Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Leave of Absence 7

6 Acknowledgements 7

7 Petitions 7

8 Deputations 7

9 Public Forum 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 8

12 Open Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes Kaipatiki Local Board, Wednesday 12 March 2014 9

13 Open Unconfirmed Minutes Annual Plan Hearings - Kaipātiki, Wednesday 26 March 2014 31

14 Local Board Services Quarterly Report - Kaipatiki Local Board 37

15 Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 submissions analysis and responses to information requests 59

16 Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan 61

17 Kaipatiki Local Board Sports Field Works Programme 2014/2015 77

18 Greenslade Reserve Public Convenience 81

19 Auckland Transport update on issues raised in March 2014 for the Kaipātiki Local Board 91

20 Auckland Transport – Bike Park Facility Birkenhead Wharf 105

21 Local Board Transport Capital Fund – overview of total programme for the current local boards 113

22 Local economic development July to December 2013: Kaipātiki Local Board 127

23 Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 July to 31 December 2013 137

24 Appointment to North Shore Heritage Trust 169

25 Local board input into the Council-Controlled Organisations current state assessment 171

26 Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities 215

27 Local board feedback on local boards funding policy review 221

28 Feedback on the Auckland Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan 233

29 LGNZ conference and AGM 2014 243

30 Affected Party Approval Request for Proposed Additions and Alterations at 22 Tarahanga Street, Northcote, Located Adjacent to Onepoto Domain 251

31 Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area 263

32 Members' reports 271

33 Governing Body Members' Update 273

34 Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops, Wednesday, 19 March 2014 and Wednesday, 26 March 2014 275

35 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 281

36 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 285

37 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

38 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 289

35 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a. 31A Chippendale Crescent 289

b. 54 Exmouth Road 289

c. 129G Rangatira Road 289

36 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a. 15A Fairfax Avenue 290

C1 Acquisition of land for public open space in Northcote 290

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Local Board Services Quarterly Report - Kaipatiki Local Board

File No.: CP2014/05486

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Board on various Council and Council-controlled organisation activities impacting Kaipātiki.

Executive Summary

2. This is the quarterly report for the third quarter of the financial year 2013/2014.

3. This report provides an update on various Council and Council-controlled organisation activities impacting Kaipātiki.

4. The strategic updates in this report are:

· Town Centre transformation projects

· Community development

· Kaipātiki Connections

· Parks and Sportsfield upgrades

· Economic development

· Transport

· Public Art

· Unitary Plan

· Strategic planning and finance.

5. An update on the dog access review is also provided in this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approves the installation of the Northcote town centre CCTV equipment in the library, at a cost of $6,500 to be funded from the Northcote town centre development budget.

b) delegates sign off of the engagement plan for the special consultative procedure for the draft Local Board Plan to a small working party of three members.

c) delegates sign off of the proposed dog access rules for formal consultation to a small working party of three members.

Discussion

Board Workshops and Portfolio Briefings:

6. The board workshop on 19 March dealt with the following issues:

a) Pools and leisure update

b) Parks maintenance contracts and budget refresh implications

c) Organic waste trials

d) Local boards funding policy.

7. The board workshop on 26 March dealt with the following issues:

a) Bylaws – air quality and signs

b) Local Board Plan development

c) Update on management of 136 Birkdale Road.

8. The following portfolio briefings were held in March 2014 (summary records are attached at attachment A):

a) Transport – 5 March

b) Parks (passive) – 11 March

c) Events – 13 March (no record attached - Local Board Services staff were unable to attend)

d) Sport and Recreation (parks) – 14 March

e) Libraries – 18 March

f) Infrastructure – 19 March

g) Special portfolio briefing – community facility hire fees and charges – 19 March

h) Arts and culture (public art) – 20 March

i) Arts and culture (art programming) – 25 March

j) Community development and facilities – 25 March

k) Parks (passive) – 26 March.

9. The following topics are planned for upcoming workshops in April

a) Local Board Plan development

b) Property Strategy implementation

c) Dog access review

d) Smoke-free implementation

e) Economic development action plan

f) WW1 Centenary Programme

g) Heritage Assets Stewardship Policy.

10. The following cluster workshops took place in March:

a) Briefing on report of Community Co-ordinator refresh and recommendations – 12 March

b) ATEED Annual Planning Workshop – 13 March

c) Community Facilities Network Plan Workshop – 27 March

d) Community Grants Policy Workshop – 27 March.

Strategic Updates

11. ██ Town Centre transformation projects

12. The City Transformation team continues to lead the work on the town centre transformation projects. The Chair has agreed that, given the importance of the projects to the board, regular reporting via portfolio meetings would be beneficial. These portfolio meetings will fit within the ‘built environment’ portfolio but attendance will be encouraged from all Board members, including particularly the steering group members for Birkenhead and Beach Haven. Portfolio meetings will be held monthly and will shortly be scheduled.

Birkenhead

13. The next step for the Birkenhead projects is advancing the design development for the Mainstreet upgrade and Le Roys Bush Gateway and Lookout projects. The Beca lead design team for the Mainstreet Upgrade are now underway. The week commencing 31 March saw the tender issue for the appointment of a quantity surveyor and confirmation of the design team for the Bush Gateway and Lookout Project. An integrated programme can then be developed with a view to achieving the joined up public consultation towards the middle of the year – allowing decisions to be made by the Board about elements to be progressed.

14. Other progress includes welcomed maintenance works, improvements to the Hinemoa Street pedestrian crossing outside the library, commencement of pavement rehabilitation work and obtaining landowner’s consent to progress the design for the Rawene Carpark link. To date obtaining this consent has been the main focus of the new town space project. Moving forward, further work is needed to better define the outcomes for that project.

Northcote

15. The Lake Road car park project has been handed over to AT who are preparing a scheme assessment report, which will identify costs and benefits of the project and generate a detailed concept plan for consultation. The scheme assessment report should be available mid 2014, subject to AT resource availability.

16. A resource consent application for the new public toilets in the town centre is being prepared. Construction is scheduled for late 2014.

17. The Northcote Business Association are hosting a workshop to confirm which option they prefer for new signage/wayfinding before this is brought to the Board for a decision.

18. A memo is attached to this report outlining the current status of the CCTV project (see attachment B) and requesting approval from the Board for the equipment to be installed in the library.

19. At the Board’s meeting on 11 December 2013, there was discussion on the possibility of having a hand-drier installed at the toilet facilities adjacent to the library in Northcote Town Centre. This has been investigated, and found that it is not normal practice to install hand-driers in public town centre facilities due to the contract for cleaning and maintenance of this type of toilet not including provision for hand-driers.

Beach Haven

20. Work on the detailed design for the community space is to begin following consent decision, which is expected 8 April (no submissions received to date). The programme is currently being revised and will be circulated to members on the steering group for this project.

21. Auckland Transport is preparing the construction tender document for the gateway, which it is expected to issue early April. Ngati Whatua o Orakei are to review the planting plan and input as appropriate.

Glenfield

22. An acquisition feasibility / strategy is being prepared for the civic space project.

23. ██ Community Development

24. The Community Co-ordinator review (across the North) is now complete. The recommended next step is for the Board to meet with both the Birkenhead/Northcote Community Co-ordinator and the Glenfield Community Co-ordinator as well as the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust Board to determine next steps. This session is likely to take place in April or May.

25. At its meeting on 12 March, the Board agreed to provide additional funding to the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) of $5,000 to support the Kaipātiki Local Youth Board. The Kaipātiki Local Youth Board will be presenting to the Board at the Community Forum on 16 April.

26. At the 12 March meeting, there was some discussion on the overall funding programme for KCFT and how this is managed.

27. Given the Trust is funded from a number of Board budgets (e.g. events, community development, civic events etc), Local Board Services has taken a role in providing some oversight on the various funding streams via a funding schedule. This oversight does not extend to projects which are being funded from outside of the Local Board’s budget (e.g. graffiti education and eradication, funding from the sub-regional Strengthening Communities fund etc).

28. The Chair and Deputy Chair meet with the Senior Community Co-ordinator and the Board’s Senior Advisor on a fortnightly basis to review this schedule. This schedule is attached at attachment C.

29. As part of the Community Co-ordinator Review, CDAC are exploring the possibility of consolidated budgets for the Community Co-ordinators to simplify and improve the process. The quarterly omnibus report to the Board (Finance and Performance) will provide a summary of the six-monthly accountability reports received for both KCFT and Raeburn House.

30. As reported above, on 27 March cluster workshops were held on the Community Facilities Network Plan and Community Grants Policy development. Both regional pieces of work relate to Kaipātiki, and in particular community development.

31. At its workshop on 26 March, the Board discussed the set up of the church hall at 136 Birkdale Road as a bookable hall in the short term, whilst longer term consultation and planning is undertaken for the site.

32. CDAC staff raised the issue of furniture in the facility (chairs and tables are currently being borrowed from other facilities), whilst there may also be a need for whiteware.

33. Whilst the Board has resolved that its position is that it will not fund the consequential opex associated with the acquisition of 136 Birkdale Road, this purchase would be capital and therefore should utilise an appropriate Board budget.

34. The Board could consider funding this expense from any uncommitted community facility renewal capital fund for 2013/014 (dollar amount required and available to be established and information to shared with the Board).

35. ██ Kaipātiki Connections

36. A number of projects are underway in 2014/2015.

37. Le Roys Bush track project: This project is to create a new track connection from the existing track in Le Roys Bush to the Senior Citizens near Hinemoa Street. Building Consent has been approved, and Resource Consent is expected to be approved in April 2014 following delays obtaining iwi approval. Physical works are now planned for spring/summer 2014/2015 when the weather is more appropriate for site works.

38. The Kauri Point Centennial Park boardwalk project has been scoped with the Kauri Point Centennial Park volunteers. The boardwalk has been designed to meet up with the existing track entrance, through the wetlands area to ensure access over the worst of the boggy area. Iwi consultation has been carried out. Resource Consent was lodged March 2014, and physical works are now planned for summer 2014/2015 when the weather is more appropriate.

39. Kauri Point Centennial Park swamp track project: Iwi consultation was required for this project following the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) rules recently implemented. A site visit was held with iwi in February with formal feedback received March 2014. Resource Consent was lodged March 2014. NZHPT Authority is also required, and expected to be lodged April 2014. Physical works are currently planned for summer 2014/2015.

40. Kauri Point Centennial Park ‘track 8 from Chelsea 5 intersection’: Iwi consultation was required for this project following the PAUP rules recently implemented. A site visit was held with iwi in February with formal feedback received March 2014. Resource Consent was lodged March 2014. Physical works are currently planned for summer 2014/2015.

41. Onepoto Wetlands Walkways: Physical works are progressing well on site. The new boardwalk in the wetlands area has been completed. Works to widen and improve the walkway within the reserve are also progressing. Consultation with iwi has continued to develop an interpretational sign and carving to represent mana whenua values.

42. ██ Parks and sportsfields upgrades

43. A number of parks development projects are underway, either in the planning or construction phase. Renewals projects are not covered in this report.

44. The Birkenhead War Memorial Park BMX Track project is in the planning phase. A concept design has been produced and will be presented to the Board at its workshop on 16 April.

45. The Birkenhead War Memorial Park Toilet and Playground projects are also in the planning phase. Consultation has been undertaken and three options are being prepared which will be presented to the Board for decision.

46. There is a report on the Greenslade Reserve Toilet and Changing project on this agenda.

47. The Onepoto Pond de-silting project is being managed by Stormwater. The project is currently at detailed design phase. Local Board Services and Parks have requested that a meeting be held with local residents to discuss the design and receive comments before it is finalised.

48. The Facilities Trust and community have a number of suggestions for Small Local Improvements Projects (in parks) to be funded in 2014/2015. This list of suggested projects will be discussed with the Parks Portfolio holders in the first instance (alongside a number of other projects, including those which are in planning stage this year) before being brought before the Board for decision making (alongside the wider parks programme for 2014/2015).

49. A report on the sportsfields programme appears separately on this agenda.

50. ██ Economic development

51. At its meeting on 12 March, the Board agreed to fund a further $8,500 to support the set up of the Wairau Valley Business Association. The Board specifically made comment on the support they wished to see delivered (including only up to two committee meetings, and no support for grant application preparation to the Board) which have been incorporated into the contract with BusinessLAB.

52. The Economic Development Action Plan for Kaipātiki is currently in development. A draft will be presented to the Board at its workshop on 16 April, with the intention being that this informs the development of the economic development outcomes in the Local Board Plan.

53. ██ Transport

54. Three other reports on this agenda cover transport, including a response from Auckland Transport on the issue of the Birkenhead Wharf cycle and scooter facilities

55. ██ Public Art

56. The two public art projects in the Board area (Croftfield Lane and Zion Hill) are both progressing. The Croftfield Lane project is in the design phase, with the appointed artist forming an integral part of the design team. The Zion Hill project (SLIPs project being managed through the Parks department) is at the briefing phase. Iwi expressed an interest in this project at the recent hui hosted by City Transformation.

57. ██ Unitary Plan

58. Submissions for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) closed at the end of February. The Board’s input to the Auckland Council submission was submitted following approval at the Board’s meeting on 12 February.

59. ██ Strategic Planning and Finance

60. Two other reports on this agenda relate to the Board’s Local Board Agreement for 2014/2015. The Board’s hearing took place on 26 March, with the re-prioritisation workshop taking place on 2 April. The Board is asked to approve the balanced budget for 2014/2015 at this meeting.

61. Development of the Local Board Plan is well underway, with the Board discussing the next steps following the informal engagement process at its workshop on 26 March. A further workshop is likely to be held with the Board in April.

62. Informal engagement on the Local Board Plan ended in mid-March, following six weeks of activities to promote the plan and encourage feedback from the community. Four dedicated workshops were held in Glenfield, Northcote, Birkenhead and Beach Haven to discuss the five proposed objectives in the plan, with turnout at two out of four of the sessions lower than expected.

63. In partnership with the Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust, Board members and staff attended a total of seventeen Families in Parks events across the Local Board area. The Kaipatiki Local Youth Board took a lead in organising lunchtime sessions at Glenfield College and Birkenhead College, as well as producing a short video-clip to promote the process. With the support of the KCFT, sessions were also held with the Children’s Panel at four of the local intermediate schools, and the plan and feedback process were promoted with senior residents in social housing.

64. Discussions with iwi centred around a joint hui with the City Transformation team, and local mataawaka through a dedicated workshop held at the Te Puawaitanga at Birkdale Primary School. Feedback received during this period is in the process of being analysed and will be made available to members.

65. Formal engagement on the draft Local Board Plan under the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) is scheduled to take place from 7 July – 6 August 2014. To enable communications materials for this period to be provided in time, the engagement plan for the Board has to be prepared and signed off by 24 April. It is proposed that the direction given by the Board in the recent workshop item on the Local Board Plan be used as the basis for drafting the engagement plan for the SCP, and that sign off be delegated to the Chair, Deputy Chair and Member Grant Gillon (as was the case for the informal engagement plan).

Other updates

66. Dog access review

67. The informal consultation process for the dog access review closed on 23 March. Feedback gathered is currently being analysed and the Board has a workshop to discuss this in detail scheduled for 16 April. From there, the Board will need to determine what its proposed dog access rules will be, which will go out for formal consultation.

68. The intention is that the formal consultation is well communicated to both dog owners and other Kaipātiki residents. For dog owners this will involve sending out information on the proposed rules in the dog registration mail-out.

69. Due to the timeframes for preparing this mail-out the Board’s proposed rules need to be determined by 9 May. Unfortunately there is no available meeting between 16 April and 9 May for the Board to make this decision. It is therefore recommended that at this meeting the Board delegates decision-making on the proposed rules to a small working party of 3-4 members. The alternative to this delegation is for the Board to hold an extraordinary meeting (which will require advertising and other associated additional costs).

Action Item Reports

70. Due to staff changes, the action item reports have not been prepared for reporting for this quarterly report. They will be attached to the May monthly report.

Consideration

Local Board Views

71. Local Board views are considered in the writing of this report.

Maori Impact Statement

72. Maori are and will be engaged on an ongoing basis on a number of the Board’s strategic issues including (but not limited to) the town centre transformation projects, parks projects and the Local Board Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Briefing Records of March 2014 Portfolio Meetings	45
b View	Northcote Town Centre CSS Memo	55
c View	KCFT Funding Schedule	57

Signatories

Authors	Sarah Broad - Senior Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2014/05995

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

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

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

4. Local boards are now asked to:

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

a) That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

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

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

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

b) That the Kaipātiki Local Board notes:

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

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

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

Discussion

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

6. This report provides information on:

· key budget refresh movements to local board budgets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget refresh

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

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

Next steps to finalise local board agreements

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Boards

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Budget refresh – Summary of key movements	65
b View	Kaipatiki Local Board budget refresh movements	67
c View	Draft fees and charges schedule	71

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker, Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Appendix B – Kaipātiki Local Board budget refresh movements

The below tables reflect budget refresh movements only.

Opex

Local Board	Activity	Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Budget ($)	Revised 2014/2015 Budget ($)	Variance
Kaipātiki	Local libraries	1,995,109	2,157,977	162,868
	Local community services	1,103,740	1,041,560	-62,180
	Local arts, culture and events services	540,494	556,317	15,823
	Local parks services	6,959,723	7,427,344	467,621
	Local recreation services	-637,627	552,398	1,190,025
	Local economic development	455,919	457,836	1,917
	Local built and natural environment	4,100	4,100	0
	Local governance	1,106,315	1,088,629	-17,687

Total		11,527,774	13,286,160	1,758,386

Capex

Activity and Project	Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Budget ($)	Revised 2014/2015 Budget ($)	Variance
Local community facilities	121,728	165,478	43,750
Community facility renewals	121,728	165,478	43,750
Local library facilities and services	54,045	54,045
Local library renewals	54,045	54,045
Local parks	3,167,678	3,230,526	62,848
Public convenience (Birkenhead War Memorial)		381,079	381,079
Combined toilet and changing (Greenslade Reserve)	51,564	397,235	345,671
Toilet (Lynn Reserve)		96,520	96,520
Playground (Birkenhead War Memorial)	229,611	249,611	20,000
Walkway (Onepoto)		20,000	20,000
Carpark (Birkenhead War Memorial)		10,000	10,000
Local park walkway and cycleway renewals	47,232	47,232
Sportsfield renewals	262,400	262,400
Local park car park renewals	92,160	92,160
Local park coastal structures renewals	44,655	44,655
Cycle and walking track network plan (Kaipatiki)	146,944	146,944
Local park furniture and fixture renewals	48,892	48,892
Sports park car park renewals	27,038	27,038
Local park public convenience renewals	209,557	209,557
Foundation infrastructure	442,142	442,142
BMX cycling track (Birkenhead War Memorial)	216,325	216,325
Local park playspace renewals	72,497	72,497
Youth facility in parks (Birkenhead-Northcote)	37,332	5,000	-32,332
Volleyball court (Birkenhead War Memorial)	38,843	5,000	-33,843
Sports playing surfaces and facility upgrades	524,800	441,800	-83,000
Sportsfield extension (Birkenhead War Memorial)	166,247	5,000	-161,247
Cycle and walking track (Greenway)	509,440	9,440	-500,000
Local planning, policy and governance	483,770	490,975	7,204
Local board it hardware (staff)	7,282	14,486	7,204
Small local improvement projects (North)	476,489	476,489
Local recreation initiatives and facilities	560,035	590,035	30,000
Aquatic facility building renewals	45,057	75,057	30,000
Recreational facilities building renewals	44,734	44,734
Recreational facilities equipment renewals	87,779	87,779
Aquatic facility equipment renewals	382,465	382,465
Local street environment and town centres	3,013,218	3,208,690	195,472
Town centre upgrade (Beach Haven)		130,000	130,000
Town centre urban design action plan (Glenfield)		65,472	65,472
Viewing deck and development (Highbury)	907,288	907,288
Development (Highbury Square)	87,777	87,777
Central area upgrade (Northcote)	480,654	480,654
Street upgrade (Highbury Mainstreet)	1,537,500	1,537,500
Grand Total	7,400,475	7,739,749	339,274

Capex figures are uninflated.

Please refer to Appendix A for a high level summary explanation of these changes. Your financial advisor can provide further detail throughout the prioritisation process.

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Kaipatiki Local Board Sports Field Works Programme 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/02112

Purpose

1. To update the Kaipatiki Local Board on proposed future sports field projects and to seek approval to initiate the 2014/2015 sports field work programme.

Executive Summary

2. The Kaipatiki Local Board hosts three North Harbour Rugby Union premier clubs (Glenfield, Northcote, Takapuna), two Auckland Cricket Association premier clubs (Takapuna , Birkenhead), two Northern Football Federation premier clubs (Glenfield, Birkenhead), and one Auckland Rugby League premier club (Northcote). It is also the home of North Harbour AFL (Onepoto Domain). Due to this there is high demand for well drained and high quality turf sports fields in the region. Kaipatiki has one of the largest networks of sand carpet sports fields within Auckland. This is great for the local sports clubs mentioned above, but also comes with a high cost for the Local Board in terms of maintenance, renovations and renewals of these sand carpet sports fields.

3. The current Kaipatiki sports field development programme has been developed with the assumption that the Sand Field Renewals and Sports Playing Surfaces and Facilities Upgrades budgets in the Auckland Council Long Term Plan will be fully available for natural sports field developments. In 2013/2014, 65% of this budget was allocated to hard court surfaces, which has resulted in projects being deferred to future years.

4. Local and Sports Parks North are currently planning the procurement process for the tendering of the physical works for these sports field projects. Confirmation of the 2014/2015 sportsfield renewal programme is required so this procurement process can be accurate and cost beneficial.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) Approves the following sportsfield projects for completion in 2014/2015:

· Shepherds Park Number 4 Field and Training Area

· McFetridge Park Number 1

· Kaipatiki Park Number 1

· Onepoto Domain Number 1 and 2

· Birkenhead War Memorial Park Number .

Discussion

5. There are five sports field projects identified for the Kaipatiki Local Board area in 2014/2015. Below is the list of sports field projects planned for Kaipatiki in order of priority according to their current performance, along with the engineer’s estimate of the cost of the projects.

Shepherds Park Number 4 Field and Training Area

6. This project involves renewal of the drainage and irrigation systems and replacement of the 50mm sand carpet profile with new turf established is an estimated $280,000.

7. This is the last sports field at Shepherds Park which is yet to be transformed to a couch grass surface. It is currently a poorly draining/performing rye grass/Poa Annua grass field. It was scheduled to take place in 13/14 but was deferred until 14/15 due to a lack of renewals funding.

McFetridge Park Number 1:

8. Renewal of the drainage and irrigation systems. Replacement of the 50mm sand carpet profile with new turf established is an estimated $250,000.

9. This field is the poorest performing sand carpet football field in the Kaipatiki Local Board area and is a high priority renewal.

Kaipatiki Park Number 1:

10. Installation of new floodlights around the #1 field which will provide increased capacity for night training and competition games for the Glenfield Rugby Club. Estimated cost is $180,000.

Onepoto Domain Number 1 and 2:

11. Renewal of the drainage and irrigation systems. Replacement of the 50mm sand carpet profile with new turf established is an estimated $550,000.

Birkenhead War Memorial Park Number 1:

12. Renewal of the drainage and irrigation systems. Replacement of the 50mm sand carpet profile with new turf established is an estimated $300,000.

Consideration

13. There are two types of sports fields currently present in the Kaipatiki Local Board area. Soil fields, such as Greenslade Reserve, Dudding Park, and Stafford Park which require minimal renovations/maintenance and can cope with only 8 hours of play per week due to poor drainage during the winter months.

14. Sand Carpet Fields are the most common sports field and can cope with 18 – 20 hours of sport per week due to the excellent drainage and firm surface they provide year round. A sand carpet field has a full drainage and irrigation system installed in the sub-soil with a sand carpet profile of between 50mm and 120mm over laid and turf grown on top of this. The only negative aspect associated with sand fields is the cost of maintaining, renovating, and renewing these fields.

15. The sand carpet fields have a lifespan of 6-12 years due to contamination of the sand carpet profile by earthworm activity and the build-up of organic matter in the root zone (thatch). A contaminated sand carpet causes the surface of the field to become impermeable, preventing rainfall from entering the drainage system resulting in multiple closures of the field during winter thus disrupting winter sports schedules. Due to this, sand carpet fields need to undergo a sand carpet renewal when deemed that the field can’t be managed through another winter. Unfortunately there are a number of sand carpet fields within Kaipatiki that are reaching the end of their lifespan at a similar time, resulting in Local and Sports Parks North having to prioritise which sand carpet are renewed.

16. A sand carpet renewal project involves:

· Contaminated sand carpet profile being removed (planed off)

· Field is laser levelled to achieve correct fall percentage

· Drainage system replacement (if deemed necessary)

· Irrigation system replacement (if deemed necessary)

· Fresh sand carpet profile laid (50mm) and planted with Couch grass (warm season grass).

Local Board Views

17. Local board views will be gained through this report.

Maori Impact Statement

18. There are no known impacts on Maori from this report.

Implementation Issues

19. If the Sports Playing Surfaces and Facilities Upgrades budget is not fully available to LSP North for sports field projects in Kaipatiki, then officers will have to plan out a new sports field works programme and inform the local clubs that their sand fields will not be renewed in the years detailed in the current SFCD Programme.

20. This will result in sand carpet fields not being renewed when required and force the operations staff to manage the fields through the winter by restricting use on the fields and spending increased amounts of funding on field renovation methods to try and improve the performance of the sand fields.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Adi James - Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Greenslade Reserve Public Convenience

File No.: CP2014/00397

Purpose

1. To provide background information on the proposed development of a toilet and changing facility for Greenslade Reserve in Northcote and to provide options for the Kaipatiki Local Board to re-assess the scope of the project.

Executive Summary

2. The Greenslade Reserve public convenience was planned to be completed by the end of the current financial year. Planning was undertaken in 2012/2013 and concept designs were presented to the Local Board on 11 September 2013. The board endorsed the approach of working with the Northcote Mainstreet Association to come up with a draft design to go out to consultation with stakeholders and the local community.

3. On 11 September 2013, the Board resolved as follows (resolution number KT/2013/288):

MOVED by Member LJ Waugh, seconded Member KJ McIntyre:

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

e) endorses the approach of officers working with Northcote Mainstreet to establish a preferred design for the Greenslade Reserve toilets, and nominates the Parks portfolio holder, Parks portfolio deputy, and the board Chair to work with officers to consult on those options requested by Northcote Mainstreet.

4. The final draft design was approved by the association and brought to the Kaipatiki Local Board parks portfolio holders meeting on 12 December 2013. At this meeting, questions were raised about whether the scope of the project was appropriate and officers have investigated a number of options for consideration by the Board.

5. The options are:

a) To proceed with current project scope

b) Reduce the scope of the current project, but retain current level of service

c) Reduce scope of the current project and reduce current level of service

d) Postpone or cancel the project.

6. Because this project is so far advanced and resources and funding have already been committed to the project, it is recommended that the project continues in line with the current scope. Should this be supported by the Board, officers will bring the final draft design to the delegated members for approval to go out for consultation with key stakeholders and the community as per the previous resolution.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) support the current scope of the Greenslade Public Convenience project.

Discussion

Background

7. Kaipatiki Local Board funding has been allocated to replace the toilet facility and include a changing facility at Greenslade Reserve. $52,000 was allocated for planning and design in 2012/2013 and a further $375,671 for construction in 2013/2014. $60,000 has been committed to this project so far.

8. During the planning and design stages, feedback was received from the Local Board that the public convenience was in a high profile location and should become a gateway to the future development of the Northcote Shopping Centre. The Board advised Parks, Sports and Recreation to liaise with City Transformation and Auckland Transport to create a building that would be both functional and incorporate the town centre design aspects such as style, colour and form. An example of this is that the colours of the new city transformation logo have been carried across in to the public convenience design.

9. Dixon Wild Architects was the successful tenderer, winning the contract though a standard competitive procurement process ahead of two other design teams. Three concept designs were presented to the Local Board on 11 September 2013. At that meeting, the Board endorsed the approach of officers working with the Northcote Mainstreet Association to produce a final draft design for public consultation. The architects and project manager met with the association and refined the design in line with their feedback, as well as feedback received from Auckland Council Stormwater, City Transformation and Auckland Transport teams. Further engagement with the Board and other stakeholders was anticipated.

10. The refined design was brought to the parks portfolio meeting on the 12 December. At this meeting, the members present requested to look at other options for this project.

11. The project was originally planned for completion this financial year, but is now on hold. Should the original scope be endorsed by the Board the project will not be completed by June 2014 as previously envisaged, but could be completed by the end of the calendar year. Changes to the scope will need to have new timeframes and budgets confirmed.

Current project scope

12. The purpose of the project is to construct a new combined toilet and changing room/storage facility at Greenslade Reserve to:

· Improve facilities for existing user groups

· Continue and improve provision of public toilet facilities

· Future proof the reserve for increased use after the new sand field has been installed in 2018/19

· Eliminate the need to hire portacoms on an annual basis for the league season.

13. The new public convenience includes toilets with public access and toilets, changing rooms and storage for access by clubs using the reserve. The toilet facility will replace the previous toilet that was damaged beyond repair and removed.

14. Parks, Sports and Recreation have been providing portacoms as temporary changing facilities for the winter codes since 2010. The proposed facility including changing rooms and storage will eliminate the need to hire portacoms on an annual basis during the rugby league season.

15. The Sportsfield Capacity Development Forum recommends that changing rooms are provided for all senior sports, which has become a standard for all upgrades. Some examples of similar one field reserves with toilets and changing facilities are Stafford Park and Mairangi Bay Park, with a new project planned for Ashley Reserve in Long Bay.

16. Dixon Wild Architects is currently contracted to complete the detailed design, consultation, consenting and construction monitoring phases under a standard Auckland Council professional services contract. They have developed the concept designs for this new facility.

Project justification and Reserve use

17. The Greenslade Reserve is zoned Recreation 4 under the North Shore City Council District Plan. The predominant use of the sportsfield is by the Northcote Tigers Rugby League Club and as an occasional overflow training and match venue for the Northcote Rugby Football Club.

18. Currently the use of the field over winter is limited to 5 hours training time and 3 hours competition time. This effectively means around two training evenings and two games on weekends. Once the sportsfield is upgraded in the 2018/19 the use of the park is anticipated to increase to capacity. The fields are also used by North Harbour Junior Cricket during the summer months and for community events, such as the local Pacifica Festival and overflow car parking for events at the Northcote Shopping Centre.

19. The sportsfield's training lights were renewed in the 2012/2013 financial year to provide for improved training facilities for rugby code training across the Kaipatiki Local Board area. The sportsfield at Greenslade Reserve is scheduled in the Auckland Council Sportsfield Capacity Development Programme (SFCD) for an upgrade to a sand field standard in the 2018/19 financial year. The current concept design for the toilet/changing room takes this into consideration.

Project options

20. Attachment A contains an analysis of options to change the project scope and levels of service. If the scope is changed, further work will need to be undertaken to confirm costs, timeframes etc.

Consideration

Local Board Views

21. Local Board views on the scope of this project are being sought through this report.

Maori Impact Statement

22. Iwi engagement will be undertaken as part of the consultation process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Greenslade Public Convenience - Options Analysis	85
b View	Additional Information on the Greenslade Public Convenience	87

Signatories

Authors

Adi James - Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Auckland Transport update on issues raised in March 2014 for the Kaipātiki Local Board

File No.: CP2014/03165

Purpose

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

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Update on issues raised in March 2014 for the Kaipatiki Local Board report.

Discussion

Local Board Auckland Transport Capital Fund Projects

2 The Kaipatiki Local Board has identified a number of Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects, some of which are complete and others under consideration. A summary is given in Attachment B.

3 Park Hill Road/Berne Place/Roseberry Ave – The Local Board has received complaints from residents of Park Hill Road and Berne Place in regards to speeding vehicles.

4 Auckland Transport undertook speed surveys and assessments of the safe travel speeds. The data collected suggested that the speeds are acceptable on average with an 85% of speed in the area being 53.2kph.

5 There are a significant number of roads on the regional network with higher recorded speed and higher safety risks which need to take precedence over any potential speed calming treatments for Park Hill Road. Therefore, this street is at the bottom of any future programmed works in this instance.

6 If the Kaipatiki Local Board considered this a need for the area, treatments could be funded from the Local Board Auckland Transport Capital Fund.

7 Four options, or combinations of them, are attached for the Boards consideration. Attachment C

Auckland Transport News

A Jump in Public Transport Patronage

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

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

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

11 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.

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

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

More Customers Means a Bigger Ferry to West Harbour

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

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

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

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

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

Customers the Focus at Auckland Transport

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Transport completes AT HOP rollout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

34 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

35 There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipatiki Issues List	95
b View	Kaipatiki LBCF Table	99
c View	Kaipatiki Park Hill	101

Signatories

Authors

Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Liaison, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Auckland Transport – Bike Park Facility Birkenhead Wharf

File No.: CP2014/05964

Purpose

1. This report provides the Kaipātiki Local Board with Auckland Transport’s position on the Bike Park Facility at Birkenhead Wharf.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Transport controls the facilities and infrastructure at all the region’s public transport hubs. The Kaipātiki Local Board requested Auckland Transport give consideration to relocating the new Bike Park Facility at the Birkenhead Ferry Terminal.

3. The current location of the Bike Park was chosen because as a Local Board Transport Capital Fund project it had to be built on land that was under the control of Auckland Transport and also met the following criteria:

· Close proximity of the Bike Park to the wharf,

· Ease of access by users,

· Minimal loss of car parking,

· Sightlines to the harbour, and

· Safety for users.

4. It was considered to have less than minor effects on the existing activities that occur adjacent to, and surrounding, the Birkenhead Wharf. These activities include the operation of the Northcote Birkenhead Yacht club, parking facilities (including disabled car parks near the terminal entry), public transport operations and access by the public to the harbour edge.

5. The location of the bike shelter also allows for passive supervision, thereby allowing for safe use of the shelter particularly in the dark. It is set back from the wharf’s edge to preserve pedestrian and fishing access.

6. None of the suggested alternate locations deliver the benefits of the current location and all were investigated thoroughly and discussed with the Local Board, prior to the installation of the facility.

7. Auckland Transport considers the Bike Park is located in the best location and does not support relocating the facility.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport - Bike Park Facility Birkenhead Wharf report.

Background

Regional Cycling Program

8. The more cycling is integrated with public transport services, the easier it becomes for people to combine cycling and public transport on a single trip. This in turn increases the use of both cycling as a mode of travel as well as increasing patronage on public transport. Providing bike parking at public transport interchanges such as ferry terminals is a key component of the successful integration of cycling and public transport. By making available choice for users to either take their bikes on the ferry or leaving them at secure high quality bike parking will contribute to patronage growth and to Auckland becoming a cycle-friendly city.

9. It is widely accepted that cycling trips to public transport are usually between 1 kilometre and 5 kilometres. The provision of covered bike parking facilities ensures a greater passenger catchment area for the interchange is realised.

10. Providing covered bike parking aligns with Auckland Transport’s objectives to increase public transport usage across all modes and to encourage multi-modal travel. As well as providing bike parking facilities, Auckland Transport will be developing walking and cycling access plans for catchment areas to provide safe and direct trips to interchanges.

11. Auckland Transport last year embarked on a programme to provide bike parking at public transport interchanges with the following objectives:

• Provide short and long term cycle storage/provision at all interchanges

• Develop facilities consistent with the Auckland Code of Practice and international best practice

• Develop sufficient capacity of bike parking to meet potential levels of demand

• Integrate modes by maximising conformity, consistency and clarity for transfers and multi-modal trips

12. To assess the functionality and operation of controlled access bike parking before a regional rollout, secure enclosures known as Bike Parks were opened at Papatoetoe and Papakura Rail Stations. Not long after this, the Birkenhead Bike Park was opened.

13. When locating bike parking at interchanges it is important to consider the following factors:

• Close to building entrances and public transport facilities, integrated where practicable

• Well lit parking and linkages to public transport facility

• Highly visible location or overlooked to maximise informal surveillance

• Ideally monitored by security personnel (in person and by CCTV)

• Covered shelter and protection from all weather and elements (including rain, sun and sea spray)

Purpose of the Birkenhead Wharf bike shelter

14. The Kaipātiki Local Board’s decision to use money from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund to construct a bike park facility at Birkenhead Wharf, supports Auckland Transport’s Public Transport Operations initiatives, to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport at ferry wharves and major transport hubs. Birkenhead Wharf is a popular location for cycle commuters on the North Shore and a shelter adjacent to the terminal is considered necessary amenity. Cycle parking at this location will also reduce the congestion associated with cycle parking at Downtown Ferry Terminal.

Discussion

15. The project for the installation of a cycle parking facility was first considered by the Kaipātiki Local Board at their meeting of 24 April 2013 when it was resolved:

Resolution number KT/2013/120

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) requests Auckland Transport to investigate the following projects to be funded from the Local Boards Auckland Transport Capital Fund:

i) Cycle and scooter racks at Birkenhead Wharf – estimate $66,000.

16. Following this request the relevant information was then provided to the meeting of 22 May 2013 in which the report advised:

Kaipātiki Local Board AT Capital Fund Projects

Paragraph 42. The Local Board also supported investigation into the installation of scooter and cycle storage racks at Birkenhead Wharf to provide full commuter transport options and allocated the sum of $66,000. This amount has been confirmed as the final cost and requires the board’s confirmation so the project can be implemented. A copy of the proposed design and location is attached (Attachment C). As an outcome the Local Board Resolved:

22 May 2013 - Resolution number KT/2013/159

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

d) confirms the allocation of $66,000 to the installation of cycle and scooter racks at the Birkenhead Wharf to enable construction as per the final order of costs.

17. In June 2013 the Bike Park Facility was built as a Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project at a cost of $64,213. Close to completion of construction of the project, the Local Board received objections about the placement of the facility and consequently passed a number of resolutions:

14 August 2013 – Resolution Number KT/2013/228

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the petition from Keith Salmon and Gillian Taylor, requesting action moving the Birkenhead bike shelter from its current location, and thanks Mr Salmon for his attendance and presentation.

b) requests officers to:

i) report on the issues raised in the petition.

ii) report on any options and associated costs to relocate the shelter.

iii) meet with the presenter of the petition, chair of the Birkenhead Residents Association and the Commodore of the Northcote and Birkenhead Yacht Club to discuss options prior to reporting back.

iv) discuss options with Auckland Transport officers as part of the feedback reports.

c) delegates to Members Waugh, G Gillon, Marshall and McIntyre authority to receive the above reports with the power to make a recommendation to Auckland Transport to the maximum budget of $40 000 if the reports are not received before the 11 September 2013 meeting.

14 August 2013 – Resolution Number KT/2013/229

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the petition from Nick Kearney, in support of the Birkenhead bike shelter and its location, and the supporting information from Cycle Action Auckland.

b) requests officers to:

i) report on the issues raised in the petition.

ii) report on any options and associated costs to relocate the shelter.

iii) offer to meet with the presenter of the petition and a local representative of Cycle Action Auckland to discuss options prior to reporting back.

iv) discuss options with Auckland Transport officers as part of the feedback reports.

d) requests officers to report back as soon as possible before the summer season.

18. September 2013 - Site Meeting held with Community Groups – The Local Board Relationship Manager met on site with the community groups and reported back to the local board on the suggestions made at the meeting:

11 September 2013 - KT/2013/289

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) asks that options 4, Aa and Bb on the tabled presentation, or any combination thereof, be costed by staff and reported to the incoming board.

b) asks that the appropriate representatives of the disabled community be consulted prior to the removal or relocation of any disabled car parks.

c) asks that the possible options for relocation or replacement of the Birkenhead bike and scooter facility be consulted on before a report back to the incoming board.

19. Monthly Local Board Services Report - November 2013

Eric Perry, Relationship Manager, and Sarah Broad, Senior Advisor, were in attendance to speak to the report.

13 November 2013 - KT/2013/15

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the Monthly Local Board Services Report for November 2013. (note items b to e were not directed at AT)

f) strongly requests that the bike and scooter facility at Birkenhead Wharf be moved to a location more acceptable to the Kaipātiki Local Board and local residents and stakeholders.

Sites suggested at a Site Meeting with Community Groups

20. The sites A, B, 4, a & b (as indicated on the aerial image) were all considered and assessed by Auckland Transport at the inception of the project and were not considered practical for the location of a bike park facility for the following reasons:

Location 4

· Too far away from the terminal for security by passive observation and convenient use by cyclists

· Loss of 3 – 4 car parks

· There are significant stormwater issues – overland flow

· The land is sloping and a level platform is required

· Creating a level platform in this location would increase the installation cost

Location a

· Impact on Boat and Trailer parking – loss of car parks

· Under the cliff face – falling debris

· Bike and scooter movements in the area of the yachting club activities

· Location may be too small to accommodate the Bike Park

Location b

· Loss of car parks

· Creates obstruction to access/entrance to the boat ramp

· Will block free flow of footpath for pedestrians

· Not enough room to accommodate the existing structure

Location A & B at the terminal itself

· Creates Clutter around the entrance to the terminal

· Congestion between bus passengers and cyclists

· Blocks the emergency exit

· Affects the disabled parking

21. The present location of the bike park facility closely aligns with the operational requirements for Auckland Transport. This site meets all health and safety requirements, is fully functional for users, is supported by bike/ferry commuters and Auckland Transport considers it the only viable location for the Bike park facility at Birkenhead Wharf.

22. The options A, B, a, b and 4, as detailed in the image on page 3, are as a consequence, not considered practical or viable for the purpose of this facility.

Location selection

23. In considering the location of the proposed bike shelter, a number of criteria were assessed. Proximity to the wharf, ease of access by users, minimal loss of car parking, sightlines to the harbour and, passive observation providing safety for users. The preferred location was selected as it met the criteria specified above, particularly as it related to the safety of users. As detailed above, alternative sites along Hinemoa Street were also considered but the distance from the terminal, safety concerns and the loss of car parking spaces lead to these options being dismissed.

24. Auckland Transport considers that the preferred location has minimal effects on the existing activities that occur adjacent to, and surrounding, the Birkenhead Wharf. These activities include the operation of the Northcote Birkenhead Yacht club, on-street parking facilities, and access by the public to the wharf and harbour edge.

25. Auckland Transport considers that the current location of the bike shelter is the best location because:

· It is in close proximity to the terminal

· It is under the direct observation of the security personnel at the terminal

· It resulted in the loss of only two car parks

· It is clear of the bus stop and turning area, disabled parking, and equipment shed to operate the gantries for the ferry.

· It is set back from the wharf edge to preserve pedestrian access and recreational fishing.

Planning and consenting

26. The location of the shelter is partially within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and partly on Road Reserve. As such, resource consent was sought from Auckland Council under both the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section) and the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal.

27. Under these plans, the shelter required consent as a “restricted/limited discretionary” activity. As such, Auckland Council restricted its discretion in granting the resource consent to the consideration of the following matters:

· Use and design of the facility;

· Visual amenity;

· Impact on roading network; and

· Construction effects.

28. Auckland Council processing officers reviewed the information provided and were satisfied that any potential adverse effects from the bike shelter were no more than minor. The application was then referred to an Independent Duty Commissioner for approval and was granted on the 30^th May 2013. The consent reference is LR-2137480 and 41675.

29. In the consideration of the application, Auckland Council considered that the application met the tests to be considered without limited or full public notification.

30. Moving the shelter to a different location is likely to require either an application to vary the conditions of the existing consent, or a completely new resource consent application.

Potential relocation costs and timings

31. Depending on how far the shelter is moved and the required level of consultation with the community, planning fees could range from $3,000 (for a straightforward variation) to $10,000+ (for a new consent where consultation is required). Council resource consent application fees ($750 - $2045); drawings, specialist inputs (e.g. landscape or urban design) and building consent fees would be additional to the planning input.

32. Timeframes would also be highly variable depending on the complexity in the change of location. The best case scenario would be consent being granted 3 months from the time that the location and drawings finalised however, it could take significantly longer (again, depending on the level of consultation required and the complexity of the change in location).

33. In terms of building costs, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates of the costs involved in moving the structure, as these would be dependent on the location it was being moved to but these could be considerably more than the $64,000 initial build cost, when reinstatement and access costs for services are taken into account.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

36. 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

37. There are no implementation issues

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sean Corbett, Property Manager Operations, Auckland Transport

Paul Hancock, Infrastructure and Facilities Manager, Auckland Transport

Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Roger Wilson, Council Engagement Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Local Board Transport Capital Fund – overview of total programme for the current local boards

File No.: CP2014/06252

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to advise all 21 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

Discussion

Background

2. The total annual budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is $10 million. This was assigned to the 21 local boards based on population, except for the Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards who received nominated sums.

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

Budget considerations

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

5. The total amount spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the 2012/2013 financial year was $1.3 million. 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 $8.7 million was subsequently approved.

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

· The carry forward from 2012/2013 = $8.7 million

· The 2013/2014 Budget = $10 million

· The 2014/2015 Budget = $10 million

· The 2015/2016 Budget = $10 million

This is a total of $38.7 million.

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

· 2013/2014 Forecast = $8.6 million (actual current forecast)

· 2014/2015 Forecast = $10.1 million (latest forecast)

· 2015/2016 Forecast = $20 million (latest forecast)

8. The 2013/2014 figure is the currently expected end of year result for 2013/2014. The end of the 2013/2014 financial year is the end of the second year of the four year Local Board Transport Capital Fund programme that needs to be completed by 30 June 2016, and only $9.9 million of the $40 million will be spent, i.e. only 25% spent in half the available time.

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

10. In addition, the current local boards are allowed to spend some or all of the 2016/2017 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget as their elected term finishes three months into this financial year on approximately 30 Sept 2016. This means there is an additional $10 million available that could also be spent.

Value of projects

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

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

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

Forward planning to ensure programme delivery

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

15. As the spending of the budget is heavily weighted towards the 2015/2016 financial year and to a lesser extent the 2014/2015 financial year, the issue of Auckland Transport being able to manage the work in those years and the contracting industry being able to carry out the large volume of work become factors in the overall delivery of the programme.

16. Accordingly, construction approval will be required for all projects in the programme by 30 May 2015 at the latest, so that the last of the physical works construction can be spread out over the entire 2015/2016 financial year. Many of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10 million of work in the 2014/2015 year.

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

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

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

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

Project Management Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Transport programme management process

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of not Delivering the full Programme

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

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

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

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

Local Board	Total Budget 2012/2013 to 2015/2016 (four years)	Total Value of all Approved Projects and Proposals Being Assessed	Value of New Projects Still to be Identified
Albert Eden	$2,659,732	$1,302,567	$1,357,165
Devonport Takapuna	$1,540,120	$1,104,960	$435,160
Franklin	$1,739,864	$946,555	$793,309
Great Barrier	$400,000	$278,476	$121,524
Henderson Massey	$2,993,512	$1,012,988	$1,980,524
Hibiscus and Bays	$2,399,540	$763,330	$1,636,210
Howick	$3,487,612	$1,147,000	$2,340,612
Kaipatiki	$2,318,064	$1,244,711	$1,073,353
Mangere Otahuhu	$2,071,016	$609,364	$1,461,652
Manurewa	$2,373,256	$472,116	$1,901,140
Maungakiekie Tamaki	$1,979,028	$800,000	$1,179,028
Orakei	$2,199,796	$852,633	$1,347,163
Otara Papatoetoe	$2,197,168	$1,098,584	$1,098,584
Papakura	$1,224,736	$904,747	$319,989
Puketapapa	$1,526,468	$373,000	$1,143,468
Rodney	$1,477,044	$733,000	$744,044
Upper Harbour	$1,348,264	$674,132	$674,132
Waiheke	$800,000	$211,943	$588,057
Waitakere Ranges	$1,324,608	$140,000	$1,184,608
Waitemata	$1,879,156	$192,470	$1,686,686
Whau	$2,071,016	$0	$2,071,016
TOTALS	$40,000,000	$14,862,576	$25,137,424

37. It should be noted that the possible spend of the 2016/2017 budget is not included in the above figures.

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

Implementation Issues

42. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Projects that could be considered by local boards	119
b View	Financial update for the Kaipātiki Local Board	125

Signatories

Authors

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

Authorisers

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

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Local economic development July to December 2013: Kaipātiki Local Board

File No.: CP2014/05119

Purpose

1. This report provides an update for the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki Local Board area includes:

· The preparation of an economic development overview presenting a range of indicators on the Kaipātiki economy, issues and opportunities

· Work to support the establishment of a business network in Wairau Valley

· Business Improvement District (BID) Partnership programmes in Birkenhead and Northcote

· The development of a Kaipātiki Local Economic Development Action Plan

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

3. The proposed 2014/15 work programme builds on current activities.

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

b) approves the indicative 2014/15 local economic development work programme as:

i. Economic analysis and planning for the local economy.

ii. Completion of the Kaipātiki Local Economic Development Action Plan and initiation of priority actions.

iii. Support for Business Improvement District Partnership programmes in Birkenhead and Northcote.

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

c) 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 Kaipātiki 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. The Economic Development Department is 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.

Economic Development Overview

8. An economic development (ED) overview has been prepared for the Kaipātiki Local Board area. The overview outlines the current economic picture in Kaipātiki, 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.

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

10. In 2012, GDP^{^[1]} in Kaipātiki was $2.5 billion, which was 3.1 per cent of the Auckland regional GDP. Manufacturing, retail trade and wholesale trade are the largest sectors in the Kaipātiki economy.

Kaipātiki’s industrial mix by GDP (2012)

Source: Infometrics

11. Stand out facts about Kaipātiki include:

· 43 per cent of employment is within retail, wholesale and manufacturing sectors.

· High proportion of people in the labour force and comparatively well-qualified workforce.

· High proportion of self-employed people and households receiving business income.

· Educational attainment and employment rate of young people below the regional average.

· The economy grew more slowly than the Auckland average in the ten years to 2012.

12. Employment in Kaipātiki decreased by an average of 0.3 per cent per annum in the ten years from 2002-12, compared to an annual 1.9 per cent per annum increase in Auckland. Over the past ten years employment growth in Kaipātiki has been the lowest of any area in Auckland. During this period, Kaipātiki job numbers increased the most in construction, retail, education and training and professional, scientific and technical services and declined the most in manufacturing and wholesale.

13. The current Kaipātiki Local Board Plan supports maximising the economic potential of Wairau Valley and improving transport to enable people to access employment opportunities. The ED overview recognises these priorities and includes the following initial assessment of the strengths, challenges and opportunities within the local economy.

An assessment of Kaipātiki’s economic potential

Strengths		Challenges
Growing local population · Kaipātiki is an attractive residential area with population growth arising from people moving in from overseas. · Labour force participation and household incomes are above the Auckland average. · Population has higher level of qualifications than Auckland average. National linkages · Kaipātiki is located close to central Auckland and to SH1 providing easy access north and south.		Infrastructure · Congestion on routes to SH1. Building the skills base · Youth unemployment is high. · High number of lower skilled jobs. Industry profile · Retail and wholesale trades and manufacturing are main employers and these sectors have declined in recent years. · No current plan for the direction and development of the areas main employment centre, Wairau Valley. · Aside from a few major employers, generally small scale of business operations. · Reverse sensitivity issues for some with residential areas bordering Wairau Valley. Slow economic growth · Relatively slow economic growth in recent past in terms of GDP and employment.
Opportunities
Business friendly	· Work underway to understand the nature of business activity in Wairau Valley, an opportunity to engage the business community and shape development in this area. · There is a need to identify appropriate sites for business development. · Skills development and growth from the digital economy.
Innovation and exports	· Need to identify and support businesses with export potential.
Skills	· Improving access to training opportunities. · Transitioning youth from education to the workforce.
Vibrant and creative city	· Opportunities to build on the strength and diversity of local centres (e.g. Birkenhead and Northcote transformation projects).

Local Economic Development Initiatives

Wairau Valley Scoping Study

14. The Wairau Valley Scoping Study was carried out by Massey University in June 2013. This study noted the addresses and activity of 1,225 businesses within the Wairau Valley area. A further survey of 200 businesses was then undertaken.

15. In October 2013 the Economic Development Department contracted BusinessLAB to complete the list of businesses in the Wairau Valley, investigate the appetite for a business association and identify business champions.

16. When BusinessLAB began their consultation within Wairau Valley they found a small group of businesses already working towards becoming a business association.

17. BusinessLAB organised the first business networking meeting in November 2013. It was well attended with over 40 businesses involved. The networking meeting was a chance for businesses to meet and to hear presentations from ATEED and the North Harbour Business Association.

18. A follow up meeting was organised to allow the fledgling business association to work on key topics of interest and start to form their committee. In February 2014 the Wairau Valley Business Association was formed and the networking meeting that month was a chance for the group to brainstorm issues and opportunities.

19. The Wairau Valley Business Association has expressed an interest in retaining the services of BusinessLAB to help with their AGM and first few meetings, establish roles and responsibilities and develop documentation. The Kaipātiki Local Board has been supportive of this approach to date and will consider further support, potentially including funding.

20. The Wairau Valley business scoping project was a success, with a business association formed and strong contacts made between local businesses and the Local Board.

Local Economic Development Action Plan

21. The preparation of a Local ED Action Plan for the Kaipātiki area will start in March 2014. Once adopted the plan will be a platform for the Local Board and other parties to advocate or catalyse activities for local economic development.

22. The process, led by the Local Board, involves engaging with a range of players on how to build the economic capacity within Kaipātiki. It reflects that local actions are crucial to achieving the regional aim to develop an economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders.

23. The action plan will set the framework for addressing the ED themes highlighted in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan, such as improving town centres and villages and increasing local employment opportunities.

24. The action plan will identify specific local initiatives and also seek to influence the delivery of regional programmes in the Local Board area. The local economic development work programme for 2013/2014 includes budget of $63,788 to support the development of the action plan.

25. A workshop on the draft Local ED Action Plan is planned for April 2014.

BID Partnership Programmes

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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 Market View 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Twenty-seven existing BIDs have chosen to increase their amount of targeted rate funding 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.

Birkenhead BID

34. Birkenhead Business Association held their AGM on 19 November 2013 with a good turnout. A review of past activities and an overview of their business plan for the next 12-18 months were presented. The members ratified and adopted the BID target rate for 2014/2015 which is $170,000 per annum and includes a $10,000 increase.

35. Birkenhead Business Association has a strong focus on marketing and events which provide a focus for the local businesses. Promotions and events included a “Cash for Christmas shop at Birkenhead and win”, Latin American Film festival and 1920 Sugar Town Festival which is part of the Heritage festival.

36. Birkenhead has a variety of summer events including a Valentine’s Day promotion, art festival and the Birkenhead Artisan Market.

Northcote BID

37. Northcote Business Association held their AGM on 26 November 2013. The chair provided an overview of the association’s achievements over the past 12 months, including the completion of the playground and the almost complete new Northcote brand. Their focus for events continues to be the Chinese and Korean New Year Festival and the Moon Festival, which provide a point of difference from other local centres. The members ratified and adopted the BID target rate for 2014/2015. which remains at $120,000 per annum with no increase.

38. Providing a safe and secure environment is the main focus for the BID programme and having a static guard and CCTV coverage is key to ensure customers continue to visit and shop at Northcote.

39. The BID Manager provided an overview of their business plan for the next 12-18 months. Members ratified and adopted the BID target rate with a ten per cent increase; bringing the BID target rate for 2014/2015 to $366,856 per annum.

40. Northcote continue to be included in the Northcote Central project and it is hoped that the business association actively represents the interests of local businesses. As part of the Northcote Central project, the Northcote Business Association have been involved in the Northcote signage / way finding project and engaged in the consultation process to decide on a final design.

Ultrafast Broadband

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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

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

OPEX Project description

Economic analysis and planning.

Completion of the Kaipātiki Local Economic Development Action Plan and initiation of priority actions.

BID Partnership programmes in Birkenhead and Northcote

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

45. This report informs the Kaipātiki 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

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

General

47. N/A.

Implementation Issues

48. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Trudi Fava - Strategic Planner

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06000

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

2. 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 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.

3. 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 as follows:

· 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.

4. A summary of ACPL activities specific to the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) Local Board Six-Monthly Update Report 1 July to 31 December 2013.

Discussion

Principles for working together

5. 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 that will guide 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.

6. ACPL’s commitment to the local boards is outlined in detail in our Local Board Engagement Plan (LBEP), which is attached as Attachment A for reference.

Workshops and Meetings

7. A schedule of Kaipātiki 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

8. 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.

9. The property portfolio has continued to grow during the last six-months and now totals 1,095 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 $2 million.

10. Property portfolio information detailing current ACPL managed commercial and residential property within the Kaipātiki 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.

11. A report indicating portfolio movement in the 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

12. 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.

13. 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, the relevant local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with the relevant local board and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and finally a governing body decision. A detailed process flowchart is provided as Attachment E.

14. 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.

15. Properties currently under review for future opportunities via the Rationalisation Process in the Kaipātiki 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
25A Verran Road, Birkenhead	Vacant land surrounding residential. ACPL’s development team is evaluating this site for potential residential housing outcomes. Progressing through Rationalisation Process to evaluate future use options and considerations prior to progressing any potential development plans.
1A Mulberry Place , Glenfield	This was a legacy NSCC slip stabilization project that has recently completed. Concern raised by Local Board that there may be ongoing slip concerns on this site. This concern is being investigated as part of the Rationlisation Process.

Place Shaping and Housing Initiatives

16. 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 $100 million.

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

Northcote Town Centre:

18. This is an Auckland Plan place-shaping priority project in an area targeted for regeneration, with Council being a stakeholder as owner of the freehold interest of the Northcote Town Centre and community facilities. The land holdings are subject to perpetual ground leases to private parties and are managed by ACPL.

19. ACPL has been investigating how Council’s ownership position can be used to action various urban design initiatives identified in the North Shore City Council’s Town Centre Plan Vision for the Future.

20. The overall project is led by City Transformations, and ACPL will actively contribute to the project where appropriate. Specifically, ACPL is involved in providing advice and an opinion on a rebranding and way-finding exercise for the centre. Additional site specific projects include the possible development of additional ablutions and the reconfiguration of the car park. ACPL will provide continued development advice on these and other items.

21. Additional work is being done by the Council’s Parks division, the Ministry of Education and Housing New Zealand on the adjacent reserve area and state housing to the east of the centre.

Highbury Viewing Platform:

22. This is a North Shore City Council legacy project. A retail property was purchased in 2004 with the intention of creating a link from the retail strip to Le Roys Bush. It is proposed that a viewing platform be constructed with the possibility of creating a type of food retailing improvement on the platform. This platform was identified as a priority project in NSCC’s Annual Plan.

23. City Transformations has taken responsibility for this project and approached ACPL for advice on the commercial viability of the proposed food retail element of the project. ACPL has completed a rental assessment and viability appraisal. Further advice was been provided on construction costs, property management and operating costs. It has been concluded that the best outcome for the site will be to retain it within the service portfolio, but develop a commercial food retail element within the site that will be managed by ACPL as a commercial tenancy.

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. ACPL also provides advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

25. A total of 54 property purchases to the value of $8.9 million 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 Kaipātiki 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. There are currently no ACPL managed business interests in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Consideration

Local Board Views

31. This report is for the Kaipātiki Local Board’s information and seeks the views of the Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

32. 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

· development partnering discussions.

33. 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 Kaipātiki 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 (SOI); 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 endeavouring 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 statement of intent (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	141
b View	Schedule of Meetings and Workshops	157
c View	Properties Managed by ACPL in the Local Board area	159
d View	Property movement in the Local Board area	163
e View	Rationalisation Process Flowchart	165

Signatories

Authors

Caitlin Borgfeldt Local Board Liaison

Authorisers

David Rankin Chief Executive

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/05969

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

4. Local boards are invited to provide their input based on the discussion document. Feedback will be reported back to the Governing Body and will inform the first phase of the CCO review (current state assessment) as well as subsequent phases of the review.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provides input into the CCO review (current state assessment); OR

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

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

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

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

a) To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

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

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

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

b) In addition, the review will seek to:

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

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

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

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

Current state assessment: preliminary findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

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

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

18. The local boards are encouraged to:

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

· reflect on what worked well and what can be improved

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference	173
b View	Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council perspective)	179
c View	Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Question for Local Boards	195

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/05878

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 Local Board Agreement.

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

3. It also seeks the Kaipātiki Local Board’s confirmation of priority activity types that 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:

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

· the Kaipātiki Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect Local Board Plan priorities.

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

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

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki 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 in setting and varying 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 local boards wish to consider more substantial changes to hire fees and charges in future years to ensure alignment across the 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 Kaipatiki 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:

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

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

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

Table 1: Fee Naming Conventions

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

Consideration of Kaipātiki Local Board Priorities

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. This report reflects the engagement taken to date with 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 Maori was identified for the purposes of this report.

General

19. This report does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres and arts facilities	217

Signatories

Authors

Kevin Marriott - Manager Community Facilities

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Local board feedback on local boards funding policy review

File No.: CP2014/06164

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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

Discussion

9. At the 20 February 2014 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee^{^[2]}, 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	229

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

LGNZ conference and AGM 2014

File No.: CP2014/05967

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Lawrence Yule, LGNZ’s 2014 elections manifesto

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

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

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

· New generation funding models for infrastructure

· Funding models and the economic impact of cycle ways

· Transforming local government through smart digital investment

· Improving governance through strengthening capacity and capability

· How do we engage with youth?

Annual General Meeting

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

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

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

Costs

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

13. This is a report to all local boards.

Maori Impact Statement

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	2014 LGNZ AGM and Conference Programme	245

Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Affected Party Approval Request for Proposed Additions and Alterations at 22 Tarahanga Street, Northcote, Located Adjacent to Onepoto Domain

File No.: CP2014/05825

Purpose

1. To seek affected party approval from the Kaipatiki Local Board in relation to proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 22 Tarahanga Street, Northcote, which will infringe a number of rules of the Auckland District Plan (North Shore Section), as they relate to the adjoining Onepoto Domain.

Executive Summary

2. An application has been received to undertake additions and alterations to the existing residential dwelling at 22 Tarahanga Street, Northcote. The proposed works will result in the construction of a new double garage, a new pitched roof, an extension to the deck on the first floor, a 1.1m retaining wall topped by a 1.0m fence along the reserve boundary and landscaping.

3. The property adjoins Onepoto Domain along the northern and eastern boundaries, which is administered by Auckland Council. The proposal will infringe various rules in the Auckland District Plan (North Shore Section). The infringements as they relate to the reserve include the height to relation boundary rule, the rear and side yard setback rules, and the maximum building coverage rule. As the adjoining landowner, Council is considered to be an affected party and the applicant is seeking approval for the proposal. The Parks Portfolio Holder has requested that the Kaipatiki Local Board use their delegated authority to consider the proposal.

4. In addition to the infringements directly impacting the reserve, the proposal also requires resource consent for height in relation to boundary infringements to the northern and southern boundaries, an infringement to the western side yard setback, an infringement to the garage setback from the street, and an infringement of the front yard setback control. These infringements will not impact on Onepoto Domain.

5. A copy of the proposed plans are included as Attachment A, and a site photograph is included as Attachment B.

6. Onepoto Domain provides informal and active recreation opportunities and contains significant ecological and landscape values. The proposed infringements have been assessed in terms of the potential visual dominance, shadowing effects, and impact on the reserve’s general amenity and intrinsic values. Given the nature of the infringements (scale, location and design), and the section of the reserve adjoining the eastern and northern boundaries contains no park infrastructure and receives infrequent use compared to other parts of the reserve, it is considered that the proposal will not detract from the intrinsic values or amenity of the reserve and will not impact on the user experience. It is recommended that the affected party approval is provided.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the granting of affected party approval for the proposed additions and alterations and new garage at 22 Tarahanga Street, Northcote, as detailed in the plans prepared by MRA Limited titled ‘Garage, 22 Tarahanga St, Northcote for Tait Trustee Ltd; Sheet NO:A01’ and ‘122 (sic) Tarahanga St, Northcote For Tait Trustee Ltd’, identified as, Sheet NO:L02, Sheet NO:L03, Sheet NO:L05 to Sheet NO:L08 (dated March 2013).

Discussion

7. An application has been received to undertake additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 22 Taranga Street, Northcote. Resource consent is required for the proposed works. The purpose of the works is to re-clad and re-roof the existing residential dwelling, extend the deck and construct a new double garage. The proposal will incur a number of infringements including height to boundary and yard infringements along the properties boundaries.

8. The eastern and northern boundaries adjoin Onepoto Domain, which is administered by Auckland Council as a recreation reserve. The proposed additions and alterations will infringe a number of rules in the Auckland Council (North Shore Section) District Plan. Where they directly impact the reserve the infringements include:

· The height in relation to boundary rule as it relates to the eastern boundary – the garage infringes between 1.75m and 0.25m over a horizontal length of 7.2m

· The height in relation to boundary rule as it relates to the northern boundary– various infringements ranging from 1.77m to 0.770m of the deck railing, parapets and soffits

· The proposed retaining wall and garage will infringe the 1.2m side yard setback by 0.8 metres, sitting at 0.4 m from the boundary

· The proposed retaining wall and first floor deck infringes the 3m rear yard setback

· The fences height rule is infringed by 0.3m with 2.1m proposed and 1.8m permitted.

9. Other infringements which also need to be assessed in relation to potential impacts on the reserve include:

· The proposal will infringe the maximum building coverage of 35% by 15.84% with a total of 50.84%

· The proposal will have structures located within an overland flow path.

10. As the adjoining landowner, Council is considered to be an affected party and the applicants are seeking the Board’s approval for the proposed infringements. The decision to grant or decline affected party approval falls within the Kaipatiki Local Board’s delegated authority. The Parks Portfolio Holder has requested that the Board consider the request.

11. The District Plan provision that relates to height to boundary control is in place to prevent adverse effects on adjacent landowners in relation to shading and visual dominance. Similarly, the yards control seeks to ensure that the spacious character of the zone is retained and provides opportunities for the retention of vegetation between buildings, which is also part of the particular amenity of these areas. The Parks, Sports and Recreation Department generally seeks complying developments on properties that adjoin parkland in order to protect and enhance the intrinsic values of the open space and the visitor experience.

12. Onepoto Domain is approximately 26.5 hectares and provides for informal recreation (grassed areas, children’s play space, walking and cycling pathways, barbeques), active recreation (2 playing fields) and contains significant ecological and geological features. As such, the Domain caters for a wide range of people and a wide variety of activities. The Onepoto Domain Reserve Management Plan seeks to provide for the wise use and management of Onepoto Domain. The aim being to provide a balance between catering for demands of the recreation opportunities provided, while protecting the geological, environmentally, and visually important landscape features of the crater and stream system.

13. The section of the Domain adjacent the subject site is an area of mixed planting and grass, and does not contain any formal walking or cycling routes or park structures. Its main function is providing for passive recreation and amenity.

14. The proposed infringements have been assessed in terms of the potential visual dominance, shadowing effects, and impact on the reserve’s general amenity and intrinsic values. The scale of the various infringements relating to the main dwelling, double garage, deck and retaining wall/fence are such that there is not considered to be a significant visual impact on the reserve. In terms of shading, it is considered that any additional shadowing resulting from the infringements on to the reserve will not adversely impact visitors’ enjoyment of the reserve. This is due to the particular location of the site being open in nature and away from the main active area of the reserve. The appearance, size, bulk and location of the proposal is not inconsistent with the residential development surrounding the reserve. The applicant has proposed to rationalise the outdoor space and landscaping to create a high level of visual amenity on the property. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development will improve the visual amenity of the dwelling as it is perceived from the reserve.

15. The site coverage proposed for the development exceeds the maximum building coverage by 15.84% with 35% allowed and 50.84% proposed. As part of the applicant’s proposal, it has been indicated that the dwelling received resource consent to infringe the building coverage control by 2% with a total coverage of 37% consented. Recent calculations by the applicant have identified that the existing building coverage is currently at 40.37%. This has the potential to result in a dominance effect on the reserve and reserve users. It is considered that this impact is lessened due to the low use of this part of the reserve, and by the double garage being separated from the main dwelling as opposed to it being just one large building on the site.

16. Council’s GIS system identifies the edge of the eastern boundary is impacted upon by the ‘flood sensitive area’ overlay. This, however, does not impact upon the reserve or reserve visitors and is a design issue for the applicant to consider.

17. Overall it is considered that the scale and design of the proposal does not detract from the intrinsic values or amenity of the reserve in the context of the reserve in this particular location. It is therefore recommended that affected party approval be granted.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. The Kaipatiki Local Board Parks Portfolio Holder has requested that the request for affected party approval is considered by the Board through their delegated authority.

Maori Impact Statement

19. This report relates to work being carried out on a private residential property. In this regard, neither the applicant nor Council officers have discussed the proposal with iwi. Furthermore, the proposed works do not impact negatively on the flora and fauna of the scenic reserve. The protection of native flora and fauna is an important consideration for iwi. There are no sites of significance to mana whenua identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) in this part of the reserve.

General

20. There are no financial implications of the proposal beyond the ordinary costs associated with the officer involvement for the reviewing and provision of the affected party approval.

Implementation Issues

21. If the Kaipatiki Local Board provides affected party approval, Council’s Consents team will be able to consider the options of assessing the application without public notification under s95A, or as limited notification under s95B of the Resource Management Act. Additionally, Council’s Consents team would no longer be entitled to consider any effects on the adjoining reserve when deciding the application under s104.

22. To implement the recommendation of this request, a letter would be prepared, signed and issued to the applicant(s) by the Parks Sport and Recreation Department.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Plans	253
b View	Site photograph	259

Signatories

Authors

Stanley Bolton - Park & Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Lisa Tocker - Manager, Recreation Facilities & Service Delivery Central

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2014/03090

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

Recommendation/s

a) That the Kaipatiki Local Board grants the following applications for special exemption, subject to ongoing compliance with NZS8500-2006 Section 3.10 at all times:

i) Timothy Waugh-Middleton(tenant), 31A Chippendale Crescent, Birkdale.

ii) Daniel & Sarah Maling, 54 Exmouth Road, Northcote.

iii) Christopher & Charlotte Diggle, 129G Rangatira Road, Beach Haven.

Discussion

3. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected the properties, which are the subject of an application before the Local Board. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with that Act. The details of non-compliance are specified in the attachments to this report. The applicants have chosen to seek a special exemption from the requirements of the Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. The Local Board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline an application for special exemption. If an application is declined the applicant will be required to fence their pool in accordance with the Act.

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

20. Council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicants. The applicants have been made aware of the Council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act. The applicants have elected to seek a special exemption for individual reasons.

Implementation Issues

21. The decision must be made by resolution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	31A Chippendale Crescent - Confidential
b View	54 Exmouth Road - Confidential
c View	129G Rangatira Road - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Mark Satherley - Team Leader Compliance and Enforcement

Authorisers

Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 April 2014

Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2014/02287

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

Recommendation/s

a) That the Kaipatiki Local Board grants the following applications for special exemption, subject to ongoing compliance with NZS8500-2006 Section 3.10 at all times:

i) Troy & Jayne Sugrue, 15A Fairfax Ave, Northcote.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

Implementation Issues

21. The decision must be made by resolution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	15A Fairfax Avenue - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Mark Satherley - Team Leader Compliance and Enforcement

Authorisers

Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[1] 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	Kay McIntyre, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Ann Hartley, JP
Members	Dr Grant Gillon
	John Gillon
	Danielle Grant
	Richard Hills
	Lorene Pigg
	Lindsay Waugh

	Kay McIntyre QSM Chairperson Ph 09 484 8383 DDI 09 484 8987 Mobile 021 287 8844 kay.mcintyre@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Finance – lead · Planning, policy and governance – lead · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – alternate		Ann Hartley JP Deputy Chairperson Mob 027 490 6909 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 483 7572 ann.hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Community Development and Facilities – lead · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – alternate · Planning, policy and governance – alternate · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – alternate
	Danielle Grant Local Board Member Mob 021 835 724 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 442 1271 danielle.grant@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Arts, culture and events services – lead · Economic development – lead · Natural environment – alternate		Grant Gillon MPP, PhD Local Board Member Mob 027 476 4679 Office 09 484 8383 grant.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Natural environment – lead · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – lead · Libraries – alternate
	John Gillon Local Board Member Mob 021 286 2288 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 443 1683 john.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Libraries – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – lead · Civil defence and emergency management – alternate		Lindsay Waugh Local Board Member Mob 021 287 1155 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 418 1620 lindsay.waugh@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – lead · Arts, culture and events services – alternate · Transport and infrastructure – alternate
	Lorene Pigg Local Board Member Mob 021 839 375 Office 09 484 8383 lorene.pigg@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Civil defence and emergency management – lead · Finance – alternate · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – alternate		Richard Hills Local Board Member Mob 021 286 4411 Office 09 484 8383 richard.hills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Transport and infrastructure – lead · Community Development and Facilities – alternate · Economic development – alternate

Authors	Bianca Wildish - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

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

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