Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 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 7

8 Deputations 8

9 Public Forum 8

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Notices of Motion 8

12 Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 9

13 Governing Body Members' update 35

14 Upper Harbour 2016/2017 Local Economic Development work programme 37

15 New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Scott Point Estate (LP) Limited at 17, 17A and 19 Scott Road, Hobsonville 43

16 Sport and Recreation Investment - Community Access Scheme guidelines and future allocation of residual legacy Hillary Commission Community Sport Fund 51

17 Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal 65

18 Draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expenses Policy 105

19 Approval of Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants 123

20 Health, safety and wellbeing May 2016 update 157

21 Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status for the 2015/2016 financial year 187

22 Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 189

23 Summary of actions and reports requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - June 2016 193

24 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshop held on Tuesday, 17 May and Tuesday, 7 June 2016 199

25 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board portfolio briefings held in May 2016 205

26 Governance forward work calendar 211

27 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub 215

28 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool 217

29 Board Members' Reports 219

30 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

31 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 221

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

a. 52 Isobel Road, Greenhithe 221

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

Apologies were received from Members Margaret Miles and Callum Blair for absence.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 14 June 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 Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

Upper Harbour 2016/2017 Local Economic Development work programme

File No.: CP2016/12005

Purpose

1. To approve the Upper Harbour local economic development (LED) work programme for the 2016/17 financial year.

Executive summary

2. This report introduces the proposed 2016/17 financial year LED work programme for the Upper Harbour Local Board (refer to Attachment A).

3. The proposed work programme comprises support for the Young Enterprise Scheme, World Masters Games leverage activity, and supporting development of the sport sector cluster in Upper Harbour.

4. The total value of the LED work programme is $21,000, which the board is being asked to approve.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approves the 2016/17 local economic development programme as follows:

i) Young Enterprise Scheme ($1000)

ii) World Master Games Leverage ($10,000)

iii) Sports sector development ($10,000)

Comments

Background

5. The 2016/2017 local economic development programme has been developed in regard to the local board’s priorities for local economic development, set out in the Local Board Plan 2014, and the Upper Harbour Local Economic Development Action Plan.

6. The following activities are included in the proposed LED work programme.

Support for the Young Enterprise Scheme ($1000)

7. The funding from the local board will contribute to the regional Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) to enable two high schools in Upper Harbour (Albany Senor High School and Rangitoto College) to participate in the Dragons Den and regional events.

8. In 2015, the Dragons Den and Regional Awards events were held in five sub-regional locations; North, West, Central, South and East Auckland. However, the success of the programme, and the resulting growth has resulted in substantially increased event costs. Each event is now required to cater for approximately 300 to 400 students, plus teachers, business mentors and supporters. The cost of venue hire, and the associated cost of delivering these events, amounts to approximately $5000 per event. In total, this equates to approximately $50,000 (5x Dragon’s Den and 5x Regional Awards) to run the programme on a sub-regional basis.

9. Due to the rising costs, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) has had to centralise these events into one Dragon’s Den event in May 2016, and one regional event in October 2016.

10. Initial feedback from schools, and the local community, has been that they perceive considerable value in the delivery of the events at the local (sub-regional) level, in terms of the connections built between schools, and with the businesses. Therefore, in order to respond to the feedback, ATEED is seeking local board support to deliver an expanded programme of events being held in five sub-regional locations.

11. Auckland employers and tertiary institutions have also been asked, and are contributing both financially and ‘in kind’, in support of YES.

12. A contribution is sought from local boards where there are schools participating in the YES. The amount of support requested has been worked out using a formula of $500 per school in the local board area. It ranges from $500 to $3500 per local board. The Upper Harbour Local Board is being asked to contribute $1000 to the YES.

World Masters Games leverage ($10,000)

13. The World Masters Games (WMG) will bring approximately 25,000 competitors to Auckland, to compete in 28 sporting disciplines, at over 45 venues across Auckland. With its concentration of sporting venues, Upper Harbour will be host to numerous events during the games.

14. The WMG presents a great opportunity for the Upper Harbour Local Board to work with business associations and other local businesses, to maximise the benefits of the high number of competitors and their families coming to Auckland to participate at the games.

15. It should be noted that the WMG has a remit to focus solely on successful delivery of the games. Any local leverage programme developed, will need to be led and driven locally.

16. It is proposed that the local board allocates $10,000 towards leveraging off the WMG, to increase the economic benefits of the event to the local board area. Activities that could be undertaken, include the development of promotional offers to encourage competitors and their families to stay and eat in the local board area, and to visit local attractions.

17. Activation/entertainment and short term visual improvements/artworks in local centres could also be implemented to make the centres more attractive and give competitors and their families a reason to visit, stay longer and spend in the local area.

18. Local board funds will support development and distribution of printed material for competitors detailing accommodation, eating and leisure opportunities in the local board area. Local businesses will be expected to contribute to any prizes, incentives, discounts offered.

Sports sector development ($10,000)

19. AUT and Massey University have strengths between them across sports science, sport and exercise, coaching and sports management. The local board area is also home to a number of significant sports facilities.

20. ATEED are working with partners Callaghan Innovation and High Performance Sport NZ (HPSNZ), to hold the Sports Performance Forum 2017 in Auckland at the time of the World Masters Games. ATEED wishes to hold the forum at, or in the vicinity of, AUT Millennium which is in the local board’s area. The forum will bring together:

· sports performance businesses (in the area of technology and nutrition);

· science and medicine practitioners; and

· the research community with sport training organisations, training academies and the wider sports sector.

21. The aim of the forum is to:

· showcase Auckland’s most innovative sports performance businesses to the sports sector;

· highlight new world leading sports performance research being carried out here and overseas; and

· create new connections and encourage collaboration between the sports performance community in Auckland.

22. A contribution from the local board could offer a wider group of sports performance businesses in the local board area, the opportunity to showcase their offering to WMGs participants, and the Auckland and NZ sports performance community. This would provide an opportunity to showcase Upper Harbour as a place for a range of sports sector businesses to establish, and benefit from the level of sport related activity there. Overall, it will assist in growing the area’s reputation as a sports precinct.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

23. Section 5 of the Upper Harbour Local Economic Development Action Plan relates to “development of a vibrant, creative international city – support the development and leverage of Upper Harbour visitor and sporting assets”. Action 5.3 is specifically to “seek opportunities to leverage the World Masters Games 2017, within the Upper Harbour Local Board area”.

24. Section 5 also contains actions in relation to development of the ‘sports cluster’ in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, which is identified by ATEED as one of two sports clusters in Auckland that are being researched and developed.

25. The proposed LED work programme was presented to the local board at the 17 May 2016 workshop.

26. Further details on the World Masters Games projects and sport sector development project were requested. These are included in the project outlines above.

Māori impact statement

27. There are no direct impacts as a result of this report on Māori. However, in implementing the programme, consideration will be given on the need to consult with iwi and consider any impacts on Māori arising from the specific project being undertaken.

Implementation

28. Following approval by the local board, the Local Economic Development team at ATEED will begin to implement the programme. Where there is a need, further scoping of activities will be undertaken and presented back to the local board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Economic Development - ATEED work programme 2016/2017	41

Signatories

Authors

Jonathan Sudworth – Local Economic Development Advisor

Authorisers

Paul Robinson - Manager Local Economic Growth - ATEED

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Scott Point Estate (LP) Limited at 17, 17A and 19 Scott Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2016/11425

Purpose

1. To seek road name approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board, for twelve new roads created by way of subdivision at 17, 17A and 19 Scott Road, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. The applicant, Scott Point Estate (LP) Limited, in conjunction with Pani Gleeson from Ngati Whatua Orakei Toki Taiao, have submitted the following road names in order of preference:

· Road 1 - Kokowai Parade, Whata Parade or Pukatea Parade;

· Road 2 – Aviation Drive, Hokianga Drive or Rakaraka Drive;

· Road 3 – Waka Green, Kai Green or Observation Green;

· Road 4 – Nohanga Place, Habitat Place or Tangi Place;

· Road 5 – Kota Lane, Hakahaka Lane or Utu Lane;

· Road 6 – Puru Way, Renga Way or Craigs Way;

· Road 7 – Tai Crescent, Kano Crescent or Bunker Crescent;

· Road 8 – Emplacement Lane, Turrent Lane or Kainga Lane;

· Road 9 – Kearns Drive, Hiki Drive or Iti Drive;

· Road 10 – Roa Avenue, Konga Avenue or Hapuku Avenue;

· Road 11 – Bezar Way, Puku Way or Manawa Way; and

· Road 12 – Irving Place, Harakoa Place or Rara Place.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the following road names proposed by Scott Point Estate (LP) Limited, for the twelve new roads created by way of subdivision at 17, 17A and 19 Scott Road, Hobsonville:

i. Road 1 - Kokowai Parade, Whata Parade or Pukatea Parade;

ii. Road 2 – Aviation Drive, Hokianga Drive or Rakaraka Drive;

iii. Road 3 – Waka Green, Kai Green or Observation Green;

iv. Road 4 – Nohanga Place, Habitat Place or Tangi Place;

v. Road 5 – Kota Lane, Hakahaka Lane or Utu Lane;

vi. Road 6 – Puru Way, Renga Way or Craigs Way;

vii. Road 7 – Tai Crescent, Kano Crescent or Bunker Crescent;

viii. Road 8 – Emplacement Lane, Turrent Lane or Kainga Lane;

ix. Road 9 – Kearns Drive, Hiki Drive or Iti Drive;

x. Road 10 – Roa Avenue, Konga Avenue or Hapuku Avenue;

xi. Road 11 – Bezar Way, Puku Way or Manawa Way; and

xii. Road 12 – Irving Place, Harakoa Place or Rara Place.

Comments

4. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the local board’s approval.

5. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in the area

6. The criteria also encourage the use of Māori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

7. All of the proposed road names are deemed to meet the criteria and are acceptable to NZ Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

8. The applicant has chosen a variety of road types for the twelve roads that all meet the road naming criteria.

9. The applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the twelve roads created as part of the development at 17, 17A and 19 Scott Road, Hobsonville:

Road Number	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning	Meets criteria
1	Kokowai Parade (preferred)	Refers to the red ochre rock mudstone	Yes – thematic (environmental)
	Whata Parade	To elevate, support, bring into prominence	Yes – Maori name
	Pukatea Parade	Tall forest tree of damp or wet areas	Yes – thematic (environmental)
2	Aviation Drive (preferred)	Refers to Hobsonville airport	Yes – thematic (historic use of land)
	Hokinga Drive	Return, circumstance of returning	Yes – Maori name
	Rakaraka Drive	To harrow, rake, scratch, scrape	Yes – thematic (historic use of land)
3	Waka Green (preferred)	Canoe	Yes – Maori name
	Kai Green	Food	Yes – Maori name
	Observation Green	Refers to airport usage	Yes – thematic (historic use of land)
4	Nohanga Place (preferred)	Dwelling place	Yes – Maori name
	Habitat Place	Natural environment in which an animal or plant lives	Yes – thematic (environmental)
	Tangi Place	To cry, weep or mourn	Yes – Maori name
5	Kota Lane (preferred)	Shell (of pipi, etc)	Yes – Maori name
	Hakahaka Lane	To rant and rave	Yes – Maori name
	Utu Lane	To repay, pay, respond, avenge	Yes – Maori name
6	Puru Way (preferred)	Crammed, stuffed	Yes – Maori name
	Renga Way	No meaning provided or found	Yes – Maori name
	Craigs Way	Family name significant to developer	Yes – family significance
7	Tai Crescent (preferred)	Tide, sea	Yes – thematic (environmental)
	Kano Crescent	Seed, grain, bean	Yes – Maori name
	Bunker Crescent	Refers to gun emplacements from WWII	Yes – thematic (historic use of land)
8	Emplacement Lane (preferred)	Refers to gun emplacements from WWII	Yes – thematic (historic use of land)
	Turret Lane	Refers to gun emplacements from WWII	Yes – thematic (historic use of land)
	Kainga Lane	Home, address, residence	Yes – Maori name
9	Kearns Drive (preferred)	Family name significant to developer	Yes – family significance
	Hiki Drive	To lift up, carry in arms	Yes – Maori name
	Iti Drive	Few, limited in number	Yes – Maori name
10	Roa Avenue (preferred)	Long time, length, length of time	Yes – Maori name
	Konga Avenue	Shouting, calling, resounding	Yes – Maori name
	Hapuku Avenue	Groper, a large heavy bodied fish	Yes – Maori name
11	Bezar Way (preferred)	Family name significant to developer	Yes – family significance
	Puku Way	Stomach, abdomen, belly	Yes – Maori name
	Manawa Way	Mangrove	Yes – thematic (environmental)
12	Irving Place (preferred)	Family name significant to developer	Yes – family significance
	Harakoa Place	Dancing, entertainment, enjoyment, pleasure	Yes – Maori name
	Rara Place	Continual sound, rumble	Yes – Maori name

10. Local iwi were consulted and the following responses were received:

· Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust – who confirmed engagement was not necessary;

· Te Akitai Waihoua and Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua – who both deferred any comments and recommendations to mana whenua; and

· Pani Gleeson from Ngati Whatua Orakei Toki Taiao, provided the following suggestions:

Road 1 – Kokowai Place;

Road 2 – Pitoitoi Drive;

Road 3 - Waka Green;

Road 4 – Nohanga Place;

Road 5 – Kota Place;

Road 6 – Craigs Way;

Road 7 – Tai Crescent;

Road 8 – Koro Lane;

Road 9 – Kearns Drive;

Road 10 – Kotukutuku Aveune;

Road 11 – Bezar Way; and

Road 12 – Rara Place.

11. A plan showing the location of the roads is attached (refer to Attachment A).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012 - 2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to local boards.

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

Māori impact statement

14. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

15. The applicant consulted with local iwi and responses were received from Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust, Te Akitai Waihoua, Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua and Ngati Whatua Orakei Toki Taiao.

Implementation

16. The Western Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that the appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost, once an approval is obtained for the new road name and prior to the completion of the subdivision

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	17, 17A and 19 Scott Road - Diagram	49

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/11717

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 to Attachment A), and options for the use of the residual Hillary Commission funding.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provides 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 eleven existing community access funding agreements were reviewed against the draft Guidelines to determine eligibility and strategic alignment. Staff will ensure those that are 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

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

Update on Community Access Grants for Upper Harbour Local Board:

Sovereign Stadium

17. Sovereign Stadium is located on Rangitoto College land that is leased to AUT/Millennium. The stadium fulfils both a local and sub-regional role in the provision of athletics facilities. Council has had a community access arrangement with the Stadium since 1990. Since 1997, Council’s funding has approximately been $58,000. In return for this funding, AUT Millennium provides community access to the athletics track and sports field.

18. Funding for the athletics facilities aligns with the draft Community Access Guidelines, but general sports field use does not meet the eligibility criteria. To align with the guidelines, future Sovereign Stadium community access agreements will need to focus on the athletics use of the facility.

Future use of Hillary Commission Funding

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

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

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. Allocating the funds to the Community Access Scheme is identified as the preferred option. It will add to existing funding over a proposed 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.

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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 Māori in recreation and sport activities, including programmes in Te Reo, Māori settings and cultural activities.

32. 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 plan 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.

33. 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 Māori participation in sport and recreation.

Implementation

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

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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 View	Draft Sport and Recreation Community Access Scheme guidelines	57
b View	Sport and Recreation Investment diagram	61
c View	Options Analysis for residual Hillary Commission fund	63

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal

File No.: CP2016/11883

Purpose

1. This report seeks feedback on Auckland Council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) partnering proposal.

Executive summary

2. The council currently owns 1412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. A list of these sites is included in the HfOP Consultation document (refer Attachment A).

3. In June 2015, the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) resolved to explore how council could deliver the HfOP service through a partnership approach. In December 2015, the ADC endorsed Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with a preferred partner on the partnering proposal.

4. The partnering proposal, in summary, is for the council to:

· partner with a third-party social housing provider to create a new legal entity in the form of a new community housing provider (CHP). The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, including responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services through a long-term lease, and will seek access to government subsidies;

· delegate to Panuku the authority to work with the third party CHP to redevelop the portfolio under a framework arrangement; and

· adopt a new policy on “Housing for Older People partnering” to apply to all decision-making on the proposal.

5. This proposal allows the council to benefit from external expertise to:

· improve the quality of housing - the CHP will be able to access the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) from central government to help improve and develop the portfolio; and

· improve tenant satisfaction – more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will bring in new expertise into the operations so council can find new innovative and cost effective ways to lift satisfaction and redevelop the portfolio to improve the quality of housing.

6. As the HfOP portfolio is a strategic asset under both the LGA 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the proposal to transfer control of the portfolio triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult on the proposal, and to amend the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 through a special consultative procedure before the council can agree to adopt the proposal.

7. The governing body approved a consultation document at its meeting on 25 May 2016, which will form the basis of consultation during the month of June 2016.

8. Local boards are now invited to submit formal feedback on the partnership proposal (refer Attachment A) and a proposed new policy on HfOP partnering (refer Attachment B) through business meetings in June and July 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal.

b) provide feedback on the proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy.

Comments

9. Auckland Council currently owns 1412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. The portfolio is currently operated by Auckland Council’s Arts, Community and Events (ACE) and Community Facilities departments.

10. In 2013, central government changed how social housing would be delivered in New Zealand by making a number of reforms. This included providing third party social housing providers with an IRRS, which was historically only provided to Housing New Zealand. Councils and council-controlled organisations are still unable to access this subsidy.

11. In June 2015, the ADC resolved to explore changing how the council would deliver the HfOP service. It agreed to explore a partnership approach, where the council would partner with a third party social housing provider in the management of the portfolio and to establish a new CHP.

12. The council is committed to maintaining the 1412 units within the HfOP portfolio as a strategic asset, and may seek to increase the number subject to further council approval on additional funding and any consultation requirements.

13. In December 2015, the ADC endorsed Panuku to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with the preferred partner on a partnering proposal. Panuku, on behalf of Auckland Council, issued a request for proposal. Council currently has a non-binding partnership arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation as the potential third party social housing provider.

What Auckland Council is proposing

14. Council is proposing that it partner with a third party social housing provider to enter into a management agreement over council’s 1412 units, and delegate Panuku to act on council’s behalf to develop the portfolio.

Management agreement

· Partner with a third party social housing provider to form a new legal entity, in which the council will have a minority interest. This will be a CHP to manage council’s Housing for Older People portfolio.

· The legal structure of this CHP will likely be in the form of a limited partnership (New Zealand registered) between Auckland Council and the third-party social housing provider under a framework arrangement.

· The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, which includes responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services. Legal ownership will remain with the council.

· It will include a long-term lease, which from an accounting perspective requires a write-off of the assets from the council balance sheet.

· The CHP will be structured to be able to receive central government’s IRRS. Staff are unable to quantify how much will be received under this scheme as the subsidy, which is paid to the housing provider, is based on a percentage of a tenant’s income. It will reflect the difference between the income related rent and the market rent, and will only be paid out for future tenants (not current tenants).

· Council will provide a $32.5 million capital grant to the CHP, which is equivalent to the current budget for the portfolio renewal maintenance.

Development agreement

· Authority will be delegated to Panuku to act on behalf of Auckland Council to work with the third-party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio.

· Panuku, as Auckland Council’s development agency, will provide skills and expertise to support the development of the HfOP portfolio.

· This includes, over time, selling some land and buildings to help fund the improvement of the quality of the HfOP portfolio.

· The council will provide a $20 million development loan facility that will support the development until sales proceeds can be realised. The sales proceeds will cover repayment of the facility and any associated interest.

15. These will be carried out in accordance with the new policy to be adopted. A representation of this is shown in Attachment A.

Why Auckland Council is proposing these changes

16. The proposal allows the council to benefit from external expertise to improve tenant satisfaction and the quality of its social housing. There are a few areas of this portfolio that need improvement.

To improve the quality of housing

Currently, the HfOP portfolio has many poor quality units, which is clearly not acceptable for the council or its tenants. By partnering with a third party social housing provider, council will be able to ensure over time that:

· the portfolio can benefit from new external funding from central government through access to the IRRS;

· the portfolio will be upgraded and new housing developed to reflect modern standards; and

· the portfolio will become more connected to public transport and other necessary services.

To improve tenant satisfaction

More and more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide, as shown in the following graph. This is unlikely to improve without changes to how council provides the service. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will improve tenant satisfaction by:

· adding new expertise into the operations of the service so council can find new innovative, cost effective ways of lifting satisfaction; and

· redeveloping the portfolio to improve the quality of housing, giving tenants a better quality of life.

Graph 1: Long-term Plan 2015-2025, Level of Service Measure:
Tenant satisfaction over time

Title: Graph 1: Long-term Plan 2015-25, Level of Service Measure: Tenant satisfaction over time. - Description: This graph shows how this proposal is projected to improve tenant satisfaction over time, as outlined in the council's Long-term Plan.

How the proposal compares with other options

17. The council has been developing the HfOP partnership model proposal since April 2015. The options were developed on the basis that the council has opted to continue to provide housing for older people. Three main practical options (including the proposal) are explained in the table below. Other options identified by the council are listed in the Supporting Information but have not been considered as reasonably practical options at this stage.

Option	Service level impact	Rates impact	Debt impact	Achieves the council’s objectives?	Advantages	Disadvantages
Status Quo Continue to manage and develop the housing without external support	Actual tenant satisfaction levels are at 64 per cent, which is well under the target average of 75 per cent. This means the council will be increasingly unlikely to meet its targets over time.	No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.	No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.	· Does not grow the community housing sector. · Does not improve quality of housing. · Does not access non ratepayer funding.	· The council retains full control over the assets. · No costs associated with change.	· Does not address the falling tenant satisfaction. · Reliant on rates funding.

Option

Service level impact

Rates impact

Debt impact

Achieves the council’s objectives?

Advantages

Disadvantages

Status Quo

Continue to manage and develop the housing without external support

Actual tenant satisfaction levels are at 64 per cent, which is well under the target average of 75 per cent.

This means the council will be increasingly unlikely to meet its targets over time.

No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.

· Does not grow the community housing sector.

· Does not improve quality of housing.

· Does not access non ratepayer funding.

· The council retains full control over the assets.

· No costs associated with change.

· Does not address the falling tenant satisfaction.

· Reliant on rates funding.

Option	Service level impact	Rates impact	Debt impact	Achieves the council’s objectives?	Advantages	Disadvantages
The proposal Partnering with a third-party housing provider under management and development agreements.	Tenant satisfaction will increase, as the council will be able to rely on new expertise from the third party social housing provider, unlock access to central government funding and can redevelop the portfolio to improve quality.	Negligible to slightly negative	Negative Debt increases by $48.4 million for the management agreement, and a further potential $20 million for the development loan facility.	Yes. The proposal aims to increase tenant satisfaction to targeted levels.	· Allows for an improvement of the quality of housing. · Unlocks access to central government funding.	· The council will lose some control over the units. · Requires monitoring of an external entity. · Development could cause disruption for tenants.

Option

Service level impact

Rates impact

Debt impact

Achieves the council’s objectives?

Advantages

Disadvantages

Sell or gift portfolio to a CHP

Sell or gift the units and land to an existing CHP with conditions to ensure the provision of social housing remains.

Tenant satisfaction will likely decrease, as it will be difficult for the council to control the quality of housing.

Neutral to slightly positive

The sales proceeds would depend on the conditions placed on the sale.

Depending on the conditions placed this could significantly reduce the proceeds from the sale.

Slightly positive to negative

The debt impact would depend on whether the council would still provide the capital grant for the improvements to housing, and any other conditions placed on the sale.

Partly. The council is no longer responsible for providing 1,412 housing for older people units.

However, this may grow the wider community housing sector.

· The council no longer has any risk for operating the portfolio.

· This may grow the wider community housing sector.

· The council will have no ownership or control over the units.

· Long term provision of the service is not guaranteed.

· The council would not own land and buildings as assets.

The proposal

Partnering with a third-party housing provider under management and development agreements.

Tenant satisfaction will increase, as the council will be able to rely on new expertise from the third party social housing provider, unlock access to central government funding and can redevelop the portfolio to improve quality.

Negligible to

slightly negative

Negative

Debt increases by $48.4 million for the management agreement, and a further potential $20 million for the development loan facility.

Yes. The proposal aims to increase tenant satisfaction to targeted levels.

· Allows for an improvement of the quality of housing.

· Unlocks access to central government funding.

· The council will lose some control over the units.

· Requires monitoring of an external entity.

· Development could cause disruption for tenants.

Proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

18. In order to include this change in the current LTP 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

19. This policy sets key decision making criteria that are designed to ensure that the council will maintain or improve the quality of housing and tenant satisfaction without overly exposing the council to financial impacts and risk, through:

· general decision making on the council’s HfOP portfolio;

· the management of the HfOP portfolio by the new CHP; and

· the arrangements for the possible redevelopment and/or sale of parts of the HfOP portfolio.

20. A copy of the proposed policy is included in Attachment B.

Requirement to consult

21. The HfOP portfolio is considered a strategic asset under both the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Any proposal to transfer control or ownership of a strategic asset(s) triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult and to provide for it in the long-term plan.

22. In order to include this in the current LTP 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

23. Public consultation in June and feedback from local boards will inform the governing body’s decision 28 July 2016 regarding the partnership proposal and the proposed new policy on HfOP partnering.

Public consultation

24. A consultation document (Attachment A) and supporting information has been approved by the governing body, and will be used to consult with the public regarding the proposal to transfer control of the HfOP portfolio to a CHP and redevelop the current housing units.

25. The consultation document lists the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, as well as the two key alternatives on page 8. The assumptions underlying the proposal, including risks and details on the options analysis, are set out in the supporting information on pages 53, 54 and 56.

26. The consultation document also provides three main options that have been identified for the delivery of the council’s HfOP service, with the preferred option being the partnership proposal.

27. The public consultation period runs from 1 June 2016 to 1 July 2016.

28. The consultation document was delivered to 1412 units, local board offices, service centres and libraries before 1 June 2016.

29. The consultation document includes a feedback form that is expected to be the primary mechanism Aucklanders will use to provide their feedback on this consultation. The feedback form is also available online, in local board offices, service centres and libraries. Feedback forms can be submitted via freepost, email or completed online.

30. There are various Have Your Say (HYS) events planned across the region. The locations were picked so that they are easily accessible for HfOP tenants to attend. These events are listed below:

Venue	Date	Time
Takapuna Library	7 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Devonport Library	8 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9am – 1pm
Northcote Library	9 June 2016 (Thursday)	11am – 3pm
Glenfield Library	10 June 2016 (Friday)	10am – 11am
New Lynn War Memorial Library	14 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Titirangi Library	15 June 2016 (Wednesday)	11am – 3pm
Waitakere Central Library	16 June 2016 (Thursday)	9am – 1pm
Te Atatu Peninsula Community Centre	17 June 2016 (Friday)	2pm – 3pm
Mangere Town Centre Library	21 June 2016 (Tuesday)	9am – 1pm
Sir Edmund Hillary Library, Papakura	22 June 2016 (Wednesday)	9am – 1pm
Pukekohe Library	23 June 2016 (Thursday)	9am – 11am
Waiuku Library	23 June 2016 (Thursday)	12pm – 2pm
Otara Senior Citizens’ Club	24 June 2016 (Friday)	10am – 11am

31. Public feedback will also be collected at HYS events scheduled from 7 to 24 June 2016. The primary purpose of these events is for elected members or delegates to listen to the views of Aucklanders. Staff will ensure public feedback is accurately recorded.

32. The role of elected members (and delegates) at these events is to listen and to provide members of the public with an opportunity to provide their views verbally.

33. Staff recommend that delegations are made to councillors, local board members and staff to hear feedback. This is to ensure there are a sufficient number of people able to have spoken interaction with public.

34. Staff will be in contact with tenants to coordinate logistics to ensure that they have the opportunity to attend the HYS events.

35. The ShapeAuckland website will be the digital hub for the HfOP communications and engagement campaign. There are a variety of ways in which digital and social media channels will be used to support the communications campaign.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. Local board members have received updates through quarterly performance reports, on the region-wide initiative led by Panuku to investigate options to partner with community housing providers to manage and develop the HfOP portfolio.

37. A briefing for local board members was held on this initiative on 30 November 2015.

38. Local board members were updated in May 2016 through a memo outlining the consultation process, and received invitations to attend HYS events to hear public feedback.

39. Local boards are now invited to submit formal feedback through business meetings in June and July 2016.

40. The report to be presented to the governing body on 28 July 2016 will include all feedback received from local boards, which will inform governing body decision-making on this matter.

Māori impact statement

41. The new CHP will have a role in giving effect to outcomes directed by the council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. This includes recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tāmaki Makaurau and addressing and contributing to the needs and aspirations of Māori. In order to do this, throughout the development of this proposal various Māori groups have been consulted with. To progress this engagement, Panuku has established a Mana Whenua Governance Group comprising four senior representatives of mana whenua, plus senior representatives of Panuku and the preferred partner.

Implementation

42. A report containing consultation feedback and advice on adopting the HfOP Partnering Policy to amend the LTP 2015-2025 and a delegation to Panuku to carry out the partnering arrangement will be presented to the governing body at the meeting on 28 July 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Housing for Older People (HfOP) Consultation Document	73
b View	Housing for Older People Partnering Policy	101

Signatories

Authors

Kat Teirney – Manager Community Occupancy, Community Places, Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Graham Bodman – GM, Arts, Community and Events

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

Draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expenses Policy

File No.: CP2016/12036

Purpose

1. To seek the views of the Upper Harbour Local Board on the draft 2016 Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expenses Policy.

Executive summary

2. Each electoral term, the Remuneration Authority requires all councils to adopt an expenses policy, and forward the adopted policy to the Remuneration Authority for its approval.

3. The expenses policy provides the rules for elected members’ reimbursement for expenses they incur whilst performing their duties.

4. The governing body last adopted an expenses policy in July 2014. The Remuneration Authority has requested the council’s policy for July 2016 to June 2019. The governing body will be asked to adopt the 2016 policy at their 21 July Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

5. Staff have reviewed the operation of the current policy and have updated the policy to:

· have clear principles of what is considered appropriate elected member expenditure;

· remove the duplication of Remuneration Authority allowance tables; and

· replace complicated travel, development and conference attendance approvals with a ‘one up’ approach, that requires Chairperson, or senior staff approval.

6. The amended policy is attached as Attachment A. In addition to the substantive changes, the language and presentation of the policy have been updated to make it more accessible.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide comments on the draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expense Policy to the governing body.

Comments

7. The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) sets remuneration for elected positions in local government annually. It also sets the rules for reimbursement of costs met by members in the undertaking of their duties.

8. In its determination, the Authority details some work-related expenses for elected members:

· the maximum allowances payable by councils to elected members for certain activities, such as transport and communications; and

· the criteria for, and amounts payable to, elected members sitting on resource consent hearings.

9. Additionally, the Authority determines the nature of reimbursements made to elected members for costs undertaken on council business.

10. The Authority requires each council to adopt an expenses policy. The current policy was last approved in July 2014. It is necessary to review and update the policy prior to sending it to the Authority for approval.

11. The Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expenses Policy sets out the council’s rules, under which elected members may be reimbursed or paid allowances for personal costs, that arise in the course of council business.

12. In the draft policy, general travel, accommodation and insurance claim rules have been retained. The continued requirement for a business case for international travel and the publication of all elected member expenditure, will ensure transparency. Staff will continue to support the elected members with the required paperwork. The proposed changes relate to the authorisation of expenditure and the introduction of the council’s Elected Member Development Programme.

Substantive changes

Professional development and attendance at conferences

13. The new policy includes provisions related to the 2016-2019 Elected Member Development Programme. Professional development included in the core professional development programme will be pre-authorised. This means that elected members will not be required to provide a business case for development or attendance at conferences that are covered by the professionaI development programme.

14. Pre-authorisation is subject to the principles of the policy. The funds must be budgeted for and authorised by the appropriate senior manager.

15. If elected members want to undertake professionaI development activities outside the elected members’ core professionaI development programme, a written request must be made to the Manager of Democracy Service or to the Manager of Local Board Services.

Domestic travel approval

16. Changes have been made to approvals. The draft policy reflects a ‘one up’ approach that requires Chairperson or senior staff approval.

17. Currently elected members are required to seek authorisation from a senior staff member and either the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the chairperson of a committee of the whole, or the chairperson of their local board.

18. To make authorisations more efficient, the draft policy has been amended to allow the Governance Director or the Manager Democracy Services to authorise travel and sundry expense claims for governing body members.

19. For local board members, the draft policy has been amended with the Governance Director proposed as the approver for local board members and chairpersons.

International travel approval

20. For international travel for the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, in addition to the Chief Executive, the Chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee has been added as an approver. This gives additional flexibility for approval if the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee is not available at that time.

21. For all other elected members the draft policy proposes that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor or the Chairperson of the Risk and Audit Committee or the Chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee and the Chief Executive or the Governance Director are the approvers.

22. For sundry expense claims following international travel, the draft policy has been amended to allow the Chief Executive or the Governance Director to authorise the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor claims; the Governance Director or Manager Democracy Services to authorise governing body member claims; and the Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services to authorise local board member claims.

23. The probity check to this approach is threefold:

· the trip must meet the principles of the policy;

· it must be authorised by a Chairperson or senior staff member (a ‘one up’ authorisation); and

· all expenditure incurred by elected members on council business, continues to be published.

24. The new approvals are in the table below. Changes are underlined.

Item	Proposed	Previous term
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Mayor	No change	· The chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee · or the chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Deputy Mayor	· The Mayor; or · the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chairperson of the Finance and Performance	· The Mayor · or the chairperson of a Committee of the Whole
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – councillors	The Governance Director or the Manager Democracy Services	· The Deputy Mayor · or the chairperson of a Committee of the Whole
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board chairperson	The Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services	· Governance Director · and report to business meeting
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board members	The Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services	· The local board chairperson · and report to business meeting
Approvals for international travel - Mayor	· A business case; · the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee or the chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee; and · the Chief Executive	· A business case; · the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee; and · the Chief Executive
Approvals for international travel– Deputy Mayor	· A business case; · the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee or the chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee; and · the Chief Executive	· A business case; · the Mayor or the chairperson of a committee of the whole; and · the Chief Executive
Approvals for international travel – governing body members	· A business case; · the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee; and · the Chief Executive or Governance Director	· A business case; · the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor; and · the Chief Executive or the Director Governance
Approvals for international travel – local board members	· A business case and both: · the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the chairperson of the Audit and Risk Committee or the chairperson of the Finance and Performance Committee · and the Chief Executive or Governance Director	· A business case; · Endorsement by the local board; and · then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director of Governance If urgent approval is needed: · endorsement by the chairperson; · then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance; and · then retrospective endorsement by the local board
Development programmes and conferences	Pre-approved, subject to the cost falling within the annual professional development budget	Various authorisation depending on the role of the requester
Hosting official visitors	If necessary, budget holder approval	Personal expenditure can be reimbursed

25. Other changes have been made throughout the policy to update, clarify or align the policy with current good practice. In addition the language and presentation of the policy have been updated to make it more accessible.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. This report is seeking local board views.

Māori impact statement

27. This policy is a requirement of the Remuneration Authority. It is for internal use and does not have specific implications for Māori.

Implementation

28. The Elected Members’ Expenses Policy will come into force once approved by the Remuneration Authority. This is expected to be in July 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expense Policy 2016	109

Signatories

Authors

Jo Iles - Business Hub Manager, Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Lou Lennane - Acting Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

Approval of Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants

File No.: CP2016/12294

Purpose

1. To enable the Upper Harbour Local Board to make funding decisions on Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants to stakeholders.

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has $47,673.50 of discretionary operational funding remaining to allocate towards community grants during the 2015/2016 financial year.

3. In October 2015, as part of the local board’s financial planning, the board sought expressions of interest from community and sporting code stakeholders to ascertain their future requirements for both operational and capital funding. At the 15 December 2015 business meeting, the local board allocated funding to those stakeholders who successfully completed the expressions of interest process.

4. Due to limited funding, the board wanted to ensure they maximize the value of their funds, and indicated that the funding would need to be small in nature, or be seed funding for larger projects.

5. Community groups and sporting codes were requested to provide a detailed description of the project and how it would benefit the community, as well as provide any applicable quotes for work to be conducted.

6. As noted in the 15 December 2015 report, additional work was done with organisations that were unable to provide sufficient detail relating to their projects at that time. To ensure that all requests have an equal opportunity for consideration, those outstanding expressions of interest are brought to the local board for consideration as part of this report.

7. Four expressions of interest, totalling $86,659.74, were received from those organisations mentioned above.

8. This report provides the local board with the opportunity to consider and allocate funding to community groups and sporting codes to ensure that the local board budget is expended prior to the end of the financial year in June 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) consider approval of funding for the following projects:

Organisation	Project	Funding requested	Funding source
North Harbour Softball Association	Six backstops, two sets of fixed bases and 20 sets of floating bases	$29,659.74	Discretionary opex
Windsor Park Board	Demolition of a grandstand that has been condemned at Windsor Park.	$10,000	Discretionary opex
Greenhithe Pony Club	Annual maintenance, tractor replacement and acquisition of chain harrows	$15,000	Discretionary opex
West Harbour Tennis Club	Repair of astro turf and replacing the long-run roofing and guttering	$32,000	Discretionary opex

Comments

9. In October 2015, as part of the local board’s financial planning, the board sought expressions of interest from community and sporting code stakeholders to ascertain their future requirements for both operational and capital funding.

10. Community groups and sporting codes were requested to provide a detailed description of their projects and how it would benefit the community, as well as providing any applicable quotes for work to be conducted (refer to Attachment A).

11. A similar approach was taken by the board in the 2014/2015 financial year in support of community and sporting groups. The aim of the fund was to strengthen the local community by supporting initiatives that provided a community benefit, were equitable and inclusive, and beneficial to the residents of the area. The board funded projects or initiatives that gave effect to the priorities in the Upper Harbour Local Board Plan. Priority was given to initiatives that focused on one or more of the following priorities:

· sports or recreation;

· youth;

· families;

· migrants;

· the environment;

· community participation and wellbeing;

· encourage participation or volunteering;

· are innovative;

· are high impact and provide good value for money; and

· improve an existing facility or service provision.

12. Nine expressions of interest were considered at a meeting on 15 December 2015, and a request was made for additional work to be carried out with organisations that were unable to provide sufficient detail relating to their projects at the time. That work has been completed and four additional expressions of interest, requesting a total of $86,659.74, are brought to the board for consideration. Comprehensive details are attached as Attachment B of this report.

13. A summary of the expressions of interest are as follows:

Organisation	Project	Motivation for funding	Funding requested
North Harbour Softball Association	Six backstops, two sets of fixed bases and 20 sets of floating bases	The North Harbour Softball Association is requesting funding to purchase six backstops which can be set up permanently throughout the season to protect players and spectators from the ball when games are played. They are also applying for two sets of fixed bases which will be used on the skin diamonds. Fixed bases on the skin diamonds are a vital safety feature and the current set are 8-10 years old. The grass diamonds require 20 sets of floating bases and home plates with pins that can hold the bases in position to maximize safety for players.	$29,659.74 broken down as follows: fixed bases $2,709.57 floating bases and home plates $6,052.17 backstops $20,898
Windsor Park Board	Demolition of a Grandstand that has been condemned at Windsor Park.	A grandstand and storage facility on Windsor Park has been found to be decayed to an extent that it requires demolition as soon as possible. It is currently fenced off but remains a serious risk especially for cricket and rugby members wishing to use the Park. It is impacting on the ability of junior members to practice their sport as their training facilities are located right next to the grandstand. The Windsor Park Board is reliant on a mix of community funding and self-generated income to provide sporting services to the local community.	$10,000
Greenhithe Pony Club	Annual maintenance, tractor replacement and acquisition of chain harrows	The Greenhithe Pony Club are requesting funding towards the annual maintenance of the grounds including weed spraying, fertilising and lime application. The indicative cost of which is between $2,100 and $2,500. A very old tractor used for harrowing and other jobs around the club, also needs to be replaced at an estimated cost between $12,000 - $15,000. The chain harrows utilised by the club are beyond repair and the replacement value is approximately $900. Harrowing weekly is essential for the maintenance of the grounds to ensure good grass growth.	$15,000 broken down as follows: tractor $12,000 maintenance $2,100 harrows $900
West Harbour Tennis Club	Repair of astro turf and replacing the long-run roofing and guttering	West Harbour Tennis Club are applying for $2,000 to repair the astro turf surface on the main tennis court. All of the courts were laid with astro turf approximately eight years ago and the matting at the ends of the main court is worn and becoming dangerous. Another project requiring funding is the replacement of the long-run roofing and guttering. The guttering has rusted completely and the water is not being piped to the storm water outlet, which is leaving rust marks on the walls of the building and the paved areas. There are also on-going problems with internal roof leaks. Roofing contractors have advised that the roof and guttering needs replacing. The cost for this is $90,000. The club has obtained two grants of $40,000 and $10,000 respectively and will be able to contribute $10,000 from fund raising activities. However there is still a $30,000 shortfall.	$32,000 broken down as follows: astro turf replacement $2,000 roof and gutter replacement $30,000

Consideration

Local board input and implications

14. This report gives the local board the opportunity to allocate funding to the community and sporting code stakeholders that raised an expression of interest for funding.

Māori impact statement

15. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes and activities that benefit a wide range of individuals and groups, including Māori.

Implementation

16. Decisions on funding are required at this meeting so that funding agreements can be entered in to before the end of this financial year.

17. All of the remaining discretionary events and community grants funding is available to be allocated to the applications on this report. If the board, however, wishes to allocate more than the $47,673.50 opex funding available, it is able to allocate funding from the Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund in the form of a capital grant.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Letter to stakeholders	127
b View	Expressions of interest and supporting documentation	129
c View	Community funding criteria	155

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/12393

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

Fund	Total available in 2015/16 ($)	Amount spent ($)	Balance remaining ($)
Local Discretionary Community Grants	281,717.50	254,544	27,273.50
Local Events Contestable Fund	77,000	56,600	20,400
Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund	103,000	102,900	0
Environment Response Fund	35,000	35,000	0
Planning and Economic Development Response Fund	35,000	31,382.50	0
Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund	355,230	139,000	216,230

3. On 14 June, the board resolved to spend a total of $32,913 through the following Local Discretionary Community Grants:

Organisation/ Individual Name	Project	Amount allocated
Shanshan Multicultural Community Incorporated	Venue hire for Meadowood Community House	$2000
StarJam Charitable Trust	Auckland CoolJam Talent Expansion Programme	$2000
The Herald Island Community Wharf Trust	Wharf maintenance	$3000
Greenhithe Community Trust	15 projects to boost Greenhithe youth, families, newcomers and general community wellbeing	$7500
Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Establishment of youth focused Community Centre in North Auckland	$2000
OnBoard Skate Inc.	Skatesafe skateboard programme	$2000
North Harbour Hockey Association	Year five and six, and year seven and eight Representative Development Programme	$4000

Organisation/ Individual Name	Project	Amount allocated
North Shore Women's Centre	Information referral and assessment service and community based social work service	$2500
North Shore Group Riding for the Disabled Inc.	Core Operational Costs	$1525
North Harbour Synchronised Swimming Club	North Island Synchronised Swimming Competition	$1000
North Shore Centers of Mutual Aid Incorporated	North Shore CMA Building Resilience for Seniors in our Community	$3000
La Leche League North Shore	La Leche League NZ - Supporting the North Shore	$550
Netball Northern Zone	Options Investigation for Netball Courts	$1838

4. All grants rounds have finished for the 2016/2017 financial year and there is $47,673.50 of discretionary funding remaining across the events and community grants budget lines.

5. At the board’s request, there is a report in this meeting that asks the board to consider allocating the remaining funding to various community groups who were not considered in the Expressions of Interest process that was held in December 2015.

1. Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

28 June 2016

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

File No.: CP2016/12414

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

2. An application for an exemption for swimming or spa pools has been received from the owners of:

· 52 Isobel Road, Greenhithe.

3. The application does not comply with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. Pool inspectors have inspected the property and consulted with the applicants, and full assessment reports are attached to this report (refer to confidential Attachment A).

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board :

a) grant the application for special exemption as sought for 52 Isobel Road, Greenhithe, with the following conditions:

i. that NZS 8500-2006 clause a-k is complied with at all times; and

ii. the spa remain in its current location.

Comments

Background

5. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected the property for which an application for special exemption from the Act has been received. The spa pool does not comply with the Act. The details of the non-compliance are specified in confidential Attachment A.

6. The council’s pool inspectors have consulted with the applicants. The applicant has 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 Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 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 Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987. It may be exempt if the local board 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:

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

· 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 present a 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 Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

20. The decision must be made by resolution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	52 Isobel Road, Greenhithe (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist

Authorisers

Sally Grey - Manager Weather Tightness & Compliance

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Brian Neeson, JP
Members	Callum Blair
	John McLean
	Margaret Miles, JP
	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

Authors	Neda Durdevic - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager