Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board area

Kaipātiki Local Board Members

	Kay McIntyre QSM Chairperson Ph 09 484 8383 DDI 09 484 8987 Mobile 021 287 8844 kay.mcintyre@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Finance – lead · Planning, policy and governance – lead · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – associate		Ann Hartley JP Deputy Chairperson Mob 027 490 6909 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 483 7572 ann.hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Community Development and Facilities – lead · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – lead · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – lead · Parks and playgrounds (passive) – associate · Planning, policy and governance – associate
	Danielle Grant Local Board Member Mob 021 835 724 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 442 1271 danielle.grant@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Arts, culture and events – lead · Economic development – lead · Natural environment – associate		Grant Gillon MPP, PhD Local Board Member Mob 027 476 4679 Office 09 484 8383 grant.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Natural environment – lead · Libraries – associate
	John Gillon Local Board Member Mob 021 286 2288 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 443 1683 john.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Libraries – lead · Parks and playgrounds (passive) – lead · Civil defence and emergency management – associate		Lindsay Waugh Local Board Member Mob 021 287 1155 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 418 1620 lindsay.waugh@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – lead · Arts, culture and events – associate · Transport and infrastructure – associate
	Lorene Pigg Local Board Member Mob 021 839 375 Office 09 484 8383 lorene.pigg@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Civil defence and emergency management – lead · Finance – associate · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – associate · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – associate		Richard Hills Local Board Member Mob 021 286 4411 Office 09 484 8383 richard.hills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Transport and infrastructure – lead · Community Development and Facilities – associate · Economic development – associate

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Leave of Absence 7

6 Acknowledgements 7

7 Petitions 8

8 Deputations 8

9 Public Forum 8

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Notices of Motion 9

12 Open Unconfirmed Meeting Minutes Kaipātiki Local Board, Wednesday 11 May 2016 11

13 Beach Haven Marae 13

14 Tamahere Reserve playground relocation 17

15 Adoption of Local Board Agreement 2016/2017 31

16 Kaipātiki Local Board Libraries Work Programme 2016/2017 39

17 Community Lease Work Programme 2016/2017 43

18 Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme financial year 2016-2017 47

19 Bayview Community Centre, Beach Haven Community House, Birkdale Community House, Glenfield Community Centre, and Highbury House funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage 55

20 Kaipātiki Local Grants: Round Two - Multiboard Applications 61

21 Birkdale Primary School Outdoor Courts 65

22 Accountability for Grants to Locally Contracted Organisations 69

23 Local Board Services Monthly Report 73

24 Auckland Transport Monthly Update - June 2016 85

25 Sport and Recreation Investment - Community Access Scheme guidelines and future allocation of residual legacy Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund 95

26 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 101

27 Governing Body and Independent Maori Statutory Board Members' Update 105

28 Members' Reports 107

29 Workshop Records - Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops - Wednesday, 18 May 2016 and Wednesday, 25 May 2016 109

30 Record of Kaipātiki Local Board Portfolio Briefings held in May 2016 115

31 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

32 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 129

26 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a. 21 Learmonth Avenue, Birkenhead 129

b. 21 Mappin Place, Chatswood 129

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 11 May 2016, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Beach Haven Marae

File No.: CP2016/00102

Purpose

1. To advise the Kaipātiki Local Board of the proposed next step to progress Uruamo Maranga Ake’s November 2015 proposal to develop a marae in Beach Haven.

Executive Summary

2. Uruamo Maranga Ake is a group of local Māori established in the Beach Haven area. They presented a proposal to develop a marae in Beach Haven at their preferred site in Shepherds Park, at the November 2015 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Forum. The local board requested staff investigate the steps required to proceed with the marae proposal.

3. The next step to progress the proposal is for the group to develop an independent feasibility study. The purpose of the feasibility study is to examine the viability of the proposal so that any future decision can be informed by objective analysis.

4. Staff have been working with Uruamo Maranga Ake on the process of developing the feasibility study brief. This has involved agreement on the outcomes sought from the feasibility study, confirmation of the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders, and discussion regarding the expectations that the Kaipātiki Local Board may have of the study.

5. Should the board decide to allocate funding towards developing the feasibility study, then it is recommended that this is done via a grant from the board’s locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget. Feasibility studies for community facilities similar in scale to the one proposed have traditionally cost between $20,000 and $30,000 to complete.

6. Uruamo Maranga Ake is not currently a legal entity, and as such the local board is unable to grant them the money directly. It is therefore recommended that any grant at this stage goes through the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust, who currently act as an ‘umbrella’ group for a number of community groups in Kaipātiki.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) consider allocating funding of up to $30,000 from its locally driven initiatives budget to the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust, as the umbrella organisation on behalf of Uruamo Maranga Ake, to complete an independent feasibility study of the proposed Beach Haven marae.

Comments

7. Local Māori held a hui on 15 June 2015 to seek interest and commitment for the development of a marae in Beach Haven. A further hui was held on 20 October 2015 to formally select a committee to develop the group, called Uruamo Maranga Ake. The name Uruamo Maranga Ake acknowledges te whānau Uruamo who lived in Kaipātiki and is the name that references the Beach Haven area. Maranga ake encourages local Māori in Beach Haven to support the development of the Marae.

8. Uruamo Maranga Ake is yet to formalise their entity structure, and will be seeking to become an incorporated society or charitable trust in due course. The objectives and purpose of Uruamo Maranga Ake are to:

a) give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by maintaining the unique belief systems, values and practices of tangata whenua;

b) promote, enhance and advance Māori (particularly local to Uruamo) and help them realise their full potential;

c) establish, maintain, and monitor the quality management systems of Uruamo Maranga Ake and its entities;

d) network with other tangata whenua collectives that have similar objects to Uruamo Maranga Ake;

e) source and manage funding aligned to the objectives of Uruamo Maranga Ake; and

f) recognise and celebrate whanau, hapu and iwi.

9. Representatives of Uruamo Maranga Ake presented their proposal to develop a marae in Beach Haven at their preferred site in Shepherds Park, at the November 2015 Kaipātiki Local Board Community Forum. The following was resolved at the meeting (resolution number KAI/2015/61):

“That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

c) requests staff investigate this opportunity for the board, and to report back on the steps required to proceed with the proposal.”

Next Steps

10. In order for the board to support the marae proposal, it is advised that an independent feasibility study is produced. The purpose of the feasibility study would be to examine the viability of the proposal so that any future decision can be informed by an objective analysis.

11. A robust feasibility study is a crucial document when approaching funding organisations (both council and external agencies) for capital development budget, as they are used to justify investment and identify the project's relative risks and likelihood of success. It is important the study is comprehensive and evidence-based. Completion of a feasibilirt study by an independent individual or organisation adds to the credibility of the analysis. The feasibility study will also help inform the local board should a lease on council land be sought.

12. The outcome of the feasibility study may be to implement, amend, refine or abandon the original proposal. The study should provide all the information required by the local board and other interested stakeholders to enable a decision to either support or reject the final proposal. The following list provides an example of the questions a feasibility study should determine:

· Is there demand or demonstrated need for what is proposed?

· What range of opportunities and services will be offered at the facility?

· What spaces and features are required in the facility?

· What is the economic, environmental, social and cultural impact that the proposed facility is likely to have on the community?

· How will the facility 'fit' into the existing local network of community resources in the area?

· How will the facility be managed?

· What will the facility ownership and operating model look like?

· What will the facility governance structure be?

· Is it likely that the capital necessary to buy and / or develop the land / building can be raised?

· Is the proposal financially sustainable in the short, medium and long-term?

· What is the best location for the facility?

· Can land / building ownership be secured? And on what terms?

· Are there constraints on what can be done on the land?

· Are there likely to be problems or inordinate costs associated with developing the land or buildings?

· Can the support of stakeholders be relied upon? And who will be the project champion?

· How will the project be managed?

· Is the organisation up to the task to see the project through to completion?

· Can the project be accomplished within the timeframe suggested?

13. Staff have been working with Uruamo Maranga Ake on the process of developing the feasibility study brief that will address many of the questions above. This has involved agreeing the outcomes being sought from the feasibility study, confirming the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders, and discussing the expectations the Kaipātiki Local Board may have of the study.

14. A copy of the draft brief to complete the feasibility study on Uruamo Maranga Ake’s proposal is provided in this report (refer Attachment A). The four key outcomes identified in the feasibility study brief include:

· Outcome one – Identify the architectural form and location of the marae that would meet demand and maximise opportunities and revenue for the services offered.

· Outcome two – Identify all the costs associated with providing the architectural form of the marae that would maximise demand and how these costs can be met.

· Outcome three – Understand the potential non-financial risk factors to the project and provide guidance about how to best mitigate these risk factors.

· Outcome four – Identify the management structure, timeline and process that will enable the marae to be built and managed to maximise its potential use.

15. Costs associated with developing feasibility studies for community facilities similar in scale to the one proposed have traditionally cost between $20,000 and $30,000 to complete. Should the board decide to allocate funding towards developing the feasibility study, it is recommended that this is done via a grant from the board’s locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. The Kaipātiki Local Board received a presentation on the Beach Haven marae proposal and requested staff to investigate this opportunity for the board.

Māori impact statement

17. A marae is a significant place for Māori, and marae development is a focus area identified by mana whenua and mataawaka in the Māori Plan. The development of marae contributes to the following Māori Plan Key Directions and Māori Outcomes as follows:

Develop Vibrant Communities

· Māori communities are culturally vibrant across Tāmaki Makaurau;

Improve Quality of Life

· Māori communities are culturally strong and healthy; and

Promote Distinctive Identity

· Māori heritage of Tāmaki Makaurau is valued and protected.

18. The development of a marae Beach Haven will provide cultural significance for Māori residents living in the area.

Implementation

19. The Kaipātiki Strategic Broker will continue to work with Uruamo Maranga Ake through the development of the feasibility study. The Broker will support the finalisation of the feasibility study scope, tender selection process, connecting relevant council staff to provide input where required into the feasibility study and presentation of the final feasibility study back to the local board. Uruamo Maranga Ake will lead the development of the feasibility study.

20. As Uruamo Maranga Ake is in the process of registering to become a charitable legal entity, the local board is unable to grant them funding directly. The grant will need to go through a third party who will act as an ‘umbrella’ organisation. The Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust has acted as the umbrella group for a number of community groups in Kaipātiki, and they have agreed to do so for Uruamo Maranga Ake in the event the board resolves to fund the feasibility study.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Beach Haven Marae Feasibility Brief (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipātiki

Zella Morrison - Kaipātiki Strategic Broker - Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Tamahere Reserve playground relocation

File No.: CP2016/10397

Purpose

1. To obtain approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board for the relocation of the Tamahere Reserve playground as part of a playground renewal project.

Executive summary

2. The current playground at Tamahere Reserve, off Redfern Lane, is a renewals project identified in the Parks, Sport and Recreation 2015/16 and 2016/17 work programme.

3. As part of the planning for this project an alternative location for the playground was suggested. The alternative site is in a new part of Tamahere Reserve at Tamahere Drive.

4. The Parks, Sport and Recreation department has undertaken a site suitability assessment for the two sites. As per the outcomes of the assessment, the alternative location at Tamahere Drive is better suited for the installation of a playground than the current site.

5. Engagement with the community was carried out on the two potential locations via a community survey. The majority of respondents to the survey are in favour of the relocation of the playground to the alternative site.

6. This report therefore recommends that the local board approves the relocation of the playground to the alternative site.

7. The cost for the renewal of the playground at a new location is approximately $75,000, which is covered under the current Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme.

8. The alternative site provides opportunity for an upgrade of the playground to cater for a growing population in the area. It is anticipated that the cost for an upgrade will be approximately $45,000.

9. The local board will need to allocate this funding for an upgrade, should they wish to progress this.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the relocation of the playground within Tamahere Reserve to the alternative location at Tamahere Drive, from the current location off Redfern Lane, noting that

i) the funding for the relocation is covered as part of the parks renewals programme

ii) additional funding of approximately $45,000 will need to be allocated from the board’s locally driven initiatives capital fund should it wish to progress an upgrade of the playground at the new site.

Comments

Playground renewal and location background

10. The current playground at Tamahere Reserve, off Redfern Lane (see location map in Attachment A), is a renewals project identified in the Parks, Sport and Recreation 2015/16 and 2016/17 work programme.

11. The current playground site is a small, flat neighbourhood playground of approximately 300 square metres, which is mostly used by local residents who are mostly walking to the site. It is situated in a small cul-de-sac. The site has minimal road-frontage and, until the recent construction of a walkway, it was only accessible via a walkway from the road. Residential properties are to the north and south of the site, with bush as the backdrop to the playground to the east.

12. Parks have progressed planning for this project since the beginning of the 2015/16 financial year. As part of the planning work, the project was discussed at a local board Parks portfolio holder briefing. During discussions it was suggested to investigate moving this playground to an alternative site within Tamahere Reserve on Tamahere Drive.

13. The alternative site is located in an addition to the existing reserve, which was acquired in recent years as part of a new sub-division in the area. The site is approximately 2000 square metres of sloping land. It has good road- frontage with two sides being bordered by road (north and east). To the west and south the site is bordered by residential properties, with houses in the west being part of the new sub-division and houses to the south being part of the existing community.

14. The Parks team undertook an assessment of the alternative site and it was deemed suitable as a playground site. A comparative analysis of the two sites was carried out and results of this can be found in the following section of this report.

15. Following the initial assessment, Parks, Sport and Recreation staff undertook community engagement to determine community views on a potential relocation via a survey to local residents. The results of this will be discussed in the Community engagement section of this report.

16. In addition to the playground renewal project, a walkway project, funded through the Kaipātiki Local Boards Connections Plan budget, has recently been completed. This 150m walkway connects the two parts of the reserve making the playground accessible for both, new and existing communities.

Options analysis and location recommendation

17. A comparative analysis was carried out for the two potential playground sites in Tamahere Reserve, using the criteria for playground design outlined in the North Shore City Council Parks Playgrounds Plan 2009.

18. The criteria the sites were assessed against were: surveillance (visibility), accessibility, drainage, orientation, leaf-fall, topography, acoustics/noise generation and ease of movement through the playground.

19. An additional consideration was the size of the two sites, with the alternative site being significantly larger than the current site (2,000 square metres versus 300 square metres) and providing potential for an upgrade of the existing playground to cater for the growing population in the area.

20. Based on the outcomes of the analysis it is recommended that the relocation of the playground to the alternative site is progressed, as the alternative site ranked overall higher in terms of site suitability than the current site.

21. The relocation is also supported by the members of the community who responded to the community survey (see Community engagement section of this report for more information).

22. The current site ranked higher in two of the eight criteria (topography and acoustics), as it is flatter and more secluded in a tree-covered cul-de-sac.

23. In regards to the steeper topography of the alternative site, this can however provide opportunities for additional play experiences by incorporating the slope into the play design i.e. a slide going down a slope and stepping stones to get from the bottom of the slope to the top.

24. In regards to acoustics, potential for sound/noise to travel, this is greater at the alternative site, as it is more open.

25. The alternative site ranked higher in four of the eight criteria - surveillance, accessibility, orientation and leaf-fall.

26. The sites ranked equal in terms of drainage and ease of movement through the site.

27. The table in Attachment B outlines the site suitability assessment.

Plans for the current site and upgrade of the alternative site

28. The current site is to be reinstated in grass with the potential to install a seat and undertake some amenity planting. The reinstatement is covered as part of the current renewals budget. However, additional budget would need to be allocated for the installation of seating and additional planting.

29. As mentioned above, the alternative site is providing opportunity for an upgrade to cater for the growing population in the area. The proposal to upgrade the existing playground was also supported through the survey with the local community, but the potential cost of this was a concern.

30. The cost for an upgrade is dependent on the scope of works, but it is suggested that the local board allocate an additional $45,000 for this. This funding would be used to provide a play space that caters for children of a wider age group, with some more challenging climbing equipment, natural play options and some shade and seating.

31. The design of this upgrade would be progressed together with the renewal, once the local board has allocated funding for this.

Financial implications

32. The cost for the renewal of the playground at Tamahere Reserve is covered through the Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme for 2015/16 and 2016/17. The cost estimate for the project based on the existing assets at the site is approximately $75,000, with $5,000 available in the 2015/16 financial year and $70,000 available in the 2016/17 financial year.

33. The anticipated cost for the relocation is approximately $5,000, due to the need for a resource consent for a new playground. This cost would also apply if the board decided to extend the existing playground at the current site. The cost for this will be covered as part of the renewal of the playground.

34. A potential upgrade of the site will need to be funded by the local board from it locally driven initiative (LDI) capital fund. It is anticipated that additional funding for this will be allocated as part of the allocation of the LDI capital fund for FY 2017. The cost for an upgrade is dependent on the scope of works, but it is suggested that the local board allocate an additional $45,000 for this as outlined above.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

35. This report is formally seeking approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board for the relocation of the playground at Tamahere Reserve to the alternative site off Tamahere Drive.

36. The idea to investigate the alternative site at Tamahere Reserve was first suggested by a local board member during a parks portfolio briefing and was supported by the board members present at the time.

37. The results of the community engagement were presented to local board at a workshop in April 2016. At the workshop board members present were supportive of the relocation based on community feedback.

Māori impact statement

38. Parks and open spaces contribute to Maori well-being, values, culture and traditions. No specific engagement was carried out with mana whenua on this project, as it is not within the vicinity of any sites of significance or value to mana whenua.

Community engagement

39. A survey was sent to approximately 250 residents located in and around Tamahere Reserve asking for feedback on a proposed relocation and upgrade to the Tamahere Reserve playground (see feedback form and letter in Attachment C). Households were given approximately three weeks to respond to the survey and late responses were considered in the results below.

40. There were 47 written responses to the survey, of which 68% (32 respondents) were in support of a relocation of the playground, 28% were opposed (13 respondents) and 2% (two respondents) were not sure.

41. The main reasons quoted in support of a relocation were that:

· there is a lot more space at the new site; and

· it is more accessible with more opportunities for parking.

42. Those opposed were concerned about disturbances such as increased noise.

43. Respondents also told us that

· the current playground is very outdated and not kept in a suitable manner;

· a new playground should cater to a wider range of children, between the ages of 0-12, with some more challenging items for older children and equipment like a flying fox, monkey bars, climbing, seesaw and bridges and some natural play; and

· a gathering area that has shade and seating was desired.

44. Overall the community engagement indicated a support for the relocation and an upgrade.

45. The installation of a fenced off dog park/dog run at bottom of site was also suggested for the new site, but due to the size of the site it is not recommended to progress this.

Implementation

46. Design for a potential upgrade of the playground can be progressed in conjunction with the renewal, once funding for the upgrade has been allocated.

47. Resource consent will need to be obtained for the relocation of the playground to the alternative location.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Tamahere Reserve playground location options	19
b View	Site suitability assessment for playground locations at Tamahere Reserve	21
c View	Tamahere Reserve playground relocation feedback form	23

Signatories

Authors

Nicki Malone - Parks Advisor Kaipataki

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Adoption of Local Board Agreement 2016/2017

File No.: CP2016/10574

Purpose

1. This report seeks adoption of local content for the Annual Plan 2016/2017, including the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017, a message from the Chairperson, local board advocacy, local activity budgets and local performance targets. It also seeks adoption of a local fees and charges schedule for 2016/2017.

Executive summary

2. For each financial year, Auckland Council must have an agreement in place between the governing body and the local board, for each local board area.

3. Every three years a local board plan is developed to inform the Long-term Plan (and associated local board agreements) which outlines priorities, budgets and intended levels of service over a 10 year period.

4. In February and March this year council consulted on proposed changes for the Annual Plan 2016/2017. Local boards then held discussions with the governing body on local feedback, common issues and local priorities prior to budget decisions being made on 13 May 2016.

5. Local boards are now considering local content for the Annual Plan 2016/2017, which includes a local board agreement, a message from the chairperson, local board advocacy, local activity budgets and local performance targets, and a local fees and charges schedule for 2016/2017.

6. Local board agreements will include the allocation of locally driven initiative (LDI) funding to projects and services.

7. On 30 June 2016, the governing body will meet to adopt Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2016/2017 including 21 local board agreements and associated performance targets and budgets.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) adopt local content for the Annual Plan 2016/2017 (refer to Attachment A in the agenda report), including:

i. a Local Board Agreement 2016/2017;

ii. a message from the chair;

iii. local board advocacy;

iv. local activity budgets; and

v. local performance targets.

b) adopt local fees and charges schedules for 2016/2017 (refer to Attachment B in the agenda report)

c) note that:

i. local activity budgets have been updated to reflect final budget decisions made by the governing body on 13 May 2016;

ii. if there are outstanding (not yet agreed) matters in the local board agreement, the local board should include an explanation of these matters in the Chairperson’s message at the front of the local board agreement; and

iii. any resolutions made at this meeting will be reported back to the governing body when it meets to adopt the Annual Plan 2016/2017 on 30 June 2016.

d) delegate authority to the Chairperson to make any final minor changes to the local content for the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

8. This report seeks adoption from the local board on its content for the Annual Plan 2016/2017 and other associated material. Engagement with the community, including consultation, and a number of workshops and meetings have been held by the local board and with the governing body to finalise their local board agreement.

Māori impact statement

9. Many local board decisions are of importance to Māori and there is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and relevant Iwi. The local board agreement is based on the local board plan and the Annual Plan 2016/2017 which have both been developed through engagement with the community, including Māori.

Implementation

10. The resolutions of this meeting will be reported to the governing body on 30 June 2016, when it meets to adopt the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

11. Decisions on the local board agreement, a message from the Chairperson, local board advocacy, local activity budgets and local performance targets are required at this meeting in order for staff to finalise local content for the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

12. It is possible that minor changes may need to be made to the attachments before the Annual Plan is adopted, such as correction of any errors identified and minor wording changes. It is therefore recommend that the local board delegates authority to the Chairperson to make final changes if necessary.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipātiki local content to support the Annual Plan 2016/2017 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Kaipātiki fees and charges schedule 2016/2017	31

Signatories

Authors

Mark Purdie - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Kaipātiki Local Board Libraries Work Programme 2016/2017

File No.: CP2016/10237

Purpose

1. This report presents the Libraries 2016/2017 Kaipātiki Local Board work programme for approval.

Executive summary

2. This report provides information to support the Kaipātiki Local Board to make decisions required to approve the Libraries 2016/2017 work programme.

3. The proposed Libraries work programme aims to provide a defined work programme for the 2016/2017 financial year.

4. The Libraries work programme for Kaipātiki Local Board aligns with the following 2014-2017 Kaipātiki Local Board Plan priorities:

· Community facilities, assets and services that are high quality, well managed and meet our communities' needs; and

· Proud, positive communities that embrace the diversity of Kaipātiki.

5. The Kaipātiki Local Board is being requested to approve the Libraries work programme for financial year 2016/2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the 2016/2017 Libraries work programme (refer to Attachment A in the agenda report).

Comments

6. The Libraries work programme for 2016/2017 aligns to the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2014 – 2017 and Te Kauroa – Auckland Libraries Future Directions 2013-2023.

7. The Libraries work programme aligns to the following 2014-2017 Kaipātiki Local Board Plan priorities:

· Community facilities, assets and services that are high quality, well managed and meet our communities' needs; and

· Proud, positive communities that embrace the diversity of Kaipātiki.

8. The work programme includes library activities that align with the local board priorities and meet the needs of the Kaipātiki community. The cost of running the local libraries largely appears in one activity line – “Library hours of service”. Activities that respond to local community priorities have been included in the work programme but they do not have specific ABS opex budget attached as the cost is included in running the local libraries. The work programme also includes extended hours which are funded from the boards locally driven initiatives (LDI) operational budget.

9. A workshop was held with the local board and Libraries staff on 20 April 2016 where the draft work programme was considered.

10. The Kaipātiki Local Board is requested to approve the Libraries work programme for 2016/2017. Libraries’ staff will continue to work with relevant portfolio holders and the local board to ensure activities align with the local board priorities and meet the needs of the Kaipātiki community.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11. The draft 2016/2017 work programme was considered by the local board at a workshop on 20 April 2016.

Māori impact statement

12. Improving Maori outcomes is core to library services and is defined in Te kauhanganui – Libraries Māori Responsiveness Plan. The libraries work programme supports Maori initiatives in both programme and service delivery at local libraries.

Implementation

13. Libraries staff will continue to meet with the portfolio holders to provide updates on the work programme and ensure it is progressed and meets local board priorities. The Libraries work programme will be implemented within the Annual Plan 2016/2017 budget and reported on through the quarterly reporting process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipātiki Local Board Libraries Work Programme 2016/2017	39

Signatories

Authors

Darryl Soljan - Manager Customer Experience - North & West Libraries

Authorisers

Mirla Edmundson - Manager Local Libraries North & West

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Community Lease Work Programme 2016/2017

File No.: CP2016/10139

Purpose

1. To approve the 2016/2017 work programme for community leases.

Executive summary

2. Community leases are a valuable way in which the council provides support to local community organisations to provide the activities and services aligned with recognised local priorities.

3. Attachment A provides a detailed list of the community leases and licences due for renewal or expiry over the 2016/2017 financial year, in addition to those from previous years’ work programmes which have yet to be completed.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the community lease 2016/2017 work programme as detailed in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Comments

4. To meet the demands of this substantial programme of community leasing work, staff introduced a programme approach to more efficiently deliver the volume of work last year at a meeting of the local board chairs on 28 September 2015. The programme approach aims to streamline reporting procedures to enable a large number of more routine leases to be fast tracked, whilst focusing necessary attention on those community leases that are more complex.

5. This approach has proven successful and staff intend to continue implementing this strategic delivery where possible for the 2016/2017 community leasing work programme.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

6. The draft 2016/2017 work programme was considered by the local board at a workshop on 27 April 2016. The views expressed by local board members during the workshop have been captured in Attachment A.

7. The community lease 2016/2017 work programme supports the achievement of the following 2014-2017 Kaipātiki Local Board Plan priorities:

· Community facilities, assets and services that are high quality, well managed and meet our communities' needs;

· Green open spaces and environments that enable active and healthy lifestyles and protect our natural heritage; and

· Proud, positive communities that embrace the diversity of Kaipātiki.

Māori impact statement

8. Supporting Maori initiatives and objectives is a regional priority, as outlined by the Auckland Plan aim to increase targeted support to Maori community development projects. The community leasing work programme aims to improve well-being among Maori living in the local board area through services provided by community groups leasing land and buildings from the council.

Implementation

9. Work programme implementation will be reported quarterly to the local board.

10. Further decisions will be requested of the local board for detailed lease approvals either through the bundled reporting approach when applicable, or through individual lease reports as required.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Workplan Schedule	43

Signatories

Authors

Toto Vu-Duc - Manager Community Leases

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme financial year 2016-2017

File No.: CP2016/09959

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present the draft 2016/2017 Parks, Sport and Recreation (PSR) annual work programme for the consideration and approval of the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Executive summary

2. This report presents the Parks, Sport and Recreation draft Annual work programme for the 2016/2017 financial year (FY17).

3. The work programme includes the local board capital expenditure and locally driven initiatives (LDI) programme of works, but excludes any works associated with external agency projects.

4. Should unforeseen works arise or work priorities change from those attached and approved, Parks, Sport and Recreation advisors will discuss this with the appropriate local board portfolio holder/s.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the Kaipātiki Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme 2016/2017 financial year as detailed in Attachment A to this report.

b) delegate the approval for any changes to the Parks, Sport and Recreation annual work programme 2016/2017 to the appropriate Parks, Sport and Recreation advisor and local board portfolio holder/s.

Comments

5. Staff discussed the scope of the Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme 2016/2017 at a workshop with the local board on 20 April 2016.

6. This report presents the Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme for the 2016/2017 financial year, but reflects a three year view of the outlying years. This is with the exception of growth funding, which is approved on a year by year basis only.

7. There are separate annual work programmes for Sport and Recreation: Leisure; Local and Sports Parks.

8. The Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme 2016/2017 has been developed with a strategic focus, in that many projects will be delivered over two or more financial years.

9. The Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme 2016/2017 presented as Attachment A, needs to include some flexibility to account for any unforeseen factors beyond departmental control that may arise.

10. Staff may need to adjust priorities as unforeseen complexities in delivering planned projects arise. Any changes to the Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme 2016/2017 will be consulted with the local board portfolio holder for the project, who will make a decision on the proposed changes or decide whether it needs a decision by the local board.

11. PSR renewals and leisure development projects will be reported separately and led by Community Facilities.

12. Projects may be funded from one or multiple budget sources which include: asset based services (ABS) capital or operational expenditure; locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital or operational funding; growth funding; external funding or sponsorship.

Growth programme

13. Asset based services capital funding includes growth funded projects where the project meets the criteria to be allocated development contribution funding. Local and Sports Park projects are split into four different work streams for growth:

· general park development;

· playspace development;

· sport development; and

· greenway and walkway development.

14. The overall growth programme should reflect that development contributions make up 70% of the total programme budget, and other contributions (such as rates, third party contributions, etc) make up the remaining 30%.

15. The draft annual work programme shows the allocated FY17 growth funding for information only. Any funding in subsequent years is indicative as growth funding is signed off annually. Projects that are identified to receive growth funding in FY17, but are being delivered over more than one year, will be considered as priority for growth funding in the subsequent years.

16. For FY17, funding has been allocated to projects based on the analysis of the criteria below.

17. Projects identified in the FY17 draft annual work programme which are eligible for FY17 growth funding have been included in the attachment for the board’s information only, and will be confirmed to the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee in September 2016.

Criteria for Growth funding allocation

18. All projects funded through the FY17 growth programme need to be development projects on council owned reserve or Ministry of Education land. Projects were ranked based on the following criteria:

· Whether the project is multi-year and received growth funding in the 2015/2016 financial year;

· Alignment with a parks programme – the project should align with one of the four park development programmes (i.e. general, playscape, greenway and walkway, sport);

· The proportion of the project that is caused by growth - projects are ranked on the percentage of demographic growth in the area that the project will serve. For example, greenfield sites or new housing areas will be ranked higher than an area of low or no growth;

· The proportion of the project that will benefit a new community in the next ten years;

· Whether a project aligns strategically with a governing body, local board or spatial priority;

· Whether a project leverages additional investment or provides for reduced or no operating cost to council over time;

· Project readiness and deliverability - design work is complete; all consents and funding are in place; works are procured and where applicable a funding agreement is in place and full project cost funding is available.

Other budget types contributing to the Parks Sport and Recreation work programme

19. The locally driven initiatives (LDI) programme is part of this draft annual work programme. PSR projects resulting from external agency partnerships are not included unless they have an element of local board funding attached to them.

20. Leisure, and sport and recreation activity programmes do not show a budget amount but have been included in the work programme for information and future quarterly reporting.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. The local board provided feedback on the proposed Parks, Sport and Recreation draft Annual work programme 2016/2017 at a workshop on 20 April 2016. Feedback from this workshop has informed the draft programme included as Attachment A.

Māori impact statement

22. Parks and open spaces, as well as sport and recreation activity contributes significantly to Maori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to tangata whenua, appropriate consultation will follow.

Implementation

23. Once approved the delivery of projects identified in the Parks, Sport and Recreation draft annual work programme 2016/2017 will take place from 1 July 2016.

24. The progress of the Parks, Sport and Recreation Annual work programme 2016/2017 projects will be reported quarterly to the local board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Kaipātiki Parks, Sports and Recreation draft Annual work programme 2016-2017	49

Signatories

Authors

Lynda Lucas - Parks Liaison & Development Team Leader

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Parks

Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Bayview Community Centre, Beach Haven Community House, Birkdale Community House, Glenfield Community Centre, and Highbury House funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage

File No.: CP2016/09163

Purpose

1. To approve the funding agreements and licences to occupy and manage the community operated community centres and houses within the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Executive Summary

2. Local boards have a role in determining the term of funding agreements for groups who run local community centres, houses and hubs.

3. The current funding agreements for Bayview Community Centre, Beach Haven Community House, Birkdale Community House, Glenfield Community Centre, and Highbury House expire on 30 June 2016. This report seeks a decision from the local board on future funding, the term of the agreement, and approval of the licence.

4. It is noted that on 13 April 2016 the local board approved additional funding for 2016/2017 for Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project ($66,000) and Highbury House ($20,000) to assist their future development. These sums are additional to the annual funding recommended below.

5. A one year term is recommended for Bayview Community Centre Association Incorporated, Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated, Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated, and Highbury Community House Incorporated as all groups are developing their governance role.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board::

a) approve a funding agreement with Bayview Community House Association Incorporated for the year 2016-2017, terminating on 30 June 2017, for the operation of the Bayview Community Centre.

b) approve funding for Bayview Community House Association Incorporated of $36,843 to be adjusted in accordance with Auckland Council’s agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.

c) approve a funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage with Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated for the year 2016-2017, terminating on 30 June 2017, for the operation of the Birkdale Community House and Beach Haven Community House.

d) approve funding for Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Incorporated of $69,653 to be adjusted in accordance with Auckland Council’s agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.

e) approve a licence to occupy and manage to Birkdale Community House at 134 Birkdale Road, Birkdale, being Lot 1 DP 43563; and Beach Haven Community House at 31-35 Cresta Avenue (130 Beach Haven Road), Beach Haven, being Lots 156-162 and 167 DP 20048, Pt Lot 1-2 DP 99986; (refer to Attachment A in the agenda report) as follows:

i. Term – one year commencing 1 July 2016; and

ii. Rent- $1.00 plus Goods and Services Tax per term if requested;

f) approve a funding agreement with Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated for the year 2016-2017, terminating on 30 June 2017, for the operation of the Glenfield Community Centre.

g) approve funding for Glenfield Community Centre Incorporated of $47,011 to be adjusted in accordance with Auckland Council’s agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.

h) approve a funding agreement with Highbury Community Centre Incorporated for the year 2016-2017, terminating on 30 June 2017, for the operation of the Highbury House.

i) approve funding for Highbury Community Centre Incorporated of $36,633 to be adjusted in accordance with Auckland Council’s agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.

Comments

6. Community facilities are an important part of realising the vision for Auckland to become the world’s most liveable city. They contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can connect, socialise, learn and participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. These activities foster improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride among residents.

7. Local boards exercise oversight of community centres, houses and hubs. Where the facilities are operated by community organisations, local boards approve the funding, licences to occupy and the terms of these arrangements.

8. Staff have developed a simple criterion for guiding decision making regarding the term of these agreements.

(a) 1 year term:

A one year term is recommended in a variety of situations such as where a new committee has been recently established or the current governance structure is unstable, a group maybe underperforming or if there are changes in location, buildings or licence terms which need to be worked through by the group in the short term. It could also be where an established organisation is going through significant change in its asset portfolio.

(b) 3 year term:

An experienced organisation delivering stable operations or an established organisation with significant change in the membership/governance.

(b) 5 year term:

A multi-service organisation delivering high service outcomes.

9. At the end of the approved term staff will assess each centre, house and hub against the established criteria and make recommendations to the local board.

Allocating funding for FY 2016-17 and beyond

10. Staff recommendations and comments are outlined in the table below:

Recommended funding for community houses and hubs
Community Group	Term of grant (from 1 July 2016)	Total to be allocated	Purpose of funding	Comment
Bayview Community Centre Association Inc.	One year	$36,843 to be adjusted in accordance with councils agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.	To deliver the proposed work programme at the Bayview Community Centre	This organisation has exhibited stability and good practice in its governance. A one year agreement is proposed with the opportunity to consider a longer term agreement from the 2017/2018 year.
Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project Inc.	One year	$69,653 to be adjusted in accordance with councils agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.	To deliver the proposed work programme at the Birkdale Community House and Beach Haven Community House	This organisation has had an unsettled governance committee for the last few years. At present, the committee is beginning a rebuild under the guidance of a business mentor. The operations have been restructured. Good progress appears to be underway and opportunity for multi-year agreements will be reviewed for 2017-2018 year.
Glenfield Community Centre Inc.	One year	$47,011 to be adjusted in accordance with councils agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.	To deliver and activate the proposed work programme at the Glenfield Community Centre	This organisation appears to have a stable governance committee and capable management. One year agreement is suggested to enable the incoming chair of the committee to become established and for the organisation to clarify its direction regarding building work.
Highbury Community House Inc.	One year	$36,633 to be adjusted in accordance with councils agreed inflationary mechanism, once confirmed.	To deliver the proposed work programme at the Highbury House	This organisation has a stable and committed committee. The committee is planning to extend the house to accommodate more children at the crèche and create a more sustainable childcare facility. While this project is proceeding a one year term is proposed with the opportunity to consider a longer term agreement from the 2017/2018 year.

Terms and conditions of grants, and ongoing monitoring

11. Staff will continue to monitor, assess and report progress and performance to the local board on a regular basis during the term of the grant.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated decision-makingauthority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

Māori impact statement

13. Bayview Community Centre, Beach Haven Community House, Birkdale Community House, Glenfield Community Centre, and Highbury House endeavour to improve well-being among Māori within the work programmes they deliver. Staff continue support and build capability to enhance wellbeing and outcomes for Māori.

Implementation

14. Following decision making, staff will finalise the agreement with the operating group.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Birkdale & Beach Haven Site Plan	57

Signatories

Authors

Ian Alexander - Contracts and Relationships Advisor, Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Kaipātiki Local Grants: Round Two - Multiboard Applications

File No.: CP2016/11035

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present multi-board applications received for Round Two of the Kaipātiki Local Board Local Grants programme 2015/2016. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total local grants budget of $68,000 and local events budget of $110,000 ($60,500 of which is available in contested funds) for the 2015/2016 financial year. Funds from these two budgets will be allocated to successful applicants.

3. In the preceding Kaipātiki grant rounds, the board allocated a total of $240,450, leaving a balance of $120,550 from the board’s locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget.

4. Four applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $13,108.25.

5. Three applications were deferred from the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting on 11 May 2016, with local board members requesting further information. The three applications are requesting a total of $42,850.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approve the following allocation of funding under Round Two of the multi-board Kaipātiki Local Grants Programme 2015/2016 as listed in the table below:

Applicant and application ID	Main focus	Funding for	Amount requested
North Shore Women’s Centre LG1602-205	Community	Towards the wages for the Community Resource Worker and Social Worker between June 2016 to May 2017	$7,349
North Shore Group Riding for the Disabled Incorporated LG1606-214	Community	Towards the hireage of sanitary unit, purchase of horse food, stationary, electricity and phones costs between July 2016 to June 2017	$1,525
Netball Northern Zone LG1602-201	Sport and Recreation	Towards the costs of a feasibility study to investigate the options to increase the capacity of netball courts on the North Shore in July 2016	$2,500
North Harbour Synchronised Swimming Club LG1606-223	Sport and Recreation	Towards the purchase of uniforms for the competitors and judges for the North Island Synchronised Swimming competition in July 2016	$1,734.25

b) approve the following allocation of funding under Round two of the Kaipātiki Local Grants Programme 2015/2016 that were deferred from the 11 May 2016 meeting listed in the table below:

Applicant and application ID	Main focus	Funding for	Amount requested
Kaipātiki Project Environment Centre LG1608-212	Environment	Towards costs of an event manager, marketing manager, advertising and publicity for Ecofest North between 1 October 2016 to 31 October 2016	$25,000
Gecko NZ Trust LG1608-222	Environment	Contribution for facilitators fees, resource development, communication support, resources (weed bins/bags and plants) for ecological restoration	$14.607
Birkenhead Primary School	Sport and recreation	Towards costs for an approved handler to control pests and purchase of large native trees between July 2016 to April 2018	$3,243

Comments

6. 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 Kaipātiki Local Board adopted its grants programme on 15 April 2015 (refer Attachment A).

7. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities;

· lower priorities for funding;

· exclusions;

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Kaipātiki Local Board has operated two local grants rounds for this financial year. The second local grant round closed on 18 March 2016.

9. The Kaipātiki Local Board has set a total local grants budget of $361,000 for the 2015/2016 financial year.

10. In the preceding Kaipātiki grant rounds, the board allocated $240,450, leaving a total of $120,550 to allocate for the remainder of 2015/2016.

11. Four applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $13,108.25 (refer Attachment B).

12. Three applications were deferred from the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting on 11 May 2016, with local board members requesting further information to be provided. The three applications are requesting a total of $42,850 (refer Attachment C).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Local Boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Kaipātiki 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.

14. The local board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states that council 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. Therefore it is recommended that the board provides reasons as part of its decision-making when declining funding requests.

Māori impact statement

15. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes and activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori. No applicants applied in this round that have identified as Maori and no applicants have indicated that their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Implementation

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

17. Following Kaipātiki Local Board decision-making for Round Two local grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipātiki Local Grants Programme 2015/2016 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Kaipātiki Local Grants, Round Two 2015/2016 - multi-board application summaries (Under Separate Cover)
c	Kaipātiki Local Grants, Round Two 2015/2016 - applications deferred from 11 May 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Kim Hammond - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Birkdale Primary School Outdoor Courts

File No.: CP2016/10337

Purpose

1. This report considers the request received from Birkdale Primary School to upgrade their two outdoor courts. This report also provides recommendations on the possible facility partnership that can be entered into with the school to improve a community facility and provide additional community access.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has a primary role in the provision of sport and recreation infrastructure. To fill a gap in the network, or gain additional capacity, council can invest in partnerships with third party providers to improve an asset and secure community use. The option recommended in this report creates a third party partnership.

3. Birkdale Primary School courts are a centrally located, well-used community facility on Ministry of Education land in the Kaipātiki Local Board area. The courts are in need of upgrading due to age and general wear and tear from use.

4. Historically the school has made their courts available for unrestricted community use. The courts are used for basketball, netball, bike riding and various other sports.

5. Birkdale Primary School’s request for funding was assessed as part of the contestable grants process however the Kaipātiki Local Board requested that the application be further considered as a locally driven initiative (LDI) project supported by a funding agreement. Accordingly three options have been considered; decline funding, partially fund or fully fund the project.

6. This report recommends that partially funding the project will deliver optimum value for money and community outcomes.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) agree to enter in to a partnership with Birkdale Primary School for the purpose of upgrading the school’s two outdoor courts and allocate $40,000 from the locally driven initiatives budget towards this partnership.

b) request staff to prepare a partnership funding agreement for Birkdale Primary School that includes:

i) requirements regarding community access to the courts;

ii) a requirement that the remaining funding be secured for the project before the funding is released; and

iii) a requirement that the school promotes the use of their courts to the community.

Comments

Background

7. Birkdale Primary School applied to the Kaipātiki Local Grants Round One 2015/16 for $75,800. At the Kaipātiki Local Board business meeting on 11 November 2015, the board resolved to defer consideration of the application pending further investigation by Community Grants staff (resolution number KT/2015/164).

8. At the Kaipātiki Local Board business meeting on Wednesday 11 May 2016 the board resolved that the application should be removed from the contestable grants process, with the additional request that officers report back with options for entering into a funding agreement with Birkdale Primary School for the netball and basketball courts that secures public access (resolution number KT/2016/47).

9. Birkdale Primary School was established in 1894 and its role has increased in recent years from 201 in 2012 to 225 in 2016. The school has a long history of making their outdoor playing courts publically available and accessible.

10. The courts are suitable for community access due to their location in the centre of Birkdale, their easy access from the street and their current use by the community.

11. A review of other courts located nearby has been performed. Listed below are other outdoor courts within a 3km radius of Birkdale Primary. Their distance from Birkdale Primary and why the court is not as publicly accessible is also provided.

Venue	Distance from Birkdale Primary	Description	Limitations to accessibility
Birkenhead College	400m	1 outdoor court	Located at the rear of the school
Birkdale Intermediate	750m	2 outdoor courts	Located at the rear of the school
Birkenhead Tennis Club	1km	Tennis courts	Used only for tennis.
Birkdale North School	1.2km	1 outdoor court	Located at the rear of the school
Verran Primary School	2km	1 full-size and 1 half-size outdoor court	Located at the rear of the school
Beach Haven Primary School	2.8km	2 courts	Enclosed within school

12. Birkdale Primary School is a community hub and has hosted a number of other community events such as Movies in the Park, ANZAC Day services and family fun days.

13. Birkdale Primary is located on Salisbury Road which has an average of 2621 vehicle movements per day. This offers and opportunity for signage that would be highly visible.

Details of the project

14. The two courts that need replacing are on Ministry of Education land located adjacent to Salisbury Road, close to the intersection with Birkdale Road. One court is set up with netball hoops and the other with basketball hoops.

15. Large cracks have started developing in both courts that make it difficult to play sport as it is potentially dangerous for participants. Remedying this will involve excavation of the current courts, laying of a new base layer and an asphalt finish.

16. Two quotes have been obtained for the job that range from $82,000 to $88,000. This would reinstate the courts in the same location to their original standard and condition, meeting current compliance rules.

17. The school’s Board of Trustees would be responsible for securing the remaining funding for the project and maintenance of the courts.

Partnership funding agreement

18. The three options considered for funding are summarised in the following table:

	Option	Comments	Recommended
1.	No grant	Project viability would be uncertain, especially in the short to medium term. A commitment to ongoing community access may be at risk.	Not supported
2.	$40,000 grant	Birkdale School could use council funding to leverage money from other funders to complete project. Can put requirements on agreement for community access. This option recognises a partnership approach providing ratepayers value for money.	Supported
3.	Full amount grant ($82,000 - $88,000)	Council would be fully funding a non-council owned facility on non-council land. Would not provide ratepayers good value for money.	Not supported

19. Anticipated conditions of the partnership agreement will be that:

· the school must secure the remainder of the funding on or before 30 June 2017;

· community access must be guaranteed into the future for an appropriate length of time; and

· once the project has been completed the court will be advertised further by the school for community use.

Strategic alignment

20. Investment into this project aligns with Auckland Sport and Recreation Action Plan initiative 8.1: “Work with Ministry of Education, school Boards of Trustees and school clusters to form better partnerships to improve access to existing recreation and sport assets and align planning for future provision of community facilities.”

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. Investment into this project aligns with Kaipātiki Local Board Plan outcome: “Make the best use of what we have got, through sustainable asset management and working in partnership with the community” The Local Board Plan also identifies partnerships with schools as being a priority: “We will also consider partnership funding to sports groups and schools where their facilities can be opened to our communities to increase participation.”

Māori impact statement

22. The community access to the court will benefit the Maori population of Kaipātiki which is 8.5% according to the 2013 census.

Implementation

23. There is existing budget available within the Local Board’s locally driven Initiatives (LDI) budget for 2015/2016 should the board support the recommendation.

24. The Sport and Recreation team can secure the partnership by creating a funding agreement between Birkdale Primary School and the Kaipātiki Local Board. The agreement would identify clear community access criteria and a requirement that the remaining funding be secured before the grant is released.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Mathew Walsh - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Accountability for Grants to Locally Contracted Organisations

File No.: CP2016/09422

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present project completion forms for proposals that received funding in June 2015 from the Kaipātiki Local Board’s targeted semi-contestable funding round.

Executive Summary

1. At their 13 May 2015 business meeting, the Kaipātiki Local Board agreed to a one-off targeted semi-contestable funding round to inform decisions regarding the allocation of remaining unspent operational budgets (resolution number KT/2015/64).

2. Due to the short timeframe, a targeted funding round was administered that was limited to organisations that had current line-item funding for community and environmental activities in the 2014/2015 Kaipātiki Local Board budget. This was to provide a level of certainty that the applicants are able to deliver on their proposals.

3. The board received nine proposals, requesting a total of $254,032. In addition the Parks, Sport and Recreation (PSR) department provided a proposal to fund an ecological restoration plan for Birkenhead War Memorial Park, at a cost of $25,000. Seven proposals were successful and were allocated a combined total of $145,000 (resolution number KT/2015/86).

4. As a condition of the grant, applicants were required to complete an accountability report following the completion of their proposal. Twelve months on from allocating the grant, an update on the outcomes of the grant proposals was requested from the grant recipients by council staff. Accountability reports were submitted by all grant recipients (refer Attachment C), some of which are progress reports due to the proposals not yet being completed.

Recommendation

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the Accountability for Grants to Locally Contracted Organisations report.

Comments

5. At its 13 May 2015 business meeting, the Kaipātiki Local Board agreed to seek proposals via a one-off targeted semi-contestable funding round (resolution KT/2015/64) for its remaining discretionary budget of $145,000.

6. Due to the short timeframe, a targeted funding round was administered that was limited to organisations that had current line-item funding for community and environmental activities in the 2014/2015 Kaipātiki Local Board budget. By limiting the funding round to the organisations that were well known to the local board, it provided the board a level of certainty that the applicants were able to deliver on their proposals.

7. The board agreed to seek applications for $10,000 or above, and consider them against a modified version of the funding guidelines that was adopted for the board’s 2015/16 community grants programme (refer Attachment A).

8. The organisations were asked to provide a formal letter to the board (either from the organisation’s board, chairperson or other nominated member) that outlined the following:

· the reason for which funding was sought;

· the amount of funding sought, including an indicative project budget;

· the outcomes that the proposal sought to achieve; and

· how the organisation would account for its use of the grant.

9. Nine proposals were received, requesting a total of $254,032. In addition to the proposals received from community organisations, the board was asked to consider funding a deferred Parks proposal to develop and commence implementation of an ecological restoration plan for Birkenhead War Memorial Park, at a cost of $25,000.

10. At its June 2015 business meeting, the board considered the proposals and approved allocation of funding to the following (resolution number KT/2015/86):

Organisation	Funding for	Amount approved
Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project	Building stronger communities through community development processes and practices. $20,000 per house.	$40,000
Glenfield Community Centre	Centennial celebration,	$4,000
Highbury Community House	Increased manager hours, maintenance, consultation and research, advertising and promotion, and EFTPOS services.	$20,000
Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust	WW100 Projects – Static display and permanent structure – ‘The Tears’.	$20,000
Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust	Supporting the initiation, promotion and resourcing of volunteer groups, particularly in the environmental area.	$25,000
Northart	Engaging a communication and public programmes specialist to develop practical and effective communication strategies.	$20,000
Raeburn House	Building capacity and capability for meaningful community engagement, civic participation and improved settlement outcomes, and increased operational costs.	$16,000
	TOTAL	$145,000

11. A copy of the successful proposals are provided for reference (refer Attachment B).

12. A condition of the receiving the grant, as outlined in the modified grants programme, was that an accountability report was required to be submitted following completion of the proposal.

13. A request was sent to grant recipients in May 2016, seeking an update on the progress of the proposals. This included accountability reports if the proposal was completed. The intention was to provide this information for the board’s consideration twelve months following allocation of the grants.

14. Accountability reports were submitted by all grant recipients (refer Attachment C). In some cases, where the proposals have not yet been completed, the reports were provided to update the board on progress rather than accountability for final outcomes and budgets.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Local board are asked to receive this report.

Māori impact statement

16. The proposals were from not for profit organisations that undertake community development. Their services, although not focusing specifically on outcomes for Māori, are likely to positively impact Māori.

Implementation

17. This report is provided for the information of the board. There are no implementation issues identified in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Modified Community Grants Guidelines - May 2015 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Semi-contestable Funding Round Proposals - May 2015 (Under Separate Cover)
c	Accountability Reports - May 2016 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors	Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipātiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Local Board Services Monthly Report

File No.: CP2016/09420

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the key activities of the Kaipātiki Local Board during May 2016, and to provide recommendations to matters requiring attention. The updates in this report relate to the following areas:

· Finance; and

· Policy and planning.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) adopt the Kaipātiki Local Board capital project guidelines 2016 (as outlined in Attachment A to this agenda report).

b) consider approving the capital projects outlined in Attachment B to this agenda report, proceeding to investigation of scope, noting these will come back to the board with cost estimates prior to proceeding to design and construction phase.

c) consider allocation of funds from its locally driven initiatives operational budget to install temporary way-finding signage in parks within the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Comments

2. A number of Kaipātiki Local Board workshops and portfolio briefings were held in May 2016. Records of these meetings are attached to separate reports on this agenda.

3. The following regional and sub-regional briefings/meetings took place in May 2016:

· Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) briefing on 2017– 2 May 2016;

· Regional Strategy and Policy Committee and Local Board Chairs workshop - draft Business Improvement Business District (BID) Policy (2016) – 3 May 2016;

· Auckland Development – 10 May 2016;

· JobFest 16 – 11 May 2016;

· Kai a te rangatira - Elected Members breakfast session with two leaders on Māori issues – 13 May 2016;

· Community Empowerment Unit open day – 13 May 2016;

· Civil Defence and Emergency Management Draft Group Plan 2016-2017 Hearing – 20 May 2016;

· Local Board Chairs Forum – 23 May 2016; and

· Local Board Procurement Working Group – 28 May 2016.

4. The board's next workshops are scheduled for 15 and 22 June 2016.

5. The board's next community forum meeting will be held on 22 June 2016.

Strategic Updates

Finance

Locally driven initiative capital expenditure (LDI capex) budget

6. The local board funding policy sets out how local boards are funded to meet the costs of providing local activities. As part of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP), the governing body established a locally driven initiative capital expenditure (LDI capex) budget to ensure locally important projects were given appropriate priority. The LDI capex budget is the primary source of discretionary budget for funding the board’s capital projects.

7. The Kaipātiki Local Board has been allocated $538,371 per annum of LDI capex budget over the first three years of the LTP. This budget has to be committed by the conclusion of the third year of the LTP, and can be brought forward or deferred within this period as required.

8. The board had a workshop session on 23 March 2016 on the background and options for the LDI capex budget. From this session, and from feedback received as part of the Annual Plan 2016/2017 consultation on priorities for capital investment, Local Board Services staff prepared a set of draft local guidelines that included the board’s principles for prioritising investment in capital projects. These draft guidelines were provided to the board at a later workshop session on 25 May 2016. The resulting draft guidelines are provided with this report (refer Attachment A) for the board to consider adopting.

9. A list of potential capital projects to be delivered within this three year period of the LTP has been compiled from the local board plan and information sought from council staff and local board members (refer Attachment B). In order to progress delivery of projects, the board needs to inform the relevant council department to commence the investigation of scope. Due to the large number of projects on the list, the board is invited to prioritise the projects to proceed to scoping against the draft capital project guidelines.

10. As part of the scoping, the relevant departments will consider the reasonably practical options for delivering the project. This includes cost effectiveness and likely consultation requirements. The decision of the board at this stage is limited to selecting projects to proceed to the scoping phase. When the completed project scopes are reported back to the board, further information and analysis, associated benefits and risks, and recommendations for further action on each project will be provided.

11. Due to the timeframes to deliver some of the more complex projects, the requirement to commit the budget by the end of the third year of the LTP, and the fact that one of the three years has almost concluded, it is recommended that the board consider the full three years of budget when selecting projects to proceed to be scoped.

Locally driven initiative operational expenditure (LDI opex) budget

12. As of 1 June 2016, the unspent locally driven initiatives operational expenditure (LDI opex) budget yet to be allocated to specific activities totals $156,743. The local board will have reports on its June business meeting agenda that seek allocation of some or all of these funds, so the final figure at the time of receiving this report will be unknown until that point.

13. An outstanding community request is the installation of parks way-finding signage, particularly in Le Roys Bush Reserve and Eskdale Reserve. If there is remaining unallocated LDI opex budget available, the board may wish to consider utilising some of this to respond to this matter. The Parks department has advised that they are unable to deliver the way-finding signage in the timeframe requested as they are currently delivering a number of other projects, including installation of entrance signage in 20 key parks across Kaipātiki. A grant to the Kaipātiki Restoration Network (KRN) to install temporary parks way-finding signage would be a mechanism to deliver the signage.

Policy and Planning

Annual Plan 2016/2017

14. The board held a fifth Annual Plan discussion on 25 May 2016 to review:

· the draft local board agreement;

· draft fees and charges schedules; and

· draft department work programmes (Arts, Culture and Events; Infrastructure and Environmental Services; and ATEED).

15. The board will consider the local board agreement 2016/2017 in a separate report on this business meeting agenda.

16. The board will consider the department work programmes for 2016/2017 in separate reports on its June and July 2016 business meeting agendas.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Local board views are sought via this report.

Māori impact statement

18. There are no specific impacts on Māori arising from this report. The draft Kaipātiki Local Board capital project guidelines 2016 reference the board’s commitment to early engagement with Māori when developing capital projects.

Implementation

19. Staff from the relevant department will scope the capital projects approved for investigation and present the scoped options back to the board for consideration. The scope will include a cost estimate to deliver the project. Should the board be satisfied with the project concept at that stage, consideration to progress the project to the design and construction phase can be made.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Kaipātiki Local Board capital project guidelines 2016	75
b View	Potential capital projects	79

Signatories

Authors	Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipātiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Sport and Recreation Investment - Community Access Scheme guidelines and future allocation of residual legacy Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund

File No.: CP2016/09816

Purpose

1. To obtain local board feedback on the draft Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines and the future allocation of the residual legacy Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council inherited 14 operational funding agreements and residual Hillary Commission Community Sport funding that contributed to sport and recreation outcomes. Eleven of the funding agreements and the Hillary Commission funding were deemed out of scope of the Community Grants Policy 2014.

3. At the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee meeting on 18 November 2015, draft Community Access Scheme guidelines and options for the use of the residual $2.5 million Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund were considered. Both were approved for sector and local board consultation.

4. The purpose of the Community Access Scheme is to leverage access to non-council facilities to support increased levels of sport and recreation participation, and to reduce inequities of access to opportunities.

5. This report provides background and overview of the draft Community Access Scheme guidelines (the Guidelines) (refer Attachment A), and options for the use of the residual Hillary Commission funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft Community Access Scheme guidelines for the governing body to consider.

b) support the allocation of the residual $2.5 million Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund toward the implementation of the Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme with a priority given to identified need in the legacy Waitakere City Council ($1.1 million) and Auckland City Council ($1.39 million) areas.

Comments

Draft Community Access Scheme

6. Auckland Council supports sport and recreation in a number of ways including through the provision of facilities and open space, delivering programmes and sector investment.

7. Council’s region-wide investment programme in sport and recreation supports the implementation of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP) to encourage Aucklanders to be more active more often. The investment programme consists of the Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme, Region Wide Strategic Partnership Grants and the Community Access Scheme (refer Attachment B). Additionally many local boards invest in sport and recreation organisations that provide outcomes aligned to their local board outcomes.

8. At its meeting held 29 July 2015, the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee approved a regional sport and recreation work programme that included the development of strategic region wide guidelines for the allocation of sport and recreation grants outside the scope of council’s Grants Policy, including community access/operating grants and the residual Hillary Commission fund.

9. Following an October 2015 workshop the draft Guidelines were approved at the 18 November 2015 Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee meeting for local board consultation.

10. An update was provided to the 23 November 2015 Local Board Chairs Forum, and workshops were subsequently held with all local boards that have existing funding relationships.

11. The proposed Community Access Scheme provides guidance for the existing 11 legacy arrangements and a framework to address identified gaps and future needs. The draft Community Access Scheme primarily seeks to target regional gaps in sport and recreation facility provision and/or improving equity of access through local solutions. For organisations to be eligible they must identify a solution to meet an identified need in the Sport Facility Investment Plan (currently under development) and/or the Community Facility Network Plan.

12. The Community Access Scheme will enable council to move investment in response to highest need/demand and invest on a three yearly cycle aligned to the Long-term Plan. Like the Sports Field Capacity Development programme this is a region-wide scheme allocated locally.

13. Investment will be made in facilities to:

· fill a specific sport gap as identified in the Sport Facility Investment Plan;

· optimise and increase the use of existing facilities; and

· support the start-up phase of multisport facilities.

Existing community access funding agreements

14. The 11 existing community access agreements were reviewed against the draft Guidelines to determine eligibility and strategic alignment. Staff will ensure that those no longer eligible or do not align with the principles of the draft Guidelines are supported through other mechanisms.

15. Given the timing of the Guidelines approval and the need to give certainty for the next financial year, on 26 April 2016, the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee approved the existing community access agreements be continued for the 2016/2017 financial year with the exception of one reallocation.

16. The following table illustrates current approved investment for the 2016/2017 financial year.

Table 1.
Investment Area	Who	Amount
Asset based term grant – community access	Sovereign Stadium Mairangi Bay School/community/council partnership	$58k p.a.
Asset based term grant – community access	Avondale College School/community/council partnership	$17k p.a.
Asset based term grant – community access	Tamaki Recreation Centre School/community/council partnership	$100k p.a.
Asset based term grant – community access	ASB Stadium School/community/council partnership	$80k p.a.
Asset based term grant – community access	Waiheke Recreation Centre School/community/council partnership	$75k p.a.
Asset based term grant – community access	North Harbour Netball (reallocation from Hato Petera College)	$28k p.a.
Asset based term grant – operational support	Te Puru Community Charitable Trust Operational support	$340k p.a.
Asset based term grant – operational support	Papatoetoe Sports Community & Charitable Trust (Kolmar) Operational support	$100k p.a.
Asset based term grant – operational support	Dacre Park Cost-equity – contribution to field maintenance	$17k p.a.
Asset based term grant – operational support	Auckland Netball Sport-equity – contribution to facility maintenance	$150k p.a.
Asset based term grant – operational support	Manukau Tennis Centre Sport-equity – contribution to facility maintenance	$41k p.a.
Total		$1.006 million

Community Access Grant update for Kaipātiki Local Board:

Hato Petera College

17. Hato Petera College (the College) historically received a community access grant, as well as council undertaking all sports field maintenance, in return for wider community access to the College’s five sports fields. On 13 May 2015, the Kaipātiki Local Board resolved to continue maintaining the fields in 2015/2016, but not provide a grant, noting that provision of both was anomalous with other levels of support provided to non-council owned field provision in Auckland.

18. If the College’s sports fields are considered an important part of the sports field network and community access is still desirable, the Kaipātiki Local Board may continue to maintain them through council’s maintenance contracts. Provision of a grant would not be eligible under the draft Community Access Guidelines. On 26 April 2016 the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee approved the reallocation of the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 Hato Petera College grant, in alignment with the draft Community Access Guidelines and in consultation with the Kaipātiki Local Board. On 11 May 2016 the Kaipātiki Local Board reallocated the funding to Netball North Harbour to improve community access to its facility (resolution number KT/2016/41).

Netball North Harbour

19. Netball North Harbour will receive a Community Access Grant amount of $28,000 per annum, for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years for operational support to assist continued community access to its facility.

Future use of Hillary Commission Funding

20. In June 2002, Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC, now Sport NZ) ceased annual funding through the Community Sport Fund. The fund was administered through territorial local authorities and supported sport and recreation projects and initiatives.

21. The fund was allocated to councils on a population based approach and was distributed to the community through a combination of contestable grants and loans.

22. Following the end of the Community Sport Fund, SPARC advised councils that any remaining Community Sport funding held or returned via loan repayments could be allocated in a manner consistent with the desired outcomes of the fund.

23. Prior to Auckland Council, legacy councils took a varied approach with most using remaining funds for capital projects or allocated in grants to sport and recreation groups.

24. At amalgamation, Waitakere City Council ($1.1 million) and Auckland City Council ($1.39 million) had remaining Community Sport funding, due in the most part to their approach of funding low interest loans to sport clubs which have since been repaid.

25. Four options for the future use of the residual Hillary Commission fund were discussed at the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee workshops on 17 June 2015 and 14 October 2015 and subsequently approved for local board consultation at the 18 November 2015 meeting. Further analysis of these four options is outlined in Attachment C.

· Develop a new contestable grants programme either regionally or aligned to legacy Waitakere and Auckland City areas. A new contestable grants programme could be established. It could provide a wider criteria for achieving sport and recreation outcomes including facility or capital, and operational and programme related funding. It would need to be considered how this would fit with the regional and local grants programme including the new local board discretionary capital fund.

· Allocate as part of the new Community Grants Policy (CGP) Regional Sport & Recreation Grants Programme. The new regional sport and recreation grants programme that has been established as part of the Community Grants Policy (CGP) has a budget of $508,000 per annum. This funding could be split across the first three years and added to the current budget, for distribution against the criteria in the CGP.

· Allocate towards the implementation of Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP) priority initiatives with potential to target legacy Waitakere City and Auckland City areas. The funding could be used to deliver on some of the focus areas of ASARSAP, for example, addressing inequity in sport and recreation support, sustainability of sport work programme, and the Sport Facility Network Plan implementation. Progress and outcomes would be reported via ASARSAP annual reporting.

· Allocate as part of a proposed Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme to address inequities across sport and recreation either across Auckland or in the legacy Waitakere City and Auckland City areas. This would increase the budget available to support community access to non-council facilities in areas of demand and provide operational support to new or existing sport and recreation facilities, including multisport hubs, for example, supporting netball hubs, and incentivising new multisport/co-location. This is a big gap area for sport and recreation funding support and would support and increase the sustainability of sport and recreation facility provision.

26. Allocating the funds to the Community Access Scheme is identified as the preferred option. It will add to existing funding over say a five year period, and provide support for community access to non-council facilities in areas of high demand, establishment of operational support to new sport and recreation facilities, including multisport hubs and support code specific sports hubs. This is a gap in sport and recreation funding and supports the sustainability of sport and recreation provision.

27. Including the residual Hillary Commission fund in the Community Access Scheme would provide further funding to leverage access to non-council facilities to support increased levels of sport and recreation participation and reduce inequities of access to opportunities. It is proposed that the Hillary Commission funding be allocated over a five year period and priority be given to identified need in the legacy Waitakere City and Auckland City council areas.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28. Local boards were consulted during the development of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP) which sets out how the priorities and strategic directions of the Auckland Plan will be put into action. This community access scheme implements these plans.

29. Local boards with facilities that have existing community access grants have been engaged in on-going dialogue with staff about potential future change in agreements since amalgamation. Workshops have been held with the directly affected local boards on the draft Guidelines and their impact on the existing funding agreements.

30. The three western local boards have expressed a view that the residual Hillary Commission funds from legacy Waitakere City Council should be retained and distributed for the benefit of the west.

31. Central local boards have informally expressed a view that the residual Hillary Commission funds from Auckland City Council should be retained and distributed for the benefit of the legacy Auckland City Council community.

Māori impact statement

32. The ASARSAP includes actions focusing on improving the health and well-being of Māori. Initiative 3.7 – Partner with regional Māori sports organisations to identify opportunities to increase participation by Maori in recreation and sport activities, including programmes in Te Reo, Māori settings and cultural activities.

33. ASARSAP key initiative 15.2 sets out the task for Te Waka Angamua and partners to lead the development of Te Whai Oranga – the Māori Sport and Recreation Plan; this will be reported to the Parks Recreation and Sport Committee in due course. Te Whai Oranga and the ASARSAP will guide delivery of specific programmes that will benefit Māori and improve delivery of against outcomes.

34. The Community Access Scheme will support Auckland Council’s commitment to Māori and support positive outcomes for Māori participation in sport and recreation through investing in eligible organisations that help achieve this objective. Matauranga Māori / Māori knowledge and world views will be respected. We will ensure that we:

· engage effectively with Māori to identify investment opportunities to increase access; and

· provide appropriate capacity building support to those invested in to support increased Maori participation in sport and recreation.

Implementation

35. A report will be provided to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee in July 2016 seeking approval of the Community Access Scheme guidelines and use of the residual Hillary Commission fund.

36. The existing eligible community access agreements will be reviewed over 2016/2017 to determine appropriate funding amounts and levels of service for 1 July 2017 onwards. Relevant local boards will be involved in this process.

37. Decisions on future community access partnerships will be undertaken through annual plan or long-term plan processes in line with identified gaps in sports network and available budget.

38. Upon resolution from the July 2016 Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee, staff will work with relevant local boards on the implementation of the residual Hillary Commission funds.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines (Under Separate Cover)
b	Sport and Recreation Investment diagram (Under Separate Cover)
c	Options Analysis for residual Hillary Commission fund (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Ken Maplesden - Team Leader Local Partnerships

Emma Morgan - Principal Advisor Investment Programme

Authorisers

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

08 June 2016

Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2016/10309

Purpose

1. This report seeks decisions on the following applications for special exemption from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act).

Executive Summary

2. Applications for exemptions for swimming or spa pools has been received from the owners of:

· 21 Learmonth Avenue, Birkenhead; and

· 21 Mappin Place, Chatswood.

3. The applications do not comply with the Act. Pool inspectors have inspected the properties and consulted with the applicants. Full assessment reports are attached to this report.

4. The local board must resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions or decline the exemptions sought.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 21 Learmonth Avenue, Birkenhead with the following conditions:

i. that the exemption is personal to the current owner.

b) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 21 Mappin Place, Chatswood with the following conditions:

i. the self-closing and latching device and the high locks are maintained in good working order at all times; and

ii. council warning stickers are placed on the inside of the door.

Comments

Background

5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected each property for which an application for special exemption from the Act has been received. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with the Act. The details of the non-compliance are specified in the attachments to this report.

6. The council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case. The applicants have been made aware of the council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act and they have chosen to seek a special exemption from those requirements.

Legislative implications

7. Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exemptions are granted by the local board.

8. The Act requires pool owners to fence their pool, or all or some of the immediate pool area including the pool itself. Specific detail on this is contained in the schedule to the Act. If a pool does not have a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.

9. An exemption can only be granted by the local board after a consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances and taking into account any conditions it may impose. Then, only if “satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children”, can an exemption be granted.

10. The definition of the immediate pool area, which is “the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool”, is a key consideration for granting an exemption.

11. Where a building forms part of the pool fence and there are doors opening into the pool area, the local board may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 and 10 of the schedule to the Act. It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of six years.

12. When granting a special exemption the local board may impose reasonable conditions relating to the property or the pool or reflecting other relevant circumstances. These may include:

a) making the exemption personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption; or

b) granting the exemption for a fixed term irrespective of changes of ownership.

13. Any exemption granted or condition imposed may be amended or revoked by the local board by resolution. The rules of natural justice would however dictate that this action should not be taken without informing the pool owner and giving them the opportunity to be heard.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. Local boards have delegated authority to approve exemptions to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act.

15. Before making an exemption, the local board must consider:

· the particular characteristics of the property and the pool;

· any other relevant circumstances; and

· conditions it may be necessary to impose.

16. The local board must also be satisfied that the exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

17. The local board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline the application for special exemption.

18. If the application is declined the applicant will be required to fence the pool in accordance with the Act.

Maori impact statement

19. There are no particular impacts on Maori that are different from those of other pool owners.

Implementation

20. The decision must be made by resolution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	21 Learmonth Avenue, Birkenhead (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
b	21 Mappin Place, Chatswood (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist

Authorisers

Sally Grey - Manager Weather Tightness & Compliance

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Kay McIntyre, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Ann Hartley, JP
Members	Dr Grant Gillon
	John Gillon
	Danielle Grant
	Richard Hills
	Lorene Pigg
	Lindsay Waugh

Authors	Blair Doherty - Kaipātiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager