Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation - New Zealand Red Cross 5

8.2 Deputation - Sistema Aotearoa Trust 6

8.3 Deputation - Jungle Steering Group 6

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Manukau Ward Councillors Update 9

13 Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust 11

14 Grant of New Community Leases in Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area – Group Owned Buildings 17

15 Clover Park Community House Licences to Occupy and Manage 35

16 Fresh Gallery Otara Business Plan 2016-2019 45

17 New Road Name Approval for Ministry of Justice at Manukau Courthouse, Manukau Station Road, Manukau. 69

18 Auckland Transport Report - March 2016 73

19 Manukau Harbour Forum Work Programme for 2016/17 95

20 Performance Report for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the quarter ending December 2015 105

21 Community Led Small Build Programme 159

22 Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback 165

23 Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 171

24 Adoption of the Youth Connections South Local Governance Group Terms of Reference 175

25 Regional Facilities Auckland - Second Quarter Report 2015-2016 181

26 ATEED Performance Report for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the six months ending December 2015 201

27 Community-led alcohol licensing project - six month report 213

28 Local Government New Zealand - Political Decision Making 219

29 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 227

30 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting and conference 239

31 Proposed changes to meeting dates 247

32 Governance Forward Work Calendar 249

33 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Workshop Notes 255

34 Ōtara Papatoetoe Local Board members portfolio update 261

35 Chairpersons Announcements 265

36 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 22 February 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation - New Zealand Red Cross

Purpose

Josephine Bartley from the New Zealand Red Cross will present to the local board about what the Red Cross do and to raise issues facing refugee families in Ōtara and the need for better connection to community support in the area.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank Josephine Bartley from the New Zealand Red Cross for her attendance and presentation.

8.2 Deputation - Sistema Aotearoa Trust

Purpose

Diane Maloney, Chair of the Sistema Aotearoa Trust and Ros Giffney, Programme Manager, Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra would like to address the local board to thank them for their support of Sistema Aotearoa.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thanks Diane Maloney and Ros Giffney for their attendance and presentation.

Attachments

a Sistema Aotearoa................................................................................. 269

8.3 Deputation - Jungle Steering Group

Purpose

Ioka Magele-Suamasi from the Jungle Steering Group will present to the local board. This is a volunteer community group focused on creating quality basketball community events for the Otamariki Park basketball court. These events are used as a vehicle to provide positive community engagement and activation of basketball in the park to connect with the local community and support services.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank Ioka Magele-Suamasi from the Jungle Steering Group for his attendance and presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust

File No.: CP2016/04182

Purpose

1. This report considers the request received from the Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust (the Trust) for immediate and long term financial support and provides recommendations in relation to the possible support that can be provided to the Trust.

Executive Summary

2. The Trust provides sport and recreation services to sporting and community clubs. The Trust is based at Kolmar, Papatoetoe, and is a sector leading partnership model delivering wide social benefits to the Otara-Papatoetoe community.

3. The Trust has received annual operational support from Auckland Council under a legacy agreement since 2009/2010. This has been on a reducing annual amount over the past seven years, with the total amount allocated of $1,167,000.

4. Despite the Trust’s total income nearly doubling between 2012 and 2015, it has been unable to achieve a trading surplus over that period. To meet payments as they fall due, over recent months the Trust has relied upon a bank overdraft facility which ranged between -$40,000 and -$50,000. In late 2015 the Trust advised council of their financial predicament.

5. The Trust is now in a critical financial situation and has requested both an immediate grant and an ongoing increase in operational grant from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board. The 2015/2016 annual grant of $102,000 has been paid to the Trust.

6. In assessing the request for an additional immediate grant in 2015/2016, five options have been considered and can be summarised as follows:

	Option	Comments	Recommendation
1	No additional grant	Possible insolvency resulting in a greater cost to council.	Not supported
2	$50,000 grant	Would repay overdraft but not provide any funds beyond that.	Not supported
3	$100,000 grant	Would repay overdraft and provide approximately 1 month operating expenses.	Not supported
4	$150,000 grant	Would repay overdraft, provide approximately 1 month operating expenses, provide an additional buffer and enable the completion of the storage shed project.	Recommended
5	$100,000 grant & $45,000 loan	Would repay overdraft and provide approximately 1 month operating expenses however wouldn’t provide an immediate solution nor the completion of storage shed project.	Not supported

7. In assessing the request for an ongoing operational grant, it is apparent that the Trust’s business model is reliant upon the further development of the Papatoetoe Recreation Ground and neighbouring areas. A review of the Trust’s business model and strategic plan is recommended prior to a commitment to ongoing operational support.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Allocate $150,000 from the board’s Community Response Fund to the Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust with the following terms and conditions:

- The repayment of the unsecured overdraft upon payment of the grant and no additional overdraft arrangement to be made without prior council approval in writing.

- The Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust to provide a copy of its monthly operations report within 10 working days of the last day of each calendar month to enable council to review, discuss and make recommendations to the Trust.

- The Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust to provide a copy of all bank statements within 10 working days of the last day of each calendar month.

- Any future grant payments will be contingent upon favourable trading results as agreed between council and the Trust.

- Any other such terms and conditions deemed reasonable and appropriate.

b) Supports the following actions to address long term financial sustainability:

- Engage a financial consultant to review the Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust’s operations, provide advice, suggest operational improvements, identify potential revenue streams and identify any potential savings. Work with council to implement identified improvements.

- Council staff work in partnership with the Trust to:

Review the level of necessary operational support including the bowling club maintenance commitment.

Review and potentially develop a new business model.

Review the formula to calculate and set the level of capitation levies/affiliation fees.

Review the Papatoetoe Sports and Community Charitable Trust’s strategic plan.

c) Requests staff to prepare a funding agreement to record the terms and conditions relating to the grant, including the items included in resolutions (a) and (b) above.

d) Delegates approval of the final terms and conditions of the funding agreement referred to in resolution (c) to the Manager Sport and Recreation.

e) Requests that staff report the findings of the review referred to in resolution (b) above before the end of 2016 together with a recommendation in relation to ongoing operational support including the bowls maintenance grant.

Comments

Background

8. The Trust was incorporated on 13 October 2004 and is located at Kolmar (formerly Papatoetoe Sports Centre), Papatoetoe Recreation Ground and Kingswood Reserve. The Trust was formed to act as the governance body for nine sports clubs and has since grown to thirteen affiliates. The Trust is registered with the Charities Commission under the Charities Act 2005.

9. The Trust entered into a lease (as lessee) with Auckland Council (as lessor) on 26 November 2010. The lease is for a period of 10 years commencing on 1 December 2010, with a right of renewal for a further 10 years. The leased area is the hockey field, tennis/netball courts, bowling greens and existing building (bowling club), new multi-use facility and a further 5 existing buildings (old rugby clubrooms, changing rooms/toilets, girl guide, scouts and radio club buildings).

10. Affiliated clubs at the time of the Trust’s formation were; Papatoetoe Hunters Corner Bowling Club Inc., Papatoetoe Tennis Club Inc., Papatoetoe Rugby Football Club Inc., Papatoetoe Cricket Club Inc., Southern Districts Hockey Club Inc., Papatoetoe United Football Club Inc., Papatoetoe Girl Guides (Guides Association of NZ), St Georges Scouts (Scouts Assn. of NZ) and Manukau Radio Club Inc. Since the Trust began operating in 2011 a further three clubs have affiliated; Papatoetoe Kabaddi Club Inc., Papatoetoe Olympic Weightlifting Club Inc. and Papatoetoe Contract Bridge Club Inc. and the Papatoetoe Rangers Netball Club Inc.

11. Aggregated club membership has grown from 1941 members in 2011 to approximately 2880 members currently.

Operational support received

12. Over the past seven years the Trust has received $927,000 in operational grants from council on a reducing scale:

2009/2010 $175,000	2010/2011 $150,000	2011/2012 $150,000
2012/2013 $125,000	2013/2014 $125,000	2014/2015 $100,000
2015/2016 $102,000

13. Additionally over the past six years the Trust has received an annual grant of $40,000 to assist with the annual maintenance costs of the bowling greens (total of $240,000).

Request for additional support

14. Despite operational grants received, the Trust has been unable to achieve a trading surplus over the past four years, showing accounting losses totalling in excess of $790,000 (after depreciation). This is not a unique situation as evidenced by submitters to the Sustainability of Sport Fora, a series of workshops hosted by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee through 2014 and 2015. The findings identified a number of challenges sports clubs/trusts face, many impacting on the financial viability of the organisation.

15. The Trust’s total annual income has grown from $583,262 for the year ended 31 March 2012 to $1,057,199 in 2015. Net loss after depreciation (of $174,260) was $207,921 in 2012 and $125,523 ($162,332 depn) in 2015. The Trust’s working capital position as at 31 March 2015 was a deficit of almost $50,000 with the auditor commenting; “it will be important that the Board continues to prudently manage its own capital spend and cash flows to ensure that the Trust’s working capital position does not deteriorate.” The Trust’s working capital position as at 31 January 2016 is $3,872.

16. Food and beverage operations have ensured a sustainable cash turnover however it has not delivered the margins initially anticipated. The net profit from food and beverage operations was $43,570 in 2015. The Trust therefore continues to look at external revenues such as facility hire, holiday programmes and summer sport leagues to supplement income.

17. The Trust has approached its member clubs and requested prepayment of capitation levies/affiliation fees. This informs the clubs about the financial issues and engenders their support however it only addresses short term liquidity issues and serves to delay the problem.

18. The Trust has approached gaming and philanthropic trusts in an attempt to gain additional revenue. While the outcome of these approaches are not yet known, if successful they will serve to address the longer term sustainability issue rather than the immediate crisis.

19. Recognising the likely dire financial situation, in late 2015 the Trust requested some urgent financial support from council in the form of a “one off” operating grant together with confirmation of a multi-year operating grant.

20. The Trust has also requested that council considers providing a loan of $45,000 which will be repayable when the sale of the former netball building is completed. Following the netball club’s affiliation to the Trust the building is surplus to requirements and negotiations to sell the building to the Mountain Raiders BMX Club is conditional upon Howick local board approval and the granting of a lease.

21. It is prudent to deal with the requests on an individual basis; firstly the immediate need for financial support and secondly the longer term aspect of financial sustainability.

Immediate need

22. Council staff have considered five options in response to the Trust’s request for an emergency operating grant of $100,000 and their request for a $45,000 loan.

23. The 1^st option considered is to reject the Trust’s request and not provide an immediate grant. The likely consequence of not providing a grant is that the Trust will be insolvent in the near future and will be unable to continue trading. If this were to occur measures would have to be instigated to ensure community access to fit for purpose facilities and also to protect and maintain council assets. The anticipated costs of providing such services are greater than the grant requested.

24. The 2^nd option considered is to provide a grant of $50,000. This would allow the repayment of the unsecured overdraft facility however it would not provide any additional funding to meet ongoing commitments. A grant of $50,000 would not provide the sufficient support to address the immediate crisis.

25. The 3^rd option considered is to provide a grant of $100,000. This would allow the repayment of the unsecured overdraft facility and provide sufficient funds to meet approximately one month of operating expenses. This would alleviate the immediate crisis but not provide an additional “buffer” to sustain any future adverse events.

26. The 4^th option considered is to provide a grant of $150,000. This would allow the repayment of the unsecured overdraft facility, provide sufficient funds to meet approximately one month of operating expenses and provide additional funds while the sale of the netball building is completed. It is considered that this additional grant should be conditional upon the proceeds from the sale of the netball building being used to complete the construction of the storage shed and demolition of the former rugby clubrooms at Papatoetoe Recreation Ground. The local board has previously supported this project (OP/2014/81 refers) however in October 2015 the Trust advised that the additional consent requirements and delays have resulted in a $47,816 increase in the project cost. This option would also provide sufficient time to assess longer term financial sustainability challenges and is the recommended option.

27. The 5^th option considered is to provide a grant of $100,000 together with a loan of $45,000 repayable upon the sale of the netball clubrooms (as suggested by the Trust). It is considered that the time involved in gaining the necessary governing body approval for this option would not provide an immediate solution. Additionally it would not provide a means to complete the storage shed project.

28. Suggested conditions that would be a condition precedent to any grant would be:

The repayment of the unsecured overdraft upon payment of the grant and no additional overdraft arrangement to be made without prior council approval in writing.
The Trust to provide a copy of its monthly operations report within 10 working days of the last day of each calendar month.
Copy bank statements within 10 working days of the last day of each calendar month.
Future grant payments will be contingent upon favourable trading results as agreed between council and the Trust.
Any other such condition deemed reasonable and appropriate.

Longer term need for financial sustainability

29. Since the Trust’s inception the financial sustainability of the Trust has been predicated on and reliant upon the continued development of the Papatoetoe Recreation Ground and Kingswood Reserve. The proposed development included the development of an artificial turf and additional community facility together with the acquisition of eight properties on the corner of Sutton Crescent and Great South Road, Papatoetoe. Such developments would potentially provide the opportunity for the Trust to generate some commercial type revenue.

30. Notwithstanding the intention to continue the reserve’s development, clause 7.5 in the Trust’s lease contemplates delays in the timing of such development – “The lessee and lessor are aware that the future development on latter stages of the Papatoetoe Recreation Reserve will be affected by changing plans, community requirements and possible funding aspects”.

31. Three of the four strategic outcomes identified in the Trust’s Strategic Plan 2013-2018 relate to site development and sustainability:
”A financially sustainable future”
“The redevelopment of recreation on the Hunters Corner site”
“The development of an artificial turf and community building”

32. To address longer term issues, cognisant that site development is outside the control of the Trust, staff recommend that council work in partnership with the Trust to:

Engage a financial consultant to review the Trust’s operations, provide advice, suggest operational improvements, identify potential revenue streams and identify any potential savings. Work with council to implement such improvements.
Review the level of necessary operational support including the bowling club maintenance commitment.
Review and potentially develop a new business model.
Review the formula to calculate and set the level of capitation levies/affiliation fees.
Review its strategic plan.

Strategic alignment

33. Council has developed and adopted a Community Grants Policy which came into effect on 1 July 2015. The policy replaces all of the legacy grants policies and contestable and discretionary grants schemes however recurring grants to third parties to deliver asset based services via partnership delivery models are out of scope of this policy.

34. Council is currently developing a Community Access Scheme which will enable council to move investment across Auckland in response to highest need/demand and invest on a three yearly cycle aligned with the Long Term Plan. The scheme is to leverage access to non-council facilities to support increased levels of sport and recreation participation and improve equity of access opportunities.

35. The Community Access Scheme draft guidelines were reported to the November meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and approved for consultation. These guidelines were introduced to the November Local Board chairs forum with wider local board engagement planned for the start of 2016. The guidelines outline a strategic approach for Council to enter into partnerships with 3^rd party providers of sport and recreation facilities, where there is an identified gap in provision, to secure community access via the provision of an operational grant.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

36. The Otara Papatoetoe Local Board has received representations from the Trust throughout its term and is aware of the successes achieved and challenges faced by the Trust. This request for an additional grant was discussed at a local board workshop on 16 February 2016.

Māori impact statement

37. The Maori Plan for Tamaki Makaurau includes key directions; “Improve Quality of Life” and “Promote Distinctive Identity”. These key directions include sections encompassing health and wellness and sport and leisure. Sport and active recreation at Kolmar contributes towards achieving the key directions through “active participation in sports and recreation” and the “number of school children and hours participating from schools and sports clubs”.

Implementation

38. There is existing budget available within in the Local Board’s Community Response Fund for 2015/2016 should the Local Board support the recommendation.

39. The Sport and Recreation team can facilitate the necessary agreement with the Trust to give effect to the local board’s decision.

40. The Sport and Recreation team will facilitate the engagement of a financial consultant or other business mentor to address longer term issues and will work in partnership with the Trust to address the long term sustainability of the Trust.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Martin Devoy - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Grant of New Community Leases in Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area – Group Owned Buildings

File No.: CP2016/01171

Purpose

1. To request the Ōtara–Papatoetoe Local Board grant new community leases to groups within the Ōtara and Papatoetoe areas, where the group owns the building.

Executive Summary

2. Community leases are one of the ways in which Council provides support to local community organisations, assisting them to sustain the activities and experiences they provide in alignment with recognised local priorities.

3. Council has a substantial programme of community leasing work to complete this year. The scale of the programme includes a number of existing leases that have rolled over beyond their anticipated expiry date.

4. This report and attachment includes details of groups within the Ōtara and Papatoetoe area with expired leases where the group owns the building. Staff recommend that new leases be granted for these groups under the terms and conditions specified in the schedule – Grant of new community leases, group owned buildings (Attachment A).

5. For each of the recommended leases, a process has been followed which includes a review of the lessee’s performance, that the organisation is sustainable, the services and programmes offered are beneficial to the community and that they align with objectives stated in the Auckland and Local Board Plans.

6. The groups own the buildings and improvements on the sites occupied (Attachments B, C and D). As outlined in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012, groups that own their own buildings have a right to apply for a new lease at the end of their occupancy term and there is no requirement to undertake an expression of interest process.

7. A Community Outcomes Plan will be an attachment to each lease subject to Local Board approval (Attachments E, F and G).

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Grant a new community ground lease to the following groups under the terms and conditions as specified in Attachment A - Grant of new community leases, group owned buildings:

i. Kenese Niue Trust Board, 16B Israel Avenue, Ōtara (as outlined in the site plan in Attachment B)

ii. Mataliki Tokelau Pre-school South Auckland Trust, 53R Raglan Street, Māngere (as outlined in the site plan in Attachment C)

iii. Sunnyside Tennis Club, 24R York Road, Papatoetoe (as outlined in the site plan in Attachment D)

b) Approve the Community Outcomes Plans (see Attachments E, F and G) to be attached as a schedule to the lease documents.

Comments

8. There is a substantial programme of community leasing work to complete this year, work which includes establishing new leases to groups who have an expired lease and where the groups own the building or improvements on the land.

9. Given the scale of the programme, staff have adopted a new approach to operational delivery, allowing a large number of more routine leases to be approved in a batched process.

10. Attachment A includes the details of groups within the Ōtara and Papatoetoe area with expired leases where the group owns the building. It is recommended new community leases be granted to these groups under the terms and conditions specified in the schedule – Grant of new community leases, group owned buildings (Attachment A).

11. The recommended term of lease where a group owns the building is 10 years with one 10 year right of renewal. The recommended rental is $1.00 per annum, if demanded. The groups are responsible for maintenance and all utility costs for these buildings.

12. For each of the recommended leases a process has been followed which includes a review of the lessee’s performance to ensure that lease conditions are being met, that the organisation is financially sustainable and that the services or programmes offered from the premises align with the objectives stated in the Auckland and Local Board Plans. Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments to ensure compliance requirements are met and that the facility is well maintained.

13. Checks have been undertaken to confirm the land classification for each of the sites and land information is included in the schedule.

14. A Community Outcomes Plan will be an attachment to each lease and will be reported upon annually (see Attachments E, F and G).

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. The recommendations within this report fall within the board’s allocated authority relating to the local, recreation, sports and community facilities.

16. The recommendations have been discussed with the Local Board Portfolio on 12 February 2016.

Māori impact statement

17. Community leases support a wide range of activities and groups and are granted based on an understanding of local needs, interests and priorities. They create local benefits for many communities, including Maori.

Implementation

18. The recommendations within this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

19. All costs involved in the preparation of lease documents are borne by Auckland Council.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - Grant of new leases - Group owned	21
b View	Attachment B - Site Plan - 16R Israel Avenue	23
c View	Attachment C - Site plan 53R Raglan Street	25
d View	Attachment D - Site plan 24R York Road	27
e View	Attachment E - Community Outcomes Plan - Kenese Kiue ECE	29
f View	Attachment F - Community Outcomes Plan - Mataliki Tokelau Preshcool	31
g View	Attachment G - Community Outcomes Plan - Sunnyside Park Tennis Club	33

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Young - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Community Relations

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Clover Park Community House Licences to Occupy and Manage

File No.: CP2016/03453

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the Clover Park Community House Incorporated 2016/2017 licences to occupy and manage.

Executive Summary

2. Clover Park Community House Incorporated became an incorporated society in 1978 and has consistently governed operations at Clover Park Community House at 16A Israel Avenue, Clover Park. The society is an experienced committee who deliver community programmes and activities to meet local needs, in alignment with local board outcomes.

3. For the past two years the society has received an annual licence to occupy and manage Clover Park Community House in alignment with the funding agreement granted by the local board, to support activation of programmes for the community. Staff recommend a further licence to occupy and manage the premise for a two year term in alignment with the duration of funding provided to support service provision.

4. On 19 October 2015, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board approved the expansion of Clover Park Community House’s footprint to include the shed, community garden space, annex and common use of the kitchen, toilet and bathroom in the house at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara to facilitate skills shed activities. In order to formalise this decision staff recommend the local board also approve licence to occupy and manage at 19R Boundary Road, Otara, to Clover Park Community House Incorporated until 30 June 2017.

5. The licences to occupy and manage coincide with the term of the funding agreement for Clover Park Community House Incorporated, in this case, for a period of two years. The funding agreement and licence term allows an adequate period for society to establish the skills shed programme. The group are required to report on their work plan quarterly and annually. Within 12 months a review of the delivery of skills shed activities will also be conducted by staff and reported to local board.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Approve the granting of a licence to occupy and manage to Clover Park Community House Incorporated for Clover Park Community House at 16A Israel Avenue, Clover Park, Part of Lot 295 DP 82025, contained in NA38D/23, subject to the following terms and conditions;

i) End date – 30 June 2017;

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per term if requested;

iii) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

b) Approve the granting of a licence to occupy and manage to Clover Park Community House Incorporated for the shed, annex and community gardens at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara, Part of Lot 490 DP 76628, subject to the following terms and conditions;

i) End date – 30 June 2017;

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per term if requested;

c) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Comments

6. Clover Park Community House Incorporated is made up of a Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer and 12 committee members. Clover Park Community House has approximately 25,000 visitors through its doors per annum. The financial accounts provided by society indicate that the funds held are sufficient to meet their liabilities and are being managed appropriately. All necessary insurance cover is in place, including public liability insurance.

7. Skills shed activities were identified in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan. Council staff worked alongside local board to identify a site and potential groups to deliver skills shed activities. Clover Park Community House Incorporated were identified as delivering skills development activities and a proposal for further programmes was presented to the local board by the society. The need for the expansion of Clover Park Community House’s footprint was identified to facilitate the delivery of skills shed activities.

8. At a workshop with the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board on 7 September 2015, endorsement was provided to expand the footprint of Clover Park Community House to include the shed, annex and space for community gardens (Attachment B), alongside common use of the kitchen, toilet and bathroom facilities (Attachment C) inside the house at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara. Support was imparted by the local board to initiate an expression of interest to find suitable community groups or organisations to enter into a community lease within the house at the property.

9. At the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local board Meeting on 19 October 2015 the following resolution was approved:

Resolution Number OP/2015/173:

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local board:

a) endorse Clover Park Community House as a selected provider to deliver skills shed activity within allocated budget.

b) approve the expansion of Clover Park Community House’s footprint to include the shed, community garden space and annex at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara to facilitate skills shed activities; pending approval for the transfer of 19R Boundary Road, Otara into community use.

c) approve operating expenditure of $21,500 per annum for the delivery of skills shed activity; to be funded by the Local board Locally Driven Initiatives fund.

10. Clover Park Community House Incorporated have a funding agreement provided by Local board for 2015-2017 which includes $8,083 for operations at Clover Park Community House and $21,500 for delivery of skills shed activities at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara. This report seeks approval for the licences to occupy and manage to cover the same term as the funding agreement.

11. The funding agreement and licences to occupy and manage coincide with the term of the funding agreement to allow time for the establishment and operation of skills shed activities. A review will be conducted after one year and reported to local board.

12. The licences for Clover Park Community House Incorporated include the footprint at Clover Park Community House located at 16A Israel Avenue, Ōtara, Part of Lot 295 DP 82025, contained in NA38D/23 and the footprint for the shed, community gardens, annex and the kitchen, bathroom and toilet in the house as areas of common use, at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara, Part of Lot 490 DP 76628.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

13. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

Māori impact statement

14. Clover Park Community House endeavour to improve the well-being among Maori within the work programmes they deliver. Council staff continue to work with the centre to ensure support and development of programmes and activities that directly improve well-being and outcomes for Maori.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Site Plan for Clover park Community House 16R Israel Ave Manukau	39
b View	19R Boundry Road Otara Annex Community Garden Plan	41
c View	19R Boundary Road Otara House Plan Common Areas of Use	43

Signatories

Authors

Nathlie Betty - Team Leader Community Led Delivery, Community Places

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Fresh Gallery Otara Business Plan 2016-2019

File No.: CP2016/03996

Purpose

1. To present the business plan for Fresh Gallery Ōtara for approval by the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. Fresh Gallery Ōtara is funded by the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and managed by council staff.

3. As part of improving business processes, staff are developing business plans for all Auckland Council owned-and-operated arts and culture facilities, including Fresh Gallery Ōtara. These plans require local board approval.

4. The Fresh Gallery Ōtara Business Plan 2016-2019 sets out the strategic context in which the facility operates, and communicates the facility’s vision, mission, objectives and the actions that will be taken to achieve them over the next three years (2016-2019). It also states the facility’s priorities for 2016 and its organisational values.

5. Points of note in the business plan are:

· staff will develop a Community Engagement and Facility Outreach Plan as well as a Marketing and Communications Plan in 2016

· proposed priorities for 2016 include a review of the facility’s operating hours and to implement changes if required; and a proposal to celebrate the tenth year anniversary of the facility

· priorities and actions for 2016 will be reviewed and updated prior to 2017, requiring local board approval.

6. Staff will report progress against key performance measures and against delivering priorities and actions annually to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board approve the Fresh Gallery Ōtara Business Plan 2016-2019.

Comments

7. Fresh Gallery Ōtara is a purpose-built visual arts gallery committed to developing and presenting Pacific arts. It opened in May 2006 and was renovated in 2011/2012.

8. The facility is council-owned and operated; funded by the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and managed by council staff.

9. Staff are developing business plans for all Auckland Council owned-and-operated arts and culture facilities, including Fresh Gallery Ōtara, to improve business processes. These plans require local board approval.

10. The Fresh Gallery Ōtara Business Plan 2016-2019 (Attachment A) defines the strategic context in which the facility operates, and sets out the facility’s vision, mission, objectives and the actions that will be taken from 2016 to 2019 to achieve them. It also establishes the facility’s priorities for 2016 and its organisational values.

11. The Fresh Gallery Ōtara Business Plan 2016-2019 aligns to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan 2014 where appropriate, and notes the vision along with outcomes, objectives and key initiatives that are considered of high relevance to the business plan.

Scope of the Plan

12. The business plan covers the three-year period from 2016 to 2019. Priorities and actions are to be reviewed and updated annually.

13. The scope of the business plan is set out in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Scope of Fresh Gallery Ōtara Business Plan 2016-2019
In scope	Out of scope
All public spaces within the gallery	Auckland Council arts and culture facilities other than Fresh Gallery Ōtara
All programming activities within the gallery	Auckland Council community facilities
All community outreach activities by staff
All relationship management activities between the gallery and stakeholders
All expenditure

Information and feedback used in forming the business plan

14. Staff held a workshop with local arts and culture stakeholders in September 2015 to invite feedback on what could be done to improve the facility’s engagement with local communities and enhance its reputation as a destination for Pacific arts in Auckland. Local board members have been closely involved in the business planning project, including attendance at the stakeholder workshop. These discussions have informed the business plan.

15. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board invited all mana whenua groups who have registered interest in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area to engage in the business planning process. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua requested to be kept informed of progress and were sent draft documents for review and feedback, including the business plan.

16. Staff also reviewed and analysed the following:

· annual visitor survey data

· all visitor and attendee statistics

· demographic profile information for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area

· a survey that looked at whether the facility was achieving its purpose and how to improve the facility’s reach to the community

· a facilitated strategic workshop of invited community residents, key stakeholders and local board members

· feedback and information from a staff operational planning workshop

· local board direction and input.

Fresh Gallery Ōtara priorities for 2016

17. Priorities identified in the business plan for 2016 include:

· Develop and implement a Fresh Gallery Ōtara Community Engagement and Facility Outreach Plan

· Develop and implement a Fresh Gallery Ōtara Marketing and Communications Plan

· Develop memorandum of understandings/partnerships with key community organisations and work collaboratively with education providers and council-owned and operated facilities

· Celebrate the tenth year anniversary of Fresh Gallery Ōtara

· Review the facility’s operating hours and implement changes, if required.

18. The implementation of one of the proposed priorities, to review the facility’s operating hours, may require additional budget and resources. Staff will present further information to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board in Q4 FY 2015/2016, for consideration.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. The Fresh Gallery Ōtara Business Planning Project was formally presented to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board at the business meeting on 17 August 2015, where it was resolved that Member Lee be the board’s representative on the project steering group.

20. Local board members were invited to the 30 September 2015 strategic workshop where future priorities for Fresh Gallery Ōtara were discussed.

21. The vision, mission, objectives, organisational values and key performance measures were circulated to members for review in January 2016, followed by discussion at a workshop on 2 February 2016. Feedback gathered from the workshop has informed this report.

22. The draft business plan was circulated to members in February 2016.

Māori impact statement

23. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board invited all mana whenua groups that registered interest in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area to participate in the business planning process. The mana whenua groups are Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Tamaterā and Waikato-Tainui.

24. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua requested that they be kept informed of progress. Staff provided draft documents for review and feedback by the Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua representative, including the business plan.

25. The ethnic composition of the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board area is 16 per cent Māori and 46 per cent Pacific, which is greater than the Auckland-wide average of 11 and 15 per cent respectively.

Implementation

26. The Business Plan includes a set of key performance measures and annual targets. Performance against these targets will be presented annually to the local board along with progress on delivering priorities and actions identified within the business plan.

27. A high-level update on Fresh Gallery Ōtara and implementation progress on the business plan will be provided to the local board through quarterly reporting.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - Fresh Gallery Otara Business Plan	49

Signatories

Authors

Naomi Singer - Arts and Culture Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

New Road Name Approval for Ministry of Justice at Manukau Courthouse, Manukau Station Road, Manukau.

File No.: CP2016/04133

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, for a new road name for a road created behind the Manukau Court house.

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 ‘Russell Johnson ’ (applicant’s preferred road name) and ‘Karina Williams’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Tainui kamatua supported “Karina Williams” as a name. Thirteen local iwi groups were consulted and no response was received.

5. The suffix “Way” was considered more appropriate than “Place” as proposed by the Applicant.

6. The name Russell Johnson Way, proposed by the Applicant and the name Karina Williams are considered for approval by the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name “Russell Johnson Way”, proposed by the Applicant, for the new road created at the Manukau Courthouse while noting that ‘Karina Williams Way’ also meets the road naming criteria.

Comments

7. 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 subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.

8. Land use consent number 41119 to create a link between Barrocliffe Place and Clist Crescent was granted by Duty Commissioner on 14 December 2012. The proposed road is to serve primarily the Courthouse and provide additional parking on the road and vehicle access to the underground and above ground carparks at the southern rear side of the Courthouse and the Courthouse additions on the designated site to the north of the road. Currently, the road ends in a cul-de-sac as negotiations with Auckland Transport continue to allow the road to connect with Clist Crescent.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at the Manukau District Courthouse on Manukau Station Road, Manukau. The names were determined following consultation within the Ministry of Justice, local and national representatives of the Judiciary and representatives from Tainui and the local Pasifika community.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Russell Johnson Place	Russell Johnson is a former Chief Judge of New Zealand involved with such initiatives as Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts as well as setting up Domestic Violence Courts throughout New Zealand. A large part of his career was based at Manukau
First Alternative	Karina Williams Place	Karina Williams is a former judge of Tainui / Tuhoe descent. Judge Williams was the second Maori female judge in New Zealand. Known as the “Rainbow Judge” due to the diversity of people with which she connected. This option was supported by Tainui kaumatua
Second Alternative	Aiona Way	Nick Aoina spent 33 years working for the Ministry of Justice mostly in South Auckland at both Otahuhu and Manukau Courts. This option was suggested by Auckland Councillor Alf Filipaina as a representative of and in consultation with the wider Pasifika community.

Figure One: Location and Layout of new Road

Decision Making

9. 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

10. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

11. Russell Johnson and Karina Williams meet the Road naming guidelines. The length of the road was border-line as to whether two word names (such as Russell Johnson and Karina Williams) are appropriate as the guidelines direct us to apply short names to short streets. Given that the length of the road was there or thereabouts and that the proposed names honour long serving members of the Ministry of Justice on a road immediately adjacent to the Courthouse, it was considered appropriate that that names proposed by the Applicant be considered by the Local Board.

12. Aiono was considered by NZ Post to be too close in pronunciation to Iona which exists as a road name within the same postcode district.

13. While the applicant has generally proposed “Place” as a suffix and this currently reflects the configuration of the road as an extended cul-de-sac. Council is aware that the proposal is to make the road connect from Barrowcliffe Place through to Clist Cresent at some point in the future. It would therefore be appropriate that the suffix be “Way” as this can used for both configurations.

14. As the Applicant’s preferred name (Russell Johnson Way) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the alternate name proposed (Karina Williams Way) is also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

15. The decision sought from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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. Consultation with tangata whenua occurred on two levels. Firstly, the Ministry of Justice consulted with kaumatua of Tainui. Secondly, as is Councils policy, the proposed names were forwarded to the thirteen iwi groups within the Auckland Council region. At the time of writing of this report, no response from any of those iwi has been received.

18. New Zealand Post raised concern with the name “Aiono” as it was close in pronunciation to “Iona”.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

19. 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

20. The decision sought from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

21. 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.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Debby Blackburn - Resource Consent Administrator

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Auckland Transport Report - March 2016

File No.: CP2016/04340

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport activities in the local board area.

Executive Summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and its community, matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector, and Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Report - March 2016.

b) approve design three for the welcome sign to be placed at 113 East Tamaki Road, including the words Welcome to Papatoetoe and ‘toi toi’ inspired art work and agrees that the sign should be lit, if this is possible.

c) confirm that street trees in St George Street will remain and approve the replacement of the existing street trees with canton lace trees as part of the Old Papatoetoe footpath replacement project.

d) agree to refer the project to install hanging baskets or planter boxes on St George Street to the business association for them to consider.

Monthly Overview

3. Please see below updates on the following issues:

Welcome to Papatoetoe Sign

4. As reported in February, Auckland Transport (AT) has investigated options for signs on East Tamaki Road to welcome visitors to the Papatoetoe area.

5. There are three design options that have previously been considered by the board. These would all fit on the berm space available on East Tamaki Road. (See the engineers report, attachment A)

6. The engineers report also lists five other sites that could accommodate a sign, although these sites cannot accommodate all of the design options.

7. Therefore, AT recommends design three as the preferred option as it also accommodates the art work the board is looking to incorporate. AT will attempt to provide lighting for this option. AT recommends that this sign be placed at 113 East Tamaki Road, as this site provides the best orientation for the sign.

Papatoetoe Town Centre update

8. In the February report Auckland Transport (AT) notified the board that the tender for this project had been let. AT needs the board to make final decisions on street trees to enable this project to be finalised. There is additional information on the board’s request for hanging baskets and planter boxes, below.

Street Trees

9. Auckland Parks is working with AT to ensure that the right tree species is used in St George Street. As requested by the board all the options are evergreen.

10. It is proposed to replace the current Canton Lace trees with suitable replacement species. These have been discussed with the Parks Department Arborist and Parks Advisors and they have recommended 3 species. They are in order of preference:

a. Radermachera sinica (Canton Lace Tree) the species currently present within the town centre area;

b. Magnolia grandiflora “Little Gem”, a small evergreen Magnolia variety;

c. Pseudopanax crassifolius, “New Zealand Lancewood” a native evergreen small tree species.

11. The following provides further information on each species:

12. Photo of Radermachera sinica or Canton Lace tree at approximately 10 years old in Papatoetoe. This tree species has generally performed well, and are of a suitable scale within the street environment.

This is the preferred and recommended species

13. Photo of Magnolia grandiflora “Little Gem”, and evergreen Magnolia variety with attractive small bold green foliage. Large white flowers through late spring to autumn.

14. Pseudopanax crassifolius- NZ Lancewood. Develops into a well behaved small tree with a rounded crown. Has good clean evergreen foliage. Slower to establish and thus less effective in the short term.

Hanging Baskets & Planter Boxes

15. Further information is available on the options of hanging baskets. In photos of the hanging baskets shown in Otorohanga and Māngere Bridge, (See attachment B). The spacing is approximately 4m apart. In order to create the same effect in Papatoetoe about 150 hanging baskets would be required to accommodate the retail shop-frontage which is approximately 600m long.

16. Auckland Council Parks advise that the hanging baskets in Māngere Bridge are not maintained by Auckland Council; rather they are looked after by the Māngere Bridge Business Association and volunteers, so there is no cost to Council.

17. Auckland Council Parks previous experience with hanging baskets (in Pukekohe) was such that they do not recommend installing them in Old Papatoetoe, for the following reasons:

i. Vandalism, including on-going theft

ii. Maintenance, the flower plants need to be changed three times per year. In addition, the plants need to be watered every second day during the summer months. They also noted that it is hard to get the plants to look good when they are under verandahs on the shady side of the street, in this case the north side.

18. A rough annual estimate for maintaining 150 hanging baskets is as follows:

· Changing flowering plants three times per year (labour, plants, etc) - $5,000 x 3 = $15,000.

· Watering every second day over summer months (and other dry times). Say 4 months in total (120 days) which equates to watering 60 times per year (labour, truck, water) - $1,000 x 60 = $60,000

· Other ongoing care plus vandalism / theft and replacements – approx. $10,000 per annum.

· Total estimated annual maintenance cost = $85,000.

19. In addition to the on-going horticultural issues there is the possibility of the following issues arising to be dealt with regarding initial installation:

i. All the buildings are private property. We would need to negotiate with each building owner (there are roughly 40 separate buildings) to gain their approval to hang the baskets from their verandahs and then maintain them. We would be unlikely to get 100% acceptance and this would lead to a rather patchy appearance.

ii. Many of the buildings are relatively old. Structural assessments of many of the verandahs would need to be carried out to determine if they would be suitable, followed by structural design in some of these cases. Building consents would be required if alterations to the verandahs were required.

iii. The cost of this is hard to estimate but could be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

iv. These changes and any installation of hanging baskets would be on private property and would therefore not qualify for funding from the local board transport capital fund.

v. The timing of all of these aspects would be considerable and we would certainly not complete the construction of the project by the end of September 2016.

Planter Boxes

20. Planter boxes would be installed on public land and would therefore potentially qualify for local board transport capital funding. However, planter boxes that have been installed in other business districts have required agreement from the business association and individual businesses around the placement of the planters, the costs of initial and replacement planting and maintenance, including weeding and watering. These things would all need to be in place before AT could progress this further.

21. Both the options of hanging baskets and planter boxes, would delay the implementation of the current project; this has consequences for the board’s ability to spend its capital fund entitlement within this election period.

22. Based on the information above, AT does not recommend the board progress the ideas of hanging baskets or planter boxes at this time. If the board wishes to continue with this project, then this should be managed through the business association relationship with Auckland Council.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Engineers report – Welcome Sign in Papatoetoe	79
b View	Hanging baskets	89

Signatories

Authors

Melanie Dale – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Manukau Harbour Forum Work Programme for 2016/17

File No.: CP2016/03554

Purpose

1. To forward the resolutions of Manukau Harbour Forum regarding its 2016/17 work programme and to request that the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board endorse the updated work programme and consider this in its discussions regarding 2016/17 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget allocations.

Executive Summary

2. At is business meeting of 18 August 2014 the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board agreed to support a three-year work programme for the Manukau Harbour Forum (resolution number OP/2014/1), following the adoption of this work programme by the forum on 14 July 2014 (Attachment A).

3. At its 15 February 2016 business meeting the Manukau Harbour Forum received an update on the proposed content of year three of its 2014-16 work programme (Attachment B).

4. The forum resolved as follows in response to this update:

Resolution number MHFJC/2016/2

MOVED by Member DG Purdy, seconded by Member CM Elliott:

That the Manukau Harbour Forum:

a) Notes that year three of the Manukau Harbour Forum work programme is focussed on continuing to increase engagement of businesses, industry, and residents with the Manukau Harbour.

b) Requests that member boards endorse the work programme and consider this as the basis for 2016/17 locally driven initiatives budget discussions.

c) Notes that no funding for the hydrodynamic modelling work beyond the completion of the scoping study has been identified, and recommends that member boards consider retaining hydrodynamic modelling study as an advocacy issue in their 2016/17 Local Board Agreements.

5. These resolutions are being forwarded to the nine member boards of the Manukau Harbour Forum requesting that they formally endorse the updated forum work programme for 2016/17 and consider the advice from staff as appended in Attachment B in their discussions regarding 2016/17 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget allocations.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Notes resolution MHFJC/2016/5 of the Manukau Harbour Forum

b) Endorses year three of the Manukau Harbour Forum’s 2014-2016 work programme as appended in Agenda Attachment B

c) Notes the recommendation regarding ongoing advocacy for hydrodynamic modelling of the Manukau Harbour

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

6. The Manukau Harbour Forum is made up from representatives of the nine local boards adjoining the Manukau Harbour. The forum has a bi-monthly workshop and business meeting. This work programme has been regularly discussed by the forum and formal updates are reported to most of its business meetings.

Māori impact statement

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

8. Feedback was sought from mana whenua on the three-year work programme at an initial hui in November 2014, at which mana whenua identified a desire for closer involvement in the Manukau Harbour Forum’s ongoing work programming.

9. Subsequent to this the Manukau Harbour Forum resolved to hold up to three hui per year to engage with mana whenua on its work programme and other areas of mutual interest.

Implementation

10. Year three of the Manukau Harbour Forum’s work programme is largely a continuation of existing work. Implementation will commence on 1 July 2016 subject to allocation of funding by member boards.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	2014 Report to the Manukau Harbour Forum on the adoption of a three-year work programme	97
b View	Report to the Manukau Harbour Forum on its 2016/17 Work Programme	101

Signatories

Authors

Mary Binney - Local Board Advisor - Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Performance Report for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the quarter ending December 2015

File No.: CP2015/26647

Purpose

1. To update the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Community Services and local Environmental Management departments have provided a reforecast of what LDI (Locally Driven Initiatives) projects cannot be delivered this year and need to be reallocated to other projects.

6. Following discussions with and advice from the board members, reallocation of these LDI funds are provided in the recommendations.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Receive the Performance Report for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board for the financial quarter ended December 2015.

b) Approve the reallocation of $678 unspent funding from the LDI Waste Minimisation and Recycling Programmes Study work programme to support six Enviroschools in the local board area with signage costs through the Toimata Foundation.

c) Approve the reallocation of $14,322 unspent funding from the LDI Waste Minimisation and Recycling Programmes Study work programme to to support ‘The Fix-it Pod’.

d) Approve the reallocation of $21,500 unspent funding from the LDI Neighbourhood development fund work programme, as forecast by Community Services staff, to the Community Response Fund in the Community Services activity.

e) Approve the 2016 work programme presented by the Community Empowerment Unit for $15,000 for LDI Senior Assistance Groups.

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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Performance Report for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board	107

Signatories

Authors

Faithe Smith - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Community Led Small Build Programme

File No.: CP2016/02304

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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to ensure that new applications can be progressed quickly.

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

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

· straight forward and standalone projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 [X] Local Board area.

Comments

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

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

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

· straight forward and standalone projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. The support provided by council will include:

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

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

· Consent fees covered by council

· Ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Potentially providing up to 20% funding

· Providing input into the assessment of new applications

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

· Launch activities and supporting ongoing use of the asset

25. Local board input is important to ensure that the right community initiatives are supported. In particular the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board decide to support a community led small build initiative with funding this needs to be managed through a separate process and formally approved by the Board. However, to reduce the demands on the community group the accountability report (on final delivery of project) could be used both for the local board funding requirements and the programme.

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

Implementation

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

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

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Karen Titulaer - Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/02165

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 1 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/02528

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Janice Miller – Manager Logistics, Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

John Dragicevich – Civil Defence and Emergency Management Manager

Relationship Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Adoption of the Youth Connections South Local Governance Group Terms of Reference

File No.: CP2016/03422

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board once again requested for 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 also is 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Terms of Reference	177

Signatories

Authors	Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Community-led alcohol licensing project - six month report

File No.: CP2016/04348

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on the local board’s community-led alcohol licensing project for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu 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, three of these in the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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).

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 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)

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)

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 licence 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. Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03434

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Order of candidate names on voting documents	231

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting and conference

File No.: CP2016/03974

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	LGNZ 2016 conference and master class programme	243

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

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Proposed changes to meeting dates

File No.: CP2016/03148

Purpose

1. To seek approval to change the date of the June Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board meeting from Monday 20 June 2016 to Monday 13 June 2016 and to schedule an additional business meeting in April 2016.

Executive Summary

2. In November 2014, the board adopted the meeting schedule for the remainder of the 2013-2016 electoral term.

3. The date for the June meeting was scheduled for Monday 20 June 2016. The board is required to adopt the local board agreement and fees and charges schedules on or before 15 June 2016. In order to meet this timeframe, it is proposed to change the date of the June meeting to Monday 13 June 2016.

4. An additional business meeting is required to finalise decisions and resolutions on the locally driven initiatives priorities and advocacy to meet Governing Body timeframes. This is proposed for Tuesday 26 April 2016 at 12 noon, in the Woodside room.

Recommendation/s

That the date for the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) approve Monday, 13 June 2016, at 5.00pm in the Manukau Chambers, Level 1, Manukau Civic Centre, 31-33 Manukau Station Road, Manukau as the date, time and place for the June ordinary monthly business meeting.

b) approve Tuesday 26 April 2016, at 12 noon in the Woodside Room, Level 1, Manukau Civic Centre 31-33 Manukau Station Road, Manukau as the date, time and place for an additional April business meeting.

Discussion

5. The board adopted the meeting schedule for 2015 and 2016 in November 2014. At the time the dates for adopting the local aboard agreement in 2016 had not been confirmed.

6. The date for the June meeting was scheduled for Monday 20 June 2016. The board is required to adopt the local board agreement and fees and charges schedules on or before 15 June 2016. In order to meet this timeframe, it is proposed to change the date of the June meeting to Monday 13 June 2015.

7. The board must finalise decisions and resolutions on the locally driven initiatives priorities and advocacy between 19 and 28 April 2016 to meet Governing body timeframes. The April business meeting is scheduled for Monday 18 April and is outside the timeframe. Rather than move the April meeting, it is proposed an additional business meeting be held on Tuesday 26 April 2016 at 12 noon. The meeting would be held in the Woodside Room, Level 1, Manukau Civic Centre following on from the workshop session.

8. Clause (5)(d), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a local board to adopt a schedule of business meetings at its first meeting in the electoral term.

9. Adopting a meeting schedule allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments. It also gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Consideration

Local Board Views

10. This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

11. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

General

12. Clauses 19(6), Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“(6) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings, -

(a) the schedule –

(i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate; and

(ii) may be amended; and

(b) notification of the schedule or of any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.”

13. Similarly, the statutory requirement pursuant to clauses 46, 46(A) and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 mentions that:

· meetings of a local authority are publicly notified

· agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting

· local board meetings are open to the public.

Implementation Issues

14. Meetings of the local boards are supported by Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

21 March 2016

Ōtara Papatoetoe Local Board members portfolio update

File No.: CP2016/03362

Purpose

1. This report provides an opportunity at the business meeting for portfolio holders to update the full Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board on any significant activities over the last month.

Executive Summary

2. The portfolio leads and alternates for Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board are as follows:

Portfolio	Lead	Alternate
Planning, Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Efeso Collins	Ross Robertson
Arts, Culture and Events	Donna Lee	Ross Robertson
Community Services and Libraries	Mary Gush	Donna Lee
Youth Development	Lotu Fuli	Efeso Collins
Parks, Sport and Recreation	Ross Robertson	John McCracken
Built and Natural Environment, Heritage and Housing	Stephen Grey	Donna Lee
Economic Development, Business and Town Centre revitalisation	Stephen Grey	Mary Gush
Transport	Efeso Collins	John McCracken

3. At the commencement of this electoral term, the reasons for having local board portfolio-holders was workshopped with the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and it was generally agreed that the objectives of local board portfolio holders are to:

· Provide clear steering of the relevant work programme

· Lift detailed discussion out of local board meetings and workshops

· Ensure key decisions go before the full local board

· Reduce or avoid delays in project delivery

· Enable local board members to apply their time and energy with enthusiasm and interest

· Ensure clear communications within the local board and between the local board and officers

· Maintain strong, connected relationships between the local board and its communities

· Maintain mutual trust

4. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board also workshopped what the role or job description of a portfolio holder might be, and some examples of how local board members might perform their role as a portfolio holder are outlined below:

Portfolio role	Examples of actions by portfolio holder
Undertaking roles specified in officer delegation protocols	· Landowner consents; and proposed asset renewal works: The portfolio-holder can either decide the issue or ask officers to refer it to the full local board for a decision · Providing feedback on resource consent applications
Sharing the workload between local board members	· Speaking at external meetings on local board matters e.g. at sports clubs – to gather their views, and represent the views of the local board · Supporting the Chair and other local board members in speaking to governing body committees or at public meetings on portfolio topics · Keeping alternate portfolio-holders informed, so they can assist the portfolio-holder where needed
Gathering knowledge	· Receiving officer progress updates on projects already agreed by the local board, noting that work programmes are approved by the full local board · Engaging and maintaining relationships with stakeholders · Reading background reports relevant to the portfolio
Acting as a sounding-board and advising officers	· Meeting with officers to give the local board view of issues · Where there is no known local board view, the portfolio-holder gathers the views of all local board members and formulates the local board position. (Contentious issues are best referred to a local board workshop) · Helping to shape details of departmental annual work programmes before presentation to the local board, to secure local board plan outcomes · Commenting on proposed design details and other issues arising from local board projects · Enabling officers to test possible local board interest in a proposal · Helping officers to define preferred options or approaches before reporting to the local board · Encouraging officers, especially through difficult decisions
Monitoring action against the Local Board Plan	· Asking officers for progress updates · Advising officers and local board when projects need response or attention
Leading local board projects as a convenor of the relevant steering group or working party	Various, but currently include: · Aorere Park joint steering group · Otara Lake and waterways steering group · Youth Connections project
Providing regular updates on portfolio activity to the local board	· At board business meetings: portfolio-holders can report back at this agenda item · Portfolio-holders lead board discussion on officer reports relevant to their portfolio · Emails to all local board members, when information needs to be timely

Recommendation/s

That the verbal or written reports from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board portfolio holders be received.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Carol McGarry - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers

Chairperson	Fa’anānā Efeso Collins
Deputy Chairperson	Ross Robertson, QSO, JP
Members	Lotu Fuli
	Stephen Grey
	Mary Gush
	Donna Lee
	John McCracken