Agenda of Albert-Eden Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) confirms the minutes of its ordinary meeting, held on Wednesday, 1 July 2015, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Grant Mouldey - General Manager, Massive Company

Executive Summary

1. Grant Mouldey, General Manager – Massive Company, will be in attendance to deliver a presentation during Deputation, outlining his organisation’s new Strategic Plan and activities within the local board area.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Thanks Grant Mouldey, General Manager – Massive Company, for his attendance and Deputation presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

11.1 Notice of Motion - Council Position on Volcanic Viewshaft Protections

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Chairperson Haynes for inclusion on the agenda for the Albert-Eden Local Board meeting being held on day, Wednesday, 5 August 2015:

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Confirms its strong support for the retention of the viewshafts to volcanic cones proposed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Background

Arguably, Auckland’s surviving volcanic cones are the single feature that distinguishes the city from any other in the world. They are an important and integral part of Aucklanders’ sense of place.

The Auckland volcanic field covers around 100 square kilometres and originally contained 48 explosion craters. Almost all of the cones have been modified or destroyed by human activity, especially quarrying and development. However, many of those remaining are of regional or national significance, while others are of local significance; taken together, the cones are of international significance.

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan includes an overlay that identifies 13 scoria cones and islands that have volcanic viewshafts or height sensitive areas designed to protect their visual integrity.

Protection of views to these cones began over 40 years ago through the landmark decision in 1973 by the Planning Appeal Board. This decision concluded that Maungawhau was of such value that views to and from the mountain should be protected. The decision considered that the Council was not carrying out its duties under the Town and Country Planning Act by not protecting the visual integrity of Maungawhau.

Since that time, various councils have attempted to identify and review the views to cones to be protected, culminating in Change 8 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, the scheduling which the Albert-Eden Local Board supported by resolution number AE/2012/120.

The recent "guidelines" issued by the independent hearing panel into the PAUP indicating that all 87 existing viewshafts have to be re-justified on economic terms places the vast majority of these viewshafts at peril.

Author

Peter Haynes – Chairperson, Albert-Eden Local Board

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Transfer of asset to the community portfolio – Learning at the Point Kindergarten 20 Huia Road Pt Chevalier

File No.: CP2015/14904

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to gain Albert Eden Local Board direction to transfer the Council asset occupied by the Learning at the Point Kindergarten (LATP) at 20 Huia Road Pt Chevalier to the community facilities portfolio.

Executive Summary

2. LATP have been leasing the premises at 20 Huia Road Pt Chevalier since 1992 after starting activities in an old house on Huia Road in the late 1980s.

3. Since formation of Auckland Council in 2010 the property has been managed by Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL). This is likely an anomaly, in that while the property is a community type activity, there is rental payable for the occupation.

4. The previous lease for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2014 has fully expired and there are no rights of renewal. Since then the group has been holding over on a month by month basis.

5. LATP have applied for a community lease, on the terms and conditions provided in Auckland Councils Community Occupancy Guidelines.

6. As a precursor to considering granting a community lease the transfer of the asset from the ACPL to the community portfolio needs to be considered and if appropriate approved.

7. ACPL support transferring the asset from their portfolio to the community portfolio.

8. The Albert Eden Local Board supports the transfer, and granting of a new community lease on the terms and conditions of Councils community occupancy guidelines.

9. This report seeks Albert Eden Local Board support to request the Governing Body Finance and Performance Committee to approve the transfer of the property at 20 Huia Road from the ACPL portfolio to the community facilities portfolio.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Advises staff to manage the transfer of the property and assets located at 20 Huia Road Pt Chevalier from the Auckland Council Property Ltd (ACPL) portfolio to the community facilities portfolio.

b) Confirms that the Board will meet the ongoing costs for the property from its LDI budget

c) Requests that the Governing Body considers the transfer request and informs the Albert Eden Local Board and ACPL of the decision.

Comments

10. The Learning at the Point Kindergarten (LATP) lease of the Council property at 20 Huia Road expired on the 30^th June 2014. There are no rights of renewal so a new lease is required.

11. The lease has been managed to date by ACPL. This management arrangement occurred during the transition to the new Auckland Council in 2010. Although a community use, there was a modest rental generated, so the lease had the appearance of a commercial property. ACPL support the transfer to the community portfolio.

12. There are two council owned properties at 18 and 20 Huia Road Pt Chevalier that are used for community purposes. Number 18 is the Community Centre, and number 20 is occupied by LATP. The properties are zoned residential 6a in the current district plan. The sites are adjacent to other Council owned land used for car parking associated with the town centre and an enquiry to Auckland Transport indicates there are no plans to extend the current area of parking. The properties are held in fee simple and are not subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act.

13. LATP have been operating since the late 1980’s when they began operation in an old house in the neighbourhood. In 1992 they began leasing the council property at 20 Huia Rd when the facility was licenced as a pre-school for 19 children. The last lease of the Council premises was for a 10 year period from 1 July 2004 expiring 30 June 2014. There are no rights of renewal.

14. LATP have applied for a new community lease in terms of the provisions of the community occupancy guidelines. However before this can be considered the property and asset needs to be transferred to the community facilities portfolio.

15. LATP are a registered incorporated society and operate on a not for profit basis. Management is provided by an elected committee of parents, and staff and volunteers provide the programs at the centre. The services provided by LATP qualify them for a community lease, meeting criteria expressed in the Community Occupancy Guidelines.

16. Although not affiliated with the Auckland Kindergarten Association, LATP receive the early childhood education (ECE) subsidy of 20 hours that improves the affordability of programmes for families.

17. Session sizes are limited to 19 children because of the size of the building, but there are 54 registered users, and a waiting list is maintained. LATP have added to the council building to provide office space and roof over the deck area.

18. The kindergarten is located strategically adjacent to the Pt Chevalier town centre and compliments the functions of the community centre next door. It is one of two kindergartens in the area and the other at Walford Rd faces uncertainty being on school grounds. The Unitary Plan indicates population in the area will grow by 15-20% over the next 20 years, so community infrastructure will be required to support this population.

19. As noted the property at 20 Huia Road occupied by LATP is currently held in the ACPL portfolio and the lease to LATP is managed by them with a rent of $5000 plus GST per annum. They have a Valuer’s report to suggest the market rental today is $31,000 per annum. This rental is unsustainable for LATP.

20. The current expenditure / income profile for the property is summarised in the table below (Excl GST)

Expenditure
Rates	$5,720
Water and sewer charges	$2,000 (estimate)
Maintenance	$5,000 (estimate)
Insurance	$100
Compliance	$1,500 (estimate)
Total	$14,320

Income
Rent	$5,000

Net income	-$9,320

21. As there is deficit the net income (rental less expenses) from the property does not contribute to the overall income of Auckland Council or the Albert Eden Board.

22. ACPL are agreeable to transferring the property from their portfolio to the appropriate community portfolio. Once the transfer occurs, the costs or deficit will be met from the Albert Eden Local Board budget. A new lease granted in accord with the provisions of the community occupancy guidelines would set rent at $1 per annum. However to lessen the impact on the Boards budget, LATP could continue to pay their current rent, and based on the scenario above the net expenditure for the Board will be $9,320.

23. The process to be considered for the transfer is as follows;

The Board considers a report and resolves to;

1. Support the transfer of the asset to the community portfolio.

2. To meet the ongoing costs from the LDI budget annually.

3. Inform the governing body (Council) either directly or via ACPL, of their support for the transfer from the ACPL to the Community portfolio (attach the LB minutes).

4. The Governing Body considers the request and resolves accordingly and informs the Albert Eden Local Board and ACPL of the decision.

5. If the transfer is approved ACPL send a transfer report to CDAC for sign-off.

6. ACPL arrange SAP removal of the asset.

7. Asset transferred to community portfolio.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

24. The Albert Eden Local Board portfolio holders have met with the management committee and staff of LATP, and are supportive of the transfer of the asset to the community portfolio, and granting a new lease.

Māori impact statement

25. This is not a significant decision for Maori and is not linked to any of council’s strategic priorities for Maori

Implementation

26. Provided the Governing Body approves the transfer of the asset to the community portfolio the Albert Eden Local Board can then consider granting a community lease to LATP. This will be the subject of a separate report to the Board from council staff.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - Site Plan	25

Signatories

Author

Ron Johnson - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Epsom Community Centre Incorporated (ECCI) and Young Men's Christian Association of Auckland Incorporated Funding agreements and Licence to Occupy and Manage

File No.: CP2015/14897

Purpose

1. This report seeks Albert-Eden Local Board approval to delegate the decision making to community development and facilities portfolio holders to:

· approve the 2015/2016 funding agreements for both the Epsom Community Centre Incorporated (ECCI) to manage the Epsom Community Centre and Young Men’s Christian Association of Auckland Incorporated (YMCA) to manage the Mt Albert Community Centre

· grant a Licence to Occupy and Manage to the ECCI for the Epsom Community Centre, 200-202 Gillies Avenue, Epsom

Executive Summary

2. As a result of amalgamation, community centres and houses that were operated by community committees had their legacy agreements extended, most for several years. As an initial step, council staff developed a more appropriate funding agreement, with an attached licence to occupy and manage that provided more coherency and consistency as well as aligning to delivering on local board outcomes. Currently these agreements and licences are granted on an annual basis.

3. Council staff have discussed the centre work programmes with local board portfolio holders however, at the time of writing this report these documents are yet to finalised. Therefore this report recommends delegating the approval of the 2015/2016 funding agreement and the granting of a new Licence to Occupy and Manage to ECCI for one year commencing 1 July 2015 to the community development and facilities portfolio holders. This report also recommends delegating the approval of the 2015/2016 funding agreement to YMCA commencing 1 July 2015 to community development portfolio holders. Delegation will ensure payment can be made to these community organisations directly upon completion of both parties signing the finalised documentation.

4. In the future the local board could consider offering a range of options for the term of the agreement and/or licence and this would be dependent on a number of factors. For example, new organisations or those still developing their governance structure should remain on a one year term. More experienced organisations could transition to a two or three-year term and major organisations with proven performance, especially those requiring long-term tenure for external funding, could be granted five or more years. Staff will commence discussions with local board portfolio holders within the next few months.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Delegates decision-making to community development portfolio holders to approve the 2015/2016 funding agreement for the Young Men’s Christian Association of Auckland Incorporated.

b) Delegates decision-making to community development and facilities portfolio holders to approve the 2015/2016 funding agreement and the granting of the Licence to Occupy and Manage to the Epsom Community Centre Incorporated for the Epsom Community Centre at 200-202 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term –1 year commencing on 1 July 2015;

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

Comments

5. The ECCI has occupied the council owned site on Gillies Avenue since 1982. It currently operates the Epsom Community Centre from this location. The ECCI has approximately 61,102 visitors through its doors per annum, and caters to all ages including a Crèche. There is one manager who works 35 hours per week. ECCI is made up of a Chair person, Deputy Chair, Executive Secretary, Treasurer and 7 committee members.

6. The YMCA has operated the Community Centre part of this council owned site on New North Road since 2002. The YMCA has approximately 50,941 visitors through its doors per annum, and caters to all ages. There is one Auckland council contact for the occupation and operation of the entire facility including the community centre. There is one manager and a number of YMCA staff that support the activities and the operations of the community centre space.

7. Both ECCI and YMCA deliver community programmes and activities to meet local needs and local board outcomes. Their 2015/2016 work programme is outlined in schedule one of their funding agreement. Schedule two of the funding agreement outlines the reporting requirements.

8. The financial accounts provided by the ECCI and YMCA both indicate that the funds held are sufficient to meet their liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

9. The ECCI and YMCA have all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

10. This report is seeking delegation to community development and facilities portfolio holders to approve a Licence to Occupy and Manage to be granted to the Epsom Community Centre Incorporated for the Epsom Community Centre at 200-202 Gillies Avenue, Epsom, Lot 1-4 DP 24459 for a term of 1 year commencing on 1 July 2015 at a rental of $1.00 plus GST, on completion of the documentation. The licence outlines both Auckland Council and ECCI’s building maintenance responsibilities. There is no requirement for the YMCA to have a licence to occupy and manage as the whole site is covered under the YMCA contract with Auckland Council.

11. In the future the local board could consider offering a range of options for the term of the agreement and/or licence and this would be dependent on a number of factors. For example, new organisations or those still developing their governance structure should remain on a one year term. More experienced organisations could transition to a two or three-year term and major organisations with proven performance, especially those requiring long-term tenure for external funding, could be granted five or more years.

12. Multi-year agreements would not change any of the other conditions in the existing funding agreements or licences. Adjustments for inflation could be included in each agreement and licence that has a term of two or more years.

13. Staff will commence discussions with local board portfolio holders within the next few months.

14. Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. Council staff have discussed the work programmes with local board portfolio holders however, these documents are yet to be finalised. Staff will present the finalised funding agreement document to portfolio holders for approval.

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

Māori impact statement

17. Both Epsom Community Centre Incorporated and Young Men’s Christian Association endeavor to improve the well-being among Maori within the work programmes they deliver. Council staff continue to work with the centres to ensure support and development of programmes and activities that directly improve well-being and outcomes for Maori.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Susan John – Facility Manager, Puketapapa, Albert-Eden

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Chamberlain Park Master Plan

File No.: CP2015/06990

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· present the results of consultation on four draft master plan scenarios for Chamberlain Park

· identify a preferred scenario, which responds to the case for change and the key themes of both phases of consultation on the redevelopment of Chamberlain Park

· outline three further policy projects, which will be subject to decisions by the governing body, that will inform the final components of the master plan.

Executive Summary

2. The Albert-Eden Local Board sought advice and community feedback on the possible redevelopment of Chamberlain Park. This was in response to low utilisation of the Chamberlain Park Golf Course and increasing operational costs. The lack of open space provision in the local board area and growing pressure on neighbouring sport field capacity were other key considerations.

3. Following public consultation on an initial concept plan, community feedback was sought on four master plan scenarios for Chamberlain Park in May and June 2015. The feedback received in both phases of consultation has indicated there is a desire for change at Chamberlain Park and the community want to see a wider variety of recreation opportunities at the park.

4. Of all the options, Scenario Four responds to the case for change as well as providing more open space, a wider range of sports and greater community use of Chamberlain Park. This scenario received the highest level of community support.

5. It is recommended that the Albert-Eden Local Board approve, in principle, Scenario Four. Staff are undertaking three key pieces of work, which will be subject to decisions by the governing body, that may inform local board decision-making regarding the final Chamberlain Park master plan. This work will be completed by July 2016.

6. Staff also recommend that the local board redevelop the western end of Chamberlain Park as a priority project. Local events could be organised to allow the community to experience how the western end of Chamberlain Park would function as open space.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) NoteS the community submissions on the four draft master plan scenarios for Chamberlain Park

b) Approves, in principle, Scenario Four for the Chamberlain Park Masterplan, noting that the final components of the master plan may be informed by the following three policy projects, which are subject to the decisions of the governing body:

i) the Sport Facilities Network Plan will identify and prioritise sports facility needs across Auckland for the next twenty years

ii) an investigation of the provision of pool space in the western corridor of Auckland to address potential gaps and to account for projected population growth

iii) an investigation of the long-term council ownership of golf courses across the region and the public/private provision of golf required to support changes in demand

c) Notes that there is no funding in the 2015-2025 Long-Term Plan to implement the master plan and the adoption of a master plan without a full funding commitment may create unrealistic community expectations

d) Notes that the Albert Eden Local Board has earmarked approximately $900,000 over the next three years to commence the implementation of the Chamberlain Park master plan

e) Agrees to fund a feasibility study of the Chinese garden, performance space and theatre in light of other community facility needs and provision before it is considered as an element in the final master plan

f) Agrees to fund the development of the western end of Chamberlain Park as a neighbourhood open space, including reconfiguring three golf holes, installing a barbeque area, children’s playground and improving the ecological and landscape quality of Meola Creek/Waititiko

g) Approves the holding of a public event, or events, at the western end of Chamberlain Park where the community are invited to use the space as a park over a weekend during summer 2015/16.

Comments

Background

7. At its July 2014 meeting, the Albert-Eden Local Board approved the development of an initial concept plan for Chamberlain Park. This was in response to a range of issues, including:

· low utilisation rates of, and increasing operational costs for, the Chamberlain Park Golf Course

· low open space provision in the Albert-Eden Local Board area and limited opportunities to acquire new open space

· growing pressure on sports field capacity across the local board and surrounding catchment areas, with current deficit of sports fields for training purposes.

8. These issues, alongside projected population growth, provided the case for change. Accordingly, the local board briefed staff to consider redevelopment options for Chamberlain Park.

Phase one consultation: Initial concept plan

9. In December 2014, a public engagement programme was commenced which provided opportunities for the local community and stakeholders to indicate their preferences on a range of activities and uses that could be accommodated in Chamberlain Park. Feedback was gathered through interviews, an online survey and submissions made through the local board.

10. A total of 1,365 people participated in the phase one consultation. Workshops were also held with mana whenua and golf users and an open day took place at Chamberlain park on 1 December 2014.

11. This feedback indicated high levels of support for change at Chamberlain Park. In particular, a number of common themes emerged:

· an improved golf experience

· increased community access to open space

· provision for a wider range of sports

· restoration of Meola Creek/Waititiko

· development of a Chinese garden/cultural centre.

Master plan scenarios

12. The consultation feedback, and eight design objectives, informed the development of four master plan scenarios for Chamberlain Park.

Scenario One provides primarily for golf, with a reconfigured 18-hole golf course

Scenario Two provides for a smaller redesigned 18-hole golf course, a driving range and a practice area

Scenario Three includes a smaller redesigned 18-hole golf course and an area which provides for three multi use sports fields and car parking

Scenario Four includes a nine-hole golf course, driving range and/or practice area. The area on the eastern end of the park provides for two multi use sports fields, an aquatic centre and car parking.

13. There were three common elements to all of these scenarios:

· restoration of Meola Creek/Waititiko

· a pedestrian and cycle path through the eastern edge of the site, providing access from the North Western Cycleway and St. Lukes Road

· development of a Chinese garden/cultural centre.

Phase two consultation: Feedback on master plan scenarios

14. A second round of consultation was undertaken in May and June 2015, to ascertain public support for the four scenarios. The consultation included an online survey and an open day at Western Springs Garden Hall on 18 May 2015. A total of 263 submissions were received.

15. Figure 1 presents the quantitative results from the phase two consultation process. Care is required in interpreting these results as there was not majority support for any of the scenarios. Scenario Four received the highest levels of community support (35%). While it appears that 30% of submitters support an 18-hole golf course, Scenarios One, Two and Three propose fundamentally different course lay-outs.

Figure 1: Quantitative results (263 Submissions)

16. Qualitative data provides further insight into the views of the community. Table 1 highlights common issues raised in the submissions. When these issues are grouped according to frequency, three key themes emerge:

· community support for Chamberlain Park being accessible to a greater number of users

· community support for an aquatic centre and passive recreation and sportsfields at Chamberlain Park

· community support for the retention of Chamberlain Park Golf Course, although, opinion is divided on the course lay-out and service offering

· community opinion is divided on the range of new activities and uses of Chamberlain Park and any future provision should be balanced against the availability of facilities in neighbouring areas.

17. The master plan scenarios are appended to this report in Attachment A for the local boards information.

Scenario One

39 submissions

· Support for this option because it minimises impact on the existing golf course (28 comments)

· Support for this option because introduces public access and stream restoration benefits (7 comments)

· Other scenarios are discounted because the proposed activities and uses are available in neighbouring areas (6 comments)

Scenario Two

33 submissions

· Other scenarios are discounted because the proposed activities and uses are available in neighbouring areas (10 comments)

· Support for this option because it retains an 18-hole golf course (9 comments)

· Support for this option because it increases the golf service offering (8 comments)

Scenario Three

31 submissions

· Support for this option because it would benefit more potential users (15 comments)

· Support for this option because it responds to local demand for multi-use sports fields (11 comments)

· Support for this option because it responds to local demand for an aquatic centre (8 comments)

Scenario Four

92 submissions

· Support for this option because it would benefit more potential users (62 comments)

· Support for this option because it responds to local demand for multi-use sports fields (31 comments)

· Support for this option because it responds to local demand for an aquatic centre (31 comments)

None of the Above

67 submissions

· Support for this option because it retains the status quo (48 comments)

· Other scenarios are discounted because of their costs implications (12 comments)

· Other scenarios are discounted because the proposed activities and uses are available in neighbouring areas (11 comments)

Preferred scenario

18. Scenario One is not recommended. It does not provide for increased open space, a wider range of sports or greater community use of Chamberlain Park.

19. Scenario One also does not provide an improved golf experience to address current low levels of utilisation. The long-term viability of Chamberlain Park Golf Course would remain uncertain without increased revenue streams or utilisation rates to offset growing operational costs. Increases in green fees to defray these costs would likely decrease utilisation and would make the course less accessible to occasional golfers. Increased subsidisation of Chamberlain Park Golf Course is also discounted as the benefits would accrue to a very small number of users.

20. Scenario Two is not recommend because it does not provide increased open space, a wider range of sports or greater community use.

21. While this option provides for a range of golf experiences, and increased revenue streams, it may not have widespread appeal to existing golf users. Under Scenario Two the golf course would be reduced from 34 to 30.1 hectares and total par reduced from 69 to 60, with a significantly reduced slope number or difficulty. The layout with 11 par three holes, seven par four holes and no par five holes is more likely to appeal to beginners. This design would not meet the needs the current users of Chamberlain Park Golf Course who are primarily experienced golfers.

22. Scenario Three is not recommended because it had the lowest levels of public support. Further, this scenario would not increase golf revenue streams and the proposed course layout may not have widespread appeal to existing golf users.

23. Scenario Four had the highest levels of community endorsement. It provides for increased open space as well as new activities and uses of Chamberlain Park. This scenario also responds to the case for change.

24. The proposed driving range would provide revenue to offset the operational costs of the golf course. The course layout of nine holes over 23.4 hectares, with a total par of 35, and a moderate to high level of difficulty, should appeal to the existing user base. The increased golf service offering is expected to attract new golfers to Chamberlain Park Golf Course leading to a marked increase in utilisation.

Approval of Scenario Four and staged implementation

25. Staff recommend that the Albert-Eden Local Board approve, in principle, Scenario Four. The finalisation of the master plan should be delayed until key policy projects commissioned by the governing body are completed, which may inform the final components of the redesign of Chamberlain Park.

· The Sports Facility Network Plan will identify and prioritise sports facility needs across Auckland for the next twenty years. This plan will guide decision-making on the type of sports fields and support facilities which could be located at Chamberlain Park. It is expected that this project will be approved by the governing body in April 2016.

· Staff are investigating the provision of pool space in the western corridor to address potential gaps and to account for projected population growth. This will resolve the long-term future of the Mt. Albert Aquatic Centre as well as the need for, and location of, any new aquatic facilities. It is expected that the governing body will approve the long-term pool strategy in July 2016.

· Staff are investigating the long-term council ownership of golf courses across the region and the public/private provision of golf required to support changes in demand. This project will inform the proposed golf service offering for Chamberlain Park. It is expected that the governing body will approve the golf strategy in July 2016.

26. Environmental assessments, in particular traffic effects on the main arterial routes and residential streets associated with increased recreation activities and uses for Chamberlain Park, are also required.

27. The Albert Eden Local Board has earmarked approximately $900,000 over the next three years to commence the implementation of the Chamberlain Park master plan. No funds have been allocated in the 2015-2025 Long-Term Plan to implement the master plan. Adopting a master plan without a full funding commitment may create unrealistic community expectations. It is, therefore, recommended that local board adopt a staged approach.

Stage one: Feasibility study

28. It is recommended that the local board allocate funding for a feasibility study of the Chinese garden, performance space and theatre in light of other community facility needs before it is confirmed as an element in the final master plan. The purpose of the feasibility study would be to identify the users and needs for a theatre and performance space in the context of the Community Facilities Network Plan and to consider the impact on the existing community facilities.

29. It is anticipated that a budget of $50,000 would be required for the feasibility study.

Stage two: Create open space and restoration of Meola Creek/Waititiko

30. Subject to the identification of funding it is recommended that local board develop the western end of Chamberlain Park as a priority project.

31. There is a gap in neighbourhood park provision which could be filled through development of the western end of Chamberlain Park as a passive recreation area with a barbeque area, a playground and the restoration of Meola Creek/Waititiko. This will require three holes of the Chamberlain Park Golf Course to be reconfigured.

32. The local board may wish to organise a temporary event, or events, to allow the community to experience how the western end of Chamberlain Park could be used as open space. This would entail closing three golf holes over a weekend and hosting a range of community events (for example, a movie, SNAG golf, picnics or a Kid’s In Parks) as a first step in permanently developing this area.

Stage three: Finalisation of the master plan

33. There are three options for finalising the master plan.

1. Staff recommend that the local board adopt the master plan in principle and finalise the master plan once the policy projects have been completed.

2. Alternatively the local board may wish to adopt the final Chamberlain Park master plan board in August 2016, once the above policy projects have been approved by the governing body.

3. The local board may wish to adopt the master plan at this meeting.

Next steps

34. The Albert-Eden Local Board may wish to announce its decisions about the Chamberlain Park master plan on the Shape Auckland website and outline the process to determine the final elements of the plan.

35. The Albert-Eden Local Board will need to work with the Events Team and City Parks to hold an event or series of events at the western end of Chamberlain Park.

36. The development of a neighbourhood park would need to be funded by the Albert-Eden Local Board, the project would be delivered by the Asset Development Team.

37. The feasibility study for the Chinese garden, performance space and theatre would need to be funded by the local board.

Financial implications

38. The indicative costs of the proposed staged approach are outlined in Table two.

Table 2: Indicative costs

Actions	Indicative cost
Temporary event	$10,000 (opex)
Feasibility study of the Chinese garden, performance space and theatre	$50,000 (opex)
Western park establishment Playground, barbeque area, pathways, bridge and reconfiguration of the golf course Improvements to Meola Creek/Waititiko	$1,380,000 (capex)
Finalisation of the Chamberlain Park master plan	Existing Parks and Recreation Policy budget

Local Board views and implications

39. The master plan feedback was presented to a workshop of the Albert-Eden Local Board on 24 June 2015.

Māori impact statement

40. Mana whenua have a strong interest in environmental matters, including improving water quality across Auckland. The restoration of Meola Creek/Waititiko is well aligned with these objectives.

41. The master plan has been developed with mana whenua through a co-design process. Mana Whenua are developing Te Aranga or Maori Design principles for the master plan based on the Auckland Design Manual Te Aranga Principles. The detail of these has yet to be confirmed.

Implementation

42. Implementation of the Chamberlain Park master plan is subject to the Albert Eden Local Board securing funding.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Master Plan	39

Signatories

Authors

Shyrel Burt - Principal Policy Analyst

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Team Leader

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Auckland Transport Update – August 2015

File No.: CP2015/15124

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Receives this report.

b) Notes the request for a new access road into Phyllis Reserve from Phyllis Street does not currently meet the criteria for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Comments

3. Responding to resolutions:

Resolution number AE/2015/105

b) requests Auckland Transport revisit the use of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund on the Phyllis reserve access road as it is believed to contribute to the wider walking and cycling network.

This project has been investigated and discussed by the Local Board Transport Capital Fund Steering Committee. The LBTCF can be used to build infrastructure in parks if the works contribute to wider walking and cycling networks. Auckland Transport does not believe the current Phyllis reserve proposal of building a new road into a proposed car park meets this criterion.

Discussion

Albert-Eden Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

4. The Albert-Eden Local Board has $664,933 per annum of discretionary funding for transport-related capital projects. It may allocate funding for the whole electoral term (i.e. $1,994,799) at any stage during its term.

5. The uncommitted $119,016 from the previous electoral term may also be rolled over on this occasion, giving the Albert - Eden Local Board a total pool of approximately $2,113,815 available in this electoral term to spend on transport projects.

6. This money can be used for projects identified by the Local Board, the principal constraints being that the project:

· Will not compromise transport safety;

· Is transport-related;

· Does not compromise the efficiency of the road network.

7. For funding projects outside of the road corridor, they must meet the following criteria:

· Supports connectivity of cycle way and footpaths within the transport network;

· footpaths should close a gap in the current walking network to residential, recreational, public transport or town or local economic areas;

· footpaths widths should accommodate both walking and cycling when no alternative route for cycling has been identified.

8. Attachment E of the Auckland Transport Quarterly Report (also in the August 2015 agenda) provides a financial update of expenditure against the Local Board Capital Fund as at 24 July 2015.

9. You will note there is $757,974 available in this financial term still to be allocated to projects. This money must be allocated by 30 June 2016 or it will be lost.

Mount Albert and Mount Eden town Centre lighting:

10. Both Mount Albert and Mount Eden town centre lighting is due to be upgraded. Construction in Mount Albert will begin late August and will take approximately 3 months depending on the extent of the ground and rock conditions. The Mount Eden upgrade will commence as soon as Mount Albert reaches conclusion.

North Bound bus lane between Oakley Ave and State Highway 16 (SH16):

11. AT is undertaking a project to provide northbound bus lane between Oakley Ave and the SH16 interchange by widening the road carriageway. The existing footpath along the western side of the section will be also widened.

12. The project is being delivered by Well Connected Alliance (WCA) with construction proposed to start December 15/ January 16.

13. As the impact to the community and parking is negligible and positive, there is no requirement to formally consult.

The Introduction of Double-Deck Buses

14. Auckland Transport has an urgent requirement to address capacity constraints on some bus routes. The central corridors, Northern Express and services from Botany to the CBD are experiencing annual growth rates of 10%, 6.5% and 7% respectively, with peak seated capacity utilisation from 80% to 95%. Strategically, the Auckland Plan looks to double public transport trips to 140 million by 2022.

15. There is a need to address capacity constraints and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the bus New Network corridors without increasing bus volumes.

16. The use of double decker buses is the first step in the progressive strategy for increasing capacity on high demand routes and is aligned to delivering improved customer experience, reducing congestion and increasing patronage. Customer growth is expected to be in the region of 20%-30% over the first four years of introduction.

17. Double decker buses are due to start on the Botany route (City Centre to Botany via Newmarket) in October 2015. Mt Eden, Waiheke and Northern Express routes are due to commence in early 2016, with further routes to follow progressively. Over the next ten years, it is planned that up to 13 key routes may be converted to double decker bus operation.

18. Obstacles are being carefully checked, such as trees, shop verandas, utility service poles and cables. As a result of this process, alterations to verandas, or the relocation of poles and cables may be required. The Albert Eden Local Board will be briefed on issues specific to them as necessary.

Board Consultations:

19. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Albert Eden Local Board for its feedback. As the Board’s transport portfolio holders provide feedback on the Board’s behalf, the material below is included for general information purposes only.

Esplanade Road:

20. Auckland Transport consulted on change of configuration of bus stops on Esplanade Road as well as a proposal to install no stopping at all times (NSAAT) parking outside Ficino School. The Transport leads raised no objections to this proposal.

Issues Register

Description

AT Response

Parking in Epsom in vicinity of Queen Mary Avenue

Concerns have been raised about a lack of retail parking for the cinema and shops on Manukau Road, Queen Mary Avenue and in surrounding areas.

AT is investigating options in conjunction with the Boards Transport Representative.

Mountain Road Traffic Issues

Residents have raised concerns about the amount and behaviour of traffic on Mountain Road during school morning and afternoon peaks.

Of particular concern was the difficulty for traffic to negotiate the intersections of Mountain Road and:

· Glenfell / Almorah Roads; and

· Gilgit Road.

The consultation plan is being prepared and will be out for consultation late August.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Felicity Merrington – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South), Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards

File No.: CP2015/15336

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months April – June 2015 and planned activities anticipated to be undertaken in the next three months.

Attachments include:

A. Auckland Transport activities

B. Travelwise Schools activities

C. Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee

D. Report against local board advocacy issues

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

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport Quarterly update to Local Boards report.

Comments

Significant activities during the period under review

Strategy and Planning

2. Corridor Management Plans (CMPs) – seven new CMP studies and one CMP review were completed this quarter. These are (1) Gillies Avenue CMP, (2) Henderson Metropolitan Centre Transport Study, (3) Glenfield Road-Birkenhead Avenue CMP, (4) Remuera Road-St Johns Road CMP, (5) Parnell Road-Parnell Rise CMP, (6) Hillsborough Road-Kinross Street CMP, (7) Rosebank Road-Patiki Road CMP and (8) Great South Road Stage 1 (Manukau to Drury) CMP Review.

3. AT Parking Strategy 2015 – The Strategy was approved in April and successfully launched at the end of May.

4. RPTP Variation – Public consultations and hearing deliberations on the Regional Public Transport Plan were completed this quarter.

Investment and Development

5. SMART (Southwest Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit)

Investigation to identify the best public transport mode (heavy or light rail) to support the employment and passenger growth at the Airport. It also includes the identification of a preferred corridor for protection. Construction has started on the Kirkbride interchange which includes widening for SMART.

PT Development

6. Otahuhu Bus Rail Interchange

Detailed design is complete and NZTA funding has been approved for construction. The Signal Box was removed and the overhead live line lowered over Queens Birthday weekend. Enabling works are on schedule, with the main works tender deferred until all funding is approved (now approved) and planned for July release. It is expected that main works will begin in October 2015 and be completed in early June 2016.

7. Half Moon Bay New Ferry Facility

This project includes the design and development of a new passenger ferry facility at Half Moon Bay, including integration with Public Transport, and accessibility and passenger amenity improvements. A site inspection of the pontoon and gangway units was completed in early July prior to placing these units into storage in readiness for the Stage 2 physical works completion. The wharf design is progressing with the submission of the building consent to Auckland Council expected in July/August 2015 .

8. City Rail Link

Enabling Works Package: Phase 1 ECI design service contracts 1 and 2 have been awarded. Construction is to commence November 2015 with services relocation.

Main Works: Construction to start in 2018/19, subject to a funding agreement with Government.

9. EMU Procurement

54 units have been provisionally accepted and the final three are in transit and due in Auckland in early August. Peak period EMU services began on 8 June from Papakura, and on 20 July the network became fully electric with Papakura and Swanson to Britomart service introduction.

PT Operations

10. Public Transport overall

For the 12 months to the end of June, patronage was 79.25 million trips which is up 9.5% on the 2014 result. This is an increase of almost 7 million trips over the course of a year and, given the strong weekday growth, likely represents around an extra 30,000 trips being taken each working day. The changes for individual modes were:

· Bus (excluding Northern Express) – 57 million trips, up 6.6%

· Northern Express – 2.8 million trips, up 17.2%

· Rail – 13.9 million trips, up 21.7%

· Ferry – 5.5 million trips, up 8.3%

11. Rail Improvements

The big performer was rail which reached 13.9 million passenger trips for the year, representing an annual increase of 21.7%. The growth is put down to the enhanced travel experience and additional capacity provided by the new electric trains and greater service frequency introduced over recent years.

The AT network became fully electric on 20 July, except for the link between Papakura and Pukekohe which will continue to use diesel trains. These will be refurbished over time to provide an enhanced experience. The electric trains will provide improved travel experience and more capacity on all lines.

12. Bus & Ferry Improvements

June was also a record-breaking month on the Northern Express, with patronage up 17% on the same month last year. The 12 month total patronage reached 2.8 million. It was also a record for other bus services as patronage rose 6.6% to 57 million trips. Ferry numbers for the year totalled 5.5 million trips, up 8.3% on an annual basis.

Growth on bus services is attributed to increased services and frequency, improving travel times from new bus priority lanes and a significant improvement in service punctuality being achieved by bus operators through new timetables. Further service level increases and punctuality improvements are planned for later this year along with the introduction of double decker buses on a number of routes. New network routes will also be introduced from later this year.

Road Design and Development

13. Te Atatu Road Improvements

Road Corridor Improvement project on Te Atatu Rd from School Road/Edmonton Road intersection to SH16. The evaluation of the construction tenders is now completed, with the award of the contract being imminent. Construction is targeted to start in August 2015 with completion expected around February 2017. A public open day will be arranged prior to the starting of physical works.

14. Albany Highway

The Albany Highway North Upgrade project involves widening of Albany Highway between Schnapper Rock Road and the Albany Expressway. Construction is approximately 40% complete. Disruption to land owners and road users due to construction is being well managed, with any issues being quickly resolved. The Rosedale Road intersection signalisation has been brought forward to July to assist with traffic management and pedestrian safety.

15. Lincoln Road Improvements

The project involves widening Lincoln Road between Te Pai Place and the motorway interchange to accommodate additional transit/bus lanes on both sides. Stakeholder feedback has been received for the 2-D layout plan, and the NZTA funding application for the detailed design is progressing. The designation process is expected to start in late November 2015.

16. Mill Road Improvements

The Redoubt Road - Mill Road corridor project will provide an arterial road connection east of State Highway 1 between Manukau, Papakura and Drury and includes Murphys Road improvements from Redoubt Road to Flatbush School Road. Submissions to the NOR have closed and AT is now preparing evidence for the formal hearing due at the end of August.

Services

17. Road Safety Highlights

Over 4,000 young people and their parents have participated in the Crossroads young driver programme.

The Oi! Mind on the road, not on the phone driver distraction campaign in May targeted 20-29yr old drivers.

The Love Being a Local road safety campaign enabled rural communities to take a lead role in raising awareness of local speed issues.

18. Schools Travelwise Programme Highlights

The United Nations Global Road Safety Week took place from 4 to 10 May. 146 teachers registered for Road Safety Week information and resources and 27 schools entered the competition.

On 25 June 2015, 400 volunteers attended the Walking School Bus (WSB) megastars event to recognize the efforts of WSB volunteers.

Recently completed research has found that crash rates involving children walking and cycling at schools with Safe School Travel Plans (SSTPs) and Active School Signage were significantly reduced by 37% after the implementation of these measures.

19. Road Safety Education in Schools: (2014/15 Year)

79 new Walking School Buses were established, bringing the regional total to 369 and exceeding the target of 347

23 schools and 1,683 students received cycle training against a target of 1500

4 new schools joined the Travelwise programme, creating a total of 408 schools

2 regional ‘Slow Down Around Schools’ campaigns were delivered

536 students and 77 teachers attended Travelwise Primary and Secondary school workshops

4 high risk schools received rail fare evasion prevention campaigns.

20. Road Safety Promotion and Training: (2014/15 Year)

A number of Local campaigns were delivered including: 5,275 drivers through local Drink/Drive operations with NZ Police.

The #Drunksense radio advertisement won the Outstanding Radio Creativity Award and Driver Distractions won the Social and Community Platinum Award.

21. Travel Demand (2014/15 Year)

The ‘Commute’ programme promotes behavioural change to reduce the reliance on and impact of Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips. Focused on the morning peak period of congestion, the programme works with businesses to support public transport, carpooling and active modes of getting to work. Seventeen new organisations joined the ‘Commute’ programme, and 23 organisations progressed or launched their travel plan activities.

2014/15 Performance Outcomes

22. School Travel Trips Avoided

The 2015 Community and Road Safety Team target of 16,700 morning car trips avoided through school travel planning activities was exceeded with 17,164 trips avoided.

The total number of deaths and serious injuries (DSI) on Auckland Local Roads in the 2014 calendar year was 398, representing a 7.4% reduction from 2013. For the 2014 calendar year, the Auckland region had the lowest rate of road deaths and serious injuries (DSI) per capita in New Zealand – 31 DSI per 100,000 population.

Road Corridor Delivery

23. The Asset and Maintenance Group is tasked with the responsibility for a wide range of activities within the Road Corridor. These include but are not limited to:

· The Delivery of roading and streetlight maintenance and renewal programmes.

· Managing the access, co-ordination and traffic management impacts of activities taking place within the road corridor

· Promoting design innovation and efficiency around how work is carried out on the network

· The development of long term asset management plans and modelling which support the decision making process around the management of AT’s roading assets.

April – June Quarter key highlights

24. The Road Corridor Delivery Team have a year to date target (YTD) to deliver 581km of resurfacing (asphalt or chipseals), pavement renewals and footpath renewals. As outlined in figure 1, for 2014/2015 the group delivered 568km, or 98% of the planned programme.

Figure 1: Actual vs planned lengths (km) for June YTD

	YTD Planned Targets (KM)	Actuals (KM)	%
Resurfacing	427.4	418.9
Pavement Renewals	37.4	40
Footpath Renewals	116.7	110
Total	581.5	568.9	98%

25. The new Streetlighting contracts have been awarded to Downer (for Central and Southern areas) and Electrix (for North and West areas). The four new contracts align with the road maintenance contracts and replace the nine legacy contracts which have been in place until now. The new contracts are for a four year term with an additional 1+1 year right of renewal at AT’s discretion.

26. AT’s second asset management plan (AMP) covering the period 2015-2018 will be published in August 2015. This document details the strategies and management systems deployed by AT and sets out the future renewals and maintenance investment required to continue building the assets, infrastructure and delivery systems of a world-leading, transformational, sustainable and affordable urban transport service. The AMP also addresses the shortfalls that will begin to accrue if current budget levels continue over the medium to long term. Electronic copies will be available for download on the AT website and a hard copy will be sent to each Local Board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the fourth quarter (2014/15) ending 30 June 2015	69
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	85
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	87
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	89
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	91

Signatories

Authors

Various Auckland Transport authors

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13813

Purpose

1. This report seeks direction from Local Boards on the proposed discretionary fund for local board capital expenditure (Capex fund) regarding the:

· model for allocating the fund

· criteria for the fund.

Executive Summary

2. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. Local boards are to work with staff to develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects.

3. The Capex fund enables local boards to deliver small local asset based projects, either directly, in partnership with the community, or through joint agreements between boards.

4. The Capex fund will be managed over three years. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects.

5. Local boards provided views on how funding should be allocated during the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy (LBFP) in 2014. The resulting funding formula for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) allocates 90 per cent based on population, 5 per cent on deprivation and 5 per cent on land area. The same allocation formula can be used for the Capex fund to maintain consistency in the policy. Staff note however that the link between costs and land area is weak and leads to major shifts in the allocation of funding.

6. A formula based approach provides limited funding for the Great Barrier Island and Waiheke boards. Local boards should consider what level of funding over three years is appropriate for these boards. Staff recommend setting funding at one per cent of the fund for Great Barrier and two per cent for Waiheke.

7. Using the Capex fund is preferable to LDI funding as the Governing Body funds the consequential opex. Boards should consider whether they need to continue to use LDI funding for minor (less than $1 million) capital projects. Boards should also consider whether they need to be able to bring forward regionally funded projects using the Capex fund.

8. The proposal to allocate a Capex fund to local boards will require an amendment to the LBFP. This will amend the Long-term Plan and requires the use of the special consultative procedure.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) ProvideS feedback on the allocation of Capital expenditure (Capex) funding to local boards.

Comments

Background

9. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. On May 7 the Budget Committee passed the following resolution:

a) Provide a new Local Board discretionary capex fund of $10 million per annum noting that this will incorporate the existing Facilities Partnership Fund.

b) Approve the following parameters for this fund:

i. The fund may be managed as a three year amount

ii. Local Boards may use the fund to build council owned assets, add to an existing council funded renewal or new capital project, work in partnership with an external provider or seed fund a community project.

10. The Budget Committee requested that staff and local boards develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects to report to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Purpose of the Capex fund

11. The purpose of the fund is to ensure locally important projects are given appropriate priority. It is envisaged that the fund will be used for projects similar to those historically funded by the local improvement projects (LIP’s) or small local improvement projects (SLIP’s).

Funding Allocation Model

Principles for funding allocations

12. The core principles for allocating funding to local boards are an:

· equitable capacity for each local board to enhance well-being

· administrative effectiveness

· transparency.

Attributes for funding allocation

13. The Local boards funding policy (LBFP) makes allocations on the following basis:

· 90 per cent based on local board population size

· 5 per cent based on the relative level of deprivation of the board

· 5 per cent based on the land area of the board

· Waiheke and Great Barrier Island are funded for a fixed amount set by the Governing Body.

14. The following table shows the level of local board support for the use of the above factors for allocating LDI recorded during the review of the LBFP.

Local Board Attribute	Local Boards that supported use during last review of LBFP	Relationship to need for funding	Staff Comments
Population	21	Strong	Strongly relates to demand for services
Deprivation	17	Weak	Little objective evidence for relationship to demand for services
Geography	16	Weak	High distortion effect on allocation that does not relate to need for services

15. A key decision for the allocation of the Capex fund will be to determine the appropriate level of capital funding for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke. The discussion document considers the two current allocation models used to fund these boards:

· LDI allocation: Great Barrier Island and Waiheke receive the same proportion of the Capex fund as they currently receive of the total funding pool for Locally Driven Initiatives. (This is 2.3% of the total pool for Great Barrier Island and 2.7% for Waiheke)

· Transport Model: Great Barrier Island receives 1 per cent and Waiheke 2 per cent of the total funding pool.

16. Five models have been considered for allocating the Capex fund between all boards based on the population, deprivation and land area attributes of the boards:

· Model A: All boards funded based on 100% population

· Model B: All boards funded based on 95% population and 5% deprivation

· Model C: All boards funded based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model D: Great Barriers receives 2.3% and Waiheke receives 2.7% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model E: Great Barriers receives 1% and Waiheke receives 2% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area.

17. The following pages present these five models in table and chart form.

18. Other potential funding attributes that have not been included in the modelling are:

· rates paid: there is no relationship with need for services, and support was low for this attribute during the last review, with six boards in favour.

· current levels of capital expenditure: data on regional activities is unavailable at local level. Levels of expenditure on local assets are not relevant to the purpose of the Capex fund. Gaps in the provision of assets will be met through the relevant network facilities plan.

· population growth: growth will be addressed every three years through the proposed allocation formula.

19. The charts show the following:

· Using land area as an allocation factor significantly increases funding to Rodney and Franklin local boards.

· Great Barrier Island receives less than $7,000 under a population based allocation. This rises to $77,000 under the allocation formula that includes deprivation and land area.

· Providing Great Barrier Island and Waiheke with fixed allocations under the LDI allocation and Transport models only has a small impact on the other 19 boards.

20. In determining the appropriate funding levels for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke consideration should be given both to the total value of the funding over three years, and the typical costs of activities likely to undertaken by these boards. The following table shows the level of funding these boards would receive over three years in comparison to the next smallest board, Papakura:

Allocation formula model	Three year capex funding allocation for
Allocation formula model	Great Barrier	Waiheke	Papakura
Board Population size	900	8,400	45,000
A: 100% population	$20,000	$180,000	$970,000
B: 95% population + 5% deprivation	$130,000	$260,000	$1,000,000
C: 90% population + 5% deprivation + 5% land area	$230,000	$290,000	$970,000
D: GBI: 2.3% Waiheke 2.7% (Current LDI allocation)	$690,000	$820,000	$940,000
E: GBI: 1% Waiheke 2% of total fund	$300,000	$600,000	$960,000

21. The average cost for SLIPs projects in the last financial year was $31,000 for Great Barrier Island and $27,000 for Waiheke. Under Model E Waiheke would receive two per cent of the fund, and be able to deliver 20 average cost projects over three years. Great Barrier would receive one per cent of the fund and be able to deliver 10 average cost projects over the same period. They can of course accumulate funds over the three year period to undertake larger projects.

22. Staff consider there is a strong case for using the same formula for LDI and the capex fund to maintain consistency in the allocation. However, there is also a case for excluding land area given its impact on the distribution of funding.

23. Staff consider that allocating Great Barrier and Waiheke the same proportion of funding as they receive from the LDI opex fund would over fund these boards compared to other board areas. Staff recommend an allocation of one per cent of the total fund to Great Barrier, and two per cent to Waiheke would be appropriate.

Decision making process for capex projects

24. The chart on the following page provides an overview of decision making pathways for each type of project.

25. Staff will work with boards to develop guidelines for facilities partnerships (including feasibility studies) and community-led projects.

Bringing future capex allocation forward

26. The governing body has proposed that the fund be managed over a three year period, aligned with the Long-term Plan planning cycle. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects. This provides boards with greater choice in the size and timing of projects they undertake.

27. As a practical consideration, it is unlikely that all 21 local boards would be in a position to bring forward their three years of funding to 2015/16. However, in the event that this was to happen, the projects would need to be assessed against the modified “gateway” process to ensure they were able to be delivered.

28. Budget for the Capex funding is included in the ten year plan. Local boards’ can only bring three years budgets forward however so future decision making is unencumbered.

Role of LDI funding

29. The table below sets out how the Capex Fund and LDI Opex Fund could be used for different types of projects.

Funding Type	Project Type	Capex Fund		LDI Opex fund
Capex	Minor Asset based projects (less than $1M)	ü	GB funds consequential opex	?	LBs fund consequential opex (feedback sought)
	Top-up of regional projects and renewals	ü	GB funds consequential opex	?	LBs fund consequential opex (feedback sought)
	Major Asset based projects (greater than $1M)	ü	GB approval required. GB funds consequential opex.	û	Must use Capex fund for large projects
Opex	Capital grants to community groups	ü	Debt funded opex. Must be included in annual plan	ü	Standard opex expenditure
Opex	Feasibility Studies	ü	Debt funded opex. Must be included in annual plan	ü	Standard opex expenditure

30. Local boards are currently able to fund capital projects using their LDI budget by funding the consequential opex. The capex fund largely does away with the need for this and the Mayor’s report proposed the removal of the ability to fund major new facilities with opex funded by their LDI. This raises the question of whether local boards still need the ability to use LDI to fund minor capital projects. The table sets out the key differences between the Capex fund and the LDI opex fund for capital projects.

Capex fund	LDI opex fund
GB funds consequential opex	LB funds consequential opex
Easier for GB to control and plan for debt (set amount available for three years)	Creates variable unknown capex requirements on an annual basis
Simplified reporting processes	Complex financial reporting required to track LB funding vs regional funding

31. Staff recommend that local boards’ do not fund minor (less than $1 million) capital projects with LDI opex from 1 July 2016. This will not impact projects that boards have already committed to funding.

32. Local boards should provide feedback on whether they see a need to use:

· LDI to fund minor capital projects

· Capex funding to bring regionally funded projects forward.

Transferring LDI to Capex

33. Local boards may transfer their currently approved capex projects paid for by LDI (as outlined in their LB Agreement 2015/16), to the new discretionary fund. This will free up their LDI opex again and remove the need to fund consequential opex.

Deferral of Capex

34. Normal deferral conditions apply to the Capex fund. Projects cannot be planned outside of the three years but funds may be deferred if projects are unable to be completed within this period.

Transition for current Capex allocations

35. There will be no transition mechanism for any existing Capex budgets held by some local boards. The Governing Body has decided that this fund will replace the current Facilities Partnership fund.

36. Projects that have already been committed to through the Facilities Partnership fund will need to be funded from the relevant boards’ Capex fund allocation.

Local Boards Funding Policy

37. The current Local Boards Funding Policy must be amended to provide for the allocation of capex funding. This is an amendment to the Long-term Plan requiring use of the Special Consultative Procedure with a public consultation period of one month.

38. Staff propose to amend the LBFP to provide a general formula for allocating any non LDI funding. This will avoid the need to amend the LBFP every time the Governing Body decides to give local boards funding that is not for Locally Driven Initiatives.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

39. The proposal does not impact the allocation of decision making.

Significance and Engagement

40. The proposed Capex fund is a minor change in the scale of the Council’s budget and funding for Local Activities. As such it is not a significant change. However, creating a new funding allocation for local boards requires an amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy, and consequently the Long-term Plan.

41. The Council is required to undertake a special consultative process for any amendment to the Long-term Plan.

Implementation

42. The proposed amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy is not significant. As such, the amendment to the Long-term Plan will not need to be audited.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy & Budgeting

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) Funding Model Review - Local Board Input

File No.: CP2015/15157

Purpose

1. Auckland Council is undertaking a review of the funding model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (ARAFA Funding Model Review). Feedback from the local boards is sought on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any).

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) established a distinct model for contributing funds to specified regional amenities (regional amenities). This funding model is now under review to consider whether it remains fit for purpose and to identify how it might be improved. The Governing Body adopted Terms of Reference for the review on 26 February 2015.

3. Working closely with representatives of the regional amenities, seven funding model options were generated along a spectrum, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework. (The options are discussed in paragraphs 15 - 32)

4. The Finance and Performance Committee endorsed the seven options for evaluation on 18 June 2015. The options will be evaluated against criteria previously endorsed by Finance and Performance on 21 May 2015. (The criteria is discussed in paragraph 14)

5. When viewed across the spectrum, the options shift the role of Auckland Council from influencing decision-making under the Act (by a Funding Board) to becoming the decision-maker itself. The closer Auckland Council becomes to being the decision-maker the more opportunities there are to align the council’s strategic outcomes with those of the regional amenities. The options also incorporate improvements relating to information flows, longer term planning, communications and relationship building.

6. The options are also associated with a progressively increasing volume of further work that would be required to implement them. The implementation of options requiring legislative change is particularly complex. The necessary trade-offs involved will be teased out and considered through the evaluation of the options.

7. The evaluation is to be completed and will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015. The evaluation will identify the preferred option/s which may be a refined version, comprising different elements of the options proposed.

8. Local board feedback is sought on the level of change proposed in the options as set out in this report and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any).

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Provides feedback on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any) as an input into the evaluation of options under the Auckland Regional Funding Amenities Act Funding Model Review.

Comments

The Funding Model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008

9. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) has two purposes; to provide adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified regional amenities, and to ensure that local government in Auckland contributes funding.

10. The Act came into force prior to amalgamation of Auckland’s former councils. It was designed to ensure that all councils in the region contributed fairly to funding the regional amenities given the amenities operated across and benefited the whole of the Auckland region. It also sought to ensure that qualifying regional amenities remained financially viable.

11. The regional amenities apply each year to a Funding Board for next year’s funding. The Funding Board confers with Auckland Council and prepares and consults on a funding plan, before recommending a levy to Auckland Council for the next financial year. Auckland Council approves the recommended levy and if not, arbitration takes place. The Funding Board subsequently receives the levy and allocates funding to the regional amenities.

12. Auckland Council appoints six of the Funding Board’s 10 members with four members appointed by an Amenities Board, also created by the Act.

13. Only the regional amenities specified under the Act may apply for funding and funding is not available for any part of services or facilities provided outside of the Auckland region. Funding is to contribute towards the operational expenditure that regional amenities must incur and is not available for capital expenditure.

14. The regional amenities must make all reasonable endeavours to maximise funding from other sources. The regional amenities are prohibited from receiving operating funding form Auckland Council, other than via the Funding Board. However, staff are aware that local boards may receive funding requests from groups affiliated with the amenities.

15. The Funding Board and Auckland Council must have regard to the funding principles prescribed in the Act. The Act makes provision for additional funding principles to be adopted.

Regional Amenities

16. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the regional amenities are funded to provide services or facilities that contribute to “the well-being of the whole region” and “towards making Auckland an attractive place to live in and visit”. Organisations that wish to become regional amenities must possess these qualities to satisfy criteria for admission. The Act as enacted specified 10 regional amenities in Schedule 1:

· Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board

· Auckland Philharmonia

· Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust

· Auckland Theatre Company

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated

· New Zealand National Maritime Museum

· New Zealand Opera Limited

· Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated

· Auckland Festival Trust

· Watersafe Auckland Incorporated

17. The following examples illustrate the way the regional amenities serve the Auckland region:

· The Auckland Philharmonia (APO) was accorded the status of Metropolitan Orchestra as part of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s Orchestra Review in 2012. In that year the APO presented 31 performances in the Auckland Town Hall and performed in the Bruce Mason Centre (Takapuna) Telstra Events Centre (Manukau), Massey High Schools and Trusts Stadium (West Auckland) and the Holy Trinity Cathedral (Parnell). It also presented chamber concerts in Takapuna, Remuera and Howick and five free community performances and events in west, central, north and south Auckland.

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated has 14 units located across the Auckland region at Waiuku, Papakura, Titirangi, Kaipara, Kawau, Great Barrier, Hibiscus, North Shore, Auckland, Waiheke, Howick and Maraetei, with the Operations Centre and the Auckland Air Patrol operating centrally.

· Similarly, there are 10 clubs in the Auckland Region under the umbrella of Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated, located at Karioitahi Beach, Karekare, Piha (2), Bethels Beach, Murawai, Omaha, Red Beach, Orewa and Mairangi Bay.

The ARAFA Funding Model Review

18. Auckland Council’s establishment and issues arising out of the Act’s operation have raised the question of ‘whether the funding model remains fit for purpose’. Auckland Council agreed to review the ARAFA Funding Model through its deliberations on the Mayor’s proposal for the 2014 Annual Plan. The Governing Body endorsed Terms of Reference (Attachment A) for this review on 26 February 2015. It records stakeholder issues and objectives (Schedule 2) and sets the overarching objective to:

“achieve long term sustainable, affordable and predictable funding of the existing amenities while recognising the Council’s purpose and responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 and other legislation.” (paragraph 12):

19. The ARAFA funding model and changes to enhance its effectiveness are the focus of the review:

· The review will not consider whether to add or remove any of the regional amenities from the funding mechanism. That would be a separate piece of work.

· The review will also not consider how much funding each regional amenity currently receives but rather look at the process that determines the amount of funding provided.

20. The Terms of Reference set out the basic process for the review with the identification of criteria for the evaluation of options, identification of options and their subsequent evaluation. In undertaking this review we are working closely with representatives of the amenities and engaging with the Funding Board.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Options

21. The following criteria for evaluating options were endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015:

i. Financial sustainability and certainty

- Addresses the ‘sufficiency’ of the contribution provided by the funding model in terms of “adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified amenities.” It includes the predictability of that funding over the short to medium terms in support of financial planning.

ii. Affordability

- Addresses the affordability of the sum of the contributions allocated under the funding model including the impact on rates.

iii. Independence and continuity

- Considers the extent to which the option provides for objective decision making and the extent it provides for continuity of decision-making over time. These considerations go to the stability of the funding model over time.

iv. Accountability and transparency

- Considers the information and the processes to support decision-making required by an option to ensure there is a clear chain of accountability from the recipient through to the funder. Transparency supports accountability, providing clarity around decision-making processes. Public sector responsibility requires accountability and transparency generally, and particularly in respect of public funds.

v. Administrative efficiency

- Considers the efficiency of the funding model, with regard to the costs associated with the information and processes required by an option. Funding arrangements should have regard to the costs of implementation, and how effective they will be in achieving their objectives.

vi. Alignment of outcomes and goals

- Considers the extent to which the option allows for alignment between the outcomes and goals sought and achieved by the regional amenities and those of the Auckland Council on behalf of Auckland’s ratepayers.

vii. Fairness

- Considers the extent to which the funding model provides for fairness.

viii. Flexibility

- Requires consideration of the extent to which the option provides a funding model with sufficient flexibility to take account of changing circumstances.

Options to Enhance Effectiveness

22. Working closely with representatives of the amenities, seven options along a spectrum have been generated, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending the legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA legislative framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework.

23. The options were endorsed for evaluation by the Finance and Performance Committee on 18 June 2015.

24. Figure 1 illustrates the options and where they are located on the spectrum. Viewed across the spectrum, the options shift the role of Auckland Council from influencing the Funding Board’s decision-making to becoming the decision-maker itself. Similarly, there are increasing opportunities along the spectrum to align Auckland Council’s strategic outcomes with those of the amenities.

25. The review to date has identified that processes relating to funding bids and reporting have evolved under the existing arrangements. There appear to be further opportunities to pursue improvements through a focus on, information, communication, developing relationships and longer term planning which are being investigated through the final evaluation.

26. Implementation of the options will require further work, some of which is significant. The implementation of options requiring legislative change is particularly complex.

27. Options 1 to 4 are based on current arrangements which provide the pathway for regional amenities to seek operational funding from Auckland Council. Improvements under these options would be available for the 2016/2017 funding year.

28. Option 5 limits opportunities for Auckland Council to scrutinise the funding sought by the regional amenities, whereas Options 6 and 7 increase Auckland Council’s role in decision-making. The level of funding provided under Option 7 would be dependent on the policy and decisions of the governing body. There may therefore be a greater level of uncertainty for the regional amenities which may hold implications for the level of services and facilities they provide.

29. Options 5 to 7 require legislative change through the parliamentary process and it is not possible to indicate when they might become available for implementation.

30. The necessary trade-offs in relation to implementation will be considered through the evaluation of the options.

Figure 1.

31. Option 1 – Status Quo

The existing funding model prescribed by the Act is the benchmark against which the other options will be compared. It is described in paragraphs 1 to 7.

Seeking Improvements from within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

32. The following three options seek to introduce changes to enhance the legislative framework and the sharing of information between the regional amenities, the Funding Board and Auckland Council.

33. Option 2 – Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Clear Pathway to Capital Funding’

This option provides a ‘clear pathway for capital funding’ to augment the status quo.

While the amenities can currently apply for capital funding from Auckland Council via the Long Term Plan process, the granting of such funding is considered to be by exception. Under this option, applications for capital could be anticipated from any of the regional amenities. Potential applications would need to be signaled well ahead of time to assist financial planning and to enable the provision of funding.

34. Option 3 - Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Sustainable Funding’

This option introduces financial planning over a longer time frame with a 3 year rolling funding cycle and supporting information, and establishes how the sustainable level of funding for each regional amenity might be determined:

Introduction of a three year ‘rolling’ funding cycle

This cycle would align with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan/Annual Plan cycle. Applications for the first year of funding (the year of application) would seek that year’s funding and identify anticipated funding for the next two years. Annual applications made in the second and third year would be considered in the light of all the relevant information then provided.

Information supporting ‘rolling’ applications

The clarity and timeframe of information accompanying applications would be reviewed to ensure it supports the rolling funding cycle.

‘Sustainability’

A definition of the sustainable level of funding would be developed for application in the context of each of the regional amenities. This would also establish appropriate levels of reserves amenities would be able to build-up and maintain to help manage the peaks and troughs of the funding requirements.

35. Option 4 – Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Alignment/Groupings’

This option similarly proposes the three year rolling review, maximises opportunities to improve strategic alignment between the regional amenities and Auckland Council and addresses the diverse range of regional amenities.

The three year ‘rolling’ funding cycle / Information supporting applications becomes available as set out in the previous option.

Auckland Council and the Funding Board confer

Auckland Council would be more explicit in clarifying its expectations, its funding constraints and its intentions when conferring with the Funding Board on the draft Funding Plan. The purpose would be to ensure transparency about the Auckland Council context and any funding constraints the council might face.

Auckland Council supports public notification

Auckland Council supports public notification of the Draft Funding Plan. The council could support the notification of the Draft Funding Plan on the council’s web site, through the media centre and/or in publications. This would help rate payers provide feedback and make submissions.

More particular consideration relevant to the type of amenity

This could include:

· Criteria and considerations as relevant to different types of amenities – e.g. safety, arts & culture, and facilities

· Clarification and guidance around what might be meant by ‘sustainability’ and the sustainable contribution required could be developed with reference to the activities undertaken by the particular regional amenities.

Modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation

36. The two following options amend the ARAFA legislative framework, proposing specific amendments to the way funding is determined or the roles of institutions and the processes through which they work.

37. Option 5 – Baseline Plus CPI

Under this option the specified amenities would determine the ‘sustainable’ level of funding required for year 1, which would be CPI adjusted for the next two years. The level of sustainable funding would then be reset for the next (4^th) year and CPI adjusted in each of the next two years.

The basis for determining the sustainable level of funding would need to be developed and the implications for the Funding Board explored.

38. Option 6 - Strong Funder

This option remaps the relationship between the regional amenities and the Auckland Council with Auckland Council providing funds directly. Under this option the ARAFA legislative framework would be amended so that:

· the regional amenities apply to Auckland Council directly for funding

· three year rolling funding cycle / supporting information applies

· Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

· Auckland Council prepares and adopts the Funding Plan

· the role of the Funding Board becomes one of providing expert advice to Auckland Council

· the regional amenities report annually to the Auckland Council.

Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

The funding envelope from which contributions to the regional amenities would be drawn would be set for the 10 year period though the Council’s Long Term Plan process. This longer term approach to funding would likely require a review of the information required in support of setting the envelope.

Auckland Council prepares and adopts the Funding Plan

The Funding Plan mechanism could be similar to the status quo or be modified in terms of the process and matters to be taken into consideration.

The role of the Funding Board

The Funding Board’s role would change to one of providing expert advice to assist Auckland Council. Appointments may still be made by Auckland Council and by the regional amenities.

Repeal of the existing ARAFA framework and replacement with an Auckland Council policy framework

39. Under this model the existing ARAFA legislative framework would be repealed and replaced with a policy framework established and maintained by Auckland Council.

40. Option 7 - Auckland Council Dedicated Fund

The repealed ARAFA legislative framework would be replaced by a specific policy of Auckland Council where:

· Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

· there is no Funding Board and the regional amenities apply to Auckland Council for funding

· Auckland Council considers applications and determines the funding allocated following public consultation

· there is separate policy and consideration for different types of amenity – for example, safety, arts & culture and facilities for example.

· a three year rolling funding cycle with supporting information would apply

· the amenities annually report to the Auckland Council.

41. This option replicates many of the policy intentions of the Strong Funder option within Auckland Council formulated policy, though without the legislation or the Funding Board. As Council policy, the funding model/policy framework would be amenable to any amendment subsequent Councils may require.

Evaluation

42. The evaluation involves considering the performance of each option against the criteria, relative to the performance of the status quo. Working closely with the amenities representatives, this process is currently underway and the results will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015. The evaluation will identify the preferred option/s which may be a refined version, comprising different elements of the options proposed.

43. Local board feedback on the level of changes proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any) is sought and will be an input into the evaluation along-side feedback received from the Funding Board and Regional Facilities Auckland.

44. From the work completed to date it is clear that Option 4- ‘Alignment/Groupings’ is compromised. The idea of grouping amenities by the nature of their operations is unworkable due to the extent of the difference between each of the regional amenities. The other features of this option continue to offer merit however and will be included in the evaluation.

45. Implementation is a particular consideration in addition to the identified criteria. With the exception of the status quo, each option will require further work to become operational. The amount of work required and the level of complexity is likely to:

· be less from options seeking improvement within existing frameworks (options 2, 3 and 4)

· increase where improvements are sought through amendments to the Act (options 5 and 6)

· further increase with the repeal of the Act and its replacement by an alternative regime (option 7).

46. Seeking amendments to or the repeal of the Act would require sponsorship by a Member of Parliament to drive it through the Parliamentary processes. These include three readings in Parliament and the Select Committee Hearings process. The Act is a private Act. A private bill seeking changes would be subject to parliamentary processes required and it is not possible to indicate the time it might take for it to be enacted.

Next Steps

47. Local Board feedback will be collated and incorporated into the final report to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

48. The ARAFA funding model review considers the funding model established under the ARAFA legislation and will not directly impact on local board funding or decision-making. However, communities across all of Auckland are able to benefit from the services and facilities provided by the amenities funded through the Act.

49. Local board views on the level of change proposed in the options and their impacts on local boards (if any) are being sought via this report. This report follows a memo circulated to Local Board Chairs in February 2015 and a briefing to Local Board Chairs and members on 22 June 2015. This report follows the structure of that briefing while elaborating on the information provided.

Māori impact statement

50. The ARAFA funding model review focuses on how Auckland Council’s funding contribution to the specified amenities is determined. Using Whiria Te Muka Tangata: The Māori Responsiveness Framework as a lens there do not appear to be any statutory or treaty obligations, direct Māori or value Te Ao Māori outcomes affected by this review. Enquiries were made of mana whenua in March 2015 to ascertain whether the ARAFA funding model review held any interest. No interests were identified.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Terms of Reference	113

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron – Principal Advisor, CCO Monitoring & External Relationships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor, Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manger Strategic Advice

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 August 2015

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

File No.: CP2015/15109

Purpose

1. To inform Local Boards about the purpose and content of the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and seek their feedback.

2. To outline the Special Consultative Procedure being undertaken and the anticipated role of Local Boards in this consultation process.

3. To obtain Local Board views on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Executive Summary

4. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for approximately 11,000 hectares of Future Urban zone land. This land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB), but outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

5. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (the “Strategy”) (Attachment A) provides direction on the next stage in planning for the following Future Urban zone areas:

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

· North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

· South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe.

6. The Strategy sets out Auckland Council’s intention for when the above Future Urban areas are proposed to be development ready. The Strategy was developed in collaboration with infrastructure providers such as Watercare, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

7. The Strategy has significant implications for Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin Local Boards as they contain areas of Future Urban land which are sequenced for development readiness by the Strategy.

8. At its July meeting the Auckland Development Committee resolved to approve the draft Strategy for public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002) (Attachment B). They also appointed a five person hearing panel consisting of four Councillors and a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

9. The consultation period will run from 17 July to 17 August 2015. Public engagement on the Strategy will include a series of ‘Have your say’ events to be held in Warkworth, Dairy Flat, Drury and Kumeu.

10. The final Strategy will be submitted to the Auckland Development Committee in October for adoption.

11. This report seeks views from the Albert-Eden Local Board for consideration by the Auckland Development Committee and hearing panel in making a determination on if and how the Strategy will be amended.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Receives this report.

b) Provides feedback to the Auckland Development Committee and hearing panel on the Strategy, in particular on:

i. whether the Local Board agrees with the sequencing proposed within the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and, if so, the reasons why

ii. aspects of the sequencing in the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy the Local Board disagrees with and the reasons as to why

iii. any further issues on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Comments

Background

12. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for approximately 11,000 hectares of Future Urban zone land. This land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) but outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). The Future Urban zone indicates that this land is appropriate for future urban development.

13. A key goal of the Auckland Plan Development Strategy is to achieve a quality compact form. This requires urban intensification, supplemented by well-managed urban expansion. The Auckland Plan advocates for 70 per cent of growth in the existing urban area and up to 40 per cent of growth in locations outside the 2010 MUL. The Future Urban land is intended to provide a significant portion of the growth outside the 2010 MUL – around 110,000 dwellings. The balance of growth outside the RUB and the satellite towns of Warkworth and Pukekohe, will be accommodated in rural and coastal towns, rural villages, countryside living and general rural areas.

14. The draft Strategy focuses on the Future Urban land areas located in:

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

· North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

· South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe.

15. Local Board areas which contain Future Urban land directly affected by this Strategy include Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin.

16. The draft Strategy marks the next step in planning the Future Urban areas that started with the Auckland Plan. The Auckland Plan identified ‘greenfield areas of investigation’ to provide for future growth outside the MUL. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan formalised this concept through the location of the RUB and the proposed zoning of this land as Future Urban.

17. High-level planning was undertaken to provide more detail around possible land use, key infrastructure and potential housing yield and business land location. Based on this, the Strategy sequences the order for when this land is intended to be ready for development over the three decades of the Auckland Plan. It is a proactive approach to long-term planning, infrastructure provision and providing housing and business capacity.

18. Most of the Future Urban areas are predominantly rural and have not previously been identified for urbanisation. Bulk infrastructure will therefore have to be provided to these areas. All Future Urban areas require some degree of bulk infrastructure; development will therefore not be able to occur until this infrastructure is in place. In areas where bulk infrastructure projects are large and complex, longer lead-in times (for design, consenting and build) are required. This affects the timing for when land can be development ready.

Purpose of the Strategy

19. The purpose of the draft Strategy is to provide a robust and logical sequence for when the Future Urban areas are proposed to be ‘development ready’ across the three decades of the Auckland Plan. This will enable coordination of timely structure planning and bulk infrastructure provision to these areas and provide clarity and certainty to all key stakeholders, including infrastructure providers.

Drivers for the Strategy

20. The key driver for the draft Strategy is the significant current and projected growth in Auckland and the pressure this growth places on housing supply and key infrastructure. The Strategy therefore aims to proactively plan for, coordinate and deliver bulk infrastructure so that this land can be brought on stream for both residential and business development i.e. contributing to development capacity across the region.

21. Accommodating this growth will come at a significant cost. Preliminary, high level estimates of bulk infrastructure costs are provided within the draft Strategy; however it does not include costs for any local network infrastructure. The significant costs are primarily driven by the size of the Future Urban areas (these equate to approximately one and a half times the area of urban Hamilton); the scale of the bulk infrastructure that will be required; and the current lack of such infrastructure in these areas. For these reasons it would be prohibitively expensive for Council, CCOs and, more broadly, for central government (e.g. the New Zealand Transport Agency and Ministry of Education) to invest in all Future Urban areas at the same time.

The draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

22. The draft Strategy sets out a logical timed sequence for development readiness. It integrates information on key infrastructure required to get these areas ready for urban development. The sequencing is based on a suite of principles (attached to the Strategy) that include the consideration of the lead-in times for the bulk infrastructure required. Bulk infrastructure refers to water, wastewater, stormwater and the transport network. This draft Strategy will also assist with the forward planning of community facilities and services critical for creating sustainable communities.

23. The sequencing set out in the draft Strategy was developed with input from a number of infrastructure providers including Watercare, Veolia, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

24. The analysis done for this draft Strategy is of sufficient scale and specificity to broadly determine bulk infrastructure requirements. There are two subsequent parallel and inter-dependent processes to get land ready for development – more detailed structure planning, and bulk infrastructure planning and build.

25. Structure planning and plan changes (to urban zones) will be done prior to the areas being ready for development and will be undertaken by the Council (or in partnership with others) in line with the programme set out in the draft Strategy. This is the stage of the process where Local Boards, mana whenua and communities will be involved in the detailed planning of these areas.

26. The sequencing programme ensures the infrastructure costs are distributed over three decades to smooth spikes in capital expenditure, allow all infrastructure providers to forward plan their asset management and assist with prioritising key enabling projects.

27. A monitoring programme is an integral part of the Strategy and will be used to monitor trends over time. This is to ensure that the proposed sequencing remains relevant. This monitoring will be part of an overall strategy to provide information on development capacity in brownfield and greenfield locations. Given the 30-year timeframe, a number of factors could change the proposed sequencing and timing as set out in the Strategy. These include funding constraints, possible alternative funding options and changes to population growth and housing demand. Therefore, for the Strategy to remain relevant and effective, it must be a ‘living’ document, able to respond to changes identified through the monitoring programme.

The Consultation Process

28. The public consultation period will run from 17 July – 17 August 2015. It will follow the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002). This procedure requires all interested parties to be given an opportunity to present submissions in a manner which enables spoken interaction.

29. The Auckland Development Committee has appointed Councillors Cashmore, Darby, Webster and Quax and one member of the IMSB (to be confirmed) to form a hearing panel to receive the spoken submissions.

30. A series of ‘Have your say’ events will be held to provide an opportunity to all interested parties to provide spoken feedback. These events will be held at the following dates, times and locations:

· Monday 3 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Warkworth Masonic Hall

· Wednesday 5 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Drury Hall

· Monday 10 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Dairy Flat School Hall

· Tuesday 11 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Kumeu Community Hall

31. Invitations will be extended to Ward Councillors and Local Board members to attend these events.

32. Public notices will be placed in the New Zealand Herald and relevant local newspapers notifying interested parties about the Strategy itself and the ‘Have your say’ events. The Strategy and a feedback form will be available on the Shape Auckland website and a media release will be distributed at the commencement of the consultation period. A targeted direct mail out will also be undertaken for key stakeholders.

33. Local Board participation at the events and feedback and input to the draft Strategy are welcomed.

34. Feedback received during the period, including that received from Local Boards, will be analysed, summarised and reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel. The panel will then make a determination about amendment of the Strategy.

35. The final Strategy will be submitted for adoption at the Auckland Development Committee meeting in October.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

36. The Strategy has significant implications for Local Boards particularly Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin Local Boards as they contain areas of Future Urban land sequenced by this Strategy. The consultation period and the ‘Have your say’ events provide an opportunity for Local Boards to become involved in the process, hear the views of their communities and form their own views and response to the Strategy.

37. Local Boards were informed about the Strategy at a joint workshop held with the Auckland Development Committee on 16 June 2015. A briefing on the Strategy and the consultation process was held for Local Board members on 15 July 2015. This was to ensure Local Boards have a sound understanding of the Strategy and consultation process prior to the commencement of the consultation period.

38. Preliminary issues raised by attendees included the need to manage community expectation about land purchases in the future urban areas, the need to ensure Council is fully resourced to undertake the structure planning work, a need to forward plan land purchase for community facilities and a proactive engagement approach with central government around provision of education and health facilities and services to deliver the best outcomes for local communities.

39. This report seeks Local Board views on the Strategy and these issues and any other feedback will be reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel.

Māori impact statement

40. This Strategy has significant implications for Maori and has the capacity to contribute to Maori well-being and development of Maori capacity. It is acknowledged that Maori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment. Ongoing liaison has occurred with Te Waka Angamua around the Strategy and the suite of principles which sit behind it. One of the principles reflects Council’s commitment to Maori social and economic well-being as a transformational shift set out in the Auckland Plan. Independent Maori Statutory Board staff were briefed at the commencement of the project, provided with background documentation and invited to workshops as the Strategy was developed. A representative from the IMSB is to be appointed to the hearing panel for this project. A hui was held with mana whenua chairs on 29 June 2015 and individual meetings will occur with interested Chairs who were unable to attend the hui.

Implementation

41. Iwi responses will be sought as part of the public consultation process outlined in this report. Consultation submissions from iwi will be reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel.

Attachments