Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Weedfree Trust – Employee · Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee - Member
Greg Presland	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Treasurer
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · Community Waitakere – Trustee · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Henderson Valley Residents Association – Committee Member
Saffron Toms	No current conflicts of interest
Denise Yates	· Ecomatters Environment Trust – Deputy Chair · Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust – Board Member · Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson · Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Confirms the minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 27 March 2014, as a true and correct record.

b) Confirms the minutes of Annual Plan Hearings - Waitakere Ranges Local Board, held on Tuesday, 18 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 Update from Ward Councillors

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting

8 Deputations

8.1 Waitakere Auckland Brass

Purpose

1. Ron Archer, Vice President, Waitakere Auckland Brass will be in attendance to request that the local board consider provide funding support to Waitakere Auckland Brass.

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the deputation from Ron Archer, Vice President, Waitakere Auckland Brass and thank him for the 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.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/06029

Purpose

1. Local boards are required to set fees for the hire of local council-managed community venues, centres and arts facilities. The fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Local Board Agreement.

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

3. It also seeks the Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s confirmation of its priority activity types which will be eligible for a maximum discount (i.e. lowest fees per hour).

Executive Summary

4. Local boards have the allocation of setting hire fees for your local facilities, to support delivery of services, projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.

5. A project has been under way to develop a more consistent pricing structure for hire of council-managed community venues, centres and houses and arts facilities. Excluded from scope are facilities managed by committees or third parties, and bookable spaces in parks, sport and recreation facilities, or in libraries.

6. Local boards have been engaged in this project through a series of workshops, providing feedback to inform a new fee structure for the hire of local community facilities, with the following purpose:

“To ensure people can access safe and affordable spaces to pursue their interests.”

7. The project has resulted in three main changes:

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

b. the Waitakere Ranges Local Board can now select activity types to receive discounts to reflect local board Plan priorities.

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

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

Recommendations

That the Waitakere Local Board:

a) Confirms the activity types eligible for priority discounts for hire of local council-run facilities as per attachment A.

b) Notes the administrative changes to facilitate implementation.

Discussion

Background

9. Local boards are allocated the setting of fees and discounts for hire of their local council-run community arts venues, halls, centres and houses. This supports delivery of services, projects, events and activities for the wider community’s benefit.

10. Historical variations in hire fees, terminology and procedures across the Auckland region led local boards in 2012 to request improvements to the customer experience for hirers of local community facilities, and to improve the transparency and quality of information and advice to guide local boards when you set and vary hire fees.

Local Board Engagement

11. At workshops during 2013 and 2014, local boards with facilities in scope had a number of opportunities to engage with the project team and to express your preferred approaches to the hire of local facilities. This report has been informed by the feedback received, and has led to a new hire fee framework and fee structure for the 2014-15 year.

12. Operational considerations have meant that not all views expressed can be incorporated during 2014-15. If you wish to consider more substantial changes to hire fees and charges in future years to ensure alignment across your portfolio, the Long Term Plan process offers an opportunity to consult local communities.

Changes to the Hire Fees and Charges Framework

13. The resulting new hire fee framework takes into account the size, condition and quality of each bookable space, levels of staffing, amenities available, and current patterns of utilisation of the spaces. Some adjustments have been proposed to fees for comparable facilities within each local board area or in adjoining boards.

14. The proposed fee schedule will be presented as part of the 2014/2015 Waitakere Ranges Local Board Agreement. While the proposed fee schedules are based on modelling within existing budget parameters, variances may arise due to changing demand and utilisation of facilities. The proposed changes are intended to be budget neutral for each local board, and in most instances, are considered minor in comparison with value for money.

Proposed Administrative Changes

15. In 2014 at a further series of workshops, local boards were informed of operational changes, including standardised fee-naming, and principles for applying discounts:

i) all bookings are treated on a first-come first-served basis

ii) discounts are given for regular bookings and for off-peak times

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

Table 1: Fee Naming Conventions

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

Consideration of Waitakere Ranges Local Board Priorities

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. This report reflects the engagement with the local boards

Maori Impact Statement

18. This will affect or benefit Māori communities in the same way it would any other community user in the local board area. No specific need for consultation with Māori was identified for the purposes of this report.

General

19. This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Appendix A: Principles for bookings, fees and discounts for Waitakere Local Board	13

Signatories

Author

Kat Tierney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

Laingholm Village Hall - Update

File No.: CP2014/06665

Purpose

1. This report seeks Waitakere Ranges Local Board direction regarding the repairs to fire damage of the Laingholm Village Hall.

Executive Summary

2. The Laingholm Village Hall is one of the six community halls and three community houses/centres in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

3. On Thursday 3 January 2013 the Fire Service attended a fire at Laingholm Village Hall, 69 Victory Road. A second fire occurred at the site in June 2013 as a result of arson, causing additional damage to the hall.

4. A report to the Waitakere Local Board in October 2013 (Attachment A) reported the total costs of repairs and subsequent renewal work for the Laingholm Village Hall (and “Roundabout Room”) were estimated at between $545,000 and $565,000 over the next five years. $250,000 funded by insurance.

5. Subsequent work was requested by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on these figures and the use of renewal funds for new builds. Additional engineering investigation work was completed.

6. With these additional investigations completed the cost of repairs is now estimated at $280,000, as this new work no longer requires building consent for a new roof line.

7. To complete this work the Local board will need to allocated $30,000 from their 2013/2014 renewal fund in addition the insurance of $250,000.

8. The subsequent renewals work is now estimated at $161,150 (excluding the “Roundabout Room”) an estimated amount of $67,950 is required in the next 5 years, with the rest able to be deferred beyond that date.

9. The total cost of repairs and subsequent renewals work for the Hall is now estimated at $441,150, $347,950 over the next 5 years, with a subsequent $93,200 required after that date.

10. As outlined in the October 2013 report, utility of this facility is currently low, with one only a few hours recorded regularly on weekdays during term time. A total of $441,150 is a significant investment over the next 10 years for a community facility with relatively low utilisation.

11. With new estimated costs and the information that renewals funding can not be considered staff now seek direction from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on the repair of Laingholm Village Hall.

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Confirms its intention to invest in the repair of the Laingholm Village Hall

b) Directs Auckland Council staff to commence repair of fire damage to the Laingholm Village Hall

c) Allocates $30,000 from the 2013/2014 Waitakere Ranges Local Board renewal fund to this project

d) Requests staff to include estimated work costing of $67,950 in the next 5 years of renewal programming.

Discussion

12. The Laingholm Village Hall is one of the six community halls and three community houses/centres in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

13. On Thursday 3 January 2013 the Fire Service attended a fire at Laingholm Village Hall, 69 Victory Road. A second fire occurred at the site in June 2013 as a result of arson, causing additional damage to the hall.

14. A report to the Waitakere Local Board in October 2013 (Attachment A) reported the total costs of repairs and subsequent renewal work for the Laingholm Village Hall (and “Roundabout Room”) were estimated at between $545,000 and $565,000 over the next five years. $250,000 funded by insurance.

15. Subsequent work was requested by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on these figures and the use of renewal funds for new builds. Additional engineering investigation work was completed.

16. With these additional investigations completed the cost of repairs is now estimated at $280,000, as this new work no longer requires building consent for a new roof line.

17. To complete this work the Local board will need to allocated $30,000 from their 2013/2014 renewal fund in addition the insurance of $250,000.

18. The subsequent renewals work is now estimated at $161,150 (excluding the “Roundabout Room”) of which $67,950 is required in the next 5 years, with the rest able to be deferred beyond that date.

19. The total cost of repairs and subsequent renewals work for the Hall is now estimated at $441,150, $347,950 over the next 5 years, with a subsequent $93,200 required after that date.

20. As outlined in the October 2013 report, utility of this facility is currently low, with one only a few hours recorded regularly on weekdays during term time. A total of $441,150 is a significant investment over the next 10 years for a community facility with relatively low utilisation.

21. With new estimated costs and the information that renewals funding can not be considered staff now seek direction from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on the repair of Laingholm Village Hall.

Consideration

Local Board Views

22. Workshops with the local board chair and the Laingholm District Citizens Association were held on 3 May 2013, 26 August 2013 and 25 September 2013. A subsequent report was received at the October 2013 Waitakere Ranges Local Board business meeting recommending consultation on the repairs.

23. A review of estimated costs, as requested by the Local Board, has been completed and rge findings inform this report. Staff understand that the Local Board are inclined toward investing in the work required to repair and reopen the Laingholm Village Hall.

Maori Impact Statement

24. Ensuring community facilities are well maintained and accessible for members of the community is of benefit to all, including Maori.

General

25. The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

26. If the Local Board directs staff to undertake the repair work for the Laingholm Village Hall, the Board will need to allocated $30,000 of the 2013/2014 local board renewals fund.

27. Work totaling around $67,950 will be included in the next 5 years of renewal programming for the Waitakere Range Local Board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	October 2013 Local Board report	19

Signatories

Author

Kat Tierney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/05351

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Provides the following input into the CCO review current state assessment [to be provided by local board team prior to or at the meeting].

b) Delegates to the Chair and Deputy Chair to provide the local board’s input into the review by April 30, 2014.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· the need for effective communication and collaboration across organisations

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

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

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

1. To ensure the governance structures and accountability mechanisms:

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

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

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

2. In addition the review will seek to:

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

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

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

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

Current state assessment: preliminary findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local board feedback into Auckland Council’s discussion document

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

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

18. The local boards are encouraged to:

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

· reflect on what worked well and what can be improved

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Review of Auckland Council CCOs: Terms of Reference	27
b View	Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council perspective)	33
c View	Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards	49

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

File No.: CP2014/06305

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

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Agrees to consider the policy framework for the Local Boards Funding Policy Review and provide formal feedback on the issues discussed and other associated issues.

Discussion

9. At the 20 February 2014 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee^{^[1]}, the following resolutions were passed to guide the engagement phase of the Local Boards Funding Policy:

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

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

i) the split between regional and local activities

ii) the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time Frame

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

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

Scope: Policy structure

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

· the split between regional and local activities

· the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. During the course of the review, equity issues for asset based service levels have been raised which cannot be resolved via the Local Boards Funding Policy. Resolving these issues will have implications that can only be addressed as part of the wider planning and budgeting process and will be considered when developing the long-term plan. As part of this process, local boards will be engaged in the development of asset management plans (AMPs) that will determine service levels and capital programmes for asset based services. Engagement with local boards on the AMPs is currently planned to begin March 2014.

23. Under the current funding model, funding for locally driven initiatives reflects decisions on service levels made by former councils. The review has found that equity in funding for locally driven initiatives between local boards can be improved in one of three ways. These are by using:

· general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and remoteness

· local rates collected within each board area

· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

24. Under a general rate allocation model the amount of locally driven initiative funding available to each local board is determined by the Governing Body. This is affected by decisions made by the Governing Body on the total level of locally driven initiatives funding available each year and the formula used to allocate this to each local board.

25. A general rate allocation model will see a redistribution of funding between local boards; some will receive more funding while others will receive less. A local board that receives less funding will then have the option to reduce expenditure or to seek an increase in revenue from fees and charges or from local rates.

26. Under a local rate model, funding for locally driven initiatives is provided entirely from a local rate. The level of funding required from the local rate is determined by the decisions on local fees, charges, services and service levels made by the local board. The local rate will show as a separate line item on the rates invoice.

27. A combined model will part fund locally driven initiatives via a general rate allocation with the remainder of the funding provided by a local rate.

28. The proposed Local Boards Funding Policy structure for funding operational expenditure is as follows:

Funding for asset based services

The cost of operating and maintaining asset based services is funded from general rates, and fees and charges revenue associated with individual assets. Funding is allocated to local boards in accordance with asset management plans and the regional budgeting process.

Funding for locally driven initiatives

Locally driven initiatives will be funded from local fees and charges associated with these activities, and from rates funding. There are three options for rates funding locally driven

initiatives:

· general rates allocated to local boards based on factors such as local board population size, possibly adjusted for factors such as deprivation and remoteness

· local rates collected within each board area

· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

29. The above structure for the funding policy was agreed by the Governing Body for engagement with local boards. The focus for engagement is on how to best fund the locally driven initiatives component of the policy.

Scope: how local rates are used

30. The use of local rates is an option under any funding model. The review of the local board funding policy provides the opportunity to have greater clarity in the roles that the Governing Body and local boards play in setting local rates. This is particularly relevant where funding decisions are aligned with decisions on levels of service. Legislation constrains this process in that only the Governing Body can set a rate. There are two options for determining the relationship between the Governing Body and local boards, these are:

· local boards advocate to the Governing Body for new local rates or changes to those set by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body makes the final decision. This is a similar process that is currently used for funding of local assets.

· local boards make decisions on the use of new local rates or changes to those set by the Governing Body, within constraints of regional policy determined by the Governing Body, and the Governing Body implements these decisions. This is a similar process that is currently used for local fees and charges.

31. The Local Boards Funding Policy is the appropriate place to set this relationship. The Governing Body agreed the above as relationship options for engagement with local boards.

Policy implementation: Capital expenditure

32. Local boards currently have budgets for capital expenditure from three sources:

· governing body investment decisions on local assets

· legacy capital projects inherited from the previous councils

· an allocation of capital funding for boards to use at their discretion, beginning in the 2012/2013 year.

33. Governing body provided capital funds for investment in local assets are not discretionary for local boards. While each board has decision making on how specified projects are implemented within their area, projects must be delivered within the scope agreed by the Governing Body.

34. The review recommends that the Local Boards Funding Policy only allocates operational expenditure to local boards, and does not allocate capital expenditure. Local boards can still undertake capital projects within the limits set by the Governing Body, so long as they can fund the consequential operating expenditure (including depreciation and interest costs) from their operational budgets. Local boards would need to fund this expenditure either by reprioritising their existing budgets (through efficiencies or reduced service levels), or increasing their revenue from rates or fees and charges. This would see local boards funding capital investment in the same way as the Governing Body does.

35. The review recommends that the few remaining significant legacy capital projects be treated the same as governing body investment decisions. These funds will be considered nondiscretionary, on the basis that it was a governing body decision that these projects continue rather than be reviewed against regional priorities for investment. Consequential operating expenditure associated with these projects will be part of asset based service funding and will not impact on local board budgets.

36. The consequential operating expenditure associated with any remaining discretionary capital funds will be treated as funding for locally driven initiatives. This funding will therefore be included in any reallocation of funding for locally driven initiatives.

Scope: Locally driven initiatives - general rate allocation formula options

37. If the Governing Body determines the total level of funding to be raised through a general rate for locally driven initiatives, some form of allocation method or formula is required. The Strategy and Finance committee agreed at its May 2013 meeting that the following attributes of local boards be considered in the development of the funding policy:

· population

· deprivation

· factors related to rural/geographic isolation

· rates collected.

38. It is recommended that the general rate funding allocation formula be restricted to factors related to population, deprivation and rural/geographic isolation only.

39. Rates collected should not be used as a factor for allocating general rates funding. This is because general rates have an element of both tax and payment for services received. The distribution of rates across groups of ratepayers was a consideration in the development of the rating policy.

40. If funding local boards based on the level of rates collected in the local board area is desired, then local rates should be used. This would make explicit the link between and rates paid and services received, with each board area paying a local rate for the services undertaken by their board. It also directly links a local board’s decision making on service levels with decisions on the rate revenue required to be collected from their local community.

Scope: Transition

41. Under the proposed policy, locally driven initiatives can be primarily funded either through local rates, or by general rates allocated to boards based on factors such as population, or a mixture of the two.

42. A general rate allocation formula will result in significant change in the level of funding for some local boards. As such, the adoption of some form of transition process may be appropriate. The review process will present options for transitioning change as a result of the funding policy over three years, to align with the Long-term plan planning cycle.

43. The level of change associated with the adoption of local rates for funding locally driven initiatives is smaller. Local boards would also have the opportunity to adjust their local rates revenue requirement by adjusting their service levels. A transition process is unlikely to be of value in this case. However if a mixed funding model is adopted, using both general rates allocation and local rates, there may still be a need to transition the allocated portion of funding. Options for managing this change will be presented.

44. It is noted that Great Barrier Island local board will experience high levels of change in funding regardless of what funding model is adopted. Options for treating this board as a special case for funding will be presented by the review.

Policy implementation: Local fees and charges

45. Local boards have the right to set local fees and charges under the allocation of decision making. Under the proposed Local Boards Funding Policy framework, it is recommended that local boards will retain the benefit/bear the cost of any change in fees as a result of their decision making.

46. Local board decisions on fees and charges related to asset based services needs to be balanced against revenue expectations for those services. These revenue expectations inform the requirement for general rate funding for asset based services in the asset management plans. In this case, it is proposed that operating groups will advise boards on the expected revenue targets for their asset based services starting from the status quo. Local boards can adjust fees above or below the recommended target, and will then retain the benefit/bear the cost of any resulting change in expected revenue for the service.

47. In setting fees and charges, there is the risk that actual revenue will vary from expected revenue. If the revenue relates to an asset based service, the operating group will absorb any revenue variance, with any shortfall made up from the groups operating budget. The variance will then be used to inform revenue targets for the service in the following year.

48. The local board will bear the cost or retain the benefit of any variance in revenue related to locally driven initiatives.

Policy implementation: Rates remission and grants schemes

49. The council inherited from the former councils a number of mechanisms that support community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage. These included the direct provision of services by the council, grants to third party organisations, and rates remission and postponement schemes.

50. In general the provision of these services and grant schemes have been classed as local activities, and continue to operate in those local board areas from which they originated. The rates relief schemes are part of the council’s rates remission and postponement policy, which is managed regionally, but continue to be available to qualifying properties within those former council areas that originally offered the schemes.

51. As a result of the council retaining these legacy services and schemes, local board areas are providing similar community services using varying delivery models:

· some boards have services, such as community facilities, provided directly by the council

· other boards have grants schemes directly controlled by the boards that are used to fund third parties to provide similar types of services, including the provision of community facilities; as well as to provide support to local community groups and other organisations

· in some board areas, community groups and other organisations have access to rates remission or postponement schemes that are not controlled by the local board in terms of eligibility criteria and approval.

52. The Local Boards Funding Policy has already considered the issue of the use locally controlled grants, compared to where services are being delivered by the council. It is proposed that under the policy, grants that are used to fund local facilities that in other areas are provided by the council, should be funded on the same basis as other asset based services. Grants that are used to fund more discretionary activities, such as one off grants to community groups, will be treated as locally driven initiatives, and be included in the pool of funding for these activities.

53. The Review of Community Assistance has now identified all sources of community funding assistance provided by the council, by local board area. This enables a review of the council’s rates remission and postponement schemes to be undertaken, to develop an approach to supporting community and other organisations that is consistent across the region.

54. The council’s rates remission and postponement policy should be regionally consistent. However most of the rates relief granted under the remission and postponement schemes for community and sports related services, and natural, historic or cultural heritage correspond to grants schemes relate to activities that have been treated as a local board responsibility when support is provided as grants. To ensure consistency, options for moving from rates based schemes to locally controlled grants schemes will be considered, though the financial impact of such a move will need to be assessed.

55. The Governing Body has agreed that the Auckland Council rates remission and postponement policy be reviewed alongside the development of the Local Boards Funding Policy to ensure consistency between local grants schemes and rates relief schemes, and to develop a regionally consistent rates remission and postponement policy.

56. Amendments to the rates remission and postponement policy will be publically consulted on alongside consultation on the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Engagement

57. Council staff will be undertaking engagement with local boards on the Local Boards Funding Policy through March and April 2014. The attached report “Local boards funding policy review” will form the basis for engagement on the policy options.

Consideration

Local Board Views

58. This report has been considered by and includes feedback from the Local Boards Funding Policy Political Working Party (LBFP PWP).

59. The purpose of the working party is to provide a joint forum of the Governing Body and local boards to provide guidance and direction with respect to the development of the local board funding policy. This includes development of comprehensive and robust options for the funding of local activities within the Local Boards Funding Policy.

60. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards to be considered by the LBFP PWP in early May and will form part if the consideration by the Governing Body when it adopts the draft policy for consultation in late May.

Maori Impact Statement

61. There are two ways in which Maori could be impacted by the options discussed in this report, these are:

· under a general rate allocation model the level of locally driven initiative funding available to a local board may change

· under a local rate funding model the level of rates paid may change.

62. Maori population is not the same across all local boards. How this will impact on Maori will depend on changes to funding available to local boards and how local boards respond to these changes. This may result in more or less funding being available or lower or higher rates being charged. The impacts by local board will be explored more at the next stage when the draft policy is being considered for consultation.

63. Within a general rate allocation model the choice of attributes may also have an impact on Maori. Some attributes that can be used in the funding formula, for example deprivation, have a greater alignment with the population distribution of Maori. A funding formula that had greater emphasis on these attributes will provide more funding to local boards with higher Maori populations. How this would impact on Maori would depend on the local boards choose to use this funding.

64. The review of the Local Boards Funding Policy will not change the Maori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy.

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Boards Funding Policy Review (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Guidelines for local board feedback	77

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

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

LGNZ conference and AGM 2014

File No.: CP2014/05757

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Nominates a representative to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2014 annual general meeting and conference from 20 July 2014 to 22 July 2014 on the basis that the conference programme is relevant to the Local Board’s work programme.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Lawrence Yule, LGNZ’s 2014 elections manifesto

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

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

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

· New generation funding models for infrastructure

· Funding models and the economic impact of cycle ways

· Transforming local government through smart digital investment

· Improving governance through strengthening capacity and capability

· How do we engage with youth?

Annual General Meeting

8. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to have four delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The 4 official delegates are likely to be the Mayor (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Penny Webster (as Chair of Zone 1) and the Chief Executive (or his nominee).

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

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

Costs

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

12. Registration fees are $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	83

Signatories

Author

Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

Record of Workshop –

Waitakere Ranges Local Board

Date: Thursday 6 March 2014

Time: 11.30am to 5.30pm

Venue: Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office

PRESENT:

Members Sandra Coney, QSO

Denise Yates, JP

Greg Presland

Saffron Toms

Steve Tollestrup

Apologies Neil Henderson (for lateness)

MATTERS DISCUSSED:

Item

Presenter

1.0

Administration

§ Members dealt with a number of administration and portfolio items

11am – 11.30am

Sharon Davies

2.0

Local Board Plan Engagement- Purpose of item

To discuss the engagement on local board plan to date and the forums coming up.

Key discussion points

§ Reflection on the engagement meeting held with the Combined Residents and Ratepayers Group

§ Confirmed details for the next three upcoming engagement forums

Action points

§ Relationship Manager Glenn Boyd to present an overall outline followed by the lead LB member to facilitate each of the forums

§ Feedback will be used to develop the draft the 2014 Local Board Plan

12.30pm – 2pm

Glenn Boyd

Rachel Wilson

3.0

Local Board Funding Policy – Purpose of item

To update the Local Board on the development of the Local Board Funding Policy, present options and invite discussion to inform policy.

Key discussion points

§ Broad overview and policy options presented to members

§ Local funding vs. regional funding including what assets sit with the Local Board

§ The need to recognise natural and green assets as well as concrete assets

§ WRHA work programme should be recognised as non-discretionary funding; as should environmental programmes

§ Procurement Policy raised and discussed

§ Rating Policy and changes, which are to come into effect noted as a concern to this board as to how it will affect our area bases on population, deprivation and geography

Action points

§ Further information on the Rating Policy requested by this Board

2pm – 3pm

Andrew Duncan

4.0

Fees & Bookable Facilities – Purpose of item

Following up from the West Cluster workshop on 4 December, members are to provide input into the 2014/2015 fees & charges financial model

Key discussion points

§ Update given on fees and charges on Council owned facilities

§ Feedback sought from members on proposed changes to the new charging structure

§ Noted, the Board can decide to put this through the LTP process

Action points

§ Report to come to a formal board meeting at the end of March

3.15pm – 4pm

Val Proud

5.0

Historic Heritage Plan – Purpose of item

Provide local boards with an opportunity for input and feedback

Key discussion points

§ Handout given to members on the Historic Heritage Actions

§ Presentation given on the three indentified priorities

Action points

§ Access to information for the public

§ Identify historic and heritage places within predetermined areas

4pm – 5.30pm

Rebecca Harfield

Rebecca Fogel

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

Record of Workshop –

Waitakere Ranges Local Board

Date: Thursday 13 March 2014

Time: 12 noon to 5.30pm

Venue: Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office

PRESENT:

Members Sandra Coney, QSO

Denise Yates, JP

Greg Presland

Neil Henderson

Steve Tollestrup

Apologies Saffron Toms

MATTERS DISCUSSED:

Item

Presenter

1.0

Administration

§ Members dealt with a number of administration and portfolio items

12 noon – 1pm

Sharon Davies

2.0

Local Board Plan – Purpose of item

To outline the proposed approach and timeline for preparing the Local Board Plan.

Key discussion points

§ Preparation, timelines and a general outline was discussed in preparing the Local Board Plan

§ Feedback on the Boards’ 7 objectives

Action points

§ Key feedback points noted for inclusion in the Plan

1.30pm – 2.15pm

Rachel Wilson

3.0

Oratia Master Plan – Purpose of item

To inform the Board on the progress of the Oratia Master Plan with a view for the Board to consider whether to include this project in its LB Plan noting the Master Plan is an action that came out of the Oratia Local Area Plan.

Key discussion points

§ General support for the Oratia Domain and the proposed design elements

§ The need to look at flexibility around temporary parking and access to the hall for services

§ Road corridor improvements to slow traffic down and be a good example for traffic plan guidelines

Action points

§ The Local Board to adopt both the Glen Eden and Oratia Historical Thematic Study

§ To look at the options of land acquisition options for a cycle/walkway

§ Budget implications timing/stages needs to be investigated by April in time for the LB Plan

2.15pm – 3.15pm

Eryn Shield

Claire Liousse

Richard Mann

4.0

Parks capex programme – Purpose of item

To discuss the draft 2014/14 Parks capex programme.

Key discussion points

§ Updated list of options tabled

§ Members discussed the proposed updated list of items noting concern that funding does need to be identified for the Glen Esk stream erosion and the Huia wall erosion

Action points

§ Capex programme will come to an upcoming formal board meeting

§ Noted the Boards desire for the Titirangi toilets to have an internal spruce

3.15pm – 3.45pm

Helen Biffen

5.0

Project Twin Stream – Purpose of item

A joint presentation from Local Parks – West and the Sustainable Catchments Team to outline the future for Project Twin Streams going forward and to seek Local Board input.

Key discussion points

§ An overview of the Project Twin Streams was given to members with reference made to the 3 contracts that are still in place and an emphasis on a regional focus going forward

§ An outline given between capex and opex and what each of these can be used for, noting there is still $52,000 indentified in capex to be spent

Action points

§ Request asked for a budget line for the 3 current contracts

§ A further workshop to be set up to further explain how the budgets work for ongoing maintenance and the scoping of phase 2 for PTS

§ The issue of sustainable catchments noted and needs to be addressed

3.45pm – 4.45pm

Grant Jennings

Kim Morrissey

Mark Maxlow

Juliette Holdgate

Theresa Pearce

6.0

Air Quality By Law – Purpose of item

To discuss a possible Air Quality By-Law that would be a key part of the Council’s work towards improving air quality and people’s health in Auckland

Key discussion points

§ National and local air quality in general discussed and noted

§ An outline where the planning of this proposed By-Law is up to and why its needed noting under the RMA, Council is responsible for meeting standards

Action points

§ Overall support for the By-Law was noted but it was felt the two year open fire clause is too short and should possibly be 4 years

§ This feedback was noted and will be fed back to the Air Quality Team

4.45pm – 5.30pm

Mike Harvey

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

10 April 2014

Record of Workshop –

Waitakere Ranges Local Board

Date: Thursday 20 March 2014

Time: 10am to 5pm

Venue: Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office

PRESENT:

Members Sandra Coney, QSO

Denise Yates, JP

Greg Presland

Neil Henderson

Steve Tollestrup

Saffron Toms

MATTERS DISCUSSED:

Item

Presenter

1.0

Submission on Auckland Transport’s Draft Code of Practice – Purpose of item - To prepare a submission on Auckland Transport’s Code of Practice

Key discussion points

§ Draft Code of Practice discussed, general support for it was expressed

§ Request for better linkage on the process between the Advisory Group and Local Boards

§ Noted the document is 1200 pages, concern noted that the WRHA will not be adequately reflected within the Code

§ The WRLB would like to see weed management as an integral part of the guidelines for roadside management, noting there is a need for more collaboration around community involvement in removing weeds

§ The no-spray register will be noted under the maintenance section

§ Notable trees and managing SEA’s over road reserves

Action points

§ Draft submission to be prepared by 27 March 2014

10am – 11am

Julian Watts

Chris Ferkins

2.0

Annual Plan Deliberations – Purpose of item

To highlight further information needed on points raised at the hearings held on 18 March 2014

Key discussion points

§ More information was requested including dog control enforcement, resourcing towards PTA research (advocacy role), SEA’s, rates relief, funding for heritage initiatives, budgets for Lopdell House McCahon Trust and Youth projects, implementation of the Oratia Master Plan, possum control, issues around Maui Dolphin and comparative costs of the various West Auckland hockey turfs

Action points

§ Various information to be sought from relevant Council Officers

11am - 12pm

Glenn Boyd

3.0

Administration & Portfolio updates

§ Members dealt with a number of administration and portfolio items

12.15pm - 12.30pm

Sharon Davies

4.0

Local Board Plans – Purpose of item

To consider how to achieve their objective “fostering arts and culture, including developing Titirangi as the vibrant arts hub for the west”

Key discussion points

§ Feedback from the Arts Forum held on 11 March discussed, points noted included the importance of relationships and collaboration between art groups to ensure they aren’t all competing for the same amount of funding

§ Suggestion to invest in a Community Development person to get art groups to work/perform on a regional level

§ Linking opportunities involving other areas e.g. libraries/marae/events

Action points

§ Look at budget implications / costs

§ Track down the previous WCC Arts Strategy

§ High level scoping of current partnerships and outcomes

12.15pm – 1pm

Rachel Wilson

5.0

Wananga at Parrs Park – Purpose of item

To discuss the Wananga at Parrs Park and revocation of its reserve status

Key discussion points

§ Outline, history and a map of the proposed site given to members

§ Concerns tabled by some about having buildings placed in an open space

§ Parks West tabled their support for retaining green space, noting the reserves status would need to be revoked for the project to go ahead and this decision would more than likely sit with the Governing Body

Action points

§ Briefing note to be sought confirming that the Governing Body will make the decision regarding the reserve status on the Park

§ Members to visit the site to familiarize themselves

2.30pm – 3pm

Grant Jennings

6.0

Ceramco Function Centre – Purpose of item

To allow Waipareira Trust to outline its proposal to base a sports academy at Ceramco Function Centre in Glen Eden

Key discussion points

§ Proposal tabled and outlined giving a summary of activities proposed

§ The facility would be mainly used during week days

§ Request is Waipareira Trust to have a lease agreement over the building, noting current sport groups who use the facility would be invited to join the sports academy

§ Long term the Trust would look to upgrade the facility

§ Noted the site use to be an old balefil site, the ground cracks in summer and gets boggy in winter

Action points

§ Parks West asked to work with the Marae to scope out this proposal

§ The Trust were asked to ensure girls and young women are part of the proposal

3pm – 3.45pm

Janna Gilligan

John Tamihere

(Waipareira Trust)

7.0

Trees for Babies – Purpose of item

To discuss a report to be presented to the Board on 27 March 2014

Key discussion points

§ Outline of proposal given to members with Owens Green agreed to as the proposed site for the 2014 Trees for Babies planting site

§ Concern noted and discussed around the extra $6,400 being asked for in the report, costs include the cost of trees, contractor costs

Action points

§ Owens Green confirmed as the site for the 2014 Trees for Babies planting

3.45pm – 4pm

Huw Hill Male

8.0

Local Board Plans – Purpose of item

To consider how to achieve their objective “encouraging sustainable local economic activity including home-based occupations in the Ranges

Separate action points noted by Rachel Wilson

4pm – 5pm

Rachel Wilson

No.	Title	Page
a View	Workshop Records, 6 March 2014	97
b View	Workshop Records,13 March 2014	99
c View	Workshop Records, 20 March 2014	101
d View	Workshop Records, 27 March 2014	105

Chairperson	Sandra Coney, QSO
Deputy Chairperson	Denise Yates, JP
Members	Neil Henderson
	Greg Presland
	Steve Tollestrup
	Saffron Toms

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Author	Brett Lane - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau