Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

1 Welcome

Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,

Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho

Rire, rire hau…pai marire

Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby

Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,

Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability

Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace

2 Apologies

Apologies from Member RE Ballard and Member Shirin Brown have 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 Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 10 April 2014, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

That an apology from Deputy Chairperson SD Brown for leave of absence, be 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

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

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

9.1 Dawn Jeffrey - Good Life - Eco Festival Waiheke event funding application
	Dawn Jeffrey will be in attendance to address the Board regarding the Good Life – Eco Festival Waiheke event funding application.

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.

Waiheke Local Board

24 April 2014

Review of Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw

File No.: CP2014/04452

Purpose

1. The Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw 2008 will expire on 31 October 2015. Provisions within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan could effectively replace the bylaw requirements at some time in the future but at the present time the content and operational date of the Unitary Plan provisions is uncertain.

2. This report seeks the views of the Waiheke Local Board as to whether or not it wants to develop an improved version of the existing bylaw so that is in place beyond 31 October 2015 and remains in place until suitable replacement Unitary Plan provisions are fully in force.

Executive Summary

3. The Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw 2008 will expire on 31 October 2015, unless before that time the Auckland Council confirms it as a new or amended bylaw made by the Auckland Council or it becomes a local board bylaw. Papakura District Council has a very similar bylaw that will also expire on 31 October 2015. New rules in the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan could eventually negate the need for a wastewater bylaw but the time when these provisions would come into force and their final form is uncertain.

4. The failure of on-site wastewater systems does not necessarily cause obvious breakouts but may cause pollution of nearby aquifers, storm water drains, streams, lakes and beaches with potential adverse effects on public health. The pollution of Blackpool, Ostend and Little Oneroa streams has occurred because of failures of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems.

5. A new bylaw could be enacted which could carry forward the most important provisions of the existing bylaw e.g. the requirement that property owners have their septic tanks / primary settlement tanks pumped out at least once in every three years.

6. A new bylaw could also require that more modern on-site wastewater treatment systems which have secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment systems are checked yearly by suitably qualified persons and the records of this occurring is given to the council. This would ensure these more complicated systems are less likely to fail. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rules require that secondary/tertiary treatment plants are serviced six monthly by a suitable qualified maintenance contractor.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Recommends the development of a new bylaw dealing with the maintenance and inspection of existing domestic-type on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems.

b) That the new bylaw should remain in place until suitable replacement Unitary Plan provisions become operative.

Discussion

7. The Auckland City Council Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw first came into force in 1997 because of resident’s concerns about the lack of maintenance of on-site wastewater systems and was reviewed in 2008 because of the communities support for the bylaw. The Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw is actively enforced by a council staff member.

8. Both the existing Waiheke and Papakura bylaws regulate a number of activities that generally fall under one of the following broad topic areas:

· Disposal of wastewater within the confines of each property

· Applying for consents to install domestic wastewater treatment systems

· Installation and repair of domestic wastewater treatment plants

· Testing and commissioning of domestic wastewater treatment plants

· Maintenance of domestic wastewater treatment plants

· Investigation of treatment plants

A few of these provisions are addressed by other legislation and need not be carried forward into a new bylaw.

9. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) was notified on 30 September 2013 and includes regional provisions for on-site wastewater including standards for permitted activities which came into force on the day of notification. These replace the wastewater provisions in the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. The on-site wastewater provisions are located within part 3 (regional and district rules) in chapter H (Auckland-wide rules) section 4.15. The permitted activity rules require wastewater treatment systems to be maintained to ensure that:

a. The wastewater discharge must not result in contamination of ground water or surface water or contaminants discharging into storm water drains or onto neighbouring properties;

b. treatment plant filters are checked and cleaned quarterly;

c. secondary/tertiary treatment plants are serviced six monthly by a suitable qualified maintenance contractor;

d. primary/septic tanks are pumped out by a suitably qualified wastewater system provider when sludge and scum levels occupy 50 per cent of the tank volume;

e. records of each maintenance action are retained and made available on site for the inspection by the council or their agents.

10. The above maintenance provisions of the PAUP only apply to new on-site wastewater systems installed after the date that these provisions were notified (30 September 2013). Existing lawfully established systems which remain unchanged will not have to comply with the maintenance provisions until six months after the Unitary Plan (or these provisions) come into force. The wording of the on-site wastewater rules in the PAUP may change through the submission and appeal process and the plan may not become operate until the current bylaws expire on 31 October 2015.

11. Rule 5.5.20(g) of Auckland Regional Plan: Air Land and Water requires all systems that were installed after October 2004 to have a programmed maintenance contract in accordance with the supplier’s specifications or the requirements of TP58 whichever is the more stringent, and for records of each maintenance action to be retained and made available on site for inspection by council staff or their agents. The PAUP rules also require secondary/tertiary treatment plant to be serviced six monthly by a suitably qualified maintenance contractor. If a new bylaw was developed it could require secondary/tertiary treatment systems to be inspected and maintained in a regular manner to prevent their malfunctioning until this particular Unitary Plan provision comes into force.

12. The staff member responsible for the administration of the Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw has requested amendments to the bylaw to require owners of newer (post 1990) wastewater treatment systems that contain secondary and tertiary treatment to have these systems inspected and maintained at least yearly so that they function without breakdown and failure. These newer systems make up approximately one-third of all of the systems on the island and are continuing to grow in numbers on the island because they are used for all new homes and small businesses. Because they are active treatment systems, which rely on pumps, filters and electricity to improve effluent quality, they are more prone to failure than older passive/hydraulic systems which do not need electricity to operate and do not use pumps to aerate the tank contents. Thus the newer systems are prone to failure if they do not have regular inspection and maintenance.

13. A new bylaw could rollover the important existing provisions and also require the annual inspection of on-site systems that provide secondary and tertiary treatment of waste water by suitably qualified persons

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. The Papakura District Council Wastewater Bylaw 2008 contains very similar provisions to the Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw. Discussions will be had with the Papakura Local Board to determine whether they want to continue with their existing bylaw or be involved in the development of a new bylaw. Discussions with other rural boards will also occur to determine whether they would like to be included if a new bylaw is supported.

Maori Impact Statement

15. Iwi will be consulted with as part of the review of the existing bylaw and in the development of a new bylaw should this occur.

General

16. Section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 made the Auckland City Council Wastewater Bylaw 2008 an Auckland Council Bylaw until 31 October 2015 at which time it will be revoked unless before that date the council confirms or amends the bylaw as a new bylaw made by the Auckland Council or revokes the existing bylaw.

17. Section 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 enables Auckland Council to make bylaws for the purposes of:

· Protecting the public from nuisance;

· Protecting, promoting and maintaining public health and safety;

· Regulating on-site wastewater disposal system.

18. The Health Act 1956 requires local authorities to improve, promote and protect public health in their area. Section 64 of this act allows local authorities to make bylaws to:

· improve, promote or protect public health and to prevent or abate nuisances;

· regulating drainage and the collection and disposal of sewage;

· provide for the inspection of any land or premises for the purpose of the Act

19. In the course of decision-making on the review of any bylaw, Auckland Council must give consideration to the views and preferences of any person likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the matter. The council is also required in its decision-making processes to seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for achieving the objective whilst considering the cost and benefits of each option and the extent to which community outcomes would be promoted or achieved.

Implementation Issues

20. If the board accepts that a new bylaw is required before the existing bylaw expires it will generally be business as usual – there is a council staff member who works full time on ensuring the existing bylaw is complied with and who grants dispensations from the pump out requirements if the circumstances warrant it. There may be additional work if the new bylaw requires yearly inspection reports from owners who have a treatment system that provide secondary and tertiary treatment of waste water, but the council staff member responsible believes that he can cope with this extra work.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Operative Waiheke Wastewater Bylaw	13

Signatories

Authors

Colin Craig - Principal Policy Analyst – Planning Policies and Bylaws

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

24 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/07366

Purpose

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Received the report.

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

Discussion

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

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 2012-13 financial year was $1.3M. This was due to the late start of the programme in that year so Auckland Council was asked to relax the “no carry forward” rule in this inaugural year of the programme. This one-off carry forward of the unspent balance of $8.7M was subsequently approved.

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

· The carry forward from 2012-13 = $8.7M

· The 2013-14 Budget = $10M

· The 2014-15 Budget = $10M

· The 2015-16 Budget = $10M

This is a total of $38.7M

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

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

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

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

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

9. Conversely, the required spend in the last two years (2014-15 and 2015-16) is $30.1M, being a threefold increase in the spend compared to the first two years. At the current rate of spending this $30.1M target will not be achieved.

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

Value of Projects

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 $14.9M.

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 $25.1M 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 2015-16 financial year and to a lesser extent the 2014-15 financial year, the issue of Auckland Transport being able to manage the work in those years and the contracting industry being able to carry out the large volume of work become factors in the overall delivery of the programme.

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 2015-16 financial year. Many of these approvals will be required much earlier in order to deliver $10M of work in the 2014-15 year.

17. In order to achieve the 30 May 2015 construction approval date, detailed design approval will need to be provided for all projects no later than 30 November 2014 in order to allow six months for detailed design including consultation and statutory approvals to be completed so that construction approval can be provided on time. As with the construction approvals, much of this detailed design has to happen much sooner in order to deliver the 2014-15 programme.

18. Accordingly the identification of new projects by ALL Local Boards to the total value of at least $25.1M needs to happen by 31 August 2014 at the latest in order for them to be assessed and project scopes and rough orders of cost provided back to the Local Boards for their consideration for detailed design approval. Ideally more projects need to be identified in case some don’t meet the necessary criteria.

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 wetter winter months can also impact on when tenders are let. Delaying of weather sensitive works to construct them at the right time of the year can impact on the overall timing of project delivery.

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

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

Auckland Transport Programme Management Process

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of not Delivering the full Programme

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

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

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

Summary of the Budgets and Project Values by Local Board

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

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

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

38. Attached is the Pick List of the types of projects that could be funded from the LBTCF programme that has previously been circulated to Local Boards for their information. This list will assist Local Boards to identify potential projects in their areas.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

41. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP 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 to be considered by Local Boards	27
b View	Financial Update for Local Boards	33

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

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

24 April 2014

Auckland Transport Report - April 2014

File No.: CP2014/07430

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 activities in the local board area.

Executive Summary

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

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

· HOP on Waiheke;

· Travelwise; and

· Community Road Safety Funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Receives the report.

Discussion

HOP On Waiheke Island

4. At the 27 March 2014 meeting, the Waiheke Local Board resolved (resolution number WHK/2014/47) that Auckland Transport provides an update on Auckland Transport HOP (AT HOP).

5. The Auckland Transport HOP team reports they have made a major effort to facilitate the implementation of the HOP cards on Waiheke.

6. For the period 24 February to 14 March 2014 and extended on request for a further week, Auckland Transport set up a temporary concession kiosk to assist in loading concessions on new cards.

7. Fullers Ticket Office was set up as a retailer on Waiheke for customers to purchase AT HOP cards and top up there, while other retailers are being looked into for the island.

8. In the week of 17 February 2014, prior to the roll out of the AT HOP, ambassadors were on school buses (morning and afternoon) and at Matiatia Wharf and in several other locations on the island, giving people information on AT HOP.

9. At the time of the AT HOP going live, AT ambassadors went back to the schools to explain how to set up cards and accounts.

10. Several special arrangements/concessions were made for Waiheke student that was not available for other schools in the region i.e

· Students could provide a letter from the school in lieu of a student ID.

· 10 Trip tickets continued to be sold on buses until 26 February 2014, and were not removed from service until after the 31 March 2014.

11. Auckland Transport also set up a Waiheke web page on its HOP website http://www.athop.co.nz/what-is-AT-HOP/bus-rollout-schedule/Pages/Waiheke-Bus.aspx .

12. It was noted that very few Waiheke students availed themselves to get Hop concessions loaded on their cards.

13. Due to the low numbers of student who have registered, the Auckland Transport HOP team is prepared to return to Matiatia for a further week if the schools formally request this from Auckland Transport.

14. A formal request from the schools is required so as to ensure there is a commitment from them to assist their student in registering for AT HOP.

15. Since the roll out of the AT HOP card on Waiheke (4 March 2014), HOP cards have been used 2428 times on Waiheke buses, as at 8 April 2014.

16. The benefits of AT HOP

· One card for bus, train and ferry;

· You can now use your AT HOP card for trains ferries, and buses in Auckland;

· Save money;

· You'll get at least 10% discount off single trip paper tickets (excludes NiteRider and Airbus Express bus services) by using an AT HOP card. Top up your AT HOP card;

· You can load your, AT HOP card online, at a Top-Up machine, in person at a Ticket Office, AT Customer Service Centres or selected retailers;

· Help protect your balance;

· If your registered AT HOP card is lost or stolen, your balance will be protected within 24 hours of it being reported to us;

· Free City LINK buses; and

· Travel for free on red City LINK buses, unless you have a negative balance on your AT HOP card, in which case you will need to pay the cash fare.

17. Key changes for Waiheke public and school bus services and when they will take place.

Ticket type:	Available for purchase on Waiheke public and school bus services until:	Now:
Single trip adult and child paper ticket	Continuing.	Continuing.
10 Trip Ticket	No longer available. Was accepted for travel until 31 March 2014.	Use an AT HOP card with HOP Money.
Waiheke Monthly Pass	Available from Fullers Ferries Ticket Offices until further notice. Continuing to be accepted for travel on Waiheke public and school bus services.	Continuing.
All Day Pass	No longer available. However, available for purchase on board ferries and from Downtown and Matiatia Wharf Ferry Ticket Offices.	Continuing to be accepted for travel.
Concessions
· Child · Tertiary		Apply for a concession on an AT HOP card.
· SuperGold	Continuing.	Present a SuperGold card to drivers after 9am weekdays (and all day Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays) or buy an AT HOP card and apply for a concession.
· Accessible	Continuing.	Present a Total Mobility ID or Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind ID card to the driver or apply for a free AT HOP card with a concession.

Travelwise

18. Waiheke School

· Last year approximately 60 students from Waiheke School participated in the bike safe programme for year 5 and 6 students.

· This year they signed up to be involved in International Road Safety Week, of which will take place in Term 2.

· During this week the school will run some small activities to raise awareness of being safe while travelling to and from school, details of these activities are currently being worked on by the school.

· They are also planning to do a Walking Time Zone activity with the Travelwise student group and 2 other class rooms.

· This involves students timing and measuring how far they can walk from the school within 5, 10, and 15 minute intervals.

· The information is then put onto a poster to show parents and children walking distances.

· This will be a great resource for parents as many don’t have an accurate idea of time and distance a person can travel within a short time.

19. Te Huruhi School

· Last year approximately 90 students from Te Huruhi School participated in the bike safe programme, for year 5 and 6 students.

· They also carried out safe scooter skills for the whole school.

· In terms 1,3 and 4 of 2013 the school ran an activity called “The walkers tree”, which is a large painted tree on canvas that is displayed near reception, if children have arrived to school in a sustainable way they get to put their name on a leaf and stick it to the tree.

· This year they plan to have a safe cycle instructor, train several of their staff.

· This will enable the staff to use the 30 bikes the school owns to do activities and training with the children throughout the school year.

Community Road Safety Funding 2014/15

20. Road safety is a shared responsibility across families, communities, government agencies, local government and many other organisations.

21. Auckland Transport and the Community Transport team acknowledges the valuable contribution of local communities to improving road safety and is committed to supporting community organisations to develop and deliver road safety initiatives to improve the safety of our roads.

22. The community transport team would like to inform the Local Board of the available funding assistance for Community Road Safety Projects for the 2014-2015 period, that local community groups can apply for.

23. Any application for this funding must align with the priorities set out in Safer Journey’s, New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy to 2010 -2020.

24. This strategy sets government’s direction for improving road safety by identifying the issues that are of most concern. Safer Journey’s outlines the priorities for road safety in New Zealand and describes the actions that will be undertaken to address these issues, as described in table 3.

25. Any application from this fund must follow the criteria outlined in attachment “A”. and be accompanied by an application as per Attachment “B”

Link to Safer Journeys document: Safer Journeys Website

Regional Transport-related Information

Jump in Public Transport Patronage

26. January saw a jump of three point three per cent in the number of people using public transport in Auckland.

27. The number of trips on rail was up seven point six per cent in January compared to the same month last year.

28. 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.

29. The Northern Express bus service saw a rise in patronage of seven per cent, while the number using all other bus services was up just under five per cent compared to January 2013.

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

31. 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.

32. 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

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

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

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

36. AT’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 – completed.

37. 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.

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

39. 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.

40. 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 Register

41. The regular monthly issues register is attached to this report, Attachment “A”.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

43. There are no specific Maori impacts arising through this report.

Implementation Issues

44. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritization, funding and consultation.

Authors	Ivan Trethowen – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Community Road Safety Criteria	43
b View	Funding application	45
c View	Auckland Transport Issues register	47

Signatories

Authors	Carmen Fernandes - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

24 April 2014

Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events

File No.: CP2014/06785

Purpose

1. This report provides an overview of the current financial management practice for dealing with extreme weather events in local parks across the region. There are a number of issues and inconsistencies with the current practice and therefore it is recommended that a new and consistent approach be adopted.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought, all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips. 12 local boards have some funding to deal with land slips and other effects from extreme weather but it is rarely sufficient when serious issues arise. Nine boards have no inbuilt financial capacity to cope with the impact of weather events.

3. Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events. There is a legal and moral obligation to ensure that some rates funding is set aside for this purpose given that weather damage, while unpredictable in timing and location, is none-the-less a constant in the Auckland region as a whole.

4. Three options are considered in this report. This first is to continue with the ad-hoc funding arrangement i.e. do nothing. The second is to pool local board funding to essentially develop a regional self-insurance fund (local unallocated budget). The third is to seek a regional fund, controlled by the governing body, which is applied for on a case by case basis. The second approach is recommended. The current arrangement will result in the need for local boards to cut existing budgets from time to time to react to weather events and overspend or approach the governing body regarding unforecast over expenditure. The second option, which involves funding moving to the area of greatest need, is likely to cover most weather events, without changing existing regional expenditure, and minimizes the time delays/bureaucracy involved.

5. In 2011, storms affected many areas and resulted in a number of severe slips on Waiheke Island. In 2012 the Upper Harbour Local Board was hit by a major cyclone event and dealt with the extensive damage via cuts in their current work and over expenditure. In 2013 all boards were affected by drought and a number of boards have been affected by slips and erosion. However the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Waitemata Local Board, in particular, are finding their current liabilities well beyond their individual ability to fund the remedy. In general terms, extreme weather events affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than rural, flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

6. The financial information relating to events that have occurred in the last three years is poor due to the fact that funds were taken from a variety of Auckland Council sources and expenses were not labelled consistently. As such the average financial risk for the region over the last three years is not specifically known. While it is possible for damage to be catastrophic and incalculable (if there is a regional disaster) it is only the common weather occurrence that is contemplated in this report. Over the last three years costs have been in the realm of six figures every year and the burden has traversed boards.

7. Current budgets are operational. However damage from extreme weather events often results in the need for the development of new retaining or structures to protect existing assets from ongoing slips or similar. There is currently no capital funding sitting with local boards specifically tagged for storm damage remediation. It is recommended that a portion of the existing funding be allocated to capital budgets to provide for this eventuality.

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Fully supports the development of a local unallocated fund to insure against unforeseen impact of extreme weather events to parks and that such funding can be on an as required basis.

b) Supports a portion of the pooled operating budgets being allocated to local unallocated capital funding.

c) Notes that expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

Discussion

8. Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips.

9. The scale or impact of extreme weather events is particularly felt in urban parks where space is at a premium and landscapes are heavily developed. Although weather events still have an impact on regional parks the scale of the regional park landscapes and the management of those landscapes (i.e. a lot more fully restored streams and coastal dunes) means the impact of extreme weather events can usually be tolerated without affecting the day to day use of the park. In general terms, extreme weather events also affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

10. The financial impact of managing damage associated with extreme weather events in the urban park environment has historically been dealt with in three ways:

· Self-insurance – a fund is kept to call on for unforeseen damage

· Reforecasting – no funds are set aside for unforeseen damage and as a result current projects and operational expenses are put on hold while funding is diverted to managing the impact of extreme weather events.

· Overspend – where neither of the two options above are possible then some costs have been worn as an overspend

11. Auckland City Council held specific “storm damage” budgets for parks and other Council’s had a level of self-insurance against unforeseen damage. Others had nothing.

12. Upon amalgamation the funding pool held by Auckland City Council was divided amongst the local boards in those areas, and local boards in the old Manukau City had some funding allocated to cater for this possibility in their local budgets. This resulted in very small buckets of money being allocated to 12 local boards.

13. This local board budget allocation has largely defeated the purpose of the self-insurance fund as extreme weather events do not happen regularly in any given area. They can affect a localized area or a large scale area that has no correlation to board boundaries. This means that individual local boards can go many years without an extreme weather event while its neighbour or another local board may have several events in short succession. This random occurrence is normal and the current budget allocation does not befit this natural phenomenon.

14. The current operational “storm damage” budgets held across the region are:

	YTD Actual (Feb)	Budget
Albert-Eden		$77,558
Maungakiekie-Tamaki		$96,947
Orakei	$13,101	$109,874
Puketapapa	$2,197	$64,632
Waiheke		$19,389
Waitemata	$7,508	$102,894
Franklin		$20,371
Howick		$30,451
Mangere-Otahuhu		$15,515
Manurewa		$16,926
Otara-Papatoetoe		$16,715
Papakura		$11,158
Total	$22,806	$582,431

Note: there are a number of commitments or costs expected in Waitemata and Orakei that are not yet shown in the these budgets

Consideration

15. Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events. Under property law there is term known as lateral support which is about the right of a landowner to have their land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. There are around 4000 local and sports parks and each of these parks have neighbours. Any excavation or alteration Council makes to park land may, at a later time, damage and affect a neighbour and leave Council liable. Our neighbours have a right to enjoy their land in its natural condition. This includes the right to have their land held in place from the sides by the neighbouring land unless both are subject to unforeseen natural events.

16. In addition to this legal obligation to neighbours, some extreme weather events come at such a substantial cost that the budget available to an individual board is either unable to wear the cost of the recovery or the cost of recovery affects a range of other activities within a local board area. This budget shortfall creates a liability and its own set of risks for Council and the community.

Options

17. The following options have been considered for ongoing/future management of storm damage:

	Option	Pro’s	Con’s
1	Do nothing: Some boards have limited funds available, others have nothing	· No change to boards budgets. A small contingency fund remains available for those boards with funding.	· No boards have sufficient funding to deal with medium size weather event – this exposes council to a range of risks
2	Create local unallocated fund (self-insurance): This would be a ring fenced fund for all boards to access allocated to the local and sports parks activity. It would be established from existing storm damage budgets held by some local boards.	· Funding is accessible across the region i.e. funds go where the storm goes · The size of the fund, pooled across the region, is more likely to accommodate regional extreme weather events than current arbitrary and small funding base available to those boards that have funding · Can be established immediately (providing all the boards agree) thereby helping with current liabilities	· Risk of the fund being inappropriately used for day to day weather events. This is a current risk and can be more readily mitigated as a local unallocated fund. It is recommended that there would be a single Tier 4 manager with a regional view determining a consistency of approach. · Some boards contribute to this solution while others benefit without contribution – may be seen as inequitable
3	Ask governing body to cater for most impacts of extreme weather events on a case by case basis.	· No change needed and governing body would pick up costs of damage (if agreed/funding found). Local boards that have existing funding would potentially need to show expenditure of current budgets before being eligible.	· The time delay and bureaucracy involved in making this happen means that most applications will be retrospective and expose the Council to financial risk · No funding is currently available at a governing body level. May take time to advocate for/secure

Local Board Views

18. This report is being circulated to all Local Boards to canvas their views on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

19. In many cases extreme weather events can damage archeological sites or sites of significance to Tangata Whenua. This can trigger the need for cultural impact assessments and more careful/expensive restoration works to protect the values of the site. Without a fund to support rehabilitation or restoration work recently discovered or damaged sites of significance cannot be attended to as there are no funds. A regional self-insurance fund would help to mitigate risk for Council.

General

20. As previously mentioned a variety of extreme weather events have affected parks over the years. For instance in 2011 storm damage caused extensive slips across Waiheke. Repair work is ongoing and existing storm damage funding has been insufficient to cope. In 2012 a tornado hit Hobsonville causing widespread damage to trees and houses. The arboricultural and general cleanup was unforeseen and no budget for this kind of work was available to the Upper Harbour Local Board. In this case the cost of repair was funded by savings in the Local Board budget combined with a budget overspend.

21. During September last year, a major storm event hit the east coast beaches, particularly in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area but also affecting Rodney, Orakei and Howick Local Boards. A storm surge of 0.8 metres on top of high tide caused substantial erosion. Orewa Beach was hit the hardest with significant sand loss and coastal structure damage.

22. Weather events are part of the life of Auckland. The current inconsistent, and in many cases non-existent, planning for extreme weather events is a risk and exposes Council to a high likelihood of budget blowout in any given year and local board area.

23. The unpredictable nature of extreme weather events means that we cannot anticipate what portion of funding is needed for capital and operational funding. However, based on the last three years weather events, we know that there is a need for both operational and capital funding. It is therefore recommended that a portion of the current operational funds be allocated to capital funding to offset these costs.

Implementation Issues

24. If a regional self-insurance fund, initially created from existing local board funds, is universally supported by formal resolution from all boards then this fund can be created in the current 2013/14 financial year.

25. The expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

26. There are currently several areas affected by storm damage that have projected funding shortfalls that could benefit from immediate implementation of the regional solution. The beneficiaries from this fund will change from year to year. Some recent historical events and current events and associated funding requirements are detailed in Attachment A.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Historical and current events and associated funding requirements	65

Signatories

Authors

Jane Aickin, Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Martin Van Jaarsveld, Manager Local and Sports Parks North

Malcolm Page, Manager Local and Sports Parks , South

Grant Jennings, Manager Local and Sports Parks West

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell, Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

24 April 2014

Local Government New Zealand Conference and AGM 2014

File No.: CP2014/07377

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 the 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.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke 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’; and

· 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; and

· 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 $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 Program	71

Signatories

Authors	Carmen Fernandes - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Paul Walden
Deputy Chairperson	Shirin Brown
Members	Becs Ballard
	John Meeuwsen
	Beatle Treadwell

Special Housing Area	Consent Number	Street Address/Site Description	Applicant	Date Received	Local Board	Description of proposed activity
Weymouth	RC44330	498s Weymouth Road, Weymouth	Tamaki Makaurau Community Housing Ltd	4/04/14	Manurewa	s.127 variation to remove Homestar condition and consent under sustainability provisions

Authors	Marion Davies - Senior Adviser - Waitemata
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Authors	Carmen Fernandes, Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager