Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

Environmental Management Programmes 2014/2015 End of Year Report

File No.: CP2015/12619

Purpose

1. To provide the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board a summary of the projects delivered with the environmental management programmes budget ($105,872) allocated to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department (I and ES) in the 2014/2015 financial year.

Executive Summary

2. The I and ES Department was allocated $105,872 environmental management programmes budget by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for delivery in the 2014/2015 financial year, supplemented by $10,000 of discretionary funding for the North West Wildlink – audit sites project.

3. At its September 2014 business meeting, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved to allocate this environmental management programmes budget to the following projects:

• Weiti Wildlink - $25,000

• Love Your Bays - $45,000

• North West Wildlink Prioritisation Report - $15,000

• North West Wildlink Assistance Programme - $20,872

• North West Wildlink Audit Sites - $10,000 (discretionary)

4. These projects support the local board outcome for ‘a protected and enhanced environment - with waterways, harbours, coastline, parks, reserves and heritage protected and enhanced for future generations to enjoy’.

5. This report is a summary of these projects as delivered in the 2014/2015 financial year. Overall, the activities detailed in this report have been delivered within the budget allocated as at the end of financial year 2014/2015.

6. In summary, the Weiti Wildlink project was fully expended, the Love Your Bays project had a total underspend of $2,735, as the design costs for stream signage were absorbed by another marketing budget. Other slight over and underspends across this budget allocation expenditure reconciled to the total allocated amount. The North West Wildlink Assistance Programme was delivered within the allocated $20,872 and the North West Wildlink Prioritisation Report was delivered with the allocated $15,000.

7. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated $10,000 of its discretionary opex for the North West Wildlink project. This budget was unable to be spent during the 2014/2015 year as it was not required for the 2014/2015 audit of ecological sites which was delivered within the scope for the North West Wildlink Prioritisation Report. This underspend has been returned as an efficiency saving and could not be carried forward.

Recommendation

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Receive the environmental management programmes 2014/2015 end of year report.

Comments

8. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated the environmental management programmes budget to three projects at its September 2014 business meeting as follows:

• Weiti Wildlink - $25,000

• Love Your Bays - $45,000

• North West Wildlink - $45,872

9. All projects have been delivered within budget and have supported the local community to deliver projects such as weed and pest management and restoration initiatives to enhance and protect the environment and waterways within Hibiscus and Bays.

The table below summarises the delivery of each project.

*Project and Summary*	*Budget Allocated*	*Budget Spend*
WEITI WILDLINK	$25,000	$25,000
*Objective:* To maintain the Weiti River riparian planting implemented in the 2013/2014 financial year in the Silverdale area - control weeds and maintain newly planted sites, photo point monitoring and involve community in pest plant and animal control. Conservation Volunteers NZ were contracted to coordinate this programme of works. The following was achieved: · Contractors carried out four rounds of chemical weed control in September, November, February and April 2015 · Exotic poplar trees were felled, drilled and injected by contractors and branches spread by volunteers · 5 community volunteer days supervised to carry out plant release, mulching and spreading branches of felled poplars. Total of 66 volunteer hours · 6 local volunteers trained and involved in a predator control programme for pest animal control. To date 34 possums and 13 rats have been trapped in the Silverdale area. Approximately 37 volunteer hours have been spent checking, clearing and re-baiting traps. · Fulton Hogan has contributed approximately $1,600 in-kind support for the project (sign manufacture and installation, mulching, transporting mulch) · Two issues of Weiti Wildlink newsletter created and distributed. Circulation list currently at 234. · Dumping issue discussed with parks – bollards at both ends will be implemented by parks. · Photo point monitoring carried out. · Discussions with Atlas Concrete about removing pampas and restoring section of their land adjacent to Flexman reserve.	$15,000	$15,000
Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan *Objective:* To develop a restoration plan for the public land between Stillwater (end of Duck Creek Road) and Okura (end of Haigh Access Rd) including Stillwater Spit and to provide guidance for community groups working on restoration initiatives along the coastal margin of the Weiti estuary. Thomas Civil and Environmental Consultants was contracted to develop an ecological restoration plan encompassing esplanade areas along the Okura Walkway. The plan aims to protect the existing ecological values of the walkway focusing on protection and improvement of the sand dunes at Karepiro Beach; encouraging self-sustaining coastal ecosystems; promoting native wildlife by enhancing the area as a wildlife corridor therefore enhancing its value to the North West Wildlink. The plan summarises community group activities, describes the ecological values and threats and outlines management actions required to combat the issues. The plan aims to better coordinate community restoration efforts for greater effect and to increase ecological outcomes. A copy of the Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan is provided under separate cover.	$10,000	$10,000
LOVE YOUR BAYS	$45,000	$42,265
Stream Signage *Objective:* To support better understanding of the natural processes creating odours in summer at stream mouths in the East Coast Bays through the design and installation of educational signage at stream mouths sites. · Signs have been designed and installed at Long Bay, Waiake Beach, Rothesay Bay and Mairangi Bay in conjunction with community planting events at these four locations. · Stormwater department have contributed an additional $5,924 for signs at a further 3 locations (Murrays Bay, Campbells Bay, Browns Bay). · Photos of the installed signs have been posted on the Local Board’s facebook page The underspend of just under $3,000 was due to this amount being put aside for internal sign design costs which were unexpectedly absorbed by another marketing budget.	$10,000	$7,072
Community Care for Waterways *Objective:* To foster awareness and behaviour change that impact on stormwater quality and motivate the community to care for waterways. Improve riparian habitat in local board parks and reserves and educate the public about what can be done on private land. Site preparation, native plants, coordination, and promotion, delivery of community events and educational presentations and activities at selected streamside locations. · Four community planting days were delivered during June/July at Long Bay, Waiake Beach, Rothesay Bay and Mairangi Bay where 2,502 ecosourced native plants were planted along stream banks by approximately 273 volunteers from the local community. · Site preparation was carried out prior to the planting days including removal of phoenix palm and monkey apple trees from Rothesay Bay Beach Reserve and Aicken Reserve, Waiake. · Approximately 100 cubic metres of free mulch was provided by Treescape · Community engagement, event promotion and communication of water messaging were delivered by Recreation Solutions Ltd. Community events were promoted through local community organisations, schools, local media and council communication channels. A web page was set up on the council website for the project and a social media campaign was delivered via the local board facebook page to promote actions that impact positively on water quality. For further information refer to Attachment B: Love Our Bays Project Report The overspend on this project was due the cost of removing phoenix palm and monkey apple trees which was not originally budgeted for. However, the overspend in this area is balanced by an underspend in other areas of this budget as detailed below.	$25,000	$30,654
School Projects *Objective:* To work with East Coast Bays schools to increase awareness and understanding of water quality and stormwater issues in local waterways and beaches. Schools will be supported to undertake an action project to inform and educate their local community. · Letters were sent to all primary and intermediate schools in the area inviting them to participate. Wai Care and Education for Sustainability staff have worked with three schools who expressed an interest in being involved in learning experiences around their local stream and undertaking water quality monitoring (Browns Bay Primary School, Torbay School, Mairangi Bay). Long Bay Primary School will undertake water quality monitoring activity in Term 3. · A grant of $1,869 was provided to Mairangi Bay School to work with an art facilitator to produce an information sign to be erected near the entrance to the Centennial Park nature trail highlighting specific environmental issues for the stream. The sign is programmed for installation at the end of July 2015. · A grant of $2,670 was provided to Torbay School to work with an art facilitator to paint a mural on the wall of the toilet block at the end of Rock Isle Road, Waiake promoting actions to care for waterways. The mural design is underway and expected to be completed in mid-August. The underspend on this project was due to a lower uptake from schools than expected with only two schools wishing to undertake significant action projects. This underspend is balanced out by the overspend in Community Care for Waterways project.	$10,000	$4,539
NORTHWEST WILDLINK	$45,872	$35,872
North West Wildlink Prioritisation Report *Objective:* Enhance the North-West Wildlink by identifying key areas for protection or restoration and potential expansion of ecological corridors across the local board area. Report on the areas of significant ecological value on both public and private land with recommended priority targets for action. Boffa Miskell was contracted to prepare the report, the first step in achieving the long-term local board objective to “establish the North-West Wildlink as a continuous greenbelt complemented by improved quality of adjoining estuarine and marine environments”. The report identifies six key habitat features that have significant ecological values such as refuge habitat, food sources and breeding areas and have been called wildlink wonders: · Waiwera Estuary · Orewa North / Hatfields Beach · Orewa Estuary · Weiti River to Okura River · Tindalls Beach / Matakatia · Army Bay · Tiritiri Matangi These core areas provide the framework for identifying opportunities to protect, enhance and extend the wildlink wonders. The report also identifies associated biodiversity hubs, linkages and a matrix of mixed land use and habitats to provide a focus for relevant stakeholder community management initiatives and opportunities to coordinate these efforts. Specific management recommendations have been developed for each of the biodiversity hubs and these include engaging with the community to protect and enhance wildlink wonders; fencing of native habitats and waterways, restoration planting, and encouraging greater effort to control weed and animal pests. The report emphasises that to achieve the objective to create an effective ecological corridor requires action across the whole landscape to control predators, restore and enhance existing physical linkages and enrich habitats within the surrounding matrix. A copy of the North West Wildlink Prioritsation Report is attached as Attachment B.	$15,000	$15,000
North West Wildlink Assistance Programme *Objective:* To support initiatives enhancing the North-West WildLink and facilitate biodiversity and water quality outcomes on private property. The focus of the assistance programme will be on stream protection and restoration, providing landowners with free on-site consultation, support with weed control and some free native plants. Kaipatiki Project Inc. were contracted to deliver this programme. The following was achieved: · Letters were sent to properties identified from GIS as having a stream on or adjacent to their properties and inviting them to participate in the programme. The initial target area was the Weiti River catchment to support the local board’s restoration focus in that catchment. The programme was subsequently extended to East Coast Bays and Okura catchments and the entire Whangaparaoa Peninsula. · 60 on-site consultations delivered to private landowners. Approximately half have been lifestyle blocks and half suburban sections. · Each participant received 25 free native trees grown by volunteers at the Kaipatiki Project nursery – a total of 1,500 ecosourced native trees were provided. · 35 bottles of weed gel provided to participants (funded by Biosecurity team). · 19 Greenfinger weed bags and 6 tradescantia bags (for on-site composting) were provided. · Feedback on the programme was sought from participants via a short questionnaire. Responses were received from 25 people indicating that the programme was very well received by the community. · Follow up phone calls and site visits to assess outcomes of advice and assistance, will continue over the next few months. A summary of the evaluation surveys for the North West Wildlink Assistance Programme is attached as Attachment C.	$ 20,872	$ 20,872
North West Wildlink Audit Sites In the 2014/2015 the local board allocated $10,000 from its discretionary budget for the North West Wildlink – audit sites project. The audit of ecological sites in the local board area was delivered within the scope of the North West Wildlink Prioritisation Report meaning this budget was no longer needed and consequently not spent.	$10,000	Nil

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. This report is prepared specifically to inform the local board about the delivery of the environmental management programmes budget for the 2014/2015 financial year assigned to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department.

11. In September 2014, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board passed a resolution (HB/2014/185) allocating a further $10,000 for the North West Wildlink Project in addition to the existing budget of $20,872 for the Assistance Programme and $15,000 for the Prioritisation Report. The North West Wildlink Project including site audits was delivered within the originally allocated $35,872 and the additional discretionary opex of $10,000 was unable to be spent.

Māori impact statement

12. While this report is for information only and does not require any decision making, it is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

13. Local iwi were consulted as part of the Weiti Wildlink project and are informed regularly of the project’s progress and update through the Weiti Wildlink newsletter.

Implementation

14. The activities detailed in this report have been delivered within the budget allocated as at the end of financial year 2014/2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Love Our Bays Project Report	93
b View	North West Wildlink Prioritsation Report	105
c View	Evaluation survey for North West Wildlink Assistance Programme	141

Signatories

Authors

Liz Ross – Environmental Programmes Advisor

Craig Pratt - Senior Biodiversity Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

Proposed 2015/2016 Environmental Management Programme

File No.: CP2015/14856

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for a proposed environmental management programme with a budget of $120,000 to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department.

Executive Summary

2. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board included a budget of $120,000 for local environmental development projects in its 2015/2016 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget.

3. An environmental work programme to deliver on this budget, building on projects delivered in 2014/2015, has been developed based on feedback from the local board at a workshop on 29 July 2015.

4. The proposed environmental management programme to be delivered by Infrastructure and Environmental Services (I&ES) in 2015/2016 is summarised below in Table One.

Table One: Brief summary of 2015/2016 environmental management programme

Project description	Cost
Weiti Wildlink – Three projects are proposed for delivery under this budget line including: · Weiti River Restoration – Maintain and enhance the Weiti River riparian restoration and planting in the Silverdale area - $15,000 · Streamwatch - Install Streamwatch signs next to the Weiti River in Silverdale - $5,000 · Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan Implementation - Implement recommendations of the Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan - $10,000	$30,000
Love Our Bays - Support actions and behaviours that impact positively on stormwater quality, motivate the community to care for waterways and support the uptake of water sensitive design principles.	$45,000
North West Wildlink Assistance Programme - Support initiatives enhancing the North West Wildlink (NWWL) and facilitate biodiversity outcomes on or bordering wildlink wonder sites.	$45,000
Total $120,000

5. These projects will contribute to the local board’s aspiration, as highlighted in their plan of ‘a protected and enhanced environment – with waterways, harbours, coastline, parks, reserves and heritage are protected and enhanced for future generations to enjoy.’

6. It is recommended that the local board approve this environmental work programme and the associated budgets for delivery by I&ES in 2015/2016.

Recommendations

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Approve the proposed 2015/2016 environmental management programmes budget of $120,000 to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department as follows:

i. Weiti Wildlink projects – total budget $30,000 including:

o Weiti River Restoration – Silverdale ($15,000)

o Streamwatch ($5,000)

o Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan Implementation ($10,000)

ii. Love Our Bays - $45,000

iii. North West Wildlink Assistance Programme - $45,000

b) Request that any significant changes to the environmental management programme identified during programme delivery be brought back to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for approval.

Comments

Background

7. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan for 2014-2017 identifies a key outcome to achieve ‘a protected and enhanced environment – with waterways, harbours, coastline, parks, reserves and heritage are protected and enhanced for future generations to enjoy.’

8. To achieve this aspiration, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated their local environmental management programmes budget to four projects in the 2014/2015 financial year. These were:

· Weiti Wildlink - $25,000

· Love Your Bays - $45,000

· North West Wildlink Prioritisation Report - $15,000

· North West Wildlink Assistance Programme - $20,872

9. An end of year report highlighting key outcomes from these projects is included on the board’s agenda for this meeting. In summary, these projects were delivered within budget and have supported the local community to carry out weed and pest management and restoration initiatives to enhance and protect the environment and waterways within the Hibiscus and Bays area.

10. A draft environmental work programme for 2015/2016 was developed building on the achievements and recommendations from projects delivered in 2014/2015. At a workshop held on Wednesday 29 July 2015, the local board considered this proposed environmental management programme for the 2015/2016 financial year and gave feedback on how it should best be delivered.

11. Based on this feedback a proposed environmental work programme for 2015/2016 is outlined below.

Weiti Wildlink ($30,000)

12. Three projects are proposed for delivery under this budget line and described below.

Weiti River Restoration –Silverdale ($15,000)

13. Objective: To maintain and enhance the Weiti River riparian restoration and planting implemented in the 2013/2014 financial year in the Silverdale area. This would include controlling weeds and enhancing planted areas, photo point monitoring, and involving communities in pest plant and animal control.

14. It is proposed to extend the existing contract with Conservation Volunteers NZ (CVNZ) for one further year for maintenance and enhancement of the restoration site. This would include:

· Maintaining existing planted areas in Flexman Reserve and adjacent to Manga Road for the last year of this three year project before maintenance of these assets is transferred over to council’s local parks unit in 2016/2017. Maintenance would include plant release and subcontracting chemical control of environmental weeds.

· Supplying approximately 100 native plants to fill gaps in the planted area on the side of the walkway to Titan Place

· Providing and promoting community days for local residents to engage in maintenance and enhancement activities and offering another training session to engage new volunteers in the predator control programme

· Evaluating the usefulness of the Weiti Wildlink newsletter and continuing to provide regular updates on the project’s progress to the local board.

· Continuing with photo point monitoring

· Encouraging local volunteers to become more self-reliant and work more closely with the Forest and Bird predator free peninsular project.

15. This restoration maintenance programme does not include control of non-environmental weeds or resurfacing the basic gravel track originally built by volunteers to provide access to the restoration site. If the local board considers this route warrants upgrading, this could be progressed through other local board budgets.

16. Council will work closely with CVNZ to explore opportunities to expand the Weiti Wildlink restoration initiative along new sections of the Weiti River and Weiti Estuary as opportunities arise. For example, work could be undertaken at 36 Hibiscus Coast Highway or with local marae to enhance the riparian margin on the opposite side of the river.

Streamwatch ($5,000)

17. Objective: Produce and install Streamwatch signage and information to encourage people living and working next to the Weiti River in Silverdale to look out for and report dumping and pollution.

18. As part of the Weiti restoration project in Silverdale described above, several tonnes of rubbish was cleared from the river banks during the 2013/2014 financial year by CVNZ. An Industry Pollution Prevention Programme (IPPP) was also delivered in the Silverdale industrial area. The legacy of neglect in this area has still to be overcome as illegal dumping, particularly of garden waste, has continued to be an issue at the restoration site. Council will soon install bollards to prevent vehicle access to the reserve which will help address this issue.

19. In addition it is recommended that signage is installed and information distributed to all businesses in the area including the council phone numbers for reporting water pollution and illegal dumping. These could use the Streamwatch brand and logo that was developed by Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust for a similar initiative on the Avondale Stream (see Attachment A).

20. Positive messaging that supports doing the right thing and lets perpetrators know that others in the community are watching is likely to be a more effective communication mechanism than “no dumping” signs and will build on the previous industry pollution prevention programme.

21. The cost estimate includes:

· paying Ecomatters for rights to use the Streamwatch brand and logo

· editing of the design, manufacture and installation of signage

· printing brochures and their distribution to businesses and homes in the Silverdale area.

Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan Implementation ($10,000)

22. Objective: Support the existing community groups in the Stillwater area to implement recommendations of the Okura to Stillwater Restoration Plan which was funded by the local board in 2014/2015. The key recommendations were to undertake weed and animal pest control and targeted coastal restoration.

23. Following on from the development of the restoration plan it is recommended that some budget be allocated to support the restoration activities of the three existing community groups working in this area:

· Friends of Okura Bush

· Forest and Bird

· Dacre Cottage Committee

24. The nature of this work would be determined in collaboration with the groups themselves, and with council’s parks department, in accordance with the recommendations in the plan. The programme would be focussed on the priority wildlink wonder sites that were identified in the Northwest Wildlink Prioritisation Report completed by Boffa Miskell in the 2014/15 financial year. Hence, these sites warrant support for a dedicated budget to enable community groups to protect and enhance the Weiti River to Okura River Wildlink Wonder.

Love our Bays ($45,000)

25. Objective: To support actions and behaviours that impact positively on stormwater quality, motivate the community to care for waterways and support the uptake of water sensitive design principles.

26. It is recommended that the Love Your Bays project that was initiated in the 2014/2015 financial year in the East Coast Bays area is continued. The community planting events held to date and associated community engagement and communications can be built on to further foster community care for waterways and raise community awareness of water sensitive design principles. The scope of these activities will be confirmed through further discussions with the local board.

27. Some examples of initiatives that could be supported are:

· Undertake further riparian planting on public land through community planting events held in reserves. These will demonstrate to and educate the public about what can also be done on private land.

· Install litter traps on catch pits draining to coastal outfalls.

· Augment the existing stormwater treatment pond in Sherwood Reserve with a floating vegetated island to biologically treat and improve water quality.

· Carry out an exemplar project to promote and demonstrate water sensitive design principles. Some potential projects are listed below:

o Erosion and sediment control education programme in new development areas in the Silverdale or Orewa area (as piloted by Rodney Local Board in Warkworth in 2014/2015).

o A programme to encourage and educate homeowners to install low cost, low impact design devices such as rain barrels, down pipe disconnection and stormwater planter boxes.

o Demonstration of water sensitive design devices on council facilities with interpretive signage, e.g. install green roofs on public toilet blocks

28. These potential projects will be investigated further by council staff and the project scope will be confirmed with the local board in a subsequent workshop.

Northwest Wildlink Assistance Programme ($45,000)

29. Objective: Support initiatives enhancing the North West Wildlink (NWWL) that facilitate biodiversity outcomes on or bordering wildlink wonder sites identified in the NWWL Prioritisation Report as having high priority for biodiversity protection and restoration.

30. This programme will support landowners bordering wildlink wonder sites to protect native habitats and waterways, undertake weed and pest control, and engage in native restoration or enrichment planting to enhance habitats for native species.

31. This will be an extension to the NWWLAP programme delivered by Kaipatiki Project in the 2014/2015 financial year with greater emphasis on providing practical support to enable individual and collective neighbourhood action on both public and private land.

32. As part of this initiative it is proposed to also support a community event on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula in partnership with local groups. This would complement and celebrate existing community-led action to enhance ecological links from the predator free Hauraki Gulf Islands and Shakespear Open Sanctuary westwards along the Whangaparaoa Peninsula.

33. The Tindalls Beach/Matakatia Wildlink Wonder which was identified as one of seven priority areas in the prioritisation report is suggested as the initial focus for encouraging community action. The event would encourage participation in the NWWL assistance programme and other existing community initiatives such as Forest and Bird’s Paint the Peninsula Purple project and council’s Parks department’s volunteer programmes.

34. The budget would support the provision of advice, pest plant and animal control equipment and supplies, native plants, project and event management and coordination, community engagement and promotion.

Conclusion

35. The proposed environmental management programme outlined in this report for 2015/2016 builds upon achievements and learnings from the local environmental projects delivered for the local board by I&ES in 2014/2015.

36. The programme is focused on protecting waterways and restoring ecological areas, which is strongly aligned with the local board’s aspiration, as expressed in their local board plan for ‘a protected and enhanced environment – with waterways, harbours, coastline, parks, reserves and heritage are protected and enhanced for future generations to enjoy.’

37. It is recommended that the local board approve the proposed environmental work programme outlined in this report and associated budget of $120,000 for delivery by the I&ES department in 2015/2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

38. This environmental work programme has been developed based on feedback from the board at a workshop on Wednesday, 29 July 2015. It also delivers on key outcomes expressed in the local board’s plan as described above.

39. Responsibility for decision making and allocation of this budget is within the local board’s delegations.

Māori impact statement

40. This report provides information for current and anticipated environment management programmes that are of interest to Māori and provisions for mana whenua participation, contribution and consultation will be integrated into these projects.

41. It is recognised that the issue of water quality has integral links with the mauri of waterways and harbours and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation

42. Implementation of these projects will be regularly reported to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board through quarterly reports from I&ES. Any significant changes to these projects will be brought back to the local board for approval.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Sample of streamwatch brochure	159

Signatories

Authors

Liz Ross – Environmental Programmes Advisor

Craig Pratt – Senior Biodiversity Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13926

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 local 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 local 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. Local boards should consider whether they need to continue to use LDI funding for minor (less than $1 million) capital projects. Local 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Provide 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 2015 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 local 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 local 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 2015/2016. 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

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy & Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

East Coast Bays Community Project 2014/2015 accountability and 2015/2016 funding agreement for the community coordinator

File No.: CP2015/16154

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to:

1. Present the East Coast Bays Community Project (ECBCP) Community Coordinator’s year end accountability report for the 2014/15 year.

2. Seek approval of the draft schedule for the 2015/16 funding agreement for the East Coast Bays Community Project Community Coordinator.

3. Seek the delegated authority for the chairperson and community portfolio holder to approve the final schedule for the 2015/2016 funding agreement.

Executive Summary

4. The ECBCP’s report against their 2014/2015 funding agreement for the community coordinator covering the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 has been received (Attachments A and B) and staff have reviewed performance on delivery against the funding agreement schedule (Attachment C).

5. A draft schedule for the 2015/2016 funding agreement is attached based on the 2014/2015 deliverables (Attachment D).

6. Point Research undertook an evaluation of the North Shore community coordinator model of delivery of community development in 2014. The report on the findings provided a number of recommendations to strengthen the model. One of these was for the local board and community coordinator governance groups to adopt a partnering approach and another recommendation was the consolidation of funding to provide greater financial certainty and flexibility.

7. The local board has identified funding for ECBCP with $66,000 available for the operational grant (including Summer Fun), $17,000 for other events and $5,000 as a contingency amount.

8. Approval is sought for the draft schedule for the 2015/2016 funding agreement. The local board chairperson and community portfolio holder will meet directly with the ECBCP chairperson and deputy chairperson to finalise schedules of activities and events for 2015/2016.

Recommendation/s

a. That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

i) receive the 2014/2015 accountability report for the East Coast Bays Community Project Community Coordinator.

ii) approve funding for the East Coast Bays Community Project Community Coordinator of $66,000 for core operating and programme costs (including Summer Fun), $17,000 for regularly funded events and $5,000 for contingency.

iii) approve the draft schedule for the East Coast Bays Community Project Community Coordinator 2015/2016 funding agreement to deliver activities and events.

b) delegate authority to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board chairperson and community portfolio holder to approve the final delivery schedules for 2015/2016 for the East Coast Bays Project Community Coordinator.

Comments

Background

9. ECBCP serves a population of 43,785 (approximately 50 per cent of the local board area), from Campbells Bay in the south to Okura in the north.

10. ECBCP’s strategic priorities include:

a) contributing to the development of strong community networks within East Coast Bays and building on the strong identify of our community

b) facilitating neighbourhood development through place-based projects

c) encouraging all sectors of the community to participate in the project’s activities

d) promoting harmonious and healthy community relations and encouraging new immigrants to feel part of the community

e) providing support for cultural and ethnic groups and encouraging cultural diversity

f) supporting community groups needing assistance and encouraging communication, networking and sharing of resources between groups

11. In June 2014 the report on the Point Research evaluation of the North Shore community coordinator model was presented to a Hibiscus and Bays Local Board workshop with ECBCP in attendance. The findings included a number of recommendations to strengthen the model including:

a) that the community coordinator organisations and council (through the northern local boards) adopt a partnering process to agree on the community outcomes and priorities that need to be achieved through community development work in the northern local board areas, and the role that each partner plays to deliver outcomes.

b) that the community coordinator boards are adequately resourced to undertake community development work. This includes the consolidation of council funding into a core operational grant to deliver community development, events and other council supported outcomes.

12. A follow up workshop in July 2014 was held to explore how the local board and ECBCP might work together more closely and to workshop how ECBCP might contribute to the outcomes in the local board plan. As a result the schedule was developed for the funding agreement for 2014/2015. The ECBCP has now reported on delivery against this funding agreement schedule.

13. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 15 July 2015, the local board resolved:

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board requests that officers report back to the local board on the 2014/2015 performance of the ECBCP Incorporated Community Coordinator work programme and seek approval for the proposed funding agreement for the 2015/2016 Community Coordinator work programme at the next business meeting. (Resolution HB/2015/92)

14. Members of the ECBCP Trust attended a workshop of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 22 July 2015. The local board chairperson and community portfolio holder are to meet with the chairperson and deputy chairperson of ECBCP to discuss further opportunities for strategic alignment and to obtain greater clarity on priority deliverables for the 2015/2016 year.

Performance Against the 2014/2015 Funding Agreement Objectives

15. The ECBCP 2014/2015 funding schedule contained commitments to a number of activities that aligned with the objectives of the organisation and with local board plan outcomes. The East Coast Bays community coordinator continues to deliver a comprehensive programme of events and activities that brings together local groups, performers and businesses. There are many community development outcomes achieved through providing enjoyment of the local amenities, encouraging socialisation, breaking down isolation and working together, to contribute to making the events a success. There is, however, a lack of information about how ECBCP assesses the effectiveness of their activities and gathers information to understand the needs of the community. It is recommended that, for the future, attention is paid to putting in place investigative methodology that measures how well activities and programmes meet community needs and provides direction for future planning

Funding Agreement and Schedule for 2015/2016

16. The process for developing the work plan delivery schedule for the community coordinator was discussed at a local board workshop on 22 July 2015 attended by members of the ECBCP Trust. Local board members were in support of signing off a draft funding agreement based on the 2014/2015 agreement and delegating to the local board chairperson and community portfolio holder the authority to finalise the 2015/2016 delivery schedule. The local board chairperson and community portfolio holder will meet with the ECBCP chairperson and deputy chairperson to finalise a 2015/2016 delivery schedule based on that of 2014/2015, including a set of measures that quantify the community needs that are being met and direction for future planning.

17. The funding provided would reflect a consolidation of operational and programme funding, as well as a lump sum that would amount to the regularly funded events as per the attached draft schedule with the addition of a contingency fund. That is:

a) $66,000 for core operating and programme costs (including Summer Fun),

b) $17,000 for regularly funded events (Attachment E) and

c) $5,000 contingency

18. The local board is requested to provide delegated authority to the chairperson and portfolio holder to agree the final delivery schedule for 2015/2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. The local board values the work of the community coordinator and wishes to support the work that contributes to achieving the outcomes identified in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2014. The proposal to consolidate the funding and impact on the budget has been discussed at a workshop for setting the Locally Driven Initiatives budget.

20. The budget which is based on the current level of funding provided to ECBCP for the community coordinator includes funding for events and a contingency providing a bundled approach to enable better forward planning.

Māori impact statement

21. In 2012 the Comet profile of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area indicated the percentage of Maori population in Hibiscus Coast was 7 per cent compared with East Coast Bays at 4 per cent. ECBCP does not have specific programmes based on delivering to Maori in this area but some of the networks and programmes are attended by Maori where relevant. ECBCP is initiating a relationship with Te Herenga Waka o Orewa and will explore opportunities to share, promote and work together and additional attention will be required with iwi in the local board area.

Implementation

22. The local board chairperson and community portfolio holder will meet with the chairperson and deputy chairperson of ECBCP Trust to discuss strategic priorities for inclusion in the 2015/2016 work plan schedule. A draft schedule will be reviewed by the local board chairperson and portfolio holder and ECBCP Trust. When the schedule has been finalised and agreed, the funding for 2015/2016 will be released.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	The ECBCP - Community Co-ordinator 2014/2015 Accountability Report	217
b View	The ECBCP - Community Coordinator 2014/2015 Highlights Report	227
c View	Analysis of Performance against Objectives 2014/2015	229
d View	Draft Schedule for the 2015/2016 ECBCP Community Coordinator Funding	233
e View	Schedule for 2015/2016 ECBCP Events Budget	239

Signatories

Authors

Pam Baillie - Senior Community Development Facilitator

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Tony Rea - Manager Community development & Partnerships – West

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board August 2015

File No.: CP2015/16122

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities.

Executive Summary

2. The report provides an update on transport matters for the information of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and a register of transport issues in the local board’s area, as collated by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager North.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) having gained the support of local businesses to proceed with the project, request provision of the detailed design for the installation of two speed advisory signs on Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, one to be located to the north and the second to the south of the township, based on the rough order of cost of $30,000 provided (Project 444).

b) request provision of the detailed design of a 3m wide concrete shared path over the section of Orewa Recreation Reserve and Orewa Domain from the south end of the beach, from Orewa Bridge to the south end of the Orewa Reserve carpark, based on the rough order of cost of $520,000 provided (Project 445).

Comments

RLTP 2015-2025 has been adopted

3. Earlier this year Auckland Transport (AT) (on behalf of the Regional Transport Committee) sought public feedback on the draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2015-2025. The RLTP is a plan of how transport delivery agencies intend to respond to growth and other challenges facing Auckland over the next ten years. It includes a 10-year prioritised delivery programme of transport services and activities for Auckland, and is the combined transport programmes of the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), AT and KiwiRail.

4. The RLTP is a statutory requirement that NZTA and AT revise the RLTP every three years.

5. Public engagement was undertaken jointly with Auckland Council on its 10-year budget. Over 27,000 written submissions were received and over 1,000 Aucklanders attended public meetings to share their views in person.

6. The high level themes that came through public feedback were:

· Aucklanders want public transport, but it has to be convenient, reliable and quicker;

· Aucklanders want to walk and cycle, but it has to be safe;

· Aucklanders want better transport but have mixed views on how to raise the additional investment required; and

· Aucklanders want current funding to be reallocated more favourably towards public transport, walking and cycling.

7. After considering public feedback Auckland’s Regional Transport Committee (which comprises representatives from AT and the NZ Transport Agency) adopted a revised version of the RLTP on 2 July 2015. The adopted plan or the 'Report on Consultation on RLTP and Council's 10-year budget'can be viewed at: https://at.govt.nz/rltp.

The Introduction of Double-Deck Buses

8. AT has an urgent requirement to address capacity constraints on some bus routes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the bus New Network corridors without increasing bus volumes. The central corridors, Northern Express and services from Botany to the CBD are experiencing growth rates of 10%, 6.5% and 7% respectively, with the growth of peak seated capacity rising from 80% to 95%. Strategically, the Auckland Plan looks to double public transport trips to 140 million by 2022.

9. 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.

10. 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-deck bus operation.

11. Historically trees have not been proactively managed on sections of these routes and double-deckers cannot run safely on the route with hazards above the ground. Tree work is required to mitigate this risk and manage the safe carriage of passengers.

12. Where trees intrude into the road corridor, AT will seek to avoid their removal unless that is a last resort. Minor pruning or maintenance will in some situations be the only requirement, but where major tree surgery, tree removal or mitigation planting is required, there will be consultation. In some cases, the need for removing trees may be able to be avoided by measures such as altering kerb lines.

13. In addition to trees, other obstacles being carefully checked are shop verandas, utility service poles and cables. As a result of this process, alterations to verandas or the relocation of poles and cables may also be required.

14. Local boards in those areas where it is planned to operate double-deck bus services will be individually briefed about the specific measures necessary to accommodate these. Depending on the scale and severity of the measures required, a local board may be offered either a workshop or a briefing for the Transport Portfolio Leads (TPLs).

Consultations

15. In preparation for implementation of the New Network for the Hibiscus Coast, documentation explaining the proposed installation of new bus stops outside the properties at 18 and 21 Puriri Avenue, Orewa, was sent to the local board's TPLs on 24 June 2015 with a request for feedback no later than 8 July 2015. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

16. As part of the Long Bay development, Auckland Council granted resource consent to construct ‘Stage 6’ of the proposed development, encompassing five yet to be named roads, commonly referred to as ‘Road 20’, ‘Road 21’, ‘Road 24’, ‘Road 25’ and ‘Road 26’. The roads are all two-way local roads and for the safe and efficient operation of the proposed internal road network, speed bumps are proposed on Roads 20, 21 and 26, and Roads 24 and 25 are proposed to be designated as shared zones. Feedback on these proposals was requested from the local board's TPLs on 24 June 2015 with a request for responses no later than 1 July 2015. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

17. In association with the implementation of the Hibiscus Coast PT New Network, documentation on a proposal to install two bus stops outside the properties at 888 and 880 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, was sent to the local board's TPLs on 17 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 29 July 2015. On 20 July 2015 Member Fitzgerald advised that the removal of the stop opposite Zealandia Road where there is a shelter concerned her if there was to be no shelter at the new stops, noting that it was important to provide shelter somewhere along the area and suggesting that the existing shelter could be moved. On 30 July the local board's TPLs were advised that, in the interest of designing and building the bus stops to cater for the New Network services quickly, it was not proposed to provide a shelter at this time. However, one factor in choosing the proposed bus stop location opposite 880 Whangaparaoa Road was that there is sufficient room for a shelter in future, which is the intention. The current priority however for the available funding is to provide all the stops for new services. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

18. Documentation explaining a proposal to install a bus stop on Millwater Parkway, near Central Boulevard, Silverdale, was forwarded to members on 21 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 3 August 2015. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

19. Documentation on the proposed installation of bus stops on Laurie Southwick Parade, Hobbs Bay, outside 26 Waterside Crescent and the Gulf Harbour Recreation Reserve, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 22 July 2015 with a request for comment no later than Monday 3 August. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

20. Documentation on the proposed installation of bus stops on Millwater Parkway, south of Stella Maris Lane, Silverdale, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 22 July 2015 with a request for comment no later than Tuesday, 4 August 2015. Member Fitzgerald commented that it is difficult for older people to get to the new Silverdale centre using public transport. She was advised that a previous consultation for bus stops on Millwater Parkway near Central Boulevard (refer paragraph 18. of this report) showed new bus stops near the Silverdale Medical Centre and shops in the area of the Millwater Parkway/Hibiscus Coast Highway intersection. A bus stop had also been installed recently on the opposite side of the road and these two bus stops were being provided to service the Silverdale Medical Centre. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

21. Documentation on the proposed installation of bus stops outside 115 and opposite 100 Ferry Road, Arkles Bay, was distributed to the local board’s TPLs on 23 July 2015 with a request for comments by 5 August 2015. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

22. Documentation describing proposed changes/upgrades to bus stops on Whangaparaoa Road, Bay Street, Florence Avenue and Lakeside Drive as part of the New Network for the Hibiscus Coast, were forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 24 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 11 August 2015.

23. Documentation describing the proposed installation of new bus stops outside and opposite 126 Grand Drive, Orewa, was forwarded to the local board’s TPLs on 24 July 2015 with a request for comment no later than 6 August 2015.

24. A report and drawings providing information about the proposed construction of traffic islands, a bus stop and NSAAT restrictions required as a result of the new New World development and retail complex being constructed at 570 – 586 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for response no later than 2 August 2015. On 27 July the chairperson, Julia Parfitt, and Member Cooper advised that the proposal looked good to them, Member Cooper requesting the installation of textured surface on the approaches to the pedestrian crossing point so that traffic would be slowed on the new one-way lanes. In response to a query from Member Fitzgerald regarding signalisation of the Whangaparaoa /Beverley Road intersection and the location of a bus stop opposite Cedar Terrace, she was advised that a signalised intersection is not proposed or required as part of the New World development; however, previous plans related to the Penlink project did show the signalisation of the Beverley/Whangaparaoa Roads intersection and accesses to the New World development have been designed with the future signalisation in mind. The bus stop is proposed to be shifted opposite Cedar Terrace and related safety issues had been considered by the developer’s consultant and AT staff during repositioning, but the proposal was considered to be safe, partially due to the low use of the bus stop given its use primarily as a school bus stop. The New Network also has one route running past the bus stop with the majority running down Brightside Road. However, in light of the local board's concerns, the location of the bus stop would be reassessed to make absolutely sure there were no additional safety issues and that all alternative locations had been considered. No objections to the proposals were received from the local board.

25. Documentation describing the proposed installation of bus stops outside 7 and opposite 3 Bankside Road, Silverdale, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for responses no later than 8 August 2015.

26. Documentation describing the proposed installation of bus stops outside and opposite 58 Bankside Road, Silverdale, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 8 August 2015.

27. A proposal describing the installation of bus stops outside 20 and opposite 26 Bankside Road, Silverdale, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 8 August 2015.

28. Documentation describing the proposed installation of bus stops outside 320 and 345 Millwater Parkway, Silverdale, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 8 August 2015.

29. A proposal describing the installation of bus stops on Bankside Road, between Miller Rise and Stables Lane, Silverdale, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 8 August 2015.

30. Documentation describing the proposed installation of bus stops outside 8 and 17 Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 27 July 2015 with a request for comments no later than 8 August 2015.

31. A proposal describing the installation of a bus stop on West Hoe Road, outside Victor Eaves Park, Orewa, and extending the existing NSAAT restrictions on the approach to the existing bus stop outside Evelyn Page Retirement Village, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 28 July 2015 with a request for responses no later than 11 August 2015.

32. Documentation describing the proposed installation of bus stops outside 55 and opposite 37 Grand Drive, Orewa, was forwarded to the local board's TPLs on 28 July 2015 with a request for responses no later than 8 August 2015.

33. In response to requests from businesses in Riverside Road, Orewa, AT staff have surveyed the area and developed a proposal to install time restrictions outside 5 Riverside Road to provide short stay parking. Documentation explaining a proposal to install a new P120 restriction applicable on weekdays between 8am-6pm was forwarded to the local board’s TPLs on 31 July 2015 with a request for responses no later than 10 August 2015.

Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s Transport Capital (LBTCF) Projects

34. As at 6 July 2015, the remaining budget available to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board was $1,733,672, comprising $599,885 which it may allocate (funding for the 2016-2017 financial year), and $1,133,787 which it must allocate before 30 June 2016 (funding for budget years up to and including 2015/2016).

35. Whilst the $599,885 allocation for 2016/2017, if not spent, will be available to the local board elected in October 2016, funds allocated for previous years will not be available to the newly elected local board.

36. Construction of the following LBTCF projects nominated by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now been completed:

· East Coast Road - footpath guardrail in the vicinity of Spencer Road (Project 094);

· Safety improvements on Awaruku Road, Torbay (Project 096);

· Duck Creek Road, Stillwater – new footpath (Project 097);

· Titan Place to Silverdale Township, Silverdale – new footpath (Project 098);

· 504 Beach Road, Murrays Bay – footpath upgrade (Project 099);

· 201-246 Centreway Road, Orewa – new footpath (Project 100);

· Grand Drive – Tauranga Place, Orewa – new walkway and footpath (Project 101);

· Car parking along the southern side of Duck Creek Road adjacent to Stillwater Reserve, Stillwater (Project 209);

· St John’s School, Mairangi Bay – new footpath (Project 229);

· Glenvar Road, Torbay - relocation of edge line (Project 385);

· Okura River Road bus stop hardstand area (Project 395);

· Construction of a 280 m long footpath on the south side of Whangaparaoa Road from 601 Whangaparaoa Road to Cedar Terrace (Project 232);

· Project 240, the provision of a safe crossing point on Tavern Road, Silverdale, consisting of a central median kerb, two pram crossings and handrails;

· Project 383, the provision of parallel car parks at 8 Galbraith Green, Silverdale; and

· Project 409, the provision of a connecting footpath from the existing path on Waiwera Place, Waiwera, to the footpath in the beach front reserve, plus shrub trimming / clearance and minor changes to the park fence.

37. Construction of Project 091, Mairangi Bay Art Walk is now substantially complete, with the remaining work associated with the installation of the mosaic panels and art poles. The indicative date for installation of these is November/December 2015.

38. Project 346, the provision of lighting on Western Reserve, Orewa, began on 20 July 2015 and completion of the work is expected during August 2015.

39. The feasibility design for Project 411, Torbay Plaza revitalisation, is underway and Torbay Plaza Working Party meetings to discuss progress are being held regularly. A rough order of costs will be presented to the local board’s TPLs on completion of the feasibility design.

40. The local board requested a rough order of cost for the provision of smart studs on the Hibiscus Coast Highway at the pedestrian crossings adjacent to Riverside Road and Florence Avenue (Project 427) but, after being advised that it would not be possible to install these, an alternative cost to install speed feedback signs at these locations was requested at the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 15 July 2015.

41. The local board’s TPLs were advised on 29 July 2015 that the rough order of cost for the installation of two speed advisory signs, one to be located to the north and the second to the south of the township (Project 444), is $30,000. This cost however does not allow for the relocation of services and would be subject to the local board gaining the support of local businesses if it wished to proceed with the project.

42. It is suggested that the local board request the detailed design of Project 444.

43. At the local board’s meeting on 15 July 2015 a rough order of cost for the replacement of the existing timber boardwalks on the reserve adjacent to Beachfront Lane, Browns Bay, with a hardier, less expensive timber was requested (Project 446). The local board’s TPLs were advised on 29 July 2015 that the LBTCF steering group had considered the project on Friday, 24 July 2015 and was unanimous in its decision that the project did not meet the fund criteria, being a maintenance rather than a capital project.

44. The local board also requested provision of a rough order of cost for the replacement of the existing narrow footpath along the beachfront on Orewa Domain, Orewa Recreation Reserve and Marine Parade, Orewa, with a 3m shared concrete path (Project 445).

45. On 29 July 2015 the local board’s TPLs were advised that the LBTCF team manager had met with the local board’s parks advisor to discuss the request and, as a result of the discussions, the TPLs were advised that:

· The rough order of cost to create a 3m wide concrete shared path over the section from the south end of the beach, from Orewa Bridge to the south end of the Orewa Reserve carpark where currently the path is mainly concrete pavers 1.3m in width, would be $520,000. They were also advised that, providing consents were not difficult to obtain, this section could be constructed in 2015/2016, and that the steering group had approved the project as meeting the fund criteria.

· Concept planning for future enhancement of the section of Orewa Recreation Reserve from the south end of the carpark through to the area opposite Riverside Road which forms Orewa Reserve is currently underway so, until this planning has been completed, upgrade of the footpath in this area is not recommended.

· A design is being progressed to upgrade the seawall along the beachfront section from Kohu Street to Marine Parade which includes a path behind the seawall, however construction of this is unlikely to be progressed until 2017/2018 and the local board could possibly look to contribute to the path at that stage.

46. It is suggested that the local board seriously consider requesting detailed design of a 3m wide concrete shared path over the section from the south end of the beach, from Orewa Bridge to the south end of the Orewa Reserve carpark, based on the rough order costs of $520,000 provided.

Issues Update

47. The following Issues Update comprises issues raised by Elected Members and Local Board Services staff to 6 August 2015:

	Location		Issue	Status
1		Deep Creek Road, Torbay	Request for NSAAT restrictions on Deep Creek Road, Torbay.		Member Cooper asked on 25 March 2015 for investigation into the installation of NSAAT restrictions outside 64 Deep Creek Road, where the owner of the property has concern for drivers exiting/entering this and the adjacent school property. On 31 July the local board's TPLs were advised of the existence of white triangle marking in the area to indicate that parking is not permitted. School management had been approached about the issue and will remind parents through the school newsletter that parking is not permitted at this location. In addition, the situation has been discussed with AT’s Parking Enforcement team who advise that, whilst no tickets have been issued or vehicles towed from this area, they have recorded the customer’s concerns and ask that the customer contact traffic enforcement on 09 355 3553 to advise them when enforcement is required.
2		Orewa General	‘Be Accessible' requests for Orewa Town Centre.		Further to previous advice on the requests from ‘Be Accessible’, on 20 July the local board's TPLs were advised that the engineer had requested that the installation of an additional zebra crossing close to Moenui Avenue be added to AT’s candidate list, together with the relocation of the existing crossing outside 342 Hibiscus Coast Highway closer to the Moana Avenue intersection. Additional road markings at the four changes of speed limit locations on the side roads off Hibiscus Coast Highway had also been requested. TPLs were also forwarded information about the location and number of mobility car parks on AT controlled land in Orewa on 20 July. In relation to a request for the installation of white painted centre lines on the shared paths on the bridges on Arran Drive and the Orewa South Bridge, on 30 July 2015 the local board's TPLs were advised that these were not supported by AT's Walking and Cycling team, particularly as there have been no reported accidents and visibility is good. There is signage on the shared path advising users of the 'share with care' rules, and centre lines have been painted in areas of poor visibility over other areas of the path.
3		Browns Bay CBD	Relocation of taxi stand in Browns Bay.		Further to a response provided on 21 May to complaints about the unresponsiveness of taxi companies when called by elderly residents in Browns Bay, on 3 August the local board's TPLs were advised that a town centre review for Browns Bay is programmed for late in 2015. The review will consider the location of specific restrictions and may recommend changes, so investigation of the request to relocate the taxi stand will be undertaken during that review to ensure its location will benefit all visitors to the town centre.
4		The Strand and Waiwera Road, Waiwera	Requests with respect to The Strand and Waiwera Road, Waiwera.		The local board’s TPLs were advised on 29 June that a ‘Public Toilet’ sign will be installed at the corner of Waiwera Road and Weranui Road before the end of August 2015, and on 30 June that a new luminaire will be installed on the pole outside #12/14 The Strand in July/August. On 7 July the TPLs were advised that Waiwera Road from Woody’s Bar and Grill to the beachfront is on AT's maintenance contractor’s hotspot list so is monitored closely, especially at the time of heavy rain forecasts and storms.
5		11 Delshaw Avenue, Stanmore Bay	Reinstatement / repair of vehicle crossing at 11 Delshaw Avenue, Stanmore Bay.		Member Sayers asked for assistance on behalf of the property owner at 11 Delshaw Avenue, Stanmore Bay, on 27 May 2015. The property's vehicle crossing had been poorly reinstated by a service provider and repairs requested late in 2014 had only been partially addressed by AT's contractors. Previous advice to Member Sayers on this matter was provided on 18 June, and on 20 July Member Sayers and the local board's TPLs were advised that the resident had been visited and had agreed that, apart from part of the subsided trench being filled as advised previously, the property owner himself would take responsibility for any full or partial repairs to the vehicle crossing and that no further action was required by AT.
6		Gulf Harbour Ferry	Request for information following breakdown of the Gulf Harbour ferry.		On 5 June 2015 Cr John Watson's governance support advisor advised that Cr Watson had received a number of emails complaining about the Gulf Harbour Ferry after a breakdown on 3 June which required intervention by the coast guard, asking for an explanation to this event and other more recent events which had resulted in ferries being replaced by buses on a number of occasions. On 3 July Cr Watson and the local board's TPL's were provided with a full explanation of the events and reassured that AT is working to resolve these matters.
7		Tavern Road, Silverdale	Concerns about a pedestrian refuge recently installed in Tavern Road, Silverdale.		At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 17 June 2015 Member Fitzgerald advised that the pedestrian refuge recently installed in Tavern Road near the Hibiscus Coast Highway was being driven over by truck and trailer units as these were experiencing difficulties turning off the Hibiscus Coast Highway. Member Fitzgerald indicated that evidence of this was the damaged signs on the pedestrian refuge. On 4 August the local board’s TPLs were advised that staff from AT’s Investigation and Design team, which installed the pedestrian refuge on behalf of the local board, had visited the site and advised that there is no evidence of the refuge having been driven over and that the signs were still in place. Photographs of the refuge were forwarded with the response.
8		29 - 39 Deep Creek Road, Waiake	Request for installation of NSAAT restrictions 29 - 39 Deep Creek Road, Waiake.		In response to a request for investigation into the installation of NSAAT restrictions over the area 29 – 39 Deep Creek Road, Waiake, Member Rasmussen was advised that the engineer's initial thoughts were that because the road is relatively wide and straight in this area, NSAAT restrictions would not be approved, but it may be possible to install ‘hockey sticks’ between the driveways to keep vehicles from being parked too close to these. This would also provide greater visibility for residents exiting their driveways and allow more room for pedestrians to cross the road between the cars. Member Rasmussen and the local board's TPLs were advised on 6 August that AT's contractors had been asked to install ‘hockey stick’ road markings on Deep Creek Road, to stop vehicles being parked too close to the driveways. The engineer advises that this is an appropriate alternative to the NSAAT restrictions requested, as the area is so frequently used for parking while the sports grounds are in use. It is anticipated that these road markings will be installed before the end of October.
9		Millwater /Bankside Roads and Longmore Lane intersection, Silverdale	Pedestrian Safety at the Millwater/Bankside Roads and Longmore Lane intersection, Silverdale.		At the TPL meeting on 17 June Member Fitzgerald asked whether the pedestrian phase of the signals at the intersection of Millwater/Bankside Roads and Longmore Lane intersection could be delayed for 2 – 3 seconds to improve safety for pedestrians, particularly children, noting that there is a constant problem with red light runners and that parents, teachers and local board members are concerned that a child leaving the kerbside on the sound of the buzzer might be struck by one of the red light runners. On 6 August the local board's TPLs were advised that pedestrian safety at this intersection was raised at the Urban and Rural North road safety meeting on 28 May 2015. As a result of this discussion, an informal working group was set up that included AT signals staff, Orewa Police and Penny Howard, a parent coordinator. Following initial observations, changes were made to the signal phasing on 12 June to reduce the opportunity for red light running, decrease signal cycle time and improve green time for left turning drivers. Feedback from Penny Howard and other parent volunteers is that the situation at the intersection has improved. The following additional issues identified at this intersection have also been addressed - 40km/h school signs were not operational on some mornings and investigation revealed that a manual override switch in the school had been turned off. This has now been rectified; 'Give way to pedestrian' signage was not up to standard, and AT is in the process of requesting the installation of appropriate signage; Police presence and enforcement has increased; and delays at the signals outside of school peak times have been addressed. The suggestion to introduce a delay prior to the pedestrian walk phase wasn’t supported, but one of the actions prior to 12 June was to review the yellow and red light times and, as a result, increases in red light times on two of the traffic movements were made. Adding further delay may increase the potential for red light runners so instead there are plans to reduce the opportunity and motivation to run red lights through phasing strategy and increased Police enforcement. The working group has informally assessed the intersection and is satisfied with outcomes at this stage.
10		Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay	Request for the implementation of speed calming measures on Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay.		At a Hibiscus and Bays Local Board TPL meeting on 17 June the Chairperson, Julia Parfitt, requested the implementation of speed calming measures on Lyons Avenue, Murrays Bay, noting that this is a route where speeds are always excessive. Referred to Road Corridor Operations / Safety.
11		Orewa CBD	Request for the installation of ‘walking man’ symbols in the Orewa CBD.		Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chairperson Julia Parfitt asked at a meeting on 22 April 2015 that ‘walking man’ symbols be installed on the service lane between Edmund Hillary Square and the New World Supermarket car park and on Tenzing Lane and possibly George Lowe Place (off Florence Avenue), Orewa. Referred to Road Corridor Operations.
12		Orewa CBD	Request for renewal of painted road markings in the Orewa CBD.		Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Chairperson Julia Parfitt requested on 22 April 2015 that all painted road markings, including those in AT managed car parks, on zebra crossings and cycleways in the Orewa CBD be checked and renewed and she be advised of the programme for this. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance.
13		Langton Road, Stanmore Bay	Request for NSAAT restrictions on Langton Road, Stanmore Bay.		Member Fitzgerald asked on 5 June that NSAAT restrictions be installed on the footpath side of Langton Road, Stanmore Bay, where a truck had recently become stuck. She was advised on 14 July that the engineer had contacted the resident who had reported the incident, discussing possible options. The engineer advises that, rather than NSAAT restrictions, traffic enforcement would be a more appropriate way to deal with the vehicles being parked on the footpath so this will be arranged. The engineer will also contact the police to have them target the area on week nights between 5.30 and 6.30pm to deal with the excessive speeds.
14		Monyash and Vipond Road, Whangaparaoa, Whangaparaoa Road in the vicinity of the Plaza, Whangaparaoa	Queries about work being carried out on Monyash and Vipond Road, Whangaparaoa, and a request for a change in the phasing of the traffic signals at the Plaza, Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa.		On 22 July 2015 Cr Watson's governance support advisor requested an investigation on behalf of a constituent into the phasing of the traffic signals at the Plaza, Whangaparaoa Road, to facilitate increased time for right turning traffic. He also referred to work being carried out on kerbing on Monyash and Vipond Roads, Whangaparaoa, which he considered was unnecessary. On 27 July Cr Watson's governance support advisor was forwarded a response sent to Cr Watson in December 2013 following previous queries from the same constituent with regard to the right turn movement from Whangaparaoa Road into the Plaza. He was advised that senior traffic signals engineers had indicated that the situation will not have changed in the interim, especially given the need to maintain safety along the length of the Whangaparaoa Road corridor. With regard to the work being undertaken on Monyash and Vipond Roads, he was advised that these were pre-seal repairs in advance of these roads being resealed during August, weather permitting. Any kerbing work is therefore maintaining the existing asset (an operational expense) rather than upgrading or constructing new facilities (a capital expense).
15		Oak Tree Avenue, Browns Bay	Deterioration of road surface on Oak Tree Avenue, Browns Bay.		At the local board's TPL meeting on 22 July 2015 Member Cooper noted that the road surface in the immediate vicinity of the speed cushions installed on Oak Tree Avenue, Browns Bay, is deteriorating, asking that the damage be remedied. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance.
16		Centreway Road, Orewa	Removal of chicanes on Centreway Road, Orewa.		It is understood that, as part of the infrastructure works required to facilitate the implementation of the New Network on the Hibiscus Coast, the chicanes on Centreway Road, Orewa, in the vicinity of Grand Drive, are to be removed to allow buses greater freedom of movement along Centreway Road. At the local board's TPL meeting on 22 July 2015 Member Cooper expressed concern that the reasoning behind the previous installation of the chicanes, i.e. safety in the vicinity of Orewa North Primary School, is being ignored in favour of buses and to the detriment of road safety. Referred to PT Infrastructure for response.
17		Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa	Request for barrier outside 1084 Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa.		Cr Wayne Walker has asked on behalf of a constituent that a barrier be installed on Whangaparaoa Road in the vicinity of the property at 1084 Whangaparaoa Road where a crash over the weekend of 25/26 July had resulted in a car going over the bank. Referred to Transport Services.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

48. This report is for the local board’s information.

Māori impact statement

49. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

Implementation

50. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

51. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Ellen Barrett, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Team Manager Elected Member Relationship Management, Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Report to Local Boards

File No.: CP2015/15958

Purpose

1. 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.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive 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 (2014/2015) ending 30 June 2015	259
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	281
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	283
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	285
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	287

Signatories

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

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

File No.: CP2015/14862

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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) provide 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

b) 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.

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

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Future Urban Land supply Strategy	295
b View	The Auckland Development Committee Resolution	317

Signatories

Authors

Simon Tattersfield - Principal Growth and Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

19 August 2015

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

File No.: CP2015/14921

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 the Finance and Performance Committee 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) provide 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.

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

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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).

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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 Chairpersons in February 2015 and a briefing to Local Board Chairpersons and members on 22 June 2015. This report follows the structure of that briefing while elaborating on the information provided.

Māori impact statement

49. 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	329

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Greg Sayers
Members	David Cooper
	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
	Gaye Harding-Kirikiri
	Gary Holmes
	Lovisa Rasmussen
	Lisa Whyte

Portfolio	Description	Local Board Members
Local planning, policy and governance	Relationship with governing body, Chairs meeting, protocols, code of conduct, local area plans, structure plans, Unitary Plan, RUB, plan changes	Julia Parfitt –Chairperson Greg Sayers - Deputy Chairperson
Arts and culture	Arts centres, art programmes	Greg Sayers – Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Events	General oversight of events programme music in parks, movies in parks	Greg Sayers and Julia Parfitt
Community services and facilities	Community development and safety, grants and funding, community facilities, community houses, community leases, Youth Connections	Julia Parfitt –Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Youth	Local board Youth Forum, Youth Representative	Lovisa Rasmussen – Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri - Alternate
Libraries		Lisa Whyte –Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri - Alternate
Recreation services	Pools, multi-sport facilities	Gaye Harding-Kirkiri – Lead Lisa Whyte - Alternate
Parks	Reserve management plans, park usage, leasing on parks, liaison with parks staff on land owner approval	David Cooper –Lead Julia Parfitt –Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen - Alternate
Built and natural environment	Heritage, infrastructure (including stormwater, wastewater, water), environmental programmes, conservation and biodiversity, biosecurity, waste minimisation	Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Economic Development	Economic development plans, developing ATEED relationship, broadband	Gary Holmes – Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri -Alternate
Street environment and town centres	Gateways and mainstreet upgrades, Urban design champion	David Cooper and Gary Holmes – Leads Janet Fitzgerald -Alternate
Transport		David Cooper – Lead Gary Holmes – Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Greg Sayers - Alternate
Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Bylaw policy feedback	Gaye Harding-Kirkiri -Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Communications and engagement	Media, stakeholder and community engagement including iwi relationships, Hibiscus and Bays Youth Voice and YAP	Julia Parfitt – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen -Alternate
Finance	Budget overview, financial prudence and reporting, local board funding policy	Lisa Whyte – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Civil defence/ emergency management		David Cooper –Lead Greg Sayers -Alternate
Urban Design Champion		Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate

Authors	Jane Koch - Lead Financial Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Leigh Radovan - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Frank Lovering – Land Surveyor, Northern Resource Consenting
Authorisers	Bonnie Lees – Lead Consent & Performance Specialist, Northern Resource Consenting

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager