Addendum Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

Waiheke Local Board

23 June 2016

Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal

File No.: CP2016/12843

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2. The council currently owns 1,412 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 (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 community housing provider 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

· 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 we 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^th May 2016 which will form the basis of this consultation during the month of June 2016.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) provide feedback on

i. the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal and

ii. the proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

Comments

9. Auckland Council currently owns 1,412 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 the 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 Auckland Development Committee (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 community housing provider (CHP).

12. The council is committed to maintaining 1,412 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 Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with the preferred partner on a partnering proposal. Panuku, on behalf of Council, issued a request for proposal and the council currently has a non-binding arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation as the potential third party social housing provider that council may enter into partnership arrangement with.

What Auckland Council is proposing:

14. The council is proposing that it partner with a third party social housing provider to enter into a management agreement over the council’s 1,412 units and delegate Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to act on council’s behalf to develop the portfolio.

15. Management agreement:

a) 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 Community Housing Provider (CHP) to manage the council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) portfolio.

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

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

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

e) The CHP will be structured to be able to receive the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS). We are not able 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 tenants income. It will reflect the difference between the income related rent and the market rent. It will also only be paid out for future tenants not current tenants.

f) The council will provide a $32.5 million capital grant to the CHP, which is equivalent to the current budget for the portfolio renewal maintenance.

16. Development agreement:

a) Delegate to Panuku, a council-controlled organisation, the authority to act on behalf of Auckland Council to work with the third-party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio.

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

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

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

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

Why is Auckland Council proposing this?

18. 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.

19. To improve the quality of housing:

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

a) the portfolio can benefit from new external funding from the government, through access to the IRRS

b) the portfolio will be upgraded and new housing developed to reflect modern standards

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

20. To improve tenant satisfaction:

More and more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide, as shown in Graph 1. This is unlikely to improve without some change to how we provide the service. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will improve our tenant satisfaction by:

a) adding new expertise into the operations of the service so we can find new innovative, cost effective ways of lifting satisfaction.

b) redeveloping the portfolio to improve the quality of housing, giving our 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 does the proposal compare with other options?

21. 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 following table. 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.
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 improvements to the 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. But, 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 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 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

22. In order to include this change in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

23. 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

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

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

Requirement to consult

24. 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.

25. In order to include this in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

26. Public consultation in June and feedback from local boards will inform the Governing Body’s decision on the partnership proposal and the proposed new policy on HfOP partnering.

Public consultation

27. 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.

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

29. 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.

30. The public consultation period is 1 June 2016 – 1 July 2016.

31. The consultation document was delivered to 1,412 units, local board offices, service centres and libraries before 1 June 2016.

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

33. 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 for your perusal:

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

34. 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.

35. 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.

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

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

38. 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

39. 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.

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

41. Local board members were updated in May 2016 through a memo outlining the consultation process as well as invitations to attend Have Your Say events to hear public feedback.

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

43. The report to be presented to the Governing Body at its meeting on 28 July 2016 will include all feedback received from local boards. Feedback from the local boards will inform the Governing Body decision on this matter.

Māori impact statement

44. 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

45. 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	Consultation document	13
b View	Housing for Older People Partnering Policy	41

Signatories

Authors

Kat Teirney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

23 June 2016

Draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expenses Policy

File No.: CP2016/12845

Purpose

1. To seek the views of the Manurewa 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 expense 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 – June 2019. The governing body will be asked to adopt the 2016 policy at their 21July 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

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

6. The amended policy is attached. 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 Waiheke Local Board:

a) provides 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 undertaking 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

· 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 (the 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 l 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 l development activities outside the elected members’ core l development programme, a written request must be made to the Manager Democracy Service or the Manager Local Board Services.

Domestic travel approval

16. Changes have been made to approvals. The draft policy reflects a ‘one up’ approach that requires senior elected member 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 chair of a committee of the whole or the chair 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 Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee has been added as an approver. This gives additional flexibility for approval if the Chair 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 Chair of the Risk and Audit Committee or the Chair 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 senior elected member 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.

Table 1. Changes to approvals

Item	Proposed	Previous term
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Mayor	No change	· The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee · or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Deputy Mayor	· The Mayor or · The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance	· The Mayor · or the Chair 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 Chair of a Committee of the Whole
Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board Chair	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 Chair · and report to business meeting
Approvals for international travel - Mayor	· A business case and both: · The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive	A business case and both: · the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee · and the Chief Executive
Approvals for international travel– Deputy Mayor	· A business case and both: · The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive	A business case and Both: · the Mayor or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole · and the Chief Executive
Approvals for international travel – Governing Body members	· A business case and both: · The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive or Governance Director	A business case and Both: · 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 Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee · And the Chief Executive or Governance Director	A business case and Both: · Endorsement by the Local Board · then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance If urgent approval is needed: · Endorsement by the Chair · then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance · 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	51

Signatories

Authors

Jo Iles, Business Hub Manager, Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Lou Lennane - Acting Manager Local Board Services

Rex Hewitt – Relationship Manager

Waiheke Local Board

23 June 2016

Auckland Transport Update - June 2016

File No.: CP2016/12847

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport activities in the local board area.

Executive summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Waiheke Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector; and Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community. In particular:

· Downtown ferry terminal pier 2C closure

· The Strand road stopping update

· Bus patronage

· Senior & SuperGold concessions on AT HOP Cards

· Rakino Island abandoned vehicles

· Local Board Transport Fund

· Local consultation undertaken

· Media

· Customer service enquiries

Recommendation/s

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport Report – June 2016.

Comments

Monthly Overview

Downtown ferry terminal Pier 2C closure

3. Due to health and safety concerns Downtown ferry terminal Pier 2C will be closed from Thursday 9 June 2016 until further notice. Auckland Transport is working with marine engineers to assess the best approach to the repair works required and this will determine how long the berth will remain closed.

4. Waiheke ferry services will operate from Pier 1C with the occasional service running from Pier 2B. Auckland Transport apologise for any inconvenience to ferry passengers caused by these changes while these essential works take place.

The Strand road stopping update

5. Following the request from the local board at its 26 May 2016 meeting for Auckland Transport to progress the road stopping process for the road reserve located on The Strand, Onetangi, with budget allocated from the board’s LDI Community Response budget, Auckland Council Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) department staff are currently in discussion with the Auckland Transport Property Management Manager regarding the required pre-agreement from PSR for the asset transfer.

Bus patronage

6. Auckland Transport does not currently have the mechanisms set up to supply daily records, however can supply a monthly record of bus usage, with the following limitations:

· Fullers monthly pass holders get bus travel included

· There are a number of tourist passes that include bus travel

· As a result there is a risk that the bus drivers may not always record boardings (even with best intentions) and this could be worse during the very busy periods.

· These limitations are likely to change once simplified fares are introduced.

Recorded Bus Patronage for Waiheke Bus Company

May 2016 Patronage = 54,494.

For historical bus patronage tracking, please refer to attachment A.

Senior & SuperGold concessions on AT HOP Cards

7. Auckland Transport is targeting ten external venues across the region for SuperGold Mobile visits in order to entail the loading of SuperGold public transport concessions on the AT HOP card, which will enable the eligible senior citizen commuters to continue to receive free travel on trains, selected buses and ferries in Auckland after 9am on weekdays and all day on weekends and public holidays as from 1 July 2016.

8. SuperGold Mobile will be visiting the Waiheke RSA at 29 Belgium Street, Ostend, Waiheke on 23 June 2016 from 10am - 3pm.

9. For more information on changes to SuperGold public transport concession on AT HOP cards, please refer to Attachment B, or visit at.govt.nz/supergold.

Rakino Island abandoned vehicles

10. Auckland Transport has a range of concerns over the vehicles parked along South Pacific Road and Sanford Way, Rakino Island. For a number of years vehicles have been left on the road side in a varying state of repair, from casually used vehicles through to abandoned wrecks. These abandoned vehicles / wrecks pose a material safety risk / hazard.

11. To leave a vehicle on the road reserve it also must be registered and warranted, a large number of these do not meet this criteria and may never meet this criteria based on condition. Auckland Transport in conjunction with Auckland Council are in the process of removing abandoned vehicles from the Island during the month of June 2016. Community consultation and engagement with vehicle owners occurred during May.

Local Board Transport Fund

12. The Waiheke Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $200,000 per annum. The Board has $847,823 allocated of their Local Board Transport Fund, including $47,823 from the 2016/17 allocation.

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

Waiheke Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term (Four years including 2012-13)	$ 800,000
Spent to Date on Completed Projects (including money spent on cancelled projects)	$ 493,523
Committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$ 285,000	61%	Percentage of these committments spent to date.
Total of Projects assessed to a Rough Order of Cost (ROC) stage but not approved by the LB.	$ -
Funds available from the next political term (2016-17)	$ 152,177	This is the full 2016-17 Waiheke LBTCF budget.

Local consultation undertaken

14. Public consultation will be undertaken on the proposal listed in the table below. Whilst feedback was sought from the local board’s delegated portfolio holders, if the local board so wishes, it can choose to make its feedback through formal resolutions.

Proposal

Time frame

No Stopping Restriction Beatty Parade, Waiheke

Auckland Transport are proposing extending the no stopping at all times (NSAAT) restriction on Beatty Parade.

The current restriction ends at #11, however due to the narrowness of the road past #13 it is creating a dangerous narrow bottleneck for vehicles and cyclists.

The proposal is to extend the NSAAT for 44m

The local board indicated support for the proposal.

Auckland Transport has consulted with local residents on the proposal with an agreed road road width of 4 metres.

Media

Kiwi carpool week, 6-12 June 2016

15. Let’s Carpool website is an easy way to find a carpool match. Auckland residents were asked to join the rapidly expanding community of members to find carpool partners for regular commutes or a one-off trip to save money, meet new people, improve travel times and help the environment. For further information, please refer to Attachment C.

Regional Safety Belt Awareness Campaign, 29 May to 26 June 2016.

16. Auckland Transport is delivering a regional campaign to raise awareness and to remind people to always wear their safety belt/seat belt and that safety belts save lives.

17. In the past year there has been a significant issue around the increase of fatal and serious injuries on Auckland roads which could have been prevented if the driver/passengers were wearing a safety belt. In 2015, 92 people who died in crashes on New Zealand’s roads were not wearing their seat belt. More than half of these people are likely to have survived if they had taken the time to make it click (60% increased survival rate for those sitting in the front). It is a legal requirement that all cars in the front and back seats must be fitted with a safety belt and passengers in a seat with a safety belt must wear the safety belt.

18. The campaign is primarily targeting males aged between 20 and 40 years. Between 2011 and 2015, 110 males were fatally or seriously injured for not wearing seat belts, while only 10 females were fatally or seriously injured during the same period.

19. The key objective is to contribute towards a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries in crashes relating to drivers/passengers not wearing their safety belt and the associated social cost.

Customer service enquiries

20. During May, a total of 100 customer service enquires were made to Auckland Transport’s contact centre in regards to issues within the Waiheke Local Board area. Of which, 73 have been resolved, 26 remain active and are still in progress and 1 was either a duplicate or cancelled later.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

24. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the council’s annual plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Attachments