Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
1	Governance	· Board Leadership · Board-to-Council Relationships · Board-to-Board Relationships · Civic Duties · Advocacy (local, regional, and central government) · Relationships with Maoridom · Relationships with government departments and agencies · Relationship with Property CCO · Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development · Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements) · Unitary Plan · Local area plan	Brian Neeson Lisa Whyte
2	Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management .	· Resource consents · Heritage · Liquor · Gambling · Swimming pools fencing · Trees · Bylaws · Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group · Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery	Callum Blair John McLean Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)
3	Events / Arts and Culture	· Community celebration · Community identity · Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal · Event compliance · Relationship with ATEED · Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs · Tourism · Artistic and cultural service levels · Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour · Development of public art strategy and policy	Margaret Miles
4	Community and social well-being / Local Facilities	· Community development · Neighbourhood relationships · Funding for neighbourhood projects · Community safety (excl. town centres) · Graffiti removal · Community advocacy · Relationships with Youth · Leisure centres · Community houses · Halls · Community hubs · Arts facilities · Community Partnerships · Asset Management	Callum Blair Margaret Miles

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
5	Libraries	· Stewardship of libraries · Mobile library	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Lisa Whyte
6	Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)	· 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 · Skateparks · Track Network development	Margaret Miles Lisa Whyte
7	Town Centres	· Town centre renewal · Design and maintenance · Community safety within town centres · Business Improvement Districts liaison · Urban design · Built Heritage	Margaret Miles Brian Neeson
8	Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development	· Local transport projects and public transport (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways) · Liaison on regional Transport matters · 2^nd harbour crossing · Bridge walk cycleway · Inner City Rail Link · Waterfront development · CBD master plan	John McLean Margaret Miles
9	Natural Environment .	· Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways · Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management · Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation · Relationships with Watercare · Waste minimisation strategy · Bio security	John McLean Callum Blair Lisa Whyte (waste minimisation only)
10	Economic Development / Financial oversight	· Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team · Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development · Budgets · Project expenditure · Monitor GB strategy and Finance · Service Levels · Local funding policy	Lisa Whyte Margaret Miles

1 Welcome

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 25 March 2014, and the minutes of its Annual Plan Hearings, held on Tuesday, 25 March 2014, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Acknowledgements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

7 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

The following requests have been received to address the meeting:

8.1 Daniel Farrow - Cricket In Your Community

Purpose

1. Daniel Farrow, Cricket Operations Manager, Auckland Cricket, will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding a paper entitled ‘Cricket In Your Community’.

Executive Summary

2. ‘Cricket In Your Community’ provides a brief overview of Auckland Cricket’s long-term vision for cricket in the community, and summarises regional issues and priorities for Auckland and more importantly details the key issues and priorities relating to cricket in the local board area. A copy of the briefing paper entitled ‘Cricket In Your Community’ is appended as attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Daniel Farrow, Cricket Operations Manager, Auckland Cricket, regarding ‘Cricket In Your Community’.

b) thank Mr Farrow for his attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Cricket In Your Community................................................................... 87

8.2 Zeal youth facility on the North Shore

Purpose

1. Charlotte Stanley-Hunt, National Project Developer, Zeal Education Trust, will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding ZEAL’s feasibility study for a youth facility on the North Shore.

Executive Summary

2. ZEAL has completed a feasibility study into the establishment of a youth facility on the North Shore and will inform the Upper Harbour Local Board of the results.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Charlotte Stanley-Hunt, National Project Developer for Zeal Education Trust, regarding ZEAL’s feasibility study for a youth facility on the North Shore.

b) thank Ms Stanley-Hunt for her attendance and presentation.

8.3 Auckland Sport

Purpose

Sarah Sandley, CEO, Auckland Sport, will be in attendance to address the Upper Harbour Local Board regarding Auckland Sport.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Sarah Sandley, CEO, Auckland Sport.

b) thank Ms Sandley for her attendance and presentation.

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.

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 April 2014

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

File No.: CP2014/05596

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 Upper Harbour 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 publicly 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 View	Local Boards Funding Policy Review (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Guidelines for local board feedback	21

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 April 2014

Local board decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2014/06099

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

4. Local boards are now asked to:

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

a) That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

ii) confirm 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 Upper Harbour Local Board note:

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 2014.

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 2014, local board agreements will be updated and financial statements prepared. Financial statements will reflect budget prioritisation decisions made by local boards, any further decisions made by the Budget Committee and include central cost allocations, such as depreciation, interest and staff costs.

13. Local boards will meet to adopt their local board agreements between 9 June and 19 June 2014, with the Governing Body meeting to adopt the final annual plan, including the 21 local board agreements, on 26 June 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Budget refresh – Summary of key movements	29
b View	Budget refresh – Movements for the Upper Harbour Local Board	31

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 April 2014

LGNZ conference and AGM 2014

File No.: CP2014/06066

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Lawrence Yule, LGNZ’s 2014 elections manifesto

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

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

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

· New generation funding models for infrastructure

· Funding models and the economic impact of cycle ways

· Transforming local government through smart digital investment

· Improving governance through strengthening capacity and capability

· How do we engage with youth?

Annual General Meeting

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

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

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

Costs

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

13. This is a report to 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 LGNZ AGM and Conference Programme	45

Signatories

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06169

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to advise all local boards of the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund Programme, in particular the need to urgently identify new project proposals that will enable the total budget, that needs to be spent in the electoral term of the current local boards, to be spent by the end of June 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

Discussion

Background

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

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

Budget considerations

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

5. The total amount spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the 2012/2013 financial year was $1.3 million. This was due to the late start of the programme in that year so Auckland Council was asked to relax the ‘no carry forward’ rule in this inaugural year of the programme. This one-off carry forward of the unspent balance of $8.7 million was subsequently approved.

6. Therefore, the total budget that must be spent on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects in the current political term is $38.7 million as follows:

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

· The 2013/2014 Budget = $10 million

· The 2014/2015 Budget = $10 million

· The 2015/2016 Budget = $10 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Value of projects

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

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

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

Forward planning to ensure programme delivery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Management Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland Transport programme management process

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of not Delivering the full Programme

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

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

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

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

Implementation Issues

42. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Projects that could be considered by local boards	55
b View	Financial update for the Upper Harbour Local Board	61

Signatories

Authors

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

Authorisers

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

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager, Auckland Council

Upper Harbour Local Board

08 April 2014

Auckland Transport Report - April 2014 - Upper Harbour

File No.: CP2014/06302

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 Upper Harbour Local Board and its community, matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector and relevant Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community.

3. In particular, this report provides an update on:

· Trees in Clemow’s subdivision

· Local Board Capital Transport Fund

· Albany Highway upgrade

· Oteha Valley Road Corridor Management Plan

· Issues register.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Report – April 2014 to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Discussion

Reporting back

Trees in Clemow’s subdivision

4. Residents have expressed concern over the condition of the footpaths in the Clemow’s subdivision area, due mainly to the damage caused by the roots of large trees in the road frontage.

5. These footpaths have been temporarily patched and may pose further issues for users if not extensively repaired.

6. Generally, the expected lifespan of a footpath should be about 50 years; these footpaths are only 15 years old and if not fixed properly will require expensive, ongoing repairs every two to five years.

7. Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the footpath damage caused by the 119 trees in Clemow’s subdivision, with a goal to identifying a sustainable solution to repairing the footpaths to ensure the safety of all users, while also retaining the leafy environment of the neighborhood.

8. Once a feasible option is identified, Auckland Transport will conduct consultation with the wider community to seek their views on the issue and potential solutions.

9. Local board and public consultation is expected within the next three months.

Update on Local Board Capital Transport Fund

10. The Board has resolved to contribute a total of $674.132 being its full allocation of funding through the Local Board Capital Transport Fund for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, to the upgrading of Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe.

11. As reported to the Board in November 2013, there have been a significant number of implementation challenges, which has delayed the construction of the project.

12. During the Board meeting of 11 March 2014, the board passed a resolution (UH/2014/35), clause b) “urgently request(ing) that the issue relating to stormwater pertaining to Tauhinu Road be escalated to David Warburton, Chief Executive of Auckland Transport”.

13. On 6 March 2014 the Board, via Chairperson Brian Neeson, received a reply by way of a letter from David Warburton (see Attachment A).

14. On 17 March 2014, Auckland Transport received a further update from Auckland Council stormwater department, saying Auckland Council has completed a CCTV inspection of the existing stormwater network and that it is in reasonable condition and should not affect Auckland Transport’s proposed works.

15. Auckland Transport is now making final changes to the proposed stormwater system and once completed they will be given to Council’s stormwater department for sign-off.

16. Once final sign-off is received the project is likely to commence in the next construction period in spring 2014.

Albany Highway Upgrade

17. Auckland Transport’s greatly anticipated upgrade of the northern section of Albany Highway is expected to begin in September 2014.

18. The $58 million construction of the Albany Highway North upgrade involves widening a 4km stretch of the highway between Snapper Rock Road and the Albany Expressway to accommodate four lanes of traffic and separated cycling and walking paths.

19. The main aims are to cater for traffic growth, reduce congestion, improve safety for all road users and encourage alternative modes of transport, such as bus travel, cycling and carpooling.

20. About 15,000 vehicles, as well as cyclists and pedestrians, use Albany Highway every day. It also serves the North Harbour industrial estate, five schools, Massey University and a cluster of residential estates.

21. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is funding 53% of the upgrade, which together with the agency’s current project to upgrade SH1 between Upper Harbour Highway and Greville Road, is part of a wider strategy to improve transport links on the North Shore.

22. Features of the Albany Highway North Upgrade include:

· Four traffic lanes (with two general traffic and T3 transit lanes):

o signalisation of three major intersections (currently roundabouts) at Rosedale Road, Bass Road and Wharf Road

o signalised pedestrian crossings and wider footpaths

o dedicated cycle paths and footpaths, or shared paths where there is insufficient space

· Stormwater improvements to reduce pollution from the road flowing into local streams

· Relocation and undergrounding of main utility services (gas, water, telephone and electricity)

· Construction of a new four-lane bridge over the Oteha Stream (Days Bridge)

· Street lighting upgrade using energy-efficient LED lanterns

· New bus stops with shelters.

23. The upgrade is expected to start in September once the worst of the winter weather is over, and take about two and a half years to complete. For more detailed information on the Albany Highway North Upgrade, visit www.at.govt.nz/albanyhighway.

24. During the Board meeting of 11 March 2014, the Board passed a resolution (UH/2014/35), clause c) “request(ing) that the proposed T3 lane designation on the Albany Highway be removed and that modelling be presented to the Board as a matter of urgency”.

25. On 18 March 2014, Auckland Transport in response to the resolution held a workshop with several Board members, where the background and justification of the wider project and the T3 designation was discussed.

26. The Board, via Chairperson Brian Neeson, also received an apology letter from David Warburton regarding the misunderstanding around engagement with the Board on this project (see Attachment A).

27. As a result of this discussion, Auckland Transport has agreed to review the T3 lane proposal against the current model requirements and to report back to the Board on the results.

28. If it is found that a T3 is not warranted, then Auckland Transport will consider implementing a T2 lane.

Oteha Valley Road Corridor Management Plan update

29. On Tuesday, 18 March 2014, Lorraine Stone, Transport Planner, met with the Board Transport portfolio holders to update them on the project.

30. The Oteha Valley Corridor Management Plan is a long term strategic document that is a guide for the consistent management of the corridor, integrating transport and land use development that responds to anticipated growth and to stakeholder aspirations.

31. The Oteha Valley Road Corridor Management Plan relates to the area along Oteha Valley Road from East Coast Bays Road in the east and Albany Highway in the west.

32. The key influences on the corridor are from:

i) The Auckland Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan:

· Albany Centre as a metropolitan centre, which will undergo significant change with high density residential and employment uses

· Expectation of 10,000 to 20,000 extra residents in the Albany Centre, over 5,000 extra residents in Long Bay and residential intensification in the Albany Village area.

ii) Regional Public Transport Plan:

· By 2016, Oteha Valley Road between Cornerstone Drive and East Coast Road will be on the frequent service network (at least 15 minute frequency all day).

· The Northern busway extension Stage 1 (Constellation-Albany) and stage 2 (Silverdale).

iii) Auckland Cycle Network Plan 2030:

· Oteha Valley Road is a cycle connector.

iv) Committed and proposed projects:

· Funded projects in Regional Long Term Plan.

v) Tawa Drive, Albany expressway and Greville Road (TAG) Corridor Management Plan (2013):

· Use of Oteha Valley Road as a strategic route to SH1 (redistribute traffic away from Greville interchange) to allow for place-making role of Albany Expressway.

vi) East Coast Road Corridor Management Plan:

· Oteha Valley Road/Carlisle Road – Priorities.

33. Currently, Oteha Valley Road provides an important movement function as it gives access to major land uses, e.g. schools and some residential and commercial land. Its key role is providing access to SH1 from East Coast Bays, the Albany Village and feeder roads from the North and the West of the Village.

34. However, it currently has intermittent and inconsistent cycle provisions. In the future, it is envisaged that Oteha Valley Road will continue its important movement function, while retaining its green characteristics. It will:

· provide access to SH1 for increased numbers of Long Bay residents

· provide commuter cycle facilities along the entire Oteha Valley Road corridor

· enhance pedestrian access across the corridor with intersection upgrades.

35. This will be achieved by a redesign of the road corridor via prioritisation of high occupancy vehicle lanes, cycle and pedestrian spaces and lane expansion.

36. The next steps for this project are:

i) Hold a combined Oteha Valley Road / Tawa-Albany Expressway-Greville (TAG) workshop with external stakeholders.

ii) Investigation into high occupancy vehicle lane requirements, i.e. T3 vs. T2 vs. Bus Lane for Oteha Valley Road East and at the interchange.

Media

Relief for North Shore bus commuters

37. Relief is on the way for North Shore bus commuters as the westbound bus lane on Fanshawe Street is to be upgraded following a suggestion from the Campaign for Better Transport and Generation Zero. Auckland Transport, together with the City Centre Integration Group, is currently developing plans that will provide significant benefits for public transport in the Fanshawe corridor from the downtown area to Beaumont Street. However, it will be some time before these will be in place.

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

39. Luke Christensen from Generation Zero has come up with a concept for putting in place interim relief measures: “A proper bus lane is needed from Albert Street to Halsey Street, this is the area where the buses get clogged up in the afternoon rush.”

40. Auckland Transport chairman Dr. Lester Levy says the concept is sensible: “The suggestion from Luke is a good one and I put it to Auckland Transport management for consideration.”

41. Auckland Transport agrees there are benefits for customers in doing westbound bus lane improvements on Fanshawe Street as soon as practicable.

42. Dr. Levy says “There are some planning regulatory processes to consider as well as public consultation, however we expect we can have these in place within three months”.

43. Cameron Pitches from Campaign for Better Transport welcomes the upgraded bus lane for Fanshawe St: “This will come as a relief for North Shore bus commuters, who regularly find themselves stuck in general traffic during the evening rush hour.”

44. Dr. Levy says “Increasingly Auckland Transport needs to have pragmatic, interim solutions in place while working towards the more time consuming, ideal and more complete solutions – this response is a good example of this type of approach.”

Jump in Public Transport Patronage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AT HOP Cracks 200,000

52. Aucklanders are now travelling on more than 200,000 AT HOP cards.

53. AT HOP is a smart-card, which can be used for travel on trains, ferries and the majority of buses across the region.

54. Auckland Transport has been progressively introducing the system across different transport modes and a multitude of operators and this process is virtually complete.

55. Auckland Transport’s Chief Operations Officer, Greg Edmonds says “the 200,000 card milestone comes with 95 per cent of the roll-out – due for the end of March.”

56. Mr Edmonds says that “under the second phase of the integrated ticketing programme, a new Fares Policy will be developed. This will involve a review of fare structures (e.g. stage-based, zonal, distance-based), investigation of different fare products and passes, and pricing levels”.

57. For more information call Auckland Transport on 09-3664467 or go to: www.ATHOP.co.nz

58. Fast facts:

· On an average weekday some 236,000 trips are taken on public transport in the region.

· More than 3 million trips each month are made using the AT HOP card.

· On an average weekday buses in Auckland travel some 164,000 km – the equivalent of flying from Auckland to London nine times.

59. You can read the full terms of use of the AT HOP cards, the registered prospectus relating to the AT HOP cards and other information regarding the AT HOP cards on our website or at the Transport Information Centre, Britomart.

Issues Update

60. The following Issues Update comprises issues raised by Elected Members and Local Board Services staff to 24 March 2014.

Location	Issue	Status
The Avenue/SH17 intersection, Albany	Request for safety assessment of The Avenue/SH17 intersection, Albany.	This project is currently with Road Corridor Operations and Investigation and Design staff. At this stage it is being considered for the 2016/2017 programme. Awaiting update.
Tauhinu Road, Greenhithe	2 years board funding allocated to upgrade	See update above.
Totara Road Whenuapai	Road calming measures	After having received feedback from the community and the local board, Auckland Transport is revising the project and will report back to the board with a revised proposal.
Hobsonville Road Footpath	· Broken footpath on Hobsonville Road between Westpark Drive and Clark Road · Grass growing over the footpath on Hobsonville Road opposite the War Memorial Park · Mowing of grass on corner of Clark and Hobsonville Roads	Auckland Transport has temporarily fixed the hazards to make these locations safe for pedestrians. In addition, Auckland Transport’s Area Engineer will be conducting further investigations of this area.

Consideration

Local Board Views

61. The Board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Letter from David Warburton	71

Signatories

Authors

Ivan Trethowen - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon -Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager, Auckland Council

Chairperson	Brian Neeson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Callum Blair
	John McLean
	Margaret Miles, JP
	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

Authors	Karen Marais - Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Hannah Bailey - Local Board Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

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

Authors	Lesley Sharp - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager