Agenda of Rodney Local Board

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Rodney Local Board will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Monday, 14 March 2016

10.00am

Whangateau Hall
Leigh Road
Whangateau

Rodney Local Board

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Brenda Steele
Deputy Chairperson	Steven Garner
Members	James Colville
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Thomas Grace
	Beth Houlbrooke
	John McLean
	Phelan Pirrie
	Greg Sayers

(Quorum 5 members)

Raewyn Morrison

Local Board Democracy Advisor

7 March 2016

Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3399

Email: raewyn.morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Board Member

Organisation

Position

James Colville

St Marys Church Wellsford, Parish Council

Federated Farmers Auckland

Wellsford Drama Club

Wellsford Promotions

Landowners and Contractors Protection Assn.

Member

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Westgate Pharmacy Ltd

NorSGA Properties Ltd

The Trust Community Foundation Ltd

Henderson-Massey Local Board

Waitemata District Health Board

Taupaki Residents and Ratepayers Assn.

Contracto/Director

Director

Member

Elected Member

Member

Steven Garner

(Deputy Chairperson)

Mahurangi College Board of Trustee

Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club

Trustee

Member

Thomas Grace

Kumeu Rotary

South Kaipara Community Patrol

Rally New Zealand

Targa New Zealand

Waimauku Lions

Auckland Conservation Board

Federated Farmers

Northern Sports Car Club

Graceland Properties

Kumeu Community Patrol

President

Member

Director

Member

Beth Houlbrooke

Greater Auckland Chorus (Charitable Trust)

Sweet Adelines New Zealand (Charitable Trust)
ACT NZ

Baddeleys and Campbells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Assn.

Member

Contractor

Member

John McLean

Albany CoCo

De Paul House

Furniture for Schools Charitable Trust

Newpark Financial

Coatesville Residents and Ratepayers Association

Member

Supporter

Trustee

Shareholder

Member

Phelan Pirrie

Muriwai Environmental Action Community Trust

North West District Business Association

Muriwai Community Association

Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade

Best Berries (NZ) Ltd

Trustee

Member

Officer in Charge

Director/Shareholder

Greg Sayers

Rotary Club of Auckland

Neighbourhood Support Rodney

Member

Brenda Steele

(Chairperson)

Te Uri o Hau

Ngati Whatua o Kaipara

Woodhill School Board of Trustees

Beneficiary

Trustee

Rodney Local Board

14 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 3

2 Apologies 3

3 Declaration of Interest 3

4 Confirmation of Minutes 3

5 Leave of Absence 3

6 Acknowledgements 5

6.1 Michael Taplin 5

7 Petitions 6

7.1 Point Wells Residents and Ratepayers Association - petition to reinstate the Point Wells Lullaby Swing 6

8 Deputations 6

8.1 Update on presentation to the Unitary Plan Independant Hearings Panel 6

9 Public Forum 7

9.1 Omaha Beach Bowling Club 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Community-Led Small Build Programme 9

13 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 15

14 LGNZ Conference and AGM 2016 27

15 Governance Forward Work Programme 35

16 Ward Councillor Update 41

17 Local Board Members Reports 43

18 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 Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 15 February 2016, including confidential minutes 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

6.1 Michael Taplin

Purpose

1. The Rodney Local Board acknowledge the recent passing of Michael Taplin of Sandspit. During the past five years Mr Taplin gave several presentations to the local board on matters relating to Sandspit and work tirelessly for the area.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) acknowledge the recent passing of Michael Taplin of Sandspit.

7 Petitions

7.1 Point Wells Residents and Ratepayers Association - petition to reinstate the Point Wells Lullaby Swing

Purpose

1. Members of the Point Wells Residents and Ratepayers Association will be in attendance to present a petition to the local board regarding reinstatement of the lullaby swing that was recently removed from the reserve at Points Wells.

Executive Summary

2. The lullaby swing on the Point Wells Reserve was located on the reserve for over five decades, but was recently removed due to concerns regarding health and safety.

3. The Point Wells Residents and Ratepayers Association wishes to present a petition regarding its reinstatement.

4. A public meeting was held on Thursday, 28 January in regard to the options for replacing the equipment.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the Point Wells Residents and Ratepayers Association for their petition regarding the reinstatement of the lullaby swing on the reserve at Point Wells.

Attachments

a Point Wells Resident and Ratepayers Association petition...................... 3

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 Rodney 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 Update on presentation to the Unitary Plan Independant Hearings Panel

Purpose

1. Mark Hall, Kumeu-Huapai Residents and Ratepayers will be in attendance to update the local board on their presentation to the Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel later in March.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Mark Hall of the Kumeu-Huapai Residents Association for the update on their presentation to the Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

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.

9.1 Omaha Beach Bowling Club

Purpose

1. Representatives from Omaha Beach Bowling Club will be in attendance to address the local board on the history of the club and other matters.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from Omaha Beach Bowling Club for their presentation.

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.

Rodney Local Board

14 March 2016

Community-Led Small Build Programme

File No.: CP2016/02291

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the implementation of the Community-Led Small Build programme (‘the programme’).

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

3. For Community Led Small Build projects the Rodney 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 acting on council’s behalf as 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 Local Discretionary Initiatives 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 Rodney Local Board area the local 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 Rodney 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 acting on council’s behalf as 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 Rodney Local Board:

a) receive 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 Rodney 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 Waiheke 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 Waiheke 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 Rodney Local Board for one or more local 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 Rodney 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 local 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 the Local Board Chairs Forum on 27 July 2015. Local board chairpersons 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

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Rodney Local Board

14 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03704

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

· alphabetical order of surname;

· pseudo-random order; or

· random order.

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

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

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

6. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of the 2013 results show does not exist.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

Comments

Background

7. Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001:

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

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

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

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

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

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

(b) all voting documents use that order

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

2013 elections

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

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

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

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

Options for 2016

Pseudo-random order and random order printing

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

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

Alphabetical order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Given there is no compelling evidence of first name bias for the council’s own 2013 results, staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem 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	19

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

14 March 2016

LGNZ Conference and AGM 2016

File No.: CP2016/03937

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 Rodney Local Board:

a) nominates 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) confirms that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

Comments

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 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 incl GST before 1 June 2016 and $1510.00 incl 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 and implications

16. This is a report to the 21 local boards.

Māori 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

18. There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations in this report.

Attachments