Agenda of Howick Local Board

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06705

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide analysis of the annual plan submissions from the Howick Local Board area, and further information to support the board in its decision-making.

Executive Summary

2. The Howick Local Board heard submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on 20 March 2014.

3. Local boards need to consider any amendments to Local Board Agreements 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals prior to discussions with the Governing Body on 29 and 30 April, and 1 May 2014.

4. This report contains analysis of the submissions from the Howick Local Board area, including local and regional submissions.

5. Subject matter expert responses to requests for further information from the hearings are attached (Appendix A).

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) considers any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising from the special consultative procedure for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Discussion

6. The Local Government Act 2002 requires Auckland Council to undertake a special consultative procedure (SCP) as part of the development of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including draft Local Board Agreements 2014/2015.

7. The submission period for the draft Annual Plan SCP ran from 23 January to 24 February 2014.

8. In total, the Council received and processed 1,967 submissions of which 108 were received from the Howick Local Board area. Fifteen submitters in the Howick Local Board area indicated they wished to be heard.

9. The Howick Local Board held its hearings on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the Local Board’s draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on 20 March 2014.

Subject matter expert responses to requests for information

10. Following the hearing, the local board had a number of requests for further information. These were sent to the relevant subject matter experts for responses. The responses are attached to inform the board’s decision-making (Attachment A).

Local submissions from the Howick Local Board area

The Howick Local Board proposed two budget changes. While the majority of submitters from the Howick Local Board area did not respond to these questions, of the submitters that did respond, support was mixed regarding the provision of funding to cover operating costs for the acquisition of any community properties, while there was support for additional funding to the Uxbridge Creative Arts Centre project.

The local topic that received the most significant number of comments from submissions to the Howick Local Board was local transport. Key local transport issues include support for:

· continuing the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) project

· developing a Half Moon Bay transport hub and/or ferry

· providing better public transport e.g. regular bus services

· addressing long standing transport issues in the area particularly around critical congestion spots, road widening and intersections

· investigating options for the East West Link.

There was also feedback on the following:

· continuing the Pakuranga Town Centre Masterplan

· funding economic initiatives and recognising the work of the business community and Business Improvement Districts

· providing a greater emphasis on environmental projects including weed eradication and tree planting

· restoring heritage buildings

· upgrading community houses and provision for more community facilities

· providing a quality network of parks, reserves and facilities including walkways

· progressing Barry Curtis Park and Murphys park and improving sports fields

· supporting movies and music in parks.

Regional submissions from the Howick Local Board area

Regional submissions with the most feedback from the Howick Local Board area include:

· Watercare Services – Water supply: strong opposition towards fluoridation of the water supply. The points raised in the submissions outline a believed violation of human rights in that ratepayers have no choice as to whether their water is treated to include fluoride chemicals. Submitters also outlined a perceived health risk and that fluoride should be obtained through toothpaste only.

· Stadium Strategy – most submitters did not support funding for a stadium strategy with many identifying the need for the stadiums and sports codes using these facilities to fund it themselves.

· Arts Festival – many of the submitters opposed further funding to have an annual arts festival and should be funded by the organisers.

· Auckland Transport – a number of transport issues were raised by submitters that should be progressed such as the East West Link, AMETI and Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal development.

· Financial Strategy – queries around rate increases and raising the UAGC were common themes identified from submissions.

There was also feedback on:

· Waste and recycling: support for the implementation of the Waste Minimisation Plan in 2015

· Regional community development initiatives focussed on partnerships with other organisations; including making social housing affordable and opposing rental charges

· Regulation/bylaws: support for the bylaws review

· Regional Planning/Strategy: support for the progressing the Unitary Plan.

Consideration

Local Board Views

11. The Local Board needs to consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising out of the SCP process.

12. A separate report on this agenda will address the requirement to agree a final balanced budget, advocacy areas for 2014/2015, and if required, resolve on feedback on regional proposals.

Maori Impact Statement

13. The draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 sets out the local activities that Auckland Council will undertake in the Local Board area over the coming year. These activities are likely to have an impact on Māori and iwi in the local board area. Māori and iwi have had the opportunity to submit on the content of the draft Local Board Agreement as part of the SCP process.

Implementation Issues

14. The content of the final Local Board Agreement will set out the local activities to be undertaken by Auckland Council in the Local Board area. Implementation issues will vary depending on the activities undertaken.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Subject Matter Expert responses to requests for information from the local hearings panel.	15

Signatories

Authors	Mata Ropeti-Laumalili - Senior Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities

File No.: CP2014/06097

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 Howick Local Board Agreement.

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

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

Executive Summary

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

5. A project has been 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.

6. Local boards have been engaged in this project through a series of workshops, providing feedback to inform a new fee structure for the hire of local community facilities, with the following purpose:

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

7. The project has resulted in three main changes:

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

b. the Howick Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect your local board Plan priorities. These will be tabled at your Business Meeting for approval as Appendix A

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.

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

Recommendations

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Confirms the activity types eligible for priority discounts for hire of local council-run facilities as per Attachment A

b) Notes the administrative changes to facilitate implementation.

Discussion

Background

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

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

Local Board Engagement

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

12. Operational considerations have meant that not all views expressed can be incorporated during 2014-15. 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

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

14. The proposed fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Howick 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.

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

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.

c) 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 Howick Local Board Priorities

16. In line with 2014/2015 Howick 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.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

19. This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Kevin Marriott - Manager Community Facilities

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2014/06709

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

1. 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.

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

3. Local boards are now asked to:

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

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

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

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

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

e) notes the local board budgets for 2014/2015 and outer years are required to balance in every year

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

g) notes the 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

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

5. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

8. 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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Boards

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

Maori Impact Statement

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

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

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker, Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Budget Refresh - Summary of Key Movements	25
b View	Budget Refresh - Movements for this Local Board	27
c View	Draft local fees and charges schedule 2014/2015	29
d View	Howick Local Board Advocacy Action Plan	35

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker, Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Teresa Turner – Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Industry Pollution Prevention Programme

File No.: CP2014/04426

Purpose

1. To agree funding for an industry pollution prevention programme (IPPP) in the vicinity of the Tamaki Estuary.

Executive Summary

2. This report provides information on, and seeks approval to fund, a proposed pollution prevention programme, working with industry in the vicinity of the Tamaki Estuary. Pollution prevention programmes have been successfully run in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board areas. A similar scheme in the area of the Tamaki Estuary would cost $15,000.

Recommendations

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Receives the Industry Pollution Prevention Programme report.

b) Agrees to fund an industry pollution prevention programme in the vicinity of the Tamaki Estuary at a cost of $15,000.

c) Forwards this report and associated resolutions to the Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum for their information.

Discussion

3. The 2013 State of the Environment Report Card for Tamaki Estuary rated it an ‘F’ – poor. The report card noted the industrial uses of the surrounding area are likely to have affected this rating. A copy of the report is card is appended as Attachment A. This report recommends the board support an IPPP in the vicinity of the Tamaki Estuary focusing on either the Otara or Pakuranga Creeks to address issues of pollution entering these waterways.

4. The primary purpose of the IPPP is to educate and inform industry and business how their operations may impact on local waterways. It is a proactive and non-regulatory programme where an expert visits each site, conducts a site inspection and talks to the business owners about potential issues. A follow-up report is provided to businesses if changes to business practices are required to ameliorate any potential pollution risks.

5. The programme involves a GIS mapping exercise to ensure that commercial businesses understand the stormwater network connections in relation to local waterways. A key aspect of this programme is to build relationships with and an understanding of the local industrial sector.

6. The benefit of this non-regulatory approach is that it seeks to educate the businesses about potential issues without necessarily resorting to regulatory intervention. This approach is recommended in areas where there is a concentration of industry and business close to water bodies, including streams, harbours and estuaries (such as Tamaki Estuary).

7. In addition, this project supports the sustainable growth objective of the East Tamaki Business Precinct plan by reducing the impacts on the natural environment. A proposed action of the plan is to support businesses to be self-policing of pollution. This project will support education of businesses to manage the risk of their practices (inadvertently) causing pollution of nearby waterways.

Audit Process and Cost

8. The Industry Pollution Prevention Programme follows the process outlined below:

· Identify the target area and carry out an initial assessment of the risk profile of the businesses – high, medium to low.

· Produce a GIS map of the physical stormwater network in relation to Tamaki Estuary.

· Visit each business (an ‘Area Blitz’) – introduce the programme by discussing how the board is committed to improving the quality of the Tamaki Estuary and wants to work with business to help them avoid pollution. The non-regulatory nature of this will be stressed.

· Show the business owner the GIS map of the stormwater network and explained where water leaving the operation site empties to, untreated.

· If the business agrees to be part of the programme carry out an audit which evaluates their site and business practices.

· Identify potential risks (for example, forklifts operating in the vicinity of incorrectly stored chemicals) and discuss in terms of the potential ecological and cultural impacts, as well consequential costs for clean up should a spill occur. Importantly, identify risks with the business owner on site, so there are no surprises in the audit report. (This technique has in the past has led to businesses responding quickly to reduce identified risks).

· Work with the business owner or operations manager to design practical solutions to reduce the risk of their operations contaminating local waterways.

· Carry out a follow-up visit if any risks are identified to encourage uptake of recommendations.

· Any observations of serious pollution are reported to the Council’s pollution response hotline. Incidences of non-compliance are included in the report, with recommendations to review the Air, Land and Water Plan. Where businesses are lacking spill kits, stormwater may be able to provide these kits. “Drains to the Sea” signage is also installed around stormwater drains to encourage operational awareness of the relationship between the business and local waterways. Additional follow –up actions are dependent of audit findings and will be built-in to the programme as needed

9. The proposed cost ($15,000) for the area blitz assumes 100 commercial properties are visited, and includes the cost of any follow up visits that may be required.

Previous Experience

10. Of the 100 businesses visited in the 2013 Maungakiekie-Tamaki pilot, only 15 were sent reports due to identified risks. Only one business approached as part of the area blitz in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki pilot declined to be involved. Moreover, the programme received an overwhelmingly positive response from participants, with businesses appreciating the non-regulatory aspect of the project. After piloting this programme in Glen Innes, it was rolled out in Southdown as well, with further blitzes planned for other areas during the 2013/14 financial year due to the value seen in this process. Furthermore, the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board fed back to the contractor and Environmental Partnerships Officers that this investment was of value in terms of building an understanding of and relationships with the commercial sector and encouraging businesses to “feel part of the community” in terms of environmental management.

11. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board ran this project in the industrial area connected to the Oruarangi River. The impetus for this project was a significant pollution event that saw several litres of toxic dye from a nearby business spill into the river via the stormwater network. Upon completion of the programme in March 2014, a total of 140 sites had been visited. A representative from Makaurau Marae (who have kaitiaki responsibilities over the river) participated in over 50% of those site visits. A total of 64 businesses received a report suggesting improvements to manage risk and follow up site visits to assess any implementation issues. Spill kits are being delivered to businesses who do not currently have them, and “drains-to-sea” stencils are being painted at some sites.

Other options

12. The objectives of the proposed programme are to identify existing or potential sources of pollution. Previous board and regional investment in improving waterways has supported ‘on the ground’ restoration options such as water quality monitoring and riparian planting. An IPPP is an additional tool to support improvements to water quality.

13. The ecological prioritisation report for the board area currently being progressed by the biodiversity team will also provide other options for ‘on the ground’ restoration options. The prioritisation report is due for completion by mid-2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. This project supports the board’s priority of improving the water quality of local waterways by addressing pollution at source.

15. Staff have discussed the value of an IPPP with the board’s environment portfolio holders. It was suggested that such a project could be delivered in collaboration with a local business association. Subject to the approval of funding, this will be considered as part of the detailed project design.

Maori Impact Statement

16. No consultation with Maori was undertaken for the purposes of the report. The Environmental Partnerships team is currently investigating ways iwi can actively participate in this programme as part of their role as kaitiaki. For example, in the Mangere-Otahuhu area a representative from a local marae took part in visits to businesses.

General

17. No external consultation was required for the purposes of this report.

Implementation Issues

18. There are no additional implementation issues arising from this report. Regular reporting on project implementation will be through the quarterly report from the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department, or as required.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	State of the Environment Report Card for the Tamaki Estuary	45

Signatories

Authors

Tessa Chilala – Environmental Programmes Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – Environmental Services Manager

John Dragicevich – Infrastructure and Environmental Services Manager

Teresa Turner – Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06380

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is 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 Howick Local Board:

a) receives the report

b) urgently identifies 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

1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. The total amount spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the 2012-13 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.

5. 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 2012-13 = $8.7M

· The 2013-14 Budget = $10M

· The 2014-15 Budget = $10M

· The 2015-16 Budget = $10M

· This is a total of $38.7M

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

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

· 2014-15 Forecast = $10.1M (latest forecast)

· 2015-16 Forecast = $20.0M (latest forecast)

7. The 2013-14 figure is the currently expected end of year result for 2013-14. The end of the 2013-14 financial year is the end of the second year of the four year Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be completed by 30 June 2016, and only $9.9M of the $40M will be spent, i.e. only 25% spent in half the available time.

8. Conversely, the required spend in the last two years (2014-15 and 2015-16) 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.

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

Value of Projects

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

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

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

15. 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 2014-15 year.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

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

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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%.

31. 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’s expectation of project costs. More care will be taken in future to provide accurate estimates.

32. 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

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

34. 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.

35. 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 Auckland Council.

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

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

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

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

37. Included at Attachment A is a ‘Pick List’ of the types of projects that could be funded from the LBTCF programme that has previously been circulated to local boards for their information. This list will assist local boards to identify potential projects in their areas.

Consideration

Local Board Views

38. This report is for the Howick Local Board’s action.

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

40. 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

41. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund - Projects that could be considered by Local Boards	53
b View	Individual LBTCF Financial Update for the Howick Local Board	59

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

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Auckland Transport Update – April 2014

File No.: CP2014/06412

Purpose

1. Providing an update on transport matters for the information of the Howick Local Board and a register of transport issues in the Howick Local Board area, as collated by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager (South).

Executive Summary

1. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Howick Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector; and Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the Board and community.

2. In particular, this report provides updates on:

· the Howick Local Board’s transport capital fund (NB: there is also a stand-alone report regarding this region-wide local board fund generally on this month’s agenda)

· East-West Link

· Argo Drive parking issues

· the Howick town centre parking review

· Watercare updates on the Panmure Wastewater Main Project

· NZTA announcement regarding NZ’s 100 highest-risk intersections.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Receives the report entitled ‘Auckland Transport Update – April 2014’ and the attached issues register from Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager (South).

Discussion

Howick Items

A1. Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF)

3. The Howick Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is $871,903 per financial year. Following Auckland Council approval last year to roll-over the 2012/13 LBTCF budget into the subsequent electoral term and then the recent elections, the Board is able to access funding across five financial years.

4. The Board’s active projects are included in Table 1 below (NB: ROC = rough order of costs; FEC = firm estimate of cost):

Table 1:

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

009

Improvements at Half Moon Bay (HMB) Marina

· $27,000 allocated from 2011/12 Discretionary budget in Aug-13

· $100,000 allocated from LBTCF in Sep-13

· On 12-Aug-13, the Board re-prioritised $27,000 from its 2011/12 Discretionary Budget allocated to HMB Interim Improvements to fund connecting the pedestrian walkway from HMB marina across the Bucklands Beach Yacht Club (BBYC) building to the passenger ferry terminal.

· On 9-Sep-13, the Board resolved to reallocate $100,000 towards this project, with the scope to be agreed with the transport portfolio leader. That scope was approved by the transport portfolio leader in Nov-13 and design work commenced shortly thereafter.

· The project is currently in detailed design phase. AT held a meeting with the main stakeholders to consider the detailed designs on 27-Mar-14. As a result of that meeting, minor amendments will be made to the proposal.

· Firm estimates and detailed designs will be reported to the Board for construction approval once the minor amendments have been incorporated.

· Prior to the minor amendments, the firm cost estimates were in the order of $277,350.

152

Driver Feedback Signs x3

· FEC estimate of $27,000

· On 12-Aug-13, the Board approved construction of driver feedback signage at three sites – Bradbury Road, Gracechurch Drive, and Cryers Road.

· The citywide contract for the installation of these and other signs has been let.

· All exact locations have been determined and consultation has now been completed (see plans at Attachment F)

· Installation is expected in Apr/May-14.

153

Pedestrian Safety Improvements to the Meadowlands/Whitford/Millhouse intersection

· FEC estimate of $460,000

· The project includes speed tables on Millhouse Drive and Meadowlands Drive, a signalised pedestrian crossing in Whitford Road on the northbound approach to the intersection, and improvements to street lighting.

· On 9-Sep-13, the Board approved the project for construction.

· The contract for construction has been let and construction work is expected to commence by the end of Apr-14.

154

Crooks Road pedestrian and streetscape improvements

· FEC estimate of $129,000

· On 9-Sep-13, the Board approved a reduced project for construction at $129,000.

· Design of planting, footpaths including pram crossings, and kerb build-outs currently is being progressed.

· Consultation will follow.

155

Burswood Business Area enhancements

· FEC estimate of $196,000

· Following an initial assessment of $220,000 by AT, the Board more clearly defined a scope for the project.

· On 9-Sep-13, the Board resolved that engagement with affected parties and representative groups be undertaken on the project.

· Design of planting, seats, bus shelters, footpaths including pram crossings, and kerb build-outs is currently being progressed.

· Consultation will follow.

156

Highland Park bus shelter installation

· FEC estimate for duplicate shelter $22,000

· AT proposed the installation of a duplicate shelter that could be relocated to another site in Howick once the eastern New Network review to be conducted in 2015 becomes operational in 2016.

· On 9-Sep-13, the Board approved the duplicate shelter for construction based on the ROC of $15,000.

· Design of the second shelter is currently being progressed. As part of the design process, the position of underground services in the area was checked. None of the existing services are in conflict with the proposed shelter location.

· As this location is on an arterial road, Adshel will be approached to ascertain its interest in installing and maintaining a shelter at this site.

210

New bus shelters x2 (at Ti Rakau Drive and Cockle Bay)

· FEC estimate for Ti Rakau $20,000

· FEC estimate for Cockle Bay $26,000

· On 9-Sep-13, the Board requested AT to investigate the provision of bus shelters at 298 Ti Rakau Drive and outside Cockle Bay Primary School.

· On 10-Feb-14, the Board approved the Ti Rakau Drive shelter for construction based on the FEC of $20,000.

· As Ti Rakau Drive is an arterial road, Adshel will be approached to ascertain its interest in installing and maintaining a shelter at this site.

· On 10-Mar-14, the Board approved the Cockle Bay shelter for construction based on the FEC of $26,000.

217

Pigeon Mountain Road metering signals and bus lane

· ROC estimated at $165,000

· An AT study into safety improvements at the Prince Regent Drive/ Pigeon Mountain Road/ Sunderlands Road intersection also recommended installation of metering signals on the southbound lane of Pigeon Mountain Road north of Compass Point Way, to create breaks in southbound traffic from the ferry terminal and allow vehicles to turn into and out of Argo Drive, Sunderlands Road and Prince Regent Drive. The scheme also included a small bus lane to allow buses to skip part of the queue.

· In Jul-13 the Board resolved to support the Pigeon Mountain Road/Sunderlands Road/Prince Regent Drive intersection improvements but with minimal impact on current parking provisions.

· While the intersection improvements were prioritised for implementation in the 2013/14 financial year, the metering signals/bus lane components were assessed as relatively low priority and therefore would not be implemented in the current FY.

· On 10-Feb-14, the Board approved the project to proceed to detailed design and costing stage based on the ROC of $165,000.

· The project is currently in detailed design.

5. The Howick Local Board’s transport capital fund to date is summarised below:

Howick Local Board transport capital fund summary:

Total funding available (across 5 FYs)	$4,359,515
Completed projects reporting actual costs (none as yet)	-
Firm estimates for projects given construction approval (3x driver feedback signs; pedestrian improvements at Meadowlands/Whitford/Millhouse; Crooks Road pedestrian and streetscape improvements; Highland Park duplicate bus shelter; Ti Rakau Road and Cockle Bay School bus shelters)	684,000
Projects with committed funding awaiting detailed estimates (Half Moon Bay walkway/ pedestrian improvements)	100,000
Firm estimates for projects awaiting construction approval (Burswood Business Area enhancements, Pigeon Mountain Road metering signals and bus lane)	361,000
*Funding still available to allocate*	$3,214,515

A2. East-West Link

6. On 13 March, Auckland Transport held a joint Local Board Forum to update local boards on the East-West Link project. Auckland Transport and the NZTA confirmed that the present focus for the East West project is the immediate transport need in the Onehunga/Penrose area. However there will also be a focus on a number of short term public transport, safety walking and cycling projects for the wider East-West area.

7. Key issues and pinch-points in the area, and a high level transport solution, have been identified. Public consultation will be carried out to help develop designs and route options.

8. Pending the commitment of Government funding, the project is at the beginning of a process that will involve extensive public consultation, option testing and design before any decisions are made. Auckland Transport and the NZTA anticipate being able to provide a further update on timeframes by the middle of the year.

9. Longer term there will also be the need for multi-modal improvements to better link the surrounding region and respond to projected growth around the airport and south-east Auckland. The NZTA and Auckland Transport will be working with businesses and the local communities to understand issues across the area to inform any longer term decisions.

A3. Argo Drive parking issues

10. Auckland Transport has received several complaints regarding boat trailer parking issues on Argo Drive between Pigeon Mountain Road and Takutai Avenue. Particularly during weekends and holidays, boat trailers parking on both sides of the road can reduce traffic flow to one lane only.

11. As this appears to have been a long-standing issue, Auckland Transport approached the Howick Local Board’s transport portfolio team to canvas its views on the matter, and an Auckland Transport engineer met with a member of the portfolio team on site to discuss parking issues in the area and potential solutions.

12. One option available to address the issue would be to install ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (NSAAT) parking restrictions on the north-western side of Argo Drive between Pigeon Mountain Road and Takutai Avenue. This would maintain two-way free flow of traffic, even if boat trailers were parked on the other side of the road.

13. From on-site observations, the parking activity mainly occurs on the section of Argo Drive between Pigeon Mountain Road and Ganymede Place. However, there is no footpath in place on the south-eastern side of Argo Drive between Ganymede Place and Takutai Avenue, meaning that the installation of NSAATs on the north-western side would require motorists parking their cars to cross the road to access the footpath.

14. Given the location of the parking activity and the lack of existing footpath of the south-eastern side of Argo Drive, Auckland Transport suggested the following two options to move a resolution of this issue forward:

Option 1

· Install NSAATs on the north-western side of Argo Drive between Pigeon Mountain Road and Adonis Place only, subject to consultation feedback and approval from Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee

· Log a request for new footpath on the south-eastern side of Argo Drive between Ganymede Place and Takutai Avenue with the regional new footpath programme. However, due to the funding constraints and the number of existing sites awaiting for new footpath, it might take some time for the site to be prioritised highly enough to receive funding for new footpath.

· Monitor the situation for the next couple of years to ascertain if the parking issue remains and, if so, Auckland Transport could revisit the issue and consider extending the NSAATs north to Takutai Avenue following the installation of new footpath on the south-eastern side of Argo Drive.

Option 2

· The Howick Local Board may prefer to expedite the process above by funding new footpath on the south-eastern side of Argo Drive utilising its transport capital fund

· If so, Auckland Transport could look at installing NSAATs along the north-western length of Argo Drive between Pigeon Mountain Road and Takutai Avenue in the first instance.

15. Given that the boat trailer parking is predominantly a seasonal issue, Auckland Transport recommended to the transport portfolio team that Option 1 be taken forward as it tackles the key location of concern while resulting in minimal impact on the surrounding properties. It would also provide the flexibility to solve and monitor the situation in stages to avoid potential excess in solving the problem.

16. The response from the Board’s transport portfolio team is expected subsequent to the writing of this report, but will be reported verbally to the Board at the meeting.

A4. Howick town centre parking review

17. During the current financial year, Auckland Transport has been conducting a town centre parking review in the Howick village area to provide guidance on parking management within the Howick town centre to support existing activities and future growth.

18. The scope of the parking review was to:

· Review the existing parking demand and public parking supply in Howick town centre

· Identify the parking problems and the location of those problems

· Identify and evaluate potential measures to address the problems and improve the overall parking management

· Recommend specific short-term actions for implementation.

19. Auckland Transport presented the findings and recommendations of its review to the Howick Local Board’s transport portfolio team on 4 March. Auckland Transport is now finalising its report, which will shortly be circulated to the Howick Local Board and feedback invited on:

· whether the Board agrees that all the parking issues/problems have been captured in the report

· whether the Board supports the recommendations, in part or in full

· any general comments.

20. Based on the Board’s feedback, Auckland Transport will finalise the parking improvement initiatives that can be further pursued. These will be included in Auckland Transport’s annual work programme for formal consultation and implementation in the 2014/15 financial year.

A5. Watercare update on Panmure Wastewater Main Project

21. Watercare has provided an update on progress of the Panmure Wastewater Main Project as follows:

· work on Lagoon Drive is progressing well coming down the hill

· signs are up at the closed car park next to the skate park informing of alternative parking

· traffic controls are still in place at the corner of Millen Avenue and Pakuranga Road

· works will start shortly in Cleary Road

· prior to works starting, and during works, there will be signage (informing public of the closure and diversion) around the Panmure Basin where the works will be undertaken

· the March project update is included at Attachment A.

22. Watercare anticipates that works still underway on the corner of Pakuranga Road and Millen Avenue will be completed in July, though that date cannot be confirmed until the construction is further advanced.

23. Watercare is currently working with Auckland Transport on traffic management plans for the next stage of works from Lagoon Drive to Millen Avenue. The work will involve directional drilling and is currently proposed to occur for at least a three-week period around Easter.

24. Traffic management will be in place from Millen Avenue to the Panmure Bridge and will involve a moveable barrier system that will work in conjunction with the Panmure Bridge light phasing. Traffic in and out of Kerswill Place will be left turn only.

25. Watercare will be preparing the normal communication material and advertisements to advise the public of the temporary change in road configuration and will attend a Transport and Planning portfolio meeting on 22 April to update the Howick Local Board.

A6. Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

26. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Howick Local Board for its feedback. As the Board’s transport portfolio holders provide feedback on the Board’s behalf, the material below is included for general information purposes only.

27. Proposed Safety Improvements at the Prince Regent Drive / Himalaya Drive Intersection – Auckland Transport has a city wide policy to improve road safety and reduce the number of casualties on our roads. As part of this policy, Auckland Transport is seeking to improve safety at the Prince Regent Drive/Himalaya Drive intersection.

28. It has been identified that visibility for motorists is restricted by parked vehicles on the approaches to the intersection. Also, to improve safety and address crossing and turning types of crashes at the intersection, Auckland Transport proposes to install a designated right turn pocket on both Prince Regent Drive approaches to Himalaya Drive, and install additional ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (NSAAT) parking restrictions on all approaches to the intersection, as shown on the plan at Attachment B.

29. Proposed NSAATs, Alexander Street, Cockle Bay – in 2013, Auckland Transport consulted with affected residents on Alexander Street in Cockle Bay regarding the proposed installation of a kea crossing along with some NSAAT parking restrictions. The kea crossing is necessary to provide children with a safe place to cross the road and would be operated before and after school. When there is no school patrol, the crossing point reverts to a standard uncontrolled crossing. Based on feedback from residents, changes were made to the proposal to minimise parking loss when the kea crossing was not operating. However, this amended proposal was rejected by the Traffic Control Committee as the parking restrictions were not considered sufficient to provide safe sight distances outside of the operation of the controlled kea crossing.

30. Auckland Transport has reassessed the extent of the NSAATs required and is now proposing a slight increase in the length of NSAATs from that originally proposed, as shown on the plan at Attachment C. These changes will ensure that pedestrians can safely cross the road at this location when the kea crossing is not in operation.

31. Proposed ‘Safety Around Schools’ improvements, Elm Cluster, Pakuranga – Auckland Transport is currently working with Elm Park School and Pakuranga Heights School to implement a Safety Around School programme. Through surveys and meetings conducted within the school’s community, a number of road safety issues were raised which require upgrading work to occur in the neighbouring streets to improve safety and accessibility.

32. Auckland Transport has investigated safety improvements at the locations listed below and shown in the plans at Attachment D. The improvements aim to make the road and footpath environment safer as part of a coordinated plan to develop a safer roading network, promote sustainable travel and ensure safer pedestrians facilities to and from the schools:

· proposed new school crossing – Cardiff Road

· proposed new splitter island – Gossamer Drive and Larne Avenue intersection, and proposed intersection improvements – Gossamer Drive and Ennis Avenue intersection

· proposed zebra crossing upgrade – Reeves Road

· proposed new splitter island – Reeves Road and Cardiff Road intersection

· proposed intersection pedestrian improvements – Reeves Road and Gossamer Drive intersection

· proposed upgrade of existing pedestrian facilities – Reeves Road and Udys Road intersection

· proposed zebra crossing upgrade – Udys Road

· proposed splitter island upgrade – Downsview Road and Udys Road intersection.

33. Proposed ‘Safety Around Schools’ improvements, Macleans Primary School, Bucklands Beach – Auckland Transport is currently working with Macleans Primary School to implement a Safety Around School programme.

34. Auckland Transport has investigated safety improvements at the locations listed below and shown in the plans at Attachment E:

· proposed kerb build out – Priestley Drive and Vanbrugh Place intersection

· proposed pedestrian Crossing – Wycherley Drive

· proposed intersection improvements – Bucklands Beach Road, Whitcombe Road and Clovelly Road intersection.

35. Proposed road safety improvements, Pakuranga/Highland Park cluster – Auckland Transport initially consulted with the local community in March 2013 regarding proposed safety improvements in the area as part of the Safety Around Schools programme. Further investigations have since been undertaken.

36. Auckland Transport has investigated safety improvements at the various locations listed below and shown in the plans at Attachment F:

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Pakuranga Road and Johns Lane intersection

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Butley Drive, Glenmore Road and Fisher Parade roundabout

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Prince Regent Drive, Fortunes Road and Butley Drive roundabout

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Cascades Road near Lady Marie Drive intersection

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Fortunes Road east of Hayes Place intersection

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Bucklands Beach Road and Casuarina Road intersection

· proposed pedestrian improvements, Aviemore Drive near Highland Park.

37. Proposed installation of speed indicator devices – in order to increase driver awareness of speeding issues, and as a direct result of funding allocated by the Howick Local Board, it is proposed to install speed indicator devices in the following three locations, as shown on the plans at Attachment G:

· 100/102 Bradbury Road – due to high traffic speeds and loss of control incidents

· 50 Cryers Road – due to history of loss of control crashes

· 17 Gracechurch Drive – due to high traffic speeds and loss of control incidents.

38. The signs are solar powered and do not create noise during operation. Assessments will be undertaken in the future to assess the effectiveness of the feedback signs and determine the duration the signs should remain at these three locations.

39. Proposed NSAAT parking restrictions, Cascades Road, Pakuranga Heights – following a request from the Howick Local Board, Auckland Transport has investigated pedestrian safety issues at the zebra crossing in front of the shops at 117 Cascades Road. The investigation has identified that the availably sight distance of approaching traffic for pedestrians using the crossing can be obstructed by parked vehicles.

40. In order to provide unobstructed visibility for pedestrians using the zebra crossing, Auckland Transport is proposing to extend the existing NSAAT parking restrictions, marked as broken yellow lines, as shown on the plan at Attachment H. Auckland Transport is also proposing to legalise the existing zebra crossing and the adjacent NSAATs as part of this process.

General Information Items

B1. Pre-engagement workshops on Transport LTP

41. Auckland Transport will be hosting a series of five workshops for all local board members and councillors in mid-April to begin the process of updating its Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) for the period 2015-2025 and involve the elected members at the very earliest stages of the planning process. The workshops are being organised on a regional cluster basis (north, south, east, west and central areas) between 10 and 14 April.

42. The purpose of the workshops will be to listen to elected members’ views on priorities for transport, both for the whole of Auckland and for their local areas. Auckland Transport hopes that the workshops will also be useful to local boards in developing the transport advocacy component of their local board plans.

43. The importance of participating in the workshops is that local boards will be able to help shape the options that eventually make it into the draft RLTP, before the draft is written. Auckland Transport will also be hosting workshops for iwi and for transport interest groups.

44. Formal consultation on the Transport component of Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan, and on Auckland Transport’s draft RLTP, will take place in January and February 2015.

45. The Eastern workshop is scheduled for 10 April.

B2. NZTA funding support for Auckland bus/rail upgrades

46. On 28 February, the NZTA announced that two keys projects linked to the upgrade of bus and rail services in Auckland south had received $1.6m in funding.

47. The NZTA will fund $780,000 for the design of a bus station at the Manukau transport interchange, and $831,000 for the design of the bus/rail interchange at Otahuhu.

48. The funding represents a 50% share of the design costs for both projects, which are being led by Auckland Transport as part of its comprehensive programme to improve public transport services across the city.

49. Providing people with more frequent public transport services was a key factor behind the NZTA’s funding decision, as the development of new interchanges at Manukau and Otahuhu will promote greater use of buses and trains.

B3. NZTA working with local authorities to improve intersection safety

50. On 26 March, the NZTA published information outlining improvements made or being planned to improve safety at many of New Zealand’s 100 highest-risk intersections. The high-risk intersection list was compiled by the NZTA, with input from local authorities including Auckland Transport, by using guidelines developed in 2013 to provide a nationally consistent method of assessing crash data to identify intersection crash risks. Crash figures were analysed for the ten years from 2003 to 2012, with 53 deaths and 445 serious injuries having been recorded at the 100 highest-risk intersections over that period.

51. Safety improvements have already been completed at 22 of the 100 intersections identified; plans have been completed for upgrading 47 more and are in development for a further 18; with measures under investigation for the remaining 13.

52. The NZTA’s Road Safety Director, Ernst Zollner, said the work was part of the Government’s Safer Journeys Action Plan, and the list of high-risk intersections would be updated regularly to ensure that safety improvements continue to be targeted to where they can most effectively reduce crashes, save lives and prevent injuries.

53. Of the 100 highest-risk intersections identified by the NZTA, Auckland has 35 – 32 of which are managed by Auckland Transport. The table below shows a brief overview of the national ranking, status and Local Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) for those six intersections located within the Howick Local Board area:

Rank	Intersection	RSAP status
20	Te Irirangi Drive / Ormiston Road	Agreed plan in place
37	Ti Rakau Drive / Pakuranga Road	Agreed plan in place
41	Murphys Road / Flat Bush School Road	Agreed plan in place
42	Te Irirangi Drive / Smales Road	Agreed plan in place
44	Pakuranga Road / Aviemore Drive	Agreed plan in place
59	Ti Rakau Drive / Botany Road	Agreed plan in place

54. In relation to the table, an ‘Agreed plan in place’ means that an investigation has been undertaken and a preferred option generated, but funding, design and implementation dates are yet to be finalised. The timeframes for addressing these intersections will vary greatly and the level of intervention required will also vary.

55. Auckland Transport is committed to addressing these High-risk intersections and more detail on the nature and timeline of the agreed plans will be made available within weeks.

56. It can be expected that higher ranking intersections will generally take precedence over those of lower rank in terms of timeframes, unless improvements can be incorporated into other related major roading projects.

Media Releases

C1. A jump in public transport patronage

57. January 2014 saw a jump of 3.3% in the number of people using public transport in Auckland.

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

59. The increase for rail is pleasing considering the disruption to services in January because of on-going work to electrify the rail network.

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

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

62. Ferry patronage was down in January. One of the reasons for the drop in the numbers using ferries was the poor weather over the holiday period.

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

C2. Customers the focus

64. On 25 February, the Board of Auckland Transport established a Customer Focus Committee (CFC), which will drive continuous customer service and customer experience improvements throughout the business.

65. Mark Gilbert will Chair the committee, which will provide oversight and advice on a range of initiatives from project planning and market research to implementation. A major priority is an increase in public transport patronage.

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

C3. City Rail Link route moves to the next phase

67. On 5 March, five independent commissioners, who heard Auckland Transport’s planning application for the City Rail Link (CRL), unanimously recommended that Notices of Requirement (NoR) for the land be approved, subject to certain conditions. The commissioners accepted the CRL would result in significant overall benefits to the people and economy of Auckland.

68. The recommendation adds another layer of certainly to everyone involved including international developers who have indicated their intention to invest in major projects along the CRL route.

69. The commissioners were satisfied that alternative sites, routes and construction methodologies for the project had been adequately considered.

70. The recommendation and related conditions will now be considered by Auckland Transport, which has 30 working days to confirm, amend or withdraw the notices.

71. To read more about the City Rail Link project - http://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/city-rail-link/

C4. Auckland Transport completes AT HOP rollout

72. On 25 March, Auckland Transport announced it had completed the rollout of AT HOP, its reusable pre-pay smart card for travel on trains, ferries and buses.

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

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

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

76. This concludes the successful introduction of an integrated ticket for Auckland. The next stage will be the introduction of integrated fares, which will be a zonal based system for journeys across different routes and/or different modes of Public Transport.

C5. Registrations open for Auckland’s first civic hackathon

77. Designers, developers and innovators are being encouraged to register for a weekend of 'hacking for good’ in what will be Auckland’s first ‘civic hackathon’.

78. HACKAKL:Transport is free to attend and will be held on 24/25 May at AUT University’s Sir Paul Reeves Building. The event is supported by Auckland Transport in conjunction with AUT University and software house Propellerhead.

79. The weekend will bring together bright minds who are interested in utilising open government data to develop fresh ideas that will help improve Auckland.

80. In the run-up to the event, Auckland Transport will publish a beta application programming interface that will open up a wide range of the organisation's data, including real-time bus information, geo-coding, roading and congestion data.

81. A key goal of the event is to establish a community that will drive the civic hacking and open government data agenda in Auckland.

82. Those interested in being part of HACKAKL:Transport should register at hackakl.org.nz

83. On the Code for America blog, civic hacking has been defined as "people working together quickly and creatively to make their cities better for everyone." Civic hacking does not necessarily involve computer expertise or specialised technical knowledge; rather, it is a collective effort made up of people who want to make things better for themselves and each other, whether they are an ordinary citizen or a programming prodigy.

C6. Rail patronage cracks 11 million

84. Aucklanders are getting on board with trains in record numbers – making a record 11 million trips in the past year. When Britomart Transport Centre opened in 2003, just 2.5 million trips were made on trains.

85. This milestone comes just weeks before Auckland’s new electric trains are introduced and is the highest number of passengers ever on the current rail network.

86. Continuing service improvements are making public transport a more attractive option. People are responding to initial improvements such as integrated ticketing, better on-time performance and improved facilities like the new transport hub at Panmure, opened in January 2014.

87. The implementation of the New Network and the City Rail Link will also boost numbers.

Issues Register

88. The regular monthly issues register is Attachment I to this report.

Consideration

Local Board Views

89. The Howick Local Board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Implementation Issues

90. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Watercare's Panmure Wastewater Main Project Update - March 2014 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Plan of proposed safety improvements Prince Regent Drive and Himalaya Drive intersection, Half Moon Bay (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Plan of proposed 'No Stopping At All Times' parking restrictions, Alexander Street, Cockle Bay (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Plans of proposed 'Safety Around Schools' improvements, Elm Cluster, Pakuranga (Under Separate Cover)
e View	Plans of proposed 'Safety Around Schools' improvements, Macleans Primary School, Bucklands Beach (Under Separate Cover)
f View	Plans of proposed 'Safety Around Schools' improvements Pakuranga/Highland Park cluster (Under Separate Cover)
g View	Plans of proposed installation of speed indicator devices - Bradbury Road, Cryers Road and Gracechurch Drive (Under Separate Cover)
h View	Plans of proposed 'No Stopping At All Times' parking restrictions, Cascades Road, Pakuranga Heights (Under Separate Cover)
i View	Issues Register - Howick Local Board - April 2012 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Jenni Wild – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South); Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager; Auckland Transport

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Environmental Education Centre at Mangemangeroa

File No.: CP2014/06516

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is threefold: firstly to recap on the background of this project, secondly to advise on progress made by the Project Planning Group since the board’s 12 November 2012 resolutions and thirdly to seek further funding that will allow the project to advance to the next stage.

Executive Summary

2. The idea of an environmental education centre on Mangemangeroa Reserve has its origins in 1994 when Manukau City Council purchased the land from the estate of Archibald Hugh Somerville.

3. The building of an environmental education centre was seen as a way in which Council and the Somerville Estate (now known as the Somerville Foundation) could work together to resolve legal differences that arose following the purchase of the land.

4. The differences related specifically to an option that the Somerville Foundation had to ‘buy-back a piece of the land on which to build an Anglican Chapel in memory of Archie Somerville.

5. Negotiations between Council and Somerville Foundation continued in good faith over a number of years without reaching a conclusion, but a broad understanding was reached that a compromise solution was to build an environmental education centre on the reserve that could also meet the wishes of Archie Somerville.

6. Upon the formation of Auckland Council in 2010, the Howick Local Board assumed authority over Mangemangeroa Reserve and these legacy negotiations.

7. The matter was brought back into focus in October 2012 when the Friends of Mangemangeroa presented their vision for an environmental centre on the reserve to the Howick Local Board.

8. The board endorsed the concept, allocated $50,000 to project as a starting point and set up a Project Planning Group (PPG) that was charged with a number of tasks. (Minute HW/2012/259 refers).

9. In accordance with the board’s decision the PPG produced the following as part of stage 1: a concept design and indicative costs, a commitment of support from the Somerville Foundation, an initial business case and a community needs assessment survey. Each of these is discussed in more detail in the body of the report.

10. Whilst the work undertaken so far has produced positive results that point to a strong justification for continuing with this project, they must all be regarded as seminal pieces of work.

11. The $50,000 invested by the Howick Local Board to date has been used to establish that the project is viable, has strong community support and a potential major partner. As such it offers an opportunity to make progress in a way not presented before.

12. In order to build on the work already undertaken, additional funding will be required. It is proposed that Howick local board consider allocating $132,500 to progress the project to the next stage. Currently this funding has not been allocated.

13. This figure is half the $265,500 required to move the project to Stage 2 which will be detailed design, costing’s and an examination of operational costs, management and governance. But critically it will also allow the PPG to continue to work closely with the Somerville Foundation in the hope of securing a major financial contribution and a long-term partnership that will lead to this project finally becoming a reality.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Endorses and signs-off on the completion of Stage 1 of the Mangemangeroa Reserve Environmental Education Centre project.

b) Approves advancing to Stage 2 of the project by allocating $132,500 from existing budgets on the condition that the Somerville Foundation makes a matching financial contribution.

c) Authorises the Project Planning Group to continue in negotiations with the Somerville Foundation, or other funding parties with a view to securing capital funding that will allow the project to move to Stage 3 and subsequent completion of a building on Mangemangeroa Reserve.

Discussion

14. The idea of an environmental education centre on Mangemangeroa Reserve has its origins as far back as 1994 when Manukau City Council purchased the land from the estate of Archibald Hugh Somerville.

15. The Sale and Purchase Agreement entitled the Somerville Estate to ‘buy-back’ 4000 square metres of the land, including the trig-site, for the construction of an Anglican Chapel as a memorial to Mr Archie Somerville.

16. However differences arose between the Council and the Trustees of the Estate of A.H Somerville as to the exercise of the ‘buy back’ provision.

17. By way of compromise a proposal was put forward which would involve the construction of an environmental centre on the reserve that could also meet the wishes of Mr Somerville.

18. Negotiations between Manukau City Council and the Somerville Trust continued in good faith over the years leading up to the formation of the Auckland Council in 2010.

19. The goal of both parties was to reach a solution of mutual benefit, and one that supersedes the ‘buy back’ option. Moreover, it was the view of both parties that this approach was favourable to having the matter determined in Court.

20. The general view was that it was beneficial to the community that the Council retains ownership of the entire reserve whilst the Somerville Estate invests in the facility in a way it deems to be appropriate in terms of the Will of Archie Somerville.

21. A partnership of this nature, where an environment centre is constructed on public reserve land, means that funding is not diverted to unnecessary land purchase, but is instead invested in a public facility.

22. Such a development would be in keeping with the natural and cultural values of the Mangemangeroa Reserve and would enhance the experience of those visiting the reserve.

23. It was also entirely consistent with the Mangemangeroa Valley Reserves Management Plan 2007 to which the Trustees of the Somerville Estate made a significant submission. The management plan discusses these issues fully and as a matter of policy it supports the building of an environmental education centre.

24. Following amalgamation in 2010, the Howick Local Board assumed control over Mangemangeroa Reserve and therefore assumed responsibility for the negotiations with the Somerville Estate (now known as the Somerville Foundation).

25. The Friends of Mangemangeroa Incorporated, who over the years have been major contributors to the management of the reserve, have always been supporters of an environmental education centre.

26. On 30 October 2012 the Friends made a presentation to the Howick Local Board setting out their vision and aspirations for such a facility.

27. In response at the meeting on 12 November 2012 the Howick Local Board resolved (HW/2012/259):

a) That the Howick Local Board endorse the concept of an Environmental

Education Centre at Mangemangeroa Reserve presented at the 30 October 2012

Workshop by the Friends of Mangemangeroa, as a starting point.

b) The Howick Local Board delegates to Council Officers to use the allocated

$50,000 on preliminary work for the concept design phase of the Environmental

Centre at Mangemangeroa Reserve on things such as archaeologists,

geotechnical investigations, consultation, consents, consultancy fees.

c) That the Howick Local Board enters into formal and expeditious negotiations

with the Trustees of the Somerville Estate with a view to reaching a settlement

in relation to the development of an Environmental Education Centre and its

possible funding.

d) That staff investigate the coordinated service delivery options should the centre

be used for the delivery of Council’s environmental education programme in the

Howick Board area.

e) That the Howick Local Board supports the formation of a Project Planning

Group which should comprise representation from the Friends of

Mangemangeroa, council officers from relevant departments and the Howick

Local Board Environment portfolio lead.

f) That the Project Planning Group works with the relevant council officers to

develop a sound business case that considers the costs, benefits and

operational aspects of the Environmental Centre

28. In accordance with the board decision, a Project Planning Group (PPG) was established with Howick Local Board member John Spiller as Chair. The PPG included membership from Friends of Mangemangeroa and Council staff. An early decision was made to appoint local architect Max Grant of Arcube Architects, as Project Manager.

29. As the work of the PPG developed, so other expertise was sought including David Beamish from Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust who has been asked to provide an iwi perspective, local business consultant Geoff Foster who explored the business case, and local project facilitator Angela Sutton who undertook a community survey.

30. Also in accordance with the board decision, the Chair of the PPG and other representatives also met with Jim Chamley from Thorne, Thorne, White & Clarke-Walker Barristers & Solicitors who act for the Somerville Foundation.

31. The Howick Local Board received updates of progress at workshops on 6 June 2013 and 5 September 2013. It should be noted that at those workshops it was acknowledged that the allocated $50,000 had produced seminal work only and although very valuable, represented what has become known as Stage 1 of the project. The budget has been spent on a combination of project management, archaeological investigations, initial business case, a community survey, quantity and land surveys.

32. The outcome of the various work-streams and meetings mentioned above are discussed in more detail below.

33. The initial work [known as stage 1] of the PPG focussed on concept design, potential resource consent requirements, site investigations and exploring indicative capital costs. This work was important to get a sense of the potential scale of the project in order to inform later discussions.

34. A key finding of Stage 1 is that a further $265,500 of funding will be required to progress and complete work in Stage 2.

35. The preliminary cost estimate details for stage 2 is attached and can be broken down into 3 distinct parts as follows; Preliminary concept designs including compliance $83,800, further developed design $39,100 and final detailed design including documentation $142,600.

36. The outcome of the work done as part of Stage 1 was presented to Jim Chamley at a meeting on 25 July 2013. The resulting positive response from Mr Chamley is attached. In the letter Mr Chamley give support in principle to the project and offers a financial contribution towards Stage 2.

37. Moreover, and most importantly, he indicates a willingness to provide further capital money when more detail is known. Mr Chamley goes on to explain how part of the development must relate to the wishes of Archie Somerville and that is a matter for further discussion.

38. The business case takes an early look at issues such as demands, services, partnerships and operating costs. It does acknowledge that until more detail is known there can be no certainty about sustainability although it is considered essential that sustainable design and construction methods will be included where possible.

39. However it makes the important point that Council (and now the Howick Local Board) has already invested in Mangemangeroa Reserve and will continue to do with both capital and operational funding regardless of whether or not an education centre is built. So financial contributions by the Local Board could be directed towards an education centre as a way of matching any contributions from outside sources.

40. In the interim the business case concludes that there are considerable community, environmental and educational benefits to be gained from such a centre that should not be measured solely against financial return. The business case recommends that the project proceed to Stage 2.

41. A key issue to be explored in more detail is Stage 2 is service delivery options and governance models. The PPG visited a number of like facilities [Kaipatiki Project in Birkdale and EcoMatters in New Lynn] as part of its work in Stage 1. They range from being Council run, to being run by charitable trusts or run by a strong volunteer effort. It is too early to say which model would suit an environmental educational centre at Mangemangeroa but a common feature is that such facilities are rarely self-funding.

42. The final piece of work undertaken by the PPG was the Community Needs Assessment Survey, the key findings and observations which are attached.

43. In summary, 66 surveys were completed from 18 schools, two kindergartens and 46 local organisations and individuals. There was substantial and enthusiastic support (83%) for an education centre on Mangemangeroa Reserve. An equally high percentage of respondents felt that environmental education was important for the future and current needs of the Howick community.

44. Support came from a diverse range of age and ethnicity. Schools in particular see a huge potential for such a facility.

45. Of the minority who did not support the idea the main concerns were about the potential size of the building and its operating costs. Both are valid points that will be addressed in more detail in Stage 2.

Consideration

Local Board Views

46. This work-stream stemmed from the Howick Local Board decision of 12 November 2012 (Minute HW/2012/259). The board have had subsequent workshops with members of the PPG on 6 June 2013 and 5 September 2013. In addition board member John Spiller has chaired regular PPG meetings to date.

Maori Impact Statement

47. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust have been invited members of the PPG however their representative Dave Beamish has found it difficult to attend meetings. At the detailed design stage there will need to be engagement with Ngai Tai with a view to incorporating Maori cultural elements in the building and in its operation and programmes.

General

48. The Howick Local Board will be provided with regular updates on any future progress.

Implementation Issues

49. This project is not yet at implementation stage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Stage 2 Costs	79
b View	Key Findings	81
c View	Letter of Intent	85

Signatories

Authors

Gregor Leishman - Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Proposed Environmental Education Centre (“EEC”) at the Mangemangeroa Reserve

Community Needs Assessment - Sample Survey

Key Findings and Observations

To enable the Howick Local Board and its EEC Project Planning Group (“PPG”) to better assess the level of community support for the proposed EEC a Community Needs Sample Survey (the “Survey”) was developed in October/November 2013 and conducted between Friday 15 November and Friday 13 December 2013 (the “Survey Period”).

A total of 140 potential respondents were approached and invited to complete either a hard copy or online version of the Survey – copies of both surveys are attached. 66 completed survey responses were received during the Survey Period and early the following week. All responses received have been included in these key findings and observations.^{^[1]} The unequivocal outcome of the Survey is that a substantial majority of our community support the building of an EEC at the Mangemangeroa Reserve.

1. The 66 survey respondents comprised:

v 18 local schools

v 2 local kindergartens

v 46 predominantly local organisations and individuals

2. Of those who returned completed surveys:

v 55 (83%)^{^[2]} supported the concept for the EEC described in the Survey

v 56 (85%) indicated they would use^{^[3]} the EEC

v 56 (85%) indicated they believe environmental education is necessary or desirable to provide for the present and future needs of the Howick community

v 35 (53%) indicated they would particularly like to see specific environmental education programmes and/or activities provided at the proposed EEC and most provided detailed outlines of the types of programmes and/or activities they had in mind

v 12 (18%) indicated they would like other essential and/or complementary services and amenities included in the EEC and provided suggestions, comments and themes regarding these

v The following services and amenities listed in the Survey were selected for inclusion in the facility in the rankings stated below:

o # 1: (a) An entrance lobby and gallery

o # 2: (c) Multi-purpose educational, cultural meeting and lecture course

spaces

o # 3: (i) Infrastructure and Drop Zone

o # 4: (b) Adjoining display area/s

o # 5: (j) Outdoor environmental education and propagation areas

o # 6: (h) Indoor and outdoor viewing areas

o # 7=: (d) Refreshment facilities and (g) Community workshop space

o # 9: (e) Administration offices

o # 10: (f) A bunk room

v 21 (32%) indicated they would be prepared contribute towards the running costs of the facility – either financially and/or by volunteering their services etc.; while

v 34 (51%) indicated they would not be prepared to contribute towards the running costs of the facility; and

v 11 (17%) did not answer yes or no this question or commented and/or sought clarification without taking a position e.g. “Re question 9, running costs? Do you mean financially or time?”

3. Of those who indicated they would use the EEC (i.e. 56 - 85%):

v 46 (70%)^{^[i]} indicated they would use it for environmental education purposes

v 39 (59%) indicated they would use it for leisure and/or recreational pursuits

v 12 (18%) indicated they would or could use it for other reasons

v 2 ( 3%) indicated they would use it daily

v 12 (18%) indicated they would use it weekly

v 13 (20%) indicated they would use it monthly

v 23 (35%) indicated they would use it occasionally

v 5 ( 8%) indicated they would use it at other intervals e.g. 2 – 3 times per

week; “regularly” etc.

v 1 ( 1%) did not indicate how often they might use the EEC

Observations, Themes and Suggestions

4. Potential users of the EEC are diverse in terms of age, ethnicity and interests and would include the vast majority of our local community and visitors from the wider community and throughout the Auckland region. Schools, in particular, see huge potential from an environmental education viewpoint.

5. The Mangemangeroa Focus Group from Willowbank [primary] School, (the “MFGs”), surveyed all our local schools about the proposed EEC during the period 12 – 22 November 2013. They targeted teachers in charge of science and social science or with a particular interest in environmental education. Their short, five question survey was an overwhelming success. In particular, they found that of the 39 respondents who participated in the survey, 38 (i.e. 97% of 39) supported the [proposed EEC] initiative and would use it. Copies of their online survey and covering email to the school Principals are attached.

Overall:

6. The Survey results establish that:

a. There is substantial and enthusiastic support for the proposed EEC within our local community;

b. There is a general consensus that environmental education is necessary or desirable to provide for the present and future needs of the Howick community;

d. The vast majority of our community would use the facility during each year at varying intervals for environmental education purposes and/or for leisure and/or recreational pursuits and/or for other reasons;

e. Over 50% of those surveyed would like to see particular environmental education programmes and/or activities provided at the proposed EEC. Many provided comprehensive and insightful descriptions of such programmes and activities;

f. Save for a bunk room, the other services and amenities proposed for inclusion in the EEC (as outlined in question 4 of the Survey) attracted solid support. The entrance lobby and gallery; multi-purpose educational, cultural meeting and lecture course spaces; infrastructure and a Drop Zone; a display area/s adjoining the entrance and outdoor environmental education and propagation areas were rated as the five most essential components of the proposed facility;

g. An EEC would serve to provide more accessible education around sustainability and conservation for our schools and the local community;

h. While the majority of those surveyed were not prepared to contribute towards the running costs of the EEC, quite a few respondents indicated they would be prepared to volunteer their time and services from time to time while others would be willing to engage in fundraising, make donations and support the on-site café;

i. Those opposed to the present EEC concept tend to belong to Ratepayers & Residents Associations and/or to reside close to the Mangemangeroa Reserve and/or do not want the peace and quiet of the Reserve undermined by this facility – or the Reserve to ‘destroyed’ by what they perceive would be an unnecessarily large facility that would attract an unacceptable level of human traffic;

j. Green weddings were not favoured, nor was a dedicated chapel in general. Rather, there was a good level of support for multi-use of the proposed spaces, i.e. not mutually exclusive use. For example, it was suggested and/or commented that:

v the cafe could be a great place for interactive displays; and

v the chapel Archie Somerville wanted could easily be accommodated in the building given that weddings, worship services etc. are conducted in facilities other than places used exclusively for religious ceremonies; and

v A general space dedicated to lectures and other public/group events could easily be appropriate also for religious/spiritual/meditative activities. Increasingly churches are diversifying away from single purpose 'sanctuaries' to more multi-purpose spaces, without necessarily losing an atmosphere conducive to prayer (in the broadest sense). Well-chosen materials, design and inclusion of view-shaft window, could well lend itself to such diverse usage.

k. Given the particular and vigorously articulated concerns raised regarding the potential size, operating costs and financing of the facility – albeit by a minority - careful consideration should be given to whether the proposed facility should be scaled down – at least initially – say, during the remainder of the Mangemangeroa Valley forest restoration phase. It is possible that a scaled down facility would serve to significantly alleviate ratepayer concerns and to address the perception held by some that increased human traffic attracted by a larger (“grandiose” was the word favoured by one respondent) facility could have serious adverse – if not irreversible - impacts on the Mangemangeroa Reserve and destroy its peaceful ambience.

Sample Survey and Weighting

l. Given that the Survey was developed and conducted with care and canvassed a wide and representative cross-section/sample of the community - and that the arguably unrepresentative, un-weighted Survey responses effectively balance each other out - it is considered that the Survey results delivered in this “Key Findings” document can properly be regarded as robust, reliable and representative of the population.

Closing Observation

j A cogent observation made by the president of the Howick Tramping Club, Bruce MacKenzie, helps to put everything in perspective:

“As our population becomes more urbanised we move further away from the natural environment on which the planet ultimately depends for its and our survival. If we don't get the information from interacting first hand then education in a more formal sense becomes an imperative.”

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Local board feedback on local boards funding policy review

File No.: CP2014/06393

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

6. On 20 Feb 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 Howick Local Board:

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

Discussion

9. At the 20 February 2014 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee^{^[4]}, the following resolutions were passed to guide the engagement phase of the Local Boards Funding Policy:

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

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

i) the split between regional and local activities

ii) the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time Frame

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

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

Scope: Policy structure

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

· the split between regional and local activities

· the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Governing Body role	Local board role
Asset based services	· Allocates capital funding to local boards in accordance with its decisions on new local assets and major upgrades. · Decides approximate location, budget and scope for these projects · GB 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 GB decisions · Engaged and provide feedback on regional strategies · Decide precise location of new assets · Agrees design of project within scope set by GB. 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 Governing Body · May undertake capital projects over limits set by Governing Body with approval from GB
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 organizations

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

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

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

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

62. Maori population is not the same across all local boards. How this will impact on Maori will depend on changes to funding available to local boards and how local boards respond to these changes. This may result in more or less funding being available or lower or higher rates being charged. The impacts by local 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 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Local board input into the council-controlled organisations current state assessment

File No.: CP2014/06398

Purpose

1. This report seeks 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 Howick Local Board:

a) provides the following input into the CCO review current state assessment [to be provided by local board teams prior to or at the meeting]

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

Discussion

Background

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

2. 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.

3. Governing body members, local board chairs, 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:

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

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

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

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

· the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

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

4. 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.

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

1. To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

a) Facilitate appropriate alignment of the CCO operations with the Auckland Plan and other council strategies and policies

b) Provide an effective and efficient model of service delivery for Auckland Council and Aucklanders

c) Provide a sufficient level of political oversight and public accountability.

2. In addition the review will seek to:

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

b) Eliminate duplication and gaps between the Auckland Council group organisations

c) Identify any opportunities for better integration of activities and functions.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. The report, entitled “Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council Perspective)”, 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

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

Maori Impact Statement

18. 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

19. 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

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

Attachments

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

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authoriser

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 July to 31 December 2013

File No.: CP2014/06383

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Howick Local Board of the activities of Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) for the six months 1 July to 31 December 2013.

Executive Summary

1. ACPL’s goal is to be recognised as a “centre of excellence” that brings commercial expertise and provides value for money to Auckland Council across a discrete property portfolio valued at approximately $1 billion. ACPL provides commercial expertise in property management, the buying, selling of properties and by and strategically developing council assets. As a substantive CCO with a commercial focus ACPL provides crucial support to a council organisation that efficiently and effectively achieves social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes for Auckland.

2. In order to achieve our goal and meet the expectations of the Mayor and the council, ACPL will work towards seven key outcomes over the next three years. These are:

· Properties managed for the council and Auckland Transport (AT) are fit for purpose and net returns optimised.

· Place-shaping partnerships are effectively planned and managed to project completion and in accordance with Auckland Plan objectives.

· ACPL identifies housing opportunities and collaborates with partners to deliver exemplar housing developments, particularly in the more affordable spectrum of the market.

· Council business interests are managed to protect long term value and achieve budgeted net return.

· Property acquisitions are undertaken in a commercially robust manner and in accordance with the council and AT agreed requirements and relevant legislation.

· Council and AT property disposals are undertaken in a commercially robust manner.

· The council is provided with a commercial perspective on planning and development initiatives to support effective implementation of those initiatives.

3. A summary of ACPL activities specific to the Howick Local Board is outlined in the Discussion section of this report with supporting detail included in Attachments B, C, and D.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) That the Howick Local Board accepts the Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update Report 1 July to 31 December 2013.

Discussion

Principles for working together

4. ACPL’s Local Board Engagement Plan (LBEP) states that a successful working relationship between local boards and ACPL is founded on the following high-level principles which will guide our engagement with the local boards:

· a shared understanding of and mutual respect for the roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority of local boards, the governing body and ACPL;

· transparent and timely communication with no surprises;

· understanding and acknowledgment of shared responsibilities between the parties;

· a commitment to a timely response to and resolution of issues raised by local board members;

· a commitment to early inclusion in the planning and decision making process where issues have a specific relevance to a Local Board;

· a commitment to flexibility in terms of engagement, recognising differing levels of interest and local relevance across the Auckland region.

5. ACPL’s commitment to the local boards is outlined in detail in our LBEP, which is attached as Attachment A for reference.

Meetings and Workshops

6. A schedule of Howick Local Board workshops and meetings attended by ACPL representatives from July to December 2013 is attached as Attachment B. The list includes property specific meetings and workshops relating to general property management and the ongoing portfolio Rationalisation Process.

Property Portfolio Management

7. ACPL manages all non-service properties. These are properties not immediately required for service delivery or infrastructure development that are owned by Auckland Council or Auckland Transport. The current property portfolio includes industrial sites and buildings, retail tenancies, cafés, restaurants, offices and a substantial portfolio of residential properties. ACPL’s improved property knowledge and understanding has enabled it to optimise revenue streams and identify future opportunities.

8. The property portfolio has continued to grow during the last six-months and now totals 1095 properties. Rent arrears and vacancies were effectively managed throughout the period. During Q1 the average monthly collectable arrears rate and vacancies rate were respectively 1.35% and 2.93%. ACPL’s return on the property portfolio for the quarter ending 30 September 2013 provides the shareholder a net surplus above YTD budget of $2m.

9. Property portfolio information detailing current ACPL managed commercial and residential property within the Howick Local Board area is attached at Attachment C of this report. The report includes each property’s classification or reason for retention along with additional notes to identify the nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with tenancy in place. It has also been updated to show properties for which council directs that the operating budget and lease revenue will be included in local board budgets from July 2014.

10. A report indicating portfolio movement in the local board area is attached as Attachment D. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

11. ACPL is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. ACPL has a particular focus on achieving housing outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects. ACPL and Auckland Council’s Property Department work collaboratively on a comprehensive review process to identify such properties.

12. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage Rationalisation Process. The agreed process includes engagement with; council, CCOs, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with local ward and the Independent Maori Statutory Board and finally a governing body decision. A detailed process flowchart is provided for reference as a one off inclusion in this report as Attachment E.

13. Council is budgeting to receive proceeds from the sale of surplus properties of $80 million in 2012/2013 and $58 million in 2013/2014. The financial implication of not achieving these budgets would be higher debt and therefore higher interest costs compared to budget.

14. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the Rationalisation Process in the Howick Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body. Further details are included in Attachment C.

PROPERTY	DETAILS
16 Fencible Drive, Howick	ACPL is evaluating development potential with option for including community facilities as part of a larger development. Potential for housing outcomes to be achieved.
34 Moore Street (aka 35 Fencible Drive), Howick	Police Station. Under review for potential disposal. Business case presented by local board for retention. Presented to committee on 4 July. Decision deferred pending further discussions with the Howick Local board. Workshop held 27 February, going to Finance & Performance Committee in April.
90 & 90A Smales Road, East Tamaki	Not required by AT for infrastructure purposes. Possible contamination issues, next to 82 Smales which is a closed landfill. ACPL progressing through Rationalisation Process to evaluate future use requirements and considerations.
29 Tiraumea Drive, Pakuranga	Tenanted house. Not required by AT for infrastructure purposes. ACPL progressing through Rationalisation Process to evaluate future use requirements and considerations. Local board progressing business case to retain for park expansion.

Place Shaping and Housing Initiatives

15. ACPL is contributing commercial input into around 40 council-driven place-shaping and housing initiatives region wide. Involvement extends from provision of initial feasibility advice through to implementation, with projects ranging in size from $400k to in excess of $100million.

16. A high level update on place-shaping and housing initiative activities in the Howick area is outlined in points below.

17. Ormiston Town Centre: Todd Property Group continues to progress implementation of the Master Plan although it has flagged to ACPL the probable need for a review of the plan in early 2014. Planning for the Stage One residential component is complete and resource consents lodged.

18. Ormiston 66 Flat Bush School Road: This is a 6.5 ha residential site that ACPL has subdivided from Barry Curtis Park. The land is zoned residential. A development plan has been approved by the Board and has been discussed with Auckland Council’s City Transformation Unit. The site has been confirmed by Auckland Council as a Special Housing area.

19. AMETI: Pakuranga Plaza (ex-Westfield): The council owns the majority of the car parks occupied around the retail centre that is owned by Ladstone Pakuranga Limited . Part of the car park and some surrounding properties could potentially be required to accommodate a new bus interchange, fly over and transit route that form part of the AMETI project. A joint Howick Local Board, Auckland Transport [AT], Built Environment Unit [BEU], Regional and Local Planning [South] and City Transformation [CT] project team has been established. Known as the Pakuranga Transformation Steering Group, the group has been set up to address requirements of the AMETI project within the Pakuranga area and possible responses to the effects the AMETI project may have.

20. AMETI: Pakuranga Medical Centre relocation: ACPL is assisting AT and City Transformation in the possible relocation of the Pakuranga Medical Centre whose existing premises are to be demolished in 18 months to make way for the AMETI transit route along Pakuranga Road.

21. Howick Town Centre: Fencible Drive: ACPL is evaluating development potential with option for including community facilities as part of a larger development. Potential for housing outcomes to be achieved.

22. The local board has requested the property be retained. The business case for retention was not supported by council’s Portfolio Review Steering Group. The property will be re-presented to the governing body for a decision in early to mid-2014.

23. Half Moon Bay Marina: This is a potential long-term mixed use development site. ACPL has recently been invited to provide commercial development advice in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the car park by AT. ACPL will be meeting stakeholders in March/April 2014 to discuss the development potential of the property.

Acquisitions

24. ACPL continues to support Council and Auckland Transport programmes and projects by negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded through approved Council or Auckland Transport budgets. We also provide advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

25. A total of 54 property purchases to the value of $8.9m were completed during Q1. The number of acquisitions under active negotiations at the end of Q1 was 300 (253 AT and 47 AC).

26. Recent council acquisitions have included;

- meeting open space requirements, particularly for subdivisions

- City Transformation projects

- Heritage projects

- Storm water projects.

27. Current acquisitions programmes for AT include;

- AMETI (Auckland Manukau Eastern Tamaki Initiative)

- CRL (City Rail Link)

- Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu road widening

- Dominion Road, Mt Eden road widening.

28. All properties were purchased within the valuation threshold agreed with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.

29. Due to commercial sensitivities any Howick Local Board specific acquisitions detail will be provided direct to the local board by the Auckland Council or AT project owner.
Business Interests

30. ACPL manages eight business interests region wide on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries.

31. A report on ACPL managed business interests in the Howick Local Board area is outlined in points below.

- Greenmount Landfill, Howick: Envirowaste Services Ltd (ESL) currently occupies and manages the Greenmount Landfill site, at 1 Harris Road, East Tamaki, on a month by month basis, with the previous ground lease expiring in 30 June 2009.

The site is on the corner of Harris and Smale Roads in East Tamaki and covers area of approximately 55 hectares (ha), albeit only approximately 40ha is owned by Auckland Council (AC) with the balance being owned by ESL.

There is potential to add more fill on the site, past the levels contained within the current resource consent. As such, the future occupancy arrangements are currently being negotiated with ESL.

Consideration

Local Board Views

32. This report is for the Howick Local Board’s information and seeks the views of the Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

33. During the past six months ACPL has further developed our Maori engagement initiatives. Our enhanced process engages with the 19 key mana whenua groups in the Tamaki region on three fronts: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests and development partnering discussions. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect of development outcomes for ACPL lead projects. ACPL has additionally undertaken to be part of council’s Maori Responsiveness Plan pilot programme. The project’s key output will be an operational document outlining how ACPL will contribute to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Maori. The Current State Assessment phase of this project has been completed and we are now in the Improvement Planning phase. ACPL will advise the Howick Local Board as appropriate of any specific discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

General

34. This report is intended to help ACPL meet its statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 2002. The relevant sections of the Local Government Act 2002 are noted below for information.

35. As provided in section 59(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the principal objective of a CCO is to:

(a) achieve the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the statement of intent; and

(b) be a good employer; and

(c) exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavoring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so; and

(d) the CCO is a council-controlled trading organisation, conduct its affairs in accordance with sound business practice.

36.
As provided in clause 1 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002, the purpose of the SOI is to:

· state publicly the activities and intentions of a CCO for the year and the objectives to which those activities will contribute;

· provide an opportunity for shareholders to influence the direction of the organisation; and

· provide a basis for the accountability of the directors to their shareholders for the performance of the organisation.

Implementation Issues

37. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	ACPL Draft Local Board Engagement Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Schedule of Meetings and Workshops (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Properties Managed by ACPL in the Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Property movement in the Local Board area (Under Separate Cover)
e View	Rationalisation Process Flowchart (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Caitlin Borgfeldt - Local Board Liaison
Authoriser	David Rankin - Chief Executive

Howick Local Board

14 April 2014

Local economic development July to December 2013: Howick Local Board

File No.: CP2014/05125

Purpose

1. This report provides an update for the Howick Local Board on local economic development activities delivered by the Economic Development Department for the period July to December 2013.

Executive Summary

2. The 2013/2014 local economic development work programme in the Howick Local Board area includes:

· Economic improvement projects within the East Tamaki business precinct to support the implementation of the East Tamaki Business Precinct Plan

· Preparation of an economic development overview presenting a range of indicators on the Howick economy, issues and opportunities

· Initiation of an Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South

· Business Improvement District (BID) partnership programmes in Greater East Tamaki and Howick

· Support for the roll out of ultrafast broadband and the sustainable and targeted provision of public WiFi.

3. The proposed 2014/2015 work programme builds on current activities.

Recommendations

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Receives the six-monthly update on local economic development activities from July to December 2013.

b) Approves the indicative 2014/2015 local economic development work programme as:

i. Economic analysis and planning for the local economy.

ii. Finalising the Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.

iii. Support for BID Partnership programmes in Greater East Tamaki and Howick.

iv. Support for the roll out of ultrafast broadband and the sustainable and targeted provision of public WiFi.

c) Nominates a Local Board Member to the working group for the Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.

d) Nominates Local Board Member(s) to attend the Business Improvement District Policy (2011) review workshops and represent the view of the Local Board.

Discussion

4. The Economic Development Department champions Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS), which aims to develop an economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and New Zealand. The department works with ATEED, business, Government and community stakeholders to lead local economic development, regional economic strategy and policy advice, economic analysis and advocacy, digital policy and international relations on behalf of Auckland Council.

5. This report focuses on local economic development activities in the Howick Local Board area. An overview of the regional economic work programme undertaken by the Economic Development Department and ATEED to implement the EDS is provided to the Economic Development Committee, and is made available for information to Local Boards.

6. Under the guidance of global city development expert Greg Clark, and with the assistance of representatives from business, the wider Auckland Council and Government, critical priorities for Auckland’s future economic performance have been identified. These are to:

· Establish a new Auckland Leadership Team

· Raise youth employability. At the local level this means:

o increasing the number of opportunities for young people to gain work experience

· Build, retain and attract talent. At the local level this means:

o encouraging our businesses to invest in skills

o thoroughly understanding Auckland’s skills shortages

· Build the Auckland business proposition for a business-friendly city

· Boost the investment rate into Auckland’s economy and infrastructure

· Motivate greater investment in products, services and markets. At the local level this means:

o promoting the benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship

o creating and connecting spaces for innovation and entrepreneurship

· Increase Auckland’s visibility internationally

· Optimise Auckland’s platforms for growth: housing, transport and availability of employment land. At the local level this means:

o developing and adopting a new implementation model to achieve growth in key locations – CBD and metropolitan centres

o leveraging the fibre network to its full potential

· Support improved performance of Māori businesses. At the local level this means:

o working to support Māori businesses to grow.

7. We are planning a workshop with Local Board economic development portfolio holders, ATEED and the Economic Development Committee on making local economic development in Auckland more strategic, focused and united. Further information will be provided through the Local Board Advisors.

Local economic improvement projects

Greater East Tamaki projects 2013/14

8. The Howick Local Board has approved funding (Resolution number HW/2013/68) for two projects under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LTF) for progression to detailed design that Economic Development is part funding through the Industrial Areas Revitalised capex programme.

9. The two projects are Crooks Road Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements and the Burswood Business Area Enhancements. Economic Development 2013/2014 total CAPEX contribution to the projects is $109,000.

10. Auckland Transport is leading the management and delivery of these two projects, as they administer the LTF.

11. Concept development has been completed on the two schemes and detailed design and engineering plans for the projects is progressing.

Economic Development Overview

12. An economic development (ED) overview has been prepared for the Howick Local Board area. The overview outlines the current economic picture in Howick, recent trends, and identifies particular strengths or points of difference the local board area has in comparison to the region wide picture. It is primarily a data driven view drawing on the statistics available covering a range of indicators including demographics, incomes and housing, education and skills, employment and occupation, sectoral strengths, business growth and development trends.

13. The overview has been distributed to Local Board members, Council departments and BIDs. The information can inform the Local Board Plan currently under development.

14. Stand out facts about Howick from the ED overview include:

· Manufacturing is the largest sector, however its share of the local economy has declined over the past decade, as other sectors, including wholesaling, have grown in importance.

· A high proportion of school leavers achieved at least the basic qualification of NCEA Level 2 in 2012.

· Amongst the strongest sectors in Howick that compete internationally are construction and engineering, food and beverage, health technologies and niche manufacturing.

· High participation in the labour force and relatively high rates of self-employment.

· The growth in economic activity and employment in Howick has outperformed that of the Auckland region over the ten years to 2012.

15. In 2012, GDP^{^[5]} in the Howick Local Board area totaled $5.1 billion, which was 6.4 per cent of the regional economy.

Howick’s industrial mix by GDP (2012)

Source: Infometrics

16. Employment in Howick increased by an average of 3.1 per cent pa in the ten years from 2002-12, substantially above the Auckland growth rate of 1.9 per cent. During this period, Howick job numbers increased by over a thousand in each of the following sectors: construction (+1,320 jobs) wholesale trade (+1,660), administrative and support services (+1,560), education and training (+1,170) and health care and social assistance (+1,320).

17. The current Howick Local Board Plan supports economic development and seeks to stimulate business and employment, recognising the importance of the area’s large and fast growing business centres to Howick and the Auckland region. The ED overview reflects these priorities and includes the following initial assessment of the strengths, challenges and opportunities within the local economy.

An assessment of Howick’s economic potential

Strengths		Challenges
Fast growing and export-oriented · Significant business investment and development in the area. · Strong export focus within the manufacturing sector. Strategic business location · Links to the airport, port, central city, wider industrial south and other regions. · Strong local supply chains.		Growing competition · Ensuring ongoing attractiveness of business areas against local and offshore competition. · Ensure free movement of freight.
Opportunities
Business friendly	· Leverage the BID partnership programmes in Greater East Tamaki and Howick. · Skills development and growth from the digital economy. · Define levers of growth through the Integrated Southern Business Precinct Plan · Improve transport connections between business areas and to the airport · Planning the development of new and existing town centres to meet business and community needs
Innovation and exports	· Further improve export capability within firms, building on the local strengths in internationally competitive sectors such as construction and engineering, food and beverage, health technologies and niche manufacturing · Define pathways for firms to Auckland and national innovation programmes that assist commercialisation and business growth
Skills	· Transition youth from education to the workforce
Vibrant and creative city	· Support iwi/Māori to establish Māori entrepreneurship initiatives · Support Pacific peoples and migrant entrepreneurship initiatives · Support growth of visitor economy in Howick

Integrated Business Precinct Plan: Industrial South

18. The integrated business precinct plan (IBPP) will provide a coordinated framework for Local Boards to develop projects and programmes to enhance the economic performance of the industrial precincts in their respective areas. Key components of the plan include the development of a spatial concept map and a series of high-level actions that will address the issues and opportunities identified within the relevant precinct areas.

19. The development of the IBPP will contribute to the economic development workstream of the Southern Initiative specifically in engaging with economic stakeholders to develop actions in regard to youth transition from education to employment, business growth and development and opportunities for actions between employers, education providers and government.

20. A working group has been established to ensure that Local Boards are able to input into the development of the IBPP. This report asks the Howick Local Board to nominate a member to sit on the working group. The role of members of the working group is to:

· Steer the strategic direction of the IBPP

· Ensure that the plan responds to the priorities for the Local Board Areas as defined in the Local Board Plans

· Act as the representative for the relevant Local Board

· Provide comments on the draft plan prior to consultation and prior to finalisation of the plan

· Provide feedback on the draft IBPP prior to formally seeking approval from Local Boards and the Economic Development Committee.

21. In order to inform the development of the IBPP an initial consultation exercise has been undertaken. This has involved workshops with business associations and a series of telephone and face to face interviews with business owners within the zoned industrial areas. We are now in the process of completing an analysis of the zoned industrial areas with a view to developing draft actions that will be presented to the working group.

BID Partnership Programmes

22. The BID Partnership Programme approach is a public-private partnership between business associations that have a commitment to develop and promote their local business environment and Auckland Council. In work to date since Auckland Council was established there has been a focus on sharing best practice and developing consistent governance, processes and practices across the region’s 46 BIDs.

23. Each BID has signed a Partnering Agreement with Auckland Council. These agreements define the relationship between Auckland Council and individual business associations operating as BIDs. Several have also signed a discretionary Memorandum of Understanding with their Local Board. The MOU is an opportunity to agree mutual goals and objectives and to support each other’s programme of work where applicable.

24. BID Partnership Advisors hold monthly networking meetings for BID managers and interested business associations that focus on professional development and sharing information and best practice. Topics covered from July to December 2013 include:

· Auckland Transport (importance of good parking in our centres)

· AGM checklist and meeting procedures

· ATEED – local events

· WiFi – how to make the most of Apps

· Overseas conferences – report back and learnings from BID attendees

· Signs and alcohol bylaws

· Social enterprises

· Using Marketview results for business attraction

· Media awareness

· Your Website – how to review it and improve it

· Using information from Local ED Overviews and opportunities to engage with Local ED Action Plans

25. A refresh of the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (BID Policy 2011) will be undertaken in 2014. The proposed BID Policy will go before the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for final approval in November 2014.

26. The process to review the BID Policy will involve consultation with both business associations and Local Board representatives. Separate workshops will initially be held for the two stakeholder groups, followed by a combined workshop with both the business associations and Local Board representatives. Local Board representative(s) are sought for involvement in the review process.

27. Any suggestions made at these workshops to amend the existing BID Policy (2011) will be brought before the Local Board for its consideration and feedback.

28. There is much activity happening with the establishment of new BID areas (including State Highway 16 and Devonport, who will be balloting in March 2014). Several other locations are actively working with the BID team on preparatory work towards establishment. Existing BIDs undertaking expansion ballots prior to June 2014 include Otahuhu and Manukau Central.

29. Twenty-seven existing BIDs have chosen to increase their amount of target rate for the 2014/2015 financial year. Every one of these proposed increases has followed the process of advising all members and receiving approval of the proposed new amount from members at Annual General Meetings.

30. The Partnership Advisors have reviewed the activities of the BIDs in the Howick Local Board area and are satisfied they are meeting the requirements of the BID Policy.

Howick BID

31. The Howick Village Business Association (HVBA) held their AGM in September 2013. An increase of five per cent on the BID targeted rate was accepted for 2014/2015. A presentation on their activities, budget and plans for the following year was made to the Local Board in this period as per the BID policy.

32. The HVBA is currently trialing a Sunday Market to determine if there is potential for it to become a permanent feature in the town centre. The Sunday market will be reviewed at the end of April. The town centre events over the previous six months have all had a notable increase in attendance from the previous year.

33. The strategic plan for the HVBA has been completed and is now in its final stages of being reviewed by the committee before being released to members.

34. The HVBA continue to look for opportunities to build their profile and secure extra funding and are currently investigating possible partnerships.

Greater East Tamaki BID

35. The Greater East Tāmaki Business Association (GETBA) continues to collaborate with other commercial and industrial business associations across Auckland to take advantage of their collective strength and provide a consistent message to local and central government.

36. GETBA, Rosebank, Wiri, Mahunga Drive and the Church-Neilson/South Onehunga Area have collectively engaged a consultant to prepare a submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan on behalf of the five business districts.

37. GETBA has also provided submissions and feedback on: the Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent, the East-West Link, Auckland Transport’s Proposed Frequent Public Transport Network South, and AMETI.

38. GETBA is a lead agency in the implementation of the East Tāmaki Business Precinct Plan across business growth and employment, workforce skills, and business environment.

39. GETBA has promoted East Tāmaki as ‘a great place to do business’ and provides networking and skills development and encourages a sense of community amongst businesses. It runs a well-supported programme of business breakfasts, business showcases, business owners forum, property owners forum, and management training and technology training.

40. GETBA has continued to work closely with local Police, security companies and other key stakeholders on crime prevention. On the completion of the three-year Community Safety Project in partnership with the NZ Police and the Asian Council on Reducing Crime, GETBA has successfully obtained Ministry of Justice funding to continue the crime prevention work in the area.

41. GETBA held their AGM on 3 October 2013, where members voted on adopting the BID 2014/2015 budget including the BID target rate of $500,000.

Ultrafast Broadband

42. The third year of the rollout of Ultrafast broadband (UFB) ends on 30 June 2014. The rollout is a third of the way through the nine year programme. So far over 60,000 premises region wide can connect to UFB with just over 11 per cent of these premises connected. This is in line with the rate of uptake predicted at the start of the UFB rollout.

43. Chorus intends to provide updates to Local Boards on the progress of the rollout in each area and Council officers will work with Local Board Services to arrange times in the appropriate Local Board Workshops as the updates become available.

Public WiFi

44. Public WiFi is available in all 56 libraries and in 23 public open spaces around Auckland. In January 2014 the Libraries WiFi service was used 173,000 times by 110,000 people totalling 7.7 million minutes of free Wi-Fi usage. The public open space service has been experiencing network stability issues and this has limited usage. These issues are now resolved and we expect to see usage grow in line with Libraries usage. The public open space service was used 49,631 times by 44,419 people totalling 893,494 minutes of free WiFi usage.

Work programme 2014/2015

45. The proposed 2014/15 local economic development work programme in the Howick Local Board area is set out below.

OPEX Project description

Economic analysis and planning.

Finalising the Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.

BID Partnership programmes in GETBA and Howick Village.

Support for the roll out of ultrafast broadband and the sustainable and targeted provision of public WiFi.

Consideration

Local Board Views

46. This report informs the Howick Local Board on progress implementing the agreed local economic development work programme. Feedback from the Board is welcome to shape ongoing activities.

Maori Impact Statement

47. Matters relating to Māori wellbeing are addressed as part of specific projects and are reported in the relevant Board and committee reports.

General

48. N/A.

Implementation Issues

49. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Trudi Fava - Strategic Planner

Authorisers

Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

[1] For detailed analyses of the Survey information and findings, please refer to the attached Proposed Environmental Education Centre (“EEC”) at the Mangemangeroa Reserve Community Needs Assessment - Sample Survey – Material Findings and Observations document and the attached Table of Responses to Key Survey Questions document

[2] Wherever percentages are shown, unless stated otherwise, the calculations have been made with reference to the total of 66 completed survey responses received (i.e. 66 = 100%)

[3] Use of the EEC being interpreted by most in the wider sense of also embracing use of Mangemangeroa Reserve

[5] Gross Domestic Product is the total market value of goods and services produced in the Local Board area, minus the cost of goods and services used in the production process. GDP for each Local Board was estimated by Infometrics Ltd using 1995/96 prices and a top down approach. These have been converted to 2012 prices by an inflation multiplier.

Chairperson	David Collings
Deputy Chairperson	Adele White
Members	Garry Boles
	Katrina Bungard
	Jim Donald
	Lucy Schwaner
	John Spiller
	Steve Udy
	Bob Wichman

Friday 25 April 2014
TOTAL BUDGET		18,741.24
Supplier of	Organisation	Cost
Sound	PA Sound	$3,610.00
TMP	Action Traffic	$5,425.00
TMP (additional)	Action Traffic	$4,350.00
Public Notice	Haines Attract	$292.98
Carlton Party Hire	Chairs & tables	$2,202.00
Carlton Party Hire	Tables	$408.00
Wesley Upfold	Marquees	$1,692.00
Wreaths
Catering
Portaloo	Prestige Loos	$180.00
First Aid	St Johns	$517.50

		$18,677.48

Authors	Lynda Pearson - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Author	Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services
Authoriser	Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services