Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
1	Governance	· Board Leadership · Board-to-Council Relationships · Board-to-Board Relationships · Civic Duties · Advocacy (local, regional, and central government) · Relationships with Maoridom · Relationships with government departments and agencies · Relationship with Property CCO · Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development · Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements) · Unitary Plan · Local area plan	Brian Neeson Lisa Whyte
2	Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management .	· Resource consents · Heritage · Liquor · Gambling · Swimming pools fencing · Trees · Bylaws · Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group · Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery	Callum Blair John McLean Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)
3	Events / Arts and Culture	· Community celebration · Community identity · Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal · Event compliance · Relationship with ATEED · Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs · Tourism · Artistic and cultural service levels · Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour · Development of public art strategy and policy	Margaret Miles
4	Community and social well-being / Local Facilities	· Community development · Neighbourhood relationships · Funding for neighbourhood projects · Community safety (excl. town centres) · Graffiti removal · Community advocacy · Relationships with Youth · Leisure centres · Community houses · Halls · Community hubs · Arts facilities · Community Partnerships · Asset Management	Callum Blair Margaret Miles

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
5	Libraries	· Stewardship of libraries · Mobile library	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Lisa Whyte
6	Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)	· Stewardship of sports parks · Stewardship of recreation facilities · Relationship with sports clubs · Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline) · Design and maintenance · Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways · Skateparks · Track Network development	Margaret Miles Lisa Whyte
7	Town Centres	· Town centre renewal · Design and maintenance · Community safety within town centres · Business Improvement Districts liaison · Urban design · Built Heritage	Margaret Miles Brian Neeson
8	Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development	· Local transport projects and public transport (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways) · Liaison on regional Transport matters · Second harbour crossing · Bridge walk cycleway · Inner City Rail Link · Waterfront development · CBD master plan	John McLean Margaret Miles
9	Natural Environment .	· Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways · Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management · Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation · Relationships with Watercare · Waste minimisation strategy · Bio security	John McLean Callum Blair Lisa Whyte (waste minimisation only)
10	Economic Development / Financial oversight	· Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team · Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development · Budgets · Project expenditure · Monitor GB strategy and Finance · Service Levels · Local funding policy	Lisa Whyte Margaret Miles

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 22 September 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Tennis Northern Presentation

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is for the board to receive a deputation from Mr David Frank of Tennis Northern.

Executive Summary

2. David Frank, CEO of Tennis Northern will be in attendance to provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with a deputation which will entail an update on Tennis Northern’s activities.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the presentation from David Frank, CEO of Tennis Northern, and thank him for his attendance at the meeting.

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 three 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

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

13 October 2015

Auckland Transport Report - October 2015 - Upper Harbour Local Board

File No.: CP2015/20622

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Upper Harbour Local Board with an update on all Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects the board has requested, approved or completed in this electoral term, to provide them with the information to assist them in allocating any available funds to projects.

Executive summary

2. This report covers the background of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and how it relates to the Upper Harbour Local Board. It also covers all projects the board has requested assessments on and the outcome of each.

3. In particular, this report provides the following:

· background regarding Local Board Transport Capital Fund;

· status of projects (rejected, approved, constructed, completed improvements); and

· current projects and the rough order of costs for each.

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport Local Board Transit Capital Fund Report – October 2015

b) approves the following projects to proceed to construction:

i) allocation of $15,000 towards, “The Knoll” Entranceway for construction; and

ii) allocation of up to $250,000 towards the Gills Road Pedestrian Bridge construction.

Comments

Background

4. On 2 August 2012, the Strategy and Finance Committee resolved that $10 million per annum of Auckland Council’s funds be given to Auckland Transport (AT) to administer as a Transport Capital Fund, which would be allocated to local boards on the basis of the population of their respective board areas.

5. The exception was Great Barrier and Waiheke local boards, whose allocation was determined to be one percent and two percent of the annual fund respectively. Allocation to these boards on a pure population basis would have resulted in a negligible level of funding available.

6. The committee deemed the funds can be used for any local transport capital works project as long as it is technically deliverable, meets transport safety criteria, does not compromise the transport network and is not part of an asset renewal program.

7. Local boards are able to bundle capital works projects by carrying budget over to later years, or by bringing budget forward from future years provided:

a) it can be managed by Auckland Transport within its annual budget; and

b) it is within the same electoral term.

8. Upper Harbour Local Board’s allocation of the Local Board Capital Transport Fund is $337,066 per annum.

9. Since the start of the current term, the Upper Harbour Local Board has requested assessments on the following projects:

· Tauhinu Road Upgrade

· Knoll Road Entrance

· Kyle Road Footpath

· 894 to 896 East Coast Road Footpath

· Bernard Magnus Lane Improvements

· Gills Road Footpaths (four parts – see explanation below)

· Lonely Track Road Footpath – Fairview to East Coast Road

· Huntington Park Drive – Kyle/Pitoitoi Pedestrian Safety.

10. The table below provides an update and associated rough order of costs (ROC) for each project:

ID#	Project description	Progress/current status
	Tauhinu Road Upgrade Greenhithe · Upgrade of road · New footpaths on both sides · Intersection upgrades	Funding · Board approved $1,050,132 Progress/status · 98% completed · East gateway entrance in construction
	The Knoll Intersection/Entranceway Greenhithe · Entranceway treatment with impressed red brick look, as with the other intersection that were included in the Tauhinu Road upgrade	Funding · ROC $15,064 Progress/status · Awaiting board decision
	Kyle Road Footpath · Footpath from Schnapper Rock Road to Albertine Place (north of Albertine Place) · Albertine Place (south of) to Wicklam Lane	Funding · ROC $554,000 Progress/status · Not recommended by Auckland Transport · Rejected by the board (April 2015)
	894 to 896 East Coast Road Footpath · Section of footpath between 984 and 896 East Coast Road	Funding · Board approved $35,000 Progress/status · Completed
	Bernard Magnus Lane, Upgrade of Bernard Magnus Lane to provide safe carriageway, a footpath and utilities · New storm water system · New kerb and channel · New footpath · New surfacing full width · New street lighting	Funding · ROC $907,000 (Not included are water mains and power poles as AT will not pay for these) Progress/status · Awaiting board decision · Not recommended by AT at this time
	Gills Road, investigate footpaths for the entire length of Gills Road and particularly the cost of adding a footpath to the one-way bridge or a separate pedestrian bridge	This project has been split into four parts: 1) Pedestrian Bridge along side current road bridge at Albany Village end · AT has engaged a consultant to carry out design work and costing, ROC expected to be approximately $190,000 to $250,000 · Actual ROC expected October 2015 2) Dairy Flat Highway to Living Stream Drive · AT has engaged a consultant to carry out a design and will have more accurate costing in September · ROC to be confirmed September/ October, if below $300,000, AT will apply for consideration for funding from internal budgets 3) Living Stream to No 219 (already has footpath) · No ROC required 4) No 219 to Lonely Track Road · New kerb and channel · Retaining wall for most of length · New concrete footpath · ROC $271,000 Progress/status 1) Board to approve up to $250,000 for construction 2) Awaiting ROC (October) 3) Not required 4) Rejected by board
	Lonely Track Road Footpath · Investigate footpath specifically from Fairview Avenue towards East Coast Road approximately 716 to 992 meters	Funding · Fairview to No 29 Lonely Track ROC $535,000 · Fairview to East Coast Road ROC $864,000 To be noted: · No allowance for service relocation · Allowed for kerbing only where necessary · No allowance for road widening so dispensations/approvals on road widths would be required Progress/status · Not recommended by AT · Rejected by the board
	Huntington Park Drive, Footpath at the corner of Pitoitoi and Kyle Roads towards the dead end that provides pedestrian access to the school	Funding · ROC $25,000 Progress/status · Awaiting board decision

ID#

Project description

Progress/current status

Tauhinu Road Upgrade

Greenhithe

· Upgrade of road

· New footpaths on both sides

· Intersection upgrades

Funding

· Board approved $1,050,132

Progress/status

· 98% completed

· East gateway entrance in construction

The Knoll Intersection/Entranceway

Greenhithe

· Entranceway treatment with impressed red brick look, as with the other intersection that were included in the Tauhinu Road upgrade

Funding

· ROC $15,064

Progress/status

· Awaiting board decision

Kyle Road Footpath

· Footpath from Schnapper Rock Road to Albertine Place (north of Albertine Place)

· Albertine Place (south of) to Wicklam Lane

Funding

· ROC $554,000

Progress/status

· Not recommended by Auckland Transport

· Rejected by the board (April 2015)

894 to 896 East Coast Road Footpath

· Section of footpath between 984 and 896 East Coast Road

Funding

· Board approved $35,000

Progress/status

· Completed

Bernard Magnus Lane, Upgrade of Bernard Magnus Lane to provide safe carriageway, a footpath and utilities

· New storm water system

· New kerb and channel

· New footpath

· New surfacing full width

· New street lighting

Funding

· ROC $907,000

(Not included are water mains and power poles as AT will not pay for these)

Progress/status

· Awaiting board decision

· Not recommended by AT at this time

Gills Road, investigate footpaths for the entire length of Gills Road and particularly the cost of adding a footpath to the one-way bridge or a separate pedestrian bridge

This project has been split into four parts:

1) Pedestrian Bridge along side current road bridge at Albany Village end

· AT has engaged a consultant to carry out design work and costing, ROC expected to be approximately $190,000 to $250,000

· Actual ROC expected October 2015

2) Dairy Flat Highway to Living Stream Drive

· AT has engaged a consultant to carry out a design and will have more accurate costing in September

· ROC to be confirmed September/ October, if below $300,000, AT will apply for consideration for funding from internal budgets

3) Living Stream to No 219 (already has footpath)

· No ROC required

4) No 219 to Lonely Track Road

· New kerb and channel

· Retaining wall for most of length

· New concrete footpath

· ROC $271,000

Progress/status

1) Board to approve up to $250,000 for construction

2) Awaiting ROC (October)

3) Not required

4) Rejected by board

Lonely Track Road Footpath

· Investigate footpath specifically from Fairview Avenue towards East Coast Road approximately 716 to 992 meters

Funding

· Fairview to No 29 Lonely Track ROC $535,000

· Fairview to East Coast Road ROC $864,000

To be noted:

· No allowance for service relocation

· Allowed for kerbing only where necessary

· No allowance for road widening so dispensations/approvals on road widths would be required

Progress/status

· Not recommended by AT

· Rejected by the board

Huntington Park Drive, Footpath at the corner of Pitoitoi and Kyle Roads towards the dead end that provides pedestrian access to the school

Funding

· ROC $25,000

Progress/status

· Awaiting board decision

Funds available

11. As at September 2015, under the LBTCF allocation, the Upper Harbour Local Board has $333,264 available to them from the 2015/2016 year. The Board is also permitted to bring forward the allocation of $337,066 from the 2016/2017 year budget, giving the board a total of $670,230 available for allocation to projects.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Maori impact statement

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

General

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

Implementation

23. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Ivan Trethowen – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

13 October 2015

Governance and Management Options for Albany Community Hub

File No.: CP2015/20759

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board for a governance and management structure for the Albany Community Hub.

Executive Summary

2. The establishment of the Albany Community Hub (the Hub), a local, multi-functional community facility, is a priority listed in the 2014 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan.

3. In September 2013, the Upper Harbour Local Board endorsed the Hub concept design and requested a report outlining various governance and management model options. Detailed design is now underway.

4. A resolution is now required from the board on the most appropriate governance and management model for this facility, so that preliminary work can be undertaken which is in line with the build.

5. Staff propose a governance and management model that consists of two stages. In the initial stage, the Hub would be managed and governed by council. This arrangement would be reviewed to assess its ongoing suitability after 12 months, and would have a fixed term of 18 months. In the second stage, a community trust or incorporated society would manage and govern the Hub. This would be the permanent, long-term model.

6. An expression of interest process would be undertaken during the first stage to select the most suitable community trust/society to takeover governance and management in the second stage. At the point of transition, the governance and management would then be handed over to the selected community trust/society.

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree that the Albany Community Hub is managed by Auckland Council and governed by Upper Harbour Local Board for an initial establishment period of 18 months,

b) requests a report to review the first 12 months of the establishment period against establishment criteria and to assess when to transition into the permanent model,

c) agree that following the establishment period, the Hub’s permanent governance and management model will transition to a community trust (or incorporated society) managed and governed model,

d) approve total operational expenditure of $118,000 in Year 1, $94,000 in Year 2, and $60,000 in Year 3 onwards, to be derived from;

· $50,000 annually from consequential OPEX budget, and

· $68,000 in Year 1, $44,000 in Year 2, and $10,000 in Year 3 onwards from the Board’s Locally Driven Initiatives budget,

e) requests the development of an expression of interest process with establishment criteria to select a community trust (or incorporated society) for long-term governance and management of the Hub,

f) note that staff will invite Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei Whai Maia to be engaged in the governance and management expression of interest process.

Comments

7. The Upper Harbour Local Board endorsed the concept design for the Albany Community Hub in in September 2013.

8. A capital budget of $1.176 million is available for the Hub in the Long-term Plan (LTP) over the financial years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 and detailed design is now underway.

9. A workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board in December 2013 to discuss the governance and management model options for the facility. Staff have incorporated local board feedback in the review of three possible governance and management models for the Hub.

Model options

10. All the models involve paid staff being based at the facility. One of the models is council managed and governed, and the other two models are community managed and governed (in one case by a funding agreement and in another case by a contract for service).

11. Descriptions and estimated costs for the models are noted below. Further detail of the major advantages and disadvantages of each are provided in Attachment A.

Model	Description	Estimated annual cost
1. Council managed and governed community centre	Council staff are appointed to be based at the facility and are responsible for hiring out space and programming. The local board has governance responsibilities. (e.g. Onehunga Community Centre)	1.5 FTE staff = $93,000 Programming costs = $25,000 Total cost = $118,000
2. Community trust (or incorporated society) managed and governed community centre	A community trust or incorporated society is funded to govern and manage the facility. Trust staff are based at the facility and are responsible for hiring out and programming the hall. The local board retains ultimate oversight through an approved funding agreement with key performance indicators. (e.g. Meadowood House)	Funding agreement = $60,000 Total cost = $60,000
3. Service provider managed community centre	A service provider (e.g. YMCA) are contracted to manage the facility. Service provider staff are based at the facility and are responsible for hiring out space and the programming.	Start-up costs = $60,000 Total cost = $60,000* (*first year or two)

Discussion

12. When selecting most appropriate model for the Hub the following factors need to be taken into account:

a) Cost – The implementation cost to the local board must be considered.

b) Greatest potential for successful establishment – The establishment of a new facility requires a variety of skills, as well as a high level of experience and expertise. The organisation managing the facility must be able to shoulder the financial risk of a start-up facility and navigate a complex set of challenges.

c) Availability of appropriate trusts or service providers – Capability issues are common in community organisations. A community-led model can prove to be successful if the right trust/society is available. However, if the right trust/society is not appointed, the facility can quickly become under-resourced, under-funded, unfocused, and disorganized, which may ultimately create an underutilised and underperforming facility. Further, it can be difficult to disestablish this kind of model if it is not achieving success.

d) Best long-term approach for the Albany community – The selected model must be to have a clear vision, strong planning, good community engagement and full resourcing, to cater for the needs of the current and future Albany community.

e) Potential to align closely with local board priorities – The selected model must realise the board’s vision for a vibrant community hub and provides the local board with an appropriate level of oversight as the Hub develops.

13. An establishment phase is particularly useful for the founding of a new facility. For the establishment of a new community facility, there are several priority responsibilities in the first 18 months:

· develop a vision and strategic plan;

· recruit a skilled operational team;

· develop a business plan, a budget and financial plan;

· establish the Hub's target audience, then create a marketing plan;

· build relationships and partnerships with community organisations and agencies;

· establish appropriate programming;

· generate income;

· coordinate the active and passive activities and programmes in the Hub;

· develop an evaluation framework, measure impact and report; and

· operational building management and facility maintenance.

14. As this is a new facility, a two stage approach to the governance and management model is proposed. The proposed establishment phase would be managed by council and governed by the local board (model 1). The Hub would then transition into the permanent model of a community trust/society governing and managing the facility (model 2).

15. The fixed-term establishment phase will enable council to effectively manage the creation of the Hub, including all of the priorities above. Council has access to internal systems, resources, support and fully developed processes to make this development a success.

16. After 12 months the local board will have the opportunity to review the model against establishment criteria, and assess when the permanent model should be initiated with a fixed deadline of 18 months (unless extended by the local board). This affords the local board optimal flexibility. The two phases provides stability for the start-up period and the ability to transition to the permanent preferred model as soon as practicable.

17. Through this establishment period, council would also begin an expression of interest process to select a community organisation to take over management and governance responsibility permanently. Additionally if required, over the establishment period council staff can build the capacity of the selected community organisation particularly focusing on their governance skills to prepare them for the transition.

18. Then after 18 months, the recommended long-term permanent model is a community trust/society managed and governed Hub (model 2). This was the local board’s preferred long-term model in the previous workshop.

19. There are some disadvantages to this model. The key disadvantages are the challenge to recruit and retain highly capable people in both management and governance roles. However, this can be mitigated through the council’s capacity building activities before stage two begins. The key benefits of this model is having the Hub locally managed and governed with decisions made by those whom are close to the impact, creating pride and ownership over the building and the tailored programmes within.

20. The third model of a service provider to manage the Hub can also provide community outcomes, but is focussed on bringing business acumen to community service provision (e.g. YMCA for pools and recreation). The vision of the Hub has been to build a vibrant ‘heart of the community’, a place for connection and belonging, not to create profit or to provide services. Therefore, a service provider in this case may not be the best fit.

21. Fundamentally, a community managed and governed model aligns with the local board’s vision of a community-led approach for the facility which is more flexible, agile and able to adapt to local needs. The trust/society will manage and govern the Hub but the Upper Harbour Local Board will retain ultimate oversight through an approved funding agreement with key performance indicators. This model will work well with the establishment phase model and has many other advantages that are outlined in Attachment A.

22. By taking a two stage approach to the governance and management model, the new facility will reap the benefits of a stable financial situation, council resources and expertise during establishment of the Hub, as well as all the benefits of long-term community governance and management.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. The Upper Harbour Local Board Plan 2014 states the board’s commitment to create “well-developed neighbourhoods that are connected” by providing “quality community facilities to meet the needs of our growing population in Albany”. This commitment will be realised in the construction of the Albany Community Hub in 2015 and will require a quality governance and management model to enable that vision.

24. A local board workshop was held in December 2013 to discuss this. The board’s views are reflected throughout this report.

Māori impact statement

25. At the time of consultation on the concept design, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei Whai Maia indicated that they would like to be involved in discussions about governance and management of the facility with the local board as the project progresses.

26. Therefore, once a governance and management model has been selected, staff will invite Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei Whai Maia to engage with the local board through the expression of interest process.

Implementation

27. The proposed implementation timeline would be:

Timeframes	Actions
2 months before opening	Council recruits Hub staff
Open to 18 months	Local board governs, council manages the facility and if required builds governance capacity with community trust/society
12 months after opening	Local board reviews first 12 months, EOI process begins for a community trust/society to manage and govern long-term
19 months onwards	Transition to community trust/society governance and management model, if required recruit new staff

28. Costs for the first three years are identified in the table below. The cost of implementing model 1, a council managed and governed model (for a temporary 18 month term), is estimated at $118,000 for the first year for staff and programming. Year two is estimated at $94,000 and will include half a year of council management ($59,000), the EOI process ($5,000) and half the year of community trust/society management ($30,000).

29. Thereafter model 2, the Hub managed and governed by a community trust, will have an annual cost of $60,000.

30. The recommended two phase model will cost:

	Model 1	Model 2	Total annual cost	Consequential OPEX available	Balance required
Year 1 (2017/18)	$118,000 staff and programming	–	$118,000	$50,000	$68,000
Year 2 (2018/19)	$59,000 (6 months) + $5000 EOI process $64,000	$30,000 (6 months)	$94,000	$50,000	$44,000
Year 3 onwards (2019/20)	–	$60,000	$60,000	$50,000	$10,000

31. There is $50,000 of consequential OPEX available for the operation of the Hub from 2017/2018. Assuming operations begin in 2017, there is an outstanding balance of $118,000 in Year 1, $94,000 in Year 2 and $60,000 in Year 3 onwards, that will have to be identified by the Upper Harbour Local Board in the event that the board adopts this model. This cost could be supported through the board’s Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Governance and Management Options	31

Signatories

Authors

Bonnie-May Shantz – Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Graham Bodman – Manager – Community Development, Arts and Culture

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Brian Neeson, JP
Members	Callum Blair
	John McLean
	Margaret Miles, JP
	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

Authors	Jo Jolley – Business Coordinator
Authorisers	Eric Perry – Relationship Manager