Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

1 Welcome

Chairperson IM Fordham will welcome everyone in attendance. Member JC Cleave will lead a karakia.

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 8 October 2014, as a true and correct record, subject to the following amendment to item 18, resolution number GBI/2014/115, c) Requests that the board be included in the 2015 review programme of the local dog access review as previously requested in the last electoral term as follows:

c) Requests that the board be included in the 2015/16 review programme of the local dog access review as previously requested in the last electoral term.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

11 Notices of Motion

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

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards
For the quarter - 1 July to 30 September 2014

File No.: CP2014/25276

Executive summary

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport in the three months July – September 2014 and the planned activities anticipated to be undertaken in the three months October – December 2014.

2. Attachments include:

A – Auckland Transport activities

B – Travelwise Schools activities

C – Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee

D – Report against local board advocacy issues

E – Report on the status of the local board’s projects under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Recommendation/s

a) That the Auckland Transport Quarterly Report be received.

Significant activities during the period under review

Key Agency Initiatives

East West Connections

3. Auckland Transport (AT) and the NZ Transport Agency have completed an indicative business case that identified a short list of options to address the transport issues in the Onehunga-Penrose area. Improvements were also identified along the proposed bus route between Mangere, Otahuhu and Sylvia Park.

4. The assessment process to narrow down potential options included the outcomes of the July/August engagement as well as assessing factors such as transport performance; consentability; constructability; natural environment; public health and cultural heritage. The short list contains a range of low to high investment options for further investigation.

5. Public consultation on these short listed options commenced in October. This included public open days and workshops.

PT Development

Otahuhu Interchange

6. A civil enabling works package has gone to market to enable construction activities in December to capitalise on the scheduled Christmas Block of Line in the rail corridor.

7. The main works package is scheduled to go to market mid-December, with tenders closing end of January and award end of February 2015. Target completion for the interchange is end of September 2015. A public open day was held in Otahuhu Town Hall, attended by 225 people including Local Board members; feedback was very positive. Hui with local mana whenua are on-going with six having been completed to date.

City Rail Link

8. Registrations of interest (ROI) by the construction industry for the Enabling Works design work for the downtown section of the City Rail Link, from Britomart through Queen, Customs and Albert Streets to Wyndham Street were received and evaluated during August.

9. Following an evaluation process, Request for Proposal documentation for two enabling works contract packages were released to the ROI respondents in late August. A series of interface meetings are scheduled with respondents prior to receipt of proposals in November whereby a tender evaluation will be undertaken to procure the preferred tenderer. A project update was provided to manu whenua groups (seven iwi represented) mainly focussing on stormwater mitigation issues.

EMU Procurement

10. There are now 27 units in NZ with 17 units in service. Manukau peak services began mid-September. Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) testing on the Western line to Swanson will begin on Monday 29 September. Manufacture and delivery is on programme.

PT Operations

Bus Improvements

11. An on-going programme of bus timetable adjustments, in partnership with AT service providers, continued this year to ensure published timetables more closely reflect actual bus running times. This is driving a significant improvement in bus service reliability, particularly for North Star, Go West, Waka Pacific and Metrolink Outer with implementation scheduled across the entire bus network by September 2014.

12. On-time performance across the entire bus network rose to 91.45% for September and has remained over 90% during the quarter.

13. NZ Bus operated 91.7% of its bus services on time, which is a 10% increase on the previous 12 months. Go West showed the largest improvement with an 11% increase in punctuality since December. On-time performance improved by 5% after delivering a new customer value proposition of services from 7am to 7pm, 7 days a week on 3 August in the west (Green Bay/Titirangi).

14. On time performance for the Northern Express Service also continued to operate at a very high level during August delivering 98.7% and with most of September operating at 99.4%.

Rail Improvements

15. Rail patronage for the 12 months to September 2014 was more than 11.8 million; an increase of 27% on the previous year and a new record for heavy rail in the Auckland region. Rail patronage for the first quarter 2014 was 15% above the same period in 2013.

16. Rail service punctuality was stable at 87.7% for the 12 months to September 2014; an improvement from 86.3% the previous year. This was achieved through a period of operational change to new systems following the introduction of EMUs that have presented some challenges. For the month of August 2014, punctuality was 90.5% - the first month for at least ten years that performance exceeded 90% outside holiday periods.

17. Rail station security was upgraded from May 2014 and a strategic review of rail safety, security and fare enforcement is underway.

Road Design and Development

Dominion Road

18. Construction on the cycle routes is proceeding with the project being close to 50% complete. Tenders for the main Dominion Road works have closed and evaluation is underway. The project has been expanded at the request of Watercare to include water main replacement in the three village centres.

Albany Highway

19. The contract for construction has been awarded to Fulton Hogan. Work will commence on site in November. The construction is expected to be completed early in 2017.

20. An open day will be held in October to give the local community the opportunity to meet the construction team and ask any questions they may have about the project before works begin. A communications and stakeholder management plan will be in place for the duration of the construction period.

Murphys Road

21. Construction of Flat Bush School Road and Murphys Road intersection upgrade is progressing and on track for completion by mid-December 2014. Design of the Murphy’s Road upgrade between Flat Bush School Road and Ormiston Road is on-going and programmed to finish by the end of December 2014.

AMETI

22. Construction of the new Te Horeta Road at Panmure is near complete. Pavement works and line marking were completed during the period and the final integration testing of tunnel systems is in progress. The road is scheduled to open on 2 November when critical activities on Mt Wellington Highway and at the adjacent NCI site are complete.

23. The new William Harvey Bridge footbridge is now fully operational. The upgrade of Van Damme’s Lagoon, NCI and Watercare works are ongoing.

24. Planning and design meetings were held to update Pakuranga town centre stakeholders on the design work for Pakuranga bus station and Reeves Road flyover. Feedback will assist to further develop the design.

Cycle Initiatives

25. The construction of Stage 1 (Churchill Street to Quay Street via Mahuhu Crescent and Tapora Street) was completed ahead of schedule and formally opened by the Prime Minister and the Mayor. A short safety video for cyclists has been produced http://youtu.be/fNlu7xaS2KA. Within a week it had been viewed more than 2,700 times on YouTube.

26. A survey to benchmark the number of cyclists is about to start and will be used to monitor usage. The design of Stage 2 that will make the link through to Britomart Place is progressing with the start of construction planned for early 2015.

27. A number of other cycle schemes are under construction including Portage Road (New Lynn), Swanson Rail Path and St George Street (Papatoetoe). Meanwhile the Spring Cycling Programme has commenced with a series of cycle training and safety events being held throughout the region.

Services

Public Transport ‘Give it a Go’ Scheme

28. Between Late May and the end of September AT has delivered the scheme through 18 businesses and personalised journey planning projects. Through the scheme, individuals have two weeks of commute travel.

29. Results indicate that 6 weeks after the start of the trial 52% are continuing to use public transport and after 8 weeks there is only a slight drop to 41%.

30. An evaluation survey is also undertaken as this allows participants to provide feedback on the service. There has been positive feedback, as shown in the quotes below:

· “Great idea – certainly surprised me how great public transport has become” ASB workplace survey

· “I had never taken public transport before the trial and now find that travelling by train is a lot less stressful than by road… …and thank you for offering the trial pass, you now have a passenger for life.” Health Alliance workplace survey

· “Using public transport was a lot better than I had expected. More trials like this should be done to convince others.” Sovereign workplace survey

Commute Businesses

31. Auckland Council senior management have approved the Auckland Council Travel Plan. A more detailed Action Plan is being co-developed for presentation to the Chief Planning Officer in early November for approval to proceed.

32. Commute awards recognised businesses achieving success in travel planning. The award winners have been promoted in business publications including Auckland Today. The award winners were:

Progress on Travel Plan – AECOM

Delivery of Commute Packages – Mahitahi Trust

Embedding sustainable transport into company practice – MRCagney.

Route Optimisation

33. The 2013 – 2014 Route Optimisation Programme has been primarily focused around the Auckland city centre, aiming to prioritise and optimise network performance for all modes as appropriate. The Programme made use of the detailed Network Operating Plan to translate strategic intent into operational priorities, for the various modes by time of day. Being the city centre, greater emphasis was placed on public transport and pedestrian performance, the latter being particularly noticeable during the day outside of peak periods. As a whole, route optimisation covered approximately 33 km, over 110 intersections.

Variable Message Signs (VMS)

34. Eight variable message signs (VMS) programmed for the 2013-14 year are now in place.

35. The signs are due for final hand-over to the Auckland Transport Operations Centre (ATOC) during the month of October, and will be available for use for incident management, planned events, multi-modal real time travel time information (including multi-modal travel time where relevant), and any messaging requirements.

Bus route improvements

36. The Operational Planning and Performance Teams have been assisting the Public Transport Operations team to identify and implement quick-win projects to improve the efficiency and reliability of the bus operations. Current projects include:

Route	Project Scope	Progress
Esmonde Road	Widening to extend bus lane	Resolution prepared, awaiting tree removal consent
Khyber Pass Road	Introduction of additional 90m of bus lane	Resolution prepared, awaiting Local Board approval
Khyber Pass Road	Crowhurst intersection bus priority upgrade	Resolution prepared, awaiting Local Board approval
Wellesley Street East	Bus lane pocket	Resolution prepared, awaiting Road Safety Audit sign off
Park Road	Investigation of southbound bus lane	Concept design complete, internal consultation to commerce shortly
Parnell Road	Investigation of bus lane	Concept development with consultants, due imminently

Urban KiwiRAP (International Road Assessment Programme) Update

37. A specialist engineering team completed vehicle-mounted video-mapping of 2,000 kilometres of the Auckland local road network in September as part of the Safer Journeys Urban KiwiRAP demonstration project. This project is a world first and the video footage will be analysed to establish road safety star ratings for the Auckland urban local road network that will be used to prioritise improvements on high-risk parts of the network.

Road Corridor Delivery

38. Overall operating expenditure is running ahead of budget due to the effects of the major storm event which struck Great Barrier Island in June, higher electricity costs and an increased spend on unsealed road maintenance.

39. Renewal expenditure is behind forecast but good progress has been made in making preparations for the upcoming construction season. The actual spend is consistent with the reduced level of funding now available for renewals.

Key Renewals

40. Construction of the Beach Road Cycleway was delivered by the Road Corridor Group and completed on time for the opening by the Prime Minister in August.

41. The design of the new box culvert is underway on Great Barrier Road with the intention of commencing physical works later this year. The existing steel plate was washed away in the storm event on 10 June 2014 and there is a temporary stream crossing in place until the works can be completed.

42. Chip sealing commenced in Franklin in August using Emulsion instead of cut-back bitumen. Emulsion can be sprayed in cooler weather, provides improved chip wetting and adhesion and is safer and more environmentally friendly than hot bitumen.

43. Repairs to the Maraetai Beach seawall were also completed in August. The seawall had been undermined by several major storms over the June/July period.

44. Streetlight improvements have been carried out on East Tamaki Road and on the cycle routes in the Dominion Road Corridor. The street lights in these cycle routes, located immediately to the East and West of Dominion Road, have been upgraded with LED Luminaires to improve safety.

Road Corridor Access

Corridor Access Request (CAR) Applications

45. There were 4,039 CAR applications approved during the first quarter, representing a 4.4% increase over the number of 3868 for the same period last year.

46. Monthly incremental increases of around 8% have been experienced since July with the major share of the increases being for minor works i.e. works in the footpath and berm area only.

Ultra-Fast Broadband Rollout

47. Overall forecast build starts have fallen below forecasts and the likelihood of a back ended build programme for the year has increased. Up to 30 cabinet areas appear to be at risk.

48. Currently for Year 4, 88 cabinet areas are in build, 43 are completed and 22 have moved into warranty.

Watercare Hunua 4 Bulk Watermain

49. As at the end of September 2014, 12.6 km of pipe has been laid at an average weekly rate of 48 metres and Watercare advise it is on target.

Watercare Pakuranga Rising Water Main

50. Work commenced in January on the construction of a new 0.9 metre diameter sanitary sewer rising main in the carriageway of Pakuranga Road and Lagoon Drive in the vicinity of the Panmure Bridge.

51. Progress at either end of the project site (Lagoon Drive and Pakuranga Road east of the Panmure Bridge) has been good and the positive temporary traffic management measures employed have enabled traffic to continue with only minimal delays.

Overweight Permits

52. There were 198 overweight permit applications processed in September. Of the 198 permit applications, 155 (78.3%) were processed within the target times and all applications were processed by the nominated travel start date.

53. The target timeframes for processing overweight permit applications are 3 days for KPI 2, single trip, multi travel and continuous renewal permits and 5 working days for KPI 3 continuous and area permits.

Parking and Enforcement

Parking machine replacement

54. The existing 922 Pay and Display machines installed in the greater Auckland area have reached their end of life and are due for replacement. Parking Services have conducted an on-going investigation into the developing technology associated with on-street parking. A paper has recently been prepared requesting the funding necessary for a technology upgrade and is planned to be presented to the AT Board at its November meeting.

55. The proposed new system incorporates the ‘pay by space’ mode with in-road sensors for each parking spot. Parking availability will be published on the internet. Once a parking space is occupied payment will be made at a nearby payment machine that will accept HOP cards, credit cards, text-a-park and cash. Smartphone payments will also be available with text reminders being sent when the time limit is due to expire. Additional topping up for extending parking will be available by either smartphone or at any other parking payment machine.

56. Enforcement of expired parking spaces will be managed from Parking Officers PDAs that will be able to communicate to a central system holding data on the parking status of the city’s precincts. Improved management information and remote tariff adjustments will be managed from the centralised system.

Auckland parking discussion document

57. There was significant interest in the parking discussion document, with AT receiving over 6,000 submissions. The submissions are still being analysed and themes collated. The next step will be to draw up a region-wide parking policy which will consider information from those submissions.

58. A report on key themes and possible policy responses is expected to be reported back to the AT Board in October. The detail of individual schemes will follow.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the first quarter (2014/15) ending 30 September 2014 and forward works programme for the second quarter (2014/15) ending 31 December 2014	13
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by Local Board	25
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions	27
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	29
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	31

Signatories

Authors	Various Auckland Transport authors
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Additional Information, to Review the Terms of the Renewal of Lease to the Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust, 80 Hector Sanderson Road, Claris, Great Barrier Island.

File No.: CP2014/24887

Purpose

1. This report provides additional information for the Great Barrier Local Board to review Resolution GB/2014/87, approving the final term of the lease to the Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust, to amend and approve the correct rent payable for the final term of the lease.

Executive summary

2. The Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust’s current lease was granted from 1 December 2002 for an initial period of five years with two further rights of renewal of five years each, until a final expiry on 30 November 2017.

3. Rent of $1.00 per annum plus GST was approved for the first five year term of the Trust’s lease. At the first renewal, from 1 December 2007, the rent was reviewed and increased to $500.00 per annum, in accord with the lease policy in place at that time.

4. On 11 September 2014 the Local Board received a report from Council staff recommending the final, five year renewal of the lease to the Trust, backdated from 1 December 2012. The report, in error, did not reference the previous rent increase to $500.00 plus GST per annum and recommended the renewal of the lease at $1.00 plus GST per annum. The recommendations were accepted by the local board (Attachment A).

5. This report recommends amending Resolution GBI/2014/87 to confirm the correct and current rent payable for the final term of the lease from 1 December 2012 until a final expiry on 30 November 2017

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board approves:

a) The amendment of a) ii) on Resolution number GBI/2014/87 from the Great Barrier Local Board Meeting on 11 September 2014.

b) The granting of a renewal of the lease to the Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust at 80 Hector Sanderson Road, Claris, Great Barrier Island on the following terms and conditions:

i) Term - 5 years commencing on 1 December 2012

ii) Rent - $500.00 plus GST per annum.

c) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the current lease agreement.

Comments

6. A report was presented to the Local Board on 11 September 2014 to consider the Trust’s final renewal of lease. The recommendations in the report recorded the Trust’s rent at $1.00 plus GST per annum, instead of the $500.00 plus GST per annum, currently being paid. This mistake was discovered after the local board’s meeting and the author of the report apologises for the error made.

7. Financial advice received from council staff has confirmed that a reduction in rent backdated to 1 December 2012 will directly affect the local board’s budget for the 2014/2015 year if the Board does not amend resolution GBI/2014/87, as rent paid since then would need to be refunded to the Trust.

8. 4.1 of the Trust’s lease agreement states-

That Council is entitled at its sole discretion to decide the policy from time to time as to the rent levels that will apply to space of the type that comprises the Premises.

9. The Community Occupancy Guidelines introduced in July 2012, which apply to all new occupancy agreements, recommend a standard peppercorn rental of $1.00 per annum. However local boards, at their discretion, may choose to vary from the recommendations on a case-by-case basis as they deem appropriate.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. The Local Board was unaware of the error in rent stated in the recommendations of the 11 September 2014 report. This has implications for the board’s 2014/15 budget.

11. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sports and community facilities.

Māori impact statement

12. The recommendations within this report are procedural and therefore do not impact on Maori.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A: Action Sheet - Local Board Meeting 11 September 2014	35

Signatories

Author

Robyn Campbell - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

John Nash – Relationship Manager/Senior Local Board Advisor

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Great Barrier Local Board Capital Grant Funding - 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/25564

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to present applications received for the Great Barrier Local Board Capital Grant Funding Programme 2014-15. The Great Barrier Local Board needs to resolve to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. For the 2014-15 financial year, the Great Barrier Local Board has a total capital grant funding budget of $250,000. This is the first and only round for the financial year.

3. Thirteen applications were received with a total requested of $318,614.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) considers the following applications and agrees to fund, part-fund or decline each application.

	Organisation Name	Project Title	Amount Requested
1	Great Barrier Island Golf Club Inc	Upgrade power system	$50,000
2	Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club Inc	Alternative energy upgrade	$6,850
3	Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust	Water supply	$13,887
4	Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust	Nurses Cottage access improvement/installation	$39,780
5	Orama Christian Trust	Repair flood damage to stream bed with gabian baskets	$49,904
6	North Barrier Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc	Fitzroy clubrooms energy upgrade	$32,878
7	Aotea Family Support Group	New community van, South	$10,000
8	Okiwi Community Building	Okiwi community room upgrade	$30,000
9	Great Barrier Island Heritage and Arts Village	Flooring repairs, Gray House museum building	$23,644
10	Community Church of St John the Evangelist	A new weatherproof roof	$14,106
11	Aotea Playcentre	New stairs to the playground	$5,350
12	St John Ambulance GBI	Defibrillator/monitor	$21,995
13	Barrier Social Club	Building infrastructure	$20,220
	TOTAL		$318,614

Comments

4. Great Barrier Local Board recognises the vital role that local community facilities play in developing a strong, vibrant and engaged community and established a capital grants fund to support capital projects associated with community facilities on Great Barrier Island.

5. The board has historically funded community capital projects through its community grants funding rounds but has recognised that these should be separated out due to the larger amount usually funded and the specific and different purpose for which the funds are intended. The capital grant fund was resolved at the 9 July 2014 business meeting (GBI/2014/99).

6. There is only one capital grant funding round scheduled for this financial year. This round opened on 11 August 2014 and closed on 19 September 2014.

7. The Great Barrier Local Board will allocate its fund based on, but not necessarily limited to criteria it developed when resolving to establish the fund. In some cases applicants may not have met the criteria, or issues with these may have been identified, and the board has given itself full discretion in regards to such matters in its criteria. The criteria are shown at Attachment A.

8. Thirteen applications totalling $318,614 are included in this report (under separate cover) for the board’s consideration. $250,000 is available for funding so the board will need to determine how to reduce the application amounts by the difference, $68,614.

9. Nine of the applications were received through the funding round. Application eight to upgrade the Okiwi Community Room is a board led project which is being considered as part of this round for consistency and transparency. Application eleven to complete the Aotea Playcentre stairs project, application twelve to purchase a defibrillator for St John Ambulance and application thirteen to purchase and install a new generator and chairs for Barrier Social Club, were received under the community grants funding round one but are being considered here as capital projects.

10. A group of Auckland Council officers with skills in these subject areas has worked alongside Local Board Services staff to provide advice and comment on the applications for board members to assist in their decision making.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. Applications were circulated to the local board for consideration prior to this meeting. The board has led on the development of the fund and is therefore fully aware of its purpose and process.

12. The $250,000 capital grants fund is a specific budget fully under the Great Barrier Local Board’s discretion and decision making authority.

Māori impact statement

13. No specific funding applications were received from island iwi. Community funding is a general programme of interest and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Maori. Maori are therefore likely to benefit alongside other groups in the community.

Implementation

14. Following the Great Barrier Local Board allocating funding for the Capital Grant round, Local Board Services will notify the applicants of the local board decision. As funding is a grant to third party organisations, there is no consequential opex cost that the board needs to provide funding for.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Great Barrier Capital Grant Fund Guidelines	43
b View	Capital Grant Fund applications 2014/2015 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author	Jacqueline Fyers - RM PA/Office Administrator
Authoriser	John Nash – Relationship Manager/Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Great Barrier Local Board Discretionary Community Funding: Round 1 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/13674

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to present applications received for the following funds:

· Local Board Discretionary Community Funding (Discretionary Funding)

· Community Group Accommodation Support Fund (ASF).

2. The Great Barrier Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

3. For Discretionary Funding, the Great Barrier Local Board set a total budget of $25,459.00 for 2014/2015. ASF budgets were allocated by the Central Joint Funding Committee (resolution CJFC/2014/17) at its meeting on 8 September.

4. An outline of the funds and their respective budgets is given below.

Community grants schemes and associated budgets for allocation by the Great Barrier Local Board in 2014/2015
Fund	Round	Budget	Total requested this round
Local Board Discretionary	1 of 3	$25,459.00	$17,838.00
ASF	1 of 1	$5,000.00	$4,951.30

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) considers the applications listed in Table One and agrees to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round of the Local Board Discretionary Community Funding

Table 1: Great Barrier Local Board Discretionary Community Funding Applications

Organisation name	Funds requested for	Amount requested
Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea	Bring Back Kokako Project - Te Paparahi Block, Aotea/Great Barrier Island	$5,445.00
Great Barrier Island (GBI) Community Health Trust	Spectacular By Nature - Great Barrier Island Garden Tour	$2,533.00
GBI Blue Light Ventures	2014 GBI Kids Hunter National Training Scheme course	$1,616.00
SeniorNet Great Barrier Island Incorporated	SeniorNet winter advanced training workshops	$2,000.00
Port FitzRoy Information Centre	Great Barrier Island Visitor Information Guide	$2,546.00
Kawa Marae	Metal for Kawa Marae driveway	$3,698.00
Total		$17,838.00

b) considers the applications listed in Table Two and agrees to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round of the Great Barrier Community Group Accommodation Support Fund.

Table 2: Great Barrier Community Accommodation Support Fund applications

Organisation name	Funds requested for	Amount Requested
Island Screens Incorporated	Accommodation costs at 39 Medland Rd	$1,840.00
Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club	Accommodation costs at 19 Whangaparapara Rd	$2,536.30
SeniorNet GBI Inc	Accommodation costs at Claris office, Great Barrier Island	$575.00
Total		$4,951.30

Comments

5. In March 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) resolved to continue the interim community funding approach for the 2013/2014 financial year (RDO/2013/32). This applies to the Community Funding Programme and includes the Discretionary Funding and ASF.

6. Three Discretionary Funding rounds are scheduled for this financial year. This first round closed on 19 September 2014. The ASF has one round this financial year, which closed on 7 July 2014.

7. The Central Joint Funding Committee allocated the Great Barrier Local Board portion of the ASF budget at its meeting on 8 September 2014. Table Three below sets out the budgets and rounds associated with the respective funding schemes.

Table 3: Community grants schemes and associated budgets for allocation by the Great Barrier Local Board in 2014/2015

Fund	Round	Budget	Total requested this round	Applications received
Local Board Discretionary	1 of 3	$25,459.00	$17,838.00	6
ASF	1 of 1	$5,000.00	$4,951.30	3

Great Barrier Local Board Discretionary Community Funding

8. Online funding criteria state that the Great Barrier Local Board will focus Local Board Community Grants funding on assisting local groups to provide activities and projects that make a positive contribution to the local community and align with the objectives of the Great Barrier Local Board Plan.

9. The board has advertised that it will consider the following when allocating community grants:

· How well the project aligns with local board plan priorities

· How well the project helps the wider island community

· The number of residents who benefit, and

· The group’s record of undertaking activities of benefit to the community, previous funding applications and the success of previously-funded projects in benefiting the island community.

10. The local board has advertised additional criteria as follows:

· Activities must not have already taken place before the board has the opportunity to consider the application.

· Applicant groups must be based on Great Barrier Island.

· Applicant groups must be legally constituted, i.e. be registered charitable trusts or incorporated societies. Other groups must apply under the umbrella of such a group.

· Generally, the board will not fund legal costs associated with legal action, funds to be used to advance activities promoting particular political goals or religious ministry, or wages and salaries.

· The Great Barrier Local Board reserves the right to accept or refuse applications, including where the required information has not been adequately provided.

· The board reserves the right to alter or amend any of the above criteria by simple board resolution made at an ordinary meeting.

Accommodation Support Fund

11. The purpose of the ASF is to provide financial assistance to community groups to help meet their accommodation costs.

12. The Central Joint Funding Committee, who administers the ASF, has historically allocated a separate portion of the fund’s budget to be administered by the Great Barrier Local Board. This is in recognition of the difficulties of including Great Barrier in many cross-local board activities for geographical reasons.

13. The assessment process for the ASF has used the same formula as previous rounds. The ASF formula assesses groups based on their financial need as well as the proposed activities’ alignment with Auckland Council strategic priorities, the group’s record of accounting for previous grants, and the group’s contribution toward its own accommodation costs.

14. At a workshop on 11 November, the Great Barrier Local Board considered options for allocating funding informed by the results of the formulaic assessments.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

15. Funding applications were circulated for the local board’s consideration prior to this meeting.

Maori Impact Statement

16. Community funding is a general programme of interest and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Maori. Maori are therefore likely to benefit alongside other groups in the community. It is noted that two applications are from Maori organisations.

Implementation

17. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted annual plan.

18. Following the Great Barrier Local Board allocating funding for round one, Community Development, Arts and Culture will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Sarah Zimmerman - Community Funding Advisor
Authoriser	Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Council Controlled Organisation Review, Progress Report to Local Boards

File No.: CP2014/24169

Purpose

1. To inform local boards about key aspects of the current review of council controlled organisations (CCOs) and seek local board feedback, in particular on matters of interest to local boards.

Executive summary

2. This report informs local boards on a number of matters relating to the CCO review. These include:

· the key steps undertaken in the CCO review so far

· CCO configuration options that have been considered but are not being progressed

· CCO configuration options that are still under consideration

· other aspects of the CCO review of interest to local boards including the Accountability Framework workstream; and the Communication, Collaboration and Consultation workstream

· next steps in the CCO review.

3. This report seeks feedback from local boards, in particular about an option to increase activities in support of the council’s transformational shift of radically improving the quality of urban living. The council is considering a new vehicle that could act as a single outward facing voice in the development of the Auckland region, with greater economies of scale, enhanced commerciality and the ability to partner with others. The report seeks feedback on the concept, including comment on the considerations the council should take into account, from a local perspective, when developing the concept.

4. The report notes that local boards have already provided feedback on the following matters which are being considered as part of the CCO review.

· Whether local economic development activities are delivered by Auckland Council or ATEED.

· The roles and interface between local boards and Auckland Transport in relation to place-making functions.

5. In relation to local economic development, the report seeks local board views on ATEED being responsible for local economic development, if a mechanism can be established to hold ATEED accountable to local boards for delivery. The report also notes that the CCO review will not consider the level of funding for local economic development activities, as this is an LTP issue. Current proposals are for LTP funding for local economic development to be provided in the council’s spatial priority areas only.

6. In relation to local boards, Auckland Transport, and place-making responsibilities, any specific proposals would require further consultation with local boards.

7. In relation to the Accountability Framework workstream, the report notes that improved alignment between the statement of intent process and the LTP/Annual Planning process should provide the Budget Committee with greater visibility of the extent to which proposed CCO work programmes deliver on local board priorities.

8. The Accountability Framework workstream also proposes that council requirements of CCOs, in relation to local board engagement, reporting, and consideration of local board priorities will be included in a new Governance Manual that all CCOs are required to comply with.

9. The report also notes that the Communication, Collaboration and Consultation workstream is still being scoped and may require local board engagement at some stage.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Consider the information provided in this report and provide feedback, in particular on matters of interest to local boards as indicated in the report.

Comments

Phase One – Terms of Reference and Current State Assessment

10. The governing body adopted its terms of reference for the CCO review on 27 February 2014. The terms of reference sought to ensure that CCO governance structures were aligned with the council’s strategies and provided an efficient and effective model of service delivery. They also sought to:

· ensure sufficient political oversight and public accountability of CCOs

· provide clarity about roles and responsibilities

· eliminate duplication

· better integrate services and functions and provide a positive interface between the Auckland Council group organisations and Aucklanders.

11. Major structural change for Auckland Transport was identified as being out of scope because Auckland Transport is a statutory entity governed by specific legislative provisions.

12. The review is due to be completed by June 2015. Any proposals for structural change will be consulted on through the draft Long Term Plan (LTP).

13. The terms of reference and CCO review workstreams were informed by two current state assessment reports, one prepared from a council perspective and one from a CCO perspective. Local board input to the current state assessment acknowledged significant improvements in interactions between CCOs and local boards over the three year period, although most local boards were still looking for further improvement in certain areas.

Phase Two – Assessment of Services

14. The first step in phase two of the review was to test the rationale for delivering services through a CCO. Councillors discussed that there were both benefits and challenges from delivering services through arms’ length entities such as CCOs.

15. Benefits include commercial focus, efficiency, flexibility in decision-making, and ability to attract specialist skills. Challenges include that the council is ultimately accountable for ratepayer funding, and achieving integration of CCO activities with other council services or policies. It was also acknowledged that where there is high political, public, iwi, or stakeholder interest in CCO decision-making, this can be challenging for the council.

16. At its meeting of 26 June 2014, the governing body received analysis of the services currently being provided by CCOs, against a set of criteria that sought to test the suitability of those services for delivery through a CCO. Overall the analysis suggested that the services currently being delivered through CCOs were well suited to this mode of delivery. Where challenges were identified it was clear that councillors believe these can be properly managed through a CCO model.

Phase Two – CCO delivery and configuration

17. The second step in phase two of the review was to identify whether any changes to the grouping of activities was likely to deliver better outcomes than the current CCO configuration.

18. Councillors have discussed configuration options at a series of workshops in August and September. The options were informed by one or more of the following drivers for change:

· Opportunities to address issues raised in the current state assessment, particularly removing duplication in skills and clarifying responsibilities

· Opportunities to increase effectiveness and drive results

· Opportunities to improve strategic alignment to Auckland Plan goals

· Opportunities to increase efficiency/reduce costs

· Evidence from international best practice or other desktop research.

19. In relation to the last bullet point a number of pieces of desktop research were undertaken. These included reviews of national/international delivery models and a report by Synergine Group on the linkages between water, wastewater and stormwater.

20. The Governing Body has not made any decisions on configuration options; however, workshop discussions have indicated that there was insufficient rationale to progress some options.

Options not being progressed

21. Three waters – The Synergine Group report found that there would be some benefits from the integrated management of three waters, such as enhanced catchment management planning. It also found significant linkages between stormwater and other activities of the council group, including land use planning and transport.

22. For this reason, the options of delivering three waters in-house or within a three waters CCO were both considered.

23. In-house delivery of three waters could help better align water and wastewater network planning with council strategy; however, these benefits can be achieved in other ways including through greater collaboration. This option would have some significant disadvantages including very high cost of change and likely reduced commercial focus in relation to water and wastewater delivery.

24. Delivery of three waters within a three waters CCO could have benefits in terms of operational efficiencies and greater commercial focus. However, some of the benefits can be achieved in other ways and there are some major drawbacks. For example, this option could require complex agreements between Auckland Council and Watercare as many stormwater assets are ‘soft infrastructure’ such as overland flow paths. This would have implications for local boards as many of the overland flow paths are in local parks. Another reason that the option was not progressed was that stormwater planning also needs to be highly integrated with land use planning.

25. Regional facilities, tourism and major events. This option would involve transferring ATEED’s responsibility for tourism and major events to RFA. The main drivers for this option were perceived increase in efficiency and effectiveness as both RFA and ATEED have a focus on tourism and major events including conferences. However, RFA’s main objectives are to maximise utilisation of their assets, while ATEED’s focus is on delivering benefit for the Auckland Region. This option has not been progressed as there was a concern that the resulting CCO would have conflicting objectives.

26. Larger Commercial CCO. Consideration was given to other council investments or business interests that could be transferred to ACIL; however, no significant opportunities were identified.

27. Of the options not being progressed, the option involving transferring stormwater to a three waters CCO is likely to be of most interest to local boards for reasons outlined in paragraph 24.

Options still under consideration

28. Enhanced status quo. This option will apply to all CCOs which do not undergo significant structural change. Enhanced status quo will involve reviewing the purpose and high-level objectives of each CCO as set out in the orders of council under which they were established. This does not apply to Watercare or Auckland Transport, which have specific legislative provisions defining their powers and responsibilities. The timeframe for this review will be between February and June 2015.

29. Enhanced status quo will also involve considering a number of one off issues in relation to each CCO. The following are likely to be of most interest to local boards.

· Whether local economic development activities are delivered by Auckland Council or ATEED.

· The roles and interface between local boards and Auckland Transport in relation to place-making functions.

30. A lot of feedback has already been provided by local boards on these matters and will be taken into account as options are developed.

31. A key difficulty with ATEED delivering local economic development activities on behalf of local boards is that local boards have decision-making responsibility for this, yet they do not have a direct governance relationship with ATEED. This report seeks local board views on ATEED being responsible for local economic development, if a mechanism can be established to hold ATEED accountable to local boards for delivery.

32. Note that the CCO review will not address the level of funding for local economic development activities, as this is an LTP decision. Current budget proposals are for the funding for local economic development activities to be provided in the council’s spatial priority areas only.

33. In relation to local boards, Auckland Transport and place-making, the current state assessment from local boards contained a lot of feedback which will be considered. Any specific proposals would need to come back to local boards for further feedback.

34. Under enhanced status quo there are a number of matters to clarify in relation to Waterfront Auckland. These include the role of Waterfront Auckland in its “area of influence”, and whether the Cloud, Shed 10, and the Viaduct Events Centre, are managed by Waterfront Auckland or RFA. These matters may be of interest to some local boards. The timing for addressing these matters has not yet been determined, but further consultation with interested local boards may be required at a later date.

35. Urban Regeneration CCO: Serious consideration is being given to how the council can increase its level of activity to support its transformational shift of radically improving the quality of urban living. This means moving to quality compact urban form that is well connected, appropriately serviced, provides employment opportunities, and provides housing affordability and choice. These are key elements but there are many other considerations including safety, sustainability, and quality urban design.

36. While the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) is an enabler, it will not be sufficient on its own to provide the scale or quality of development required.

37. The council already has a range of vehicles for helping deliver on these objectives. These include:

· Waterfront Auckland, which is responsible for regeneration of Wynyard Quarter

· City Transformations which undertakes master planning and town centre upgrades

· ACPL which has a role in facilitating housing and commercial development in specific locations including Ormiston Town Centre, Yard 37 at Hobsonville, Papatoetoe town centre, Avondale town centre, and Wilsher Village in Henderson

· Tamaki Redevelopment Company, which is jointly owned with central government and council

· Housing Project Office which is charged with implementation of the Housing Action Plan and integrated consenting in Special Housing Areas (SHAs).

38. The council is considering a new vehicle that could act as a single outward facing voice in the development of the Auckland region, with greater economies of scale, enhanced commerciality and the ability to partner with others. This is likely to be a staged process with the first steps undertaken as part of the CCO review. Options are still being refined but could include expanding the role of ACPL, bringing together the skills and expertise from Waterfront Auckland and ACPL, or another option which could emerge out of work still being undertaken.

39. The concept of a new vehicle to assist in the delivery of quality urban living goals is likely to be of interest to local boards. Local boards’ role in community engagement and local place-making is central to shaping on-going change.

40. In the initial stages it is likely that any increase in redevelopment/regeneration activity would simply reflect reprioritisation of LTP budgets in areas which have been identified as spatial priorities. However, it is anticipated that the vehicle would generate and/or leverage new sources of funding over time.

41. This report seeks comments from local boards on the concept of an enhanced delivery vehicle for urban regeneration including comment on the considerations that the Governing Body should take into account from a local perspective, when developing the concept further.

42. Holding Company. ACIL currently owns council shares in Ports of Auckland Limited, Auckland Film Studios, and Auckland International Airport. It also manages the diversified financial assets portfolio (DFAP) on behalf of the council. An option still being considered is to transfer responsibility for the DFAP to the council. ACIL would then become a holding company for council’s ownership in commercial investments. This option does not have identifiable implications for local boards.

CCO model –working better together

43. The focus of the review to date has been on the rationale for arms-length delivery and options for structural change. The terms of reference for the review are much wider than this and include consideration of how to make the CCO model work best for the Auckland Council group. The Auckland Council CCO model is fundamentally different to other local authorities in New Zealand as CCOs deliver core services on behalf of council. The preferred approach is a collaborative model where CCOs are delivery partners, rather than autonomous entities that the council procures services from.

44. Two workstreams likely to be of particular interest to local boards are the Accountability Framework workstream; and the Communication, Collaboration and Consultation workstream.

Accountability Framework

45. To date, the Accountability Framework workstream has focussed primarily on processes, with a goal of improving alignment between budgeting, the LTP process and the annual statement of intent (SOI) process.

46. Proposed new processes have been considered at CCO Review workshops and are due to be considered formally by the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee on 7 October 2014.

47. The proposed new process recognises that the council’s expectations of CCOs expressed through the SOI process, need to be aligned to the LTP/Annual Plan. When the council considers CCO priorities it should do so within the context of the funding it is providing, or the funding assumptions it is making in the LTP/annual plan.

48. Under the proposed new process the Budget Committee will consider CCO key performance indicators and targets at its October/November workshops with CCOs, and will agree an annual letter of expectation (LOE) to CCO chairs, that reflects budget decisions made. The CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee will receive the draft SOIs in April each year as usual and will limit its shareholder comments to checking that deliverables reflect what has already been agreed through the budgeting process.

49. For local boards, the main implication is that the Budget Committee will also have an overview of local board priorities when it sets its funding for CCOs. For the proposed LTP, the Budget Committee workshops with local boards occur shortly before workshops with CCOs. This will enable Budget Committee members to engage with CCOs regarding local board priorities if they have concerns about any priorities that are not reflected in programmes proposed by CCOs.

50. This does not supersede the requirement for CCOs to take local board priorities into account when they develop their proposed programmes, and for CCOs to actively engage with local boards as they do this.

51. The other proposed change is to streamline the SOIs so that they are focused on what the CCO will deliver. Council expectations in relation to how the CCO is expected to act will be included in a new Governance Manual that will replace the current Shareholder Expectation Guide.

52. Under recent changes to the Local Government Act 2002, the council is required to have a binding agreement with its CCOs. It is proposed that the binding agreement will cross-reference the Governance Manual which will formalise the requirement to comply with council expectations.

53. This Governance Manual will include council expectations of CCOs in relation to local board engagement and reporting, and consideration of local board priorities. These have already been articulated in resolutions of the Accountability and Performance committee in December 2012, and the Strategy and Finance Committee in September 2013. The recent elected member survey included questions for local board members to help assess the current level of satisfaction of local board members in relation to these matters. It is intended that this will continue to be monitored annually.

Communication, collaboration and consultation workstream

54. The purpose of this workstream is to:

· Ensure that CCOs, elected members and council staff engage effectively over strategic issues and keep each other well informed of sensitive issues. This includes CCO interaction with the IMSB and local boards.

· Ensure appropriate public engagement on matters of public interest.

55. This work is still being scoped. The working group will include a staff member from Local Board Services.

56. This work could result in new content for inclusion in the new Governance Manual referred to in paragraphs 51-53. This would need to be identified in draft form by March 2015. If there are any proposals that relate to local boards, CCO Review staff will seek guidance from Local Board Services about further engagement with local boards on these matters.

Next steps in CCO review

57. According to the current timetable, the Governing Body will receive a report on 27 November 2014 with recommendations on CCO configuration options. If the council agrees to support any option that would require significant structural change to any CCO or the establishment of a new CCO, this will be consulted on through the LTP. The proposal to establish a new vehicle to deliver on quality urban living objectives would require LTP consultation.

58. Work on the “working better together” workstreams will continue from now until June 2015.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

59. This report asks for local board views on a number of issues that are being considered as part of the CCO review. This report has provided an overview of review and noted the matters which are likely to be of most interest to local boards.

Māori impact statement

60. The CCO review also includes a range of issues that are likely to be of interest to Māori and to the IMSB. Staff will also seek feedback from the IMSB in relation to these matters.

Implementation

61. There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Catherine Syme - Principal Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

File No.: CP2014/24171

Purpose

1. To seek the Board’s feedback on the draft Community Facilities Network Plan (Attachment A) following workshops held with all local boards in August and September 2014.

Executive summary

2. In August 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed the Draft Community Facilities Network Plan (REG/2014/98) for engagement with local boards, advisory panels and key external stakeholders.

3. The purpose of the Community Facilities Network Plan (draft plan) is to guide council’s provision of community facilities for the next 10 years and beyond. The key drivers are to:

· Optimise the use and efficiency of existing facilities

· Address gaps and needs for community facilities now and into the future

· Meet demand arising from population growth and changing user expectations.

4. The scope of the draft plan includes community centres, venues for hire (community or rural halls), arts and culture facilities, aquatic and leisure facilities. The network includes facilities owned by council and facilities owned by third-parties which are supported by council and available for community use. While facilities like libraries, sport clubs, community leases, schools, churches and marae are not included in the recommendations of the network plan, these facilities will be considered in the implementation phase.

5. There are three key components of the draft plan:

· Strategic framework – specifies the outcomes council is seeking from its investment in community facilities aligned with the Auckland Plan, Local Board Plans and other strategic priorities; and articulates the council’s key objectives for future provision.

· Provision framework – guides council’s approach for future community facility provision.

· Action Plan – over 50 recommended actions to investigate areas with potential gaps in provision and to investigate existing facilities with issues affecting their performance.

6. Each action will require detailed community or sector based investigation to understand needs and determine the appropriate response. Process guidelines have been developed to ensure a consistent approach to these investigations. Local boards and the local community will be fully involved in investigation processes.

7. As council may not have the capacity to invest in all community facility projects, the draft plan also provides prioritisation criteria to help determine the priorities for investment once the investigation process determines the appropriate facility response. The ability and timeframe to implement the actions is dependent on the budget available for community facility investment in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP).

8. Feedback on the draft plan was sought from key stakeholders including regional sports organisations, facility partners, facility managers and advisory panels. Submissions were also invited through shapeauckland.co.nz which closed on 15 September 2014. A summary of feedback is attached in Attachment B.

9. It is proposed that libraries should be included in the Community Facilities Network Plan as another key community facility that council provides, and to ensure alignment of planning and future facility provision. Libraries have undertaken similar research to understand the gaps and needs for libraries and are well placed to be included. There will need to be further communication with local boards on the libraries content. Revised timeframes to integrate libraries into the plan and to align with the LTP process are outlined in this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Provide feedback of the Draft Community Facilities Network Plan which will guide council’s provision of community facilities, including any specific feedback on the strategic framework, provision framework, action plan, implementation approach and prioritisation criteria.

b) Notes proposed revised timeframes to include libraries in the Community Facilities Network Plan and that further engagement with local boards will be undertaken to discuss the libraries content and the final revised network plan.

Comments

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

10. Community facilities contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing space for people to connect with each other, socialise, learn skills and participate in a range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. Community facilities contribute to improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging, identity and pride among residents.

11. The draft plan outlines how council will provide and invest in community facilities to respond to community needs and population growth and changes.

12. The draft plan sets out a strategic framework for community facilities to articulate why council invests in the provision of community facilities, the desired outcomes from this investment and the key objectives for future provision. This is aligned with the strategic direction and transformational shifts in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and relevant strategic action plans.

13. The proposed common purpose for community facilities is “Vibrant and welcoming places at the heart of where and how communities connect and participate”.

14. The draft plan sets out four proposed key objectives to guide and underpin the future provision of community facilities:

· Undertake robust and consistent planning to ensure future decisions on the provision of community facilities are based on clear evidence of needs and assessment of all options.

· Maintain, improve and make the best use of existing community facilities where they continue to meet community needs and investigate the future of facilities that no longer meet community needs.

· Provide flexible and multi-purpose facilities that are co-located and/or integrated with other community infrastructure.

· Look for opportunities to leverage and support partnerships.

Future Provision Framework

15. The draft plan proposes provision frameworks for each type of community facility to guide council’s approach to the provision of new facilities in the future.

Community Centres

16. The proposed provision approach for community centres is to continue to maintain and deliver community centres at the local level across the region, recognising the important role they play in meeting local community needs for spaces to deliver a wide range of community, recreation, learning, events, arts and culture activities.

Venues for hire

17. Given the wide range of providers of venues to hire, the draft plan proposes the council does not invest in any more new stand-alone venues for hire. It is proposed that bookable space is included in multi-purpose community centres (new or existing/redeveloped), guided by community needs assessments. Other options should be explored including partnerships or encouraging other organisations (such as schools, sports clubs and churches) to make bookable spaces available for community use. In some cases where venues for hire are no longer serving community needs, there may be potential to consider repurposing venues for other activities or possible divestment.

Aquatic and Leisure Facilities

18. The proposed provision framework for aquatic and leisure facilities is through a hierarchy of local, destination and regional facilities to support participation in a range of sport and recreation activities from casual play through to competitive sport. The draft plan outlines different functions and level of provision for local, destination and regional facilities.

Arts and Culture Facilities

19. At the local level, the proposed future provision will focus on enabling participation in arts and culture activity through programming in existing facilities and new multi-purpose facilities, rather than building new standalone local arts facilities. The focus will be placed on integrating arts space and programming within the existing network or in new multi-purpose facilities, repurposing existing spaces or partnering with others to provide suitable space.

20. It is recognised there is a need for some specialised arts and culture facilities that serve larger catchments. The draft plan proposes supporting a network of destination and regional arts and cultural facilities to meet sector and audience demand, which would be determined by robust investigation on a case-by-case basis. It is proposed the council would only intervene when the private sector does not and opportunities for partnerships with the wider sector including central government should be explored.

Action Plan and Implementation

21. The draft plan includes over 50 recommended actions to undertake investigations into the future provision of community facilities, focused on both existing facilities and potential areas for new facilities.

22. All recommended actions will require detailed community or sector based investigation to determine the appropriate response. It is intended that any future investment in community facilities will be determined following detailed investigation which provides clear evidence of need, options analysis and development of a robust business case. Detailed process guidelines to ensure a consistent approach to these investigations have been developed (Appendix 2 of draft plan: Community Facilities Development Guidelines). Local boards and the community would be fully involved in investigation processes.

23. As council may not have the capacity to invest in all community facility projects, the draft network plan provides prioritisation criteria to assist the governing body to determine its priorities for investment in community facilities.

24. The draft plan identifies existing community facilities which have issues impacting on their performance and ability to meet community needs. In these cases, investigation is required to understand in more detail how the facility is operating and meeting community needs, explore various options for the facility and to determine the appropriate response. There could be a variety of options including changes to facility governance, management or programming, facility redevelopment, repurposing for another activity or possible divestment.

25. For potential areas for new facilities, a similar investigation process is required to understand community needs, explore and test the feasibility of different options and assess the business case for a new facility. The outcome of this investigation may identify a non-asset solution is required such as programming, partnerships or supporting a non-council facility.

26. The actions in the draft network plan have been ranked according to the urgency of completing the investigation recognising different factors including condition issues, responding to catalysts, opportunities for rationalisation or partnerships, timing and scale of population growth and location in a spatial priority area.

27. During workshops with local boards, some inaccuracies were identified in the draft plan. Corrections have been included in the draft plan attached in Attachment A.

Stakeholder Engagement

28. The draft plan has been informed by previous feedback from communities, principally via annual customer satisfaction surveys, user surveys, catchments studies and consultation on the Auckland Plan and relevant strategic action plans.

29. Given this context, engagement on the draft plan has primarily been limited to targeted stakeholders, including council’s advisory panels, facility partners and managers and external stakeholder groups such as regional sports organisations. Additionally, the draft plan has been available for wider public comment on shapeauckland.co.nz. A summary of feedback is attached in Attachment B.

30. Most of the actions identified in the draft plan will require further investigation to determine the appropriate response. This will include detailed and localised community and/or sector based investigation/engagement and feedback from communities on different options. The public will also have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed level of future investment in community facilities via the LTP consultation process.

Incorporating Libraries into the Network Plan

31. Through the LTP process, the Parks, Community and Lifestyle theme has been working to address priorities and funding for activities including community facilities, recreation facilities and libraries. It has become clear there is a need for a more coordinated and aligned approach for the future planning and development of community facilities with an emphasis on multi-purpose facilities.

32. It is proposed that libraries be included in the network plan as a key community facility that council provides and to ensure alignment of planning and future facility provision. Libraries have undertaken similar research to understand the gaps and needs for future libraries and are well placed to be included. There will need to be further communication with local boards on the libraries content which means the timeframes to complete the network plan will need to be extended into 2015.

33. One advantage of extending the timeframes is alignment with the LTP process. The level of future capital investment in community facilities won’t be known until after the public consultation process on the LTP is completed in May 2015. Finalising the network plan once the LTP process is completed (or near completion) will ensure the plan can incorporate the LTP outcomes and governing body priorities for future investment in community facilities.

34. The key benefit of modifying the scope to include libraries is the alignment of planning and provision to achieve better community outcomes and greater efficiency.

35. The revised timeframe for integrating libraries into the draft plan is outlined below:

Dec	Briefing with local boards on the library research
Dec-Jan	Development of revised Community Facilities Network Plan
Feb 2015	Workshops with local boards to review the revised plan
Mar	Report to the governing body on the revised draft plan
Apr-May	Report to local boards seeking feedback on revised draft plan
July	Report to governing body seeking approval of final Community Facilities Network Plan

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. During August and September, workshops with local boards were undertaken to present on the draft Community Facilities Network Plan, to respond to any questions and assist local boards in formulating their feedback.

37. Feedback from local boards is sought on the draft plan, particularly on the following:

· Strategic framework (section 3) including the common purpose, outcomes and objectives

· Provision frameworks (Section 4)

· Action plan (section 5)

· Implementation approach (section 6) including process guidelines and prioritisation criteria.

38. The feedback from local boards will be incorporated into a revised network plan (which includes libraries) and will be presented/reported to local boards in 2015.

Māori impact statement

39. The provision of community facilities contributes to improving wellbeing among Maori communities by providing spaces to connect, socialise, learn skills and participate. For all community facility types Maori are represented as users. At aquatic facilities Maori make up 14% of users (compared to 9% of the population), 11% of leisure facility users and 9% of community centre users. Maori are under-represented as users compared to the Auckland population at arts and culture facilities.

40. Given the context of the network plan and the information already received through the user surveys and iwi consultation on the strategic action plans, it was not proposed to undertake any specific engagement with Maori or other facility users.

41. The broader picture of community facility provision recognises that marae and kohanga reo are important social infrastructure for Maori and the community. Officers from Te Waka Angamua are currently scoping a project to address the future provision and development of marae facilities. Opportunities for aligned provision and/or partnerships with marae facilities should be considered as potential options to meet community needs.

Implementation

42. The draft plan is an aspirational plan for the next 10 to 20 years which outlines what needs to be investigated and undertaken to deliver a network of community facilities to meet community needs. The ability and timeframe to implement the actions is dependent on the level of budget available through the council’s LTP 2015-2025.

43. Through the LTP process, the governing body will consider the amount of funding available for investment in community facilities. To deliver the network plan this will need to include both operational funding to undertake the required investigations and depending on the outcome of each investigation, capital and operational funding to implement the recommended response.

44. Once the network plan is adopted, implementation will focus on progressing the high priority actions using the implementation approach and community facilities development guidelines.

45. The draft plan lists a number of community facility projects that are already underway or were anticipated to commence construction in 2014/15. The current review of the 2014/15 capital works programme may result in the deferral of some of these projects. Once decisions have been made on deferrals, then the draft network plan will be amended to reflect this.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Community Facilities Network Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Draft Community Facilities Network Plan stakeholder feedback (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Anita Coy-Macken - Principal Policy Analyst – Central

David Shamy - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

John Nash – Relationship Manager/Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Significance and Engagement Policy

File No.: CP2014/24172

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy to support local boards in providing formal feedback.

Executive summary

2. There have been changes to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002). Council is now required to adopt a Significance and Engagement policy by 1 December 2014. Council already has a Significance Policy, but it must be expanded to include engagement.

3. A draft Significance and Engagement Policy was adopted by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 September for public consultation from 22 September to 19 October 2014.

4. The legislation requires the policy to consider community preferences about engagement on decisions relating to specific issues. Auckland Council carries out hundreds of consultation exercises each year, covering small neighbourhood issues up to large regional issues. A core function of local boards is to understand, engage with and represent their local communities. The development of the Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to constrain or restrict the role of local boards in this regard.

5. An overview of the methods that could be used depending on the significance of the issue has been compiled to provide guidance.

6. The policy will be supported by updated guidelines, case studies and templates providing more detail on engagement principles and good practice.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Auckland Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

Background

7. As part of the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2012-2022 process, Auckland Council adopted a Significance Policy to provide a mechanism for establishing which decisions are significant with reference to thresholds and general criteria. This was a requirement under the LGA2002 and the policy requires all council reports to state the degree of significance. A significant decision triggers an automatic requirement to consult.

8. The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014 amended the LGA 2002, so that all councils are now required to adopt a Significance and Engagement Policy by 1 December 2014.

9. This legislative change requires the council to expand its current Significance Policy to include engagement. The current Significance Policy has been used to provide the basis of the new Significance and Engagement Policy.

10. The draft Significance and Engagement Policy was adopted by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 September for public consultation from 22 September to 19 October.

11. Since the committee meeting, there have been some minor changes to clarify what constitutes a ‘significant’ decision. The order of the significance section has changed as a result of this, while the criteria that related to engagement are now in section 6.1 under engagement methods.

Consultation on the draft policy

12. Consultation on the draft policy will not follow a special consultative procedure (SCP). Consultation will be targeted at interest groups and will seek out feedback from communities who are often not involved in council’s consultation processes.

13. Consultation will largely be focused online through ShapeAuckland. A sign language submissions service has also been set up through Deaf Radio.

14. A variety of stakeholder organisations have been contacted to help organise community workshops on the draft policy. This includes youth groups, ethnic groups, Grey Power, Age Concern, community organisations and networks.

15. In addition, the council will use Our Auckland, the People’s Panel and social media as a way of further encouraging feedback on the draft policy. Local boards are encouraged to help encourage participation through their stakeholder newsletters and social media.

Role of local boards

16. A core function of local boards is to understand, engage with and represent their local communities. They do this through a number of formal and informal mechanisms in relation to their local board plans and local board agreements, and also to inform local board input into regional plans and policies. The development of the Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to constrain or restrict this role.

17. While adoption of the Significance and Engagement Policy is a Governing Body decision, local boards have a role in providing input to its development. The purpose of this report is to seek local board input on the attached draft policy.

Policy approach to engagement

18. The LGA2002 sets out principles for consultation that all councils must follow.

19. Feedback received from the community and stakeholders on Auckland Council consultation and engagement processes has highlighted a number of other important principles to consider when engaging with the community. These have been incorporated into the policy as a way of recognising the needs of Auckland’s diverse communities, and the value that is placed on their involvement in decision-making processes.

20. The legislation requires the policy to set out how the council will respond to community preferences about engagement on decisions relating to specific issues, assets and other matters. Auckland Council carries out hundreds of consultation exercises each year from small neighbourhood matters up to large regional issues. A list of how the council will engage on each issue would be extensive and would not allow flexibility depending on the timing, the community affected and likely level of interest on the issue. It would also limit the council’s ability to consider and refine approaches for engagement in response to community feedback.

21. An overview of the kinds of methods that could be used depending on the significance of the issue has been compiled to provide guidance. These have been categorised as small and simple, medium or large and complex. The level of significance will be determined using the criteria in section 3 of the policy. The criteria used to assess whether a decision is significant are also useful when considering which engagement methods should be used for a particular decision (if any). For the avoidance of doubt, the use of the criteria to assess the level of engagement does not replace the council’s assessment of whether or not a decision is ‘significant’.

Significance

22. A decision is significant if:

a. the thresholds related to an activity or group of activities are exceeded; or

b. the decision relates to strategic assets.

23. A decision will also be significant where the council, having applied the criteria, decides that it is significant. Where a decision is determined to be significant, it will automatically trigger a requirement to consult.

Strategic Assets

24. Strategic assets are defined as assets or a group of assets required for the local authority to maintain its capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that council determines is important for the present or future wellbeing of the community. The council considers its strategic assets as whole (rather than single assets), because it is the asset class as a whole that delivers the service. The list of strategic assets should cover only those assets that are significant for an entity the size of the Auckland Council. The strategic assets are listed in the Significance and Engagement Policy, which includes land or buildings owned by the council that are required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing, and equity securities held by council in a port company or airport company.

25. The definition of networks included in the list of strategic assets has been updated by inclusion of the North Harbour Stadium, Bruce Mason Theatre and Q Theatre, which Auckland Council acquired since the adoption of the Significance Policy in 2012. In addition, substantive shares in Watercare have been combined with shares in substantive CCOs as Watercare became a substantive CCO in 2012.

26. The legislation provides that a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the local authority may only be made if they are explicitly provided for in the council’s LTP and, from 2015, also included in the consultation document used to consult on the LTP.

27. Decisions on assets not included in the list are subject to the normal provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 regarding decision making and consultation. This ensures that interested or affected parties will have their views considered appropriately in decision making. The council would retain discretion to consult (including using the special consultative procedure) for these decisions if it wished.

28. Strategic assets, as defined by this policy that are owned and or managed by a substantive CCO are identified in the CCO Accountability Policy.

Thresholds

29. As a general guide, the creation of a new group of activity, the cessation of a group of activity, or a 33 per cent increase or 20 per cent decrease in the nature of a group of activity, would be considered significant.

General Criteria

30. The council has also identified a list of criteria to consider when deciding whether or not a matter is significant.

Timeline

31. The high level timeline for the development of the policy is as follows:

Milestone	Description / steps	Timing
Developing the draft policy	Drafting the policy Testing the policy internally, with key stakeholders and advisory panels Gaining feedback on draft policy with local board members, local board chairs, IMSB Regional Strategy & Policy for adoption prior to consultation	July – August 5 September
Consulting on the draft policy	Communications and engagement on the draft Local board workshops Local board reports / formal feedback process Advisory panel workshops Stakeholder discussions Public engagement	September-October
Revising the draft policy	Analysing and reviewing feedback Updating draft policy	October onwards
Adopting the policy	Budget Committee Regional Strategy and Policy Governing body for adoption	5 November 6 November 27 November

32. This policy is expected to be adopted by 1 December 2014 and must be incorporated into the Long-term Plan (in summary form). The policy can be amended at any time.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

33. This report is seeking the views of local boards on the draft policy.

34. Local boards’ statutory role of identifying and communicating the views of the community on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws of the council has been taken into account during the development of the draft policy.

35. Engagement with local boards to date has included:

· an initial discussion at the Local Board Chairs Forum meeting on 28 April 2014;

· a workshop for all local board members to discuss aspects of the draft policy on 22 August; and

· workshops are being held with individual boards during September and October where requested.

Māori impact statement

36. Auckland Council recognises that Māori are a critical / important audience that needs to be engaged in a meaningful way. The Treaty of Waitangi Audit 2012 and the Auckland Council Guide on Engaging with Māori were reviewed during the development of the draft policy. The draft policy has been presented for discussion to the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The results of a recent research study on Māori engagement with Auckland Council will be considered prior to finalizing the draft policy and to identify improvements with the engagement guidelines.

37. Discussions on the draft policy and guidelines will also take place at a mana whenua forum during the consultation period.

General

38. This report does not involve decisions that will trigger the council’s current Significance Policy.

Implementation

39. Auckland Council does not currently have an adopted engagement policy. It does however have:

· a consultation and engagement guidebook;

· a guide on Engagement with Māori;

· a staff training programme in community engagement through the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2);

· an internal network which is used to share case studies; and

· an annual awards event to celebrate good practice.

40. Further work is taking place to improve the guidance that is available, in particular with respect to engaging with Auckland’s culturally and demographically diverse communities.

41. It is expected that updated guidance, case studies and templates will be prepared alongside the development of the draft policy so that these are available for the purposes of engagement on the draft Long-term Plan and other processes as soon as practicable. This will include legal advice on the consultation document and other changes to requirements as a result of the LGA 2002 amendments.

42. Local boards will be encouraged to input into the development of the updated guidance, case studies and templates through engagement advisors.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Significance and Engagement Policy	71

Signatories

Author

Carol Hayward - Senior Specialist Engagement & Consultation

Authorisers

Karl Ferguson - Communication & Engagement Director

John Nash – Relationship Manager/Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

12 November 2014

Request for feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy

File No.: CP2014/25866

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to seek local board feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP).

Executive summary

2. On 9 October 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the draft LAPP for public consultation (REG/2014/123). The LAPP sets rules regarding where retail outlets of psychoactive substances may operate. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 provides that a policy may regulate the location of retail outlets by reference to broad areas within a district, proximity to other premises selling approved products and/or distance from certain types of premises such as schools, places of worship and other community facilities.

3. Local boards are being asked to provide formal feedback on the draft LAPP by the end of December. There will be an opportunity for local boards to present their views to the hearings panel in February 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy in the attached report.

Comments

4. On 9 October 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a draft LAPP for public consultation (REG/2014/123).

5. The LAPP sets rules regarding where retail outlets of psychoactive substances may operate. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 provides that a policy may regulate the location of retail outlets by reference to broad areas within a district, proximity to other premises selling approved products and/or distance from certain types of premises such as schools, places of worship and other community facilities.

6. The draft LAPP will prevent licences being granted in areas of high deprivation, near high schools and near addiction and mental health treatment centres. It would also limit how close to an existing shop a new shop could open. The policy also has a separate set of rules for the city centre where licences won’t be granted in areas of high residential deprivation and new shops would have to be a certain distance from existing shops. This draft would reduce the availability of these substances in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for harm.

7. Public consultation on the draft LAPP will be conducted via a special consultative procedure. The consultation will begin on 28^th October and run for four weeks. The consultation is being publicised via social media, Our Auckland, the peoples panel, various public events and advisory panel networks.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

8. Local board views are being sought via this report. Local boards have previously provided feedback on possible options and on a proposed draft. Workshops on the proposed draft were held with a number of boards. 17 boards provided feedback on the specific options, three requested a complete ban. Great barrier declined to comment as they did not consider it an issue for their area.

9. As a result of local board feedback to the proposed draft the following changes were made:

· Buffer zones around schools were increased

· Buffer zones around mental health and addiction treatment centres were increased

· New rules for the city centre were added.

10. Local board feedback is being sought in in a parallel process to the special consultative process. The local board process will last until the end of December with local boards having the opportunity to present their views to the hearings panel in February 2015.

Maori impact statement

11. Māori are over represented amongst the groups of vulnerable people likely to be affected by using approved psychoactive substances. This over representation has two effects. Firstly getting the right option for the LAPP to maximize harm reduction will be more effective for Māori. Secondly, any solutions need to be designed in close collaboration with Māori to ensure they are workable and support wider initiatives aimed at improving Māori outcomes. Both of these goals are consistent with outcomes set out by Auckland Council to improve social outcomes for Māori in Auckland.

12. The consultation process with Māori has been developed in partnership with Māori agencies. A workshop has been undertaken with representatives from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui, an agency representing Māori health providers in the Auckland region, to provide initial feedback. Council staff are working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, Te Waka Angamua and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui to ensure effective engagement with Māori. The initial work has centred on ensuring information is available to iwi and maata waka.

Implementation

Step	Estimated timeframe
1. Special consultative procedure	28 October – 28 November
2. Local board consultation	20 October – 19 December
3. Hearings	February 2015
4. Adopt final policy	April 2015
5. Implementation and review	Ongoing