Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

An apology from Member M Williamson has been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 14 December 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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.

8.1 Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre

Hellen Wilkins has requested a deputation to provide an update on the Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Ms Wilkins for her presentation.

8.2 Torbay Business Improvement District Update

Mrs Carole McMinn has requested a deputation to provide an update to the local board on the Torbay Business Improvement District.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Mrs McMinn for her presentation.

8.3 Mairangi Bay Business Improvement District Update

Ms Joanne Martin has requested a deputation to provide an update to the local board on the Mairangi Bay Business Improvement District.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Ms Martin for her presentation.

8.4 Browns Bay and Hibiscus Coast Citizens Advice Bureaux Update

Representatives from the Browns Bay and Hibiscus Coast Citizens Advice Bureaus will be in attendance to provide an update on their work.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Ms de Koster and Mr Dykes for their presentations.

8.5 Whangaparaoa Family Centre

Representatives of the Whangaparaoa Family Centre will be in attendance to discuss potential access problems to their site in Link Crescent.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from the Whangaparaoa Family Centre for their presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

15 February 2017

Netball North Harbour Incorporated Roof Upgrade

File No.: CP2017/00769

Purpose

1. To seek a decision to grant locally driven initiative capital expenditure to Netball North Harbour Incorporated.

Executive summary

2. Netball North Harbour Incorporated is a sub-regional facility based in the Kaipatiki Local Board area that serves all the northern local board areas as well as some central board areas.

3. The roof of the Netball North Harbour facility is in need of major repair to bring it up to standard, make it fit for purpose and to meet the current building code. Options to maintain, remodel or renew the roof have been considered. The preferred option is to renew the roof. The estimated cost including provision for contingencies is $696,000.00.

4. The Local Board Funding Policy 2015 – Handout Nine: Locally Driven Initiatives Capex Criteria provides for Council to fund up to 49% of project cost.

5. Based on the remodel cost, 49% of the total is $321,048.00. Kaipatiki Local Board has resolved (KT/2016/123) to contribute $175,000.00 of their Locally Driven Initiatives Capex to the project; this leaves a remainder of $166,040.00.

6. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has been allocated $585,717 per annum of locally driven initiative capital expenditure budget over the first three years of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

7. Netball North Harbour completed a membership survey in 2016 that broke down their membership by local board area with 23% of their membership residing within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

8. Based on the membership numbers of the three local boards the balance of $166,040.00 could be apportioned as follows: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board ($65,843.00), Devonport-Takapuna Local Board ($60,118.00) and Upper Harbour Local Board ($40,079.00). Note: Rodney has not been included in this calculation due to much lower membership numbers and there are 17 netball courts that are council owned and maintained in the Rodney Local Board area.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve a capital grant of $65,843.00 from their locally driven initiative capital expenditure budget to Netball North Harbour Incorporated.

Comments

Background – LDI Capex

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

10. Using LDI Capex as a grant to a third party means there is no consequential opex for the project in the future. The benefit however is the ability to leverage further third party investment and therefore provide savings to council.

11. Community delivered projects funded through a grant must meet the following criteria according to Local Board Funding Policy 2015 – Handout Nine: LDI Capex Criteria (LBF9):

· A grant can be given to a community group to assist with asset creation where there is a clearly defined “public good” and enduring benefit

· Any grants allocated must be in accordance with the legislative purpose of local government and be compliant with council’s responsibilities as a public entity dispensing public funds

· All recipients of capital grants must complete an application form that details how the funds will be used and agree to the requirement to keep adequate records and submit an accountability report.

o A copy of the application is attached (Attachment A) – note the form is a Community Facility Development form from 2012/2013 as this had all the relevant details needed for project.

Community Partnerships

12. A partnership provides an opportunity for council to assist community groups and organisations to develop a range of community facilities and playing surfaces to give greater access to communities, the members of the organisation and the wider public.

13. According to LBF9, applications for partnership funding must consider the following criteria prior to lodging:

· Does the proposal meet the strategic objectives of the local board plan; the Auckland Plan and other key Auckland Council strategic documents?

o See paragraphs 27-29

· How the proposal addresses gaps in the network; the community need; how the community will access the asset/facility and the usage component of the asset/facility:

o Netball North Harbour is identified in the Auckland Regional Facilities Plan as a Netball Centre that is catering for an area of increased growth and that will be a central administration and competition base.

o Community access is already common practice and will be part of the funding agreement along with usage targets.

· Any partnership proposal requires an externally commissioned project plan / feasibility study outlining the project, including indicative budgets, governance structure and asset renewal programme.

o This is currently being worked through with applicant and will be signed off prior to funding being release. Indicative budgets are included in the report

· Identify how community groups and external agencies will monitor and evaluate the contribution the facility makes to meeting community outcomes to ensure the completed facility and the programmes it undertakes remain relevant in their community.

o This will be included in the funding agreement.

Background – Netball North Harbour

14. The Netball North Harbour Centre is located on council land at Onewa Domain, 44 Northcote Road, Northcote in the Kaipatiki Local Board area.

15. Netball North Harbour Incorporated is a registered Incorporated Society – number 223270 (1952) and holds a community lease for 33 years until 2040 with a right of renewal for a further 33 years.

16. The centre is a key sub-regional facility with 16,000 members and over 400,000 users annually.

17. Netball North Harbour completed a membership survey in 2016 that broke down their membership by local board area:

Local Board area	Membership %	Number
Hibiscus and Bays	23%	2691
Kaipatiki	22%	2574
Devonport-Takapuna	21%	2457
Upper Harbour	14%	1638
Waitemata	8%	936
Rodney	6%	702
Albert Eden	3%	351
Henderson Massey	1%	117
Other	2%	234

18. Netball North Harbour have a long history of making its facilities available to the community and other user groups. They do not lock their courts when not in use by netball and have actively encouraged sports such as tennis to use the courts by purchasing tennis nets. Other users of the facility include North Harbour Volleyball, Futsal, Grey Power, Floral Art, Aglow and Waitemata Health.

19. Netball North Harbour has previously received grants from Auckland Council as detailed below. Netball North Harbour currently do not receive any on-going operational funding from Auckland Council.

Year	Amount	Project	Scheme
2016	$78,000.00	Annual maintenance	Kaipatiki Local Grants and Community Access Grant
2015	$190,000.00	Building refurbishment	Community Facility Development Fund
2014	$191,243.00	Upgrade lights and courts	Community Facility Development Fund

20. The Community Facility Development Fund was a sub-regional fund that supported the development of community owned facilities. The decisions for the above grants were made by a sub-regional committee made up of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays (East Coast Bays Subdivision) Local Boards.

Current project

21. The Netball North Harbour building was originally built in 1975 and has not received the required preventative maintenance since opening due to the priority of funding addressing court and other upgrades directly increasing participation. This has led to the building needing major repair work to bring it up to a fit for purpose standard that meets current building codes.

22. Since February 2013 Netball North Harbour has engaged professional consultants to prepare a building condition report and obtain quotes for the required work. Three options have been considered: maintain, re-model or renew their roof and replace windows to ensure the building is fit for purpose for the future. The three options including a provision for contingency are:

Project	Cost	Impact
Maintenance	$58,850.00	Roof will be held together for further 3-5 years
Roof re-model	$655,200.00	Current roof will be brought up to current building code
Roof renew	$696,000.00	Current roof will be replaced

23. A roof renew is the preferred option due to the fact that it will be the lowest impact on the activities at the centre. A roof renewal will allow a new roof to be built off-site and transported onto the building in three separate one week windows. A roof re-model would require the building to be closed for approximately 17 weeks.

24. LBF9 allows council to fund up to 49% of project budget if the asset is community group owned on council land and the group is responsible for operating costs and maintenance.

25. Based on the re-model cost 49% of the total is $321,048. Kaipatiki Local Board has resolved (KT/2016/123) to contribute $175,000.00 of their LDI Capex to the project; this leaves a remainder of $166,040.00 to be funded.

26. Based on the numbers from the membership survey, splitting the remainder of $166,040.00 between Devonport-Takapuna, Hibiscus and Bays and Upper Harbour Local Boards could be achieved as follows:

Devonport-Takapuna	$60,118.00
Hibiscus and Bays	$65,843.00
Upper Harbour	$40,079.00

Note: Rodney has not been included in this calculation due to much lower membership numbers and there are 17 netball courts that are council owned and maintained in the Rodney Local Board area..

Strategic alignment

27. Investment into this project aligns with Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan Outcome: “Provide quality community facilities throughout our area”

28. Investment into this project aligns with Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan initiative 8.2: “Promote and prioritise investment into partnerships to provide multisport and multi-use recreation and sport facilities.”

29. Investment into this project aligns with Auckland Plan, Chapter Five, Priority 2: “Prioritise and Optimise Our Recreation and Sports Facilities, Public Open Space Use and the Capability of Recreation and Sport Organisations”

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. In 2014/2015 the sub-regional committee for the Community Facility Development Fund made up of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays (East Coast Bays Subdivision) Local Boards supported Netball North Harbour projects.

31. Netball North Harbour completed a membership survey in 2016 that broke down their membership by local board area with 23% of their memberships residing within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Māori impact statement

32. The upgrade of this facility will be of great benefit to the Māori population of Hibiscus and Bays which is 5.8% or 5,001 according to the 2013 census.

Implementation

33. There is existing budget available within the Local Boards Locally Driven Initiatives Capital Expenditure budget should the local board support the recommendation.

34. The Sport and Recreation team will support the partnership by creating a funding agreement between Netball North Harbour and Auckland Council. The agreement will identify clear community access, asset management, maintenance and reporting criteria, as well as a requirement that the remaining funding be secured before the grant is released.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Group Funding Application Form 2012/2013	15

Signatories

Authors

Mathew Walsh - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Sharon Rimmer - Manager Sport and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

15 February 2017

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
Quarter 2, 1 October - 31 December 2016

File No.: CP2017/00601

Purpose

1. To provide an integrated quarterly performance report for Quarter 2, 2016/2017 against the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement work programme.

Executive summary

2. This report provides an integrated view of performance for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, including financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against each operating department work programme and any risks associated with delayed delivery against the Hibiscus and Bays 2016/2017 Work Programme.

3. Of significance this quarter, the new Hibiscus and Bays Local Board was inaugurated at a ceremony held at Estuary Arts Centre, Orewa in early November 2016. Two celebrations were held at the beginning of December 2016, one to officially open the Sherwood Reserve destination playground and the second to open the refurbished Stoney Homestead at Millwater as a community hub. Local board members attended prize-giving ceremonies at various local secondary schools as well as the last Citizenship Ceremony for 2016. Torbay was again showcased as the Sir Peter Blake Regatta was held in the first week of December 2016 closely followed by the Youth Worlds Sailing Championships (for the first time in New Zealand). Many local centres enjoyed colourful Christmas Parades and carnivals supported by the local board.

4. The Work Programme Snapshot for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Attachment A) shows a positive trend that overall delivery is meeting expectations, with a few exceptions.

5. Overall net operating costs are tracking over budget year to date predominantly due to a one-off accounting adjustment to correct prior year revenue recognition for Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre. Capital spend progress for this quarter includes local board plan key initiative projects Stanmore Leisure Centre upgrade and equipment renewal, Murrays Bay wharf and toilets and the completion of Stoney Homestead. Key initiatives are generally progressing without issues. It would be prudent to prioritise the allocation of the Locally Driven Initiative Capex funding to specific projects to ensure they are included in the 2017/2018 work programmes going forward. Further detail is provided in Attachment B.

6. Key Performance Measures (Attachment C) for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board show a trend that 75 per cent of measures will be achieved by year-end. This is explained in further detail in the Key Performance Indicators section.

7. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment D), with the majority of items reported as ‘green’ status (on track), except for ten items with ‘amber’ status (some delays).

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Council Quarterly performance report: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for Quarter 2, 1 October - 31 December 2016.

Comments

8. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has an approved 2016/2017 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events, approved on 15 June, 2016

· Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 15 June, 2016

· Libraries and Information, approved on 15 June 2016

· Community Facility Renewals, approved on 15 June 2016

· Community Leases, approved on 15 June 2016

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services, approved on 20 July 2016

· Local Economic Development, approved 20 July 2016.

9. The Work Programme Snapshot for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Attachment A) shows a positive trend that overall delivery is meeting expectations, with exceptions occurring in the following areas:

· Operational model for Orewa Community Centre (#3596)

· Sherwood Reserve Toilet physical build (#2788)

· Small Enhancement Initiatives (#504)

· Amorino Park Walkway and Utility renewals (#3207)

· Hibiscus and Bays – Kingsway SID (#3999)

· Nippon Judo club – Sewage and Stormwater System (#4013)

· South Avenue Reserve Walkway and Structure renewals (#4024)

· Stanmore Bay Park 3 sandfield renewal (#3216)

· Tindalls Beach Coastal Structure renewals (#3202)

· Waiake Beach Reserve Toilet renewal (#3200)

Financial performance

10. Financial performance of the local board against Quarter 2, 2016/2017 is on track overall (Attachment B); however there are some points to be aware of:

· Capital investment in the quarter totalled $6.8m. Most of this investment has been in the local parks, sport and recreation activity totalling $5.7m, with community services contributing $1.1m.

· Net cost of service was $7.5m for Quarter Two. The operating net cost of service is over budget. Lower operating revenue is the main cause of this variance due to a one-off accounting adjustment required to correct prior year revenue recognition for Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre.

· The Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) spend in this period included a quick response grant distribution of a further $24k for the quarter. This leaves 53% ($188k) of the available grant pool to be allocated.

· A Funding Impact Statement (FIS) is included in the quarterly report for each local board. The FIS is one of the key statements included in the Annual Plan. Essentially it pulls together all the information from each of the different groups of activities and sets out in a single statement the sources of both the operating and capital funding for everything that the local board does. The format of the FIS has been prescribed in legislation. The intention is that the FIS provides a more understandable picture of what the local board is spending money on and how expenditure is funded.

Key performance measures

11. In summary, key performance measures show that:

· Year-end outlook is for 75 per cent of measures to be achieved.

· The year-end outlook is below target for some measures in local parks, sports and recreation, and local community services that need to be addressed.

12. Measures that are not on track to be achieved include:

· Percentage of funding/grant applicants satisfied with information, assistance and advice provided. A series of community workshops is planned for FY17 to build community groups’ capacity to submit quality applications and to provide further advice to applicants, which should improve the result for this measure.

· Percentage of Aucklanders that feel connected to their neighbourhood and local community. The empowered communities approach being implemented in FY17 aims to improve this result.

Note: not all key performance measures will have a quarterly performance indicator. Further detail is provided in Attachment C.

Key initiatives updates from the 2016/2017 work programme

13. All operating departments with an approved 2016/2017 work programme have provided performance report updates via SharePoint for quarter one (Attachment D). The following are progress updates against key initiatives identified in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan:

· The Hibiscus and Bays Greenways Plan was adopted in December 2016. This plan will assist local board members to prioritise future works to establish walking and cycling connections throughout the local board area.

· Refurbishment of the Stoney Homestead at Millwater was completed and an opening celebration was held to mark the occasion. The homestead, under the management of the Stoney Homestead Trust, is available for a variety of community uses.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. This report informs the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board of the performance to date for the period ending 31 December, 2016.

Māori impact statement

15. Key initiatives in the local board plan that have an influence on achieving outcomes for Māori include:

a) continuing to support the relocation and development of Te Herenga Waka o Orewa Marae at Silverdale – a business breakfast and meeting facilitated by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the local board was hosted at Te Herenga Waka o Orewa Marae early in December 2016.

b) continuing to support the youth connections programme in our area – a funding agreement has been signed for the 2016/2017 year with Coast Youth Community Trust (CYCT) and grant funding has been provided to the Hibiscus Coast Youth Centre

c) a range of environmental initiatives aimed at enhancing and protecting our rivers, streams and special areas that have high ecological value – work underway is focussed around the Love our Bays, Weiti River restoration, and North-West Wildlink programmes.

Implementation

16. The Senior Advisor Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will continue to facilitate performance updates to the local board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work Programme Snapshot 16/17 Q2	31
b ⇩	Financial Performance 16/17 Q2	33
c ⇩	Key Performance Measures 16/17 Q2	39
d ⇩	Work Programme 16/17 Q2 report	45

Signatories

Authors	Michelle Sanderson – Senior Local Board Advisor, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

15 February 2017

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, December 2016

File No.: CP2017/00776

Purpose

1. To provide updates to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on the current status of its Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects, responses to resolutions made by the local board and issues raised by elected members, and provide information on matters of specific application and interest to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Executive summary

2. This report provides information on:

· Looking ahead – transport for future growth areas;

· Road Resurfacing;

· Small changes to bus, train and ferry fares;

· Riverside Road, Orewa – Culvert Replacement;

· Whangaparaoa Road Dynamic Laning Project;

· Hibiscus Coast Busway Station;

· Penlink;

· Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s Transport Capital (LBTCF) Projects;

· Consultations on regulatory processes;

· Traffic Control Committee results; and

· Issues raised by elected members.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) notes the Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for December 2016.

Comments

Looking ahead – transport for future growth areas

3. A strategic transport plan for the major growth areas in Auckland’s northern, north-western and southern areas has reached a major milestone with the boards of Auckland Transport (AT) and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) approving the overarching 30-year plan for supporting future urban growth areas. AT, Auckland Council (AC) and NZTA collaborated to identify the transport networks needed to support future urban areas in the north, northwest, and southern Auckland, working closely with a wide range of stakeholders, as well as mana whenua, local boards, businesses and local communities, to develop their aspirations for each of the growth areas and to comment on the transport initiatives recommended.

4. The programme will help to support growth that is on a scale never seen before in the region, comprising 15,000 hectares of ‘greenfields’ (undeveloped) land, with a capacity for 110,000 new homes and 50,000 new jobs. The plan was formerly known as the Transport for Future Urban Growth programme (TFUG).

5. The programme will begin delivering some of the key priorities laid out in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (collaboration between AC and the New Zealand Government). It also supports the council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy which sets out a programme for sequencing the release of future urban land to house Auckland’s growing population as infrastructure becomes available.

6. Whenuapai is one of the earliest future urban growth areas for development, with the plan anticipating 8,100 to 9,600 dwellings and 8,600 jobs over the next five to 20 years. Public feedback on the Whenuapai Structure Plan, which is being used to guide development, stressed the importance of key transport links, improved public transport and walking and cycling connections.

7. AC’s ability to plan for Auckland’s residential and commercial growth has been accelerated by this joint-working approach which will ensure that land use and transport are well integrated before development occurs, and the potential to create new communities that are great to work, live and play in, with easy access to jobs and the rest of the region, is maximised.

8. Now that the 30-year transport network plans have been approved by the boards of AT and NZTA, it is intended to work on the design and construction of individual projects over the next five to 10 years.

9. Those involved in the process agree that planning and delivering infrastructure for Auckland’s growing population can’t happen in isolation, it takes many agencies working collaboratively to tackle these challenges. The alignment project has shown that a clear set of priorities can be laid out when agencies work together.

10. Further information is available at at.govt.nz/projects or nzta.govt.nz/projects. Representatives from the three organisations involved in the process will brief the local board on the outcomes in 23 March 2017.

Road Resurfacing

11. Roads require periodic resurfacing (resealing) to keep the sealed surface waterproof and to maintain good skid resistance. The bitumen in the surfacing oxidises over time causing it to become brittle and either crack, unravel or lose chip. Similarly, the chip can become polished and/or the road surface flushed resulting in a loss of skid resistance.

12. This process is similar to maintenance of a painted house; when this is left too long water penetrates the paint surface, resulting in costlier repairs. If roads are resurfaced at the right time, the surface remains waterproof, skid resistance is maintained and surface water does not penetrate the road pavement.

13. Roads are resurfaced using either a chip seal or a thin asphaltic concrete surfacing (hotmix). Generally, chip seals have a life of 8-12 years and cost in the order of $4-8 m², while hotmix can be expected to last 10 - 14 years and costs $20-30 m²,depending on the type of mix used.

14. Chip seals are therefore the most cost-effective method of resurfacing and in many situations are the only method that can practically be used to restore the road surface to a suitable condition. Hotmix is generally only used on high trafficked roads (those carrying more than 10,000 vehicles per day), or in high stress areas such as at intersections or cul-de-sac heads.

15. Each resurfacing site is subject to a specific seal design and the choice of surfacing and chip size used is dependent on factors such as the traffic volumes and loading, the existing surface texture and pavement strength, turning stresses etc. Chip seals can be either single or two coat seals, though in most cases two coat seals are used as they are more resistant to turning stresses. Prior to resurfacing, pre-seal repairs such as dig outs, crack sealing and surface levelling are undertaken.

16. Chip seals also continue to shed excess chip for several months following resurfacing which is a nuisance for adjoining landowners and can create the mistaken impression that the new chip seal surface is defective. New chip seals, particularly two-coat seals, can therefore require 4-5 sweeps to remove excess chip from the surface.

17. It is also usual for the bitumen to soften during warm weather for several years following application, until such time as the kerosene fully evaporates from the bitumen. At this time it will be susceptible to scuffing from turning vehicles, but these areas can be treated with the application of fresh sealing chip.

18. Many of the enquiries AT receives about resurfacing result from existing aged hotmix surfaces being resurfaced with chip seal when they reach the end of their serviceable life. Most hotmix surfaces were constructed by developers at the time of subdivision so when they are resurfaced with chip seal residents complain. The need to periodically resurface the road to avoid water ingress into the road pavement is often not understood by residents and they consider the rougher chip seal surface to be inferior to that of the smoother hotmix. Residents can be reassured in these circumstances that chip sealing is the most cost-effective use of their ratepayer funds.

Small changes to bus, train and ferry fares

19. AT is required to carry out an annual review of all public transport fares, as set out in the Regional Public Transport Plan. The annual review takes into account the operating cost increases (such as fuel and labour), cost of living, together with the investment needed to provide additional services and improve and upgrade necessary infrastructure (including ferry terminals, train stations and bus stops).

20. There are also national requirements that AT needs to comply with, such as the proportion of the total fare that it recovers from (or charges to) fare paying passengers; AT’s target is 50 per cent. The rest of the fare is subsidised by a combination of Auckland ratepayers and taxpayers.

21. As a result of this annual review, bus, train and ferry fares changed from 29 January 2017.

22. Compared to many other cities, Auckland short distance fares are relatively low so small increases to fares for shorter trips were made. Fares for longer trips, those beyond 4 Zones, did not change, with the aim of reducing congestion by making public transport fares attractive for people making longer journeys.

23. Public transport in Auckland still represents very good value for customers. AT has added a number of new services over the past year, such as the introduction of 65 double decker buses, the continued roll out of its new bus network, the addition of 19 km of bus lanes in the year to June 2017, rail service increases on the Western line, and Simpler Fares, which allow customers to take a bus, train or a combination of both and pay just the one fare for the entire journey.

24. In the year to the end of December 2016, 84.8 million trips were taken on public transport in Auckland, an increase of 4.6 percent since July. AT reduced the cost of public transport over that period by an average of 7 percent through Simpler Fares and encouraging customers paying cash to transition to HOP, which represents at least a 20 percent saving.

25. The main changes made were:

· AT HOP bus and train fares for 1 Zone, 2 Zones and 4 Zones increased by 5 cents and 10 cents;

· Cash bus and train fares for 1 Zone and 2 Zones increased by 50 cents;

· AT HOP tertiary student bus and rail fares increased by 4 to 8 cents between 1 Zone and 4 Zones to ensure a consistent discount compared to AT HOP adult fares;

· AT HOP Monthly Bus & Train Pass increased by $10;

· Ferry fares reflect a mix of increases and decreases to continue the alignment by distance travelled in preparation for full ferry fare integration;

· AT HOP adult and child fares are at least 25 percent lower than the equivalent cash fare;

· AT HOP child fares are at least 40 percent lower than adult AT HOP; and

· AT HOP tertiary fares are at least 20 percent lower than adult AT HOP.

26. Further information on the fare changes is available at https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/service-announcements/public-transport-fare-changes/

Riverside Road, Orewa – Culvert Replacement

27. AT engaged Wharehine Construction Ltd to carry out a scheduled replacement of the Riverside Road, Orewa culvert during January 2017, with construction to be completed prior to the start of the school term.

28. Riverside Road was closed to through traffic due to the nature of the work, with the contractor maintaining access for businesses and residents whose properties are within the work area and other motorists being advised to detour via Doment Crescent and Hatton Road.

29. The work was completed on time and the road closure lifted on Sunday, 29 January 2017.

30. The following photographs show the extent of the work which took place:

Watermain installed, livened up, and backfilled Kerb blocks being installed

Whangaparaoa Road Dynamic Laning Project

31. Following discussion at the local board meeting on 15 December 2016, AT staff will update the local board on the Dynamic Laning Project in March 2017.

Hibiscus Coast Busway Station

32. Following discussion at the local board meeting on 15 December 2016, AT staff will update the local board Stage II of the Hibiscus Coast Busway Station in March 2017.

Penlink

33. Following discussion at the local board meeting on 15 December 2016, AT staff will update the local board on the Penlink project in March 2017.

Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s Transport Capital (LBTCF) Projects

34. As at 9 December 2016 the balance of LBTCF funds available to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for allocation prior to 30 June 2019 was $1,786,468, comprising:

· $468,026 from the 2016/2017 financial year;

· $649,799 from the 2017/2018 financial year; and

· $668,643 from the 2018/2019 financial year.

35. An additional amount of $688,702 is available to the local board from the 2019/2020 financial year commencing on 1 July 2019.

36. Members should now be giving some thought to projects which may benefit from the monies available over the course of the current political term. Criteria for projects constructed using the LBTCF, as set by Auckland Council’s original Strategy and Finance resolutions, are:

· The project is a CAPEX project that creates a physical transport asset;

· The project does not compromise safety; and

· The project does not compromise network efficiency.

37. The above criteria need to be satisfied before a project can be considered under the rules governing this fund.

38. The following LBTCF guidelines are designed to assist local boards in comparing different proposals to determine the best projects:

· The project should align with one of the local board’s Local Board Plan (LBP) strategic outcomes, the intention being to encourage local boards to undertake projects that they have either explicitly consulted on, or that contribute towards the outcomes detailed in their LBPs.

· The project should benefit the overall transport network by creating new links and/or facilities. The LBTCF is designed to deliver transport outcomes, i.e. improve the public’s ability to move around or provide added benefits to them as they travel (seats, short-cuts, water fountains, etc.). This guideline is around maximising the benefits generated by the use of the fund.

· Very few projects will benefit an entire community, but some thinking around the numbers and/or percentages should ensure that the project is seen as worthwhile by as many as possible.

· Some members of the community are less experienced, confident or able in terms of using existing transport systems (roads, footpaths, cycleways, rail and bus stations etc.) so thought should be given to whether the very young, elderly or less mobile members of the community will benefit.

· The project should represent good value for the local board’s area, i.e. the cost of the project, its benefits and the percentage impact of the board’s overall fund should represent good value outcomes for the money spent.

· The project could add value by augmenting one of AT’s current or immediate future projects. An add-on to an existing AT project will be more cost effective because many of the inherent costs such as traffic management and work site establishment will have been covered by the AT project. This means that less of the local board’s money will be required.

· Members should consider whether a project is likely to attract additional funding from AT, Auckland Council (AC) or NZTA as some projects align with others these organisations are looking to undertake. If this is the case, there may be the opportunity for contributions to the project budget from these organisations.

· If the project is specifically documented in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) then by definition it is a strategic transport project and this enhances its overall value. However, a local board wanting to bring forward a project in the RLTP needs to be able to fund the entire project, or at least a separable standalone part of the project. (The standalone part would need to deliver the necessary value without the rest of the project being built.)

· If the project is included in the RLTP, the sooner it is scheduled the less value the local board gains. However, if the project is five or more years away the local board could achieve benefit for the community by delivering it sooner rather than later.

· Assets that require significant consequential OPEX to maintain represent a major additional cost over and above the initial project build cost and this needs to be factored into the decision making process.

39. The score sheet below is designed for the use of local boards when considering transport projects, its purpose being to assist in the evaluation of different projects against a common set of value propositions. It is a comparative tool designed for evaluating projects against each other, based on the factors considered important by each local board and its community. The scores are intended as a starting point and should be altered as required.

	How worthwhile is this project when everything is taken into account?	Score
A.	Does the project align with one of your Local Board Plan strategic outcomes? (No = 0, Yes = 3)
B.	Does the project benefit the overall transport network by creating new links and/or facilities? (A little = 1, A lot = 5)
C.	How many people will the project benefit? (A few local residents = 1, Many members of the community = 5)
D.	Are the people who will benefit from the project the very young, elderly or mobility impaired? (No = 0, A few = 1, Many = 3)
E.	Considering costs versus benefits gained, does this project represent good value for your local board area? (Low value = 1, High value = 3)
F.	How much is this project adding value by augmenting an existing or future AT, AC or NZTA project? (Nil = 0, High = 3)
G.	How likely is this project to attract additional funding from AT, AC or other parties? (Nil = 0, High = 3)
H.	Is this project identified in the RLTP? (No = 0, Yes = 3)
I.	If it is in the RLTP, when is it scheduled for implementation? (Months = 0, in 1-2 years = 1, in 3-4 years = 2, in 5 plus years = 3)
J.	Consequential OPEX (High = 0, Low = 2, Very Low = 3 [e.g. a concrete footpath])
	TOTAL SCORE

40. The only LBTCF project nominated by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board yet to be completed is Project 411, Torbay Revitalisation. The first stage of construction for this commenced in September 2016.

41. At the request of retailers in the project area, the second stage of the work which had been scheduled to recommence on 16 January 2017 was delayed until 7 February 2017.

42. The image below shows the extent of the work still to be carried out, the blue area showing the area being reconstructed to the new streetscape design on the northern side of the road:

43. In order to minimise disruption to local businesses, the work area will be split into six smaller zones of work. It is intended that work will be fully completed in one zone before moving on to the next to reduce the impact on individual businesses. However, temporary traffic management will be deployed along the full length of the site (indicated in pink on the plan above) during the remainder of the works because of the health and safety obligations for both the workers on site and members of the public, the additional traffic management allowing room for safety zones, truck movements, and the maintenance of safe passage for pedestrians and motorists through the worksite.

44. The aim is to complete the work by April 2017 as efficiently as possible with minimum disruption to the public, maintaining access to all shops and businesses at all times throughout the remaining construction period.

Consultations on Regulatory Processes

45. Further to a previous consultation to manage the high demand of school bus services for Orewa College on Riverside Road, Orewa, a variation to the previously proposed solution was sent to the local board's Transport Spokespersons (TS) on 30 November 2016. No objections were received from the local board.

46. A proposal to install two speed tables at 79 and 87 Bay Street, Red Beach, was forwarded to the local board's TS on 1 December 2016. No objections were received from the local board.

47. Documentation describing a proposal to install No Stopping at all Times (NSAAT) restrictions on Cashel Street, Torbay, in response to concerns that emergency vehicles and rubbish collection trucks have difficulty accessing the properties in the cul de sac, was sent to the local board's TS on 6 December 2016. Member Parfitt acknowledged that the restrictions were needed but indicated concern about the loss of on-street parking. No other comments/objections were received from the local board.

48. Following the review of feedback from residents, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and members of the wider community to a proposal to install a cycle lane along Browns Bay Road between Beach Road and Knights Road, Browns Bay, AT decided to make changes to the original proposal. Details of the changes were forwarded to the local board's TS on 12 December 2016. Member Cooper advised that he thought the changes made addressed the main concerns of right turn accesses, and Member Parfitt advised that she was pleased that the revised proposal allows the continuing use of Knights Road from Browns Bay which the previous proposal precluded. A copy of the consultation feedback summary requested by Members Cooper and Parfitt and was provided on 15 December 2016. No objections to the proposal were received from the local board.

49. Information explaining a programme undertaken by the police and prioritised nationwide to select locations with the highest rate of speed related death/injury crashes for the installation of speed cameras was forwarded to the local board's TS and Member Bettany on 19 January 2017 with a request for comments no later than 2 February 2017. They were advised that AT had been asked to approve the sites because the equipment will be installed on AT-managed roads; this proposal related to a site on East Coast Road. In response to questions about the site Members Parfitt and Fitzgerald were advised that the site was rated 76th on the nationwide priority list and, in terms of pure crash numbers, there had been three serious injury crashes and four minor injury crashes reported during the last 5 years. The criteria for ‘speed related’ crashes give greater weighting to mid-block loss of control type crashes and less weighting to intersection crashes. In terms of speeding, this site also has significant problems. A traffic count undertaken in the second half of August 2016 at a location where the speed limit is 80 km/h showed the mean speed as 82.54 km/h, therefore the average driving speed is marginally over the speed limit; it showed the 85th percentile speed as 91km/h, so 15% of drivers driving 11 km/h or more over the limit; and the 95th percentile speed as 97.7km/h, so 1 in 20 drivers exceeds the limit by more than 17 km/h.

50. Documentation describing a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions along John Downs Drive, Browns Bay, in response to public concerns regard the lack of visibility caused by parked vehicles, was forwarded to the local board's TS and Member Bettany on 31 January 2017 with a request for response no later than Tuesday, 14th February 2017. Member Bettany advised that she supported the proposed no stopping lines. Member Parfitt advised that her only concerns was that the proposal takes out more on-street parking which, with increased intensification, is becoming even more in demand. She added that it will be interesting to read what the local residents who could be potentially impacted feel.

Traffic Control Committee Results

Decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee over the period July – December 2016 in relation to regulatory processes are listed as Attachment A.

Issues Raised by Elected Members

51. Attachment B lists those issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 31 January 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

52. This report is for the Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

54. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays TCC Decisions	77
b ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Issues	81

Signatories

Authors	Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager North, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Manager, Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

15 February 2017

Approve of Road Name at 260 Vaughans Road Okura

File No.: CP2017/00465

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the road name for the new public road recently constructed to serve the seven lot subdivision being undertaken by Long Bay Communities Limited, at 260 Vaughans Road, Okura.

Executive summary

2. A condition of the subdivision consent requires the applicant, Long Bay Communities Limited to suggest to council a name for the new public road recently constructed to serve the seven lot subdivision.

3. Long Bay Communities Limited has submitted the name Piripiri Point Drive for local board approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the proposed road name Piripiri Point Drive for the new public road constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by Long Bay Communities Limited at 260 Vaughans Road, Okura, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974

Comments

4. The applicant is Long Bay Communities Limited and the site address is 260 Vaughans Road, Okura.

5. The applicant has submitted the following name for the new public road constructed to service the subdivision.

Piripiri Point Drive

Piripiri has various English translations from Maori including fern and other plant types, the Rifleman (NZ’s smallest bird) and keep close etc however the name has been selected primarily as it refers to the road’s close geographical context with Piripiri Point.

6. The councils road naming guidelines require that road names reflect either:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area or;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature or

· an existing theme or introduce a new thematic identity to the development or area.

7. Names also need to be easily identifiable, easy to pronounce and spell, and intuitively clear to minimise confusion. The use of Maori names is encouraged where appropriate and names should not be duplicated in the wider Auckland region for safety reasons.

8. The applicant has chosen the name due to its close geographical context with Piripiri Point.

9. The name meets the assessment criteria.

10. The name is not duplicated within the wider Auckland area and accordingly meets NZ Post and Land Information New Zealand requirements.

11. The guideline suggests the road type be referred to as a Road, Street or Drive. The road type Drive meets the guideline.

12. A plan showing the location of the road is attached. (Attachment A)

13. 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 the local boards.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

15. The decision sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications

Māori impact statement

16. The applicant has consulted with all local iwi groups and has received support from Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Trust. No feedback has been received from other iwi groups consulted

Implementation

17. The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the Applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

18. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	New Road Name at 260 Vaughans Road Okura	89

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
Members	Chris Bettany
	David Cooper
	Gary Holmes
	Caitlin Watson
	Vicki Watson
	Mike Williamson

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager