Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
1	Governance	· Board Leadership · Board-to-Council Relationships · Board-to-Board Relationships · Civic Duties · Advocacy (local, regional, and central government) · Relationships with Maoridom · Relationships with government departments and agencies · Relationship with Property CCO · Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development · Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements) · Unitary Plan · Local area plan	Brian Neeson Lisa Whyte
2	Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management .	· Resource consents · Heritage · Liquor · Gambling · Swimming pools fencing · Trees · Bylaws · Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group · Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery	Callum Blair John McLean Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)
3	Events / Arts and Culture	· Community celebration · Community identity · Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal · Event compliance · Relationship with ATEED · Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs · Tourism · Artistic and cultural service levels · Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour · Development of public art strategy and policy	Margaret Miles
4	Community and social well-being / Local Facilities	· Community development · Neighbourhood relationships · Funding for neighbourhood projects · Community safety (excl. town centres) · Graffiti removal · Community advocacy · Relationships with Youth · Leisure centres · Community houses · Halls · Community hubs · Arts facilities · Community Partnerships · Asset Management	Callum Blair Margaret Miles

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
5	Libraries	· Stewardship of libraries · Mobile library	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Lisa Whyte
6	Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)	· Stewardship of sports parks · Stewardship of recreation facilities · Relationship with sports clubs · Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline) · Design and maintenance · Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways · Skateparks · Track Network development	Margaret Miles Lisa Whyte
7	Town Centres	· Town centre renewal · Design and maintenance · Community safety within town centres · Business Improvement Districts liaison · Urban design · Built Heritage	Margaret Miles Brian Neeson
8	Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development	· Local transport projects and public transport (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways) · Liaison on regional Transport matters · 2^nd harbour crossing · Bridge walk cycleway · Inner City Rail Link · Waterfront development · CBD master plan	John McLean Margaret Miles
9	Natural Environment .	· Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways · Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management · Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation · Relationships with Watercare · Waste minimisation strategy · Bio security	John McLean Callum Blair Lisa Whyte (waste minimisation only)
10	Economic Development / Financial oversight	· Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team · Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development · Budgets · Project expenditure · Monitor GB strategy and Finance · Service Levels · Local funding policy	Lisa Whyte Margaret Miles

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Leave of Absence 7

6 Acknowledgements 7

7 Petitions 7

8 Deputations 8

9 Public Forum 8

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Notices of Motion 8

12 Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 11

13 Governing Body Members' Update 31

14 Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants: Round Three 2015/2016 33

15 Consideration of additional funding for Gills Road pedestrian bridge and footpath 73

16 Allocation of Upper Harbour Local Board response funds 87

17 Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status for the 2015/2016 financial year 115

18 Local Government New Zealand 2016 Annual General Meeting and Conference 117

19 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 125

20 ATEED Performance Report for the Upper Harbour Local Board for the six months ending December 2015 137

21 Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - March 2016 149

22 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board Portfolio Briefings held in February 2016 153

23 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshop held on
Tuesday, 16 February and Tuesday, 1 March 2016 161

24 Governance forward work calendar 167

25 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub 171

26 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool 173

27 Board Members' Reports 175

28 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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 8 March 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 March 2016

Upper Harbour Quick Response Grants: Round Three 2015/2016

File No.: CP2016/00616

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present the applications received for round three of the Upper Harbour Local Board Quick Response Grants 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community funding budget of $278,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. A total of $212,431 has been allocated in discretionary community spending thus far, leaving a remaining balance of $65,569 for the 2015/2016 financial year. Following this round, there is one additional quick response grant round remaining this financial year, with board decision-making anticipated in May.

4. Ten applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $20,040.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) consider the applications listed below and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application:

App ID	Focus	Organisation/ Individual Name	Project	Total requested
QR1617-304	Arts and culture	Christina Beth	The Peace Poppy Project Photographic Exhibition	$4,000
QR1617-302	Community	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Youthline community event participation to support local youth	$1,300
QR1617-311	Community	Greenhithe Community Trust	No.12 Greenhithe Road rent contribution	$2,000
QR1617-301	Community	PHAB Association (Auckland) Inc.	PHAB Albany social group	$2,000
QR1617-312	Events	Shore Community Trust	Shore Youth Music Festival	$840
QR1617-306	Sport and recreation	Martial Arts for Life Academy Ltd	Do Jhang air conditioning unit	$2,000
QR1617-308	Sport and recreation	North Harbour BMX Club INC.	Surfacing of the North Harbour BMX Track.	$2,000
QR1617-310	Sport and recreation	Baseball New Zealand	National 13U Ripken Baseball Tournament	$2,000
QR1617-313	Sport and recreation	Gymnastics Community Trust	Two months of cleaning of gymnastics facility	$2,000
QR1617-305	Sport and recreation	North Harbour Hockey Association	Umpire Support - Young People	$1,900
Total				$20,040

Comments

5. The implementation of the new Community Grants Policy commenced on 1 July 2015. The policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme for 2015/2016 and the Upper Harbour Local Board adopted its grants programme on 20 April 2015 (refer to Attachment A).

6. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities;

· lower priorities for funding;

· exclusions;

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close; and

· any additional accountability requirements.

7. The Upper Harbour Local Board will operate four quick response rounds and two local grant rounds for this financial year. The third quick response round closed on 26 February 2016.

8. The new community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the new council grant webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, local newspapers and community networks. Staff have also conducted a series of public workshops in local board areas, which have been attended by approximately 1,000 people across the Auckland region.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community funding budget of $278,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

10. A total of $212,431 has been allocated in previous discretionary community funding, leaving a remaining balance of $65,569 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

11. Ten applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $20,040 (refer to Attachment B).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

13. The board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

16. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for round three quick response grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Upper Harbour Grants programme 2015/2016	35
b View	Upper Harbour Quick Response, Round Three application summaries	39

Signatories

Authors

Fua Winterstein - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 March 2016

Allocation of Upper Harbour Local Board response funds

File No.: CP2016/04261

Purpose

1. This report provides the local board with the opportunity to consider and allocate funding from the locally driven initiatives response funds and the local board discretionary capital fund, to the identified and proposed projects. The local board will need to prioritise its allocation against the planning and economic development response fund, as there is insufficient funding remaining in the 2015/2016 financial year to cover all three proposed projects.

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has discretionary operational response funds to allocate towards projects during the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. The balances are reflected below.

Fund	Total available in 2015/16 ($)	Amount spent ($)	Balance remaining ($)
Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund	103,000	27,000	76,000
Environment Response Fund	35,000	29,900	5,100
Planning and Economic Development Response Fund	35,000	21,382.50	13,617.50
Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund	355,230	113,000	242,230

4. The Parks Advisor has identified ten projects within the local board area that which could be supported by the board’s park, sports and recreation response fund, the environment response fund and the local board discretionary capital fund. These projects amount to $81,000 from the LDI operational response funds and $26,000 from the local board discretionary capital fund.

5. In addition, Business North Harbour has put forward three economic development proposals for consideration by the local board totalling $45,000. If approved these proposals will be supported via the board’s planning and economic development response fund, but will need to be prioritise, as there is insufficient funding remaining in the 2015/2016 financial year to cover all three proposed projects.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) consider approval of funding for the following projects:

Organisation	Project	Funding sought	Funding source
Local Board Initiative	Conducting a parking study in Kell Park, allowing allow the local board to ascertain the public/private demarcation and assist with traffic planning and regulation	$5,000	Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund
Local Board Initiative	Kell Park playground	$5,000	Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund
Local Board Initiative	Hooton Reserve Ecological Restoration	$15,500	Split $11,400 from Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund and $5,100 from Environment Response Fund
Local Board Initiative	Upper Harbour Kayak Trail	$10,000	Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund
Local Board Initiative	High Profile Unscheduled Maintenance to be conducted in Kell Park, Collins Park, Luckens Reserve and Hobsonville War Memorial Park. Work includes re-planting and mulching, renovation of entrance bollards and stone work repair and cleaning; and the replacing anti slip netting	$25,000	Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund
Local Board Initiative	Rabbit Control in Sanders Reserve and Rosedale Park	$10,500	Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund
Local Board Initiative	Greenhithe Pony Club tree removal and gate installation	$10,000	Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund
Total LDI opex response funds				$81,000
Local Board Initiative	Picnic table at Durbin Park	$3,000	Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund
Local Board Initiative	Bill Moir Reserve Drinking Fountain	$11,000	Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund
Local Board Initiative	Herald Island Drinking Fountain	$11,000	Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund
Local Board Initiative	Kell Park Bollard	$1,000	Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund
Total local board discretionary capital fund				$26,000
Business North Harbour	Build a portal to enable 24/7 access to skills for both business and students	$20,000	Planning and Economic Development Response Fund
Business North Harbour	Business demographic profiling	$15,000	Planning and Economic Development Response Fund
Business North Harbour	Building business capability	$10,000	Planning and Economic Development Response Fund
Total planning and economic development response fund				$45,000

Comments

6. A number of projects within the local board area have been identified for potential funding by the Parks Advisor, totalling $107,000. The details of each project are listed below and supporting documentation is attached to the report as Attachment A:

Project	Description	Total cost
Conducting a parking study in Kell Park	Parking within the Albany Village is problematic. Conducting a parking study will allow the local board to ascertain the public/private demarcation and assist with traffic planning and regulation. This is a park’s activity due to the footprint of Kell Park. This would pay for a parking study to be conducted.	$5,000
Kell Park playground	Safety issue relating to contour of playground have been brought to the local board’s attention. Levelling of the playground is required to stop children from falling towards a steep decline/bank. Installation will include a timber retaining wall, low balustrade and planting.	$5,000
Hooton Reserve Ecological Restoration	Restoration work needs to be conducted in Hooton Reserve to complement the stormwater project which was a recipient of the Most Improved River Award in 2015.	$15,500
Upper Harbour Kayak Trail	As part of the Upper Harbour Local Board Greenways Network Plan, a number of landing points for kayaks were identified on the maps. This project will formalise the landing points within the Upper Harbour area by creating promotional resources in the form of video footage and digital pamphlets for community access.	$10,000
High Profile Unscheduled Maintenance	The Parks Advisor, through discussions with the full facility parks maintenance contractor, has identified a number of high profile locations which require unscheduled budget allocation to conduct remedial work. The work will involve: · Kell Park re-planting and mulching; · Collins Park re-planting and mulching; · Luckens Reserve re-planting and mulching; · Hobsonville War Memorial Park re-planting and mulching; · Luckens Reserve entrance bollards and stone work repair and cleaning; and · replace anti slip netting Kell Park down to jetty.	$25,000
Rabbit Control	Sanders Reserve and Rosedale Park have been highlighted as areas which are experiencing increased pest (rabbit) activity and associated damage. The funding will support control measures on public reserves and adjoining leased areas.	$10,500
Greenhithe Pony Club	Greenhithe Pony Club require support to carry out tree work on their leased land, to enable the placement of a pony trail. The installation of two sets of gates will also enable riders to cross a council pathway and complete the trail. It is recommended that a grant be given to the pony club to enable the work, on the proviso that they work with the Parks Advisor to meet council standards and requirements.	$10,000
Total LDI opex response funds		$81,000
Picnic table at Durbin Park	A number of residents, over a number of years, have requested a seat to be placed in Durbin Park in order for parents to sit and supervise their children at play in the playground and park area. At the business meeting of 15 December 2015, $3,000 was allocated to provide a single seat. It is recommended that a holistic approach be taken and that a picnic table, which includes seating, be installed instead of the seat. An additional $3,000 will be required to install the picnic table.	$3,000
Bill Moir Reserve Drinking Fountain	The Whenuapai Resident and Ratepayer Association formally requested the installation of a drinking fountain in Bill Moir Reserve.	$11,000
Herald Island Drinking Fountain	The Herald Island Resident and Ratepayer Association formally requested the installation of a drinking fountain in Herald Island Domain.	$11,000
Kell Park Bollard	On a number of occasions vehicles have been observed driving onto Kell Park from the access point opposite the local board office. The installation of a third bollard will prevent further occurrences.	$1,000
Total local board discretionary capital fund		$26,000

7. Business North Harbour has put forward three economic development proposals for consideration by the local board totalling $45,000. The details of these proposals are captured below and further information is provided as Attachment B to this report.

Project	Motivation for funding	Funding requested
Build a portal to enable 24/7 access to skills for both business and students	C3 was launched by Business North Harbour in July 2015, attracting 300+ university students and 36 businesses. Two events are planned for the 2015/2016 financial year but rather than rely on one or two physical events, Business North Harbour want to build a portal which they will host on their website to enable 24/7 access to skills for both businesses and students.	$20,000
Business demographic profiling	Business North Harbour cannot assess future plans effectively because all available baseline economic demographic modelling data is retrospective (usually 12-24 months old). Customisation of the ZOHO CRM platform would enable Business North Harbour, and stakeholders with a vested interest, to develop and harness geographic and sector interest clusters within the local area.	$15,000
Building business capability	Business North Harbour will collaborate with local e-learning providers, or international experts such as Vileos, to develop an online resource library, available 24/7 to enable those business owners and employees who are unable to physically attend training, to benefit from this upskilling opportunity.	$10,000
Total planning and economic development response fund		$45,000

Consideration

Local board input and implications

8. This report gives the local board the opportunity to allocate the remainder of its locally driven initiatives response funding and a portion of the local board discretionary capital fund for the 2015/2016 financial year.

Maori impact statement

9. No particular impacts on Maori communities have been identified.

Implementation

10. Decisions on operational funding are required prior to the end of the 2015/2016 financial year. All of the identified projects above will be delivered within the 2015/2016 financial year.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Identified parks projects	91
b View	Proposed economic development projects	109

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 March 2016

Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status for the 2015/2016 financial year

File No.: CP2016/04196

Purpose

1. This report provides an update to the Upper Harbour Local Board on the availability of discretionary funding for the 2015/2016 financial year. It also provides a running total of the board’s balances of the various discretionary funds.

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has a number of discretionary funds available in the 2015/2016 financial year. The current balances of the board’s discretionary funds are as follows:

Fund	Total available in 2015/16 ($)	Amount spent ($)	Balance remaining ($)
Local Discretionary Community Grants	278,000	212,431	65,569
Local Events Contestable Fund	77,000	54,200	22,800
Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund	103,000	27,000	76,000
Environment Response Fund	35,000	29,900	5,100
Planning and Economic Development Response Fund	35,000	21,382.50	13,617.50
Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund	355,230	113,000	242,230

3. During the 23 February business meeting, the board resolved to consolidate funding categories. The Regional Grants allocated to LDI and the Community Response Fund were merged into the Local Discretionary Community Grants budget line.

4. At the same business meeting, the board under resolution UH/2016/12, agreed to spend $29,900 from the Environmental Response Fund to develop an extended sediment modelling tool to identify the origins of sediment discharging from land into Lucas Creek and how differing activities may decrease sediment loads.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the status of the Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds for the 2015/2016 financial year report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Jerome Cameron - Graduate Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 March 2016

Local Government New Zealand 2016 Annual General Meeting and Conference

File No.: CP2016/04084

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 LGNZ annual conference and AGM will take place at the Dunedin Centre from Sunday 24 to Tuesday 26 July 2016.

3. The AGM will take 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 Upper Harbour 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, 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; and

· 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; and

· 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 including GST before 1 June 2016 and $1510 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; and

· 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 all 21 local boards.

Māori impact statement

17. The LGNZ 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

No.	Title	Page
a View	LGNZ 2016 conference and master class programme	119

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Process Manager

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

22 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03567

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

· alphabetical order of surname;

· pseudo-random order; or

· random order.

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

Comments

Background

7. Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001:

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

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

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

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

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

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

(b) all voting documents use that order

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

2013 elections

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

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

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

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

Options for 2016

Pseudo-random order and random order printing

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

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

Alphabetical order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Maori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments