Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 5

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Draft Voluntary Fishing Code of Conduct grant application changes 7

13 Auckland Transport Update - March 2016 9

14 Funding for Shoal Bay Wharf noticeboard 13

15 Local Government New Zealand - Political Decision Making 15

16 Wild Places conference 10-11 August 2016 23

17 Community Led Small Build Programme 25

18 Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 31

19 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 101

20 Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback 113

21 Correspondence 119

22 Chairperson's report 123

23 Board Members' Reports 129

24 Governance Forward Work Calendar 137

25 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

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, 10 February 2016, 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

16 March 2016

Draft Voluntary Fishing Code of Conduct grant application changes

File No.: CP2016/03804

Purpose

1. To receive further information for the draft voluntary fishing code of conduct application to satisfy the conditions placed upon the funding approval.

Executive Summary

2. Bill Carlin submitted an application for the distribution and analysis of a proposed voluntary draft fishing code for the inshore waters of Great Barrier Island to the Great Barrier Local Board Capital and Local Grants: Round one 2015/2016.

3. The board resolved at their business meeting on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 (GBI/2015/161) to:

a) Agrees to fund the following application for the Great Barrier Local Board Capital and Local Grants: Round One 2015/ 2016:

Applicant	Focus	Project	Amount approved
Bill Carlin	Environment	Towards the distribution and analysis of the proposed voluntary draft fishing code for inshore waters of Great Barrier Island, subject to an umbrella group for the funds and quotes being supplied, for consideration before the board	$10,500.00

4. Aotea Family Support Group (AFSG) agreed to stand as an umbrella group for the funds.

5. The board held a workshop on Wednesday 3 February 2016 with Bill Carlin and Rendt Gorter from AFSG to consider any quotes supplied to date.

6. The board requested to receive any and all outstanding quotes in time for their 16 March business meeting, in order to satisfy the conditions placed upon the approval amount as outlined above.

7. The board now needs to decide the amount of funds it wishes to release towards the proposed voluntary draft fishing code for the inshore waters of Great Barrier Island application

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) rescind the grant allocation of $10,500 from the Local Grants budget resolved at the 11 November 2015 business meeting (GBI/2015/161) and approve Local Grant funding of $xx towards the distribution and analysis of the proposed voluntary draft fishing code for inshore waters of Great Barrier Island to the umbrella group Aotea Family Support Group

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Jacqueline Fyers - Democracy/Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

Auckland Transport Update - March 2016

File No.: CP2016/03989

Purpose

1. To respond to requests from the Great Barrier Local Board on transport-related matters, inform the board on the current status of the Board’s Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), to facilitate decisions on proposed and current LBTCF projects and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities.

Executive Summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Great Barrier Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector; and relevant Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the Board and community.

3. In particular, this report provides an update on;

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund

· Traffic Counts

· Shoal Bay Wharf freight days

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the Auckland Transport Update - March 2016 Auckland Transport Update - March 2016

Comments

Monthly Overview

4. The monthly catch-up meeting was held on 10 February 2016, after the Board’s business meeting. All board members were present and received updates on:

· The Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project, Hector Sanderson Road.

· Approval for Okiwi School to access the Okiwi Airfield for their triathlon.

· Discussion on Shoal Bay wharf.

· Discussion on Whangaparapara pontoon.

· Kaitoke Stream.

Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF)

5. The Great Barrier Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $100,000 per annum.

6. The Board’s current LBTCF projects are included in the table below (in which ROC = rough order of costs, and FEC = firm estimate of cost):

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

211

· Hector Sanderson Road

· Split into sections for funding purposes

· FEC estimate of $385,524

· Resolution GBI/2014/63 (15 May 2014) “The design element of the project will be led by the Local Parks and SLIP’s project team”

· Resolution GBI/2014/154 (December 2014) Requests that those parts of the projects 221 and 211 currently being progressed by the board be funded from Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Board agreed to fund from the LBTCF April 2015. AT and AC working with Board on this, project further supported by the Board in the May 2015 Board meeting (GBI/2015/53)

· Board resolved August 2015 to allocate all available funds from the LBTCF to selected sections of this project ($385,524)

The Great Barrier Local Board’s transport capital fund to date is summarised below.

Great Barrier Local Board transport capital fund summary:

*Total funding available (across 5 FYs – 2012/12 to 2016/17)*	$500,000
Completed projects reporting actual costs:	$500,000
Funding available to be allocated (2012/13 – 2015/16)	$0
Funding available of which can be brought forward from 2016/17 year	$0
Funding still available to allocate	$0

GBI Traffic Counts

7. Between the 28 December 2015 and the 3 January 2016 Auckland Transport set up traffic counting devices in four locations on the island to get a gauge of the number of vehicles and the speeds these vehicles were travelling.

Date	Road	Direction 1 Avg Speed kph	Direction 2 Avg Speed kph	Both Directions Avg Speed kph	Total Vehicles 7 Day period
28 Dec 15 to 3 Jan 16	Aotea Rd Seal Joint to Culvert Crossing	48.5	50.1	50	1591
28 Dec 15 to 3 Jan 16	Medland Rd Shoal Bay Rd to Michener Rd	43.6	46.2	44.9	6354
28 Dec 15 to 3 Jan 16	Puriri Bay Rd End of seal to Large culvert	39.8	39.4	39.6	2061
28 Dec 15 to 3 Jan 16	Sandhill Rd Camping Ground to The lane	27.5	27.1	27.3	2970

Shoal Bay Wharf freight days

8. Auckland Transport is working with the Great Barrier Local Board to resolve issues that have been identified at the wharf area on days that freight is loaded and unloaded.

9. Auckland Transport and members of the Great Barrier Local Board will be meeting with several organisations on the wharf on the 16 March 2016 to discuss issues and possible solutions.

Media

New Pine Harbour Ferry timetable starts end of February 2016

10. Residents of the Beachlands Maraetai community will benefit from an increased number of Pine Harbour Ferry sailings, including more services to ease congestion during peak times, and late night Friday services to and from the City, now a new timetable has been introduced.

11. The timetable is being implemented after public consultation was held late last year, which confirmed strong local support for the proposed schedule changes.

12. Of the 541 submissions received, 86% of people said that the new timetable would encourage them to use the ferry more often, and 95% of people who don’t currently use the ferry said that the proposed changes would encourage them to give it a go.

13. The results of a separate public survey carried out by the Pohutukawa Coast Community Association were also considered, and have helped influence the final outcome.

14. Auckland Transport Ferry Services is grateful to the community for the high level of feedback and as a result of such have made a number of changes to accommodate public demand where possible.

15. Following public feedback, changes to the timetable that was initially proposed in the consultation include

· pushing back the departure time of the final service leaving Downtown to allow people more flexibility on weeknights.

· later sailings on Friday nights for people staying out in the City.

· modified early afternoon sailings to accommodate parents collecting their children from Beachlands School.

· improved late morning services.

16. In total, the new timetable will provide eight extra services every day between Monday to Thursday, and twelve additional services on a Friday, compared to the current timetable. This is more than a 25% increase in service throughout the week.

17. Information about the new timetable is available on board the Pine Harbour Ferry and on the Auckland Transport website.

18. The Beachlands Maraetai public transport survey was undertaken between 19 October and 2 November 2015. Auckland Transport believes that from the promising results received in the survey and the changes made as a result of feedback, the new timetable will benefit not only current ferry users, but will also attract new customers. Unfortunately, Auckland Transport has been unable to introduce weekend services at this time, but hope to be able to reconsider this later in the year.

19. The additional services are being facilitated by Sealink’s new ferry vessel, Clipper V, which has been operational since December 2015, to allow maintenance works to be completed on the other vessels within the SeaLink fleet.

20. Analysis of the feedback from the survey as it relates to bus services is still underway, and information about the next steps will be announced later this year.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

21. This report is for the Local Board’s information and action as required.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Ivan Trethowen – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

Community Led Small Build Programme

File No.: CP2016/02271

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on the implementation of the Community Led Small Build programme (‘the programme’).

2. This report also requests that Great Barrier Local Board delegate to one or more board members to provide the local board’s views on new applications to the programme.

3. For Community Led Small Build projects the Great Barrier Local Board will have a decision making role in relation to funding of projects or where projects are to be located on land or in a facility that the local board is the land owner or has delegated decision making.

Executive Summary

4. The programme has been developed following feedback from local boards and community groups on the barriers that communities encounter when trying to progress small build projects for themselves.

5. This initiative aims to support community groups who want to deliver assets for their wider community, examples include changing sheds, connecting paths, public art or refurbished kitchens in community halls. The intention is to support projects that are community priorities and community led, as such at least 80% of the funding or resources need to come from the community with no more than 20% from rate payer sources, for example, local boards LDI Capex or business improvement districts.

6. Projects that do not require funding from local boards will also be eligible. In these cases the local board views will be a factor in deciding whether the project is supported through the programme.

7. For all new applications in the Great Barrier Local Board area, the board will be asked for their views on whether the project is consistent with the priorities and preferences of the wider community and on the capability of the community group to deliver. A delegation is requested from the Great Barrier Local Board to ensure that new applications can be progressed quickly.

8. If the project is planned to be located on land or in a facility that the local board is the land owner or has delegated decision making on, local board consent will be sought through the standard processes and delegation protocols.

9. When allocating resources council has to balance community led initiatives with their responsibility to all rate payers. For this reason the programme is focused on simple, smaller projects with the majority of funding coming from the community. The criteria are:

· straight forward and standalone projects

· project cost of $250k or less (including valuing in-kind contributions but not including consent fees)

· community contribution (cash or in-kind) of 80% or greater

· the project is agreed between the community group and council staff prior to work commencing (includes technical and health and safety considerations)

· the project creates an asset, usually on land owned or managed by council, that is accessible to the wider community

10. The support provided by council will include a single point of contact in the new Community Facilities department, a toolkit, consent fees generally covered by council and ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council. Strategic Brokers in the new Community Empowerment team will also play a key role in working with community groups to build capacity.

11. Implementation of the programme is underway starting with a trial of two community led projects, a bike track in Grey Lynn and a bunkhouse in Whangaparaoa.

12. The programme will be rolled out in full once the initial stages of the pilot projects are evaluated in early 2016. The programme will be evaluated after the first year. The community groups involved and local boards will be asked to provide their feedback as part of that evaluation.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the update on the Community Led Small Build programme

b) delegate to [X] to provide the local board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Great Barrier Local Board area.

Comments

13. The programme is aimed at supporting communities who want to deliver assets of value to their wider community. The types of projects that may receive support include paths, public art, refurbished kitchens in a community hall or changing sheds. The programme is not designed to support ongoing operational activities. For example if the proposed project is to build a new community garden this programme could support the building of the garden beds and paths, but not the ongoing use of the garden.

14. The programme will predominantly support initiatives on land owned or managed by council however there may be exceptions for projects on land owned by others. Accessibility by the wider community will be a key factor in considering these exceptions.

15. Council has to balance enabling community initiatives with ensuring use of council resources is providing value to rate payers across Auckland. Projects supported through this programme will not be assessed using council’s usual prioritisation frameworks, such as asset management plans, and so need to be simple, smaller projects with the majority of funding coming from the community. As outlined in the executive summary these are key considerations in setting the following criteria for the programme:

· straight forward and standalone projects

· project cost of $250k or less (including valuing in-kind contributions but not including consent fees)

· community contribution (cash or in-kind) of 80% or greater

· the project is agreed between the community group and council staff prior to work commencing (includes technical and health and safety considerations)

· the project creates an asset that is accessible to the wider community (fees can be charged to cover costs and the asset can be secured when not in use)

16. Projects that require notification during the resource consents process will not be considered straightforward unless the notification requirements are limited and all affected landowners provide their support. The requirement for the project to be standalone refers to it not being a part of a larger project, as this could add complexity to the consenting process and is likely to take total costs beyond the $250k threshold.

17. Community groups may receive funding for their project from local board discretionary funds, other council funds (such as the Waste Minimisation Innovation Fund) or a Business Improvement District, however in total this cannot exceed more than 20% of the project cost.

18. The support provided by council will include:

· A single point of contact in council (a project co-ordinator)

· A toolkit including procurement guidance, health and safety checklists and community engagement guidance.

· Consent fees covered by council

· Ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council

19. Projects will go through a simplified project management process with 4 phases – Apply and Assess, Planning, Delivery and Asset Handover/Evaluation. Gateway assessments during these phases will cover issues such as health and safety, technical requirements and consistency with regional policy and plans.

20. Implementation of the programme is underway starting with a trial of two community led projects, a bike track in Grey Lynn and a bunkhouse in Whangaparaoa. The Grey Lynn Pump Track is a proposed sealed all weather bike track at the northern end of Grey Lynn Park. The Waitemata Local Board support the project and may provide funding.

21. The bunkhouse is proposed overflow accommodation for the Peter Snell Youth Village. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board support the project but are not providing funding and the project is on land not owned or managed by council. The Peter Snell Youth Village bunkhouse is being used in the pilot to test a project that is not on council land. Accessibility is an important factor for projects not on council land, a fee to cover costs can be charged and assets can be secured when not in use. The Peter Snell Youth Village provides facilities to schools, youth clubs and holiday programmes and provides an opportunity to test the accessibility criteria.

22. The Community Facilities Department, established through the Services Reshape, will be responsible for delivery of the Community Led Small Build programme going forward. A Community Led Projects Co-ordinator will be appointed to lead this programme and facilitate the appropriate level of support across council for each project.

23. Early in 2016, once the initial stages of the two pilot projects have been assessed, the programme will be rolled out more broadly across all local board areas. The programme will be trialled for a year to assess its effectiveness in assisting community groups to deliver assets of value. Those community groups involved and local boards will be asked to provide their feedback as part of that evaluation.

24. Local boards will play an important role in community led small build projects including:

Developing the idea with the community group, ensuring that the views of the wider community are considered

· Potentially providing up to 20% funding

· Providing input into the assessment of new applications

· Promoting the initiative, encouraging support and volunteers across the wider community

· Launch activities and supporting ongoing use of the asset

25. Local board input is important to ensure that the right community initiatives are supported. In particular the Great Barrier Local Board will be asked to comment on whether a proposed project is consistent with the priorities and preferences of the surrounding community as reflected in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan. The capacity of the community group to deliver the project is also a factor that local board input may be asked for.

26. A delegation is requested from the Great Barrier Local Board to one or more board members to provide input on new applications. The delegation is aimed at speeding up the progress for community groups with new applications by eliminating delay due to meeting schedules.

27. If Great Barrier Local Board decide to support a community led small build initiative with funding this needs to be managed through a separate process and formally approved by the board. However, to reduce the demands on the community group the accountability report (on final delivery of project) could be used both for the local board funding requirements and the programme.

28. Local boards will be provided with regular updates on projects that are receiving support under the programme including an update on which projects are at application stage, planning stage, delivery stage and asset handover/evaluation.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

29. This programme has been developed based on feedback from community groups and local boards that council needs to ‘get out of the way’ for communities who want to deliver small, straightforward initiatives for themselves.

30. An initial proposed approach was presented to Local Board Chairs on 27 July 2015. Local Board Chairs were generally supportive of the approach although questioned whether the $250,000 limit on project cost and 20% funding limit from council were too low. This feedback will be considered when the programme is evaluated after the first year. The applications for support in the first year will provide an indication of whether the current programme design and criteria is effective in supporting community priorities.

Māori impact statement

31. Community groups wanting to improve outcomes for Māori will be able to access this programme. The Community Led Projects Co-ordinator can organise access to expertise within council to support the community group to achieve their goal.

32. Where any aspects of a proposed project are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua, appropriate consultation will follow, led by the Resource Consents team.

Implementation

33. This programme is aligned with the community empowerment model being implemented by council. Strategic Brokers will play an important role in promoting use of the programme and building the capacity and capability of community groups to deliver small build initiatives.

34. The community group leading a project under the programme is responsible for the delivery of the project; however to different degrees they will be reliant on input from council staff. Simple projects will predominantly be delivered by the community group with a low level of reliance on council process. More comprehensive projects will need more project management, technical input and will need to go through the consenting process.

35. Council will endeavour not to cause delay to a Community Led Small Build project over and above the necessary time required for consents, health and safety, legal and procurement processes.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Karen Titulaer - Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Dean Kimpton – Chief Operating Officer

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/02658

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan 2016 -2021, noting that the draft CDEM Group Plan advocates for each local board to develop local emergency management plans.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is required under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act (2002) to develop and review the direction for civil defence and emergency activities within Auckland through a five yearly review of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan. The current CDEM Group Plan for Auckland is due to expire in June 2016.

3. A draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan 2016-2021 (draft Group Plan) has been developed for consultation (a copy is appended as Attachment A). The draft Group Plan is primarily centred on community empowerment and resilience across all environments (social, economic, environmental and infrastructure).

4. This report asks the board to provide feedback on the draft Group Plan, with particular reference to the proposal for local boards to champion development of local emergency management plans, and the role of elected members in a civil defence emergency.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) Provide feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021, with particular reference to local priorities for emergency management.

Comments

5. The Auckland CDEM Group is a statutory committee of Auckland Council as required under section 12 of the CDEM Act. The CDEM Group has overall responsibility for the provision of CDEM within Auckland. It comprises five elected members of the Auckland Council and a number of co-opted observers from CDEM agencies invited by the committee to attend.

6. The CDEM Group has delegated authority to develop, approve, implement, and monitor the CDEM Group Plan. The purpose of the Group Plan is to enable the effective, efficient and coordinated delivery of CDEM across Auckland while building a resilient Auckland with our communities. All CDEM groups are required every five years to consult on the development of group plans under the CDEM Act (2002). The current Group Plan for Auckland expires at the end of 2016.

7. The draft Group Plan has been developed as a framework for action which will form the basis for more detailed business planning and development of civil defence and emergency management work programmes. The key framework areas for consultation are:

· Knowledge through education

· Volunteer participation

· Emergency Management planning

· Business and organisational resilience

· Strong partnerships

· Response capability and capacity

· Information and communications technologies

· Build Back better

· A safe city

· Research

· Building resilient communities

8. Local boards are well placed to help with leadership, championing resilience and local engagement in their respective communities. The draft Group Plan proposes that this role be formalised through the development of local CDEM plans. It is anticipated that the development of local CDEM plans will provide further opportunity for local boards to determine their role in a civil defence emergency.

9. Actions described in further detail on page 37 of the attached draft Group Plan respond to feedback received from local board workshops that local boards wanted a more formalised, simple mechanism to support their communities in planning and responding to emergencies.

10. Public consultation timelines on the draft Group Plan is from 15 February to 18 April 2016 with significant consultation as part of the Have your Say annual plan events. The final Group Plan is due to be formally adopted by the CDEM Committee in August 2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

11. Local board portfolio holders have been briefed on issues relevant to the draft Group Plan and, on their recommendation, workshops were held with 20 of the local boards in October 2015. The results of these workshops helped formulate relevant sections of the draft Group Plan.

12. Local board views on the draft Group Plan are being sought in this report. Subject to consultation, the Group Plan indicates a wider role for local boards in emergency management.

Māori impact statement

13. Māori will have the opportunity to submit on the draft Group Plan during the statutory consultation phase.

14. In addition, the CDEM department are developing a Māori Responsiveness Plan to support a more proactive approach to engaging iwi and mataawaka in emergency management planning.

Implementation

15. The draft Group Plan is to be adopted by the CDEM Committee in August 2016. The Group Plan is also provided to the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management for review. The flow chart appended as Attachment B to this report provides further information on the process for developing and implementing the Group Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021	35
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan	99

Signatories

Authors

Janice Miller - Manager Logistics

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03754

Purpose

1. To provide feedback to the governing body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2016 election.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

· alphabetical order of surname;

· pseudo-random order; or

· random order.

3. Pseudo-random order means an arrangement whereby names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4. Random order means an arrangement whereby names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5. In 2013 the council resolved for names to be arranged in alphabetical order of surname. A key consideration was the extra cost of using one of the random order options. The electoral officer has advised that it is now possible to use a true random arrangement with minimal additional cost.

6. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) recommends to the governing body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

Comments

Background

7. Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001:

(1) The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2) Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3) If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4) If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

2013 elections

8. In 2013 the council resolved to use the alphabetical order. A key consideration was that there would be an additional cost of $100,000 if council chose the random order. The electoral officer has advised that due to changes in printing technology, it is now possible to use the random order with minimal additional cost.

9. All the metropolitan councils apart from Auckland Council used random order printing for their 2013 local authority elections.

10. Of the District Health Boards that were elected in conjunction with the 2013 council elections, the Counties Manukau District Health Board chose the random order. Auckland and Waitemata District Health Boards chose alphabetical.

11. Of the Licensing Trusts that were elected in conjunction with the 2013 council elections, all chose alphabetical except for the Wiri Licensing Trust which chose pseudo-random order.

Options for 2016

Pseudo-random order and random order printing

12. The advantage of random order printing is it removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo randomised list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

13. A disadvantage to both the random printing options is it may be confusing for the voter as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper.

Alphabetical order

14. The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar; easier to use and to understand. When there are a large number of candidates competing for a position it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

15. It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

16. The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

17. An analysis of the council’s 2013 election results is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

· impact on vote share. (Did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected)?

· impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

18. The analysis showed that, for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be expected statistically if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

19. Therefore for the 2013 council election results, there was no detectable impact of being listed first on whether a candidate was elected or not. In fact there were slightly fewer candidates at the top of lists elected to positions (29) than might be expected statistically if voting was random (31). Similarly, there was no meaningful impact of having a surname earlier in the alphabet on election outcomes.

20. Given there is no compelling evidence of first name bias for the council’s own 2013 results, staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. Feedback from local boards will be reported to the governing body when the governing body is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Maori impact statement

22. The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates are able to provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Implementation

23. There are no implementation issues as a result of this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Order of candidate names on voting documents	105

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback

File No.: CP2016/02278

Purpose

1. To invite local boards to provide formal feedback on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016).

Executive Summary

2. The May 2015 Budget Committee approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for Auckland Council’s BID programme team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per resolution number BUD/2015/62.

3. The primary objective for reviewing the 2011 policy is to clarify and confirm the roles, responsibilities and accountability required for each of the partner groups that have a key role in delivering the Auckland BID Programme. The review is required, as there will be significant changes to the roles of the different partner groups, as part of the move to the new service delivery model. BID Policy (2016) project scope does not include a review of the principles of having a BID programme.

4. BID programmes are based on Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate for core funding – collected using powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. They are represented by business associations, which are independent incorporated societies sitting outside Auckland Council. Local boards have the primary relationship with business associations operating BID programmes in their area.

5. The December 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the draft policy for consultation (resolution number REG/2015/103).

6. The BID Policy (2016) includes two separate but linked parts:

· Part 1 – Policy – sets the rules “the what to do”

· Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards – “the how to do”

7. Business associations operating existing BID programmes, local boards and stakeholders have had opportunities to input into the development of BID Policy (2016).

8. Local boards are now being invited to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (the policy and the operating standards can be made available separately).

9. Feedback from local boards will help shape the further development of BID Policy (2016). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on a number of matters outlined below:

i. Are local boards’ roles and responsibilities clear in respect of BID programmes?

ii. Do you agree that BID programmes below $100k target rate income per annum should (normally) have audited financial accounts every two financial years to reduce costs for smaller BID programmes?

iii. Do you consider that the processes outlined to handle problems, issues and serious concerns are fair to all parties and provide enough clarity?

10. Officers are working to ensure that the policy aligns with Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework and are in contact with the Independent Maori Statutory Board to discuss relevant opportunities to leverage the Auckland BID Programme.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) or,

b) delegate to the chair and member(s) to provide feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) before the feedback deadline of 31 March 2016.

Comments

BID programmes

11. BID programmes are based on Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate to provide core funding to business associations using powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The business associations, which are independent incorporated societies sitting outside Auckland Council, deliver the BID programmes.

12. BID programmes are established to develop local business prosperity and local economic development. They are defined by a partnership agreement between each business association and Auckland Council, in which both parties agree to operate within the BID Policy.

13. Local boards have the primary relationship with business associations operating BID programmes in their area including:

i. As collaboration partners – local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals. Working collaboratively will achieve greater outcomes.

ii. As governors – local boards have significant decision-making responsibly for BID programmes, including recommending to the governing body to strike a BID programme target rate and around BID programme establishments, expansions amalgamations and disputes.

BID Policy (2016)

14. The May 2015 Budget Committee approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for the Auckland Council BID programme team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per resolution number BUD/2015/62.

15. The primary objective for reviewing the 2011 policy is to clarify and confirm the roles, responsibilities and accountability required for each of the partner groups that have a key role in delivering the Auckland BID Programme. The review is required, as there will be significant changes to the roles of the different partner groups, as part of the move to the new service delivery model. BID Policy (2016) project scope does not include a review of the principles of having a BID programme.

16. The BID Policy (2016) establishes the rules and responsibilities of the Auckland BID Programme. It will replace the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (2011), from the date of adoption by Auckland Council.

17. The BID Policy (2016) includes two separate but linked parts:

· Part 1 – Policy – sets the rules “the what to do”

· Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards – “the how to do”.

18. The December 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the draft policy for consultation (resolution number REG/2015/103). Business associations operating BID programmes were invited to provide feedback on the draft policy by 18 December 2015.

Consultation to date

19. The consultation process commenced in September 2015 and partners and stakeholders have had a number of opportunities to provide feedback.

20. Business associations (operating BID programmes) have been invited to attend a number of workshops in September and November to discuss the key themes for policy change and the draft policy. Sixteen separate written submissions on the draft policy were received by business associations by the 18 December deadline.

21. Key sector and industry groups that are represented in BID programme areas and subject matter experts have been asked for feedback on the draft policy. Feedback has been received from Independent Election Services and The Property Institute.

22. Other stakeholders have indicated that they will provide feedback in the next few weeks. Feedback from stakeholders will be incorporated into the revised draft policy.

Differences between BID Policy 2011 and 2016 and feedback received

23. There are a number of key themes for policy change that have helped shape the development of the draft BID Policy (2016). The themes have been discussed as part of the consultation process with local boards, business associations operating BID programmes and key stakeholders. The table below provides details of the key themes for change between the 2011 and 2016 policies, feedback received and the draft policy response to this feedback.

Key themes for change, feedback received and draft policy response

Key themes for change	Differences between 2011 and 2016	Feedback received and response
Clarify and confirm partner roles	Clearer definitions of the roles of each of the key Auckland BID Programme partners	Feedback: · Business associations concerned about the stated local board delegations Draft policy response: Added wording to clarify the overall intent of these delegations - there should be a focus on creating a collaborative and aspirational relationship between a local board and a business association operating a BID programme · Feedback from local boards and local board services team that some of the draft responsibilities of local board representatives on BID programme boards were not appropriate Draft policy response: Draft roles amended to reflect feedback received.
Accountability - keep full financial audits or proportional relating to size of BID (target rate)	Audits for all BID programmes must report on areas of financial control	Feedback: Business associations were overall in favour of keeping audits. Mixed feedback from local boards - a majority keen to keep audits but others requesting a financial review or proportional requirement to BID programme size. Draft policy response: keep audits but: · BID programmes with target rate income of $100,000 per annum or greater - audits every financial year · BID programmes with a target rate income under $100,000 per annum – audits every two financial years - subject to no serious concerns from previous audit.
Resolution of issues	Clearer definition of issues, concerns and the processes to resolve	Feedback: Concern from a number of business associations that the policy steps too soon into intervention by Auckland Council Draft policy response: Relevant sections in both parts of the policy have been re-written to provide a staged response with a significant number of steps before Auckland Council would consider intervention in the management of the BID programme.
Rating mechanisms -Increasing baseline for new BID programmes	The minimum required for a new BID programme establishment is increased from $50,000 to $120,000 (target rate only)	Feedback: BID programmes were overall in favour of increasing the baseline. Mixed feedback from local boards - some agreed with increasing the minimum but others thought that it would disadvantage smaller and/or less prosperous business areas. Draft policy response: Ideal minimum changed to $120,000 but still with the option to explore new BID programme establishment for proposed target rates less than this on a case-by-case basis (subject to the BID programme proponents meeting establishment criteria outlined in Policy Operating Standards).

Local board feedback on BID Policy (2016)

24. Local boards have provided some feedback at the 19 workshops during September and October 2015 on the key themes of accountability, new BID programme establishment and programme leverage.

25. Local boards are now being asked to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (the policy and the operating standards can be made available separately).

26. Feedback from local boards will help shape the further development of BID Policy (2016). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on a number of matters outlined below:

i. Are local boards’ roles and responsibilities clear in respect of BID programmes?

ii. Do you agree that BID programmes below $100k target rate income per annum should (normally) have audited financial accounts every two financial years to reduce costs for smaller BID programmes?

iii. Do you consider that the processes outlined to handle problems, issues and serious concerns are fair to all parties and provide enough clarity?

Next steps

27. Feedback from local boards, external stakeholders and any further feedback from business associations (operating BID programmes) will be reviewed by officers and this will help inform the further development of the policy. Officers will then hold a second joint workshop with Regional Strategy and Policy Committee members and local board chairs and/or ED portfolio holders in mid-April, before seeking approval of the final draft version of the policy at the 5 May 2016 committee meeting.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. The consultation process commenced in September 2015 and local boards have had a number of opportunities to provide feedback including:

· A memo was sent to local board members and councillors on 16 September 2015 outlining the purpose and proposed process for developing the policy.

· Following the memo, officers provided a briefing to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on 28 September 2015

· During September and October 2015, officers attended 19 local board workshops to seek feedback on the proposed key themes for policy change

· The draft BID Policy (2016) was work-shopped with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, local board chairs and local board economic development portfolio holders on 5 November 2015. This workshop provided a progress update and outlined the feedback received from both BID programmes and local boards to date

· A second memo was sent to local board members on 1 December 2015, providing an update on the policy development process, attaching the draft BID Policy (2016) and a summary of local board and business association feedback to date.

Māori impact statement

29. Officers are working with Auckland Council’s Te Waka Angamua Department to ensure that the BID Policy (2016) aligns with the Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework.

30. Officers are in contact with the Independent Māori Statutory Board to discuss the policy and opportunities to leverage the Auckland BID Programme.

31. Paragraph 1.9 of the BID Policy 2016 (part 1) outlines the potential to leverage the Auckland BID Programme under the new operational model, working initially within Auckland Council to identify potential opportunities. For example, this could include working closely with key stakeholders and business associations to investigate and pilot opportunities to provide assistance to Māori businesses or facilitate Māori economic development.

Implementation

32. The BID (Policy) 2016 and the new BID Programme Team service delivery model are intended to become operational on 1 July 2016.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Great Barrier Local Board

16 March 2016

Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2016/03753

Purpose

1. To present the board with a 12 month governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings and workshops over the next 12 months. The governance forward work calendar for your board is included in Attachment A.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar.

Comments

5. Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the boards’ governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

· Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

· Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

· Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/priorities/budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Great Barrier Governance Forward Calendar	139

Signatories

Authors

Kris Munday - Senior Advisor - Local Board Services

Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

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	131
b View	Board Member Judy Gilbert's report	133
c View	Board Member Christina Spence's report	135