Agenda of Whau Local Board

1 Welcome

Whakataka te hau ki te uru Cease the winds from the west

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga Cease the winds from the south

kia mäkinakina ki uta Let the breeze blow over the land

kia mätaratara ki tai Let the breeze blow over the ocean

E hï ake an te atakura Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air

He tio, he huka, he hau hü A touch of frost, a promise of glorious day

Tihei Mauri Ora Let there be life

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

Members declared conflict of interests as below.

Register:

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Catherine Farmer	· Avondale-Waterview Historical Society – Committee Member · Blockhouse Bay Historical Society – Member · Portage Licensing Trust – Trustee · Blockhouse Bay Bowls - Patron
Susan Zhu	· Chinese Oral History Foundation – Committee member · Auckland Regional Migrant Resource Centre (ARMS) – Board member
Derek Battersby	· Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust –Trustee · New Lynn Tennis Club – Patron · West Lynn Gardens – Patron · Tag Out Trust – Chairman
Ami Chand	· Kelston Community Trust – Trustee · Waitakere Indian Association – Trustee · Portage Licensing Trust – Deputy Chair · Rupa Aur Aap Trust – Trustee · Kelston Community Hub – Board Member · Community Organisation Grants Scheme (COGS) Waitakere City Local Distribution Committee– Committee Member
Duncan Macdonald	· Avondale Business Association – Chairman · Avondale Community Society – Chairman · Avondale RSA – Committee Member · Historical Society - Member · Avondale Jockey Club – Member
Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel	· Wesley College - Trustee · Kelston Girls College – Trustee
Simon Matafai	· Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust - Trustee · WAS Collective Trust - Trustee · Williams Creative Trust - Trustee · Majesty Productions Trust - Trustee · Nexfit Trust - Trustee · Aspire Community Trust - Trustee

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 15 July 2015, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Ward Councillor’s Update

An opportunity is provided for the Whau Ward Councillor to update the board on regional issues he has been involved with since the last meeting.

8 Deputations

8.1 Pacific Events & Entertainment Trust - 50A Rosebank Rd

Purpose

1. Representatives from Whau Community Fale project will be in attendance to update the Whau Local Board on a collective community effort to activate the 50A Rosebank Road office space.

2. Their vision is for a community fale (house) that will be a shared space for Pacific charitable trusts and community groups. The deputation will be on behalf of nearly 10 incorporated organisations that are collaborating for this project.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives the presentation from representatives of Whau Community Fale project and thank them for their presentation.

9 Public Forum

9.1 Gilbert Brakey - The Whau River Catchment Trust (WRCT)

Purpose

1. To present a brief Annual Report for 2014-15 to the Whau Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. The Whau River Catchment Trust works in partnership with Auckland Council to develop more community environment programmes including weed removal and pest eradication.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives public forum submission.

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Auckland Transport Update Report August 2015 – Whau Local Board

File No.: CP2015/16567

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to Whau Local Board requests on transport related matters and to provide information about Auckland Transport’s activities in the board area.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport August 2015 report.

b) Considers projects to utilise any remaining unallocated Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the end of June 30 2015/16 financial year.

Comments

The Whau Local Board Plan 2014-2017 has two outcomes that strongly relate to transport infrastructure provision, and the enhancement of public and private space alongside of transport corridors.

· In the Whau, its 20 minutes by walking, cycling and public transport to everything we need.

· Outstanding development in New Lynn, Avondale and along our main roads.

LOCAL BOARD TRANSPORT FUND APPLICATION UPDATE REPORT

2. Attached to this report is the current Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Financial update for the Local Board’s information.

3. Given that the LBTCF cannot currently be rolled over, the Whau Local Board need to commit any remaining funds to projects they want to build, as soon as possible or, face the very real risk of losing any 2012/13 to 2015/16 money not spent by June 30, 2016. (‘Spent’ in this context means work complete and invoices paid).

4. Auckland Transport communicated to all Local Boards in early 2014 that any projects not approved for construction by the end of 2014, could not be guaranteed to be built by June 30, 2016. Auckland Transport will do it’s very best to deliver projects but can no longer guarantee that completion is possible before the deadline.

NEW LYNN TO WATERVIEW SHARED PATH PROJECT (WESTERN LINE CYCLEWAY) UPDATE

5. The New Lynn to Waterview Shared Path has three teams working collaboratively together with AT to deliver the route. AECOM and their bridge team have been engaged to provide the detailed design of the Whau pedestrian Bridge. MWH planning skills are being engaged to put their effort into planning permissions and RMA consents. The Well-Connected Alliance have been contracted to fast track the preliminary detailed design and pricing of the construction of the Soljak Place to Blockhouse Bay Section. This leveraged approach will help deliver a faster overall outcome while optimising the pedestrian rail bridge at Soljak Place as part of the Waterview Shared Path.

6. Auckland Transport have arranged a Hui with Iwi on 20th August, followed by an open day on the 29th August (TBC).

7. Auckland Transport will be communicating with the Local Board regarding potential funding limitations for the Whau bridge lookouts. Auckland Transport are currently obtaining peer reviewed cost estimates for these and will confirm costs with the Local Board by the end of August.

RESPONSES AND PROGRESS REPORTS

GREAT NORTH ROAD AND SABULITE ROAD CAR PARKING ISSUES

8. A request has been received from the Local Board for Auckland Transport to look at the cars parked on the road reserve on the corner of Great North Road and Sabulite Road.

Update

9. To confirm next steps.

· Auckland Transport will advise the business that AT doesn’t want the car yard parking their vehicles on the berm regardless of any previous agreement they may have had with Waitakere City Council. Auckland Transport will give them a couple of weeks to comply.

· If they do not comply AT Parking Enforcement will send Parking Officers down and try to get them to change their behaviour. This will involve warnings first, then ticketing vehicles that are committing offences. AT’s Parking Manager has pointed out that there are limitations to what Parking Enforcement will be able to ticket. ie. it will be difficult to ticket vehicles for parking on the verge if the grass is not reinstated. Furthermore, if the vehicle does not have plates Parking Enforcement would not tow it. Auckland Transport will investigate if the removal of vehicles that are not displaying plates can be done.

10. Reinstatement of berm

· Ideally the business should cover these costs. If in fact there was once an agreement, then there should have been a condition that required the business to reinstate the berm when the agreement was cancelled.

· Auckland Transport has a small budget to deal with encroachments but it is reserved for significant safety issues. If there is no agreement it is unlikely that AT would pursue the property owner for the costs.

DANGEROUS INTERSECTION CROYDON/TITIRANGI ROADS

11. Auckland transport has installed the GIVE WAY control sign on Titirangi Road and will mark the GIVE WAY triangle, weather permitting in the next few days. The documentation relating to formalising the control has been approved.

AVONDALE TOWN CENTRE PARKING REVIEW

12. Feedback on the business questionnaire was discussed with the Chairperson of the Business Association. The common feedback from businesses was in regards to the lack of mobility parking and loading zone facilities throughout the town centre. However, the parking surveys showed both these facilities were under-utilised, with below 44% occupancy. Due to overall low occupancy and feedback from businesses, it was recommended that a further parking review be conducted within the next 2-5 years, once further development occurs in the town centre.

KELSTON FOOTPATHS

13. Auckland Transport visited these sites last weekend, most footpath widening works in front of Kelston Boys High School (Archibald/St Leonard’s intersection to Vanguard Road) and Kelston Girls School (Great North Road to 9 Archibald Road opposite Scalen Terrace) is completed.

14. To improve the existing pedestrian crossing facility at St Leonard’s School, the light pole next to the existing pram crossing is to be relocated. Lighting design has been completed and all technical issues have been resolved – relocation will be done over the weekend, in the week ending 16^th August. The widening of the crossing, traffic island and pram crossings is scheduled for the 21^st and 22^nd of August (subjected to weather).

15. The new footpath, with a speed table, between the entry and exit gates of Kelston Boys High School, has been completed.

16. Auckland Transport is working through further issues made at the second public meeting with the Schools and the Local Board. Once the investigations are complete AT will report this back to a further meeting.

NEW WINDSOR & BLOCKHOUSE BAY ROAD INTERSECTION

17. A request from the Local Board for Auckland Transport to investigate the roading issues associated with the New Windsor and Blockhouse Bay Road intersection.

Update

18. Auckland Transport has visited the site and undertaken an initial review of the issues raised. Further detailed investigation now needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of this issue. This investigation has been prioritised and programmed for review. Following this review AT will be able to provide the Board with the outcome and, recommendations based on the investigation.

19. AT wishes to thank the Local Board for it’s patience while it looked into this matter and the Board can expect to receive an update from AT by the end of August 2015.

CARS PARKED ON STREET - 141 AVONDALE ROAD

20. In regards to the two vehicles that have been parked near 141 Avondale Road, AT Parking Enforcement Team have advised that both vehicles have a current Warrant of Fitness and Registration, therefore they weren’t able to move them.

PARKING SIGNS - EXMINISTER ST, BLOCKHOUSE BAY

21. The signs have been approved by the Transport Control Committee and Auckland Transport anticipate that signage contractors can install them by the end of August (weather permitting).

CONCRETE BLOCK - TOTARA AVENUE, NEW LYNN

22. This is to inform the Local Board that the concrete block on Totara Avenue will be removed. The job is with the contractors and will be completed by the end of August.

HNZ - SHARP 3 - CORNER OF CROWTHER & BUSBY STREET, BLOCKHOUSE BAY

23. Housing NZ is currently developing housing on a combined site at 9-13 Busby Street and 34-36 Crowther Street, Blockhouse Bay, and Auckland Council has recently granted consent to proceed.

24. As part of the consent conditions, they need to consider new No Stopping road markings, so that there is adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the development and to ensure safe operation of the intersection. In addition, as there will be no visitor parking provided within the development, it is likely that on-street parking demand will increase. Overall, the proposed No Stopping road marking will result in a net loss of 5 on street parking spaces. A map is attached to this report.

Response from the Local Board

25. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holders supported the proposal.

BLOCKHOUSE BAY ROAD – PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND

26. The purpose of this project is to provide a pedestrian crossing facility on Blockhouse Bay Road, between Terry Street and Bolton Street. In order to achieve this, Auckland Transport is proposing to install a pedestrian refuge island outside number 437 Blockhouse Bay Road, Blockhouse Bay. A map is attached to this report.

Response from the Local Board

27. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holders supported the proposal.

KEA CROSSING - VANGUARD ROAD, KELSTON

28. The purpose of this project is to provide a patrolled crossing facility to get school children across Vanguard Road safely during school peak periods. In order to achieve this, Auckland Transport is proposing to install a kea crossing outside number 12 Vanguard Road, Kelston. This will be operated by Kelston Intermediate School.

Response from the Local Board

29. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holders supported the proposal.

TITIRANGI ROAD/CROYDON ROAD INTERSECTION, NEW LYNN GIVE WAY CONTROL

Background

30. Concerns have been raised by the local community regarding the number of crashes that are occurring at the intersection of Titirangi Road/ Croydon Road.

31. This approval report is to resolve installation of a Give Way Control on Titirangi Road to reinforce the priority on Titirangi Road, turning right into Croydon Road.

Location

32. Titirangi Road and Croydon Road are both classified as Arterial Roads, while Parker Avenue is classified as a Local Road. These roads are located in a predominantly residential area within the Whau Local Board.

Issue

33. Croydon Road meets Titirangi Road at a ‘T’ intersection. Immediately, west of the intersection is mid-block signals on Titirangi Road. These signals were installed as part of the school travel plan for Fruitvale Primary School in 2006-2007. The investigation has revealed that since the installation of mid-block signals there has been an upward trend in the crashes at this intersection particularly for the right turn movement from Titirangi Road into Croydon Road. The investigation has revealed that there have been 17 crashes relating to vehicles turning into Croydon Road from Titirangi Road in the last five year period. Five of these crashes were minor injury and one serious injury. Further investigation into the crash reports revealed that nine out of seventeen crashes were related to motorists getting confused with the green aspect of the mid-block signals. The motorists misunderstood that the green aspect was for them to turn right and therefore, failed to give way to straight ahead vehicles east bound on Titirangi Road.

Options

Option 1

34. A do nothing option was not considered as this would not resolve the confusion caused by the mid-block signals on Titirangi Road for motorists turning into Croydon Road.

Option 2

35. This option involves installing a Give Way Control on the right turn pocket on Titirangi Road to reinforce the priority and to avoid the motorist’s confusion at the intersection.

Option 3

36. The third option is to signalise the intersection of Croydon Road / Titirangi Road, if needed, including the intersection of Parker Avenue. However, this option will result in significant amount of delays on the network and will require adequate benefit / cost analysis ratio to justify the large amount of budget required for this option. This option is being worked through and if justified, will be put forward for funding application.

37. In the interim, it is therefore proposed to implement option 2 to address the number of crashes occurring at this intersection as a result of the confusion caused by the signals.

Proposal

38. It is proposed to install a Give Way control on Titirangi Road. A map is attached to this report.

Response from the Local Board

39. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holders supported the proposal.

P5 ENFORCEMENT MCCRAE WAY, NEW LYNN

40. Auckland Transport is currently in the process of resolving this as a shared zone which would include the parking ban and the P5 Loading zone.

41. It was put forward to the TCC about a month ago, however it was declined as the TCC felt the existing loading zone time period (6am -6pm) was not appropriate and they had safety concerns with regards to the shared zone operation. Auckland Transport are hoping to reconsult with the businesses and Local Board with regards to the changes to the loading zone time period soon.

42. Also at the request of the TCC, a road safety audit will be carried out on McCrae Way to identify safety issues. The legalisation will depend on how it goes at the next TCC meeting when it is resubmitted. Consultation is planned in August 2015.

PLEASANT RESERVE COMPLAINT

43. The Local Board has received an ongoing complaint about the weeding of the Pleasant Reserve.

Update

44. Auckland Transport has responded to the customer and the Local Board, though a further request has come through from the Local Board to revisit the request. Will update the Local Board on response.

BROTHERS STREET – CONGESTION AND ROAD SAFETY

45. The local board has requested on behalf of a resident for Auckland Transport to further investigate the concern as well as your suggestion to either restrict on-street parking in Brothers Street or extend the existing broken yellow lines on the eastern side at the corner of Brothers Street and Valonia Street.

46. Auckland Transport engineer has been on site to assess the issues raised. During the site visit it was observed that this street already had speed calming measures which would make this route less attractive for vehicle to use as a through route. Whilst parked vehicles may reduce the traffic flow to a single lane, these same parked vehicles tend to discourage drivers speeding as the road is narrowed down to a single lane. As a result AT believe that on street parking serves as an effective tool for maintaining acceptable speeds in the street. If parking were to be banned from the street providing two lanes for traffic, it is likely to result in increased speeds and traffic volumes in the street, which is not desirable for this local residential street.

47. With the opening of the Waterview link, which is programmed for early 2017, it is likely that the traffic using this street will reduce and return to levels similar prior to the opening of Maioro Street interchange.

48. After considering all factors of our assessment Auckland Transport are not able to proceed with the request for a broken yellow line restriction.

ISSUES COMPLETED
Subject Name	Decision Description	Date Requested	Completion date
Titirangi Road_Give Way Control	The Local Board Transport Leads were supportive of what was being proposed.	July 2015	August 2015

REGIONAL UPDATES

AUCKLANDERS ARE BREAKING RECORDS ON THE TRAINS

49. Another record for the Auckland rail network - annual rail patronage has exceeded 14 million for the first time.

50. Auckland Transport’s General Manager AT Metro, Mark Lambert says this is the highest ever 12 month total. “In March we reached 13 million passengers and here we are just five months later adding another million trips.”

51. Mr Lambert says this record comes just days after the introduction of the full fleet of electric trains on 20 July. AT Metro are now running the new trains from Papakura to Swanson on the electrified network and the response from our customers has been extremely positive, they are enjoying the quality of the trains and the extra services.

52. Auckland Transport with its operator Transdev now provide six trains per hour on the Eastern and Southern Lines and four trains per hour on the Western Line during peak weekday periods.

53. As more trains arrive from Spain AT Metro hope to increase the size of some peak services to six cars to cope with the increasing demand. The last of Auckland’s 57 trains arrive in the city next week and will go into service once certified.

54. Rail patronage in Auckland grew 21.7% in the year to the end of June, that’s two and a half million more passengers than in June last year. Mr Lambert says, “It’s hard to believe but when Britomart Transport Centre opened in 2003, annual patronage was less than three million.”

55. The number using all public transport in Auckland reached 79 million in the year to June, an increase of 9.5% or on average 19,000 extra boarding’s per day.

UPGRADE TO WHITE LIGHTS FOR AUCKLAND STREETS

56. Auckland Transport has begun New Zealand’s most ambitious LED replacement programme.

57. It is replacing 44,000 high pressure sodium (golden yellow light) street lights with energy efficient light emitting diodes (LED) luminaires. Auckland Transport owns more than 100,000 street lights, approximately one third of the country’s total lighting stock.

58. The first phase of the programme is being rolled out over five years. This means nearly half of the regions street lights will change from golden yellow light to white light.

59. Last year, the Auckland Transport Board approved the plan, the rest of the conversion to LEDs will potentially follow in four to five years.

60. The project is expected to see net savings of $32 million over the 20 year design life of the LED luminaires.

61. In March, Transport Minister Simon Bridges – who is also the Minister of Energy and Resources – announced a policy change that would allow local authorities looking at upgrading road lighting to LED to access funding faster.

62. Auckland Transport has just awarded for four new Street Light Maintenance and Renewals contracts for four years beginning this month. This includes the replacement LED programme which began in May 2015.

63. The region is divided into four contract areas: Electrix Limited won the north and a west contract, Downer IT’S won the central and southern contracts. Auckland Transport is in the process of awarding a contract to Northpower for Waiheke Island. Northpower is the Vector contractor on the island and have a depot and staff there.

64. Phase one of the contracts focuses mainly on residential roads which comprise approximately 40 per cent of the regions street lighting network.

65. Auckland Transport has had a policy since 2012 that all new lights on pedestrian dominated roads will be LED luminaires. Changing the old lights to LEDs will reduce the energy consumption by more than 60 per cent. Auckland Transport already has approximately 2,000 energy efficient LED luminaires in service. The roll-out will immediately see 1,000 lights replaced in the Mount Albert/Mount Roskill area.

66. At the same time the new luminaires are changed a Tele-management System (TMS) is being installed to manage and monitor the network. Through better management of light levels a further 15 to 20 per cent of energy savings can be achieved. The TMS will provide enhanced customer service as any faults on the network will be reported daily.

67. Auckland Transport already has LED luminaires around Eden Park which are controlled by a TMS system. This was established under an earlier project and has worked well by increasing light levels before and after events.

68. International experience has shown that white light is also a factor in crime prevention; delivers greater comfort and security and improves visibility and reaction times for drivers and pedestrians, resulting in fewer vehicle crashes and injuries.

69. This hugely favours LED as a light source and already this year, according to new research, the market share of LED for street lighting worldwide exceeds 50 per cent.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Financial update for the Local Board’s information.	25
b View	Proposed no stopping at all times - corner of Crowther & Busby St, Blockhouse Bay	27
c View	Blockhouse Bay Rd – Pedestrian Refuge Island	29
d View	Titirangi Rd/Croydon Rd intersection, New Lynn Give Way Control	31

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster - Elected Member Relationship Manager - West, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards (for the quarter - 1 April to 30 June 2015)

File No.: CP2015/16407

Purpose

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

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives Auckland Transport Quarterly Report.

Discussion

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

SMART (Southwest Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit)

5. 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

Otahuhu Bus Rail Interchange

6. 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.

Half Moon Bay New Ferry Facility

7. 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.

City Rail Link

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

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

EMU Procurement

10. 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

Public Transport overall

11. 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%

Rail Improvements

12. 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.

13. 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.

Bus & Ferry Improvements

14. 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.

15. 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

Te Atatu Road Improvements

16. 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.

Albany Highway

17. 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.

Lincoln Road Improvements

18. 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.

Mill Road Improvements

19. 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

Road Safety Highlights

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

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

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

Schools Travelwise Programme Highlights

23. 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.

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

25. 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.

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

26. 79 new Walking School Buses were established, bringing the regional total to 369 and exceeding the target of 347

27. 23 schools and 1,683 students received cycle training against a target of 1500

28. 4 new schools joined the Travelwise programme, creating a total of 408 schools

29. 2 regional ‘Slow Down Around Schools’ campaigns were delivered

30. 536 students and 77 teachers attended Travelwise Primary and Secondary school workshops

31. 4 high risk schools received rail fare evasion prevention campaigns.

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

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

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

Travel Demand (2014/15 Year)

34. 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

School Travel Trips Avoided

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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%

39. 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.

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the fourth quarter (2014/15) ending 30 June 2015	39
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	57
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	59
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	61
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	63

Signatories

Authors

Various Auckland Transport authors

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Whau Local Board Environmental Work Programme 2015/2016

File No.: CP2015/15042

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Whau Local Board for an environmental work programme for delivery by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department (I&ES) in the 2015/2016 financial year with a budget of $216,000.

Executive Summary

2. The Whau Local Board has identified an aspiration in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 to achieve ‘a healthy Whau River and valued environment,’ in their board area. To give effect to this aspiration the local board has committed $216,000 in total to local environmental development projects in their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget for 2015/2016.

3. To deliver on this budget a proposed work programme has been prepared and discussed with the board’s environmental portfolio holder and alternate on 16 June 2015 and 24 July 2015.

4. Based on these discussions, it is recommended that the board approves thirteen projects for delivery under four main budget lines as shown in Table One.

Catchment care ($37,000) – Four projects to be delivered including support for Friends of Oakley Creek, Whau River Catchment Trust and other community groups and an analysis of results of the Whau Environmental Action Report.

Sustainable initiatives projects ($79,000) – Six projects to be delivered including a campaign to improve air quality, funding for Sustainable Neighbourhoods, project HomeWise, ethnic communities engagement and greening of the Avondale and New Lynn Night Markets.

Community environmental services ($88,000) – Funding provided to EcoMatters for organisational capacity and to deliver three projects which include their Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub, the introduction of a Bike Hub and EcoWest festival.

Manukau Harbour Forum ($12,000) - Funding for the Manukau Harbour Forum’s work programme, including communications and industry education.

Table One: Proposed environmental work programme by budget line.

5. This work programme is aligned to the board’s budget lines as set in their Locally Driven Initiatives budget and is intended to support and deliver on Local Board priorities.

6. The majority of these projects are a continuation of what was delivered by I&ES in the 2014/2015 environmental work programme. A detailed report on project outcomes from the previous financial year will be presented to the local board in September 2015.

7. Although not included within the summary of projects the board has also requested that a proposal for a weed project be developed by staff with the input of portfolio holders. Once developed a report seeking approval for additional funding for this project will be put to the board.

8. It is recommended that the board approve this environmental work programme and associated budgets for 2015/2016.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Approves the allocation of budgets for environmental projects to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department in 2015/2016 as detailed in the Whau Local Board Environmental Work Programme 2015/16 report and summarised in the following table:

Catchment Care Projects	$37,000
Funding for friends of Oakley Creek	$3,000
Whau River knowledge sharing	$19,000
Practical assistance to community groups	$10,000
Whau Environmental Action Report	$5,000
Sustainable Initiatives Projects	$79,000
Campaign to improve air quality	$9,000
Sustainable Neighbourhood funding	$15,000
Project HomeWise	$10,000
EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub	$6,000
Ethnic communities engagement	$17,000
Greening the markets	$22,000
Community Environmental Services	$88,000
EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub	$69,000
EcoWest festival	$9,000
Bike hub	$10,000
Manukau Harbour Forum	$12,000
Funding to Manukau Harbour Forum	$12,000

b) Delegates authority to environmental portfolio lead Chair Farmer and alternate Member Battersby to approve changes to the environmental work programme.

c) Requests that a proposal for a weed project be developed by staff for the board’s consideration.

Comments

9. The Whau Local Board have identified an aspiration in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 to achieve ‘a healthy Whau River and valued environment,’ in their board area. To give effect to these aspirations the local board has committed $216,000 in total to local environmental development projects in their LDI budget for 2015/2016.

10. The board has allocated this budget into four main budget lines and is provided in Table Two below:

Budget Line	Budget
Catchment Care	$37,000
Community Environmental Services	$88,000
Sustainable Initiatives	$79,000
Manukau Harbour Forum	$12,000
Total	$216,000

Table Two: Local environmental budget lines

11. Council staff met with Chair Farmer and Member Battersby at environmental portfolio holder meetings on 16 June 2015 and 24 July 2015 to discuss the best allocation of this local environmental development budget and to develop an environmental work programme for 2015/2016.

12. Based on these discussions, it is proposed that thirteen projects be delivered by the I&ES department as part of the board’s environmental work programme in 2015/2016. A brief description of each of these projects is provided in Table Three below.

Catchment Care – Budget $37,000

Friends of Oakley Creek services and nursery - $3,000

Project summary: Provide support to the Friends of Oakley Creek as they continue their work to protect, preserve, enhance and restore the ecological health of Oakley Creek and its environment.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘Our work in the Whau River and Oakley Creek contributes to the health of the Waitematā.’

Whau River: Knowledge Sharing - $19,000

Project summary: To support projects delivered by the Whau River Catchment Trust which contribute to increasing community knowledge and understanding of the river and how to protect it, including the ‘Whau Catchment Life’ citizen science initiative

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘We want to make the Whau River a higher priority, opening up the access-ways, encouraging the use of the river, reclaiming the public space along its banks and cleaning up the water quality and coast line providing local connections and returning the harbours to health.’

Practical assistance as community needs identified - $10,000

Project summary: This fund provides practical support for community groups to engage in environmental projects. It will be distributed in response to community requests which are aligned with the board's environmental priorities throughout the year.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘Everyone in the Whau can learn about and participate in environmental activities and more community stewardship.’

Whau Environmental Action Report - $5,000

Project summary: Carry out an analysis of the results of the Whau Environmental Action Report (WEAR) in conjunction with key community organisations to enable coordinated action on environmental projects in the board area.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘The Whau Environmental Action Report will act as a living database that helps guide the council on its work and where to best place ratepayer and funding bodies support for community organisations.’

Sustainable Initiatives - Budget $79,000

Air quality campaign – $9,000

Project summary: Ecological Associates have been running an air quality and energy efficiency pilot project targeting households in the New Windsor area during June and July 2015. The project involves going door-to-door assessing householders’ needs with regard to energy and referring them to appropriate services including Retrofit Your Home, Eco Design Advisors, a local curtain bank and options for cleaner heating. It also involves providing energy advice tailored to each home. The results of this study are currently being analysed and will inform the next stage of this project. The scope will be discussed and confirmed with the board at a later date.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘Due to the lay of our land, weather conditions and a large number of older fireplaces and cars, some days our air is heavy with wood smoke and car exhaust. This harms our environment and us. Our part in improving our air is that we will work with our local media to remind Whau residents to use good wood, not treated or wet wood, and to upgrade our fireplaces to be more efficient.’

Local Stewardship: Sustainable Neighbourhoods - $15,000

Project summary: Sustainable Neighbourhoods is a programme in which facilitators provide communities with advice, practical help and resources to improve their natural environment. The focus is on biosecurity and biodiversity, in particular, weed control to improve neighbourhood ecology. Sustainable Neighbourhoods is delivered through a combination of facilitation support for groups from three community trusts and council administrative support. This funding will support the continuation of the programme to support four additional sustainable neighbourhoods on top of the 10 supported by regional funding. Since regional funding for this programme is scheduled to end after the 2015/2016 financial year groups will also be given support to adapt to this new situation.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘Develop more community environment programmes including weed removal and pest eradication.’

Project HomeWise - $10,000

Project summary: To support the expansion of EcoMatter’s Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub programmes through Project HomeWise, which engages with ethnic communities within the board area on ways to minimise waste and reduce their water and energy consumption. The board’s support will enhance this project through enabling workshops to be provided to communities on topics such as:

· Waste minimisation (how to sort your household rubbish, including home composting, options and demonstration)

· Water saving (how to reduce your water consumption and bills)

· Energy efficiency (cut your power bill)

· Sustainable living

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘We want to enable a greater range of community activities across more local groups and communities to support this ongoing rediscovery of the connection between ourselves and the environment we live in.’

EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub - $6,000

This funding will help support the Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub run by EcoMatters. A summary of the project is detailed in the Community Environmental Services budget below.

Household and ethnic communities engagement - $17,000

Project summary: Continue to support ethnic communities to engage in projects which benefit the environment and provide positive social outcomes for their communities. The board will provide support to the Auckland Environmental Protection Association and other community groups.
Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘We have many strong communities around the Whau with good community connections and support for one another. We want to build on this strength within each of our neighbourhoods by supporting more community led place making projects that will develop leadership in our neighbourhoods and ethnic communities.’

Greening the markets - $22,000

Project summary: Deliver environmental education and wash against waste services to New Lynn Night Markets and a litter prevention campaign at Avondale Market. The board’s support will contribute to the following:

· Supporting zero waste initiatives at the Avondale Markets which encourage residents to dispose of waste and litter appropriately.

· Provide funding to EcoMatters to continue to deliver the waste services at the New Lynn Night Market. This includes the wash against waste trailer, which reduces the amount of compostable packaging that is produced and used at the market.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘Working with the markets to reduce waste and delivering on the Auckland Plan’s desire of zero waste to landfill.’

Community Environmental Services - Budget $88,000

EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub - $69,000

Project summary: The sustainable living centre provides information and displays on solar hot water and energy efficiency, green building and renovating, organic gardens and permaculture, solid waste and composting. It has reference materials and runs sustainable living workshops with a focus on practical advice and information. Funding will support the expansion of EcoMatters education programmes, including the creation of a sustainability diploma, development of a new community organic garden and urban food production systems into Olympic Park, establishment of a native plant nursery on Olympic Park and to respond to the board's environmental priorities throughout the year.

EcoWest festival - $9,000

Project summary: A month-long festival of diverse events from March-April aimed at creatively engaging people in environmental action and sustainable lifestyles. The festival programme features over 40 events hosted by innovative environmental organisations, businesses, sustainability experts and creative entrepreneurs who embrace eco ideas through their work.

Bike Hub - $10,000

Project summary: Support a bike hub to be developed by Ecomatters. This will be a repair centre for second hand bikes and bikes will also be available for hire for members of the public to take out on Te Whau Pathway.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘The community also identified the need for more cycle and walk ways, more things for young people to do and more environmental activities for improving the Whau River.’

Manukau Harbour Forum – Budget $12,000

Manukau Harbour Forum – $12,000

Project summary: The Whau Local Board joint funds the Manukau Harbour Forum’s activities. The forum’s proposed work programme for 2015/2016 has been described more fully in a previous report to the board: ‘Manukau Harbour Forum Work Programme for 2015/2016.’ Briefly, it will include working with industry on a Flagship Sites programme and implementing phase two of the forum’s communication and activation plan.

Links to Local Board Plan objective: ‘We are working with the nine local boards around the Manukau on working together "to create an environment that is great for swimming and recreation, where wild life thrives and fish flourish".’

Table Three: Summary of local environmental projects to be delivered by I&ES in 2015/2016.

13. Any significant changes to the proposed environmental work programme will be discussed with the environmental portfolio holders. Updates on project implementation will be provided to the local board through quarterly performance reports and meetings with the environmental portfolio holders.

14. The board has also requested that staff develop a proposal for a weed project to be discussed initially with the portfolio holders and then subsequently considered for approval by the whole board at a future business meeting.

15. In summary, it is recommended that the board approve $216,000 to local environmental development projects to be delivered by the I&ES department in 2015/2016, as part of the board’s overall environmental work programme. These projects will contribute to a number of local board objectives, as detailed above.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. This report seeks approval from the Whau Local Board for the allocation of budgets for the 2015/2016 financial year to be delivered by the I&ES department.

17. The work programme described in this report was developed based on direction given by board members at portfolio meetings on 16 June and 24 July 2015. It also delivers on the local board’s aspiration for the environment, as expressed in their Local Board Plan for 2014-2017, to achieve “a healthy Whau River and valued environment.”

Māori impact statement

18. This report provides information for anticipated environmental programmes, it is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

19. Some of the identified activities are of interest to Māori and, where appropriate, provisions for mana whenua participation, contribution, and consultation will be incorporated.

Implementation

20. Implementation of projects will be regularly reported to the Whau Local Board in the quarterly performance update reports from I&ES. A more detailed report on project outcomes will be presented to the local board at the end of the financial year.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Matthew Foster - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan

File No.: CP2015/15844

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan.

Executive Summary

2. A draft Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan was approved by the Whau Local Board in 2014. A number of amendments are proposed to the draft plan based on stakeholder and iwi feedback and further work undertaken by the Local Board and staff.

3. Proposed amendments to the draft plan include:

· inclusion of approved goal and objectives

· addition of information about the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust

· description of issues of significance to Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority

· criteria to assist in the comparison and prioritisation of greenways projects

· addition of a list of priority projects identified by the Local Board.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Approves the Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan.

Comments

4. The Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan (the plan) is a long-term plan to improve walking, cycling and ecological connections across the Whau Local Board and Glen Eden area. The plan contributes to creating the world’s most liveable city in Auckland. It is consistent with the Auckland Plan and the Whau Local Board Plan.

5. In April 2014 the Whau Local Board approved a draft Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan, alongside the goal and objectives for Whau Neighbourhood greenways, and initial criteria to aid in evaluating, comparing and setting priorities for greenways projects (Resolution WH/2014/51).

6. Since the approval of the draft plan the Local Board has focussed on setting priorities for its greenways programme, through:

· a further public meeting in July 2014 to undertake a final review of the proposed greenways network and priorities

· workshops of the Local Board held in June and July 2014 and February 2015

· meetings of the Local Board in November 2014 and April 2015.

7. The proposed final Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan is attached to this report (Attachment A). Copies are also available at the Whau Local Board offices.

8. The key changes to the draft plan are outlined in the following table:

Key Changes	Reference section of plan
Inclusion of the agreed goal and objectives for Whau Greenways.	Section 1 Introduction
Information on the Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust, launched in July 2014. The Trust has been formed to work in partnership with the Whau Local Board to construct 13 kilometres of walk/cycle trails along the banks of the Whau River.	Section 1 Introduction
A description of issues of significance to Ngati Whatua o Orakei and a description and map of some of the important Te Kawerau a Maki sites and features.	Section 1 Introduction
Criteria to aid the evaluation, comparison and prioritisation of greenways projects. A number of changes to the draft criteria previously approved by the Local Board (Resolution WH/2014/51) have been recommended to simplify the assessment process.	Section 2 Methodology and Criteria
Addition of priority projects previously approved by the Local Board (Resolution WH/2015/9).	Section 4 Future Development
A letter of support for the Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan provided by Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority.	Appendix A2

Next Steps

9. A number of Whau Local Board priority greenway projects have or will commence in the current financial year, including:

· Stage 1 of Te Whau Pathway, on Archibald, Ken Maunder and Olympic Parks

· Riversdale Reserve perimeter path

· Portage Road and Wolverton/Tiverton cycleway connector routes

· New Lynn to Waterview section of the Western Rail Cycleway Metro Route

· planning work on Te Whau Pathway.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The Local Board is the decision maker for the Greenways Plan.

Māori impact statement

11. Whau Neighbourhood Greenways have the potential to bring social, environmental, economic and cultural benefits to Maori. Greenways provide opportunities to showcase Maori arts, culture and identity, and health and social outcomes can be improved through the active transport options and opportunities for social engagement provided by greenways. In addition, the ecological benefits associated with greenways are important to tangata whenua as the kaitiaki of the Whau area.

12. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority has provided the council with a letter of support and information on the importance of the Whau region to Te Kawerau a Maki. Ngati Whatua o Orakei also provided information on issues of significance in relation to the greenways plan. The amended plan incorporates the information received from those iwi.

13. Further iwi consultation will be undertaken as part of the planning work for individual greenways projects. Opportunities for use of te reo and interpretation of sites of significance will be canvassed at that time.

Implementation

14. The Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan is a long term plan which will be implemented by the local board and its partners, the governing body, Auckland Transport and external funders, as resources become available. The priority projects listed in the Plan outline the Local Board’s focus for the next 3 years.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Whau Neighbourhood Greenways (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Wood - Team Leader Parks and Recreation Policy - North/West

Jenny Macdonald - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated, Green Bay Community House Society Incorporated and Kelston Hub Incorporated funding agreements and Licence's to Occupy and Manage

File No.: CP2015/16608

Purpose

1. This report seeks Whau Local Board approval for the 2015/2016 funding agreements and licences to occupy for the community operated community centres, houses and hubs within the local board area.

Executive Summary

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

3. This report recommends the approval of the 2015/2016 funding agreement and the granting of a new Licence to Occupy and Manage to Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated for one year commencing 1 July 2015 and to Kelston Community Hub Incorporated for one year commencing 1 July 2015.

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

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Approves the 2015/2016 Funding Agreement for the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated of $49,231 towards operation and activation of the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre.

b) Approves the 2015/2016 Funding Agreement for the Green Bay Community House Incorporated of $38,290 towards operation and activation of the Green Bay Community House.

c) Approves the 2015/2016 Funding Agreement for the Kelston Community Hub Incorporated of $38,290 towards the operation and activation of the Kelston Community Hub.

d) Approves granting a Licence to Occupy and Manage to the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated for the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre at 524, Blockhouse Bay Road, subject to the following terms and conditions:

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

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

iii) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

e) Approves granting a Licence to Occupy and Manage to the Kelston Community Hub Incorporated for the Kelston Community Hub at 68 St Leonard’s Road subject to the following terms and conditions:

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

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

iii) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

f) Notes that Green Bay Community House Society has an existing licence in place which expires on 30 May 2016.

Comments

5. The Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated has occupied the council owned site on 524 Blockhouse Bay Road since 1970. It currently operates the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre from this location. Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated is made up of a Chair person, Deputy Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and 5 committee members (attachment B). There are two part time managers who job share and work 44 hours per week.

6. The Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated delivers community programmes and activities to meet local needs. The 2015/2016 Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated’s work programme is outlined in schedule one of the funding agreement (attachment A). Schedule two of the funding agreement outlines the reporting requirements. The Blockhouse Bay Community Centre has approximately 101,428 visitors through its doors per annum and caters to all.

7. The Green Bay Community House Incorporated has occupied the council owned site on 1, Barron Drive, Green Bay since 1979. It currently operates the Green Bay Community House from this location. The Green Bay Community House Society Incorporated is made up of two Co Chair persons, Secretary, Treasurer and three committee members (attachment B). There is one coordinator who works 25 hours per week and a part time administrator for 16.5 hours per week.

8. The Green Bay Community House delivers community programmes and activities to meet local needs and local board outcomes. The 2015/2016 Green Bay Community House work programme is outlined in schedule one of the funding agreement (attachment C). Schedule two of the funding agreement outlines the reporting requirements. The Green Bay Community House has approximately 22,026 visitors through its doors per annum, and caters to all ages.

9. The Kelston Community Hub Incorporated has operated the Kelston Community Hub since October 2014 on the council owned site at 68 St Leonard’s Road. The Kelston Community Hub Incorporated delivers community programmes and activities to meet local needs and local board outcomes. The Kelston Community Hub Incorporated is made up of a Chair person, Secretary, Treasurer and four committee members (attachment B). The hub activity is delivered through a part time manager 20 hours per week and a part time administrator who works 10 hours per week.

10. The 2015/2016 Kelston Community Hub work programme is outlined in schedule one of the funding agreement (attachment C). Schedule two of the funding agreement outlines the reporting requirements. Since reporting of utilisation began in May 2015, the Hub has had over 600 visitors.

11. The financial accounts provided by the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated, Green Bay Community House Society and Kelston Community Hub Incorporated indicate that the funds held are sufficient to meet their liabilities and are being managed appropriately. The Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated, Green Bay Community House Society and Kelston Community Hub Incorporated have all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, in place.

12. The Licence to Occupy and Manage (Schedule three of the funding agreement (attachment A &C)) coincides with the term of the funding agreement, in this case for a period of one year commencing 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 for Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated for the Blockhouse Bay Community Centre 524 Blockhouse Bay Road, Lot 1 DP 73937, contained in NA29D/584, Kelston Community Hub Incorporated for Kelston Community Hub, at 68 St Leonard’s Road, Kelston, Part of Lot 7 DP 2252B contained in NA11D/221. Green Bay Community House Society for the Green Bay Community House, 1, Barron Drive, Green Bay has an existing license.

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

14. Extended terms will require more rigorous assessment of the financial, governance and strategic health of the organisation along with a process to monitor, assess and report progress and performance on a regular basis during the term. Please refer to Attachment A for more details on the options and suggested tools and processes for assessment.

15. The advantages would not just be for organisations. Extended terms would enable the board to have more continuity and certainty in working with those organisations which help to deliver on the local board outcomes and priorities. Longer-term agreements could potentially reduce workload for council staff. For example, one agreement for three years when compared with the work required to prepare an agreement every year.

16. There are risks in offering extended tenure terms, especially if an organisation does not perform well against the assessment. A process would need to be developed for negotiating next steps and the time frame the organisation would have to improve their performance and what help, if any, could be provided by council. A work plan and quarterly reporting requirements would continue to be part of the agreement for all organisations.

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

18. Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

20. Blockhouse Bay Community Centre Incorporated, Green Bay Community House Society and Kelston Community Hub Incorporated endeavour to improve the well-being among Maori within the work programmes they deliver. Council staff continue to work with the centres to ensure support and development of programmes and activities that directly improve well-being and outcomes for Maori.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kelston Footprint	79
b View	Blockhouse Bay CC Footprint	81

Signatories

Author

Murali Kumar - Facility Manager (Whau, Waitakere)

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Local & Sports Parks Proposed 2015/2016 Financial Year Capital Works Programme

File No.: CP2015/12465

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Whau Local Board for the delivery of a capital works programme proposed by Local & Sports Parks West (LSPW) for the 2015/2016 financial year and seek support for an application to Auckland Transport for the use of the Whau Local Board Transport Capital Fund for a priority Whau Local Board greenways project.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Boards Parks capital works budget for 2015/2016 financial year is $678,738. An additional $909,733 is provided in regional funding as part of the Growth Programme. The programme has been developed from information received through asset condition auditing, requests from the Local Board and from residents through the Councils service request system.

3. Unallocated Whau Local Board Transport Capital Fund is available for the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 financial years. Discussions with the Whau Local Board have revealed a willingness to apply this fund to the planning and construction of a foot bridge between McWhirter Place and Busby Street in New Lynn. An application to Auckland Transport is required to secure funding for this priority Whau Local Board Greenways Project.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Approves the Local & Sports Parks West 2015/2016 Financial Year Capital Works Programme (Attachment A).

b) Delegates authority to the Parks Portfolio Holder and the Board Chair to make changes to the programme up to the value of $50,000.

c) Supports an application to Auckland Transport for the allocation of $71,016 in the 2015/2016 financial year and $517,754 in the 2016/2017 financial year for the construction of McWhirter Place to Busby Street footbridge from the Whau Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Comments

Local & Sports Parks West Capital Works Programme

4. LSPW manages a range of assets on local parks and sports parks. The programme includes the renewal of existing assets and development of new assets. These include sport fields, car parks, playgrounds, amenity lighting, park furniture and signage, changing room and toilet facilities, walkways and footbridges, stormwater and drainage requirements. Provision is made for the programme in the Long Term Plan.

5. The Whau Local Board Local and Sports Park capital budget for 2015/2016 financial year is:

· $630,958 for the asset renewal programme;

· $47,780 of deferred development funding for Year 1 of a 3 year programme to develop Crown Lynn Park; and

· $909,733 is provided from the Regional Growth Fund which includes provision for Sports Field Capacity Development, Greenways, Generic Park Development and Play Programmes.

6. LSPW is seeking Local Board approval of their proposed capital work programme for the 2015/2016 financial year. Full programme details are available in Attachment A.

7. The key asset renewal projects are:

· Crum Park – car park renewal;

· Sister Rene Shadbolt Park – car park renewal;

· Ambrico Park – playground renewal; and

· Brains Park – amenity lighting renewal.

8. Budget for the development of Crown Lynn Park in New Lynn is provided over the next 3 financial years and $47,780 is provided in FY16 for concept development.

9. $909,733 is provided in the Regional Growth Fund for the 2015/2016 financial year for the following projects:

· Te Whau Pathway (design, consents, construction) - $432,733;

· Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve new sports field lighting on No.1 (construction phase) - $205,000;

· Ken Maunder Park new sports field lighting on No.3 (construction phase) - $205,000;

· Craigavon Park playground upgrade (planning phase) - $32,000; and

· Ken Maunder Park new sports field lighting on No.2 and 4 (planning phase) - $28,000.

10. Allocation of Regional Growth funding shown in Attachment A for 2016/2017 Financial Year is indicative only and at the time of writing this report, had not been approved by the governing body.

11. The costs shown on the attached programme are estimates only and the actual cost will not be known until the project work is taken through the procurement process. Adjustments to the programme may be required when the actual costs are identified. Changes of over $50,000 will be reported to the Local Board for their approval.

Allocation of Transport Capital Fund

12. At the 15 April 2015 Whau Local Board Business meeting the board approved a priority list of twelve Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Projects:

17 Whau Neighbourhood Greenways

Resolution number WH/2015/9

MOVED by Member DQ Battersby, seconded by Chairperson CM Farmer:

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Approves the priority list of twelve greenways projects as below for inclusion in

the final version of the Whau Neighbourhood Greenways report.

Priorities Currently only partially funded or unfunded

1. Construction of Riversdale Reserve perimeter path

2. Miranda Reserve connections

3. Cliff View to Godley Road

4. McWhirter Place to Busby Street bridge

5. Archibald Park to Avondale West bridge

New Projects

6. La Rosa Gardens Reserve to Godley Road

7. Wolverton Street to McWhirter Place (streamside)

8. Planning for Stage 2 of the Whau Coastal Walkway including the Rizal Reserve to Ken Maunder Park link, to be constructed by the Trust

9. Planning for Stage 3 of the Whau Coastal Walkway, to be constructed by the Trust

10. Lynfield Cove to Wood Bay (staged extension of the Manukau Foreshore Walkway)

11. Eastdale Road to Holly Street (extension of the proposed Motu Manawa walkway)

12. East Coast of Rosebank Peninsula

13. The construction of a footbridge to link McWhirter Place and Busby Street in New Lynn has been identified as a high priority for the Whau Local Board in their recently approved Neighbourhood Greenways Plan.

14. It has been identified that $71,016 in the 2015/2016 financial year and $517,754 in the 2016/2017 financial year is available in the Whau Local Board Transport Capital Fund (the Fund) and the proposed foot bridge project aligns well with the guidelines for the Fund.

15. Support is required from the Whau Local Board for staff to make an application to Auckland Transport to allocate the Fund to the McWhirter Place to Busby Street footbridge project.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. A workshop was held with the Whau Local Board on 10 June 2015 and there was support for the proposed programme.

Māori impact statement

17. The work programme ensures the assets are well maintained and development programmes provide benefits to local communities, including Maori.

18. Engagement with seven local iwi is undertaken for all projects where iwi interest is identified.

Implementation

19. No implementation issues have been identified at this time.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Whau - Local & Sports Parks West 2015/2016 Capital Works Programme	87

Signatories

Author

Helen Biffin - Team Leader Parks Liaison and Development

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Park Name	LB area	Work Programme	Comment	Project Phase - 2015/2016 FY	Funding Source	2015/2016FY	2016/2017 FY
Te Whau Pathway	Whau	Special	Planning and consents for Stage 2 and 3 - Joint AC and Whau Coastal Walkway Environment Trust Project	Planning	Growth programme	432,733	1,350,000
Blockhouse Bay Recreation Reserve	Whau	Sport	Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve no 1 lights	Construction	Growth programme	205,000
Ken Maunder Park	Whau	Sport	Ken Maunder Park no 3 field lights	Construction	Growth programme	205,000
Craigavon Park	Whau	Play	Park development associated with playground renewal. Works also involve extended playground extension, walking network, fencing, park furniture, shelter and youth play equipment.	Planning	Growth programme	32,000	300,000
Ken Maunder Park	Whau	Sport	Ken Maunder Park no 2 field lights	Planning	Growth programme	14,000	135,000
Ken Maunder Park	Whau	Sport	Ken Maunder Park no 4 field lights	Planning	Growth programme	14,000	135,000
Sister Rene Shadbolt Park	Whau	Play	Provide new half pipe to extend existing skate facility for incresing growth	Planning	Growth programme	7,000	70,000
Crum Park	Whau	Car Park	Car park renewal	Construction	Renewal	80,394
Ambrico Reserve	Whau	Play	Playground renewal	Construction	Renewal	79,055
Brains Park	Whau	Lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	67,212
Green Bay Beach	Whau	Building	Refurbish toilet/changing room block	Construction	Renewal	50,000
Green Bay Domain	Whau	Building	Refurbish toilet/changing room block	Planning	Renewal	50,000
Sister Rene Shadbolt Park	Whau	Car Park	Car park renewal	Construction	Renewal	82,640
Totara Triangle	Whau	Car Park	Car park renewal	Construction	Renewal	34,952
Craigavon Park	Whau	Structure	Renew foot bridge	Construction	Renewal	32,000
Lawson Park	Whau	Structure	Retaining wall renewal	Planning	Renewal	18,341	56,000
Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve	Whau	Sport	no 4 sports field renewal	Planning	Renewal	14,400	200,000
Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve	Whau	Sport	no 5 sports field renewal	Planning	Renewal	14,234	200,000
Tony Sedgedin Esplanade Reserve	Whau	Furniture	Renew BBQ	Construction	Renewal	11,446
Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve	Whau	Furniture	Renew BBQ	Construction	Renewal	11,445
Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve	Whau	Furniture	Renew BBQ	Construction	Renewal	11,445
Brains Park	Whau	Sport	Rugby/League Goal Post	Construction	Renewal	10,200
Avondale Racecourse	Whau	Sport	Rugby/League Goal Post	Construction	Renewal	10,160	10,000
Blockhouse Bay Rec Reserve	Whau	Play	Playground renewal	Planning	Renewal	9,600	210,000
Riversdale Reserve	Whau	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	6,000
Olympic Park	Whau	Play	Playground renewal	Planning	Renewal	5,000	87,000
Fonteyn Reserve	Whau	Play	Playground renewal	Planning	Renewal	5,000	86,000
Dallas Reserve	Whau	Play	Playground renewal	Planning	Renewal	5,000	82,000
Barron Green	Whau	Structure	Renew retaining wall	Construction	Renewal	5,000
Olympic Park	Whau	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	4,194
Northall Park	Whau	Sport	Rugby/League Goal Post	Construction	Renewal	3,240
Cutler Reserve	Whau	Sign	Signs-Park Identification	Construction	Renewal	3,000
Kelman Square	Whau	Furniture	Renew seat	Construction	Renewal	2,800
Godley Green	Whau	Sign	Signs-Park Identification	Construction	Renewal	2,200
Craigavon Park	Whau	Play	Playground renewal	Planning	Renewal	2,000	261,726
Crown Lynn Park	Whau	Special	Playspace, Walkway & Landscaping	Planning	Scenario B	47,780	617,786
Total						1,588,471

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13903

Purpose

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

· model for allocating the fund

· criteria for the fund.

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

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

Comments

Background

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

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

b) Approve the following parameters for this fund:

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

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

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

Purpose of the Capex fund

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

Funding Allocation Model

Principles for funding allocations

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

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

· administrative effectiveness

· transparency.

Attributes for funding allocation

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

· 90 per cent based on local board population size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. The charts show the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decision making process for capex projects

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

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

Bringing future capex allocation forward

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

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

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

Role of LDI funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

· LDI to fund minor capital projects

· Capex funding to bring regionally funded projects forward.

Transferring LDI to Capex

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

Deferral of Capex

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

Transition for current Capex allocations

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

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

Local Boards Funding Policy

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Significance and Engagement

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy & Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Annual Report 2014/15

File No.: CP2015/15492

Purpose

1. This report compares the actual activities and actual performance with the intended activities and the intended level of service as set out in the Whau Local Board Agreement for 2014/15. The information is prepared as part of the Whau Local Board’s accountability to the community for the decisions made throughout the year.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Board Agreement for 2014/15. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. These requirements include providing comment on actual local activities against the intended level of service and for these comments to be included in the Auckland Council Annual Report.

3. The attached report is proposed for approval from the Whau Local Board.

4. The Auckland Council Annual Report will be audited and then reported to the Governing Body for adoption on 24 September 2015.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Notes the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the local board information proposed for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2014/15

b) Approves:

i. The message from the Chairperson, which provides the Local Boards comments on local board matters in the 2014/15 annual report

ii. The list of achievements and the list of capital projects that form part of the local board information for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2014/15.

c) Gives authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair to make typographical changes before submitting for final publication.

Comments

5. The Local Board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its local board agreement for 2014/15. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, as follows:

Section 23 Monitoring and reporting

(1) Each local Board must monitor the implementation of the local board agreement for its local board area.

(2) Each annual report of the Auckland Council must include, in rep[sect of local activities for each local board area, an audited statement that –

i) Compares the level of service achieved in relation to the activities with the performance target or targets for the activities (as stated in the local board agreement for that year); and

ii) Specifies whether any intended changes to the level of service have been achieved; and

iii) Gives reasons for any significant variation between the level of service achieved and the intended level of service.

6. Each local board must comment on the matters included in the annual report under s subsection (2) in respect of its local board area and the Council must include those comments in the annual report.

7. This report focusses on the formal reporting referred to in Section 23 above. Attachment A provides the draft local board information for inclusion into the Annual Report 2014/15. The draft report contains the following sections:

· message from the Chair

· key achievements

· financial results

· performance measures.

8. Local board comments on local board matters in the annual report will be included in the annual report as part of the message from the Chair.

9. The next steps for the Annual Report are:

· Audit during August 2015

· Report to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17th September

· Report to the Governing Body for adoption on 24^th September

· Full New Zealand Stock Exchange disclosure on 30^th September

· Publication on 23 October

· Copies of the annual Report will be provided to the local board office.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. Local Board comments of local board matters are included in the annual report as part of the message from the Chair.

Māori impact statement

11. The annual report provides information on how the Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the annual plan over a 12 month period. This includes engagement with Maori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Maoris.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

David Rose - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Whau Local Board: Third summer series movie at Olympic Park, 31 January 2016

File No.: CP2015/16550

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Whau Local Board to fund a third summer series movie at Olympic Park in January 2016 at the sum of $9,972.00.

Executive Summary

2. To support the Olympic Park Activation project, Sports Waitakere have asked the Whau Events Portfolio to consider moving one of its movie events from one of the other parks in the Whau to Olympic Park. The result of a survey undertaken by Sports Waitakere showed 66% of young people surveyed said they would attend an outdoor movie if it was held at Olympic Park.

3. In the Whau Events Portfolio meeting of 29 July 2015, the meeting discussed this item and decided that the was much value to be gained by a community from such an event, and instead of depriving Kelston and Avondale of their movie event, the board asked the Events Team to consider adding an extra movie event to the summer programme.

4. The objective of the Movies in Parks summer series in the Whau is strongly aligned to the Whau Local Board Plan outcome: Great local communities across the Whau.

5. Budget capacity has been identified in the community Response Fund.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Agrees to allocate the sum of $9,972.00 from the Community Response Fund, to deliver a third summer series movie at Olympic Park, New Lynn.

b) Proposes the screening date of 31 January 2016, and Avengers-Age of Ultron as the movie.

Comments

6. Olympic Park is the second largest hot spot for graffiti in West Auckland. Because of this, Sport Waitakere with the Olympic Park Activation Steering Group has developed a plan to activate the park. A primary driver of the plan is engaging young people. Over 100 youths were interviewed to gather insight into what young people would like to do in the park. 66% of respondents said they would like a “Movies in the Park” event to be held at Olympic Park.

7. If a movie in Olympic Park was to be accommodated by the board, Sport Waitakere in conjunction with the OPASG has undertaken to provide games/activities prior to the movie starting. The Whau Local Board is fully supportive of this undertaking.

8. One of the board’s desired outcome is to engage with the young and old in the Whau to provide great supportive places to play and live in.

9. The Movies in Parks summer series is a popular event which has enjoyed fulsome participation in other parts of the Whau in past years. It has met the Events Team’s key performance indicators. However, it needs to be noted in this report that the feedback from last year’s series indicated that due consideration needs to be given to choice of films being delivered in our parks. The key aspect being that as these movies present opportunities for whole-family participation, free of charge, the movie content needs to be suitable for family viewing.

10. At the 29 July 2015 Whau Portfolio meeting, the decision was reached not to move an existing booking from one of the other parks but to ask the Events Team to investigate the possibility of delivering a third movie in the summer series. The two other events confirmed to date are:

· 29 Jan 2016 – Shrek, Brains Park

· 26 Feb 2016 – Transformers, Riversdale Reserve

11. This report seeks to include the following date and movie as chosen by the Events Portfolio holder, Seumanu Simon Matafai:

· 31 Jan - Avengers-Age of Ultron, Olympic Park

12. The Events Team feedback to the portfolio on provision of an extra movie at Olympic Park identified that best site would be in the play area (not the velodrome area). This meets with Sport Waitakere and OPASG’s planned activation. Whilst the first two movies were secured at the regionally subsidised cost of $6,572.00 each, the cost of an additional movie would be at the full sum of $9,972.00. This higher sum is due to the fact that this extra event was not originally planned for within the regional budget, hence the full sum needs to be met by the local board.

Screening costs and film licencing	$4,809.00
Waste management	$621.50
Toilets	$731.00
Generator	$231.00
Pre-entertainment	$600.00
First Aid	$307.50
Security	$375.00
Marketing (part of regional programme)	1,897.00
Event staff	$400.00
	$9,972.00

13. The Movies in Parks series has a close alignment to the Outcomes of the Whau Local Board Plan, specifically Great local communities across the Whau:

· creation of better places to meet, play, perform and exercise safely

· provision of opportunity for youth participation

· opportunity for community and civic participation by new migrants

14. A desire has been expressed by Member Seumanu Simon Matafai, Whau Events Portfolio holder, for the Auckland Council Events team to work collaboratively with Sport Waitakere and the OPASG to incorporate lively pre-movie entertainment on the day.

15. Some of the feedback received for the 2014 Local Board Plan read as follows:

· more neighbourhood activities needed so neighbours can get to know each other

· continued support of community organisations and local festivals and keep movies in parks

· working with community groups to enable connection within, between and across neighbourhoods ensuring diversity and equality for all is implicit. Also to ensure good spaces are available for both informal and formal connection between people.

16. The Whau Events portfolio holder, who has been kept up to date by officers, has agreed the alignment of the festival to the local board priorities is strong and sought a report from officers to support funding the festival at the requested amount.

17. The Whau Local Board Advisors have identified unspent operational expenditure in the 2015/16 Community Response Fund that is yet to be expended by financial year end. There is capacity in this budget line to accommodate $9,972.00 funding for an extra Movie in the Park.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

18. The Whau Local Board is supportive of initiatives that seek to activate the parks and open spaces within the Whau in a way that involves young and old, all ethnicities and encourages access via public transport or walking and cycling. Olympic Park encapsulates all these ideals.

19. The allocation of funding toward an extra movie to be delivered in Olympic Park in the summer of 2015/16 was discussed at an Events portfolio meeting 29 July 2015 and members present recognised the alignment of the event to the local board priorities was strong and the portfolio holder has since endorsed an officer report to the full board, recommending funding an extra Movie in the Park at the requested amount.

20. The decisions sought within this report fall within the local board delegations.

Māori impact statement

21. Improving Maori outcomes is a priority to the region. The kaupapa of the Whau Local Board’s desired outcomes sits well with this event which seeks to include all ethnicities in the Whau, including Maori.

Implementation

22. Once the funding is confirmed Events staff will look to deliver this event as part of the Movies in Parks package, thereby utilising the same services, including marketing.

23. The Events Team will update the Whau Local Board via the Events Portfolio meeting scheduled for 2 September 2015.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Antonina Georgetti - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Information report: Considerations by southern and central local boards regarding requests for park land for early childhood centres

File No.: CP2015/16110

Purpose

1. To respond to a Whau Local Board information request on considerations by southern local boards regarding requests for park land for early childhood centres and a related past decision by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board supporting an early childhood education lease on park land.

Executive Summary

2. In July 2015 the Whau Local Board received a report regarding early childhood education (ECE) in Avondale.

3. Members of the board had been made aware that other boards have recently considered provision of public open space for early childhood centres and requested further information via a board report.

Early Childhood Education in Avondale Report

Resolution number WH/2015/94

MOVED by Chairperson CM Farmer, seconded by Member R Manukia-Schaumkel:

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives the Early Childhood Education in Avondale Report in response to resolution WH/2014/98 at its 16 July 2014 board meeting.

b) Requests that staff report back to the local board meeting on how early childhood centres are supported by other local boards, specifically the Riverside Early Childhood Centre and the Mataliki Tokelau pre-school.

CARRIED

4. Four southern boards have adopted a set of principals when considering applications for ECEs on parks and open space in the future. These confirm that it is central government’s role to support ECE, that the establishment of new ECE will not be supported on parks unless there is direct benefit to the park and that the expansion of existing ECE’s on parks may be supported where there are minor effects.

5. The Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board (OPLB) is facing increasing demands for use of public land for early childhood activities and recently approved extensions to a Tokelau early childhood centre in its area on a public open space. It has also included an advocacy Item in its Local Board Agreement for 2015/16 requesting policy advice on how to manage the competing interests and how it can encourage the Ministry of Education to fund land acquisition.

6. In April 2012 the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board (MTLB) supported in principle leasing space on Jolsen Reserve for the Good Seed Playcentre to expand their current operation into a full ECE. This expansion was supported by community research which identified the need for quality early childhood education that was in walking distance for families living in the area.

7. It was noted to the MTLB that an existing ECE service was already on the reserve and that this new lease would replace the previous building with a purpose built one. Furthermore, Jolson Reserve was classified as Open Space 4 (Community) and provided for community activities and buildings which serve the needs of the community. The type of activity proposed in the report was permitted within that classification.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives the information report: Considerations by southern and central local boards regarding requests for park land for early childhood centres.

Comments

8. Members of the Whau Local Board have been made aware that other boards have considered provision of public open space for early childhood centres and requested an update.

9. In mid to late 2014 workshops were held with representatives from the Manurewa, Otara - Papatoetoe, Mangere - Otahuhu and Papakura Local Boards, to consider council’s current and potential future role(s) in supporting early learning, with a particular focus on the use of parks and open space land. The following themes evolved from these workshops.

· New ECEs on parks and open space are generally not supported unless a direct benefit to the open space and its users can be shown (e.g. where the ECE will activate the space and provide for community use outside operating hours)

· Consideration will be given to the expansion of existing ECE facilities, where the impacts on the public open space and its users are assessed to be no more than minor

· Advocate that ECE facilities on parks and open space expand their purpose outside operating hours to accommodate other community opportunities (e.g. adult education)

· Support, in general, the council being a direct provider as part of the provision of a range of holistic activities in council owned facilities. It was suggested that consideration could be given to existing services being contracted out or sold

· The establishment of ECE services is essentially a central government responsibility and as such should be funded by the Ministry of Education

· Advocate for land to secured in new developments for ECE services to be established, where a need is identified through for example, working with the Housing Project Office and Special Housing Area developers, the Ministry of Education and ECE providers

· Generally not supportive of selling parks and open space for ECE development.

6. In October and November 2014 the Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards resolved to adopt the following principles to guide decisions on requests for lease of public open space for early childhood education provision:

i) that central government has the main responsibility for the establishment of early childhood education services

ii) that the establishment of new early childhood education services on council’s parks and open space will not be supported, unless there is a direct benefit to the open space and its users

iii) that existing early childhood education centres seeking expansion may be supported where the impact on the parks and open space provision and its users have been assessed as being no more than minor.

10. In addition the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board (OPLB) noted in its 2014 local board plan “in the past, reserve land has been allocated for early childhood centres and other uses not related to sport and recreation. There is a cost to the community in this. In future we will work with providers to find alternatives.”

11. The OPLB has an existing Tokelau early childhood centre on Aorere Park that was built in 1998. It was authorised by the Manukau City Council, which had a policy of encouraging early childhood education (ECE) development on reserves.

12. OPLB first considered a plan for expansion of the Tokelau ECE in September 2013. The board initially declined land owner approval because of concerns about entrances, parking, supporting crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and a general reluctance to convert reserve assets to other uses. A proposal to expand a different ECE on Sandbrook Reserve at Ōtara was also refused at the same meeting.

13. A revised design for expansion of the Tokelau ECE came back to the board in March 2014, and was approved. The new design improved the site entrances and separation of buildings, reduced CPTED and safety concerns, and made efficient use of existing car parking. There was no reduction in the area used for sports fields and only a minor reduction in the area useable for passive recreation.

14. The OPLB also included the following as an advocacy Item in its Local Board Agreement for 2015/16. “The board's priority of supporting early childhood education, and requiring more parks and open spaces to meet the demand of a growing and active population, requires direction and policy advice on how to manage the competing interests, and how it can encourage the Ministry of Education to fund land acquisition for Early Childhood Education extensions or new builds”

15. In April 2012 the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board considered leasing space on Jolsen Reserve for the Good Seed Playcentre to expand their current operation into a full ECE. Staff and community research identified that there was a shortage of early childhood education services in the Riverside community which is identified as a high deprivation area.

16. The reserve is adjacent to a primary school, it is compact, in a challenging location and was not seen as being fully utilised as a recreational space by the Riverside community. The land, which is a mix of grass and gravel, was used for extra car parking while families attend school or playcentre events. The space had also been attracting late night antisocial behaviour with smashed glass and tyre tracks left on the reserve.

17. The board agreed in principle to lease the space for the Good Seed early childhood education centre.

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/localboards/maungakiekietamakilocalboard/meetings/maungakiekielbagitem12-14f20120403.pdf

18. In the longer term, Council will be looking to develop a policy around Reserve Management Plans and the use of reserves as part of the ongoing review of reserve and parks management plans across the region. This will respond to the desire for improved quality of neighbourhoods and the need for open space whilst the density of housing increases. The policy will provide guidance to respond to requests for buildings on public open space.

19. As noted in the Early Childhood Education in Avondale Report to the Whau Local Board in July 2015 under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan the development of new early child education centres on Open Space would be a non-complying activity.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. In its 2014 Local Board Plan the Whau Local Board “recognises the importance of giving our children and young people a great start and will support planning by our community and central government agencies to ensure access to quality early childhood education (ECE) continues as we grow”.

Māori impact statement

21. The Whau area has a significant Maori population and the provision of open space and community facilities and services provides benefits for Maori. Iwi have represented to the board the importance of the natural environment and services for children.

Implementation

22. There are no direct implementation implications from this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Mark Allen - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

File No.: CP2015/14905

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 Whau 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

That the Whau Local Board:

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

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

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

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

Comments

Background

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

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

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

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of the Strategy

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

Drivers for the Strategy

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

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

The draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Consultation Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

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

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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	201
b View	The Auckland Development Committee resolution	223

Signatories

Author

Simon Tattersfield - Principal Growth and Infrastructure Adviser

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

19 August 2015

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

File No.: CP2015/14900

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation, to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

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

Comments

The Funding Model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Amenities

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

· Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board

· Auckland Philharmonia

· Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust

· Auckland Theatre Company

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated

· New Zealand National Maritime Museum

· New Zealand Opera Limited

· Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated

· Auckland Festival Trust

· Watersafe Auckland Incorporated

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

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

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

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

The ARAFA Funding Model Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria for the Evaluation of Options

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

i. Financial sustainability and certainty

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

ii. Affordability

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

iii. Independence and continuity

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

iv. Accountability and transparency

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

v. Administrative efficiency

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

vi. Alignment of outcomes and goals

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

vii. Fairness

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

viii. Flexibility

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

Options to Enhance Effectiveness

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

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1.

Option 1 – Status Quo

31. 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.

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

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

34. 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.

Option 3 - Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Sustainable Funding’

35. 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

36. 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

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

‘Sustainability’

38. 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.

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

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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.

Option 5 – Baseline Plus CPI

45. 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.

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

Option 6 - Strong Funder

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

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

Option 7 - Auckland Council Dedicated Fund

52. 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.

53. 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

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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).

58. 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

59. 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

60. 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.

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

Māori impact statement

62. 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	Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act Review	235

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

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Chairperson	Catherine Farmer
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Zhu
Members	Derek Battersby, QSM, JP
	Ami Chand, JP
	Duncan Macdonald, JP
	Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel
	Simon Matafai

Item	Topic	Presenter(s)	Time
1.0	Session with the Resource Consents team	Lee Ah Ken Daniel Brown David Oakhill	10.00am – 10.42am
· Staff provided general update including west operating model, tree rules in effect from Sep 15, considered new road naming guidelines and reviewed of triggers for LB input into resource consents. · The board requested for a list of scheduled trees in Whau LB area. · The board requested for quarterly workshops with RC team.
2.0	Hillsborough Road-Kinross St CMP	Jennifer Estong	10.42am – 11.00am
Staff presented the draft CMP for the Hillsborough Rd-Kinross St corridor which was just completed and currently being reviewed by technical stakeholders.
3.0	New footpath programme 2015-16	LB Members	10.42am – 11.15am
The board provided following feedback (which will inform AT's Walking and Cycling’s decision making processes): · The board agreed that Kelston footpath is priority for them. · The footpath widening/renewal for Kelston, Street - Archibald Road, Start at Kelston Girls College & Great North Road to add to the list (Reason - the high volume of usage by schools and students). · The Grove, South Lynn Road up to Golf Road on the western side (Reason – no footpath on that side for use). · Powell St, running between 17 and 57 Powell St (Reason – provide connectivity for intensification.) · New footpath from Kelston Boys High School to Albert St (Reason – high volume of school kids). Feedback to be emailed to AT.

Item	Topic	Presenter(s)	Time
1.0	Whau River Catchment Trust	Gilbert Brakey (The Whau River Catchment Trust (WRCT) Jack Weir (The Whau River Catchment Trust (WRCT) Huw Hill-Male	4.00pm – 4.45pm
The Whau River Catchment Trust's representatives presented the Annual Report for 2014-15 and the proposed Work Programme for 2015-16.
2.0	50A Rosebank Rd	Julie Sutherland David Mose Gail Fotheringham	4.50pm – 5.20pm
Applications received for lease of 50A Rosebank Road were discussed with the board members. The following points were noted: · Current applications received for the lease are incomplete and do not provide enough information. · Staff need more information to make recommendations to the board. · Whau board suggested that extension of two weeks be provided to the groups for providing more information. · Staff to come back to a workshop after assessing the information provided within two week extension.
3.0	Whau Arts Broker	Tracey Williams Xanthe Jujnovich Richard McWha	5.20pm – 6.00pm
Members received a presentation on activities, congratulated staff on success of various programmes for this year and requested that staff bring back proposed work programme for 15/16.

Item	Topic	Presenter(s)	Time
1.0	Initiation of a Healthy Rentals housing quality improvement initiative	Kim Conway Mary Thompson Bill Smith	10.05am – 11.05am
The board was updated on the Healthy Rentals housing quality improvement initiative and how it will be implemented in the Whau, the new insulation requirements proposed in an amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act and the survey in progress regarding home heating and insulation. These new legislative changes are due to be introduced to Parliament later in 2015 (with landlord compliance required by July 2019). It was noted that means of enforcing this initiative will be by complaint from tenants. At present Council provides healthy house assessment services (provided by council’s Eco Design Advisors) for all Auckland ratepayers when requested.
2.0	Local board capex fund	David Rose Glenn Boyd Mark Allen	11.05am – 12.00pm
Local board members received an update on allocation of Local board capex fund. The associated criteria for the fund and how it will be allocated between 21 local boards were also discussed. The board had support for allocation models D and E. Whilst members had mixed views the majority agreed with option E for the allocation formula model. Members agreed that the funding policy should be amended to remove the option to fund consequential opex and but retain the option to bring regionally funded projects forward using their capex fund allocation.

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau