Agenda of Extraordinary Meeting of the Ōrākei Local Board

Ōrākei Local Board

28 April 2016

Feedback received on the draft Annual Plan 2016/2017 consultation

File No.: CP2016/07243

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Ōrākei Local Board of the views of the community on the Annual Plan 2016/2017 proposals. This will build on the Board’s understanding of community priorities and preferences as established in the development of the Ōrākei Local Board Plan 2014.

2. This report summarises the feedback received on Ōrākei Local Board proposals and the regional topics through the consultation on the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

3. The feedback received will help inform the Board’s decisions on allocation of its local budgets in its Local Board Agreement for 2016/2017. It will also inform the Board’s discussions with the Finance and Performance Committee on 9 May 2016 on local priorities and advocacy in relation to the regional budgets and proposals.

Executive Summary

4. Public consultation on the Annual Plan 2016/2017 was undertaken between 15 February and 24 March 2016. Feedback was sought on the Board’s proposed projects and advocacy initiatives and four regional topics.

5. 3,321 submissions were received from across Auckland on the Annual Plan 2016/2017. Of these, the Board received 902 submissions on Ōrākei Local Board area projects and priorities, with 788 from residents living in the Ōrākei Local Board area and 114 from residents who live in other Local Board areas. Of the 902 submissions received, 618 (69 per cent) were pro forma style submissions.

6. The local data in this report analyses all 902 submissions received on Ōrākei Local Board area projects and priorities, and the regional data analyses the 788 submissions from residents living in the Ōrākei Local Board area.

7. Feedback was also gathered through community meetings and the Ōrākei Have Your Say event on 10 March 2016. Raw feedback is attached for reference.

Project or advocacy initiative

Public consultation feedback

Continue to advocate for the harbourside shared walkway project, identified in the Tamaki Drive Masterplan to improve the overall safety for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians

· 87% support

· 0% did not support

Contribute to the development of multi-use changing rooms at Michaels Avenue Reserve

· 85% support

· 3% did not support

Create cycling and walking connections to the Ōrākei Spine (the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive shared path)

· 78% support

· 3% did not support

Continue to advocate for the completion of detailed design and consent work for the proposed Pourewa/Selwyn train station to provide better rail access for local residents

· 77% support

· 11% did not support

Advocate for the retention of lease income at The Landing, Okahu Bay for reinvestment into the site to benefit all users

· 63% support

· 11% did not support

Continue to advocate for funds to be brought forward to 2016/2017 for the Meadowbank Community Centre upgrade as it is at capacity and no longer fit for purpose

· 60% support

· 8% did not support

Upgrade four sportsfields at Colin Maiden Park and provide floodlights

· 52% support

· 14% did not support

Upgrade sportsfield three at Ōrākei Domain

· 46% support

· 11% did not support

8. The messages from the Ōrākei community on the regional Annual Plan 2016/2017 topics were:

· support for a higher Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)

· support for businesses paying more with respect to the Interim Transport Levy

· support for the Interim Transport Levy being shared amongst businesses relative to property value

· support for retaining the rating differential for farm/lifestyle properties over 50 hectares at 80 per cent of the residential rate

· opposition to reducing the rates collected from Maori land to reflect restrictions on its use.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) receive the Annual Plan 2016/2017 consultation feedback report and

b) consider amendments to its local priorities and projects, and advocacy priorities for its Local Board Agreement 2016/2017.

Comments

Overview of the Annual Plan 2016/2017 public consultation

9. The feedback received reflects the Ōrākei community’s priorities and preferences. It is intended to inform the Board’s discussions with the Finance and Performance Committee on 9 May 2016. At this meeting the Ōrākei Local Board will have the opportunity to present feedback on the key regional consultation topics as well as local priority projects and advocacy priorities.

10. The Ōrākei community’s Annual Plan 2016/2017 feedback will also inform the Board’s decisions on locally driven initiatives allocations and advocacy content for the Ōrākei Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The Local Board Agreement is due to be finalised in June 2016, after the Finance and Performance Committee has confirmed the total locally driven initiatives budgets for local boards.

11. Public consultation on the Annual Plan 2016/2017 was undertaken between 15 February and 24 March 2016. Feedback was sought on the Board’s proposed projects and advocacy initiatives, and on the four regional topics.

12. The Board sought comment on the following advocacy initiatives:

· upgrade the Meadowbank Community Centre, by way of a possible private multi-use development to include a larger community centre, and advocating for funding in the LTP to be brought forward from 2020/2021 to 2016/2017

· progressing the Tamaki Drive Masterplan by developing the harbour side of Tamaki Drive, separating pedestrians and cyclists to improve the overall safety for all users of the road corridor

· detailed design and consent for the new Pourewa/Selwyn train station to provide better rail access for St Johns, Meadowbank, Kohimarama, along with Mission Bay, Ōrākei, St Heliers, and Glendowie residents

· request that income from The Landing at Okahu Bay is retained for investment on site.

13. The Board sought feedback on the following local proposals:

· create cycling and walking connections to the Ōrākei Spine (the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive shared path)

· upgrade four sportsfields at Colin Maiden Park and provide floodlight

· upgrade sportsfield three at Ōrākei Domain

· contribute to the development of multi-use changing rooms at Michaels Avenue Reserve.

14. The four regional topics for feedback were the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC), the Interim Transport Levy (ITL), Farm/lifestyle property rates and Maori freehold land rates.

15. The council provided a suite of options for the public to provide feedback on the local and regional consultation topics. This included online through Shape Auckland and Facebook, completing a physical feedback form or in person by attending a Have Your Say event. To support the feedback process the Board:

· held two community meetings on 25 February and 3 March 2016

· attended residents and business association meetings throughout February and March 2016

· held a Have Your Say event on 10 March 2016.

Summary of submissions

16. 3,321 submissions were received on the Annual Plan 2016/2017 from across Auckland. Of these, the Board received 902 submissions on Ōrākei Local Board area projects and priorities, with 788 from residents living in Ōrākei Local Board area and 114 from residents who live in other Local Board areas.

17. The local data in this report analyses all 902 submissions received on Ōrākei Local Board area projects and priorities, and the regional data analyses the 788 submissions from residents living in the Ōrākei Local Board area.

18. Of the 902 submissions received, 618 (69 per cent) were pro forma style submissions.

19. Most of the submissions were from individuals. Other submitter groups included local businesses (one), business associations (one), community groups (two), residents associations (one) and special interest groups (four).

20. Hardcopy feedback was the most popular mechanism for Ōrākei respondents. 74 per cent of respondents posted their submission or delivered it in hardcopy. The remainder used either the Shape Auckland website or emailed their feedback.

21. A large number of pro forma type submissions (618) were received on the topics of fluoridation (39), the Mission Bay Tennis Courts (423), the Michaels Avenue Reserve Changing Rooms (102) and the need for a bike hub at Colin Maiden Park (54). Further detail on these is outlined in the report.

Demographic profile of submitters

22. A demographic snapshot of respondents from the Ōrākei area highlights that:

· 59 per cent of the respondents were male, while 41 per cent were female. These figures are similar to the regional response rate for gender

· 51 per cent of respondents were aged between 35 and 54 years. This is higher than the regional response rate of 37 per cent

· 14 per cent of respondents were aged 24 years or younger. This is higher than the regional response of six percent

· 16 per cent were of the 55 to 75 plus age range compared to the regional rate of 31 per cent

· 89 per cent of respondents were NZ European and NZ/Kiwi, five per cent were of Asian descent and three per cent Maori. These figures are very similar to the regional responses for ethnicity.

23. It should be noted that the demographic snapshot is not representative of all 788 submissions. This is due to the demographic questions being optional and some respondents choosing not to answer them.

Feedback on local projects and advocacy initiatives

24. This section provides a high-level summary of feedback received on the Board’s local projects and advocacy initiatives for the 2016/2017 financial year.

Local Board priorities for 2016/2017

25. Submitters were asked “have we got our priorities right for this area in 2016/2017?” This question allowed submitters to broadly comment on all the local board’s priorities. 825 responses were received for this question, where:

· 27 per cent supported the priorities

· 68 per cent partially supported the priorities

· 3 per cent did not support the priorities

· 2 per cent were unsure.

Local projects and advocacy initiatives consulted on for 2016/2017

26. The following local consultation topics were supported (ranked highest to lowest):

Initiative	Why is it a priority?	Feedback Stats Stats	Advocating to
Continue to advocate for the harbour-side shared walkway project, identified in the Tamaki Drive Masterplan to improve the overall safety for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians	This is a priority project from the Tamaki Drive Masterplan, for which the Ōrākei community has expressed strong support.	Total No. 54 Support 87% Do not support 0% Not sure/other 13%	The Governing Body / Auckland Transport
Contribute to the development of multi-use changing rooms at Michaels Avenue Reserve	The Ellerslie Football Club has the funding to develop a multi-use clubroom at Michaels Avenue Reserve in 2016/2017. The Board wants to develop the changing rooms using its LDI operating expenditure budget to fund the capital works and the Club can build the multi-use clubrooms above at the same time.	Total No. 186 Support 84.9% Do not support 2.7% Not sure/other 12.4%	The Governing Body
Create cycling and walking connections to the Ōrākei Spine (the Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive shared path)	The Ōrākei Spine (Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive Shared Path) is a NZTA and AT initiative. Providing connections to it so that the community can easily access it is essential.	Total No. 94 Support 78.7% Do not support 3.2% Not sure/other 18.1%	The Governing Body / Auckland Transport
Continue to advocate for the completion of detailed design and consent work for the proposed Pourewa/Selwyn train station to provide better rail access for local residents	A new Pourewa/Selwyn train station will open up rail access for St Johns, Meadowbank, Kohimarama, along with Mission Bay, Ōrākei, St Heliers, and Glendowie residents.	Total No. 47 Support 76.6% Do not support 10.6% Not sure/other 12.8%	The Governing Body/ Auckland Transport
Advocate for the retention of lease income at The Landing, Okahu Bay for reinvestment into the site to benefit all users	The Landing Concept Plan envisages a number of improvements to the area, however there is no budget in the LTP to progress these.	Total No. 46 Support 63% Do not support 10.9% Not sure/other 26.1%	The Governing Body
Continue to advocate for funds to be brought forward to 2016/2017 for the Meadowbank Community Centre upgrade as it is at capacity and no longer fit for purpose	The facility has not been fit for purpose for a number of years and renovations have been deferred even as demand has increased. As it is centrally located and easily accessible, an upgrade would benefit a wide area.	Total No. 50 Support 60% Do not support 8% Not sure/other 32%	The Governing Body / Panuku Development Auckland
Upgrade four sports fields at Colin Maiden Park and provide floodlights	This will enable the implementation of the Colin Maiden Park Masterplan.	Total No. 54 Support 52.3% Do not support 13.6% Not sure/other 34.1%	N/A
Upgrade sports field 3 at Ōrākei Domain	Continue with the development of Ōrākei Domain to cater for the growing need.	Total No. 46 Support 45.7% Do not support 10.9% Not sure/other 43.5%	N/A

Comments made on the consultation topics and other topics

27. A further question was included, which asked respondents to consider “what do you think should change?” This allowed submitters an opportunity to comment on their response to the first question, and note any changes they would like to see. 750 additional comments were received for the supplementary question. The question drew a range of comments on the Board’s priorities, as well as broader local board and council issues (these are outlined in the report).

28. Support for walking and cycling connections to the Ōrākei Spine was expressed in 33 submissions. Nine further submissions were in support of improvements to and the provision of more cycle lanes. Two submissions sought the removal of cycle lanes. Five submissions supported completion of the Tamaki Drive Masterplan as being the highest priority. These submitters included the Tamaki Drive Protection Society and the St Heliers Village Association.

29. Four submissions were received for each of the following topics:

· Prioritising the Remuera CAB building for improvement or redevelopment

· Too much focus on sport and too little focus on community and arts projects.

· Concerns about the operation, cost and provision of public transport services, particularly buses.

30. Three submissions suggested that rates collected in Ōrākei should be spent in Ōrākei and that local projects didn’t reflect the rates collected from the area.

31. There were a small number of submissions (one or two each) across a diverse range of issues including need for a library and community centre in Ellerslie, a tree protection fund, Ngapipi Road intersection improvements, Liston Park, upgrading the Okahu Bay toilets, Pourewa train station, the Ellerslie Eagles clubrooms, rates and urban intensification.

Feedback from Residents’ and Business Associations and other groups

32. St Heliers Village Association supported all the advocacy projects included in the consultation and commented that more of the rates collected from the area should be spent in the area. It also requested that the Board continue to support the business and residents’ associations.

33. Ellerslie Business Association submitted support for a fairer level of rate investment in Ōrākei and seeks continued support from the Board for its business and residents’ associations. Of the consultation priorities it requested transport links and multiple modes, the continuing development of Michaels Avenue Reserve and suggested funding the Meadowbank Community Centre by way of possible PPP and by bringing funding forward in the LTP.

34. Ellerslie Residents Association Inc submitted that the redevelopment of the Meadowbank Community Centre should wait, as other neighbourhoods don’t have community centres i.e. Ellerslie and Remuera. A library for Ellerslie and the maintenance of buildings in a poor state, such as in Liston Park and Ellerslie Domain were also requested.

35. The Tamaki Drive Protection Society supports the Tamaki Drive walkway as set out in the Tamaki Drive Masterplan.

36. Citizens Advice Bureau (Remuera) commented that the CAB should be given priority, either by undertaking substantial renovation or finding other premises.

37. Selwyn College submitted that the school zone includes Meadowbank and that there needs be links between Meadowbank and the Ōrākei Spine, and between the Spine and the school, as the roll is growing.

38. The Blind Citizens of New Zealand Incorporated did not answer the specific questions but commended the council for its efforts to improve accessibility to its own documents and training staff throughout council and its CCOs. However, some documents, signage, websites and apps still do not meet accessibility guidelines. There is a need for all local board projects to adhere to guidelines and standards of accessibility.

39. The Ellerslie Sports Club submission seeks higher prioritisation of funding for the multi-use changing rooms at Michaels Avenue Reserve.

40. The Ellerslie Cricket Club made a separate submission and, amongst a number of issues, strongly supports upgrading new multi-use clubrooms at Madills Farm and Michaels Avenue Reserve. It also seeks:

· a storage facility at Michaels Avenue Reserve,

· facilities to be provided at Martyn Wilson Field, and that

· Ōrākei Domain remains available for cricket use.

Pro-Forma Submissions

41. Four pro forma style submissions were received, making up a total of 618 pro formas.

42. The largest number received was for the Mission Bay Tennis Club (423). There was variable written content but they in essence urge the Board to fund rehabilitation work to the subsoil beneath courts 4 – 6 to enable the Club to install new court surfaces. A submission from the Club itself (1677) seeking Board funding and support is grouped with the 421 submissions and provides a greater level of detail about this project than found in the other submissions. The Club estimates remedial work could cost in the order of $100,000.

43. 102 pro forma responses were received in relation to Michaels Avenue Reserve. These submissions essentially seek two key outcomes:

· the Board continuing to contribute to the multi-use changing sheds, and

· the completion of the Michaels Avenue Reserve redevelopment before moving onto other projects.

44. 54 pro forma responses were received in support of the Board funding the development of a ‘bike hub’ on Colin Maiden Park. The ‘bike hub’ is described as “a shared community space where all levels of riders can ride safely away from traffic while improving and honing their cycle skills for either competitive or recreational enjoyment”. The East City BMX Club was amongst those that submitted on this topic.

45. The final group of pro forma submissions consisted of 39 submissions objecting to the addition of fluoride to the public water supply. These submissions should be noted but given this is a regional decision it is outside the ambit of the Ōrākei Local Board. In addition, the Government has recently announced plans to transfer decisions about fluoridating water supplies away from local authorities to District Health Boards.

Feedback from public meetings and Have Your Say event

46. Two public meetings were held; one at St Heliers Community Centre, the other at St Chad’s Church and Community Centre. The themes captured at each meeting are below:

47. St Heliers meeting (8 attendees): the feedback was quite detailed and there were questions about specific projects. Attendees considered that Dingle Dell Reserve and Kepa Bush needed attention. On the regional topics, there was one comment about the level of the UAGC being set lower than in some other territorial authorities.

48. St Chad’s meeting (4 attendees): feedback focused on the regional topics, with comment made about the level of UAGC being lower than that of other councils. It was suggested that Council should quantify its costs for administration, servicing debt, democracy etc and show how Orakei rates subsidise other areas. One person commented that farms with glasshouses or horticulture should be seen as business and therefore not be eligible for rates relief.

49. The Have Your Say Event at the Orakei Community Centre attracted 45 attendees. The feedback received at this consultation event is collated in Attachment A. Common themes are:

· Tamaki Drive – flooding issue highlighted; questions about the cost of rebuilding and implementing the Tamaki Drive Masterplan

· Michaels Avenue Reserve – support for development of park and changing rooms

· Pourewa/Selwyn Station – support, but need access from Kohimarama and Meadowbank

· Meadowbank Community Centre – mixed feedback; some support, but others said facilities are needed in other areas; the location of libraries and community centres should be equitable across local board area; Meadowbank is not necessarily the priority; don’t pay interest to bring the project forward.

· Parks – a range of comments

· Public transport – various comments on network, but emphasis on need for direct feeder buses to train stations.

Feedback on regional proposals consulted on for 2016/2017

50. This section provides a high-level summary of feedback received on the four regional topics. The consultation on the proposed annual budget focused on four key regional issues: Uniform Annual General Charge, Interim Transport Levy, Farm/lifestyle rates and Maori Freehold Land rates. The feedback received from the Ōrākei area on these key consultation topics is summarised below. A comparison with Auckland-wide feedback is also provided in the table.

Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)

51. Auckland’s residents and ratepayers were asked if the UAGC should be kept at $397 so that rates are spread differently between high and low value properties, and should it be changed to $350, $450, $550 or $650. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei area:

Question 1a: What is your opinion on the fixed charge portion of the rates (UAGC)?

52. 242 Ōrākei submitters responded with the results outlined in the following graph:

Question 1 b: If changed, what should the fixed charge be?

53. 225 Ōrākei submitters responded with the results outlined in the following graph:

54. The feedback from Ōrākei submitters shows support for a higher UACG and that if it was to change, it should be set at $650.

Interim Transport Levy (ITL)

55. People were asked if businesses should pay more than they currently do toward the ITL and whether the levy should continue to be a fixed charge for businesses or be based on the size of the business. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei area:

Question 2a: What is your opinion on the ITL amount paid by businesses versus the amount paid by all other ratepayers?

56. 235 Ōrākei submitters responded with the results outlined in the following graph:

Question 2b: What is your opinion on the amount businesses pay in relation to their property value?

57. 230 Ōrākei submitters responded with the results outlined in the following graph:

58. Ōrākei submitters provided feedback that supports businesses paying a greater contribution towards the ITL and that this should be based on property value.

Farm/Lifestyle rates

59. Auckland’s residents and ratepayers were asked for their opinion on the rates paid by farm/lifestyle properties (over 50 hectares) reducing to 60 per cent from 80 per cent of the urban residential rate (meaning all other ratepayers pay slightly more). The graph gives an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei area.

Question 3: What is your opinion on the rates paid by farm/lifestyle properties over 50 hectares?

60. 225 Ōrākei submitters responded with the results outlined in the following graph:

61. The feedback from Ōrākei submitters supports the status quo, i.e. that owners of Farm/lifestyle properties over 50 hectares should continue to pay rates at 80 per cent of the residential rate.

Māori Freehold Land rates

62. People were asked if they supported reducing rates for some Māori land to reflect restrictions on its use. The graph gives an overview of the responses from the Ōrākei area.

Question 4: What is your opinion on reducing the rates collected from Māori land to reflect restrictions on its use

63. 231 Ōrākei submitters responded with the results outlined in the following graph:

64. The feedback from Ōrākei residents shows 49 per cent do not support a reduction in rates on Maori Freehold land.

Summary Table of Regional Feedback Topics Comparing Local Feedback with Auckland Wide Feedback

Message	Ōrākei Feedback	Regional Feedback Submissions	Regional Feedback Have Your Say Events
1a. UAGC	22% retain $397	32% retain $397	49% retain
	45% higher	33% higher	24% higher
	14% lower	27% lower	27% lower
1b. UAGC if changes	24% $650	17% $650	43% $650
	16% $450	13% $450	21% $450
	16% $350	30% $350	18% $350
	22% other	5% other	14% other
2a. Change the business differential in ITL	40% increase	44% increase	52% increase
2a. Change the business differential in ITL	29% status quo	38% status quo	40% status quo
2b. Base business component on property value	43% base on property value	55% base on property value	93% base on property value
2b. Base business component on property value	25% support fixed charge	27% support fixed charge	5% support fixed charge
3. Farm/lifestyle rates	48% status quo (80%)	52% status quo (80%)	23% status quo (80%)
3. Farm/lifestyle rates	12% reduce to 60%	25% reduce to 60%	71% reduce to 60%
4. Maori land rates reduction	49% do not support	56% do not support	30% do not support
	23% support	28% support	67% support
	26% not sure	13% not sure	3% not sure

Feedback from residents’ and business associations on regional consultation topics

65. Ellerslie Business Association

· strongly opposes the proposal to increase the business share of the interim transport levy and supports the status quo

· supports the proposal to charge businesses a targeted rate based on property value.

66. St Heliers Village Association

· supports the UAGC being increased to $650

· strongly opposes the proposal to increase the share of the interim transport levy paid by businesses. Supports the status quo

· does not support the ITL being based on property value as the capital value of a property.

67. Ellerslie Residents Association Inc

· The UAGC should be kept as it currently is (at a fixed yearly charge of $397)

· The ITL should remain at $183 for businesses, and $114 for all other ratepayers

· Property value is not a fair measure for the ITL. It should be based on numbers of people working in businesses

· Farm/lifestyle rates should be 60 per cent of the urban residential rate

· Support reducing rates for some Māori land where significant barriers to development exist.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

68. The local board will need to consider any changes to their locally driven initiatives budget or advocacy based on feedback from the Annual Plan 2016/2017 public consultation.

Māori impact statement

69. The Board’s proposed projects and advocacy initiatives for 2016 /2017 have the potential to make a positive impact on Māori and can respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing and delivering Māori outcomes.

Implementation

70. There are no implementation issues at this stage of the Annual Plan’s development.

71. The following table outlines the local board’s role and next steps to complete the development of the Annual Plan:

Month	Deliverable
28 April	Local board decisions on: · final locally driven initiative (LDI) priorities, by activity, within funding envelopes · proposed LDI capital projects outside local board decision-making · any recommendations to the governing body on financial matter (i.e. a BID or targeted rate) · advocacy initiatives.
9 May	Discussions between the local board and governing body on local board advocacy initiatives.
Mid-May	Governing body agree to budgets
9 June	Local board decisions on: · adopting the 2016/2017 Local Board Agreement · adopting a fees and charges schedule for 2016/2017 · agreeing work programming for 2016/2017 by activity.
30 June	Governing body adopt Annual Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Have You Say event feedback	31
b	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 1 (Under Separate Cover)
c	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 2 (Under Separate Cover)
d	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 3 (Under Separate Cover)
e	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 4 (Under Separate Cover)
f	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 5 (Under Separate Cover)
g	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 6 (Under Separate Cover)
h	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 7 (Under Separate Cover)
i	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 8 (Under Separate Cover)
j	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 9 (Under Separate Cover)
k	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 10 (Under Separate Cover)
l	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 11 (Under Separate Cover)
m	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 12 (Under Separate Cover)
n	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume13 (Under Separate Cover)
o	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 14 (Under Separate Cover)
p	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 15 (Under Separate Cover)
q	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 16 (Under Separate Cover)
r	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 17 (Under Separate Cover)
s	Ōrākei Local Board Written Feedback Submissions Volume 18 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Suzanne Weld - Senior Local Board Advisor Orakei

Simon Tattersfield - Local Board Advisor Orakei

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Ōrākei Local Board

28 April 2016

Central Facility Partnership Joint Advocacy Positions

File No.: CP2016/07359

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek agreement from each of the seven central Local Boards, who are members of the Central Facility Partnership Committee, to develop joint advocacy positions on the future re-instatement of the Central Facility Partnership Fund.

Executive Summary

2. In round figures, since 2010, the Central Facility Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged to provide community projects to a total value of $45 million. This community-led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10 million Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan the Central Facility Partnership Fund ceased to exist.

3. Following agreement by the Waitemata, Ōrākei, Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Waiheke and Great Barrier Local Boards it was agreed to re-establish the Central Facility Partnership Committee.

4. A key purpose of the re-established Central Facility Partnership Committee as outlined in the Terms of Reference is to provide governance and oversight of approved partnership projects and feasibility studies; and develop and articulate joint facility-based advocacy positions and programmes.

5. A report was considered by the Committee on 14 March 2016, which provided the members with an update on what advocacy positions had been taken to date by each central local board and identified upcoming opportunities to establish and present joint advocacy positions.

6. It was considered that a consistent approach, across the seven central local boards would create a stronger advocacy position on the re-instatement of the Central Facility Partnership Fund.

7. The Committee agreed to develop joint advocacy positions that reflect the purpose and agreed terms of reference of the Committee and support the reinstatement of a similar fund. This wording could then be used by each local board to inform their advocacy discussions through the annual budget process.

8. In April 2016 input from Local Boards will be sought on a range of annual plan related matters, including advocacy positions. Local boards will then have an opportunity to agree any advocacy priorities for discussion with the Finance and Performance Committee on 6 and 9 May 2016.

9. This report is seeking the local board to consider the inclusion of proposed joint advocacy positions as part of the boards’ individual advocacy positions.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōrākei Local Board:

a) note that since 2010, the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million (this community-led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy).

b) note that with the establishment of the $10 million Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan the Central Facility Partnership Fund ceased to exist.

c) agree to include in the Board’s key advocacy issues the proposed joint advocacy positions:

i) request the Governing Body to re-instate a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership Fund

ii) request the approval for the Central Facility Partnership Committee to undertake under its governance responsibilities the ability to re-invest funds, up to the value of current commitments, in the event of a current facility partnership commitment failing to crystallise.

d) agree to include as part of the local boards individual achievement reports the inclusion of the collective outcomes of the central Facilities Partnership Committee.

Comments

10. Since 2010, the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has allocated $10 million, which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This community led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy.

11. On 3 August 2015 members of the previous Central Facilities Partnership Committee held a workshop chaired by Waitematā Local Board and Committee Chair, Shale Chambers. Whilst the primary function of the Committee was agreed to be one of governance over existing approved projects and feasibility studies it was also recognised that a re-established Committee would provide a good vehicle for developing joint advocacy around community partnership issues and opportunities, which is reflected in the agreed Terms of Reference of the Committee.

12. Central boards represented at the workshop also held a collective view that the success of the fund, as evidenced by the ratio of Auckland Council’s contribution (approx. $10 million) to the total value of the projects completed (approx. $45 million) warranted advocacy around re-establishing the fund in the future.

13. In November 2015 all central Local Boards resolved and then a number discussed with the Finance and Performance Committee, as part of the annual plan discussions, selected advocacy positions.

14. A review of the advocacy positions taken by each central local board, which are related to the purpose of the Central Facilities Partnership Committee has been undertaken to provide an overview of what current advocacy positions have been made.

15. Three central local boards to date have included an advocacy position which requests the Governing Body to re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund.

16. Two local boards included this advocacy position in their presentation to the Finance and Performance Committee in November 2015.

Local Board	Advocacy Position	Advocacy Description	Advocated to Finance & Performance Committee in November
Waitematā	Central Facilities Partnership Fund Re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund	Since 2010 the Central Facilities Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45m. This community led approach is consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m Local Board Discretionary Capex Fund , the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased	Yes
Ōrākei	Central Facilities Partnership Fund	Since 2010, the Central Facility Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45m. This community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Capex Fund, the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased. The Board requests that a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership be reinstated.	Yes
Albert Eden	Central Facilities Partnership Fund Re-instate the Central Facilities Partnership Fund	Since 2010, the Central facilities Partnership Committee allocated $10 million which was leveraged to provide community projects with a total value of $45 million. This community-led approach was consistent with the empowered communities’ philosophy. With the establishment of the $10m LDI Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) Fund, the Central Facility Partnership Fund has now ceased.	Yes
Puketāpapa	N/A	N/A	No
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	N/A	N/A	No
Waiheke	N/A	N/A	No
Great Barrier	N/A	N/A	No

17. There is now an opportunity to achieve a collective approach across the central local boards as part of the upcoming annual budget process.

18. The Committee agreed in March 2016 to develop and propose to the member Local Boards joint advocacy positions, which reflect the purpose and agreed terms of reference of the committee and supports the reinstatement of a similar fund as the Central Facility Partnership Fund.

a) Requests the re-instatement of a sub-regional fund similar to the Central Facility Partnership Fund

b) Requests approval for the Central Facility Partnership Committee to undertake under its governance responsibilities the ability to re-invest funds, up to the value of current commitments, in the event of a current Central Facility Partnership commitment failing to crystallise.

19. The committee also requested that Local Boards individually include within their individual achievement reports the collective outcomes that have been created as a result of the central Facilities Partnership Committee as a way of highlighting the success to date of this ceased fund.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. Individually each central local board has agreed to the Terms of Reference for the re-established Central Facility Partnerships Committee.

21. The Terms of Reference states as a key purpose of the Committee is to develop and articulate joint facility-based advocacy positions and programmes.

Māori impact statement

22. The Central Facilities Partnership scheme is a general programme that supports facilities which are accessible to a wide range of groups including Maori.

Implementation

23. As part of the annual plan process Local Boards will be considering and finalising their advocacy positions in April 2016.

24. Further discussions between local boards and the Finance and Performance Committee on advocacy maters will be undertaken on 6 and 9 May 2016.

25. These meetings provide further opportunity to articulate any agreed joint advocacy positions at these times.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Trina Thompson - Senior Local Board Advisor - Waitemata
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Chairperson	Desley Simpson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Kit Parkinson
Members	Ken Baguley
	Troy Churton
	Kate Cooke, JP
	Colin Davis, JP
	Mark Thomas