Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/05820

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.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Receive the Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Overview of Total Programme for the Current Local Boards report.

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

Discussion

Background

2. The total annual budget for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is $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 that could be considered by Local Boards	17
b View	Financial Updates for the Individual Local Boards	23

Signatories

Author

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

Authorisers

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

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

LOCAL BOARD TRANSPORT CAPITAL FUND

PROJECTS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL BOARDS

Notes:

1/ The rates/prices noted below include detailed design, consultation, resource consent applications (where applicable), physical works, traffic management, and AT Staff time for overall project management and contract supervision/observation.

2/ The rates/prices noted below DO NOT include (where applicable) relocation of underground services, and excavation in solid rock. Other exceptions are noted in the various projects. If these items are required the project costs will increase accordingly.

Project	Scope	Base Cost	Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic Management	Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic Management	Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
New Concrete Footpaths	AT standard is 1.8m wide, and 100mm thick. Includes kerb ramps and tactile ground surface indicators at intersections.	$75/sq.m	$155 per lineal meter	$170 per lineal meter	Costs will be higher if topography requires any retaining structures or berm reshaping with topsoil.
New Concrete Vehicle Crossings – Residential	AT Standard is 150mm thick. Average crossing is approximately 20 sq.m. (may be required when building new footpaths).	$107/sq.m	$2,500 per crossing	$2,700 per crossing
New Concrete Vehicle Crossings – Commercial	AT Standard is 200mm thick. Average crossing is approximately 28 sq.m. (may be required when building new footpaths).	$140/sq.m	$4,500 per crossing	$5,000 per crossing
New Shared Footpath/ Cycleway	AT standard is 2.5m wide, and 100mm thick. More design and consultation required compared to footpaths.	$90/sq.m	$260 per lineal meter	$280 per lineal meter	Costs will be higher if topography requires any retaining structures or berm reshaping with topsoil.
Enhanced Footpaths at Local Shopping Centres	Brick bands / hotmix finish, and approximately 3m wide. More design and consultation required compared to footpaths.	$150/sq.m	$520 per lineal meter	$570 per lineal meter	Underground service relocations/upgrading may be required first which could delay construction and/or increase costs.
Project	Scope	Base Cost	Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic Management	Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic Management	Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
Enhanced Footpaths at Commercial Centres	Higher grade pavers such as basalt, approximately 3m wide. More design and consultation required compared to footpaths.	$300/ sq.m	$1,000 per lineal meter	$1,150 per lineal meter	Underground service relocations/upgrading may be required first which could delay construction and/or increase costs.
New Pedestrian Refuge or Splitter Island at Intersections	Includes central and side islands, signage, roadmarking, and kerb ramps. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions	$16,000	$18,500	$20,000	Streetlighting improvements are not included. Not always required. Needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
New Pedestrian Crossing	Includes central and side islands, signage including belisha disks/beacons, floodlighting, power connections and cabling, roadmarking, and kerb ramps. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions	$25,000	$29,000	$32,000	Trenching for underground power connections and installation of new poles may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
New Raised Pedestrian Crossing	As above but includes raised speed table. Only on Local Roads.	$45,000	$50,000	NA	Trenching for underground power connections and installation of new poles may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
New Signalised Pedestrian Crossing	Includes central and side islands, low level and overhead displays, signal controller, streetlighting, power connections and cabling, signage, roadmarking, and kerb ramps. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions.	$90,000	$105,000	$115,000	Trenching for underground power connections and installation of new poles may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Pedestrian Countdown Timers at existing Traffic Signals	Replacement of pedestrian lanterns with Countdown Lanterns. Only applies at signalised pedestrian crossings and intersection signals with the Barnsdance pedestrian phase.	$900 per lantern	$2,000 signalised crossing $8,000 full intersection	$2,000 signalised crossing $8,000 full intersection
Project	Scope	Base Cost	Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic Management	Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic Management	Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
Smart Stud Installation at Existing Pedestrian Crossings	Inductive loops in road, smart studs, control unit, power connection and cabling (or solar panel). Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions.	$35,000	$38,000	$40,000	Trenching for underground power connections may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Traffic Calming – Speed Tables	Speed tables every 120m including roadmarking and signage. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions. Consultation is a significant cost. Only on Local Roads	$30,000 per speed table	$35,000 per speed table	NA
Installation of Traffic Signals – Four Leg Intersection	Full installation including overhead displays on all four legs. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions. Usually involves arterial roads.	$500,000	$520,000 – traffic management on installation component only.	$540,000 – traffic management on installation component only.	Trenching for underground power connections, ducting, jointing chambers, and pole installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates. Streetlighting improvements are not included. Not always required. Needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
Installation of Traffic Signals – Three Leg T-Intersection	Full installation including overhead displays on all three legs. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolutions. Usually involves arterial roads.	$400,000	$420,000 – traffic management on installation component only.	$440,000 – traffic management on installation component only.	Trenching for underground power connections, ducting, jointing chambers, and pole installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates. Streetlighting improvements are not included. Not always required. Needs to be assessed on a site by site basis.
Electronic Speed Advisory Signs	Installation of Electronic Signs. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolution.	$8,000 per sign	$9,000 per sign	$10,000 per sign	Excavation for pole installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Project	Scope	Base Cost	Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic Management	Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic Management	Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
40kph Electronic School Zone Signage	Two electronic signs, two static signs on a single road. Also includes design, consultation, development of MOU with school, and traffic resolution.	$16,000	$18,000	$20,000	Excavation for pole installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates. Additional signs that may be required for side roads are not included.
Streetlight Improvements	Replace existing poles, provide new lanterns. Also includes new power connection to 24/7 network. Includes design and consultation.	$5,000 for 7.8m pole. $6,000 for 11m pole	$5,800 per 7.8m pole	$7,500 per 11m pole	Trenching for underground power connections and pole installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Advance Destination Signage	New large ‘white on blue’ directional signage on the arterial road network. Also includes design, consultation and traffic resolution.	$4,000 per sign.	$4,500 per sign	$5,000 per sign.	Excavation for pole installations may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Installation of New Bus Shelters	Standard 3.6m long AT Bus Shelter and concrete pad. Also includes design, consultation and resolution.	$17,000 per shelter	$19,000 per shelter	$21,000 per shelter	Larger shelters priced on a one-off basis.
Seal Extensions	Includes drainage improvements, shoulder widening to create the required road width, and sealing. Includes design and consultation.	$500,000 per kilometre	$520,000 per kilometre	$530,000 per kilometre
New Kerb and Channel	New Kerb and Channel, catchpits, plus required carriageway widening. Includes design and consultation.	$50,000 per 100 meters	$57,000 per 100 meters	$62,000 per 100 meters	Doesn’t include cost of stormwater infrastructure which needs to be funded by Auckland Council. Discussions required on a project by project basis. Trenching for catchpits and catchpit leads may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates.
Project	Scope	Base Cost	Cost on Local Roads – 15% added for Traffic Management	Cost on Arterial Roads - 25% added for Traffic Management	Other Factors – not included in the quoted rates
Intersection Improvements	Creation of left turn set-backs, easing of corners, roundabouts.	Varies			Priced on a one-off basis. Can be between $100,000 and $500,000
Installation of Tetratraps in Catchpits	Supply and Install Tetratrap Stormwater Quality Devices in Catchpits. Includes design.	$800 per Tetratrap.	$900 per Tetratrap	$1,000 per Tetratrap	Doesn’t include catchment analysis which is an operational cost that can’t be charged to this Capex project.
Indented Parking Bays	Removal of berm, installation of kerb and channel, protection of services, concrete parking area. Includes design and consultation.	$15,000 per carpark space	$17,000 per carpark space	$19,000 per carpark space	Trenching for catchpits and catchpit leads may encounter solid rock which is not included in these rates. Underground service relocations may be required. These are not included in the rates provided.
Seats	Supply and install, concrete pad.	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000
Drinking Fountains	Standard Parks type drinking fountain, including connection to water supply.	$15,000 each	$15,000 each	$15,000 each	Traffic management doesn’t apply as all work is on the berm/footpath area.
Walkway Lighting	Typical walkway between streets is about 100m long. Install three poles/lights with cabling and electrical connections.	$6,500 per pole/light	$20,000	$20,000	Traffic management doesn’t apply as all work is on the berm/footpath area.

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Auckland Transport Report - April 2014

File No.: CP2014/05913

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area.

Executive Summary

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

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Receive the Auckland Transport Report – April 2014.

b) Provide feedback to Auckland Transport on any of the consultations outlined in Attachment A.

Discussion

Reporting Back

AT Projects in the Waitemata Ward

Waitemata Greenways Plan (Route G1)

3. Auckland Transport is refining the draft scheme design for the Waitemata Greenways Plan (Route G1), formerly known as the “Waitemata Safe Routes Scheme”.

4. The scheme design will undergo a safety audit, peer review and then be prepared for public consultation which is expected to commence in May 2014.

5. Construction is expected to begin in the 2014/15 financial year.

Double Decker Bus Routes (Veranda Impacts)

6. Auckland Transport is planning to introduce double decker buses on a number of key routes in Auckland. An analysis of options shows that double decker buses provide the most efficient way of increasing capacity on these high use public transport routes.

7. In order to provide a safe corridor for double decker buses, adequate clearance of roadside obstacles must be provided.

8. Auckland Transport has undertaken initial audits of verandas on the following routes: Botany to City (Includes Broadway and Khyber Pass), Mt Eden Road (Symonds St from Mt Eden Rd to Grafton Bridge), Sandringham Road (Wellesley St from Symonds St to Fanshawe St), New North Road, and Dominion Road.

9. The audit identified a number of verandas which could potentially cause a risk to buses travelling in the bus lanes or when maneuvering in and out of bus stops.

10. To mitigate these risks, Auckland Transport is investigating the potential to modify building verandas and to relocate service poles.

11. Letters have been sent to property owners and occupiers of the forthcoming structural reviews that will occur in late April 2014.

Board Transport Capital Fund

12. A report on the Local Board Transport Capital fund is included under separate cover on the Board’s April 2014 agenda.

Board Consultations

13. Auckland Transport undertook consultation with the Waitemata Local Board Transport Portfolio Leaders on the proposals listed in Attachment A.

14. Consultations or notification of works that are of particular interest to the Board are highlighted below.

Great North Road Resurfacing Project

15. Auckland Transport wishes to notify the Board that due to the rapid deterioration of Great North Road, between Ponsonby Road and Bullock Track, Auckland Transport’s Road Corridor Maintenance team has decided to resurface the road from 28 April to mid-May this year. The scope of works and proposed methodology are detailed in Attachment B.

16. As part of this project, Auckland Transport will be implementing the new bus lane marking standards along Great North Road.

Great North Road / Ponsonby Road cycle lane

17. The Board has advocated to Auckland Transport to provide advanced cycle boxes and a cycle lane leading to it at the Great North Road / Ponsonby Road intersection (eastbound). During initial investigations, Auckland Transport engineers noted that the traffic lanes on all approaches on Great North Road to the Ponsonby Road intersection are narrow, leaving little available width for cyclists to pass vehicles to get to the front of the traffic lights.

18. Following further investigations, it was decided that it was not feasible to install a cycle lane without compromising a lane of traffic, which would have had significant impacts on the operation of the intersection. Road widening on the northern side of the intersection was not possible due to conflicts with existing verandas, and on the southern side due to conflicts with utilities and trees.

19. As part of the Existing Cycle Network audit, Auckland Transport has revisited this intersection and has explored an alternative option to accommodate an on-road approach cycle facility. This includes narrowing the westbound lanes and providing space for an eastbound cycle lane. There is a marginal negative impact on traffic flows; however the positive effect is that a cycle lane is able to be provided through a widened eastbound lane. This proposal also has no impact on existing footpath or kerb lines.

20. The design plans for the Great North Road / Ponsonby Road (eastbound) cycle lane is included as Attachment C for the Board’s consideration and feedback.

21. Auckland Transport is aiming to coordinate delivery of this proposal with the planned resurfacing works on Great North Road which will commence on 28 April.

Quay Street/Tamaki Drive design plans

22. The design plans for the Quay Street / Tamaki Drive / The Strand intersection are included as Attachment D for the Board’s consideration and feedback.

23. The key objectives of the proposal are to improve pedestrians and cyclists safety at the intersection. The scope of works includes a new on-road cycle lane, new zebra crossings, changes to road markings and median island layout, and associated upgrade of the footpath.

Richmond Road/ Chamberlain Street - Update

24. Auckland Transport consulted on a proposal for a proposed kerb realignment to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians and to encourage a safer turning speed into Chamberlain Street. The proposal addresses issues associated with the wide intersection layout and poor visibility for traffic turning out of Chamberlain Street, as it currently intersects Richmond Road at an acute angle making it difficult for motorists to look for westbound traffic. The kerb realignment and footpath extension on the south-east corner also allows for the pram crossing to be separated from the driveway of No. 106 Richmond Road.

25. The original proposal indicated some loss of parking, however, following public feedback, Auckland Transport has managed to resolve the loss of parking issue.

26. Given the remainder of the feedback received during consultation was supportive of the proposal and also the safety benefits this project will deliver, Auckland Transport wishes to advise the Board the works have been programmed to start in the next school holidays (mid April 2014).

Media

CRL route moves to the next phase

27. Five independent commissioners, who heard Auckland Transport’s planning application for the City Rail Link (CRL), have unanimously recommended that Notices of Requirement (NoR) for the land be approved, subject to certain conditions. The commissioners accepted the CRL would result in significant overall benefits to the people and economy of Auckland.

28. The recommendation adds another layer of certainly to everyone involved including international developers who have indicated their intention to invest in major projects along the CRL route.

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

30. The recommendation and related conditions will now be considered by Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport has 30 working days to confirm, amend or withdraw the notices.

Relief for North Shore bus commuters

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

32. Auckland Transport has agreed there are benefits for customers in doing westbound bus lane improvements on Fanshawe St (between Albert St and Halsey St) as soon as practicable.

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

34. There are some planning regulatory processes to consider as well as public consultation; however it is anticipated the upgrade can be in place within three months.

35. Auckland Transport, together with the City Centre Integration Group (‘CCIG’) are currently developing plans that will provide significant benefits for public transport in the Fanshawe corridor from Beaumont Street to the downtown area, however, it will be some time before these will be in place.

Auckland Transport completes AT HOP rollout

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

37. There are currently more than 250,000 AT HOP cards being regularly used by customers around the region.

38. AT HOP allows customers to use one travel card on different modes of transport and public transport operators.

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

40. This concludes the successful introduction of integrated ticketing into Auckland.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Consultations - April 2014	29
b View	Great North Road Resurfacing Project - Ponsonby Road to Bullock Track	31
	Great North Road Resurfacing Project - Ponsonby Road to Bullock Track Section B	35
	Great North Road Resurfacing Project - Ponsonby Road to Bullock Track Section C	39
	Great North Road Resurfacing Project - Ponsonby Road to Bullock Track Section Cb	43
C	Great North Road/Ponsonby Road Cycle Lanes	47
D	Quay Street/Tamaki Drive/The Strand Design A	49
	Quay Street/Tamaki Drive/The Strand Design B	51

Signatories

Authors	Priscilla Steel – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Team Leader

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Endorsement for Public Consultation - Draft K'Road and Newton Plans

File No.: CP2014/03507

Purpose

1. This report seeks formal endorsement of the Draft Karangahape Road (K’Road) and Newton Plans for community engagement.

Executive Summary

2. On 11 June 2013, the Waitemata Local Board endorsed the planning process for the development of two plans, respectively for K’Road and Newton. Over the past ten months, Council has been working with the Waitemata Local Board to produce the draft plans.

3. In February 2014, Council undertook targeted stakeholder engagement with local community groups and business organisations in the two plan areas and held a public ideas evening session where participants were given the opportunity to hear about the process and in small groups, draw their ideal vision and ideas for how the two areas should develop on maps. Through both of these forums, Council has heard a wide range of views from within the community about its vision for the two areas and this has been used to inform the development of the draft plans.

4. Public consultation is planned for a four-week period, starting from Thursday 10 April to Wednesday 14 May 2014. Five drop-in engagement sessions are planned and a flyer drop will occur to all businesses and community groups within the two plan areas. Both draft plans will be put out for engagement and engaged at all sessions jointly.

5. A copy of the draft plans are attached to this report.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Approve the draft K’Road Plan for community engagement.

b) Authorise the Board Chair Shale Chambers and Board Member Vernon Tava to approve minor amendments to the draft K’Road Plan prior to the commencement of community engagement.

c) Approve the draft Newton Plan for community engagement.

d) Delegate to Board Members Christopher Dempsey and Rob Thomas to approve minor amendments to the draft Newton Plan prior to the commencement of community engagement.

Discussion

Background

6. On 11 June 2013, the Waitemata Local Board endorsed the planning process for the development of the two local area-based plans for the K’Road and Newton areas.

7. The draft K’Road and Newton Plans take into consideration the direction set by the Auckland Plan, City Centre Masterplan and the Waitemata Local Board Plan specific to the K’Road and Newton areas.

8. A portion of the study area adjacent to the North Auckland Rail Line falls under the jurisdiction of the Albert-Eden Local Board. A report on the draft Newton Plan has gone to the Albert-Eden Local Board 2 April 2014 meeting to update the Board on the plan and to seek endorsement of the draft plan as it relates to their portion of the study area.

9. Since then, Council has been working with the Waitemata Local Board to produce the draft plans and has completed the following steps to inform the development of these draft plans:

§ reviewed previous and current plans, projects, strategies, studies and policy work relevant to K’Road, Newton and the Auckland Central Business District developed under Auckland Council and the former Auckland City Council

§ reviewed current regional and local strategies, including the Auckland Plan, Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Long Term Plan 2012-2022, Auckland Economic Development Strategy, Regional Land Transport Strategy, City Centre Masterplan and Waitemata Local Board Plan

§ reviewed technical reports on the proposed City Rail Link (CRL)

§ reviewed consultation and feedback received by Council on previous public processes relevant to both plan areas

§ undertaken specific research on land-use, economic development, community facilities and open space, transport, and heritage for the two plan areas

§ commissioned an independent Maori Heritage report

§ undertaken targeted stakeholder engagement sessions with representatives from the business and resident associations, local community, social organisations and special interest groups; and

§ held a public ideas ‘visioning’ session with residents in the community and members of various stakeholder groups for both areas.

10. Engagement with local communities and stakeholders is a key component in the planning process. Targeted engagement with key local stakeholders identified by Council and the Waitemata Local Board has been undertaken through a series of stakeholder engagement sessions and two public ideas evening sessions between February 19 and 21 this year. Through both of these forums, Council has heard a wide range of views from within the community about its vision for the two areas and this has been used to inform the development of the draft plans.

11. In addition to the two forums, Council officers have also met with the Karangahape Road Business Association, Uptown Business Association, infrastructure providers, community groups, key property owners, Watercare and Auckland Transport during the preparation and development of the two draft plans.

12. The four-week consultation period will allow wider community input into the development of the final plans for K’Road and Newton.

Key components of the draft K’Road and Newton Plans

13. The draft plans for K’Road and Newton are made-up of five sections. The two plans are structured in a similar format although content varies to the respective area.

14. The first section of each plan outlines the purpose of the document, planning process, study area and what we have heard to date through feedback and initial engagement on the plan areas.

15. The second section of each plan gives the local context, in particular the issues and opportunities of the area.

16. The third section of each plan sets out what Newton will be like in 30 years time and corresponding ‘key moves’ that we have identified for the area. These respond to the challenges and opportunities facing that area and guide the more detailed responses set out later in the document. The vision and key moves have been developed from the extensive feedback and input received from stakeholder and public engagement undertaken to date as well as the research and analysis work completed.

17. The fourth section of each plan outlines a proposed number of actions and projects to achieve the key moves and 30 year outcome. These actions are divided and themed to the key moves.

18. The final section of each plan outlines our next steps and provides context in regard to how the plan will be implemented. It is envisaged that this section will be further developed and refined after the public feedback period.

19. Post-engagement, a full version of the implementation / action plan will be developed for each plan and this will be presented to the Local Board for adoption with the final plans in July 2014.

20. It is also important to note that this is a draft plan. A full document will be developed with enhanced background information, strategic context and a detailed implementation strategy. The final plan is likely to be presented to the Local Board for adoption in July 2014.

Community Engagement – 10 April to 14 May 2014

21. It was outlined in the planning process of the draft plans that the Waitemata Local Board will lead the community consultation process. Community engagement is planned for a five-week period beginning Thursday 10 April 2014 and ending on Wednesday 14 May 2014. Both draft plans will be put out for engagement at the same time and engaged at all sessions jointly.

22. Community engagement on the draft plans will include five drop-in engagement sessions. A flyer will be distributed to local businesses and community organisations in K’Road and Newton with information about the two draft plans and associated engagement events.

23. Mayor Len Brown is setting up one of his ‘Mayor in the Chair’ sessions on K’Road on Monday 14 April 2014. The Mayor will be sitting down with locals from K’Road and nearby areas for a quick chat about their aspirations and concerns for their community. Council officers will be joining the Mayor to promote and engage the community on the two plans.

24. Council will also be taking part in the ‘First Thursdays’ event on Thursday 1^st of May 2014 to promote and discuss the draft K’Road and Newton Plans.

25. Displays about the draft plans will be put up for the consultation period at various venues in K’Road, Newton, the Auckland CBD and neighbouring suburbs i.e. Libraries, Churches, and Community Centres.

26. Once the engagement period has ended, all feedback collected will be reviewed and any recommended changes to the draft plans will be discussed with the local board.

Consideration

Local Board Views

27. Board Chair Chambers and Board Member Tava have represented the Waitemata Local Board through the process of developing the draft K’Road Plan. The project team has met with them on a regular basis to discuss the development of the K’Road Plan and address any issues that have arisen. Both have also attended the public ideas evening session for K’Road, and Board Member Tava has attended all targeted stakeholder engagement sessions.

28. Board Members Dempsey and Thomas have represented the Waitemata Local Board through the process of developing the draft Newton Plan. The project team has met with them on a regular basis to discuss the development of the Newton Plan and address any issues that have arisen. Both have also attended the public ideas evening session for Newton, and Board Member Dempsey has attended all targeted stakeholder engagement sessions.

29. The Waitemata Local Board are the primary decision-makers on the content of the two plans and will be signing off on the final plan for adoption in July 2014. The Albert-Eden Local Board will also have a review and sign-off role for the Newton Plan as part of the study area for that plan sits within the jurisdiction of the Albert-Eden Local Board.

30. Council officers have met with Albert-Eden Local Board Members, Peter Haynes and Graeme Easte on the draft Newton Plan, prior to releasing the draft plan for public consultation.

Maori Impact Statement

31. An invitation to participate and contribute knowledge to the development of the two draft plans was sent to all of the iwi, which registered an interest in the Waitemata Local Board area with Council’s Te Waka Angamua – Māori Strategy and Relations department. The following iwi were invited:

§ Ngāti Whātua O Orākei

§ Te Kawerau a Maki

§ Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki

§ Ngati Te Ata

§ Ngati Maru

§ Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua

§ Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima o Kaipara

§ Te Akitai Waiohua

§ Ngati Paoa

§ Ngati Whanaunga

§ Ngati Tamatera

32. An initial hui and walk around the two study areas was set up between officers and the iwi representatives. To date, none of the above were able to attend the initial hui and site walk.

33. Through the planning process, it was agreed that a Maori Cultural Values Report would be commissioned on both plan areas to inform the development of the draft plans. The Council commissioned Independent Consultant, Mr Ngarimu Blair to develop and collate the Maori Cultural Values report and facilitate iwi input and review of the report. The report focuses on Maori stories / relationships, aspirations and opportunities and how they can inform contemporary design and place-making initiatives in both plan areas.

34. The report’s outcomes and recommendations were presented and discussed at the targeted stakeholder engagement and public ideas evening sessions for both plan areas, and have informed the development of the draft plans. A copy of the Maori Cultural Values report is being circulated to the above iwi listed.

35. A copy of the draft plans will be sent to the above iwi listed for feedback and comments. Council officers will engage with iwi on the draft plan and development of the final plans.

Implementation Issues

36. The work of area spatial planning, both at a local / place based or precinct level, and at the area-wide level, is the responsibility of teams in the Regional and Local Planning Department in collaboration with other parts of the Council and Council Controlled Organisations. This will require ongoing resource and staff commitment to integrate planning approaches and project management to coordinate activities. This work is only partly budgeted for in the Regional and Local Planning Department budget. Thus far, targeted use of external resources for purposes of community engagement, options development or research has been sourced from allocated budgets within the Regional and Local Planning Department.

37. Out of each plan will fall a range of actions contained in an implementation / action plan that will need to be considered for funding as part of future Long Term Plan and Local Board Planning processes.

38. The planning and delivery of the plans’ actions will require agreements with delivery partners to ensure the timely implementation of each action. Advocacy will also be critical with delivery partners and infrastructure providers in their long-term budget allocations and prioritisation planning to achieve the outcomes of the two plans.

39. A full version of the implementation / action plan will be developed post engagement for each plan and be presented to the Local Board for adoption with the final plans in July 2014.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft K'Road Plan	59
b View	Draft Newton Plan	69

Signatories

Authors

Gurv Singh - Planner

Ross Cooper - Planner, CBD and Islands, Operative Plans

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Waitematā City Fringe Local Economic Development Action Plan

File No.: CP2014/05093

Purpose

1. This report provides a summary on the consultation undertaken for the Waitematā City Fringe Local Economic Development (ED) Action Plan and requests that the Waitematā Local Board adopt the plan.

2. The report also makes recommendations for the remaining ED funding for the 2013/2014 financial year.

Executive Summary

3. Following a report by Hill Young Cooper in August 2013 on the Waitematā City Fringe, the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan has been developed. This plan encompasses all existing ED actions and opportunities for new actions within the city fringe.

4. The following actions are recommended to the Waitematā Local Board for the remainder of financial year 2013/2014; commission research on commercial property market drivers and trends acting on the city fringe, support the Parnell Business Improvement District (BID) boundary expansion and support for pre-BID establishment works by Grey Lynn Business Association.

5. The Local ED Action Plan is a living document and will be monitored by the Local ED team, reporting to the Waitematā Local Board and updating the plan as actions are completed.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Adopt the Waitematā City Fringe Local Economic Development (ED) Action Plan.

b) Approve the local economic development work programme for the remainder of the 2013/2014 financial year.

c) Delegate responsibility to the Local ED team to scope and deliver action point 1.2 of the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan to commission research on the commercial property market drivers and trends, with funding of up to $25,000 from the ED budget.

d) Grant $10,000 from the ED budget to the Parnell Business Improvement District for their BID boundary expansion.

e) Grant $10,000 from the ED budget to the Grey Lynn Business Association for their pre-BID establishment works.

Discussion

6. The Economic Development department champions Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS), which aims to develop an economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and New Zealand. The department works with ATEED, business, Government and community stakeholders to lead local economic development, regional economic strategy and policy advice, economic analysis and advocacy, digital policy and international relations on behalf of Auckland Council.

7. The Local ED team provides a range of tools to Local Boards to help them grow and support their local economy. One of these tools is the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan, which catalogues all current economic development actions in a local board area and assesses opportunities for new actions. The Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan was developed in conjunction with key stakeholders, who through consultation define and commit to delivery of actions.

Waitematā City Fringe Local Economic Development Action Plan

8. In August 2013 the Waitematā Local Board and the Local Economic Development team commissioned a report by Hill Young Cooper on the Waitematā City Fringe. The purpose of this report was to identify the role, function and inter-relationships of business activities across the central city fringe area, including opportunities and constraints to their growth and development.

9. This report, entitled City Fringe Economic Profile, identified the following key sectors in the city fringe:

· Professional Services

· Health care and social assistance

· Creative

· ICT

10. Along with these key sectors, the Waitematā City Fringe has the following BIDs and business associations:

· Parnell

· Ponsonby

· K Road

· Uptown

· Newmarket

· Grey Lynn

11. The emergence of these successful key sectors and the importance of the BIDs and business associations to local economic development in the city fringe formed the basis for the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan. By following on from the work by Hill Young Cooper, the action plan has identified the breadth of local economic development activity within the city fringe.

12. The draft Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan was signed off for consultation by the Waitematā Local Board in September 2013 and consultation was undertaken in January-February 2014. A range of stakeholders were invited to provide feedback, including:

· Auckland Council departments

· ATEED

· AT

· BIDs

· Business Associations

· Auckland District Health Board

· Auckland University

· AUT

· EMA

· Industry Sector Groups

13. Consultation was very successful, with positive responses to the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan received from most consultees. Meetings were held separately with some of the BIDs and the EMA. General comments received were around the recognition that the City Fringe does not operate in isolation and is very well connected with the CBD and Auckland region. The Local Economic Development team worked closely with ATEED to ensure that proposed actions were reliable and valuable. The BIDs and business associations were also able to contribute actions that specifically related to their strategic action plans.

14. The Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan was finalised in March 2014 and the recommendation to the Waitematā Local Board is to adopt this plan. The plan is a living document and is designed to be updated at regular intervals to recognise when actions have been completed and when new actions are relevant.

Commercial Property Market drivers and trends

15. Action 1.2 in the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan recommends that the Waitematā Local Board commission research on city fringe commercial property market drivers and trends.

16. The purpose of this research is to determine the factors behind vacancy and occupancy rates in the city fringe, to understand the drivers and needs of the commercial property market and to inform BIDs and business associations about how to attract and retain the right mix of tenants and property owners in their area.

17. Business organisations and property owners can encourage business take-up of space. It is suggested that the research study consider the quality of commercial property assets, including factors like internal provision of telecoms infrastructure, quality of cell phone coverage and ability for businesses to be online-enabled.

18. The BIDs and Business Associations were asked whether this research would be of value to them. Uptown, Parnell and Newmarket all replied that this would be of interest and they would like to have input into the scope. The Local Economic Development team will work with all the BIDs and business associations in the city fringe to ensure that the scope meets their needs and the data collected is useful to these groups.

19. The Waitematā Local Board is asked to delegate the responsibility of this project to the Local Economic Development team, who will scope and work with a specialist provider to carry out this research. The cost of the project will be up to $25,000. The project can be carried out in May/June 2014 with a draft report to the Waitematā Local Board in June 2014.

20. The Board could then choose to release the findings to the BIDs and business associations.

Parnell BID boundary expansion

21. Through the Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan consultation, the Parnell BID requested funding to help with a proposed boundary expansion. This expansion would allow the BID to grow their membership, carry out more projects and provide increased support to local businesses.

22. The Waitematā Local Board is asked to provide $10,000 funding to the Parnell BID to assist them to meet the requirements for a boundary expansion, including the lead-up to consultation with members.

Grey Lynn Business Association Pre-BID establishment work

23. The Grey Lynn Business Association is working towards becoming a BID. The association is not made up of one central area; rather it is comprised of a series of small clusters that have different needs and drivers. There are many members who work from home or are located outside of these main clusters.

24. By becoming a BID, the Grey Lynn Business Association would be able to provide more services to members and support the variety of needs within their membership. They would be able to better define their strategic direction and provide more assistance to the different shopping precincts within the boundary.

25. Currently the funding for the business association is from membership fees and is approximately $10,000 per annum. However, this only allows for a base level of services and does not cover BID establishment processes.

26. The Waitematā Local Board is requested to provide a grant of $10,000 to the Grey Lynn Business Association to help with their pre BID establishment work.

Consideration

Local Board Views

27. This report informs the Waitematā Local Board on progress relating to their Waitematā City Fringe Local ED Action Plan and work programme. The Local Board is very supportive of the BIDs and Business Associations in their area and this work programme reflects that. Feedback from the Board is welcome to shape ongoing activities.

Maori Impact Statement

28. Matters relating to Māori wellbeing are addressed as part of specific projects and are reported in relevant Board reports.

Implementation Issues

30. There are no implementation issues

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waitemata City Fringe Local Economic Development Action Plan	89

Signatories

Authors

Alison Hall - Local Economic Development Advisor

Authorisers

Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager

Harvey Brookes - Manager Economic Development

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Local economic development July to December 2013: Waitematā Local Board

File No.: CP2014/05100

Purpose

1. This report provides an update for the Waitematā Local Board on local economic development activities delivered by the Economic Development Department for the period July to December 2013.

Executive Summary

2. The 2013/2014 local economic development work programme in the Waitematā Local Board area includes:

· Preparation of an economic development overview presenting a range of indicators on the Waitematā economy, issues and opportunities

· Completion of the City Fringe Local Economic Development Action Plan and initiation of priority actions.

· Business Improvement District (BID) partnership programmes in Heart of the City, K road, Newmarket, Parnell and Ponsonby and Uptown.

· Support for the roll out of ultrafast broadband and the sustainable and targeted provision of public WiFi.

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Receive the six-monthly update on local economic development activities from July to December 2013.

b) Nominate Local Board Member(s) to attend the Business Improvement District Policy (2011) review workshops and represent the view of the Local Board.

Discussion

3. The Economic Development Department champions Auckland’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS), which aims to develop an economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and New Zealand. The department works with ATEED, business, Government and community stakeholders to lead local economic development, regional economic strategy and policy advice, economic analysis and advocacy, digital policy and international relations on behalf of Auckland Council.

4. This report focuses on local economic development activities in the Waitematā Local Board area. An overview of the regional economic work programme undertaken by the Economic Development Department and ATEED to implement the EDS is provided to the Economic Development Committee, and is made available for information to Local Boards.

5. Under the guidance of global city development expert Greg Clark, and with the assistance of representatives from business, the wider Auckland Council and Government, critical priorities for Auckland’s future economic performance have been identified. These are to:

· Establish a new Auckland Leadership Team

· Raise youth employability. At the local level this means:

o increasing the number of opportunities for young people to gain work experience

· Build, retain and attract talent. At the local level this means:

o encouraging our businesses to invest in skills

o thoroughly understanding Auckland’s skills shortages

· Build the Auckland business proposition for a business-friendly city

· Boost the investment rate into Auckland’s economy and infrastructure

· Motivate greater investment in products, services and markets. At the local level this means:

o promoting the benefits of innovation and entrepreneurship

o creating and connecting spaces for innovation and entrepreneurship

· Increase Auckland’s visibility internationally

· Optimise Auckland’s platforms for growth: housing, transport and availability of employment land. At the local level this means:

o developing and adopting a new implementation model to achieve growth in key locations – CBD and metropolitan centres

o leveraging the fibre network to its full potential

· Support improved performance of Māori businesses. At the local level this means:

o working to support Māori businesses to grow.

6. We are planning a workshop with Local Board economic development portfolio holders, ATEED and the Economic Development Committee on making local economic development in Auckland more strategic, focused and united. Further information will be provided through the Local Board Advisors.

Economic Development Overview

7. An economic development (ED) overview has been prepared for the Waitematā Local Board area. The overview outlines the current economic picture in Waitematā, recent trends, and identifies particular strengths or points of difference the local board area has in comparison to the region wide picture. It is primarily a data driven view drawing on the statistics available covering a range of indicators including demographics, incomes and housing, education and skills, employment and occupation, sectoral strengths, business growth and development trends.

8. The overview has been distributed to Local Board members, Council departments and BIDs. The information can inform the Local Board Plan currently under development.

9. In 2012, GDP in Waitematā was $22.5 billion, which was 28.5 per cent of the Auckland regional GDP. Information, media and telecommunications and financial and insurance services services are the dominant sectors in the Waitematā economy.

Waitematā’s industrial mix by GDP (2012)

Elect, gas water

& waste

10. Stand out facts about Waitematā from the ED overview include:

· Waitematā is the location of Auckland’s CBD in which 92,777 people are employed; Waitematā is home to almost a quarter of Auckland’s employment and generates 29 per cent of regional GDP.

· Over 50 per cent of the region’s professional, scientific and technical services and information media and telecommunications jobs are in Waitematā and over 60 per cent of jobs in financial and insurance services are here.

· Sectors that compete internationally are strongly represented- ICT, tourism, international education, biotechnology and creative industries each contributing a greater share of the Waitematā economy than they do regionally.

· Fifty-four per cent of jobs in Waitematā are in knowledge-intensive industries compared to 36 per cent regionally.

· Significant infrastructure projects have been approved that will shape how people travel into and around Waitematā. The Local Board area is also the focus of a number of important plans including the City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Masterplan and will be home to the Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct.

11. Employment in Waitematā increased by an average of 1.8 per cent pa in the ten years from 2002-12, the same as the Auckland rate and above the 1.4 per cent in New Zealand. During this period, Auckland job numbers increased the most in professional, scientific and technical services (+10,440), finance and insurance services (+5,380), and accommodation and food services (+3,010), and declined the most in manufacturing.

12. The current Waitematā Local Board Plan supports the city centre as a dynamic commercial and cultural hub of Auckland that is strategically connected to the city fringe areas. The ED overview recognises these priorities and includes the following initial assessment of the strengths, challenges and opportunities within the local economy.

An assessment of Waitematā’s economic potential

Strengths		Challenges
Economic powerhouse- scale and diversity · Waitematā contains Auckland’s CBD and is New Zealand’s premier business centre, making it the region’s largest employment area. · Several universities have a presence and also home to Auckland City Hospital. · Home to major events and venues. Strategic business location · CBD is business and financial centre for New Zealand. · Several of Auckland’s top retail districts are located in the city and its fringe. · Excellent links to the port, motorway network and improving rail services. · Employs highly skilled workers from across Auckland region. Priority area · Strategic importance of CBD and surrounding areas means the area is covered by several significant plans (e.g. city centre, waterfront masterplans).		Infrastructure · Delivery of City Rail Link. · Building capacity and patronage of public transport network. · Ensuring easy commuter and goods flows into and out of the city centre. Enabling growth · Limited additional land for economic growth. · Intensification of activity without generating additional congestion and other costs to business. · Maintaining and enhancing the public realm as pressures on land use increase. Maximising visitor spend · Capture a greater level of international visitor spend.
Opportunities
Business friendly	· The area is an economic powerhouse for Auckland and contains New Zealand’s premier business centre as well as thriving retail centres. · BID partnerships in Uptown, Heart of the City, K Road, Newmarket, Parnell and Ponsonby. · Supporting the roll out of broadband through the UFB. · Pressure to convert existing industrial land to other uses will further increase the scarcity of this resource. · City Centre and Waterfront Masterplans will shape how people move around and live and work in the area. · City Rail Link approved, will improve transport into and around the CBD and provide opportunities around new stations.
Innovation and exports	· Development of Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct. · Facilitating business capability and research and development investment. · Many large businesses in the area, at a scale to be internationally competitive. · Waitematā has strengths in several of the sectors in which Auckland is internationally competitive and the growth of these sectors will be important in delivery of the Auckland Plan.
Skills	· Businesses can draw upon a well-educated and skilled regional, as well as local workforce, where a high proportion of residents have a university degree. · Ensure tertiary provision aligned to provide the skills businesses need to compete internationally.
Vibrant and creative city	· Further development of streetscapes and public spaces to provide an attractive public realm for residents and visitors. · Consider opportunities to enhance the quality and mix of retail and entertainment offerings in the City Fringe. · Support development of tourist infrastructure and hospitality to capitalise on the presence of the CBD, cruise ship terminal and tourist attractions. · Support for the development of the creative industries that are heavily concentrated within Waitematā.

Local Economic Development Action Plan

13. Following on from the City Fringe Economic Profile which was delivered by Hill Young Cooper in August 2013, a Local Economic Development Action Plan for the City Fringe has been developed. This Action Plan is a catalogue of existing and potential opportunities for local economic development actions in the area.

14. The Action Plan uses the data and analysis gathered from the Hill Young Cooper study and has been shaped through stakeholder feedback. Stakeholder consultation commenced in January 2014 and concluded in March 2014.

15. The final Action Plan will be presented to the Local Board at a business meeting in April 2014 along with a recommendation for the first actions to be funded.

16. The Action Plan contains a range of actions, which are grouped across the EDS priorities. These include:

· Commission research on the commercial property drivers and trends in the City Fringe;

· Support the BIDs and Grey Lynn Business Association;

· Strengthen relationships between the Learning Quarter, Auckland City Hospital and Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct; and

· Continue to advocate for the development of the CRL.

BID Partnership Programmes

17. The BID Partnership Programme approach is a public-private partnership between business associations that have a commitment to develop and promote their local business environment and Auckland Council. In work to date since Auckland Council was established there has been a focus on sharing best practice and developing consistent governance, processes and practices across the region’s 46 BIDs.

18. Each BID has signed a Partnering Agreement with Auckland Council. These agreements define the relationship between Auckland Council and individual business associations operating as BIDs. Several have also signed a discretionary Memorandum of Understanding with their Local Board. The MOU is an opportunity to agree mutual goals and objectives and to support each other’s programme of work where applicable.

19. BID Partnership Advisors hold monthly networking meetings for BID managers and interested business associations that focus on professional development and sharing information and best practice. Topics covered from July to December 2013 include:

· Auckland Transport (importance of good parking in our centres)

· AGM checklist and meeting procedures

· ATEED – local events

· WiFi– how to make the most of Apps

· Overseas conferences–report back and learnings from BID attendees

· Signs and alcohol bylaws

· Social enterprises

· Using Marketview results for business attraction

· Media awareness

· Your Website – how to review it and improve it

· Using information from Local ED Overviews and opportunities to engage with Local ED Action Plans

20. Following the region-wide workshop on the draft unitary plan held in the first half of last year, the majority of BIDs have worked together and/or with consultants over the last six months to put in further submissions on the notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

21. A refresh of the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (BID Policy 2011) will be undertaken in 2014. The proposed BID Policy will go before the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for final approval in November 2014.

22. The process to review the BID Policy will involve consultation with both business associations and Local Board representatives. Separate workshops will initially be held for the two stakeholder groups, followed by a combined workshop with both the business associations and Local Board representatives. Local Board representative(s) are sought for involvement in the review process.

23. Any suggestions made at these workshops to amend the existing BID Policy (2011) will be brought before the Local Board for its consideration and feedback.

24. There is much activity happening with the establishment of new BID areas (including State Highway 16 and Devonport, who will be balloting in March 2014). Several other locations are actively working with the BID team on preparatory work towards establishment. Existing BIDs undertaking expansion ballots prior to June 2014 include Otahuhu and Manukau Central.

25. Twenty-seven existing BIDs have chosen to increase their amount of target rate for the 2014/2015 financial year. Every one of these proposed increases has followed the process of advising all members and receiving approval of the proposed new amount from members at Annual General Meetings.

26. The Partnership Advisors have reviewed the activities of the BIDs in the Waitematā Local Board area and are satisfied they are meeting the requirements of the BID Policy.

Uptown (formerly Eden Terrace) BID

27. The re-branding of the Eden Terrace BID to Uptown has been well received and development of the new brand collateral is ongoing including re-development of the website, a regular business newsletter and a proposed sculpture of the new logo.

28. The Uptown Business Association (UBA) has been closely involved with the Newton Precinct Plan being developed by Regional and Local Planning with cross council input including Economic Development.

29. A new partnership agreement has been signed which runs through to 2018 as the first one signed expired at the end of 2013.

Heart of the City BID

30. Working with the City Transformation Team, Heart of the City (HOTC) continues to expand its real time pedestrian count project and is developing a new website platform for the data to be easily accessed.

31. In collaboration with ATEED, HOTC has launched the AKL The Show Never Stops as a comprehensive domestic destination marketing campaign for Auckland.

32. Leading the event offering for the City Centre, HOTC is strongly focused on delivering retail and hospitality with excellent support for their business base. Over the past months this has included the Love Your City campaign, Restaurant Month, and the massive Santa parade

33. HOTC supported the SafeZone over the Christmas and holiday period, along with its other safety initiatives including BarWatch and the ambassador programme.

Karangahape Road BID

34. The K Road Business Association (KBA) has been closely involved with the K Road and Newton Plans being developed by Regional and Local Planning with cross council input including Economic Development.

35. A Vintage Extravaganza, Artweek by Cycle and First Thursday Christmas Fiesta are just some of the events hosted by K Road. In addition to this they are hosting Business Breakfast meetings with the most recent focusing on social media for small business.

36. Their submission on the PAUP included a submission on heritage for the K Road area which has been a significant project in partnership with council for the last several years.

Newmarket BID

37. Newmarket Business Association (NBA) has taken a strong focus on business attraction and retention including property owner engagement.

38. The ANZ Newmarket Business Excellence Awards reinforces this commitment to business and includes a People’s Choice Award, with voting underway now.

39. After extensive investigation, the NBA is now hosting the Newmarket International Food and Goods Market in Station Square and this will run monthly.

40. Fashion remains a popular focal point for Newmarket’s signature events, such as Catwalk on the Street and the young Designer Fashion Award.

Parnell BID

41. A new General Manager, Cheryl Adamson, has been appointed at Parnell Inc and she has been working on the newly developed strategic plan to reprioritise actions for the next few years. This includes preliminary research to investigate expanding the boundaries of the BID.

42. Parnell has had a busy spring and summer with events including the Parnell Rose Festival, Dogs Day Out and the Waiters Race, culminating in a significant Christmas promotion.

43. Current focuses include connecting with the members, identifying opportunities and challenges for businesses in the area and updating the database.

Ponsonby BID

44. Ponsonby BID (PBA) hosted a number of events including its regular market days, participation in the New Zealand Fashion Week, Heritage Festival and Artweek, sponsoring Art in the Dark and partnering in the Pride Parade.

45. The PBA provided a submission on the Ponsonby Masterplan with active engagement with members to fully represent their views on the proposed plans for the area.

46. The business association has taken an active role with Auckland Transport’s pilot bike corral project and resident car parking and is investigating pedestrian count cameras.

Grey Lynn Business Association

47. The Grey Lynn Business Association (GLBA) continues to work on building membership with the hopes of becoming a BID in the next few years. The chair of GLBA is a regular attendee and contributor at the majority of networking and training sessions run for BIDs and non-BID business associations.

Ultrafast Broadband

48. The third year of the rollout of Ultrafast broadband (UFB) ends on 30 June 2014. The rollout is a third of the way through the nine year programme. So far over 60,000 premises region wide can connect to UFB with just over 11% of these premises connected. This is in line with the rate of uptake predicted at the start of the UFB rollout.

49. Chorus intends to provide updates to Local Boards on the progress of the rollout in each area and Council officers will work with Local Board Services to arrange times in the appropriate Local Board Workshops as the updates become available.

Public WiFi

50. Public WiFi is available in all 56 libraries and in 23 public open spaces around Auckland. In January 2014 the Libraries WiFi service was used 173,000 times by 110,000 people totalling 7.7 million minutes of free Wi-Fi usage. The public open space service has been experiencing network stability issues and this has limited usage. These issues are now resolved and we expect to see usage grow in line with Libraries usage. The public open space service was used 49,631 times by 44,419 people totalling 893,494 minutes of free WiFi usage. The Local Board contributed funding to the deployment of WiFi in Newmarket.

Consideration

Local Board Views

51. This report informs the Waitematā Local Board on progress implementing the agreed local economic development work programme. Feedback from the Board is welcome and will shape ongoing activities.

Maori Impact Statement

52. Matters relating to Māori wellbeing are addressed as part of specific projects and are reported in the relevant Board and committee reports.

Implementation Issues

53. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Trudi Fava - Strategic Planner

Authorisers

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Local board feedback on the Local Boards Funding Policy Review

File No.: CP2014/06630

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 Waitematā Local Board:

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

Discussion

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

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

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

i) the split between regional and local activities

ii) the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time Frame

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

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

Scope: Policy structure

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

· the split between regional and local activities

· the setting of service levels for local activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· local rates collected within each board area

· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

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

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

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

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

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

Funding for asset based services

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

Funding for locally driven initiatives

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

initiatives:

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

· local rates collected within each board area

· a combination of general rates allocation and local rates.

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

Scope: how local rates are used

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

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

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

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

Policy implementation: Capital expenditure

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

· governing body investment decisions on local assets

· legacy capital projects inherited from the previous councils

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

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

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

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

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

Scope: Locally driven initiatives - general rate allocation formula options

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

· population

· deprivation

· factors related to rural/geographic isolation

· rates collected.

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

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

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

Scope: Transition

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

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

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

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

Policy implementation: Local fees and charges

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

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

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

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

Policy implementation: Rates remission and grants schemes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engagement

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

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

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Boards Funding Policy Review	129
b View	Guidelines for local board feedback	177

Signatories

Authors

Aaron Matich - Principal Advisor Modelling

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Chris Carroll - Manager Planning and Policy

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 Submissions Analysis and Responses to Information Requests

File No.: CP2014/06122

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide analysis of the annual plan submissions from the Waitematā Local Board area, and further information to support the board in its decision-making.

Executive Summary

2. The Waitematā Local Hearings Panel heard submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on Tuesday 18 March 2014.

3. Local boards need to consider any amendments to Local Board Agreements 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals prior to discussions with the Governing Body on 29 and 30 April, and 1 May 2014.

4. This report contains analysis of the submissions from the Waitematā Local Board area, including local and regional submissions.

5. Subject matter expert responses to requests for further information from the hearings are attached.

Recommendation

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising from the special consultative procedure for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Discussion

6. The Local Government Act 2002 requires Auckland Council to undertake a special consultative procedure (SCP) as part of the development of the Annual Plan 2014/2015, including draft Local Board Agreements 2014/2015.

7. The submission period for the draft Annual Plan SCP ran from 23 January to 24 February 2014.

8. In total, the Council received and processed 1,967 submissions of which 96 were received from the Waitematā Local Board area. Twenty three submitters in the Waitematā Local Board area indicated they wished to be heard.

9. The Waitematā Local Hearings Panel held its hearings on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including the Local Board’s draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 on Tuesday 18 March 2014.

Subject matter expert responses to requests for information

10. Following the hearing, the panel had a number of requests for further information. These were sent to the relevant subject matter experts for response.

Local submissions from the Waitematā Local Board area

11. In the 2014/2015 Draft Agreement the board sought feedback on three proposed budget changes: the reallocation of $13,000 from the fruit tree planting budget to the LIPs budget; the reallocation of $105,000 from general facility upgrades budget to a project budget to support the delivery of playground renewals; and, the creation of a development plan for Western Park, using discretionary funds to support the project.

12. More submitters who provided feedback on the proposed budget changes were supportive than not. The majority of submitters from the local board area gave no response on the three specific proposals (around 75%, 78% and 80% respectively) – those submitters only commented on the two regional topics – the stadium strategy and/or the proposal to make the arts festival an annual event.

13. The majority of the submitters who did not support the board’s proposed budget changes did not give reasons, however, one submitter did not support the local improvement budget change as they supported the fruit tree planting initiative and another submitter who did not support playground upgrades asked whether playgrounds really needed to be upgraded.

14. A summary of responses is provided in the table below – this shows whether respondents agree, disagree or were unsure about the proposed budget changes, or whether they provided no response at all.

Waitematā Local Board proposed budget changes

Proposed budget change	Support		Do not support		Unsure		No response
Proposed budget change	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Local improvement projects	21	21.9%	3	3.1%	0	0.0%	72	75.0%
Playground upgrades	15	15.6%	6	6.3%	0	0.0%	75	78.1%
Western Park development plan	15	15.6%	4	4.2%	0	0.0%	77	80.2%

Overview of feedback from submissions relevant to the Waitematā Local Board area

15. A number of specific issues were also raised by Waitematā submitters. Some of these submitters were supportive of the boards proposed projects and advocacy areas for example:

§ Support for the St James Theatre restoration

§ Support for Carlile House restoration that meets everyone’s needs

§ Support for the Resource recovery centre – a request was also made for an industrial composting facility to enable composting of PLA plastics

§ Support for coastal walkways

The local topic that received the most comment was transport, with seven submitters supporting all or some of the board’s advocacy areas. The most support was shown for initiatives that promoted cycling and walking, although one submitter thought there should be more funding for cycling projects and another thought there should be more focus on improving cycling projects in the Annual Plan.

One submitter did not support the restoration of the St James Theatre and thought the board’s time and money could be better spent on other things.

16. Other issues submitters raised were

· A request for a review of funding for Tier 2 professional arts organisations, including

o Annual funding for the NZ Trio Foundation

o Annual funding for the Massive Theatre Company (11)

o Annual funding for Basement Theatre

o Annual funding for Silo Theatre

· Funding for Auckland Regional Migrant Services through a regional funding arrangement

· annual funding for the Town Hall Organ Trust

· support for the living wage

· a proposal for the formation of a dedicated cycle trail from the city to the eastern suburbs

· a request from SPLICE for funding for a coordinator, accommodation and other projects

· a comment that Spring St flats should be redeveloped to house more elderly, the submitter wanted the community to retain and respect the elderly

· that ‘smokefree’ should be a priority in the Waitematā Local Board Plan and recommend that local board agreements include smokefree policy implementation activities and associated budget

· a suggestion of a creative hub for the commercial creative trades as distinct to artists or crafts people

· that the council should sell city car park buildings and use the money to build more park and rides

· a request for an initiative to provide allotments for apartment dwellers on unused land

· a comment that the board shouldn’t give up on funding the formulation of a noise policy for the CBD

· a request that some of the smaller pocket parks undergo maintenance improvements, working with local residents to encourage small scale and ad hoc maintenance of those parks

· that the business rate places an excessive share of the burden on small businesses.

Regional submissions from the Waitematā Local Board area

17. The 2014/2015 Annual Plan sought feedback on two regional proposals, the Stadium Strategy and the annualisation of the Arts Festival:

Consultation Question 1: Stadium Strategy – A total of 1,069 submitters (54.4% of all submitters) provided an opinion on the proposed stadium strategy. Of these, 230 (21.5%) supported the proposal, while 501 (46.9%) did not support it, and 338 (31.6%) were unsure. The most notable opposition was attributed to moving the speedway, with 362 submitters expressing a desire to keep the speedway at Western Springs. In contrast, 41.5% of the 53 submitters from the Waitematā Local Board support the stadium strategy

Consultation Question 2: Annualisation of the Arts Festival - 985 submitters (50.1% of all submitters) provided an opinion on the Arts Festival proposal. Of these, 503 (51.1%) supported the proposal, while 226 (22.9%) did not support it, and 256 (26.0%) were unsure. Submitters from the Waitematā Local Board were even more supportive of the proposal with 58.9% of the 56 submitters supporting an annual Arts Festival.

18. There was also feedback on the following regional issues:

· Fluoridation – a total of 226 submissions opposed the fluoridation of the water supply. Of those submissions, 206 came via a pro forma, 17 of these were from the Waitematā Local Board area. The points raised outline a believed violation of human rights in that ratepayers have no choice as to whether their water is treated to include fluoride chemicals. The form also outlined a perceived health risk and that fluoride should be obtained through toothpaste only.

· Massive Theatre Company - 48 submitters requested Council consider Massive Theatre Company for annual investment and assistance to find a home. Eleven of those submitters came from the Waitematā Local Board area. While most submissions were from members/supports, the Theatre also made an official submission requesting funding.

19. Some regional submitters also raised issues relevant to the Waitematā local board area and agreement including:

Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust:

· Requested the Annual Plan allocate sufficient financial resources to progress the project

Mika Haka Foundation

· Requested that the local board supports their projects and initiatives

Civic Trust Auckland

· Supported the board’s advocacy areas:

o prioritise and produce a heritage assessment for Grey Lynn and Westmere;

o ensure the restoration and protection of Carlile House;

o ensure the restoration and protection of St James Theatre;

o complete an Aotea quarter plan

· submitted that historic elements need to be taken into account in the Myers Park development plan

· submitted that protection and enhancement of the historic and cultural heritage of Ponsonby Rd should be a priority in the masterplan

· submitted that the Freyberg Square upgrade needs to be integrated with the upgrade of the Pioneer and Women’s Ellen Melville Hall which takes account of the heritage values of the Hall

Heart of the City

· recommended additional funding be allocated in the Annual Plan for air quality and noise studies in the city centre, with a possible focus on Customs St

· requested the completion of a definitive assessment of Auckland’s heritage stock, beginning in the city centre

· supported the CRL and requested that Aotea station design be prioritised, and that more work be done on planning for the Aotea quarter,

· requested that funding for the Victoria St Green link project be deferred,

· expressed frustration re uncertainty around budgets for upgrades proposed for the city centre from the targeted rate.

Auckland Greypower Association Inc

· supported the board’s three proposals noting that there needs to adequate shade, seating and toilets for seniors, parents and caregivers in the playground upgrades and that the development plan for Western Park needs to be done with consultation and an awareness of seniors’ needs.

Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Maia Ltd

· supports the inclusion of reference to mana whenua in Local Board agreements and requests that the board consider setting aside a budget on an annual basis;

· supported the initiative to work with mana whenua to develop plans that further the aspirations and promote Maori culture and heritage;

· supported the board’s intention to continue to develop greenways and to connect coastlines with parks and recommends a number of priorities to address biodiversity issues within the board area

· generally supported the intention of the Board to advocate for affordable housing in the area and to adopt a policy on affordable housing.

Beacon Pathway

· submitted that all Local Boards include in their current and future Local Board Plans and Agreements:

o a strategic priority - Our people have good quality and affordable housing and neighbourhoods

o an initiative - support participation of their residents in the Retrofit Your Homes programme and other sustainability initiatives.

· supports the Waitematā Local Board advocating that the governing body adopt an Affordable Housing policy

Consideration

Local Board Views

20. The Local boards need to consider any amendments to Local Board Agreements 2014/2015, advocacy areas and any feedback on regional proposals arising out of the SCP process.

21. A separate report on this agenda will address the requirement to agree a final balanced budget, advocacy areas for 2014/2015, and if required, resolve on feedback on regional proposals.

Maori Impact Statement

22. The draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 sets out the local activities that Auckland Council will undertake in the Local Board area over the coming year. These activities are likely to have an impact on Māori and iwi in the local board area. Māori and iwi have had the opportunity to submit on the content of the draft Local Board Agreement as part of the SCP process.

Implementation Issues

23. The content of the final Local Board Agreement will set out the local activities to be undertaken by Auckland Council in the Local Board area. Implementation issues will vary depending on the activities undertaken.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Harriet Kennedy – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Local Board Decisions for 2014/2015 Annual Plan

File No.: CP2014/06128

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

3. Local boards are now asked to:

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

a) That the Waitemata Local Board:

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

ii) confirm an updated list of advocacy areas for the Governing Body and council-controlled organisations, for inclusion in the Annual Plan 2014/2015

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

iv) resolve on any feedback on regional proposals being considered as part of the annual plan process for Governing Body consideration

b) That the Waitemata Local Board notes:

i) local board budgets for 2014/2015 and outer years are required to balance in every year

ii) if budgets do not balance in every year, the Budget Committee will respond to any advice provided by the local board about how to balance its budget if required. If this has not occurred, budgets will be balanced by proportionately reducing the budgets for the local boards discretionary projects to address the overspend

iii) local board budgets will be updated in May to reflect local board prioritisation decisions, any final decisions made by the Budget Committee on 8 May, and updated central cost allocations. Updated financial statements for 2014/2015 will be provided to local boards in time for local board agreement adoption meetings in June.

Discussion

4. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was released for public consultation in January, with local board hearings held in March as part of the special consultative procedure. Following consultation, each local board has reviewed its 2014/2015 and outer year budgets and considered what, if any, reprioritisation is required in order to finalise budgets for the annual plan.

5. This report provides information on:

· key budget refresh movements to local board budgets

· local board decisions required in April to support the annual plan process

· next steps to finalise local board budgets and agreements for the 2014/2015 Annual Plan.

6. Local boards are now required to make decisions following the consultation and reprioritisation phases to enable local board content to be updated and finalised for the Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Local boards are asked to:

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

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

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

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

Budget Refresh

7. A budget refresh was undertaken in February to reflect the most accurate budget based on the latest available information and any changes in the business. Movements are based on factors such as performance year to date and forecast changes in the operating environment.

8. A summary of key areas of impact on local board budgets is set out in Attachment A. There is no impact on service levels as a result of budget refresh movements. Variance analysis for this local board is provided in Attachment B.

Next steps to finalise local board agreements

9. Discussions between the Budget Committee and local boards will occur between 29 April and
1 May.

10. Reports will be prepared for the Budget Committee meeting on 8 May providing an update on local board budgets, advocacy and other feedback and seeking any further decisions required to finalise the Annual Plan 2014/2015. At this meeting, the Committee will formally consider local board feedback and advocacy.

11. Between 9 and 30 May, local board agreements will be updated and financial statements prepared. Financial statements will reflect budget prioritisation decisions made by local boards, any further decisions made by the Budget Committee and include central cost allocations, such as depreciation, interest and staff costs.

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Budget Refresh – Summary of Key Movements	189
b View	Fees and Charges Schedule	191
c View	Waitemata Advocacy	201

Signatories

Authors	Harriet Kennedy – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Local Board Input into the Council-controlled Organisations Current State Assessment

File No.: CP2014/05877

Purpose

1. This report seeks input from the Waitemata 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

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Delegate to Board members to provide the local board’s input into the review by April 30, 2014.

Discussion

Background

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; and

· 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.

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Review of Council CCOs: Terms of Reference	213
b View	Auckland Council CCO Review, Current State Assessment (Council Perspective)	219
c View	Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards	237

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Advisor, Local Board Services

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Auckland Council CCOs, Current State, Council Perspective: Discussion and Questions for Local Boards

Introduction

The Auckland Council is undertaking a review of the its council controlled organisations (CCOs) 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 of the accountability mechanisms.

At the Governing Body meeting on 27 February, the council will consider a CCO Current State Assessment Report. The report will provide an overview of the council’s substantive CCOs, outline their intended purpose and their current role/s, and identify possible issues and opportunities for consideration during the review.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has been commissioned to prepare a parallel report that will consider issues and opportunities from a CCO perspective. The PwC report will be considered at the 27 February Governing Body meeting, alongside the Council perspective report. Together these reports should help inform discussion on the Terms of Reference for the review which will be agreed at the same meeting.

It is expected that the CCO review will need consider both structural and non-structural responses to issues and opportunities. Structural responses could include changing the composition of activities within a CCO, or establishing/disestablishing a CCO. However, the review will also focus on non-structural mechanisms for making the model work effectively. For example, developing a culture of collaboration between the Council and its CCOs will be critical – something that is working very well in some areas currently, but not as well in others.

For Auckland Transport, significant structural change is not possible without legislative reform, and the draft terms of reference assume that this is not part of CCO review. For Watercare Services Limited there are also constraints, as the council must deliver water and wastewater services through Watercare until at least July 2015.

This discussion document identifies a number of cross cutting issues and themes that are relevant to more than one CCO. The appendix provides a short overview of each CCO – including what it was set up to achieve, and how its current role relates to its establishment objectives. The document includes a number of questions that local boards may wish to respond to in providing feedback on this discussion document.

Cross cutting issues and themes

1. Strategy Development

To date, the roles of the council and of CCOs in the development of strategy have not been clearly defined, and are not consistent across CCOs

Under the Auckland Council model, the Mayor is responsible for articulating and proving a vision, and leading the development of council plans, policies and budgets. At the highest level, the Auckland Plan is the council’s strategy that all CCOs are expected to deliver on. Operational policy is clearly the responsibility of CCOs.

However, there is a large gap between high-level strategy and operational policy that includes sector-specific strategies; strategic action plans; implementation plans; project prioritisation criteria; business plans, etc. Currently there is significant variation across CCOs in the extent to which CCOs are involved in developing strategy. For example:

· ACIL and ACPL do not have strategy development roles although ACPL in particular provides strategic advice in relation to council policies and specific precincts.

· RFA has a limited role in strategy development, although it has developed the Horizons Strategy and the draft Stadium Strategy. The council has taken on responsibility for consultation on the Stadium Strategy mainly because there is a high level of public and political interest in the content.

· Auckland Transport and Auckland Council both have transport strategy functions which overlap. The legislative framework complicates this because Auckland Transport now has responsibility for the Regional Land Transport Plan, which replaces the existing Regional Land Transport Strategy and Regional Land Transport Programme. This recent change requires Auckland Transport to have a considerable level of strategic expertise. The council, on the other hand, has not resourced this function to the same level.

· ATEED and Waterfront Auckland are both active in the strategy development space as well as the council^{^[2]}. For example, ATEED has developed the Major Events Strategy, while the council is responsible for the Events Policy. Similarly, Waterfront Auckland has produced the Waterfront Master Plan, while the council is responsible for the City Centre Master Plan. Alignment of CCO and council strategy is a key issue for both of these CCOs.

·    Where do you think the council’s role finishes and a CCO’s role starts in relation to the development of strategy?

·    Is this the same for all CCOs?

·    Are there any examples where strategy development involving CCOs is working particularly well or badly at the moment?

·

2. Alignment of Structure to Strategic Priorities

When the CCO structure was established by the ATA and government, a key driver was to group activities to allow the council to deliver on what were likely to be its key strategic priorities. Examples include lifting Auckland’s economic performance (ATEED); progressing major regional transport projects (Auckland Transport); and transforming the Auckland Waterfront (Waterfront Auckland).

Now that the council has the Auckland Plan and associated strategies, these priorities are still important but it has identified new priorities such as:

· affordable housing

· urban redevelopment in multiple locations

· attracting funding for major projects such as the CRL.

A key decision for the CCO review will be the extent to which the council decides to align its structure to its strategic priorities. For example, an urban redevelopment agency with a wider mandate than ACPL or Waterfront Auckland, could help deliver on affordable housing and urban development objectives. Internationally there are a number of models for urban development agencies which could be reviewed.

The main advantage of aligning structure to strategy is that it can assist with an integrated, coordinated and focused approach. Waterfront Auckland is a good example of this. However the projects and activities that the council decides to fund are as important as the structures within which they are delivered. This is an LTP decision, not a CCO review decision.

· How important do you think it is to align the council CCO structure with current strategic priorities?

3. One Council Group

A major benefit of the CCO model is that it allows a strong and sustained focus on the CCO’s core business objectives. However, the CCOs contribute to a wide range of council objectives beyond their core business objectives. There are many instances where the council needs CCOs to act as part of the Auckland Council group rather than as autonomous entities. Examples include:

· By contributing to council’s strategic policies and strategies such as the Public Art Policy, Heritage Guidelines, and Procurement Strategy.

· By being aware of the impacts of their activities on other council objectives – for example Auckland Transport controls assets that have a critical place-making function in addition to their transport function.

· By acting consistently with council corporate policy and processes in order to minimise costs and present a unified front to Auckland residents and ratepayers – such as customer services standards, complying with the council approach to LGOIMA requests, and following the council’s Brand Navigation Group (BNG) guidelines.

· By making decisions that are in the best interests of Auckland Council ratepayers, such as liaising with the council over the best use of surpluses from a group perspective.

· By cooperating with the development of major council policy such as the Unitary Plan.

There have been examples of all of the above which have worked well, as well as examples where pursuit of ‘own goals’ rather than group goals has caused problems. Progress and issues in achieving compliance with the council’s BNG guidelines is one example that has been reported to council on a number of occasions (for example, Accountability and Performance Committee 5 September 2012 and 13 June 2013.)

Tensions can arise when there is a conflict between focus on core business objectives, and acting in the best interests of the council group. CCO boards often cite their fiduciary responsibilities to act in the best interests of the entities that they govern, although CCO constitutions include a provision that allows them to act in the best interests of the council even if this is not in the best interests of the company. Also it is difficult to envisage why it would not be in the best interests of an entity to act in accordance with the reasonable requests of its sole shareholder^{^[3]}.

·    How successful do you think the council has been in ensuring a “one council group” approach to delivery?

·    What issues have concerned you the most?

·    What has worked well?

4. Governance, accountability, and risk management

An inherent trade-off associated with a CCO model, is that the council has reduced oversight and control, even with robust accountability regimes. The council becomes reliant on the CCO for information and advice, and it is difficult to contest the advice without appearing to distrust its CCOs. For example, when a CCO provides reasons for not meeting performance targets, the council has to judge whether the explanations are reasonable or whether there is cause for concern.

Another impact is that the loss of oversight can expose the council to greater levels of risk. CCO boards generally bear legal liability for their decisions and therefore risk management is a core function of a board of directors. However, although CCOs may bear legal liability, issues associated with a CCO can result in reputational risk for the council. Two examples are the Rugby World Cup opening night issues, and the Ports of Auckland industrial dispute. The latter has been complicated by POAL operating two steps removed from the Auckland Council.

Furthermore, Auckland Council ratepayers can also bear financial consequences of poor CCO decision-making. This is particularly relevant in relation to CCOs undertaking commercial activities. For example, the Waterfront Auckland model allows it to front- end commercial development by undertaking initial investment which it expects to recoup. If returns are lower than anticipated there is a potential cost to future ratepayers.

· How well do you think the council is doing in keeping its CCOs accountable?

5. Organisational complexity

One of the main motivations for the changes in regional governance was to reduce the number of entities making uncoordinated and inconsistent decisions within the Auckland Region, and have Auckland speak with one voice. Although there have been major improvements in this, the new model has brought new challenges.

The Auckland Council structure is a complex one, with a Governing Body, 21 local boards, 7 substantive CCOs, the Mayor’s office, and statutory responsibilities to the IMSB. While CCO Governance is a Governing Body responsibility, the activities of CCOs are of great interest to local boards, the IMSB, the Mayor’s Office and other CCOs.

Functional entities have replaced geographic entities, and although there is now a single shareholder, there is complexity in this structure, which results in higher costs as different parts of the group interact with each other. For CCOs like Auckland Transport, which have multiple interactions with many part of council, these transaction costs are particularly high.

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. The interaction between CCOs and local boards has been a particular source of some tension since amalgamation although there have been major improvements over the three-year period. A report to the 12 December 2012 Accountability and Performance Committee provided an overview of the relationship between Local Boards and Council controlled organisations and associated issues.

Local boards have taken a particular in interest in Auckland Transport, in part because local boards have a role in relation to place shaping. Early difficulties were addressed by Auckland Transport significantly increasing its resourcing in relation to local boards. This has enabled Auckland Transport to keep local boards informed of projects in their areas.

However; there has also been concern from local boards that Auckland Transport has not prioritised the projects of most interest to them. The council has introduced a $10 million budget for local board projects to help address this. Auckland Transport has also recently held a series of workshops with local boards, where it has provided detailed explanation of its prioritisation criteria to help improve local board’s understanding^{^[4]}. Feedback suggests that local board members received these workshops well, although it is too soon to judge whether local board concerns will reduce as a result.

The IMSB has also taken a great interest in CCOs. For example, a member of the IMSB has been on the interview panel for almost all CCO director appointments. IMSB members have consistently raised concerns about the quality of reporting by CCOs on their contribution to Maori outcomes. This is expected to improve in future, as CCOs will have the same requirement as council departments to develop their responses to the Maori Responsiveness Framework.

· How can the council ensure that there is effective communication and engagement between local boards and CCOs?

· Do you have any particular concerns that you would like to see the review address?

6.
Some establishment objectives not yet met

Several CCOs have made strong contributions in relation to some aspects of their delivery, but have not yet demonstrated that they will be able to achieve all that what they were set up to achieve. Examples include:

· RFA has achieved strong operational results in relation to facilities such as the Auckland Zoo and Auckland Art Gallery, but has not yet been able to achieve any significant rationalisation of facilities. In addition, it has interests in a large number of ‘partially integrated’ facilities with limited progress in achieving further integration of these facilities.

· ATEED’s strength appears to be in attracting, facilitating and delivering major events. Strong growth in visitor numbers suggests that its approach to tourism is also adding value. It has been less successful so far in relation to economic development, including sector development.

· Auckland Transport has made significant investment in passenger transport infrastructure and operational improvements, but this has not yet translated to patronage growth and is unlikely to until 2015.

· Waterfront Auckland has successfully delivered on its Rugby World Cup projects and on other public infrastructure, and is now starting to attract private sector investment.

These issues do not necessarily reflect structural problems, as many factors are likely to be contributing including:

· Insufficient time to deliver results – for example, the issues regarding Auckland Transport and patronage growth are not a major concern currently, as it is understood that there is a lag between investment and patronage growth.

· Weak economic conditions – which has undoubtedly been a factor in relation to Waterfront Auckland and ATEED.

· Difficult outcomes to achieve under any structure - for example, RFA owns or has an interest in a range of facilities, some of which may not have been built if a regional approach had been taken at the time of investment. The council also needs to consider what it can reasonably achieve in relation to ATEED’s economic development function with investment of $10 million a year in an economy worth $66 billion (regional GDP).

· Decisions made by the council which may have affected a CCO’s progress. For example, RFA planned to develop and implement its Stadium Strategy in 2012, while the council recognised that consultation was required. Consultation had to be delayed so that the council could focus on the Unitary Plan in 2013.

· Thinking about the CCOs that you think have been most successful, what factors do you think have contributed to this?

7.
Duplication and overlaps

Some duplication and overlap between the activities of the council and its CCOs and between the CCOs themselves is inevitable and also occurs within council departments.

Duplication can arise when two or more entities are performing the same or similar function, but with a different focus. For example, ATEED is responsible for attraction and facilitation/delivery of major events, Auckland Council is responsible for regional and local events, and Waterfront Auckland for events within the waterfront precinct. In these cases the issue is whether there is inefficiency in the current arrangements, and potential synergies/efficiencies from bringing together like-functions.

A different type of duplication can arise when two or more entities perform different but overlapping roles in relation to a particular area of focus. For example, Waterfront Auckland, RFA, Auckland Transport, ATEED, Waitemata Local Board, and Auckland Council Transport, all have responsibilities in relation to Quay Street and the Waterfront. Although there were some initial issues these were resolved by the formation of a cross council group established to ensure an integrated approach.

In practice, many examples where there is some duplication or overlap are a combination of both of these (similar functions with a different focus and different roles in relation to a common focus). Other examples include:

· Auckland Council and Auckland Transport both develop transport strategy (similar function with different but overlapping focus).

· Auckland Council and ATEED both develop economic development and events related strategy and both undertake delivery (similar functions with different but overlapping focus).

· ATEED runs a conferencing division as a free service to conference organizers and promoters (the Auckland Convention Bureau). RFA operates a number of facilities used as conference venues and runs Auckland Conventions, Venues and Events which is focused on utilization of RFA venues (similar functions with different focus, and different functions with a similar focus).

· Auckland Council Property department and Auckland Transport both have property acquisition functions (similar function with different focus).

· As identified above, the council currently has a number of mechanisms for delivering urban development – including ACPL, Waterfront Auckland, Tamaki Redevelopment Company, City Transformation Projects department (similar functions with different focus). In addition, there are a number of CCOs and different parts of council that perform closely related functions including the council’s Housing Project Office and Auckland Transport (different functions with a common focus).

· ATEED has been charged with establishing the Auckland Investment Office (AIO) which will focus on attracting investment across the Auckland Council group, while Waterfront Auckland performs this function in relation to investment opportunities on the Waterfront (similar functions with different focus).

As the review progresses, the council will need to determine when duplication and overlaps justify structural change and/or, and when mechanisms are needed to ensure coordination and integration.

· What examples of duplication between the council and a CCO, or between CCOs have caused the most issues for your board?

8. Issues resolution

As a result of many of the factors discussed in this section, issues frequently arise that involve a CCO. Many of these are minor while others are more significant.

Many of these issues arise because the public complains directly to the council, or the media holds the council to account for decisions made by a CCO. This problem is inherent in any model where decision-making powers are delegated to another entity. A two-way no surprises policy operates between the council and its CCOs, which is intended to minimise such situations, but they are unlikely to be eliminated under any process.

Other issues do not have public profile, for example disagreements between two or more CCOs, but can be time consuming and costly for the organisation to resolve.

·    How well is the no surprises policy working?

·    Have you noticed any improvements over last three years (for elected members of the previous council)

·    How could we improve issue resolution?

9. Efficient delivery

From a theoretical perspective, one of the purposes of establishing a CCO is to bring commercial discipline to service delivery, which could be expected to reduce costs.

The Auckland Council CCO structure has also facilitated tax arrangements which benefit Auckland ratepayers and water users, as tax payable by Ports of Auckland has been offset against Watercare’s tax losses.

On the other hand, having activities within CCOs can have additional costs such as:

· Director fees and other costs associated with supporting board governance.

· Activities that would not be liable for tax within council are now within tax-paying entities^{^[5]} (for example if Waterfront Auckland was to make a profit it would be liable to pay tax).

· The costs of interaction between CCOs and the council, known as ‘transaction costs’ are higher than they would be if the same services were delivered by council departments.

· As noted in the previous section, there may be some duplication which is inefficient. While the previous section focused on duplication and overlap with respect to activities and functions, there is also duplication in corporate structure. The council has shared service agreements with all CCOs but there may be potential to achieve more efficiencies.

The CCO review will need to consider whether there are further opportunities to reduce costs by ensuring that the Council-CCO group structure is operating as efficiently as possible.

· In your view are there any obvious opportunities for cost savings from the CCO review? If so what are these?

Appendix – Individual CCO Discussion

ACPL

Purpose at establishment

ACPL was established primarily to manage the council’s commercial property portfolio. The portfolio comprises property that is not currently used for council service delivery or infrastructure. ACPL’s intended role was to manage the property within the portfolio to maximise returns until the property was needed for council purposes. ACPL was also expected to take a role in disposals and acquisitions for the council, Auckland Transport and other designated CCOs. The order in council establishing ACPL anticipated that ACPL would play a role in attracting private sector partners for Auckland Council property projects.

ACPL was structured so that it did not own the assets that it manages.

Order in council

Auckland Council Property Limited was established with the following objectives:

· Ensuring the efficient use of capital in respect of property activities in which ACPL is involved

· Obtaining an appropriate return on property under ACPL’s management

· Attracting private sector collaboration in Auckland Council-initiated property projects

Current role compared with intended role

ACPL’s current role is broadly consistent with its intended role. ACPL has had a development facilitation role from the outset, taking on responsibility for three legacy projects. These were New Lynn Merchant Quarter, which has been completed; Ormiston Town Centre, which is in the planning stages; and Hobsonville Precinct.

ACPL now has a broader role in identifying and scoping place shaping and housing development opportunities, as well as undertaking specific development projects on behalf of the Auckland Council. This part of ACPL’s business is still at an early stage, and some consideration may need to be given to the extent of ACPL’s role in property development.

ACPL also provides advice to the council in relation to its planning strategies (such as the unitary plan) and in relation to specific precincts. In doing so, ACPL uses its private sector/developer connections to inform its advice.

· How are local communities affected by the activities of ACPL?

· Are there any issues or opportunities relating to ACPL that you would like to see the CCO review consider?

Waitematā Local Board

08 April 2014

Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2014/06598

Executive Summary

Providing the Chair with an opportunity to update the local board and community on the projects and issues he and the Waitemata Local Board have been involved with since the last meeting.

Portfolios

Board Chair: Governance, Local and Civic Leadership, Board Strategy, Policy and Planning Leadership

Portfolios: Arts, Culture & Events (lead), Parks & Open Spaces (lead)

Positions: Waterfront Liaison, Heart of the City, Auckland City Centre Advisory Board

Committees: Finance and Grants, Central Facility Partnerships (chair)

Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

(a) That the Chairperson’s Report be received.

(b) That the Waitemata Local Board consider its position on any matter raised within this report.

Discussion

Activities undertaken from 3 to 30 March 2014

This report covers activities undertaken during the period from Monday 3 March 2014 to Sunday, 30 March 2014.

Highlighted activities, projects and issues

There are some specific activities, projects and issues that I wish to highlight; some for board members’ interest and as appropriate, some for decision.

1 Introduction

This is fourth monthly business meeting of the 2013-16 triennial of the second Waitemata Local Board of Auckland Council.

The last month has once again been a very busy period for the Board, with priority being given to hearing local submissions on Council’s 2014/15 Annual Plan and the 2014/15 Local Board Agreement and finalising the draft Karangahape Road and Newton Precinct Plans following public consultations last month. During this period, Board members continued to progress Local Board Plan priorities and Local Board Agreement local projects and community concerns in their respective portfolio areas, LIPs proposals, residents, business association and community advocacy, providing input to regional policies, plans and strategies in workshops and briefings, providing input into resource and landowner consent matters, and responding to constituent and media enquiries.

2 Residents and Ratepayers’ Concerns/Issues:

· Request for footpath in Point Erin Park. Original request lodged in May 2013 with the Auckland Council call centre. Chair looking into who dealt with the original request. To be raised at the next parks portfolio monthly meeting.

· Freeman's Bay Residents Association (FBRA) raised concerns about zoning for the Housing New Zealand Complex at Spring Street in Freemans Bay. The Chair met with FBRA on site twice, along with Cr Lee and is working through the issues.

· Westmere resident concerned about an issue regarding a Winsomere Crescent boat ramp and the proposed Weona walkway. Also concerned about privacy and security issues. The Chair is looking into this matter further.

· Enquiry seeking guidance regarding Hawkes Sea Scout lease and its issues. The matter sits with lease monitoring and compliance and has been forwarded to relevant officer. Chair has responded.

· Complaint received about tree branches of old Pohutukawa in Symonds Street Cemetery obstructing footpath. Service request has been lodged for investigation and potentially pruning.

· The board was copied into a complaint regarding traffic control outside Richmond Rd Primary School. Deputy Chair and Transport Portfolio holder has responded.

· The board received a follow up email to an ongoing complaint regarding the state of the footpaths in Cox’s Bay Reserve. There is ongoing work to resolve the Greenways route to Richmond Rd and the parks team will investigate the other areas as a priority.

· Complaint received about the upkeep and state of Brown Reserve in Ponsonby. The Park Ranger has confirmed that there are some plans already underway to improve the Reserve – all works are expected to be completed by June this year.

· The Chair received a complaint about Costley Park Playground and that the “improvements” have created an inaccessible playground. The Chair is investigating with the Parks team. A response has been sent advising the current works as temporary and interim pending upgrade.

3 Shared Governance Engagement

3.1 Engagement with Governing Body

Engagements with the Governing Body this period have included:

· Chair’s attendance at Regional, Strategy & Policy Committee, Reception Lounge, Town Hall, 6 March 2014 to discuss confidential item on Station Square Access.

4 Board Strategies, Policy and Planning Update

4.1 Local Board Chairs’ Forum

The regular Local Board Chairs’ Forum is held on the third Monday of every month. All Board members receive the agenda and the action points from the previous meeting when Chairs receive this information.

The last meeting was held on 24 March 2014. Topics covered included:

· Road naming policy. Pre-approval of road names delegated to officers rejected

· Heritage assessments and local board input

· Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan, Request for deferral of adoption of draft to allow for more robust engagement with Boards

· Introduction to General Counsel, Katherine Anderson

· ATEED, update

· Accessing and handling of confidential information

· Varying fees for use of facilities across local board areas

· Allocation of local board members as hearings commissioners, update

Attached and marked as Attachment A are the action points from the meeting.

4.2 K Road and Newton Precinct Plans

Exciting new plans are being created for the Karangahape Road and Newton areas.

Waitematā Local Board is developing the plans to provide a vision and strategy for the future of the areas over the next 30 years, including development of streetscapes and protection of valuable heritage features.

The plans will seek to take advantage of the changes that the proposed City Rail Link stations will bring and will also look at developing the business environment.

From Our Auckland in April: "The K' Rd and Newton areas are some of the most vibrant and diverse in Auckland," says local board chair Shale Chambers. "They are important locally and even nationally, especially now given the proposed City Rail Link stations."

Vernon Tava and Shale Chambers have been leading the K Road Plan, and Christopher Demspey and Rob Thomas the Newton Plan.

Visit our Have your say page between 10 April and 14 May to read the draft plans and give feedback.

You can also find out more at a public drop-in session:

· Wednesday 16 Apr, 4pm-7pm, Dalmatian Hall, 10 New North Road, Eden Terrace

· Monday 28 Apr, 11am-2pm, Dalmatian Hall, 10 New North Road, Eden Terrace

· Thursday 1 May, 6pm-9pm, St Kevin's Arcade, Karangahape Road

· Monday 5 May, 11am-2pm, Methodist Church, Pitt Street

The Plans are scheduled for completion by the end of June 2014.

4.3 Local Board Agreement 2014/15

1,967 submissions were received on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. Submissions that cover both regional and local content were to be heard at local board hearings, with at least the ward councilor(s) present to hear regional content. For the Waitematā Local Board, there were a total of 96 submissions, with 23 submitters requesting to be heard. The Board heard submissions on the draft 2014/15 Waitemata Local board Agreement, as part of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 on 18 March 2014. The Board was joined on the Annual Plan Hearings by Deputy Mayor, Penny Hulse and Councillor Chris Darby and it was great to have them as part of our Hearings Panel. 11 submitters presented in person.

The draft Waitematā Local Board Agreement aims to maintain the momentum of the past three years while delivering great projects and services for our local communities.

We will be working within the following priority areas.

· A distinctive, high-quality built environment that embraces its heritage and adheres to principles of good urban design

· Connected, healthy transport options that are people-focused, and provide the best outcomes for our communities and natural environments

· Strong, vibrant, engaged communities that address the varying needs of community members, and celebrate and showcase our area’s diversity

· Places for people, such as parks and community facilities, which are well-maintained and can adapt to meet the changing needs of our population

· An innovative economic hub that supports a sustainable, resilient and efficient economy. We will work with local businesses and business associations, and support social enterprise and an eco-economy

· Respecting and enhancing natural environments as part of our contribution towards making Auckland an eco-city

Areas of consultation

Proposed budget changes

The Waitematā Local Board proposed three budget changes to the 2014/2015 budget:

· increasing the operating expenditure budgets for local improvement projects. We will achieve this by reducing the fruit tree planting budget, as additional planting sites have not been identified

· creating new project budgets to support playground upgrades

· using discretionary funds to create a development plan for Western Park.

· Of the submitters that responded to these questions, the majority were supportive of all proposed budget changes

Proposed key advocacy areas

We will advocate local issues to the governing body, including:

· prioritising the creation of a Waitematā local area plan with significant community input. Local area plans are guided by the Auckland Plan and local aspirations and provide a 30-year vision for development projects and infrastructure needs, for example, the size and function of town centres, transport routes, heritage improvements and recognition, landmarks, and natural features including open space

· re-prioritising the transport budget to active (walking and cycling) transport

· directing Auckland Transport to incorporate the Congestion Free Network into the Integrated Transport Plan

· securing a regional greenways budget in the transport budget

· ensuring that Q Theatre is funded as a sustainable arts facility recognising its value to the Auckland arts community

· ensuring the restoration and protection of the St James Theatre

2014/2015 key initiatives:

· completing the redevelopment of Pioneer Women’s Hall

· upgrading Myers Park

· establishing a resource recovery centre to help reduce waste and re-use objects

· constructing the coastal walkway from Meola Reef to Hobson Bay

· engaging with and delivering projects for young people

· completing the Ponsonby Road Masterplan

· continuing our commitment to becoming an accessible area

· providing grants and support for community, arts and sporting groups, and local events

· celebrating our heritage with a project that involves marking the city’s original coastline

The Board’s deliberations meeting on the Local Board Agreement is this month’s monthly meeting. The final Agreement will be adopted at the June monthly meeting.

4.4 Local Board Plan 2014-17

The Board is working on our next three-year local board plan. The Local Board Plan will reflect the aspirations of our community and set our strategic direction for the next three years and beyond. So that the plan reflects the needs and aspirations of our community, we wanted to know what’s important, what services people think we should provide and what projects we should focus on. This feedback was due by 31 March 2014.

The Board has the following proposed outcomes:

A distinctive, high-quality built environment that embraces our heritage

We will protect and promote our heritage and character, and help to create an urban environment that is sustainable and adheres to the principles of good urban design. We support planning for growth, and housing that provides choice and is affordable

Connected, healthy transport choices

We will advocate for pedestrian and cycling safety, quality street design, effective parking management and for public transport that is easy to access, frequent, rapid, affordable, comfortable and integrated. We are investing in greenways, upgraded streetscapes, bike parking and wayfinding.

An innovative economic hub

We are committed to a local economic development plan for the city fringe, delivered with the support of our business associations, and a people-focused city centre connected to the waterfront. We support social enterprise, the learning quarter, centres of innovation and the development of an eco-economy.

Respecting and enhancing the natural environment

We are committed to the establishment of a community-led resource recovery centre, on-going ecological restoration and a localised plan to cut carbon emissions. We support community gardens, storm water upgrades and providing water fountains in our parks.

Quality places created for people to use and enjoy

We will enhance our public places, parks and community facilities, to meet the changing needs of our population. We are committed to the redevelopment of Myers Park, Symonds Street cemetery restoration, Weona-Westmere coastal walkway and the upgrade of Pioneer Womens’ Hall

Strong communities that are inclusive, vibrant and engaged

We are committed to being an accessible Board area and meeting the needs of our diverse communities. We support community, arts, sporting groups and local events through grants and partnerships. We are committed to working with ManaWhenua, community engagement and supporting initiatives that contribute to community well- being.

The board is presently considering all feedback as we develop our local board plan. The draft local board plan is to be ready by May, and will be open for formal consultation in June 2014 following adoption at the June monthly meeting.

The final plan is set to be adopted by 31 October 2014.

5 Project Updates

6 Portfolio Updates

Arts, Culture & Events

6.1 Events

Events sub-Portfolio - ATEED - bi- monthly meeting met on 19 March 2014.

Events sub-portfolio Portfolio – Auckland Council monthly meeting met on 19 March 2014

6.1.1 Events Consultation

The Waitemata Local Board based events that Council Events or ATEED have consulted the local board on, for events occurring from March 2014 on are attached and marked as Attachment B.

6.1.2 Local Events

After canvassing the 2013 events, the Portfolio recommends not proceeding with a Christmas by Candlelight in Western Park event in 2014, due to attendance numbers, and the existence of Christmas in the Park for locals. The Portfolio recommends proceeding with one Movie in Park, not over a long weekend, and in February in Grey Lynn Park in 2015.

A series of meetings with the Grey Lynn Park Festival Trust, Art in the Dark, Festival Italiano, Art Week, and Franklin Road lights organisers to discuss the merits of a multi year commitment and partnership with their respective events and assistance required has been arranged over April.

6.1.3 Board supported Events

There were no Local Board supported or delivered events in this period, but March was again a very busy period for regionally or ATEED delivered and supported events, with a full programme of events.

6.2 Arts & Culture

The Arts & Culture sub-Portfolio met on 27 March 2014

6.2.1 New Public Art

Our Auckland ‘Gem of the Month’ for April

“Creating a culturally rich and creative Auckland is part of the Auckland Plan's vision to be the world's most liveable city.

Two new public artworks in the Waitematā Local Board area are contributing to this vision, adding colour and vibrancy to our built environment.

Travellers using Newmarket Train Station's Remuera Road entrance pass Ándale, Ándale, a wall of glittering floral panels by Reuben Paterson.

The design draws on traditional Māori and Scottish textile patterns, a nod to Newmarket's status as a fashion retail hub.

A short train journey away, on Fort Lane near Britomart, is Eyelight Lane by David Svensson - an installation of neon lights criss-crossing the building facades.

Best viewed after dark, Eyelight Lane reflects the renewed energy of Fort Lane since its transformation to a pedestrian-focused shared space.”

6.2.2 Pop

What is Pop?

Pop is a Waitemata Local Board initiated and funded project. Pop’s manifesto is to create happenings, things, spectacles, ideas, performances, connections and experiences in neighbourhoods. Pop exists to make fun, unite strangers, fuse creativity and create an instant community on every street corner. Some of these projects are annual, some monthly, others infrequent and anytime; all are designed to create a crowd, and for Aucklanders to enjoy each other and the moment.

Pop will generate a sense of delight, play and discovery, through a series of arts, culture and innovative community engagement projects within the Waitematā Local Board area that achieve memorable connections to places or peoples.

Why Pop?

The Waitematā Local Board wants to use creative experiences to challenge how Aucklanders perceive the places in which they live and the people with whom they live. The board can deliver many positive social outcomes by using creativity as a vehicle through which the Waitematā area becomes a safer, happier and more connected place to live, work and play.

Who created Pop?

A collective of artists and community partners have been engaged to generate project ideas and connect all the projects together under one narrative. The artists developed Pop. To start, Pop projects use gardens as a social object to create a connected ‘park’ within Waitematā, linking sites and communities together in an engaging, creative and profound way.

Is Pop art?

Pop is social practice art which fundamentally engages communities and is often about place and space. The art is typically realised using media such as performance, social activism or the mobilisation of communities towards a common goal.

This type of art practice is described by a number of different terms including participatory, interventionist, relational or collaborative art. The art is co-created through collaborations with artists, individuals, communities and/or institutions and focuses on interactions between people, place and social systems. It often inspires debate or catalyses social exchange.

Social practice art epitomises the democratisation of art: not only can everyone access and participate in it but everyone can help create the work itself.

How does Pop create community?

Pop creates community through the medium of art. People meet in creative spaces and interact, learn, play and are inspired. They will meet neighbours, residents and visitors while experiencing the city in new ways.

When is Pop?

Pop projects started to reveal themselves across the Waitematā Local Board area from late March to the end of June 2014

01 Walking In Trees

Richard Orjis, 25 April – 4 May

Project description

Experience Auckland’s park life as never before with a unique artistic undertaking. Walking in Trees reconnects urban dwellers with the natural world from a bee and birds perspective via a specially constructed staircase that wraps around a majestic Moreton Bay Fig tree, allowing Aucklanders to walk a magical sub canopy.

Artist description

Richard Orjis is multi-media artist living and working in Auckland. Orjis’ work explores our complex relationship with nature, interconnection, beauty and cyclical happenings. Orjis had exhibited extensively in New Zealand, North America and Europe.

02 The Park

Taarati Taiaroa Sarah Smuts-Kennedy, and You, Saturday 1 April – Saturday 3 May

Project Description

The Park is a conceptual artwork designed, planted, and then plotted on a map via public

participation through the website maketthepark.com, that visualises the territory traversed by bees as they travel from six central beehives to pollen hotels. Want to get involved? Together we can Make The Park!

About the artists

Auckland based artists Taarati Taiaroa and Sarah Smuts-Kennedy have come together for this collaboration due to a shared interest in public space, social sculpture, and environmental histories.

03 The Roots: Pollinate

The ROOTS, Saturday 26 April – Saturday 4 May

Project description

This collaborative project sees The ROOTS collective work with year 12 and 13 students from the Waitematā area in the design and building of 20 ‘pollen hotels’, physical sites where bees collect and process pollen. You are invited to engage in the creative experimentation as The ROOTS pollinate the city!

Artist description

The ROOTS are creative entrepreneurs who design and produce transformative and inspirational projects that link sustainability, design and community empowerment. Often working closely with young people and tertiary students, The ROOTS’ projects have created many opportunities for creativity and work experience in the Auckland area since their inception in 2012.

04 Indoor Out

White Face Crew, Saturday Monday 9 - Tuesday 27 May

Dates

Britomart & Newmarket Train Stations, 7 – 9.30am and 3 – 7pm daily

Description

With their unique style of physical comedy White Face Crew are here to enliven your train trip! Transporting the outdoors in and taking you on a journey of interactive fun with pop-up performances & roving tomfoolery. Look out for White Face Crew this June at Britomart and Newmarket Train Stations.

About the artist

White Face Crew are an innovative performance group that create original hybrid performance works with roots in physical theatre, clowning, costume, character, improvisation, contemporary dance and hip-hop. Featuring New Zealand’s finest professional performers, White Face Crew include internationally renowned dancers Justin Haiu and Tupua Tigafua and acclaimed actor Jarod Rawiri.

Waitemata Local Board members Shale Chambers, Deborah Yates, Vernon Tava and Pippa Coom with Mayor, Len Brown and Esther Davis celebrating Neighbours Day and the new

Pop projects initiative on Saturday

05 Grow In The City

Waitemata Residents

Neighbours Day in Myers Park, 29 March: 10.00am – 2.00pm

Description

Grow In The City is here to transform the concrete jungle into an urban garden and you’re invited! With children’s events, gardening experts, pop-up gardens, free seeds to take-away, an ideas market to browse and a wishing tree where your children’s suggestions for neighbourhood improvement can take root and grow.

06 Hikoi

Host Tribe Native Walks of Auckland

Saturday 10 May – Saturday 21 June

Description

The Hikoi is a guided walk through Maori history and the continuum of connections to our present. Led by Prince Davis, the Hikoi traverses Tokiwhatinui (Auckland Domain) and (Waiorea) Western Springs Park, where the pace is set by the group’s enquiries of the places and spaces encountered. Pack your curiosity.

About the artist

Host Tribe Native Walks of Auckland share cultural history and heritage through tribal stories and tradition. The Hikoi are divised and guided by Prince Davis, a direct descendant of the Great Chief Te Kawau, of Tamaki, Ngati Whatua, Host Tribe of Auckland City. Prince is accompanied by his wife Kathy.

07 The Music Box

Auckland University School of Music

Albert Park Rotunda

Wednesday 7 May - Thursday 29 May, 12.30 – 1.30pm

Description

This autumn the sound of Auckland’s most talented young musicians fills Albert Park as students from University of Auckland’s School Of Music take residency in the Rotunda. Discover stars of the future as you or enjoy a midday break, make sure you block The Music Box in to your diary!

About the artist

Whether your ambition is to become an orchestral performer or sound engineer NICAI’s School of Music provides the ideal environment to help develop your potential. Graduates include sopranos Margaret Medlyn and Morag Atchison, concert pianist John Chen, flautist Alexa Still, and composers Gillian Whitehead, Eve de Castro-Robinson and John Rimmer.

08 Pasture Paintings

1 April – on going

Project description

Pasture Paintings are geometric forms created from a palette of pollen rich pasture. Occupying verges at the edge of The Park these pasture paintings act as pollen hotels for six centrally located beehives. Pasture Paintings and The Roots: Pollinate are two models of pollen hotels. Create your own pollen hotel.

Artist description

Auckland based artists Taarati Taiaroa, Sarah Smuts-Kennedy and Richard Orjis have come

together for this project due to a shared interest in public space, social sculpture, and environmental histories.

6.3 Parks & Open Spaces

The Parks & Open Space Portfolio met on 11 March 2014.

6.3.1 Playground and Parks upgrades

The Myers Park upgrade, including new playground, significant entranceway upgrades, and park safety lighting and CCTV improvements is to commence in May. Myers Park is but one of a series of significant playground and parks improvements that we will see roll out in our community this year and beyond.

The playground and toilet facilities in Western Park and Costley Reserve’s playground in Freemans Bay, Cox’s Bay Reserve’s pathways, the playgrounds in Tole Reserve in Ponsonby, Home Street Reserve in Arch Hill, and Salisbury Reserve in Herne Bay, and both playgrounds in Grey Lynn Park, including the return of the flying fox, are all scheduled for replacement and in many cases improvement as part of the Board’s wider assessment of community needs in those parks as funds permit.

The Board will be determining its priorities on these many projects as part of a 5 playgrounds review (Western Park, Grey Lynn Park, Tole Reserve, Salisbury Reserve) and separate Costley Reserve and Home Street reserve reviews all at concept stage. Western Park and Grey Lynn Park are also part of larger whole of park reviews leading to a development plan for Westenr Plan and an updated development plan for Grey Lynn Park. Both will be subject to wider public consultation. Budget provision for some works will be provided for as part of the 2014/15 Local board Agreement.

6.4 Auckland City Centre Advisory Board (formerly CBD Advisory Board)

The Board last met on Wednesday, 26 March 2014, with the topics covered being as follows:

· Terms of Reference

· Allocation of City Centre Targeted Rate Revenue

· Introduction - City Centre Integration Group

· CBD Targeted rate funded projects - Maintenance standards

· PENAP (Personal Exposure to Noise and Air Pollution) report

There was no February Projects Progress Report this month.

Dr Lucy Baragwanath, Strategic Relationships Advisor, Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Strategic Engagement) University of Auckland was elected the new Chair, replacing Connal Townsend, Chief Executive, Property Council of NZ after 10 years in the role.

The Board supported, subject to scoping, the currently unallocated $23.3m targeted rate revenue being applied to the following project not impacted the CRL project:

· $1m is allocated to Beach Road Public Space upgrade

· $2.7 m is allocated to Freyberg Square Upgrade

· $2m is allocated to Myers Park underpass and link to Aotea Square

· $1m is allocated to development and implementation of city centre way finding strategy

· $15.6m is allocated to upgrade of the High Street Precinct area

· $1m is allocated to K’ Rd speed calming and pedestrian-friendly projects as per the outcomes of the Karangahape Road Plan.

The K’Rd proposal was as a result of my motion, and was carved out of an additional $1m originally proposed for the High Street project, and replaces the Beresford Square upgrade impacted by proposed CRL works.

Council staff are to report to the May 2014 meeting with more detail of the above projects, including outcomes, timings, costs and strategy for delivery.

7 In the Press Update

Some of the activities from the last meeting of local Board activities were as follows:

7.1 Media Releases

There were no media releases in this period.

· Our Auckland, April Waitemata & Gulf edition – “Future of the city fringe”. Board’s K Road and Newton Precinct Plans feature.

· Our Auckland, April all editions - “Gem of the month: Auckland’s new public artworks” Board reference to new Newmarket and Fort Lane artwroks.

7.2 Community Leadership

· Ponsonby News, February edition – “The Draft Ponsonby Road Master Plan”. Board Ponsonby Master Plan feature with graphics by Deputy Chair, Pippa Coom.

· Ponsonby News, April edition – “Chair’s Waitemata Local Board Report”. Chair, Board, monthly report.

A copy is attached and marked as Attachment C.

· The Hobson, April 2014 edition – ““Planning for the Future”, Chair’s monthly report.

A copy is attached and marked as Attachment D.

· Auckland City Harbour News, Central Leader, 26 March 2014 – “Highs and lows of legal highs debate”. Board Chair feasture piture and quotes. “No thanks: Waitemata Local Board chairman, Shale Chambers says legal high products are a concern around Myers Park. “Legal Highs are a “growing concern”. There are currently “social issues” with people using legal highs at Myers Park, he says. “We’re not talking homeless here, we’re talking about young people, mainly men, congregating at Myers Park on legal highs causing social issues. They certainly need controlling and restricting at an appropriate level, just like alcohol and prostitution.”

7.3 Parks & Open Spaces

· Auckland City Harbour News, 7 March 2014 – “Events future in doubt”. Board Chair photo and Taste feature, front page. “We are not pushing for Taste not to happen but the issue is whether Victoria Park is the place for it”.

· Auckland City Harbour News, 14 March 2014 – “Gifted treasures few get to see. Bruce Wilkinson collection, Albert Park feature. Board responsibility reference.

· Auckland City Harbour News, 14 March 2014 – “New guidelines spell farewell to Taste event”. Taste post Board decision on events protocols feature, front page. Board member Moyle quotes, Member Thomas and Board references.

7.4 Planning

· Auckland City Harbour News, 5 March 2014 – “Neighbours in support”. Spring St feature, Board member Dempsey quotes. “The problem we had is that we know Housing New Zealand will want to intensify it in some manner”.

8 Meetings/Events

In addition to responsibilities in constituency work and community engagement, and any matters noted above, I have undertaken the following Portfolio or Board Chair responsibilities:

8.1 Community & Civic Leadership

Attended:

· Pt Resolution Masterplan, Stakeholder Meeting, 4 March 2014

· Meeting 2 of Project Working Group for SkyPath, Council building at 135 Albert St, 6 March 2014

· Regional, Strategy & Policy Committee, Reception Lounge, Town Hall, 6 March 2014

· Mayoral walkabout at Pasifika Festival 2014, Western Springs Park, 8 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Business Meeting, Grey Lynn Community Centre, 11 March 2014

The Olympic Pool in Newmarket has just celebrated its first 75 years, and over 20 years since Council and the Olympic Pools Fitness Centre Ltd redeveloped the pools as a successful partnership. At the 75th celebrations on 12 March were the pool directors, including John Fay, Waitemata Local Board Chair Shale Chambers, who spoke on behalf of Council with all Board members in attendance, swimming legend Tessa Duder and three special guests - Philippa Gould, who broke world records in the pool in 1957, and Winkie Ashby and Norma Williams, who both swam in the Empire Games winning a silver medal in the relay team. A special evening. Congratulations Olympic Pool on reaching 75 years

· Speaker at the Olympic Pool 75th Jubilee, representing Auckland council. The Newmarket Olympic Pool, 77 Broadway, 12 March 2014.

· Resource Recovery Centre joint meeting - Albert-Eden/Puketapapa/Waitemata, Albert-Eden Local Board Office, 17 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Annual Plan Hearing, Waitemata Local Board Office, Level 2, 35 Graham St, 18 March 2014

· Local Boards Funding Policy - Local Boards PWP members meeting, Civic building, 20 March 2014

· Freemans Bay Residents Assn, 21 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Grants Committee, 24 March 2014

· Local Board Chairs Forum meeting, Civic Building, 24 March 2014

· Auckland Domain Master Plan Panel discussion, Civic Ground floor, 25 March 2014

· Meeting with K Rd Business Association to discuss K Rd Draft Plan, 26 March 2014

8.2 Board Leadership

Attended:

· Briefing on Station Square, 3 March 2014

· Fortnightly Communications catch-up, 3 March 2014

· Weekly update with Relationship Manager, 3 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Workshop: Alcohol Controls & Air Quality, Waste services to apartments, units and other intensive housing, LB work programme, Maori Responsiveness Framework, Local Board Plan - Environmental projects, 4 March 2014

· Briefing on Greenways, 5 March 2014

· City Transformation & Waitemata Local Board Chair monthly catch-up, 5 March 2014

· Meeting with Parks to discuss scope for Herne Bay Walkway Project, 5 March 2014

· Bruce Wilkinson Collection with Harbour City News, Caretakers Cottage, Albert Park, 6 March 2014

· Weekly update with Relationship Manager, 10 March 2014

· Meeting with NZ Historic Places Trust re Highwic House, Waitemata Local Board Office, 10 March 2014

· Parks Portfolio Monthly Meeting, 11 March 2014

· K Rd and Newton Precinct Plans, 12 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Workshop: New North Road, Ponsonby Road Masterplan, Local Boards Funding Policy, Safe Routes design,13 March 2014

· Meeting to discuss Local Board Plan,14 March 2014

· Chairs catch up, Tuihana Cafe, Mt Eden,17 March 2014

· Fortnightly Communications catch-up, 17 March 2014

· Weekly update with Relationship Manager, 17 March 2014

· Events Portfolio - ATEED - bi- monthly meeting, 19 March 2014

· Events Portfolio - AC - monthly meeting, 19 March 2014

· Meeting to discuss Freyberg Square - City Transformation, 19 March 2014

· Briefing: Local Economic Overview for Waitemata by Economic Development, 19 March 2014

· Community Facilities Fees & Charges, 20 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Workshop: Newton and K'Rd Precinct Plans, Annual Plan and Community Outcomes, CCO Review, 25 March 2014

· Meeting to discuss the community facility work programme, 25 March 2014

· Waitemata Bundled Playgrounds Presentation, 25 March 2014

· Waitemata Local Board Workshop: Feedback on SHAs Tranche 3, 25 March 2014

· Weekly update with Relationship Manager, 27 March 2014

· Catch-up with Communications Advisor, 27 March 2014

· Arts and Culture Monthly Portfolio Meeting, 27 March 2014

· Finance Committee & LIPs Portfolio Meeting and discussion on Funding Policy, 27 March 2014

8.3 Events

Attended:

· BREL (Silo Theatre), Auckland Town Hall, 4 March 2014

· Angels in America (Silo Theatre) - Part 1, Q Theatre, 27 March 2014

· Don Quixote, Imperial Russian Ballet (Regional Facilities) - ASB Theatre, 29 March 2014

· POP In and Get Growing as part of Neighbours Day, Myers Park, 29 March 2014

8.4 City Centre Economic Development

(Heart of the City & Auckland City Centre Advisory Board)

Attended:

· HOTCITY Committee Meeting, 26 Lorne St, Auckland, 12 March 2014

· CBD Advisory Board meeting, Reception Lounge, Town Hall, 26 March 2014

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Chair's Forum March Meeting Action Point	289
b View	Local Board Events consulted on from March 2014	295
c View	Ponsonby News, "Chair's Waitemata Local Board Report" - April 2014	299
d View	The Hobson, Chair's April Local Board Column	301

Signatories

Author

Shale Chambers, Chairperson, Waitemata Local Board

Alcohol control	Outcome of review (including site visit)
Auckland Zoo	Recommend to retain
Awatea Reserve	Recommend to allow to lapse
Ayr Reserve	Recommend to allow to lapse
Salisbury Reserve	Recommend to allow to lapse
Fanshawe Street On-ramp Reserve	Recommend to allow to lapse
Meola Reef Reserve	Recommend to allow to lapse

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

Chairperson	Shale Chambers
Deputy Chairperson	Pippa Coom
Members	Christopher Dempsey
	Greg Moyle
	Vernon Tava
	Rob Thomas
	Deborah Yates

Authors	Desiree Tukutama - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

Authors	Harriet Kennedy - Local Board Advisor Waiheke
Authorisers	Judith Webster - Relationship Manager