes that a region-wide Community Funding Policy is being developed and will in time replace the current interim funding arrangements. Officers will engage with the board in the coming months.

Discussion

6. The Northern Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the five northern local boards - Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards. It had decision-making responsibility to allocate grants through the legacy community funding schemes.

7. Local boards continue to have full decision-making authority over the Local Boards Discretionary Grants. These schemes were established as part of the interim funding programme, using budgets inherited from legacy community board funding schemes.

8. At its March 2013 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to continue the Community Assistance Programme for 2013/2014 within unchanged structural and budgetary parameters, while a region-wide Community Funding Policy is in development.

9. This means that, as per previous years, legacy community funding budgets are allocated to sub-regional joint funding committees of local boards, and that the Northern Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year.

10. The previous Local Board agreed to continue the Northern Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014, approved amended terms of reference and appointed a member and an alternate to the Committee. Attachment A presents the rationale behind this decision, as well as the details of the funds to be allocated.

11. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the sub-committee was automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

12. Officers recommend that the Local Board re-instates the Northern Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approves the Terms of Reference and appoints a member and an alternate to the Committee.

13. Each of the legacy councils favoured a different approach to investing in their communities, and community grant funding is only one of several mechanisms for making this investment. In April 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee requested comprehensive financial analysis of all community development-related spending, including but not limited to the legacy community funding budgets that local boards are administering through the interim programme (Resolution number RDO/2013/55). The Regional Development and Operations Committee required this work to be completed prior to development of the second iteration of a new Community Funding Policy.

14. The financial analysis is currently underway, and will be reported to the relevant committee early in 2014. It is anticipated that the findings will provide a clearer picture of current budget distribution and show the variation in inherited community investment models in place around the region. This will provide a valuable basis for developing new policy options and outlining the appropriate budget structures to underpin them. Any change to current budget distribution will be proposed as part of the Local Board Funding Policy (not the Community Funding Policy) for implementation as part of the Long Term Plan (from 2015).

15. Officers will be formally engaging with local boards around further development of the region-wide Community Funding Policy in the coming months.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Māori Impact Statement

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

General

18. The recommendations contained in this report fall within the Local Board’s delegated authority.

Implementation Issues

19. The Northern Joint Funding Committee would administer the following funds:

· The following legacy North Shore City Council funds:

o Events Sponsorship Fund

o Strengthening Communities Fund – Discretionary Grants

o Strengthening Communities Fund – Facility development

o Heritage Fund

o Community board local events fund

· The following legacy Rodney District Council funds:

o Heritage Item Assistance Fund

o Large Grants Fund – Community

o Large Grants Fund – Youth

o Large Grants Fund – Recreation

o Small Grants Fund – Youth

o Community Grants Scheme

o Short Term Response Fund

o Environmental Education Fund

o Natural Heritage Fund

20. The Northern Joint Funding Committee will hold a workshop and a meeting in late 2013 or early 2014 to consider procedural matters including but not limited to:

i) electing a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

ii) adopting the Terms of Reference (attached)

iii) considering the applications received (if required).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Agenda report to the local boards May / June 2013	81
b	Draft terms of reference	87

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Establishment of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee

File No.: CP2013/25789

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to establish the Rodney Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act), and to appoint a maximum of four Local Board members to the committee.

Executive Summary

2. Under s6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools if satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”.

3. The decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fence exemptions has been delegated to local boards. To administer this delegation in the 2010 – 2013 political term, most local boards formed committees to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications while several others considered the applications at a local board business meeting.

4. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, all committees have been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

5. Officers recommend that the Local Board:

· Establishes a committee to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

· Appoints a maximum of four Local Board members to the Rodney Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) establishes the Rodney Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications.

b) appoints the following four members to the Rodney Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee: Member Flaunty, Member Houlbrooke, Member Colville and Member McLean.

Discussion

6. The purpose of the Act is to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of certain swimming pools. The Act places an obligation on territorial authorities to ensure that pool owners comply with the Act, both at the time when the pool is built, and subsequently by occasional inspections of pools to ensure ongoing compliance.

7. Under s6 of the Act, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools. Territorial authorities can also impose special conditions on a property and a pool. A territorial authority can only grant an exemption, or impose a special condition, if, after having regard to the characteristics of the pool and the property, it is satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”. No exemption is required for a new pool fence, or an alteration to an existing fence, if the new or altered fence is at least as safe as one built in accordance with the standard in the schedule of the Act.

8. The governing body has delegated decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fences exemptions to local boards (resolution GB/2011/163). This decision is documented in the following report: “Auckland Council Long Term Plan 2012-20122. Volume three: Financial information, policies and fees. Chapter one: Allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities. Part one: Source of decision-making responsibilities”.

9. To administer this delegation, the previous local boards considered two options, as detailed in the table below.

Option one: Creation of swimming pool fencing exemption subcommittee
(recommended option)

Description

A subcommittee is created to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications

Benefits

· enables decision-making to be undertaken in a timely manner as and when applications are received

· the application and hearing can be the appropriate consideration away from a congested business meeting agenda

· provides flexibility to organise a meeting as some applications will require a site visit

Costs / risks

· additional workload for local board members

· not all local board members will sit on the subcommittee

· can be difficult to organise a meeting time with members on an ad-hoc basis

Option two: Application considered at local board business meeting

Description

Local board assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications at their business meetings

Benefits

· consistent and streamlined approach that is considered at the next local board business meeting

· no additional workload for local board members

Costs / risks

· item may not be given due consideration amongst congested local board business meeting

· site visits

10. After consideration, most local boards opted for a option one and established committees to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications, however several local board opted to consider the applications at a local board business meeting. Under committee the option, the committee is called together when a suitable number of applications are to be heard. A particular time is set aside to hear the applications, giving each applicant sufficient time to present their case. Some applications for exemption require a site visit; the committee meeting may be adjourned for that purpose, and reconvened following the site visit.

11. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, all committees have been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

12. Officers recommend that in the 2013 – 2016 political, local boards re-establish committees to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

13. It is also recommended that the local boards each appoint a maximum of four local board members to their local board swimming pool fencing exemptions committees.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. The recommendations within this report fall within the Local Board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

15. This report does not specifically impact on Māori population or iwi.

General

16. The Local Board’s decision on this matter does not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

17. Costs associated with the formation of the Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee will be met within internal operating budgets.

18. The decision of a Local Board following an exemption hearing is open to challenge by a judicial review process. Members appointed to the Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee will be briefed by Legal Services and Building Control officers regarding the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, the Building Act and the appropriate considerations to take into account when determining an application by a hearings process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 November 2013

Urgent Decision Process for the Rodney Local Board

File No.: CP2013/25889

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Local Board’s agreement for a process for urgent decisions of the Rodney Local Board on matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full Local Board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

Executive Summary

2. This report details a process for urgent decisions of the Local Board on matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full Local Board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) adopts the urgent decision process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full local board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

b) delegates authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson or any person acting in these roles to make an urgent decision on behalf of the Local Board.

c) requests that all urgent decisions be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the Local Board.

Background

3. An extraordinary meeting is called when an urgent decision is required on matters that cannot wait until the next scheduled ordinary meeting of the Local Board. At times, such as during the Christmas and New Year period, it is not practical to call the full Local Board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

4. An alternative to calling for an extraordinary meeting is to delegate the authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make the decision on behalf of the Local Board.

5. Urgent decisions are different from emergency decisions, which are only made if there is a risk to public health and safety.

Decision Making

6. It is recommended that the Local Board delegate the power to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the Local Board.

7. Any request for an urgent decision of the Local Board must be processed through the Local Board Services department, and the Local Board Relationship Manager must endorse the request for an urgent decision before commencing the process.

8. All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a report stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions were made. These reports will comply with the standard approval process.

9. A number of factors are considered before approval to use the urgent decision process is given such as:

· The timing of the next scheduled meeting.

· Confirmation that the Local Board has the delegation to make the decision.

· Consideration of the rationale for urgency.

· The significance of the decision and whether the urgent decision process is appropriate.

10. Any decision made by delegation will be reported as an information item to the next ordinary meeting of the Local Board.

11. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees members of the local board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and power, with some specific exceptions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

12. This decision falls under the Local Board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

13. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation Issues

14. The Local Board Relationship Managers can provide advice as to what might constitute an urgent decision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Brenda Steele
Deputy Chairperson	Steven Garner
Members	James Colville
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Thomas Grace
	Beth Houlbrooke
	John McLean
	Phelan Pirrie
	Greg Sayers