Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 June 2015

District Licensing Committee review

File No.: CP2015/09446

Purpose

1. To consider the findings of the District Licensing Committee review and make a decision about the future committee structure.

Executive Summary

2. When the Governing Body approved the formation of the District Licensing Committee (DLC) under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) in August 2013, it was agreed that the structure of the committee should be reviewed after one year of operation (GB/2013/82).

3. The objective of the review is to evaluate the current structure of the DLC to assess compliance with the Act, community input, consistency of approach and cost effectiveness.

4. Feedback from key stakeholders was sought as part of the review process, including DLC members and chairs, reporting agencies, applicants, objectors, local boards, staff involved in the licensing process and national organisations.

5. The review has found that the DLC is generally working well and that it has improved since its inception. The current structure also appears to be cost-effective with licence fees covering most operating expenses. However, there is a lack of consistency in approach and communities do not feel that they are having effective input into decision-making.

6. The workload for DLC chairs and members is also significantly lower than anticipated, with only around one percent of applications going to a public hearing (compared with an expected 15-20% of applications).

7. Reducing the size of the DLC may address concerns about consistency and workload, however it is unlikely that altering the structure of the District Licensing Committee from a region-wide pool of chairs and members to a local model will address community concerns about their input into decision-making. As a quasi-judicial body, the DLC is constrained by the law and its decisions must be made in accordance with the Act.

8. It is recommended that the existing region-wide structure be retained but that the number of DLC chairs and members is reduced from October 2016, when the current contracts expire and the local alcohol policy is in effect. In addition, a range of improvement opportunities have been identified that fall outside the scope of review and it is recommended that a work plan be developed to carry out these improvements.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) agree to retain the existing region-wide District Licensing Committee structure but reduce the number of commissioners and members from October 2016 when their contracts expire

b) approve the development of a work programme that captures the improvement opportunities identified through the District Licensing Committee review, to be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval in August 2015.

Comments

Background

9. In August 2013, the Governing Body considered the formation of Auckland Council’s District Licensing Committee (DLC) as required by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act). In particular, the Governing Body considered whether Auckland Council should establish localised DLCs or a region-wide pool of chairs and members.

10. The Governing Body approved a region-wide pool as the preferred structure, but resolved that a review of the structure would be conducted after a year of operation (res GB/2013/82).

11. In December 2014, the review was deferred until mid-2015, so that the provisional Local Alcohol Policy could be taken into consideration and to enable an assessment of the impacts of local board objections to alcohol licences.

12. Staff began the review in March 2015, when the terms of reference were sent to all elected members, DLC members, staff involved in the alcohol licensing process and other key stakeholders.

13. The terms of reference set out the objective of the review, which is to evaluate the current structure of the District Licensing Committee and advise whether the structure is achieving the following outcomes:

- decisions are made in accordance with the Act

- community views are able to be heard in accordance with the Act

- the District Licensing Committee is consistent in its approach

- the structure is cost-effective for Auckland Council.

14. Staff received a significant amount of feedback that was outside the scope of the review, which has been captured as opportunities for improvement. It is proposed that these improvement opportunities are delivered through a separate programme of work, which will be developed by staff and reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in August 2015.

Overview of District Licensing Committee activity to date

15. As shown in Attachment A, the DLC received 10,121 applications from January 2014 to January 2015 (inclusive). This volume is consistent with previous years. Over half of the applications received were for manager’s certificates, a quarter of the applications were for special licences and the remaining quarter were renewal, temporary authority or new licence applications respectively.

16. Most applications (5,447) received were for central Auckland (encompassing the Waitematā, Waiheke, Great Barrier, Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, Whau and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards), followed by north (2,052), south (1,970) and west Auckland (652).

17. When the DLC was established, it was estimated that 15-20 percent of applications would go to a public hearing. However, only around one percent of applications were opposed or received public objections. As at 28 April 2015, the District Licensing Committee had held 85 public hearings.

18. Although the Police and licensing inspectors may oppose any type of application, members of the public can only object to applications for new licences, renewals and special licences that have been publicly notified. On this basis, there were just over 1,700 opportunities for the public to object.

19. Local boards have objected 14 times in total. All local board objections related to off-licence applications. The tables in Attachment A show objections that were considered at a public hearing, however the Mangere-Otahuhu, Otara-Papatoetoe and Manurewa local boards also made one objection to applications that were ultimately decided on the papers (i.e. without a hearing).

Appeals

20. The primary mechanism for challenging a decision of the District Licensing Committee is to lodge an appeal to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA). On hearing an appeal, ARLA can confirm, modify or reverse the decision.

21. To date, ARLA has received 19 appeals of Auckland DLC decisions out of 57 appeals overall. Of those 19 Auckland DLC appeals:

- one decision was declared invalid

- three decisions were modified by amending conditions

- four decisions were confirmed

- eleven appeals were either withdrawn or have not yet been heard.

22. The number of appeals does not reflect on the quality of decision-making, however the outcome can. It is difficult to reach a conclusion about the overall quality of Auckland DLC decisions based on the low number of appeals that have been determined to date.

23. One key learning through the decisions that were modified was the importance of providing all parties with an opportunity to comment on new or unusual licence conditions. This may result in a slight increase in the number of hearings where the DLC wishes to impose new conditions despite no opposition or objection.

Potential impacts of the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy

24. Auckland Council’s Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (the policy) reduces trading hours and brings in a number of restrictions that may impact on the workload of the DLC.

25. The policy establishes a two-year freeze on new off-licences in the City Centre and 25 Priority Overlay areas and creates a rebuttable presumption against new off-licences in all Neighbourhood Centres (presumption that new licences will be refused unless rebutted by the applicant).

26. The policy also requires a local impacts report for new off-licence, on-licence and renewal applications depending on their level of risk.

27. It is expected that the policy will be subject to appeals, with a final Local Alcohol Policy likely to come into effect around mid-2016.

28. If there is no substantial change to the provisional policy, the restrictions introduced by the final policy are likely to lead to fewer public objections, as most objections currently relate to new premises applications. All local board objections to date have related to off-licence applications, which will be subject to the two-year freeze in the areas where there is the greatest level of alcohol-related harm.

29. It is possible that there will be a slight increase in the number of objections before the policy comes into effect if business owners attempt to open new premises before the two-year freeze begins. Given the low number of objections to date however, it is unlikely that an increase will be significant.

30. When the final policy comes into effect, DLCs will have more information to consider for new and renewal applications that require local impacts reports. This is likely to increase the average timeframe for decision-making and subsequently increase the DLC’s costs. It is difficult to predict whether there may be an increased number of hearings due to opposition as a result of the local impact reports.

Review findings

Consultation

31. Although 18 months have passed since the inception of Auckland’s DLC, this is a relatively short period of time to collect meaningful data about its effectiveness. Accordingly, the conclusions of this review are based on qualitative findings through feedback from key stakeholders.

32. Feedback from key stakeholders was sought to inform the review and included DLC members and chairs, reporting agencies, applicants, objectors, local boards, staff involved in the licensing process, the Health Promotion Agency, Local Government New Zealand and the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority.

33. Stakeholders were asked to comment on the structure of the DLC, in particular:

- what is working well

- what isn’t working well

- what we can do to improve

- the impact of local board objections to alcohol licence applications.

34. It was recognised that feedback would be offered on the operation of the DLC beyond the scope of the terms of reference for the review. This additional feedback has been considered and, if approved, will be incorporated as part of a proposed forward work programme.

35. In total, 58 responses were received from key stakeholders. Local Government New Zealand was unable to provide comments within the review timeframes, however its representatives offered to provide a verbal response in advance of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. The key themes arising from key stakeholder feedback and discussed in more detail below include:

- the DLC structure

- community views

- local board objections

- consistency

- cost-effectiveness

- other issues/areas for improvement.

DLC structure

36. Currently, the DLC is a region-wide pool, made up of 11 chairs and 20 members who make decisions on alcohol licence applications. When an application is opposed or has received public objection, one chair and two members are appointed to a hearings panel on the basis of location, availability and expertise.

37. The composition of the DLC pool includes 11 centrally-located chairs or members, eight from the south, ten from the north and two from west Auckland. DLC chairs or members are located in 14 out of 21 local board areas. From an area-based perspective the DLC composition is largely representative of applications received for south and west Auckland, however it is not representative for central or north Auckland, nor is it representative at a local board level.

38. In accordance with the Governing Body resolution of 22 August 2013, staff allocate a local DLC member to hearings where practicable (GB/2013/82). Because the pool is not representative of all local board areas, DLC chairs and members are sought from the broader geographical areas of north, south, west or central Auckland. To minimise the perception of conflict, DLC members who are also local board members are not appointed to hearings within their immediate local board area.

39. Some local boards, objectors and one applicant indicated that they would prefer a local DLC model, where members make decisions on applications within their local area. The argument for this approach is that DLC decisions will give better consideration to local issues and decision-makers who are familiar with the local area may give greater weight to community objections.

40. The mechanism for community input is set out in the Act and every DLC must adhere to the legislation when making decisions. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of DLCs, members are not able to bring their own evidence to decision-making, even if they are highly familiar with the location or the premises in question. DLCs must remain impartial and make their decisions on the evidence before them. If the structure is changed to a local model there is a risk that this impartiality may be compromised.

41. In general, DLC chairs and members, agencies, applicants and agents support retaining the existing region-wide structure, however they suggested that the number of chairs and members be reduced.

Community views

42. The Act introduced new opportunities for communities to input into alcohol licensing decisions through objections to alcohol licence applications. Feedback from agencies, applicants and DLC members is that community views are being heard, however objectors and some local boards consider that these views are not being heard in an effective way and that processes need to be improved.

43. Objectors are experiencing a number of barriers to participation in the alcohol licensing process, including the formality and legal language associated with DLC hearings and decisions, gathering and presenting evidence, cost of representation and the time associated with appearing at hearings. Concerns were also raised about the difficulty in viewing applications and finding information about hearings. Some applicants and agents have raised concerns about the time taken at hearings by the DLC to guide objectors through the process.

44. Objectors find it difficult to take time during the day to attend hearings and suggested that hearings could be held in the evenings or weekends, and at venues that were closer to where they live. This would enable greater participation by objectors but would increase council’s staffing and venue costs and it would pose difficulties in enabling other parties to attend the hearing. Staff aim to balance the requirements of all parties when scheduling hearings, however there is an opportunity to review hearing processes to ensure they are conducted in timely way.

45. A large number of comments received from key stakeholders related to evidence and the burden of proof. There is a great deal of uncertainty among key stakeholders about the expectations of DLCs as to the type and level of evidence required at hearings, and as a result they do not feel that their evidence is given enough weight. Case law is starting to develop through decisions of the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, which will guide DLCs in future decisions, however there is a need for specific evidence training across all stakeholders to ensure consistency both in expectation and application.

46. It is unlikely that a different DLC structure would address the issues raised by objectors and local boards in relation to community views. Hearing requirements are set in legislation and evidence requirements are established in case law. Greater education and awareness is needed however, and there is an opportunity to review and improve processes to improve transparency and remove some of the barriers to participation for all parties. It is proposed that a work programme is developed to capture and action these improvements.

Local board objections to alcohol licence applications

47. In September 2014, the Governing Body delegated to local boards the power to object to alcohol licence applications. It is apparent that there has not been an increase in the number of local board objections since that date (there were six local board objections before September 2014, and five objections after).

48. As part of the review, local boards were asked about the impact of the delegation to object. Eight local boards support retaining the ability to object, even if they do not use it. Of those eight local boards, three indicated that they would rather assist their communities to object.

49. There were mixed views among the key stakeholders who commented on local board objections to alcohol licence applications. Some were concerned about the cost and reputational risk to council, particularly when local boards appeal decisions of the DLC. There were also concerns about hearings taking a long time due to blanket objections by local boards. On the other hand, some communities appreciate local boards objecting on their behalf due to the overwhelming and daunting nature of DLC hearings. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local boards have funded community workshops on DLC hearings and making objections, which objectors have found helpful.

50. No change is recommended in relation to local board objections.

Consistency

51. Consistency was a common theme across all the stakeholders that commented as part of the review. Some agents said that the DLC is consistent in its approach to dealing with various decisions and that compared with other DLCs, Auckland is doing well. However, the majority of stakeholders highlighted a lack of consistency in a number of areas, including processes and procedures, expectations and protocol at hearings, style and content of decisions.

52. Stakeholders also noted that council’s licensing and administrative processes were not always consistent across all of the area offices.

53. Hearings participants found that they were experiencing different levels of formality at hearings, the conduct of DLC chairs and members was different depending on who was presiding, there was differing treatment of case law among chairs and conditions in decisions were inconsistent.

54. One stakeholder pointed out that unless there is a single DLC with a chair and two members, there will always be some variation in decision-making. That is not necessarily a problem that needs to be resolved as no application is exactly the same and each committee should reach its own decisions based on the evidence, legal argument and merits of each application.

55. However, it is reasonable to expect that DLC chairs and members will treat all parties fairly and consistently at hearings. It is also reasonable to expect that there should be a level of consistency in the way that are hearings are run, so that applicants, agencies and objectors know how to prepare for and behave at hearings, regardless of where they are held or who is on the hearings panel.

56. Many stakeholders, including DLC chairs and members, highlighted a need for more formal training, better sharing of other DLC decisions and case-law and opportunities for discussion and networking to improve consistency within the pool and across Auckland.

Cost-effectiveness

57. In the first twelve months of its operation, most of council’s costs to administer the DLCs were recovered through from the default licensing fees set by central government. On 5 February 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee confirmed that the default fees regime would continue and agreed to review the regime after a suitable time has elapsed following the implementation of the Local Alcohol Policy (REG/2015/7)

58. Many respondents commented on the costs associated with DLC hearings. Applicants, objectors and agents were all concerned at the cost of attending a hearing, including taking time off work to attend and hiring an agent or legal counsel. There was also a common theme that other parties to a hearing were not sympathetic to the costs involved.

59. In accordance with the Act and in the interests of natural justice, the DLC will nearly always hold a hearing when there is opposition or objection to a licence application. It has been noted by a number of respondents that hearings could be more efficient however, and there is an opportunity to review hearings processes with the aim of streamlining proceedings and reducing time.

Other issues/areas for improvement

60. Although agents and legal counsel have identified a number of improvement opportunities, they have advised that the Auckland DLC has performed well in comparison with other DLCs around the country. In general, the Auckland DLC is seen to be faster and better supported, and the hearings have been conducted in a fair and robust manner.

61. Stakeholders identified a number of administrative issues through the review, which mostly related to inconsistency across teams and area offices. Staff will investigate these issues further and streamline internal processes where possible to ensure a consistent approach is provided to customers across Auckland. Administrative suggestions included technological improvements, such as online payments, corresponding via email instead of letter and recording hearings.

62. At a national level, the Health Promotion Agency has gathered a significant amount of feedback through workshops and forums with over 340 attendees from District Licensing Committees, reporting agencies, staff, elected members and community organisations. This feedback will be presented through a comprehensive report, which is currently in draft and is expected to be finalised in June 2015.

63. Through their forums and workshops, the Health Promotion Agency has identified a raft of potential improvements, which include capability building for all parties to the alcohol licensing process (including DLCs), better information, training and support for communities to engage with the licensing process. These improvements mirror many suggestions received by key stakeholders as part of the DLC review.

64. It is recommended that the identified improvements in the Health Promotion Agency report be incorporated into a forward work programme for Auckland Council where appropriate.

Options and recommendations

65. The questions that this review aimed to cover included whether the decisions are being made and community views are able to be heard in accordance with the Act, whether the structure is cost-effective and whether the DLC is consistent in its approach.

66. It is clear that the structure is not perfect, however feedback indicates that in general it is working well. The structure also appears to be cost effective, with licensing fees covering the majority of DLC expenses.

67. There are clear areas of concern around consistency, including process and outcomes. This is more likely to be due to the large size of the DLC pool, rather than the structure.

68. The other key area for concern is that communities as objectors feel that they are not being heard. This is partly due to the formal quasi-judicial nature of DLC hearings, but also frustration that objectors’ evidence does not seem to be given as much weight as other evidence in DLC decision-making.

69. Considering the above findings, the important question is whether changing the structure will solve the issues identified.

70. Stakeholder feedback on the form of the DLC structure generally reflected the following three options:

- retain the existing structure in its current form

- retain the existing structure but reduce the size of the pool

- change the structure to a locally-based model.

71. The pros and cons of each option are set out in the tables below.

Option one: retain the existing structure.

72. Under this option, there would be no change to the existing DLC structure. This means there would continue to be a region-wide pool of 11 chairpersons and 20 members, who are appointed to hearings on the basis of location, availability and expertise. A local member will continue to be appointed to hearings in accordance with the Governing Body resolution of 22 August 2013 (GB/2013/82).

Pros

Cons

- Enables flexibility in hearings appointments

- Decision-making is fast

- DLC members and chairs gain experience across different areas of Auckland

- No risk that council is not meeting its contractual obligations with DLC members

- No impact on administration costs

- Does not impact the consistency of decision-making

- Ongoing travel costs where a DLC member is appointed from outside the local area

- Does not resolve workload issues, which means it may be difficult to attract and retain quality decision-makers

Option two: retain the existing structure but reduce the number of commissioners and members from October 2016 when the existing District Licensing Committee contracts expire.

73. Under this option, there would be no change to the existing DLC structure until October 2016. There would continue to be a region-wide pool of chairpersons and members, which would reduce in number from 11 and 20 respectively, to approximately 5 chairpersons and 10 members, depending on an assessment of workload at the time that the next pool of commissioners is appointed. Appointment to hearings would occur in the same way as option one.

Pros

Cons

- No risk that council is not meeting its contractual obligations

- Enables flexibility in hearings appointments

- Long-term improvement in consistency of decision-making from a region-wide perspective

- DLC members and chairs gain experience across different areas of Auckland

- No significant impact on administration costs

- Takes into consideration the impact of the local alcohol policy once it is in effect

- No immediate change to consistency of decision-making

- Ongoing travel costs for members appointed to hearings outside their local area

- Potentially longer timeframes for decision-making after October 2016

Option three: reorganise the structure into a local area-based model, aligned with local board boundaries, similar to the nine clustered DLC model that was proposed in the report to the Governing Body on 22 August 2013.

74. Under this option, the current pool of DLC chairs and members would be reorganised into specific area-based DLCs (North, South, West and Central), and would only determine applications relating to their area. The number of DLC chairs and members would be adjusted from October 2016 to better accommodate the volume of work.

Pros

Cons

- Greater consistency of decision-making within the specific areas

- Greater familiarity with local area-based issues

- No improvement to consistency from a region-wide perspective

- The current pool of DLC chairs and members does not include representatives across all geographic areas of Auckland, meaning that some area-based DLCs will be over-represented and others under-represented

- Changing the structure of the DLC before October 2016 may significantly alter the workload of chairs and members, which carries a high risk of challenge on the basis that council is not meeting its contractual obligations

- Potentially longer timeframes for decision-making and higher cost to administer (through setting up and implementing new allocation tool)

- Potential bias and/or conflict of interest if local board members determine applications within their local board areas

Discussion

75. Options one and two have negligible impact on cost-effectiveness as the existing region-wide model would be retained in its current form until October 2016. There may be a slight increase in the costs to service option three as staff develop and implement a new allocation tool to assign all applications by area.

76. The key issue of consistency is unlikely to be resolved in a meaningful way by changing the structure of the pool. Under option three there may be greater consistency at a local level, however there would still be differences across processes and decisions at a regional level.

77. There is also a risk under option three of perceived predetermination or bias. Reducing the number of DLC chairs and members will improve consistency, however as key stakeholders have noted, it is not possible to achieve complete consistency because every application is different and must be judged on its own merit.

78. If the current DLC chairs and members were reorganised into a local model, it would mean that northern DLC members would have significantly fewer applications to consider and central DLC members would see an increase. There would also be a risk of a conflict of interest for applications decided by local board members within their own local board areas, for example, the two DLC members based in west Auckland are also local board members.

79. The current DLC chairs and members are under contract to Auckland Council until October 2016. Therefore it is recommended that no structural changes are made before that date. Any alterations to the structure of the DLC that may significantly impact the workload of the chairs and members before October 2016 will have contractual implications and must be considered very carefully.

80. It is recommended that the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approves option two. This will allow DLC chairs and members to complete their contracts, share workload as fairly as possible across the pool and enable staff to complete a better assessment of resourcing requirements following implementation of the local alcohol policy.

81. It is also recommended that a programme of work is developed with tools that may have a greater impact on consistency and community views being heard as part of the licensing process. These tools may include education and training about hearings preparation, processes and evidence; review of templates and processes; improved provision of information to increase awareness about DLC work; and a system for monitoring and reviewing DLC performance over time. If endorsed, the programme of work will be developed and reported back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee for approval in August 2015.

Local Board views and implications

82. All local boards were invited to provide feedback on the review. In total, 19 boards provided a response of some description, with the remaining two providing no response (Kaipātiki and Albert-Eden). A summary of local board feedback is appended to this report as Attachment B.

83. Of the boards that did provide a response, eight indicated that they had no substantive feedback to provide due to a lack of activity and/or issues with the DLC in their area (Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays, Upper Harbour, Devonport-Takapuna, Waitematā, Waiheke, Great Barrier and Howick).

84. The boards based in the west of the region (Henderson-Massey, Waitākere Ranges and Whau) also chose not to provide substantive feedback. It appears that this was in part because of the involvement of a number of elected members in both the licensing trusts and the DLC in this area.

85. The eight boards that did provide substantive feedback (Franklin, Manurewa, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Puketāpapa and Orākei) were primarily located in the central-southern region. Feedback was facilitated in most cases via workshops incorporating presentations from the review team.

86. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local boards formalised their feedback at their business meetings of 18, 20 and 21 May respectively. The minutes and attachments of those meetings are appended as Attachment C. The Puketāpapa Local Board will formalise its feedback on 28 May, which is out of time for inclusion in this report.

87. A strong theme running through the feedback from most boards was that the ability to object to applications was valued even in those instances where the option had not been exercised to date.

88. A number of boards indicated a preference for greater local representation on DLCs. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe boards in particular strongly advocated the adoption of a localised model to replace the current regional pool.

89. Some boards expressed concerns around the potential perception of conflict of interest where local board members sit on DLC panels. However, this was not a view shared by all boards with the Ōrākei local board commenting that board members should be able to sit on panels considering applications from their area.

90. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe boards also raised concerns around a perceived lack of consistency in decision-making.

91. Other significant feedback themes included:

- the need to improve the flow of information to boards around DLC activities and outcomes

- the need to improve guidance for both boards and communities around the evidential requirements of the DLC

- the need to empower communities to engage in the objections process more effectively

- concerns around the formality of hearings, which impacts the ability of communities to be heard

- concerns around the weighting of evidence before the DLC and a bias against community concerns

- whether the cost to object is discouraging objections and how community needs can be better accommodated

- concerns around the impartiality of inspectors given their close working relationship with applicants and a lack of follow-up enforcement of DLC decisions and applicant undertakings.

92. The proposed work programme will take into account the above concerns and suggestions.

Māori impact statement

93. The current region-wide structure of the DLC is designed to provide broad participation across all demographics in the Auckland region. A representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board was involved in the DLC member appointment process, which included assessing candidates against criteria including the Treaty of Waitangi and community awareness.

94. The review is not considered to impact significantly on Māori.

Implementation

95. If option two (to retain the existing structure but reduce the number of commissioners and members from October 2016) is endorsed, staff will continue to monitor the workload of DLC chairs and make suggestions for future resourcing requirements in August 2016.

96. It is proposed that a work programme be developed and reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in August 2015 for approval. The work programme will incorporate the recommendations for improvement as a result of the DLC review, including:

- review of forms, templates and processes to simplify where possible

- development and delivery of information to interested parties about alcohol licensing, hearings processes and enforcement

- regular reporting to local boards on DLC activity

- specific training on evidence required at DLC hearings

- mechanisms for the monitoring and review of DLC performance

- alignment with recommendations in the upcoming Health Promotion Agency report where appropriate.

97. The costs of the proposed work programme will be met within existing operational budgets.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Overview of District Licensing Committee activity to date	21
b View	Local board feedback on the District Licensing Committee review	23
c View	Meeting minutes of the Otara-Papatoetoe, Mangere-Otahuhu and Maungakiekie-Tamaki local boards	29

Signatories

Authors

Elizabeth McKenzie - Principal Advisor Hearings

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Grant Taylor - Governance Director

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 June 2015

The Empowered Communities Approach and the New Operating Model for the Community Development and Safety Unit

File No.: CP2015/09993

Purpose

1. This purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of the implementation of the Empowered Communities approach which was approved in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and will result in a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety unit of Council. An outline of the Empowered Communities Approach (ECA) is included as Attachment A.

Executive Summary

2. The proposal to develop a more empowered, community-led approach to the work of Auckland Council was approved by the budget committee on 7th May 2015 as part of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP).

3. The associated savings target of $1.6 million in 2015/2016 and $2.0 million per annum each subsequent year, until 2025, were also approved in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

4. The purpose of the Empowered Communities Approach (ECA) is to develop a more effective and empowering approach to the way council delivers services and supports more community led development. The approach builds on the Thriving Communities Action Plan Ngā Hāpori Momoho (April 2014).

5. The proposed operating model for the Community Development and Safety unit will consist of two components: local strategic brokers and the community practice hub. Together these components will better respond to local board plans, the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau as well as Auckland wide issues as identified by the governing body.

6. The proposed model provides flexibility to meet the varying requirements of committees and local boards, rather than taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

7. Key functions of the new operating model for the community development and safety unit are to:

· support the work of local boards to enable community-led, local initiatives

· build community capacity and capability

· increase diverse community input into the work of council

· catalyse the empowered communities approach across the whole of council

· work together in more enabling and responsive ways with mana whenua, mataawaka, marae and Māori organisations.

8. A transition period will be necessary with the new model implemented from July to December 2015. It is expected that the new model will be fully embedded by FY 2016/17 with learnings from the first 6-12months shaping the full implementation. A monitoring and evaluation framework for the ECA and operating model is under development.

9. Local boards support the empowering communities approach. They also support the locally facing roles and see these being located with local boards. However, there are concerns around implementation plans, budgets and governance and accountability support for community organisations. Local boards have not endorsed the detail of the model. Boards are particularly concerned that there are no additional resources released for local delivery in 2015/2016 and limited resource in 2016/2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) endorse the implementation of the Empowered Communities approach which will result in a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety (CDS) unit.

b) note that progress will be reviewed and reported back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in February and July 2016.

Comments

10. The Mayor’s Proposal for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) included developing a more empowered community led approach to the work of Auckland Council and sought changes to the community development function as follows:

· to transition delivery to a more empowered community approach

· to move away from direct delivery (and therefore save overheads) and fund community groups to deliver more

· for local boards to play a much more active role by allocating more funding through them.

11. This proposal was approved by the Budget Committee on 7 May 2015 as follows:

a) note that an Empowered Communities approach will be implemented during the 2015/2016 financial year with detail of the proposed Community Development and Safety model to be presented to the Regional Strategy and Policy (RSP) Committee on 4 June 2015.

b) note that the associated savings target of $1.6 million in 2015/2016 and $2.0 million per annum each year thereafter, until 2025, has been included in the budget and that any necessary review of implementation and related budget can be undertaken as part of the Annual Plan 2016/2017 process. Resolution number BUD/2015/18.

12. An Empowered Communities Approach (ECA) has been developed to lead a new, more effective and community-led approach to the way council delivers services and supports community activities. As a starting point, a new operating model has been developed for the Community Development and Safety unit within the Community Development, Arts and Culture Department. This will help shift away from direct service delivery, to supporting community-led initiatives, with a view to embedding this way of working across the council family.

13. The operating model has been discussed in workshops with community organisations, mana whenua groups, council staff, local boards, the Pacific People’s Advisory Panel, the disability community and external community development practitioners over the last four months. A summary of the consultation up to 30 March 2015 is outlined in Attachment B.

Political Advisory Group

14. A Political Advisory Group (PAG) chaired by the Mayor was established to provide strategic advice and guidance to staff during the development of the empowered communities approach. The PAG supported the empowered communities approach at its meeting on 6th March 2015.

15. The Political Advisory Group consists of six councillors, six local board chairs and one member of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.

16. Meetings of the PAG in April and early May focused on the new operating model for CDS. Feedback included the importance of meeting local needs, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach and to ensure the approach and model aligns with the Māori Transformational Shifts and reflects the aims and outcomes of Te Toa Takitini. The ECA and operating model were adjusted to address this feedback (Attachment A).

17. The importance of meeting local needs is a significant priority along with the release of resources for local delivery. Additionally there was a view that more time should be provided to work through the budget and transition issues and allow for various forms of the approach to be tested against the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

18. At the 4th May 2015 PAG meeting there was further concern raised by the local board members about a lack of detail available on implementation issues, resource considerations and budget impacts for local boards. This was a common theme in the local board feedback which is summarised under the local board views and implications section of this report.

19. A further PAG was held on 26th May 2015 where these concerns were addressed directly. A verbal update will be provided at the committee meeting on the outcome of the PAG meeting. A presentation was given to the Local Board Chairs forum on the 25 May to provide further detail around budgets and transition arrangements.

Empowered Communities Approach

20. The proposed Empowered Communities Approach as detailed in Attachment A, is summarised by:

· an ‘Empowered Communities: Enabling Council’: an approach underpinned by a two-way relationship between council and the community; leading to improved outcomes for Auckland

· a strong alignment to the Māori Responsiveness Framework and promotion of working in partnership with Māori

· an empowered community is one where individuals, whānau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions, take action and make change happen in their lives and communities. This includes communities of place, interest and identity

· community empowerment is about providing real opportunities for people to participate and fostering the conditions that support this. An empowered communities approach is a ‘way of working’ that empowers people to play a more active role in the decisions that affect their communities.

21. Working in a way that empowers communities requires ‘whole of council’ shifts to:

· act on and enable council’s partnership with Māori

· provide a gateway / portal into council resources and information

· provide more support for local boards and other areas of council to work together in joined-up ways with local communities

· facilitate and embed the empowered communities approach across council

· develop and implement creative new engagement and participation practices

· support the devolution of resources / functions / control to communities.

Proposed new operating model

22. The proposed new operating model for the CDS Unit involves a shift from delivering community development activities directly to communities, to using community led development processes. The shift also involves working more broadly across council and the CCO’s to achieve local board, governing body and Māori aspirations aligned to the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau and the Māori Responsiveness Framework.

23. The five core functions of the new unit are to:

· support delivery of local board plans and more community-led, local initiatives

· support the delivery of the Auckland Council Māori Responsiveness Framework

· focus on community capacity and capability building

· increase diverse input into council decision-making

· embed the empowered communities approach across the whole council.

24. The operating model consists of two components: local strategic brokers and a community practice hub. It is anticipated the strategic brokers will be co-located with local boards and will work closely with local board staff and in the local community.

25. The Strategic Brokers will:

· work with local boards to deliver local priorities and support more community-led planning, place-making and delivery

· scan the local community and share community priorities with the local board for their planning and prioritisation processes

· build strong relationships with local iwi, marae and Māori organisations

· provide operational policy advice to local boards on emerging community issues

· join up the work of all departments and CCO’s working in the local board area to provide an integrated and responsive experience for the community

· enlist additional resources and support for the local board area when needed from the practice hub.

26. The Community Practice Hub will be made up of operational, technical and specialist support. This will cover:

· practical hands on support to deliver work programmes eg: project management, facilitation, technical safety advice

· capacity and capability building

· community participation expertise and support

· helping other departments to deliver projects in a community led way

· Māori responsiveness

· inclusiveness and equality (communities of interest and identity)

· partnering agreements and social investment

· collaborative responses to Auckland-wide issues

· internal innovation to reduce barriers that enable communities

Transition

27. The new CDS operating model will progressively be put in place from August 2015 to January 2016, following consultation with affected staff and adoption of a new organisational design.

28. A plan is under development to ensure continuity of service over the transition period and to implement the 2015/16 work programme under the new way of working. Part of the approach to transition planning will be to work with local boards to ensure the right level of resourcing will be in place to support this and to be flexible to their needs dependent on the current level of devolvement of community services and the capability and capacity of their community to do more for themselves. An evaluation and monitoring framework is also under development in conjunction with council’s RIMU unit and will likely involve external evaluators. This will monitor progress and help inform changes to the operating model during its initial set up phase in the first six months of operation and evaluate the outcomes of the approach over the first three years.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29. The empowered community approach aims to provide a much more active role for local boards in community development by allocating more funding through them to support community empowerment and community led activities and services.

30. ECA builds on the strong focus on community led planning and development in the Local Board Plans 2014.

31. An engagement programme with local boards will be completed on 28 May 2015, which has included workshops with local board chairs and portfolio holders for community development. Workshops with individual boards were held in April and early May and a report to each local board business meeting was presented by Local Board Services during May.

32. At the May/June round of local board meetings, most local boards confirmed their support in principle for the empowered communities approach proposed in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-25 and Thriving Communities but noted that:

· local boards are allocated decision making in local community development activities

· The approach needs to be flexible to local requirements, this includes an option for boards to decide whether or not the strategic broker role is the most effective way to empower communities in their area

· lack of clarity around the impact of ECA on local board budgets, in particular how resources would be released for local delivery. Boards could not therefore reach a position on whether to support the model or not

· staff should be located with local board services and some recommended organisationally within Local Board Services

· a comprehensive change in organisational culture is required across the organisation to make ECA successful

· there needs to be robust governance and accountability systems

· support a careful and measured introduction to ECA over time with the suggestion of an initial pilot

· some local board resolutions also noted that the PAG had extended discussion on ECA and requested further opportunity for formal feedback

33. Resolutions from each local board are contained in Attachment C. A full list of board resolutions, and an updated summary of these will be tabled at the meeting.

34. Most local board resolutions were made before local boards were made aware of the budget implications of the proposed model at the local board chairs forum on 25 May. At this meeting, chairs noted that there are no additional resources released for local delivery in 2015/2016 ( due to transition costs and the $1.6million saving as proposed in the LTP) and limited resource is released in 2016/2017. Given that the proposal envisages staff taking a strategic brokering role rather than direct delivery of community development initiatives, chairs considered the budget situation puts delivery at risk.

35. Chairs saw this is an issue for both transition (staff currently delivering local board work programmes will be replaced by advisory staff) and in the longer term given that little resource is being released to empower the community to deliver, to replace direct delivery by staff. While the model envisages communities doing more for themselves, there is not community capacity or capability in many local board areas. This will take time to develop, so Chairs believe it would be preferable for cost savings to be programmed in later once the model is established rather than in the first few years. Chairs see retaining the $1.6 million for the early years would give the model a better chance of success.

Māori impact statement

36. The ECA has the potential to impact on Māori over time. Engagement with mataawaka and mana whenua was undertaken during the engagement phase to enable staff to understand potential impacts.

37. Engagement with Māori included a number of approaches and consultation with:

· Hapai Te Hauora Tapui Māori Public Health Services Ltd

· Mangere Rangatahi roopu

· Kaumatua Hau Ora Orakei Health Clinic

· Kaitiaki Forum – iwi information hui (19 iwi)

· Te ora o Manukau (disability sector)

38. The main themes to emerge from the engagement were:

· to put the Treaty partnership at front and centre

· engage Māori in the conversation first

· the model supports partnership and potentially a more accessible council to Māori and the community

· Council cultural change is needed to support an empowered communities approach and this will take time

· there is potential for more opportunities for marae to act as community hubs for reaching out and empowering Māori

39. Feedback from the IMSB representative on the PAG was that the approach and model do not adequately reflect the Māori Transformational shifts and Māori Responsiveness Framework. As a result of this feedback, the ECA and the resulting operating model have been changed. The Māori Responsiveness Framework now guides and shapes the ECA and council will work with iwi, Māori organisations and marae across the region to nurture community led development.

40. Discussion has identified that marae could be community hubs and further Māori input is needed to develop a fresh approach to capacity building.

Implementation

41. The model will begin implementation in CDS in 2015/2016, with the model fully operational in 2016/2017. The intention is for an Empowered Communities approach to be rolled out across the whole of council over the next three – five years.

42. Modelling is underway to anticipate the cost to implement the new model, however this cannot be finalised until after consultation has occurred with staff on a new organisational structure and it is confirmed.

43. During the transition year of 2015/2016 additional costs are likely to be incurred by council. There will be no additional funding redirected to local boards from cost to serve reductions from the new model in the first year but it is anticipated that additional funding will be reallocated locally in 2016/17.

44. A plan is under development to cover the transition period from July-December 2015 to ensure continuity of service and the embedding of the new way of working applied to local board and regional work programmes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Empowered Communities Approach	55
b View	Empowered Communities Approach Summary Consultation	81
c View	Resolutions from 12 boards compiled	87

Signatories

Authors

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Authorisers

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 June 2015

Interim list of resolutions from local boards on the Empowered Community Approach

(twelve local boards as at 21 May 2015)

Albert-Eden

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) makes resolutions on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June.

b) confirms its support in principle for the Empowered Communities Approach proposed in the draft Long-term Plan 2015–2025, recognising that it presents an opportunity to reorient the way that Auckland Council works, so that community-initiated and led projects and activities are better facilitated and supported by the Council and by local boards in particular;

c) notes that the cohesiveness and well-being of local communities is a fundamental concern of local boards;

d) notes that funding for the Empowered Communities Approach, and its impact on local board budgets is unclear, and that it is therefore not possible to come to a definite position of support or otherwise for the proposal;

e) notes that additional funding will be required to establish such an approach across Council, and that inadequate funding will endanger the successful implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach;

f) supports a careful and measured introduction of the Empowered Communities Approach over time, noting that this may require the detailed design and implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach model to continue beyond the commencement of the 2015–2016 financial year;

g) notes the need for flexibility in the structure and resourcing of the Empowered Communities Approach model, as local boards vary greatly in the readiness of their local communities to initiate and lead projects and manage facilities, and in existing structures and resourcing of community events and projects, amongst other things;

h) notes, in this respect, the need for local boards to have the flexibility to engage outside organisations to inter alia manage the process of identifying or attracting expressions of interest from community organisations, and assist such organisations to collaborate with Council departments and other organisations to plan, implement and manage community initiatives and build capacity to do the same;

i) strongly supports locating any staff with responsibility for the functions in (g) physically within local boards and organisationally within Local Board Services;

j) notes the need for a comprehensive change in the organisational culture of the Council, along with the review of many policies and practices across a range of functions, which limit or impede community-led initiatives;

k) notes that the scope of the Empowered Communities Approach includes all of those departments which currently have some interaction with local boards, most notably Community Development, Arts and Culture, and Parks, and some Council Controlled Organisations as well;

l) notes that there is a measure of risk involved with a community-centred approach and therefore a need for robust governance and accountability systems, along with clear understandings about Council’s response where initiatives do not succeed.

m) notes the need to avoid duplication and over-bureaucratisation in the development of new structures to support the Empowered Communities Approach.

Great Barrier

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Supports the devolved empowered community approach to provide additional support for the board and its community focusing on addressing local gaps in provision and provided this is sufficiently funded and flexible to meet Great Barrier’s particular needs, including that this support could be:

i) a person(s) who can be locally based, at least part time, including not necessarily a council employee

ii) additional budget held by the board to allocate as it sees fit to advance community development

iii) broader than the strictest community development definition and include, if desired things like environmental and parks projects

b) Notes that Great Barrier already has a largely devolved community development approach with council officers playing a minimal role mostly around managing community grants and contracts funded from the board’s discretionary (and in future LDI) budgets.

c) Notes its expectation that future Community Development and Safety budgets including staffing costs and overheads are consistent with the level of support provided for Great Barrier and not, as is the case at present, many times higher.

Henderson Massey

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) Supports in principle, the proposed Empowered Communities Approach.

b) Thanks the Mayor and the Governing Body for their strong support of local boards’ role in delivering local community development, that is implicit in the Empowered Communities proposal;

c) Has received feedback that indicates community groups have high expectations of increased financial support as a result of the Empowered Communities approach and requests realistic messaging around the proposal;

d) Notes that funding for the Empowered Communities Approach, and its impact on local board budgets is unclear, and that it is therefore not possible to come to a definite position of support or otherwise for the proposal;

e) Envisages that Henderson-Massey Local Board would not make much use of the community practice hub as proposed.

f) Supports a careful and measured introduction of the Empowered Communities Approach to enable each Board to develop its own community appropriate approach.

g) Notes the need for flexibility in the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach, to cater to the individual circumstances of each local board.

h) Strongly supports locating staff physically within local boards and organisationally within Local Board Services;

i) Notes the need for a comprehensive change in the organisational culture of the Council, along with the review of many policies and practices across a range of functions, which limit or impede community-led initiatives;

j) Strongly supports an Empowered Communities approach that addresses staff concerns that the board has encountered such as frequent restructuring, high turnover of staff through local board facing positions, and conflicting accountabilities between regional and local activities

k) Notes that the Henderson-Massey Local Board has experienced some of the risks involved with a more community empowered approach and requests Council and its CCOs develop more robust governance and accountability systems, staff and elected member capacity development, and robust criteria and procedures for Council’s response when agreed community outcomes and standards of governance are not being achieved.

Howick

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Provides the following feedback on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June:

i) confirms its support in principle for the Empowered Communities Approach proposed in the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025, recognising that it presents an opportunity to reorient the way that Auckland Council works so that community initiated and led projects and activities are better facilitated and supported by Council.

ii) Notes that funding for the Empowered Communities Approach and its impact on local board budgets is unclear, therefore it is not possible to come to a definite position of support or otherwise for the proposal.

iii) Supports a careful and measured introduction of the Empowered Communities Approach over time, noting that this may require the detailed design and implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach model to continue beyond the commencement of the 2015/2016 financial year.

iv) Emphasises that one size one size does not fit all and the approach must accommodate local requirements not limit local options and provide for flexibility in resourcing and models adopted for local delivery.

v) Emphasises that the Empowered Community Approach needs to take into account the wide variety of communities and their capacity, be responsive, support Maori in achieving their outcomes and be culturally attuned.

vi) Strongly supports locating any staff with responsibility for the Empowered Communities Approach physically within local board areas and organisationally within Local Board Services.

vii) Notes the need for a comprehensive change in the organisational culture of Council, along with the review of many policies and practices across a range of functions which may limit or impede the Empowered Communities Approach.

Kaipātiki

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) recognises that local boards have a statutory role of community engagement, consultation and advocacy, which is also embedded in the ‘Allocation of decision making responsibility for non-regulatory activities’, as this provides for local board decision making in local community development activities.

b) notes the successful empowered community approach currently being delivered in Kaipātiki.

c) supports the intent of the Mayor's Proposal for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 to develop an enhanced empowered community approach that funds community groups to deliver more and for local boards to have an active role by allocating more funding through them.

d) reiterates their support for the Thriving Communities Policy, which empowers our community, as adopted by Auckland Council in 2014, and notes that the Empowered Community Approach makes ‘live’ this policy.

e) wishes to emphasise that one size does not fit all and the approach must accommodate local requirements, not limit local options and provide for flexibility in resourcing and models adopted for local delivery including taking into account the wide variety of communities and their capacity, and being responsive and supportive of Maori in achieving their outcomes.

f) suggests that various local boards are asked to carry out pilot programmes implementing an Empowered Communities Approach, using their local board plan outcomes to guide such work.

g) requests to be one of the areas in the pilot programme referenced in resolution f), noting that:

i. the board will be open and honest with Auckland Council, its community and other local boards about the lessons learned and outcomes achieved locally;

ii. the board is also keen to learn from the learnings and outcomes achieved by other local boards piloting the engaged communities approach elsewhere in the Auckland region; and

iii. it is vital that an empowered community approach devolves the delivery of community development and safety services directly to our community.

h) notes that there is a need for a comprehensive change across the council family to achieve the purpose of an Empowered Communities Approach.

i) supports the establishment of a cross-council team, as a means to address the intent of resolution h), that provides specialist advice to our community in areas such as, but not limited to, procurement, human resource, infrastructure, finance, project management, environment, consenting, planning, legal, design, parks and transport.

j) requests investigation occurs to establish a best practice governance structure for our community organisations.

k) requests that staff provide information about funding of the proposed approach, which identifies the total budget for Community Development and Safety, regional and local operating costs, potential funding that can be reallocated to local delivery and details on the functions and roles and those involved with implementing the approach.

l) understands the Political Advisory Group has extended their discussion on the Empowered Communities Approach and therefore requests a new timeframe be provided identifying further formal feedback opportunities for local boards.

Manurewa

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) provides the following input on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June:

i) notes that all local boards have a significant role in the wellbeing of local communities and decision making allocated to them for local community development activities.

ii) supports the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 direction to develop a more empowered community approach to the work of Auckland Council through a shift from direct delivery to funding community and voluntary organisations to deliver more and enhancing the role of local boards.

iii) supports the Thriving Communities action plan which sets out to create an enabling council implementing a community-led approach and in so doing empowering local boards so they can drive that approach.

iv) highlights that the level of resourcing for the Empowered Community Approach is unclear, details of the impact on local boards and communities are lacking and the functions described are unclear. Therefore it is not possible to reach a position as to whether or not the proposal can be supported

v) requests that staff provide a robust proposal describing functions not form, budget and resourcing information, impact analysis through testing against Local Board Plan outcomes and an implementation programme.

vi) the Political Advisory Group has extended discussion on the Empowered Communities Approach, therefore a new timeframe for development is required identifying when local boards will be able to provide additional formal feedback on any amended proposal.

vii) reinforces that one size does not fit all. The approach must accommodate local requirements and take into account the wide variety of communities and their capacity, plus be responsive to Maori.

viii) recognises that changing organisational culture, as sought by the proposal, needs to include policies, procedures and practices across departments and council controlled organisations (CCOs) and not solely focus on one unit within one department.

ix) with change there are always potential risks that need to be minimised. Solid governance and accountability frameworks need to be put in place, linked to a pilot phase for the approach which should inform an implementation programme.

b) request that the above resolutions be circulated to all the local boards.

Orākei

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) expresses concern that the purpose of developing the empowered communities approach has been to save money, rather than to achieve the best outcomes for Aucklanders.

b) expresses concern that the new concept has been developed without the input from external expertise and questions the ability of a council department to transform itself without credible external expertise.

c) considers that significant reform is needed in the way the Community Development and Safety team operates.

d) notes that community needs in the Orākei Local Board area are likely to differ substantially from those in other parts of the region.

e) supports the concept of a community–led approach and reducing bureaucratic barriers, noting that community development is not a core council service.

f) supports a model of community development where council’s main role is subsidising provision of facilities such as community centres and addressing market failures in the provision of community development services.

g) recommends that the empowered communities approach should first be trialled in one or a few local board areas and that this should inform any changes to the model and how it is implemented across the region.

h) recommends deferring implementation of the empowered communities approach across the region until the start of the next term of council so that trials can be completed.

i) considers that each local board should have the flexibility to decide how they respond to their communities in this area.

j) does not support the proposed community broker as it is likely to limit local boards’ flexibility and responsiveness to their communities.

k) considers that if the proposed community broker position is implemented:

i. local boards should be able to decide whether to have a broker or to use the funding to support the community in running programmes, as this will allow local boards greater flexibility

ii. local boards should have input into their appointment, as it is important for local community brokers to have standing and influence in their communities in order to perform the role as described and local boards are well placed to advise on this

iii. local boards should be able to share a broker and use the remaining funding to progress local programmes

iv. they should support community groups in the areas of accountability, monitoring and transparency of deliverables

v. they should be based in local areas and not in the central city

vi. they should have decision-making ability and a budget with which to deliver local initiatives.

l) considers that local boards should have access to community development resources in council which can drive local place-making and community development outcomes where there are areas of need.

m) notes that a further weakness of the empowering communities proposal is the absence of any budget implications for local boards.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) provide this feedback on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June.

b) support, in principle, reduced direct delivery of community development by council, moving to a more community empowered approach to delivering activities, including funding community groups to deliver more, with local boards playing an active role in this.

c) does not support the proposed Empowered Communities Approach on the information available, but requests details of the total budget for community development and safety, regional and local operating costs, and the funding that will be reallocated to local boards. Details of the roles of the people implementing the approach are also requested.

d) agree the need for flexibility in the structure and resourcing of the Empowered Communities Approach, to recognise that local boards vary greatly in the readiness of their communities to initiate and lead projects and manage facilities. The final adopted approach needs to:

i. empower local boards so that they can in turn empower their communities in a way that best suits their areas

ii. take into account the wide variety of communities and their capacities

iii. be responsive and support Māori, Pasifika and ethnic groups in achieving their outcomes (following approaches in “Te Toa Takitini”, MCC “Pacific Connections” or equivalent material from ethnic and Pasifika cultures)

iv. ensure adequate funding is available

v. provide robust governance and clear accountability mechanisms for funds channelled to community groups

vi. locate relevant staff in Local Board Services offices.

e) request clarification of the ongoing timeframe for the project, and when further feedback by local boards will be sought on what emerges from this round of feedback.

Papakura

That the Papakura Local Board provides the following resolutions for the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting on 04 June 2015:

i. Supports the purpose of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to change the way services are delivered to communities, which will enhance, enable and empower them.

ii. Supports the Thriving Communities action plan which sets out to create an enabling council implementing a community-led approach and reducing bureaucratic barriers and in so doing help empower local boards so as they in turn can empower communities in a way that suits the area.

iii. Notes that the level of resourcing for the Empowered Community Approach is unclear and as a result it is not possible to reach a position as to whether or not the proposal can be supported.

iv. Requests that staff provide the following:

a) Current total budgets for Community Development and Safety

b) Regional and local operating costs

c) Potential funding that can be reallocated to local delivery

d) Details on the functions and roles described in the initiative

v. Seeks clarification on how the proposed approach will function in terms of helping improve trust in the democratic system whilst at the same time transferring some powers and resources to communities. To achieve this the initiative requires communities to understand and influence the operations of a large complex bureaucracy and requires the organisation to better interact and engage with communities. The functions will therefore need to include strengthening the quality and quantity of relationships between communities and the organisation.

vi. To proceed and have effect the approach will need to provide practical support to the local board, be focused on solutions and work closely with community organisations in Papakura. Additionally the approach will need to:

a) Resource the local board to enhance the role it plays with local communities

b) Align with the local board plan outcomes

c) Substantially alter the balance of resources within Community Development Arts and Culture to focus on and enable locally driven initiatives to enhance community wellbeing.

vii. Notes that local boards have:

a) A statutory role of community engagement, consultation and advocacy

b) Decision-making roles in local community development activities

c) Currently fund a significant amount of community programmes

d) Ability to leverage in additional resources to support communities.

viii. Highlights that inadequate funding for the Empowered Communities Approach increases the risks inherent in any change of this nature, which may in turn hinder implementation.

ix. Understands that the Political Advisory Group has extended discussion on the Empowered Communities Approach and therefore requests a new timeframe be provided identifying when further formal feedback by local boards will be sought on what emerges from these discussions.

x. Emphasises that one size does not fit all and therefore work will be required with each local board to determine the resources and skill requirements. The approach needs to take into account diverse communities, their capacity, be responsive to Maori outcomes and be culturally attuned.

xi. Notes that to achieve the Empowered Communities Approach to develop a new more effective and empowering focus to the way council delivers services and supports community activity comprehensive changes is required across the council family. It needs to start somewhere such as a Community Development and Safety programme but has to be extended across the organisation.

xii. Notes that the timeframe for implementing the Empowered Communities Approach is from 01 July 2015 and would support delaying this to provide for pilots to take place with local boards. This would inform the introduction of the approach.

Rodney

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide the following feedback on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June:

i. support the empowered communities approach including a move away from direct delivery to support and fund community groups and organisations.

ii. support the Thriving Communities action plan to implement a community-led approach.

iii. express its concern that the level of resourcing for the Empowered Community Approach is unclear.

iv. seek information about funding of the proposed approach, identifying budget for Community Development and Safety, regional and local operating costs, local delivery and details on the functions and roles for the approach.

v. requests a new timeframe be provided identifying when further formal feedback from local boards will be sought.

vi. strongly emphasises that one size does not fit all, particularly for rural communities, and the adopted approach must respond to local requirements, provide for flexibility in resourcing and models for local delivery, take into account the wide variety of communities and their capacity.

vii. request that any approach be responsive and support Maori in achieving their outcomes and acknowledge the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

viii. acknowledge that for the Empowered Communities Approach to be successful there needs to be a whole of a council approach to its delivery, noting that:

a) the need for a comprehensive change in the organisational culture of the Council, along with the review of many policies and practices across a range of functions, which limit or impede community-led initiatives;

b) the scope of the Empowered Communities Approach includes all of those departments which currently have some interaction with local boards, most notably Community Development, Arts and Culture, and Parks, and some Council Controlled Organisations as well;

ix. seek acknowledgement from the Council and is prepared to share its experiences and issues as this approach is already being delivered across the local board area as it is not a new way of working with our communities.

Upper Harbour

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) recognise that an empowered communities approach is already successfully in operation in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, and that any future model of service delivery must further enhance the way this model currently operates.

b) understand that the Political Advisory Group has extended discussion on the Empowered Communities Approach, and therefore requests a new timeframe be provided to identify when further formal feedback by local boards will be sought on what emerges from these discussions and the Upper Harbour Local Board request the opportunity to be involved.

c) recognise that local boards have a statutory role of community engagement, consultation and advocacy, which is also embedded in the Allocation of decision making responsibility for non-regulatory activities, as this provides for local board decision making in local community development activities.

d) note that the cohesiveness and well-being of local communities is a fundamental concern of local boards.

e) Support, in principle, the intent of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 decision to develop a more empowered community approach, through a move away from direct service delivery and fund community groups to deliver more.

f) feel that at this stage the impact of the Empowered Community Approach is not clear enough, and the level of uncertainty is too great for the Upper Harbour Local Board to have a position.

g) request that staff provide information about funding of the proposed approach, which identifies the total budget for Community Development and Safety, regional and local operating costs, potential funding that can be reallocated to local delivery, and details on the functions and roles of those involved with implementing the approach.

h) support a careful and measured introduction of the Empowered Communities Approach over time, noting that this may require the detailed design and implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach model to continue beyond the commencement of the 2015–2016 financial year.

i) wish to emphasise that one size does not fit all and the approach must accommodate local requirements, not limit local options and provide for flexibility in resourcing and models adopted for local delivery. It needs to take into account the wide variety of communities and their capacity, be responsive and support Maori in achieving their outcomes and be culturally attuned.

j) note the need for a comprehensive change in the organisational culture of the Council, along with the review of many policies and practices across a range of functions, which limit or impede community-led initiatives. Whilst it is recognised that there is a need to start somewhere, such as Community Development and Safety, a programme is required which sets out how this will be extended to other departments. A strong mandate from the Chief Executive Officer to empower and equip departments to respond to community initiatives is imperative.

k) propose that the Empowered Communities Approach be piloted in various local areas, using Local Board Plan outcomes as a guide for such work programmes, and the lessons learnt be used to refine and adapted the approach as required. This would inform the introduction of the approach.

l) note the need to avoid duplication and over-bureaucratisation in the development of new structures to support the Empowered Communities Approach.

Waitematā

That the Waitematā Local Board:

i) Notes local boards have a statutory role of community engagement, consultation and advocacy which is also embedded in the allocation of decision making responsibility for non-regulatory activities as this provides for local boards decision making role in local community development activities.

ii) Supports in principal the community empowered approach proposed in the draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 to the work of Auckland Council through a move away from direct delivery (and therefore save overheads) and to capacity-building programmes for communities that funds community groups to deliver community initiatives and activities and for local boards to play a much more active role by allocating more funding through them.

iii) Supports the Thriving Communities action plan which sets out to create an enabling council implementing a community-led approach and reducing bureaucratic barriers and in so doing helps empower local boards so they in turn can empower communities in a way that suits the area.

iv) Notes that at this stage the level of resourcing for the Empowered Community Approach is unclear and as a result it is not possible to reach a position as to whether or not the proposal can be supported.

v) Requests that staff provide information about funding of the proposed approach, which identifies the total budget for Community Development and Safety, regional and local operating costs, potential funding that can be reallocated to local delivery and details on the functions and roles and those involved with implementing the approach.

vi) Highlights that inadequate funding for the Empowered Communities Approach increases the risks inherent in any change of this nature, which may in turn hinder implementation.

vii) Notes that the Political Advisory Group has extended discussion on the Empowered Communities Approach and therefore requests a new timeframe be provided identifying when further formal feedback by local boards will be sought on what emerges from these discussions.

viii) Wishes to emphasise that one size does not fit all and the approach must accommodate local requirements, not limit local options and must provide for flexibility in resourcing and models adopted for local delivery. It needs to take into account the wide variety of communities and their capacity, be responsive and support Maori in achieving their outcomes and be culturally attuned.

ix) Notes that as the purpose of the Empowered Communities Approach is to develop a new more effective and empowering approach to the way council delivers services and supports community activity there is a need for a comprehensive change across the council family and whilst it is recognised there is a need to start somewhere such as Community Development and Safety, a programme is required which sets out how this will be extended to other departments.

x) Notes the need for a change in the organisational culture of the Council, along with the review of policies and practices across a range of functions, which currently limits or impedes a community empowered approach.

xi) Requests that the Empowered Communities Approach be piloted in various local areas using Local Board Plan outcomes as a guide for such work programmes and the lessons learnt be used to refine and adapt the approach as required. This would inform the introduction of the approach.

xii) Supports taking a multi-board approach if a project is deemed to be of greater community interest than a single local board area.

xiii) Supports locating the strategic broker role physically within local boards and recommends to the Chief Executive that organisationally the role is within Local Board Services.

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

04 June 2015

Update on the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund

File No.: CP2015/03157

Purpose

1. To report back on the outcomes of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (WMIF) since its establishment in 2013 and to request a minor change to how the fund operates, specifically the timing of grant rounds.

Executive Summary

2. The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (WMIF) is one of the key initiatives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The aim of the fund is to support initiatives that will help achieve the vision and targets of the WMMP through reducing or minimising waste to landfill.

3. Annually up to $500,000 worth of grants are available to be distributed through the WMIF via two funding rounds per year; one for small grants in April ($25,000 available) and one for small, medium and large grants ($475,000 available) which is currently run in October.

4. Since the first grant round in 2013 135 projects have been funded through the WMIF with over $1.37 million worth of funds distributed.

5. When the WMIF was first approved by council’s Regional Development and Operations Committee, in April 2013, it was agreed that regular report backs would be provided on the outcomes of projects given funding through the scheme.

6. For some projects funded through the WMIF detailed reports back on outcomes achieved are already available. However, it is not yet possible to provide a summary or analysis of the outcomes of all projects funded through the scheme. This is because reports on project outcomes may not be completed until 12 months after applicants are offered a grant and the first grants were only made available in August 2013. Projects may also have more long-term outcomes that have not yet been recorded.

7. An overview of the types of outcomes reported from the WMIF projects funded to date is provided in this report via a summary of achievements from two completed projects funded through each of the four priority areas.

8. As these examples show, projects funded through the WMIF have ranged from commercial innovations, such as food waste sorting conveyors, to community interventions, such as zero waste events. Collectively they have diverted many tonnes of waste from landfill, while also engaging hundreds of Aucklanders in waste minimisation activities.

9. Three key learnings from operating the fund to date have been identified:

· to allow comprehensive reporting on the outcomes of the fund some improvements to the reporting framework for project applicants are required and are being implemented

· a relatively low level of successful applications to the fund have been from Māori organisations. A number of initiatives have been identified to improve promotion of the fund and support with applications for mana whenua and mataawaka

· the October funding round does not allow sufficient time for applications to be assessed and grants awarded before the calendar year end.

10. To address this final point and ensure grant applicants can be notified in a timely fashion, it is recommended that the committee approve a one month change in the timing of the second funding round from October to September each year.

11. It is also recommended that the committee delegate to staff the ability to change the timing of funding rounds in future, to accommodate events such as future local government elections.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve a change in the regular timing of the second funding round held each year of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund from October to September.

b) delegate to the Manager Solid Waste the ability to change the timing of funding rounds of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund as necessary.

Comments

Background

12. The Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (WMIF) is one of the key initiatives of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) which was adopted by Auckland Council in 2012.

13. The aim of the fund is to support initiatives that will help achieve the vision, targets and strategic objectives of the WMMP through reducing or minimising waste to landfill.

14. Up to $500,000 worth of grants per year are available to be distributed through the WMIF. Two funding rounds are held per year:

· a small (less than $5,000 in value) grants round with $25,000 total available to distribute is held in April

· a small, medium ($5,001 to $25,000) and large (over $25,000) grants round with $475,000 total available to distribute which is currently held in October.

15. The fund is open to applications from community groups, businesses, Māori organisations and educational institutions operating in the Auckland region.

16. It targets four priority outcomes areas which are informed by the priorities of council’s WMMP. These are:

· resource recovery initiatives and facilities

· commercial waste

· organic waste

· community action and behaviour change.

17. The WMIF is funded from a waste levy administered by the Ministry for the Environment. The waste levy comes from a $10 charge on the cost of every tonne of waste sent to landfill throughout the country, which Auckland Council is allocated a portion of by central government.

Overview of applications received and funded through the WMIF

18. When the WMIF was first approved by council’s Regional Development and Operations Committee in April 2013 it was agreed that regular reports back would be provided on the outcomes of projects given funding through the scheme.

19. As shown below in Table One, since the first grant round in April 2013 four complete funding rounds have been held.

20. To date 135 projects have been funded through the WMIF with over $1.37 million worth of funds distributed. This does not include applications from the April 2015 funding round as the assessment process has not yet been completed at the time of writing this report.

Table One. Summary of projects funded through the WMIF since April 2013

Funding round	Number of projects awarded funding	Amount of funding approved	Eligible applications received	Approximate amount requested
April 2013*	40	$495,783	95	$2.7 million
October 2013	33	$293,878	67	$1.03 million
April 2014 (small grants only)	17	$26,046	44	$133,000
October 2014	45	$557,234	65	$1.4 million
Total	135	$1,372,940	271	$5.3 million

*Note: Small, medium and large grants were accepted in April 2013 as it was the first funding round.

21. As Figure One below shows, the fund has been successful to date in supporting projects across all four priority outcome areas: resource recovery, commercial waste, organic waste and community action and behavior changes.

Figure One. Funded projects categorised by WMIF priority area

Outcomes of projects funded through the WMIF

22. For some projects funded through the WMIF detailed reports back on outcomes achieved are already available. However, it is not possible to provide a detailed assessment or analysis of the outcomes of all projects funded through the first four funding rounds. This is partially because applicants are not required to uptake grants until up to 12 months after they are awarded. While some applicants may uptake grants immediately, others may take longer to scope and refine their project before using the grant.

23. Since the first grants were provided in August 2013, this means that, while some projects from the first two years in which the WMIF operated have already been completed and reported upon, others are still under development and delivery. Some projects may also have outcomes over a longer time frame than others and require several reports back on project outcomes (for example, the outcomes of waste minimisation at an event can be identified immediately while the results of a scoping study for a resource recovery centre may take some years to measure).

24. The reporting methodology for applicants is also being refined, to ensure that they provide clear descriptions of project outcomes, such as tonnages of waste diverted from landfill or number of people engaged in educational activities. However, initial report backs suggest that the grant scheme is achieving desired outcomes.

25. To provide an indicative overview of the types of outcomes that projects being funded through the WMIF are achieving, examples of reports back on projects from each of the fund’s four priority outcome areas are provided below.

26. In the next report on the outcomes of the fund, a more detailed analysis will be provided on all projects funded to date.

Resource recovery initiatives and facilities

27. Development of a regional resource recovery network (RRN) is a priority for Auckland’s long-term aim to achieve zero waste by 2040. The RRN will provide an infrastructure that supports maximum resource recovery as well as providing local business and employment opportunities. A specific focus of the fund is to support the development of community and business operated resource recovery facilities.

28. To date, 24% of projects funded by the WMIF have focused on resource recovery. Table Two provides an overview of the outcomes from two typical resource recovery projects.

Table Two. Outcomes of two resource recovery projects

Organisation

Cross Power

Project: Southside Recycling (Trash Mob)

Grant provided: $35,000

Summary: The project aim was to purchase a truck to enable the group to collect inorganic and recyclable products, to be processed, cleaned and then sold from the organisation’s store. The community would be encouraged to drop off items at the centre, thus raising environmental awareness. Local youth would be employed to sort materials. A portion of the funding was to put towards reporting to enable the group to create and monitor processes for potential wider use.

Project results: When the applicants reported back in November 2013 over 200 televisions, 20 king size beds and over 3 tonnes of scrap metal had been diverted from landfill.

New Hope Op Shop

Project: Resource Recovery Initiative

Grant provided: $10,000

Summary: The project aim was to reduce the amount of reusable building materials and furniture being burned, buried, illegally dumped or entering landfill, by offering a free collection of reusable items from site to sell at the New Hope Shop & Timber Yard located at the Waiheke Transfer station.

Project results: When the applicants reported back in December 2014 3.41 tonnes of waste had been picked up and diverted from landfill

Commercial waste

29. Supporting business waste minimisation is a key initiative in the WMMP. Council’s long-term target in the WMMP is to reduce total waste to landfill by 30 per cent by 2027. As commercial waste (waste not controlled by the council) makes up an estimated 83% of all waste sent to landfill in Auckland, supporting business waste minimisation is a priority to achieve this target.

30. To date 11% of projects funded through the WMIF have focused on reducing commercial waste. Many of these projects have been higher value grants with potential to create significant waste reductions. Table Three summarises outcomes from two typical projects.

Table Three. Outcomes of two projects addressing commercial waste

Organisation
Atlas Concrete	Project: Woodhill resource recovery facility project Grant provided: $50,000 Summary: The project aim was to collect concrete slurry waste and recover the dried material to make a sustainable growing medium for turf. Results: When the applicants reported back in December 2014 they had diverted approximately 8,300m³ of liquid waste from landfill which is equivalent to at least 8,300 tonnes.
Green Building Council	Project: Waste management in residential construction Grant provided: $20,000 Summary: The purpose of this project was to engage and work with a group of home builders and support them to reduce waste generation and waste to landfill. This process was also documented through a video diary to develop an educational tool to engage the residential construction sector in Auckland in waste minimisation and management practices. Results: During the development of the video the project achieved diversion of two tonnes of construction waste from landfill. When the applicants reported back in December 2014 around 200 industry members had been engaged in workshops or had viewed the project webpage. Once the workshops have finished, the applicants’ intention is to combine the videos with additional workshop information together in a “learning package” that can be accessed by anyone.

Organic waste

31. Organic waste (food waste and green waste) makes up about 50 per cent (by weight) of domestic waste sent to landfill. Auckland Council will be introducing a kerbside collection of organic waste for households in urban areas. Initiatives that complement this service or enable local composting are eligible for funding through the WMIF.

32. To date 37% of projects funded through the WMIF have focused on reducing organic waste to landfill. Table Four summarises outcomes from two successful projects.

Table Four. Outcomes of two projects addressing organic waste

Organisation

Ecostock Ltd

Project: Food waste manual sorting and grading conveyor

Grant provided: $50,000

Summary: The project aim was to implement a sorting line that would allow Eco Stock to collect mixed (pre-consumer) food waste, and mixed packaged and unpackaged food waste and sort it effectively for use as high quality stock feed.

Project results: When the applicants reported back in September 2014, the sorting line had diverted 5,200 tonnes of packaged pre-consumer food, 90 tonnes of cardboard, and four tonnes of plastic film from landfill since December 2013. The sorting line was not at full usage due to a move of premises. At full usage, it is expected to divert well over the 20,000 tonnes per annum. Further reporting is expected in June 2015.

Sancta Maria College

Project: Reducing our waste to landfill

Grant provided: $3,410

Summary: The project aim was to create an overall system to reduce waste to landfill. First stage of this project was to create "Bin Stations" (three separate bins) that assisted with sorting organics, rubbish and recycling. Using this system the school can more easily process food waste on-site.

Project results: No food waste from the school is now going to landfill.

Community action and behaviour change

33. Fostering new ideas and encouraging community participation in reducing waste to landfill is identified as a key direction in the WMMP and a priority for council in the lead up to introducing user pays charging for rubbish collection across the region.

34. Building community capacity for waste minimisation will be important in ensuring all Aucklanders have access to the information, education and support they need to reduce the amount of waste they send to landfill. In funding these projects, the aim of the WMIF is to create enduring change in community behaviour and attitudes towards waste.

35. Table Five summarises outcomes from two projects which aimed to engage the community in waste minimisation activities.

Table Five. Outcomes of projects focusing on community action and behavior change

Organisation

Helensville A&P Association

Project: Helensville A & P Show 2014

Grant provided: $3,000

Summary: The aim of the project was to make the annual A & P Show a "zero waste" event by providing three types of bins (one for composting, one for recyclables, one for landfill) on show day and ensure a three-way separation of waste, to be correctly disposed of. Volunteers were to man the bins and explain to show attendees where to place material.

Project results: The project diverted 89% of event waste from landfill. The event organisers have continued to use the model for their 2015 show and will be updating council with the outcome.

Auckland University Students Association (AUSA) + Plastic Diet

Project: Waste not want not

Grant provided: $2,750

Summary: The project aim was to reduce plastics and organic waste to landfill from the University of Auckland food court.

Project results: The group recruited 180 volunteers and 1,300 supporters, who washed 3,000 dishes reducing the environmental damage caused by single use plastics. They also purchased and implemented worm-farms to take food waste from the university food court, which in four months diverted over a tonne of organic waste from landfill.

Fund Operations

36. Overall, reports back on completed projects suggest that the WMIF is running effectively. Results from a recent feedback survey also show that most applicants to the fund are satisfied with the service they have received, with over 80% of applicants selecting “very satisfied” when asked about their experience applying to the fund.

37. The WMIF has also received a reasonable geographic spread across the Auckland region with projects being awarded in all 21 local board areas.

38. As Figure Two shows, applications have also been received and funded from a wide range of organisations, showing that the WMIF has reached a diverse audience.

39. This has been achieved through promotion of the fund through standard media channels, social media and targeted emails to a contact list of over 3,000 groups or organisations interested in waste minimisation.

Figure Two. Successful applications to the WMIF received from different groups

Improving the level of successful applications from mana whenua

40. One area for improvement which has been noted is that there has been a fairly low proportion of successful applications to the WMIF from Māori organisations and iwi.

41. To address this a number of initiatives to improve communication with mana whenua and mataawaka in Auckland have been identified, including the following:

· Expand the contact list for targeted emails to include all council kaitiaki contacts held by Te Waka Angamua and continue to keep the list updated.

· Develop specific promotional material with case studies of successful applications from Māori organisations.

· Present information about the WMIF at the Information Hui sessions organised by Te Waka Angamua to inform mana whenua about council initiatives

· Promote the fund to Māori radio stations and Māori Television

· Promote WMIF at zero waste events and other community-based events run by Māori organisations

· Promote and engage through Para Kore ki Tāmaki Project (a collaboration between council and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei to provide support to marae across Auckland to become zero waste)

· Promote through council’s existing engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka on the development of the RRN

· Work with Te Waka Angamua to identify opportunities for specific workshops on the WMIF that may align with other events that are already being organised by council or other Māori organisations.

42. It is hoped that these initiatives will improve uptake of the fund by Māori organisations and further monitoring will be undertaken to ensure that this is the case.

Recommendation for change to timing of funding rounds

43. After operating the fund for several years, it has been identified that the October funding round does not allow sufficient time for applications to be assessed and awarded before Christmas each year. This means that in some cases applicants may not receive notification of the outcome of their applications until January.

44. To ensure that applicants can be notified in a timely fashion it is recommended that the committee approves a change in the timing of the second funding round held each year from October to September.

45. It is also possible that in some cases the timing of this funding round may need to be adjusted due to an event such as local body elections. To ensure smooth functioning of the fund in these circumstances, it is recommended that the committee delegates to the Manager Solid Waste the ability to change the timing of funding rounds in future, as necessary.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

46. Consultation with local boards on this report has not been undertaken. However, local board members are regularly invited to give informal feedback on applications to the WMIF from their area. Feedback received from local board members is taken into consideration by the staff panel assessing the applications.

Māori impact statement

47. As noted in the WMMP, the tangata whenua world view reflects the WMMP’s emphasis on an integrated life cycle approach to the management of natural resources and the concepts of zero waste, waste recovery and waste minimisation.

48. In recognition of this, one of the key groups targeted for applications to the WMIF are Māori organisations. However, as discussed above, to date a relatively low level of successful applications to the fund have been from Māori organisations.

49. To improve these results a number of actions to better communicate the fund to mana whenua and mataawaka living in Auckland have been identified and will be implemented. The success of these initiatives will be monitored to see if further action is required.

Implementation

50. No implementation issues have been identified.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Parul Sood, Manager Waste Planning

Ian Stupple, Manager Solid Waste

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Cr Mike Lee
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Mr Kris MacDonald
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr John Watson
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Penny Webster
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse	Mr Glenn Wilcox
	Cr Denise Krum

Authors	Tam White - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Authors	Barbara Watson - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

No.	Title	Page
a	Report to Parks Recreation and Sport Committee - Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)
b	Waikumete Hearing Report (Under Separate Cover)
c	Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)

No.	Title	Page
a View	Report to Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee - Disposal of land - Auckland Botanic Gardens	107