Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

4.30pm

Council Chamber
Orewa Service Centre
50 Centreway Road
Orewa

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Greg Sayers
Members	David Cooper
	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
	Gaye Harding
	Gary Holmes
	Lovisa Rasmussen
	Lisa Whyte

(Quorum 4 members)

Vivienne Sullivan

Local Board Democracy Advisor

10 April 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3317

Email: vivienne.sullivan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Portfolio	Description	Local Board Members
Local planning, policy and governance	Relationship with governing body, Chairs meeting, protocols, code of conduct, local area plans, structure plans, Unitary Plan, RUB, plan changes	Julia Parfitt –Chairperson Greg Sayers - Deputy Chairperson
Arts and culture	Arts centres, art programmes	Greg Sayers – Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Events	General oversight of events programme music in parks, movies in parks	Greg Sayers and Julia Parfitt
Community services and facilities	Community development and safety, grants and funding, community facilities, community houses, community leases, Youth Connections	Julia Parfitt –Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Youth	Local board Youth Forum, Youth Representative	Lovisa Rasmussen – Lead Gaye Harding - Alternate
Libraries		Lisa Whyte –Lead Gaye Harding - Alternate
Recreation services	Pools, multi-sport facilities	Gaye Harding – Lead Lisa Whyte - Alternate
Parks	Reserve management plans, park usage, leasing on parks, liaison with parks staff on land owner approval	David Cooper –Lead Julia Parfitt –Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen - Alternate
Built and natural environment	Heritage, infrastructure (including stormwater, wastewater, water), environmental programmes, conservation and biodiversity, biosecurity, waste minimisation	Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Economic Development	Economic development plans, developing ATEED relationship, broadband	Gary Holmes – Lead Gaye Harding -Alternate
Street environment and town centres	Gateways and mainstreet upgrades, Urban design champion	David Cooper and Gary Holmes – Leads Janet Fitzgerald -Alternate
Transport		David Cooper – Lead Gary Holmes – Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Greg Sayers - Alternate
Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Bylaw policy feedback	Gaye Harding -Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Communications and engagement	Media, stakeholder and community engagement including iwi relationships, Hibiscus and Bays Youth Voice and YAP	Julia Parfitt – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen -Alternate
Finance	Budget overview, financial prudence and reporting, local board funding policy	Lisa Whyte – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Civil defence/ emergency management		David Cooper –Lead Greg Sayers -Alternate
Urban Design Champion		Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Zeal youth facility on the North Shore 5

8.2 Destination Orewa Beach 5

8.3 Raeburn House 6

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Approval to publicly notify intention to grant community leases on Stillwater Reserve, Stillwater and Western Reserve, Orewa. 9

13 Review of dog access rules 19

14 Local board input into the Council-Controlled Organisations current state assessment 53

15 Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities - Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 105

16 Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan 111

17 Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 submissions analysis and responses to information requests 131

18 Local Board Transport Capital Fund - Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards 137

19 Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, April 2014 151

20 Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events 163

21 Metro Park Sport Working Group Update 171

22 Removal of i-Site building, Western Reserve, Orewa 173

23 Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review 179

24 New Road Name - Bridget Court 193

25 Appointment to North Shore Heritage Trust 199

26 Local Government New Zealand conference and Annual General Meeting 2014 201

27 Ward Councillors Update 209

28 Local Board Members Reports 211

29 Minutes of Hibiscus and Bays Facilities and Reserves Committee Meeting 14 February 2014 and 20 March 2014 213

30 Record of Workshop Meetings 225

31 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Approval to publicly notify intention to grant community leases on Stillwater Reserve, Stillwater and Western Reserve, Orewa.

File No.: CP2014/07001

Purpose

1. To seek the approval of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to the public notification of the proposed community leases to the Stillwater Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc for the hall to be built on Stillwater Reserve and the Estuary Arts Charitable Trust for the Estuary Arts Centre, including the new education wing, on Western Reserve, Orewa.

Executive Summary

2. The development of the new community hall on Stillwater Reserve is being progressed with an anticipated completion date of late 2014. (Attachment A)

3. The Stillwater Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc (SRRA) has worked closely with the former Rodney District Council and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on this project and has applied for a community lease to manage the bookings and operation of the hall.

4. The reserve is classified recreation reserve. It is proposed that a community lease be granted under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977. Public notification of councils intention to grant the lease is required to meet the terms of the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987.

5. The Estuary Arts Charitable Trust (the Trust) has a community lease for the land and building occupied by the existing Estuary Arts Centre on Western Reserve, Orewa. A new extension is planned to accommodate an education wing.

6. It is proposed that the Trust surrender its existing community lease and enter into a new community lease agreement with Auckland Council for the extended building when construction has been completed.

7. The reserve is classified recreation reserve. It is proposed that a community lease be granted under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977. Public notification of councils intention to grant the lease is required to meet the terms of the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987.

Recommendations

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the public notification of a proposed community lease for the Stillwater Hall to the Stillwater Residents and Ratepayers Association Incorporated in accordance with the terms of the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987.

b) the terms of the proposed community lease to the Stillwater Residents and Ratepayers Association Incorporated be granted under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act would be:

· Term – 5 years from the date of final approval by the Minister of Conservation (or their delegate) or from the date of entry on building completion;

· Rent - $1.00 per annum if requested;

· Maintenance Fee - $500.00 per annum

c) approve the public notification of a proposed community lease of the extended Estuary Arts Centre to the Estuary Arts Charitable Trust in accordance with the terms of the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987.

d) the terms of the proposed lease to the Estuary Arts Charitable Trust to be granted the under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act would be:

· Term – 5 years from the date of final approval by the Minister of Conservation (or their delegate) or from the date of entry on building completion;

· Rent - $1.00 per annum if requested;

· Maintenance Fee - $1000.00 per annum

· The Estuary Arts Centre Charitable Trust’s Community Outcomes Plan being attached to the final lease agreement. (Attachment C)

Discussion

Stillwater Hall

8. The new Stillwater Hall will be built on the site identified in the operative Stillwater Reserve Management Plan with an anticipated completion date late this year.

9. The Stillwater Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc has worked closely with the former Rodney District Council and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in developing plans for the property and now wishes to enter into a community lease to manage the bookings and operation of the new hall.

10. The operative management plan for Stillwater Reserve does not contemplate a community lease and the land classification of recreation reserve does not support the proposed use as a community facility.

11. A lease may be granted under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act until the reserve is reclassified Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve. The proposal will be publicly notified and any submissions will be given full consideration by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, or its nominated representatives, before a final decision on the matter is made. As part of this process Iwi consultation must also be undertaken in accordance with section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

12. The terms of the proposed community lease for the hall will reflect those specified in the Community Occupancy Guidelines (July 2012) for a council owned community building.

The Estuary Arts Centre

13. The Estuary Arts Centre occupies part of the Western Reserve, Orewa. An extension of the building is planned to provide an education wing.

14. It is proposed that the current community lease held by the Estuary Arts Charitable trust be surrendered once the extension has been completed and a new community lease entered into with the organisation for the larger facility.

15. The operative management plan for Western Reserve does not contemplate the new community lease and the land classification of recreation reserve does not support the proposed use as a community facility.

16. A lease may be granted under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act until that part of the reserve is reclassified Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve. The proposal will be publicly notified and any submissions will be given full consideration by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, or its nominated representatives, before a final decision on the matter is made. As part of this process Iwi consultation must also be undertaken in accordance with Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

17. The terms of the proposed community lease for the newly extended building will reflect those specified in the Community Occupancy Guidelines (July 2012) for a council owned community building.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. Funding for both the Stillwater Hall and the extension of the Estuary Arts Centre has been identified in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board budget.

Maori Impact Statement

19. There are no significant changes or impacts for Maori associated with the recommendations in this report. Consultation with local Iwi will be undertaken in accordance with section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 as part of the public notification and consultation process.

General

20. The recommendations within this report do not trigger the Auckland Council significance policy.

Implementation Issues

21. The Hibiscus and bays Local Board is asked to meet the cost of the adverts in respect of the public notification of the proposed community leases. It is estimated that this will be approximately $600.00.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A Stillwater Hall	13
b View	Attachment B Estuary Arts Centre	15
c View	Attachment C Estuary Arts Charitable Trust Community Outcomes Plan	17

Signatories

Authors

Maureen Buchanan - Community Lease Advisor North

Karen Walby - Advisor Community Lease

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Review of dog access rules

File No.: CP2014/06111

Purpose

1. For the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to adopt a Statement of Proposal containing proposed changes to local dog access rules in its local board area for the purposes of public notification for submissions in mid-2014.

Executive Summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at its business meeting on 18 December 2013 (resolution number HB/2013/262) decided to undertake an internal clarification review of legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules as follows.

· a review of 20m from beach time and season rule

· a review of which dog exercise areas meet the criteria or are more appropriately referred to as under control off-leash areas (shared spaces)

· a review of Gulf islands, bush walks, picnic and fitness apparatus rules

· a review of wildlife rules.

3. The purpose of the review is to make dog access rules in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area easier to understand and communicate.

4. The views of parks, animal management, and bio-diversity staff have been sought to assist the board in deciding on any proposed changes. The views of residents (including dog owners) in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area will be sought on any proposed changes through the special consultative procedure.

5. The information gathered has been used to identify issues and develop reasonably practicable options. The issues and options are contained in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A and restated under Issues and Options below.

6. The decision required of the local board is to select a preferred option for each issue and adopt a Statement of Proposal for any option that requires a change to a current local dog access rule.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm its intention to amend the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 pursuant to section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

b) adopt the proposed amendments to local dog access rules in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area contained in Option 1 of Table 1 and Table 2 of the report.

c) adopt the statement of proposal titled “Statement of Proposal Amendment Auckland Council to Policy on Dogs 2012 – Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area April 2014” contained in Attachment A of this report for public consultation through the special consultative procedure.

d) confirm that the proposed amendments contained in the statement of proposal:

i) are consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

ii) are not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

iii) are in accordance with relevant legislative requirements in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

e) authorise the Manager Policies and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the statement of proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

f) appoint three members as a panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the proposal.

g) delegate to the Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board the ability to make changes to the panel appointed under f) where this becomes necessary because of the withdrawal or unavailability of any of those persons.

Discussion

7. The adoption of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (policy on dogs) introduced the power for local boards to change local dog access rules in their local board areas. It also introduced a process to co-ordinate changes to across all 21 local boards for specific parks and beaches on an annual basis. This provides a more timely and robust discussion of dog access at specific locations that require review as opposed to the previous practice which reviewed every area once every five to ten years.

8. The local board at its business meeting on 18 December 2013 (resolution number HB/2013/262) decided to undertake an internal clarification review of legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules as follows.

· a review of 20m from beach time and season rule

· a review of which dog exercise areas meet the new criteria or are more appropriately referred to as under control off-leash areas (shared spaces)

· a review of Gulf islands, bush walks, picnic and fitness apparatus rules

· a review of wildlife rules.

9. The purpose of the review is to make dog access rules in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area easier to understand and communicate.

10. The views of parks, animal management, and bio-diversity staff have been sought to assist the local board in deciding on any proposed changes. The views of residents (including dog owners) in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area will be sought on any proposed changes through the special consultative procedure.

11. The information gathered has been used to identify issues and develop reasonably practicable options. The issues and options are contained in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A and restated under “Issues and Options” below.

12. The decision required of the local board is to select a preferred option for each issue below and adopt a Statement of Proposal for any option that requires a change to a current local dog access rule.

Issues and Options

Dog access on parks adjoining beaches and in areas of protected wildlife

13. The issue is the confusion about the dog access rule that applies on parks adjoining beaches, and uncertainty about where habitats of protected wildlife species vulnerable to dogs are. Both these issues are related to the Hibiscus and Bays coastal area.

14. The outcome sought is to ensure dog access rules are clear and easy to understand and communicate.

15. Currently the time and season beach rules only apply to the “sand”. Dog access rules for any grass adjoining the “sand” is subject to a different rule, which in general is under control off-leash.

16. This is complicated in the former North Shore City where the time and season rule extends 20m into any adjoining park. This area is undefined on the ground (arbitrary), not signed, and not enforced. Residents (including dog owners) do not know where this rule applies and are likely unaware of its existence.

17. It is also apparent that current signage contradicts the rules contained in the policy and bylaw, and in some instances has done so for many years. In other instances, the removal of the former Rodney District general rule that applied to footpaths in parks has highlighted the issue that specific rules may be required for some parks (e.g. Orewa).

18. The review provides an opportunity to determine the most appropriate dog access rule for parks adjoining beaches.

19. In relation to wildlife, currently the former Rodney District has a general rule that prohibits dogs from habitats of protected wildlife species. The problem is that there is no list of these areas are, except for the Weiti Estuary Chenier Spits.

20. The review provides an opportunity to identify those habitats of protected wildlife species that are vulnerable to dogs.

21. Protected bird species particularly vulnerable to dogs are those that nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas. The presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting and other birds to leave the nest resulting in loss of clutches and broods, can disrupt feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds, and ground-nesting species are particularly vulnerable to attack by dogs.

22. Dog restrictions in protected wildlife areas is not only about protecting wildlife, but also avoiding the possible destruction of dogs and significant penalties on owners. Under the Dog Control Act 1996 it is an offence to allow dogs to roam or attack protected wildlife. Penalties include seizure and destruction of the dog and for the owner imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both. Under section 63 of the Wildlife Act 1953 it is an offence to kill or disturb wildlife. Penalties for individuals include imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both.

23. The views of council staff involved in parks, animal management and bio-diversity are shown in the table below. For ease of reference, the locations are ordered from north (Waiwera ) to south (Campbells Bay).

Views of council staff on dog access on parks adjacent to beaches and protected wildlife vulnerable to dogs

Location	Current rule	Current signage	Views of parks, bio-diversity and animal management staff
Waiwera Bird Lookout (opposite 79 Weranui Road)	Prohibited	Prohibited (1 Weranui Road)	Dogs prohibited
Waiwera Beach – public land, beach and foreshore north of The Strand roundabout and around the headland to protect the shorebird breeding site (NZ Dotterels)	Beach time and season*, under control off-leash (grass), temporary prohibition 1 Aug to 31 Jan	None	Dogs prohibited at all times from 1 August to 1 March to protect the shorebird breeding site. 1 March provides some consistency (and easier communication) with beach time and season rule that applies to the remainder of Waiwera Beach. Off-leash all other times.
Waiwera Place Reserve – grass from Waiwera Road to Wairea Place	Under control off-leash	None	Under control off-leash at all times.
Hatfield Beach – grass strip adjacent to beach	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Orewa - Arundel Recreation Reserve, northern end of Orewa Beach	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	Under control off-leash at all times. Large grass area separated from the beach by a road and carpark.
Orewa - Kinloch Reserve	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	Under control on-leash at all times. Small park, existing sign.
Orewa - 365 Hibiscus Coast Highway	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	Under control on-leash at all times. Small park, existing sign.
Orewa - Marine Parade – grass between Arundel Recreation Reserve and Moana Reserve (Millennium walkway)	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 Puriria Ave, 1 Noel Ave, 1 Kohu St, 1 Marine View	Under control on-leash at all times. Narrow strip, backs on to unfenced residential properties.
Orewa - Moana Reserve	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	Under control on-leash at all times. Small park, existing sign, across road from shops.
293 Hibiscus Coast Highway	Under control off-leash	None	Under control on-leash at all times. Small park.
Orewa Domain	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	Under control on-leash time and season**, off-leash other times. Busy during summer, winter use not excessive given size, separate rules apply to playground, sports surface, car parking areas.
Orewa Reserve Layby and Orewa Recreation Reserve – grass between holiday park and sand dunes	Under control off-leash	None	Under control on-leash time and season**, off-leash other times.
Orewa Estuary on all intertidal areas upstream of road bridge (SEA-M2-72 and SEA-M2-72w1 in Unitary Plan)	Prohibited	Unknown	Dogs prohibited on all intertidal areas upstream of road bridge. This is an important shorebird feeding site and an autumn flocking site for NZ dotterels.
Red Beach Waterfront Reserve (grass)	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Stanmore Bay Park	Under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	Under control on-leash at all times.
Swann Beach Road – Hurdlow Place Esplanade Reserve	Under control off-leash	None	Under control off-leash at all times.
Big Manly Beach – grass between The Esplanade and Browns Street	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Tindalls Beach – De Luen Avenue Beachfront Reserve	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Fisherman's Rock Reserve	Under control off-leash	None	Under control off-leash at all times. Large grass area, separate carpark and boat ramp rules apply.
Intertidal area of Okoromai Bay (SEA-M1-67 in Unitary Plan) - area not associated with Shakespear Regional Park	Prohibited	Unknown	Dogs prohibited from intertidal areas, which are an important shorebird feeding site.
Matakatia Parade Beach Front Reserve (grass)	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Little Manly Beach Reserve (grass)	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Arkles Bay Beach Front Reserve (grass)	Under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season*. Narrow strip of grass next to beach.
Weiti Estuary – Chenier Spits (Pt Lot 4 DP 95984, East Coast Road, Redvale)	Prohibited	Unknown	Dogs prohibited. Dotterel breading and feeding site, godwits and other shore birds. Compliments Department of Conservation dog prohibition in Weti River, Karepiro Bay and Okura, and includes the Stillwater section of the Okura Bush Walkway.
Winstones Cove	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season (no useable grass areas)
Waiake Beach Reserve (grass)	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	On-leash summer 10am to 5pm, off-leash other times (busy during summer)
Browns Bay Beach Reserve (grass) and grass areas adjacent to Manly Esplanade	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	On-leash summer 10am to 5pm, off-leash other times (busy during summer)
Browns Bay – grass at end of Browns Bay Road	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	Off-leash at all times (low use opposite beach proper)
Rothesay Bay Beach Reserve (grass)	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	Off-leash at all times (not as popular as other areas)
Churchill Reserve (grass)	Under control off-leash	None	Off-leash at all times (away from road, beach off-leash at all times)
Murrays Bay – grass adjacent to Beach Road and Gulfview Road to cliff top walkway and jetty	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	On-leash summer 10am to 5pm, off-leash other times (narrow strip near road)
Mairangi Bay – Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve (grass) between Montrose Terrace and stream next to surf club	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	On-leash summer 10am to 5pm, off-leash other times (narrow strip near road)
Mairangi Bay – reserves opposite beach (R13 and 15 Montrose Terrace)	Off-leash at all times	None	On-leash summer 10am to 5pm, off-leash other times (summer parking and passive area)
Mairangi Bay – Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve (grass) from stream next to surf club to Whitby Crescent accessway (Forde Way)	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	Animal management officers suggest area be under control off-leash at all times (sizable area south of footbridge away from main beach). Parks staff suggest on-leash summer 10am to 5pm for consistency.
Campbells Bay – Grass at end of The Esplanade	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	None	Beach time and season (narrow strip of grass next to beach)
Campbells Bay – Campbells Bay Reserve (grass) (aka Huntly Road Reserve)	20m time and season, then under control off-leash	On-leash (1 sign)	On-leash summer 10am to 5pm, off-leash other times (high use in summer, separate rule applies to playground)

* beach time and season means dogs are prohibited from 10am to 5pm Labour Weekend to 1 March, and allowed under control off-leash at all other times to manage the safe interaction between dogs and people.

** time and season means 10am to 5pm Labour Weekend to 1 March.

24. Council staff in the process of this review have also identified all beaches in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area. This enables the current local beach dog access rules to be clarified by listing the time and season and off-leash at all times beaches, removing another disparity between the former Rodney and North Shore. The former Rodney District did not identify under control off-leash at all times beaches (Amorino Park beach), while the former North Shore did not identify beaches subject to the time and season dog access rule (e.g. Winstones Cove).

25. Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 1 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

Table 1: Options in relation to dog access on parks adjacent to beaches and protected wildlife vulnerable to dogs

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1

a) Prohibit dogs at all times on Waiwera Beach – the public land, beach and foreshore north of The Strand roundabout and around the headland to protect the shorebird breeding site between 1 August and 1 March

b) Prohibit dogs at all times to protect wildlife from:

· Waiwera Bird Lookout (opposite 79 Weranui Road)

· Orewa Estuary on all intertidal areas upstream of road bridge (SEA-M2-72 and SEA-M2-72w1 in Unitary Plan)

· Intertidal area of Okoromai Bay (SEA-M1-67 in Unitary Plan) - area not associated with Shakespear Regional Park. This proposed change is to be included in a separate statement of proposal at the same time as proposed amendments to Shakespear Regional Park

· Weiti Estuary – Chenier Spits (Pt Lot 4 DP 95984, East Coast Road, Redvale)

c) Apply under control on-leash at all times dog access to:

· Kinloch Reserve, Orewa

· 365 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa

· Millennium walkway, Orewa (grass between Arundel Recreation Reserve and Moana Reserve)

· Moana Reserve, Orewa

· 293 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa

· Stanmore Bay Park

d) Apply under control on-leash dog access between 10am and 5pm Labour Weekend to 1 March, off-leash other times to:

· Orewa Domain

· Orewa Reserve Layby and Orewa Recreation Reserve (grass areas between holiday park and sand dunes).

· Waiake Beach Reserve (grass)

· Browns Bay Beach Reserve (grass) and grass areas adjacent to Manly Esplanade

· Murrays Bay – grass adjacent to Beach Road and Gulfview Road to cliff top walkway and jetty

· Mairangi Bay – Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve (grass) between Montrose Terrace and stream next to surf club and reserves opposite beach (R13 and 15 Montrose Terrace)

· Campbells Bay Reserve (grass) (also known as Huntly Road Reserve)

e) Apply beach time and season rule to:

· The narrow grass strip next to Hatfields Beach

· Red Beach Waterfront Reserve (grass)

· Big Manly Beach – grass area between The Esplanade and Browns Street

· Tindalls Beach – De Luen Avenue beachfront Reserve

· Matakatia Parade Beach Front Reserve (grass)

· Little Manly Beach Reserve (grass)

· Arkles Bay Beach Front Reserve (grass)

· Winstones Cove

· Campbells Bay – grass at end of The Esplanade

f) Confirm under control off-leash dog access to:

· Waiwera Place Reserve and grass areas from Waiwera Road to Wairea Place

· Arundel Recreation Reserve in Orewa

· Swann Beach Road – Hurdlow Place Esplanade Reserve

· Fisherman's Rock Reserve.

· Browns Bay – grass at end of Browns Bay Road

· Rothesay Bay Beach Reserve (grass)

· Churchill Reserve (grass)

· Mairangi Bay – Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve (grass) from stream next to surf club to Whitby Crescent accessway (Forde Way)

g) Confirm the names of all beaches in Hibiscus and Bays local board area

Pros

· Makes dog access rules easier to understand and communicate.

· Replaces arbitrary former North Shore City 20m park time and season rule with a rule that makes sense on the ground.

· Resolves difference between long established signage and dog access rules in Orewa.

· Replaces uncertain general wildlife rule with place specific rules to improve certainty.

· Identifies all beaches in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area.

Cons

· Cost to replace signage where necessary.

· Possible concerns if change perceived to reduce or increase dog access given the lack of certainty around the current legacy rules.

Option 2 No change to current rules

Pros

· No potential for concern that dog access is being reduced or increased given the lack of certainty around the current legacy rules.

Cons

· Dog access rules remain difficult to communicate to public due to confusing or ambiguous nature of the legacy rules.

Clarification of legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules

26. The issue is the uncertainty created by legacy council dog access rules that are confusing or ambiguous.

27. The outcome sought is to ensure dog access rules are clear and easy to understand and communicate.

28. Currently the Hibiscus and Bays local board area has a number of legacy council confusing or ambiguous dog access rules as follows.

a) The board has two approaches to naming places where dogs can be taken under control off a leash.

In those parts of the board area within the former Rodney District, the term “dog exercise area” is used to describe 12 places where dogs could be taken under control off a leash. However, in general dogs can be taken under control off a leash in all parks in the former Rodney District and not only the 12 places described.

In those parts of the board area within the former North Shore City, the term “off-leash areas” was used. In general dogs can be taken under control off a leash in all parks in the former North Shore City.

There are around 300 parks in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area.

The policy on dogs provides Auckland-wide definitions for consistency. “Under control off-leash areas” refer to a place shared with other users while “designated dog exercise areas” refer to a place where dog owners are the priority user (e.g. a “dog park”).

Important: Regardless of the name, dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash. Exceptions apply to dogs classified by council as a “dan gerous dog” – individual dogs known to be a threat to the safety of people or animals. There were six classified dangerous dogs in Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area in 2010. Classified dangerous dogs must be under control on a leash and muzzled in all parks in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

b) The local board has inherited two approaches to dog access around picnic areas, fitness apparatus, and bush walks.

In those parts of the local board area within the former Rodney District, dogs are prohibited dogs in picnic areas, and required dogs to be on a leash on bush walks. There is no rule on fitness apparatus.

In those parts of the local board area within the former North Shore City, dogs are allowed under control on a leash in picnic and fitness apparatus areas. There is no rule on bush walks.

The problem, particularly for picnic and fitness apparatus, is that neither term is defined but there are many instances of isolated tables and BBQ facilities on parks. As a result resident’s (including dog owners) do not know where the rule applies (if they are aware of the rule at all), the rule is not widely communicated, complicates communication of dog access rules in general, and not enforced by animal management officers.

c) The local board has a rule that requires dogs to be under control on a leash on Gulf Islands where dogs may be a threat to any native fauna and not already prohibited. This rule is not necessary. The only island in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area is Tiritiri Matangi which is administered by the Department of Conservation and on which dogs are prohibited.

29. The views of council staff involved in parks and animal management are as follows:

a) that all 12 current “dog exercise areas” of the former Rodney District in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area are shared spaces where dog owners are a “shared user” and should be called “under control off-leash areas”.

b) that there are no local picnic or fitness apparatus areas that have boundaries that are easily seen when viewed “on the ground” or of a meaningful size that justifies a specific dog access rule. The existence of picnic and fitness assets should inform decisions on dog access on the whole or more meaningful part of a park, and these views have been included in the earlier discussion on dog access on parks adjoining beaches.

c) Local bush walks that are so enclosed that the only access is at a track entrance, justify a dog access restriction, and not already specifically restricted are Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve, Orewa (existing on-leash signage) and the Stillwater Walkway from Duck Creek Road to the Okura Estuary Scenic Reserve (existing dogs prohibited area).

30. Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 2 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

Table 2: Options in relation to the clarification of legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1

a) Reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas

b) Revoke general picnic and fitness apparatus rule.

c) Replace general bush walk rule and specific rule recognising current on-leash dog access in Alice Eaves Scenic Reserve and prohibited dog access on Stillwater Walkway.

d) Revoke general Gulf Islands rule.

Pros

· Makes dog access rules easier to understand and communicate.

· Removes confusion and implements policy on dogs about classification of “designated dog exercise areas” and “under control off-leash areas”.

· Removes legacy council confusing and ambiguous picnic area and fitness apparatus rules that are largely unknown and not enforced.

· Replaces uncertain general bush walk rule with place specific rules to improve certainty.

· Removes irrelevant general Gulf Island rules. Local board is not responsible for dog access on any Gulf Islands.

Cons

· Cost to replace signage.

· Possible dog owner concern if change perceived to reduce dog access. The proposed changes does not reduce dog access (except for dogs classified as a “dangerous dog” of which there were six in the local board area in 2010).

Option 2 No change to current

Pros

· No potential for dog owner concern that dog access is being reduced. The proposed changes does not reduce dog access (except for “dangerous dogs”).

Cons

· Inconsistent with policy on dogs.

· Dog access rules remain difficult to communicate to public due to confusing or ambiguous nature of legacy council rules.

Consideration

Decision-making requirements

31. The process to change dog access rules requires the local board to comply with a range of statutory, policy and delegated authority requirements, including the adoption of a Statement of Proposal for the purposes of public notification for submissions.

32. The most important statutory requirement is to ensure decisions on dog access provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. This means having regard to:

· “the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

· the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

· the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.”

Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996

33. The most important practical requirement is to make dog access rules easy to understand “on the ground”. Current dog access rules are a combination of general and specific dog access rules, meaning to know where you can take your dog under control off a leash, the dog owner must first find out all the places they cannot go. This approach is difficult to communicate and confusing for dog owners and general public alike.

34. Further detail of the decision-making requirements and process (including policy on dogs and delegated authority requirements) is provided in Attachment B.

Local Board Views

35. The views of other local boards have not been sought. This report is confirming the views of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

36. Following the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee’s resolution in September 2013, officers have worked closely with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and the Te Waka Angamua team within the council to develop an engagement plan and briefing papers for Māori. The council invited Mana Whenua representatives to give their views on animal management matters. Following the distribution to 19 iwi of an information sheet on animal management issues, iwi representatives were invited to attend two hui on 21 and 22 October 2013.

37. Feedback from representatives at the two hui related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

38. Where dogs are required to be under control on a leash and the protection of sensitive ecological areas within the local board area is a matter that the local board has the power to decide.

39. The other matters are addressed elsewhere. Region-wide dog access rules provide for the iwi to determine dog access on Marae. Control and responsible dog ownership are matters promoted by the Dog Control Act 1996 and Auckland Council’s Licensing and Compliance Services.

Implementation Issues

40. Issues related to implementation relate to the local board costs for public notification initiatives and the cost of any signage. The costs of implementation are expected to be obtained from existing budgets. The cost of signage will become clearer as the review progresses.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal	31
b View	Decision making and review process	49

Signatories

Authors	Paul Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/05573

Purpose

1. To seek input from the local 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: the current state assessment as well as subsequent phases of the review.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

1) provide input into the Council Controlled Organisation review current state assessment as Attachment D to this report.

Discussion

5. Auckland Council is undertaking a review of its substantive council controlled organisations: 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 chairpersons, the CCOs and the Independent Māori Statutory Board were all given the opportunity to provide feedback into the draft Terms of Reference. Common themes amongst the feedback received included:

a) the need to reduce duplication between Auckland Council and CCO activities

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

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

d) the need to assess the impact of change on outcomes and delivery

e) the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

f) 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. It 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 PricewaterhouseCooper (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 of the Auckland Council with the governing body.

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. It 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, local board members are invited to base their comments on experience and to provide examples to illustrate the local 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: the current state assessment as well as informing subsequent phases of the review.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

22. The Independent Māori Statutory Board and Te Waka Angamua will be involved at several points in the process of reviewing the CCOs. They have inputted in 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	57
b View	Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council perspective)	63
c View	Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Question for Local Boards	79
d View	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Feedback	97

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities - Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

File No.: CP2014/06077

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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement.

2. This report seeks to inform the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board of administrative changes to the fees and charges framework.

3. It also seeks the Hibiscus and Bays 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

1. 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.

2. A project has been under way 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.

3. 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 following purpose:

“To ensure people can access safe and affordable spaces to pursue their interests.”

4. The project has resulted in three main changes:

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

b. the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect your local board plan priorities.

c. 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.

5. The fees and charges schedule will be presented for adoption as part of the 2014/2015 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement.

Recommendations

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the activity types eligible for priority discounts for hire of local council-run facilities as per attachment A, dated 1 April 2014, to the agenda report.

b) request that staff report back to the local board detailing usage statistics, asset data and other relevant information to enable the local board to assess future fees and charges in future financial years.

c) note the administrative changes to facilitate implementation.

Discussion

Background

6. 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 the wider community’s benefit.

7. 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 when you set and vary hire fees.

Local Board Engagement

8. 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 fee structure for the 2014-2015 year.

9. Operational considerations have meant that not all views expressed can be incorporated during 2014-2015. If you wish to consider more substantial changes to hire fees and charges in future years to ensure alignment across your portfolio, the long term plan process offers an opportunity to consult local communities.

Changes to the Hire Fees and Charges Framework

10. 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.

11. The proposed fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Hibiscus and Bays 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

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

i) all bookings are treated on a first-come first-served basis

ii) discounts are given for regular bookings and for off-peak times

iii) 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Priorities

13. In line with 2014/2015 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement priorities, the local board is now asked to confirm their Local Board Priority Activities, i.e. those activity types the local board wishes to be eligible for a maximum discount.

14. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will support discounts for not-for-profit charities and community organisations that will clearly benefit from the discounts and community organisations that have historically received usage free of charge

Consideration

Local Board Views

15. This report reflects the engagement with the local boards

Maori Impact Statement

16. 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

17. This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

18. 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	Principles for bookings, fees and discounts for Hibiscus and Bays	109

Signatories

Authors	Valerie Proud - Principal Policy Analyst
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2014/06095

Purpose

1. To provide guidance for local boards 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 2014 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 Council Controlled Organisations 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

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) agree a balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years for the Annual Plan 2014/2105 that reflect the allocation of decision-making as attached at Attachment A.

b) confirm an updated list of advocacy areas for the Governing Body and Council Controlled Organisations, for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015 as attached as Attachment B.

c) confirms an inflation adjustment for Library Room Hire for 2014/2015; Leisure and Recreation facilities at Stanmore Bay Pool and Leisure and East Coast Bays Recreation Centre.

d) does not agree to amending fees and charges for the 2014/2015 year for local community and arts facilities.

e) resolve on any feedback on regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan process for Governing Body consideration:

Weed Management

i) that funding be allocated to provide for the development of innovative techniques and the trialing of innovative methods across Auckland, which results in an avoidance of chemical applications for weed management.

ii) that non-chemical applications are a preferred approach in urban and sensitive environmental and coastal areas across Auckland.

iii) that education programmes are also focused and targeted at the public and landowners in the use of non-chemical options and techniques.

iv) that non-financial parameters need to be important factors in the delivery of a future Auckland Week Policy.

Fluoride

v) request that if Auckland Council (Watercare) is to continue adding a fluoride product to its water Auckland Council should provide a funding source foir residents to be able to extract fluoride from the water.

Ferry Services

vi) that Auckland transport review the frequency of ferry services to Gulf Harbour in light of the increased ferry services being provided to Hobsonville and Beachhaven and request that each ferry service has a connecting bus service.

Penlink

vii) confirm the support of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the Penlink project.

Metro Park and Albany Community Sports Village

viii) advise that the future stages of the completion of the Metro Park Development will be a key priority of the local board.

ix) support the Albany community sports village project.

Surf Life Saving

x) support the inclusion of $421,316 in the Auckland Council 2014-2015 Annual Plan to enable completion of the Red Beach Surf Life Savings Clubroom rebuilding programme.

xi) support the inclusion of the ‘Surf 10:20 Capital Replacement Programme’ in the updated Auckland Council Long Term Plan, noting that the Orewa and Mairangi Bay clubs are advanced in their planning for club room replacements.

Fees and Charges

xii) that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will not be supporting an increase in fees and charges.

General

xiii) request that annual scholarship funding is transferred into the local board budget.

xiv) support additional funding for the 2015 Anzac ceremonies.

xv) support the inclusion of North Harbour Stadium as part of Regional Facilities Auckland.

xvi) request confirmation from staff of the reserve contribution allocation from the Long Bay Development Agreement to fund Neighbourhood Reserves 3 and 4 at Long Bay and the funding levels required for the development of further neighbourhood reserves at Long Bay.

xvii) confirm operational funding for the Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre from the regional Community Development Arts and Culture operational budget as discussed at the local board re-prioritisation workshop.

f) request that staff provide the Hall and Community facilities usage figures, operational costs and other relevant information across the local board activity area to assist the future review of fees and charges.

g) note that:

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

ii) if budgets do not balance 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 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 2014, 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 local board agreement and annual plan 2014/2015.

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 Council Controlled Organisations for inclusion in the local board agreement and annual plan 2014/2015

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

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 2014 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 2014.

11. Reports will be prepared for the Budget Committee meeting on 8 May 2014 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 2014, 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 2014, with the governing body meeting to adopt the final annual plan, including the 21 local board agreements, on 26 June 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. This report sets out the decisions local boards need to make in order to finalise budgets and agree advocacy areas for the local board agreement and 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 Issues

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 2014. 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	117
b View	Budget Refresh Tables (Capex and Opex)	119
c View	Fees and Charges Schedule	121
d View	Advocacy Action Plan	127

Signatories

Author

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker, Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06204

Purpose

1. To advise all twenty-one 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 in the electoral term of the current local boards to be spent by the end of June 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) 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 $10M. This was assigned to the twenty-one 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 2012-2013 financial year was $1.3M. This was due to the late start of the programme in that year so Auckland 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 $8.7M was subsequently approved.

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

· The carry forward from 2012-2013 = $8.7M

· The 2013-14 Budget = $10M

· The 2014-15 Budget = $10M

· The 2015-16 Budget = $10M

This is a total of $38.7M

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

· 2013-2014 Forecast = $8.6M (actual current forecast)

· 2014-2015 Forecast = $10.1M (latest forecast)

· 2015-2016 Forecast = $20.0M (latest forecast)

8. The 2013-2014 figure is the currently expected end of year result for 2013-2014. 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 $9.9M of the $40M will be spent. i.e. only 25% spent in half the available time.

9. Conversely, the required spend in the last two years (2014-2015 and 2015-2016) is $30.1M, being a threefold increase in the spend compared to the first two years. At the current rate of spending this $30.1M target will not be achieved.

10. In addition, the current local boards are allowed to spend some or all of the 2016-2017 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 $10M 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 $14.9M.

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 $25.1M 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 2015-2016 financial year and to a lesser extent the 2014-2015 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 (in fact half of the whole programme) can be spread out over the entire 2015-16 financial year. Many of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10M of work in the 2014-2015 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 $25.1M needs to happen by 31 August 2014 at the latest in order for them to be assessed and project scopes 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 don’t 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 will be able to 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 that 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 wetter 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 Auckland Transport 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 the 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 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 (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 2016-2017 budget is not included in the above figures.

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

38. Attached is the Pick List of the types of projects that could be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund 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	143
b View	Financial Updates for Hibiscus and Bays Local Board	149

Signatories

Author

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

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, April 2014

File No.: CP2014/06562

Purpose

1. To respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport activities.

2. To provide an update on transport matters for the information of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and a register of transport issues in the local board’s area, as collated by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager North.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for April 2014.

Discussion

Silverdale Street, Silverdale – Bus Stop

3. At its meeting on 19 March 2014, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved:

(HB/2014/23):

a) That the earlier decision by Auckland Transport not to relocate the bus stop at Silverdale Village in Silverdale Street be reviewed and the interim option proposed by the Silverdale Commercial Ratepayers Association be re-investigated and reported back to the local board.

4. Auckland Transport’s response:

The Public Transport Network Management team has made its views on the request to relocate the bus stop in Silverdale Street, Silverdale, clear several times recently. The current informal arrangement for bus-to-bus transfer for North Star has operated in Silverdale Township for many years. Auckland Transport will be consulting on new bus service proposals for the Hibiscus Coast and Warkworth over the next few months. A key element of the new bus service proposals will be the use of the Hibiscus Coast Busway Station as the interchange for all services. As such, when these services are implemented, the instances of multiple parked buses encroaching on the entrance to the Hammer Hardware premises at 24 Silverdale Street will no longer be an issue. It is this fact that is driving Auckland Transport’s reluctance to allocate funding and resources to investigating whether the existing bus stop can be relocated at this time. Auckland Transport has a duty to spend ratepayers’ money in a prudent manner and does not deem this change a worthy use of the limited funding pool available for bus stop and shelter works.

However, should the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board be willing to fund the relocation, at a potential cost of $10,000 to cover analysis, consultation, the Traffic Control Committee resolution process, and construction, the investigation can be conducted as a high priority. This may result in the requested changes being implemented in approximately seven months, assuming no issues arise with any aspect of these processes.

Glen Road, Browns Bay

5. At its meeting on 19 March 2014, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved

(HB/2014/23):

b) That a review of all day parking spaces in Browns Bay adjacent to the service centre on Glen Road be reviewed and reported back to the local board.

6. Auckland Transport’s response:

Parking Design staff will carry out a survey to determine if there is a problem with the current unrestricted parking spaces opposite the Council’s Service Centre at 1 Glen Road, Browns Bay, together with those parking spaces adjacent to the Service Centre which are under Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction. The local board will be updated on completion of the survey.

Glenvar Road, Torbay Heights

7. At its meeting on 19 March 2014, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved

(HB/2014/23):

c) That Auckland Transport be asked to review the need for provision of a footpath between East Coast Road and Fitzwilliam Drive on Glenvar Road.

8. Auckland Transport’s response:

Traffic Operations staff will investigate the provision of a footpath on Glenvar Road, Torbay Heights, between East Coast Road and Fitzwilliam Drive. The results of this investigation will be reported back to the local board on its completion.

Update on Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

9. Construction of the following Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBCTF) projects nominated by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now been completed:

· Duck Creek Road, Stillwater – new footpath (Project 097);

· 201-246 Centreway Road, Orewa – new footpath (Project 100);

· Titan Place to Silverdale Township, Silverdale – new footpath (Project 098);

· East Coast Road (vicinity of Spencer Road), Pinehill – footpath upgrade (Project 094);

· 504 Beach Road, Murrays Bay – footpath upgrade (Project 099);

· Grand Drive – Tauranga Place, Orewa – new walkway and footpath (Project 101).

10. A consultant has been asked to quote for the cost of providing a design for Project 090, Access to Matakatia Scenic Reserve, Whangaparaoa, and the local board will be advised of the cost of this work as soon as this becomes available.

11. At a meeting with the local board’s Transport Portfolio Lead, Member Cooper, on 18 March 2014, Auckland Council’s Principal Planner North-West, Andrew Trevelyan, was asked to provide a concept plan for Project 091, provision of a footpath with a higher than normal amenity value on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay, based on discussions at that meeting. Further discussion will take place on completion of the concept plan.

12. A design for safety improvements on Awaruku Road, Torbay (Project 096) is currently underway and a firm cost estimate will be provided to the Board on its completion. Providing the firm cost estimate meets with the Board’s approval, construction will be carried out by Auckland Transport’s minor works contractor.

13. The car parking adjacent to Stillwater Reserve (Project 209) will be provided on completion of a new community hall on the reserve. The design for the hall and car parking is being managed by the community hall project manager and a firm cost estimate will be provided once the design for the car parking has been completed.

14. At its meeting on 19 March 2014 the local board approved the allocation of $27,000 to allow construction of a footpath at the entrance to St John’s School, 395 East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay (Project 229) to proceed. Construction will be carried out over the period 22 April – 2 May, during the school holidays.

15. The local board has requested rough cost estimates for the following projects:

· Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa – new footpath to Cedar Terrace;

· Ferry Road, Arkles Bay – new footpath to Wade River Road;

· Noel Avenue, Orewa – new footpath;

· Okura River Road, Okura – new footpath Vaughans Road to Okura Hall;

· Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale – new footpath Titan Place to Whangaparaoa Road;

· Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale – provision of additional lighting for footpath constructed by the Board in 2013 (Project 098);

· Tavern Road, Silverdale – provision of pedestrian crossing facilities;

· Glenvar Road, Torbay – new footpath East Coast Road to Fitzwilliam Drive.

Early Engagement on Transport Planning - Workshop with AT Senior Management

16. Elected members were invited to a meeting with Auckland Transport’s CEO David Warburton and his Executive Leadership Team on Thursday, 10 April 2014 to advise Auckland Transport of their priorities and involve them in shaping the plans for transport in Auckland from 2015. Auckland Transport is required to deliver the transformational shifts outlined in the Auckland Plan – especially providing outstanding public transport and quality urban living – within tight funding constraints. Members’ assistance is being sought to plan for how these transformational shifts will translate into specific initiatives at a local level.

17. To achieve this, Auckland Transport is updating its plans for the period 2015-2025, and is seeking local board and councillor input at an early stage. The objective is to understand and assess local boards’ and councillors’ input prior to the development of the first draft so that the document circulated for formal consultation can more closely reflect both political aspirations and operational and technical needs.

18. A series of five workshops for local board members, councillors, iwi and transport interest groups was hosted by Auckland Transport in April 2014 to listen to views on both local and regional issues. Other issues discussed included implementation of the Auckland Plan, the Mayor’s direction, how major projects benefit local communities, the funding challenge, local transport initiatives and the role of local leadership in delivering these.

19. Formal consultation on the Transport component of Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan, and on Auckland Transport’s Regional Land Transport Programme, will take place in January and February 2015.

Auckland Transport completes AT HOP rollout

20. Auckland Transport has completed the rollout of AT HOP, its reusable pre-pay smart card for travel on trains, ferries and buses, following its introduction in October 2012. There are now more than 250,000 AT HOP cards being regularly used by customers around the region on different modes of transport and with different public transport operators.

21. Introduction of AT HOP is significant for further developing public transport in New Zealand’s largest city and the rate at which public transport users have taken to the new system so far bodes well for on-going patronage growth. 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 also vital elements in delivering a world class public transport system.

22. Mayor Len Brown is a regular user of public transport and also acknowledges what a significant milestone completion of the AT HOP rollout is, noting that the transformation of Auckland’s public transport system is well and truly underway and that the completion of the AT HOP rollout is a critical part of that. He has congratulated Auckland Transport for delivering the project in an effective and timely way.

23. The project has been delivered in partnership with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Making public transport easier and more attractive for people is a key priority for NZTA, so, after seven years of development and a $73 million investment from the national land transport fund, NZTA is pleased with the resulting sophisticated platform, underpinned by a national ticketing standard that could support integrated ticketing systems across the country.

24. More information on AT HOP is available at: www.AT.govt/athop.

Issues Update

25. The following Issues Update comprises issues raised by elected members and Local Board Services staff to 1 April 2014:

	Location	Issue	Status
1	Moana and Florence Avenues, Orewa	Request for safety improvements at the intersections of Moana and Florence Avenues/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.	At a meeting in December attended by the Chairperson, Julia Parfitt, Member Harding, representatives of Destination Orewa Beach and Auckland Transport, concerns were expressed about the position of the pedestrian crossing immediately north of the roundabout at the intersection of Florence Avenue and Hibiscus Coast Highway, together with the informal crossing points located at the intersections of Hibiscus Coast Highway with Moana, Tamariki and Moenui Avenues. Auckland Transport staff agreed to carry out pedestrian and vehicle speed counts in the New Year with a view to investigating possible safety enhancements. Investigations into options for improving pedestrian safety on Hibiscus Coast Highway in the area between Moana and Tamariki Avenues are continuing.
2	Haigh Access Road, Okura	Concerns about forestry trucks using Haigh Access Road, Okura.	Cr Walker's Governance Support Advisor forwarded the concerns of a resident on 14 February 2014 about logging trucks using Haigh Access Road to access East Coast Road. On 24 March 2014 Cr Walker and the Board's TPLs were advised that logging was beginning on the Weiti Forest Block and that trucks will be using Haigh Access Road during the harvesting. However, both the company itself and Auckland Transport staff have been in touch with the affected residents to explain the procedures put in place, which include a 30 km/h speed restriction on Haigh Access Road; 30 km/h speed restriction on East Coast Road on the approaches to Haigh Access Road from both directions; additional signage on East Coast Road to warn drivers about the trucks/operation; and left turn out from right turn in to Haigh Access Road only for the logging trucks. It is expected that logging will be completed within the month, during which time the operation will be monitored to ensure compliance with the Traffic Management Plans in place.
3	Carlisle and Firth Roads, Browns Bay	Proposed changes to the road layout at the intersection of Carlisle and Firth Roads, Browns Bay.	Documentation explaining proposed changes to the road layout at the intersection of Carlisle and Firth Roads, Browns Bay, was sent to the Board's TPLs on 18 February 2014, with a request for response no later than Friday, 28 February 2014. Local board chairperson Julia Parfitt and Member David Cooper forwarded comments, the chairperson requesting a meeting to discuss the proposal further. This meeting took place on 20 March 2014, with engineers taking advice from local board members which will inform future investigations into possible improvements at the intersection.
4	Browns Bay CBD	Suggestion that additional P120 restrictions be installed in Browns Bay.	At a meeting on 19 February 2014 local board chairperson Julia Parfitt noted a general lack of parking in Browns Bay, suggesting that some of the all-day parking be replaced with P120 restrictions. On 24 February 2014 the TPLs were forwarded a document describing the last significant changes made to parking in Browns Bays, which were initiated by NSCC and implemented by NSCC/Auckland Transport before and after the transition. Comments from Board Members which indicated a preference for longer term parking reasonably close to the shops so that those working in Browns Bay weren’t disadvantaged were also forwarded and Members were advised that Parking Design staff were happy to propose the implementation of P120 restrictions in areas where there are currently no restrictions, but would appreciate suggestions as to where members felt that these would be appropriate. They would also appreciate confirmation from the local board that, should they proceed to consultation on these suggested changes, they will have support for the changes from Members, particularly in light of potential resistance from individual retailers and the business association. Note: The local board subsequently asked that Auckland Transport review the all-day parking restrictions in Glen Road, Browns Bay, adjacent to the service centre with a view to implementing P120 restrictions (see paragraph 5 above).
5	East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay	Concerns regarding the installation of a pedestrian refuge on East Coast Road, Mairangi Bay.	At a meeting on 19 February 2014 the proposed installation of a pedestrian refuge on East Coast Road in the vicinity of St John’s School, Mairangi Bay, was discussed, with Member Cooper expressing concerns that this would restrict the ability of trucks turning. The local Board's TPLs were provided with plans showing the turning movement into and out of the area on 25 March 2014 which confirmed that that trucks would not be restricted in any way.
6	480 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay	Overhanging vegetation at 480 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay.	At a meeting on 19 February 2014 local board chairperson Julia Parfitt advised that vegetation from the property at 480 Beach Road, Mairangi Bay, was overhanging the footpath and restricting access for pedestrians, asking that this be attended to. Members were advised on 25 March 2014 that minor trimming of the overhanging vegetation would be carried out over the next month.
7	Over Dimension Routes	Request for specifications regarding over dimension routes.	Local board chairperson Julia Parfitt asked at a meeting on 19 March 2014 for a copy of the specifications relating to over dimension routes in relation to the possible installation of boxing for the gardens on the Boulevard in Orewa. On 6 March the local board's TPLs were advised that the over-dimension route through Orewa is defined on a series of maps on NZTA’s website and a copy of the relevant page for Hibiscus Coast Highway through Orewa was provided. The specifications for over-dimension vehicle clearances are contained in the Heavy Haulage Association guidebook and a copy of the relevant page was also provided. It was suggested that, if the local board wishes to progress the installation of edging in the gardens along the Boulevard, a request with specific details of the edging could be made to Auckland Transport's Road Corridor Access staff.
8	Duck Creek Road, Stillwater	Urgent request for clearance/restoration after spraying of noxious weeds on the berm outside 83a Duck Creek Road, Stillwater.	Following an urgent request from Member Sayers for clearance/restoration of a berm area after weed spraying of the berm area outside 83a Duck Creek Road, Stillwater, on 26 February 2014 Member Sayers was advised that recent work undertaken in this area had consisted of clearing vegetation overhanging the footpath and spraying noxious pest plants along this section of Duck Creek Road. While undertaking this work, the sub-contractors had been approached by the owner of the property at 83a Duck Creek Road, who had asked them to spray the Japanese Honeysuckle pest plant on the berm outside this property. It was noted that maintenance of the berm area is the responsibility of the property owner, not Auckland Transport; however, the crew sprayed this area as well, as a service to the property owner. The work was not part of the contract work and therefore carried out by the sub-contractor at no cost to the ratepayer. However, tidy up/restoration of the area rests with the property owner, not Auckland Transport or its contractors. On 28 February 2014 Member Sayers and the local board's TPLs were advised that that a contractor’s crew had been asked to visit the site to tidy the area and remove dead vegetation and debris. Further work or restoration would not be undertaken by Auckland Transport or its contractors, given Auckland Council’s policy that maintenance of berm areas is the property owner’s responsibility, and additionally because the work had been carried out in response to a direct request made by the owner of the property.
9	970 Beach Road, Torbay	Request for removal of an old sign in the vicinity of 970 Beach Road, Torbay.	Local board chairperson Julia Parfitt requested removal of an old rusty metal sign attached to a lamp post in the vicinity of 970 Beach Road, Torbay, which was dangerous and no longer required as a larger sign had been installed nearby which informs visitors that they are in Browns Bay, on 3 March 2014. On 11 March 2014 the local Board's TPLs were advised that Auckland Transport's Road Corridor Operations staff had agreed that the sign is no longer needed so it will be removed.
10	Glenvar Road, Torbay	Safety Concerns on Glenvar Road, Torbay.	In repose to concerns from a resident regarding pedestrian safety on Glenvar Road, Torbay, and public transport services available for residents travelling from Glenvar Road to Takapuna, on 10 March the local board’s TPLs were provided with a link to information on Auckland Transport’s website on the Glenvar Road upgrade work, including the current provisions for funding. While the absence of existing footpaths is a concern, installing these ahead of the proposed major upgrade would not be considered. A link to information on the Public Transport New Network review was also provided and Members were advised that consultation on the North (the Bays area) will be undertaken in late 2014/early 2015. Until such times as improvements resulting from the review are implemented, no other changes to existing services will be made.
11	666 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay,	Proposed pedestrian refuse at 666 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay.	Documentation describing a proposal to install a pedestrian refuge outside the property at 666 Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, was forwarded to the local board’s Transport Portfolio Leads (TPLs) on 13 March 2014 with a request for comments no later than 10 April 2014.
12	Waiora Road, Stanmore Bay	Proposed bus stop improvements and implementation of P5 parking restrictions on Waiora Road, Stanmore Bay.	Documentation explaining proposed bus stop improvements and implementation of P5 parking restrictions on Waiora Road, Stanmore Bay, outside Stanmore Bay School, was forwarded to the TPLs on 13 March 2014, with a request for comments no later than 26 March 2014. No comments were received from Members.
13	Blue Heron Rise, Whangaparaoa	Request for review of previous decision regarding construction of a roundabout at Blue Heron Rise, Whangaparaoa Road.	The local board cChairperson, Julia Parfitt, asked for a review of a decision made not to construct a roundabout at Blue Heron Rise on Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, on 13 March 2014. The local board's TPLs were advised on 28 March that traffic volumes on Whangaparaoa Road at Blue Heron Rise are high and of steady flow, indicating efficient use of arterial road space. It was acknowledged that it can take some time for a safe gap in which to emerge from side roads or driveways to occur and appreciated that excessive waiting times can be a frustration, so the reason for the request for a roundabout as a means to assist traffic both emerging from Blue Heron Drive and to allow an alternative route to the challenging right turn from the Peninsula Club driveway was understood. However, while roundabouts are efficient and safe when the traffic flows on all approach roads are approximately equal in volume, in uneven flows, the main road traffic is slowed on approach, reducing the gaps between vehicles. This makes it even more difficult to emerge from a low volume side road, even though the flow is one-way. For residents of the Peninsula Club there may be some benefit in having a roundabout at Blue Heron Rise, as residents would become part of the main road flow prior to using the roundabout, but all other traffic would be disadvantaged, particularly those from Blue Heron Rise. A roundabout at Blue Herron Rise therefore cannot be justified, both in terms of the high construction costs and journey time delay ‘costs’ to main road traffic, for the relatively small benefit of traffic turning right from the Peninsula Club driveway. A similar argument would also preclude the use of traffic signals, or the use of a signalised pedestrian crossing at Blue Heron Rise.
14	Beach/Carlisle Roads, Browns Bay	Request for lumps at the intersection of Beach/Carlisle Roads, Browns Bay, to be smoothed.	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board staff advised on 17 March 2014 that the tar seal at the signalised crossing at the intersection of Beach/Carlisle Roads is lumpy, making it difficult for the wheelchair-bound to cross. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance staff.
15	Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay	Request for pedestrian improvements on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay.	At a meeting on 18 March 2014 Member Cooper asked that consideration be given to improving pedestrian safety on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay, with the installation of NSAAT restrictions on the southern side from 16 – 26 Hastings Road, to facilitate access to/egress from the driveway located between 18 and 22 Hastings Road. This driveway services a reserve, a large tennis complex, a Scout Hall and Arts Centre so is used by multiple users whose visibility is severely restricted by parked vehicles when exiting the driveway on this busy road. He also requested installation of a pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity of 8 – 10 Hasting Road, to improve connectivity for those who wish to access the facilities on the southern side of Hastings Road. It was suggested that a crossing point would be safer in the vicinity of 8 – 10 Hasting Road, where there is access via steps to the low level access between 6 – 18 Hastings Road, rather than directly opposite the entrance to the reserve etc. Referred to Road Corridor Operations staff.
16	Lakeside Drive, Orewa	Concerns regarding recent resurfacing work on Lakeside Drive, Orewa.	Member Fitzgerald forwarded the concerns of a resident regarding recent resurfacing work on Lakeside Drive, Orewa, on 14 March 2014. On 19 March 2014 the TPLs were advised that Lakeside Drive was repaired in 2013 using a method called ‘cape seal’, which has been used in a number of older Hibiscus Coast subdivisions where asphalt was previously the preferred surface treatment. The cape seal method is the most cost effective way of repairing these older road surfaces, rather than using chip seal, as it provides a smoother, quieter road. This process involves a chip seal membrane being laid to waterproof the underlying pavement, followed by the application of a slurry surface, about a month later. Dust grit is then spread over this slurry surface to protect it while it is fresh, but this is swept after a few weeks - to provide that smoother, quieter surface. Whilst it’s acknowledged that this recent work on Lakeside Drive does vary in appearance from the work carried out in 2013, over time this will settle and the area recently patched will be more consistent with other sections of Lakeside Drive. The local board was assured that there is no need, as the resident suggested, for the road to be completely resurfaced.
17	Bute Road, Browns Bay	Pedestrian accident on Bute Road, Browns Bay.	On 13 March 2014 local board chairperson, Julia Parfitt, advised that a pedestrian had badly injured herself in a fall outside 27 Bute Road, Browns Bay, where the property was being redeveloped. Local board member Parfitt was advised by return that Road Corridor Access staff would visit the site to ensure that the traffic management plans approved under the permit to allow the contractors to work in the footpath area were being complied with. A meeting with the contractors followed and the provisions being made were improved to provide full width safety zones. It was further advised on 19 March 2014 that the site had again been checked and now complied with the approved traffic management plans.
18	Glen Road, Browns Bay	Request for changes to all day parking in Glen Road, Browns Bay.	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chairperson asked at a meeting on 19 March 2014 that all day parking restrictions in the vicinity of its offices in 2 Glen Road, Browns Bay, where people have been parking for extended periods of time so that visitors to the offices are unable to find a car park, be reviewed and altered to reflect P120 parking restrictions. Referred to Parking Design staff.
19	Glenvar Road, Torbay	Request for improved pedestrian safety on Glenvar Road, Torbay.	At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 19 March 2014, local board members requested urgent consideration of improved pedestrian safety on Glenvar Road from its intersection with East Coast Road to its intersection with Fitzwilliam Drive, Torbay. While there are plans to upgrade this section of the road in a few years’ time, pedestrian numbers in this area have escalated significantly so there is a need to urgently address these safety concerns in the interim. Referred to Road Corridor Operations staff.
20	Silverdale Street, Silverdale	Request for safety improvements for the pedestrian crossing on Silverdale Street, Silverdale.	Local board chairperson, Julia Parfitt, requested that investigation be undertaken into making changes at the pedestrian crossing on Silverdale Street, Silverdale, adjacent to Agency Lane, following reports of several cars vs. pedestrian near misses. Changes requested include a flashing light for the Saturday markets, the pedestrian crossing being raised, or a special speed reduction for the time of the Saturday markets (30km/h). Referred to Road Corridor Operations staff.
21	Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay	Maintenance of berm outside 18 Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay.	On 27 March 2014 local board member Cooper advised that the sloping bank/berm between the road and footpath outside 18 Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay, was totally overgrown and that the weeds, grasses etc. needed to be maintained urgently. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance.

Consideration

Local Board Views

26. This report is for the local board’s information.

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

28. 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

29. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Ellen Barrett, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events

File No.: CP2014/06710

Purpose

1. To provide an overview of the current financial management practice for dealing with extreme weather events in local parks across the region. There are a number of issues and inconsistencies with the current practice and therefore it is recommended that a new and consistent approach be adopted.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought, all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips. Twelve local boards have some funding to deal with land slips and other effects from extreme weather but it is rarely sufficient when serious issues arise. Nine local boards have no inbuilt financial capacity to cope with the impact of weather events.

3. Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events. There is a legal and moral obligation to ensure that some rates funding is set aside for this purpose given that weather damage, while unpredictable in timing and location, is none-the-less a constant in the Auckland region as a whole.

4. Three options are considered in this report. The first is to continue with the ad-hoc funding arrangement i.e. do nothing. The second is to pool local board funding to essentially develop a regional self-insurance fund (local unallocated budget). The third is to seek a regional fund, controlled by the governing body, which is applied for on a case by case basis. The second approach is recommended. The current arrangement will result in the need for local boards to cut existing budgets from time to time to react to weather events and overspend or approach the governing body regarding unforecast over expenditure. The second option, which involves funding moving to the area of greatest need, is likely to cover most weather events, without changing existing regional expenditure, and minimizes the time delays/bureaucracy involved.

5. In 2011, storms affected many areas and resulted in a number of severe slips on Waiheke Island. In 2012 the Upper Harbour Local Board was hit by a major cyclone event and dealt with the extensive damage via cuts in their current work and over expenditure. In 2013 all boards were affected by drought and a number of boards have been affected by slips and erosion. However the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Waitemata Local Board, in particular, are finding their current liabilities well beyond their individual ability to fund the remedy. In general terms, extreme weather events affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than rural, flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

6. The financial information relating to events that have occurred in the last three years is poor due to the fact that funds were taken from a variety of Auckland Council sources and expenses were not labelled consistently. As such the average financial risk for the region over the last three years is not specifically known. While it is possible for damage to be catastrophic and incalculable (if there is a regional disaster) it is only the common weather occurrence that is contemplated in this report. Over the last three years costs have been in the realm of six figures every year and the burden has traversed local boards.

7. Current budgets are operational. However damage from extreme weather events often results in the need for the development of new retaining or structures to protect existing assets from ongoing slips or similar. There is currently no capital funding sitting with local boards specifically tagged for storm damage remediation. It is recommended that a portion of the existing funding be allocated to capital budgets to provide for this eventuality.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) fully support the development of a local unallocated fund to insure against unforeseen impact of extreme weather events to parks and that such funding can be on an as required basis.

a) support a portion of the pooled operating budgets being allocated to local unallocated capital funding.

b) note that expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

Discussion

8. Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips.

9. The scale or impact of extreme weather events is particularly felt in urban parks where space is at a premium and landscapes are heavily developed. Although weather events still have an impact on regional parks the scale of the regional park landscapes and the management of those landscapes (i.e. a lot more fully restored streams and coastal dunes) means the impact of extreme weather events can usually be tolerated without affecting the day to day use of the park. In general terms, extreme weather events also affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

10. The financial impact of managing damage associated with extreme weather events in the urban park environment has historically been dealt with in three ways:

· Self-insurance – a fund is kept to call on for unforeseen damage

· Reforecasting – no funds are set aside for unforeseen damage and as a result current projects and operational expenses are put on hold while funding is diverted to managing the impact of extreme weather events.

· Overspend – where neither of the two options above are possible then some costs have been worn as an overspend

11. Auckland City Council held specific “storm damage” budgets for parks and other Council’s had a level of self-insurance against unforeseen damage. Others had nothing.

12. Upon amalgamation the funding pool held by Auckland City Council was divided amongst the local boards in those areas, and local boards in the old Manukau City had some funding allocated to cater for this possibility in their local budgets. This resulted in very small buckets of money being allocated to 12 local boards.

13. This local board budget allocation has largely defeated the purpose of the self-insurance fund as extreme weather events do not happen regularly in any given area. They can affect a localized area or a large scale area that has no correlation to board boundaries. This means that individual local boards can go many years without an extreme weather event while its neighbor or another local board may have several events in short succession. This random occurrence is normal and the current budget allocation does not befit this natural phenomenon.

14. The current operational “storm damage” budgets held across the region are:

	YTD Actual (Feb)	Budget
Albert-Eden		$77,558
Maungakiekie-Tamaki		$96,947
Orakei	$13,101	$109,874
Puketapapa	$2,197	$64,632
Waiheke		$19,389
Waitemata	$7,508	$102,894
Franklin		$20,371
Howick		$30,451
Mangere-Otahuhu		$15,515
Manurewa		$16,926
Otara-Papatoetoe		$16,715
Papakura		$11,158
Total	$22,806	$582,431

Note: there are a number of commitments or costs expected in Waitemata and Orakei that are not yet shown in the these budgets

Consideration

15. Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events. Under property law there is term known as lateral support which is about the right of a landowner to have their land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. There are around 4000 local and sports parks and each of these parks have neighbours. Any excavation or alteration council makes to park land may, at a later time, damage and affect a neighbour and leave council liable. Our neighbours have a right to enjoy their land in its natural condition. This includes the right to have their land held in place from the sides by the neighbouring land unless both are subject to unforeseen natural events.

16. In addition to this legal obligation to neighbours, some extreme weather events come at such a substantial cost that the budget available to an individual board is either unable to wear the cost of the recovery or the cost of recovery affects a range of other activities within a local board area. This budget shortfall creates a liability and its own set of risks for council and the community.

Options

17. The following options have been considered for ongoing/future management of storm damage:

	Option	Pro’s	Con’s
1	Do nothing: Some boards have limited funds available, others have nothing	· No change to boards budgets. A small contingency fund remains available for those boards with funding.	· No boards have sufficient funding to deal with medium size weather event – this exposes council to a range of risks
2	Create local unallocated fund (self-insurance): This would be a ring fenced fund for all boards to access allocated to the local and sports parks activity. It would be established from existing storm damage budgets held by some local boards.	· Funding is accessible across the region i.e. funds go where the storm goes · The size of the fund, pooled across the region, is more likely to accommodate regional extreme weather events than current arbitrary and small funding base available to those boards that have funding · Can be established immediately (providing all the boards agree) thereby helping with current liabilities	· Risk of the fund being inappropriately used for day to day weather events. This is a current risk and can be more readily mitigated as a local unallocated fund. It is recommended that there would be a single Tier 4 manager with a regional view determining a consistency of approach. · Some boards contribute to this solution while others benefit without contribution – may be seen as inequitable
3	Ask governing body to cater for most impacts of extreme weather events on a case by case basis.	· No change needed and governing body would pick up costs of damage (if agreed/funding found). Local boards that have existing funding would potentially need to show expenditure of current budgets before being eligible.	· The time delay and bureaucracy involved in making this happen means that most applications will be retrospective and expose the Council to financial risk · No funding is currently available at a governing body level. May take time to advocate for/secure

Local Board Views

18. This report is being circulated to all local boards to canvas their views on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

19. In many cases extreme weather events can damage archeological sites or sites of significance to Tangata Whenua. This can trigger the need for cultural impact assessments and more careful/expensive restoration works to protect the values of the site. Without a fund to support rehabilitation or restoration work recently discovered or damaged sites of significance cannot be attended to as there are no funds. A regional self-insurance fund would help to mitigate risk for council.

General

20. As previously mentioned a variety of extreme weather events have affected parks over the years. For instance in 2011 storm damage caused extensive slips across Waiheke. Repair work is ongoing and existing storm damage funding has been insufficient to cope. In 2012 a tornado hit Hobsonville causing widespread damage to trees and houses. The arboricultural and general cleanup was unforeseen and no budget for this kind of work was available to the Upper Harbour Local Board. In this case the cost of repair was funded by savings in the Local Board budget combined with a budget overspend.

21. During September last year, a major storm event hit the east coast beaches, particularly in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area but also affecting Rodney, Orakei and Howick Local Boards. A storm surge of 0.8 metres on top of high tide caused substantial erosion. Orewa Beach was hit the hardest with significant sand loss and coastal structure damage.

22. Weather events are part of the life of Auckland. The current inconsistent, and in many cases non-existent, planning for extreme weather events is a risk and exposes council to a high likelihood of budget blowout in any given year and local board area.

23. The unpredictable nature of extreme weather events means that we cannot anticipate what portion of funding is needed for capital and operational funding. However, based on the last three years weather events, we know that there is a need for both operational and capital funding. It is therefore recommended that a portion of the current operational funds be allocated to capital funding to offset these costs.

Implementation Issues

24. If a regional self-insurance fund, initially created from existing local board funds, is universally supported by formal resolution from all boards then this fund can be created in the current 2013/14 financial year.

25. The expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

26. There are currently several areas affected by storm damage that have projected funding shortfalls that could benefit from immediate implementation of the regional solution. The beneficiaries from this fund will change from year to year. Some recent historical events and current events and associated funding requirements are detailed in Attachment A.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Historical and current events and associated funding requirements	169

Signatories

Authors

Jane Aickin, Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Martin Van Jaarsveld, Manager Local and Sports Parks North

Malcolm Page, Manager Local and Sports Parks , South

Grant Jennings, Manager Local and Sports Parks West

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell, Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Removal of i-Site building, Western Reserve, Orewa

File No.: CP2014/07187

Purpose

1. To seek the approval of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on the removal of the vacant i-Site building located on the Western Reserve in Orewa to make way for the new Estuary Arts Centre education wing.

Executive Summary

2. The vacant i-site building on Western Reserve must be removed in order that site works for the development of the new Estuary Arts Centre education wing project can commence. Works are planned to start in June 2014.

3. There is an opportunity to re-use the i-Site building to provide a new dining room facility in the council owned and operated Orewa Holiday Park across the road. This represents the best option in terms of asset utilisation, service delivery, community well being, value for money and sustainability.

4. In the event that the i-Site cannot be relocated in this time frame the building can be disposed of quickly by using a local building removal company to take it to their yard for re-sale. This option ensures that the building will be re-used elsewhere but the opportunity to develop a dining facility in Orewa Holiday Park will be missed.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the relocation of the vacant i-Site building located on Western Reserve, Orewa to the Orewa Holiday Park and agree that any costs associated with the relocation, including re-instatement, are to be covered by the Auckland Council Regional Parks budget.

b) agree that, if the relocation of the vacant i-Site building to the Orewa Holiday Park is delayed beyond the start date of construction of the Estuary Arts Centre education wing, the building will be removed by a building relocation company as required with costs of the removal and make good of the empty site to be covered by the building removal company.

Discussion

5. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board business meeting held on 18 December 2013 the following resolution was made:

HB/2013/268

In regard to the vacant i-Site building:

i. Approve in principal the removal of the vacant i-Site building to make way for the new education wing extension.

ii. Request that the property department undertake a full review of the options available for the removal of the vacant i-Site building and with urgency bring a report back to the local board to make a final decision.

6. The following options and expressions of interest were investigated:

Relocation of i-site building to Orewa Holiday Park

7. The i-site building is located on Western Reserve, adjacent to the Estuary Arts Centre and is owned by Auckland Council. The Estuary Arts Trust has been given approval to extend their facility for a proposed art education wing. The current site of the i-Ssite building is required for the education wing extension; the new building footprint covers the site of the i-Site. The Estuary Arts Centre education wing project is well progressed and construction is planned to commence in June this year. The education wing project is predicated on the i-Site building being removed and time is now of the essence.

8. The i-Site building was for use as a visitor information centre and quasi ticket office. The i-Site became vacant approximately 12 months ago when the service operations there were terminated by Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Department. The building’s shape, layout and design is quite unusual, reflecting its ‘one off’ design and is characterised by a footprint of approximately 40 m² arranged as a clear single internal space, with ‘pop outs’ to two elevations and a high vaulted ceiling. The building is of relatively high quality and whilst there are some outstanding maintenance issues, the main fabric and structure of the building is in good condition. Whilst the building would be expensive to commission and build today, the unique and purpose built design limits it suitability and re-use for other purposes.

9. Property was given responsibility for undertaking a full review of the options available for removal of the i-Site building. As part of the options appraisal for the disposal of the i-Site building Orewa Holiday Park were approached in order to establish if they had potential use for the building within the campground. Orewa Beach TOP 10 Holiday Park wish to secure this building as a dining facility to enhance the existing main amenities block and improve the visitor experience. An email was sent 3 December 2013 registering Parks interest, subject to funding.

10. Orewa Beach TOP 10 Holiday Park has an existing main amenities block which contains a communal kitchen with games room. The placement of the i-Site building would compliment the existing block, by providing the addition of a dining facility catering for around 30 persons. Orewa Beach would ensure the building is made available to community groups during their off peak season and/or subject to availability, and would utilise this space as a meeting room for their regular monthly Holiday Park Managers meetings. Holiday Parks consider that by securing the i-Site an efficient use of Council resources will be achieved and the dining area would enhance their 4 Star Plus Qualmark excellence rating.

11. The proposed location is opposite the existing kitchen/games room amenities block, with the new building to be positioned to maximise the water views. The building will be sited on 2 x existing casual campsites as per attached layout map. There may be a need to remove one or two Pohutakawa trees or limbs, but the decision for tree removal will have to made by the building removal contractors who will decide how best to transport the building to site. The i-Site buildings design, scale and architectural features – the timber weather board exterior, the high pitched ceilings and the building shape – will fit with the holiday park aesthetics, beach setting and complements the architectural style of the existing amenities building opposite.

12. The estimated cost to re-locate the building to Orewa Holiday Park is $30,000. The building is able to be moved whole and relocated for a cost of around $15,000, including new piled foundations. The building removal contractor will try to ensure that the deck and access ramps can be re-used where possible and provided this is within budget. The balance of the costs will cover consents, procurement and project management. Provided that the project does not exceed the estimate, the holiday parks renewals budget can cover the project total costs. Any refurbishment costs would come from the following 2014/2015 renewals budget. Budget for the capping of the services and tidy up of the present site of the i-Site will need to be separately identified. Likewise any physical tree works will be funded from separate budgets.

13. Property will undertake a procurement process to secure a building removal contractor. This specialist contractor will be responsible for visiting Orewa Beach TOP 10 Holiday Park, determining the site boundaries and identifying suitable routes and methods for transporting the i-sSte building from Western Reserve to Orewa Holiday Park.

14. Part of the project will involve seeking necessary consents:

i. Building Consent for the re-location of the existing building with the ability to connect to the existing private wastewater and water systems, and to connect to electricity. Holiday Parks to arrange services connections after the building has been installed.

ii. Resource Consent for the use of the i-Site building for a dining room facility within Orewa Holiday Park.

iii. Tree Consent/s to remove Pohutakawa trees or limbs that are obstructing the path of the building, and/or would need to be removed for transporting of the building to site, together with any tree removal or significant tree surgery for the new building location within the Holiday Park.

15. In terms of access there are a couple of options for getting the building into the holiday park, and the best option would have to be determined by the contractors.

16. From a financial and asset management perspective the i-Site building represents an opportunity for the Holiday Park to create a dining room facility at minimal cost by ‘re-cycling’ a second hand building compared with the much greater cost of building a new dining room facility from scratch. This option provides value for money, is an efficient and prudent use of an existing Council asset and is sustainable in terms of resource use.

Building disposal

17. A local building removal company has inspected the former i-Site building in order to assess the economic value of the Council’s building asset. The director, who has over 30 years experience of building removals in the local area, has advised Council that because of the unusual design and height he considers that i-Site building has no value. The height is a particular factor because it will necessitate ‘cutting off’ the roof, bringing a crane to site and transporting the building in two pieces. These costs will be duplicated when the building is subsequently sold and the buyer has to pay crane hire and for a carpenter to reattach the roof. On this basis the building removal company are willing to remove the building ‘free of charge’ to their storage facility at Kumeu and tidy and make good the site. This would entail disposing of the timber decking and other debris, together with the single toilet that was a later addition, which will be left on site and will otherwise be a real cost to Council.

18. Demolishing the i-Site building on site is not considered to be an option because it would incur a positive charge for Council and eliminate the opportunity for this ‘second hand’ building to be ‘re-cycled” that is contrary to Council’s sustainability objectives.

Use by Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre within Western Reserve

19. Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre were approached regarding the disposal of the i-Site as part of the consultation regarding the Estuary Arts Centre education extension project and as a party that may potentially have a use for the building. In principle the Youth Centre are interested in the i-Site building for use in developing a youth shed, however the relatively high cost of relocating the building, together with time and expense required to vary the Western Reserve Management Plan, and budget constraints, mean that this is not a realistic option for them.

Private use by artist connected with Estuary Arts Centre

20. Nina Smeets is an artist who is involved with the Estuary Arts Centre. Ms Smeets lives on a lifestyle property near Kaiwaka. Ms Smeets initially expressed an interest in the vacant i-Site building as an artist’s studio on her property. After discussing the costs and logistics involved in relocating this ‘second hand’ building to her property, Ms Smeets and her partner have confirmed that they are “not interested in the i-Site building”.

21. After assessment of the options above the property department recommends taking the option relocating the vacant i-Site building to Orewa Holiday Park because it will improve the leisure offer and visitor experience, which will enable the Park to maintain its competitive market position. This option also creates an opportunity for community use during the off peak season. This represents the best option in terms of asset utilisation, service delivery, community well being, value for money and sustainability.

Consideration

Local Board Views

22. The local board has requested that a review of options being undertaken and this report provides the information required to support that request.

Maori Impact Statement

23. Representatives of Ngati Manuhiri and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara have been advised on the education wing development and consulted in the resource consent process on the placement of the wing which requires the removal of the vacant i-Site building.

Implementation Issues

24. A resource consent and building consent are required for the vacant i-Site building to be placed in the Orewa Holiday Park. If this process is delayed and the relocation is not able to happen prior to the construction start date for the education wing extension then the option explained in recommendation b) will need to be used.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Location Site	177

Signatories

Authors	Bridget Davey – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 April 2014

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

File No.: CP2014/06425

Purpose

1. To seek 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 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) do not support the use of local rates to fund core council services, e.g. local driven initiatives and asset based services noting that:

i) local rates can lead to inequity and affordability issues and can lock in legacy council funding models.

b) note that locally driven initiatives and local asset based services account for approximately one and ten percent, respectively, of council’s total operating costs, and recommend that further work is undertaken to determine whether 11 percent of Auckland Council’s budget is an appropriate share for local activities, as the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board believe that 11 percent is not enough.

c) support the 20 February 2014 Finance and Performance Committee resolution directing 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.

d) request that the engagement process and the work programme to address service level equity issues (including asset provision) is agreed with the local boards and includes a staging of the key deliverables, with prioritised asset classes and service levels for review, be presented to the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party on 6 May 2014.

e) endorse the process and timelines for the Local Boards Funding Policy, provided that the work on service level equity issues (including asset provision) is progressed in parallel to the local boards funding policy.

f) recommend that the treatment of both the Waiheke and Great Barrier local boards gradually be transitioned into a self sustainable model, as opposed to one of subsidisation.

g) request that work be undertaken to:

i) determine the appropriate amount of budget for local boards to successfully deliver upon their role, noting the current allocation is based on legacy council budgets and are dominated by overhead costs with little funding for programmes;

ii) determine whether more activities and the corresponding funding should sit in the locally driven initiatives category;

iii) investigate and identify programme budgets held by departments and move these to local board budgets, given the key role for local boards in community development;

iv) investigate and improve the methodology of allocating overheads across the local boards as currently different approaches are used across activities;

v) determine whether Business Improvement District (BIDs) corporate overheads should be shifted to local asset based services, as the administrative components (i.e. staffing) are allocated based on the rate collected via the BID and agreed by the BID and the governing body, not the local boards.

h) recommend that general rate allocation scenarios are developed, as current locally driven initiative allocations allow for minimal discretion for most local boards and any reduction will impact on existing service levels.

i) recommend that:

i) asset based service levels are funded by the general rate;

ii) locally driven initiatives are funded via the general rate as local initiatives are core council activities, essential to cohesive communities and Auckland being the world’s most liveable city.

j) recommend that with respect to the allocation methodology for locally driven initiatives under general rate funding, agree that population should be the main factor, as population tends to be a key driver of the demand for services:

i) and that an adjustment for rates collected should also be applied;

ii) and that the board does not support any model utilising deprivation or geographic isolation as a driver for allocations.

k) forward these resolutions to the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party and the Finance and Performance Committee for their consideration.

l) delegate to the finance portfolio holder, Lisa Whyte, to finalise the local board’s feedback to the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party and Governing Body as required.

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:

ii) the split between regional and local activities

iii) 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. Engagement with local boards on the AMPs is currently planned to begin March 2014.

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 groups 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 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, 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 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 2014.

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 board 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	191

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Chris Carroll - Manager Planning and Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Name and Location of Land/Facility	Western Reserve, Orewa

Name of the Community it serves	Orewa and surrounding communities
Local Board Area	Hibiscus & Bays
Name of Community Group	Estuary Arts Charitable Trust
Postal Address	C/o 214b Hibiscus Coast Highway
	Orewa
	Auckland 0931
Contact person	Natalie Fuge, Chairperson
Name of Community Lease Advisor	Karen Walby

Authors	Frank Lovering – Land Surveyor, Northern Resource Consents
Authorisers	Trevor Cullen for Bonnie Lees – Team Manager, Northern Resource Consents

Authors	Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services
Authorisers	Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager