|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
23 August 2017
|
|
Goverance Framework Review recommendations
File No.: CP2017/17203
Purpose
1. This
report seeks local board feedback on the draft positions of the Governance
Framework Review’s Political Working Party.
Executive
summary
2. The
governance framework review (GFR) was initiated to assess how well the Auckland
governance model (governing body/local boards) is meeting the aims of the 2010
reforms. The review was reported in late 2016 and a political working party (PWP) made up of local
board and governing body members was established to consider the review’s
findings and recommendations.
3. The
working party has considered the report’s recommendations in three broad
workstreams:
· policy and decision-making roles.
· local boards funding and finance.
· governance and representation.
4. This
report sets out the interim positions of the political working party on those
three workstreams and seeks local board feedback on those positions. The
working party will report back to the governing body on 28 September 2017 with
recommendations for decisions, including local boards’ views.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) provide
feedback on the following draft positions and recommendations of the
Political Working Party:
Regional policy and decision-making
i. agree
that council should implement new mechanisms that ensure effective local
board input to regional policy decisions, via a framework that sets out, at a
minimum:
I) A process
for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at
the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh;
II) Earlier and more
joint engagement between local boards and the governing body in regional
decision-making processes.
III) Requirements for
analysis of local impacts and local interest of regional decisions and
options, and reporting of this to local boards and the governing body.
IV) Specified criteria for
categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional
decisions.
V) Processes and methods
for tailoring local board engagement in line with the local impact and local
interest of regional decisions e.g. high categorisation requiring more
specific local engagement and analysis, low categorisation requiring more
cluster joint local board workshop sessions and less in depth analysis.
VI) Specified methods for
engagement and communication with local boards at all stages of the
decision-making process.
ii. direct
that local boards will be consulted on the details of these mechanisms prior
to implementation.
iii. note
that the Quality Advice programme is continuing to be implemented in order to
improve the quality of advice to elected members for decision-making, in line
with the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review.
iv. agree
not to implement any formal policies or procedures that control when and how
local boards may procure external or contestable advice, but note that, in
principle, the Auckland Council organisation should be the first provider of
advice to local boards.
v. agree
not to implement any policy or procedure that would limit local boards’
ability to advocate to the governing body on regional issues.
Local decisions that may have regional
impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)
vi. note
that an explicit call-in right is not possible under the Local Government
(Auckland Council) Act.
vii. agree
not to implement any mechanism that would have the effect of ‘calling
in’ or allocating decision-making to the governing body for otherwise
local activities or decisions that have regional implications.
viii. direct
officers that, whenever a local board is to make a decision that has
potential impacts beyond the immediate local board area e.g. a sub-regional
impact or an impact on regional networks, advice on those potential impacts
is to be provided to the local board as a matter of course (for example
through a regional impact statement).
Allocations and delegations
ix. agree
that the governing body delegates, subject to the necessary statutory tests
being met, the following Reserves Act 1977 decision-making functions for
local reserves to local boards:
I) declaration.
II) classification.
III) reclassification.
IV) application
for revocation of reserve status (limited to when there is a desire by a local
board to manage open space under the LGA).
x. note
that officers’ advice on decision-making for exchanges of reserve land
was that it should remain with the governing body, with the relevant local
board consulted on these decisions.
xi. note
that the working party did not reach consensus on this issue, and will
consider the feedback of local boards before making a recommendation.
xii. agree
that the Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers remain delegated
to staff, but where there is likely to be significant public interest, an
independent commissioner should be engaged.
The role of Auckland Transport and
local boards
xiii. note
the critical interface between the local place-shaping role of local boards
and Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction over the road corridor and
transport networks.
xiv. note
that the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs requires Auckland Transport,
amongst other things, to:
I) develop,
with local boards, a shared understanding of local board views and CCO
priorities to inform the following year’s business planning, including
through an annual interactive workshop ‘where local boards communicate
their local board priorities and the CCOs communicate how their current year
work programme will contribute to local board priorities’.
II) develop
by 31 July each year an annual local board engagement plan, which includes a
schedule ‘clearly indicat[ing] for each board, the projects and/or
activities that it expects to report on, and the projects and activities that
it expects to consult on, for the following year. This should be updated
annually or more frequently if required’.
III) report
against their local board engagement plan in their quarterly performance
reports to the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee.
xv. direct
Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set
out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs.
xvi. direct
Auckland Council officers to monitor Auckland Transport’s compliance
with the requirements for local board engagement, as set out in the
Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs, and to report this monitoring to the
governing body at least annually.
xvii. note
that the Mayor’s 2017 letter of expectation to Auckland Transport
stipulated that council expects there to be:
I) better
and earlier engagement and communication between Auckland Transport and local
boards;
II) active
consideration by Auckland Transport of which of its decision-making powers it
could delegate to local boards (within the constraints created by the
regulatory environment, safety considerations, the needs of regional networks
and the role played by NZTA in decision-making).
xviii. note
that the following activity statement has been included in Auckland
Transport’s 2017-2020 Statement of Intent:
I) ‘Participation in the governance
review which is aimed at changing behaviours and processes across relevant
Council family activities, including Auckland Transport, to enable local
boards to give effect to their governance role, particularly around local
place-shaping.’
xix. note
that the Governance Framework Review has investigated the potential
delegation of a range of Auckland Transport powers and the working party
recommends that additional work be undertaken to identify delegation
opportunities.
xx. direct
Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to:
I) Ensure
that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look
and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their
allocation of non-regulatory decision-making.
II) Improve
co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre
upgrades, and its renewals programmes.
III) Provide
more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor
traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport
considers are of critical safety importance.
IV) Be
more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of
the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community
place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of
developing traffic management plans for community events.
V) Take
direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused
programmes.
xxi. direct
Auckland Transport to report to the governing body annually on how it is
meeting the directions given under recommendation xx.
xxii. note
that the Quality Advice programme has been working with Auckland Transport to
improve the quality of advice to local boards and will shortly begin regular
six monthly surveys of local board members’ satisfaction with Auckland
Transport advice, engagement and reporting to local boards.
xxiii. note
that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is valued by local boards but
that the level of funding means that some boards are not able to progress
meaningful projects, and that improved local transport outcomes may be
achieved if the size of the fund was significantly increased.
xxiv. direct
officers to report to the relevant governing body committee, through the Long
Term Plan process, on options for significantly increasing the Local Board
Transport Capital Fund and the method of allocation of the fund.
xxv. direct
Auckland Transport to implement a more systematic work programme approach to
assist local boards to identify potential projects and make decisions.
xxvi. direct
Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body members (ward
councillors) on transport projects and issues within their ward areas.
Waiheke Local Board pilot
xxvii. agree
that the governing body should endorse the Waiheke Local Board pilot project
as set out in the Waiheke Local Board pilot project plan.
xxviii. note that
the Waiheke Local Board will maintain oversight of local implementation of
the pilot.
Local boards funding and finance
xxix. agree that the enhanced status quo model be
progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as
possible within that framework.
xxx. agree that the additional
work to support the Enhanced status quo model be undertaken – framework
for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical
uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to
local boards.
xxxi. agree that further work on
the implications of the local decision making model also be undertaken for
further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the
revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision
making etc.
The optimum number of
local boards
xxxii. agree
that council should undertake no further work on changing the number of local
boards until at least after the governance framework review has been
completed and implemented, and the outcomes of reorganisation proposals that
are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known.
Methods of electing governing body
members
xxxiii. agree that a change to the
current system of electing governing body members from existing wards is not
warranted purely to address alignment between governing body members and
local boards.
xxxiv. note that the
statutory review of representation arrangements for Auckland Council must be
completed by September 2018.
xxxv. note that the
Local Government Act Amendment Bill No. 2, which proposes a simplified
process for local government-led reorganisation processes, is currently
before Parliament.
xxxvi. agree that council
should continue to advocate to central government for legislative amendments
that would allow changes to the number of governing body members in line with
population changes, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers
and boundaries of local boards.
b) provide
feedback on whether decision-making for exchanges of reserve land should sit
with the governing body or local boards
c) provide
feedback on its preferred naming conventions for governing body members and
local board members
d) provide
feedback on options for the continuation of a joint local board/governing
body political working party focusing on matters of governance impacting on
both governance arms.
|
Comments
Background
5. In
early 2016, Auckland Council instigated a review of the Council’s
governance framework as set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act
2009, focussing on the complementary governance relationship between local
boards and a governing body. The review did not consider Auckland
Council’s CCO governance framework or the role of the Independent
Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).
6. The
primary purpose of the review was to assess how the Auckland governance model
is meeting the aim of the Auckland governance reforms by delivering strong
regional decision-making, complemented by decisions that meet diverse local
needs and interests. After nearly six years since Auckland Council was
established, it was an appropriate point to look at this.
7. The
intention was to complete the review prior to the 2016 local government
election and to provide advice to the incoming council about any recommended
changes. The review was carried out by an independent consultant.
8. The
review focused on improvements to the governance framework, not fundamental
reform. It was based on extensive interviews with elected members, staff,
council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and external stakeholders, as well as
review and research of foundation documents and other material.
9. A
report summarising the findings of the review was issued in draft form to
elected members in late August 2016 and discussed with elected members at
workshops. The feedback received on the draft from elected members was largely
supportive of the findings. The report was finalised in November 2016, and
incorporated some minor changes based on the feedback of the elected members.
10. In
December 2016 the governing body established a political working party of
governing body members and local board members to consider the GFR report and oversee the development of a work programme to
explore the implications of its findings then make final recommendations to the
Governing Body. The political
working party has been considering issues and options via a series of working
papers and presentations during the first half of 2017. It will report to the
Governing Body in September.
Key findings of the Governance Framework Review
11. The
review concluded that there were a number of positive aspects of the governance
model from both a regional and local perspective. This includes the ability for
the Auckland region to ‘speak with one voice’ to important
stakeholders, such as central government, regarding regional strategic planning
and infrastructure development, and enabling local decision-making that
provides a local community focus in a way that did not exist under the previous
arrangements. However, it also identified a number of areas for improvement,
which fall under four key themes:
· Organisational structures and culture have not
adapted to the complexity of the model:
The review found that
the organisation has had challenges in responding to the unique and complex
governance arrangements in Auckland, and that this has impacted on the quality
of advice and support for elected members.
· Complementary decision-making, but key aspects
of overlap:
The
review touched on a number of decision-making functions where there is overlap
between the Governing body and Local Boards, or a lack of clarity about
respective roles of the two governance arms.
· Lack of alignment of accountabilities
with responsibilities:
The review found that
the system of decision-making creates incentives for governing body members to
act locally despite regional benefits and that local boards are incentivised to
advocate for local service improvements, without having to make trade-offs
required to achieve these.
· Local boards are not sufficiently empowered:
The
review identified that there are some practices that are constraining local
boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding
arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional
decision-making. It also noted particular local frustrations in relation to
transport decision-making.
Approach of the political working party and structure of
this report
12. The
working party has been considering the thirty six recommendations of the GFR.
They are grouped in to the following workstreams:
· policy and decision-making roles.
· local boards funding and finance.
· governance and representation.
13. These
first three workstreams are nearing completion. A fourth workstream,
organisational support, is in its early stages and will consider improvements
to the way the organisation supports the Auckland governance model, including
any changes that arise from this review.
14. This
report briefly sets out the issues presented to the political working party in
the first three workstreams, the recommendations, and the draft position the
PWP has reached. Local board feedback on these directions is sought. A more
in-depth discussion of the analysis, rationale and options development for each
issue is available in relevant discussion documents appended to this report.
15. A
high level summary of all GFR report recommendations and how they were
progressed (or not) is attached as Appendix A. Several recommendations were not
progressed for various reasons and these are noted in the table.
16. In
considering the GFR report recommendations, options were developed and assessed
against the following criteria endorsed by the political working party and
approved by the governing body:
· consistency with the statutory purpose of local
government.
· provision for decision making at the appropriate
level, as set out in Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act
2009 and consistency with the subsidiarity principle.
· contribution to improving role clarity between
the two arms of governance, both internally and for the public.
· provision for increased empowerment of local
boards, especially in their place shaping role.
· ensuring appropriate accountability and
incentives for political decisions.
· contribution to improved community engagement
with, and better services for Aucklanders.
· administrative feasibility, including efficiency
and practicality of implementation.
Workstream 1: Policy and decision-making roles
17. This
workstream covers the following topics:
· Regional policy and decision-making processes.
· Tension between local and regional priorities
(development of a ‘call-in’ right).
· Allocations and delegations.
· The role of local boards and Auckland Transport
in local place-shaping.
· A pilot for devolving greater powers to Waiheke
Local Board.
Regional policy and decision-making processes
18. The
GFR found that:
· There is no agreed strategic framework for
regional policy development that adequately addresses governing body and local
board statutory roles[1].
· The timing of regional decision-making is not
well-planned across the organisation. Local boards in particular do not have
good visibility of the timing of regional decisions.
· Considerable time and resource commitments are
required to seek local board input on regional decisions.
· Local boards do not receive quality advice to
inform their input, and advice to the governing body and local boards often
lacks analysis of local impacts.
19. To
address these issues, the GFR recommended that council should:
· Bring both arms of governance together early in
the policy development process to clarify respective roles.
· Increase the use of joint briefings and
workshops where relevant.
· Develop a methodology that clearly identifies
local boards’ role in regional decisions.
· Develop tools to enable local board input earlier
into regional policy development.
· Develop a clear policy on the commissioning of
contestable advice, including a conflict resolution process.
· Continue to embed the programme for improving
the quality of policy advice.
· Consider limiting the ability of local boards to
advocate on regional policy issues (particularly investment), once due
consideration has been given.
20. Two
options were assessed for implementing better policy development processes that
would ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions:
· Option 1 that involves implementing a framework with mechanisms to
ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, and specifies
methodologies and ways of working to address these procedural deficiencies identified
by GFR.
· Option 2 that involves the same framework plus politically adopted
principles, in order to provide greater political direction and set public and
political expectations.
21. Both
options were considered to lead to better policy development, more empowerment
of local boards, and to better fulfil statutory obligations. Option 2 was
recommended on the grounds that it was more likely to result in greater
political accountability. Option 1 was favoured by the PWP.
22. The
following recommendations were also made to the PWP:
· The Quality Advice programme should continue as
an organisational priority.
· Council should not implement a policy or process
on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution
process, as neither are considered to be needed or proportional to the scale of
the problem.
· Council should not implement a policy to limit
the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues, as it would
not be in line with local boards’ statutory role to advocate on behalf of
their communities.
23. The
PWP’s position is that:
· A framework that implements mechanisms to ensure
effective local board input to regional policy decisions would be useful, and
local boards will need to be consulted on this prior to its implementation;
· Council should not implement a policy or process
on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution
process, nor a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on
regional policy issues. It was considered that such policies or procedures are
unnecessary and would be out of proportion to the scale of any problems.
24. In
line with this position, recommendations i-v have been drafted. Local board
feedback is sought on these.
25. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
working paper ‘Regional decision-making and policy processes’
(Appendix B).
Next steps
26. A
framework setting out mechanisms to ensure effective local board input into
regional decisions will be developed in line with the high level direction in
the discussion document and the recommendations above. It will be workshopped
with local boards in the implementation phase of GFR.
27. How
organisational advice is provided, and by who, is a key question that needs to
be considered; resource constraint issues, specifically around the ability of
the organisation to service local board requests for advice on regional issues
or to develop local policy, were a common theme encountered during this
workstream. This is particularly important given that implementation of this
framework may require more in depth and involved work to provide advice to
local boards. This will be considered through the Organisational Support
workstream.
Local
decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a
‘call-in’ right)
28. The
GFR concluded that the current governance model ‘provides limited
incentives for local boards to consider local assets in a regional context, or
contemplate divestment or re-prioritisation of assets or facilities in their
local board areas. This leads to situations where conflict between local
decision-making and regional decision-making arises.’
29. The
report cited the hypothetical example of a local sports field which has been
identified as having capacity to be developed and contribute to the regional
strategy to grow regional capacity in the sports field network, but the local
board does not support this development because of the possible impacts on
local residents of increased noise, traffic and light. The local board has the
ability to decide against the development on the basis of those concerns, with
the regional impact of that decision being a resultant shortfall in sports
field capacity.
30. To
address this issue, the GFR recommended that council should develop a process
which would allow the governing body to ‘call-in’ decisions about
local assets where there is an important regional priority.
31. Analysis
showed that these situations occur very rarely, but when they do they usually
have potentially significant or serious implications.
32. Legal
analysis showed that an explicit ‘call-in’ right is not possible
under LGACA or the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) but could be achieved
through other mechanisms such as amendments to the allocation table. A
range of options to address the problem were developed:
· Option 1: Enhanced status quo (with a focus on council staff
ensuring that advice to local boards covers possible regional implications of a
decision where they exist).
· Option 2: Establishing a process to bring both arms of governance
together to attempt to reach a solution that appropriately provides for
regional and local priorities.
· Option 3: Amending the allocation of decision-making to allocate to
the governing body decision-making over an asset that is currently local in a
situation where there is a regional or sub-regional need or impact.
· Option 4: Amending the allocation of decision-making as per Option
3, and also delegating the decision to a joint committee of governing body and
local board members.
33. Option
3 was recommended to the PWP, noting that specific criteria would need to be
developed to ensure that it would apply only in certain situations.
34. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
discussion document ‘Allocations and delegations’ Part 1: Local
decisions that may have regional impact (Appendix C).
35. The
PWP’s draft position is that no call-in right, nor any mechanism that
would have a similar effect by removing local decision-making, should be
implemented; local decision-making that has been allocated to local boards
should remain un-fettered on the basis that local boards can make decisions in
the context of regional implications if appropriate advice is provided. To that
end, a mechanism should be implemented to ensure that local boards are clearly
advised of any potential regional or sub-regional implications of a decision
that they are asked to make.
36. Recommendations
vi – viii summarise these positions. Local board feedback on these is
sought.
Next
steps
37. If
this direction is adopted, a regional impact statement will be included in
reports to local boards where the decision required has the potential to have
an impact beyond the immediate local board area.
Allocations
and delegations
38. The
GFR found that most elected members ‘felt that the split of
decision-making allocation was reasonably well understood and sensible’,
but there were several areas where the allocation (and/or delegations) was
challenged. The GFR recommended that council review the delegated
responsibilities to local boards for swimming pool fencing exemptions, setting
time and season rules for dog access, the role of local boards in resource
consent applications, and in various Reserves Act 1977 decisions.
39. Three
of the issues identified in the GFR report either have already been addressed
or will shortly be addressed:
· Delegations for granting swimming pool fencing
exemptions have been superseded by legislative change that aligns the granting
of these exemptions with other safety and building regulation powers in the
Building Act 2004, which are delegated to staff;
· Delegations on setting time and season rules for
dog access will be reviewed through the review of the Dog Management Bylaw,
initiated by the Governing Body in March 2017. An issues and options paper is
expected in November 2017 and the review will be completed before 2019;
· The role of local boards in resource consent
applications was considered by a political working party in 2016. It made
recommendations for refining triggers for providing information about resource
consent applications to local boards and adopting a standard practice for local
boards to speak to local views and preferences in hearings. These
recommendations were adopted by the Hearings Committee in September 2016.
40. Work
therefore focused on issues regarding the role of local boards in
decision-making under the Reserves Act 1977.
41. Currently,
local boards are allocated non-regulatory decision-making for ‘the use of
and activities within local parks’, and ‘reserve management plans
for local parks’. However, the council’s Reserves Act regulatory
decisions are the responsibility of the governing body. The GFR report
concluded that ‘where a local park has reserve status under the Reserves
Act, it can impact or limit the decision-making authority of local boards in
relation to that park’. The GFR recommended that there ‘is a case
for local boards having consistent decision-making rights across all local
parks’, regardless of which legislative regime they are managed under.
42. Various
options were developed for the following Reserves Act powers:
· declaring land to be a reserve, which brings it
into the regime set out by the Reserves Act.
· classifying or reclassifying a reserve, which has
an impact on how the reserve can be used.
· requesting the revocation of reserve status from
the Minister of Conservation.
· exchanging, acquiring and disposing of reserve
land.
43. These
options were generally:
· status quo (decision-making continues to lie
with the governing body).
· delegate decision-making for local reserves to
local boards.
· delegate decision-making for local reserves to
local boards, subject to development of a regional policy to provide some
consistency across the region.
44. The
role of local boards with regard to the Minister of Conversation’s
delegated supervisory powers, which are a process check that requires council
to ensure that Reserves Act processes have been followed correctly, was also
considered.
45. The
positions recommended to the PWP were as follows:
· The council’s substantive decision-making
powers to classify and reclassify reserves should be delegated to local boards,
on the basis that it would provide for local decision-making and
accountability. There would likely be negligible effects on regional networks
or issues with regional consistency.
· The decision-making power to declare a reserve
and to request revocation of reserve status should be delegated to local
boards, subject to regional policy or guidelines to provide some consistency
about the land status of open space. This would balance local decision-making
and accountability with regional consistency and network impacts.
· The Minister of Conservation’s delegated
‘supervisory’ powers should remain delegated to staff, but where a
decision is likely to be contentious or there may be multiple objections, staff
should consider employing an independent commissioner to carry out this
function. This was on the basis that the supervisory decision is a technical
check that the correct process has been followed, and it should be exercised by
a different decision-maker than the maker of the substantive decision.
46. In
deciding whether to delegate these decisions, the governing body will need to
consider the requirement set out in Clause 36C(3) of Part 1A of Schedule 7 of
the LGA to “weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and
preferences against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in
the district”. This test will need to be carried out individually for
each specific power that is proposed to be delegated.
47. The
PWP also considered the roles of local boards in reserve exchanges. Two options
were developed:
· Status quo: decision-making on reserve exchanges
remains with the governing body, in line with decision-making for acquisition
and disposal of non-reserve property.
· Decision-making is delegated to local boards.
48. It
was recommended that the status quo remains, as this would retain a consistent
approach to the acquisition and disposal of all assets and avoids introducing
further complexity, time and cost to RMA plan change and consent decisions
(which are currently governing body decisions).
49. The
PWP agreed that decisions on declaration, classification, reclassification and
application to revoke reserve status for local reserves should be delegated to
local boards. It also agreed that the Minister of Conservation’s
supervisory powers should remain delegated to staff, but that an independent
commissioner should be engaged to exercise this function where the decision
sought is likely to be of significant public interest. This would provide an
additional layer of independent assurance that the decision-making process has
been appropriate.
50. The
PWP discussed the decision-making for exchanges of reserve land and did not
reach a consensus position on which option should be progressed. It agreed to consider
the feedback of local boards on this issue before making a recommendation.
51. The
PWP’s positions have been summarised in recommendations ix - xi. Local
board feedback is sought on these.
52. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
discussion documents ‘Allocations and delegations’ Part 2: Reserves
Act decision-making roles (Appendix C) and ‘Reserve Act land
exchanges’ (Appendix D).
Next
steps
53. The
governing body will be presented with the necessary recommendations and legal
tests to enable it to make delegations at its September meeting if this
position is confirmed.
The
role of local boards and Auckland Transport in local place-shaping
54. The
GFR report found there is frustration among some local board members with
respect to transport decision-making and the local board role of place-shaping
within and beside the road corridor. It noted common concerns among local board
members that:
· there is a lack of timely, high-quality
information about local transport activity
· the community holds local board members
accountable for local transport decisions, but they have very little influence
over them
· Auckland Transport could be delegating some
transport responsibilities to boards, particularly in relation to local
transport and place-making in town centres.
55. There
are mixed views amongst board members on the quality and purpose of
consultation: while some local board members feel there is genuine consultation
and engagement from Auckland Transport, others feel that it can be late or lack
authenticity. There also appear to be different expectations of respective
roles in consulting the public, and concerns about a lack of timely,
high-quality information, and the quality of advice on the local board
Transport Capital Fund.
56. To
address these issues, various options were developed for decision-making roles,
funding for local transport initiatives, and engagement between Auckland
Transport and local boards.
Decision-making
roles
57. A
range of decision-making functions were assessed for potential delegation to
local boards. This included, for example, decision-making over major and minor
capital investment, non-road parts of the road corridor for a variety of uses,
event permitting and traffic management planning, signage and banners,
regulatory controls over parking, traffic and transit lanes, traffic calming,
physical infrastructure (including town centre infrastructure as well as kerb
and channelling or swales for stormwater), and community education programmes.
58. Delegation
of decision-making functions to local boards generally did not perform well on
evaluation criteria. Analysis showed that while local boards do and should have
a role in place-making, of which the road corridor and town centres are a
significant part, it is practically difficult to split up formal
decision-making for parts of the transport network.
59. In
addition, Auckland Transport remains liable for the impacts of decisions even
if they are delegated. Therefore, the functions that could be delegated tend to
be quite low-level and operational in nature; the administrative and
transactional costs of numerous operational decisions being made by local
boards would be high.
60. For
these reasons, advice to the PWP was that the place-making role of local boards
would be better given effect to through other options assessed:
· earlier and more consistent engagement by
Auckland Transport which acknowledges the local governance and place-shaping
roles of local boards, and is in line with the expectations set out in the
Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs.
· an increase in the local board Transport Capital
Fund, which would likely result in greater delivery of local transport
projects and local transport outcomes.
· a direction for Auckland Transport to undertake
various other actions that will empower local boards’ place shaping in
the transport corridor.
Funding
61. The
options for changes to the local board Transport Capital Fund were:
· Option 1: Status quo – the fund remains at approximately $11
million with the current method of allocation.
· Option 2: A recommendation to increase the size of the fund from
the current inflation-adjusted value of $11 million to $20 million, as well as
improvements to provide local boards with better advice and a more systematic
work programme approach to managing projects. Process improvements and better
advice to local boards may improve outcomes from the fund.
· Option 3: A full review of the purpose and operation of the fund.
When the fund was first established in 2012, a review was committed to during
the development of the 2015-25 LTP but this never took place. No subsequent
policy analysis has been undertaken to determine whether the fund is currently
operating optimally.
62. The
PWP took the position that the local board transport capital fund should be
increased significantly, and that an appropriate final quantum for the fund
should be determined through the long-term plan process alongside other budget
priorities. The method of allocating this fund across local boards should also
be considered through the long-term plan process.
It also considered that
Auckland Transport should provide local boards with a more systematic work
programme approach to identifying options for projects and local transport
outcomes through the fund.
Auckland Transport
– local board consultation and engagement
63. Various
options for improvements to Auckland Transport – local board consultation
and engagement were explored, including improvements to local board engagement
plans and more consistent reporting and monitoring of local board engagement.
64. Analysis
showed that improving Auckland Transport-local board
engagement, both at a strategic level and on a project by project basis, would
be the best and most appropriate way to empower local boards that takes into
account local boards’ local governance role and Auckland Transport’s
statutory responsibilities.
65. This would likely be best achieved if the existing requirements for
local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs
are consistently met and monitored.
These requirements specify expectations for, amongst other things, local board
engagement plans incorporating schedules of board-specific priorities and
projects, annual workshops between Auckland Transport and local boards for
direction-setting, and regular reporting against local board engagement.
66. Various
functions of Auckland Transport were assessed for potential local board
empowerment. It was proposed that Auckland Transport:
· Ensure that local boards have a strong
governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres
and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory
decision-making.
· Improve co-ordination between local
place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals
programmes.
· Provide more opportunities for local board
direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the
exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety
importance.
· Be more responsive to local place-shaping
initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or
removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to
reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events.
· Take direction from local boards on how and
where to implement community-focused programmes.
67. It
was also proposed that these directions be actively monitored and reported
annually to the governing body.
68. The
PWP supported these positions on improving the relationship by requiring Auckland
Transport to be more consistent on meeting its obligations, and through more
consistent monitoring of how it is doing so. It also supported directing
Auckland Transport to empower local boards further as described above.
69. The
PWP also considered that potential delegations to local boards should not be
ruled out, and should be investigated further. It also noted that not all ward
councillors are regularly engaged or informed of transport projects and issues
within their ward areas, and that this should be done as a matter of course.
70. Recommendations
xii – xxv reflect these positions. Local board feedback is sought on
these.
71. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
working papers ‘Local boards and Auckland Transport’ (Appendix E)
and ‘Confirmation of draft transport recommendations’ (Appendix F).
Waiheke
Local Board pilot
72. The
GFR identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards
from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding
arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional
decision-making. It considered whether it would be feasible for some local
boards to have greater decision-making powers depending on the extent of the
regional impact of specific local decisions. It suggested that this could be
piloted on Waiheke Island given:
· the more clearly defined community of interest
on the island (relative to most other local board areas);
· the separation of the island from wider Auckland
services such as roading, stormwater or public transport;
· the desires of the local board for greater
decision-making autonomy, and a feeling that the regionalisation of services
across Auckland has failed to reflect the unique nature of the island.
73. The
Waiheke Local Board has consistently sought greater autonomy, arguing that this
would deliver better outcomes for the community and better reflect the
principles of subsidiarity and the policy intent of the Auckland amalgamation.
74. A
range of functions and decisions that the GFR suggested could be devolved to
local boards are currently under the purview of the governing body or Auckland
Transport. These include area planning, community development and safety,
developing local visitor infrastructure, management of the stormwater network,
some transport decision-making and catchment management.
75. Other
matters the GFR proposed for devolution are in fact already allocated to local
boards or provided for under statute, but boards have not had access to the
resources to support them – such as local area planning or proposing
bylaws – or they have not been assessed as a priority in an environment
where large regional projects have tended to dominate (such as the Unitary
Plan).
76. In
response, a proposed three year pilot project for Waiheke has been developed in
conjunction with the local board. The activities proposed are broader than the
technical allocation or delegation of decision-making, and include operational
issues, policy and planning, funding, compliance and enforcement and
relationships with CCOs. The pilot will include:
· A programme of locally-initiated policy,
planning and bylaw work that includes responses to visitor growth demands, a
strategic plan for Matiatia, and development of a proposal for a community
swimming pool, will be undertaken.
· Addressing a number of operational issues that
frustrate the local board. For example there are a number of longstanding
compliance and encroachment issues on the island that have not been resolved and
have become almost intractable, resulting in ongoing negative environmental and
social impacts. This may be addressed through better locally-based operational
leadership from council.
· Developing some key local transport strategic
approaches, such as a 10 year transport plan and Waiheke and Hauraki Gulf
Islands design guidelines.
77. The
pilot has been developed with intervention logic and an evaluation methodology
built-in from the beginning. This will enable a sound evaluation of the pilot
to be undertaken, particularly to assess success and the applicability of the
findings to the rest of Auckland.
78. The
Waiheke Local Board will oversee governance of the pilot project. It is
proposed that the pilot be implemented from 1 October 2017.
79. The
PWP endorsed the pilot project and recommends that it be endorsed by the
governing body. Recommendations xxvi – xxvii reflect this position. Local
board feedback is sought on these.
80. Further
details on the analysis, rationale and key projects is available in the working
papers ‘Waiheke Local Board pilot project’ (Appendix G) and the
project outline (Appendix H).
Next
steps
81. An
implementation plan and an evaluation plan will be developed and reported to
the Waiheke Local Board for its consideration prior to the implementation date
(currently proposed to be 1 October 2017).
Workstream 2: Local boards funding and finance
82. The
GFR identified the following key issues that have been considered within the
context of the Funding and Finance workstream:
· Local boards do not have to balance the trade-offs of financial
decisions in the same way as the governing body needs to e.g. local boards can
advocate for both additional investment in their own area and lower rates.
· Inflexibility of the current funding policies to empower local board
decision making. In particular local boards feel they have little or no control
over the 90 per cent of their budget which is for “Asset Based
Services” (ABS).
· Inflexibility of the current procurement processes and definition of
when local boards or groups of local boards can undertake procurement of major
contracts.
83. The
workstream looked at a range of alternative models for financial decision
making around local activities:
· Status Quo (predominantly governing body and some local board
decision making).
· Entirely Local (unconstrained local board decision making).
· Local within parameters (local board decision making but within
parameters set by the governing body).
· Entirely Regional (all governing body with local boards as
advocates).
· Joint governing body/local board (joint committees).
· Multi Board (joint decision making of two or more local boards).
84. The
early discussion paper attached to this agenda at Appendix I describes these
options in more detail.
85. After
initial discussion with the PWP the options were narrowed down to two, for
further exploration. The attached papers (Appendix J and Appendix K) describe
the approach to the two models in some detail. However, in summary:
Option 1: Enhanced status quo
This option is based on the governing body continuing to set
the overall budget availability and allocating the budget between local boards
(the allocation is currently based on legacy service levels). The budgets will
be funded from general rates and decisions made by the governing body on the
level of rates, efficiency savings and levels of service would be reflected
through, as necessary, to the local board budgets. Within these parameters some
additional flexibility for local decision making is proposed.
Option 2: Local decision making within
parameters
In this option additional decision making is enabled for
local boards through all or some of the costs of local activities and services
being funded through a local rate. This enables the local board to have much
increased flexibility in determining levels of service in different activities
and to directly engage with their community on the costs and benefits of
providing those services. The key issues identified with this option are the
impact of redistributing the costs of local services on different communities
and the additional costs of supporting local decision making.
86. A
number of key themes emerge from evaluating the two models of decision making
and these form the main issues for consideration when determining the way
forward:
i) Legal
context – The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out
expectations for the two arms of governance. There is a clear expectation that
local boards will reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities
“in respect of the level and nature of local activities to be provided
by Auckland Council…” To do this local boards need the
ability to make decisions about service levels and appropriate funding.
ii) Capital
expenditure – Both models of decision making have assumed that
decisions on major capital expenditure will be reserved to the governing body.
Control of debt and the council’s credit rating are key regional issues.
There is also recognition that the governing body is best placed to make
decisions on investment in new assets that are essentially part of a community
infrastructure network.
iii) Organisational
efficiency vs local decision making – Greater decision making by
local boards will require a greater level of staff support and will require the
organisation to gear its governance advice in a different way. This will have
an impact on the resources of the organisation.
iv) Regional
standards vs local preferences – There are different views on whether
it is better to have one standard of service across the whole Auckland region
for local activities, or whether each local board should be able to prioritise
and customise those services according to the needs and preferences of their
community.
v) Legacy
funding base – The current funding of local boards for ABS is largely
based on the historical funding model from the legacy councils. As each board
has inherited different numbers of assets, different levels of service and
different method of delivery, the existing funding base in very uneven. This
creates a number of difficulties for the Enhanced Status Quo model.
vi) Local
assets as a network – Giving local boards more decision making over
the level of renewal and/or services delivered from local assets will, in many
cases, impact on communities outside of the local area. To address this issue
the proposal includes requirement for local boards to consult outside of their
own area in certain situations.
vii) Funding –
The key factors with the general rates based approach are:
· Overall
funding and therefore to a large extent, levels of service, for local
activities are determined by the governing body.
· It
is difficult to address the historical funding inequities.
· All
ratepayers pay the same (based on property value).
The key factors with a local rate are:
· The
rate will reflect the level of service delivered in that area.
· The
local board can set their own budgets to reflect local community priorities.
· The
redistribution of rates may impact more in communities least able to afford it.
viii) Data
and policy gaps – Regardless of which approach is decided upon for
the future, the project has highlighted the need to improve the quality of
information and policy support to local boards.
87. In
summary the two proposed models of financial decision making have the following
characteristics:
Enhanced status quo –
· Limited additional financial decision making – may not give
full effect to legislative intent of local boards with local decision making
and accountability.
· Maintains the efficiencies of more centralised organisational
support and procurement at scale.
· Governing body determines budgets and therefore levels of service -
tends towards regional standards.
· Unlikely to address legacy inequities of funding in the short term.
· General rate funded therefore no redistribution effect, but also
does not address perceived inequity of boards funding higher levels of service
in other areas.
Local decision making within parameters
–
· Gives more decision making and accountability to local boards
– may be more in line with legislative intent.
· Will be less efficient as additional resources will be required to
support local decision making.
· Levels of service will tend to be more varied across the region.
· Enables local boards to address funding inequities.
· Redistribution of rates will impact on some communities who can
least afford it.
88. While
there are two clear choices of decision making model, there does not have to be
a final decision at this point. The “Local decision making within
parameters” option requires a change to the Local Board Funding Policy
which in turn needs public consultation. There also needs to be more
preparatory work before any implementation of a change, and in fact, some of
that work would be necessary to implement the “Enhanced status quo”
model. Five alternative recommendations were put forward to the PWP:
· Status
quo – no change.
· Enhanced
status quo – progress further work prior to implementation on
organisational impacts, framework for service levels and local flexibility,
options for addressing historical uneven funding issues, improving financial
data etc.
· Local
decision making within parameters – consult on the change with the LTP
2018-28 and progress pre-implementation work (as above plus work on detailed
parameters and rating models). The earliest implementation for this approach
would be 2019/20.
· Consult
on both options with the LTP 2018-28 and then decide. In the meantime progress
at least the work for enhanced status quo. The earliest implementation for this
approach would be 2019/20.
· Agree
in principle to local decision making but subject to further work (as outlined
above). Should there then be a wish to proceed to consult with the 2019/20
Annual Plan.
89. The PWP
reached agreement on a variation of these alternative recommendations i.e.:
· That
the Enhanced status quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional
decision making to local boards as possible within that framework.
· That
the additional work to support this model be undertaken – framework for
service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven
funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards.
· That
further work on the implications of the Local decision making model also be
undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following
the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision
making etc.
90. These
positions are summarised in recommendations xxviii – xxx. Local board
feedback is sought on these.
Workstream 3: Governance and representation
91. This
workstream covers:
· The optimum number of local boards.
· Methods of electing governing body members.
· Naming conventions for elected members.
The
optimum number of local boards
92. The
GFR found that having twenty-one local boards contributed to a complex
governance structure and logistical inefficiencies; servicing 21 local boards
is costly and creates a large administrative burden. It recommended that the
council form a view on the optimum number of local boards, noting that
‘getting the right number of local boards is about striking a balance
between getting genuine local engagement, while maintaining a decision-making
structure that is able to be effectively serviced’.
93. Changing
the number of local boards requires a reorganisation proposal, a statutory
process that is currently a lengthy and likely costly exercise. Determining the
optimum number of local boards, to inform such a proposal, is in itself a
significant undertaking.
94. There
are several other processes ongoing that make a reorganisation proposal now not
optimal, regardless of the merits of changing the number of boards:
· Legislative changes to simplify the
reorganisation process are being considered by Parliament, but the timeframe
for their enactment is not known.
· The Local Government Commission is considering
reorganisation proposals for North Rodney and Waiheke Island, which could
result in change to Auckland’s governance structure (for example through
the creation of another local board). The Local Government Commission is set to
announce its preferred option by the end of the 2017 calendar year.
· Auckland Council must complete a formal
representation review by September 2018.
· The Governance Framework Review is intended to
provide greater local board empowerment and to address some of the shortcomings
that may be a key driver for reducing the number of local boards.
95. Within
this context, three potential high level scenarios for change were developed
and presented to the PWP:
· a reduction to fourteen local boards, largely
based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;
· a reduction to nine local boards, largely based
on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;
· an increase in the number of local boards.
96. These
scenarios were designed to give the PWP an idea of what issues would need to be
considered and the level of further work that would need to be undertaken if
council is to consider changing the number of local boards. They were not
presented as specific options for change.
97. Two
options for how to proceed were presented to the PWP:
· Option 1 (recommended): no further work to be undertaken until after
other GFR changes to empower local boards have been implemented and evaluated,
and the other processes noted above (enactment of legislation simplifying
reorganisation proposal processes, completion of the North Rodney and Waiheke
Island reorganisation proposals, implementation of the Governance Framework Review,
and representation review) have concluded.
· Option 2: continue this work and refine high level scenarios into
specific options for changing the number of local boards. This would require
significantly more detailed work to identify communities of interest, proposed
boundaries and numbers of elected members.
98. Option
1 was recommended on the basis that the outcomes of those other current
processes had the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any work
that would be undertaken now. They may also empower local boards and remove a
key driver for reducing the number of local boards identified by the GFR
report.
99. The
PWP agreed with Option 1, expressing a clear view that no further work on
changing the number of local boards should be undertaken until at least after
the GFR has been completed and implemented, and the outcome of reorganisation
proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known. The
rationale for this is that the 2010 reforms are still ‘bedding in’,
with the GFR likely contributing to better delivery of the intentions of the
reforms; it was thus considered too early for council to consider initiating
any change to the number of local boards.
100. In
line with this position, recommendation xxxi has been drafted. Local board
feedback is sought on this position and recommendation.
101. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
working paper ‘Number of local boards’ (Appendix L).
Next
steps
102. If
this recommendation is accepted by the governing body, staff will not do any
further work on this issue until directed otherwise.
Methods
of electing governing body members
103. The
GFR identified that there is an in-built tension between governing body members’
regional strategic responsibilities and their local electoral accountabilities
to their ward constituents who elect them. There may be times when it is a
challenge for governing body members to vote against local interests in the
interests of the region.
104. Governing
body members are also inevitably approached about local issues, including
constituent queries or complaints that relate to local board activities. This
can lead to them being drawn into issues that are local board responsibilities.
It may also make it harder for the public to understand the respective roles of
their ward governing body members and local board members.
105. The
GFR report recommended that council consider amending the number and size of
wards, such as moving to a mix of ward and at-large councillors, and / or
reducing the number of wards from which councillors are elected, to address the
misalignment of accountabilities and responsibilities.
106. Four
options were developed and presented to the PWP:
· Option 1: status quo. Governing body members continue to be elected
from the current ward structure.
· Option 2: all governing body members would be elected at-large
across the Auckland region.
· Option 3: governing body members would be elected from a mixture of
at-large (10 members) and ward-based (10 members) representation.
· Option 4: governing body members would be elected from a ward-based
system, but the number of wards would be reduced (and hence the size of wards
increased).
107. Some
other governing body representational issues were also considered. These
included developing protocols or role statements around governing body
members’ and local board members’ roles to clarify
responsibilities, the possibility of introducing a Māori ward for the governing
body, and changing the voting system to Single Transferable Vote.
108. The
PWP’s draft position is that the issues raised in the GFR are not in
themselves sufficient reason to change electoral arrangements for governing
body members. Moving to an at large or combination of larger ward-based and at
large wards would, in its view, make representing Aucklanders at a regional
level significantly more difficult. The PWP has also noted that a full
statutory review of representation arrangements will be carried out in 2018. The
Governing Body will also consider electoral methods, such as changing to STV,
at its August meeting this year.
109. It
also noted that council has a current advocacy position for legislative change
that would allow the number of governing body members to change in line with
population growth, and that the process for changing the numbers and boundaries
of local boards should also be made easier than the current statutory process.
110. In
line with this position, recommendations xxxii - xxxiv have been drafted. Local
board feedback is sought on this position and the recommendations.
111. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
working paper ‘Representation options’ (Appendix M).
Next
steps
112. There
are no specific next steps for implementation if this recommendation is
accepted. The council will continue to advocate for the changes outlined above
where appropriate, and staff will begin the statutory review of representation
arrangements later this year.
Naming
conventions for elected members
113. The
GFR found that one of the contributing factors to role overlap and role
confusion between governing body members and local board members is Auckland
Council’s naming conventions, where governing body members are generally
referred to as ‘councillors’ and members of local boards are
referred to as ‘local board members’. It recommended that council
consider these naming conventions and, either confirm and reinforce the naming
conventions, or change them for consistency, preferring that all elected
members be accorded the title of either ‘councillor’ or
‘member’ (either local or regional). This would reinforce and
clarify the complementary and specific nature of the roles, making it easier for
staff and the public to understand.
114. The
titles currently in use are conventions; they are not formal legal titles that
are bestowed or required to be used under any statute, nor are they legally
protected in a way that restricts their use. This is also true for other potential
titles that were identified (see below). If council did change the naming
conventions to call local board members ‘councillors’ then the application of some provisions in LGACA which refer to both
councillors and local board members together may become confusing and
problematic. Legislative amendment may become necessary to resolve this.
115. If
a decision is to be made on naming conventions then this would be made by the
governing body. No decision-making responsibility for naming conventions has
been allocated to local boards under the allocation table. Such a decision
would fall under the catch-all ‘All other non-regulatory activities of
Auckland Council’ that is allocated to the governing body. In making such
a decision the governing body would be required to consider the views of local
boards.
116. Three
options were assessed and presented to the PWP:
· Option 1: Status quo. A member of the governing body is generally
referred to as ‘councillor’ and a member of a local board as
‘local board member’.
· Option 2: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members
have some permutation of the title ‘councillor’ (e.g.
‘Governing body Councillor’, ‘Local Councillor’).
· Option 3: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members
have some permutation of the title ‘member’ (e.g. ‘Governing
body Member’, ‘Local Board Member’).
117. Any
decision to confirm the current conventions or to change to a new convention
would need to be applied consistently across the Auckland region, and would
affect all council publications and materials.
118. The
PWP did not adopt a position on whether the naming conventions should be
retained or changed, preferring to hear the views of local boards and governing
body members before adopting a recommendation. It did however agree with the
need for regional consistency. A key aspect of the use of the title
‘councillor’ is its meaning to members of the community.
119. In
line with the PWP’s position to hear views prior to making a
recommendation, local board feedback is sought on preferred naming conventions
for elected members (summarised as recommendation (b)).
120. More
details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the
working paper ‘Naming conventions’ (Appendix N).
Next
steps
121. If
conventions are changed, staff throughout the organisation will need to be
informed of the updated conventions; Auckland Council’s style guide uses
the current naming conventions so would need to be updated, as would other
formal council publications (such as reports and documents for consultation).
Business cards, name plates and other collateral can be updated to include the
new conventions when new materials are required (in line with normal business
practice) to ensure that costs associated with any change are minimal.
Ongoing oversight of Governance Framework
Review implementation
122. Consideration
needs to be given to future oversight of the governance framework review past
September 2017, particularly implementation of any decisions.
123. The
Terms of Reference of the PWP state that one of its purposes is to
‘provide oversight and direction for the governance framework review
implementation project’. They also state that the working party
‘may act as a sounding board for changes the organisation is considering
to the way that elected members are supported in their governance role.
However, decisions on the way the organisation configures itself are the
responsibility of the Chief Executive.’
124. The
working party has discussed the desirability and usefulness of continuing the
working party, or establishing a similar group, with broader terms of
reference, comprising both governing body and local board members.
125. The
broad role of such a group could be to consider governance issues that impact
on both local boards and the governing body, for example the upcoming
representation review, the oversight of the implementation of the governance
framework review and any ongoing policy work arising from the review etc.
126. Current
local board members of the PWP have signalled that they would need a fresh
mandate to continue being on such a group. The size of the working party,
membership, leadership, Terms of Reference, frequency of meetings and
secretariat support would all need to be confirmed.
127. At
this point we are seeking feedback from the local boards on the following
possible recommendations for the governing body in September:
· Option 1: recommend that the governing body thanks the political
working party for its work on the governance framework review and notes that
any further decision making arising from the implementation of the review will
be considered by the governing body; or
· Option 2: recommend that the governing body thanks the political
working party for its work and agrees that an ongoing political working party,
comprising governing body and local board members, would provide a valuable
vehicle for considering matters that impact on both governance arms and making
recommendations to the governing body on these matters.
128.
This request for feedback is summarised in recommendation c).
Next steps
129. If
this recommendation to extend the PWP is confirmed, staff will redraft the
terms of reference of the PWP to reflect these directions, and report them to
the governing body for adoption.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
130. This
report seeks local board views on issues and options that may have wide-ranging
implications for local boards. These views will be provided to the governing
body for its consideration in decision-making.
131. Significant
consultation has been undertaken with local boards throughout the Governance
Framework Review and the response to the GFR report. This included a series of
workshops with each local board, as well as various cluster meetings, to
discuss key issues in this report.
Māori
impact statement
132. The
Governance Framework Review did not specifically consider the governance or
representation of Maori in Auckland. The relationship between the two
governance arms of Auckland Council and the Independent Maori Statutory Board
(IMSB) was also out of scope.
133. The
IMSB and Te Waka Angamua were consulted through this process. In response to
the final GFR report the IMSB secretariat provided a memorandum setting out its
views on a number of the report’s recommendations. These views largely
focused on ensuring that Auckland Council meets its existing statutory
requirements for:
· enabling Maori to participate in decision-making
in Auckland local government are met;
· engaging and consulting Maori and considering
the needs and views of Maori communities when making decisions;
· recognising the need for greater involvement of
Maori in local government employment.
134. These
statutory requirements should be met as a matter of course and have been noted.
No specific actions are recommended.
135. The
secretariat also identified that there is:
· a lack of definition of the relationship between
the governing body, local boards and the IMSB
· the lack of acknowledgement of the IMSB as promoting
issues for Maori
· the lack of awareness of the governing body and
local boards of their obligation to consult the IMSB on matters affecting mana
whenua and mataawaka, the need to take into account the IMSB’s advice on
ensuring that input of mana whenua groups and mataawaka is reflected in council
strategies, policies, plans and other matters.
136. As
stated above, the council-IMSB relationship was out of scope of the GFR report,
so these issues are not being addressed through this work.
137. No
specific Maori impacts have been identified.
Implementation
138. Implementation of changes will begin after the governing body has
made final decisions in September. An implementation plan will be developed.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Summary table of GFR report recommendations
|
105
|
|
b⇩
|
Regional decision-making and policy processes
|
115
|
|
c⇩
|
Allocations and delegations
|
129
|
|
d⇩
|
Reserve Act land exchanges
|
159
|
|
e⇩
|
Local boards and Auckland Transport
|
165
|
|
f⇩
|
Confirmation of draft transport recommendations
|
193
|
|
g⇩
|
Waiheke Local Board pilot project’ cover paper
|
197
|
|
h⇩
|
Waiheke pilot project outline
|
201
|
|
i⇩
|
Funding and finance workstream paper 1
|
221
|
|
j⇩
|
Funding and finance cover paper July
|
239
|
|
k⇩
|
Funding finance description of 2 models
|
247
|
|
l⇩
|
Number of local boards
|
263
|
|
m⇩
|
Representation options
|
285
|
|
n⇩
|
Naming conventions
|
305
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Linda Taylor - Manager Mayoral Programmes
|
|
Authorisers
|
Phil Wilson – Governance
Director
Karen Lyons – General Manager
Local Board Services
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
23 August 2017
|
|
Feedback on the proposed direction of the Auckland
Regional Pest Management Plan
File No.: CP2017/11850
Purpose
1. To
provide feedback on the proposed direction of management programmes being
developed as part of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review.
Executive
summary
2. Auckland
Council is currently undertaking a review of its Regional Pest Management Plan.
This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest
plants, animals and pathogens that will be controlled in Auckland. It provides
a framework to control and minimise the impact of those pests and manage them
through a regional approach.
3. The
National Policy Direction for Pest Management identifies five approaches that
can be implemented to manage pests including exclusion, eradication,
progressive containment, sustained control, and site-led programmes as further
described in this report.
4. This
report seeks feedback from the Albert-Eden Local Board on the proposed
management approach for some specific regional programmes as detailed in
Attachment A, in particular:
· Cats
· Possums
· Widespread weeds
· Ban of sale of some pest species.
5. The
proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be presented to the Environment and
Community Committee in November 2017 seeking approval to publically notify the
draft plan. Feedback from all local boards will be included as a part of this
report.
6. A
range of pest species and issues have previously been discussed with the Albert-Eden
Local Board, and the approaches being developed for these local board specific
interests have been included as Attachment B. Feedback on these approaches is
also being sought.
|
Recommendation
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) provide
feedback on the proposed direction of specific regional and local programmes
being considered as part of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review
(as per Attachment C of the agenda report).
|
Comments
Background
7. A
Regional Pest Management Plan is a statutory document prepared under the
Biosecurity Act 1993 for controlling pest plants, animals and pathogens in the
region.
8. Auckland
Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy,
prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council. The expiry date of 17
December 2012 was extended to 17 December 2017, while the National Policy
Direction on Pest Management was completed and changes to the Biosecurity Act
1993 were made.
9. On
14 February 2017, the Environment and Community Committee resolved that
council’s current strategy is inconsistent with the National Policy
Direction on Pest Management 2015, and that the changes necessary to address
the inconsistencies could not be addressed by minor amendment to the current
Regional Pest Management Strategy (resolution ENV/2017/7). As a consequence of this determination, council is required to
initiate a review to address the inconsistency, in accordance with section
100E(5) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 by 17 December 2017, which is the date that
the current plan will expire.
10. For
a proposal to be initiated, council is required to have resolved by 17 December
2017 that it is satisfied a proposal has been developed that complies
with sections 70 and 100D(5) of the Biosecurity Act 1993. A report on the
proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be considered at the November 2017
Environment and Community Committee meeting in order to meet this deadline.
11. Once
operative, following public consultation, governing body approval of the plan,
and resolution of any appeals, the plan will empower Auckland Council to
exercise the relevant advisory, service delivery, regulatory and funding
provisions available under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to deliver the specified
objectives for identified species using a range of programme types.
Programme types
12. The
National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 outlines five different
management approaches that can be implemented to manage pests through a pest
management plan. These approaches are defined as ‘programmes’:
· Exclusion – aims to prevent the
establishment of a pest that is present in New Zealand but not yet established
in an area
· Eradication – aims to reduce the
infestation level of the pest to zero levels in an area in the short to medium
term
· Progressive containment – aims to
contain or reduce the geographic distribution of the pest to an area over time
· Sustained control – provides for
the ongoing control of a pest to reduce its impacts on values and spread to
other properties
· Site-led pest programme – aims to
ensure that pests that are capable of causing damage to a place are excluded or
eradicated from that place, or contained, reduced or controlled within the
place to an extent that protects the values of that place.
13. A
regional pest management plan sets out programmes as listed above, but does not
specify the methodology for achieving these objectives.
Previous engagement
14. Engagement
on the revision of the plan has been ongoing since 2014 including local board
members, mana whenua, council and council-controlled organisation staff,
industry representatives, and the wider public. Further information on
engagement has been included as Attachment D.
Key regional issues
15. During
engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the
discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums,
widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. Feedback is
being sought on these specific programmes, as they are either likely to be of
wide public interest or are proposed to be delivered through a new approach.
16. A
summary of the proposed approach for each of the regional programmes currently
being developed is set out below. Additional information including the current
management approach and rationale for change has been included in Attachment A.
· Cats: Redefining the definition of a
pest cat to enable greater clarity for the management of ‘unowned’
cats when undertaking integrated pest control in areas of high biodiversity
value
· Possums: Proposing a shift from possum
control focused on areas of high biodiversity to a region-wide programme
· Widespread pest plants: Shifting from
species-led enforcement to a multiple species site-led programme focused on
parkland with significant ecological areas
· Ban of sale for some pest species:
Increasing the number of pest species (both plants and animals) currently
banned from sale.
17. Feedback
from the Albert-Eden Local board at its 14 June 2017 workshop in relation to
these issues is summarised below:
· Cats: Acknowledgement of the issue of
cats in the local board area and the need for more effective management.
· Widespread pest plants: Widespread pest
plants, such as agapanthas and moth plant, noted to be an issue in the local
board area. Strong support for effective management of weeds on parkland.
Albert-Eden specific issues
18. In
addition to the specific regional issues, the Albert-Eden Local Board has
provided feedback at its 14 June 2017 workshop in relation to the issues
discussed in Attachment B. The proposed approach in relation to these issues,
and the rationale, is also provided in Attachment B.
19. Specific
pest management priorities identified by the Albert-Eden Local Board included:
· Pigeons: Noted to be an issue,
particularly at Potters Park.
· Weeds on council land: Support around the issue of weeds on council land, and the need to
control them more effectively if the public are asked to control their own
weeds.
· Rabbits: Noted
as an issue. Query regarding the status of rabbits under the proposed plan.
· Education around pests: Request
for the provision of information and advice on pest identification,
impacts and control for members of the public.
20. This report seeks feedback from the local board, guided by the
regional and local board relevant approaches outlined in this report.
Attachment C has been provided to facilitate formal feedback from the local
board at its August 2017 business meeting.
Financial implications
21. The budget
for implementing the plan will be confirmed through the Long-term Plan
2018-2028 process. Consultation on the Regional Pest Management Plan is
proposed to be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan in early 2018.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
22. A recent
workshop with the board was held on 14 June 2017 to discuss the proposals set
out in this report. Feedback provided at this workshop has been considered
under the Albert-Eden specific issues in Attachment B.
Māori
impact statement
23. Section 61 of
the Biosecurity Act requires that a Regional Pest Management Plan set out
effects that implementation of the plan would have on the relationship
between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and their
ancestral lands, waters, sites, maunga, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and
taonga.
24. Engagement
has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland Region as
described earlier in this report and conversations are ongoing. In addition,
staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and
implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, providing opportunities
for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga, through direct involvement in the
protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species. The impact
statement required by section 61 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, along with
feedback received by mana whenua, will be part of the development of the draft
plan for consultation.
25. Some key
topics raised during hui and kōrero with mana
whenua included management of the following species such as cats, rats,
rabbits, mustelids, deer, pest birds, freshwater pest fish, widespread weeds,
emerging and future weeds (including garden escapees), and kauri dieback
disease.
26. Mana whenua
recognised cats were an increasing problem, indicating a desire for cat-free
areas next to sensitive sites. There was also support for kauri dieback disease
to be included in the proposed plan as it will enable implementation of
regionally specific pathway management rules for kauri protection. Mana
whenua identified a strong partnership with council and regional leadership in
their role as kaitiaki and owners of kauri in many rohe (regions).
27. Wider issues
raised included:
· the
importance of building the capacity of mana whenua to directly undertake pest
management in each rohe
· acknowledgement
that council should control pests on its own land if asking public to do the
same on private land
· the
definition of pests versus resources (such as deer and pigs)
· the
need for coordination of all environmental outcomes across the region, and the
alignment of the Regional Pest Management Plan document with other plans, such
as Seachange
· the
need for more education around pests
· the
need to look holistically at rohe
· the
importance of community pest control by linking scattered projects
· the
need for the plan to be visionary and bicultural, reflecting Te Ao Māori,
Te Reo.
Implementation
28. As the
management approaches proposed in the Regional Pest Management Plan will have
financial implications, consultation on the plan is proposed to be aligned with
consultation on the Long-term Plan. This will ensure that any budget
implications are considered through the Long-term Plan process.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Key regional issues
|
323
|
|
b⇩
|
Albert-Eden Local Board specific issues
|
325
|
|
c⇩
|
Feedback form
|
327
|
|
d⇩
|
Previous engagement
|
329
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Dr Nick Waipara – Biosecurity Principal Advisor
Dr Imogen Bassett – Environmental Advisory
Manager
Rachel Kelleher – Biosecurity Manager
|
|
Authorisers
|
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and
Environmental Services
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
|
Albert-Eden Local
Board
23 August 2017
|
|
Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report:
Albert-Eden Local Board for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 201
File No.: CP2017/16882
Purpose
1. To
provide the Albert-Eden Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance
report for quarter four, 1 April to 30 June 2017, against the local board
agreement work programme.
Executive
summary
2. This
report provides an integrated view of performance for the Albert-Eden Local
Board. It includes financial performance and work programmes.
3. The
snapshot (attachment A), shows overall performance against the Albert-Eden
Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments
have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery
(attachment B).
4. 85
per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been
delivered. 27 activities were undelivered from the agreed work programmes in
the 2016/2017 financial year.
5. Financial
operating performance is close to budget for the year. Revenue exceeded budget
due to increased utilisation from community facilities and expenditure is close
to budget. Capital delivery for renewals and development projects are behind
schedule. Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.
6. Results
from the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in
the previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded this quarter.
The results are included as a separate agenda item entitled “Draft Annual
Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report”.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Albert-Eden Local
Board:
a) receive
the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 June 2017.
|
Comments
Key highlights for quarter four
7. The
Albert-Eden Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the
quarter four period, which include:
· The second annual
Albert-Eden Business Awards was held on 16 May at Alexandra Park. 91 tickets
were sold for the Awards evening, which was attended by 45 of the 63 finalists
along with staff and supporters. The winner of the People’s Choice Award
was Satya Spice & Chai Lounge, and the overall Supreme Award winner was
YMCA Mt Albert Recreation & Community Centre.
· The Community Grants
Programme final rounds were completed, and funding was awarded through local
grants, quick response grants and accommodation grants. All funding from the
grants budget was allocated.
· Anzac Day services
were held at Mt Albert War Memorial and Mt Eden War Memorial. Grants were made
to Epsom Memorial Archway Charitable Trust, Anglican Church of St Barnabas and
The Point Chevalier Memorial Returned Services Association to deliver services
in Epsom, Mt Eden and Pt Chevalier respectively.
· Historic heritage
evaluations have been undertaken on high priority places, identified through
the pre-1944 field survey and the Albert-Eden Heritage Survey (2013) which are
not scheduled. This information has been workshopped with the local board and
can be used as an input into regional planning processes.
· There were 6,959
graffiti incidents in the local board area between 1 July 2016 and 2017. This
is a 16 per cent decrease in the number of incidents recorded in 2015/2016. The
number of Requests for Service graffiti decreased by 35 per cent, with all 194
being removed within the 24 hour target time.
Key project
achievements from the 2016/2017 work programme
8. The
following are year-end achievements relating to key projects identified in the
Albert-Eden Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:
· The Mt Albert town
centre upgrade physical works are now underway, with a site blessing occurring
on 4 April 2017. Project completion is scheduled for February 2018.
· Physical works have
been completed on the Sandringham Reserve upgrade. This civic space project
upgrade was a collaboration between the local board, council and the community
group SPiCE (Sandringham Project in Community Empowerment), and includes a new
playground, picnic tables, benches and mosaic tiles at the entrance way to the
park.
· A number of projects
have been completed or are in progress in the Waterview area in connection with
the construction and opening of the Waterview tunnel. Waterview Heritage trail
(3895) has been completed. Greater Oakley Creek Renewal (3506), Anderson Park
General Renewal (3502), SH16/20 Murray Halberg Park Steps and Paving (3709),
Albert-Eden Waterview Reserve Improvement Signage (4483) and Heron Park
Pathways and stairs (3880) are in progress.
· Potters Park upgrade
has been completed. Physical works included a new playground, splash pad,
basketball courts, pathways and entranceway from Balmoral Road. An opening was
held on 1 April 2017.
· Implementation of
the Chamberlain Park Master Plan is progressing. Design of the new playground
at the western end of the park is under development, and staff have been
working with local iwi and key stakeholders during this process.
· Nixon Park and
Gribblehirst Park fields have been upgraded to a hybrid turf. These sports
parks are the first full-sized hybrid pitch in Australasia which are available
for community-level sport. An opening was held for Nixon Park on 8 April 2017
hosted by Eden Rugby Club and Auckland Rugby Union, and for Gribblehirst Park
on 10 June hosted by the local board and supported by Eden Rugby Club.
· The Albert-Eden
Youth Board have held an induction day, delivered a Principals' breakfast and
post-breakfast learning session, and designed and delivered a youth postcard
campaign to support consultation on the draft Albert-Eden Local Board Plan,
resulting in 308 submissions coming from young people in the area.
· The Community Arts
Programme has been delivered for the second year by Too Bee Ltd, the contracted
arts brokers for the Albert-Eden area. Some highlights during the year include
‘Hebron School Stories’, which involved students broadcasting five
episodes of ‘That's the story’ on Radio Rhema, the Pop Up
Playground event in Rocket Park and White Night, which the Balmoral Chinese
Business Association ran as part of Auckland Art's Festival wider White Night
programme.
9. The
Albert-Eden Local Board has an approved 2016/2017 work programme for the
following operating departments:
· Arts,
Community and Events, approved on 6 July 2016
· Parks,
Sport and Recreation, approved on 15 June 2016
· Libraries
and Information, approved on 15 June 2016
· Community
Facility Renewals, approved on 15 June 2016
· Community
Leases, approved on 7 September 2016
· Infrastructure
and Environmental Services, approved on 6 July 2016
· Local
Economic Development, approved on 6 July 2016
10. The snapshot
(attachment A), shows overall performance against the Albert-Eden Local
Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have
provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (attachment
B).
11. 85 per cent
of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered.
12. Departments
delivered the 2016/2017 work programmes as follows.
Arts, Community and Events work
programme 83 per cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
20
|
|
In progress
|
0
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
0
|
|
Cancelled
|
1
|
|
Not delivered
|
3
|
13. The following
points provide an explanation for the projects which have not been completed,
and some highlights from the ones which have.
There are some points to note:
· Capacity
Building: Network Forums (2371) project was not delivered this financial year.
Auckland District Council of Social Services (ADCOSS) was contracted to manage
the network but, due to the resignation of the coordinator at the end of
February, this work was uncompleted.
· Funding
agreement Mt Albert Community Centre and Epsom Community Centre (1479) was
partially delivered this financial year. Staff continue to work with Epsom
Community Centre (ECC) to finalise the 2016/2017 licence to occupy.
· Chamberlain
Park Event - Albert-Eden (2088) was cancelled due to severe weather.
· Local
Civic Events - Albert Eden (2089) WWI commemorations and Community Grants
Recipient events were not delivered.
Highlights include:
· Local
Civic Events - Albert Eden (2089) Potters Park opening, Justice of the Peace
appreciation evening, Gribblehirst Park opening and a sod turning for the Mt
Albert upgrade were successfully held during the 2016/2017 financial year.
· Environment:
Community Gardens (placemaking) (2374) co-ordinator Gardens for Health (G4H)
provided support and resources to nine local garden projects in quarter four.
Two Autumn Greens workshops were held for 25 Caswell House and Dementia unit.
Sanctuary Community garden is being assisted by G4H with governance development
and organisation of working bees.
Parks, Sport and Recreation work
programme 82 per cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
7
|
|
In progress *
|
17
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
6
|
|
Cancelled
|
0
|
|
Not delivered
|
0
|
* identified to be
delivered across multiple years
14. The following
points provide an explanation for the projects which have not been completed,
and some highlights from the ones which have.
There are some points to note:
· Sport
& Recreation Facility Investigation Fund (AE) (1495) funding has been
deferred to 2017/2018 as the project was not completed.
· Pa
Harakeke planting and maintenance at Walmer Reserve (458) budget has been
deferred to 2017/2018 financial year as this project has not progressed.
· Phyllis
Street Reserve fields and associated upgrades (3659, 2928 and 3660) are on hold
until the capping works have been complete. Poor weather conditions have
delayed works.
· Gribblehirst
Park Bowling Green (4470) has been deferred to 2017/2018 financial year.
· Four
projects are not included in the table above due to their activity status
coding. These are: Local Park Development Programme Opex (453), which has been
approved and will commence in 2017/2018 financial year; Gribblehirst Bowling
Green (463) which has been transferred to Community Facilities and is now
reported under project title Gribblehirst Park Bowling Green (4470), which is
coded green and has been deferred to 2017/2018; and Walker Park SID - Field 1
& 5 (3662) which is approved, and project planning has commenced.
Some highlights include:
· Facility
Partnership 2015 Epsom Girls Grammar School (AE) (2513) has been completed.
Physical construction of the tennis courts was completed in April and an
official opening was held in June 2017.
· Open
space restoration programmes (457) has been completed. All projects were
successfully delivered as planned, resulting in improved ecology at all the
selected sites.
Libraries and Information work
programme 100 per cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
11
|
|
In progress
|
0
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
0
|
|
Cancelled
|
0
|
|
Not delivered
|
0
|
15. All Libraries
and Information projects have been completed. The following points provide some
highlights:
· Celebrating
cultural diversity - Albert-Eden (706) was implemented through Matariki
celebrations at all three Albert-Eden Libraries.
· Celebrating
local places and people - Albert-Eden (705) was implemented by Epsom Library
which celebrated Anzac Day with a photo display and worked with the Greenwoods
Corner Business Asssociation to showcase local World War One stories.
· Information
and lending services - Albert-Eden (697) trends show that the number of items
borrowed decreased by 8 per cent compared to the same quarter last year.
However the number of eBook and eMagazine issues continues to increase at a
regional level and now make up 11.8 per cent of items borrowed regionally.
Community Facility Renewals work
programme 88 per cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
34
|
|
In progress *
|
35
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
4
|
|
Cancelled
|
5
|
|
Not delivered
|
0
|
* identified to be
delivered across multiple years
16. The following
points provide an explanation for the projects which have not been completed,
and some highlights from the ones which have.
There are some points to note:
· SH16/20
Alan Wood Reserve Play equipment and seating (3710) has been delayed due to the
timing of the resource consent process.
· Fowlds
Park Action Plan (3878) has been deferred pending the planning decision on the
upgrade of the sports fields.
· Albert
Eden Playground FY17-19 Renewal (3515) has been deferred to 2017/2018. The
project will be scoped and then a business case will be completed.
· Fowlds
Park projects (3504 and 3498) have been combined to reduce disruption to the
public and are on hold until the path budget becomes available.
· Walker
Park Fitness Renewal (3508) was cancelled as the asset was in good condition
and did not require a renewal.
· In
addition Howlett Reserve planting (451), Rocket Park drainage and paving (461),
Gribblehirst Park Action plan (462), Watea Reserve Development plan (2830) and
Gribblehirst Park Bowling Green (4470) have not been completed in 2016/2017 and
are scheduled to be completed by the end of this calendar year.
Some highlights include:
· Numerous
park upgrades and projects have been completed including Edendale Reserve
safety improvements (460), Potters Park development and renewal (3646), works
at Mt Albert Aquatic Centre (3884) and Mt Albert Recreation and Leisure Centre
(3892), Sandringham Reserve playground upgrade (3868), School Reserve path
upgrade (3869) and Delphine Reserve playground upgrade (3875).
· Numerous
renewals have been completed including 869 New North Road - Roof Replacement
(3865), 16A Belvedere St retaining wall (3864), Pollard Park and Walker Park
goalpost renewal (3514), Jack Dickey Community Hall renewals (3622) and Mt
Albert Library renewals (3637).
Community Leases work programme 70 per
cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
3
|
|
In progress *
|
11
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
6
|
|
Cancelled
|
0
|
|
Not delivered
|
0
|
* identified to be
delivered across multiple years
17. The following
points provide an explanation for the projects which have not been completed,
and some highlights from the ones which have.
There are some points to note:
· Auckland
Irish Society (1505) lease process has experienced some issues. Additional
legal advice has been obtained on lease provisions and a meeting will be
arranged with the society to discuss and then report to the local board on the
renewal.
· Gribblehirst
Community Hub / Auckland Community Shed (4561) negotiations to signoff the
lease have been protracted. Both groups now have draft leases ready for
signing.
· Mt
Albert-Ponsonby Assn Football Club Inc (1498) lease is on hold pending the
findings of a strategic assessment of facilities at Anderson Park.
· Royal
New Zealand Plunket Society Owairaka Plunket (1500) lease is on hold pending
Plunket completing a transfer and assignment of its interests in the leases to
its new entities. Following this an individual lease renewal will be
progressed.
· The
Scout Association of NZ - Balmoral Scout Group (1514) and Epsom Scout Group
Aberfoyle (1501) leases are currently on hold pending further instruction from
the newly appointed Property Manager at Scouts.
Some highlights include:
· Auckland
Kindergarten Association Inc - Eden/Epsom (1506) lease will go through an
expression of interest process, Auckland Horticultural Council Inc (1504) and
Epsom/Remuera Croquet Club Inc (1497) leases have been completed by staff and
are currently with the groups for signing and the Metro Mt Albert Sports Club
Inc. (1513) and Akarana Dog Obedience Association Inc - renewal lease (1502)
leases will remain on a monthly roll-over.
Infrastructure and Environmental
Services work programme 100 per cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
5
|
|
In progress *
|
2
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
0
|
|
Cancelled
|
0
|
|
Not delivered
|
0
|
* identified to be
delivered across multiple years
18. All
Infrastructure and Environmental Services projects have been completed or are
multi-year projects which are in progress. The following points provide some
highlights.
· Almorah
Rock Forest protection and restoration (year four of five) (1944) has had
another successful year of implementation. Two rounds of animal control and one
of pest control have been completed. Staff are continuing to work with private
landowners on weed control solutions on properties adjacent to the reserve.
· Community
restoration of the lower Meola Creek (Wai Care) (1945) has a number of
highlights from quarter four. Three successful planting events were held and
rubbish clean-up and water quality monitoring was carried out.
· Grants
to community environmental activity: Moth Plant Pod Control Competition and
weeding on Maungawhau (3572) have been completed. The moth plant pod control
competition resulted in a total of 3692 pods being removed by students from
five secondary schools in the local board area.
Local Economic Development work
programme 50 per cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
1
|
|
In progress
|
0
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
0
|
|
Cancelled
|
0
|
|
Not delivered
|
1
|
19. The following
points provide an explanation for the project which has not been completed, and
a highlight for the one which has.
There is one point to note:
· World
Masters Games/Lion Tour Leverage activity in Albert-Eden (2718) was not
delivered by ATEED this financial year. The project was re-scoped, and
contracted to the Arts Brokers to deliver arts activation activities in Mt
Eden, Dominion Road and Kingsland on the evening of key rugby games.
A highlight includes:
· Albert-Eden Business Award (2276) was successfully held on 16 May at
Alexandra Park for its second year. The event was highly attended by staff and
supporters of the 63 finalists.
Plans and Places work programme 50 per
cent delivered
|
|
Activity Status
|
Number of Activities
|
|
Green
|
Completed
|
1
|
|
In progress
|
0
|
|
Red
|
On Hold, Deferred
|
1
|
|
Cancelled
|
0
|
|
Not delivered
|
0
|
20. The following
points provide an explanation for the project which has been deferred, and a
highlight for the project which has been completed.
There is one point to note:
· Greenwoods Corner and Sandringham town centre transformation (2694)
has been deferred and work is already underway for delivery of this planning
project in the 2017/2018 financial year.
A highlight includes:
· Historic
heritage evaluations (4452) were completed.
21. As part of
the local board funding policy, local boards can resolve to defer projects that
are funded by their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating fund where there
is an agreed scope and cost but the project has not been delivered.
22. The
Albert-Eden Local Board identified the following 2016/2017 projects that met
the criteria for deferral to the 2017/2018 financial year. The deferral of
these projects was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June
2017:
· Sports and
recreation facility investigation fund $20,000
· Pa Harakeke planting
and maintenance at Walmer Reserve $16,000
· Maori Cultural
heritage study $10,000
· Greenwoods Corner
and Sandringham Town Centre transformation $50,000
· Identify and design upgrades to community facilities $60,000
Financial
performance
23. Revenue has
exceeded budget in community facility hire fees.
24. Operating
expenditure for asset based services is slightly over budget, mainly in
scheduled and response repairs and maintenance while Locally Driven Initiative
expenditure is lagging behind. Some programmes will take place in the next
financial year.
25. Capital
expenditure delivery both renewals and development projects are behind schedule.
Spend for the year is nearly 70 per cent of budget. Key projects such as
the Phyllis Reserve and Waterview reserve restoration projects and Mt Albert
Town Centre upgrade will continue in the next financial year.
26. The
Albert-Eden Local Board Financial Performance report is in Appendix C.
Key
performance indicators
27. Results from
the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in the
previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded this quarter.
However, the results are included as a separate agenda item entitled
“Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report”.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
28. This report
informs the Albert-Eden Local Board of the performance for the year ending 30
June 2017.
Māori
impact statement
29. The local
board’s work programme contains a number of projects which provide direct
outcomes for Māori. It should be noted that the work programme also
provides broader opportunities and outcomes for Māori, both in the local
board area and across Auckland. Examples of this include:
· the
local board’s grants programme provides a range of activities, events and
programmes that benefit Māori community groups and organisations, and
wider community groups who propose and promote broader Māori outcomes.
· the
development of Chamberlain Park will provide increased sport and recreation
opportunities, and promote healthy lifestyles for Māori of all ages. Staff
have also been working with mana whenua on this project, including the
restoration of Meola Creek/ Waititiko.
· A
guided walks project of Maungawhau, tailored for migrant communities with the
aim of connecting migrant communities with mana whenua of Auckland and to
increase understanding of the natural environment.
30. The local
board, through its work programme responds and delivers upon council’s Māori
Responsiveness Framework through the following actions:
· fostering
and building strong relationships with mana whenua and matawaaka by ensuring
their views are considered prior to making decisions on local projects
· collaborating
with co-governance entities, such as the Tupuna Maunga Authority for the
protection and enhancement of the three maunga in the local board area
· embedding
mana whenua customary practices within the development of local projects (e.g.
blessings at doing sod-turnings).
Implementation
31. The Lead
Financial Advisor will action the deferral of identified projects, approved by
the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017.
32. Local Board
Services will refer undelivered projects from the agreed 2016/2017 work
programme to the relevant operational department for investigation. Departments
will be asked to identify their ability to deliver the activity in the
2017/2018 financial year.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Work programme snapshot
|
373
|
|
b⇩
|
Work programme update
|
375
|
|
c⇩
|
Financial performance
|
409
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Emma Reed - Local Board Advisor Albert-Eden
|
|
Authoriser
|
Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden &
Orakei Local Boards
|
