I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Wednesday, 16 March 2016 5.00pm Otāhuhu
Town Hall |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Lemauga Lydia Sosene |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Carrol Elliott, JP |
|
Members |
Nick Bakulich |
|
|
Tafafuna'i Tasi Lauese, JP |
|
|
Christine O'Brien |
|
|
Leau Peter Skelton |
|
|
Walter Togiamua |
|
(Quorum 4 members)
|
|
Janette McKain Local Board Democracy Advisor
10 March 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 262 5283 Email: janette.mckain@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
16 March 2016 |
|
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 Manukau Ward Councillors Update 7
13 Security Gate Beach Road Favona 9
14 Auckland Transport Update - March 2016 13
15 New Road Name Approval sought by Watercare at 500 Island Road, Mangere Bridge 25
16 Timing for review of local dog access rules Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area 35
17 Mangere Bridge and Mangere East Heritage Survey 41
18 Performance Report for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board for the quarter ending December 2015 55
19 Community Led Small Build Programme 101
20 Regional Facilities Auckland - Second Quarter Report 2015-2016 107
21 ATEED Performance Report for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board for the six months ending December 2015 127
22 Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback 139
23 Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 145
24 Adoption of the Youth Connections South Local Governance Group Terms of Reference 149
25 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 155
26 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting and conference 167
27 Community-led alcohol licensing project - six month report 175
28 Governance Forward Work Calendar 181
29 Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Workshop Notes 187
30 Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Members - Portfolio, Outside Organisations and BID Updates 193
31 Chairpersons Announcements 197
32 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
1 Welcome
2 Apologies
Member Peter Skelton will be attending a formal dinner on behalf of the Board for the Pacific Arts Assn Symposium being held at the Auckland Museum.
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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 17 February 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record with the following amendment “be funded from the local board Professional Development Fund”: Item 24 Making Good Decisions (MGD) Course - Resolution number MO/2016/16 That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board endorse member Christine O’Brien’s participation in the Making Good Decisions course to be held Wednesday 11 May and Thursday 12 May 2016 to be held in Auckland and that the cost of $2,002.60 (excl GST) be funded from the local board Professional Development Fund.
|
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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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.
Mark Erskine – Beach Road Reserve & Favona Coastal Walkway
Roger Gummer – SOUL Campaign
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.
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Manukau Ward Councillors Update
File No.: CP2016/01252
Purpose
1. A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Manukau Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board on regional matters.
a) That the verbal and written reports from Cr Alf Filipaina and Cr Arthur Anae be received.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
|
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Security Gate Beach Road Favona
File No.: CP2016/01910
Purpose
1. To seek direction on the security arrangements at Beach Road Favona.
Executive Summary
2. The board has requested a review of the security gate arrangements at Beach Rd Favona.
3. Beach Rd is a short spur road off James Fletcher Drive in the industrial area of Favona in Mangere. It is a legal road all the way to the coastal edge of the Mangere Inlet but the last 50m is unformed.
4. This last 50m of unformed legal road takes the appearance of a small park and is managed as such. It is connected on either side by undeveloped esplanade reserve that form part of a wider reserve network around the Inlet.
5. In 2005, Manukau City Council agreed with local property owners that a security gate and fence be erected at this point to deter anti-social and illegal activities that were occurring in the area, particularly after dark (Attachment A). The Police supported the taking of this action.
6. Security gates and fencing on this scale are not common in parks but the extent of the problem in Beach Rd was such that it could be justified in this case because the standard park vehicle gates were continually broken.
7. At the same time it was agreed with the adjacent property owner of 28 and 32 Beach Rd that he would lock and unlock the gate each day to allow access to members of the public who wished to use the area for recreation purposes.
8. Should the security gate and fence be removed, there is no reason to believe that the anti-social and illegal activities will not return to this relatively remote location. Subject to ensuring that the gate can continue to be open and closed at an appropriate time and subject to better and clearer signage, it is recommended that the existing security arrangements stay in place.
9. This can be reviewed in the future, particularly when plans for the coastal walkways around the Mangere Inlet are further developed, adopted, funded and implemented.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board resolves to retain the security fence and gate at Beach Road subject to the gate being opened at 7am and closed at 7pm each day and with new signage in position.
|
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
10. This matter was discussed at a Parks Portfolio Meeting on 27 January 2016 and at a local board Workshop on 10 February 2016. At both meetings members expressed concern about the dominating appearance of the fence and gate across a public area, and that the gate appeared to be locked at times when it should have been open. These concerns will be addressed by the revised opening and closing arrangements and by signage that will be more informative to the general public who wish to access the harbour edge at this location.
Māori impact statement
11. The security arrangements are an operational matter with no known impacts on Maori. However Maori will be widely consulted in the future over the proposal to develop a coastal walkway around the Mangere Inlet.
Implementation
12. There are no implementation issues. Once a decision is made the new security gate arrangements can put in place.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Beach Road Letter |
11 |
Signatories
Authors |
Malcolm Page - Manager Local & Sports Parks South |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation |
16 March 2016 |
|
Auckland Transport Update - March 2016
File No.: CP2016/03700
Purpose
1. To provide an update about local transport matters over the last two months recording Local Board decisions, issues and advocacy.
Executive Summary
2. This report contains a general monthly update on transport matters both locally and from across Auckland, as well as issues currently being addressed by Auckland Transport for the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (MOLB). This includes responses to MOLB resolutions and decision-making.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board receives the Auckland Transport March 2016 monthly report.
|
Mangere Town Centre bus station
3. One of MOLB’s advocacy initiatives is for the local board area to have “a great public transport network that is easy to get around, frequent and reliable”. Auckland Transport (AT) is keen to report that it is able to support the MOLB’s initiative and in December 2015 secured funding for delivery of a new Mangere bus station.
4. Planning has started and soon AT will start to meeting with the MOLB and wider community aiming to confirm plans and build a new Mangere bus station at the town centre by October 2016.
5. The Mangere Town Centre bus station will be a key hub for South Auckland’s new public transport network, particularly for Rapid Network 32 (RN or Route 32) that is being built as part of the East-West project.
6. Within the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board area there will also be modifications to local roads to make them more suitable for buses with the installation of high occupancy vehicle lanes, potentially bus lanes but could also be T2 or T3 lanes. Roads that will be affected are Atkinson and Walmsley. This work is part of the development of the rapid network Route 32 that will link Mangere and Otahuhu.
Manukau Bus Station starts construction
7. The Manukau Bus Station has started construction. One of MOLB’s advocacy initiatives is for the Local Board Area to have “a great public transport network that is easy to get around, frequent and reliable”.
8. AT is keen to report that it is able to support the MOLB’s initiative and recently started work on the new Manukau bus station.
9. The station officially started construction on 12 February 2016 and is planned to be completed in 2017. The new bus station will be a modern, attractive and practical facility designed to provide a safe, comfortable link for passengers between buses and the rail station. It will include service and food kiosks and toilets. The pictures below provide an idea of what the new station will look like.
Figure 1: The station viewed from the council offices. The Manukau train station is at the rear.
Figure 2: A view of the inside of the new bus station
Informing Local Board’s about managing growth – Transport Future Urban Growth (TFUG) project
10. AT, Auckland Council and utility providers are discussing the issue of growth with local board’s in high growth areas in the north and south of Auckland.
11. MOLB is outside the study area but AT is keen to make sure that all local boards know about the project before public consultation on these issues takes place in early 2016 and will organise a workshop about the project for the members and has programmed a southern cluster meeting on 10 March 2016. (Invites have been sent to members).
12. The overall aim is ensure that the all local boards are aware of this consultation process and can engage effectively.
Future Streets
13. The Future Streets project is the MOLB’s largest local board transport capital fund project and involves re-modelling a number of streets in Mangere to make them safer and friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists. The aim being to make the area safer and to encourage active modes of transport.
14. Resource consent for the major works on Mascot Ave, Windrush Close and in the Waddon Place/Windrush Close walkway was confirmed in February and the contracts are currently being confirmed with contractors. It is planned the work in these streets will start in mid-March.
Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF):
15. MOLB has a total pool of approx. $1,971,770 available in this electoral term to spend on transport projects.
16. In this electoral term the MOLB has identified six projects and these are discussed in detail in Attachment A.
17. In next month’s AT report this information will be presented in new standardised form within the report.
MOLB consultations:
18. Auckland Transport provides the MOLB with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this local board area.
19. In this reporting period one project was circulated for comment by the MOLB.
20. Attachment B provides a summary of the project and of the response made by the transport portfolio leaders.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Summary of Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Transport Capital Fund |
17 |
bView |
Summary of consultation material sent to the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board |
21 |
Signatories
Authors |
Ben Stallworthy Elected Member Relationship Manager , Auckland Transport |
Authorisers |
Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
New Road Name Approval sought by Watercare at 500 Island Road, Mangere Bridge
File No.: CP2016/03625
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board, for a new road name for a road created at 500 Island Road, Mangere Bridge.
Executive Summary
2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the Auckland Council.
3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Mark Ford Drive’ (applicant’s preferred road name), ‘Manukau Harbour Drive’ and ‘Restoration Drive’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.
4. Local iwi groups were consulted via email on 2 October 2015. The only feedback Watercare received was from Te Kawerau a Maki, who objected to the names submitted by Watercare. After further consultation, Makaurau Marae Maori Trust and Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust opposed the name ‘Mark Ford Drive’ and suggested an alternative name ‘Hiaroa Drive’, which was then opposed by Te Akitai Waiohua.
5. The name ‘Mark Ford Drive’, proposed by the Applicant (preferred by the applicant) and the names ‘Manukau Harbour Drive’ and ‘Restoration Drive’ (proposed by the applicant) are considered for approval by the Local Board. The name ‘Hiaroa Drive’ (proposed by Iwi) is also considered for approval by the Local Board.
That the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name ‘Mark Ford Drive’, proposed by the Applicant, for the new road at 500 Island Road, Mangere Bridge while noting that ‘Manukau Harbour Drive’, ‘Restoration Drive’ and ‘Hiaroa Drive’ also meet the road naming criteria.
|
Comments
6. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.
7. The road to be named is a straight, 530m access road with a width of 13.5m, which includes a median strip and connects the Ascot Road roundabout to Island Road. There is a footpath on the eastern side of the road and cycle ways on both sides.
8. Watercare’s construction work at the eastern end of Island Road is scheduled to commence in May 2016 and is subject to contractual arrangements with the construction company. It is therefore time critical for Watercare to receive an approved road name for the new road so that the eastern end of Island Road can be permanently stopped and the construction work commenced on time. Auckland Transport cannot approve the opening of the new road until a name is approved.
This report was first submitted to the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board meeting for 9 December 2015 and was deferred to February 2016. The notification email was from the Chairman of the Makaurau Marae Maori Trust and the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Trust, which stated that the trusts had opposed the proposed names and suggested a meeting between the trusts and Watercare prior to the next meeting of the Local Board.
Following this, Watercare met with Makaurau Marae Maori Trust and Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust on 21 January 2016 and the name ‘Hiaroa Drive’ (named after the Tainui ancestress, Hiaroa. Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island) also takes its name from this tupuna, which reflects the cultural and historical significance of the immediate area), was put forward.
This name was subsequently opposed by Te Akitai Waiohua. In view of that, Watercare did not seek the views of other iwi.
Due to Watercare’s contractual arrangements, Watercare has run out of time to consult on further names and still meet the March agenda deadline. As a result, Watercare has decided to continue with the original names proposed.
It is further noted that Te Waka Angamua is providing advice to the Local Board on other road naming options. Watercare has advised that they support the Board adopting an alternative name recommended by Te Waka Angamua, provided that the name is approved at the Local Boards March meeting or very soon thereafter so that Watercare has sufficient time to have the name approved by Auckland Transport before the end of March.
9. This development was granted consent under resource consent 42936 (in conjunction with P42936, P42938, P42934, P43917 and P43918).
The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at 500 Island Road, Mangere Bridge.
Preference |
Proposed New Road Name |
Meaning |
Preferred Name |
Mark Ford Drive |
Mark Ford was Watercare’s Chief Executive for nearly 20 years, until he passed away in October 2014. Mark drove the biggest environmental restoration programme, in New Zealand, called Project Manukau which restored 500ha of oxidation ponds to natural tidal flats and 13km of coastline. Under his leadership, Watercare’s wastewater operations were transformed to benefit the Manukau Harbour which is the healthiest it has been for generations. Mark was also committed to the public sector; he served as executive chairman of the Auckland Transition Agency, chairman of Auckland Transport, chairman of Solid Energy, independent chair of the Christchurch Client Governance Group for Infrastructure Rebuild and as a member of the Better Public Services Advisory Group. |
First Alternative |
Manukau Harbour Drive |
The road follows the previous shoreline and will lead to harbour access and viewing points. |
Second Alternative |
Restoration Drive |
The road adjoins the past location of the wastewater oxidation ponds of the original Manukau Sewage Purification Works, which were restored back to the sea when the upgraded Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plan was established. |
Iwi Proposed Alternative Name |
Hiaroa Drive |
Named after the Tainui ancestress, Hiaroa. Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island) also takes its name from this tupuna, which reflects the cultural and historical significance of the immediate area. |
Figure One: Location and Layout of new Road
Decision Making
10. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.
Assessment
11. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;
12. The Applicant’s preferred name ‘Mark Ford Drive’ meets all the criteria of the road naming guidelines. It is also noted that the alternative names ‘Manukau Harbour Drive’, ‘Restoration Drive’ and ‘Hiaroa Drive’ comply with the criteria.
13. The proposed suffix of ‘Drive’ is appropriate in this circumstance, as the road is a wide, main roadway without many cross-streets. The suffix ‘Road’ also meets the definition, however, the applicant’s preference was ‘Drive’.
14. As the Applicant’s preferred name ‘Mark Ford Drive’ meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the alternative names ‘Manukau Harbour Drive’, ‘Restoration Drive’ and ‘Hiaroa Drive’ are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.
Consideration
Significance of Decision
15. The decision sought from the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.
Māori impact statement
16. The decision sought from the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.
Consultation
17. The applicant states that Watercare initially advised the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum of the proposed road at the Forum’s quarterly meeting on 29 January 2015. The meeting was attended by nine of the 19 iwi of Tamaki Makaurau. The matter was raised again at the Forum meeting on 9 April attended by 15 of the iwi of Tamaki Makaurau. The applicant has supplied a letter from the Chairman of the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, Tame Te Rangi, dated 3rd March 2015 and one email from Waikato-Tainui, confirming support for the name ‘Mark Ford Drive’.
On 2 October 2015, Watercare formally wrote to the 13 Mana Whenua entities (listed on the Auckland Council website as the Kaitiaki contacts for the Mangere Otahuhu Local Board area), informing them of Watercare’s preferred name and two alternative names for the new road and requesting further name suggestions. However no names were received within the one month allowed for suggestions to be sent to Watercare.
Watercare received an email from Edward Ashby advising that Te Kawerau a Maki opposed both ‘Mark Ford Drive’ and ‘Restoration Drive’ being used as names for the new Road and further did not agree that the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum was the appropriate forum to decide on the name. The email concluded with a statement that Mr Ashby would discuss the matter with the Chair of Kawerau a Maki on how to respond formally. Watercare did not receive a formal response from Kawerau a Maki and no suggested alternative names were received for the proposed Road until after Watercare met with the Chairman of Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust, following the Local Boards December 2015 deferment decision.
After a further meeting with Makaurau Marae Maori Trust and Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust, an alternative name, ‘Hiaroa Drive’ was provided on 21 January 2016.
Watercare consulted with Te Akitai Waiohua who opposed the name ‘Hiaroa Drive’.
18. New Zealand Post was consulted and indicated that all proposed road names, including ‘Hiaroa Drive’, are acceptable from their perspective.
19. The family of Mark Ford (Merelyn Ford on behalf of both Luke and Ben Ford) have been consulted and state that they would be honoured to have the main access way to the island named after him. The agreement of the family is required pursuant to the road naming guidelines.
Financial and Resourcing Implications
20. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.
Legal and Legislative Implications
21. The decision sought from the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.
Implementation
22. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Merelyn Ford letter of approval |
31 |
bView |
Te Kawerau Iwi Settlement Trust Letter |
33 |
Signatories
Authors |
Debby Blackburn - Resource Consent Administrator |
Authorisers |
Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Timing for review of local dog access rules Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area
File No.: CP2016/03023
Purpose
1. To approve the review of local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area in 2016/17.
Executive Summary
2. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board had previously resolved to review its local dog access rules in 2015/16 (resolution number MO/2013/511). However, the decision made by the local board in December 2015 (resolution number MO/2015/212) has resulted in the Mangere- Ōtāhuhu Local Board area not being able to be included in the 2015/16 review.
3. The Chair and Deputy Chair of the local board at a meeting with staff on 11 February 2016 requested staff to provide this report to inform the board of the effect of the December 2015 decision and to enable the local board to consider when it will undertake the review.
4. Staff have identified two options for consideration:
Option 1: That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board approve the review of local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area in 2016/17
Option 2: That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board decline to review local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area at this time
5. Staff recommend Option 1 because it would enable the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board to meet its delegated authority requirements to undertake the review before the governing body reviews the policy and bylaw on dogs and delegations in 2017/18, and because it would better achieve the outcomes of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) approve the review of local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area in 2016/17. b) request the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws provide a report to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board in December 2016 to enable the local board to determine the content of the review. |
Comments
Background
Previous local board decisions
1. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board at its business meeting on 11 September 2013 approved the timing for the review of local dog access rules in its local board area for 2015/16 as follows - That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board approve the timing for the review of dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board area for 2015/16 (Resolution number MO/2013/511).
2. At the commencement of the 2015/16 local dog access review project, a report to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board business meeting on 9 December 2015 sought to define the content of the review. The local board at this business meeting resolved to not receive the report as follows - That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board does not receive this report (Resolution number MO/2015/212).
3. The effect of the above decision has been to remove the review of dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area from the 2015/16 review period because:
· staff could not proceed without direction from the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board on what to review
· staff could not delay the review for the eight other local boards that are included in the 2015/16 review. A delay would have meant decisions on changes to dog access rules would not be made before the 16/17 summer season
· the review process has progressed beyond the point where the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board can rejoin the 2015/16 review.
4. The Chair and Deputy Chair of the local board at a meeting with staff on 11 February 2016 requested staff to provide this report to inform the board of the effect of the December 2015 decision and to enable the local board to consider when it will undertake the review.
Why a review is necessary (triggers)
5. A review is considered necessary for the following reasons:
· to comply with delegated authority requirement from the governing body to review local beach and foreshore dog access rules (resolution number GB/2012/157)
· local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area have not been reviewed since before the creation of the Auckland Council in 2010, a period which has seen changes to population growth and density (including possible special housing areas), and wildlife rehabilitation
· the current local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area are confusing making them difficult to communicate and enforce. This is in part due to the fact that the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area has inherited two sets of local dog access rules from the former Auckland and Manukau city councils.
What might a review include (content of the review)
6. The content of the review is a matter that is determined by the local board at the commencement of the review. Examples of what may be included and excluded from the content of the review are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Examples of what a local dog access review may or may not include
Examples of content included in the review |
Examples of content excluded in the review |
· local beach and foreshore dog access rules. A full review of local beach and foreshore rules is required to meet delegated authority requirements. · local park dog access rules. This may range from a targeted review of a few specified parks to address known issues to a full review of all local parks similar to the beach and foreshore review. |
· region-wide dog access rules. This is the responsibility of the governing body. Examples include rules on playgrounds, sports surfaces, car parks and roadside footpaths · regional park dog access rules. This is the responsibility of the governing body. Examples within the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area include Ambury Farm · dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga. This is the responsibility of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority. Examples include Māngere Mountain (Te Pane o Mataoho). · dog access rules on Auckland International Airport. This is the responsibility of the airport authority. |
What is the process for the review (next steps)
7. A standard process has been established to facilitate the review of dog access rules that takes advantage of economies of scale and aligned to the dog registration process. A description of the process for the 2016/17 review is as follows:
· December 2016: local board decides on the content of review
· summer 2016/17: information and local engagement to inform proposed changes
· April/May 2017: proposed changes adopted by the local board
· June 2017: proposed changes notified for public submissions
· August and September 2017: local board public hearings and deliberations held and a final decision made on changes
· October 2017: changes commence in time for summer.
Options
8. Staff have identified two options in regard to when to reschedule the review of local dog access.
Option 1: That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board approve the review of local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area in 2016/17
Option 2: That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board decline to review local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area at this time
9. An analysis of each option is provided in Tables 2 and 3 below
10. The option of running a customised process for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board is not viable because the review would not be completed in time for summer 2016/17 and would be an additional cost to council. The election in October this year would further extend and complicate a customised review process.
11. The criteria used to analyse each option relate to the local board delegations, Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and resource.
Table 2: Assessment of Option 1: Approve local dog access review for 2016/17
|
Analysis |
Pros |
· local board would meet its delegated authority requirement to review local beach and foreshore dog access rules (resolution number GB/2012/157) · local board would complete its review before the governing body reviews the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in 2017/18. The governing body review will include a review of delegations to local boards It is noted that the 2016/17 review is the last round of a four year dog access review programme that started in 2013/14 and will include two other local boards and all regional parks (including Ambury Farm). · provides an opportunity to make local dog access rules more certain and to ensure the rules provide dog owners with reasonable access to local park, beach and foreshore areas in a way that is safe to everyone (Policy 4 of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012). |
Cons |
· will place additional workload on local board elected members and staff for local engagement and participation in local hearing and deliberations. |
Risks |
· local board resource required in 2016/17 may conflict with 2017 local board plan reviews. |
Risk mitigation |
· local board to include review in its planning for 2016/17 · local board to use resource as one criterion in determining the content of the review in December 2016. |
Table 3: Assessment of Option 2: Decline to review local dog access rules
|
Analysis |
Pros |
· enables local board to focus on other projects such as the review of the local board plan in the first year of a new electoral cycle · no resource impact on local board elected members or staff. |
Cons |
· unmet expectations that the local board would review its local dog access rules, particularly from dog owners in relation to time and season rules on beach and foreshore areas (including Shelly Bay Beach) and from environmental groups in relation to wildlife protection · confusing or inappropriate dog access rules remain in effect. |
Risks |
· the governing body may rescind the local board delegation to decide local dog access rules. |
Risk mitigation |
· provide reasons for declining to review local dog access rules at this time. |
12. Staff recommend option 1 because it would enable the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board to meet its delegated authority requirements to undertake the review before the governing body reviews the policy and bylaw on dogs and delegations in 2017/18, and will better achieve the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
13. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board had previously resolved to review its local dog access rules in 2015/16 (resolution number MO/2013/511). However, the decision made by the local board in December 2015 (resolution number MO/2015/212) has resulted in Mangere-Otahuhu not being able to be included in the 2015/16 review.
14. All local boards considered the timing of the review of local dog access rules in their local board areas in 2013. At the time of this report, 10 local boards had completed their reviews, eight local boards are in the process of their review in 2016, and two local boards are scheduled to undertake their review in 2016/17. Each review commences with a decision on the content of the review.
Māori impact statement
15. Previous engagement with iwi in 2013 and 2015 identified an interest in dog access and the protection of sensitive ecological areas. This is a matter that can be determined by the local board in relation to dog access on local park, beach and foreshore areas.
16. Adopting Option 1 which will schedule the review of local dog access rules in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area for 2016/17 will enable the local board to address this area of interest to iwi.
Implementation
17. If the local board adopts Option 1 (approve local dog access review for 2016/17), the local board will receive a report to determine the content of the review in December 2016.
18. If the local board adopts Option 2 (decline to review local dog access rules), no further action is required from the local board. The decision will be reported to the governing body as part of its review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 in 2017/18.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws Justin Walters - Policy Analyst Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws |
Authorisers |
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Mangere Bridge and Mangere East Heritage Survey
File No.: CP2016/03406
Purpose
1. To seek approval of the heritage survey project brief and budget for the project over the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years.
Executive Summary
2. The services of a heritage consultant/consultancy are required to undertake a Historic Heritage Survey (HHS) of Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona. The project will involve research, documentation, and recommendations on heritage places in the area.
3. The survey project will assist in identifying and better understanding the built heritage values of Māngere Bridge, Māngere East and Favona; with particular emphasis on the identification of built places that are likely to be eligible, however do not currently have statutory heritage management in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).
4. The project is staged in two sections. Through stage one of this project, it is anticipated that a report will be produced expanding on the knowledge of the historical development of the area as well as the identification of places of interest. The key anticipated outcome of stage two is the evaluation of highest priority places, provided that eligible historic heritage places are found.
5. The entire project has a not-to-exceed budget of $80,000, inclusive of GST and disbursements and related costs. Stage one is anticipated to cost around $30,000 and be substantially complete by 30 June 2016. Stage two will be confirmed following review of stage one deliverables, but is expected to cost about $35,000 as it is currently scoped. The indicative timeframe for stage two will be from mid-June through to December 2016. The final portion of stage one will fall into the 2016/2017 budget.
6. The project brief will be disseminated to three conservation architecture consultancies for bids of interest to be made on undertaking the project, with one consultancy selected by the Heritage Unit project coordinator.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Approves the project brief for the Māngere Bridge and Māngere East heritage survey. b) Notes that a heritage consultant will undertake the project, to be selected by the Heritage unit project coordinator. c) Approves $30,000 of the local board’s Heritage Survey LDI budget for the purposes of the project for the 2015/2016 financial year. d) Approves a further $35,000 of the local board’s Heritage Survey LDI budget for the purposes of the project in the 2016/2017 financial year.
|
Comments
7. The key deliverables of the project are:
· Survey report
· Historic context statement
· Prioritised places of interest list
· Existing PAUP scheduled places
· GIS maps
· Appendices, including supporting documentation and illustrations
· Heritage evaluations
8. The project brief (Attachment A) includes a project execution plan, setting out key deliverables, anticipated time frames and the identification of responsible parties. The project brief also includes indicative study boundaries of the geographic scope of the study area.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
9. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority, with funding specifically set aside for a heritage survey through the Māngere-Otāhuhu Local Board Plan.
10. The project coordinator met with the local board in September 2015 to understand the scope desired by the board for the heritage survey project. A further meeting was held on 18 February 2016 with the Chair and Heritage portfolio holder/heritage champion, to present the draft project brief. Refinements to the brief have been made as a result of this consultation, and are included within Attachment A: Project Brief.
Māori impact statement
11. The Māngere Bridge and Māngere East Heritage Survey focuses on built heritage. As a separate but interrelated project, the Maori Cultural Heritage team, within the Heritage Unit are underway with a region-wide survey programme specifically collaborating with Mana Whenua to assess places of significance/value. Mana Whenua groups are actively engaged in that project.
Implementation
12. The recommendations within this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Project Brief for Mangere Bridge and Mangere East Heritage Survey |
45 |
Signatories
Authors |
Cara Francesco - Principal Specialist Built Heritage |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places |
16 March 2016 |
|
Performance Report for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board for the quarter ending December 2015
File No.: CP2015/26648
Purpose
1. To update the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 as set out in the Local Board agreement.
Executive summary
2. A financial performance report is presented to the local boards for the accounting quarters ending September, December, March and June.
3. To improve overall performance reporting the Financial Advisory Services – Local Boards team produces a combined quarterly financial report and department performance report
4. The attached report contains the following reports this quarter
· Local Community Services including Libraries
· Local Environmental Management
· Local Sports Parks and Recreation
· Local Board Financial Performance
· Local Board LTP results for Non-financial Performance measures for quarter 2
5. Auckland Council Local Environmental Management team has provided a reforecast of what LDI (Locally Driven Initiatives) projects cannot be delivered this year.
6. Following discussions with and advice from the board members, reallocation of these LDI funds are provided in the recommendations.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Receive the Performance Report for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board for the financial quarter ended December 2015. b) Approve the reallocation of $20,000 unspent funding from the LDI Southern Recycling Centre options development work programme, as forecast by Local Environment Management staff, to the Community Response Fund in the Community Services Activity. c) Approve allocation of $400 from the Community Response Fund for the funding top-up of the annual Samoan Language Week debate to be held at Tōia Library.
|
Comments
7. In consultation with local boards this report provides the elected members with an overview of local activities from council departments for discussion.
Consideration
Local board views and implications
8. The report is presented to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board members at a workshop prior to the business meeting.
Maori impact statement
9. Maori, as stakeholders in the council, are affected and have an interest in any report of the local board financials. However, this financial performance report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such, the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Maori.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Performance Report for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board |
57 |
Signatories
Authors |
Faithe Smith - Lead Financial Advisor |
Authorisers |
Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Community Led Small Build Programme
File No.: CP2016/03367
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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Receives the update on the Community Led Small Build programme b) Delegates to [X] to provide the local board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 trialed 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Karen Titulaer – Senior Advisor Strategic Partnerships |
Authorisers |
Dean Kimpton – Chief Operating Officer Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Regional Facilities Auckland - Second Quarter Report 2015-2016
File No.: CP2016/03355
Purpose
1. To present the Regional Facilities Auckland – Second Quarter Report 2015/16 to the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board for their information.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board notes the Regional Facilities Auckland Second Quarter Report 2015/16. |
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Regional Facilities Auckland Second Quarter Report 2015-2016 |
109 |
Signatories
Authors |
Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
ATEED Performance Report for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board for the six months ending December 2015
File No.: CP2016/03645
Purpose
1. To provide the six monthly report from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) – a council controlled organisation - on their activities.
Executive Summary
2. This report provides the local board with highlights of ATEED’s activities for the six months from 1 July to 31 December 2015.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board receives the ATEED six monthly report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2015.
|
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
3. This report is presented for local board consideration and feedback to ATEED is invited.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Ateed Six Monthly Report |
129 |
Signatories
Authors |
Various authors |
Authorisers |
Paul Robinson, ATEED Local Economic Growth Manager Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback
File No.: CP2016/03360
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is 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”
The above attachments can be found on the following link:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/local_boards/Pages/home.aspx
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 (attachment A the policy and attachment B the operating standards).
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.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Provides feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) or, b) Delegates 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 (attachment A the policy and attachment B the operating standards).
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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 1 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Stephen Cavanagh – BID Partnership Advisor |
Authorisers |
Alastair Cameron – Manager CCO/External Partnerships Team Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan
File No.: CP2016/03365
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.
The attachments can be found on the following link:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/local_boards/Pages/home.aspx
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.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Provides 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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
|
Process for developing the draft Group Plan (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Signatories
Authors |
Janice Miller – Manager Logistics, Civil Defence and Emergency Management |
Authorisers |
John Dragicevich – Civil Defence and Emergency Management Manager Relationship Manager Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Adoption of the Youth Connections South Local Governance Group Terms of Reference
File No.: CP2016/04148
Purpose
1. To request the adoption of the Youth Connections South Local Governance Group (LGG) Terms of Reference.
Executive Summary
2. The LGG has reviewed its terms of reference, following a request from its two parent local boards.
3. The final draft of the Terms of Reference was adopted by the LGG at
is meeting held on
25 February 2016. A copy of the adopted Terms of Reference is at attachment A.
4. The new Terms of Reference are simpler and shorter than the current Terms of Reference. A change of name to “Youth Connections South Local Governance Group” is included.
5. The LGG recommends that the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards adopt the new Terms of Reference.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Adopt the Youth Connections South Local Governance Group Terms of Reference, replacing the current terms of reference adopted in 2012.
|
6. On 14 May 2012, Auckland Council launched a new initiative called Youth Connections across Auckland in collaboration with the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, the Tindall Foundation, Auckland Airport Community Trust and several other key stakeholder organisations.
7. At their meetings held in June 2012, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards decided to work collaboratively in the governance and delivery of the Youth Connections project. A local governance group, consisting of three members from each board, was set up and given terms of reference.
8. In the new electoral term in November 2013, both the Local Boards reconfirmed their support to Youth Connections and requested that the Terms of Reference be updated.
9. In September 2015, when the quorum of the LGG was changed from four members to three members, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board once again requested a thorough review of the LGG Terms of reference.
10. The LGG undertook the review of the Terms of Reference in October 2015 and the updated Terms of Reference was adopted at the meeting held on 25 February 2016.
11. The main changes in the new document are:
a. The name of the LGG is changed to “Youth Connections South Local Governance Group”
b. A vision has been added for the LGG: “That all young people under 25 be engaged in appropriate education, training, work or positive activities in our communities.”
c. Objectives have been clarified, and are now are at strategic level rather than operational.
d. Roles and responsibilities of the LGG have also been clarified. Responsibilities include reporting six monthly to the full local boards on progress, with a financial report. The LGG is also given responsibility to report annually to funding providers.
e. In relation to membership, the LGG has the ability to appoint advisory members. The quorum has been retained at three members, with at least one from each board. (Until 2015, the quorum was four, when it was reduced to three by resolutions of both boards.)
f. Unnecessary detail in the previous terms of reference has been omitted. This includes names of current members and staff, and the current budget details.
12. The updated Terms of Reference is now presented to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards for adoption.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Terms of Reference |
151 |
Signatories
Authors |
Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Local government elections - order of names on voting documents
File No.: CP2016/03436
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:
(i) alphabetical order of surname
(ii) pseudo-random order
(iii) random order.
3. Pseudo-random order means an arrangement where names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.
4. Random order means an arrangement where 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 noted above, outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of the 2013 results show does not exist.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Recommends to the governing body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in: (choose one only) EITHER: alphabetical order of surname OR: pseudo-random order OR: random order.
|
Comments
Background
7. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001, clause 31 states:
(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 and 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; it is easier to use and 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 this 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 benefits to the voter noted above, outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of the 2013 results show does not exist.
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.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Order of candidate names on voting documents |
159 |
Signatories
Authors |
Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services |
Authorisers |
Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting and conference
File No.: CP2016/03980
Purpose
1. To inform local boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and conference in Dunedin from Sunday 24 July 2016 to Tuesday 26 July 2016 and to invite local boards to nominate a representative to attend as relevant.
Executive Summary
2. The Local Government New Zealand annual conference and AGM takes place at The Dunedin Centre from Sunday 24 to Tuesday 26 July 2016.
3. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to four official delegates at the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The Governing Body will consider this at their meeting on 31 March 2016. The four official delegates are likely to be the Mayor as a member of the LGNZ National Council (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor as the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster as Chair LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council, and the Chief Executive.
4. In addition to the official delegates, local board members are invited to attend. Local boards should consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance, with the expectation that no board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) nominate a representative to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2016 Annual General Meeting and Conference from Sunday 24 July 2016 to Tuesday 26 July 2016 on the basis that the conference programme is relevant to the Local Board’s work programme b) confirm that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.
|
Discussion
5. The 2016 LGNZ Conference and AGM are being held in Dunedin. The conference commences with the AGM at 1pm on Sunday 24 July 2016 and concludes at 12.45 pm on Tuesday 26 July 2016.
6. The theme of this year’s conference is “Creating places where people love to live, work and play”. The programme includes:
• Greg Doone, Director at PwC will provide a future vision on New Zealand's communities, taking a look at demographic, social, technological, economic and environmental trends.
• Troy Pickard, President of the Australian Local Government Association and Mayor of Joondalup, Perth will cover a broad perspective on key global issues for future generations in Australia and beyond.
• Vaughan Payne, CEO, Waikato Regional Council; Brian Hanna, Mayor, Waitomo District Council; Damon Odey, Mayor, Timaru District Council; Dame Margaret Bazley, Commissioner, Environment Canterbury and Jim Palmer, Chair of the Canterbury Chief Executives Forum will describe their stories of collaboration and how their approaches are aiding "place-making" for their regions and providing a platform for regional economic development.
• Jason Krupp, Research Fellow, The New Zealand Initiative will focus on the example of Manchester City Council and how it combined with its neighbouring authorities to strengthen its leadership, governance and capacity to partner with central government. This session will involve video interviews with leaders of Manchester City Council.
• Peter Kageyama, an Author and international thought leader will offer a fresh and innovative perspective around what engagement is going to look like in the future and how we can better engage with our communities, and tell our stories to build a sense of place.
• Andrew Little, Leader of the Opposition, will discuss the importance of regional New Zealand and local government to the wider economy, and the challenges we will face as the future of work changes.
• Lawrence Yule, President of LGNZ and Jonathan Salter, Partner at Simpson Grierson will provide a fresh approach on resource management
• Lieutenant General Tim Keating, Chief of Defence Force will offer a personal perspective of what he believes makes for a successful leader.
• Jeb Brugmann, Founder of ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability and Managing Partner of The Next Practice will take an over-arching look at resilience and how we can build strong towns, cities and regions of the future.
• Sir Mark Solomon, Kaiwhakahaere of Ngai Tahu will discuss the value achieved when councils build strong local partnerships within their towns, cities and regions. In particular, Sir Mark will discuss his view on the significance of relationships between iwi and local government.
7. The programme also includes six Master Class sessions:
• Customer-centric services and innovative engagement - how community leaders can be intentional about creating a more emotionally engaging place
• Special economic zones – what are they and can they help regional New Zealand?
• Collaborative processes and decision-making
• Resilient towns, cities and regions – creating places for the future
• Risk management and infrastructure.
8. Local boards should consider the relevance of the programme when deciding on conference attendance, with the expectation that no local board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.
Annual General Meeting
9. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to have four delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The four official delegates are likely to be the Mayor (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Penny Webster (as Chair of Zone 1) and the Chief Executive (or his nominee).
10. The Mayor is a member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor is the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster is the Chair of LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at their meeting on 31 March 2016.
11. LGNZ request that local board members who wish to attend the AGM, register their intention prior to the AGM.
Costs
12. The Local Board Services Department budget will cover the costs of one member per local board to attend the conference.
13. Registration fees are $1410.00 including GST before 1 June 2016 and $1510.00 including GST after that. Full conference registration includes:
· Attendance at conference business sessions (Sunday-Tuesday)
· Satchel and contents
· Daily catering
· Simpson Grierson welcome cocktail function
· Fulton Hogan conference dinner and EXCELLENCE Awards function
· Closing lunch and refreshments.
14. The council hosted tours on Sunday 24 July 2016 are not included in the conference price. Local board members are welcome to attend these at their own cost.
15. Additional costs are approximately $155 per night accommodation, plus travel. Local Board Services will be co-ordinating and booking all registrations and accommodation and investigating cost effective travel.
Consideration
Local Board Views
16. This is a report to the 21 local boards.
Maori Impact Statement
17. The Local Government NZ conference will better inform local boards and thereby support their decision making for their communities including Maori.
Implementation Issues
18. There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations in this report.
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
LGNZ 2016 conference and master class programme |
171 |
Signatories
Authors |
Polly Kenrick, Business Process Manager, Local Board Services |
Authorisers |
Anna Bray, Policy and Planning Manager Local Board Services Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Community-led alcohol licensing project - six month report
File No.: CP2016/04167
Purpose
1. This report provides an update on the local board’s community-led alcohol licensing project for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board areas, for the six months October 2015 to March 2016. The information in this report is sourced from the progress update of the contractor (Grant Hewison and Associates Ltd), providing policy support and advice to members of the community engaged in alcohol licensing advocacy and objections.
Executive Summary
2. Since October 2015, one new off-licence application has been made for Super Liquor Ōtāhuhu, situated at 743 Great South Road, Papatoetoe. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has objected to the application and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board has supported the objection. The hearing date is yet to be set as the buildings are not yet complete.
3. During the same period, seven objections were made to off-licence renewal applications, four of these in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area.
4. The project contractor (Grant Hewison and Associates Ltd) advises that public notices are now being made online, applicants are generally using advisors to draft their applications, applicants are most often companies, rather than real persons, and applications do not include any mention of alcohol-related offences.
5. A guide for objecting to a licence to sell or supply alcohol has been updated by the Health Promotion Agency to assist objectors.
6. The contractor has highlighted an opportunity for the local board to make a submission to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill 2015 to address issues.
7. The project contractor reports objectors are often negotiating settlements with applicants for renewal applications prior to Hearings and that this action has resulted in good outcomes for objectors and that in some cases objections have resulted in the imposition of a condition which would likely have not have been included if the objection had not been made.
8. The project contractor has commented that communities supported by the local boards are acting as an important check and balance on the system. At a minimum, community-based objections are testing the new legal framework, the evidence presented by applicants, the views and evidence of the Inspectors, Police and Medical Officer of Health, and the judgment of the District Licensing Committee (DLC).
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board note the local board’s community-led alcohol licensing project report for the period October 2015 to March 2016. |
Comments
Alcohol Licensing
9. Since October 2015, one new application has been made for a new off-licence in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area for Super Liquor Ōtāhuhu, situated at 743 Great South Road, Papatoetoe. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board has objected to the application and the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local board has supported the objection. The hearing date is yet to be set as the buildings are not yet complete.
10. During the same period, seven objections were made to off-licence renewal applications and several other applications were assessed, with no objections being made. In the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area the following applications received objections:
· ‘Pak’nSave Mangere’ (Kennedys Foodcentre 2003 Ltd, 44 Orly Avenue, Mangere)
· Countdown Mangere East (1/359 Massey Road, Mangere East) - variation to alcohol area
· Countdown Mangere Mall (Bader Drive, Mangere Mall)
· Thirsty Liquor Mangere (3/18 Mangere Town Centre, Mangere)
In the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area, the following applications received objections:
· ‘Countdown Papatoetoe’ (Hunters Plaza, 217 Great South Road, Papatoetoe)
· Liquor Spot East Tamaki (217b East Tamaki Road)
· KK Liquor (4/93 Ferguson Rd, Otara)
11. Between October 2015 and March 2016, the Auckland District Licensing Committee (DLC) issued decisions regarding the following applications with community objections:
· Brews Otahuhu (52 Atkinson Avenue, Otahuhu)
· Papatoetoe Liquor Spot (8/14 St George Street, Papatoetoe)
· Super Liquor Papatoetoe (24 Charles Street, Papatoetoe)
· Otahuhu Discount Liquor (7/628 Great South Road, Otahuhu)
· R8 Nightclub (5/1 Town Centre Square, Mangere)
· Caspar Road Liquor (584 Great South Road, Papatoetoe)
12. The full decisions are available at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/AboutCouncil/meetings_agendas/hearings/Pages/districtlicensingcommitteehearings2014.aspx
Issues – Observations from the project contractor
13. The project contractor (Grant Hewison and Associates Ltd) has reported the following issues and observations of the process over the past six months:
Public Notices
14. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013 allow notices of applications to be solely published online. It appears that applicants are looking to predominantly publish online notices on the alcohol notices website below rather than in newspapers. Link to online website: http://www.alcoholnotices.co.nz/
15. The contractor reports that there may be a reduced likelihood of members of the public regularly searching this website, and that this highlights the valuable role of the Community Action Against Alcohol Harm Facebook page for proactively sharing alcohol license application information.
16. An issue identified by the contractor for objectors is that public notices do not differentiate between completely new applications and new licence holder applications. This has been partially addressed by the council staff highlighting completely new applications for local boards in a regular liquor licence applications report.
Reviewing the Applications
17. The contractor reports some applicants are using advisors to draft their applications and approves of this approach because advisors include more information, similar in nature to an Environmental and Cumulative Impact Assessment (ECIA), which is a practice suggested under the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (PLAP).
18. Form 4 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations 2013 provides that the details of applicants include criminal convictions:
[state all criminal convictions (other than convictions for offences against provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998 not contained in Part 6, and offences to which the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 applies)]
19. The contractor reports that typically applicants do not include any mention of alcohol-related offences, such as selling alcohol to minors or intoxicated persons, and it seems that alcohol-related offences are not considered criminal convictions. However, the contractor believes these are important offences that should be identified by the applicant.
20. The contractor suggests seeking to have the regulations amended to include a requirement to identify these offences and advises that this issue could be raised in a submission to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill 2015, or directly with the Minister.
Use of company entities
21. The contractor reports that it is typical that licensees and applicants for licences are companies rather than real persons. In the opinion of the contractor, there are advantages for licensees and applicants in using a company structure. One difficulty for community members is understanding who is behind the company and whether they have been associated with any inappropriate activities in the past, such as sales to minors, or how many other licences they may hold, as there can be multiple companies established. This also poses difficulties for other agencies such as the Police, Inspectors and Medical Officers of Health.
22. The contractor reports that community objectors have been involved in objections where the directors or shareholders of an applicant company, which may have been recently established and have an unblemished record, have had previous suspensions of licences or been involved in other companies with blemished records.
23. The contractor advises that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill 2015 is likely to seek to clarify that a company can hold an alcohol licence, which was the law under the previous Sale of Liquor Act 1989, which explicitly said they could.
24. The contractor suggests that if the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act is to be amended in this way, a submission might be made to establish requirements that a company applicant declare in their licence application whether any real person associated with it, such as a director or shareholder or a store manager, has also been involved themselves or with another entity in a matter that has resulted in the suspension of a licence.
Drafting and filing an Objection
25. The contractor advises that the Health Promotion Agency has refreshed its advice on objecting to an alcohol licence, noting that "the law now gives communities a stronger voice when it comes to issuing licences to sell or supply alcohol. There are more options to object to a licence that affects you than has been the case in the past."
A copy of “Objecting to a licence to sell or supply alcohol” can be found here: http://alcohol.org.nz/resources/objecting-to-a-licence-to-sell-or-supply-alcohol-a-guide-to-objections-and-hearings
Renewals Register
26. The contractor has developed a renewals register for the local board area, so that each licence renewal can be identified and assessed in advance of an application for renewal being made, and that this information can be shared with community members engaged in alcohol license processes.
Off-Licence Checklist
27. In addition to the renewals register, the contractor has advised that community members engaged in license objections have also sought an off-licence checklist to be prepared. This identifies the conditions of a licence, any undertakings given and any assurances given in an application for each licence. The checklist will enable members of the community, as well as other agencies, to easily check whether an off-licence is complying with their conditions, undertakings and assurances.
An example of a checklist for one off-licence is set out below.
|
OFF-LICENCE CHECKLIST
XXXXX Liquor Address
|
|
|
Yes/No |
Comments |
Are they selling alcohol before 9am or after 11pm - or before 1pm on ANZAC day? |
|
|
Is there prominent signage displayed at the entrance and at the point of sale saying that alcohol will not be sold to minors or intoxicated persons? |
|
|
Is there anyone under the age of 18 in the store alone (without a parent or guardian)? |
|
|
Assurances (Page 8, Application Form) |
|
|
Ask the salesperson’s name. They should be either xxxx; or xxxx; If not, ask for the salesperson’s name. |
|
|
Does the salesperson ask for ID of every person who looks under the age of 25 years at the entrance of the store? |
|
|
Are there non-alcoholic drinks in the store? |
|
|
Is there no alcohol beer in the store? |
|
|
Are chips and snacks being sold in the store? |
|
|
Social Responsibility Policy (Attached to Application) |
|
|
Are there signs or messages in the store actively promoting safe and responsible drinking? |
|
|
Are any single bottles or cans of alcohol being displayed or sold less than 440ml? |
|
|
Are there any promotions of the sale of alcohol in the store or outside the store? |
|
|
Other Matters |
|
|
Is there any graffiti on or in the vicinity of the shops? |
|
|
Is there anyone drinking alcohol in vicinity? |
|
|
Negotiated Settlements
28. The contractor reports that where possible for license renewals, objectors are seeking to negotiate settlements with applicants for renewal applications prior to Hearings, or at the commencements of Hearings. These negotiations have generally been commended by the DLC and resulted in good outcomes for objectors. The contractor believes it would be useful if this practice was recognised in a consistent way by the DLC.
Hearings
29. Some objectors have been criticised for not attending hearings. Sometimes this is inevitable due to work commitments or illness. To ensure some representation at hearings, objectors have appointed agents to represent them. The contractor advises that while most DLC panels have accepted the use of agents or consultants, and this is stated to be permitted in the agendas of Hearings, sometimes this hasn’t been accepted.
30. The contractor suggests it would be very useful if there was a consistent DLC approach to the use of agents.
Conditions and undertakings
31. The contractor reports an important outcome of the objections being made is that typically they have resulted in the imposition of a condition, such as a reduction in trading hours, or a discretionary condition such as no single sales, which would likely have not have been included if the objection had not been made.
32. However, the contractor points out that it is also important to follow up to ensure conditions and undertakings are actually implemented by the applicant and can give some examples where it appears that applicants have not been implementing conditions and undertakings thoroughly or promptly.
Local Board views and implications
33. Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has continued to support individuals or organisations within its communities to object to liquor license applications on a case by case basis throughout 2015/16.
34. The contractor reports that members of the community supported by the local boards are acting as an important ‘check and balance’ on the system. At minimum, community-based objections are testing the new legal framework, the evidence presented by applicants, the views and evidence of the Inspectors, Police and Medical Officer of Health and the judgment of the DLC. In the absence of a Local Alcohol Policy, this would appear to be the only way for community members to influence alcohol licences.
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Governance Forward Work Calendar
File No.: CP2016/03800
Purpose
1. To present the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board with its updated governance forward work calendar.
Executive Summary
2. The governance forward work calendar for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.
3. The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:
· ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities
· clarifying what advice is expected and when
· clarifying the rationale for reports.
4. The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board: a) Note the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Governance Forward Work Calendar |
183 |
Signatories
Authors |
Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
16 March 2016 |
|
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Workshop Notes
File No.: CP2016/03984
Purpose
1. Attached are the notes for the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board workshops held on 3 and 10 February 2016.
That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board workshop notes from the workshops held 3 and 10 February 2016 be received.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
3 February workshop notes |
189 |
bView |
10 February workshop notes |
191 |
Signatories
Authors |
Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager |
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board 16 March 2016 |
|
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board
Workshop Programme
Date of Workshop: Wednesday 3 February 2016
Time: 1.00pm to 4.00pm
Venue: Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board office
Present: Lemauga Lydia Sosene, Peter Skelton (from 1.13pm), Carrol Elliott, Walter Togiamua (left 2.06pm), Tasi Lauese, Christine O’Brien, Janette McKain (Democracy Advisor), Carol McKenzie-Rex (Relationship Manager), Kenneth Tuai (Advisor), Thomas Murray (Engagement Advisor)
Apologies: Nick Bakulich for absence.
Tasi Lauese opened the meeting in prayer
Timeslot |
Topic |
Presenter |
Purpose |
1.00 - 1.30pm |
Yates Park Incident |
Chair Lemauga Lydia Sosene |
The Board discussed the recent Mangere Shooting @ Yates Park. |
1.30 - 2.00pm |
Healthy Families |
Anna-Jane Jacob, Ben Udan |
The Board had a power point presentation and discussed the Healthy Families programme in the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board area. |
2.00 - 3.00pm |
Community Arts Broker |
Naomi Singer, Bobby Kennedy, Sally Barnett, Bronwyn Bent |
The Board discussed the community arts brokers draft work plan, which includes key project areas for delivery until September 2016 and indicative allocation of the $60k project budget. |
3.00 - 3.30pm |
Elected Members Election Year Policy |
Warwick McNaughton |
To Board discussed the draft “Local Government Election Year Policy for Elected Members and provided feedback. |
3.30 – 4.00pm |
Draft MOLB Open Space Network Plan |
Sam Noon, Siani Walker |
To Board discussed and provided feedback on the draft MOLB Open Space Network Plan. |
16 March 2016 |
|
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board
Workshop Notes
Date of Workshop: Wednesday 10 February 2016
Time: 1.00pm to 4.00pm
Venue: Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board office
Present: Lemauga Lydia Sosene, Carrol Elliott (from 1.20pm), Walter Togiamua, Tasi Lauese, Christine O’Brien, Nick Bakulich, Janette McKain (Democracy Advisor), Carol McKenzie-Rex (Relationship Manager), Kenneth Tuai (Advisor), Rina Tagore (Senior Advisor)
Apologies: Peter Skelton for absence
Nick Bakulich opened the meeting in prayer
Timeslot |
Topic |
Presenter |
Purpose |
1.00 - 1.30pm |
Legal opinion on Wickman Way and update on other issues. • Inorganic rubbish collection service and illegal dumping |
Chairperson |
· Request for a legal opinion relating to a lack of a resource consent covering the entrance, stairwell and canopy of the upstairs liquor store at 18 Wickman Way. · Mangere Town Centre Fruit Shop issues. · The Board watched the new Auckland Council Waste video. · Portage Crossing. · Events in the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Area. |
1.30 - 1.45pm |
District Licensing Committee (DLC) processes and meeting with DLC Chairs |
Carol McKenzie-Rex |
To Board discussed the legal opinion regarding DLC processes and advise a meeting is being arranged with DLC Chairs including the Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Chairs and to include Member Nick Bakulich. A pre briefing will be organised for the Board Chairs and members prior to a meeting with the DLC Chairs. |
1.45 - 2.05pm |
24hr South Auckland Campaign |
Luo Lei |
A video was shown on the 24hr South Auckland Campaign and the received the results of this video. |
2.05 - 2.30pm |
Beach Road Reserve Security Gate |
Malcolm Page |
The Board discussed the removal of the Beach Road Reserve security gate. A report will be coming to the March business meeting. |
2.30 - 3.00pm |
Toia - Request to change the session times |
Davin Bray |
To Board
discussed the recommendation to adding a new session time for school
holidays, public holidays and weekends. Officers to provide visitors information data from August to December and a report will come to a business meeting – April. |
3.00 – 3.15pm |
Swimming Pool Charging Policy |
Rina Tagore |
To Board was informed on the swimming pool charging policy (response to Otara-Papatoetoe Chair from Community Policy and Planning). A report will come to the board prior to the 2017/2018 Annual Plan. |
16 March 2016 |
|
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Members - Portfolio, Outside Organisations and BID Updates
File No.: CP2016/03983
Purpose
1. This item allows the local board members an opportunity to present written and verbal updates to the board on their portfolios, outside organisation and BID representation.
That the written and verbal updates from local board members be received.
|
No. |
Title |
Page |
aView |
Member Elliott Report |
195 |
Signatories
Authors |
Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
|
16 March 2016 |
|
File No.: CP2016/03985
Purpose
This item gives the Chairperson an opportunity to update the Board on any announcements and receive the Chairpersons written report.
That the verbal update and written report be received.
|
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors |
Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor |
Authorisers |
|