Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

1 Welcome

Chairperson IM Fordham will welcome everyone in attendance. Member JC Cleave will lead a karakia.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 14 October 2015, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Great Barrier 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

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

Great Barrier Local Board

11 November 2015

Great Barrier Local Board Capital and Local Grants: Round One 2015/ 2016

File No.: CP2015/22316

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

2. The Great Barrier Local Board has a capital grants budget of $250,000 and a community grants budget of $110,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year. (See Attachments A and B). At the close of round one, ten capital grant applications totalling $117,739.13 and 16 community grant applications totalling $88,611.02 had been received.

3. As the Board has already approved events totalling $32,750, the total now available in community grants budget is $77,250. Applications to second capital and community grants round will come to the Board in April 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

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

Table One: Great Barrier Local Board Round One Capital Grant Applications

Applicant	Focus	Project Title	Requested
Aotea Community Radio Trust	Capital	Towards costs of an extension and upgrade of Aotea FM studio	$18,034.00
Aotea Family Support Group	Capital	Towards the purchase of a replacement outreach vehicle	$10,000.00
Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust	Capital	Towards the community end upgrade	$17,256.04
Great Barrier Island Community Heritage and Arts Village Trust	Capital	Towards the purchase and installation of a community noticeboard	$2,242.50
Great Barrier Island Golf Club Incorporated	Capital	Towards the purchase and installation of the solar panels and connection and configuration to the system purchased and installed in stage one	$21,139.10
Great Barrier Island Sports and Social Club Inc.	Capital	Towards the costs of refurbishment of the sports and social club	$18,153.65
Kawa Marae Trust	Capital	Towards the purchase of fire equipment, plumbing and switch installation	$3,379.40
North Barrier Residents and Ratepayers Assoc. Inc	Capital	Towards the safety upgrade of FitzRoy wharf	$25,265.00
North Barrier Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc.	Capital	Towards the costs of replacing external decking at the FitzRoy Boatclub	$12,453.00
The Community Church of St John the Evangelist	Capital	Community Flower and Herb Picking garden	$8,250.34
Total			$117,739.13

b) Consider the local grant applications listed in Table Two and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table Two: Great Barrier Local Board Round One Local Grant Applications

Applicant	Focus	Project Title	Requested
Autism NZ	Community	Multi-board application towards the costs of operating the Auckland Branch	$2,000.00
Blue Light Ventures	Community	Towards costs of entire 2016 GBI Kids Hunter National Training Scheme course	$1,753.82
GBI History Research Group	Community	Towards the training and recording of Great Barrier residents oral history	$2,950.00
Mind over Manner	Community	Multi-board application towards the programme costs of running community workshops 'Shifting Community Youth and Culture through Applied Theatre Practice'	$7,394.40
Bill Carlin	Environment	Towards the distribution and analysis of the proposed voluntary draft fishing code for inshore waters of Great Barrier Island	$10,500.00
Great Barrier Island Environmental Trust	Environment	GBI community remote sensing rodent control pilot project	$8,440.00
Rohan MacMahon	Environment	Towards the costs of stage three to restore Okiwi Stream	$11,583.00
Ryan Anderson	Environment	Multi-board application towards the collection of water samples around Rangitoto and Motuehae islands	$864.80
Windy Hill Rosalie Bay Catchment Trust	Environment	Towards the cost of a part-time contractor for building biodiversity	$7,452.00
Great Barrier Island Community Health Trust	Events	Towards the transport costs of the Garden Tour	$2,443.00
Mulberry Grove School	Events	Towards the total cost of holding the Mulberry Grove Festival	$5,000.00
North Barrier Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc	Events	Towards the costs of holding the FitzRoy Family Festival	$4,950.00
Orama Christian Trust	Events	Towards meals and accommodation for 'Imagine If'' camp	$12,500.00
Orama Christian Trust	Events	Towards the transport and admin for the ‘Wild Womens' Winter Weekend	$2,400.00
Sea Education Aotea Charitable Trust	Events	Towards the promotion, prizes and equipment for the SEAFest 2016	$750.00
Aotea Family Support Group	Sport and recreation	Towards purchase of gear and uniforms for the soccer club	$3,350.00
Total			$202,764.92

c) Allocate $750.00 from the Civic events budget to Rural Woman New Zealand Inc – Tryphena for catering of the 2016 ANZAC service with the expectation that funds will be released to them in December/January.

Comments

6. The new Community Grants Policy came into effect on 1 July 2015. The policy provides for each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/2016 and the Great Barrier Local Board adopted its grants programme on 30 March 2015 (see Attachment C).

7. 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.

8. The Board will operate two capital and local grant rounds for this financial year.

9. The new community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the new council grant webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters and Facebook pages, 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.

10. The Board has a capital grant funding budget of $250,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year. Ten applications were received with a total requested of $117,739.13.

11. The Board has a community funding budget of $65,000 and events budget of $45,000; creating a total local grant funding budget of $110,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year. Sixteen applications were received in this round of which three were multi-board applications; with a total requested of $88,611.02.

12. It is noted that the aforementioned events budget has already held a round in 2015/2016 and spent $14,600. The events budget has also been used for non-contestable events and spent $18,150. This means the total available local grant funding budget is $77,250.

Capital Grants specific

13. Great Barrier Local Board established a capital grants fund to support capital projects associated with community facilities on Great Barrier Island. The capital grant fund was resolved at the 9 July 2014 business meeting and the first ever capital grants round was held on 12 November 2014.

14. The capital grants fund application process has since been aligned with the community grant programme. Local Board Services staff manage the application process for the fund with assistance from the grants funding team. The grants funding team will send out contracts and process payments to the successful applicants.

15. A group of Auckland Council officers with skills in these subject areas has worked alongside Local Board Services staff to provide advice and comment on the applications for board members to assist in their decision making.

16. The Board will allocate its fund based on, but not necessarily limited to criteria it developed when resolving to establish the fund. In some cases applicants may not have met the criteria, or issues with these may have been identified, and the board has given itself full discretion in regards to such matters in its criteria (see attachment D).

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. Applications were circulated to the Great Barrier Local Board for consideration prior to this meeting.

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

19. The board has led on the development of the capital grant fund which is a specific budget fully under its discretion and decision making authority.

20. 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

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

Implementation

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

23. Following the Great Barrier Local Board allocating funding for round one capital grants, Local Board Services staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision. As funding is a grant to third party organisations, there is no consequential opex cost that the board needs to provide funding for.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Great Barrier Capital Grant application summaries	13
b View	Great Barrier Local Grant application summaries	43
c View	Great Barrier Local Board Grants Programme 2015/16	79
d View	Great Barrier Local Board Capital Grants Fund Criteria	81

Signatories

Authors

Jacqueline Fyers - Democracy/Engagement Advisor

Danielle Hibson - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

11 November 2015

Scope for local dog access rule review

File No.: CP2015/22169

Purpose

1. To determine the timing and scope of the Great Barrier Local Board review of local dog access rules in 2015/16.

Executive Summary

2. In 2012, Auckland Council’s Governing Body made the Policy on Dogs and the Dog Management Bylaw. The governing body delegated the review of the dog access rules on local parks, beach and foreshore areas to local boards.

3. The governing body delegation requires local boards to review their beach and foreshore dog access rules. The Great Barrier Local Board has full discretion on whether to review other local dog access rules, including those on local parks.

4. The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards with the review. The current review process started in September 2015 and is due to end in October 2016.

5. The Great Barrier Local Board’s decisions on the review scope is the first step in determining what aspects of dog access rules are reviewed and consulted on in 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) confirms the review of its local dog access rules in 2015/16

b) confirms the inclusion of the following additional matters within the scope of the review:

i. review of the generic rules and dog exercise areas

ii. review of local parks adjacent to beach and foreshore areas

iii. review of high-use parks and parks of concern to local board

c) delegates to member [insert name], in consultation with the other members of the Great Barrier Local Board, to determine local board engagement initiatives for the review of the local dog access rules within existing local board budgets, and to be the spokesperson for this project during the pre-consultation period.

Discussion

Responsibilities

6. In 2012, the governing body made the Policy on Dogs, and delegated the review of the dog access rules on local beaches, foreshore and parks to local boards. This includes a requirement to review all local beach and foreshore areas by a date determined by the local board (resolution number GB/2012/157).

7. Responsibility for areas of regional significance (including regional parks) and Tupuna Maunga are delegated to the Auckland Council Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee and the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority respectively. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has overall responsibility for the Policy on Dogs 2012 and region-wide dog access rules (e.g. council playgrounds, sports surfaces, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries, campgrounds and holiday parks).

Process and funding

8. In August and September 2013, local boards were consulted on the level of priority for the local board dog access rule review within their local board areas. As a result of this prioritisation, the Great Barrier Local Board is scheduled to commence its review of local dog access rules in 2015, with any changes effective from Labour Weekend 2016.

9. In order to facilitate the local board’s review of their dog access rules and take advantage of economies of scale, a regionally funded ‘standard process’ has been established. The ‘standard process’ timeline is structured around council’s annual dog registration process which takes place in June each year. The Dog Control Act requires all dog owners to be notified of any proposed changes to the dog access rule and to follow the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 (see Attachment B). Therefore, the standard process for this review consists of the following phases and timeline:

· Summer 2015/16: staff will gather information and community views to inform the development of proposed changes

· April/May 2016: proposed changes will be adopted by the local board

· June 2016: proposed changes are notified for consultation to align with the dog registration process

· August and September 2016: public hearings and deliberations will be held and a final decision is made.

10. The regional funding provides for the review of beach and foreshore dog access rules, generic public notification initiatives, and generic signage to implement decisions. These activities include:

· desktop research

· site visits (beach and foreshore areas, and high-use parks only)

· on-line survey of beach and foreshore areas

· internal stakeholder engagement with staff from parks, animal management, and biodiversity

· statutory consultation process (which includes; public notification, submission collation, analysis and associated reporting, staff support at hearings and deliberations)

11. Local boards are required to resource:

· any additional external workshops or engagement not included in the standard process outlined above

· advertisements, media / social media releases not included in the standard process outlined above

· the organisation and running of hearings

· funding of non-standard signage

12. Further details of the process and funding are provided in Attachment C.

Existing local board rules

13. The existing dog access rules in the Great Barrier Local Board area consist of both local dog access rules and regional dog access rules.

14. The regional rules were considered as part of the 2012 review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and apply to all local board areas. The regional rules take precedence over any local dog access rule and cover common public places such as playgrounds, sports fields, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries, campgrounds and holiday parks.

15. Within the Great Barrier Island Local Board area, the following local access rules apply:

· a default under control on a leash dog access rule which applies to all areas unless otherwise specified

· general rules around significant ecological areas, picnic and fitness apparatus areas

· six dog exercise areas.

16. The full list of dog access rules for the Great Barrier Island Local Board area is included as Attachment A.

Options for the local board to consider

17. The first decision for the local board is to consider when to commence the review of their local dog access rules.

18. If the local board resolves to undertake a review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16, the local board then needs to consider what, if any, rules that relate to local parks will be reviewed (in addition to local beach and foreshore areas which is required).

Start of review

Option A1: Commence the review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16 as scheduled

19. This option involves commencing the local dog access review in 2015/16 as currently scheduled. Under the delegations to the local board, the local board must review their beach and foreshore areas.

20. As part of the beach and foreshore areas review the local board must consider whether or not the regional time and season standard is appropriate to be applied to each beach and foreshore area and the provision of under control off-leash at all times dog access areas.

21. The benefits of this option are:

· allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, community preferences, and wildlife considerations by October 2016 as currently scheduled

· allows for the consideration of access rules that are simpler to follow and enforce on the ground

22. The disadvantages of this option are:

· local board resource is required to investigate options or undertake formal special consultative process with hearings in 2015/16

· additional workload for local board members during the 2016 pre-election period.

Option A2: Defer the review of the local dog access until 2016/17

23. This option involves deferring the local dog access review until 2016/17. Under this option staff will bring a second report to the local board in 2016/17 to consider what will be included within the scope of the local dog access review.

24. It is noted that while the local board may defer the review of the local dog access rules, it is required by the delegations to undertake a review of their local access rules.

25. The benefits of this option are:

· no local board resource required to investigate options or undertake formal special consultative process with hearings in 2015/16

· no additional workload for local board members during the 2016 pre-election period.

26. The disadvantages of this option are:

· resource required in 2016/17 which may conflict with 2017 local board plan reviews

· confusing or inappropriate in dog access rules remain in effect until October 2017.

Recommendation

27. Staff recommend that a review of the local dog access rules be commenced in 2015/16 as scheduled (Option A1) as it allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 that are more practical and simpler to understand by the general public. Furthermore, the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 has created an expectation that the local board will consider whether or not the regional ‘time and season standard’ is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction.

Scope of local dog access review

28. As discussed above, where the local board resolves to undertake a review, the board must review the local beach and foreshore area rules but the board has the discretion as to whether or not the local board considers any rules that relate to local parks. The scope of the review may include either a single option or a mix of options if the board decides to include options from B2 and B3.

Option B1: No review of local parks (status quo)

29. This option involves only reviewing the beach and foreshore areas with no local park rules being considered as part of this review.

30. The benefits of this option are:

· any consultation carried out around the beach and foreshore rules will be simpler with fewer issues for the public to consider

· any changes or impacts of the changes to the local dog access rules will be limited to the beach and foreshore areas

· no additional resource required to investigate or assess local parks.

31. The disadvantages of this option are:

· retains the general rules that are often confusing and difficult to communicate and enforce

· does not allow for an integrated approach to be taken between beach and foreshore areas and the adjacent parks and reserves

· does not allow for a review of high-use parks or areas of potential concern to the board or the community

Option B2: Targeted review of park rules

32. This option involves three distinct parts; a review of the generic rules on all parks and dog exercise areas, a review of all parks adjacent to beaches and a review of all high use parks or parks with identified concerns.

33. The review of the generic rules and dog exercise areas are technical reviews. The generic rules on all parks around picnic and fitness areas are typically difficult to define on the ground and enforce. The review of the dog exercise areas is to evaluate whether or not the existing dog exercise areas meet the definition of a ‘dog exercise area’ within the Auckland Council Policy on Dog 2012 as a dog priority area or whether it is better described as a shared space for multiple users.

34. The review of the parks adjacent to beaches ensures an integrated approach to the activities within the coastal environment.

35. The review of the high-use parks and the parks with identified concerns is a targeted review of selected parks including site visits and internal workshops as required.

36. The benefits of this option are:

· allows for an integrated approach to be taken to the review of the dog access rules on the beach and foreshore areas and the adjacent parks and reserves

· a targeted review of high-use parks and parks with identified issues will limit areas affected by any changes in the dog access rules

· a targeted review will limit the complexity of the review when compared to a wider review of all parks within the local board area

· removes or replaces confusing rules that are difficult to communicate and enforce

· will result in generic rules being replaced with site specific rules where appropriate which will be easier to understand and better provide for public safety and comfort or protection of wildlife

· will result in the reclassification of ‘dog exercise areas’ as either ‘designated dog exercise areas’ (where the dog owner is priority user) or ‘under control off a leash area’ (where it is a shared space with other users) in accordance with criteria in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

· a targeted review allows for resources to be concentrated on areas with the greatest impact on users.

37. The disadvantages of this option are:

· may result in parks adjacent to the beach and foreshore having different access rules than other local parks

· may result in high-use parks and other local parks having different dog access rules

· will increase the complexity of the issues considered as part of the review

· changes to the access rules will affect a number of parks given the general nature of the generic access rule and the dog exercise areas

· may be perceived by dog owners as a reduction in dog access in popular or high amenity parks.

Option B3: Detailed review of all local parks

38. This option involves a detailed review of all parks (both high and low use) and implements the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012. This option would involve site visits to all parks with consideration as to what dog access rules are best suited to activities occurring on the park and a network based approach to the wider provision of dog access.

39. This option would allow the local board to consider whether or not the existing default under control off a leash rule is appropriate for the local board area.

40. In contrast to option B2 the local board would be required to co-ordinate and fully fund this option.

41. The benefits of this option are:

· would allow for a detailed site-specific review of all parks in accordance with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, community preferences and wildlife considerations

· allows for an integrated approach to be taken to the review of the dog access rules on all parks and reserves

· provides greater certainty in all parks and reduces the potential for conflict in these areas

· removes or replaces confusing rules that are difficult to communicate and enforce.

42. The disadvantages of this option are:

· local board will be required to co-ordinate and fund this detailed review of all parks and reserves which will be resource intensive^{^[1]}.

· will increase complexity of the issues to be considered by the local board and the community as part of the consultation on any proposed changes to the dog access rules

· a full review is likely to result in changes to a larger number of parks

· additional local board resources would be used although options B2 would potentially achieve the same outcome in areas of most interest.

Recommendation

43. Staff recommend that a review of local dog access rules incorporate Option B2 as a targeted approach to a review of the local dog access to parks adjacent to the beach and foreshore areas, high-use parks, generic rules and dog exercise areas strikes the most appropriate balance between implementing the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, the complexity and scope of the review and the resource required to undertake that review.

Considerations

Local board views

44. The views of other local boards have not been sought on the scope of this review. Local boards, during the 2013/14 and 2014/15 reviews chose to review the beach and foreshore areas and adjacent parks, high-use parks, generic rules and dog exercise areas.

45. Consistency with other local board dog access rules is also a factor that the local board may want to take into consideration. Staff will provide advice on decisions made by other local boards during the options analysis and deliberations stages of the review.

Māori Impact Statement

46. The views of 23 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of hui consulting on a range of bylaws held in October 2013 and in March 2015.

47. Feedback from the hui related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas. The review of areas of protected wildlife is a matter recommended to be included in the review.

Implementation

48. Staff will work with local board members, engagement advisors and communication advisors to develop a more detailed engagement plan in accordance with the decisions of the local board and existing budgets.

49. Implementation costs such as updating basic standard signage is expected to be from existing regional budgets.

50. Potential implementation issues to come from local board budgets include; additional research, engagement, and public notification initiatives, and any non-standard signage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Current Great Barrier Island Dog Access Schedule	91
b View	Dog access review decision-making framework	97
c View	Process and timelines for local dog access review	103

Signatories

Authors

Justin Walters - Policy Analyst

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

11 November 2015

Dog access rules review

Decision-making framework

1 Local board delegations

Local boards are responsible for:

1. Amendments (including preparation, approval and review) to the Policy on Dogs in relation to any dog access rules in local park, local beach or local foreshore areas in their local board area subject to these being:

(a) consistent with the Policy on Dogs policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules; and

(b) not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules.

(c) in accordance with relevant legislative requirements in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

2. A review in accordance with section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996 of all dog access rules on any beach and foreshore area for which the Local Board has delegated authority.

(a) The review must have regard to the provision of under control off-leash at all times dog access areas;

(b) The review must be consistent with objective, policy 4 and associated principles, and criteria 3 to 3E inclusive of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs.

(d) For the avoidance of doubt the requirement to review beach and foreshore dog access rules does not preclude the inclusion of a review of any dog access rule on a park for which the local board has delegated authority.

(e) The review must comply with relevant statutory requirements, including section 10 and 20 of the Dog Control Act 1996 and sections 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 and 83 of Local Government Act 2002.

(f) Subject to resource and funding –

(i) A report on the review must be considered; and

(ii) If any changes to dog access rules are proposed, a statement of proposal for the purposes of public notification must be adopted,

by the local board no later than 12 months following the commencement of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs.

(g) A recommendation by the local board on submissions to the statement of proposal (if any) must be adopted no later than 8 months after the close of submissions.

2 Requirements to advise and consult

When making or amending dog access rules, local boards:

· Must use the special consultative procedure in the Local Government Act 2002 (Dog Control Act 1996, S10)

· Must give notice of the proposal to register dog owners (Dog Control Act 1996, S10)

3 Requirements to have regard to

Local Government Act 2002

When making decisions in general, local boards must have regard to the decision-making and consultation requirements of Part 6 Sections 76 to 87 of the Act. This includes:

· defining the problem and outcome sought and considering reasonably practicable options to achieve the outcome

· inviting community views (including Maori), having regard to the significance of the matter

· explain any inconsistency with existing policies or plans

· prepare and invite people to have their say on a statement of proposal

· hear and consider submissions to the statement of proposal before making a final decision

· receive views with an open mind and giving them due consideration.

Dog Control Act 1996

When making or amending dog access rules, local boards must have regard to (S10(4)):

· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally

· the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults

· the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

These matters together with the consideration of wildlife protection are discussed under the Additional Background Information section of this document.

Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

Policy Statement 4 - Dog safe access

Provide dog owners with reasonable access to public places and private ways in a way that is safe for everyone in accordance with the following principles:

(a) recognise dog owners as legitimate users of public places

(b) integrate (not separate) dog owners and their dogs with other users of public places

(c) provide opportunities for dog owners to take their dog to public places that are accessible, desirable, and provide diversity of experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans) for both the dog and owner

(d) consider access on a comprehensive region-wide basis rather than a place-by-place basis

(e) manage the safe interaction between dogs and people using public places and private ways, in particular with children and vulnerable adults

(f) manage the conflict between dogs and protected wildlife, stock, poultry, domestic animals, property and natural habitat.

Types of dog access rules:

(a) prohibited area – a place where dogs are prohibited. Other users have absolute priority over dogs

(b) on-leash area – a place where dogs must be on a leash and under control. A place shared with other users

(c) off-leash area – a place where dogs may be off a leash but must still be under control. A place shared with other users

(d) designated dog exercise area – a place identified as for dog owners to take their dogs off a leash (including a known dangerous dog) but must still be under control. Dog owners are a priority user.

Policy Methods

· there should be at all times a default access rule

· the following summer time and season standard should be considered wherever a time and season rule is deemed appropriate to manage the safe interaction between dogs with their owners and people without dogs:

Summer season period - Labour Weekend to 1 March
10am to 5pm	Before 10am and after 5pm
Local board to decide appropriate level of access (off-leash, on-leash or prohibited)	Local board to decide appropriate level of access (off-leash, on-leash or prohibited)
Other seasons (e.g. winter)
Local board to decide times	Local board to decide times
Local board to decide appropriate level of access (off-leash, on-leash or prohibited)	Local board to decide appropriate level of access (off-leash, on-leash or prohibited)

The local board must decide whether or not using the standard times and season would contravene the local board’s statutory obligation to provide for public safety and comfort. For instance, if there are continued high levels of use of beaches beyond the times and dates specified in the standard, local boards must decide on an alternative that extends the summer times and dates to reflect this. Where an alternative time and season is adopted, approval is required from the Auckland Council Governing Body.

· the policy on dogs also provides criteria^{^[2]} for consideration before making the following possible changes to dog access rules that would:

o provide more dog access and associated risk considerations

o provide less dog access and associated alternative dog access solutions

o identify a park or beach as a designated dog exercise area.

4 Additional background information

The matters that the local board is required to consider under the Dog Control Act 1996 and Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 can be summarised as the need to consider public safety and comfort, the needs of dog owners and the protection of wildlife.

Safety and comfort of the general public

Dog access rules can assist in contributing to the safety and comfort of people in public places.

When considering public safety and comfort the issues of ‘safety’ and ‘comfort’ need to be considered as two separate aspects. Research indicates that the main issue with dogs (specifically off-leash dogs) is a comfort issue and that the risk of dog attacks in public places is low. Notwithstanding this, any dog attack in a public place can have a serious and lasting impact and the potential for this has to be taken into consideration.

Safety is primarily about the risk of dog attacks in a public place.

Primary research undertaken for the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 identified that in 2010 the top three dog related complaints^{^[3]}were roaming, barking and dog attacks or aggression.

Key points from this research include:

· dogs that roam unaccompanied by their owners account for just over half of all dog related problems

· dogs that persistently bark or howl account for one third of all dog related problems

· dogs that attack, rush or are aggressive to people or animals account for just over a tenth of all dog related problems.

· Dog attacks on people account for less than three per cent of complaints.

The research identified that the most common location of reported dog attacks on people was outside the owner’s property (36 per cent). However, it should be noted that based on ACC injury statistics, the reported incidents are estimated to only account for less than a third of actual dog attacks^{^[4]}. A possible reason for lack of reporting, particularly in public places, may be an inability to identify the details of a dog or their owner in order to make a complaint. As such it is difficult to provide factual evidence regarding the risk of dog attacks at local beaches and parks.

Comfort is more generally about the public’s level of concern about dogs; any perceived risk of intimidation or attack, as well as the nuisance factor of dogs in public places.

This aspect is more problematic to assess and quantify. While it is noted that most dog owners consider their pet to be friendly and would not wilfully harm anyone, to another member of the public, the presence of an unknown unleashed dog may engender fear or intimidation. This is particularly within a confined area such as a boardwalk or narrow bush walk.

As part of public surveys conducted for the dog access reviews in 2014 and 2015, approximately 60 per cent of urban non-dog owner respondents did not want an unknown dog approaching.

These results indicate that for the comfort of people to be maintained, dogs need to be effectively controlled in the proximity of non-dog owners, particularly around vulnerable people, so that any interactions are positive for the owners, their dogs and non-dog owners.

Dog access rules can help in managing these interactions.

Recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dogs

Dog access rules help provide for the health and well-being of dogs and their owners.

Walking a dog is an important form of regular exercise for many dog owners. A study in Manukau shows that 50 per cent of dog owners say it was their main form of exercise^{^[5]}^. Supervised interaction for dogs with other dogs and people is also important for the socialisation of a dog.

It is generally accepted that areas to walk a dog (either on a leash or off a leash) that are easily accessible, desirable, and provide diversity of experience for both the dog and owner, is important.

Wildlife considerations

Under the Dog Control Act 1996, it is an offence to allow dogs to roam or attack protected wildlife. Penalties include seizure and destruction of the dog; owner imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both. Under section 63 of the Wildlife Act 1953 it is an offence to kill or disturb wildlife. Penalties for individuals include imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both.

A number of wetland and shorebirds are vulnerable to dogs as they nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas. For some species, including the New Zealand Dotterel, the presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting birds to leave the nest resulting in loss of clutches and broods and disrupted feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds.

A review of dog access rules should therefore also take wildlife concerns into account, particularly in relation to vulnerable species, in order to support the following goals:

· protection of wildlife, in particular vulnerable species

· the reduction of the risk to dog owners of incurring penalties under both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Wildlife Act 1953.

Practical requirements

The most important practical requirement is to make dog access rules easy to understand ‘on the ground’ and by the general public. The review programme aims to provide more certainty for dog owners and non-dog owners by clearly providing information where dogs are able to be taken either off a leash or on a leash to support compliance issues.

Great Barrier Local Board

11 November 2015

Process and timelines for local dog access review

A regionally supported standard process has been established to assist the local boards in the review of the local dog access rules. Staffs have used the standard process for the local dog access review for local boards in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

The following table outlines the process, timeline and responsibilities for the Social Policy and Bylaws and local board teams:

Process Step	Description			Approximate timeframe
Scoping Purpose: To identify areas for local dog access review	· Workshops and meeting with representatives from Parks, Animal Management, Biodiversity, Biosecurity and other relevant stakeholders · Reports to local boards to confirm scope of review			September 2015-November 2015
	Responsibilities and funding
	Social Policy and Bylaws · meet with local board advisor and engagement advisor/s; staff from Parks, Animal Management, Biodiversity and Biosecurity to determine the scope of review · draft workshop material for local board workshop and attend · draft scoping report for November local board business meeting and attend		Local Board · schedule workshops and meetings · advise Social Policy and Bylaws staff of local board issues around dog access and process
External research and consultation Purpose: Pre-consultation to determine dog access rules on scoped areas	· Surveys, workshops and meetings with public and affected stakeholders. Site visits by staff · Meetings with representatives from Parks, Animal Management, Biodiversity, Biosecurity and other relevant stakeholders			November 2015-March 2016
	Responsibilities and funding
	Social Policy & Bylaws · site visits that are confirmed in scoping report · desktop research · facilitate workshops/meetings · set up meetings with internal staff (e.g. Parks) · coordinate online survey	Local Board · identify public, external stakeholders and affected parties for its local board area · coordinate invitations and venue set up for external workshops · instigate additional external consultation over and above Social Policy and Bylaws research, if required by local board · advise Social Policy and Bylaws staff where required

Determine Statement of Proposal (changes to dog access) Purpose: To consolidate information and develop proposed changes to local board dog access	· Local board workshop · Local board business meeting to confirm Statement of Proposal for special consultative procedure · Prepare Local Board Hearings Panel for hearings process				April- May 2016
	Responsibilities and funding
	Social Policy & Bylaws · prepare local board workshop material · draft statement of proposal · draft report for local board business meeting		Local Board · support by scheduling workshop and meeting · advise Social Policy and Bylaws staff where required
Special Consultative Procedure Purpose: Formal public consultation on proposed dog access changes	· Public consultation on proposed changes to local board dog access rules as per Section 83 of Local Government Act 2002				From June 2016
	Responsibilities and funding
	Social Policy & Bylaws · public notification in New Zealand Herald and Our Auckland · notice to all dog owners (through dog licence reminder) · consultation documents · submission collation & analysis · hearings & deliberations reporting			Local Board · advertisements, media/social media releases · any additional engagement activities required · advise Social Policy and Bylaws staff where required
Hearings and deliberations Purpose: To hear from submitters who wish to be heard. To deliberate on submissions and make recommendations on proposed changes	· Local Board Hearings Panel to hear, deliberate and make recommendations on proposed local board dog access rules · Local Board Hearings Panel to report back to local board and confirm local board dog access rules				August 2016- September 2016
	Responsibilities and funding
	Social Policy & Bylaws · attend and support local board hearings · provide officer advice at deliberations		Local Board · organise hearings and invite submitters who wish to be heard · organise venue for hearings
Governing Body endorsement Purpose: Governing Body to endorse local board decision	· Governing Body to endorse local board’s new local dog access rules				October 2016
	Responsibilities and funding
	Social Policy & Bylaws · Draft report for GB meeting and obtain approval · Attend GB meeting		Local Board staff · update local board elected members · advise Social Policy and Bylaws where appropriate
Signage Implementation Purpose: Implementation of signage where dog access rules have changed	· Implementation of signage where dog access rules have changed.				New access rules - October 2016 – March 2017 No change to access rules – Current renewal programme
	Responsibilities and funding
	IBRI · Funding and installation of basic signage where dog access rules have changed	Local Board · Funding of integrated signage or signage with maps · Renewal of existing signage where dog access rules have not changed

Great Barrier Local Board

11 November 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards
For the quarter - 1 July to 30 September 2015

File No.: CP2015/22736

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months from 1 July to 30 September 2015 and planned activities anticipated to be undertaken in the next three months.

Attachments (as relevant to each individual local board area) include:

A – Auckland Transport activities

B – Travelwise Schools activities

C – Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee

D – Report against local board advocacy issues

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

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

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

Significant activities during the period under review

Strategy and Planning

2. Penlink

· The Notice of Requirement for the alteration to the designation and consents has been completed.

· AT and its witnesses have completed their evidence and submitted these to the independent hearings panel.

· The evidence was presented at the hearing held during the week 22 – 25 September 2015.

· A set of designation conditions was agreed to between Auckland Council and AT and these were presented to the commissioners.

· Recommendations from the commissioners are expected later this year.

3. Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) Variation

The AT Board adopted the Hearings Panel recommendations on changes to the RPTP with minor alterations on 27 July 2015. A revised RPTP will be published over the next quarter.

Investment and Development

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

· Feasibility level alignments for both a heavy rail and light rail corridor have now been identified.

· The benefits and risks of the two-mode options were documented in an Interim Business Case.

· Independent peer review has been concluded on the costs of each option.

· Risk assessment was completed on the route protection for each option.

PT Development

5. Double Decker Network Mitigation works

Of the total eight double decker bus routes identified to be delivered in the long term plan, three routes (Botany, Mt Eden and Northern Busway 2) will be implemented this financial year (FY). The remainder (Great North Road, Manukau, Remuera, New North Road and Onewa) will be delivered in the next two FYs.

6. Bus Infrastructure Programme

There are 200 bus stop improvement sites planned to be delivered this year across the region. At the end of September, 30 sites are now complete.

7. City Rail Link

The project continues with reference design, enabling works detailed design, property purchase and consenting process. The Environment Court reached a decision and the Notice of Requirement (NoR) was confirmed. Pipe Jack resource consent was granted. The Britomart to Wyndham Street resource consent hearing was concluded and a decision was reached (which is currently in the appeals period). Enabling Works and detailed design scope continue to make progress (Contract 2 substantially complete).

8. EMU Procurement

All 57 electric trains are now in Auckland, and provisional acceptance has been issued for all but the last, which is due to be completed early in October.

PT Operations

9. Highlights for the quarter

· AT Metro’s 12 month rolling patronage record passed the 80 million mark in August with rail services exceeding 14 million.

· Train services had record performance on the network. September 7th recorded the best performance ever for a single business weekday, with 97.6% punctuality and 99.2% reliability and only four cancellations out of a total of 500. Statistics also showed 100% service delivery and no cancellations on the Pukekohe diesel shuttle.

· Swanson Station’s new park and ride carpark with eco-rain gardens opened on 6th July providing an additional 136 parking spaces.

· A total of 53 new double decker buses have been ordered by Howick & Eastern Buses, Ritchies and NZ Bus, under contract to AT. The first buses arrive in the next few weeks for testing with the new fleet targeted for full operation by mid-2016. A second double-decker vehicle was introduced to the Northern Express service in July by Ritchies.

· First tenders for Auckland’s New Network bus services (the first under the fully contracted PTOM procurement model) were released on 17 August, with responses received on 28 September.

· Central and East Auckland New Network: Public consultation commenced on 1 October and runs through to 10 December 2015.

Road Design and Development

10. Te Atatu Road Improvements

Underground services relocation works continue within the road berm of Edmonton Road and Flanshaw Road. Removal of trees, hedges and the like is underway, in accordance with the resource consent; this is site clearance in preparation for both the road widening and the agreed property works.

11. Jennys Road Construction – Great Barrier Island

This road was established as an outcome of an Environment Court decision. The road has been designed as a single lane road with passing bays. Stage 1 was completed in May 2014, and Stage 2 commenced in October 2014. Physical works and the final walkover with the contractor have been completed.

12. Redoubt Road-Mill Road Corridor Improvements

The project on Redoubt Road provides for four lanes from SH1 to Murphys Road, and includes bus priority lane, cycle lanes and a 60km/h speed limit, and signals and bus priority lane at the Hollyford Drive/Redoubt Road intersection. The hearing has now been completed and the commissioners’ decision is expected within one to two months.

Services

13. Driver Licensing Challenge

Young Driver safety is a high priority in the national Safer Journeys strategy, and Auckland Young Driver death and serious injury (DSI) rates make up 30% of the regions DSI crashes. This issue is exacerbated by the high proportion of unlicensed young drivers in the region. An inter-agency Co-Design Lab was founded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that explores ways to improve access to driver licensing. AT is part of the team along with ACC, Ministry of Education, Auckland Council, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) and Otara youth based at the Otara's Crosspower youth centre. The Co-Design team will engage with Maori and Pasifika youth at Crosspower where over 250 youth attend each week. The initial stage of this four month project will end in November with recommendations to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

14. Primary Schools Lead Teacher Workshop

Over the past five years there has been an increase in deaths and serious injuries (DSI) for 5-10 year old pedestrians during weekdays in peak traffic hours. The Travelwise team looked to address this issue at a recent primary schools lead teacher workshop in the CBD. Seventy teachers attended the workshop by rail to explore ‘Transporting our Students into the Future’ and develop curriculum programmes that would support safer travel for students and increased use of active transport (Public Transport PT, Walking and Cycling) options to help reduce congestion.

15. Travel Demand (2014/15 Year)

The Commute travel planning programme has a focus on engagement with commuters and businesses this year. This quarter has seen the development of a campaign to promote travel choice which will be launched in October. A focus has been the development of travel demand plans for the Devonport Peninsula, Albany Highway and City Rail Link, and implementation of these plans is underway.

16. Route Optimisation

The regional Route Optimisation is underway, which forms part of the programme for Network Optimisation, including traffic signal improvements, minor changes to the road network and the inclusion of transit lanes, freight lanes and trial of Dynamic lanes.

Road Corridor Delivery

17. Key Highlights

In the 2015/2016 financial year, AT is planning to deliver 37.7 km of pavement rehabilitation, 480.1 km of resurfacing (which includes 88.9 km of hotmix and 391.2 km of chip-sealing), 75.7 km of footpath renewals and 82.7 km of kerb and channel replacement. This represents a total of 676 km or around 9% of work on AT’s 7,300km network. Table 1 below outlines this work in more detail.

Table 1: Progress against Asset Renewal Targets

18. The new Streetlight maintenance and renewal contracts commenced on 1 August 2015. There are now four contracts across the region with one dedicated contract for the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The new contractors are Downer (Central and South), Electrix (North and West) and NorthPower (HGI). Tenders have also been called for the supply of 8,000 LED luminaires to replace existing 70W HPS lamps on the network in the 2015/2016 financial year.

19. AT’s second Asset Management Plan (AMP) covering the period 2015-2018 has been published and is available to download from the AT website.

20. Monitoring of Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) at work sites is continuing to ensure compliance with the approved traffic management plans and to identify opportunities for improvement. The average percentage of low risk sites for Quarter 1 is 96%*^{^[6]} (The target is 90%)

Fig 1: Compliance with approved traffic management plans

21. The Corridor Access Request (CAR) team continues to process around 1,300 applications per month. These requests are for network operators from the water and telecommunication industry to access and maintain their assets sitting within the road corridor. Access is also sought by private operators and individuals who need to access the road network to undertake activities such as private water connections etc.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the first quarter (2015/16) ending 30 September 2015	133
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	143
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	145
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	147
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	149

Signatories

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

Great Barrier Local Board

11 November 2015

Re-establishment of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee

File No.: CP2015/22012

Purpose

1. This report has been prepared to support a case for the re-establishment of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to ensure robust governance and monitoring of the existing projects. A new committee will also provide a vehicle for joint advocacy in relation to community facilities.

Executive Summary

2. With the establishment of the LDI Capex Fund, the Central Facility Partnerships Fund was terminated and the business of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee ceased.

3. A workshop of the previous committee representatives from the constituent local boards was held in August 2015 and the participants agreed that the Central Facility Partnerships Fund had fulfilled a very useful role in the past by leveraging relatively small financial contributions from council into substantial sums for community projects.

4. Participants agreed that the committee should be re-established to provide governance over existing projects and to provide a platform for joint advocacy in relation to community facilities.

5. Participants felt that the level of LDI capex funding was insufficient to enable individual boards to contribute to a joint Central Facility Partnerships Fund.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Support the re-establishment of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to provide governance and monitoring of the existing projects to their completion.

b) Agree to the Terms of Reference for the re-established Central Facility Partnerships Committee attached as Appendix 1 to this report and recommends them to the re-established Central Facility Partnerships Committee for final approval.

c) Request the Governing Body to provide such delegated authority as is required for the committee to fulfil its governance functions.

d) Request advice from the Sport and Recreation Partnerships’ Manager as to:

· which approved Central Facility Partnerships feasibility studies will support the priorities in all relevant facility based network plans, and

· when the draft Sports Facilities Network Plan will be reported to the Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee.

e) Subject to support from the five isthmus boards, at a minimum, requests Local Board Services’ staff to set up an initial committee meeting to appoint a chair and deputy and approve the revised Terms of Reference.

f) Appoint a member as a representative and also another member as the alternative representative to the Central Facility Partnerships Committee.

Comments

Background

6. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee was established after the formation of Auckland Council to manage the Central Facility Partnerships Fund. This fund assisted with the development of accessible multi-use community facilities across multiple local board areas in the Auckland isthmus and Gulf islands.

7. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee included a member from each of the following central local boards:

· Albert-Eden;

· Great Barrier;

· Maungakiekie-Tamaki;

· Orakei;

· Puketapapa;

· Waiheke; and

· Waitematā.

8. The Committee operated under guidelines which favoured proposals with an emphasis on maximum use of facilities and high levels of community participation. This arrangement allowed community groups to leverage funds from other funding organizations to provide for the maximum value for each dollar of contribution from council.

9. Since the establishment of Auckland Council in 2010, the Central Facility Partnerships Committee completed three successful funding rounds (2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15) resulting in approved funding contributions towards 32 projects - made up of 21 capital projects and 11 feasibility studies.

10. In round figures, since 2010, The Central Facility Partnerships Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This community-led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy currently being promoted by the council.

11. A summary of the funding allocations made by the committee and the status of the projects and feasibility studies is included in Appendix 2.

12. With the establishment of the $10million LDI Capex Fund for FY 16, the Central Facility Partnerships Fund ceased.

13. At the time the committee ended, thirteen of the approved projects had been completed while a further 19 remain active.

Central Facilities Partnership Committee workshop

14. On 3 August 2015, members of the previous Central Facility Partnerships Committee held a workshop chaired by Waitemata Local Board and previous Committee chair, Shale Chambers. The purpose of the workshop was:

· To receive a status update on the Central Facility Partnerships Funds’ work programme including potential future projects in the ‘pipeline’;

· To test whether central boards would be interested in contributing to an ongoing Central Facility Partnerships Fund using a portion of their LDI capex budgets;

· To explore the need or otherwise for re-establishing the committee; and

· To explore the need and usefulness of future joint advocacy around the Central Facility Partnerships Fund and other community facility matters.

15. All central boards were represented at the workshop. The collective view of the central boards was as follows:

· The success of the fund is evidenced by the ratio of Auckland Council’s contribution (approx. $10M) to the total value of the projects (approx. $45M). This alone warrants advocacy around re-establishing the fund in the future.

· Every effort needs to be made to ensure existing projects succeed

· If for some reason a project is unable to progress, and committed funds are to be returned, then the central boards should be able to reallocate those funds in line with Central Facility Partnerships Fund’ priorities

· The level of funding for each board through the LDI capex fund will be insufficient to enable individual boards to contribute to a joint Central Facility Partnerships Fund

· Given the fact that there are still around 19 live projects, the Central Facility Partnerships Committee needs to continue to ensure robust governance over those projects.

16. A re-established committee would provide a good vehicle for developing joint advocacy around community partnership issues and opportunities. A first opportunity for such advocacy will emerge when the draft Sports Facility Network Plan is reported to the Parks Sport and Recreation Committee.

17. In this regard, workshop participants indicated that they wanted to understand which approved feasibility studies will support priorities in the various facility network plans. The draft Sports Facility Network plan will need to be developed before this information is provided. (See paragraphs 20-21 below).

18. With the exception of the Waiheke and Great Barrier, all central boards saw themselves participating in a re-established committee. Since this time, the chairs of the Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards have indicated that they may wish to reconsider this position.

Finance advice

19. Advice has been sought from the local boards’ Financial Advisory Services team, with regards the outcomes of the central boards’ August workshop. Of particular importance they have advised that:

· If the Central Facility Partnerships Committee is re-established with a monitoring and governance role over existing initiatives, then a delegated financial authority will be required. The reason a financial delegation will be required is that, in the event of the committee making a decision to reduce a project’s scope, it would, in effect, be making a financial decision. The finance team also affirmed the importance of re-establishing this governance role.

· If any of the existing commitments fail to crystalize due to the third party not meeting the criteria specified by the committee, then the commitment lapses. And, given that the commitments are not funded by “cash” there are no funds to return to the central boards. Rather, the Council’s liability will simply reduce.

· The opportunity for the contributing boards to “pool” a portion of the LDI Capex and thereby create grant funding for Central Facility Partnerships in the future, will remain an option.

Sports Facilities Network Plan Development

20. Auckland Council is leading, on behalf of the sport and recreation sector, the development of a Sport Facilities Network Plan. This plan will bring together the various sport code facility plans and demand/supply analysis to provide a region-wide picture of sport facility needs to support continued growth in participation and delivery of sport competitions at all levels.

21. The plan will provide a prioritised action plan of sport facility developments including upgrades to existing facilities, new facilities and rationalisation. The availability of funding will be paramount to implementation, particularly as the majority of actions will be led by the sector, rather than council.

22. The timeline for developing the Sports Facilities Network Plan is not as yet confirmed.

23. The development of this plan, together with the Facilities Network Plan, provides an opportunity for a re-established Community Facility Partnerships Committee to work at a sub-regional level in an attempt to agree and advocate for sub-regional facility priorities.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

24. The central local boards met in August 2015 and agreed that it was important to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to govern and monitor approved initiatives and to provide a vehicle for sub-regional level advocacy.

25. Great Barrier and Waiheke are yet to decide if they wish to participate.

Māori impact statement

26. The Central Facility Partnerships scheme is a general programme that is accessible to a wide range of groups including Māori.

Implementation

Advocacy

27. The financial advice received signals the need for the central boards to advocate to the Governing Body for the necessary financial delegations to enable the newly established committee to undertake its governance responsibilities.

28. In addition, given the current financial context, members might also want to consider advocating, through the re-established committee, for the following changes:

· To seek approval to re-invest funds, up to the value of current commitments, in the event of a current commitment failing to crystalise;

· In the longer term, to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Fund.

29. These potential advocacy positions could be explored further at the inaugural meeting of the newly established committee.

Terms of reference

30. New Terms of Reference are required to reflect the changes in decision-making and functions of the committee. Draft Terms of Reference are attached as Appendix 1.

31. Key matters to consider in the revised Terms of Reference are that;

· the primary function of the committee will be one of governance over existing approved projects and feasibility studies;

· the governance role will include the ability to change the scope of a project providing this does not commit additional funds from the Facility Partnerships budget;

· the committee may choose to develop and articulate joint advocacy positions and programmes including any related to sub-regional facility priorities;

· there will no longer be any funding allocation decisions to be made;

· individual boards would be free to allocate their LDI capex funds to support an existing Central Facility Partnerships project if they wished to; and

· the committee needs to continue in existence until all projects are complete or the current electoral term ends (whichever comes first). If projects go beyond this electoral term, the committee will cease and need to be re-established in the new term.

32. Once the central boards have considered this report and, providing they continue to support the re-establishment of the committee, then an initial committee meeting will need to be called to approve the terms of reference and appoint a chair and deputy.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Central Facility Partnerships Committee Terms of Reference	157
b View	Summary of funding allocations and status of the projects and feasibility studies	159

Signatories

Authors

Richard Tong - Local Board Engagement Advisor

Authorisers

Judith Webster - Relationship Manager

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

[1] It is expected that a detailed review would take approximately 3 months at 1 FTE per board.

[2] See Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 Kaupapa mo nga Kuri 2012 - As at 04 November 2014

[3] A ‘dog related complaint’ is a dog related service request that relates to a dog incident (e.g. dog attack). In addition to dog related complaints, dog related service requests include such things as requests for property inspections and lost dog notifications.

[4] Auckland Council (2011)– Dog Control - Issues and options discussion paper.gust 2011

[5] Manukau City Council ( 2007) Understanding Dog and Dog Owner Physical Exercise Habits

[6] Note this represents 96% in July, 96% in August and 97% in September.

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Daly
Members	Jeff Cleave
	Judy Gilbert
	Christina Spence

No.	Title	Page
a View	Board Member Susan Daly's report	173
b View	Board Member Jeff Cleave's report	179
c View	Board Member Judy Gilbert's report	181
d View	Board Member Christina Spence's report	183