Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 April 2014

Maungakieikie-Tamaki Local Board Capacity Building Project Allocation of the 2013/2014 Budget

File No.: CP2014/05756

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval for the allocation of funds in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board budget to fund year two of the capacity building project in the local board area.

Executive Summary

2. This report seeks approval for allocation of $79,000 set aside for community development in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board budget to fund year two of the capacity building project.

The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board have identified a number of community organisations within the local board area lack capacity in the areas of governance, financial literacy and strategic planning.

This report requests the local board to approve expenditure of year two of the project.

Recommendations

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) Agree to fund the organisations and projects as identified in Section 8 of this report

b) Approve $79,000 to be allocated to the capacity building initiative for the 2013//2014 financial year

c) Requests council staff to provide an update on year two of the project to the board by 30 September 2014.

Discussion

3. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board have identified that a number of community organisations within the local board area lack capacity in the areas of governance, financial literacy and strategic planning and have asked council staff to provide options for supporting the development of these groups.

4. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board has budgeted $80,000 in the 2013/2014 to identify groups that have the capacity to deliver on the local board objectives and those that have capacity building needs. This also includes the presentation of development plans for individual organisations to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board for endorsement and to continue providing health checks to organisations and to link them with training and development opportunities.

5. Year one of the project was to provide health checks to community organisations in the local board area. Of the organisations approached, 6 organisations completed the process. The project was also promoted at local network meetings in 2013 (Onehunga District Council of Social Services, Glen Innes Network, Eastside Youth Network and Panmure Network). CDAC staff are working with the Department of Internal Affairs to connect with organisations they are working with in the local board area. Promotion of the ‘health checks’ to community organisations within the local board area is ongoing.

6. Year two of the project includes some changes to the delivery. These include changes to the scope of support provided to organisations, identifying organisations in the local board area that were not part of the health check project, but whose work has a capacity component and support provided by the local board would enhance their delivery and meet the objectives of the project.

7. At the March Community Development portfolio meeting, expenditure of the 2013/2014 budget was discussed with a request for presentation at the April Maungakiekie-Tamaki local board meeting.

8. The following table outlines the proposed allocation of funds for year two of the project:

Capacity Building Project	Project/Action	Cost (local board budget)
Ruapotaka Marae	Haere Whakamua – Indigenous social enterprise: Auckland Council and the University of Auckland Business School have partnered to develop Haere Whakamua, an indigenous social enterprise programme that seeks to lift Maori social and economic well – being by enhancing the capacity of Maori to drive economic growth, and improve their living standards and social well-being. This includes governance and financial management capacity building	$24,000
Glen Innes Family Centre	Financial and governance education and training from Accounting for Charities Trust	$5,000
Harmony Trust	Financial and governance education and training from Accounting for Charities Trust	$5,000
NZ Somali Women’s Association	Financial and governance education and training from Accounting for Charities Trust	$5,000
Heart Movement	Building leadership in the Glen Innes and Point England communities	$10,000
Accounting for Charities Trust	Health check assessments	$15,000
External review of the project	External review of the project and identification of best practice resources for capacity building	$15,000
Total		$79,000

9. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board community development portfolio lead met with CDAC staff to discuss progress of the project, and their recommendations have been incorporated in the project plan.

Consideration

Local Board View

10. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board community development portfolio lead met with CDAC staff to discuss progress of the project, and their recommendations have been incorporated in the project plan.

Maori Impact Statement

11. The activity will benefit Maori along with other community organisations in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board area. Staff have been working with Ruapotaka Marae in providing opportunities to support and enhance their infrastructure.

12. The decisions sought in this report fall within the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board delegations. This activity does not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

13. There are no known financial or implementation issues arising from this report.

14. Project progress will be reported monthly to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board community development portfolio lead.

15. Any requests for variance will be made in writing to the community development portfolio lead.

16. Year two of the project is reported to the local board by 30 September 2014.

17. For the current financial year, $79,000 of the budgeted $80,000 will be spent to support the identified organisations noted previously in the report and to continue the delivery of the organisational health checks.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Gina Tupou - Senior Community Development Facilitator

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 April 2014

Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project

File No.: CP2014/06419

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board endorsement of the proposed improvements for Onehunga Mall streetscape prior to council staff beginning key stakeholder consultation.

Executive Summary

The Onehunga Mall streetscape improvement project is a priority in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Plan 2011. The extent of the proposed upgrade includes the section of Onehunga Mall between Grey Street to the North and Arthur Street to the South. The project aims to increase foot traffic and in turn economic activity in the Northern section of Onehunga Mall by improving the quality of the existing street environment, reducing driver speeds and providing safer places to cross Onehunga Mall.

To date Council staff have been working with the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board, to help define the project scope and objectives. It is proposed that the project deliver the following streetscape improvements:

- New footpath, kerb and channel along the entire section of Onehunga Mall between Grey St and Arthur St

- Two new kerb buildout areas with new street furniture and two new crossing points across Onehunga Mall

- Improvements to the Arthur Street roundabout and improvements to a section of Arthur Street

- New street trees at appropriate locations along length of street

- Scheme assessment for the redesign of Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection to address issues of pedestrian safety. Auckland Transport will deliver and fund any physical improvements resulting from the scheme assessment.

There is currently $2,040,400 allocated to the Onehunga Mall streetscape improvements project in the Auckland Council Long-Term Plan (2012-2022). Initial costs indicate that the proposed streetscape improvements and the scheme assessment of Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection would total approximately $2,681,000. Council staff understand that there is therefore potential for the Local Board to consider reallocating existing Local Board budget to provide the additional funding.

Following endorsement by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board of the streetscape improvements to be delivered by the project and the allocation of additional funding, Council staff will undertake consultation with key stakeholders, including the affected business and owners along this section of Onehunga Mall, the Onehunga Business Association and Maori. The purpose of this consultation will be to seek support for the proposed project scope.

This consultation will occur throughout April and May 2014. Council staff will report the outcome of these meetings to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board in late May 2014. A concept design will then be developed for the Onehunga Streetscape improvements which are suitable for public consultation, which is currently programmed to occur in July/August 2014.

The current programme proposes that following public consultation, detailed design and construction work will be completed by January 2015, with construction scheduled to be completed by mid-late 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) Receive the Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project report.

b) Endorse the scope of the Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project as provision of:

· New footpath, kerb and channel along the entire section of Onehunga Mall between Grey St and Arthur St

· Two new kerb buildout areas with new street furniture and two new crossing points across Onehunga Mall

· Improvements to the Arthur Street roundabout and improvements to a section of Arthur Street

· New street trees at appropriate locations along length of street

c) Endorse that the Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project include the preparation of a scheme assessment report to address issues of pedestrian safety at the Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection

d) Note that an additional $640,600 (indicative cost) is required to fund the Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project as currently scoped.

e) Consider reallocation of existing Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board budget to provide the additional funding required to deliver the project in its entirety

f) Note that any physical improvements resulting from the scheme assessment of the Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection are outside of the Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project

g) Endorse council staff proceeding with key stakeholder consultation in April and May 2014.

h) Note the council staff will update the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board on the outcome of the key stakeholder consultation in May 2014

Discussion

Background

The Auckland Plan has identified Onehunga as a town centre which will experience significant change over the next 30 years. Maximizing the opportunities presented by this change is a key priority of the both the Onehunga Precinct Plan (2010-2050) and the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Plan (2011).The Onehunga Mall streetscape improvement project is both a priority in the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Plan and the Onehunga Precinct Plan. There is currently $2,040,400 allocated to the Onehunga Mall streetscape improvements project in the Auckland Council Long-Term Plan (2012-2022).

The streetscape improvement project aims to increase foot traffic and in turn economic activity in the Northern section of Onehunga Mall by improving the quality of the existing street environment, reducing driver speeds and providing safer places to cross Onehunga Mall. The project will extend the identity and qualities of the existing retail area at the southern end of Onehunga Mall.

The extent of the project includes the section of Onehunga Mall between Grey Street to the North and Arthur Street to the South. The majority of the project work will be performed from the kerbline back to the building boundary with only line marking in the carriageway.

Initial stakeholder consultation undertaken in 2012/13 was used to identify potential aspirations and deliverables for the project. The outcome of the consultation process informed the development of an initial concept design. This initial design was not able to be delivered within the existing budget. Following a workshop with the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board in late 2013, Council staff have been working with the Local Board to help further refine the project scope and objectives to focus on:

· upgrading the existing footpath areas along the full extent of Onehunga Mall between Grey Street and Arthur Street.

· improving pedestrian connectivity along both Onehunga Mall and provide better and safer crossing facilities.

· improving the feel of the neighbourhood, using materials and planting complimentary to southern Onehunga Mall

Project Deliverables

At a Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board workshop in early March 2014, it was established that to achieve the objectives outlined above, the project should deliver the following four physical streetscape improvements:

· New footpath, kerb and channel along the entire section of Onehunga Mall between Grey St and Arthur St

· Two new kerb buildout areas with new street furniture and two new crossing points across Onehunga Mall

· Improvements to the Arthur Street roundabout and improvements to a section of Arthur Street

· New street trees at appropriate locations along length of street

In addition the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board has identified the need for the Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection to be redesigned to address pedestrian safety issues. It is proposed that the costs of undertaking this design work (scheme assessment) will be funded by the Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project budget. Auckland Transport will deliver and fund any physical improvements resulting from the scheme assessment.

Indicative Costs

Initial costs indicate that the proposed streetscape improvements and the scheme assessment of Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection would total approximately $2,681,000. The indicative cost of each element is outlined below. Further details are shown in Attachment A. These figures are subject to more detail costing as the detail design progresses.

	Streetscape Improvements	Indicative cost
1	New footpath, kerb and channel along the entire section of Onehunga Mall between Grey St and Arthur St	$1,410,000.00
2	Two new kerb buildout areas with new street furniture and two new crossing points across Onehunga Mall	$495,000.00
3	Improvements to the Arthur Street roundabout and improvements to a section of Arthur Street	$575,000.00
4	New street trees at appropriate locations along length of street	$176,000.00
5	Scheme assessment of Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection	$25,000.00
	TOTAL	$2,681,000.00

Additional funding

There is currently $2,040,400 allocated to the Onehunga Mall streetscape improvements project in the Auckland Council Long-Term Plan (2012-2022). Initial costs indicate that the proposed streetscape improvements and the scheme assessment of Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection would total approximately $2,681,000. An additional $640,600 is required to fund the proposed key streetscape improvements.

At the request of the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Council staff have scoped whether there are any other sources which could contribute to the project budget. This could include funds from Auckland Transport renewals budget and road corridor operations. Currently there is no budget available over and above that which may be required to fund the improvements to the Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection.

Council staff understand that there is therefore potential for the Local Board to consider reallocating existing Local Board budget to provide the additional funding. Alternatively, the Local Board may consider removing one or more of the four project deliverable to reduce the project scope to be within the available LTP budget.

Key stakeholder consultation

Following endorsement by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board of the project scope, Council staff will undertake consultation with key stakeholders. These will include meetings with the affected business and owners along this section of Onehunga Mall, a meeting with the Onehunga Business Association and initial discussions with appropriate Maori. The purpose of these meetings will be to seek support for the proposed project scope.

These meetings will occur throughout April and May 2014 when Council staff will report the outcome of to the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board. The key stakeholder feedback will be used to inform the development of a concept design for the Onehunga Streetscape improvements suitable for public consultation. Public consultation is currently programmed to occur in July/August 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

2. Following the development of an initial concept design in 2013, there have been a number of workshops held with the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board to refine the scope and agree the streetscape improvements to be delivered.

Maori Impact Statement

3. Onehunga has a long history of Maori habitation prior to European settlement. The unitary plan shows no areas of significance or value to Mana Whenua along Onehunga Mall between Grey Street and Arthur Street. The work proposed is relativity shallow and is in an area that has been significantly modified since the early days of Auckland European settlement.

Implementation Issues

4. There is currently $2,040,400 allocated to the Onehunga Mall streetscape improvements project in the Auckland Council Long-Term Plan (2012-2022). Initial costs indicate that the proposed streetscape improvements and the scheme assessment of Grey Street and Onehunga Mall intersection would total approximately $2,681,000. An additional $640,600 is required to fund the proposed four key streetscape improvements.

5. Streetscape projects often present a level of disruption for the local business and community as they involve digging up and replacing the footpaths and driveways in front of the various shops doing this once is preferred to multiple years of smaller disruptions. This project does not include major works in the roadway and should have a shorter duration because of this. However, some disruption will occur as part of this work but good communication and construction planning can minimise the time of disruption for the individual businesses.

6. Minor amounts of stormwater and utility relocation are allowed for at this stage of the programme. Any significant increase in underground work will impact on the programme and budget.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Onehunga Mall Streetscape Improvement Project	17

Signatories

Authors

Rachael Eaton - Team Leader Central & Islands

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Reporting Back

Consultation Report

6. Consultations forwarded to the Local Board for comment are attached for board members’ information (Attachment A).

Local Board Capital Projects

7. Auckland Transport welcomes the opportunity to work with the Local Board to identify improvement projects. A separate report on this agenda outlines a timeline for Local Boards to identify further potential projects.

Glen Innes Underpass

8. Fencing at the underpass is now completed. Auckland Transport maintenance will do a clean up of the walkway area in March and consider whether any resurfacing of the pathway can be undertaken in the new financial year. Auckland Council Parks and its Solid Waste Division have been contacted and they will provide ongoing maintenance to the planted area and clear rubbish.

9. Auckland Transport will supply the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board with an estimate to install cycle bollards for consideration.

Paynes Lane

10. The response to consultation on this project was limited but overall very positive. Maungakiekie-Tamaki Transport portfolio lead has confirmed that this project can now proceed to construction. This is likely to have a May commencement date.

Onehunga Mall to Upper Municipal Place

11. The work in the lane has been assessed by AT’s contractors and an April start is anticipated.

Princes Street Pedestrian Enhancements

12. Consultation on the project was completed in March. There were positive as well as adverse comment on the proposal. Two businesses on Princes Street are opposing the proposal due to the anticipated loss of roadside parking.

13. This matter was discussed with the Local Board’s Transport portfolio lead on 26 March and Auckland Transport has asked the Local Board for some further direction regarding delivery of the project.

Tetra Trap Installation

14. Work on the tetra trap installation is underway. Catchpit cleaning and survey is currently being undertaken by the contractor to determine which tetra tap is to be used at each location (there are five to choose from depending on catchpit size and position of exit pipe). The tetratraps will then be manufactured and installed. It is anticipated that this work will be completed by 30 June 2014.

Pt England to Panmure Cycleway Scheme Update

15. Three routes have been assessed, with different levels of treatment proposed. The routes aim to provide a link to the AMETI improvements, the rail and bus interchange, to link schools and to provide a recreational cycle treatment.

16. The Scheme Assessment Report has been finalized and is due to be discussed with the transport portfolio leads on 9 April. Following this the proposal will go out to public consultation, anticipated to be in April.

Auckland Transport’s Engagement Plan

17. Recently Local Board Chairs were sent Auckland Transport’s draft of a revision of Auckland Transport’s Local Board Engagement Plan and three annexes. The Engagement Plan seeks to outline the relationship between Auckland Transport and Local Boards and its operation.

18. Auckland Transport welcomes your Local Board’s views regarding the revised draft Engagement Plan, and in particular Annex 3, which outlines guidelines as to how Auckland Transport might engage in particular with your board on changes proposed in the road corridor.

19. Auckland Transport also offers Local Boards an opportunity to discuss the draft plan with the Council Engagement Manager, if this would be of assistance. It would be helpful to receive feedback on the draft Engagement Plan by the end of April, if possible.

Orpheus Drive Shared Pathway

20. This project seeks to close the gap in walking and cycling facilities between Onehunga and the Mangere Bridge community by providing a shared path along Orpheus Drive in tandem with the works for the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project.

21. The investigation work completed to date considered multiple options – most options required tree removal along the route to provide the optimal three metre shared path. All the other options considered in order to retain the trees had unacceptable safety and operational issues.

22. A preferred option has been identified and project sponsor approval has been granted to start further investigation of this preferred option. Removal of the existing trees (already permitted under the Auckland Council Foreshore Restoration Project Resource Consent) will be required. The option will also require minor design changes to the Onehunga Foreshore Restoration Project.

23. Although Auckland Transport is reluctant to remove the trees, it is the option that will give the best outcome in terms of being able to deliver an uncompromised three metre shared path. However Auckland Transport invites the Local Board’s view and will take this into account during its investigation of the preferred option.

AMETI

24. The AMETI project director is programmed to come and update the Local Board on 15 April on the project construction in the Panmure area and the wider area planning matters.

25. Work on Van Dammes Lagoon is proceeding well and a meeting has been requested with Local Board representatives to discuss various design matters.

Auckland Transport News

Auckland Transport Completes HOP Card Implementation

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

27. There are currently more than 250,000 AT HOP cards being regularly used by customers around the region. AT HOP allows customers to use one travel card on different modes of transport and public transport operators.

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

29. Public transport users have taken well to the new system which bodes well for on-going patronage growth. Other transformational projects such as the fleet of new electric trains, improved reliability of all services and a major focus on customer needs and satisfaction levels continue to be rolled out.

30. The implementation of the new network bus services in 2016, along with integrated ticketing will move Auckland closer to a delivering a world class public transport system.

CRL Route Moves to the Next Phase

31. 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.

32. 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.

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

34. 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

35. The westbound bus lane on Fanshawe Street is to be upgraded following a suggestion from the Campaign for Better Transport and Generation Zero.

36. 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.

37. More than 8,000 people travel on 173 buses from the city to the North Shore each weekday between 4pm and 6pm.

38. 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.

39. 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.

Issues Raised through/by Board Members

Location or Name of Issue	Description	AT Response
Aliford and Rangipawa Intersection	Concerns have been raised about visibility at the top of Aliford Avenue, One Tree Hill before it changes to Rangipawa Street. The brow of the hill is blind and with cars parked on both sides of the Rockfield Road approach there is potential for cars to meet head on. The situation is most notable during the day now that parking time limits have been imposed at the Rockfield Road end of Aliford Avenue. Can consideration should be given to painting additional yellow no parking lines on each side of the brow or providing parking bays to widen the roadway	At its March meeting, the Local Board asked Auckland Transport to take another look at this request. AT has now undertaken to do a parking consultation with residents to propose staggering the parking restrictions so cars are not parked on both sides of the road at this particular location and also to propose an extension of the NSATT lines by 5 metres in the subject area.
Spring Street Car Park	Unclear if this is an AT asset or if it is a Community Facilities one but there are some issues with the carpark round the Community Hall in Spring St. Firstly it is not well marked, so often the entrance to the centre (mainly used by older people, some with mobility issues and requiring wheel chairs or walkers) is often parked out, and it seems (since January for some reason) it is getting parked out by commuters using the train station. Can we clarify who the owner is please and get advice on appropriate parking restrictions.	This car park is not an Auckland Transport controlled facility. If the asset owner contacts Auckland Transport, an assessment can be made to consider if parking restrictions would be of assistance in this situation. Once this has been determined, a process can be set up so that any restrictions added to the car park can be legally enforced.
Mayfair Place Stage	Complaint that maintenance on the stage needs to be done to prevent injury. It has loose screws and nails, with some planks loosening. Also an issue with some of the pavers in Mayfair Place (specifically outside 17-21 Mayfair Place) which are either loose or are beginning to buckle and could cause tripping.	The pavers have been repaired. Awaiting advice on the stage repairs.
Hill Street	Large lumps of concrete in the roadway have been reported. Can these be cleaned up please?	These have been cleared.
Onehunga Bus Station	Onehunga Business Association has noted that the new lighting poles at the bus station are obscuring one of their security cameras.	A technician has met an OBA representative on site and the camera move has been arranged.
Penrose Rd/Leonard Rd corner	At the site of a car auction site, many large car transporters park on the footpath to load and unload. This is damaging the footpath and creating a safety hazard.	Logged.
Konini Road	Request for some NSATT lines on Konini Road where it goes around a sharp corner.	Logged.
54 Mayfair Place	Requested investigation into water puddle/leaking water from pavement/footpath in Mayfair place, Glen Innes.	Logged.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 April 2014

Onehunga Foreshore Project Progress Update March 2014

File No.: CP2014/06644

Purpose

1. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board is constructing a 6.8Ha park in the Manukau Harbour. This $28 million project is funded by the NZ Transport Agency ($18 million) and the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board ($10 million). The local board is the project owner and governs the project.

The purpose of this report is to provide the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board the progress position of the Onehunga Foreshore project as at the end of March 2014.

Executive Summary

2. The report provides information on physical progress, project budget and cost, NZTA funding support, Kaitiaki Working Group activities, Onehunga Foreshore Working Group activities, existing storm water quality, Puhinui Reserve coastal bird mitigation, Orpheus Drive, and workshops with the local board.

The overall project is 63% complete and proceeding toward an early completion in April 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) Receive the report for information.

Discussion

Progress

3. Physical Progress

The project contractual and official completion date is 10 July 2015. After carefull analysis of planting and grass sowing seasons completion has now been assessed to be April 2015. Construction physical works progress is 57% complete. The overall project is 63% complete.

A total of 333,000М³ of fill is required with 285,000М³ placed by March 2014. The main earthworks activities in the last quarter concentrated on spreading and compaction of stockpiled material. With the overall filling operation at 86% complete the construction emphasis is turning to construction activities such as drainage, paths, vegetation, and the bridge.

The bridge structural supports are well advanced with all foundations complete and the first of two bridge piers ready to cast. Prefabrication of the bridge truss components is progressing with delivery to site for assembly in April.

4. Budget and Cost

Separable portion 1:

· SP 1 budget of $5.23 million made up of:

o $3.07 million for Fulton Hogan

o $1.06 million for consultants

o $1.10 million for preliminary costs.

· SP1 actual cost is $5.79 million made up of:

o $3.63 million for Fulton Hogan (includes $0.56 million additional work effort to achieve a consent )

o $1.06 million for consultants

o $1.10 million for preliminary costs

Separable portion 2:

· SP 2 current budget of $22.21 million made up of:

o $19.93 million for construction

o $0.84 million for consultants and administration.

o $1.44 million (additional work complying with consent conditions $1.06 million. This includes projected contract recoveries of $0.49 million).

The Fulton Hogan SP 2 cost to end of February is $11.50 million.

Three main items of work still to be finalized by the project team. The team is endeavoring to provide good outcomes within the Fulton Hogan construction budget.

o Project footpaths-cost agreement on chosen material type

o Car Park-pricing up the new design

o Toilet-seek prices upon receipt of detail design.

$2.0 million project contingency drawdown.

· $0.56 million to achieve successful outcome for SP1

· $1.55 million to comply with consent conditions.

· -$0.49 million projected contract recoveries/savings.

· Unallocated contingency. Clarification of some cost items is currently in progress. It is usual at this stage of construction for cost related items to surface. The project contingency will be reviewed at a Local Board workshop in June 2014 after completion of negotiation of the above referenced three major cost items. While it is envisaged the project will be delivered to budget, to this will require active management by the project team in conjunction with the local board.

The provision for disabled access to one of the swimming beaches is currently an item outside the Fulton Hogan responsibility that will require funding from project contingency

5. NZTA funding support

The project budget of $28 million includes a construction only contribution of $18 million from NZTA. The NZTA Funding Agreement provides for four equal payments of $4.5 million. The trigger point for the second payment was met in December 2013.

NZTA accept the explanation that corten steel cladding on the bridge is not suitable in a salt air environment. They are currently considering the proposed timber alternative. Fulton Hogan has proposed that the four motorway signs affected by the new bridge installation be placed on the bridge side cladding. NZTA are evaluating the necessity for this from a traffic safety and urban design perspective.

6. Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Working Group (MWKWG)

The group held four official meetings during 2013. By consent condition four meetings are required per annum. The first meeting of 2014 was held on 26 March. The group considers quarterly meetings sufficient to meet the needs of construction monitoring and consultation. The group has responded well to the urgency to address the matters of significance to mana whenua to ensure no delay to the project programme.

Matters of significance addressed so far include.

a) Sourcing of filling material and construction monitoring.

b) Archeological Protection Procedure discovery protocol.

c) Preparation of a heritage map of the project area.

d) Water quality of existing storm water discharges.

e) Storm water collection and dispersal on the new reclamation.

f) The selection of an artist to assist in bridge artwork.

g) The bridge artist’s brief.

h) Agreement to appoint a consultant to assist the architect with vegetation selection and location.

i) Park furniture selection and location.

j) Iwi interpretive signage.

The main outcomes from the 26 March 2014 meeting were:

· Concern at lack of presence over two meetings of the Stormwater Group to provide progress update of their line stormwater inspections.

· No objection to the Hauraki Gulf as the source of sand for Onehunga Project beaches.

· Happy with material choice for park footpaths.

· Happy with request to reduce width of footpaths from 3.5 metres to 3.0 metres.

· Happy with change from corten steel to timber for the bridge.

· Not happy with the prospect of NZTA hanging motorway signage on the bridge, this goes against the undertaking given at consent time. Awaiting reasons why.

· Not happy with Auckland Transport plan to remove pohutakawa trees along Orpheus Drive. Understand position but expect generous mitigation. Awaiting outcome of a plan to be prepared by Isthmus architect and council arborist.

· Agreed that ‘story boards’ are not appropriate and agreed to consider a ‘wayfinder dial’. Advised that a budget of $40,000 has been allocated for this work. Within the budget the ‘wayfinder dial’ will receive priority. Remaining budget will be allocated to a modest ‘poa’ carved by each iwi.

7. Onehunga Foreshore Working Group (OFWG)

The first quarterly meeting of OFWG took place on 27 March 2014.

The main outcomes from the March meeting were:

· TOES understand the reason for reducing the width of park footpaths from 3.5 metres to 3.0 metres. TOES accepts the choice of footpath materials.

· TOES understands the rationale with the Auckland Transport proposal to remove all pohutakawa trees from Orpheus Drive.

· TOES happy with the engagement with MWKWG and the development of iwi ‘interpretive signage’ in the new park.

· TOES requested council consider ‘future proofing’ the power supply to the new toilet by increasing the supply to three phases. The toilet design is based on single phase supply.

· TOES suggested the new boat ramp could have provide a better outcome with additional functionality. TOES proposes an adjustment to the headland, fender piles and pontoons. TOES agreed to write to council offering to fund the design and construction of these improvements.

8. Water Quality

Auckland Council Stormwater Operations.

No report available

9. Orpheus Drive

Auckland Transport has switched its priority for its improvements to Orpheus Drive. They will work with the park project by completing the section from the Manukau Cruising Club to Seacliffe Road first.

Auckland Transport are preparing a report for the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board April 2014 meeting. The report will include a proposal to remove all the Pohutakawa trees from Orpheus Drive.

Under the project consent condition to construct the park Auckland Transport are seeking Parks arborist support for the tree removal. While the project team do not support the tree removal they have reluctantly accepted the position and consequently the Park arborist is working with Isthmus to determine the extent of mitigation to be provided by Auckland Transport.

10. Puhinui Reserve.

Protective traps and bait stations have been installed to provide improved protection for nesting birds. Over October and November 4 stoats, 1 weasel, 5 hedgehogs, and 1 rabbit had been caught. During the summer period while there was evidence of cat movement the main catch was hedgehogs.

The work of removing mangroves and further rubbish has now commenced.

11. Festival Lawn Park

Fulton Hogan have been instructed to proceed with the Festival Lawn drainage. This is an additional project to the Onehunga Foreshore Project but delivered jointly for operational efficiencies.

12. Public Engagement

With construction entering its final year, a detailed programme for communications and public engagement leading up to the park’s opening will be developed in consultation with Fulton Hogan and the Local Board.

13. Project Risks

The project risks recognised throughout the early days and during the development and execution of SP1 have now been addressed. Other matters such as the presence of oyster bed will be addressed through Local Board workshops.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. TheMaungakiekie- Tamaki Local Board may wish to provide a copy of this report to the Puketapapa and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards for their information.

15. Local Board Workshops

The following matters have been canvassed with the Local Board at a workshop on 18 March 2014.

a) Park footpath materials-advice for reasons for choice

b) Park footpath width-report to Local Board 18 March 2014

c) Bridge cladding-designer to check gaps and safety of balustrade top.

d) NZTA motorway signs on bridge-NZTA operational matter.

e) Park furniture-standard Parks furniture. Accepted by Mana Whenua.

f) Park toilet-information on size, style, progress.

g) Orpheus Drive-information regarding Auckland Transport position.

h) Mana Whenua park interpretive signage-information on type and progress.

i) Early Project Completion-information that project completion is planned for April 2015.

j) Park breakout areas-non to be provided.

k) Disabled swimming access-outside project scope. Contractor to provide price.

l) Park legal signage-future workshop

m) Oyster hazard-future workshop

n) Construction/project contingency-future workshop

o) Completed park operational plan-future workshop.

p) Public communication and park opening plan-future workshop.

Maori Impact Statement

16. Parks and Heritage is of fundamental importance to tangata whenua, their culture and traditions. Sites of significance to tangata whenua are an important part of their heritage, established through whakapapa. The activities identified in the report will have a significant impact upon Maori. The project team are engaging with Maori on a range of specific matters through the project’s Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Working Group as outlined in this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Naila D'Souza - Programme Coordinator

Authorisers

Colin Field - Asset Development and Business Support

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 April 2014

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

File No.: CP2014/06414

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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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^{^[1]}, the following resolutions were passed to guide the engagement phase of the Local Boards Funding Policy:

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

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

i) the split between regional and local activities

ii) the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time Frame

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

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

Scope: Policy structure

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

· the split between regional and local activities

· the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and budgeting process and will be considered when developing the long-term plan. As part of this process, local boards will be engaged in the development of asset management plans (AMPs) that will determine service levels and capital programmes for asset based services. 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
a	Local Boards Funding Policy Review (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Guidelines for local board feedback	45

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Chris Carroll - Manager Planning and Policy

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 April 2014

LGNZ Conference and AGM 2014

File No.: CP2014/05577

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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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
a View	2014 AGM and Conference Programme	51

Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

15 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06641

Purpose

1. This report seeks input from the local board into the first phase of the council controlled organisations review: the current state assessment.

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) delegates to member/s to provide the Board’s input into the council controlled organisations review by 30 April 2014.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· the need for effective communication and collaboration across organizations

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

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

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

i. To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

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

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

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

ii. In addition the review will seek to:

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

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

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

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

Current state assessment: preliminary findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

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

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

18. The local boards are encouraged to:

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

· reflect on what worked well and what can be improved

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authoriser

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference	59
b View	Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council perspective)	65
c View	Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards	81

Signatories

Authors	Brenda Railey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Simon Randall
Deputy Chairperson	Chris Makoare
Members	Josephine Bartley
	Brett Clark
	Bridget Graham, QSM
	Obed Unasa
	Alan Verrall

Business Unit	Location	Description	Date	Comment
Investigation and Design	Station Road, Penrose	Proposal is to build a new section of footpath along the southern side of Station Road between O’Rorke Road and Maurice Roads to improve amenity for those who use the station.	Circulated 17 March 2014
Infrastructure Delivery	Lower Pearce Street	Proposal to add some traffic calming measures to Lower Pearce Street and emphasis the one-way nature of Lower Pearce Street.	Circulated 27 March 2014

Author	Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Authors	Brenda Railey - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Authors	Emma Cordery - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager