Agenda of Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Application for Landowner Approval to permit buildings on Council Land - Takapuna Beach Holiday Park - 22 The Promenade

File No.: CP2014/06140

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to obtain the approval of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board as landowner on behalf of Council to permit existing buildings within the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park and leased to the Real Kiwi Holiday Company Limited to remain on Council land at 22 The Promenade (see Attachment A - site aerial) for the permitted life of the campground operation.

Executive Summary

2. A resource consent application (LN 2138791) has been submitted to Council by the lessee, the Real Kiwi Holiday Company Limited, seeking consent for the five existing chalets and manager’s residence, highlighted in yellow on Attachment B - resource consent plan, to lawfully remain on the land.

3. The previous consent expired on 29 January 2014 and the campground operator has been notified by Council that the subject buildings are now unlawful.

4. The buildings and the wider campground operation are the subject of an existing Council lease. The lease provides for extension on a monthly basis beyond the date of its expiry (31 March 2013), and the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board allowed a rollover in terms of that provision at its meeting on 4 December 2012.

5. The applicant company has requested landowner approval for the purposes of the resource consent application, which seeks to render the subject buildings lawful in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991. This is distinct from the use of the land and buildings addressed in the lease. Without landowner approval from Council, a resource consent would likely be notified and would be difficult for Council to support.

6. The giving of landowner approval to permit the buildings to remain for the permitted life of the campground is not related to the use of the site as a holiday park and would not imply any commitment in relation to ongoing use.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) Approves, as landowner, the five chalets and manager’s residence within the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park remaining on the land for the permitted life of the holiday park operation.

b) Notes that this approval is given by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board in its role as landowner on behalf of council for the purposes of the resource consent application (LN 2138791) made by the lessee, the Real Kiwi Holiday Company Limited.

Discussion

7. The Real Kiwi Holiday Company Limited, trading as Takapuna Beach Holiday Park, has applied to Council for resource consent for five existing chalets owned by the campground operator and the manager’s residence, which is owned by Council and administered by Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL), to continue to lawfully occupy the land.

8. The previous resource consent, granted on 29 January 2004 by way of Consent Order RMA 8028/03, expired 29 January 2014. Thus, the presence of the five chalets and manager’s residence is unlawful at this time. Other buildings on the site are not affected.

9. Compliance action has commenced, but has been placed on hold pending the outcome of the resource consent and landowner approval processes.

10. The buildings and the campground operation are the subject of a lease given by Council as lessor, and the lease provides for a holding over of the lease on a monthly basis beyond the date of expiry (31 March 2013). At its meeting on 4 December 2012, the Board resolved to offer the current operators a month-by-month rollover in accordance with that provision.

11. Landowner approval for the ongoing use of the land on a month-by-month basis is accordingly in place and the lease remains current.

12. The Board is not being asked to address approval of the continued operation of the campground in this report. Rather, it is being asked to approve only the presence of the buildings on Council land for the permitted life of the campground operation in the knowledge that the lease already provides for a month-by-month use and Council is at liberty to govern the duration of the use.

13. The giving of landowner approval to allow the buildings to remain for the life of the campground would not imply that the Board is or is not in favour of the use of the land as a campground on anything more than a month to month basis for the life of the campground, nor that it has any view in relation to other uses of the land that may already be proposed or may be proposed in the future. This decision would not fetter the Board in its ability to make future decisions about the use of this land.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. On 4 December 2012, the Board resolved (DT 2012/348) in respect the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park lease rollover as follows:

‘That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board requests Auckland Council Property Ltd. to offer the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park operators a month-by-month rollover of the Holiday Park lease, at earliest opportunity, as per the provisions in the lease document.’

15. The following is part of a Board resolution of 21 May 2013 (DT/2013/162):

‘d) notes that the lease to the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park has expired, and a resource consent for the chalet accommodation at the holiday park expires on 29th January 2014, and requests officers to prepare an arrangement for tenure extension in conjunction with the operators of the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park, given that there are no immediate plans for an alternative use for that land.’

16. Finally the Board resolved 17 September 2013 (DT/2013/313) regarding Takapuna Beach Holiday Park lease and maintenance issues as follows:

‘b) note that the Takapuna Beach Holiday Park lease can continue to roll over on a month by month basis until the land is required for another purpose, and recommends to ACPL that it gives the lessee as much notice of the termination of the lease as possible (preferably at least six months).’

Maori Impact Statement

17. Consultation with iwi is a matter that will be considered in the resource consent report, as it is the consent that deals with the authorisation of the buildings.

Implementation Issues

18. If landowner approval were not given, the campground occupation could remain without the five chalets and the manager’s residence. The quality of the holiday park operation could, however, be compromised.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Site aerial	11
b View	Resource consent plan	13

Signatories

Authors

Stanley Bolton - Park & Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Takapuna Grammar School Rowing Club Site Investigation

File No.: CP2014/05171

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to recommend 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade as a potential location for a rowing facility and report issues and options, including the co-location of different clubs at such a facility.

Executive Summary

2. The Takapuna Grammar School Rowing Club (the Club) is currently located on the Bayswater Reclamation site and has been issued a month by month lease by Auckland Transport (AT) for a facility called the ‘Blue Shed’. The Club will be required to vacate the Blue Shed when the Bayswater Ferry Terminal project commences and the Blue Shed is demolished. Design for the project will be progressed in 2014/2015 and the construction budget may be on-stream in the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. The Club would like to remain in the Blue Shed, however they have identified a site which includes 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade and an adjacent piece of land administered by AT upon which they propose to locate a new community rowing facility (see Appendix 2). The facility would be developed and operated by a separate entity, such as a trust or incorporated society. The Club states that the building platform on 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade is too small to accommodate their needs and they require the adjacent AT land to build a suitable facility.

4. Two actions have been discussed in this report. Action one examines building a rowing facility on the Club’s preferred site. The main constraint of this action is gaining access to the AT land, as AT has stated they require this land for the Bayswater Ferry Terminal project. Action two considers the Club carrying out a needs assessment to identify partnerships with other rowing clubs, respective landowners and other users to identify other partners and sites.

5. This report recommends that the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board support both actions as, regardless of the outcome of gaining access to the AT land, the Club will at minimum require an interim site to relocate to. A needs assessment study could support the Club in identifying an interim location and if needed an alternative site or partnership.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) Request Auckland Transport accommodate a community rowing facility which includes the Takapuna Grammar School Rowing Club on the section of land adjacent to 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade.

b) Recommend the Takapuna Grammar School Rowing Club, in conjunction with North Shore Rowing Club, carry out a needs assessment to identify potential partnerships with other rowing clubs, respective landowners, other sites and users in the North of Auckland.

c) Endorse an application for a rowing needs assessment from discretionary or SLIPs funding.

Discussion

6. At the 17 September 2013 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board meeting, the Board resolved to [Resolution number DT/2013/294]:

“request officers investigate 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade as a potential location for a rowing facility and report issues and options, including the co-location of different clubs at such a facility, back to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board”.

Background

7. The Club currently bases their club and stores their boats, plant and equipment in the ‘Blue Shed’ on the Bayswater reclamation. The Club had a temporary monthly commercial lease for the Blue Shed from approximately 2003 with Northhaven Marinas Ltd (BML) and for a time paid $1,000 per month. In February 2008 the former North Shore City Council Community Services and Parks Committee reduced the rent to nil. The resolution stated:

“…in light of the fact that a significant rental has been paid to date and that the period of time that this occupation will continue could be limited.” (CSPC, 2008)

8. The Blue Shed site is administered by AT, which will require the Club to vacate the site when the Ferry Terminal project commences. The Club were granted a three year licence to occupy the Blue Shed by AT through Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) in June 2009. This licence was later extended to 30 June 2013 and has since continued on a monthly tenancy.

9. The Club, as an incorporated society, is a voluntary organisation offering rowing to Takapuna Grammar School students and currently has a membership of approximately 68 rowers. The Club’s novice rowers usually train at Bayswater (when tides permit), whilst the more experienced rowers train at the Waitemata Club where the Club stores some of their boats. The Club also rows and shares rented premises with the Counties Manukau Rowing Club at Mercer.

10. Over recent years various sites have been explored by Council and the Club to establish a permanent home for the Club - unfortunately no feasible alternate sites or partnerships have been identified to date. The North Shore City Council (NSCC), the Devonport Community Board and Auckland Council have worked with the Club to support them through reducing rental costs of the Blue Shed, providing advice and funding. The Club received $3,000 in 2010 from the NSCC Strengthening Communities Fund to complete a study to:

“employ a qualified Sports Administrator to advise how we can expand our club activities to include a wider community basis rather than only catering for school students from Takapuna Grammar School.” (Application to the Strengthening Community Fund, 2009)

11. Officers requested a report from the Club in June 2013 on this work and have received no response.

12. 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade was purchased in 2009 by the NSCC. Originally a two-storey, circa 1940’s bungalow was located on the land, but has subsequently been demolished as it was deemed unsuitable for any community purpose. An NSCC report in 2009 indicated that there were several possible options for use of the land considered before purchase, such as dinghy racks, community use, boat rigging, passive parkland, café or commercial recreational uses and car parking along the coastal edge for recreational users. The report also stated that the Bayswater reclamation was considered a distinctive marine recreation setting with diverse marine user-groups clustered in close proximity to one another.

Takapuna Grammar School Rowing Club

13. The Club would ideally like to stay in their current location in the Blue Shed as it is suitable for novice rowers to bike or be driven to the site for early morning or evening training. There has been no indication from AT or ACPL that this may be a possible option.

14. The Club believes that both the small reserve (2 Sir Peter Blake Parade) and a portion of the adjacent AT land could accommodate a storage shed for their boats and home for the Club. The Club have drawn up plans for a facility on these sites and estimate it may cost between $1.5 and $1.8 million (refer Appendix 2). The Club are not interested in only the site at 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade as the building platform is too small.

15. The Club’s plan is intending to accommodate a community rowing facility that is utilised not only by the Club, but also as a base and storage facility for community, recreational and masters rowers along with other North Shore schools. The Club envisages the facility will be developed and operated by a separate entity (such as a trust or incorporated society) that is charged with promoting rowing as a sport within the North Shore community.

Actions Considered

16. Action 1: The Club have expressed an interest in making 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade and the adjacent Auckland Transport land their new home. The following requirements should be considered:

Size of the building and site	· 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade title records show a land area of 1,113m2; however the net useable area is compromised by the cliff face within the property which reduces the flat useable area to between 650 m2 – 700m2. · Setback provisions further reduce the building platform as the current District Plan coastal setback is 15m and the proposed Unitary Plan setback is 20m (refer Appendix 2). This has led to the Club including the adjacent AT land in their concept plans.
Availability of the adjacent AT land	· Initial discussions with AT indicate that all of the land in their control will be required in the Ferry Terminal development project.
Costs	· Facility – estimated costs obtained from the Club are $1,500/m2 plus all consents and approvals. The Club’s plans show a facility that is 1,200m2 at a cost between $1.5 million to $1.8 million. · Needs assessment and feasibility study - In order to be successful in gaining funding from other community funders such as Lotteries or the ASB Community Trust, it is important that the applicant provides a needs assessment / feasibility study which encourages full community/shared use. · It is likely that the Blue Shed will be demolished before any potential facility is built - therefore an interim solution will need to be found to accommodate the Clubs plant and equipment. Any future needs assessment should include exploring alternate facilities or partnerships.
Pontoon	· Possible need for a pontoon if existing access was restricted when the ferry terminal was in full operation – recent pontoon construction at Rame Road cost approximately $400,000. · Access approval from AT terminal development team to retain access points to the harbour. During the lowest tides the current launching ramps at Bayswater are not usable.

Approvals and consents required

· Land Owner Approval / Lease (preliminary legal opinion is that 2 Sir Peter Blake Parade will not have to be publically notified) Land owner approval considers the size of building, use of building, functions – shared use, height, hours open, how does the proposed use of the facility fit into the local network of reserves in the area.

· Resource Consent - a pre-application meeting will identify the restrictions and requirements.

· Building Consent

17. Action 2: Needs Assessment / Investigate partnership and shared use:

· The Club could co-locate or partner with other rowing clubs. This may include moving all of their training to the Waitemata Club or sharing facilities with North Shore Rowing (Pupuke, Rame Road and Hobsonville). However, there is a shortage of rowing provision in the north due to a lack of boat storage space and access to suitable water (as stated in the Auckland Regional Paddling and Rowing Facilities Study, 2007). Therefore, there is limited capacity to accommodate the 68 members of the Club. The travel times will increase for the rowers and this may make the sport of rowing less accessible to youth on the Devonport peninsula and beyond.

· Further needs assessment should be undertaken with the major community rowing clubs in the north, North Shore Rowing, respective landowners and other users to identify other partners and sites.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. This report was requested by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and is seeking feedback from the Board.

Maori Impact Statement

19. Any proposed facilities or studies discussed in this report will need various consents and approvals requiring iwi consultation.

General

20. Continued consultation and follow up communication will be required with Auckland Transport and all relevant rowing clubs and stakeholders in the north of Auckland.

Implementation Issues

21. Council staff will continue to work with the Takapuna Grammar School Rowing Club to work through any potential implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Rowing Attachments	31

Signatories

Authors

Geraldine Wilson - Sport & Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Manager, Recreation Facilities & Service Delivery Central

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

LGNZ conference and AGM 2014

File No.: CP2014/05966

Purpose

1. This report informs local boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and conference in Nelson from Sunday 20 July 2014 to Tuesday 22 July 2014, and invites local boards to nominate a representative to attend as relevant.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Government New Zealand Annual Conference and AGM takes place in Nelson from Sunday 20 July to Tuesday 22 July 2014.

3. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to 4 official delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The Governing Body will consider this at their meeting on 27 March 2014. The four official delegates are likely to be the Mayor as a member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor as the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster as Chair LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council, and the Chief Executive.

4. In addition to the official delegates, local board members are invited to attend. Local boards should consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance, with the expectation that no local board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) nominate a representative to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2014 Annual General Meeting and conference from 20 July 2014 to 22 July 2014 on the basis that the conference programme is relevant to the local board’s work programme.

Discussion

5. The LGNZ Conference and AGM are being held in Nelson. The conference commences with the AGM and technical tours from 10.00am on Sunday 20 July 2014 and concludes at 4.30pm on Tuesday 22 July 2014.

6. The theme of this year’s conference is “Powering Local Economies – building community vibrancy”. The programme includes:

· Paul Pisasale, Mayor of Ipswich, Transforming towns and cities to build strong local economies and vibrant communities

· Rod Drury, Factors that make Wellington based Xero a global success and why businesses locate where they do

· Craig Stobo, Andrew McKenzie and Arihia Bennett, Lifting governance and financial performance

· Caroline Saunders and Ganesh Nana, Future economic thinking: how will the changing social and economic landscape impact on our future development patterns

· Lawrence Yule, LGNZ’s 2014 elections manifesto

· Jonar Nader, Innovation: Something ‘new’ is not always something ‘better’

· Therese Walsh, National events from metro to grass roots – needs, opportunities and key success factors for a town hosting a major event.

7. The programme also includes a number of Master Class sessions including:

· New generation funding models for infrastructure

· Funding models and the economic impact of cycle ways

· Transforming local government through smart digital investment

· Improving governance through strengthening capacity and capability

· How do we engage with youth?

Annual General Meeting

8. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to have four delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The four official delegates are likely to be the Mayor (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Penny Webster (as Chair of Zone 1) and the Chief Executive (or his nominee).

9. The Mayor is a member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor is the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster is the Chair of LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council and Cr Cashmore is a member of the Regional Sector Group of LGNZ. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at their meeting on 27 March 2014.

10. In addition to the official delegates, local board members are entitled to attend. Local boards should consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance, with the expectation that no board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.

Costs

11. The Local Board Services Department budget will cover the costs of one member per local board to attend the conference.

12. Registration fees are $1410.00 (incl GST) if paid by 4 June 2013 and $1510.00 (incl GST) after that. Additional costs are accommodation around $150 per night, plus travel. Local Board Services will be co-ordinating and booking all registrations and accommodation and investigating cost effective travel.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13. This is a report to all 21 local boards.

Maori Impact Statement

14. The Local Government NZ conference will better inform local boards and thereby support their decision-making for their communities including Maori.

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	2014 LGNZ AGM and Conference Programme	41

Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities - Devonport/Takapuna Local Board

File No.: CP2014/06074

Purpose

1. Local boards are required to set fees for the hire of local Council-managed community venues, centres and arts facilities. The fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Agreement.

2. This report seeks to inform the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board of administrative changes to the fees and charges framework.

3. It also seeks the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board’s confirmation of the priority activity types which will be eligible for a maximum discount (i.e. lowest fees per hour).

Executive Summary

4. Local boards have the allocation of setting hire fees for local facilities, to support delivery of services, projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.

5. A project has been underway to develop a more consistent pricing structure for hire of Council-managed community venues, centres and houses and arts facilities. Excluded from scope are facilities managed by committees or third parties, and bookable spaces in parks, sport and recreation facilities, or in libraries.

6. Local boards have been engaged in this project through a series of workshops, providing feedback to inform a new fee structure for the hire of local community facilities, with the purpose of “ensuring people can access safe and affordable spaces to pursue their interests.”

7. The project has resulted in three main changes:

· administrative changes to standardise terminology and charge fees on an hourly basis

· the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect Local Board Plan priorities

· proposed adjustments to the hire fees, to improve consistency across the portfolio of facilities within each local board area, and in similar facilities in adjoining boards.

8. The fees and charges schedule will be presented for adoption as part of the 2014/2015 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Agreement.

Recommendations

That the Devonport/Takapuna Local Board:

a) Confirms the activity types eligible for priority discounts for hire of local Council-run facilities as per attachment A.

b) Notes the administrative changes to facilitate implementation.

Discussion

Background

9. Local boards are allocated the setting of fees and discounts for hire of their local Council-run community arts venues, halls, centres and houses. This supports delivery of services, projects, events and activities for wider community benefit.

10. Historical variations in hire fees, terminology and procedures across the Auckland region led local boards in 2012 to request improvements to the customer experience for hirers of local community facilities, and to improve the transparency and quality of information and advice to guide local boards in the setting and variation of hire fees.

Local Board Engagement

11. At workshops during 2013 and 2014, local boards with facilities in scope had a number of opportunities to engage with the project team and to express their preferred approaches to the hire of local facilities. This report has been informed by the feedback received, and has led to a new hire fee framework and structure for the 2014/15 year.

12. Operational considerations have meant that not all views expressed can be incorporated during 2014/15. If local boards wish to consider more substantial changes to hire fees and charges in future years to ensure alignment across portfolios, the Long Term Plan process offers an opportunity to consult local communities on this matter.

Changes to the Hire Fees and Charges Framework

13. The resulting new hire fee framework takes into account the size, condition and quality of each bookable space, levels of staffing, amenities available, and current patterns of utilisation of the spaces. Some adjustments have been proposed to fees for comparable facilities within each local board area or in adjoining boards.

14. The proposed fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Agreement. While the proposed fee schedules are based on modelling within existing budget parameters, variances may arise due to changing demand and utilisation of facilities. The proposed changes are intended to be budget neutral for each local board, and in most instances are considered minor in comparison with value for money.

Proposed Administrative Changes

15. In 2014 at a further series of workshops, local boards were informed of operational changes, including standardised fee-naming, and principles for applying discounts:

· all bookings are treated on a first-come first-served basis

· discounts are given for regular bookings and for off-peak times

· all hire fees will be charged on a per hour basis, using six simple naming conventions, as in Table 1.

Table 1: Fee Naming Conventions

Naming Convention	Fee Comparisons
Standard	Full rate, no discounts
Standard Off Peak	Full rate, less a discount for time of day or week
Regular	Discount off standard rate for 10 or more bookings per year
Regular Off Peak	Discount off standard rate for 10 or more bookings per year, and a further discount for time of day / week
Local Board Priority Activities	Maximum discount off standard rate
Local Board Priority Off Peak	Maximum discount off standard rate, and a further discount for time of day / week

Consideration of Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Priorities

16. In line with 2014/2015 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Agreement priorities, the Board is now asked to confirm their Local Board Priority Activities, i.e. those activity types the Board wishes to be eligible for a maximum discount.

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. This report reflects the engagement with the local boards.

Maori Impact Statement

18. This will affect or benefit Māori communities in the same way it would any other community user in the Local Board area. No specific need for consultation with Māori was identified for the purposes of this report.

General

19. This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

20. The new fee framework will be implemented from 1 July 2014. No particular implementation issues are anticipated. It is expected that the clarity and simplicity of the approach will enable more effective promotion of the facilities in the future.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Appendix A: Principles for bookings, fees and discounts for Devonport/Takapuna Local Board	49

Signatories

Authors

Kat Tierney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2014/05998

Purpose

1. This report provides guidance for the Local Board on finalising budgets and other decisions required for local board agreements and the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Executive Summary

2. This report provides information to support local boards to make decisions required in order to finalise Local Board content for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

3. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was released for public consultation in January, with Local Board hearings held in March as part of the special consultative procedure. Following consultation, local boards have considered all new and updated information now available in relation to budgets, advocacy areas and regional proposals for 2014/2015.

4. Local boards are now asked to:

i) agree a final balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years.

ii) agree an updated set of advocacy areas to the Governing Body and CCOs for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

iii) agree a local fees and charges schedule for 2014/2015.

iv) resolve on any regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

i) agrees a balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years for the Annual Plan 2014/2015 that reflect the allocation of decision-making.

ii) confirms an updated list of advocacy areas for the Governing Body and council-controlled organisations, for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

iii) agrees a local fees and charges schedule for 2014/2015.

iv) resolves on any feedback on regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan process for Governing Body consideration.

b) That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board notes:

i) local board budgets for 2014/2015 and outer years are required to balance in every year.

ii) if budgets do not balance in every year, the Budget Committee will respond to any advice provided by the local board about how to balance its budget if required. If this has not occurred, budgets will be balanced by proportionately reducing the budgets for the local boards discretionary projects to address the overspend.

iii) local board budgets will be updated in May to reflect local board prioritisation decisions, any final decisions made by the Budget Committee on 8 May, and updated central cost allocations. Updated financial statements for 2014/2015 will be provided to local boards in time for local board agreement adoption meetings in June.

Discussion

5. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was released for public consultation in January, with local board hearings held in March as part of the special consultative procedure. Following consultation, each local board has reviewed its 2014/2015 and outer year budgets and considered what, if any, reprioritisation is required in order to finalise budgets for the annual plan.

6. This report provides information on:

· key budget refresh movements to local board budgets

· local board decisions required in April to support the annual plan process

· next steps to finalise local board budgets and agreements for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.

7. Local boards are now required to make decisions following the consultation and reprioritisation phases to enable local board content to be updated and finalised for the Annual Plan 2014/2015. Local boards are asked to:

i) agree a final balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years

ii) agree an updated set of advocacy areas to the Governing Body and CCOs for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015. The draft areas of advocacy for the 2014/2015 year are set out in attachment D.

iii) agree a local fees and charges schedule for 2014/2015. The draft fees and charges schedule is set out in Attachment C.

iv) resolve on any other feedback relating to regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.

Budget Refresh

8. A budget refresh was undertaken in February to reflect the most accurate budget based on the latest available information and any changes in the business. Movements are based on factors such as performance year to date and forecast changes in the operating environment.

9. A summary of key areas of impact on local board budgets is set out in Attachment A. There is no impact on service levels as a result of budget refresh movements. Variance analysis for this local board is provided in Attachment B.

Next steps to finalise local board agreements

10. Discussions between the Budget Committee and local boards will occur between 29 April and
1 May.

11. Reports will be prepared for the Budget Committee meeting on 8 May providing an update on local board budgets, advocacy and other feedback and seeking any further decisions required to finalise the Annual Plan 2014/2015. At this meeting, the Committee will formally consider local board feedback and advocacy.

12. Between 9 and 30 May, local board agreements will be updated and financial statements prepared. Financial statements will reflect budget prioritisation decisions made by local boards, any further decisions made by the Budget Committee and include central cost allocations, such as depreciation, interest and staff costs.

13. Local boards will meet to adopt their local board agreements between 9 June and 19 June, with the Governing Body meeting to adopt the final annual plan, including the 21 local board agreements, on 26 June.

Consideration

Local Boards

14. This report sets out the decisions local boards need to make in order to finalise budgets and agree advocacy areas for the Annual Plan 2014/2015. Local boards may also provide feedback on region-wide policies and proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.

Maori Impact Statement

15. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Maori. The annual plan and local board agreements are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Maori. The local board agreement is based on the local board plan and the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 which have both been developed through engagement with the community, including Maori.

16. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes. In particular, the 2014 Local Board Plans and the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 will influence relevant annual plans and local board agreements.

Implementation

17. Local boards’ financial statements reflect the full cost of undertaking local activities within each board’s area. However, some of these costs are not directly under the control of local boards (e.g. staff costs, corporate overhead, interest and depreciation) and are therefore subject to change outside of the local board’s prioritisation process.

18. These central costs will alter as final budget decisions are made by the Budget Committee on 8 May. As these central costs change, the total funding for each local board will change by the same amount. These changes will have no impact on a local board’s level of discretionary funding.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Budget refresh – Summary of key movements	57
b View	Budget Variance Analysis	59
c View	Fees and Charges schedule	61
d View	Advocacy action plan	65

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards Matthew Walker, Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards

File No.: CP2014/05976

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is advise all local boards of the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund Programme, in particular the need to urgently identify new project proposals that will enable the total budget that needs to be spent by the end of June 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) receive the report.

b) urgently identify new project proposals for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme by 31 August 2014 so that subsequent initial assessment, detailed design (including consultation and statutory approvals), and construction can be completed by 30 June 2016.

Discussion

Background

2. The total annual budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is $10 million. This was assigned to local boards based on population, except for the Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards who received nominated sums.

3. The programme commenced in September 2012 following resolution of the use of the fund by the Auckland Council Strategy and Planning Committee in August 2012.

Budget Considerations

4. One of the requirements of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is that the budgets must be spent within the same electoral term. Budgets can be moved from year to year within the electoral term, subject to Auckland Transport having the ability to manage the cash flow, but ‘carry forwards’ to subsequent political terms are not allowed.

5. The total amount spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the 2012-13 financial year was $1.3 million. This was due to the late start of the programme in that year, and as such Council was asked to relax the ‘no carry forward’ rule in this inaugural year of the programme. This one-off carry forward of the unspent balance of $8.7 million was subsequently approved.

6. Therefore, the total budget that must be spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the current political term totals $38.7 million as follows:

· The carry forward from 2012-13 = $8.7 million

· The 2013-14 budget = $10 million

· The 2014-15 budget = $10 million

· The 2015-16 budget = $10 million.

7. In order to fully spend this amount by 30 June 2016, the following spending profile will be required as follows:

· 2013-14 forecast = $8.6 million (actual current forecast)

· 2014-15 forecast = $10.1 million (latest forecast)

· 2015-16 forecast = $20 million (latest forecast).

8. The 2013-14 figure is the currently expected end of year result for 2013-14. The end of the 2013-14 financial year is the end of the second year of the four year Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be completed by 30 June 2016, and only $9.9 million of the $40 million will be spent.

9. Conversely, the required spend in the last two years (2014-15 and 2015-16) is $30.1 million, being a threefold increase in the spend compared to the first two years. At the current rate of spending this $30.1 million target will not be achieved.

10. In addition, the current local boards are allowed to spend some or all of the 2016-17 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget as their elected term finishes three months into this financial year on approximately 30 Sept 2016. This means there is an additional $10 million available that could also be spent.

Value of Projects

11. Of the 228 proposals submitted to date, 64 are not proceeding (not meeting criteria, funded elsewhere, deferred to future years, or not chosen by local boards). The total value of the remaining 164 projects that range from being in the initial assessment phase to having the construction fully complete is $14.9 million.

12. Assuming that all of these projects are completed, they represent only 37% of the total Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be delivered in the current electoral term.

13. Conversely, an additional $25.1 million worth of projects need to be identified in order to deliver the programme by 30 June 2016.

Forward Planning to Ensure Programme Delivery

14. Additional project proposals need to be identified urgently by all local boards in order for the programme to be delivered on time.

15. As the spending of the budget is heavily weighted towards the 2015-16 financial year (and to a lesser extent the 2014-15 financial year), the issue of Auckland Transport being able to manage the work in those years and the contracting industry being able to carry out the large volume of work become factors in the overall delivery of the programme.

16. Accordingly, construction approval will be required for all projects in the programme by 30 May 2015 at the latest so that the last of the physical works construction of the works can be spread out over the entire 2015-16 financial year. Many of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10 million of work in the 2014-15 year.

17. In order to achieve the 30 May 2015 construction approval date, detailed design approval will need to be provided for all projects no later than 30 November 2014 in order to allow six months for detailed design (including consultation and statutory approvals) to be completed so that construction approval can be provided on time. As with the construction approvals, much of this detailed design has to happen much sooner in order to deliver the 2014-15 programme.

18. Accordingly, the identification of new projects by all local boards to the total value of at least $25.1 million needs to happen by 31 August 2014 at the latest in order for projects to be assessed, scoped and rough orders of cost provided back to the local boards for their consideration for detailed design approval. Ideally, more projects need to be identified in case some do not meet the necessary criteria.

19. As the four year programme budgets for each local board can be considered as a single budget, there is opportunity for local boards to consider larger projects that can be funded over more than one year, or that are funded jointly between more than one local board. A fewer number of larger projects will be easier to manage and will make delivery of the programme much easier.

20. If the above programme timing is not met, Auckland Transport cannot guarantee that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme can be fully delivered in the current electoral term.

Project Management Process

21. The time required for managing the various stages of a project can vary significantly depending on the nature and size of the project.

22. Initial assessments of project proposals, including the development of Rough Orders of Cost, can be relatively quick in the case of simple projects, such as new footpaths or the installation of new bus shelters where the work is straight forward and is carried out on a regular basis under other Auckland Transport work streams. In these cases, typical costs are known and a turn-around of a few weeks can be achieved.

23. However, other one-off projects that may have safety implications which require the gathering of data (site specific surveys, and information such as traffic counts) to determine whether or not the project meets traffic warrants, standards or regulatory requirements, or projects that require initial community input can take up to three months to assess.

24. Detailed design and the development of Firm Estimates of Cost can also vary significantly in terms of the overall time required. Some simple projects require very little design and can take a matter of a few weeks.

25. Other more complex projects require time to gather detailed site information, to carry out consultation with stakeholders, to carry out design including inputs from specialists, to apply for resource consents, and to obtain regulatory approvals such as traffic resolutions or speed limit changes. These projects can take more than six months to design.

26. Construction timeframes can vary significantly depending on the size of the project. Lead time to supply specialist materials for construction, often from overseas, can delay projects. Timing of works to avoid the wet winter months can also impact on when tenders are let. Delaying of weather sensitive works to construct them at the right time of the year can impact on the overall timing of project delivery.

27. In addition, spreading out the delivery of the construction of works over the whole year can provide a more even workload to the contractors which can result in more favourable overall costs to AT and the Local Boards.

28. All of the above highlights that the timing of the various stages of projects can vary significantly. Straight forward projects can be delivered in a single year; whereas it is not possible to deliver more complex projects within a single year. Many of the local board projects fall into this second category.

Auckland Transport Programme Management Process

29. A review of the internal Auckland Transport processes has highlighted a number of improvements that will be made in order to assist with the delivery of this programme of work.

30. Timing of responses back to the local boards on initial assessments and on the completion of detailed designs will be monitored more closely to ensure there is no slippage in these approval processes.

31. Rough Orders of Cost and Firm Estimates of Cost will be provided in ranges of price, rather than a single dollar figure because of the uncertainty of providing exact figures in the early stages of projects. Rough Orders of Cost carried out at the start of the project can vary by up to 30%, whereas Firm Estimates of Cost carried out in the detailed design phase can vary by 15%.

32. There are examples where previous estimates that have been provided have been too low and additional approvals have been required from local boards. This has caused problems with the Local Board expectation of project costs. More care will be taken in future to provide accurate estimates.

33. It should be remembered that these figures are still estimates, and the true cost of the work will only be known when the construction is complete. The reason for this is that there are many factors that can affect the final cost of a project compared to the Firm Estimate of Cost. Three of these are the tendered price from the contractor, unforeseen ground conditions, and relocation/protection of underground services. Every endeavour will be made to keep project costs within the approved budgets.

Consequences of not Delivering the full Programme

34. Auckland Transport capex underspend including from within the Local Board Transport Capital Fund remains under sustained scrutiny by Auckland Council.

35. Auckland Transport is accountable for the current underspend on this significant budget allocation, and reports every quarter to Auckland Council on the accuracy of its capex spend forecasts.

36. It is important that this fund is fully spent each year to ensure that neither its amount nor its process are put at risk when consistently reporting underspends to Council.

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

Local Board	Total Budget 2012-13 to 2015-16 (four years)	Total Value of all Approved Projects and Proposals Being Assessed	Value of New Projects Still to be Identified
Albert Eden	$2,659,732	$1,302,567	$1,357,165
Devonport Takapuna	$1,540,120	$1,104,960	$435,160
Franklin	$1,739,864	$946,555	$793,309
Great Barrier	$400,000	$278,476	$121,524
Henderson Massey	$2,993,512	$1,012,988	$1,980,524
Hibiscus and Bays	$2,399,540	$763,330	$1,636,210
Howick	$3,487,612	$1,147,000	$2,340,612
Kaipatiki	$2,318,064	$1,244,711	$1,073,353
Mangere Otahuhu	$2,071,016	$609,364	$1,461,652
Manurewa	$2,373,256	$472,116	$1,901,140
Maungakiekie Tamaki	$1,979,028	$800,000	$1,179,028
Orakei	$2,199,796	$852,633	$1,347,163
Otara Papatoetoe	$2,197,168	$1,098,584	$1,098,584
Papakura	$1,224,736	$904,747	$319,989
Puketapapa	$1,526,468	$373,000	$1,143,468
Rodney	$1,477,044	$733,000	$744,044
Upper Harbour	$1,348,264	$674,132	$674,132
Waiheke	$800,000	$211,943	$588,057
Waitakere Ranges	$1,324,608	$140,000	$1,184,608
Waitemata	$1,879,156	$192,470	$1,686,686
Whau	$2,071,016	$0	$2,071,016
TOTALS	$40,000,000	$14,862,576	$25,137,424

37. It should be noted that the possible spend of the 2016-17 budget is not included in the above figures.

Suggestions of Projects to be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

38. Attached is the ‘pick list’ of the types of projects that could be funded from the LBTCF programme that has previously been circulated to local boards for their information. This list will assist local boards to identify potential projects in their areas.

Consideration

Local Board Views

39. This report is for the Local Board’s action.

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

41. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents, and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation Issues

42. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Projects that could be considered by Local Boards	75
b View	Financial Updates for Devonport-Takapunal Local Board	81

Signatories

Authors

Phil Donnelly, Team Leader East, Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Andrew Scoggins, Group Manager Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Auckland Transport Update on Issues Raised in March 2014 for the Devonport Takapuna Local Board

File No.: CP2014/05984

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on transport related issues raised by Board members during March 2014. It also includes general information about matters of interest to the Local Board and Attachment ‘A’ the Schedule of Issues raised in March 2014.

2. If Board members have any questions relating to the issues covered in Attachment ‘A’ they are respectfully requested to raise these directly with their Elected Member Relationship Manager, outside of the formal business meeting. Any questions raised will be reported in the next month’s list of issues raised.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport March 2014 Issues Update to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board.

Discussion

Local Board Auckland Transport Capital Fund Projects

3. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has previously resolved to progress a number of Local Board Capital Fund Projects and allocated a rough order of costs (ROC) to enable the projects to proceed.

4. These are still to come back to the Board to consider for construction and approval when the design and Final Estimate of Costs (FEC) have been carried out.

Auckland Transport News

A Jump in Public Transport Patronage

5. January saw a jump of 3.3% in the number of people using public transport in Auckland.

6. The number of trips on rail was up 7.6% in January compared to the same month last year.

7. Auckland Transport’s Group Manager, Public Transport, Mark Lambert says the increase for rail is pleasing considering the disruption to services in January because of on-going work to electrify the rail network.

8. The Northern Express bus service saw a rise in patronage of 7%, while the number using all other bus services was up just under 5% compared to January 2013.

9. Auckland Transport has been running promotions to encourage more people on the North Shore to use the Northern Express.

10. On an average weekday some 236,000 trips are taken on public transport in the region and Aucklanders are now travelling on more than 200,000 AT HOP cards.

More Customers Means a Bigger Ferry to West Harbour

11. A jump in passenger numbers means a bigger ferry has joined the run to West Harbour operated by Belaire Ferries for Auckland Transport.

12. Belaire Ferries Managing Director, Adam Tallentire, says the 90 passenger Spirit will now operate on the morning services along with 49 seaters Clipper and Serenity. “With this increase in capacity we are confident that even more commuters will consider the ferry as an alternative, a way to escape the on-going upgrade work on the North Western motorway.”

13. The new service was immediately popular; on the first sailing of Spirit on Monday 3 March there were 64 passengers. The previous capacity on the sailing was 49 passengers.

14. The West Harbour service has seen a 56% jump in patronage since capacity was last expanded in October 2011.

15. There are 14 return trips between West Harbour and Downtown each weekday.

Customers the Focus at Auckland Transport

16. The Board of Auckland Transport has established a Customer Focus Committee (CFC), which will drive continuous customer service and customer experience improvements throughout the business.

17. Mark Gilbert, who has a background in senior management that incorporated marketing and customer service roles, will chair the committee.

18. It will provide oversight and advice on a range of initiatives from project planning and market research to implementation. A major priority is an increase in public transport patronage. “Our overarching vision is to put an excellent customer experience at the heart of everything we do” he says.

19. “We aim to provide outstanding customer service, every time and be a trusted and positive contributor to the lives of all Aucklanders.

20. “That means a greater emphasis on customer needs and wants no matter what part of the organisation or its services they are engaging with.”

21. The CFC is a full committee of the Board, with all AT Directors invited to attend. It will meet monthly, beginning in March.

Auckland Transport completes AT HOP rollout

22. Auckland Transport has completed the rollout of AT HOP, its reusable pre-pay smart card for travel on trains, ferries and buses.

23. There are currently more than 250,000 AT HOP cards being regularly used by customers around the region.

24. AT HOP allows customers to use one travel card on different modes of transport and public transport operators.

25. The card was first introduced on the region’s rail network in October 2012 and has been progressively rolled out since then.

26. Auckland Transport chairman, Dr. Lester Levy, says it is significant for further developing public transport in New Zealand’s largest city.

27. “Other transformational projects such as the fleet of new electric trains, improved reliability of all services and a major focus on customer needs and satisfaction levels are other vital elements in delivering a world class public transport system,” he says.

28. The project has been delivered in partnership with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

31. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation Issues

32. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Devonport Takapuna Issues Raised by Local Board Members During March 2014	87

Signatories

Authors

Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Team, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Applications to Install Memorial Seats in Devonport-Takapuna

File No.: CP2014/05378

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to brief the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board on a number of applications to install memorial seats in the Devonport-Takapuna area, and to seek landowner approval to facilitate installation.

Executive Summary

2. Three applications are covered within this report. The applicants propose to install memorial seats at (a) Devonport Domain, (b) King Edward Parade, and (c) Milford Road Reserve. They are proposed in order to commemorate the lives of significant figures within these communities.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) grants landowner consent for a memorial seat to be installed, subject to all costs associated with the installation of these memorial seats being covered by the applicants, at:

i. Devonport Domain

ii. King Edward Parade

iii. Milford Road Reserve,

Discussion

Devonport Domain

4. The applicant, Kevin Robinson, President of the North Shore Cricket Club, proposes to install a memorial seat in memory of Hedley Howarth at the southern end of Vauxhall Reserve, at the foot of the bank and in the shade of the trees at the edge of the cricket ground.

5. Hedley Howarth was an international cricketer who played 30 tests and 9 one day internationals for NZ between 1969 and 1977. He played first class cricket for Auckland from 1963 to 1979.

6. Hedley Howarth also played 10 years for North Shore Cricket Club at the Devonport Domain. He was the consummate club man, when not playing he spent many hours coaching and supporting the club in whatever way he could.

7. Hedley made a huge contribution to New Zealand, Auckland and North Shore cricket. The applicant feels that a memorial bench and plaque at the Devonport Domain, where he finished his cricket career, would be a fitting remembrance to an outstanding family man, gentleman, and cricketer.

8. The Parks Advisor has considered the application and assessed the proposed site. He considers that the proposed installation is consistent with Auckland Council’s interim guidelines for the installation of Plaques and Memorials within Parks.

King Edward Parade

9. The applicant, Patricia Jones, Devonport resident, proposes to install a memorial seat in memory of her husband Captain B.J.C Jones on reserve land opposite her home at 6 King Edward Parade, Devonport. The bench would be positioned near the hoggin footpath that runs along this section of coastline, sited to overlook the harbour.

10. Brian John Crawford Jones was a Devonport resident for 50 years. He was employed as Harbour Pilot with the Ports of Auckland for 31 years. He was a respected member of the local Devonport and Auckland yachting fraternities and was regarded as an authority in his field - navigation, piloting and maritime safety.

11. Captain B.J.C Jones was the Foundation President and life member of the Auckland Yacht Navigation Society; a lecturer and examiner of the Boatmaster Course for the NZ Coastguard Federation; a consultant navigator in search and rescue operations, and he also was a navigator on nine ocean races to Noumea and Fiji.

12. In 1967, in his role as Harbour Pilot he retrieved the historical Admiralty Anchor from the seabed off Stanley Point. This is now a landmark outside the Devonport Yacht Club on King Edward Parade where he was both member and custodian.

13. The Parks Advisor has considered the application and assessed the proposed site. He considers that the proposed installation is consistent with Auckland Council’s interim guidelines for the installation of Plaques and Memorials within Parks.

14. The Plaque will include a quote from Captain B.J.C Jones himself, which the family believe best describes his life, his work, and his contribution to maritime standards and culture in both Auckland and New Zealand:

“It has been my endeavor to try and bring a better appreciation of the sea and its hazards, with the hope that New Zealand waters, especially our Waitemata and Hauraki Gulf, will become a safer place for all users both commercial and recreational.”

Milford Road Reserve

15. The applicant, Maureen Church, Milford resident, proposes to install a memorial seat in memory of her husband Dr. James Escott Church (Jim) on Milford Road Reserve, overlooking the ocean.

16. Dr. Church was a foundation surgeon, and for many years the only surgeon at the Lister Hospital in Takapuna. His position benefitted numerous North Shore residents who were able to get medical treatment without travelling long distances to Auckland hospitals.

17. Dr. Church’s works at Lister Hospital lead to forty years work as a general surgeon at Devonport Naval Hospital.

18. Prior to becoming a surgeon, Dr. Church was a most respected general practitioner in Takapuna.

19. In 1963 Dr. Church bought his first family home ‘Whitby cottage’ on Milford Beach where he resided until his passing in February 2014. He was for several decades a well known and much loved Milford identity.

Consideration

Local Board Views

20. It is anticipated that the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board endorse the recommendations identified within this report. Parks Portfolio holders have reviewed the applications and are supportive in principle.

Maori Impact Statement

21. The recommendations within this report will not have any negative effects on iwi land or values.

General

22. All costs associated with the installation of memorial benches will be covered by the individual applicants.

Implementation Issues

23. Devonport Domain – none anticipated

24. King Edward Parade – none anticipated.

25. Milford Road Reserve – Arboricultural advice / monitoring will be required for installation of the new bench under the canopy of the existing Norfolk Island Pine tree. Parks will undertake minor tidying works within the vicinity of the new bench to improve access.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Interim Guidelines - Plaques and Memorials in Parks	95
b View	Application 1 - Devonport Domain, Devonport	101
c View	Application 2 - King Edward Parade, Devonport	103
d View	Application 3 - Milford Road Reserve, Milford	105

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Woodside - Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Local board input into the Council-Controlled Organisations current state assessment

File No.: CP2014/05968

Purpose

1. This report seeks input from the Board into the first phase of the Council-controlled organisations review: the current state assessment.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its seven substantive Council-controlled organisations (CCOs).

3. The first step of this review consists of an assessment of the current state. Auckland Council has prepared a preliminary assessment reviewing the experience of the Council and its CCOs over the last three years from a Council perspective, along with a discussion document to guide input.

4. Local boards are invited to provide their input based on the discussion document. Feedback will be reported back to the governing body and will inform the first phase of the CCO review as well as subsequent phases of the review.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide input into the CCO review current state assessment OR

b) delegates to member XX to provide the Board’s input into the review by April 30, 2014.

Discussion

5. Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its substantive Council-controlled organisations (CCOs): Auckland Transport, Auckland Council Property Ltd, Auckland Council Investments Ltd, Auckland Waterfront Development Agency, Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development, Regional Facilities Auckland, and Waterfront Services Ltd.

6. The review aims to determine whether there is a need to change the scope of activities and functions within any CCO, the structures that the CCOs operate within, or any accountability mechanisms between the CCOs and Auckland Council.

7. Governing body members, local board chairs, the CCOs and the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) were given the opportunity to provide feedback into the draft Terms of Reference. Common themes amongst the feedback received included:

· the need to reduce duplication between Auckland Council and CCO activities

· views as to where responsibility should lie for strategy/policy development

· questions around effectiveness where an activity is split between Auckland Council and one or more CCO

· the need to assess the impact of change on outcomes and delivery

· the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

· the need to achieve constructive and positive engagement with Aucklanders.

8. The feedback contributed to the development of the Terms of Reference. The final version was adopted by the Governing Body on 27 February 2014 and is presented in Attachment A.

9. The Terms of Reference specify the objectives of the review of CCOs as follows:

a) To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

· Facilitate appropriate alignment of the CCO operations with the Auckland Plan and other council strategies and policies.

· Provide an effective and efficient model of service delivery for Auckland Council and Aucklanders.

· Provide a sufficient level of political oversight and public accountability.

b) In addition the review will seek to:

· Provide clarity of role and responsibilities, e.g. development of strategies, prioritisation of work programmes.

· Eliminate duplication and gaps between the Auckland Council group organisations.

· Identify any opportunities for better integration of activities and functions.

10. The intention is to complete the review and be ready to implement agreed outcomes by 30 June 2015, which aligns the CCO review with the Long Term Plan process. This timeline is extended from what was initially proposed to allow for full participation and feedback at the appropriate points of the process.

Current state assessment: preliminary findings

11. The first step of the CCO review consists of an assessment of the current state. Auckland Council has prepared a report reviewing the experience of the Council and its CCOs over the last three years from a Council perspective.

12. The report, entitled “Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council Persective)”, is presented in Attachment B. It is referred to as the CSA in the rest of this report. The CSA is based on interviews with governing body members and input from Auckland Council staff.

13. Key preliminary findings in the CSA are as follows:

· CCOs were seen to deliver well for Auckland, and significant progress has been made over the last three years.

· Some governing body members are considering fine tuning the model while others expect more significant change.

· Views differ about the relative role of the Council and its CCOs in developing mid-level strategies, i.e. strategies that bridge the gap between the Auckland Plan and implementation plans.

· The majority view is that the formal accountability framework between the Council and its CCOs needs to be simplified and streamlined, with more rigorous debate when priorities are being communicated through the letter of expectations.

· Informal accountability and communication is seen just as important as the formal accountability framework.

· Feedback was received on the importance of integration within the Council group for effective operation, and of a strong culture of collaboration, as well as other integration mechanisms.

14. The CCOs have prepared a report to reflect their own perspective, with support from Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PWC) and informed by interviews with CCO board members and staff of each of the seven CCOs. The CCO perspective was sought in recognition that the experience of the CCOs is different from that of council, and to utilise the considerable skills and experience within the CCOs to help inform the review.

15. The intention is to augment the current state assessment with input from local boards.

Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

16. CCOs, as delivery agents of Auckland Council, have the potential to have a significant impact on positive outcomes for Auckland residents, ratepayers, and visitors. Local boards have an interest in the extent to which CCOs can contribute to their priorities, in projects being undertaken in their area, and in being kept up-to-date on wider regional projects. While the CCOs are accountable to the governing body as shareholder, they also have relationships with local boards who share decision-making responsibilities.

17. Local boards’ views on the CCO current state will enrich the Council perspective, and local boards are invited to provide feedback based on the discussion document prepared by Auckland Council. The discussion document, entitled “Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards” provide a series of questions addressed to local boards and is presented in Attachment C.

18. The local boards are encouraged to:

· reflect on their experience working with the CCOs over the last three years.

· reflect on what worked well and what can be improved.

· provide feedback on the issues and opportunities that the CCO review may address.

19. In providing their feedback, board members are invited to base their comments on experience and to provide examples to illustrate the Board’s views.

20. Local board input will inform the analysis of CCOs and related activities and functions as part of the first phase of the CCO review, as well as informing subsequent phases of the review.

Consideration

Local Board Views

21. This report seeks the views of the Board, which will inform the CCO review.

Maori Impact Statement

22. The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and Te Waka Angamua will be involved at several points in the process of reviewing the CCOs. They have provided input into the development of the Terms of Reference and have been asked to provide comments on the discussion document

23. Consultation with Māori, including mana whenua, mataawaka and iwi, would form part of any public consultation, should this occur during the third phase of the review.

Implementation Issues

24. There are no implementation issues at this stage of the CCO review.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference	111
b View	Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council perspective)	117
c View	Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Question for Local Boards	133

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

File No.: CP2014/06176

Purpose

1. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards on the work to date on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is required to adopt a Local Boards Funding Policy. The current policy was developed within a context of retaining and reflecting legacy council service level and funding decisions. After three years more has been learned and a broader policy discussion can be undertaken.

3. The review seeks to find the most appropriate funding mechanisms for local board expenditure on asset based services such as parks, libraries, recreation and community facilities and non-asset based services (locally driven initiatives). During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised, which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and budgeting process. The review recommends retaining the current funding model for asset based services, but considers options for changing to a fairer funding model for locally driven initiatives.

4. The timing for the review proposes public consultation in June 2014 to enable a policy to be adopted to form the basis of local board budgets for inclusion in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025. In order to meet that timeframe engagement with local boards needs to take place in March and April 2014. This will enable the Council to consider local board views in determining a proposal for consultation with the public.

5. A report has been produced setting out options for the Local Boards Funding Policy and the key issues that need to be resolved. This report, “Local boards funding policy review” is appended as Attachment A to this report, and will form the basis of engagement with local boards and the Governing Body to inform decision making on the policy.

6. On 20 February 2014, the Governing Body agreed the parameters for engagement with local boards on the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy. These parameters include:

· no changes being made to the split between regional and local activities or to decision making responsibility for setting service levels for local activities

· time frame for the review

· structure of the policy that is to be considered

· Governing Body, via operational groups, will work on equity issues in regard to asset based service levels as part of the Long-Term Plan process

· options for a formula based funding allocation

· parameters for the use of local rates

· undertaking a review of the Council rates remission and postponement legacy schemes that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage, alongside the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy.

7. Informal engagement with local boards has been undertaken throughout February and March 2014, and formal feedback is now sought from local boards via resolution.

8. Following the engagement phase of the policy, all feedback will be presented to the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party in early May, and subsequently the Governing Body when considering the draft policy for consultation in late May.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) agree to consider the policy framework for the Local Boards Funding Policy Review as covered in this report and the attached report and provide formal feedback on the issues discussed and other associated issues.

Discussion

9. At the 20 February 2014 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee^{^[1]}, the following resolutions were passed to guide the engagement phase of the Local Boards Funding Policy:

a) agree with the following parameters for the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy for engagement with local boards based on the attached report “Local boards funding policy review”:

b) note that the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy will not change decision making responsibility for:

i) the split between regional and local activities

ii) the setting of service levels for local activities.

c) note that the proposed model for funding asset based services is the same model that is currently used.

d) note that the Local Boards Funding Policy cannot resolve issues relating to differing asset based service levels and that the issue will be considered as part of the planning process for the long-term plan

e) agree to adopt the policy by August 2014 to enable clarity in funding decision making to provide predictability of funding in the preparation of local board plans and budgets for the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025. This will require the policy to be publically consulted on in June 2014.

f) agree that the policy improve alignment between funding and expenditure decisions, by having separate funding mechanisms for:

i) asset based services, such as parks and swimming pools, where service levels in each board area are primarily driven by the Governing Body decisions on the number, nature and location of such assets and the budget available for both capital and operational expenditure on these services.

ii) locally driven initiatives, where local boards undertake activities for the benefit of their local communities, and control decisions on services, service levels and costs. (This may include asset related service level improvements and capital investment within limits approved by the Governing Body).

g) agree that the costs of operating and maintaining asset based services (as defined in f) (i)); as well as the consequential operating expenditure (interest and depreciation) associated with governing body investment in local assets; will be funded from general rates, in accordance with asset management plans and the regional budgeting process

h) agree the next stage of the review will consider options for funding locally driven initiatives (as defined in f) (ii)) by either general rates allocated on a formula basis, local rates collected in each board area, or a mix of general rates allocation and local rates

i) agree that options for determining the relationship between the Governing Body and local boards for the use of local rates are:

i) local boards advocate to the Governing Body for local rates and the Governing Body makes the final decision.

ii) local boards make decisions on the use of local rates, within constraints of regional policy determined by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body implements these decisions.

j) agree that the council’s rates remission and postponement legacy schemes that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage be reviewed alongside the Local Boards Funding Policy to:

i) ensure consistency between local grants schemes and rates relief schemes

ii) develop a regionally consistent rates remission and postponement policy. Consultation on amendments to the policy should be undertaken alongside consultation on the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

k) agree to direct staff to consider service level equity issues for local asset based services as part of the development of the Long-term Plan and Asset Management Plans and engage with local boards on this and report back on a timetable.

10. A full discussion of the options for, and issues associated with, the development of the Local Boards Funding Policy can be found in the attached report “Local boards funding policy review”.

11. The following discussion summarises the issues related to the setting of parameters for engagement with local boards on the options for the funding policy.

Time Frame

12. The adoption of a Local Boards Funding Policy is likely to have an impact on the allocation of Council budgets. It is recommended that the Local Boards Funding Policy be adopted by mid-August 2014. This would enable the Council to prepare local budgets that reflect the new funding policy for public consultation in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025. Adopting the Local Boards Funding Policy in August will also provide local boards with clarity as to who has decision making authority on the level and source of funding for local activities during the finalisation of budgets for local board plans in September.

13. To meet this timeline, public consultation on the Local Boards Funding Policy would need to be carried out through a special consultative procedure undertaken in June 2014.

Scope: Policy structure

14. The Local Boards Funding Policy sets out how local activities are to be funded (the split between rates and fees and charges) and who should pay where rates are used. Decisions on service levels and how much funding is available are made when budgets are prepared each year. The review of the Local Boards Funding Policy does not set, or seek to change, decision making responsibility for:

· the split between regional and local activities

· the setting of service levels for local activities.

15. Expenditure on local activities can be either capital or operational in nature. Capital expenditure is debt funded, but the ongoing costs associated with this expenditure, such as interest charges, depreciation, staff, consumables and maintenance are operational costs. Local boards allocated capital funding to deliver governing body investment decisions on local assets, are also allocated the consequential operational expenditure associated with that capital expenditure. Operational expenditure is funded from local fees and charges and rates. The rate requirement is therefore gross operational expenditure, less fees, charges and other revenue.

16. The ability to undertake capital investment depends on the ability to service the subsequent operational costs. While the Local Boards Funding Policy focuses on funding of operating expenditure, it captures capital decisions by including the subsequent operating costs.

17. Good public policy links decisions on tax with decisions on expenditure (i.e. service levels). Where possible this review has identified where better alignment can be made between funding decisions and decisions on levels of service. This has resulted in a policy framework that differentiates between:

· asset based services such as those associated with parks, swimming pools and community facilities where the Governing Body makes decisions on the location, nature and number of local assets and matches this with funding

· locally driven initiatives, where local boards undertake activities for the benefit of their local communities, and control decisions on who gets funding and the services and service levels to be delivered.

18. The table following describes the Governing Body’s and local boards’ decision making roles in relation to asset based services and locally driven initiatives.

	Governing body role	Local board role
Asset based services	· Allocates capital funding to local boards in accordance with its decisions on new local assets and major upgrades. · Decides approximate location, budget and scope for these projects · Governing body decisions on investment will be guided by regional strategies, which should identify funding priorities based on the need to address service gaps and growth	· Engaged and provide feedback on governing body decisions · Engaged and provide feedback on regional strategies · Decide precise location of new assets · Agrees design of project within scope set by the Governing Body. Can propose to fund increases to project scope as locally driven initiatives · Oversees delivery of project
Asset based services	· Allocates operational expenditure to enable local boards to operate and maintain their local assets in accordance with the asset management plans · Approves asset management plans	· Engaged in development of asset management plans · Operate and maintain local assets in accordance with the asset management plans · Can fund asset related service level improvements as locally driven initiatives
Locally driven initiatives	Approve or reject locally driven projects that exceed governing body set limits on local board capital investment	· Can undertake capital projects within limits set by the Governing Body · May undertake capital projects over limits set by the Governing Body with approval from the Governing Body
Locally driven initiatives		· Decide services and service levels to be provided for community and allocates operating budgets accordingly · Oversee delivery of local services · Can fund asset related service level improvements

19. The review proposes that the existing model for funding asset based services be retained as there is no merit in alternative options for funding these. Under this model asset based services will continue to be funded from general rates. As the distribution of asset based service costs between boards does not align with factors such as local board population size, then funding on this basis will not ensure that local boards can maintain their asset base. There is also:

· a poor relationship between the user catchment for many asset based services and local board populations

· using local rates to fund asset based services would be inequitable, and for some boards unsustainable.

20. Under this funding model, the Governing Body determines how much funding is available to fund agreed service level standards. The Governing Body also has the ability to set regional policies on fees and user charges such as free entry to swimming pools for under 17’s. Local boards undertake an advocacy role in changing agreed service levels and will be engaged in the development of the regional strategies on asset based services that will guide governing body decisions on future investment in assets.

21. Local boards also have decision making on how asset based services are delivered and operated in their board area. They may make decisions on the level of fees and charges within any regional policy set by the Governing Body. In doing so they receive the benefit of increased revenue or fund any shortfall from other funding sources.

22. During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and budgeting process and will be considered when developing the Long-Term Plan. As part of this process, local boards will be engaged in the development of asset management plans (AMPs) that will determine service levels and capital programmes for asset based services.

23. Under the current funding model, funding for locally driven initiatives reflects decisions on service levels made by former councils. The review has found that equity in funding for locally driven initiatives between local boards can be improved in one of three ways. These are by using:

· general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and remoteness

· local rates collected within each board area

· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

24. Under a general rate allocation model the amount of locally driven initiative funding available to each local board is determined by the Governing Body. This is affected by decisions made by the Governing Body on the total level of locally driven initiatives funding available each year and the formula used to allocate this to each local board.

25. A general rate allocation model will see a redistribution of funding between local boards; some will receive more funding while others will receive less. A local board that receives less funding will then have the option to reduce expenditure or to seek an increase in revenue from fees and charges or from local rates.

26. Under a local rate model, funding for locally driven initiatives is provided entirely from a local rate. The level of funding required from the local rate is determined by the decisions on local fees, charges, services and service levels made by the local board. The local rate will show as a separate line item on the rates invoice.

27. A combined model will part fund locally driven initiatives via a general rate allocation with the remainder of the funding provided by a local rate.

28. The proposed Local Boards Funding Policy structure for funding operational expenditure is as follows:

Funding for asset based services

The cost of operating and maintaining asset based services is funded from general rates, and fees and charges revenue associated with individual assets. Funding is allocated to local boards in accordance with asset management plans and the regional budgeting process.

Funding for locally driven initiatives

Locally driven initiatives will be funded from local fees and charges associated with these activities, and from rates funding. There are three options for rates funding locally driven

initiatives:

· general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and remoteness

· local rates collected within each board area

· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

29. The above structure for the funding policy was agreed by the Governing Body for engagement with local boards. The focus for engagement is on how to best fund the locally driven initiatives component of the policy.

Scope: how local rates are used

30. The use of local rates is an option under any funding model. The review of the local board funding policy provides the opportunity to have greater clarity in the roles that the Governing Body and local boards play in setting local rates. This is particularly relevant where funding decisions are aligned with decisions on levels of service. Legislation constrains this process in that only the Governing Body can set a rate. There are two options for determining the relationship between the Governing Body and local boards, these are:

· local boards advocate to the Governing Body for new local rates or changes to those set by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body makes the final decision. This is a similar process that is currently used for funding of local assets.

· local boards make decisions on the use of new local rates or changes to those set by the Governing Body, within constraints of regional policy determined by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body implements these decisions. This is a similar process that is currently used for local fees and charges.

31. The Local Boards Funding Policy is the appropriate place to set this relationship. The Governing Body agreed the above as relationship options for engagement with local boards.

Policy implementation: Capital expenditure

32. Local boards currently have budgets for capital expenditure from three sources:

· governing body investment decisions on local assets

· legacy capital projects inherited from the previous councils

· an allocation of capital funding for boards to use at their discretion, beginning in the 2012/2013 year.

33. Governing body provided capital funds for investment in local assets are not discretionary for local boards. While each board has decision making on how specified projects are implemented within their area, projects must be delivered within the scope agreed by the Governing Body.

34. The review recommends that the Local Boards Funding Policy only allocates operational expenditure to local boards, and does not allocate capital expenditure. Local boards can still undertake capital projects within the limits set by the Governing Body, so long as they can fund the consequential operating expenditure (including depreciation and interest costs) from their operational budgets. Local boards would need to fund this expenditure either by reprioritising their existing budgets (through efficiencies or reduced service levels), or increasing their revenue from rates or fees and charges. This would see local boards funding capital investment in the same way as the Governing Body does.

35. The review recommends that the few remaining significant legacy capital projects be treated the same as governing body investment decisions. These funds will be considered nondiscretionary, on the basis that it was a governing body decision that these projects continue rather than be reviewed against regional priorities for investment. Consequential operating expenditure associated with these projects will be part of asset based service funding and will not impact on local board budgets.

36. The consequential operating expenditure associated with any remaining discretionary capital funds will be treated as funding for locally driven initiatives. This funding will therefore be included in any reallocation of funding for locally driven initiatives.

Scope: Locally driven initiatives - general rate allocation formula options

37. If the Governing Body determines the total level of funding to be raised through a general rate for locally driven initiatives, some form of allocation method or formula is required. The Strategy and Finance Committee agreed at its May 2013 meeting that the following attributes of local boards be considered in the development of the funding policy:

· population

· deprivation

· factors related to rural/geographic isolation

· rates collected.

38. It is recommended that the general rate funding allocation formula be restricted to factors related to population, deprivation and rural/geographic isolation only.

39. Rates collected should not be used as a factor for allocating general rates funding. This is because general rates have an element of both tax and payment for services received. The distribution of rates across groups of ratepayers was a consideration in the development of the rating policy.

40. If funding local boards based on the level of rates collected in the local board area is desired, then local rates should be used. This would make explicit the link between and rates paid and services received, with each board area paying a local rate for the services undertaken by their board. It also directly links a local board’s decision making on service levels with decisions on the rate revenue required to be collected from their local community.

Scope: Transition

41. Under the proposed policy, locally driven initiatives can be primarily funded either through local rates, or by general rates allocated to boards based on factors such as population, or a mixture of the two.

42. A general rate allocation formula will result in significant change in the level of funding for some local boards. As such, the adoption of some form of transition process may be appropriate. The review process will present options for transitioning change as a result of the funding policy over three years, to align with the Long-term plan planning cycle.

43. The level of change associated with the adoption of local rates for funding locally driven initiatives is smaller. Local boards would also have the opportunity to adjust their local rates revenue requirement by adjusting their service levels. A transition process is unlikely to be of value in this case. However if a mixed funding model is adopted, using both general rates allocation and local rates, there may still be a need to transition the allocated portion of funding. Options for managing this change will be presented.

44. It is noted that Great Barrier Island Local Board will experience high levels of change in funding regardless of what funding model is adopted. Options for treating this board as a special case for funding will be presented by the review.

Policy implementation: Local fees and charges

45. Local boards have the right to set local fees and charges under the allocation of decision making. Under the proposed Local Boards Funding Policy framework, it is recommended that local boards will retain the benefit/bear the cost of any change in fees as a result of their decision making.

46. Local board decisions on fees and charges related to asset based services needs to be balanced against revenue expectations for those services. These revenue expectations inform the requirement for general rate funding for asset based services in the asset management plans. In this case, it is proposed that operating groups will advise boards on the expected revenue targets for their asset based services starting from the status quo. Local boards can adjust fees above or below the recommended target, and will then retain the benefit/bear the cost of any resulting change in expected revenue for the service.

47. In setting fees and charges, there is the risk that actual revenue will vary from expected revenue. If the revenue relates to an asset based service, the operating group will absorb any revenue variance, with any shortfall made up from the group’s operating budget. The variance will then be used to inform revenue targets for the service in the following year.

48. The local board will bear the cost or retain the benefit of any variance in revenue related to locally driven initiatives.

Policy implementation: Rates remission and grants schemes

49. The Council inherited from the former councils a number of mechanisms that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage. These included the direct provision of services by the Council, grants to third party organisations, and rates remission and postponement schemes.

50. In general the provision of these services and grant schemes have been classed as local activities, and continue to operate in those local board areas from which they originated. The rates relief schemes are part of the Council’s rates remission and postponement policy, which is managed regionally, but continue to be available to qualifying properties within those former council areas that originally offered the schemes.

51. As a result of the Council retaining these legacy services and schemes, local board areas are providing similar community services using varying delivery models:

· some boards have services, such as community facilities, provided directly by the Council

· other boards have grants schemes directly controlled by the boards that are used to fund third parties to provide similar types of services, including the provision of community facilities; as well as to provide support to local community groups and other organisations

· in some board areas, community groups and other organisations have access to rates remission or postponement schemes that are not controlled by the local board in terms of eligibility criteria and approval.

52. The Local Boards Funding Policy has already considered the issue of the use of locally controlled grants, compared to where services are being delivered by the Council. It is proposed that under the policy, grants that are used to fund local facilities that in other areas are provided by the Council should be funded on the same basis as other asset based services. Grants that are used to fund more discretionary activities, such as one off grants to community groups, will be treated as locally driven initiatives, and be included in the pool of funding for these activities.

53. The review of Community Assistance has now identified all sources of community funding assistance provided by the Council by local board area. This enables a review of the Council’s rates remission and postponement schemes to be undertaken in order to develop an approach to supporting community and other organisations that is consistent across the region.

54. The Council’s rates remission and postponement policy should be regionally consistent. However, most of the rates relief granted under the remission and postponement schemes for community and sports related services (and natural, historic or cultural heritage) correspond to grants schemes that relate to activities that have been treated as a local board responsibility when support is provided as grants. To ensure consistency, options for moving from rates based schemes to locally controlled grants schemes will be considered, though the financial impact of such a move will need to be assessed.

55. The Governing Body has agreed that the Auckland Council rates remission and postponement policy be reviewed alongside the development of the Local Boards Funding Policy to ensure consistency between local grants schemes and rates relief schemes, and to develop a regionally consistent rates remission and postponement policy.

56. Amendments to the rates remission and postponement policy will be publically consulted on alongside consultation on the Long-Term Plan 2015-2025.

Engagement

57. Council staff will be undertaking engagement with local boards on the Local Boards Funding Policy through March and April 2014. The attached report “Local boards funding policy review” will form the basis for engagement on the policy options.

Consideration

Local Board Views

58. This report has been considered by and includes feedback from the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party (LBFP PWP).

59. The purpose of the working party is to provide a joint forum of the Governing Body and local boards to provide guidance and direction with respect to the development of the Local Board Funding Policy. This includes development of comprehensive and robust options for the funding of local activities within the Local Boards Funding Policy.

60. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards to be considered by the LBFP PWP in early May and will form part if the consideration by the Governing Body when it adopts the draft policy for consultation in late May.

Maori Impact Statement

61. There are two ways in which Maori could be impacted by the options discussed in this report, these are:

· under a general rate allocation model the level of locally driven initiative funding available to a local board may change

· under a local rate funding model the level of rates paid may change.

62. Maori population is not the same across all local boards. How this will impact on Maori will depend on changes to funding available to local boards and how local boards respond to these changes. This may result in more or less funding being available or lower or higher rates being charged. The impacts by local boards will be explored more at the next stage when the draft policy is being considered for consultation.

63. Within a general rate allocation model the choice of attributes may also have an impact on Maori. Some attributes that can be used in the funding formula, for example deprivation, have a greater alignment with the population distribution of Maori. A funding formula that had greater emphasis on these attributes will provide more funding to local boards with higher Maori populations. How this would impact on Maori would depend on the local boards choose to use this funding.

64. The review of the Local Boards Funding Policy will not change the Maori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy.

Implementation Issues

65. There are no implementation issues associated with recommendations in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Boards Funding Policy Review (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Guidelines for local board feedback	169

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

15 April 2014

Applications for Special Exemptions (section 6) under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2014/03664

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present to the Local Board applications for special exemptions from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (The Act)

Executive Summary

2. The Local Board must conduct a hearing and consider each of the applications for special exemption. The Local Board must resolve to decline, grant or grant subject to conditions, the exemptions sought.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) Receive the report.

b) Receive the applications by:

i) David Scott, 8A Brian Avenue, Forrest Hill.

ii) P. A. Andrews, 28 Castor Bay Road, Castor Bay.

c) Determine each application, by way of resolution, to:

i) grant the application for special exemption as sought, or

ii) grant the application subject to conditions, or

iii) decline the application for special exemption sought

Discussion

3. Each property, which is the subject of an application before the Local Board, has been inspected by Auckland Council pool inspectors. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with that Act. The details of non-compliance in each case vary and are specified in the attachments to this report. Each applicant has chosen to seek a special exemption from the requirements of the Act.

4. The purpose of the Act is stated to be “to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of … swimming pools”.

5. The Act requires pool owners to fence their pool with a fence. Specific detail on the means of achieving compliance with the Act is contained in the schedule to the Act. If a pool is not fenced with a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.

6. An exemption can only be granted by the Local Board after a consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances and taking into account any conditions it may impose. Then, only if “satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children”, can an exemption be granted.

7. Defining the immediate pool area will be relevant to considerations concerning the property and the pool. The immediate pool area means the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool. The Act provides that the fence should be situated to prevent children moving directly to the pool from the house, other buildings, garden paths and other areas of the property that would normally be available to young children.

8. Another common consideration for Local Boards in exemption applications will be instances where a building forms part of the pool fence. Where doors from a building open into the pool area, the Territorial Authority may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 to 10 of the schedule to the Act. It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw, and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. If the Local Board is satisfied that a door within a wall in a building meets that test, the Local Board must also be satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

9. When granting a special exemption, the Committee may impose such other conditions relating to the property or the pool as are reasonable in the circumstances (section 6(2) of the Act). Issues to be considered include:

a. Will the exemption be personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption? This might be appropriate where the personal circumstances of the applicant have been considered as a relevant circumstance and had a bearing on the exercise of the discretion

b. Will the exemption be granted for a fixed term and irrespective of changes of ownership so that the exemption runs with the property?

c. Are there any other conditions which should be imposed, repairs to existing fencing, or a requirement for more frequent inspection of the pool (currently pools are inspected every three years).

10. Any exemption granted or condition imposed may be amended or revoked by the swimming pool exemption committee by resolution. The rules of natural justice would however dictate that this action should not be taken without prior notice to the pool owner and allowing the pool owner an opportunity to be heard.

Consideration

Local Board Views

11. The Local Board is the decision maker in relation to exemption applications under the Act.

Maori Impact Statement

12. This report does not raise issues of particular significance for Maori.

General

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

14. The Act enables an exemption to be granted from clauses 8 to 10 of the Act (doors in walls of buildings) if the Local Board is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

15. The overarching consideration in terms of the Act is that a resolution to grant an exemption may only be made after having regard to the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, any other relevant circumstances and any conditions it may impose, and only if it is satisfied that such an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

16. The Local Board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline an application for special exemption.

17. If an application is declined the applicant will be required to fence their pool in accordance with the Act.

18. The exemption hearing process under the Act does not trigger the significance policy but it is an important statutory function.

19. The Council is committed to ensuring the Auckland is a safe place for children to live and play in. Pool fencing issues have a strong relationship with the Council’s strategic priorities for community safety.

20. Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exempt.

21. Council’s pools inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case. Applicants have been made aware of the Council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act. The applicants have elected to seek a special exemption for individual reasons.

Implementation Issues

22. The decision must be made by resolution and contain conditions (if any).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	8A Brian Avenue - Confidential
b View	28 Castor Bay Road - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Mark Satherley - Team Leader Compliance and Enforcement

Authorisers

Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Mike Cohen, QSM, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Joseph Bergin
Members	Dr Grant Gillon
	Dianne Hale, QSO, JP
	Jan O'Connor
	Allison Roe, MBE

Portfolio	Responsibilities	Primary	Associate
Governance	Board leadership Board-to-Council and Board to Board relationships Board to CCO relationships (strategic governance matters) Civic duties Advocacy (local, regional and central government) Community partnerships Relationships with Maoridom Relationships with youth Relationships with government Unitary Plan Policy and planning: - local board plan - local board agreement - local area plan	Chairperson	Deputy Chairperson
Economic development	Key relationships with ATEED Business Improvement Districts Establish and promote local priorities in relation to economic development and tourism Town centre renewal, design and maintenance Town centre marketing and community safety	Member Bergin	Member Hale (with lead responsibilities for events)
Community development and resilience	Community development Neighbourhood relationships Community advocacy Community safety (excluding town centres) Graffiti removal Relationships with Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Community preparedness disaster response relief and recovery Artistic and cultural service levels Promoting artistic endeavour	Member Roe	Member O’Connor
Parks and natural environment	Neighbourhood parks and reserves (including esplanade reserves and the coastline) Design and maintenance Plantings, playgrounds, tracks, bollards, walkways and green cycleways Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management Coastal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation Restoration of wetlands, streams and waterways Natural heritage Events	Member Gillon	Member Cohen Member Roe (particular involvement in walking, cycling, walkways, cycleways and greenways only)
Transport and infrastructure	Transport projects and policy matters (e.g. roading, footpaths, public transport) Infrastructure projects and policy matters (e.g. water, stormwater)	Member O’Connor	Member Hale
Regulatory	Oversight of regulatory activities including: - bylaws - consent processes (including input in to decisions on notifications for resource consent applications) - licensing and compliance Liquor licensing and enforcement Heritage issues	Member Hale	Member Gillon
Recreational and community facilities	Stewardship of recreation centres and community facilities Libraries (including events and services relating to libraries and recreation centres) Local arts facilities and amenities	Member O’Connor	Member Hale

Authors	James Liddell - Senior Advisor Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Chris Dee - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Hannah Bailey - Local Board Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Sonja Tomovska - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager