Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board area

Kaipātiki Local Board Members

	Kay McIntyre QSM Chairperson Ph 09 484 8383 DDI 09 484 8987 Mobile 021 287 8844 kay.mcintyre@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Finance – lead · Planning, policy and governance – lead · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – alternate		Ann Hartley JP Deputy Chairperson Mob 027 490 6909 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 483 7572 ann.hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Community Development and Facilities – lead · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – alternate · Planning, policy and governance – alternate · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – alternate
	Danielle Grant Local Board Member Mob 021 835 724 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 442 1271 danielle.grant@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Arts, culture and events services – lead · Economic development – lead · Natural environment – alternate		Grant Gillon MPP, PhD Local Board Member Mob 027 476 4679 Office 09 484 8383 grant.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Natural environment – lead · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – lead · Libraries – alternate
	John Gillon Local Board Member Mob 021 286 2288 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 443 1683 john.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Libraries – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – lead · Civil defence and emergency management – alternate		Lindsay Waugh Local Board Member Mob 021 287 1155 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 418 1620 lindsay.waugh@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – lead · Arts, culture and events services – alternate · Transport and infrastructure – alternate
	Lorene Pigg Local Board Member Mob 021 839 375 Office 09 484 8383 lorene.pigg@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Civil defence and emergency management – lead · Finance – alternate · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – alternate		Richard Hills Local Board Member Mob 021 286 4411 Office 09 484 8383 richard.hills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Transport and infrastructure – lead · Community Development and Facilities – alternate · Economic development – alternate

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 12 August 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

11.1 Notice of Motion - Call for public consultation on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA)

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Grant Gillon and John Gillon for inclusion on the agenda for the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting being held on, Wednesday, 9 September 2015:

Background (as per Albert-Eden Local Board):

· The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is being negotiated between the New Zealand Government and 11 other trading partners making up a significant share of world trade.

· In pursuit of improved markets for our export goods the New Zealand Government is a very enthusiastic advocate for the TPPA, but has consistently down-played or ignored potential risks in the long-term to the health and welfare of New Zealanders or the ability of future governments to legislate or regulate in their interests or on their behalf.

· Appart from frequent statements about the supposed trading benefits of the TPPA, the Government has been very reluctant to discuss any of the potential down sides, and has provided no substantive information to facilitate informed debate on them. Official consultation has been primarily with those who stand to benefit, such as leaders of the primary industries and export manufacturers. But there has been no corresponding conversation with the general public or interest groups who perceive potential risks (such as educational, medical, environmental, and legal bodies, trade unions and local government).

· Although frequently mis-described as a free-trade agreement, this proposed treaty has become much broader since the Americans joined in, containing numerous arcane chapters that provide protection for investors against domestic laws and policies (including those of local government) that may in any way limit or affect their ability to make a profit.

· In the absence of a Government-led debate, there has been widespread public discussion centered around partial leaks of draft chapters, or analysis of similar agreements containing investor-state rules, notably the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has covered Canada, Mexico and the U.S.A. since 1994. NAFTA is very much the model for the TPPA.

· Auckland Council passed a resolution on the TPPA in 2012 [attached below]

· For specific instances of how Local Government can be affected by such an International Agreement the experience of Canada and Mexico over the last two decades under the NAFTA is painfully instructive. Take the case of Metalclad Industries versus Mexico. Following complaints about health effects from residents of Guadalcazar City, local officials forced Metalclad to cease operations at its landfill because it contained 20,000 tons of improperly dumped hazardous waste close to the town water supply.

· In 1997, the company sued the Mexican government – only governments can be sued under the Investor State rules – for US$90 million of damages under Chapter 11 of NAFTA. At a closed hearing held in Canada, an arbitration panel awarded them $16.7 million. Even though this amount was later reduced it is outrageous that local government can be monstered like this for carrying out one of their most important roles – ensuring that their citizens have safe drinking water.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the report;

b) notes that:

i. while the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) will hopefully generate economic benefits to New Zealand through increased trading opportunities for exporters, there are also significant potential risks to our sovereignty, environment and way of life;

ii. the TPPA negotiations have been conducted over the last eight years without any public disclosure of the contents, let alone consultation or adequate debate about its principles or provisions;

iii. the only publicly available information about the detail of the proposed treaty has come about through partial leaks and overseas sources;

iv. much of this so-called free-trade ageement consists of provisions to protect the interests of multi-national corporations, including investor-state rules that would allow mult-national companies to sue THE New Zealand government for damages in secret extra-legal tribunals if laws or regulations or policies of either local or central government affected their ability to trade or make a profit within New Zealand;

v. the resolution of Auckland Council on 20th December 2012, and in particular clause xii which calls for TPPA negotiations to be conducted with “real public consultation including regular public releases of the text of the agreement and ratification being conditional on a full social, environmental and economic assessment including public submissions”; and

vi. Central Government has apparently ignored the Auckland Council resolution, and similar resolutions from other councils and numerous other public interest organisations and stubbornly refuses to release any meaningful information about the contents of the treaty.

c) requests Auckland Council to:

i. seek clarification from the Ministry of Trade on how its recommendations are being addressed in current negotiations; and

ii. make available to local boards and Auckland citizens Central Government’s response, and an analysis of the adequacy of undertakings to address Auckland Council’s concerns.

d) request these resolutions and background information be circulated to the Mayor and Governing Body, and all other local boards for their information.

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Local environmental programmes delivered in 2014/2015 and proposed for 2015/2016

File No.: CP2015/15196

Purpose

1. To provide the Kaipatiki Local Board with a report back on the outcomes of environmental and sustainability programmes delivered for the board through funding agreements with Kaipatiki Project and the Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust in 2014/2015.

2. To seek approval from the Kaipatiki Local Board for allocation of $65,000 to programmes to be delivered from their local environment development budget for 2015/2016 by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department (I&ES).

Executive Summary

3. The Kaipatiki Local Board Plan 2014-2017 includes a key aspiration that ‘our communities are environmentally aware and work together to live sustainably.’

4. To give effect to this aspiration, in 2014/2015 the Kaipatiki Local Board provided $35,809 of funding to the Kaipatiki Project for environment and sustainability projects and $7,500 to Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) to run household sustainability workshops.

5. Outcomes of these projects are summarised in this report. Key achievements include:

· 14 household sustainability workshops delivered by KCFT(seven focused on water, four on waste , two on gardening, and one on energy) attended by a total of 94 households;

· 30 sustainability-related community courses or workshops delivered at the Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre attended by a total of 422 people; and

· 1,100 trees planted in the board area through the Kaipataki Project.

6. The Kaipatiki Local Board has committed $65,000 to local environmental development projects in their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget for 2015/2016.

7. Workshops were held with the board on 22 July and 19 August 2015 to discuss potential projects to be delivered through this budget line.

8. Based on feedback from the board at these workshops, three projects are proposed to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services (I&ES) department as part of the board’s environmental work programme for 2015/2016 (see Table One below).

Table One: Summary of proposed 2015/2016 local environmental development projects:

Project description	Cost
Environment and sustainability programmes delivered through Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) – household sustainability workshops and zero waste events.	$14,000
Environmental programmes delivered through Kaipatiki Project – Operational funding for the Kaipatiki Environment Centre at 17 Lauderdale Rd and delivery of an environmental volunteer programme and courses.	$35,000
Northwest Wildlink Assistance Programme - Support pest plant and animal control activities on private property and the creation of buffer areas complementing weed management and volunteer programmes on public land.	$16,000
TOTAL	$65,000

9. It is recommended that the Kaipatiki Local Board approve this environmental work programme and the associated budgets for 2015/2016.

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) note the outcomes of local environment and sustainability programmes delivered by Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust and Kaipatiki Project in 2014/2015.

b) approve allocation of the 2015/2016 local environmental development budget of $65,000 to three projects to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department as listed below:

i. Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust– Environment & Sustainability Programmes - $14,000

ii. Kaipatiki Project – Environmental Programmes - $35,000

iii. Northwest Wildlink Assistance Programme - $16,000.

c) request that any significant changes identified during programme delivery be brought back to the Kaipatiki Local Board for approval.

Comments

10. The Kaipatiki Local Board states in their local board plan for 2014-2017 a commitment to ‘continue to work with the Kaipatiki Project and other groups on waste minimisation, ecology and other sustainability initiatives.’

11. The plan also states that the board ‘will work with communities to make an important contribution to Auckland Council’s waste management and minimisation plan target of zero waste by 2040’.

Outcomes of local environmental projects in 2014/2015

12. To deliver on these aspirations, in 2014/2015 the Kaipatiki Local Board allocated budget for two community organisations to deliver local environmental projects as listed below:

· Kaipatiki Project – Kaipatiki community projects budget - $35,000

· Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) – household sustainability workshops - $7,500.

13. Table Two below provides a summary of the achievements and outcomes of projects delivered by KCFT and Kaipatiki Project in 2014/15. A fuller report on project outcomes is also provided in Attachment A from KCFT and Attachment B from the Kaipatiki Project.

14. Kaipatiki Project exceeded the minimum of 80 sustainability-related courses or programmes they were tasked with delivering under their funding agreement by delivering 30 workshops or courses and 135 volunteer events. Evaluation of activities and programmes indicates high levels of participant satisfaction.

15. KCFT had initially aimed to deliver 20 household sustainability workshops with the $7,500 budget allocated to them. However, the water workshops proved to be the most popular workshop topic. As the practical component of the water workshops was more expensive than for the other topics, fewer workshops (14) were able to be delivered within the project budget. Workshop evaluation indicates high levels of participant satisfaction.

Table Two: Summary of outcomes of local environmental projects in 2014/15

Project Description

Cost

Achievements

KCFT – Environment and sustainability programmes including household sustainability workshops

$7,500

· 14 workshops delivered (seven focused on water, four on waste, two on gardening and one on energy)

· 109 individuals from 94 households attended

· 94% rated workshops as “good” or “excellent”.

Kaipatiki Project – Environmental programmes including operational funding for the Kaipatiki Environment Centre at 17 Lauderdale Rd and delivery of environmental volunteer programme and workshops

$35,000

· Environment centre open to public at least 30 hours each week

· 30 sustainability-related community courses or workshops delivered attended by a total of 422 people

· Volunteers contributed 360 hours towards environmental initiatives in the Kaipatiki Local Board area through 135 volunteer events

· 1,100 trees planted in the Kaipatiki Local Board area.

Proposed environmental work programme for 2015/2016

16. To build on the achievements of projects delivered in 2014/2015, the board allocated $65,000 to local environmental development projects in their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget for 2015/2016 under three budget lines as listed below:

a. Kaipatiki Project – Environmental programmes - $35,000

b. Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) – Environment and sustainability programmes - $ 14,000

c. Environment response fund $16,000.

17. A proposed environmental work programme to deliver on these budget lines, consisting of three projects, has been developed based on the board’s feedback at workshops on 22 July and 29 August.

18. Table Three provides a summary of the proposed 2015/16 environment work programme, with additional information about each project noted in paragraphs 19 to 31 below.

Table Three: Summary of proposed 2015/2016 environment work programme

Project	Summary	Cost
KCFT – Environment & Sustainability Programmes	· Household sustainability workshops · Support for zero waste events.	$7,500 $6,500
Kaipatiki Project – Environmental Programmes	· Operational funding for the Kaipatiki Environment Centre at 17 Lauderdale Rd and delivery of environmental volunteer programme and workshops.	$35,000
Northwest Wildlink Assistance Programme	· Support pest plant and animal control activities on private property and the creation of buffer areas around ecologically significant parks and reserves.	$16,000

19. It is recommended that the board continue to fund environmental programmes being delivered by Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust (KCFT) and Kaipatiki Project Inc. through renewing funding agreements with the respective community organisations with clear requirements for progress and outcomes to be reported regularly to the local board.

KCFT environment and sustainability programmes - $14,000

20. Outcomes of the household sustainability workshops delivered by KCFT in the 2014/2015 financial year have been reported previously to the local board by the trust. A copy of that report is included in Attachment A.

21. This programme aims to educate and empower communities already engaged by KCFT in placemaking and other community initiatives, to adopt more sustainable behaviours in their homes and neighbourhoods in the areas of household water, energy use, waste, and local food production.

22. Given the high levels of satisfaction recorded by programme participants in 2014/2015, it is recommended that the KCFT household sustainability programme is continued and a further 20 workshops delivered using $7,500 of the $14,000 budget.

23. It is recommended that the remaining $6,500 is allocated to supporting community events that the trust delivers to become Zero Waste events.

24. These initiatives would be supported by I&ES working closely in partnership with the Community Development Arts and Culture (CDAC) department who manage the board’s events programme and collective funding agreement with KCFT. For example, the services of council’s eco-design advisor would be used to support the delivery of the energy themed workshops, and I&ES staff would provide training for KCFT event coordinators on how to organise a successful Zero Waste event.

Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre and associated programmes - $35,000

25. It is recommended that the $35,000 funding provided by the Kaipatiki Local Board for the operation of the Kaipatiki Project Environment Centre at 17 Lauderdale Rd, Birkdale is continued.

26. This funding supports the delivery of environment and sustainability courses and volunteer programmes that provide opportunities for participants to gain the skills, knowledge and resources they need to make positive sustainable living decisions and actively engage in environmental stewardship activities.

27. In addition, these initiatives achieve social outcomes including supporting youth and family wellbeing, upskilling people for employment opportunities, providing opportunities for networking and community capacity building across a diversity of ages and cultures. The board’s funding enables core staff to be employed by the organisation to operate the centre, which enables further funding to be gained from other agencies to deliver additional environmental programmes in the Kaipatiki Local Board area and beyond. A final report from Kaipatiki Project on their achievements for 2014/2015 is included as Attachment B to this report.

Northwest Wildlink Assistance Programme - $16,000

28. For the 2015/2016 financial year, the board developed a new environment response fund budget line of $16,000.

29. It is proposed that this funding be used to support pest plant and animal control activities on private property and the creation of buffer areas around ecologically significant parks and reserves, which have been previously identified and prioritised for their potential for achieving the greatest biodiversity gains.

30. Specific reserve buffer areas to target the assistance programme would be selected where there is greatest potential ecological benefit to be gained through a coordinated neighbourhood approach, based on existing and emerging community interest”

31. This would assist the existing Le Roys Bush ‘Beyond the Fence’ initiative to grow and be replicated in other areas and support the pest plant and animal control work undertaken within council parks by reducing the risk of reinfestation of pest plants and animals into the reserves.

32. This programme is referred to as the Northwest Wildlink Assistance Programme to link with similar initiatives in other local board areas and to recognise that this initiative has a broader outcome and contributes to enhancing biodiversity values and ecological corridors across the region.

33. The details of this programme would be developed after discussion with the board’s natural environment portfolio holders and could include the following elements:

· Design and printing of a brochure with locally specific information on biodiversity values and threats and actions that an individual can take in their own back yard.

· Providing pest plant (e.g. weed bags, weed stump gel) and animal control (e.g., bait stations and bait) resources and advice to private landowners adjacent to ecologically significant parks and reserves and provision of contractor support where appropriate. The details of how support would be provided will be confirmed through discussion with the board portfolio holders, but this might depend on factors such as the willingness of the landowner to engage with the project and the proximity of their property to particular reserves.

· Facilitation hours to help initiate and support neighbourhood restoration groups.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34. The board included reference in its local board plan to aspirations to ‘continue to work with the Kaipatiki Project and other groups on waste minimization, ecology and other sustainability initiatives’ as well as to ‘support the North West Wildlink and any projects in the area that enhance the important green corridor.’

35. This report has been informed by feedback from the local board at workshops on 22 July and 29 August 2015.

Māori impact statement

36. No consultation with Maori was undertaken for the purposes of this report.

Implementation

37. There are no further implementation issues arising from this report. Regular reporting on project delivery will be through the quarterly report from the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department, or as required

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust report on the household sustainability project for 2014-2015	3
b View	Final report from Kaipatiki Project on achievements for 2014-2015	3

Signatories

Authors

Liz Ross – Environmental Programmes Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Marlborough Park Hall Repurposing and Refurbishing Feasibility

File No.: CP2015/17735

Purpose

1. To approve the repurposing of Marlborough Park Hall as a youth-focused facility and to approve the concept design for refurbishment.

Executive Summary

2. In 2013 and 2014 council research identified a gap in youth provision in Kaipātiki. As a result the Kaipātiki Local Board requested a feasibility investigation and concept design for the repurposing and refurbishing of Marlborough Park Hall as a youth facility. A political working party was established to make recommendations and provide feedback associated with the development of the concept design.

3. Staff engaged the general public and key stakeholders including youth about repurposing and refurbishing. Overall there is general support for the proposed project and community interest in contributing to a youth-focused facility. A concept design has been developed that aligns with the board’s endorsed priority outcomes and incorporates all feedback.

4. Marlborough Park Hall is on Marlborough Park which has its own reserve management plan. This plan allows for the board to re-purpose Marlborough Park Hall as a youth-focused facility provided that there is still some capacity for the community to hire or use the facility for other community purposes.

5. This refurbishment will cost approximately $800,000 which is inclusive of all design features selected by the political working party. It is proposed that this is sourced from the following:

· $640,000 from the board’s 2015/16 and 2016/17 CAPEX budgets; and

· $160,000 from the board’s renewal budget 2016/17.

6. The facility will require additional operational funding. Depending on the governance and management model selected there may be an additional $50-$175,000 per annum OPEX requirement from the Kaipātiki Local Board. If the board chooses to repurpose the hall then a report will be delivered later in the year outlining options for the most appropriate model.

7. There are two key options for consideration: continue with the status quo (no change to the hall and no further feasibility investigation for a youth space), or refurbish and repurpose the hall as a youth-focused facility.

8. It is recommended that the Kaipātiki Local Board endorse the concept design for a youth-focused Marlborough Park Hall, allocate the required budget and direct staff to begin detailed design.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the refurbishment and repurposing of Marlborough Park Hall to a youth-focused community facility with some capacity for the community to hire or use the facility for other community purposes.

b) approve the concept design for the refurbishment of Marlborough Park Hall as in the plans drawn by Strachan Group Architects Limited, issue date 10/8/15, titled Kaipātiki Youth Facility, Proposed Concept.

c) approve the commencement of detailed design of a youth-focused facility at Marlborough Park based on the concept plans in b) above.

d) approve the CAPEX expenditure for the refurbishment of Marlborough Park Hall of

· $320,000 in 2015-16 from the Kaipātiki Local Board budget; and

· $320,000 in 2016-17 from the Kaipātiki Local Board budget; and

· $160,000 from Kaipātiki Local Board renewals budget 2016/17.

e) approve in principle, an ongoing operational budget, ranging from $50,000 to $175,000 per annum, dependent on the governance and management model selected, to be allocated from the board’s Locally Driven Initiatives fund.

f) note that if the Kaipātiki Local Board approves repurposing of Marlborough Park Hall, a report on governance and management model options will be delivered later in the year.

g) note the Kaipātiki Local Board will source fit-out and fixtures at a later date and will make supplementary funding available if required.

Comments

9. Over the last ten years there has been ongoing discussion in the community sector, at council and amongst youth on the North Shore about provision for young people. Community support for dedicated youth provision on the North Shore has been consistently high.

10. In 2013 and 2014 Auckland Council undertook research exploring the needs of youth in the North Shore metro area which identified a gap in the provision of dedicated indoor youth spaces. The demographic trends in Kaipātiki suggest that the youth population will remain steady or will increase over the next 5-10 years, requiring further investment in youth.

11. As part of the 2014 research, a location analysis was undertaken where potential youth facility sites were investigated. Marlborough Park Hall was identified as the preferred site primarily due to its central location and the strength of the existing social and physical infrastructure in place.

12. The research also assessed the highest priority youth outcomes to target. Kaipatiki youth and community stakeholders stated their priority outcomes which fell into three main categories: health and wellbeing (mental, physical and emotional), employment readiness, and connection. These can be addressed in a facility that has a range of targeted services and programmes such as: counselling, health clinics, whanau support, young parent support, budgeting, employment training, employment readiness, peer support, mentoring, social sports, arts and music programmes.

13. Based on this research in December 2014 the Kaipātiki Local Board endorsed further feasibility investigations into repurposing of the hall including concept design, established a political working party to make recommendations and provide feedback associated with the development of the concept design, and endorsed the following priority outcomes for a youth facility: health and wellbeing (mental, physical and emotional), employment readiness, and connection. Any youth facility will have to deliver on these outcomes.

14. At the board’s request, from January to August 2015 council staff undertook a financial and physical feasibility investigation into the refurbishment of the hall as a youth facility for the Kaipātiki area.

Feasibility and Engagement

15. The Marlborough Park Reserve Management Plan provides that the board may choose to re-purpose the Marlborough Park Hall as a youth-focused facility provided that there is still some capacity for the community to hire or use the facility for other community purposes. If the board were to choose to re-purpose the hall as an exclusive youth facility, the management plan would need to be amended.

16. Council staff used a range of methods to engage with the general public and key stakeholders including iwi, current hall hirers, key community stakeholders, youth and the political working party regarding the potential repurposing and refurbishment of the hall as a youth facility. This engagement focused on three main areas:

· testing support/lack of support for the repurposing of the hall as a youth facility;

· developing the vision and concept design for a youth-focused facility; and

· assessing the possible interest and capacity of key stakeholders in managing or contributing to a potential youth-focused facility.

17. Methods included information sharing (via letter, face to face or over the phone), Long-term Plan consultation sessions, workshops, meetings and a targeted survey. Attachment A contains a complete overview of the engagement process and findings. There were 14 engagement activities held and over 350 pieces of written feedback received.

18. During the Long-term Plan consultation period a special engagement session was held at the hall specifically to gather views on this proposal. Seventy invitations to this special session were delivered to current hall hirers, local residents bordering Marlborough Park, and community organisations bordering the Hall.

19. A majority of respondents to the Long-term Plan consultation supported the project (56 per cent in support, 35 per cent do not support, 7 per cent other). The written comments revealed some difference of opinion regarding support for repurposing as the board’s top priority. Several current hall hirers were particularly opposed to repurposing the hall.

20. Among the majority there were many views supporting the central location chosen, the complementary near-by facilities, the alignment with current programmes and services, and the need for investment in a youth space.

21. About 20 per cent of people who provided detailed comments wanted to retain some level of shared use of the hall. This highlights the potential community support for an approach to repurposing which provides a youth-focus with opportunities for others to use the facility.

22. In addition to seeking feedback, staff have sought to determine the requirements of the current hall hirers and to provide advice on potential relocation including a list of 60 alternative venue options. A majority of current hall hirers have already taken steps to relocate or have begun to consider their potential place in a newly refurbished hall that could allow for some use by other community groups.

23. The remaining minority of hall hirers will be impacted by repurposing. Relocation may impact their membership and affect their viability. This could be mitigated through staff support to assist them in their search for alternative venues or to negotiate use of the repurposed hall. A full overview of the engagement process with current hall hirers, feedback and results is contained in Attachment B.

24. A survey to gauge potential interest of ten key community stakeholders in managing or contributing to a youth-focused facility showed both a high level of interest and capacity. Findings show that:

· half of the organisations (five) state that they would be potentially interested in managing a youth-focused facility on-site;

· over two-thirds of the organisations (eight) state they would potentially be able to run either programmes, services or events at a youth-focused facility; and

· collectively, they identified eighteen different programmes, services and events that align with the board identified priority outcomes that they could currently offer at a facility.

Concept Design

25. Strachan Group Architects (SGA) were contracted to develop draft concept designs for the hall refurbishment. They were provided with the property files, priority youth outcomes, basic facility requirements, estimated budget and instructions to take advantage of current layout and footprint wherever possible while bringing the building up to compliance and accessibility standards.

26. In collaboration with council, they facilitated two community workshops (one for community stakeholders, one for youth) in April and May 2015 to develop the draft concept design. There were also several concept design meetings with council subject matter experts, the political working party, and Kaipātiki Local Youth Board representatives. Based on feedback SGA made refinements to the concept design options.

27. A subgroup was then convened with representatives from both workshops to review and endorse the refined plans as being representative of their workshop’s views. The subgroup unanimously endorsed all the design changes. The political working party reviewed the two concept design options and selected one concept design to go for quantity surveying and further refinement. After quantity surveying, the political working party reviewed the final concept design and chose some additional design elements to supplement the basic demolition/refurbishment. A full discussion of the design process is in Attachment C.

28. The proposed concept design aligns with the desired priority outcomes and the original brief incorporating all feedback (see Attachment C for further information). The proposed concept design with corresponding demolition plans are in Attachment D.

Options

29. At this stage there are two available options:

· continue with the status quo (no change to Marlborough Park Hall and no further feasibility investigation for a youth space); or

· refurbish and repurpose the hall as a youth-focused facility with some capacity for other community use.

A third option of an exclusive youth facility with no capacity for other community use was considered and dismissed for two main reasons:

· it would require amending the Marlborough Park Reserve Management Plan which is a potentially expensive and lengthy process extending the build time and cost; and

· more current hall hirers would be impacted as almost all would be required to relocate.

30. There are a number of advantages to refurbishing and repurposing the hall and there are significant risks to maintaining the status quo. A full assessment of advantages, disadvantages and risks for the identified options is in Attachment E.

31. The main advantage to refurbishing and repurposing is that Kaipātiki young people will have increased access to a welcoming, centrally located, youth-focused space with relevant services and programmes. Other advantages are that:

· a well-researched, long identified youth need will be met;

· a key outcome of the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2014 will be addressed; Community facilities, assets and services that are high quality, well managed and meet our communities’ needs;

· realisation of the robust feasibility and concept design that has been developed with community and youth input;

· proactive capital investment in a key community asset in Kaipātiki;

· youth investment at the hall will provide opportunities for innovative youth activity throughout Kaipātiki;

· concept design has design specific features for today's vision but is highly flexible for the future;

· budget is currently available for this project;

· local residents are more likely to use refurbished modern spaces leading to greater local vibrancy in Marlborough; and

· greater health and wellbeing of youth in the Kaipātiki area.

32. Some of the main risks of continuing with the status quo are:

· the hall will remain unfit for purpose without refurbishment, thus it is likely usage will continue to decline and there will be more complaints from users;

· no improvement for Kaipātiki youth, particularly the high risk ‘invisible youth’ of the North Shore;

· lack of opportunities for youth to engage with services, agencies and programmes;

· board aspirations for youth remain unmet with the potential to damage relationships with residents and stakeholders; and

· youth service providers and community organisations may focus their limited resource in other directions.

33. There are some risks to undertaking refurbishment and repurposing, which are fully described in Attachment E. However, due to the comprehensive engagement and feasibility process these risks should be relatively low. Many risks can be mitigated through clear messaging around the scope and purpose of the facility and building good relationships between the management and local residents.

34. Overall, there has been a robust needs assessment, feasibility and concept design process, the budget is available and sufficient for the vision and there is community support for this project. Refurbishing and repurposing will create great benefits for Kaipātiki youth’s health and wellbeing.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. Repurposing Marlborough Park Hall as a youth-focused community facility strategically aligns with the board’s aspiration to ‘develop a community-led youth facility’ and contribute to the Auckland Plan transformational shift to ‘dramatically accelerate the prospects of Auckland’s children and young people’.

Māori impact statement

36. In 2013, thirteen per cent of young people in Kaipātiki identified as Māori. The level of impact on Māori youth will depend on a range of factors, including the nature and quality of programming. With an intention that the facility will focus on all youth within its catchment area there will be benefits to Kaipātiki Māori youth.

37. Seven iwi with an interest in the Kaipātiki Local Board area were contacted and invited to participate in the feasibility and concept design process: Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua o Orākei, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga and Ngāti Paoa. Iwi either stated that they were interested but did not require consultation or they did not respond. One iwi noted that they might like to be involved in a later stage to provide specific cultural advice regarding artwork or design features. This opportunity can be considered in the detailed design stage.

Implementation

38. If the board decides to repurpose the hall, then the total cost of refurbishment is estimated at $800,000.

39. The table below outlines all the basic demolition and refurbishment costs (including political working party selected elements) and the available budget. A further breakdown of costs can be found in Attachment D and the specific design items in Attachment F.

CAPEX cost	Amount
Basic demolition and refurbishment build (incl. selected elements)	$617,636
Consent and professional fees	$ 84,492
Contingency (10%) (inclusive of 5% Central Risk Fund requirement)	$ 70,213
Required Council project management	$ 27,033
Total basic build cost	$799,374

Budget available
Kaipātiki Local Board 2015/16/17 CAPEX budget	$640,000
Kaipātiki Local Board 2016/17 renewals budget	$160,000
Total budget	$800,000

40. The $640,000 in the Kaipātiki Local Board budget 2015/16/17 has already been earmarked for this project. To achieve the preferred design selected by the political working party, the board needs to allocate $160,000 from board’s 2016/17 renewals budget towards this project.

41. This cost estimate does not include fit-out and fixtures costs. The political working party proposed to source these at a later date from external funders (e.g. tables including built-in benches, furniture, audio-visual and landscaping).

42. There is a risk that the board will not be able to source all the external funding required for fit-out and fixtures. However, there are some methods to mitigate this including: re-using existing fixtures, using discretionary local board budget, or tailoring any funding agreement or contract with a community provider to include externally sourcing fixtures.

43. Repurposing the hall will also require the board to make a decision on the operational model of the facility. If the local board wishes to grant a lease or license to a community provider to run a youth-focused facility with capacity for other uses, then the council must consult the public on that proposed lease or licence. If a lease or licence is granted, then the Marlborough Park reserve management plan must be updated at the time of next review.

44. There are three main governance and management models; council managed and governed, and community managed and governed by a trust or incorporated society (in one case by a funding agreement and in the other case by a contract for service). In all three models staff would be based at the facility and would be responsible for overall management and programming. The local board has governance responsibilities, either directly if council managed or indirectly through the funding agreement or contract.

45. Depending on the selected governance and management model there will also be a potential operational budget requirement from the local board of $50,000 - $175,000 per annum from 2016/17.

46. The lower amount of $50,000 is in-line with current funding agreements with community trusts to manage similar sized community facilities (e.g. Sunnynook Community Centre). The funding agreement would include overall objectives and key performance indicators however the community trust is given responsibility for implementation. The higher amount of $175,000 is in-line with current council managed youth facilities (e.g. Roskill Youth Zone) with 1 full time staff and 1 part-time staff ($110k) and programming costs ($65k). In this model, council staff would develop a detailed work programme for board approval.

47. Depending on the model selected, this cost could be supported by the board’s Locally Driven Initiatives fund, shared with a community organisation or absorbed by a contracted service provider. If the board choses to repurpose, then a report will be delivered later in the year to select the most appropriate model.

48. Once the governance and management model is confirmed, staff will work with the board to develop an operational business plan to deliver on the identified priority outcomes. This will help ensure that the boards’ vision for the refurbished facility and its investment is realised.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Engagement Summary and Findings Final (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Current Hall Hirers Final (Under Separate Cover)
c View	Consultation Process and Findings.Final (Under Separate Cover)
d View	Concept Design and Cost Estimate final (Under Separate Cover)
e View	Options table Final (Under Separate Cover)
f View	Financial information Final (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Bonnie-May Shantz - Principal Policy Analyst

Peter Loud - Team Leader Community Facilities

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Naming of new public space on Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead

File No.: CP2015/18612

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board for the naming of a new public space at 35-41 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead.

Executive Summary

2. A new public space at 35-41 Birkenhead Avenue is being created with construction expected to commence late this year. The City Transformation team is leading this project including preparing this report and undertaking consultation on the naming of the new public space.

3. Name suggestions were sought from mana whenua and key stakeholders, the Birkenhead Town Centre Association, Residents Association and Friends of Le Roys Bush. Staff have reviewed the suggestions and are making a recommendation for the board’s consideration based on council’s Interim Naming Guidelines.

4. Feedback from mana whenua is mixed with regard to a dual name and this report covers that discussion and allows the board to consider the matter to make a decision.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve that the new public space located at 35-41 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead be named “Wai Manawa”: OR

b) approve that the new public space located at 35-41 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead be named “Wai Manawa – Le Roys Bush Lookout”.

Comments

5. The new public space, located at 35-41 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead, is part of the larger lot of 6720m². The western portion of this lot is part of the Birkenhead Town Centre commercial area fronting onto Birkenhead Avenue. The majority of the land area has been included into the adjoining Le Roys Bush Reserve.

6. The new public space will create two intimate deck spaces, engaging with the Town Centre and importantly establish a connection with views of the bush and beyond to the Hauraki Gulf and including the Auckland CBD. Enhancing this new public space is a café/restaurant, which will assist to activate the space and provide the opportunity for the Birkenhead community to enjoy and establish its own point of difference.

7. The placeholder or working name of the project has been ‘Le Roys Lookout’. Staff are now looking to confirm a permanent name for the public viewing deck. It should be noted that he naming opportunity is only for the public deck space, which is seen as similar to naming a town square or other defined public space.

8. The naming of new parks falls within the delegated authority of the local board. The Interim Naming Guidelines, state that the local board should only approve the name of a park following consultation with mana whenua, and that names should generally be in accordance with the following criteria in descending order where applicable:

i. Name of person or family gifting the land to the public where it is a condition of the gifting

ii. A name which reflects:

· tangata whenua values;

· a natural feature within the park;

· a historic name for the land;

· a historical feature or association with the park;

· historically or culturally significant individual or event;

· or the name of previous landowner of longstanding; or

· the locality.

iii. Providing the proposed name is not already in use or strongly associated with another existing location or feature, and therefore is likely to cause confusion.

9. In accordance with the guidelines above, suggestions for a name for the park have been sought from mana whenua and key stakeholders, the Birkenhead Town Centre Association, Residents Association and Friends of Le Roys Bush. Feedback has been provided by Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whatua o Ōrākei, Keith Salmon (Friends of Le Roys Bush) and Kae Condon (Birkenhead Town Centre manager).

10. It was considered that these groups are able to represent the wider community interests and it was desirable to approve a new name prior to construction commencing on the new open space and cafe. The consultation with each of these stakeholders was individual as time did not permit a full workshop to be organised.

11. The names suggested are:

· Te Uru Wao;

· Wai Manawa;

· Urutapu or Te Uru Tapu; and

· Le Roys Bush Lookout.

12. At hui with mana whenua, the issue of a dual name was debated and feedback from mana whenua at the time did not support this

13. The suggested names have been assessed using the naming guidelines and the following matters have been identified:

· Te Uru Wao – this is an old name referring to dense bush, so is appropriate but could be considered too general for the location

· Wai Manawa – this is the name for the stream and gully system of Le Roys Bush, so is the closest thing to the general name for Birkenhead. The name Wai Manawa is strongly supported by Te Kawerau a Maki as the general name for this part of Birkenhead (Le Roys Bush).

· Urutapu or Te Uru Tapu – this name is not supported by mana whenua for general public use

· Wai Manawa – Le Roys Bush Lookout (dual name) – feedback from the Friends of Le Roys Bush and Birkenhead Town Centre manager consider this dual name builds on local awareness and signage around Le Roys Bush, as well as recognising the preferred name proposed by mana whenua.

14. Subsequently mixed feedback has been received from mana whenua on a dual name. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki are supportive of a dual name, whilst Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei are not supportive.

15. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have specifically commented that the restoration of mauri to this city is about taking it back to a point in time where mauri was at its highest. They consider that the Maori name (ingoa) of Wai Manawa is most appropriate to achieve that. By adding Le Roys Lookout as a dual name the mana of the kupu Wai Manawa is diluted. For Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, “it is not the views that are most significant, after all, one can see the view, but its identity, a cultural premise and foundation is most appropriate, and should not be treated as some overlay”. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei are comfortable with a story being included that mentions Le Roys Bush. However, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei would strongly oppose anything other than the use of Wai Manawa.

16. This leaves the board with two naming options, being:

· Wai Manawa; or

· Wai Manawa – Le Roys Bush Lookout.

17. The name Wai Manawa is appropriate as it reflects a pre-European historical name for this part of Birkenhead, and in particular celebrates the stream and gully system of Le Roys Bush.

18. Feedback received from the Birkenhead Town Centre manager is that they support the name Wai Manawa. However, there was concern that on its own the name Wai Manawa does not describe the function of the space, or point to the connection from the main street to the bush, or the views from the public deck. Providing a connection and views to the bush is a key objective of the project, and the Town Centre Association would like to see that reflected in the name with a descriptive word indicating what the space is (a public viewing deck/lookout) or what it offers (views of the bush and beyond) to draw people to it.

19. Feedback from the Friends of Le Roys Bush is that they support the preference of the Birkenhead Town Centre Association and support the dual name proposed.

20. There is a strong argument to support the Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei statement that a dual name dilutes the meaning of Wai Manawa. Staff consider that there is no value in further workshopping a name and that the board should consider the feedback received from all parties in making a decision.

21. The naming of this new public space does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. There is support from the Built Environment portfolio holders for the name Wai Manawa, which introduces a historical interpretation for the significant bush area reflecting mana whenua importance of the water source and will enhance public connection with this place.

Māori impact statement

23. Mana whenua were consulted on the name for this new public space and their feedback has been incorporated into the discussion as it is integral to the naming guidelines. As noted there is strong support for Wai Manawa, however there are mixed views on a dual name.

Implementation

24. Implementation of naming this new public space will require integration of the name into the design and also interpretive signage. A Maori artist has been engaged to work alongside the architect and a community representative to develop a suitable response. Installation of a name sign and interpretive signage will be delivered as part of the construction contract and handed over to Parks operations on completion for ongoing maintenance. An official opening ceremony will be held upon completion of the project.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Location Map	3
b View	Aerial illustration of lookout, showing the area to be named	3

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Ward - Team Leader Parks and Open Space Specialists (North/West)

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Kaipatiki Local Board Quick Response Grants: Round One 2015 - 2016

File No.: CP2015/16612

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for round one of the Kaipātiki Local Board Quick Response Grants, 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total community funding budget of $78,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. Nine applications were received for this round, with a total requested of $6,510.17.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) consider the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round:

Table One: Kaipātiki Local Board Round One Quick Response Applications

Organisation Name	Project	Total Requested	Eligible / ineligible
Bayview Community Centre	Towards the purchase of plants for the fence line at the Bayview Community Centre in October 2015.	$500.00	Eligible
Monarch Park Place Making Group	Towards the purchase of pavers, mosaics, grout, posts and paint for the mosaic project in Monarch Park between October 2015 and November 2015	$500.00	Eligible
Northcote Toy Library	Towards the purchase of an EcoPro disc repair machine for the Northcote Toy Library between October 2015 to November 2015	$495.00	Eligible
Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated	Towards the purchase and installation of the a new fire alarm siren for the area outside the play area at the Glenfield Community Centre in October 2015	$500.00	Eligible
Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated	Towards the installation of an internet cable for the Glenfield Community Centre in October 2015	$410.00	Eligible
Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated	Towards the re-spraying of the Glenfield Community Centre car park in October 2015	$500.00	Eligible
Chelsea School	Towards the wood chipper hire, diesel fuel, chainsaws and stump grinder hire for the “Bush Clean Up” project from September 2015 to October 2015	$465.00	Eligible
Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Northland Area	Towards the purchase and installation of new carpet for the Glenfield Plunket Clinic in October 2015.	$500.00	Eligible
Royal Coastguard Boating Education	Towards the purchase of 40 life jackets and a small safety grab bag for the “Safe Boating” programme at the Glenfield Pool and Leisure Centre between October 2015 to July 2017	$2,640.17	Ineligible due to the amount requested being more than $500.00
	Total Requested:	$6,510.17

Comments

4. The implementation of the new Community Grants Policy commenced on 1 July 2015. The policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/2016 and the Kaipātiki Local Board adopted its grants programme on 8 April 2015 (see Attachment A).

5. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities;

· lower priorities for funding;

· exclusions;

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close; and

· any additional accountability requirements.

6. The Kaipātiki Local Board will operate five quick response rounds for this financial year. The first quick response round closed on 7 August 2015.

7. The new community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the new council grant webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, social media, council publications, radio, local newspapers and community networks. Staff have also conducted a series of public workshops in local board areas which have been attended by approximately 1000 people across the Auckland region.

8. For the 2015/2016 financial year, the Kaipātiki Local Board set a total community grants budget of $78,000. It is recommended that the board consider allocating up to $3,870 of this in this grant round.

9. Nine applications were received for this quick response round, requesting a total of $6,510.17.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Kaipātiki Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

11. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

Māori impact statement

12. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes and activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide to decision-making and the allocation of grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori.

Implementation

13. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

14. Following the Kaipātiki Local Board allocating funding for round one quick response, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipatiki Local Grants Programme 2015/2016	3
b View	Kaipatiki Quick Response, Round One, 2015/2016, Application Summaries	3

Signatories

Authors

Kim Hammond - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Auckland Transport Update on Issues Raised in August 2015 for the Kaipatiki Local Board

File No.: CP2015/17465

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on transport related issues raised by local board members during August 2015. It also includes general information about matters of interest to the Kaipātiki Local Board and Attachment A the Schedule of Issues raised in August 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport August 2015 Issues Update to the Kaipatiki Local Board.

Comments

Auckland Transport News

Electric vehicle charging stations go live in Auckland

FIrst electric charging station at Downtown Carpark

2. The first-ever public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in the Auckland CBD have gone live thanks to a partnership between Mighty River Power and Auckland Transport.

3. With the rapid growth in ownership of plug-in electric vehicles, the charging stations will allow motorists to fuel-up free with ‘home-grown’ renewable electricity – a cheaper and cleaner alternative to imported fossil fuel.

4. Auckland has the highest rate of EV ownership, and public charging stations are important for consumers to be confident they can fuel-up when they need to. Internationally this infrastructure has been a key enabler of growth.

5. Another key to ongoing growth is the expanded variety of plug-in car models in New Zealand which will enable the development of a healthy local second-hand market. Many organisations are now bringing EVs into their fleets, recognising the economic and environmental benefits.

6. Working with organisations like Auckland Transport (AT) to install chargers in prominent parking areas is a great way to show the momentum and positive change beginning in New Zealand’s transport fuel mix, making the city’s air cleaner.

7. This is one of the initiatives underway to stimulate the rollout of public charging infrastructure across New Zealand. Most EV charging will take place at home or businesses as New Zealand has a very high rate of off-street parking.

8. Along with being the first in the CBD, the two charging stations in the Downtown Carpark are a first for AT and can be used free-of-charge by anyone who parks in the building.

9. The Downtown Carpark was a natural choice with more than 2,000 vehicles through the building every day. This will make a real contribution to the work towards a cleaner, healthier Auckland.

10. The charging stations are 7 kilowatt (kW) chargers, suitable for any plug-in vehicle to top up or fully charge. They are located on the ground level of the Downtown Carpark near the Customs Street exit.

Regional Land Transport Plan adopted

11. Earlier this year AT (on behalf of the Regional Transport Committee) sought public feedback on the draft Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2025( RLTP).

12. After considering public feedback, Auckland’s Regional Transport Committee (which comprises representatives from AT and the NZ Transport Agency) adopted a revised version of the RLTP on 2 July 2015.

Aucklanders are breaking records on the trains

13. Another record for the Auckland rail network has been achieved as annual rail patronage has exceeded 14 million for the first time. This the highest ever 12 month total. In March 13 million passengers per annum was reached and just five months later another million trips have been taken.

14. Auckland Transport and 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.

15. The last of Auckland’s 57 trains have arrived and will go into service once certified. As more trains are certified the size of some peak services will be increased to six cars to cope with increasing demand.

16. Rail patronage in Auckland grew 21.7% in the year to the end of June, representing 2.5 million more passengers than in June last year. When Britomart Transport Centre opened in 2003, annual patronage was less than three million.

17. The number of trips on all public transport modes in Auckland reached 79 million in the year to June, an increase of 9.5% or on average 19,000 extra boardings per day.

Upgrade to white light for Auckland streets

18. Auckland Transport has begun New Zealand’s most ambitious light emitting diode (LED) replacement programme. It is replacing 44,000 high pressure sodium (golden yellow light) street lights with energy efficient LED luminaires.

19. Auckland Transport owns more than 100,000 street lights, approximately one third of the country’s total lighting stock.

20. 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.

21. Last year, the Auckland Transport Board approved the plan with the rest of the conversion to LEDs to potentially follow in four to five years. This project is expected to see net savings of $32 million over the 20 year design life of the LED luminaires.

22. 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.

23. The accelerated renewal LED conversion programme ensures capital is available to all councils that wish to undertake this work. LED technology is cheaper over time, safer and more efficient.

24. AT has awarded 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.

25. The region is divided into four contract areas: Electrix Ltd won the north and west contracts and Downer ITS won the central and south contracts. Auckland Transport is in the process of awarding a contract to Northpower for Waiheke Island. Northpower are the Vector contractor on the island and have a depot and staff there.

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

27. AT has had a policy since 2012 that all new lights on pedestrian dominated roads will be LED luminaires. Changing old lights to LEDs will reduce the energy consumption by more than 60 per cent.AT 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.

28. 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.

29. AT already has LED luminaires around Eden Park that 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

(Photo: Dr Lester Levy (on the left) with David Dick, Auckland Transport’s Team Leader – Street Lights in Mount Roskill with workers from Electrix)

New tender system for Auckland bus services

32. In a milestone for the city’s transport services, AT will soon be calling for tenders to operate its New Network bus services in south Auckland (including Pukekohe and Waiuku).

33. These will be the first tenders called under the new Public Transport Operating Model (PTOM) system and the first PTOM tenders called to create the long awaited New Network. This will mean major improvements to the way people travel on bus, train and ferry.

34. With the southern tender process leading the way, invitations will be called progressively for bus operators to tender in other sectors. West Auckland will be next later this year.

35. The tenders for Auckland’s southern bus services opened on 17 August 2015 and will close on 28 September 2015. The successful tenderers will be named early in 2016 and should be operating the New Network services by October 2016.

36. The New Network will create a region-wide network of bus, train and ferry services. The key principle is to run a number of high frequency services that are designed to work together through easy connections, using what is called a “hub and spoke connected network”.

37. By having more frequent services operating every 15 minutes, 7am to 7pm, seven days a week, passengers can just turn up and go. They will meet connecting services at transport interchanges - the spokes, the interchanges being the hubs.

38. The services, where appropriate, will feed train services rather than duplicating them.

39. This will maximise the efficiency of the new electric rail fleet and between buses and trains, provide more direct and frequent journeys for south Auckland and the rest of the region.

40. The call for tenders represents a milestone both in providing bus services to Auckland’s travelling public and also in the way they are provided. PTOM is a service contracting framework under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA), ratified by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). It subsidises passenger routes and incentivises service providers to maximise efficient and effective delivery of public transport in a partnering arrangement with AT.

41. Maximising income and minimising subsidies will come from increasing the levels of patronage by improving the experience through convenient, safe, fast, frequent and reliable services in quality vehicles.

42. The system is very similar to those successfully operated in London and several Australian cities.

43. PTOM is welcomed by NZTA. It recently approved AT’s Request for Tender process and documentation that will be used to attract tenderers and select the operators.

44. Under PTOM about half the region’s bus services will be contracted by competitive tender and the balance will be directly negotiated with the current bus operators.

45. These arrangements differ significantly from the current part contracted and part-deregulated system in which bus companies receive fare revenues and subsidies.

Auckland’s electric train roll-out is complete

46. AT has officially marked the arrival of the last of the city’s 57 electric trains with a function at the Wiri Train Depot attended by the Prime Minister.

47. The last three trains from Spanish manufacturer CAF landed on the wharf last week and are now going through final checks at the depot prior to certification.

48. More than 14 million trips are now being made on the Auckland rail network each year. Compared to 2003 trips when Britomart opened less than three million trips were being taken each year.

49. The arrival of these trains marks the culmination of the Government’s $1.6 billion, decade-long investment in three Auckland metro rail projects.

50. Over the next three years, $4.2 billion will be invested to build a robust, future-proofed transport system for Auckland.

51. Auckland now has trains that are of international standard. The quality trains, along with a boost in the number of services means more people are seeing rail as an option.

52. The first electric trains began operating on the Onehunga line in April 2014 and the network from Papakura in the south to Swanson in the west went all-electric just a few weeks ago on 20 July.

53. Each train has seating for 232 passengers and standing room for more. The trains have wider doors making it easier for passengers.

54. The central carriage is at platform level for wheelchairs, prams or bikes and automatic ramps mean a seamless transition between the platform and the train.

55. Open gangways between cars mean passengers can move from one end of the train to the other.

56. Some facts and figures:

· The supplier, CAF used equipment from Japan, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Spain - taking the best from the world to create trains specifically for Auckland.

· It takes more than 15,000 hours to fabricate and assemble one electric train unit, and there is 110km of wiring in each unit. Each train is tested for 1000 hours on the tracks.

· The maximum operating speed is 110km/hr; however, the average operating speed will be less than this.

· To provide improvements to efficiency each train has regenerative braking, allowing braking energy to be fed back into the 25kv supply - a recovery of up to 20% of the energy used.

· Noise reduction: the 25kV power supply means that the trains are very quiet both externally and internally – a very important consideration for people living and working near the rail network.

· There is no air pollution from the trains because they are electric and there are no exhaust fumes.

57. Rail patronage in Auckland grew 21.7% in the year to the end of June, representing 2.5 million more passengers than in June last year.

58. 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 boardings per day.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

59. This report is for the Kaipātiki Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

61. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipatiki Local Board Issues Raised by Members During August 2015	3

Signatories

Authors

Marilyn Nicholls - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 January to 30 June 2015

File No.: CP2015/17441

Purpose

1. To give the Kaipātiki Local Board an overview of Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL) activities for the six months 1 January to 30 June 2015.

Executive Summary

2. In May 2015 the Governing Body voted in favour of merging ACPL with Waterfront Auckland to form Development Auckland (DA). The merger responds to feedback from the wider council organisation and seeks to address some key growth, development, housing provision and funding challenges that Auckland will face over the next 20 years. As a council controlled organisation (CCO) Development Auckland will have a commercial orientation, but will also have explicit public good outcomes to pursue.

3. Substantive elements of the purpose of DA relate to urban redevelopment, strategic advice on council’s property portfolio and the redevelopment of underutilised council assets to achieve commercial and strategic outcomes.

4. In August the Governing Body received recommendations from council staff in respect of the proposed locational priorities for DA.

5. It would be anticipated that DA will specifically engage with local boards post the formal establishment on 1 September to consider what activities DA can undertake to benefit their local communities.

6. As this will be ACPL’s final six-monthly update included are both the full business summary as provided in previous versions, and an outline of some of the strategic and organisational changes that will be made during the transition to Development Auckland.

7. ACPL activity detail is broken down by business unit or work-stream, with a focus on local board specific activities where applicable.

8. Local board specific supporting detail is included in Attachments A, B and C.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly update 1 January to 30 June 2015.

Comments

Development Auckland

9. Auckland Council formally approved the establishment of Development Auckland, being a merger of Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL), in May 2015.

10. The essential purpose of DA is to contribute to the implementation of the Auckland Plan and encourage economic development by facilitating urban redevelopment that optimises and integrates good public transport outcomes, efficient and sustainable infrastructure and quality public services and amenities. DA will manage council’s non-service property portfolio and provide strategic advice on council’s other property portfolios. It will recycle or redevelop sub-optimal or underutilised council assets and aim to achieve an overall balance of commercial and strategic outcomes.

11. A number of objectives fall within the purpose of DA, including facilitating the redevelopment of urban locations and optimising the council’s property portfolio.

12. The process to establish the operating structure of DA is well advanced and a combined work stream between DA and council staff is looking at the future priorities for DA that will provide focus in terms of geographic locations and project priorities. In respect of the locational analysis work recommendations were made to the Governing Body in August.

13. It would be anticipated that DA will specifically engage with local boards post the formal establishment on the 1 September to consider what activities DA can undertake to benefit local communities.

Workshops and Meetings

14. A schedule of Kaipātiki Local Board workshops and meetings attended by ACPL representatives from July to December is included as Attachment A. The list includes property specific meetings and workshops relating to general property management and the ongoing portfolio Rationalisation Process.

Property Portfolio Management

15. ACPL manages property owned by the council and Auckland Transport (AT) that are not currently required for service or infrastructure purposes. These are properties that are not immediately required for service delivery or infrastructure development but are being held for use in a planned future project such as road construction/widening or the expansion of parks. This work will largely remain unaffected by the transition to Development Auckland.

16. The property portfolio continued to grow during the last six months and now totals 1347 properties containing 1080 leases, which is an increase of 41 properties since the July-December 2014 update. The current property portfolio includes industrial sites and buildings, retail tenancies, cafés, restaurants, offices and a substantial portfolio of residential properties.

17. ACPL’s return on the property portfolio for the year ending 30 June 2015 provides the shareholder a net surplus of $ 6.8m ahead of budget, with an actual surplus of $ 29.8 m against budget of $ 23m. The average monthly vacancy rate for the period is 1.6%, which is under the Statement of Intent (SOI) targets of 5%.

18. A Properties Managed schedule is included as Attachment B of this report. The schedule details:

· current ACPL-managed commercial and residential property within the Kaipātiki Local Board area;

· each property’s classification or reason for retention;

· the nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with a tenancy in place; and

· the budget under which operating expenditure and lease revenue for the property is reported e.g. regional or local board.

19. A report indicating portfolio movement in the local board area is attached as Attachment C. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.

Colonial Road Capital Works update

20. Refurbishment work for three cottages, 2/60, 6/60, 8/60 Colonial Road, Birkenhead and 9/60 Colonial Road, Birkenhead, also known as the Manager’s House is underway. The refurbishment’s purpose is reinstatement of the properties to original form while modernising with new kitchens, bathrooms and efficient heating. The properties will then be re-tenanted as residential tenancies.

21. Work underway aligns with the indicative schedule of works included in ACPL’s 12 March 2015 ‘Colonial Road Capital Works’ report to the local board. It is a capital works project funded out of ACPL’s capital works budget.

22. The estimated completion date is the end of September 2015. This will most likely be achieved in terms of the cottages; however the main house will be delayed as it was discovered that the roof needs replacement and some of the floor bearers are rotten and need replacing.

23. The exterior paint work, derived from the original 1909 colour scheme, is across all the properties to ensure a uniform appearance once this phase of the project is complete. The next step is to complete upgrade work to the remaining cottages. Timeframes for this next phase will be addressed once the initial work has been completed.

24. Overall the project is running well and there has already been some interest from the public around renting the cottages.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

25. ACPL is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. ACPL has a particular focus on achieving housing outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

July 2014 to June 2015 Target

UNIT	TARGET	ACHIEVED	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m disposal recommendations	$69m	These recommendations include $65.9m of sites that are identified for development projects.

26. In setting future disposal targets, ACPL is working closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties.

2014/2015 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m gross value recommended for sale	These targets include disposal recommendations and sales for sites that are identified for place-shaping and housing development projects
Development & Disposals	$30 net value of unconditional sales

Process

27. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with: the council, CCOs, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with the relevant local board and the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally a Governing Body decision.

Under review

28. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the rationalisation process in the Kaipātiki Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been presented to the governing body and either approved for sale or development and sale or designated for retention. Further details are included in Attachment B.

PROPERTY

DETAILS

1A Mulberry Place - Glenfield

This was a legacy NSCC slip stabilisation project that has recently completed. Concern was raised by the Kaipātiki Local Board that there may be ongoing slip concerns on this site. A report evaluating the site has been completed and remediation options are under review.

Redevelopment/Regeneration and Housing Supply initiatives

Overview

29. ACPL in its current form is contributing commercial input into approximately 54 region wide council-driven regeneration and housing supply initiatives. Involvement extends from provision of initial feasibility advice through to implementation, with projects ranging in size from $415k to in excess of $100million.

30. ACPL is also actively contributing to the Housing Action Plan, which is a council initiative focusing on non-regulatory efforts to encourage and increase affordable residential development. ACPL has a SOI target to undertake five housing development projects over three years that will improve housing affordability and the supply of affordable housing encompassing community housing organisation involvement. ACPL is currently actively working on 13 such projects.

31. In ACPL’s expanded role as Development Auckland this work will be extended to play a much stronger role in urban development through greater scale, enhanced capability and the ability to partner with others. Development Auckland will have a key role in helping deliver the council priority of quality urban living and will have the mandate to deal with the challenge of Auckland’s rapid growth through regeneration and investment.

32. Development Auckland’s roles and responsibilities will be customised to each specific project initiative and location. A few will be of a high custodial nature associated with urban regeneration. Some will be at the other end of the scale with a more facilitative role; and some will be much more able to be delivered in the short term.

33. ACPL already works closely with local boards on ACPL-led developments to ensure it gives effect to the local boards’ place-shaping role. As Development Auckland engagement will in some areas be of a much broader scope, with the potential for involvement in master-planning activities for significant land areas.

Optimisation Update

34. Optimisation is a programme of work aimed to achieve better use of council’s planned and funded service assets. The programme targets housing and urban regeneration outcomes along with the delivery of cost-neutral service investment on appropriate sites. ACPL and the Auckland Council Property department are leading a cross-council project to establish the rules and methodology for service optimisation activity. The programme will be carried across to Development Auckland.

35. Local board engagement and workshops will be provided to demonstrate the scope of optimisation and the benefits of driving optimal asset performance from qualifying service property. Timeframes for these workshops have been pushed out due to Development Auckland transition work. However ACPL welcomes suggestions of service sites that may have potential for improved service function along with housing or urban regeneration outcomes

Local Activities

36. A high level update on place-shaping, housing and optimisation initiatives in the Kaipātiki area is outlined in points below.

37. Northcote Town Centre: ACPL and Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) have agreed in principle to adopt a comprehensive and integrated approach to the future development of the Northcote Centre and immediate surrounds. As a consequence both parties are reviewing their objectives with a view to reaching some consensus on the vision and objectives for the area that would enable future development activity to be integrated, where it is logical, without excluding discrete activity to be undertaken independently where appropriate. ACPL held a workshop with HNZC on 19 August to agree the way forward.

38. ACPL is reviewing previous plans such as the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan and Northcote Town Centre Plan and in liaison with the local board, City Transformation and Local Planning will prepare a Development Implementation Plan that will direct and coordinate development activity, including liaison with tenants.

39. Highbury Viewing Platform: This is a North Shore Council (NSCC) legacy project. A retail property was purchased in 2004 with the intention of creating a link from the retail strip to Le Roys Bush. The platform was identified as a priority project in NSCC’s Annual Plan and is now part of the Birkenhead Transformation programme, scheduled for completion mid-2016.

40. City Transformation leads this project. ACPL is providing commercial advice in respect of a proposed food retail element for the project. ACPL completed a rental assessment and viability appraisal in 2014. Further advice was provided on design, property management and operating costs. It was concluded that the best outcome for the site will be to retain it within the service portfolio but develop a commercial food retail element within the site that will be managed by ACPL as a commercial tenancy.

41. Detailed design has been completed incorporating a café, and the construction works are currently being tendered. The onsite works are planned to commence late 2015. On-going meetings are occurring with City Transformation.

Acquisitions

Overview

42. ACPL continues to support council and AT programmes and projects by negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded through approved council or AT budgets. We also provide advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

43. From 1 January 2015 to 31 June 2015, 49 property purchases were completed for the council and AT. All of the property acquisitions met independent valuation thresholds agreed with AT, the council and Public Works Act 1981 requirements.

Council Acquisitions

44. Of the 49 property acquisitions over the past six months, 12 were purchased to meet council legal, open space and storm water requirements and to contribute to City Transformation projects. These included the following acquisitions in or neighbouring the Kaipatiki Local Board area.

PROPERTY	STAKEHOLDER	WORK TYPE	LOCAL BOARD
57 Seaview Avenue, Northcote	Parks, Sports and Recreation	Open Space	Kaipatiki
92 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
90 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
88 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
84-86 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour
106-108 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville	City Transformation	Open Space	Upper Harbour

Auckland Transport Acquisitions

45. The remaining 37 properties were acquired on behalf of AT. The focus was on acquisitions to support major transport projects including AMETI (five acquisitions) City Rail Link Property Acquisition (seven acquisitions), Redoubt Road Mill Road Corridor Upgrade (six acquisitions) road widening across the region (10 acquisitions) and Northern Strategic Growth Area (one acquisition). Full details of relevant AT projects and associated acquisitions will come to board directly from AT.

Business Interests

46. ACPL also optimises the commercial return from assets it manages on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries. There are currently no ACPL managed business interests in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

47. This report is for the Kaipātiki Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

48. Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed robust engagement with the 19 mana whenua groups for our core business activities. We are currently working with Waterfront Auckland on a future strategy for Development Auckland.

49. Key engagement activities currently include: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests, development partnering discussions and issues relating to property management such as protection of wāhi tapu or joint management arising from the resolution of Treaty Settlements. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect of development outcomes for ACPL led projects where appropriate. Development Auckland will work with iwi to consolidate and build on strengths from ACPL and Waterfront Auckland’s approaches along with successful work being done elsewhere in the council family.

50. ACPL additionally undertook to be part of council’s Māori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) pilot programme. The project’s key output is an operational document outlining ACPL’s contribution to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Māori. The MRP was finalised and approved by the ACPL Board in December 2014 and is in the implantation phase. A copy of this is available on the ACPL website. This work will be carried over and reflected in the new organisation.

51. During the transition to Development Auckland, the local board can expect to be advised or involved as appropriate in any discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

Implementation

52. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of meetings and workshops	3
b View	Properties Managed by ACPL in the Local Board area	3
c View	Property movement in the Local Board area	3

Signatories

Authors

Caitlin Borgfeldt - Local Board Liaison

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Portfolio Refresh

File No.: CP2015/18007

Purpose

1. This report provides an opportunity for the Kaipātiki Local Board to consider amendments to the way in which board portfolios are currently operating and how portfolio responsibilities are allocated to elected members.

Executive Summary

2. Portfolios were created by the board at its meeting on 13 November 2013. At that time a set of portfolio guidelines and portfolio descriptions were adopted (refer Attachment A). Individual members were allocated responsibilities as either the portfolio lead or portfolio alternate.

3. In the period since portfolios have been, in the main, operating successfully, but it is timely to review the guidelines within which they operate and the allocation of members to particular portfolios.

4. This report sets out proposed revisions to the current portfolio guidelines, suggests minor alterations to the portfolio descriptions and provides an opportunity for the board to consider whether changes are desirable to the portfolio allocation.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) adopts the portfolio guidelines set out in Attachment B

b) adopts the portfolio descriptions set out in Attachment C

c) considers whether or not to make any changes to the allocation of portfolios to elected members.

Comments

5. As the 13 November 2013 agenda report noted upon establishment of the current portfolios: “Portfolio holding is to be treated as an additional mechanism for local board involvement in local projects and services and regional policy and strategy and should not replace decision making at business meetings”.

6. Portfolios add value in that they provide the opportunity for portfolio holders to gain a deeper understanding of issues than is possible at a formal board meeting. For officers portfolios provide an opportunity to gain an appreciation of the board’s likely thinking on an issue that will help them either take a decision under their delegated authority or shape a report to the board that supports the board’s decision-making.

7. Earlier in the year a number of issues arose including:

· Ambiguity as to what was meant by the term portfolio holder;

· A lack of clarity as to how the portfolio guidelines related to other governance and decision-making documents e.g. the delegations made by the board to the Chief Executive;

· A lack of clarity as to what decision-making had been delegated to a portfolio holder.

8. These issues suggested it was timely to review the current portfolio guidelines to ensure that they are ‘fit for purpose’. A review of the board’s portfolio structure at this time will ensure their operation does not stray into areas that are more properly considered by the full board at a business meeting.

9. The board has recently considered the role of portfolios and other governance matters at three separate workshops. As a result of these workshops officers have prepared revised portfolio guidelines for the board’s consideration (refer Attachment B). These proposed guidelines provide greater clarity for both board members and officers on the role portfolios play in supporting the board’s governance role. The draft revised guidelines:

· outline the contribution that portfolios can make in supporting informed board decision-making and reinforce their lack of a decision-making role;

· explicitly reference delegations the board has already made to the Chief Executive;

· clarify what is meant by the term portfolio holder; and

· provide guidance on the portfolio role in the areas of portfolio responsibilities, practices, agenda setting, officer delegated authority and portfolio support.

10. The portfolio descriptions have also been updated as outlined in Attachment C. In the main these changes are minor amendments to the topics and key projects relevant to individual portfolios and updates to the key departments and contacts.

11. Approximately 18 months have now elapsed since the original portfolio allocation was established. In the period since members interests, circumstances and availability to attend portfolio meetings may have changed. The suggestion of having more than one associate portfolio for particular portfolios has also been made. This report provides an opportunity for the board to consider whether any changes should be made as to how portfolios are allocated.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Local board views are sought via this report.

Māori impact statement

13. There are no specific implications for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation

14. Any changes resolved by the board will be implemented by Local Board Services.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Portfolio Guidelines 2013	109
b View	Draft Portfolio Guidelines 2015	125
c View	Draft Portfolio Descriptions 2015	131

Signatories

Authors	Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

09 September 2015

Local Board Services Monthly Report

File No.: CP2015/17974

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the key activities of the Kaipātiki Local Board. The updates in this report relate to the following areas:

· Town centre transformation;

· Natural environment; and

· Policy and planning.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) delegate the task of developing board feedback on the stormwater priorities for the Hibiscus / East Coast Bays Consolidated Receiving Environment to a board member or members, with the feedback brought to the board for retrospective endorsement at their 14 October 2015 business meeting.

b) consider allocating $1,808 to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department for the cost of producing 16 Enviroschools signs to Kaipātiki schools involved in the programme for the purpose of highlighting their engagement.

c) note the decision of the hearings panel on local dog access rules on Shoal Bay in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

d) endorse the feedback on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act Funding Model Review for the Finance and Performance Committee to consider at its 17 September 2015 meeting.

Comments

2. A number of Kaipātiki Local Board workshops and portfolio briefings were held in August. Records of these meetings are attached to separate reports on this agenda.

3. The following regional and sub-regional briefings/meetings took place in August:

· Unitary Plan Committee meeting - 11 August 2015

· Urban Design Champions quarterly meeting - 13 August 2015

· Local Board Chairs briefing on Greenways - 17 August 2015

· Northern Chairs cluster meeting - 24 August 2015

· Age Friendly Cities Forum - 27 August 2015.

4. The board’s next workshops are scheduled for 16 and 23 September 2015.

Strategic Updates

Town Centre transformation

Birkenhead Town Centre

5. A meeting of the Birkenhead Town Centre Programme Working Party (combined with the built environment portfolio meeting) took place on 6 August 2015. At that meeting the Birkenhead Town Centre Programme Working Party received an update on the transformational projects underway in Birkenhead.

6. The Le Roys Bush lookout project and phase 1 of the Mainstreet improvement are currently out to tender, and construction is expected to commence in September/October 2015. The consultation period on the draft concept plan for phase 2 of the mainstreet improvement (namely Highbury corner) is open for the month of August. A report on the outcome of the consultation is expected in November 2015.

7. The next meeting of the Birkenhead Town Centre Programme Working Party is scheduled for 3 September 2015.

Northcote Town Centre

8. Construction of the new toilet facility in the Northcote Town Centre has been completed. Concerns were raised by board members and members of the community regarding the visual presence of the facility. Concept drawings approved by the board showed the facility to be bright and colourful; however the outcome has not met those expectations.

9. City Transformation are investigating options to better deliver the desired visual presence of the new toilet block, and are expected to bring the preferred option to the 3 September built environment portfolio meeting for discussion. Current options included larger perforations in the metal panels, a glass/perspex overlay to replace the existing panels, or a colour coating treatment of the existing panels. Following the discussion at the portfolio meeting, the design of the preferred option will come to the boards 9 September business meeting seeking endorsement. This information will be tabled at the meeting.

Natural Environment

Hibiscus / East Coast Bays Consolidated Receiving Environment (CRE) – stormwater priorities

10. At its 26 August 2015 workshop, the board received a presentation from the stormwater team seeking feedback into stormwater priorities for the Hibiscus / East Coast consolidated receiving environment (CRE). The board’s prioritisation will inform both the stromwater programmes and Northern Discharge Consent application. For the Kaipātiki Local Board, the area includes the catchment of the Wairau Creek.

11. Kaipātiki Local Board’s previous feedback for the Waitemata CRE is included (refer Attachment A) for information. It is likely that some of this feedback will remain relevant for the Hibiscus / East Coast Bays CRE; however it is important to note the priorities for the Wairau Creek catchment may vary due to its unique characteristics.

12. Feedback is required by 25 September 2015. As this date is prior to the board’s next meeting, it is recommended that the board nominate a Member or Members to develop and submit board feedback on the stormwater priorities for the Hibiscus / East Coast Bays CRE. The feedback would be reported to the board’s October 2015 business meeting for retrospective endorsement.

Enviroschools signage

13. The Enviroschools Programme is a long standing ‘whole-school’ and early childhood centre approach that has been active in the Auckland region since 2002. The programme encourages young people to actively participate to help create a sustainable future for the Auckland region.

14. Auckland Council supports approximately 197 schools and early childhood centres across the region, 16 of which are located in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

15. The Toimata Foundation (formerly the Enviroschools Foundation) has recently developed an inspiring new sign to be placed outside each Enviroschool in response to a growing demand from schools and early childhood centres to have some way of publicly highlighting their engagement in the Enviroschools programme.

16. Unfortunately there is insufficient regional funding available for the new signs, so the board could consider covering the cost. The total would be $1,808, at a cost of $113 per sign, and could come from the board’s environmental response fund line. The funds would be allocated to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department who would arrange a ‘bulk’ order of signs. If the board is not able to support this request, then each Enviroschool will be asked to provide funding for their own sign.

17. The board have historically expected recognition of funding support through inclusion of the Kaipātiki Local Board logo on signage. In this instance, staff have advised that the intension is for the Auckland Council logo to be included instead.

Policy and Planning

Dog Access bylaw review

18. The Kaipātiki Local Board are reviewing proposed changes to local dog access rules to the portion of Shoal Bay located within the Kaipātiki Local Board area. The public consultation period opened on 12 June 2015 and closed on 17 July 2015. 53 written submissions to the proposed dog access changes were received.

19. A panel of four Kaipātiki Local Board Members, Chairperson Kay McIntyre, Deputy Chairperson Ann Hartley, Member John Gillon and Member Lorene Pigg, participated in a hearing which was held on 20 August 2015. The panel heard five submitters, two of which were for information only, as they addressed the portion of Shoal Bay located within the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area. The board hearings panel was delegated authority on decision making for the Dog Access Review and following deliberation, resolved the following (resolution KT/2015/130):

That the Kaipatiki Local Dog Access Review - Shoal Bay Hearing Panel:

b) prohibit dogs on the foreshore and shell banks on Shoal Bay, east of the motorway and north of the Tennyson Street, Northcote pedestrian underpass to protect wildlife, and adopt a time and season rule for Shoal Bay south of the underpass.

c) delegate the Chairperson to approve the decision report titled ‘Hearing panel decision report on local dog access rules within Shoal Bay in the Kaipātiki Local Board area 2015’ to be provided to the Governing Body business meeting on 24 September 2015.

20. The hearing panel decision report will go to the Governing Body’s 24 September 2015 meeting seeking to endorse local board decisions on the dog access rules, including the above decision relating to the Kaipātiki portion of Shoal Bay. The hearing panel decision report will be tabled at the boards 9 September business meeting for information.

Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) funding model review

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

22. At its 12 August 2015 meeting, the board resolved for the Chairperson and Member Grant Gillon to develop feedback on behalf of the board, on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (resolution KT/2015/117). The feedback has been submitted for inclusion in a report on the ARAFA funding model review to be considered at the 17 September 2015 Finance and Performance Committee meeting. The feedback is attached to this report (refer Attachment B) for retrospective endorsement.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Local board views are sought via this report.

Māori impact statement

24. Mana whenua have been engaged in the City Transformation projects referred to in this report. In particular, with regards to the naming of the lookout over Le Roys Bush and development of cultural design elements in the Birkenhead projects.

Implementation

25. There are no implementation issues identified in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Feedback on the Waitemata Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent	149
b View	Draft Feeback on the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act Review	153

Signatories

Authors	Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipatiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Kay McIntyre, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Ann Hartley, JP
Members	Dr Grant Gillon
	John Gillon
	Danielle Grant
	Richard Hills
	Lorene Pigg
	Lindsay Waugh

Authors	Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager