I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Manurewa Local Board will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Thursday, 10
April 2014
6.30pm
Manurewa
Local Board Office
7 Hill Road
Manurewa
|
|
Manurewa Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Angela Dalton
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Simeon Brown
|
|
|
Members
|
Michael Bailey
|
|
|
|
Angela Cunningham-Marino
|
|
|
|
Hon George Hawkins, QSO
|
|
|
|
Danella McCormick
|
|
|
|
Ken Penney
|
|
|
|
Daryl Wrightson
|
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
|
Lee Manaia
Local Board Democracy Advisor
4 April 2014
Contact Telephone: (09) 262 5421
Email: lee.manaia@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
|
Portfolio Lead
|
Portfolio
Associate
|
Portfolio
Activity and Responsibilities
|
|
Angela
Dalton
Chairperson
C/- Shop 3-5
7 Hill Road
Manurewa
Auckland 2105
Mob: 021 283
3311
Email:
Angela.Dalton@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Simeon Brown
|
·
Governance portfolio
·
Board leadership
·
Board-to-Council
relationships
·
Board-to-Board
relationships
·
Local Board Plan
·
Local Board
agreements
·
Civic duties
·
Advocacy (local,
regional, and central government)
·
Community
partnerships
·
Relationships with
Maoridom and youth
·
Relationships with
government departments and agencies
·
Relationships with
Watercare
·
Relationship with
Property CCO
·
Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development
·
Local funding policy
Political Working Party
·
Relationship with
ATEED
·
Relationship with
Regional Facilities CCO’s
·
Relationship COMET
·
Relationship Southern
Initiative
|
|
|
·
Regulatory portfolio
·
Resource consents
·
Heritage
·
Gambling
·
Liquor (Simeon Brown
as alternate)
·
Urban design
·
Swimming pools
·
Trees
·
By-laws
·
Airport noise
·
Unitary Plan
·
Waste management
|
|
Simeon
Brown
Deputy
Chairperson
C/- Shop 3-5
7 Hill Road
Manurewa
Auckland 2105
Mob: 021 0272 4242
simeon.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Daryl Wrightson
|
·
Community and social
well-being portfolio
·
Community development
(incl. CAYAD, CAB, and Manurewa Senior Citizens)
·
Neighbourhood
relationships
·
Funding for
neighbourhood projects
·
Community safety
(excl. town centres)
·
Graffiti removal
·
Community advocacy
·
Community facilities
·
Youth Council
·
Contact CAB
|
|
Michael Bailey
|
·
Town centres and
economic portfolio
·
Town centre renewal
(incl. branding)
·
Design and
maintenance
·
Town Centre marketing
·
Community safety
within town centres
·
Business Improvement
Districts (Michael Bailey and Simeon Brown)
·
Local priorities in
relation to regional economic development initiatives
|
|
Michael
Bailey
10
Rimu Road
Manurewa
2102
Mob:
021 287 4422
Email:
Micahel.Bailey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Danella
McCormick
|
·
Sports parks and recreation
portfolio
·
Stewardship of sports
parks
·
Stewardship of
recreation facilities
·
Relationship with
sports clubs
·
Neighbourhood parks
and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline)
·
Design and
maintenance
·
Plantings,
playgrounds, bollards, and walkways
·
Botanic Gardens and Totara Park
·
Skateparks
·
Associate for the
following portfolios:
·
Governance
·
transport
|
|
George Hawkins
|
·
Libraries and
recreation portfolio
·
Stewardship of
Manurewa libraries
·
Mobile library
|
|
George Hawkins
|
·
Transport portfolio
·
Local transport
projects (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways)
|
|
Angela
Cunningham –Marino
C/- Auckland Council
Private
Bag 92300
Auckland 1142
Ph:
266 4729
Mob:
027 504 0884
Email:
Angela.Cunningham-Marino@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Daryl Wrightson
|
·
Arts, Culture and Events
portfolio
·
Community celebration
·
Community identity
·
Neighbourhood
gatherings and renewal
·
Event compliance
·
Artistic and cultural
service levels
·
Promoting artistic
endeavour (particularly among Manurewa youth)
·
Regional arts
·
Producing a music and
arts centre for Manurewa
|
|
Simeon Brown
|
·
Recreation Services
portfolio
·
Contact Manukau
Leisure
|
|
Danella
McCormick
|
·
Built and Natural Environment
portfolio
·
Restoration of wetlands,
streams, and waterways
·
Local priorities in
relation to regional environmental management
·
Mangroves
·
Manukau Harbour
|
|
Danella
McCormick
Shop 3-5, 7 Hill
Road
Manurewa, Auckland 2105
Mob: 021 800 593
Email: Danella.McCormick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
Angela
Cunningham-Marino
|
·
Civil Defence
Emergency Management portfolio
·
Relationships with
the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
·
Community
preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery
|
Other Board Members:
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 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
7.1 Petition - Parking on roads bounding Clayton Park Primary
School - Murray McElwain, Acacia Cove Village 7
8 Deputations 8
9 Public Forum 8
10 Extraordinary Business 9
11 Notices of Motion 9
12 Manurewa Ward Councillors Update 11
13 Manurewa Youth Council Update 13
14 Portfolio Update 15
15 Chairperson's Update 25
16 Auckland Transport Update – March 2014 27
17 Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total
Programme for the Current Local Boards 33
18 Smoke-free Policy Implementation 47
19 Local economic development July to December 2013: Manurewa
Local Board 53
20 Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly
Update
1 July to 31 December 2013 61
21 Manurewa Local Board - ANZAC Day event budget 91
22 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference and Annual
General Meeting (AGM) 2014 93
23 Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy
Review 101
24 Fees and charges for the hire of community venues, centres
and arts facilities - Manurewa Local Board Agreement 113
25 Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 submissions analysis and
responses to information requests 119
26 Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan 129
27 Reports Requested - Pending - Issues 147
28 Manurewa Local Board Achievements Register 2013-2016
Electoral Term 153
29 For Information: Reports referred to the Manurewa Local Board
157
30 Manurewa Local Board Workshop Notes 159
31 Consideration of Extraordinary
Items
The meeting
will begin with a prayer.
2 Apologies
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
3 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
4 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Thursday, 13 March 2014, as a true and
correct record.
b)
confirm the ordinary minutes of the Annual
Plan Hearings – Manurewa meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 March 2014, as a true
and correct record.
|
5 Leave of Absence
At the close of
the agenda no further requests for leave of absence had been received.
Member Ken
Penney was granted leave of absence until 8 Mary 2014 at the 13 March 2014
meeting.
6 Acknowledgements
At the close of
the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.
7 Petitions
|
7.1 Petition - Parking
on roads bounding Clayton Park Primary School - Murray McElwain, Acacia Cove
Village
|
|
Purpose
1. Attaching a
petition initiated by Murray McElwain a resident in the Acacia Grove Village
for the Board’s consideration with the following prayer:
“We, the undersigned, are all residents of Acacia Cove Retirement
Village and petition the Auckland Road Transport Department to restrict
parking between 8.30am – 9.00am and 2.45pm – 3.15pm on school days on the
roads bounding Clayton Park Primary School in Manurewa as follows:
|
|
i) In Wattle
Farm Road make a no parking restriction on the side of the road opposite the
school from Ranger Place to Coxhead Road.
ii) In Wattle
Farm Road on the side of the road outside the school make a no parking
restriction from the corner of Clayton Road for, say, two car lengths.
iii) In Coxhead
Road on the side of the road outside the school make a no parking restriction
from the corner of Wattle Farm Road for, say, two car lengths.”
Executive Summary
2. N/A
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa
Local Board:
a) Receive the
petition initiated by Murray McElwain, a resident in the Acacia Grove
Village, with the following prayer:
“We, the undersigned, are all residents
of Acacia Cove Retirement Village and petition the Auckland Road Transport
Department to restrict parking between 8.30am – 9.00am and 2.45pm – 3.15pm on
school days on the roads bounding Clayton Park Primary School in Manurewa as
follows:
i) In Wattle
Farm Road make a no parking restriction on the side of the road opposite the
school from Ranger Place to Coxhead Road.
ii) In Wattle
Farm Road on the side of the road outside the school make a no parking
restriction from the corner of Clayton Road for, say, two car lengths.
iii) In Coxhead
Road on the side of the road outside the school make a no parking restriction
from the corner of Wattle Farm Road for, say, two car lengths.”
|
|
Attachments
a Petition - Parking on roads bounding the Clayton Park Primary
School.............................................................................................................. 173
|
8 Deputations
At the close of
the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
9 Public Forum
A period of time (approximately
30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on
matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is
allowed, following which there may be questions from members.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.
10 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
11 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa
Ward Councillors Update
File No.:
CP2014/06289
Purpose
1. A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Manurewa
Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the Manurewa Local Board on
regional matters.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the verbal
report be received from:
i) Councillor
Calum Penrose regarding:
·
ii) Councillor Sir John Walker regarding:
·
|
|
Manurewa Local Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Youth Council Update
File No.:
CP2014/06290
Purpose
1. Providing an opportunity for the Manurewa Youth Council to update the
Manurewa Local Board on matters they have been involved in over the last month.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the report
from the Manurewa Youth Council be received.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Portfolio Update
File No.:
CP2014/06294
Purpose
1. Providing an opportunity for Portfolio Leads to update to the
Manurewa Local Board on matters they have been involved in over the last month.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the
Manurewa Local Board
a) receive
the portfolio updates from:
i) Danella McCormick, Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Portfolio Lead
ii) Michael Bailey, Transport Portfolio Lead
iii) Angela Cunningham-Marino, Built and
Natural Environment Portfolio Lead
b) appoint member
XXX as the Manurewa Local Board delegate to attend the workshop being
organised to discuss the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund applications.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Civil Defence & Emergency
Management portfolio monthly catch up notes
|
17
|
|
bView
|
Transport portfolio monthly catch up
notes
|
19
|
|
cView
|
Built and Natural Environment
portfolio monthly catch up notes
|
23
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Civil Defence portfolio catch-up Minutes
What: Meeting
with Manurewa Local Board Civil Defence Portfolio holders
Where: Manurewa
Local Board Office, 7 Hill Road, Manurewa
When: Thursday,
20th March, 10am.
Present: Danella
McCormick (Portfolio Lead), Craig Bosson (Emergency Management Advisor), Shane
Webb (Zone Manager South) and David Hopkins (Local Board Advisor)
Apologies:
|
Row
|
|
Who to Action
|
|
1.
|
Communication lines:
Civil Defence through Shane
and Craig thanked Danella and the Manurewa Local Board for initiating the meeting
and keeping communication lines open.
|
|
|
2.
|
Former Cyclone
Lusi
Communities in at
risk areas in the North took effective lead in preparing for possible
emergencies. In the South, households stocked up on supplies. PaknSav Manukau
sold out of water as an example.
|
|
|
3.
|
Manurewa
Emergency Response Group (ERG)
It is timely for
the group to call a meeting and renew itself.
Danella will
communicate with key members of the group.
|
Danella
|
|
4.
|
Manurewa
Emergency Response Plan (ERP)
Plan is
operational. Craig said he has confidence in the plan.
The plan is owned
by the community and the Manurewa Emergency Response Group. There are good
links with local businesses and potential evacuation centres.
|
|
|
5.
|
Training and
familiarisation
Training was
provided and successfully undertaken in September 2013. If the Manurewa
Emergency Response Group requests further training, Craig will prepare
further training and familiarisation activities.
|
Craig
|
|
6.
|
Welfare
Centres
If an emergency
is sustained, and there is need for Welfare Centres to be set up, that is
when Civil Defence steps in to coordinate and bring in specialist teams.
|
Civil Defence
|
Meeting closed at 11.00am.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa
Local Board
Transport Portfolio
Monthly Catch-Up Notes
What: Meeting
with Manurewa Local Board Transport Portfolio Lead
Where: Manurewa
Local Board Office, 7 Hill Road, Manurewa
When: Monday,
17 March, 2014, 10.30 am.
Present: Michael Bailey
(Lead), Felicity Merrington (Auckland Transport) and David Hopkins
|
Row
|
|
Who to Action
|
|
1.
|
Follow up from the last Portfolio meeting
Minutes of last meeting were confirmed.
|
|
|
2.
|
Manurewa Local Board 2014 Transport portfolio
priorities
Michael confirmed the priorities remain as from 2013
- the
upgrade of Takanini interchange and widening of State Highway 1 from Hill Rd
to Papakura
- Te Mahia train station;
- Town Centre Great South Rd Station Rd
intersection
- the Mill Road corridor project
- oversight of the Public Transport
network plan
Strategic level input from Manurewa Local Board
is welcomed by Auckland Transport
|
|
|
3.
|
Te Mahia Station -Park and Ride
Felicity advised a comprehensive modelling of
the whole Rail network is underway. Auckland Transport Board will consider in
June whether Rail Stations will be opened or closed on the basis of this
report.
Felicity will seek an early version of this
report
|
Felicity
|
|
4.
|
Cost over runs and under runs in the
work plan
- Felicity is obtaining further
information on cost overruns for bus shelters.
|
Felicity
|
|
5.
|
Mill Road Corridor
Auckland Transport has been consulting
widely about proposed realignment of Mill Road. Formal notification is
expected in June.
AT is continuing its
investigation, design and planning work with respect to the Project, and
there is no confirmed alignment. This work includes continuing
ecological assessments and an independent peer review of the ecological work
on the project, including at Cheesman's Bush.
When this work is
complete a decision will be made on a preferred alignment and beginning the
statutory planning process, known as a Notice of Requirement.
Auckland Transport
have a responsibility to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of the
project, and this must be demonstrated in the Notice of Requirement
application as required by the statutory process under the Resource
Management Act.
The Notice of
Requirement will be heard by independent commissioners, and members of the
public will have the opportunity to submit on the proposal put forward and
present evidence in support of their submission.
·
|
|
|
6.
|
Auckland Transport is consulting about its
Code of Practice
This is seen as largely a
technical document. Deadline for submissions is 31 March 2014.
|
|
|
7.
|
Great South Road
Great South Road corridor from Browns
Road to Mahia Road is to be reviewed by Auckland Transport in 2015.
|
Auckland Transport
|
|
8.
|
Place
management
Place management has been
identified as important in Local Board Plan consultations. David to
investigate options Council can offer to support place management in Town
Centre.
|
David
|
|
9.
|
Coxhead Road Wattle Farm
intersection
After careful reconsideration by experts,
AT has decided not to make changes at Coxhead Road. Safety concerns are
judged to be a matter of perception rather than a reality.
|
|
|
10.
|
Cycleways not on
footpaths
Michael
spoke to concerns about safety if cyclists are directed to use existing
footpaths adjacent to streets.
|
|
|
11.
|
Weedspraying
Michael asked what Chemicals are being
used in weedspraying locally as there appears to have been a change
|
Felicity
|
|
12.
|
Footpath repair
Michael raised concerns about state of
local footpaths
|
Felicity
|
|
13.
|
Resealing
Michael asked about progress on resealing
at Settlers Cove in Weymouth
|
Felicity
|
|
14.
|
Local Board
Engagement
Felicity asked about increased frequency
of portfolio meetings or other means to aid the preparation of Local Board
Plan
|
David
|
|
15.
|
Familiarisation Drive
around the area
Felicity proposed a drive around some of
the key local transport areas of concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meeting closed at 12 pm
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Built and Natural Environment Portfolio Monthly
Catch-Up Minutes
What: Meeting
with Manurewa Local Board Built and Natural Enviroment portfolio holders
Where: Manurewa
Local Board Office, 7 Hill Road, Manurewa
When: Thursday,
20 March 2014, 2 pm.
Present: Angela
Cunningham-Marino (Portfolio Lead), Danella McCormick (Portfolio Deputy),
Michael Bailey (Portfolio Support), Emma Joyce (Relationship Advisor
Infrastructure and Environmental Services), Jenny Chilcott (Solid Waste team), Colin Craig, (Principal Policy Analyst) and Mike Harvey, (Air
Quality team) and David Hopkins (Local Board Advisor)
Apologies:
|
Row
|
|
Who to Action
|
|
1.
|
Meet and greet
Board members and staff introduced themselves to each
other.
|
|
|
2.
|
Waste minimisation
Emma Joyce Relationship Manager of Infrastructure and
Environmental Services introduced Jenny Chilcott of Solid
Waste Team.
Jenny presented on waste minimisation
actions underway in Manurewa.
1. We are in the process of selecting an appropriate
community organisation to contract with Council to employ a community waste
facilitator to engage with Manurewa communities to prepare them for the
changes to waste collections for 2015. The resource available for this
contract is the equivalent of 1 FTE plus expenses. There is funding to
support this function for the next 2-3 years.
2. For ‘Zero Waste’ projects there is
Small grants (up to $5,000) funding round from Auckland Council Waste
Minimisation and Innovation Fund. Local Boards have been invited to
participate in the decision making process around these small grants.
|
Emma Joyce
Jenny Chilcott
|
|
3.
|
Air quality bylaw workshop
Colin Craig, Principal Policy Analyst and
Mike Harvey, Air Policy Specialist presented a Workshop on Air Quality.
Central Government rules require an improvement in Air Quality and a
reduction in the amount of tiny particles being released into the air. During
winter time older freestanding fires (enclosed wood burners) and open fires
contribute the majority of this fine particulate in the Auckland urban area.
Board members considered options and gave
feedback on the options presented. Members advocated for an incentive to help
defray the cost of replacing open fires. Staff said feedback will help
prepare for a formal public consultation later in the year.
|
Colin Craig Mike Harvey
|
|
4.
|
Manukau Harbour Forum
Daryl Wrightson with support from David Hopkins
represented the Board at the first meeting of the Manukau Harbour Forum for
2014 held 24th February. The next meeting will be
held on Friday, 16th May. At 9.30am a workshop and at 11.00am
business meeting. Following meetings will be the third Friday of every
second month: meetings on the following days Friday, 18th July 2,
Friday, 19th September and Friday, 21st November 2014.
|
|
|
5.
|
Any other business
At the 17th April environment
portfolio catchup, Phil Brown from our Land and Water Advisory team is coming
to update the portfolio holders on projects and initiatives in the Papakura
Stream catchment. These projects support ongoing efforts to improve water
quality at Weymouth Beach.
This is also an excellent opportunity for
other board members to both hear about and seek further information on these
projects should you wish to attend.
|
|
Meeting closed at 3.00pm.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Chairperson's Update
File No.:
CP2014/06296
Purpose
1. Providing an opportunity for the Chairperson to update the Local
Board on issues she has been involved in.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the verbal report from the Manurewa Local Board Chairperson be received.
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Auckland Transport Update – March 2014
File No.:
CP2014/06208
Purpose
1. The purpose of the report is to
respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide
information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the
local board area.
Executive
Summary
2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest
to the Manurewa Local Board and its community; matters of general interest
relating to AT activities or the transport sector; and AT media releases for
the information of the Board and community.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) receives this report.
|
Discussion
Local Board Transport Capital Fund:
3. The Manurewa Local Board is
allocated $593,314 per annum from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. These
funds can be used annually or rolled together to use
the full three years’ of funding i.e. $1,779,942 for larger projects.
4. During the 2012/13 financial year the Board left $121,402
uncommitted. This money has been rolled over giving the Manurewa Local
Board a total pool of approximately $1,901,344 available in this
electoral term to be utilised on transport projects.
5. The Board is encouraged to identify new projects as a matter of
urgency. I attach a report providing the board with information on 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 to be spent by the end of June 2016.
Table 2: Manurewa Local Board project update:
|
ID#
|
Project Description
|
Progress/Current
Status
|
|
061
|
Roundabout at Rogers Road and Christmas
Road intersection
· ROC estimated at
$50,000
· FIRM
estimate of cost $130,000
|
$ 130,000 - Approved
Contract is let. Work on site will
commence in April.
|
|
164
|
New Footpaths
in Manurewa - arterial roads in Wiri
|
$150,000 - Approved.
The contract
is currently under development, with work likely to commence in April.
|
|
176
|
Speed advisory driver feedback signage in
the following locations:
· Weymouth
Road, Manurewa
· Alfriston
Road, Manurewa
· Mahia
Road, Manurewa
· Hill Road,
Manurewa
· Charles
Prevost Drive
|
$48,000 - Approved
Consultation has begun. Project is likely
to commence late April.
|
Mill Road Corridor:
6. The board at their business meeting resolved on March 13th, 2014: Resolution number MR/2014/41. That the Manurewa Local Board
· Request Auckland Transport assure the
Board that the Mill Road residents and Mana Whenua concerns as to the
environmental impacts of the Mill Road project have been addressed to the
satisfaction of all parties.
7. Auckland
Transport is continuing its investigation, design and planning work with
respect to the Project, and there is no confirmed alignment. This work
includes continuing ecological assessments and an independent peer review of
the ecological work on the project, including at Cheesman's Bush.
8. When this work is complete a decision will be made on a
preferred alignment and beginning the statutory planning process, known as a
Notice of Requirement.
9. Auckland Transport has a responsibility to avoid, remedy or
mitigate the effects of the project, and this must be demonstrated in the
Notice of Requirement application as required by the statutory process under
the Resource Management Act.
10. The Notice of Requirement will be heard
by independent commissioners, and members of the public will have the
opportunity to submit on the proposal put forward and present evidence in
support of their submission.
11. The Iwi who have notified Auckland Transport of Mana whenua
interest in the project area Redoubt Road-Mill Road Corridor including
Cheesmans Bush are: Ngati Tamaoho, Ngati Paoa, Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Ngati Te
Ata, Ngati Whanaunga,Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Maru
12. At present Auckland Transport is implementing an engagement
process using the Maori Engagement Framework principals adopted by AT.
Briefly this formal process addresses Mana whenua matters of concern and
provides opportunity for input at this stage in the project and as it
progresses.
Resealing Guidelines/Policy:
13. The board has asked a number of questions regarding Auckland
Transports resealing policy. Auckland Transport has developed a set of
guidelines to ensure that transport services are delivered on a consistent
basis across the Auckland Region, and provide transparent criteria for
determining the selection of the appropriate resurfacing material for road
surfaces. Where practicable, reseal decisions also take into account the
whole-of-life cost of assets and consider an equitable allocation of resources.
14. Auckland Transport’s Reseal Guidelines generally require
that chip seal surfacing is used for resealing roads unless circumstances exist
where engineering best practice indicates that asphaltic concrete should be
used. Asphaltic concrete surfacing is therefore normally only used when
roads meet one or more of the criteria outlined below:
a. Where the traffic volume is more than 10,000 vehicles per day in
urban areas, or 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day in rural areas
b. The road is subject to considerable wear and tear (as often
occurs in cul-de-sac heads, at roundabouts, on sharp bends where there has been
surface stripping or skid resistance, and main road intersections)
c. In industrial/commercial areas where there is a high concentration
of truck traffic
d. The area that requires resealing is a short section between two
strips of asphalt concreted roads and where the use of chip seal would not be
economical or sensible
e. Subject to high usage by pedestrians, such as town centres,
hospitals, shopping centres and schools
f. The road requires special treatment in the engineer’s opinion,
for example the road has a particularly steep gradient
g. Where intervention periods of greater than 20 years are
required.
15. All other road surfaces that do not meet these criteria are
resealed with chip seal. In practice, this may mean that a low traffic
volume residential street that was previously sealed with asphaltic concrete
(perhaps at inception by the developer) will be resealed with chip seal in
accordance with the above criteria.
16. Central Business District and other special amenity areas
are also assessed under the Street Amenities Guidelines, where alternative
paving and resealing materials must be considered, but this only applies to
those specific areas. All other areas are subject to the criteria set out
above.
Intersection - Hill and Station Road:
17. Auckland Transport are planning to identify and undertake
route optimisation improvements on Great South Road between Redoubt Road and
Mahia Road. We believe this approach will be more effective than solely
focusing on the town center.
18. This project is currently programmed for 2015, however
further prioritisation is currently being undertaken to see if it can be moved
forward to 2014.
Board Consultations
Speed Advisory Signs:
19. Auckland Transport undertook consultation with the Manurewa Local
Board on the proposals for speed advisory driver
feedback signage in the following locations:
· Weymouth
Road, Manurewa - near the BP, before the Clendon roundabout (eastbound side)
· Alfriston
Road, Manurewa - between Scotts and Great South Road (westbound side)
· Mahia Road,
Manurewa - between Great South Road and Coxhead Road (westbound side)
· Hill Road,
Manurewa - Near motorway off ramp, past Nathan Homestead, Claude Road to Scenic
Drive (westbound side)
· Charles
Prevost Drive – near school between Wairere Road roundabout and top of hill
(westbound/downhill side).
20. These signs are being funded out of the Local Board
Transport Capital Fund. The Board’s comments regarding the location of the
signs in reference to the Hill road and the Charles
Prevost proposed locations, will be taken into consideration.
Removal of
Shelter at 41 Station Road:
21. The Local Board and Manurewa Town Centre Manager support the
removal of the shelter at 41 Station Road.
General Information Items
April Local
Board workshops – pre-engagement on Transport Long Term Plan (TLTP)
· Auckland Transport is scheduling workshops
for Councillors and Local Board members, in the second and third weeks of April
2014.
· The workshops aim to gain early feedback to
inform advice and options for Transport as input to Auckland Council’s 2015-25
Long Term Plan (LTP) and by extension, the Regional Land Transport Plan
(RLTP).
· Auckland Transport hopes that the workshops
will also be useful to Local Boards in developing the Transport Advocacy
component of their Local Board Plans.
· At this early stage, the priority is to
understand community preferences and to look for opportunities to improve the
alignment of Auckland Transport and Local Board priorities.
· The importance of participating in the
workshops is that local boards will be able to help shape the options that
eventually make it into the draft RLTP, before the draft is written.
· The workshops will be designed to be
intaeractive, with a focus on listening. Auckland Transport is particularly
interested in elected members’ views on the strategic direction for Transport,
the prioritisation process Auckland Transport uses to select projects, and the
overall levels of expenditure on Local Roads, Public Transport and Walking and
Cycling.
· Formal consultation on the Transport
component of Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan, and on Auckland Transport’s
Regional Land Transport Programme, will take place in January and February
2015.
· The workshop for the Southern Local Boards
is on 14 April at 2pm in the Council chamber in Manukau.
Media Reports:
City Rail Link (CRL) route moves to the next phase
1. Five
independent commissioners, who heard Auckland Transport’s planning application
for the City Rail Link (CRL), have unanimously recommended that Notices of
Requirement (NoR) for the land be approved, subject to certain conditions. The
commissioners accepted the CRL would result in significant overall benefits to
the people and economy of Auckland.
2. The
recommendation adds another layer of certainly to everyone involved including
international developers who have indicated their intention to invest in major
projects along the CRL route.
3. The
commissioners were satisfied that alternative sites, routes and construction
methodologies for the project had been adequately considered.
4. The
recommendation and related conditions will now be considered by AT. AT
has 30 working days to confirm, amend or withdraw the notices.
Relief for North Shore bus commuters
5. The
westbound bus lane on Fanshawe Street is to be upgraded following a suggestion
from the Campaign for Better Transport and Generation Zero.
6. Auckland
Transport has agreed there are benefits for customers in doing westbound bus
lane improvements on Fanshawe St (between Albert St and Halsey St) as soon as
practicable.
7. More
than 8,000 people travel on 173 buses from the city to the North Shore each
weekday between 4pm and 6pm.
8. There
are some planning regulatory processes to consider as well as public
consultation, however it is anticipated the upgrade can be in place within
three months.
9. Auckland Transport, together with the City
Centre Integration Group are currently developing plans that will provide
significant benefits for public transport in the Fanshawe corridor from Beaumont
Street to the downtown area, however, it will be some time before these will be
in place.
AT
completes AT HOP rollout
10. Auckland
Transport has completed the rollout of AT HOP, its reusable pre-pay smart card
for travel on trains, ferries and buses.
11. There
are currently more than 250,000 AT HOP cards being regularly used by customers
around the region.
12. AT
HOP allows customers to use one travel card on different modes of transport and
public transport operators.
13. The
card was first introduced on the region’s rail network in October 2012 and has
been progressively rolled out since then.
14. This
concludes the successful introduction of integrated ticketing into Auckland.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Felicity Merrington – Elected Member Relationship
Manager (South), Auckland Transport
|
|
Authorisers
|
Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member
Relationship Team Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total
Programme for the Current Local Boards
File No.:
CP2014/06244
Purpose
1. The
purpose of this report is advise all twenty-one Local Boards of the current
status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund Programme, in particular the
need to urgently identify new project proposals that will enable the total
budget that needs to be spent in the electoral term of the current Local Boards
to be spent by the end of June 2016.
Executive
Summary
2. N/A
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) Receive the report.
b) urgently
identify new project proposals for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund
programme by 31 August 2014 so that subsequent initial assessment, detailed
design including consultation and statutory approvals, and construction can
be completed by 30 June 2016.
|
Discussion
Background
1. The total annual budget for the Local Board
Transport Capital Fund is $10M. This was assigned to the twenty-one Local
Boards based on population, except for the Waiheke and Great Barrier Local
Boards who received nominated sums.
2. The programme commenced in September 2012
following resolution of the use of the fund by the Auckland Council Strategy
and Planning Committee in August 2012.
Budget
Considerations
3. One of the requirements of the Local Board
Transport Capital Fund is that the budgets must be spent within the same
electoral term. Budgets can be moved from year to year within the electoral
term, subject to Auckland Transport having the ability to manage the cash flow,
but carry forwards to subsequent political terms are not allowed.
4. The total amount spent on Local Board Transport
Capital Fund projects in the 2012-13 financial year was $1.3M. This was due to
the late start of the programme in that year so Auckland Council was asked to
relax the “no carry forward” rule in this inaugural year of the programme. This
one-off carry forward of the unspent balance of $8.7M was subsequently
approved.
5. Therefore the total budget that must be spent
on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the current political term is
as follows:
· The carry forward from 2012-13 =
$8.7M
· The 2013-14 Budget = $10M
· The 2014-15 Budget = $10M
· The 2015-16 Budget = $10M
This is a total of $38.7M
6. In order to fully spend this amount by 30 June
2016 the following spending profile will be required.
· 2013-14 Forecast = $8.6M (actual
current forecast)
· 2014-15 Forecast = $10.1M (latest
forecast)
· 2015-16 Forecast = $20.0M (latest
forecast)
7. The 2013-14 figure is the currently expected
end of year result for 2013-14. The end of the 2013-14 financial year is the
end of the second year of the four year Local Board Transport Capital Fund
programme that needs to be completed by 30 June 2016, and only $9.9M of the
$40M will be spent. i.e. only 25% spent in half the available time.
8. Conversely, the required spend in the last two
years (2014-15 and 2015-16) is $30.1M, being a threefold increase in the spend
compared to the first two years. At the current rate of spending this $30.1M
target will not be achieved.
9. In addition, the current Local Boards are
allowed to spend some or all of the 2016-17 Local Board Transport Capital Fund
budget as their elected term finishes three months into this financial year on
approximately 30 Sept 2016. This means there is an additional $10M available
that could also be spent.
Value
of Projects
10. Of the 228 proposals submitted to date 64 are
not proceeding (not meeting criteria, funded elsewhere, deferred to future
years, or not chosen by Local Boards). The total value of the remaining 164
projects that range from being in the initial assessment phase to having the
construction fully complete is $14.9M.
11. Assuming that all of these projects are
completed they represent only 37% of the total Local Board Transport Capital
Fund programme that needs to be delivered in the current electoral term.
12. Conversely an additional $25.1M worth of
projects need to be identified in order to deliver the programme by 30 June
2016.
Forward
Planning to Ensure Programme Delivery
13. Additional project proposals need to be identified
urgently by ALL Local Boards in order for the programme to be delivered on
time.
14. As the spending of the budget is heavily
weighted towards the 2015-16 financial year and to a lesser extent the 2014-15
financial year, the issue of Auckland Transport being able to manage the work
in those years and the contracting industry being able to carry out the large
volume of work become factors in the overall delivery of the programme.
15. Accordingly construction approval will be
required for all projects in the programme by 30 May 2015 at the latest so that
the last of the physical works construction of the works (in fact half of the
whole programme) can be spread out over the entire 2015-16 financial year. Many
of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10M of
work in the 2014-15 year.
16. In order to achieve the 30 May 2015 construction
approval date, detailed design approval will need to be provided for all
projects no later than 30 November 2014 in order to allow six months for
detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals to be completed
so that construction approval can be provided on time. As with the
construction approvals, much of this detailed design has to happen much sooner
in order to deliver the 2014-15 programme.
17. Accordingly the identification of new projects
by ALL Local Boards to the total value of at least $25.1M needs to happen by 31
August 2014 at the latest in order for them to be assessed and project scopes
and rough orders of cost provided back to the Local Boards for their
consideration for detailed design approval. Ideally more projects need to be
identified in case some don’t meet the necessary criteria.
18. As the four year programme budgets for each
Local Board can be considered as a single budget there is opportunity for Local
Boards to consider larger projects that can be funded over more than one year,
or that are funded jointly between more than one Local Board. A fewer number of
larger projects will be easier to manage and will make delivery of the
programme much easier.
19. If the above programme timing is not met
Auckland Transport cannot guarantee that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund
programme will be able to be fully delivered in the current electoral term.
Project
Management Process
20. The time required for managing the various
stages of a project can vary significantly depending on the nature and size of
the project.
21. Initial assessments of project proposals
including the development of Rough Orders of Cost can be relatively quick in
the case of simple projects such as new footpaths or the installation of new
bus shelters where the work is straight forward and is carried out on a regular
basis under other Auckland Transport work streams. In these cases typical costs
are known and a turn-around of a few weeks can be achieved.
22. However other one-off projects that may have
safety implications that require the gathering of data (site specific surveys,
and information such as traffic counts) to determine whether or not the project
meets traffic warrants, standards or regulatory requirements, or projects that
require initial community input can take up to three months to assess.
23. Detailed design and the development of
Firm Estimates of Cost can also vary significantly in terms of the overall time
required. Some simple projects require very little design and can take a matter
of a few weeks.
24. Other more complex projects require time to
gather detailed site information, to carry out consultation with stakeholders,
to carry out design including inputs from specialists, to apply for resource
consents, and to obtain regulatory approvals such as traffic resolutions or
speed limit changes. These projects can take more than six months to design.
25. Construction timeframes can vary
significantly depending on the size of the project. Lead time to supply
specialist materials for construction, often from overseas, can delay projects.
Timing of works to avoid the wetter winter months can also impact on when
tenders are let. Delaying of weather sensitive works to construct them at the
right time of the year can impact on the overall timing of project delivery.
26. In addition, spreading out the delivery of the
construction of works over the whole year can provide a more even workload to
the contractors which can result in more favourable overall costs to AT and the
Local Boards.
27. All of the above highlights that the timing of
the various stages of projects can vary significantly. Straight forward
projects can be delivered in a single year; whereas it is not possible to
deliver more complex projects within a single year. Many of the Local Board
projects fall into this second category.
Auckland
Transport Programme Management Process
28. A review of the internal Auckland Transport
processes has highlighted a number of improvements that will be made in order
to assist with the delivery of this programme of work.
29. Timing of responses back to the Local Boards on
initial assessments and on the completion of detailed designs will be monitored
more closely to ensure there is no slippage in these approval processes.
30. Rough Orders of Cost and Firm Estimates of Cost
will be provided in ranges of price rather than a single dollar figure because
of the uncertainty of providing exact figures in the early stages of projects.
Rough Orders of Cost carried out at the start of the project can vary by up to
30%, whereas Firm Estimates of Cost carried out in the detailed design phase
can vary by 15%.
31. There are examples where previous estimates that
have been provided have been too low and additional approvals have been
required from the Local Boards. This has caused problems with the Local Board
expectation of project costs. More care will be taken in future to provide accurate
estimates.
32. It should be remembered that these figures are
still estimates and the true cost of the work will only be known when the
construction is complete. The reason for this is that there are many factors
that can affect the final cost of a project compared to the Firm Estimate of
Cost. Three of these are the tendered price from the contractor, unforeseen
ground conditions, and relocation/protection of underground services. Every
endeavour will be made to keep project costs within the approved budgets.
Consequences
of not Delivering the full Programme
33. Auckland Transport CAPEX underspend including
from within the Local Board Transport Capital Fund remains under sustained
scrutiny by Auckland Council.
34. Auckland Transport is accountable for the
current underspend on this significant budget allocation, and reports every
quarter to Auckland Council on the accuracy of its CAPEX spend forecasts.
35. It is important that this fund is fully spent
each year to ensure that neither its amount nor its process are put at risk
when consistently reporting underspends to Council.
Summary
of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board
|
Local Board
|
Total Budget
2012-13 to 2015-16
(four years)
|
Total Value of
all Approved Projects and Proposals Being Assessed
|
Value of New
Projects Still to be Identified
|
|
Albert Eden
|
$2,659,732
|
$1,302,567
|
$1,357,165
|
|
Devonport Takapuna
|
$1,540,120
|
$1,104,960
|
$435,160
|
|
Franklin
|
$1,739,864
|
$946,555
|
$793,309
|
|
Great Barrier
|
$400,000
|
$278,476
|
$121,524
|
|
Henderson Massey
|
$2,993,512
|
$1,012,988
|
$1,980,524
|
|
Hibiscus and Bays
|
$2,399,540
|
$763,330
|
$1,636,210
|
|
Howick
|
$3,487,612
|
$1,147,000
|
$2,340,612
|
|
Kaipatiki
|
$2,318,064
|
$1,244,711
|
$1,073,353
|
|
Mangere Otahuhu
|
$2,071,016
|
$609,364
|
$1,461,652
|
|
Manurewa
|
$2,373,256
|
$472,116
|
$1,901,140
|
|
Maungakiekie Tamaki
|
$1,979,028
|
$800,000
|
$1,179,028
|
|
Orakei
|
$2,199,796
|
$852,633
|
$1,347,163
|
|
Otara Papatoetoe
|
$2,197,168
|
$1,098,584
|
$1,098,584
|
|
Papakura
|
$1,224,736
|
$904,747
|
$319,989
|
|
Puketapapa
|
$1,526,468
|
$373,000
|
$1,143,468
|
|
Rodney
|
$1,477,044
|
$733,000
|
$744,044
|
|
Upper Harbour
|
$1,348,264
|
$674,132
|
$674,132
|
|
Waiheke
|
$800,000
|
$211,943
|
$588,057
|
|
Waitakere Ranges
|
$1,324,608
|
$140,000
|
$1,184,608
|
|
Waitemata
|
$1,879,156
|
$192,470
|
$1,686,686
|
|
Whau
|
$2,071,016
|
$0
|
$2,071,016
|
|
TOTALS
|
$40,000,000
|
$14,862,576
|
$25,137,424
|
36. It should be noted that the possible spend of
the 2016-17 budget is not included in the above figures.
Suggestions
of Projects to be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund
37. Attached is the Pick List of the types of
projects that could be funded from the LBTCF programme that has previously been
circulated to Local Boards for their information. This list will assist Local
Boards to identify potential projects in their areas.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
38. This report is for the Local Board’s action.
Maori
Impact Statement
39. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement
are triggered by this report.
General
40. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the
Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line
with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or
legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.
Implementation
41. There are no implementation issues.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Local Board Transport Capital Fund –
potential projects for consideration by Local Boards
|
39
|
|
bView
|
Local Board Transport Capital Fund
Financial Update - Manurewa
|
45
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Phil Donnelly, Team Leader East,
Road Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport
|
|
Authorisers
|
Andrew Scoggins, Group Manager Road
Design and Development, Capital Development Division, Auckland Transport
Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member
Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
LOCAL
BOARD TRANSPORT CAPITAL FUND
PROJECTS
THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL BOARDS
Notes:
1/ The
rates/prices noted below include detailed design, consultation, resource consent
applications (where applicable), physical works, traffic management, and AT
Staff time for overall project management and contract supervision/observation.
2/ The
rates/prices noted below DO NOT include (where applicable) relocation of
underground services, and excavation in solid rock. Other exceptions are noted
in the various projects. If these items are required the project costs will
increase accordingly.
|
Project
|
Scope
|
Base Cost
|
Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic
Management
|
Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic
Management
|
Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
|
|
New Concrete Footpaths
|
AT standard is 1.8m wide, and 100mm thick. Includes
kerb ramps and tactile ground surface indicators at intersections.
|
$75/sq.m
|
$155 per lineal meter
|
$170 per lineal meter
|
Costs will be higher if topography requires any
retaining structures or berm reshaping with topsoil.
|
|
New Concrete Vehicle Crossings – Residential
|
AT Standard is 150mm thick. Average crossing is
approximately 20 sq.m. (may be required when building new footpaths).
|
$107/sq.m
|
$2,500 per crossing
|
$2,700 per crossing
|
|
|
New Concrete Vehicle Crossings – Commercial
|
AT Standard is 200mm thick. Average crossing is
approximately 28 sq.m. (may be required when building new footpaths).
|
$140/sq.m
|
$4,500 per crossing
|
$5,000 per crossing
|
|
|
New Shared Footpath/ Cycleway
|
AT standard is 2.5m wide, and 100mm thick.
More design and consultation required compared to
footpaths.
|
$90/sq.m
|
$260 per lineal meter
|
$280 per lineal meter
|
Costs will be higher if topography requires any
retaining structures or berm reshaping with topsoil.
|
|
Enhanced Footpaths at Local Shopping Centres
|
Brick bands / hotmix finish, and approximately 3m
wide.
More design and consultation required compared to
footpaths.
|
$150/sq.m
|
$520 per lineal meter
|
$570 per lineal meter
|
Underground service relocations/upgrading may be
required first which could delay construction and/or increase costs.
|
|
Project
|
Scope
|
Base Cost
|
Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic
Management
|
Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic
Management
|
Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
|
|
Enhanced Footpaths at Commercial Centres
|
Higher grade pavers such as basalt, approximately 3m
wide.
More design and consultation required compared to
footpaths.
|
$300/ sq.m
|
$1,000 per lineal meter
|
$1,150 per lineal meter
|
Underground service relocations/upgrading may be
required first which could delay construction and/or increase costs.
|
|
New Pedestrian Refuge or Splitter Island at
Intersections
|
Includes central and side islands, signage,
roadmarking, and kerb ramps. Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolutions
|
$16,000
|
$18,500
|
$20,000
|
Streetlighting improvements are not included. Not
always required. Needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
|
|
New Pedestrian Crossing
|
Includes central and side islands, signage including
belisha disks/beacons, floodlighting, power connections and cabling,
roadmarking, and kerb ramps. Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolutions
|
$25,000
|
$29,000
|
$32,000
|
Trenching for underground power connections and
installation of new poles may encounter solid rock which is not included in
these rates.
|
|
New Raised Pedestrian Crossing
|
As above but includes raised speed table.
Only on Local Roads.
|
$45,000
|
$50,000
|
NA
|
Trenching for underground power connections and
installation of new poles may encounter solid rock which is not included in
these rates.
|
|
New Signalised Pedestrian Crossing
|
Includes central and side islands, low level and
overhead displays, signal controller, streetlighting, power connections and
cabling, signage, roadmarking, and kerb ramps. Also includes design,
consultation and traffic resolutions.
|
$90,000
|
$105,000
|
$115,000
|
Trenching for underground power connections and
installation of new poles may encounter solid rock which is not included in
these rates.
|
|
Pedestrian Countdown Timers at existing Traffic
Signals
|
Replacement of pedestrian lanterns with Countdown
Lanterns.
Only applies at signalised pedestrian crossings and
intersection signals with the Barnsdance pedestrian phase.
|
$900 per lantern
|
$2,000 signalised crossing
$8,000 full intersection
|
$2,000 signalised crossing
$8,000 full intersection
|
|
|
Project
|
Scope
|
Base Cost
|
Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic
Management
|
Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic
Management
|
Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
|
|
Smart Stud Installation at Existing Pedestrian
Crossings
|
Inductive loops in road, smart studs, control unit,
power connection and cabling (or solar panel).
Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolutions.
|
$35,000
|
$38,000
|
$40,000
|
Trenching for underground power connections may
encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
|
|
Traffic Calming – Speed Tables
|
Speed tables every 120m including roadmarking and
signage.
Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolutions. Consultation is a significant cost.
Only on Local Roads
|
$30,000 per speed table
|
$35,000 per speed table
|
NA
|
|
|
Installation of Traffic Signals – Four Leg
Intersection
|
Full installation including overhead displays on all
four legs.
Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolutions.
Usually involves arterial roads.
|
$500,000
|
$520,000 – traffic management on installation
component only.
|
$540,000 – traffic management on installation component
only.
|
Trenching for underground power connections, ducting,
jointing chambers, and pole installations may encounter solid rock which is
not included in these rates.
Streetlighting improvements are not included. Not
always required. Needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
|
|
Installation of Traffic Signals – Three Leg
T-Intersection
|
Full installation including overhead displays on all
three legs.
Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolutions.
Usually involves arterial roads.
|
$400,000
|
$420,000 – traffic management on installation
component only.
|
$440,000 – traffic management on installation
component only.
|
Trenching for underground power connections, ducting,
jointing chambers, and pole installations may encounter solid rock which is
not included in these rates.
Streetlighting improvements are not included. Not
always required. Needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
|
|
Electronic Speed Advisory Signs
|
Installation of Electronic Signs.
Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolution.
|
$8,000 per sign
|
$9,000 per sign
|
$10,000 per sign
|
Excavation for pole installations may encounter solid
rock which is not included in these rates.
|
|
Project
|
Scope
|
Base Cost
|
Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic
Management
|
Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic
Management
|
Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
|
|
40kph Electronic School Zone Signage
|
Two electronic signs, two static signs on a single
road.
Also includes design, consultation, development of MOU
with school, and traffic resolution.
|
$16,000
|
$18,000
|
$20,000
|
Excavation for pole installations may encounter solid
rock which is not included in these rates.
Additional signs that may be required for side roads
are not included.
|
|
Streetlight Improvements
|
Replace existing poles, provide new lanterns. Also
includes new power connection to 24/7 network.
Includes design and consultation.
|
$5,000 for 7.8m pole.
$6,000 for 11m pole
|
$5,800 per 7.8m pole
|
$7,500 per 11m pole
|
Trenching for underground power connections and pole
installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
|
|
Advance Destination Signage
|
New large ‘white on blue’ directional signage on the
arterial road network.
Also includes design, consultation and traffic
resolution.
|
$4,000 per sign.
|
$4,500 per sign
|
$5,000 per sign.
|
Excavation for pole installations may encounter solid
rock which is not included in these rates.
|
|
Installation of New Bus Shelters
|
Standard 3.6m long AT Bus Shelter and concrete pad.
Also includes design, consultation and resolution.
|
$17,000 per shelter
|
$19,000 per shelter
|
$21,000 per shelter
|
Larger shelters priced on a one-off basis.
|
|
Seal Extensions
|
Includes drainage improvements, shoulder widening to
create the required road width, and sealing.
Includes design and consultation.
|
$500,000 per kilometre
|
$520,000 per kilometre
|
$530,000 per kilometre
|
|
|
New Kerb and Channel
|
New Kerb and Channel, catchpits, plus required
carriageway widening.
Includes design and consultation.
|
$50,000 per 100 meters
|
$57,000 per 100 meters
|
$62,000 per 100 meters
|
Doesn’t include cost of stormwater infrastructure
which needs to be funded by Auckland Council. Discussions required on a
project by project basis.
Trenching for catchpits and catchpit leads may
encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
|
|
Project
|
Scope
|
Base Cost
|
Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic
Management
|
Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic
Management
|
Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
|
|
Intersection Improvements
|
Creation of left turn set-backs, easing of corners,
roundabouts.
|
Varies
|
|
|
Priced on a one-off basis. Can be between $100,000 and
$500,000
|
|
Installation of Tetratraps in Catchpits
|
Supply and Install Tetratrap Stormwater Quality
Devices in Catchpits.
Includes design.
|
$800 per Tetratrap.
|
$900 per Tetratrap
|
$1,000 per Tetratrap
|
Doesn’t include catchment analysis which is an
operational cost that can’t be charged to this Capex project.
|
|
Indented Parking Bays
|
Removal of berm, installation of kerb and channel,
protection of services, concrete parking area.
Includes design and consultation.
|
$15,000 per carpark space
|
$17,000 per carpark space
|
$19,000 per carpark space
|
Trenching for catchpits and catchpit leads may
encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Underground service relocations may be required. These
are not included in the rates provided.
|
|
Seats
|
Supply and install, concrete pad.
|
$2,000
|
$2,000
|
$2,000
|
|
|
Drinking Fountains
|
Standard Parks type drinking fountain, including
connection to water supply.
|
$15,000 each
|
$15,000 each
|
$15,000 each
|
Traffic management doesn’t apply as all work is on the
berm/footpath area.
|
|
Walkway Lighting
|
Typical walkway between streets is about 100m long.
Install three poles/lights with cabling and electrical connections.
|
$6,500 per pole/light
|
$20,000
|
$20,000
|
Traffic management doesn’t apply as all work is on the
berm/footpath area.
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Smoke-free Policy Implementation
File No.:
CP2014/00863
Purpose
This report is
to provide the Manurewa Local Board (‘the Board’) with recommendations on the
implementation of the Auckland Council Smoke-free Policy 2013 (‘the Policy’) in
its local board area.
Executive
Summary
The Policy sets out a regional
position on smoke-free public places and events. The exact detail of the
implementation will be a matter for local board discretion, as local boards
have been allocated non-regulatory decision making responsibilities for local
activities.
Local Boards can:
· choose to progress the
implementation of smoke-free public places wider and faster than identified in
the Policy
· determine the exact
signage requirements for promoting local smoke-free public places and any
additional budget allocation for this
· decide on promotion and
communication activities for smoke-free public places in their local area
· determine the extent of
smoke-free messaging and promotion at local board events.
To assist local
boards progress the implementation of the Policy, staff have made
recommendations pertaining to the extent of smoke-free public places,
signage requirements, promotion activities and other matters.
In terms of
signage for smoke-free public places, staff do not recommend smoke-free signage
in all areas affected by the Policy. Instead, placing additional smoke-free
signs in certain ‘high priority sites’ will bear greater benefits in promoting
smoke-free public places.
Staff have
identified six high priority sites in Manurewa. Staff recommend additional
budget be allocated for smoke-free signs in these sites. The cost of additional
signage is estimated at $3,860- $4,000. These values might vary depending on signage printing, size and
installation.
In order to
promote the smoke-free status of these sites, staff recommend that the Board
publicizes smoke-free public places in their local board area as the Board
deems appropriate.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) allocate
budget for the printing and installation of additional smoke-free signs in six
high priority sites which include:
i) Te Matariki
Clendon site
ii) Totara Park
and Pools
iii) Nathan
Homestead
iv) Manurewa
Library and local board office complex
v) War Memorial
Park
vi) Mountfort
Park
b) promotes the
smoke-free status of smoke-free public places in Manurewa as the Board deems
appropriate
|
Discussion
The Auckland Council Smoke Free
Policy 2013 (‘the Policy’) sets out council’s position on smoke-free public
places, events, tobacco control advocacy and workplace smoking cessation.
As local boards have been
allocated non-regulatory decision making responsibilities for local activities,
the implementation of the Policy at a local level is a matter for local board
discretion.
Local boards can:
· choose to progress the
implementation of smoke-free public places wider and faster than identified in
the Policy
· determine the exact
signage requirements for promoting local smoke-free public places and any
additional budget allocation for this
· decide on promotion and
communication activities for smoke-free public places in their local area
· determine the extent of
smoke-free messaging and promotion at local board events.
According to the
2013 census, Manurewa Local Board (‘the Board) area has the third highest
smoking rate in the region at 20.6 percent (12.9 percent for the region). This
is similar to the smoking rate for the Southern Initiative area (20.5 percent)
The Auckland
Plan and the Policy has a goal of a three percent smoking rate in the Southern
Initiative area by 2025. In order to reach this target, approximately 17.6
percent or (10,570 persons) in Manurewa will need to quit smoking by 2025.
Policy
Implementation
Smoke-free Public Places
Smoke-free in
public places aims to discourage the community from smoking in certain public
outdoor areas to de-normalise smoking behaviour. As the Policy is non-regulatory, compliance is voluntary and
relies on the public being well informed about these smoke-free areas. As such
smoke-free signs need to communicate the smoke-free status of a space.
However, the
cost of installing smoke-free signage in all public places identified in the
Policy outweighs its benefit. Therefore, staff recommend placing smoke-free
signs in certain areas where the smoke-free message will have the greatest
impact.
In order to
identify these sites, staff developed a criteria based on the objectives and
principles of the Policy. The criteria focused on:
· areas that are frequented by children and youth
· council-owned facilities
· areas that are well used and popular within their community
· sites where several smoke-free public places are clustered in close
proximity.
Based on scores
against the criteria, sites were then divided into four categories. Smoke-free
signage implementation varies according to the categories. Sites that are
scored highly are ‘Category A sites’ or high priority sites, where there is an
opportunity for a higher level of smoke-free signage installation. Table one summarises these categories and smoke-free signage installation.
Table 1 Site priority and level of signage
installation
|
Category
|
Level of smoke-free signage installation
|
|
A
|
High priority sites
|
· additional smoke-free signs +
· temporary smoke-free stickers to be
installed on existing signs, until signage replacement or upgrades occurs
|
|
B
|
Medium priority sites
|
· temporary smoke-free stickers to be
installed on existing signs, until signage replacement or upgrades
|
|
C
|
Low priority sites
|
· smoke-free logo incorporated onto signs
as they are replaced or upgraded
|
|
D
|
No priority sites
|
· no smoke-free signage installation
|
High priority smoke-free
sites
Staff had prepared
recommendations on the high priority (Category A) and medium priority (Category
B) sites within the Manurewa local board area. Table two outlines the high
priority smoke-free sites in the Manurewa local board area.
Table 2 High
priority smoke-free sites for Manurewa local board area
|
Site
Name
|
Rationale
|
Signage
and cost
|
|
Te Matariki
Clendon site
|
· Several key facilities clustered onto one site- i.e.
the recreation centre, Clendon Library, community centre, skate park and
early childhood centre
· Frequented by youth, families and young children
|
· 5-7 wall mounted
· est. $840-$861
|
|
Totara Park and
Pools
|
· Popular outdoor pool site with playground and tennis
court, convention centre and park
· Well used by community and frequented by families
|
· 4-6 wall mounted
· est. $720-738
|
|
Nathan Homestead
|
· Frequented arts facility associated with council
· Child care centre located within premises
|
· 1-2 wall mounted
· est. $240-246
|
|
Manurewa Library
and local board office complex
|
· Several high profile facilities located within one
site- Manurewa library, citizens advice bureau, local board office and a
small park
· Frequented site, particularly by families and young
children
|
· 4-6 wall mounted
· est. 720-738
|
|
War Memorial
Park
|
· Popular sports field and well used by youth
· Site also used for passive recreation
|
· 4-6 wall mounted
· est. cost $720-738
|
|
Mountfort Park
|
· Several sports facilities onsite- recreation centre,
sports fields (x3), rugby club and kohanga reo
|
· 3-5 wall mounted
· est. cost $600- $615
|
NB: these cost estimates are based on (300x150mm and
300x400mm) sizes from one supplier (Panda Visuals)
Smoke-free signage
installation in other areas
Sites that have
scored moderately against the criteria, or ‘medium priority’ (Category B) sites
will have temporary smoke-free sticker logo attached onto existing signs (in
accordance with the council’s signage manual). As signs are replaced and
upgraded, the signs will incorporate the permanent smoke-free logo.
For the Manurewa
local board area, the medium priority sites are:
1. Manurewa Recreation centre
2. David Nathan Park
3. Gallagher Park
4. Randwick Park
‘Low priority’
(Category C) sites will have the smoke-free logo incorporated onto signs as
they due for upgrades or replacement. ‘No priority’ (Category D) sites are
areas that do not currently have any signage installed.
Smoke-free
public places promotion
As the Policy is
non-regulatory, raising public awareness around the danger of smoking and the
council’s position on achieving a smoke-free Auckland is important.
To assist the
Board in the promotion of the Policy staff suggest the following for
consideration:
· an article in the local paper or magazine near World Smoke-free Day
(31 May 2014)
· a launch event at one of the high priority sites on World Smoke-free
Day (31 May 2014)
· raise awareness through social media (i.e. local board Facebook page
or a website).
Consideration
Local
Board Views
Staff consulted with the Board throughout the development of the
Policy in 2012-2013. Staff also offered to hold a workshop with the Board in
order to gather feedback on the identified high priority sites.
Maori
Impact Statement
The New Zealand Tobacco Use Survey (2009) found that the smoking
rate amongst Maori (44 percent) is significantly higher than that of the
non-Maori population (18 percent).
Through the development of the Policy, many stakeholders highlighted
the disparity between Maori and non-Maori smoking rates within the region as a
cause for disproportionate health outcomes for Maori.
The Policy aims to address Maori smoking rates through:
· the creation
of smoke-free public places
· smoke-free
signs to contain awareness based messages in Maori
· focus on the
Southern Initiative smoke-free work stream
General
Not applicable
Implementation
Issues
There will be
additional costs to the local board relating to the printing and installation
of smoke-free signage in the high priority sites identified in the report.
Staff recommend
wall- mounted smoke-free signage as these are hard wearing, have a longer life
span and minimises signage pollution.
The approximate
cost of additional smoke-free signs in the six identified sites (Table two) in
Phase one is between $3,860 and $4,000. The exact costs will vary depending on:
· the exact number of smoke-free signs required on each site
· if there are many smoke-free messages (e.g. mass printing of one
message is more cost effective)
· the positioning and installation of the smoke-free signs
These estimated costs are one off costs. Any ongoing costs will be
covered within signage maintenance and renewal budgets.
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst
Michael Sinclair - Team Leader, Regionwide Social
Policy
|
|
Authorisers
|
Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Local economic development July to December 2013:
Manurewa Local Board
File No.:
CP2014/05121
Purpose
1. This
report provides an update for the Manurewa 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 Manurewa Local
Board area includes:
· The Wiri gateway signage project
· Preparation of an economic development overview presenting a range
of indicators on the Manurewa economy, issues and
opportunities
· Initiation of an Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the
Industrial South
· Economic analysis and planning as part of the Southern Initiative
· Business Improvement District (BID) partnership programmes in
Manurewa and Wiri
· Funding of $60,000 for ‘LED planning initiatives’ which was
allocated to BIDs in the Local Board area
· Support for the roll out of ultrafast
broadband.
3. Existing activities will continue in the
2014/2015 work programme, with the addition of a proposed Manurewa Local
Economic Development Action Plan.
|
Recommendations
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) Receives the six-monthly
update on local economic development activities from July
to December 2013.
b) Approves the indicative 2014/2015 local economic development work
programme as:
i. Economic analysis and planning to support local
initiatives.
ii. Initiation of a Manurewa local economic development
action plan, subject to funding from the Southern
Initiative or Local Board.
iii. Finalising the Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the
Industrial South.
iv. Support for Business Improvement
District Partnership programmes in Manurewa and Wiri.
v. 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 Manurewa Local Board area. An overview of
the regional economic work programme undertaken by the Economic Development
Department and ATEED to implement the EDS is provided to the Economic
Development Committee, and is made available for information to Local Boards.
6. Under the guidance of global city
development expert Greg Clark, and with the assistance of representatives from
business, the wider Auckland Council and Government, critical priorities for
Auckland’s future economic performance have been identified. These are to:
· Establish
a new Auckland Leadership Team
· Raise
youth employability. At the local level this means:
o increasing
the number of opportunities for young people to gain work experience
· Build,
retain and attract talent. At the local level this means:
o encouraging
our businesses to invest in skills
o thoroughly
understanding Auckland’s skills shortages
· Build
the Auckland business proposition for a business-friendly city
· Boost
the investment rate into Auckland’s economy and infrastructure
· Motivate
greater investment in products, services and markets. At the local level this
means:
o promoting
the benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship
o creating
and connecting spaces for innovation and entrepreneurship
· Increase
Auckland’s visibility internationally
· Optimise
Auckland’s platforms for growth: housing, transport and availability of
employment land. At the local level this means:
o developing
and adopting a new implementation model to achieve growth in key locations –
CBD and metropolitan centres
o leveraging
the fibre network to its full potential
· Support
improved performance of Māori businesses. At the local level this means:
o working to support Māori
businesses to grow.
7. We are planning a workshop with Local Board economic
development portfolio holders, ATEED and the Economic Development Committee on
making local economic development in Auckland more strategic, focused and united.
Further information will be provided through the Local Board
Advisors.
Local economic improvement projects
Wiri Gateway Signage Project
8. The
Wiri Gateway signage was completed in August 2013.
Economic Development Overview
9. An
economic development (ED) overview has been prepared for the Manurewa Local
Board area. The overview outlines the current economic picture in Manurewa,
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.
10. The
overview has been distributed to Local Board members, Council departments and
BIDs. It can be used to inform the Local Board Plan currently under
development.
11. In
2012, GDP[1] in Manurewa was $2.3 billion, which
was 2.9 per cent of the Auckland regional GDP. Over a
third of the Manurewa economy (34%) is in manufacturing.
Manurewa’s industrial mix by GDP
(2012)
Source: Infometrics
12. Stand out facts
about Manurewa
from the ED overview include:
· The economy in Manurewa Local Board area has been growing at a
faster rate than regionally over the past ten years.
· The dominant sector is manufacturing which accounts for over a third
of local economic activity. The strongest sectors in Manurewa which compete
internationally are food manufacturing and niche manufacturing.
· Growing role in wholesaling activities.
· Seventy per cent of local jobs are in firms with over 20 employees.
· Lower participation in the labour force and higher unemployment
relative to the Auckland region.
13. Employment
in Manurewa increased by an average of 2.4 per cent pa in the ten years from
2002-12, above the Auckland (1.9%) and New Zealand (1.4%) growth rate. During
this period, Manurewa job numbers increased the most in education and training
(+1110), manufacturing (+800), health care and social assistance (+610), and
construction (+510). The only significant decline was in retail (-340 jobs).
14. The current
Manurewa Local Board Plan seeks a strong local economy with skilled people
employed in a variety of well-paid jobs, and vibrant town centres where
businesses thrive and invest. 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 Manurewa’s economic
potential
|
Strengths
|
Challenges
|
|
Attractive
business location
· Great transport connections and proximity
to Auckland Airport.
· Wiri Prison is a significant development.
Manufacturing hub
Manufacturing
is the largest sector, accounting for over a third of local GDP.
|
Investing in town centres
· Planning and investment to revitalise town
and local centres.
Building the
skills base
· Providing training and employment pathways
for young people.
· Higher proportion of residents with no
qualifications than the Auckland average.
· Higher unemployment than regional average.
|
|
Opportunities
|
|
Business
friendly
|
· Leverage the BID partnership programmes in
Manurewa and Wiri.
· Skills development and growth from the
digital economy.
· Define levers of growth through the
Integrated Southern Business Precinct Plan.
· Capacity for industrial growth in Wiri.
|
|
Innovation and
exports
|
· Define pathways for firms to Auckland and
national innovation programmes that assist commercialisation and business
growth.
|
|
Skills
|
· Transition youth from education to the
workforce.
· The momentum of the Southern Initiative
driving better education, training and employment outcomes.
|
|
Vibrant and
creative city
|
· Support iwi/Māori to establish
Māori entrepreneurship initiatives.
· Support Pacific peoples and migrant
entrepreneurship initiatives.
|
|
|
|
Proposed Local Economic Development Action Plan
15. We
propose developing a Local ED Action Plan for the Manurewa Local Board
area in 2014/2015. The
action plan would be a 3 – 5 year work programme to guide the Local Board’s
economic development activities and support the
economic outcomes sought through the Southern Initiative.
16. Local
ED Action Plans recognise that Local Boards cannot progress economic
development alone and that the opportunities lie in developing actions in
partnership with other organisations in order to maximise economic outcomes at
the local level.
17. This
initiative is currently unfunded. Funding of $25,000 for the development of
the ED Action Plan is being sought through the Southern Initiative and if this
is not secured the Local Board may wish to provide funding.
Integrated Business Precinct Plan: Industrial South
18. The integrated
business precinct plan (IBPP) will provide a coordinated framework for Local
Boards to develop projects and programmes to enhance the economic performance
of the industrial precincts in their respective areas. Key components of the
plan include the development of a spatial concept map and a series of
high-level actions that will address the issues and opportunities identified
within the relevant precinct areas.
19. The development of
the IBPP will contribute to the economic development workstream of the Southern Initiative specifically in engaging with economic stakeholders to
develop actions in regard to youth transition from education to employment,
business growth and development and opportunities for actions between
employers, education providers and government.
20. A working group has
been established to ensure that Local Boards are able to input into the
development of the IBPP. Members Michael Bailey and Simeon Brown are the
Manurewa Local Board’s representatives on this group. The role of members of
the working group is to:
· Steer the strategic
direction of the IBPP
· Ensure that the
plan responds to the priorities for the Local Board Areas as defined in the
Local Board Plans
· Act as the
representative for the relevant Local Board
· Provide comments on
the draft plan prior to consultation and prior to finalisation of the plan
· Provide
feedback on the draft IBPP prior to formally seeking approval from Local Boards
and the Economic Development Committee.
21. In order to inform
the development of the IBPP an initial consultation exercise has been
undertaken. This has involved workshops with business associations and a series
of telephone and face to face interviews with business owners within the zoned
industrial areas. We are now in the process of completing an analysis of the
zoned industrial areas with a view to developing draft actions that will be
presented to the working group.
BID Partnership Programmes
22. The BID
Partnership Programme approach is a public-private partnership between business
associations that have a commitment to develop and promote their local business
environment and Auckland Council. In work to date since Auckland Council was
established there has been a focus on sharing best practice and developing
consistent governance, processes and practices across the region’s 46 BIDs.
23. Each BID has
signed a Partnering Agreement with Auckland Council. These agreements define
the relationship between Auckland Council and individual business associations
operating as BIDs. Several have also signed a discretionary Memorandum of
Understanding with their Local Board. The MOU is an opportunity to agree
mutual goals and objectives and to support each other’s programme of work where
applicable.
24. BID
Partnership Advisors hold monthly networking meetings for BID managers and
interested business associations that focus on professional development and
sharing information and best practice. Topics covered from July to
December 2013 include:
· Auckland
Transport (importance of good parking in our centres)
· AGM
checklist and meeting procedures
· ATEED – local events
· WiFi – how to make the most of Apps
· Overseas
conferences – report back and
learnings from BID attendees
· Signs
and alcohol bylaws
· Social
enterprises
· Using
Marketview results for business attraction
· Media
awareness
· Your Website
– how to review it and improve
it
· Using
information from Local ED Overviews and opportunities to engage with Local ED
Action Plans
25. A refresh of
the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (BID Policy 2011) will
be undertaken in 2014. The proposed BID Policy will go before the
Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for final approval in November
2014.
26. The process to
review the BID Policy will involve consultation with both business associations
and Local Board representatives. Separate workshops will initially be held for
the two stakeholder groups, followed by a combined workshop with both the
business associations and Local Board representatives. Local Board
representative(s) are sought for involvement in the review process.
27. Any
suggestions made at these workshops to amend the existing BID Policy (2011)
will be brought before the Local Board for its consideration and feedback.
28. There is much
activity happening with the establishment of new BID areas (including
State Highway 16 and Devonport, who will be balloting in March 2014).
Several other locations are actively working with the BID team
on preparatory work towards establishment. Existing BIDs undertaking
expansion ballots prior to June 2014 include Otahuhu and Manukau Central.
29. Twenty-seven
existing BIDs have chosen to increase their amount of target rate for the
2014/2015 financial year. Every one of these proposed increases has followed
the process of advising all members and receiving approval of the proposed new
amount from members at Annual General Meetings.
Manurewa BID
30. The AGM for the Manurewa Business Association (MBA) was held in
September 2013. An increase of five per cent in the targeted rate was approved
taking the BID targeted rate income for 2014/2015 to $132,300.
31. The Manurewa
BID continues to work towards meeting the requirements of the BID Policy. Last
year’s AGM saw a new committee member elected. This has brought fresh ideas to
the committee and a new set of professional skills.
32. The new
strategic plan has been accepted by the business association and has been
presented to the Manurewa Local Board along with financials for the past year
as per the BID policy. MBA has started working through the first year of the
strategy which involves gathering information from local businesses for a local
directory, social media, updating technology within the office, developing the
events calendar, ensuring members are kept informed and maintaining stakeholder
relationships.
33. Town centre
security continues to be a focus for the BID. A CCTV day time operator has been
employed and is proving to be a huge success in monitoring the cameras, and working
alongside the ambassadors and police.
34. The town
centre manger continues to promote and grow the MBA membership, and has
successfully gained the Southmall Body Corp and Beaufords at Totara Park as
associate members.
Wiri BID
35. Wiri Business Association
held their AGM on 17 October 2013, where members voted on adopting the BID
2014/2015 budget including the target rate of $181,500 which includes a ten per
cent increase.
36. The business association continues to
collaborate with other commercial and industrial business associations across
Auckland to take advantage of their collective strength and provide a
consistent message to local and central government.
37. Wiri, the Greater East
Tamaki Business Association, Rosebank, Mahunga Drive and the
Church-Neilson/South Onehunga Area have collectively engaged a consultant to
prepare a submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan on behalf of the
five business districts.
38. With
funding support from the Manurewa Local Board, the Wiri Business Association
undertook the development of a new strategic plan to set the direction for the
organisation for the next five years. The strategic plan was presented to the
Manurewa Local Board in August 2013.
Local Economic Development Initiative
39. There
is funding of $60,000 per annum for ‘LED planning initiatives’ in the Long Term
Plan (LTP) to FY22. The Board allocated these funds to BID subsidy payments in
2013/2014.
Ultrafast
Broadband
40. 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% of these premises connected. This is in line
with the rate of uptake predicted at the start of the UFB rollout. 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
41. 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
42. The proposed
2014/2015 local economic development work programme in the Manurewa Local Board area is set out below.
|
OPEX Project description
|
|
Economic
analysis and planning e.g. for the Southern Initiative.
|
|
Initiation of
a local ED Action Plan.
|
|
Finalising
the Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.
|
|
BID
Partnership programmes in Manurewa and Wiri.
|
|
Support for
the roll out of ultrafast broadband and the sustainable and targeted
provision of public WiFi.
|
Consideration
Local
Board Views
43. This
report informs the Manurewa 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
44. Matters
relating to Māori wellbeing are addressed as part of specific projects and
are reported in the relevant Board and committee reports.
General
45. N/A.
Implementation
Issues
46. There are no
implementation issues.
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Trudi Fava - Strategic Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board
Six-Monthly Update
1 July to 31 December 2013
File No.:
CP2014/06310
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to update the Manurewa 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 and
strategically developing council assets. As a substantive CCO with a
commercial focus ACPL provides crucial support to a council organisation that
efficiently and effectively achieves social, economic, cultural and environmental
outcomes for Auckland.
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.
These are:
· Properties managed for
the council and Auckland Transport (AT) are fit for purpose and net returns
optimised.
· Place-shaping
partnerships are effectively planned and managed to project completion and in
accordance with Auckland Plan objectives.
· ACPL identifies housing
opportunities and collaborates with partners to deliver exemplar housing
developments, particularly in the more affordable spectrum of the market.
· Council business
interests are managed to protect long term value and achieve budgeted net
return.
· Property acquisitions
are undertaken in a commercially robust manner and in accordance with the
council and AT agreed requirements and relevant legislation.
· Council and AT property
disposals are undertaken in a commercially robust manner.
· The council is provided
with a commercial perspective on planning and development initiatives to
support effective implementation of those initiatives.
4. A summary of
ACPL activities specific to the Manurewa 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 Manurewa Local Board:
a) accepts the Auckland Council Property Limited 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
which will guide our engagement with the local boards:
· a shared
understanding of and mutual respect for the roles, responsibilities and
decision-making authority of local boards, the governing body and ACPL;
· transparent and
timely communication with no surprises;
· understanding and
acknowledgment of shared responsibilities between the parties;
· a commitment to a timely response to and resolution of issues raised
by local board members;
· a commitment to early inclusion in the planning and decision making
process where issues have a specific relevance to a Local Board;
· a commitment to flexibility in terms of engagement, recognising
differing levels of interest and local relevance across the Auckland region.
6. ACPL’s commitment to the local boards is outlined in detail in our
LBEP, which is attached as Attachment A for reference.
Workshops and Meetings
7. A
schedule of Manurewa 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 1095 properties. Rent arrears and vacancies were effectively managed
throughout the period. During Q1 the average monthly collectable arrears rate
and vacancies rate were respectively 1.35% and 2.93%. ACPL’s return on the
property portfolio for the quarter ending 30 September 2013 provides the
shareholder a net surplus above YTD budget of $2m.
10. Property
portfolio information detailing current ACPL managed commercial and residential
property within the Manurewa 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 local board area is attached as Attachment
D. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for
acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.
Portfolio Review and Disposals
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, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL
Board approval, engagement with local ward and the Independent Maori Statutory
Board and finally a governing body decision. A detailed process flowchart is
provided 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 use opportunities via the Rationalisation
Process in the Manurewa Local Board area are listed below. The list includes
any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and
sale by the governing body. Further details are included in Attachment C.
|
PROPERTY
|
DETAILS
|
|
20 McAnnalley
Street, Manurewa
|
Presented to
governing body on 7 March 13 as disposal recommendation. Decision deferred
pending further discussion with local board. The local board confirmed their
endorsement of the disposal of this site 15 August 13 with additional recommendation to the Ministry of Education that they consider land
purchase as part of the Ministry of Education, Early Childhood Education, TAP
Scheme Funding for groups or organisations applying for such. The site will be re-presented to the governing
body in early-mid 2014.
|
|
75 Waimahia
Avenue, Weymouth
|
Vacant 360m2
section on foreshore of Weymouth with linkage to reserve at rear. Progressing
through Rationalisation Process to evaluate future use options and
considerations.
|
|
18D Walpole
Avenue, Hill Park
22D Walpole Avenue, Hill Park &
49D Scenic Drive Hill Park
|
Strips of land
between residential properties. No current use or potential use as access to
rear properties (49D Scenic Drive, 18D & 22D Walpole Ave). Progressing
through Rationalisation Process to evaluate future use options and considerations.
|
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 $100million.
17. There
are no current ACPL lead place-shaping or housing initiatives or proposals in
the Manurewa Local Board area.
Acquisitions
18. ACPL continues
to support Council and Auckland Transport programmes and projects by
negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded
through approved Council or Auckland Transport budgets. We also provide advice
to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.
19. A total of 54
property purchases to the value of $8.9m were completed during Q1. The number
of acquisitions under active negotiations at the end of Q1 was 300 (253 AT and
47 AC).
20. Recent
council acquisitions have included;
- meeting open
space requirements, particularly for subdivisions
- City
Transformation projects
- Heritage
projects
- Storm water
projects.
21. 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.
22. All
properties were purchased within the valuation threshold agreed with Auckland
Council and Auckland Transport.
23. Due to
commercial sensitivities any Manurewa Local Board specific acquisitions detail
will be provided direct to the local board by the Auckland Council or AT
project owner.
Business Interests
24. 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 Manurewa Local
Board area.
Consideration
Local Board Views
25. This
report is for the Manurewa Local Board’s information and seeks the views of the
Local Board.
Maori Impact Statement
26. During
the past six months ACPL has further developed our Maori engagement
initiatives. Our enhanced process engages with the 19 key mana whenua groups in
the Tamaki region on three fronts: identifying cultural significance concerns
regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests and development
partnering discussions. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect
of development outcomes for ACPL lead projects. ACPL has additionally
undertaken to be part of council’s Maori Responsiveness Plan pilot programme.
The project’s key output will be an operational document outlining how ACPL
will contribute to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Maori.
The Current State Assessment phase of this project has been completed and we
are now in the Improvement Planning phase. ACPL will advise the Manurewa Local
Board as appropriate of any specific discussions that arise in the local
board’s area.
General
27. 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.
28. As
provided in section 59(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the principal
objective of a CCO is to:
(a) achieve
the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as
specified in the statement of intent; and
(b) be
a good employer; and
(c) exhibit
a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the
interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavoring to
accommodate or encourage these when able to do so; and
(d) the
CCO is a council-controlled trading organisation, conduct its affairs in
accordance with sound business practice.
29. As
provided in clause 1 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002, the
purpose of the SOI is to:
· state
publicly the activities and intentions of a CCO for the year and the objectives
to which those activities will contribute;
· provide an
opportunity for shareholders to influence the direction of the organisation;
and
· provide a basis for the accountability of the directors to their
shareholders for the performance of the organisation.
Implementation Issues
30. There are no
implementation issues.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
ACPL DRAFT Local Board Engagement
Plan
|
67
|
|
bView
|
Schedule of meetings and workshops
|
83
|
|
cView
|
Properties Managed by ACPL in the
Local Board area
|
85
|
|
dView
|
Property movement in the Local Board
area
|
87
|
|
eView
|
Rationalisation Process Flowchart
|
89
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Caitlin Borgfeldt - Local Board Liaison
|
|
Authoriser
|
David Rankin - Chief Executive
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Local Board - ANZAC Day event budget
File No.:
CP2014/06617
Purpose
1. This report
seeks approval from the Manurewa Local Board to allocate up to $2,000 from the
local civic functions budget to the ANZAC day event budget. For transparency
the moving of funds between budget lines requires a resolution of the board.
Executive
Summary
2. The total
budget for Manurewa ANZAC day events is $9,000 (WBS code: N.002307.10).
3. To date, all
costs associated with delivering the ANZAC services, both dawn & civic,
have come to $9,674.
4. Approval is
being sought for a sum of up to $2,000 to cover the extra costs of the wreaths,
St Johns and any other costs that may not have been covered.
5. The estimated
budget for the Manurewa ANZAC day event is listed in the below table:
|
Total current budget
|
$9,000.00
|
|
Description
|
Costs
|
|
Traffic Management Plan
|
$4,600.00
|
|
Catering
|
$500.00
|
|
Sound
|
$2,460.00
|
|
Public Notice
|
$230.85
|
|
Marquee
|
$492.00
|
|
Wreaths
|
$360.00
|
|
First Aid
|
$542.50
|
|
Chairs & tables
|
$1,392.00
|
|
|
$10,577.35
|
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) Approve the reallocation of up to $2,000 from
the local civic functions budget to the Manurewa ANZAC day event budget to
cover the extra costs.
|
Attachments
There are no
attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
John Adams - Senior Local Board Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference and
Annual General Meeting (AGM) 2014
File No.:
CP2014/06307
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
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 4 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 board will approve more
than one member to attend the conference.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) nominates 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 10.00 am on Sunday 20 July 2014 and concludes at
4.30 pm 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 4 official
delegates are likely to be the Mayor (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor,
Councillor Penny Webster (as Chair of Zone 1) and the Chief Executive (or his
nominee).
9. The Mayor is a
member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor is the Mayor’s alternate
for this position, Cr Webster is the Chair of LGNZ Zone One and a member of
LGNZ National Council and Cr Cashmore is a member of the Regional Sector Group
of LGNZ. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at
their meeting on 27 March 2014.
10. In addition to the official
delegates, Local Board Members are entitled to attend. Local boards should
consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance,
with the expectation that no board will approve more than one member to attend
the conference.
Costs
11. The Local Board Services
Department budget will cover the costs of one member per local board to attend
the conference.
12. Registration fees are $1,410.00
(incl GST) if paid by 4 June 2013 and $1,510.00 (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 the 21 local boards.
Maori
Impact Statement
14. The Local
Government NZ conference will better inform local boards and thereby support
their decision-making for their communities including Maori.
Implementation
Issues
15. There are no
implementation issues associated with the recommendations in this report.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
2014 Local Government New Zealand
(LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and Conference Programme
|
97
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Anna Bray - Policy and
Planning Manager Local Board Services
|
|
Authorisers
|
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding
Policy Review
File No.:
CP2014/06391
Purpose
1. This report
seeks formal feedback from local boards on the work to date on the Local Boards
Funding Policy Review.
Executive
Summary
2. Auckland Council
is required to adopt a Local Boards Funding Policy. The current policy was
developed within a context of retaining and reflecting legacy council service
level and funding decisions. After three years more has been learned and a
broader policy discussion can be undertaken.
3. The review
seeks to find the most appropriate funding mechanisms for local board
expenditure on asset based services such as parks, libraries, recreation and
community facilities and non-asset based services (locally driven initiatives).
During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels
have been raised, which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy.
Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as
part of the wider planning and budgeting process. The review recommends
retaining the current funding model for asset based services, but considers
options for changing to a fairer funding model for locally driven initiatives.
4. The timing for
the review proposes public consultation in June 2014 to enable a policy to be
adopted to form the basis of local board budgets for inclusion in the draft
Long-term Plan 2015-2025. In order to meet that timeframe engagement with local
boards needs to take place in March and April 2014. This will enable the
council to consider local board views in determining a proposal for
consultation with the public.
5. A report has
been produced setting out options for the Local Boards Funding Policy and the
key issues that need to be resolved. This report, “Local boards funding policy
review” is appended as Attachment A to this report, and will form the basis of
engagement with local boards and the Governing Body to inform decision making
on the policy.
6. On 20 February
2014, the Governing Body agreed the parameters for engagement with local boards
on the review of the local boards funding policy. These parameters include:
· no changes being made to the split between regional and local
activities or to decision making responsibility for setting service levels for
local activities
· time frame for the review
· structure of the policy that is to be considered
· Governing Body, via operational groups, will work on equity issues
in regard to asset based service levels as part of 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 Manurewa Local Board:
a) agree to
consider the policy framework for the Local Boards Funding Policy Review 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
· Governing
body decisions on investment will be guided by regional strategies, which
should identify funding priorities based on the need to address service gaps
and growth
|
· Engaged and
provide feedback on governing body decisions
· Engaged and
provide feedback on regional strategies
· Decide
precise location of new assets
· Agrees
design of project within scope set by the Governing Body. Can propose to fund
increases to project scope as locally driven initiatives
· Oversees
delivery of project
|
|
· Allocates
operational expenditure to enable local boards to operate and maintain their
local assets in accordance with the asset management plans
· Approves
asset management plans
|
· Engaged in
development of asset management plans
· Operate and
maintain local assets in accordance with the asset management plans
· Can fund
asset related service level improvements as locally driven initiatives
|
|
Locally driven
initiatives
|
Approve or
reject locally driven projects that exceed governing body set limits on local
board capital investment
|
· Can
undertake capital projects within limits set by the Governing Body
· May
undertake capital projects over limits set by the Governing Body with
approval from the Governing Body
|
|
· Decide
services and service levels to be provided for community and allocates
operating budgets accordingly
· Oversee
delivery of local services
· Can fund
asset related service level improvements
|
19. The review proposes that the
existing model for funding asset based services be retained as there is no
merit in alternative options for funding these. Under this model asset based
services will continue to be funded from general rates. As the distribution of
asset based service costs between boards does not align with factors such as
local board population size, then funding on this basis will not ensure that
local boards can maintain their asset base. There is also:
· a poor relationship between the user catchment for many asset based
services and local board populations
· using local rates to fund asset based services would be inequitable,
and for some boards unsustainable.
20. Under this funding model, the
Governing Body determines how much funding is available to fund agreed service
level standards. The Governing Body also has the ability to set regional
policies on fees and user charges such as free entry to swimming pools for
under 17’s. Local boards undertake an advocacy role in changing agreed service
levels and will be engaged in the development of the regional strategies on
asset based services that will guide governing body decisions on future
investment in assets.
21. Local boards also have decision
making on how asset based services are delivered and operated in their board
area. They may make decisions on the level of fees and charges within any
regional policy set by the Governing Body. In doing so they receive the benefit
of increased revenue or fund any shortfall from other funding sources.
22. During the course of the review,
equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised which cannot be
resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have
implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and
budgeting process and will be considered when developing the long-term plan. As
part of this process, local boards will be engaged in the development of asset
management plans (AMPs) that will determine service levels and capital
programmes for asset based services. Engagement with local boards on the AMPs
is currently planned to begin March 2014.
23. Under the current funding model,
funding for locally driven initiatives reflects decisions on service levels
made by former councils. The review has found that equity in funding for
locally driven initiatives between local boards can be improved in one of three
ways. These are by using:
· general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as
local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation
and remoteness
· local rates collected within each board area
· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.
24. Under a general rate allocation
model the amount of locally driven initiative funding available to each local
board is determined by the Governing Body. This is affected by decisions made
by the Governing Body on the total level of locally driven initiatives funding
available each year and the formula used to allocate this to each local board.
25. A general rate allocation model
will see a redistribution of funding between local boards; some will receive
more funding while others will receive less. A local board that receives less
funding will then have the option to reduce expenditure or to seek an increase
in revenue from fees and charges or from local rates.
26. Under a local rate model, funding
for locally driven initiatives is provided entirely from a local rate. The
level of funding required from the local rate is determined by the decisions on
local fees, charges, services and service levels made by the local board. The
local rate will show as a separate line item on the rates invoice.
27. A combined model will part fund
locally driven initiatives via a general rate allocation with the remainder of
the funding provided by a local rate.
28. The proposed Local Boards Funding
Policy structure for funding operational expenditure is as follows:
|
Funding for asset
based services
|
|
The cost of operating
and maintaining asset based services is funded from general rates, and fees
and charges revenue associated with individual assets. Funding is allocated
to local boards in accordance with asset management plans and the regional
budgeting process.
|
|
Funding for locally
driven initiatives
|
|
Locally driven
initiatives will be funded from local fees and charges associated with these
activities, and from rates funding. There are three options for rates funding
locally driven
initiatives:
· general
rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board
population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and
remoteness
· local rates
collected within each board area
· a
combination of general rates allocation and local rates.
|
29. The above structure for the
funding policy was agreed by the Governing Body for engagement with local
boards. The focus for engagement is on how to best fund the locally driven
initiatives component of the policy.
Scope: how local rates are
used
30. The use of local rates is an
option under any funding model. The review of the local board funding policy
provides the opportunity to have greater clarity in the roles that the
Governing Body and local boards play in setting local rates. This is
particularly relevant where funding decisions are aligned with decisions on
levels of service. Legislation constrains this process in that only the
Governing Body can set a rate. There are two options for determining the
relationship between the Governing Body and local boards, these are:
· local boards advocate to the Governing Body for new local rates or
changes to those set by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body makes the
final decision. This is a similar process that is currently used for funding of
local assets.
· local boards make decisions on the use of new local rates or changes
to those set by the Governing Body, within constraints of regional policy
determined by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body implements these
decisions. This is a similar process that is currently used for local fees and
charges.
31. The Local Boards Funding Policy
is the appropriate place to set this relationship. The Governing Body agreed
the above as relationship options for engagement with local boards.
Policy implementation:
Capital expenditure
32. Local boards currently have
budgets for capital expenditure from three sources:
· governing body investment decisions on local assets
· legacy capital projects inherited from the previous councils
· an allocation of capital funding for boards to use at their
discretion, beginning in the 2012/2013 year.
33. Governing body provided capital
funds for investment in local assets are not discretionary for local boards.
While each board has decision making on how specified projects are implemented
within their area, projects must be delivered within the scope agreed by the
Governing Body.
34. The review recommends that the
Local Boards Funding Policy only allocates operational expenditure to local
boards, and does not allocate capital expenditure. Local boards can still
undertake capital projects within the limits set by the Governing Body, so long
as they can fund the consequential operating expenditure (including
depreciation and interest costs) from their operational budgets. Local boards
would need to fund this expenditure either by reprioritising their existing
budgets (through efficiencies or reduced service levels), or increasing their
revenue from rates or fees and charges. This would see local boards funding
capital investment in the same way as the Governing Body does.
35. The review recommends that the
few remaining significant legacy capital projects be treated the same as
governing body investment decisions. These funds will be considered
nondiscretionary, on the basis that it was a governing body decision that these
projects continue rather than be reviewed against regional priorities for
investment. Consequential operating expenditure associated with these projects
will be part of asset based service funding and will not impact on local board budgets.
36. The consequential operating
expenditure associated with any remaining discretionary capital funds will be
treated as funding for locally driven initiatives. This funding will therefore
be included in any reallocation of funding for locally driven initiatives.
Scope: Locally driven
initiatives - general rate allocation formula options
37. If the Governing Body determines
the total level of funding to be raised through a general rate for locally
driven initiatives, some form of allocation method or formula is required. The
Strategy and Finance committee agreed at its May 2013 meeting that the
following attributes of local boards be considered in the development of the
funding policy:
· population
· deprivation
· factors related to rural/geographic isolation
· rates collected.
38. It is recommended that the
general rate funding allocation formula be restricted to factors related to
population, deprivation and rural/geographic isolation only.
39. Rates collected should not be
used as a factor for allocating general rates funding. This is because general
rates have an element of both tax and payment for services received. The
distribution of rates across groups of ratepayers was a consideration in the
development of the rating policy.
40. If funding local boards based on
the level of rates collected in the local board area is desired, then local
rates should be used. This would make explicit the link between and rates paid
and services received, with each board area paying a local rate for the services
undertaken by their board. It also directly links a local board’s decision
making on service levels with decisions on the rate revenue required to be
collected from their local community.
Scope: Transition
41. Under the proposed policy,
locally driven initiatives can be primarily funded either through local rates,
or by general rates allocated to boards based on factors such as population, or
a mixture of the two.
42. A general rate allocation formula
will result in significant change in the level of funding for some local
boards. As such, the adoption of some form of transition process may be
appropriate. The review process will present options for transitioning change
as a result of the funding policy over three years, to align with the Long-term
plan planning cycle.
43. The level of change associated
with the adoption of local rates for funding locally driven initiatives is
smaller. Local boards would also have the opportunity to adjust their local
rates revenue requirement by adjusting their service levels. A transition
process is unlikely to be of value in this case. However if a mixed funding
model is adopted, using both general rates allocation and local rates, there
may still be a need to transition the allocated portion of funding. Options for
managing this change will be presented.
44. It is noted that Great Barrier
Island local board will experience high levels of change in funding regardless
of what funding model is adopted. Options for treating this board as a special
case for funding will be presented by the review.
Policy implementation: Local fees and
charges
45. Local boards have the right to
set local fees and charges under the allocation of decision making. Under the
proposed Local Boards Funding Policy framework, it is recommended that local
boards will retain the benefit/bear the cost of any change in fees as a result
of their decision making.
46. Local board decisions on fees and
charges related to asset based services needs to be balanced against revenue
expectations for those services. These revenue expectations inform the
requirement for general rate funding for asset based services in the asset
management plans. In this case, it is proposed that operating groups will
advise boards on the expected revenue targets for their asset based services
starting from the status quo. Local boards can adjust fees above or below the
recommended target, and will then retain the benefit/bear the cost of any
resulting change in expected revenue for the service.
47. In setting fees and charges,
there is the risk that actual revenue will vary from expected revenue. If the
revenue relates to an asset based service, the operating group will absorb any
revenue variance, with any shortfall made up from the groups operating budget.
The variance will then be used to inform revenue targets for the service in the
following year.
48. The local board will bear the
cost or retain the benefit of any variance in revenue related to locally driven
initiatives.
Policy implementation: Rates
remission and grants schemes
49. The council inherited from the
former councils a number of mechanisms that support community and sports
related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage. These included
the direct provision of services by the council, grants to third party organisations,
and rates remission and postponement schemes.
50. In general the provision of these
services and grant schemes have been classed as local activities, and continue
to operate in those local board areas from which they originated. The rates
relief schemes are part of the council’s rates remission and postponement
policy, which is managed regionally, but continue to be available to qualifying
properties within those former council areas that originally offered the
schemes.
51. As a result of the council
retaining these legacy services and schemes, local board areas are providing
similar community services using varying delivery models:
· some boards have services, such as community facilities, provided
directly by the council
· other boards have grants schemes directly controlled by the boards
that are used to fund third parties to provide similar types of services,
including the provision of community facilities; as well as to provide support
to local community groups and other organisations
· in some board areas, community groups and other organisations have
access to rates remission or postponement schemes that are not controlled by the
local board in terms of eligibility criteria and approval.
52. The Local Boards Funding Policy
has already considered the issue of the use locally controlled grants, compared
to where services are being delivered by the council. It is proposed that under
the policy, grants that are used to fund local facilities that in other areas
are provided by the council, should be funded on the same basis as other asset
based services. Grants that are used to fund more discretionary activities,
such as one off grants to community groups, will be treated as locally driven
initiatives, and be included in the pool of funding for these activities.
53. The Review of Community
Assistance has now identified all sources of community funding assistance
provided by the council, by local board area. This enables a review of the
council’s rates remission and postponement schemes to be undertaken, to develop
an approach to supporting community and other organisations that is consistent
across the region.
54. The council’s rates remission and
postponement policy should be regionally consistent. However most of the rates
relief granted under the remission and postponement schemes for community and
sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage correspond
to grants schemes relate to activities that have been treated as a local board
responsibility when support is provided as grants. To ensure consistency,
options for moving from rates based schemes to locally controlled grants
schemes will be considered, though the financial impact of such a move will
need to be assessed.
55. The Governing Body has agreed
that the Auckland Council rates remission and postponement policy be reviewed
alongside the development of the Local Boards Funding Policy to ensure
consistency between local grants schemes and rates relief schemes, and to
develop a regionally consistent rates remission and postponement policy.
56. Amendments to the rates remission
and postponement policy will be publically consulted on alongside consultation
on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.
Engagement
57. Council staff will be undertaking
engagement with local boards on the Local Boards Funding Policy through March
and April 2014. The attached report “Local boards funding policy review” will
form the basis for engagement on the policy options.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
58. This report has been considered
by and includes feedback from the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working
Party (LBFP PWP).
59. The purpose of the working party
is to provide a joint forum of the Governing Body and local boards to provide
guidance and direction with respect to the development of the local board
funding policy. This includes development of comprehensive and robust options
for the funding of local activities within the Local Boards Funding Policy.
60. This report seeks formal feedback
from local boards to be considered by the LBFP PWP in early May and will form
part if the consideration by the Governing Body when it adopts the draft policy
for consultation in late May.
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
|
|
aView
|
Local Boards Funding Policy Review
(Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
bView
|
Guidelines for local board feedback
|
111
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling
Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy
|
|
Authorisers
|
Chris Carroll - Manager Planning and Policy
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Fees and charges for the hire of community venues,
centres and arts facilities - Manurewa Local Board Agreement
File No.:
CP2014/06019
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 Manurewa
Local Board Agreement.
2. This report seeks to inform the Manurewa
Local Board of administrative changes to the fees and charges framework.
3. It also seeks the Manurewa Local
Board’s confirmation of the priority activity types which will be eligible for
a maximum discount (i.e. lowest fees per hour).
Executive
Summary
4. Local boards have the allocation
of setting hire fees for local facilities, to support delivery of services,
projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.
5. A project has been under way to
develop a more consistent pricing structure for hire of council-managed community
venues, centres and houses and arts facilities. Excluded from scope are
facilities managed by committees or third parties, and bookable spaces in
parks, sport and recreation facilities, or in libraries.
6. Local boards have been engaged
in this project through a series of workshops, providing feedback to inform a
new fee structure for the hire of local community facilities, with the
following purpose:
“To ensure people can access safe and affordable spaces to
pursue their interests.”
7. The project has resulted in
three main changes:
a. administrative
changes to standardise terminology and charge fees on an hourly basis
b. the Manurewa
Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect your
local board Plan priorities.
c. proposed
adjustments to the hire fees, to improve consistency across the portfolio of
facilities within each local board area, and in similar facilities in adjoining
boards.
8. The fees and charges schedule
will be presented for adoption as part of the 2014/2015 Manurewa Local Board
Agreement.
|
Recommendations
That
the Manurewa Local Board:
a) Confirms the activity types
eligible for priority discounts for hire of local council-run facilities as
per attachment A
b) Notes
the administrative changes to facilitate implementation.
|
Discussion
Background
9. Local boards are allocated the
setting of fees and discounts for hire of their local council-run community
arts venues, halls, centres and houses. This supports delivery of services,
projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.
10. Historical variations in hire
fees, terminology and procedures across the Auckland region led local boards in
2012 to request improvements to the customer experience for hirers of local
community facilities, and to improve the transparency and quality of
information and advice to guide local boards when you set and vary hire fees.
Local Board
Engagement
11. At workshops during 2013 and
2014, local boards with facilities in scope had a number of opportunities to engage
with the project team and to express their preferred approaches to the hire of
local facilities. This report has been informed by the feedback received, and
has led to a new hire fee framework and fee structure for the 2014-2015 year.
12. Operational considerations have
meant that not all views expressed can be incorporated during 2014-2015. If
you wish to consider more substantial changes to hire fees and charges in
future years to ensure alignment across your portfolio, the Long Term Plan
process offers an opportunity to consult local communities.
Changes to
the Hire Fees and Charges Framework
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 Manurewa Local Board Agreement. While the
proposed fee schedules are based on modelling within existing budget
parameters, variances may arise due to changing demand and utilisation of
facilities. The proposed changes are intended to be budget neutral for each local
board, and in most instances, are considered minor in comparison with value for
money.
Proposed
Administrative Changes
15. In 2014 at a further series of
workshops, local boards were informed of operational changes, including
standardised fee-naming, and principles for applying discounts:
i) all bookings are treated on a first-come first-served
basis
ii) discounts are given for regular bookings and for
off-peak times
iii) all hire fees will be charged on a per hour basis,
using six simple naming conventions, as in Table 1.
Table 1: Fee Naming
Conventions
|
Naming Convention
|
Fee Comparisons
|
|
Standard
|
Full rate, no discounts
|
|
Standard Off Peak
|
Full rate, less a discount for time of day or week
|
|
Regular
|
Discount off standard rate for 10 or more bookings per
year
|
|
Regular Off Peak
|
Discount off standard rate for 10 or more bookings per
year, and a further discount for time of day / week
|
|
Local Board Priority Activities
|
Maximum discount off standard rate
|
|
Local Board Priority Off Peak
|
Maximum discount off standard rate, and a further discount
for time of day / week
|
Consideration
of Manurewa Local Board Priorities
16. In line with 2014/2015 Manurewa
Local Board Agreement priorities, the local board is now asked to confirm their
Local Board Priority Activities, i.e. those activity types the local board
wishes to be eligible for a maximum discount.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
17. This report
reflects the engagement with the local boards
Maori
Impact Statement
18. This will affect or benefit Māori communities in the same way
it would any other community user in the local board area. No specific
need for consultation with Māori was identified for the purposes of this
report.
General
19. This report does
not trigger the significance policy.
Implementation
Issues
20. The new fee framework will be
implemented from 1 July 2014. No particular implementation issues are
anticipated. It is expected that the clarity and simplicity of the approach
will enable more effective promotion of the facilities in the future.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Appendix A: Principles for bookings,
fees and discounts for Manurewa Local Board
|
117
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Kat Tierney - Team Leader – Community Facilities,
South
|
|
Authorisers
|
Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and
Culture
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Appendix A: Principles for
bookings, fees and discounts for Manurewa Local Board
1. Bookings are made on a first-come first-served
basis, and charged at standard rates.
2. In order to meet demand for use of the
facilities, a discount is applied at off peak hours.
3. Regular users (10 or more bookings per year) will
be charged at a discounted rate.
4. Bookings for activities which achieve community
outcomes and benefits that the Local Board has prioritised or directly support
priority outcomes and transformational shifts of the Auckland Plan, may be
eligible for an additional discount, if certain criteria are met.
5. For Manurewa Local Board, the priority activities
for maximum discounts are those activities contributing to local community
outcomes, such as those offered by not-for-profit, residents’ groups and other
community groups.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 submissions analysis and
responses to information requests
File No.:
CP2014/06321
Purpose
1. The
purpose of this report is to provide analysis of the annual plan submissions
from the Manurewa Local Board area, and further information to support the
board in its decision-making.
Executive Summary
2. The
Manurewa Local Board Local Hearings Panel heard submissions on the draft Annual
Plan 2014/2015, including the draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on Tuesday,
18 March 2014.
3. Local
boards need to consider any amendments to Local Board Agreements 2014/2015,
advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals prior to discussions with
the Governing Body on 29 and 30 April, and 1 May 2014.
4. This
report contains analysis of the submissions from the Manurewa Local Board area,
including local and regional submissions.
5. Subject matter expert responses to requests for further information
from the hearings are attached as attachment A.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Manurewa Local Board:
a) considers
any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015, advocacy areas
and any feedback on regional proposals arising from the special consultative
procedure for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.
|
Discussion
6. The Local Government Act 2002 requires Auckland Council to undertake
a special consultative procedure (SCP) as part of the development of the Annual
Plan 2014/2015, including draft Local Board Agreements 2014/2015.
7. The
submission period for the draft Annual Plan SCP ran from 23 January to 24
February 2014.
8. In
total, the Council received and processed 1,967 submissions of which 39 were received from the Manurewa Local
Board area. Six submitters in the Manurewa Local Board area indicated they
wished to be heard.
9. The
Manurewa Local Hearings Panel held its hearings on the draft Annual Plan
2014/2015, including the Local Board’s draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on
Tuesday, 18 March 2014.
Subject matter expert
responses to requests for information
10. Following
the hearing, the panel had a number of requests for further information. These
were sent to the relevant subject matter experts for response. The responses
are attached to inform the Local Board’s decision-making (Attachment A).
Local submissions from the
Manurewa Local Board area
11. The submission
form asked for views on local board budget changes for 2014/2015. However, the
Manurewa Local Board proposed no budget changes for
2014/2015.
12. There were no
local themes or topics that received a significant number of comments from
submissions to the Manurewa Local Board.
Regional submissions from the
Manurewa Local Board area
Feedback on regional
proposals:
13. Question 1: Stadium Strategy – A total
of 1,069 submitters (54.4% of all submitters) provided an
opinion on the proposed stadium strategy. Of these, 230
(21.5%) supported the proposal, while 501 (46.9%) did not support it, and 338
(31.6%) were unsure. The most notable opposition was
attributed to moving the speedway, with 362 submitters expressing a desire to
keep the speedway at Western Springs. Submitters from
the Manurewa Local Board were even more opposed to the proposal with 69.6% of
the 23 submitters not supporting the stadium strategy.
This is outlined below in figure 1.
Figure 1 – Stadium Strategy proposal
|
Overall
(1,069 submissions)
|
Manurewa Local Board
submitters
(23 submissions)
|
14. 985 submitters (50.1% of all submitters) provided
an opinion on the Arts Festival proposal. Of these, 503 (51.1%)
supported the proposal, while 226 (22.9%) did not support it, and 256 (26.0%) were unsure. Submitters
from the Manurewa Local Board were less supportive of the proposal with 37.5%
of the 24 submitters supporting an annual Arts Festival, yet the majority
(54.2%) were unsure. This is outlined below in figure 2.
Figure 2 – Arts Festival proposal
|
Overall
(985 submissions)
|
Manurewa Local Board
submitters
(24 submissions)
|
Regional overview
15. There were 165 regional submissions, with 44 requesting
to be heard. High-level information on the regional submissions is provided
below. Of those requesting to be heard at a regional hearing, 8 were from individual submitters, 22
from special interest groups, 11 from businesses or
business associations, and a further 3 from Maori organisations.
16. The topics
listed below in table 1 indicate the most commonly raised submission points
relating to regional activities (not including the consultation questions),
with a summary of the most significant issues below.
Table 1 - Regional topics
|
Topic
Description
|
Number of submissions commenting on topic
|
% of total submissions
|
|
Watercare
– Water Supply
|
247
|
12.6%
|
|
Regional
arts & culture initiatives
|
54
|
2.7%
|
|
Social
housing proposal – Do not support
|
51
|
2.6%
|
|
Expenditure
– too high
|
38
|
1.9%
|
|
Transport
strategy
|
35
|
1.8%
|
|
Request
for funding
|
31
|
1.6%
|
|
Auckland
Transport – Public transport
|
29
|
1.5%
|
|
General
comments about the plan
|
29
|
1.5%
|
|
Auckland
Transport – Roads
|
27
|
1.4%
|
|
Rates –
too high
|
24
|
1.2%
|
|
Environmental
strategy, policies & programmes
|
23
|
1.2%
|
There was also feedback
on the following:
17. Watercare Services – Water supply – 226 of the 236 submissions regarding water supply were
opposing fluoridation of the water supply. Of those submissions, 206 came via
a pro forma. The points raised outline a believed violation of human rights in
that ratepayers have no choice as to whether their water is treated to include
fluoride chemicals. The form also outlines a perceived health risk and that
fluoride should be obtained through toothpaste only.
18. Regional arts & culture initiatives – of the 54 submitters that commented on this topic, 48 are
requests for Council to consider Massive Theatre Company for annual investment
and assistance to find a home. While most of which are from members/supports,
the Theatre does also make an official submission requesting funding itself.
19. Social Housing proposal – 51 submitters
outlined their reasons for not supporting the proposal to increase social
housing rental charges by 5%. Just over half of these submitters outlined the
major reason being the increase was not affordable.
Consideration
Local Board Views
20. The Local
Board needs to consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement
2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising out of
the SCP process.
21. A separate
report on this agenda will address the requirement to agree a final balanced
budget, advocacy areas for 2014/2015, and if required, resolve on feedback on
regional proposals.
Maori Impact Statement
22. The draft
Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 sets out the local activities that Auckland
Council will undertake in the Local Board area over the coming year. These
activities are likely to have an impact on Māori and iwi in the local
board area. Māori and iwi have had the opportunity to submit on the
content of the draft Local Board Agreement as part of the SCP process.
Implementation Issues
23. The content of the final Local
Board Agreement will set out the local activities to be undertaken by Auckland
Council in the Local Board area. Implementation issues will vary depending on
the activities undertaken.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Responses to requests for information
from the Manurewa Local Board
|
123
|
|
bView
|
Manurewa Local Board local parks and
playground
|
127
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
John Adams - Senior Local Board Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan
File No.:
CP2014/06322
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 Council Controlled
Organisations (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 Manurewa 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 Manurewa Local Board notes:
i) local
board budgets for 2014/2015 and outer years are required to balance in every
year
ii) if
budgets do not balance in every year, the Budget Committee will
respond to any advice provided by the local board about how to balance its
budget if required. If this has not occurred, budgets will be balanced by
proportionately reducing the budgets for the local boards discretionary projects
to address the overspend
iii) local board budgets will be updated in May to
reflect local board prioritisation decisions, any final decisions made by the
Budget Committee on 8 May, and updated central cost allocations. Updated
financial statements for 2014/2015 will be provided to local boards in time
for local board agreement adoption meetings in June.
|
Discussion
5. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was released for public
consultation in January, with local board hearings held in March as part of the
special consultative procedure. Following consultation, each local board has
reviewed its 2014/2015 and outer year budgets and considered what, if any,
reprioritisation is required in order to finalise budgets for the annual
plan.
6. This report provides information on:
· key budget
refresh movements to local board budgets
· local board
decisions required in April to support the annual plan process
· next steps to
finalise local board budgets and agreements for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.
7. Local boards are
now required to make decisions following the consultation and reprioritisation
phases to enable local board content to be updated and finalised for the Annual
Plan 2014/2015. Local boards are asked to:
i) agree a final
balanced budget for 2014/2015 and outer years
ii) agree an
updated set of advocacy areas to the Governing Body and CCOs for inclusion in
the Annual Plan 2014/2015
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 this local board is provided
in Attachment B.
Next steps to finalise local board
agreements
10. Discussions between the Budget Committee and local boards will
occur between 29 April and
1 May.
11. Reports will be prepared for the Budget Committee meeting on 8
May providing an update on local board budgets, advocacy and other feedback and
seeking any further decisions required to finalise the Annual Plan 2014/2015.
At this meeting, the Committee will formally consider local board feedback and advocacy.
12. Between 9 and 30 May, local board agreements will be updated
and financial statements prepared. Financial statements will reflect budget
prioritisation decisions made by local boards, any further decisions made by
the Budget Committee and include central cost allocations, such as
depreciation, interest and staff costs.
13. Local boards will meet to adopt their local board agreements
between 9 June and 19 June, with the Governing Body meeting to adopt the final
annual plan, including the 21 local board agreements, on 26 June.
Consideration
Local Boards
14. This report sets out the decisions local boards need to make in
order to finalise budgets and agree advocacy areas for the Annual Plan
2014/2015. Local boards may also provide feedback on region-wide policies and
proposals being considered as part of the annual plan.
Maori Impact Statement
15. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Maori.
The annual plan and local board agreements are important tools that enable and
can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Maori. The local board
agreement is based on the local board plan and the Long-term Plan 2012-2022
which have both been developed through engagement with the community, including
Maori.
16. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local
boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing
conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each
other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage
Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes. In particular,
the 2014 Local Board Plans and the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 will
influence relevant annual plans and local board agreements.
Implementation
17. Local boards’ financial statements reflect
the full cost of undertaking local activities within each board’s area.
However, some of these costs are not directly under the control of local boards
(e.g. staff costs, corporate overhead, interest and depreciation) and are therefore
subject to change outside of the local board’s prioritisation process.
18. These central
costs will alter as final budget decisions are made by the Budget Committee on
8 May. As these central costs change, the total funding for each local board
will change by the same amount. These changes will have no impact on a local
board’s level of discretionary funding.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Budget refresh – Summary of key
movements
|
133
|
|
bView
|
Budget refresh – Movements for this
local board
|
135
|
|
cView
|
Manurewa Local Board fees and charges
schedule
|
137
|
|
dView
|
Manurewa Local Board advocacy list
|
145
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards
|
|
Authorisers
|
Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and
Budgeting
Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Appendix
A
Budget Refresh – A summary of key movements
This is a summary of key budget refresh
changes applied in February 2014 that impact local board budgets. There are no
level of service impacts as a result of these changes.
1. Depreciation forecasts have been updated to realign with the
fixed asset model, taking into account actual capital programme spend to date
and deferral of projects.
2. Commercial lease expenditure and revenue has been aligned to
local boards in response to a Strategy and Finance resolution passed in June
2013 to ensure financial treatment of the Auckland Council lease portfolio is
aligned to an agreed set of principles.
3. Library budget forecasts have been improved by removing
duplicated revenue budgets, realigning staff budgets based on a
position-by-position review, fixing minor historical errors and identifying the
allocation of efficiency savings.
4. CDAC budgets were reviewed to correct legacy budget errors.
5. Some regional activity budgets incorrectly allocated to Local
Boards have been corrected.
6. Local parks budgets were reviewed including:
a. street amenities budgets aligning with actual costs based on
historical data and current level of service provided;
b. allocation of budgets for new park purchases and correction of
allocation of scheduled/response maintenance contracts across local boards;
c. identifying the allocation of efficiency savings; and
d. correction of historical budget errors.
7. Local facility property budgets (both revenue and expenditure)
have been correctly aligned to local boards.
8. Leisure facility budgets were reviewed to remove revenue
budgets containing legacy errors, unachievable revenue forecasts due to capital
project delays, correct legacy errors in marketing budgets and allocate
efficiency savings as a result of the RFP for contracted facilities.
9. General budget forecast updates have been applied to some
projects based on current and historical information of spend and current
levels of service provided.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Appendix
B
Budget Refresh – Movements for this
local board
Operational Expenditure (Opex)
|
Local
Board
|
Activity
|
Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015
Budget ($)
|
Revised 2014/2015 Budget ($)
|
Variance
|
|
Manurewa
|
Local libraries
|
1,394,535
|
1,705,372
|
310,837
|
|
|
Local community
services
|
731,725
|
499,612
|
-232,113
|
|
|
Local arts,
culture and events services
|
227,738
|
502,547
|
274,809
|
|
|
Local parks
services
|
4,628,030
|
4,190,599
|
-437,430
|
|
|
Local recreation
services
|
979,408
|
1,843,786
|
864,378
|
|
|
Local economic
development
|
393,461
|
424,145
|
30,684
|
|
|
Local built and
natural environment
|
10,482
|
10,482
|
0
|
|
|
Local governance
|
1,221,490
|
1,214,794
|
-6,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
9,586,869
|
10,391,338
|
804,469
|
Capital Expenditure (Capex)
Capex
|
Activity
and Project
|
Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Budget ($)
|
Revised 2014/2015 Budget ($)
|
Variance
|
|
Local
community facilities
|
241,248
|
141,248
|
-100,000
|
|
Community facility renewals
|
241,248
|
141,248
|
-100,000
|
|
Local
community safety initiatives
|
11,938
|
11,938
|
|
|
CCTV cameras (Manukau)
|
11,938
|
11,938
|
|
|
Local
library facilities and services
|
76,996
|
96,996
|
20,000
|
|
Local library renewals
|
76,996
|
96,996
|
20,000
|
|
Local
parks
|
2,453,769
|
4,135,468
|
1,681,699
|
|
Riverton Park Reserve
|
62,976
|
1,496,408
|
1,433,432
|
|
Development (Premier Park)
|
|
91,425
|
91,425
|
|
Local park walkway and cycleway renewals
|
52,480
|
78,801
|
26,321
|
|
Esplanade development
|
52,480
|
77,392
|
24,912
|
|
Sportsfield renewals
|
40,934
|
55,647
|
14,713
|
|
Sports park playspace renewals
|
|
11,159
|
11,159
|
|
Sports park horticultural renewals
|
6,258
|
17,288
|
11,030
|
|
Local park horticultural renewals
|
88,041
|
98,482
|
10,441
|
|
Neighbourhood parks
|
189,978
|
199,887
|
9,910
|
|
Local park car park renewals
|
73,472
|
83,044
|
9,572
|
|
Upgrade (Mountfort Park)
|
524,800
|
533,800
|
9,000
|
|
Sports park utility renewals
|
|
8,721
|
8,721
|
|
Sports park furniture and fixture
renewals
|
20,992
|
29,268
|
8,276
|
|
Local park furniture and fixture renewals
|
54,024
|
61,192
|
7,168
|
|
Local park playspace renewals
|
115,456
|
121,075
|
5,619
|
|
Citywide reserve signs and furniture
|
56,678
|
56,678
|
|
|
Sports parks
|
577,280
|
577,280
|
|
|
Sports park car park renewals
|
323,802
|
323,802
|
|
|
Coastline erosion control
|
56,678
|
56,678
|
|
|
Maritime recreational fund development
|
157,440
|
157,440
|
|
|
Local
planning, policy and governance
|
7,282
|
14,486
|
7,204
|
|
Local board it hardware (staff)
|
7,282
|
14,486
|
7,204
|
|
Local
recreation initiatives and facilities
|
1,081,125
|
2,560,967
|
1,479,842
|
|
Netball complex, community and events
centre (Manurewa)
|
882,551
|
2,046,772
|
1,164,221
|
|
Aquatic facility building renewals
|
89,216
|
359,965
|
270,748
|
|
Recreational facilities building renewals
|
109,358
|
154,231
|
44,873
|
|
Local
street environment and town centres
|
115,555
|
121,926
|
6,370
|
|
Local park horticultural renewals
|
18,099
|
24,469
|
6,370
|
|
Streetscape development
|
97,456
|
97,456
|
|
|
Grand
Total
|
3,987,914
|
7,083,030
|
3,095,116
|
Capex figures are uninflated.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
I. LIBRARY ROOM HIRE
|
Description
|
Current fee
|
Proposed fee for 14/15
|
Rationale for change / officer advice
|
Estimated impact on revenue budget (outside of
inflation)
|
|
Room hire - Council/Community Groups, Small Room Per Hour
|
$5.30
|
$5.40
|
Inflation adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Commercial, Small Room Per Hour
|
$10.60
|
$10.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Council/Community Groups, Large Room Per
Hour
|
$10.60
|
$10.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Council/Community Groups, Small Room Half Day
|
$10.60
|
$10.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Council/Community Groups, Small Room Full
Day
|
$21.20
|
$21.40
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Commercial, Small Room Half Day
|
$26.40
|
$26.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Commercial, Large Room Per Hour
|
$26.40
|
$26.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Council/Community Groups, Large Room Half
Day
|
$26.40
|
$26.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Commercial, Small Room Full Day
|
$42.30
|
$42.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Council/Community Groups, Large Room Full
Day
|
$42.30
|
$42.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Commercial, Large Room Half Day
|
$53.00
|
$53.50
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Room hire - Commercial, Large Room Full Day
|
$84.70
|
$85.50
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
II. LEISURE AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Manurewa Pool and Leisure
|
Description
|
Current Fee
|
Proposed Fee for
14/15
|
Rationale for
change/Officer advice
|
Estimated Impact
on revenue budget (outside of inflation)
|
|
Casual Admission
|
$3.10
|
$3.10
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Casual Admission Spa and Sauna
|
$5.20
|
$5.30
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Casual Admission Spa and Sauna Senior
|
$4.40
|
$4.40
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Casual Fitness Centre entry
|
$14.60
|
$14.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MAC - Sunbed
|
$3.70
|
$3.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MAC - Meeting
Room
|
$18.00
|
$18.20
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MAC - Indoor
Aquatic Complex
|
$234.60
|
$236.90
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MAC - Indoor Lane
hire
|
$29.60
|
$29.90
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MAC - Indoor Pool
|
$116.40
|
$117.60
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MAC - Teaching
Pool
|
$60.40
|
$61.00
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Supervising Adult (Pool)
|
$1.00
|
$1.80
|
align with
concession rate
|
Minimal impact-
slight increase in revenue
|
|
Spectator
|
$0.00
|
$1.00
|
network wide
consistency
|
Minimal impact-
slight increase in revenue
|
Totara Park Pool
|
Description
|
Current Fee
|
Proposed Fee for
14/15
|
Rationale for
change/Officer advice
|
Estimated Impact
on revenue budget (outside of inflation)
|
|
Casual Admission
|
$0.00
|
$3.10
|
user pays
|
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual, TOTARA PARK POOL –
complex
|
$135.30
|
$136.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Supervising Adult (Pool)
|
$1.00
|
$1.80
|
align with general
discounted rate
|
Minimal impact-
slight increase in revenue
|
|
Spectator
|
$0.00
|
$1.00
|
network wide
consistency
|
Minimal impact-
slight increase in revenue
|
Manurewa
Recreation Centre
|
Description
|
Current Fee
|
Proposed Fee for
14/15
|
Rationale for
change/Officer advice
|
Estimated Impact
on revenue budget (outside of inflation)
|
|
Casual Recreation Centre Entry
|
$2.00
|
$2.00
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MRC - Meeting
Room
|
$30.60
|
$30.90
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MRC - Recreation
Hall
|
$42.30
|
$42.70
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MRC - Stadium
|
$72.60
|
$73.30
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, MRC - Whole
Facility - Recreation Centre
|
$145.50
|
$147.00
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
Te Matariki Clendon
Leisure Centre
|
Description
|
Current Fee
|
Proposed Fee for
14/15
|
Rationale for change/Officer
advice
|
Estimated Impact
on revenue budget (outside of inflation)
|
|
Casual Recreation Centre Entry
|
$2.00
|
$2.00
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, CCC - Committee
Room
|
$19.60
|
$19.80
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, CCC - Stadium
|
$72.60
|
$73.30
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
|
Facility Hireage - standard casual peak, CCC - Wharekai
|
$36.00
|
$36.40
|
Inflation
adjustment
|
Nil
|
III. LOCAL COMMUNITY AND ARTS FACILITIES
|
|
Proposed rate
as of 1 July 2014
|
|
Facility
|
Room
|
Standard Peak
per hour
|
Standard Off-Peak
per hour
|
|
Nathan Homestead
|
Fibre Room
|
$25
|
$ 20
|
|
Foyer
|
$51
|
$ 41
|
|
Meeting Room
|
$43
|
$ 34
|
|
Music Room
|
$26
|
$ 21
|
|
Painting Studio
|
$24
|
$ 19
|
|
Pottery Studio
|
$29
|
$ 23
|
|
Sky Room 1
|
$29
|
$ 23
|
|
Sky Room 2
|
$39
|
$ 31
|
|
Theatre
|
$59
|
$ 47
|
|
Weymouth Community Hall
|
Main Hall
|
$44
|
$ 35
|
|
Wiri Community Hall
|
Main Hall
|
$44
|
$ 35
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Reports Requested - Pending - Issues
File No.:
CP2014/06297
Purpose
1. Providing an update on reports requested and issues raised at
previous meetings.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the report entitled “reports
requested – pending – issues” by the Democracy Advisor be received.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Reports requested pending - April
2014
|
149
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Reports
Requested/Pending/Issues April
2014
|
Row
No.
|
Date
of Resolution
|
Group
reporting
|
Issue
|
Resolution/Description
|
Target Date
|
COMMENTS
|
|
1.
|
13 December 2012
Item 20
Resolution f)
and
11 July 2013
Item 26
Resolution ii)
and
8 August 2013
Item 28
Resolution b)
and
12 September 2013
Item 37
Resolution b)
|
Community
Facilities
|
Redevelop
Wiri Community Hall
|
That the Manurewa
Local Board requests officers to develop a plan for the redevelopment of Wiri
Community Hall, including a process for consulting with the community and
other stakeholders, timelines and resource requirements to implement the
plan. The Board notes that there are unallocated funds within the Community
Facilities Renewals capital expenditure budget in the Long Term Plan for
2012/2013 and 2013/2014 that could be applied to this project. Officers are
requested to report this plan to the Local Board meeting in February 2013.
That officers urgently
provide an update on the progress of the Wiri community Hall usage and
refurbishment.
That the Manurewa Local Board request
community facilities supply a report providing the information requested on
rows 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the report.
_______________________________________
That the Manurewa Local Board expresses
its disappointment at the rate of progress with the development of Wiri Hall,
which has been reported as due to the operational department being under
resourced; and sees this as an untenable situation and one impacting upon the
Boards ability to deliver on its priorities. The Board requests that
Councillors Penrose and Walker raise the resourcing issue with the Chief
Executive.
|
Feb 2013
April 2014
|
The
Local Board Advisors are following up with the community facilities staff on
this issue.
The Senior
Advisor is waiting on information from the Manager, Community Occupancy
following a meeting on July 10.
The Manager
Community Occupancy tabled information
in relation to Manurewa venues for hire, usage and utility, fees and charges
and accessibility at the 12
September 2013 Manurewa Local Board meeting.
The Manager
Community Occupancy advises that a report on the community’s preferred
options for the redevelopment, timelines and budget will be provided to the
Board information in due course.
The Manager
Community Occupancy advises that a report on the findings and recommendations
will be provided for the 12 December 2013 Manurewa Local Board meeting.
The Manager
Community Development Arts & Culture advises the officers require more
time in order to complete community consultation before reporting back to the
Board. The report is expected to the 10 April 2014 Local Board meeting.
|
|
2.
|
12 September 2013
Item 26
Resolution d)
|
Community
Development & Safety/ Property Department
|
Safety Aspects Relating to Housing for Older Persons
|
That the Manurewa Local
Board requests a further report on safety aspects
for Housing for Older Persons in Manurewa following completion of the current
safety assessment.
|
TBC
|
The
Senior Local Board Advisor will work with the Property Manager South to
provide a report that identifies what the issues are and what it will take to
resolve them.
Team
Leader, Social Housing Community Facilities, advises that a property
condition survey of all social housing will be completed in May 2014.
|
|
3.
|
13 Feb 2014
Item 14
Resolution c)
|
Policy
& Planning
|
Local Alcohol Policy – restrictions on floor area
for sale of RTDs
|
That the Manurewa Local Board
requests a response on the
Manurewa Local Board’s Notice of Motion from its 12 December 2013
meeting advocating for rules to be put into the Local Alcohol Policy to
restrict the amount of floor area a liquor shop is able to devote to the sale
of “Ready to Drink” (RTD’s), and how officers have implemented this into the
Local Alcohol Policy development.
|
TBA
|
The
Principal Policy Analyst, Community Policy and Planning has advised that a
memo is being drafted to the Local Board in response to this resolution.
|
|
4.
|
13 Mar 2014
Item 16
Resolution c)
|
Infrastructure
and Environmental Services
|
Recruitment of local and community-based waste
minimisation education person for Manurewa
|
Request that the Board be
updated in regard to the consideration being given to recruitment of a person
to facilitate local and community-based waste minimisation education in
Manurewa.
|
TBA
|
|
Issues raised:
|
Row No.
|
Date
issue identified
|
Elected
Member
|
Raised
by phone, email or in person or at a meeting
|
Group
reporting
|
Issue
heading
|
Description
|
Target Date for resolution
|
COMMENTS
|
|
5.
|
13 Mar 2014
Item 13
|
Simeon
Brown
|
Local
Board meeting
|
N/A
|
Providing
a list of residents meeting dates to the Manurewa Youth Council
|
The Deputy Chair
undertook to provide a list of residents group meeting dates to the Youth
Council.
|
TBA
|
The Deputy Chair advises he has
forwarded the information to the Chair of the Manurewa Youth Council.
|
|
6.
|
13 Mar 2014
Item 16
|
Simeon
Brown
|
Local
Board meeting
|
N/A
|
Relevant
legislation regarding packaging and product stewardship
|
The Deputy Chair
undertook to find some relevant legislation so that the Board can share their
views with the relevant Minister regarding packaging and product stewardship.
|
TBA`
|
The Deputy Chair advises that Part 2 of the Waste
Minimisation Act 2008 deals with product stewardship. He will discuss with
the Chair whether a letter is required.
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Local Board Achievements Register 2013-2016
Electoral Term
File No.:
CP2014/06298
Purpose
1. Providing a register of achievements of the Manurewa Local Board for
the 2013 – 2016 Electoral Term.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the report entitled “Manurewa Local Board Achievements Register 2013 –
2016 Electoral Term” be received, noting the following additions to the
register:
i)
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
2013-2016 Achievements Register
|
155
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
MANUREWA LOCAL BOARD
ACHIEVEMENTS REGISTER 2013-2016 ELECTORAL TERM
|
Row
|
Board Meeting Date
|
ACHIEVEMENT
|
|
1.
|
30 January 2014
|
Supported
the Manurewa Santa Parade
|
|
2.
|
30 January 2014
|
Supported
the Manurewa Christmas in the Park
|
|
3.
|
30 January 2014
|
Feedback
on the Smoke Free policy
|
|
4.
|
30 January 2014
|
Feedback
on the Boarding Houses and Hostels bylaw
|
|
5.
|
30 January 2014
|
Feedback
on the Animal Management bylaw review
|
|
6.
|
30 January 2014
|
Position
paper on Psychoactive Substances
|
|
7.
|
30 January 2014
|
Submission
to the Hamilton City Council on their Psychoactive Substances Policy
|
|
8.
|
13 February 2014
|
Supported
and attended the Manurewa Waitangi Day event and undertook community
consultation for the Local Board Plan
|
|
9.
|
13 February 2014
|
Supported
and attended the Homai Fun Day at Russell Reserve and undertook community
consultation for the Local Board Plan
|
|
10.
|
13 February 2014
|
Submission
to the Local Government Act Amendment Bill No. 3
|
|
11.
|
13 February 2014
|
Local Board
Plan community consultation at Southmall
|
|
12.
|
13 March 2014
|
Supported
Elvis in the Gardens event – 20,000 people attended
|
|
13.
|
13 March 2014
|
Spoke
to the Hamilton City Council regarding their Psychoactive Substances Policy
|
|
14.
|
13 March 2014
|
Held
first meeting for the World War I commemorations event
|
|
15.
|
13 March 2014
|
Attended
Long Term Plan scheme setting meeting
|
|
16.
|
13 March 2014
|
Provided
input on the draft
Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw
|
|
17.
|
13 March 2014
|
Provided
input into the draft Boarding Houses and Hostels Bylaw
|
|
18.
|
13 March 2014
|
Provided
input into the New National Drug Policy Discussion Document for New Zealand
|
|
19.
|
13 March 2014
|
Speaking
to Select Committee regarding submission to the Local Government Act
Amendment Bill No. 3
|
|
20.
|
13 March 2014
|
Spoke
to the Regional Strategy & Policy Committee regarding the psychoactive
substances regulations
|
|
21.
|
13 March 2014
|
Consultation
for the informal feedback on the Local Board Plan at Clendon and Southmall
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
For Information: Reports referred to the Manurewa
Local Board
File No.:
CP2014/06299
Purpose
Providing an
opportunity for the Board to receive reports that have been referred from
Governing Body Committee meetings or forums for the information of the Local
Board.
At the time the agenda was compiled no reports had been received.
|
Recommendation/s
That the
Manurewa Local Board note the following reports referred for information from
the Governing Body committee meetings or forums:
|
No.
|
Report
Title
|
Item no.
|
Meeting
Date
|
Governing Body Committee or Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Local Board Workshop Notes
File No.:
CP2014/06300
Purpose
1. Notes taken at the Manurewa Local Board workshops held on 5, 25 and
26 March 2014 are attached.
Executive Summary
2. Nil.
|
Recommendation/s
That the
Manurewa Local Board receive the notes from the
Manurewa Local Board workshops held on 5, 25 and 26 March 2014.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
5 March - Workshop notes
|
161
|
|
bView
|
25 March - Workshop notes
|
163
|
|
cView
|
26 March - Workshop notes
|
167
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy
Advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager
|
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Local Board
Workshop Notes
Date of Workshop: Wednesday,
5 March 2014
Time: 6pm
Venue: Manurewa
Local Board Office Meeting Room
7 Hill Road, Manurewa
|
Present:
|
Angela Dalton (Chair)
|
Michael Bailey
|
|
|
Simeon Brown (Deputy Chair)
|
Daryl Wrightson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff Present:
|
Rex Hewitt, Relationship Manager
|
|
|
Jacqueline Pryor, PA Liaison
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies:
|
Angela Cunningham-Marino
|
George Hawkins, QSO
|
|
|
Danella McCormick
|
Ken Penney
|
|
Item
|
Who to Action
|
|
1. Men’s Correctional Facility at Wiri Update
Angela Dalton,
Simeon Brown, Michael Bailey, Angela Cunningham-Marino and Daryl Wrightson
attended a site visit of the facility.
Chris Cox (General
Manager – SecureFuture), Sean Mason, Bruce Pryor and Lisa Taiapa updated the
Board on the development of the men’s correctional facility at Wiri and
responded to questions.
|
|
Meeting closed at 7.35pm.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Local Board
Workshop Notes
Date of Workshop: Tuesday,
25 March 2014
Time: 6.30pm
Venue: Manurewa
Local Board Office Meeting Room
7 Hill Road, Manurewa
|
Present:
|
Angela Dalton (Chair)
|
George Hawkins, QSO
|
|
|
Simeon Brown (Deputy Chair)
|
Danella McCormick
|
|
|
Michael Bailey (from 7pm)
|
Daryl Wrightson
|
|
|
Angela Cunningham-Marino (from
6.55pm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff Present:
|
Rex Hewitt, Relationship Manager
|
|
|
John Adams, Senior Local Board Advisor
|
|
|
Lee Manaia, Democracy Advisor
|
|
|
Richard Stuckey, Principal
Policy Analyst, Business Dev & Support-Reg & Local Plan
|
|
|
Val Proud, Principal Policy Analyst, Community Policy & Planning
|
|
|
Terrena Griffiths, Project Liaison, Community Facilities
|
|
|
Emma Joyce, Relationship Advisor, Business Development &
Improvement, Infrastructure & Environmental Services
|
|
|
Michelle Whitaker, Strategic
Project Advisor
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies:
|
Ken Penney
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item
|
Who to Action
|
|
1. Signs
Bylaw
Richard
Stuckey (Principal Policy Analyst, Business
Dev & Support-Reg & Local Plan) sought feedback from the Board in
relation to the Signs Bylaw.
The
board members present responded to questions posed as follows:
|
|
|
No.
|
Question
|
Response
|
|
|
1.1
|
Portable Signage - Does the Local Board want to
be involved in determining areas where portable signage can be prohibited in
their board area?
|
Yes
|
|
|
1.2
|
Horizontal Cross Street Banners and Vertical Pole
Banners
|
|
|
|
|
i) Does the Local
Board want to be involved in determining any public sites over a road or
public place it deems suitable for the display of banners?
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
ii) Does the Local
Board want to be involved in determining the removal of any existing sites
that display banners?
|
Yes
|
|
|
1.3
|
Poster Signage
|
|
|
|
|
i) Does the Local
Board want to be involved in proposing where poster boards are prohibited in
their board area?
|
Would prefer not to have poster boards at all. It
would be hard to restrict to poster board site.
|
|
|
|
ii) Does the Local
Board want to approve poster board sites in their board area?
|
|
|
|
iii) Does the Local
Board want to restrict the display of poster bills to only approved poster
board sites in their board area?
|
|
|
1.4
|
Event Signage - Does the Local Board want to
have a say in identifying when and where event signage may be displayed in
their local board area, including parks?
|
It makes sense to use sites that have been approved
for signage.
The Board want to be involved.
The Board didn’t want the bylaw to be too prescriptive
with regard to event signage. The Board would like flexibility and a means
to consider exceptions.
|
|
|
Richard explained that the
Signs Bylaw will go to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee in May, the
Governing Body in June, with the special consultative procedure in August.
Analysis and Hearings will be held in September. Then back to the Regulatory
and Bylaws Committee in October, the Governing Body in November and final
approval in December.
Richard was advised that
Danella McCormick was the portfolio lead for signs.
|
|
|
2. Fees
and Charges for Bookable Council-run Facilities
Val
Proud (Principal Policy Analyst, Community
Policy & Planning) and Terrena Griffiths
(Project Liaison, Community Facilities)
discussed the Local Board priority rate and how the Board might want to apply
that rate.
The
board members present felt that if space was available it should be used and
had no problem with others from outside the Manurewa Local Board area using
the facility.
The
Board were advised that
i) if they choose to allow a venue to be hired
by a group for free, a resolution of the Board would be required.
ii) If they choose not to adopt the fees and
charges schedule as is, they would need to make another resolution to waiver
the charge for the respective groups.
The
Board felt that those residents groups that are actively placemaking and
doing services to the community shouldn’t be charged.
Charging
the community to participate in an activity - The Manurewa Local Board is not worried about charging a fee to the
community to participate. The Board felt there was a difference between the
priority rate – a degree of discretion may be applied – it will depend on how
much the group are charging the community for the activity.
The
Board want to make sure a booking is not excluding the local community.
|
|
|
3. Waste
Management - Multi Unit Developments
Emma Joyce
(Relationship Advisor, Business Development
& Improvement, Infrastructure & Environmental Services) and Michelle Whitaker (Strategic Project Advisor) gave an
overview of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and the
multi-unit developments issue.
The
Board advised there were problems in the Manurewa area with Housing New
Zealand properties and illegal dumping, and people adding inorganic rubbish
to the regular rubbish collection or on private right of ways which attract
more rubbish dumping over time.
The
Board felt Manurewa was being negatively impacted by the Auckland Council
procurement processes. There are impacts on local businesses. The “Local”
is being left behind when the multi-million dollar contracts are awarded
across the region. They would like to see local economies benefiting and
being considered in the procurement process.
They
felt that how people live in the CBD apartments or central city apartments
was vastly different to the people who live out south in Housing New Zealand
multi-unit developments.
The
Board indicated they would like to lead on educating the community and would
like to look at the social impact of the proposed changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meeting closed at 8:40pm.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Manurewa Local Board
Workshop Notes
Date of Workshop: Wednesday,
26 March 2014
Time: 4.15pm
Venue: Manurewa
Local Board Office Meeting Room
7 Hill Road, Manurewa
|
Present:
|
Angela Dalton (Chair)
|
Angela Cunningham-Marino
|
|
|
Simeon Brown (Deputy Chair)
|
Danella McCormick
|
|
|
Michael Bailey (until
7.20pm)
|
Daryl Wrightson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff Present:
|
Rex Hewitt, Relationship Manager
|
|
|
John Adams, Senior Local Board Advisor
|
|
|
David Hopkins, Local Board
Advisor
|
|
|
Rebecca Harfield, Principal
Specialist Built Heritage
|
|
|
Rebecca Fogel, Heritage
Specialist
|
|
|
Sharon McGinity, Team Leader Event Facilitation (South)
|
|
|
Juliette Jones, Manager Event Facilitation
|
|
|
Debbie Pinfold,
Lead Financial Advisor
|
|
|
Jenny Young, Community
Funding Advisor
|
|
|
Chantelle Whaiapu, Community
Development Prog. Mgr (Sth)
|
|
|
Emma Joyce Environmental Service
|
|
|
Kristen Ross, Parks Advisor
|
|
|
Johan Ferreira, Manager Asset
Development
|
|
|
Vince Perry, Team Leader
Projects South
|
|
|
Kate Meacham, Manager Aquatics
and Recreation Facilities
|
|
|
Craig Rouse, Centre Manager
Leisure
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies:
|
Ken Penney
|
George Hawkins, QSO
|
|
Item
|
Who to Action
|
|
1. Historic
Heritage Plan and Heritage Assets Stewardship Policy
Rebecca
Harfield (Principal Specialist Built Heritage) and Rebecca Fogel (Heritage Specialist) gave an overview of the Historic
Heritage Plan and the Heritage Assets Stewardship Policy.
Local
Board members were encouraged to include Priority 3 Heritage in the Annual
and three year plan.
A
discussion followed about how the Local Board could develop Heritage ideas
such as Heritage trails, increase membership of Historical Society as well as
gaining a Heritage assessment of 1944 demolition areas with support from the
Heritage unit
Local Board
Members will provide feedback on the Heritage plan and Assets Stewardship
Policy towards the end of April 2014.
|
|
|
2. Local
Board Agreement Prioritisation Workshop
Debbie Pinfold gave an overview
of the process. She requested that Members consider feedback and enter a line
into the budget as needed.
2.1 Arts
& culture, community facilities and community development & safety
The Board indicated a new budget line would be required
for the WW1 commemorations project. It was suggested that funds be
redistributed from the ANZAC / Armistice events.
Officers advised that there could also be an option to
set up a buffer of up to $9,000 for additional requirements i.e. renewal of
flags, or one off projects.
Details of the additional
budget line inclusions shall be worked through with officers at workshops
scheduled in the coming months.
2.2 CCTV
There
are two budget lines for CCTV. Officers advised that the line containing the
$17,000 could not be reassigned. Rex pointed out that the second budget line
for CCTV is currently under spent with a net balance of $116,000 showing.
Chantelle said that Mark Evans (Community Development Prog Mgr (Sth))
can update the Board Members of the underspend at a later date (to be
confirmed).
2.3 Environmental
Services
Emma Joyce (Advisor) spoke
about waste management projects outside the Manurewa area which she is
currently working on. There is no line currently in the budget to address
environment projects. Board Members would like to investigate this further.
2.4 Pools
Revenue analysis document
tabled.
Item 6 Findings. ‘Based
on the assumptions - removing charges for Senior/Supervising Adult will
result in a reduction of revenue across Manurewa Pool and Leisure Centre and
Totara Park Pool of $11,380.
A discussion followed regarding
a loss of income at the pool and the 65% drop off of patronage.
Rex Hewitt stated that it is
more relevant for the Local Board to be considering the budget and not the
revenue, as it is, what is in the budget forecast that the Board should look
to cover.
A question was raised regarding
whether the figures that presented were current year? Kate will investigate
and report back to the Board.
Angela Dalton asked whether an
increase of fees for a supervising adult had been proposed. Kate said that it
was being considered.
Rex said that the Local Board
can change the pool fees & charges and/or approve budget but it is the
Council who will need to find the difference for the loss of revenue.
If the fees and charges policy
is not adopted due to low attendance, it will leave a hole in the budget.
Rex requested a report of
existing revenue which also included new revenue numbers.
2.5 Parks, Sport and Recreation
Angela thanked the Parks staff
for the great work that has gone into the Randwick Park project. The skate
park had an official opening last Saturday. There were up to 1,000 people in
attendance at the event.
Parks officers spoke briefly
about several major projects namely
· Netball
· Randwick Park
These projects are to be
further deliberated with Board Members at a workshop:
· Matt Walker Planning, to sign off
underbudgeted funds
· Keep in mind organisations ability to
deliver, if not sure move out
A planning tool was presented on
screen to Board Members - a spreadsheet of all parks showing a breakdown on
when work should be scheduled to be done. It also contained a budget sheet/
planning sheet/ sports park summary.
Angela said that this tool
would be very helpful to Board Members when asked by clubs/community they
will now be able to justify what work can happen according to budget.
Top Ten Priorities
1. Riverton
2. Netball
3. Mountford Park (830)
4. Sports Parks (275)
5. Neighbourhood Parks (255)
(Clendon)
6. Premier Parks (263) (Totara)
7. Maritime (287)
8. Citiwide Sign (225)
9. Erosion Coastal (235)
10. Esplanade
Development (242)
Facilities Partnership Fund
$288,000 - $60,000
Swimming Pools – Local Board
Plan put in bid now
The Board indicated it wished to add the following budget
lines:
· WW1
commemorations project to move funds from ANZAC event
· Nathan
Homestead to take $11,000 from CCTV line
· Youth
Initiative Programmes
· Place
Making
· Civil
Defence
· Manurewa
Community Facilities Charitable Trust review moving to Governance model -
$50,000 (not for funding operations)
· Civil
Defence - $10,000 or a charitable grant if possible
· Nathan
Homestead – Long Term Plan
· Placemaking
- $10,000
· Manukau
Harbour
· Waste
Management
|
Lee Manaia
Mark Evans
Kate
Kate
|
Meeting closed at 7.30pm.
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
ATTACHMENTS
Item 7.1 Attachment a Petition
- Parking on roads bounding the Clayton Park Primary School
Page 173
|
Manurewa Local
Board
10 April 2014
|
|
Resolution number FIN/2014/11
