Agenda of Māngere-ŌtāhuhuLocal Board

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

15 March 2017

Auckland Transport Update - March 2017

File No.: CP2017/03152

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to; respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), request approval for new LBTCF projects, provide a summary of consultation material sent to the Board and, provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board (MOLB) and its community.

Executive summary

2. This month no decision is required but information is provided about the following matters:

· A Local Board Transport Capital Fund update.

· Auckland Transport’s strategic alignment.

· The Local Board Transport Capital Fund including an update on existing projects.

· Auckland Transport projects.

Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) Note the Auckland Transport Update – March 2017.

Comments

Responding to Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Resolutions

3. The Auckland Transport’s resolution response is below::

Resolution number MO/2016/53c

That the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board:

c) Notes that Auckland Transport does not agree with and will not facilitate providing signage to ensure dedicated local board member parking at the rear of the local board office at Shop 17, Mangere Town Centre, and 93 Bader Drive.

d) Requests the Chief Executive of Auckland Transport to re-examine the provision of parking at the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board office for local board members, as a practical response to this request and the policies of Auckland Council that support elected members’ in carrying out their roles and functions.

4. Sub para’s of the ‘Resolution’ (c) and (d) have now been addressed by Auckland Transport. The request for replacement signage has been reviewed by two teams in Auckland Transport:

· The Southern Maintenance Team; and

· The Parking Team.

5. The Southern Manager Maintenance Team has reviewed the signage and concluded that the signs are not legal therefore cannot simply be replaced. The signs aren’t legal because the car parks are in an area that is legally ‘road’. The existing ‘reserved’ car parks have not been through the required process of Traffic Control Committee (TCC) review and endorsement that would make them legally ‘resolved’ reserved car parks.

6. This means that to replace the signs legally, mandated (or ‘resolved’) reserved car parks would be required. This requires a ‘resolution report’ including justifications to be submitted to the TCC for approval.

7. A ‘resolution report’ for the TCC requires the support of the Parking Team. The Parking Team is responsible for all aspects of parking and ensuring that any ‘resolution’ of the TCC is consistent with Auckland Transport policies. In particular the ‘Auckland Transport Parking Strategy 2015’.

8. The Parking Team has reviewed the situation and concluded that there are no grounds to provide reserved parking in this location for following reasons:

· Parking Policy 1A clearly outlines Auckland Transport’s policy for the type of parking restrictions (reserved car parks) will be considered. Examples include ‘Loading Zones’, ‘Mobility Parks’ and ‘Taxi Stands’. Restricted parking for elected members or Council staff is not listed.

· It should be noted that a key change of policy in the most recent parking strategy is the removal of parking permits for elected members. A number of legacy Council’s provided elected members with ‘parking permits’ that allowed them to use time restricted car parks at no cost. Parking permits were discontinued in 2015. Providing restricted on-road parking for elected members would be contrary to this change in policy.

· Parking in the area is relatively abundant. Parking Policy 1B defines the threshold at which parking restrictions of any kind would be considered. This is 85% occupancy. The Mangere Town Centre’s car parks are well below this level.

9. In summary although Auckland Transport acknowledges that there are signs and markings in place; it would not be right to replace an illegal set of signs. Auckland Transport cannot ‘legitimise’ restricted parking areas because to do so would be contrary to established policy.

Strategic Alignment

10. In Mangere-Otahuhu at this time the biggest strategic project is still the ‘New Network’. This project aligns with Chapter 13 of the Auckland Plan, in which Council prioritised the development of ‘a transformational improvement in the speed, capacity, reliability and connectivity of the public transport system’.

11. At this stage Auckland Transport is still completing some stations and monitoring the operational activities on the network. Feedback has been positive and the key indicators are still tracking as predicted.

12. Promotion of new routes in areas that previously had no or limited service.

AT’s actions against advocacy plans

13. This section provides a regular report about how Auckland Transport is supporting the MOLB ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ recorded in the MOLB Local Board Plan. In this report the MOLB’s ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ from the 2013-16 term are recorded in the table below providing a summary of their status.

Table 1: Advocacy Initiative Status

Advocacy Initiative	Key Initiative	Status
A great public transport network that is easy to get to, frequent and reliable	Ōtāhuhu bus and rail interchange project	Completed. This month a coffee kiosk will open in the train station to test the market.
	Māngere bus interchange project	Completed.
Attractive, accessible and safe cycle ways and walkways	Linking of Windrush Close and Waddon Place in Māngere Town Centre	Completed.
Attractive, accessible and safe cycle ways and walkways	Completion of the Peninsula Park walkway in Māngere	Not delivered by Auckland Transport
Safe, attractive and well maintained roads	Delivery of the Future Streets pilot	Completed.

Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF) update

Updates

14. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all Local Boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local Boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. The limitations being that the project must:

· Be safe.

· Not impede network efficiency.

· Be in the road corridor. Although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome.

Projects

15. The MOLB has already put considerable work into identifying possible projects and at the local board meeting on 15 February 2017 the MOLB requested feasibility and ‘Rough Order of Costs’(ROC) for the following projects:

· Upgrading the footpaths in and around the Mangere East Town Centre.

· Building a two lane roundabout at the intersection of Bader Drive and Orly Road.

· Widening Bader Drive in front of the Cosmopolitan Club.

· Building cycling facilities such as ‘pump tracks’ or ‘cycling training tracks’ in Centre Park and or Boggust Park.

16. The MOLB’s projects and their current progress are summarised in the table below:

Table 2: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

Projects	Current Status	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed	Current Status
Upgrading the footpaths in and around the Mangere East Town Centre.		Providing better pedestrian facilities in and around Mangere East.	The initial review of this project has started but at the time this report was written no firm information was available.
Building a two lane roundabout at the intersection of Bader Drive and Idyllwild Road		Easing congestion at the intersection of Bader Drive and Idle wild Roads.	The initial review of this project has started but at the time this report was written no firm information was available.
Widening Bader Drive in front of the Cosmopolitan Club		Remove the road 'narrowings' near the Mangere Town Centre that create congestion on Bader Drive.	The initial review of this project has started but at the time this report was written no firm information was available.
Building cycling facilities such as ‘pump tracks’ or ‘cycling training tracks’ in Centre Park and or Boggust Park		Building better facilities for learning to ride.	The initial review of this project has started. Initial feedback is that building cycle facilities of this nature is outside the remit of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. The matter is being discussed and when it is clarified a report will be made to the MOLB. It is likely that there will be options for delivery of elements of the proposed project (i.e. pathways linking to roads) that the fund could be used to deliver. When the discussion is finished and options are available they will be brought back to the MOLB.
Notes: A ‘traffic light’ code is used to summarise the status of projects. The colours are used as follows: Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and with budget. Orange – An issue has been identified that may need to be resolved. Red - An major issue has been identified that needs to be resolved Black – The project has been investigated and the HLB has decided not to pursue it at this time.

Upcoming projects and activities

Consultations

17. Auckland Transport provides the MOLB with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this Local Board Area.

18. In this reporting period, one project was put forward for comment by the MOLB. It is included in Attachment A.

19. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions are reported on a monthly basis. In December there was one TCC decision in the MOLB area.

Table 2: TCC Monthly Summary December 2016 – January 2017

Street

Area

Work

Decision

Coronation Road

Mangere Bridge

Temporary ‘No Stopping at All Times’

This was for an event the Mangere Wine and Food Festival

Carried

Regional and sub-regional projects

Roads and Streets Framework (RASF) and Transport Design Manual (TDM)

20. Last month Auckland Transport reported that it is reviewing the Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP) and the current classifications of roads in ‘Arterial’, ‘Collector’ and ‘Local’ categories.

21. The RASF is a strategic document that will define a new structure for classifying roads. The RSAF’s aim is to provide classifications that reflect the use of roads by people instead of just their transport efficiency.

22. The aim is to balance ‘place-making’ and ‘movement’ better and to achieve that Auckland Transport will use existing local plans (i.e. town centre plans, master plans etc.) as the basis for classifying existing roads and streets.

23. The TDM will replace the ATCOP and provide technical standards for building road corridor infra-structure.

24. We are introducing the RSAF and the TDM because the current ATCOP and road classification system doesn’t provide enough emphasis on ‘place-making’. Too often efficient ‘movement’ outweighs ‘place-making’ opportunities.

25. Local Boards have told us that this is not how we should be planning and the RASF and TDM have been developed jointly with Auckland Council and will address this problem. The aim being to make guideline for road corridor infra-structure more flexible and responsive to local needs but still maintain high technical standards. The sub-regional workshops are being scheduled for 20 / 27 March 2017. Details will be confirmed soon and invites sent to Members directly.

26. Auckland Transport encourages Local Boards to attend the sub-regional workshops and can organise workshops with individual boards if requested.

Station Upgrades

27. Auckland Transport’s biggest focus in Mangere-Otahuhu is the development of the public transport network and this reporting period the following activity is taking place:

· The upgrade of Middlemore Station continues to progress. This project includes new fences, security gates and installing more lights and cameras. The project is on target to start delivery in the middle of the year.

· The next step in the Auckland Transport retail strategy was taken with the opening of a coffee kiosk at the Otahuhu Station this month. This project is an initial test to assess the market for coffee in this location.

· The Mangere Bus Station is essentially complete but this month will receive a suite of new CCTV cameras, an AT HOP ticket machine and an emergency call button.

· Although they are outside the MOLB area work continues at building the Manukau Bus Station and improving Papatoetoe Station.

· Westfield Station will close this month and new train timetables have been implemented that provide improved services that result from the closure of this station.

Walking School Bus Week 27 February - 3 March 2017

28. Auckland Transport publicises walking school buses by running a promotional week. ‘Walking School Bus Week’. This week involves competitions and events organised for people that participate in and support walking school buses. This year the week has been very successful including:

· We have 180 buses registered and 4300 kids walking. This is a more than double last year’s registrations.

· Dame Valerie Adams walked at Nga Iwi School

· The radio station More FM participated and gave away hot chocolate to kids that walked.

· The NZ Police participated and police dogs came out and walked with a number of buses.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	MOLB Consultations in February	17

Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

15 March 2017

Content of Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local dog access review

File No.: CP2017/01502

Purpose

1. To determine the content of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local dog access review.

Executive summary

2. In 2012, the Governing Body adopted the Dog Management Bylaw (the Bylaw) and the Policy on Dogs (the Policy). The Governing Body delegated the requirement to review dog access rules on local beach and foreshore areas to local boards (GB/2012/157).

3. Under the delegations, local boards can also choose to review dog access rules for local parks, though this is not required.

4. In 2016, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board (the local board) resolved to review its local dog access rules in 2016/17 (MO/2016/29). At this time the local board also requested a report to enable the board to determine the content of the review. This report responds to that request.

5. Staff have identified the following options for the content of the review:

· Option 1: review dog access rules for local beach and foreshore areas

· Option 2: review dog access rules for local beach and foreshore areas and a targeted review of parks.

6. Staff recommend Option 2 as it allows the local board to exercise its delegated authority to determine dog access in beach and foreshore areas, and review selected parks that have dog access issues, such as conflicts with dogs and wildlife concerns.

7. If the local board chooses to change its dog access rules, public consultation is required. Under the both options, the process would be as follows:

· March 2017: staff gather background research on dog access areas to inform proposed changes

· April – May 2017: staff will workshop proposed changes with local board. Local board adopts proposed changes for public consultation

· June 2017: special consultative procedure, including notifying dog owners of any proposed changes through the dog registration process

· September – October 2017: the local board holds public hearings and deliberations and makes its final decisions

· November 2017: report to Governing Body to adopt the local board’s changes.

8. Following the local board’s decision on this report, staff will organise a meeting with the relevant local board portfolio holder to consult on any dog access issues in the local board area.

Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) agrees that its local dog access review will address:

EITHER

i) Option 1: local dog access rules on beach and foreshore areas

ii) Option 2: local dog access rules on beach and foreshore areas, and targeted review of parks with dog access issues or wildlife concerns.

Comments

Background

9. In November 2012, the Governing Body adopted the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the Bylaw) and the Policy on Dogs 2012 (the Policy).

10. At that time, the Governing Body delegated the requirement to review dog access rules on local beach and foreshore areas to local boards (GB/2012/157). Under the delegations, local boards can also choose to review dog access rules for local parks, though this is not required. Decisions about regional dog access rules remain with the governing body.

11. To implement the Governing Body decision, the council prioritised the local dog access reviews. It was intended that council would complete the review of regional beaches, foreshore areas and parks, after the local reviews.

12. Since the adoption of the Bylaw and Policy, 17 local boards have completed their local dog access reviews. Most local boards opted for a review of local beach and foreshore access rules and a targeted review of local parks.

13. The Franklin, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and Manurewa local boards deferred their dog access reviews to coincide with a review of regional parks (FR/2015/200, MT/2016/74, MR/2015/225).

14. On 9 March 2017, staff will present a report to the Regulatory Committee^{^[1]} seeking a decision to review the regional parks, beaches and foreshore areas as part of the wider review of the Bylaw and Policy.

15. In March 2016, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board (the local board) resolved to review its local dog access rules in 2016/2017 (MO/2016/29). At this time the local board also requested a report to enable the local board to determine the content of its review. This report responds to that request.

Process

16. A standard process for the local dog access reviews has been established in order to meet relevant legislative requirements. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires council to notify all dog owners of any proposed changes to dog access rules. Therefore, the process is structured around the annual dog registration reminders letters that are posted in June.

17. Another legislative requirement is for public consultation on proposed changes to follow the special consultative procedure in the Local Government Act 2002.

18. The process for this review is as follows:

· January – March 2017: staff gather background research on dog access areas to inform proposed changes

· April – May 2017: staff will workshop proposed changes with local board. At the local board’s business meeting, staff will request the local board adopts the statement of proposal for public consultation

· June 2017: special consultative procedure, including notifying dog owners of any proposed changes through the dog registration process

· September – October 2017: the local board holds public hearings and deliberations and makes its final decisions

· November 2017: report to Governing Body to adopt the local board’s changes.

19. As with the other local dog access reviews, staff can deliver the following under existing budgets:

· background research and drafting

· public consultation process and notification

· implementation of standard signage.

20. If the local board wishes to undertake additional initiatives, such as additional consultation and notification through local board channels, this will need to be resourced by the local board. Further detail of this process is provided in Attachment B.

Current Māngere-Ōtāhuhu local dog access rules

21. The local board area has both regional and local dog access rules.

22. Regional dog access rules apply to public places such as playgrounds, sports fields, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries and holiday parks. These are outlined in Schedule 1 of the Bylaw.

23. Dog access decisions on regional parks, such as Ambury Regional Park, sit with the Regulatory Committee (GB/2012/157), and are outside the content of this review.

24. The local board’s local dog access rules were inherited from the former Auckland City and Manukau City councils.

25. The local board currently has the following local dog access rules:

· a default under control off a leash rule for all park, beach and foreshore areas in the former Manukau City Council area

· a default under control on a leash rule for all park and foreshore areas in the former Auckland City Council area

· two different sets of time and season rules that apply to beaches in the former Auckland City Council and former Manukau City Council areas respectively

· four dog exercise areas where dogs are allowed under control off a leash at all times, located in the former Auckland City Council area

· an under control on a leash rule for Kiwi Esplanade Reserve

· picnic and fitness apparatus area rules for the former Auckland City Council area

· a specific rule for farm paddocks occupied by stock in the former Manukau City Council area.

26. The full list of these regional and local dog access rules for the local board area is provided in Attachment A.

Options for content of local dog access review

27. A review of dog access rules for local beach and foreshore areas is required to comply with the 2012 Governing Body delegation. The local board has discretion on whether to review local park access rules.

28. Staff have identified the following options for the content of this review:

Option 1: Review dog access rules for local beach and foreshore areas

Option 2: Review of dog access rules for local beach and foreshore areas and targeted review of dog access rules in specific parks.

29. A comprehensive review of dog access rules in all local parks is outside the standard process and cannot be completed within existing baselines.

Option 1: A review of local beach and foreshore dog access rules only

30. Under this option staff will review the dog access rules for local beach and foreshore areas only. In the first instance, the local board will need to determine the most appropriate dog access rule for its beach and foreshore areas.

31. If the local board seeks to establish a time and season rule, it will need to consider the region-wide time and season standard for its local beach and foreshore areas. A ‘time and season’ rule sets out different dog access rules for different times of day, over summer and winter; in order to minimise conflict between dogs and other users.

32. This option also considers sensitive ecological and wildlife areas that are impacted by dogs.

33. The benefits of this option are that:

· public consultation would be less complex as it would only cover matters relevant to beach and foreshore areas

· implementation would be easier.

34. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· issues associated with dog access on parks in the local board area would not be considered as part of the review

· outdated dog access rules that are confusing and difficult to communicate would be retained (e.g. picnic, fitness apparatus and stock rules)

· it would be less integrated as parks adjacent to beach and foreshore areas would not be reviewed concurrently.

Option 2: A review of local beach and foreshore dog access rules and a targeted review of local parks

35. Under this option, staff would review beach and foreshore dog access rules as outlined in Option 1 as well as a targeted review of parks.

36. A targeted review of parks would include:

· parks where there are identified conflicts between dogs and other users

· parks that are well used, to determine the potential for conflict between dogs and other users

· the four current dog exercise areas, to determine if the new definition of ‘dog exercise area’ is appropriate

· parks adjacent to beach and foreshore areas, to ensure an integrated approach to dog access in the coastal environment

· parks that have sensitive ecological and wildlife concerns that are impacted by dogs, to ensure the environmental protection of these areas.

37. To identify parks for inclusion in the review, staff will consult with the biodiversity and biosecurity units, parks experts and meet with the relevant local board portfolio holder.

38. In addition, this option will also review generic rules in the local board area, outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Generic rules to be reviewed

Generic rules		Description
(a)	Dogs on leash on any area that is marked out as ‘picnic area’ or ‘fitness apparatus area’	· a legacy dog access rule in the former Auckland City Council area · rule found to be difficult to communicate to the public and enforce
(b)	Dogs on leash on all farm paddocks on a park occupied by stock	· a legacy dog access rule in the former Manukau City Council area · relevant if there are active farm paddocks occupied by stock, in the local board area
(c )	Default access rules	· when the dog access rule for a park, beach and foreshore areas is not specified, the default dog access rule applies · there are two sets of default access rules that apply to the local board area, which is confusing.

39. The benefits of this option are that it:

· provides an opportunity to consider dog access issues in parks as well as beach and foreshore areas

· provides an opportunity for the local board to review the picnic areas, fitness apparatus and stock rules, and replace these with more relevant rules

· allows for a targeted review of parks where there are conflicts with dogs and other users

· allows for a review of the appropriateness of dog exercise parks.

40. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· it increases the complexity of the dog access review

· public expectation will need to be managed as it is not a review of all parks in the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu area.

Summary and recommended option

41. Under both options, staff would review sensitive ecological and wildlife areas in the local board area and ensure appropriate dog access controls are in place.

42. While Option 1 provides a more focused review of dog access on beach and foreshore areas; Option 2 enables the local board to review dog access rules in other areas where there are conflicts or potential conflicts between dogs and other users.

43. Staff recommend Option 2 as it allows the local board to exercise its delegated authority to determine dog access in beach and foreshore areas, as well as, address potential and actual conflicts between dogs and other users in identified parks.

Next steps

44. Following the local board’s decision on the content of the review, staff will meet with the relevant local board portfolio holder to determine beaches, foreshore areas and parks for inclusion in the review.

45. Public consultation begins in June. Prior to this, staff will workshop proposed changes with the local board. Following which, staff will request that the local board adopt the statement of proposal at its business meeting.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

46. In the previous 17 dog access reviews, most boards opted for a review of beach and foreshore access, as well as a targeted review of parks.

47. The Policy seeks to establish consistency in dog access rules across the region, while considering local dog access needs.

48. Under both options, staff will develop a statement of proposal for public consultation. The local board’s views will be sought in order to develop this proposal. Staff will gather the local board’s feedback through a meeting with the relevant portfolio holder and a local board workshop.

Māori impact statement

49. As part of the 2013-2016 local dog access reviews, feedback from mana whenua representatives focused on the ability of iwi to determine dog access on marae, dog control; responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas, including wildlife areas.

50. Staff will identify sensitive ecological and wildlife areas that require stricter dog access controls.

Implementation

51. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Current dog access rules for Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board area	25
b ⇩	Process for local dog access review	31

Signatories

Authors

Jillian Roe - Policy Analyst

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

15 March 2017

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Community Grants Analysis

File No.: CP2017/02379

Purpose

1. To present an analysis of community grants made by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board in the last electoral term.

Executive summary

2. A new community grants policy was approved by the local board in July 2015. Implementation of the policy has influenced the decision-making of the local board through prioritisation of the board’s community grants to projects to align with local board outcomes, as well as contributing to the vision of Auckland Council of becoming world’s most liveable city. The new community grants policy created different trends from the past (2013 to June 2015) to current (July 2015 to 2016) community grant periods.

2. From 2013 to June 2015, the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board funded organisations and community groups for a wide variety of community projects, not necessarily guided by a clear community grant policy. A total of $181,000 was invested in 2013/14 (Y1) and $138,000 in 2014/15 (Y2) while $111,000 of community grants were funded in 2015/16 (Y3). Community grants investment in Y1 and Y2 was higher than Y3, when the new policy was implemented.

Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board notes the analysis of community grants made by the local board in the last electoral term.

Comments

3. This report delivers an analysis of local board grants applications received, declined and withdrawn for three years over the second electoral term of Auckland Council. It also provides a snapshot of the number of overdue grant accountability reports for the same period.

4. This report also provides insight on different trends emerging since the new grant policy was adopted, including how the local board allocated community grants over the second electoral term after adoption of the new policy.

5. Information is based on minutes and agendas of the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board meetings. It is a summary of the second electoral term and it should be noted that the new grant policy was implemented in July 2015 and applied in 2015/16 financial year (Y3).

6. Auckland Council is made up of 21 local boards. Each local board operates their own local grant policy under the broader umbrella of the Auckland Council Community Grant Policy. Local boards award grants to various community groups and organisations based on assessment of the beneficial significance of the projects to community residents in their local board areas.

Total applications

7. The total applications approved over the period were 127. The number of applications increase year by year. This may be due to factors such as promotion of grant opportunities, repeat applicants and increasing knowledge about the new grant rounds and the online processes, including through provision of community workshops.

Total Amount Requested in Values

8. The total value of grant application requests (in $) decreased after the grant policy was implemented (between Y2 and Y3). This may be due to a more clearly focused grant policy, a change to grant rounds - with more of these, different timings and different maximum application amounts.

9. The total value of approved grants (in $) decreased after the grant policy was implemented (between Y2 and Y3). This may be due to several factors such as an on-going lack of understanding about the new grant rounds and online processes, a more guided approach towards recurring grant applications and more overdue accountability reports which limit applicants in reapplying for funding.

Values given to approved grant types

2013/14

10. In 2013/14, the greatest local board investment ($60,000) was spent on projects focused on sports and recreation. Lesser amounts were granted to health, youth, arts and culture projects. Eight applications were funded by the local discretionary fund and most of the applications are recurring, such as the NZ Sikh Women’s Association who had two applications funded by multiple boards.

11. Decisions across southern local boards could be quite variable for multi-board applications. For example, a multi-board application by Foundation of Youth Development was declined by Manurewa Local Board, while Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Otara- Papatoetoe local boards each funded the group $700. Fatimah Foundation was granted $1,000 from Māngere-Ōtahuhu, but the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board declined the application.

2014/15

12. In 2014/15, the local board invested $48,000 on projects focused on education. Sports and recreation funding decreased from the previous year, while health and youth funding increased.

2015/16

13. The implementation of the new grant policy in July 2015 provided a clear, focused approach for the local board to prioritise funding decisions to five types of activities. Community projects received the greatest amount of grant funding at $41,000, followed by sports and recreation, arts and culture. There was also more focus on environment projects.

14. 33% of the approved grants were based on the outcome of “Māngere-Ōtāhuhu as the heart of Māori and Pasifika arts and culture”. With a clear grant policy and focus on the local board plan, there seems to have been a significant increase applicants and applications specific to this outcome area in 2015/16.

Accountability Performance of Applicants

15. 33% of the approved grants were based on the outcome of “Māngere-Ōtāhuhu as the heart of Māori and Pasifika arts and culture”. With a clear grant policy and focus on the local board plan, there seems to have been a significant increase in applicants and applications specific to this outcome area in 2015/16.

16. Grey shading (the first line) shows the number of applicants overdue with their accountability reports from previous funding. Blue shading (the second line) shows the number of applicants who did not uplift their grants, which could be for various reasons including that the grant is deemed insufficient to undertake the project.

Term Two
2013/14 (Y1)	2014/15 (Y2)	2015/16 (Y3)
0	17	9
0	1	4

17. There is no accountability report performance data for community groups that applied for grants in 2013/14 as the smarty grants system was not used in that period. There were 17 overdue accountability reports in 2014/15 and nine in 2015/16. Staff report various reasons given for not returning funding grant accountability reports, such as internal organisational changes and just being overlooked by the funded organisation. If any of these groups apply in future, the local board will be notified of overdue accountability reporting.

Supported providers

18. The table below shows the top 10 applicants who received the most grant funding over the second electoral term. The table also shows the total amount granted, total applications and project description.

Applicants who received the most grant funding over electoral term two
	Applicant	Total Amount Granted	Total Applications	Project Description
1	John Walker Find Your Field of Dreams Foundation	$45,000	2	Primary school sport programmes for Mangere, Otahuhu, Ōtara and Papatoetoe local board areas
2	Mangere/Papatoetoe Pacific Community Safety Patrol Trust	$20,000	3	Pacific community crime prevention operational costs for safety patrols around Māngere/Papatoetoe
3	New Zealand Sikh Womens Association	$17,000	5	Operational costs, accommodation costs, health activities, drop-in counselling centre, volunteers etc.
4	Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland Ecclesiatical Goods Trust T/A Catholic Social Services	$16,000	2	Operational costs and wages for working with families and delivery of the managing strong emotions and stopping violence programmes. ‍
5	Auckland Kids Achievement Trust - Trading as Foundation for Youth Development Auckland	$15,000	5	Wages of the KiwiCan leaders and project K programme costs
6	Fatimah Foundation	$15,000	3	Community drop-in and information centre and operational costs
7	Accelerating Aotearoa Incorporated	$14,000	3	Accelerating Auckland programme and Collaborating Hope. Mangere "Park Jam".
8	Ohomairangi Trust	$14,000	4	"Mellow Bumps" programme to champion safe and healthy ante-natal self-care. Old Macdonalds Farm will help children and parents connect through engaging with their animals. Joint Matariki celebration for whanau of Ohomairangi Trust, Mangere East Community Centre and local community
9	Pikinima 'O Kumuni 'I Loto Trust - Fitness Group	$11,000	2	Operational costs for gym equipment
10	School Holiday Programme providers	$11,000	2	School holiday programmes

19. These applicants appear to be some of the larger or more active organisations within the local board community.

20. Many of these organisations applied more than once throughout 2013/14 and 2014/15, however there were less applications in 2015/16. This may have been due to the influence of the new grant policy and prioritisation towards local board plan outcomes.

21. The table above also shows that many applications for funding in the first two years of the term were for operational and wage costs, which are now deemed as lower priorities within the local board’s grant policy.

Applicants with the most applications over electoral term 2
Name of Applicant	Approved	Declined		Withdrawn	Total Applications
Y1 2013/14
New Zealand Sikh Womens Association Inc	4				4
The Fatimah Foundation	2	1			3
Auckland Kids Achievement Trust - FYD Auckland	3				3
Citizens Advice Bureau Mangere	2				2
Vai Ko Utukakala	2				2
Auckland Regional Migrant Services Charitable Trust	1	1			2
Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust NZ	1	1			2
Y2 2014/15
Auckland Single Parent’s Trust and Te Kaitiakitanga Tamaki Makaurau o te Matua Kotahitanga	1	1			2
South Auckland Christian Foodbank	2				2
New Zealand Sikh Womens Association Inc	1	1			2
Mangere-Papatoetoe Pacific Community Safety Patrol Trust	2				2
Chinese New Settlers Services Trust	2				2
Auckland Kids Achievement Trust - FYD Auckland	2				2
Auckland Regional Migrant Services Charitable Trust	1			1	2
Mangere East ACCESS Trust	2				2
Accelerating Aotearoa Incorporated	2				2
2014/2015 School Holiday Programme Fund	2				2
Y3 2015/16
Mangere East ACCESS Trust	1		1		2
Otahuhu Mainstreet & Commercial Association Inc	1			1	2
Counties Manukau Sports Foundation	2				2
Life Education Trust South East Auckland trading as Life Education Counties Manukau	2				2
Massive Company Trust	2				2
The Retreat NZ	2		1	1	4
Connect the Dots Charitable Trust	4		1		5
Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust	1		2		3
Youthline Manukau (Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust)	2				2
Accelerating Aotearoa Incorporated	1		1		2
Akoteu Fakaili Mo'ui ECE Trust			2		2
PHAB Association Auckland			2		2
Muller Pacific			2		2

22. Numbers of applicants and applications have increased since the new community grant policy was introduced. In 2013/14, there were seven applicants with more than two applications. In 2014/15, there were ten applicants with two applications. In 2015/16, there were 13 applicants with more than two applications.

23. Less applicants applied for the new round three and round community grants in 2015/16, which may have been because this was a change to previous practice and not well understood by local community organisations at the time.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24. Less applicants applied for the new round three community grants applications in 2015/16, which may have been because this was a change to previous practice and not well understood by local community organisations at the time.

Māori impact statement

24. The local board community grant programme is available to Māori community organisations, along with other community groups.

Implementation

25. No implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Karen Bobby, Local Board Services Intern
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

15 March 2017

2016 Elections - Highlights and Issues

File No.: CP2017/03264

Purpose

1. To provide local board input into submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”.

Executive summary

2. This report has been presented to the Governing Body which has agreed that the report will be presented to all local boards for their feedback on submissions to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”. The issues on which submissions might be based are outlined under the heading later in the report “Submission to Justice and Electoral Select Committee on legislative change”. Local board comments will be reported back to the Governing Body, to decide the final form of the submission.

3. Planning for the 2016 elections commenced at the end of 2014. Staff presented a report to the Governing Body in March 2015, which set out the areas of focus for achieving outcomes in terms of voter and candidate experiences and turnout.

4. This report:

(i) describes initiatives taken in the areas of focus

(ii) evaluates the achievement of the outcomes

(iii) notes other activities associated with the election, such as inaugural meetings

(iv) summarises the budget and forecast expenditure

(v) identifies issues for the council to follow up

(vi) proposes submissions to make to Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”

(vii) outlines the timetable for the review of representation arrangements leading up to the 2019 elections.

5. The 2016 elections were successful. Particular highlights were:

(i) a successful marketing campaign based on the ‘showyourlove’ brand

(ii) innovative approaches to engaging with the community, including through social media, websites and the Love Bus

(iii) increased participation in Kids Voting

(iv) personal assistance provided to the visually impaired

(v) increased turnout over 2013

(vi) the elections came within budget.

6. This report is presented to local boards to provide input to a submission to the Select Committee, with the final submission presented back to the Governing Body in May 2017. The submission needs to be lodged by December 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) agree its comments to be reported back to the Governing Body for inclusion in the Auckland Council’s submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee’s “Inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections”.

Comments

7. A report to the Governing Body in March 2015 set out the strategic approach to the 2016 elections. It identified the following areas of focus:

· communications and community engagement

· candidate awareness

· on-line voting

· optimum use of council resources.

Those areas of focus were to deliver the following outcomes:

· an excellent experience for candidates and voters

· a voter turnout of at least 40 per cent

· a candidate-to-member ratio of three

· user-centric, innovative and transparent local body elections.

8. The following sections describe initiatives taken in these areas of focus and the achievement of the outcomes.

Actions taken in areas of focus

Communications and community engagement

9. Voter participation statistics showed that previous participation rates were low among 18 - 39 year olds and this age group was a key focus for the Election Planning Team.

10. Initiatives included:

· a comprehensive marketing campaign based on the “showyourlove” brand

· advertising – billboards, adshells, bus backs, press, magazine, radio, digital, ethnic radio and newspapers

· heart ballot boxes

· digital bus shelter voting tallies

· targeted social media: videos and articles via VoteAkl social media sites, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube

· “Our Auckland” council’s news channel

· Auckland Council channels for posters, such as libraries and service centres

· the Love Bus and community presentations

· showyourlove.co.nz web pages for information about candidates

· Kids Voting programme in schools.

11. The Election Team tested the “showyourlove” brand with audiences. Feedback, particularly from young people, has been very positive. Wellington City Council also developed its own brand, using our ‘love’ concept. Auckland Council and Wellington City Council experienced greater increases over 2013 turnouts than other metropolitan councils.

12. The Love Bus provided a visual reminder of the elections. It stopped at various locations where people gathered, such as at malls, and staff engaged with passers-by.

13. An engagement programme included making presentations to community groups:

· 80 events including: 22 Love Bus events, 11 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) events, 22 community presentations (total attendance at these presentations was approximately 800), three meetings or informal chats, five5 information stalls

· 10 of these events were run in conjunction with the Electoral Commission

· sessions were facilitated by the deaf community, Disability Network NZ, Tongan and Samoan churches and Korean Youth Leadership Institute independent of council support

· 24 engagement sessions included an interpreter for at least one language; interpreters for eight different languages, including New Zealand sign language, were used

· groups reached included faith communities (Jewish, Muslim), Rainbow communities, Youth, Korean, Chinese, African, Indian, Tongan, Samoan, Sri Lankan, Somalian, Ethiopian, Rwandan, Filipino, West Indian, Burmese, Cambodian and Japanese

· all advisory panels contributed to the elections programme

· engagement activities and events were run in 15 of the 21 local board areas

· approximately 24,000 Aucklanders were reached by engagement activities.

14. The showyourlove.co.nz website provided information about candidates for voters. People often state, when asked in surveys, the reason they do not vote is they lack information about candidates. This website was planned very carefully to ensure that council did not provide any candidate with an electoral advantage. All candidates were given the same opportunity to provide information in addition to the information in their candidate profile statements.

15. A survey conducted after the 2016 elections gauged the effectiveness of these initiatives. The sample size was 1,259 people.

16. Awareness and likelihood of voting:

· awareness of the elections rose from 83 per cent before the campaign to 93 per cent following the campaign

· before the election, 75 per cent intended to vote but after the election only 63 per cent (of the survey sample) actually voted

· of the 35 per cent who did not vote, 56 per cent intended to vote but did not

· reasons given for not voting by the 35 per cent who did not vote include:

o don’t know anything about the candidates (25 per cent)

o don't know enough about the policies (22 per cent)

o did not know when voting finished, missed deadline (18 per cent)

o forgot to vote (18 per cent)

o can't work out who to vote for (16 per cent)

o not interested in politics or politicians (14 per cent)

o didn’t think vote would make a difference (11 per cent)

o couldn’t be bothered voting (11 per cent)

o too much effort to select the candidate (10 per cent)

o had other commitments during that time (10 per cent).

17. Effectiveness of messaging:

· 53 per cent said the ads made them think of their community

· 44 per cent said the ads reminded them of what they love about their city

· 46 per cent said the ads made them more likely to vote.

18. 21 per cent used the web and social media for information about the elections – mostly the Auckland Council website.

19. Of those who intended to vote but did not vote, 25 per cent said on-line or app based voting would encourage them to vote.

20. 74 per cent said they would prefer on-line voting over postal voting with 18 per cent preferring postal voting; those who preferred on-line voting were spread amongst all age groups but were mainly in the younger age groups.

21. The Kids Voting programme was an on-line voting experience for students. Students cannot legally take part in the actual election, but Kids Voting creates awareness of the elections which often flows from the participating students to their families. The Election Team prepared teaching kits class teachers could use to explain how council works. There was a hypothetical referendum question that students voted on using the STV voting system. 11,730 students and 56 schools registered to take part, compared with 8,319 students and 44 schools in 2013. 4,748 students from 41 schools actually voted. The lessons provided to the schools by the Election Team were:

· an introduction to Auckland Council

· an introduction to elections and voting

· a real world on-line referendum case study

· Local boards, wards and local issues

· researching candidates.

Candidate awareness of election information

22. The council’s website provided information for candidates. This included:

· candidate information handbook

· candidate audio booklet

· FAQs

· research material

· how to be nominated

· election timetable

· video explaining Auckland Council

· posters on all Auckland Council channels

· ads in newspapers

· radio

· digital ads.

23. The Election Team focused on on-line content over hard copy booklets. It did not hold candidate information evenings following the experience in 2013 of twenty-eight information evenings gathering only small attendance.

24. Wellington City Council publicised community-based candidate meetings on its website which people apparently found useful. The council could consider this for 2019.

On-line voting

25. Prior to the elections, the Associate Minister of Local Government announced that trials for on-line voting would not take place for the 2016 elections.

26. The community expects to have an on-line option, provided concerns about the security of on-line voting are addressed. In the post-election awareness survey, 74 per cent said they would prefer on-line voting over postal voting.

27. The Finance and Performance Committee resolved in December 2016 to request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot trial of an electronic voting system including for by-elections.

Optimum use of council resources

28. Key areas of the council involved in the elections were:

· Democracy Services and Communications and Engagement

· libraries and service centres held election information, received nominations and issued special votes

· communications staff undertook advertising, branding, web content, social media with assistance from the design studio

· bylaws compliance staff enforced the Auckland Transport Elections Signs Bylaw

· Legal Services provided legal advice when required

· Research and Evaluation (RIMU) staff provided advice on demographic data and undertook research for the report on the order of names.

29. Elections planning staff worked closely with the Electoral Commission, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and the Society of Local Government Managers (SOLGM).

30. Council’s election services provider (Independent Election Services Ltd) was based in the central business area, in Anzac Avenue, and was the main central city office. Staff later provided limited services at the Bledisloe service centre in response to demand.

Achievement of outcomes

31. The desired outcomes were:

· an excellent experience for candidates and voters

· a voter turnout of at least 40 per cent

· a candidate-to-member ratio of three

· user-centric, innovative and transparent local body elections.

Candidate experience

32. For the first time, the council conducted an on-line survey of candidates. 150 candidates took part. This feedback shows a positive candidate experience.

33. Key findings were:

· 76 per cent said it was easy, or very easy, to find information

· 88 per cent said that overall they could access the information they needed

· 87 per cent said they used resources on the Auckland Council website

· 83 per cent were aware of the “Love your Auckland – stand for council” campaign

· 80 per cent contributed to their information on the showyourlove.co.nz website

· 50 per cent said this was their first time standing for elected office with Auckland Council and 50 per cent said it was not their first time.

34. The Election Team has noted some candidate issues for following up or improvement:

(i) a couple of candidates were nominated for positions for which they did not intend to stand. In one case a number of candidates on the one ticket arrived at a service centre together, creating increased demand on staff at the last minute. In the future, the Election Team will co-ordinate with ticket campaign managers to help manage the processing of nominations and will provide additional briefings to staff helping at service centres. Legislative change to allow electronic submission of nominations to improve these processes will be sought.

(ii) there was a question whether a Samoan matai title could be used on the nomination form. The legislation prohibits “titles” but does not define “title”. The Electoral Officer, after receiving legal and cultural advice, allowed matai “titles” on the basis they were used more like names than titles. It would be helpful to have legislative guidance on this.

(iii) some candidates expressed concern about the requirement to state in the profile statement whether they lived in the area for which they were standing. The council previously submitted in opposition to this requirement.

Voter experience

35. The awareness survey showed that voters used on-line tools to find out about voting and about candidates.

36. Issues which negatively affected the experience of voters (some outside the control of council):

(i) a small number of voters in one area did not receive voting documents. The Electoral Officer received about 90 applications for special votes from voters in that area.

(ii) voters outside the area during the voting period either could not vote or had to apply for a special vote. An example was a voter who was overseas and who had arranged for a special vote to be posted to them but who could not meet the deadline for posting it back from overseas. An ability to supply the voting documents electronically would assist

(iii) an issue which continues to affect the voter experience is the mixture of different voting systems on the one voting document and different orders of candidate names.

37. Ten staff volunteered to assist blind people with their voting. This was arranged in partnership with the Blind Foundation and the volunteers were trained and made declarations as electoral officials. The volunteers visited voters at their residences and help them mark their voting documents. The Auckland Branch of Blind Citizens NZ wrote an appreciative letter to the mayor and chief executive.

Voter turnout

38. The council aimed for a 40 per cent turnout. The turnout was 38.5 per cent, an increase of 3.7 per cent over the 2013 turnout.

39. Across all of New Zealand, there was a slight increase over 2013:

2010

2013

2016

Change

National voter turnout %

49.0

41.3

42.0

+0.7

40. Across metropolitan councils, Auckland and Wellington achieved the two highest increases:

Voter turnout % - Metro	2010	2013	2016	Change %
Auckland	51.0	34.9	38.5	+3.7
Christchurch City	52.2	42.9	38.3	-4.6
Dunedin City	53.0	43.1	45.2	+2.1
Hamilton City	37.8	38.3	33.6	-4.7
Hutt City Council	40.4	36.6	37.8	+1.2
Nelson City	52.2	52.2	52.1	-0.1
Palmerston North City	43.2	38.7	39.1	0.4
Porirua City	39.1	36.6	38.0	+1.5
Tauranga City	43.8	37.8	38.0	+0.2
Upper Hutt City	44.3	40.8	41.0	+0.2
Wellington City	40.0	41.5	45.6	+4.1
Total	45.0	38.0	39.3	+1.3

Candidate to member ratio

41. The target was three candidates per position.

42. There were 19 candidates for mayor. In 10 out of 13 electoral ward issues for councillors, the ratio of candidates to positions was 3 to 1, or greater.

43. There were 32 local board electoral issues (there are 21 local boards but elections in some local board areas are on a subdivision basis). In 9, the ratio of candidates to positions was 3 to 1 or greater. For a local board that is not divided into subdivisions, it is harder to achieve the ratio because the number of positions is greater.

44. Overall, there were 468 candidates for 170 positions, which is a ratio of 2.8 to 1.

User-centric, innovative and transparent local body elections

45. The key ‘users’ in an election are the candidates and the voters. Feedback shows:

· candidates got the information they needed

· compared to previous elections voters could find out more about candidates, through the “showyourlove” website

46. Assistance was provided to voters who were blind. Blind Citizens NZ communicated its appreciation back to the council.

47. The report details above a number of innovative activities such as the Love Bus and Heart Ballot Boxes.

48. Aspirations to have on-line voting were not met. There is a need to provide a user-friendly option for voters who do not use postal services. Voters who are not in the area during the voting period also have issues. If a voter is overseas, by the time voting documents have been posted to them (if they have a reliable postal address) there is not sufficient time to post them back. The ability to download blank forms, and to scan and email completed forms, should be investigated.

49. For candidates, there is only the one option of paper-based nomination forms. Submitting nominations electronically needs to be investigated.

50. The communications and community awareness programmes were innovative and received positive feedback, as noted above under “Communications and Community Engagement”.

51. Ensuring candidates and voters had sufficient information assisted the transparency of the elections.

Other activities relating to the elections

52. The Executive Leadership Team adopted a staff policy around political neutrality and involvement in the election process outside of work hours. The Governing Body adopted an elected members’ policy dealing with issues such as the use of council resources by incumbent members. The policy required close management of council communications during the sensitive period and a panel met weekly to monitor this.

53. Council staff enforce the Auckland Transport Election Sign Bylaw and dealt with 162 complaints. Earlier in the year there was media coverage about the use of commercial billboards. This will be addressed in a review of the Auckland Transport bylaw.

54. Following each election there are a number of activities arranged for elected members:

(i) induction sessions for members

(ii) refreshing the technology provided to members

(iii) powhiri for all members

(iv) inaugural meetings of the governing body and the local boards at which members make their statutory declarations.

Cost of the election

55. Summary of budget and expenditure:

Budget	Planned	Actual (at 31/01/17)	Forecast	Comments
Election Services - IES	$4,893,000	$4,515,500	$4,653,490	Amount payable to IES as per contract plus a 10 per cent buffer for variable costs to be determined at wash-up in Feb ’17, Whilst costs are currently forecast to arrive over contract amount, these are expected to be within budget (including buffer).
Communications & Engagement (internal charge)	$1,221,000	$1,160,960	$1,221,498	Expected to meet budget once final costs are confirmed.
Staff	$620,000	$659,637	$669,637	Slight over-spend in staff due to increased programme scope and staff turnover.
Kids Voting	$50,000	$49,424	$49,424	Steering Group approved exceeding budget for increased number of participating schools and students. This includes $30,000 for IES for on-line voting capability.
Community Engagement	$40,000	$27,441	$27,441	Initial Elections budget had no allocation for Community Engagement hence in 2016 $40k was reallocated from other items. Under-spend here due to final budget being confirmed after a lower cost engagement schedule was already planned. $10k for translations and accessibility was covered by C&E budget.
Governing Body Inaugural Meeting	$57,000	$49,661	$52,697	Initial budget had allocated $81,000 for post-election costs of which specifics were not known to Elections team. This was reduced to cover Inaugural Meeting only and then further to fund Community Engagement. In 2013, Inaugural Meeting cost was $57,000.
Local board inaugural meetings	$129,300	$97,921	$129,300	The budgets for travel and equipment hireage were not fully utilised.
Research	$20,000	$6,404	$8,700	This amount was reduced from $30,000 to fund Community Engagement.
Pre-election IES, DDB & Buzz	$0	$48,980	$48,980	Unplanned costs for development of elections strategy were funded by Democracy Services in 2015.
Miscellaneous	$0	$9,244	$9,244	Includes judicial recount, costs associated with services at libraries and service centres, other programme-wide costs and office expenses.
Recoveries - DHBs & LTs	-$1,500,000	-$622,500	-$1,517,964	Full recoverable amount will be determined at wash-up in February 2017. Current estimates expect to meet planned amount.
Total	$5,530,300	$6,002,672	$5,352,447	Overall budget under-spend expected once wash-up is confirmed in February 2017.

56. The costs of the Howick by-election ($104,000) will be absorbed in the budget if possible.

Issues to progress further

Howick by-election

57. A member of the Howick Local Board resigned at the inaugural meeting of the board. The council held a by-election at a cost of $104,000, which the Finance and Performance Committee has approved as unbudgeted expenditure. The committee considered the council should have the option of appointing to a vacancy that occurs within six months of an election and that the council should have the option of conducting a by-election on-line. The committee resolved:

“That the Finance and Performance Committee:

…

c) agree that the Mayor will write to the Minister of Local Government requesting, among other amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001 necessary to improve the conduct of local elections, an amendment to section 117 to allow a local authority using the first past the post electoral system to determine by resolution whether to fill an extraordinary vacancy which occurs up to six months after the previous triennial local government election either by appointing the highest polling unsuccessful candidate from the previous triennial local government election, or by holding a by-election.

d) request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot-trial of an electronic voting system including by-elections.”

(Resolution number FIN/2016/1)

58. Both of these issues are discussed further in this report.

On-line voting

59. Survey results show the community prefers on-line voting. The government previously established a working party which made recommendations for a staged approach with trials in 2016. The government supported this and set out the requirements to be met for a council to establish a trial. Auckland Council was considered to be too large for a trial and was not eligible. In April 2016 the Associate Minister of Local Government announced the trial would not proceed as requirements had not been met.

60. The government wants local government to lead on-line voting, subject to its requirements being met. LGNZ should co-ordinate the local government sector’s development of on-line voting and Mayor Goff and Councillor Hulse will be pursuing this with the Local Government New Zealand National Council.

Voter participation

61. In order to prepare for the 2019 elections a voter participation project has been established. The main aims of the project are to reduce barriers to participation, encourage diversity and increase awareness and understanding of council and local elections.

62. The planning team for the 2016 elections has now completed its task and has been disbanded, however a position of Senior Advisor, Voter Participation, has been established within Democracy Services to provide continuity between the work that was carried out for the 2016 elections and the engagement that needs to occur for the 2019 elections.

Research on order of names

63. An analysis of the 2010 and 2013 election results was undertaken so that the council could decide whether the order of names on voting documents should be alphabetical or random. Further research will be undertaken and provided to the council when it next makes a decision on the order of names.

Review of Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw

64. Auckland Transport has undertaken to review the bylaw. The review will take place in time for implementation for the 2017 parliamentary election.

Submission to Justice and Electoral Select Committee on legislative change

65. The Justice and Electoral Select Committee conduct an enquiry following each election. Submissions on the inquiry into the 2016 elections will close in December 2017.

66. This report seeks input from local boards for the submission, particularly on the following issues. A proposed submission will be reported to the governing body later in 2017.

(i) Matai names

The Local Electoral Act 2001 prohibits the use of official titles when listing candidate names on the voting document. Names that can be used include a registered name or a name by which the candidate has been commonly known for the six months prior to an election. Although sometimes referred to as ‘matai titles’, legal advice provided to staff is that these are more in the nature of names than of a title denoting the holding of some sort of office. To avoid doubt, the legislation should give guidance.

(ii) Vacancies occurring within six months of an election

Since the 2016 elections were held, three vacancies have occurred – Auckland (resignation of local board member), Bay of Plenty Regional Council (death) and Waikato Regional Council (death). When considering the budget for the Howick by-election, the governing body resolved to seek a law change allowing a local authority using the first past the post electoral system to appoint the highest polling unsuccessful candidate to a vacancy occurring within six months of an election.

(iii) Legal requirement for candidate to state whether residing in area

Some candidates complained about this requirement. The council has previously submitted in opposition to it and may consider doing so again. Following the 2013 elections, the select committee recommended that the requirement be removed and noted that candidates for parliamentary elections did not have to make a similar statement. However, it has not yet been removed.

(iv) Timing of school holidays

The school holidays overlap with the postal voting period. Many people go out of the area during school holidays and do not vote. Currently local government elections are on the second Saturday in October. Moving election day to the first Saturday in October would provide one week before election day that would not overlap with school holidays. This still gives time to adopt the annual report and it provides an additional week between the elections and the end of the year for the new council to attend to business, such as a draft annual plan.

(v) Electronic transmission of voting documents to and from voters overseas

Voters who are overseas during the postal voting period often do not have enough time to post back voting documents prior to election day, after receiving their voting documents in the post. The select committee has previously recommended electronic transmission. The government has supported sending blank voting documents electronically but has opposed the return of completed votes electronically. On-line voting would also solve this issue.

(vi) Electoral Officer to have access to the supplementary roll

The processing of special votes relies on the Electoral Commission checking that voters are on the electoral roll. If the EO had access to the supplementary roll, the EO could do this, with the potential to speed up the counting of special votes. This has previously been supported by the select committee and the government.

(vii) Access to data associated with electoral roll

It is a concern that local government election turnouts are low. Having access to statistical data associated with the electoral roll, such as age groups of electors, would be helpful when planning election awareness campaigns. Currently the Electoral Act only allows this information to be supplied for research into scientific or health matters.

(viii) Electronic nominations and candidate profile statements.

The option to submit nominations electronically would benefit the candidate experience and it would lead to more accurate representation of candidate profile statements. Currently there are over 600 profile statements to be typed, from copy supplied by candidates, and then proof-read. Occasionally this leads to mistakes.

(ix) Legislative confirmation that local authorities may promote elections

Legislation should give a clear mandate to local authorities to promote elections. This is to avoid any uncertainty about public funds being used for election promotion purposes.

(x) Time period for printing electoral rolls

Electoral rolls were not printed in time for the start of candidate nominations because the legislated time period is too short. Extend time period for printing. This corrects a previous change to timeframes which shortened the time for printing the rolls.

(xi) Electronic access to electoral rolls for election staff

When processing candidate nominations, staff at service centres need to check whether nominators are on the electoral roll for the specified area. They may only have one hard-copy version to share between staff processing nominations for different candidates. It would be more efficient to access the current roll electronically.

(xii) Close of voting time

Extend voting later into the last day and create one full 'voting day'. The Electoral Officer received 18,000 votes on the Saturday morning via our ballot boxes. Extra time on the final Saturday would give voters more time to vote and could help turn the final Saturday into a voting day celebration.

(xiii) Discourage inappropriate use of elections

There were 19 candidates for mayor. Clearly some of these had no chance of being elected but presumably used the opportunity to promote their cause. Consideration could be given as whether this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

(xiv) Separation of DHB elections.

A variety of election issues on the one voting document together with different voting systems and ordering of names confuses voters. It would be better to hold DHB elections on a separate time, for example a separate year, or with the parliamentary elections. However, this would increase the cost of an election to Auckland Council, which currently receives $1.5 million in recoveries from DHBs and Licensing Trusts.

(xv) Candidate information in different languages

Candidate profile statements are limited to 150 words. If a candidate profile statement is provided in English and Māori, then each version may have 150 words as Māori is an official language. If a candidate profile statement includes English and a language other than Māori it is limited to 150 words in total. Consideration could be given to other options for candidates to provide information in languages relevant to their constituents.

(xvi) Consistency between Electoral Regulations and Local Electoral Regulations

The Electoral Regulations include provisions that would be helpful to local elections such as:

· Telephone dictation for voters with disabilities

· Receipt of special votes electronically.

(xvii) Relationship with Electoral Commission

Some voters, confused about who was responsible for running the council elections, contacted the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission typically referred callers to the council and enquirers ended up calling the council call centre only to be referred on to Independent Election Services. There should be consideration to jointly promoting awareness about who enquirers should contact with queries about local elections. This does not require a legislative change but could be implemented through Local Government New Zealand.

Timetable for 2019 elections

Electoral system

67. If the council wishes to change the electoral system from First Past the Post to Single Transferable Vote, a resolution is required by 12 September 2017. Such a resolution might then be subject to a petition for a poll. Alternatively the council could conduct a poll.

Māori wards

68. If the council wishes to establish Māori wards, a resolution is required by 23 November 2017. Such a resolution might then be subject to a petition for a poll. Alternatively the council could conduct a poll.

Review of representation arrangements

69. The council is required to review:

(i) whether the election of councillors is on a ward basis or at large and, for each local board, whether election of board members is on a subdivision basis or at large

(ii) the number of members in each local board within a minimum of five and a maximum of twelve

(iii) if there are wards or subdivisions, what the boundaries are and how many members there are in each

(iv) the names of wards, subdivisions and local boards.

70. Unlike other councils, the council cannot review the number of members of the Governing Body because the legislation sets this at 20 members.

71. The statutory timetable for the review is:

Due dates	Requirement
No earlier than 1 March 2018	A council resolution setting out the council’s initial proposal
Within 14 days of resolution but no later than 8 September 2018	Public notice of the resolution, providing at least one month for submissions
Within 6 weeks of close of submissions	The initial proposal may be amended after considering submissions. Public notice of the final proposal
20 December 2018	Appeals from those who submitted on the initial proposal and fresh objections to any amendments are received
15 January 2019	Appeals and objections are forwarded to the Local Government Commission
11 April 2019	Appeals and objections are determined by the Local Government Commission, which may conduct hearings in order to do this

72. The review will be conducted as one component of the wider governance framework review reported to the Governing Body last December. The Governing Body established a political working party comprising 7 governing body members and 7 local board members.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

73. The report is being presented to all local boards for their views, before being presented back to the Governing Body to finalise a submission to the select committee.

Māori impact statement

74. Initiatives that encourage the community to engage with elections will have a positive impact on Māori. There are activities associated with elections that are particularly significant to mana whenua, such as the pōwhiri to welcome all elected members following the elections.

75. The survey of candidates asked candidates to identify their ethnicities. Ten per cent of candidates were Māori, compared to 9 per cent of the total Auckland population. As a result of the election, 7 per cent of elected members are Māori (115 of 170 elected members replied to the survey).

76. There will be an opportunity to consider the establishment of Māori wards for the 2019 elections.

Implementation

77. This report will be presented to local boards for their comments, to be included in a report back to the Governing Body so that the Governing Body can finalise its submission to the select committee.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

15 March 2017

Project 17: Auckland Council Maintenance Contracts

File No.: CP2017/03432

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek feedback from local boards on maintenance contracts for parks, buildings and open space, prior to Finance & Performance Committee approval on 28 March 2017.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council manages over 5,000 sites across the region including parks, buildings and open space. Existing Auckland Council maintenance contracts for these sites expire on 30 June 2017.

3. Project 17 was setup to procure and implement new maintenance contracts due to take effect 1 July 2017. This includes Full Facilities, Arboriculture and Ecological services across the Auckland Council region.

4. Over the last twelve months, Community Facilities has engaged with elected members through both formal and informal processes, to shape up the direction of this project and seek feedback on maintenance requirements and service levels. Refer to Attachment A for the Political Engagement Timeline.

5. Elected member feedback, including local priorities, informed the Request for Proposal document which was the basis of negotiation with suppliers. Refer to Attachment B for this local board’s resolutions dated September 2016.

6. This report outlines the following documents which will form part of final maintenance contracts and standard service levels:

· Attachment C Standard and Enhanced Assets;

· Attachment D Full Facilities Contract Service Specifications;

· Attachment E Supplier Specific Information (CONFIDENTIAL);

· Attachment F Contractor Performance Balanced Scorecard;

· Attachment G Tupuna Maunga Values Specifications; and

· Attachment H Contract Information (CONFIDENTIAL).

7. Community Facilities seek feedback from local boards on Attachments C, D and E, prior to Finance and Performance Committee approval on 28 March 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board:

a) provide feedback on:

i. Standard and Enhanced Assets (Attachment C);

ii. Full Facilities Contract Service Specifications (Attachment D); and

iii. Supplier Specific Information (Attachment E).

b) note that the local board will have the opportunity to meet successful suppliers in April and May to discuss and refine local service level variations.

Comments

Process

8. Over the last twelve months, Community Facilities has engaged with elected members through both formal and informal processes, to shape up the direction of this project and seek feedback on maintenance requirements and service levels. Refer to Attachment A for the Political Engagement Timeline.

9. An open, competitive tender process seeking proposals for the supply of full facilities, arboriculture and ecological maintenance services of council assets was conducted as follows:

· On 10 August 2016, an Expression of Interest was published to identify market interest in providing maintenance services for buildings, parks and open spaces to Auckland Council. 36 Expressions of Interest were received.

· Formal feedback from local boards on the project approach and proposed service specifications was received in September 2016.

· Feedback was also sought from local boards on the list of assets in their area, used as the basis of asset data in the Request for Proposal.

· Refer to Attachment B for this local board’s resolutions.

· Feedback was used to inform the Request for Proposal document which was released on 28 October 2016 and submissions closed 9 January 2017.

· Submissions were assessed and scored by an evaluation team against weighted criteria including methodology, resources and capability, innovation and SMART procurement, and price.

· Negotiations are now underway with shortlisted suppliers, due for completion 10 March.

· Recommended contracts for five areas across the region, including pricing and baseline service levels, will be presented to the Finance & Performance Committee on 28 March 2017 for final approval.

10. Community Facilities seek feedback from local boards on Attachments C, D and E, prior to Finance and Performance Committee approval on 28 March 2017.

Approach

11. Following a review last year of management and maintenance processes of council’s assets, this project has adopted an improved approach to maintenance services, to:

· focus on the whole-of-life cycle of assets;

· deliver more services without compromising quality;

· encourage and incentivise contractors to be accountable for the assets and develop ownership at all levels of their service delivery;

· provide a contractual framework that enables contractors to employ innovate ideas and methods without compromising on quality delivery; and

· implement five new contract areas (called Tahi, Rua, Toru, Whā, Rima) to allow for better economies of scale. The local boards represented within each area are:

Contract Area

Tahi

Rua

Toru

Whā

Rima

Devonport-Takapuna

Hibiscus & Bays

Kaipātiki

Upper Harbour

Albert-Eden

Great Barrier

Puketāpapa

Waiheke

Whau

Henderson-Massey

Rodney

Waitākere Ranges

Howick

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

Orākei

Waitematā

Franklin

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

Manurewa

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

Papakura

12. A key change is that contracts will have a more outcome-based focus on service levels, as opposed to predictive or frequency based maintenance schedules (unless where necessary). This ensures service standards are consistently maintained and managed by suppliers.

13. A standard maintenance service level is applied to every asset to ensure it is fit for purpose, in good condition and achieves community outcomes.

14. Where an asset may have specific known demands such as high frequency use, high reputational risk, requires attendance due to its nature (e.g. old, troublesome asset) or is a heritage site, an enhanced level of service may be applied to the asset.

15. An enhanced service level should not be confused with poor performance from a supplier to provide the agreed standard service level.

16. Refer to Attachment C outlining the updated asset list (including those requiring an enhanced service level) for this local board area as at March 2017. Please note that this asset list is continually reviewed to ensure up to date data in alignment to council decisions and asset assessments.

17. Maintenance contracts have been negotiated to cover three core functions across the five areas:

· Full Facilities;

· Specialist Arboriculture; and

· Specialist Ecological.

18. Council may immediately terminate (or suspend the supplier’s performance of) the contract in whole or in part, by written notice to the supplier, if a persistent performance breach occurs. Please refer to the Contractor Management section in this report for further details.

19. Refer to Attachment H (confidential) for further information about contract terms and Attachment E (confidential) for supplier specific information.

Standard Service Levels

Full Facilities Contract (FFC)

20. Service specifications determine the criteria and outcomes associated with maintaining an asset or facility, which then sets the foundation of a contract agreement.

21. Refer to Attachment D for the Service Specifications expected across the Auckland region for Full Facilities maintenance work. In summary, these are service level output statements by category:

Full Facilities Category	Output Statement
Open Space	Parks, reserves and roadsides within Auckland are maintained and developed to provide a sustainable, safe, clean and healthy environment while assets are maintained and enhanced to meet the amenity and use needs of council, Auckland residents and visitors.
Arboriculture	Trees (under three metres in height) are maintained to an aesthetically pleasing state which promotes healthy growth with the tree adding to the resident or visitors experience with targeted maintenance activities to achieve healthy and safe trees.
Locking and Unlocking	Assets are actively managed to minimise vandalism and anti-social behavior
Buildings - Maintenance	All Auckland Council owned and/or operated facilities require on-going Planned and Response Maintenance (compliance and non-compliance) to ensure that all facilities provided for public and Auckland Council staff use are functional, fit-for-purpose, safe and where possible ensure that the building services are optimised to reduce disruption to the facilities operation.
Buildings – Cleaning	All Auckland Council owned and/or operated buildings that require planned and response cleaning shall be cleaned to a standard that allows all buildings users to utilise a sanitary, hygienic, safe, functional and fit for purpose space for their operation. All litter and debris shall be removed from site and done so in a sustainable manner.

22. Standard Operating Procedures have been developed to agree minimal functional requirements such as height of grass mowing, mulching thickness, goal post painting etc. These procedures have been developed through expertise knowledge and are operational in nature.

23. Minor Capital Works (low value, low risk) is included in these contracts to ensure appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated when maintaining assets.

24. The baseline service level for specialist sportsfield maintenance ensures sports playing surfaces are managed to provide surfaces and assets that are ‘fit for use’ for the type and level of sport being played and which maximise usage and support organised sporting activities.

25. Specialist sportsfield renovation work includes:

· Fertilisation, application, fertilisers;

· Winter treatment - cambridge rolling, slicing and spiking, solid tine vertidraining, ground breaking, vibramoling;

· Summer - vertimowing, dethatching, organic matter removal, leaf collection, scarifying/ dethatching, coring/hollow tine, core harvesting, undersowing/oversowing, sand topdressing, soil topdressing, vibramoling, mole plough, verti-draining, ground probe aeration, weed control, weed control (couch), agrichemical controls on sportsfields, top planning;

· Turfing – turf replacement (minor);

· Artificial - cleaning, rubber top-ups, grooming, repair, hygiene;

· Supply bulk supply materials - eg sand, soil, seed, agrichemicals, turf (winter and summer species), fertilizer;

· Renovation works programme development; and

· Not that the Full Facilities contract incorporates sports mowing, line marking, goal posts/furniture, soil and/or tissue sample analysis, grass selection, pest and disease detection, minor turf repairs, renovation works programme report, cricket.

26. Sportsfield renovations seasonally renovate surfaces back into condition for subsequent sporting code use, including renewal of surfaces that have reached their life span, or reinstating an asset that has been damaged through excessive overuse.

27. Sportsfield renovations are collaboratively implemented to complement maintenance activities in the contract.

28. When asset components are replaced (e.g. turf type), the same style and material type is supplied, unless otherwise directed by Auckland Council.

Arboriculture Specialist Contract

29. The scope of the arboriculture contract covers the management of council owned trees i.e. it’s ‘urban forest and rural surrounds’

30. The arboriculture contract includes, but is not limited to, the following services:

· general administration and communication;

· inspections and programmes;

· pruning;

· reactive works;

· clean-up;

· tree removal;

· planting;

· aftercare maintenance; and

· tree asset inventory.

31. The arboriculture contract will be managed as a prescriptive measure and value contract, but may shift to output basis through the term of the contract. Work will be managed on both a scheduled and reactive basis.

32. Auckland Council will retain ownership of all chipped bio-mass (foliage, brushwood and wood) resulting from Arboriculture Specialist contracts.

33. It will be expected that the supplier takes a proactive approach in relation to Council’s assets, including those not directly related to the contract’s scope. This will involve reporting any faults or issues, regardless of asset ownership in a timely manner e.g. reporting a vandalised bus shelter (Auckland Transport) next to a street garden.

34. The management of Kauri Dieback and weeds are incorporated into Standard Operating Procedures included in the Arboriculture Specialist contract.

Ecological Specialist Contract

35. The ecological contract provides for the maintenance of Auckland Council’s high value ecology sites, and significant bush and natural areas. The prioritised targeted removal of animal and plant pests from council’s open spaces is a core service within this contract. The overarching objective is to restore and rehabilitate native biodiversity in a sustainable and long term approach.

36. The scope of the ecological contract includes:

· preparing ecological restoration plans that take a long term perspective and provide the optimum cost effective management to reinstate the ecological processes, so the site environmental values are conserved and enhanced;

· assessing, monitoring and controlling pests impacting the ecological processes and or values at each site. This includes but is not limited to plant, animal and invertebrate pests; and

· restorative planting of sites.

37. The supplier is required to have all vehicles to carry a web based GPS tracking system. This enables reports to be produced on journey length and stay.

38. The ecological contract is supplemented by an Ecological and Environmental Pest Control Standard Operating Procedure which provides guidance to methodologies and site-specific requirements.

39. The supplier is required to report any hazardous dumping to Auckland Council’s Pollution Hot Line immediately

Other Maintenance Priorities

SMART Procurement

40. The following SMART procurement outcomes are requirements outlined in maintenance contracts:

· Increase capability and capacity – suppliers are required to create sustainable businesses that provide training and development to ensure continued quality delivery of services over the term of the contract;

· Youth employment - contracts should facilitate connecting work-ready youth to local employment by creating local jobs with training and development opportunities;

· Diversity and inclusion - contracts should promote inclusion, reduce discrimination and remove barriers to opportunity and participation, particularly for disadvantaged groups who face barriers to employment e.g. long term unemployed, and people with disabilities;

· Valuing Māori - suppliers are required to work collaboratively with council to achieve better outcomes with Māori, by supporting skill development and labour market participation, and engagement with Māori owned businesses;

· Pacific Auckland - contracts should support further training, development and labour market participation for Pacific youth and communities; and

· Local community and economy - contracts should support local business where reasonable/practical, and should meet the social needs of the delivery area.

41. Contracts have retained flexibility to remove assets (by contract variation) to facilitate active participation by the third sector/volunteers to deliver maintenance outcomes.

42. Suppliers (and subcontractors) are required to establish, document, implement, maintain and continually improve an environmental management system. This will capture practices such as an environmental policy, environmental impacts of significance, legal requirements, environmental objectives and targets. At a mimimum the management system will monitor and measure energy conservation, water conservation, waste management and recycling, chemical use, Scope 1 and Scope 2 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

43. Suppliers are proposed to annually reduce the carbon footprint from year two onwards.

44. The environmental management system must be certified by an accredited third party to the standard of ISO14001, EcoWarranty, Enviro-Mark or an agreed-upon alternative programme. Where the supplier has certified to the Enviro-Mark programme they will commit to attaining the highest level of certification, Enviro-Mark Diamond.

45. Please refer to Attachment E for further supplier specific information.

Weed Management

46. A memorandum from Barry Potter, Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services, was circulated to local board members on 15 November 2016 regarding weed management. A second memorandum was circulated to all elected members on 16 December 2016 providing an update on the implementation of Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy, particularly with regards to this project.

47. New maintenance contracts have been designed to reflect the objectives of Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy which includes implementing the following changes:

48. What will change?

· Minimise agrichemical use

§ the new contracts require a reduction in agrichemical usage and this will be closely monitored - a 10% penalty of the monthly invoice to the supplier will be applied if the ‘annual reduction in use of agrichemicals’ KPI is not met;

§ chemical usage will be reported monthly by suppliers and tracked on a local park by local park basis. Please refer to the Contract Management section in this report for further information on reporting, auditing and KPI’s;

§ contracts will standardise which type of glysophate will be used across the region by all suppliers;

§ manual and mechanical weed control methods are currently used in and around children’s playgrounds across the region. Agrichemicals are not used within these spaces. This will continue under new contracts; and

§ mechanical edging will be applied along paving and other hard edges.

· Integrated weed management, ensure best practice and value for money

§ the volume of mulch in gardens and garden beds will be increased to reduce other methods of weed control;

§ change from frequency based maintenance contracts to a focus on environmental outcomes, to encourage suppliers to be more innovative in their approach to weed management and edge control;

§ learnings from innovations will be socialized across all suppliers to promote continuous improvement and best practice methodology;

§ suppliers will be encouraged and rewarded for innovation in weed management at quarterly supplier forums;

§ development of a weed management manual which is currently being reviewed by the Best Practice Reference Group;

§ establishment of the Best Practice Reference Group made up of external technical experts and community representatives as per the policy action plan; and

§ a No-Spray register will be used by suppliers to ensure consistency in practice and process.

· Empower the community to manage weeds in accordance with the policy

§ weed control programmes in ecological restoration contracts will be planned and agreed in advance of the works;

§ targeted weed control, including the use of volunteers, will be enabled to ensure that agrichemical usage is minimized and integrated with other sustainable practices such as replanting with eco-sourced species to prevent weed re-infestation;

§ contracts include supplier inductions and training on public awareness of vegetation controls, including herbicides and the importance of public education, including signage when spraying; and

§ improved information on council’s website outlining how and why council controls weeds.

49. At the 13 December 2016 Finance and Performance Committee meeting, the following resolutions relating to weed management were approved:

· an addition to recommend to the Environment and Community Committee as follows:

a) Note that significant funding reallocations are not within the scope of the Annual Plan process

b) Endorse glysophate reduction targets within the current budget

c) Express support for the continued implementation of the Weed Management Policy

d) Agree that a political group be appointed by the Mayor, monitors and reviews the implementation of Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy and practice

e) Recommend that a review and consultation of allocated funding take place through the upcoming Long-term Plan process

· resolution d) reshapes the weed management political advisory group

Co-Governance

50. As pre-agreed with co-governance partners, suppliers submitted a detailed report and costings on how they would manage and provide specific services to the Tūpuna Maunga Authority and / or Parakai Recreation Reserve in their preferred areas.

51. This report is being socialised with leaders and representatives from co-governance entities with the outcome being determined at the end of March 2017 with either of the following options being the preferred solution:

· maintain the status quo;

· offer maintenance services to the supplier in the specific area; or

· offer maintenance services to only one supplier who would be accountable for all outcomes.

52. Whenua Rangatira (Bastion Point) – no change proposed to current maintenance agreements where iwi are responsible for managing this site.

Community Empowerment

53. Local boards expressed strong support to enable community empowerment including volunteers, through these contracts.

54. Contracts have the flexibility to accommodate contract variations such as community empowerment initiatives, however compliance with Health and Safety, legislative obligations, agreed service levels and operating procedures are critical in these cases.

55. Local boards should work with their strategic brokers (within the Arts, Community and Events team) to identify requirements and opportunities, who will then liaise with Community Facilities to agree and implement suitable solutions.

Contract Management

Contractor performance

56. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) measure how well the Supplier is doing to meet specifications and outcomes. KPI’s cover five categories:

· quality;

· innovation;

· management;

· smart procurement and environmental management; and

· stakeholder, customer and community impact.

57. Health and Safety (H&S) is a contractual obligation.

58. KPI’s are measured monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly or annually.

59. Suppliers are required to meet Full Facilities Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) and Minor Capital Work KPI’s to have their level of direct award for Minor Capital Works increased, as an incentive for good performance.

60. For each category component failed, suppliers must provide an improvement plan to resolve the performance issue.

61. If a supplier continues to fail on a category component beyond the performance resolution improvement plan deadline, council will be entitled to withhold payment of 10% of each month's invoices (excluding minor capex) until the supplier starts meeting the category component target.

62. Suppliers have the right to earn back withheld payments relating to category components if they start meeting required target levels by a timeframe set by council.

63. Attachment F outlines the Contractor Performance Balanced Scorecard that will be monitored and applied across the region.

Auditing

64. Auditing of contractor performance was previously conducted by external parties. However, this function is now being conducted internally by Community Facilities. A team of auditors conduct spot checks onsite targeting 10% of all maintenance work conducted by each supplier.

Response maintenance

65. Response maintenance work will be categorised by urgency and a maximum response time determined. Criteria is still under negotiation and agreement for some suppliers.

66. The supplier will undertake programmed maintenance, responsive maintenance and all other minor contract works (including emergency works on an as needs basis only) on Monday to Sunday, restricting noisy and any activities that may cause a nuisance to between the hours of:

· 7:00am and 6:00pm (52 weeks of the year); and

· 10:00am and 6:00pm (Saturdays and Sundays and statutory holidays).

67. The supplier will provide a call out service 24 hours, 7 days a week, carried out as part of normal duties.

68. Following completion of response maintenance work, the supplier will call the customer (between 8:00am and 6:00pm unless otherwise stated), to inform them that works have been undertaken and check that the customer is satisfied.

69. It is expected that suppliers assist with ‘whole of life’ asset management which requires the supplier to assess and make recommendations on the optimal most cost effective balance of programmed maintenance, responsive maintenance, and renewal of assets across their whole life.

70. Suppliers are required to update a condition assessment grading once a maintenance service has been undertaken, to be included in council’s asset management system, and to notify council of any significant degradation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

71. Project 17 has engaged with local boards through various channels including:

· Local Board Chairs Procurement Working Group;

· Local Board Chairs Forum presentations;

· memorandums;

· cluster workshops;

· individual local board workshops; and

· business meeting reports.

72. Refer to Attachment A outlining the political engagement timeline.

73. Community Facilities is now seeking feedback from local boards during the final stage of this procurement process, prior to Finance and Performance Committee approval of contracts.

Māori impact statement

74. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its broader statutory obligations to Māori.

75. Māori responsiveness requires the collective effort of everyone. Under the new contracts, suppliers will work collaboratively with council to achieve better outcomes with Māori and for Auckland. This will include:

· building positive relationships with Māori – effective communication and engagement with Māori, developing resilient relationships with mana whenua;

· significantly lift Māori social and economic well-being; and

· building Māori capability and capacity.

76. Through these contracts, opportunities to support local community outcomes and economic development include (but are not limited to):

· providing employment opportunities, in particular for local people and for youth;

· increasing capability and capacity (apprenticeships, cadetships or equivalent) in particular for youth;

· building on community and volunteer networks.

77. The Request for Proposal outlined Tūpuna Maunga Value Specifications as outlined in Attachment G, which suppliers are required to support as part of new maintenance contracts.

Implementation

78. The transition into new contracts will commence once formal approval is agreed by the Finance & Performance Committee.

79. Local boards will have the opportunity to meet new suppliers in April and May 2017 to discuss specific local priorities. Any local service level variations may need to be reflected in contract variations and implementation timelines agreed with the supplier.

80. New maintenance contracts take effect on 1July 2017. Note that there will be approximately six to twelve months to bed in changes, in particularly systems and reporting.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Political Engagement Timeline	195
b ⇩	Local Board Resolutions (September 2016)	197
c ⇩	Standard and Enhanced Assets	201
d ⇩	FFC Service Specifications	209
e ⇩	Supplier Specific Information (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
f ⇩	Contractor Performance Balanced Scorecard	261
g ⇩	Tupuna Maunga Values Specifications	265
h ⇩	Contract Information - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh – Principal Business Analyst

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Karen Lyons – General Manager Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board

15 March 2017

Asset Type	Function	Description	Address
Art Facilities	Arts/Museum/Cultural Cntr	Mangere Arts Centre (New)	121R Bader Drive
Civic Squares and Plazas	Property	Otahuhu Commercial Centre	Great South Road
Community Centres and Houses
Community Facility	Property	Atkinson Avenue, 23	23 Atkinson Avenue
		Cook Islands Community Centre	287 Kirkbride Road
		Nga Tapuwae Community Building	255 Buckland Road
Community Hall	Community Facility	Mangere War Memorial Hall	10 Domain Road
	Property	Mangere War Memorial Hall	10 Domain Road
Community Lease
Esplanades and Coastal	Esplanade Reserve	Avenue Road East Esplanade Reserve	Avenue Road
		Beach Rd Esplanade 8r	8R Beach Road
		Convoy Lane Esplanade Reserve 1	Joe F Stanley Place
		Convoy Lane Esplanade Reserve 2	Convoy Lane
		Convoy Lane Reserve	Convoy Lane
		Curlew Bay Foreshore Reserve	Curlew Bay Road
		Favona Road Reserve	141R Favona Road
		Frank Grey Esplanade Reserve	185A Princes Street East
		Harania/Marys Foreshore Reserve	38R Harania Avenue
		Hastie Avenue Reserve	90R Hastie Avenue
		James Fletcher Esplanade	178R James Fletcher Drive
		Joe F Stanley Park	Joe F Stanley Place
		Lenore Foreshore Reserve	81R Archboyd Avenue
		Luke Street East Esplanade Reserve 1	132 Luke Street East
		Luke Street East Esplanade Reserve 2	139 Luke Street East
		Mahunga Drive Esplanade 40r	40R Mahunga Drive
		Manu Street Esplanade 9r	9R Manu Street
		Naylors Esplanade Reserve	73R Naylors Drive
		Pavilion Park No1	11R Pavilion Drive
		Pavilion Park No2	11R Pavilion Drive
		Pavilion Park No3	11R Pavilion Drive
		Princes Street East Esplanade Reserve	163R Princes Street East
		Pukaki Road Esplanade 145r	145R Pukaki Road
		Schroffs Reserve	172 Avenue Road East
		Stringers Point Reserve	Ronaki Road
		Waokauri Place Esplanade 5r	5R Waokauri Place
		Waterfront Road Reserve	15R Waterfront Road
	Local Park	Ellets Beach	Ihumatao Road
		Murdoch Foreshore	16 Murdoch Street
		Peninsula Point Reserve	28R Cyclamen Road
		Rentons Beach	Renton Road
	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Kiwi Esplanade Boat Ramp Toilets	32R Kiwi Esplanade
		Kiwi Esplanade Club Toil & Changing rms	86R Kiwil Esplanade
		Toilet-NW cnr of reserve-Coronation Rd	15R Waterfront Road
	Undeveloped Land	Beach Road Reserve	32R Beach Road
Libraries	Library	Mangere Bridge Library	2R McIntrye Road
Local Park	Esplanade Reserve	Monterey Creek Accessway	14 Monterey Avenue
	Local Park	Deas Foreshore Reserve 1	24A Deas Place
		Deas Foreshore Reserve 2	24A Deas Place
		Ferguson Street Reserve 5r	5R Ferguson Street
		James Fletcher Drive Reserve 181r	181R James Fletcher Drive
		James Fletcher Drive Reserve 191r	191R James Fletcher Drive
		Lynette Place Reserve 21r	21R Lynette Place
		Mckenzie Road Reserve142r	142R Mckenzie Road
		Savill Drive Reserve 20r	20R Savill Drive
		Tamaki Bridge Foreshore Reserve	691 Great North Road
		Tidal Road Reserve 70r	70R Tidal Road
	Property	Miller Way, 70	70 Miller Road
	Undeveloped Land	Beach Road 4r	4R Beach Road
		Kambalda Street 16r	16R Kambalda Street
		Rosella Road 68r	68R Rosella Road
		Ruaiti Road End	Ruaiti Road
Mixed Use	Mixed Use	Mangere Town Centre Bldg and Library	121R Bader Drive
	Recreation/Leisure Centre	Otahuhu Recreation & Youth Centre-Toia	28-34 Mason Avenue
Neighbourhood Park	Esplanade Reserve	Lolim Place Reserve	60R Norana Avenue
		Mahunga Reserve No 3	59R Mahunga Drive
		Montgomerie Road Reserve	80R Montgomerie Road
		Oruarangi Road Esplanade 490r	490R Oruarangi Road
		Oruarangi Road Reserve	498R Oruarangi Road
		Pacific Steel Reserve	161R Favona Road
		Tarata Creek Reserve	6R Walmsley Road
		Wickman Way\Tennessee Reserve	94R Wickman Way
	Local Park	Anarahi Park	16R Waterlea Avenue
		Archboyd Road Reserve	42R Chelburn Crescent
		Ashgrove Reserve	149R Bader Drive
		Bader Drive (Plunket)	18R Bader Drive
		Bader Drive Reserve	140R Bader Drive
		Bedingfield Memorial Park	127 Princes Street East
		Ben Lora Park	3R Ben Lora Place
		Black Bridge Reserve	5R Walmsley Road
		Blake Road Reserve	81R Blake Road
		Buckland Park	283R Buckland Road
		Calvert Park	10R Calvert Avenue
		Cape Road Walkway	17R Cape Road
		Church Street Foreshore Reserve	176 Church Street
		Cinnamon Road Reserve	40R Cinnamon Road
		Clare Place Reserve	2R Clare Place
		Cottingham Reserve	72W Cranmere Crescent
		Court Town Place Reserve	148 Bader Drive
		Crawford Road Reserve	1R Crawford Avenue
		Cyclamen Park	15R Cyclamen Road
		Deas Reserve	2-2A Deas Place
		Dewhurst Park	10R Dewhurst Place
		Digby's Patch	143 Wallace Road
		Donnell Corner Park	1R Donnell Avenue
		Donnell Park	18R Donnell Avenue
		Fairburn Reserve	28-34 Mason Avenue
		Ferguson Street Reserve Mangere	33R Ferguson Street
		Gadsby Park	121R Gadsby Road
		Gee Place Reserve	8R Gee Place
		Golden Acre Park	24R Solent Street
		Hall Ave No.2 Reserve	120 Hall Avenue
		Hall Avenue Reserve	169R Hall Avenue
		Harwell Place Walkway	7W Harwell Place
		Imrie Park	14R Imrie Avenue
		John Mcanulty Reserve	93 Hutton Street
		Kamaka Park	13R Koru Street
		Killington Reserve	31R Killington Crescent
		Kirkbride Road Reserve (Lili Chen)	2R Kirkbride Road
		Kiwi Ngaio Park (Ngaio Avenue Reserve)	9R Ngaio Avenue
		Kiwi-House Park (House Avenue Reserve)	49R Kiwi Esplanade
		Leeson Place Reserve	11R Leeson Place
		Lippiatt Reserve	1 Lippiatt Road
		Luke Street Reserve	30 Luke Street
		Mahunga Reserve No 1	63R Mahunga Drive
		Mahunga Reserve No 2	48R Mahunga Drive
		Manukau Park	96R Muir Avenue
		Mascot Park	6R Mascot Avenue
		Mascot Walkway No 1	25W Mascot Avenue
		Mascot Walkway No 2	35W Mascot Avenue
		Mascot Walkway No 3	7R Mascot Avenue
		Mayflower Park	50R Mayflower Close
		Mckinstry Park	30R Kivell Close
		Mervan Street Reserve	18R Mervan Street
		Miro Road 1r	1R Miro Road
		Molesworth Reserve	15R Hall Avenue
		Mountain Coronation Rd Cnr Res (LEASED)	18-22 Mountain Road
		Norton Reserve - Mangere	34W Staverton Crescent
		Old School Reserve	299 Kirkbride Road
		Pate Crescent Reserve	7 Pate Crescent
		Pikitea Road Reserve	12R Pikitea Road
		Purata Park	39R Ambury Road
		Raglan Park	93R Raglan Street
		Retreat Park	23R Retreat Drive
		Ridgemount Rise	31R Ridgemount Rise
		Rock Daisy Crescent Reserve	15R Cinnamon Road
		Rose Garden Reserve - Mangere Bridge	2R Scott Avenue
		Royton Park (Growers Lane Reserve)	37R Growers Lane
		Rush Place Reserve	10R Rush Place
		Stevens Park	479R Massey Road
		Sutton Park	48R Vine Street
		Te Puea Marae Reserve	41R Miro Road
		Thomas Park	41R Thomas Road
		Tilberg Park	68R Tilberg Street
		Vickers Park	48R Convair Crescent
		Wakefield Road Reserve	9R Wakefield Road
		Walmsley Road Reserve	21R Walmsley Road
		Waterlea Park	28R House Avenue
		Wimpey Street Reserve	19R Idlewild Avenue
		Windrush Park (Pershore Reserve)	52R Heyford Close
		Winthrop Way Reserve	37-39 Winthrop Way - Mangere East
		Yates Park	79R Yates Road
	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Toilet - T7 (84 Atkinson Ave)	12-16 High Street
		Toilet- (Old School Reserve)	299R Kirkbride Road
	Sports Park	Portage Canal Foreshore Reserve	4 Portage Road
	Storm Water Reserve	George Cox Reserve	25R Timberly Road
		Verissimo Park	Verissimo Drive
Panuku	Commercial/Investment Building	Mangere Town Cent WalkWay Roof Canopy	121R Bader Drive
	Community Facility	Nga Tapuwae Community Building	255 Buckland Road
	Community Hall	Mangere East Hall (Ex Metro Theatre)	362 Massey Road
	Library	Mangere East Library (New)	370 Massey Road
	Mixed Use	Mangere East Community Building Ex Lib	372 Massey Road
		Mangere Peoples Centre	366 Massey Road
	Property	36 Mason Avenue	36 Mason Avenue
		Fort Richard Road, 27	27 Fort Richard Road
	Works Depot/Utility Building	Walter Massey Depot-NOT AVAIL FOR LEASE	372R Massey Road
Pools and Leisure Centres	Swimming Complex/Aquatic Centr	Moana Nui A Kiwa Pool & Leisure Centre	66R Mascot Avenue
		MoanaNui AKiwa ex Mangere Indoor Pool	66R Mascot Avenue
		MoanaNuiAKiwa ex Mangere Outdoor Pool	66R Mascot Avenue
Premier Park	Premier Park	Otuataua Stonefields Reserve	56 Ihumatao Quarry Road
Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Hall Avenue Public Toilet Otahuhu	Great South Road
Public Toilets	Property	Yates Road 10	10 Yates Road
	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Toilet- Mangere Bridge Shop Toilet	34R Coronation Road
		Yates Road Toilet Block	10 Yates Road
Residential	Residential	Mascot Avenue 64r House (Aka 66)	66R Mascot Avenue
Sports Park	Local Park	Miami Street Reserve	14 Miami Street
	Property	Bader Intermediate School	6S Court Town Close
	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Chngroom - By carpark	1-15 Brady Road
		David Lange Park Toilet Block	98R Bader Drive
		House Park Change Rooms	241R Kirkbride Road
		House Park Toilets	241R Kirkbride Road
		Mangere Centre Park Old Changerooms	141R Robertson Road
		Mangere Centre Park Toilets & Changeroom	141R Robertson Road
		Moyle Park New Change Rooms	48R Bader Drive
		Moyle Park New Toilets & Change Rooms	48R Bader Drive
		Sturges Park - Changing room	25A Fort Richard Road
		Toilet - Norana Park Changing Rooms	21R Norana Avenue
		Toilet - T38 (Sturges Park)	25A Fort Richard Road
		Toilet - T5 (Murphy Park)	102 Church Street
		Toilet- (Mangere Centre Park)Clubroom	101R Robertson Road
		Toilet-(Mangere Centre Park)Inside Depot	101R Robertson Road
		Toilet-Norana Park-Nth of playground	21R Norana Avenue
		Toilets	55R Lenore Road
		Toilet-T15 (Seaside Park)-By playground	1-15 Brady Road
		Toilet-T39 (Seaside Park)-By carpark	1-15 Brady Road
		Toilet-To Right Of Gate At Entrance To	380R Massey Road
		Walter Masey-Soccer Club Changeroms	10R Hain Avenue
		Walter Massey League Club Changerooms	394R Massey Road
		Walter Massey Park Hain Ave Changerooms
		Walter Massey Park Hain Ave Toilets	10R Hain Avenue
		Walter Massey Park League Club Toilets	394R Massey Road
		Walter Massey Park Soccer Club Toilets	380R Massey Road
	Sports Park	Boggust Park	55R Lenore Road
		David Lange Park	98R Bader Drive
		Db Ground	113R Bader Drive
		House Park	241R Kirkbride Road
		Mangere Centre Park	141R Robertson Road
		Moyle Park	48R Bader Drive
		Murphy Park	102 Church Street
		Norana Park	21R Norana Avenue
		Otahuhu College Memorial Field	5B Kuranui Place
		Radonich Park (Lost City Reserve)	40 Cleek Road
		Seaside Park	1-15 Brady Road
		Sturges Park	25A Fort Richard Road
		Swanson Park	2R Mcintyre Road
		Walter Massey Park	10R Hain Avenue
		Williams Park	63R Viscount Street
Streetscape	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Toilet - T45 (6 Hall Avenue Otahuhu)	6 Hall Avenue
	Streetscape	Streetscape - Mangere-Otahuhu
Works Depot/Utility Building	Sports Facility	Mangere Centre Depot-NOT AVAIL FOR LEASE	141R Robertson Road
	Works Depot/Utility Building	Massey Homestead - Garden Shed	337R Massey Homestead Garden
Civic Squares and Plazas	Local Park	Coronation Rd Walkway	26R Coronation Road
		Criterion Street Reserve	2 Criterion Street
		Naomi & Bill Kirk Park	31 Coronation Road
		Nixon Monument	2A Piki Thompson Way
	Property	Mangere Arts Centre Grnds	121R Bader Drive
		Mangere Recreation Centre	66R Mascot Avenue
		Mangere Town Centre Grounds	121R Bader Drive
	Public Toilet/Changing Shed	Mangere Town Centre Toilet Block	121R Bader Drive
		Public Toilet - Adjacent to 32	26R Coronation Road
Closed Cemetery	Cemetery	Mangere Lawn Cemetery	28R Kirkbride Road
		Otahuhu Cemetery	2 Luke Street
Esplanades and Coastal	Esplanade Reserve	Kiwi Esplanade (Bird Refuge & Pump Hse)	86R Kiwil Esplanade
		Kiwi Esplanade (Boat Ramp)	32R Kiwi Esplanade
		Kiwi Esplanade (Old House Site 9r)	9R Kiwi Esplanade
		Kiwi Esplanade (Open Foreshore)	70R Kiwi Esplanade
		Kiwi Esplanade (Stone Wall Foreshore)	1R Kiwi Esplanade
Historic Places	Local Park	Massey Homestead	337R Massey Road
Neighbourhood Park	Local Park	Atkinson Corner	26 Princes Street
		Mangere Domain (Plunket, Tennis, Bowl)	11R Taylor Road
	Property	Moana Nui A Kiwa Pool & Leisure Centre	66R Mascot Avenue
		Otahuhu ComLibrary Centre/Office (old)	12-16 High Street
		Otahuhu Mainst Commercial Ass(19Hall Av)	19 Hall Avenue
		Otahuhu Plunket Rooms	3 Alexander Street
		Thomas Clements Senior Citizens Hall	9 Princes Street

Chairperson	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Deputy Chairperson	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Members	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich
	Carrol Elliott, JP
	Makalita Kolo
	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese, JP
	Christine O'Brien

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Tapuwae	‘Volcano’ as a reference to Mangere Mountain.
First Alternative	Puia	'Footprint' as a reference to the footprint of the Vulcan Deity Mataaoho at the nearby Mangere Lagoon.
Second Alternative	Kahupapa	‘To cover over/bridge over’ as a reference to Mangere Bridge.

MO/2016/147	Community Facilities Maintenance Contracts 2017
FILE REF	CP2016/18300
AGENDA ITEM NO.	15

Organisation	Lead	Alternate
Community Impact Forum for Kohuora Corrections Facility	Makalita Kolo	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Mangere Bridge BID	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Mangere Town Centre BID	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese	Makalita Kolo
Mangere East Village BID	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Otahuhu Business Association	Christine O’Brien	Makalita Kolo
South Harbour Business Association BID	Carrol Elliott	Makalita Kolo
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich
Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum	Carrol Elliott	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Youth Connections South Local Governance Group (3 members)	Christine O’Brien, Makalita Kolo, Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Maori input into local board decision-making political steering group (1 lead, 1 alternate)	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Te Pukaki Tapu O Poutukeka Historic Reserve & Associated Lands Co-Management Committee	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Ambury Park Centre	Christine O’Brien	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Mangere Mountain Education Trust	Lemauga Lydia Sosene	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua
Local Board Leads
Infrastructure and Environmental Services lead	Carrol Elliott	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Arts, Community and Events lead	Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua/ Christine O’Brien
Parks, Sport and Recreation lead and Community Facilities	Tauanu’u Nick Bakulich	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua/ Tafafuna’i Tasi Lauese
Libraries and Information Services lead	Christine O’Brien	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua/ Makalita Kolo
Local planning and heritage lead – includes responding to resource consent applications on behalf of board	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua (Planning) Carrol Elliott (Heritage)	Lemauga Lydia Sosene
Transport lead	Lemauga Lydia Sosene	Carrol Elliott/ Makalita Kolo
Economic development lead	Christine O’Brien	Togiatolu Walter Togiamua

Authors	Janette McKain - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers