Agenda of Whau Local Board

1 Welcome

Whakataka te hau ki te uru Cease the winds from the west

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga Cease the winds from the south

kia mäkinakina ki uta Let the breeze blow over the land

kia mätaratara ki tai Let the breeze blow over the ocean

E hï ake ana te atakura Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air

He tio, he huka, he hau hü A touch of frost, a promise of glorious day

Tihei Mauri Ora Let there be life

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

Members were 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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

Members declared conflict of interests as below.

Register:

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Catherine Farmer	· Avondale-Waterview Historical Society – Committee Member · Blockhouse Bay Historical Society – Member · Portage Licensing Trust – Trustee · Blockhouse Bay Bowls - Patron
Susan Zhu	· Chinese Oral History Foundation – Committee member · Auckland Regional Migrant Resource Centre (ARMS) – Board member
Derek Battersby	· Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust –Trustee · New Lynn Tennis Club – Patron · West Lynn Gardens – Patron · Tag Out Trust – Chairman
Ami Chand	· Kelston Community Trust – Trustee · Portage Licensing Trust – Deputy Chair · Rupa Aur Aap Trust – Trustee · Kelston Community Hub – Chair · Community Organisation Grants Scheme (COGS) Waitakere City Local Distribution Committee– Committee Member
Duncan Macdonald	· Avondale Business Association – Chairman · Avondale Community Society – Chairman · Avondale RSA – Committee Member · Historical Society - Member · Avondale Jockey Club – Member
Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel	· Wesley College - Trustee · Kelston Girls College – Trustee
Simon Matafai	· Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust - Trustee · WAS Collective Trust - Trustee · Williams Creative Trust - Trustee · Majesty Productions Trust - Trustee · Nexfit Trust - Trustee · Aspire Community Trust - Trustee

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 17 February 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

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 Ward Councillor’s Update

An opportunity is provided for the Whau Ward Councillor to update the board on regional issues he has been involved with since the last meeting.

8 Deputations

8.1 Healthy Families Waitakere

Purpose

1. Kerry Allan and Jewelz Petley from Healthy Families Waitakere will be in attendance to present an overview of Healthy Families Waitakere and provide an update on how they are progressing with this initiative and to discuss local board engagement with Healthy Families Waitakere moving forward.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Kerry Allan and Jewelz Petley of Healthy Families Waitakere and thank them for the presentation.

8.2 Tula’I Pasifika Leadership Programme

Purpose

1. Dominique Leauga from Youth Service West on behalf of the West Auckland Pasifika Forum (WAPF) will be in attendance to present to the local board on Tula’I Pasifika Leadership Programme 2015/2016.

Executive Summary

2. The presentation will include information on how the Tula’I Leadership Programme 2014/2015 ended and planning delivery and current status of Tula’I Pasifika Leadership Programme 2015/2016.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Dominique Leauga of Youth Service West and thank her for the presentation.

Attachments

a Tula’I Leadership Programme - Local board report Dec 2015........... 407

b Tula’I Leadership Programme - Project expenditure........................... 423

8.3 Waiata Trust

Purpose

1. Representatives from Waiata Trust will be in attendance to report back to the board on the Whau Pacific Festival.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from representatives of Waiata Trust on the Whau Pacific Festival and thank them for the 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.

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Auckland Transport Update Report March 2016 – Whau Local Board

File No.: CP2016/04014

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update report March 2016.

Comments

3. Two monthly portfolio holder catch-up meetings were held in February 2016.

4. At the portfolio holder meeting held on 3 February 2016, Chair Farmer and Member’s Chand and MacDonald were present, with key discussions regarding:

· Local Board endorsement for next stage of Kelston footpath improvements

· Bus stop location by St Leonards Road and Archibald Road intersection

· Sabulite Road use of berm for car sales

· Proposed new bus stop location outside the Community Hub on St Leonards Road

· Pedestrian safety during peak school transit times on Vanguard Road, Kelston

· Formal Board position sought on a proposed Avondale town centre footpath improvements.

· Historic Avondale town centre lamp replacements

· Railway crossing noise complaints

5. At the portfolio holder meeting held on 10 February 2016, Chair Farmer and Member Zhu were present and discussions were primarily around progressing existing Local Board advocacy projects, footpath renewals, New Lynn town centre upgrade and the Memorial Drive extension.

Local Board Transport Fund

The Process for Discretionary Fund Projects

6. The Whau Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $517,754 per annum. The Board has fully allocated their Local Board Transport Fund of $2,071,016 up to June 2016.

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

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

286

Cycleway on Western Rail Network - Whau

Approved for construction 15/10/14. Construction planned to start in 15/16 year and extend into 16/17 year. Part of rail corridor walkway/cycleway

Further update to be tabled at March transport portfolio meeting.

467

McWhirter to Busby Footbridge

Local Board approved budget for preliminary works. Auckland Council - Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) to manage.

Further update to be tabled at March transport portfolio meeting.

Local consultation undertaken

8. Public consultation was undertaken on the proposals listed in the table below. Whilst feedback was sought from the Board’s delegated portfolio holders, if the Board so wishes, it can choose to make its feedback through formal resolutions.

#	Proposal	Time frame
1	Brydon Place, New Windsor - Proposed No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) Restriction	Closed 4 March 2016
2	48 - 54 Mead Street, Avondale - Proposed No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) Restriction	Closed 4 March 2016
3	85-89 Mead Street, Avondale - Proposed No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) Restriction	Closed 4 March 2016
4	Install a pedestrian refuge island and other road changes at Bolton Street at its intersection with Blockhouse Bay Road, Blockhouse Bay	Closes 7 March 2016
5	Signalise the intersection of Blockhouse Bay, New Windsor, and Chalmers intersection	Closes 17 March 2016

Completed/Upcoming works

9. Physical works undertaken or planned in the Whau Local Board area during January and February 2016 are listed in the table below.

#	Proposal	Time frame
1	Wairau Ave (Canal Rd – Riversdale Rd)	Auckland Transport undertook rehabilitation work on Wairau Ave, with the Stage 2 works undertaken on Monday 8th February and taking approximately 5 days to complete. The work took place at night to maximise production in order to complete the project in shorter duration. Noise mitigation plans were in place and wherever possible construction noise was kept to a minimum, with the noisiest works undertaken earlier in the evening.
2	Patiki Road, Avondale Traffic Capacity Improvements	Auckland Transport requested feedback in August 2014 regarding a proposal to upgrade the road markings along Patiki Road. The works were put on hold due to NZTA’s SH16 works, but AT is now planning to proceed to the construction phase of this project. The contractors will issue notice to all affected residents and businesses before beginning construction.
3	No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) Restriction on Arawa Street and Fruitvale Road Intersection, New Lynn	All of the feedback received was in support of the proposal. Auckland Transport will be proceeding with implementing the proposal. AT anticipate the works to be completed by the end of March 2016 or earlier. AT’s contractor will notify all directly affected parties at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the work.
4	No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) Restriction – Exler Place and New Windsor Road, New Windsor	AT received two negative responses for this proposal, with the remaining responses supporting the proposed NSAAT restriction on New Windsor Road and Exler Place. The consultation feedback indicated that the main reason for the negative responses was the removal of on-street parking on New Windsor Road. Some consultation feedback has requested the extension of the proposed NSAAT restriction along New Windsor Road, which would further reduce the available on-street parking in the area. Parking spaces are a valuable shared community resource, therefore the removal of parking is only carried out where it is absolutely necessary. Auckland Transport believes the proposed NSAAT restriction correctly balances the need for improved accessibility and safety whilst minimising the loss of available on-street parking. In conclusion, as the majority of the responses were in support of the proposal, a decision has been made to proceed with the implementation of the NSAAT restriction. AT anticipate that this work will be completed before the end of May 2016. AT’s contractor will notify all directly affected parties at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the work.
5	No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) Restriction – Matata Street and Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay	All feedback received through the consultation was in support of the proposal. Therefore, AT will proceed with the implementation of the NSAAT ‘Broken Yellow Lines’ at the intersection of Matata Street and Taylor Street. AT anticipate that this work will be completed before the end of May 2016. AT’s contractor will notify all directly affected parties at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of the work.

Media

10. Media releases/notifications to the Local board and general public for the Whau Local Board area during January and February 2016 are listed in the table below.

Project

Description

Regional Signage for New Lynn/Northcote

AT installed the Information Hubs, Supplementary Signs, Pedestrian Signs and Street Blade Signs in the New Lynn town centre during February 2016. Once completed, AT plan to have open days for the Local Board (date TBC).

New Lynn - Information Hub installation and reinstatement

As part of the Regional Signage Project New Lynn has been chosen as one of the trial areas. Three new information hubs are being installed in the area. The Local Board had input into the content. Installation started the week of the 15th February.

Once installed the Information hubs (NL3 and NL4) will be fully illuminated and will promote the New Lynn area with local points of interests. These will be unique and are the first to be installed for the whole of the Auckland region.

Local board customer service requests

11. A summary of active or recently closed issues to Auckland Transport via the Elected Member Relationship Manager from the Whau Local Board during January and February 2016 are listed in the table below.

#	Subject Name	Decision Description	Date Requested	Completion date
1	Veronica Street (between the Lynmall car park access way and Totara Avenue) – Pedestrian Crossing Request	Request for installation of pedestrian crossing previously received from Local Board. A pedestrian survey will be undertaken on Veronica Street, between the Lynmall car park access way and Totara Avenue, to identify whether the current pedestrian demand meets the warrants for a pedestrian crossing. If the surveyed pedestrian demand meets the warrants for a pedestrian crossing, it is intended that this work will be undertaken as part of AT’s Minor Safety Programme.	21 December 2015
2	Crayford Street Avondale, noise complaint regarding railway crossing alarm bells.	Complaint forwarded from member of public regarding noise from Kiwirail managed railway crossing. Auckland Council environmental health officers have been asked to investigate and undertake decibel testing of the alarms and they will liaise with both member of public and Kiwirail once results are available. Please note that operational responsibility for rail crossing controls sits solely with Kiwirail, not Auckland Transport.	26 January 2016
3	71 Wolverton Rd – berm garden outside property	Long terms concerns raised by member of public about responsibility for maintaining berm garden in front of property. Garden is not part of an AT streetscape contract, so not maintained by AT and advice has already confirmed that there is there is no budget for maintaining a garden. Advice to Board is, once berm planting policy is announced that the complainant be advised of what they are allowed to plant themselves.	3 February 2016
4	Bus stop location by St Leonards Road and Archibald Road intersection	Safety concerns raised by Board about the bus stop and crossing proximity to intersection. Under investigation.	3 February 2016
5	Proposed new bus stop, St Leonards Road	Request for new bus stop location outside the Community Hub on St Leonards Road. Under investigation.	3 February 2016
6	McCrae Way, New Lynn street tree maintenance	Concerns raised by Board Member about service levels for maintaining street tree plantings. Investigations indicate there is one failed planting on McCrae Way and request has been sent to through Auckland Council City Parks, as this is under their delegation. Under investigation by City Parks.	10 February 2016
7	131 Whitney Street, overhanging bougainvillea vegetation	Complaint sent to Board regarding overhanging vegetation from neighbouring property encroaching across foot path. Contractors have undertaken a one off trim of the vegetation. The actual location was 121 Blockhouse Bay Rd. A letter has been sent to the residents regarding the maintenance of the vegetation.	11 February 2016	25 February 2016
8	McCorquindale Lane, New Lynn road signage	Long term request raised by Board Member about the missing road signage that should have been installed by Auckland Council City Transformation project between AC owned 10-22 Totara Ave and AT owned 24 Totara Ave, New Lynn. Query has been referred to Auckland Council - City Transformation Team as this falls under their control. If you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact Auckland Council directly.	11 February 2016
9	551 Rosebank Road, Avondale bus stop location	Previous information supplied to AT incorrectly identified that a bus shelter structure was the issue. Issue in fact is in regards to the location of the bus stop, which is over the driveway to the business at the address. The stop on Rosebank Road is on the proposed New Network relocate list for 2017. However the bus infrastructure team advise that they have noted the customer’s feedback and will investigate adding the relocation to this year’s programme.	11 February 2016.
10	Powell St Avondale road and foot path repairs.	Concern from member of public sent to Board about state of road and foot path from damage by heavy vehicles. As part of the building consent conditions, an inspection will automatically be carried out by AT after the completion of the building project to ensure no damage has been done to assets: · drainage · street lights · street trees · piped services · road carriageways · kerbs · footpaths · grass berms	16 February 2016	16 February 2016
11	General clutter from road signage.	Complaint from Board Member about general road signage clutter. Only traffic signs and road name signs are allowed to be erected in the road reserve. All other signs, advance direction signs, tourist signs, service signs, and general interest signs require delegated AT authority approval. The NZTA’s Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings is the regulating document for traffic control and restriction signs. Traffic control and restriction signs have specifications which determine the placement and frequency of these regulatory signs. Auckland Transport’s Policy on Direction, Service and General Guide Signs (draft) proscribes the use and placement of advance direction signs, tourist signs, service signs, and general interest signs. It is unlikely that signs would be removed from the road, however, if a sign is identified as being redundant, dilapidated, or extraneous then its removal may be justified.	17 February 2016	27 February 2016
12	2004 Great North Road	Concerns raised by Board Member that vehicles accessing private car park at the address are using the pedestrian crossing as a driveway causing damage and are posing a safety hazard. Case previously incorrectly closed, as address used was for another issue previously resolved. Case assigned to Transport Services and under investigation.	18 February
13	Driver safety at the intersection of New Windsor Road and Blockhouse Bay Road	Concerns raised by Board Member regarding planned lights and a pedestrian crossing at the Blockhouse Bay/New Windsor Rd intersection. Requested that the project be brought forward on the basis of safety. The intersection of Blockhouse Bay Road and New Windsor Road has recently been investigated as part of a crash reduction study by the Road Safety Team. The study has recommended a few options such as minor safety improvements, a roundabout and signalising the intersection. The Blockhouse Bay/New Windsor intersection is ranked 21 on the list of high risk intersections with 48 crashes including 1 serious, 13 minor and 34 no-injury crashes. While this intersection is ranked within the top 100 for high risk intersections within the Auckland Region, AT investigates and delivers improvements at those intersections with the higher priority in the first instance. To this end the investigation into this intersection is complete and programmed for detailed design and delivery in the 2016/17 financial year. This year’s programme is fully committed and delivery of this intersection would not be possible at this time.	24 February
14	17 Eastglen Road driveway crossing resource consent conditions	Long term concerns by property owner regarding resource consent conditions for new driveway crossing. Tentative date for site meeting requested by Board Member scheduled for 9.30 am 10 March. To be confirmed with Board Member and property owner.	22 February 2016
15	20 Eastglen Road driveway crossing resource consent conditions	Concerns by property owner regarding resource consent conditions. AT and Auckland Council have stated that this is a civil matter between the affected property owners and recommend that the various parties seek legal advice.	25 February 2016	3 March 2016
16	Great North Rd between Clark St and Memorial Drive road layout and footpath design	Concerns raised by member of public around traffic management due to road layout and widened footpath. Under investigation.	1 March 2016

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. This report is for the local board’s information and action as required.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Anthony Lewis – Elected Member Relationship Manager , Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards (for the quarter - 1 October to 31 December 2015)

File No.: CP2016/03174

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months from 1 October to 31 December 2015.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) receive Auckland Transport quarterly update to local boards (for the quarter 1 October to 31 December 2015).

Comments

Significant activities during the period under review

Strategy and Planning

2. Transport for Future Urban Growth (TFUG)

Under the new business case approach AT has got approved funding to develop growth-related Programme Business Cases (PBCs) to identify the transport infrastructure needed within the next 30 years for the growth areas identified in Auckland Council's Future Urban Land Supply Strategy. The areas to be assessed are the Northwest, Southern, Northern and Warkworth areas. A multi-disciplinary and cross organisational team has been developed and is currently working from a co-located space on the four areas. Procurement is well advanced and consultant teams are on board with a number of workshops planned in January and February.

3. Central Access Strategy

A Strategic Case was jointly developed by the investment partners, and approved by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) in November 2015, agreeing the problems faced for access to the city centre. A PBC is underway to identify and agree a programme of options to address the problems, with a high level costs and benefits analysis.

PT Development

4. Double Decker Network Mitigation works

Each route is in a different project phase. By Jun-2018, the following routes are planned to be completed:

· Mt Eden (31 March 2016)

· Northern Express 2 (30 Jun 2016)

· Great North (31 March 2017)

· Manukau (30 June 2017

· Remuera

· New North

· Onewa

Botany bus route 500 (from Botany Town Centre to Britomart) has been cleared.

5. Public Transport (PT) Safety, Security and Amenity

Involves enhancing station safety, security and amenity. Current projects include completion of Ellerslie Station canopies, upgrade to Morningside Level Crossing and electronic gating at Manurewa Station. Programmed activities in various phases on these projects are:

· Ellerslie canopies will be completed January 2016

· Morningside Level Crossing Improvement construction work planned for April/May 2016 and interim improvements were completed in November 2015

· Manurewa gates in early design stage.

6. City Rail Link (CRL)

Enabling Works contract 2, construction of pipe jack (services relocation) commenced (Albert Street) on 21 December 2015. Enabling Works Contract 1, Britomart to Lower Albert Street and Contract 2, Lower Albert Street to Wyndham Street, is to commence in May 2016. Main Works: Construction to start in 2018/19 FY subject to funding agreement with Government.

PT Operations

7. Highlights for the quarter

· SuperGold Travel – a competitive tender process for SuperGold funding exempt ferry services from downtown Auckland to Matiatia Wharf, Waiheke – as per Ministry of Transport (MoT) directive. The tender process resulted in two operators being eligible for SuperGold reimbursements from 1 January 2016. Super Gold card holders conversion onto HOP cards has commenced, for delivery by 1 July 2016. This will mean seniors will be required to use HOP cards to access free PT SuperGold travel.

· Integrated Fares – just prior to Christmas Thales delivered the first release of version 7.0 (customer facing enhancements) for Integrated Fares, ready for AT to commence testing. Some minor changes to zone boundaries were also approved to mitigate some passengers who would have had fare increases under integrated fares. Initial testing of version 7.0 has commenced. Integrated fares implementation is targeted for mid-2016. A late February 2016 annual PT Fares review will be implemented as a stepping stone to integrated fares.

· Ferry Improvements – Waiheke Ferry Services: strong growth has been experienced on the route during the year, reaffirming the route as being the most popular on the Auckland Ferry network. A local initiative to display interpretative signage at Matiatia was delivered with the Waiheke Local Board in the last quarter, and way-finding signage was updated and replaced at Matiatia as well. Next quarter will see the installation of a purpose-built customer information/ticket office by Explore. Overall patronage to Waiheke has grown over 10% in the last 12 months with the combination of Fullers and Explore services.

Road Design and Development

8. SMART (Southwest Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit)

Future proofing of the SMART route on the Kirkbride (trench) intersection is progressing together with the infrastructure works by Highway Network Operations of NZTA. This element of the project is expected to be complete in 2022. AT is working with the East West team to ensure the projects are well aligned at the critical points. The indicative business case is being updated for LRT and heavy rail. The cycle strategy for the wider Mangere area is also underway.

9. AMETI (Auckland, Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative) – Pakuranga Road Busway

Involves provision of a signalised Panmure roundabout, two-lane busway, Walking and Cycling facilities, Panmure bridge upgrade and upgrades to existing bridge and local roads towards Pakuranga Town Centre. A completion date is subject to the outcome/approval of a revised delivery strategy by the AT Board by February 2016. The Notice of Requirement lodgement is ready to proceed, with lodgement pending the outcomes of cultural mitigation discussion. The expected lodgement date is mid-February 2016.

10. Tamaki Ngapipi Intersection Safety Improvements

Involves installation of traffic lights at the Tamaki Drive/Ngapipi Road intersection to address safety issues. The design aims to encourage shared use by reducing conflict points and maintaining efficient movement through the intersection. The AT Board has approved the preferred option, that allows five Pohutukawa trees to be retained, and this option will be taken forward to consenting and construction. Detailed design is underway to finalise the proposal for consenting.

Services

11. Community and Road Safety Programme

· Delivered alcohol checkpoints in partnership with NZ Police

· Delivered child restraint checkpoints and Plunket promotions in partnership with NZ Police

· Delivered safety messages to motorcycle riders regarding high visibility vests and training in Northcote

· Delivered a targeted social media campaign for high risk young drivers in Henderson

· Delivered a ‘Train the Trainer’ course to local community and NZ Police for Learners Licence in Henderson

· Delivered learner and restricted licencing programmes to high risk young drivers in Mangere

· Delivered a targeted social media campaign for high risk young drivers in Mangere

· Supporting the Accident Compensation Corporation(ACC) and NZTA Young Drivers Signature programme in Mangere.

12. Commute Travel Planning

· Unitec Travel Plan – Unitec won the 'Think outside the car award for creative excellence' for its cycling programme including installation of 10 covered, student-designed bike racks

· Waitemata District Health Board was awarded the carpooling award at the AT Commute awards for its Carpooling programme.

13. Travel Demand (2015/16 Year)

Transport Choice campaign – ‘Time to cool your love affair with your car' video campaign was promoted for eight weeks primarily via online media and the AT website. Promoted travel choice and encouraged Public Transport, Walking, Cycling, Carpooling and Flexi-working. Over 625,000 views of the videos are recorded – which is a high rate and demonstrates increased awareness.

Road Corridor Delivery

14. The Assets and Maintenance Group is tasked with the responsibility for a wide range of activities within the Road Corridor. These include but are not limited to:

· the delivery of roading and streetlight maintenance and renewal programmes

· managing the access, co-ordination and traffic management impacts of activities taking place within the road corridor

· promoting design innovation and efficiency around how work is carried out on the network

· the development of long term asset management plans and modelling which support the decision making process around the management of Auckland’s roading assets.

15. Road Corridor Delivery

· In the 2015/2016 financial year AT is planning to deliver 37.7km of pavement rehabilitation, 480.1 km of resurfacing (comprising 88.9 km of hotmix and 391.2 km of chip sealing), 75.7 km of footpath renewals and 82.7 km of kerb and channel replacement.

Table 1: Progress against Asset Renewal Targets

· Pavement rehabilitation projects have been completed on Kohimarama Road, Ranui Station Road, Edmonton Road, Robertson Road, Te Irirangi Drive, Ormiston Road, Whitford Road, Glenbrook Road, Linwood Road, Clyde Road, Lakeside Drive, Maygrove Drive, Brigham Creek Road, Mokoia Road, Kahika Road, Diana Drive, Glenmore Road, South Head Road, Waitoki Road, Mahurangi East Road, Hector Sanderson Road and Blind Bay Road. Further projects are underway on College Road, Hunua Road, Roscommon Road, St George Street, Bairds Road and Cavendish Drive.

· Contracts have been awarded to two suppliers for the provision of Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaires for the 2015/16 year. In the 2015/16 year approximately 11,000 of the existing 70W High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps on the network will be replaced with LED luminaires and connected to the new central management system. Initially most will be in the central and north contract areas. The LED retrofit programme is being accelerated with the aim of completing the replacement of all the existing 70W HPS lamps by 1 July 2018 so as to maximise the available subsidy from the NZTA.

16. Road Corridor Access

· Monitoring of Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) at work sites is continuing to ensure compliance with the approved traffic management plans and to identify opportunities for improvement. The average percentage of low risk sites for Quarter 2 is 94% (against the target of 90%)

· With an anticipated dip in numbers for December, the Corridor Access Request (CAR) team continues to process around 1,300 applications per month. These requests are for AT operations (inclusive of CRL) and various utility operators to access and maintain the assets sitting within the road corridor. Access is also sought by private operators and individuals who need to access the road network to undertake activities such as private water connections etc.

17. Strategic Asset Management and Systems

· AT inherited an inventory of 117 permanent traffic counting sites across the Auckland region. These comprise inductive loops installed in the road pavement which detect passing vehicles through electro-magnetic induction. The loops provide details of traffic flows by vehicle category. In addition, AT can deploy pneumatic tubes installed across traffic lanes to undertake ad-hoc traffic counts. These are used where there are no permanent loops installed.

· The information generated by the loops provides an ongoing record of traffic growth across Auckland, which is used to inform infrastructure design as well as providing current and trend information for the Auckland traffic and growth models managed by the Auckland Joint Modelling Applications Centre (JMAC). The output from these models has been used in the development of the Integrated Transport Programme (ITP), defining AT’s road hierarchy for ONRC, and will be used for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP).

· During the period October to December inclusive, a total of 493 traffic counts were undertaken using a mixture or permanent sites and pneumatic tubes. Additionally, 57 additional counts were undertaken over the Christmas holiday period to identify recreational traffic flows which may be significant at certain locations. Sixteen of these were on Waiheke and four on Great Barrier Island.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the first quarter (2015/16) ending 30 September 2015	31
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	43
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	45
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	47
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	49

Signatories

Authors

Various Auckland Transport authors

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Whau Local Board Quick Response Grants: Round Three 2015/2016

File No.: CP2016/00614

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

2. The Whau Local Board has set a total community funding budget of $190,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. A total of $134,429 was allocated in previous grant rounds, leaving a remaining balance of $55,571 remaining to allocate for the 2015/2016 financial year.

4. Eleven applications were received for this quick response round, requesting a total of $15,892.44

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) consider the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

Table One: Whau Local Board Round Three Quick Response Applications

App Number	Main Focus	Organisation Name	Project	Total Requested
QR1621-310	Arts and culture	Melanie Wittwer	Story collection "Living out West" curated by the Green Bay Writers	$938.80
QR1621-316	Arts and culture	Cristina Beth	The Peace Poppy Project Photographic Exhibition	$2,000
QR1621-304	Arts and culture	Te Riri O Te O Dance Group	Te Riri O Te O Dance Group	$1,000
QR1621-301	Community	F4 Fit Schools Ltd	F4 School Fitness Role Modelling for Parents	$2,000
QR1621-311	Community	Family Action	Family violence education to the Indian community	$1,207.68
QR1621-318	Community	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Supporting youth to build resilient communities	$2,000
QR1621-320	Community	Generation Ignite	Generation Ignite community garden	$1,519.85
QR1621-321	Events	Jessica Rose	Fun Family Bikenic at the Velodrome	$1,000
QR1621-322	Events	Waitakere Indian Association (WIA)	Waitakere Holi Festival - A festival of colours	$2,000
QR1621-313	Sport and recreation	Green Bay Community House (GBCH)	Green Bay Community Boxing Group	$626.11
QR1621-314	Sport and recreation	Green Bay Community House (GBCH)	Green Bay Unicycle Club	$1,600
			Total	$15,892.44

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 Whau Local Board adopted its grants programme on 15 April 2015 (see 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

· any additional accountability requirements.

7. The Whau Local Board will operate five quick response rounds and two local grants rounds for this financial year. The third quick response round closed on 12 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 and 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 1000 people across the Auckland region.

9. The Whau Local Board set a total local community grants budget of $190,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

10. A total of $134,429 was allocated in previous grant rounds, leaving a remaining balance of $55,571 remaining to allocate for the 2015/2016 financial year.

11. Eleven applications were received for this quick response round, requesting a total amount of $15,892.44

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Whau 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 50 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, 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 Whau Local Board allocating funding for round three quick response, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Whau Grant Programme and Quick Response Round Three, Application Summaries	55

Signatories

Author

Fua Winterstein - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by H Spec Limited at 48 West Coast Road, Glen Eden

File No.: CP2016/02854

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Whau Local Board for a new road name for a road created by way of subdivision at 48A West Coast Road, Glen Eden.

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 ‘Barney Way’ (applicant’s preferred road name), ‘Buster Way’ and ‘Bone Way’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Local Iwi groups were consulted but the Applicant has not had any reply to his correspondence.

5. The name ‘Barney Way’, proposed by the Applicant and the names “Buster Way” and “Bone Way” are considered for approval by the Local Board.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name “Barney Way”, proposed by the Applicant, for the new road created by way of subdivision at 48A West Coast Road, Glen Eden while noting that ‘Buster Way’ and ‘Bone Way’, also meet the road naming criteria.

Comments

6. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.

7. In 2013, Auckland Council approved an application for a land use consent to undertake a medium density development creating 15 residential units at 48A West Coast Road, Glen Eden. The subdivision contains “Common Property” which provides road access to all 15 residential units. The Consent holder has proposed to name the “Common Property” Barney Way (LUC2012-621).

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at 48A West Coast Road, Glen Eden.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Barney Way	Family name significant to the developers
First Alternative	Buster Way	Family name significant to the developers
Second Alternative	Bone Way	Family name significant to the developers

Figure One: Location and Layout of new Road

Decision Making

8. 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

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

10. Barney Way, Buster Way and Bone Way all meet the criteria set out in the Road Naming Guidelines.

11. As the Applicant’s preferred name (Barney Way) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval.

Significance of Decision

12. The decision sought from the Whau Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Maori impact statement

13. The decision sought from the Whau 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

14. The applicant emailed Edward Ashby, Heritage and Environment Manager, Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, who advised that Scott Lomas was the new contact. Scott has not replied to the applicant’s correspondence about road naming at this time.

15. The applicant consulted with NZ Post and all suggested names were accepted.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

16. 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

17. 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.

Implementation

18. 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

Author

Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

New community lease to West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Glendene

File No.: CP2016/02043

Purpose

1. This report seeks Whau Local Board approval to grant a new community lease to West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated, located on part of Bancroft Park, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Glendene.

Executive Summary

2. West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated (the Club) has been occupying part of Bancroft Park since 2009 under a letter of use rather than a formal lease. Remote control car racing has been occurring on and off on the land since 1982. The Club wishes to formalise a lease arrangement to provide security of tenure. The Club owns the shipping container and viewing platform.

3. The Club is located on part of Bancroft Park, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Kelston (Attachment A) being described as Part Lot 8 and 9 on Deposited Plan 75336 and contained in NA90D/745 and NA32A/89 with a total area of 7802m². The Park is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve. The activity of the Club is of a local purpose nature rather than recreation. A lease under Section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) is required. Prior to granting the lease, iwi consultation under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 and public notification under Section 73(4) of the RA is required. Iwi consultation has taken place with no objections received. Approval from the Minister of Conservation is not required as the activity is an existing use and the effect of that use will be the same or similar in character, intensity and scale.

4. Panuku Development Auckland is pursuing council approval for revoking the reserve classification over the whole park as part of an intended sale of part of Bancroft Park being 4740m² more or less subject to survey. Public consultation is a legal requirement of the revocation process. The part of Bancroft Park that is intended for sale is not the area proposed to be leased to the West Auckland Radio Control Car Club. In order to facilitate this lease proposal in advance of the proposed sale process, clauses will be added to the lease document as detailed in the recommendation below.

5. Although the Club do not have a building they do have a shipping container with viewing platform that was placed on site in early 2012. A Certificate of Acceptance was given by Auckland Council on 5 June 2015 pursuant to Section 99 of the Building Act 2004.

6. This report recommends the granting of a new community lease to West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated for five years commencing 1 May 2016 with one five-year right of renewal.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) approve a new community ground lease under S73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977 to West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated for part of Bancroft Park, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Glendene (Attachment A) subject to one month’s public notification, and with no objection, on the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – 5 years commencing 1 May 2016 with one 5-year right of renewal;

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

iii) An early termination clause reserving the right to council to give notice of 6 months in its sole discretion to allow Council to use the land for a different purpose if desired at some future date;

iv) The leased premise area may be varied upon the survey area being finalised, so that the West Auckland Radio Control Car Club will be leasing the area that is not being proposed to be sold

b) agree that West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan as approved be attached to the community lease document (Attachment B).

c) approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Comments

7. West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated (the Club) has been occupying part of Bancroft Park since 2009 under a letter of use rather than a formal lease. Remote control car racing has been occurring on and off on the land since 1982. The Club wishes to formalise a lease arrangement to provide security of tenure. The Club owns the shipping container and viewing platform.

8. The Club is located on part of Bancroft Park, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Kelston being described as Part Lot 8 and 9 on Deposited Plan 75336 and contained in NA90D/745 and NA32A/89 with a total area of 7802m². The Park is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve. The activity of the Club is of a local purpose nature rather than recreation. A lease under Section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) is required. Prior to granting the lease, iwi consultation under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 and public notification under Section 73(4) of the RA is required. Iwi consultation has taken place with no objections received. Approval from the Minister of Conservation is not required as the activity is an existing use and the effect of that use will be the same or similar in character, intensity and scale.

9. There is no reserve management plan for the park.

10. The Club was registered as an incorporated society on 11 December 2012. The Club’s objectives are:

· The promotion of and participation in the sport of radio controlled 1/10, 1/8 scale off road gas or electric cars for circuit racing

· To provide amenities and general activities associated with the sport, and where members may meet together to share in the sport, and comradeship of the remote control car racing scene in New Zealand

11. The Club prides itself on being a family friendly activity that allows the racing of both electric and nitro powered radio controlled vehicles. The nitro powered cars are noisy; therefore the club requires land that is located a reasonable distance from residential areas. The Club has 37 members.

12. The Club have created a slow crawl track where members manoeuvre their remote control cars over purpose built obstacles made from broken tree branches, rubble and tyres.

13. Panuku Development Auckland is pursuing council approval for revoking the reserve classification over the whole park as part of an intended sale of part of Bancroft Park being 4740m² more or less subject to survey. Public consultation is a legal requirement of the revocation process. The part of Bancroft Park that is intended for sale is not the area proposed to be leased to the West Auckland Radio Control Car Club. In order to facilitate this lease proposal in advance of the proposed sale process, clauses will be added to the lease document to record that:

· Council may at some point in the future desire a different use for the land being leased,

· An early termination clause reserving the right to council to give notice of 6 months in its sole discretion, and

· The leased premise area may be varied upon the survey area being finalised, so that the West Auckland Radio Control Car Club will be leasing the area that is not being proposed to be sold.

14. As specified in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012, groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to re-apply at the end of their occupancy term without public notification. Although the Club do not have a building they do have a shipping container with viewing platform that was placed on site in early 2012. A Certificate of Acceptance was given by Auckland Council on 5 June 2015 pursuant to Section 99 of the Building Act 2004.

15. Council staff has sought input from relevant council departments.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. Council staffs sought input from the Community Facilities Portfolio Holder on 24 November 2015.

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

Māori impact statement

18. There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land.

19. Ensuring community facilities are well maintained and accessible for all members of the community will be of benefit to all, including Maori.

20. Consultation with Kaitiaki representatives with an interest in the area has taken place. There were no objections received.

Implementation

21. The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

22. Provided there are no objections the cost implication for Auckland Council is the public notification of the lease with the initial costs estimated at $750.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Site Plan for West Auckland Radio Control Car Club, Bancroft Park, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Glendene	93
b View	West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan	95

Signatories

Author

Donna Cooper - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/03184

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

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

Comments

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

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

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

· Knowledge through education

· Volunteer participation

· Emergency Management planning

· Business and organisational resilience

· Strong partnerships

· Response capability and capacity

· Information and communications technologies

· Build Back better

· A safe city

· Research

· Building resilient communities

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021	103
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan	167

Signatories

Author

Janice Miller - Manager Logistics

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03539

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

That the Whau Local Board:

a) recommend 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.

Māori 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	173

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

LGNZ AGM and conference 2016

File No.: CP2016/03991

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.

Recommendations

That the Whau 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.

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

No.	Title	Page
a View	LGNZ 2016 conference and master class programme	185

Signatories

Author

Polly Kenrick - Business Process Manager

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Manukau Harbour Forum Work Programme for 2016/17

File No.: CP2016/04336

Purpose

1. To forward the resolutions of Manukau Harbour Forum regarding its 2016/17 work programme and to request that the Whau 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 its business meeting of 20 May 2015 the Whau Local Board agreed to support year two of a three-year work programme for the Manukau Harbour Forum (resolution number WH/2015/1), 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.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

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

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

c) note 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	235
b View	Report to the Manukau Harbour Forum on its 2016/17 Work Programme	239

Signatories

Author

Mary Binney - Local Board Advisor - Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/02350

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”

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.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

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

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

Comments

BID programmes

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

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

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

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

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

BID Policy (2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consultation to date

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

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

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

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

Differences between BID Policy 2011 and 2016 and feedback received

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

Key themes for change, feedback received and draft policy response

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

Local board feedback on BID Policy (2016)

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

25. Local boards are now being asked to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (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	249
b View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2	291

Signatories

Author

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

16 March 2016

Community Led Small Build Programme

File No.: CP2016/02274

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 Whau 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 Whau 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 Whau 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 Whau 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

That the Whau Local Board:

a) delegate to one or more board members to provide the Local Board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Whau 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 Whau 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 Whau 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 Whau 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 Whau 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

Author

Karen Titulaer - Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Chairperson	Catherine Farmer
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Zhu
Members	Derek Battersby, QSM, JP
	Ami Chand, JP
	Duncan Macdonald, JP
	Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel
	Simon Matafai

Name and Location of Land/Facility	Bancroft Park, 42 Bancroft Crescent, Glendene
Name of the Community it serves	The greater Auckland area
Local Board Area	Whau
Name of Community Group	West Auckland Radio Control Car Club Incorporated
Postal Address	14 Ascot Avenue, Henderson 0610
Contact person	Jake Stoneman, Club Secretary
Name of Community Lease Advisor	Donna Cooper

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau