Agenda of Howick Local Board

Howick Local Board

21 August 2017

Auckland Transport Update - August 2017

File No.: CP2017/16103

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2. A decision is not required this month but the report contains information about the following matters:

· Auckland Transport Quarterly Report

· A Local Board Transport Capital Fund update

· Auckland Transport projects that are being delivered in Howick.

· Attachments include a register of local issues and media releases specific to the Howick area.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) note the Auckland Transport Update – July 2017 report

Comments

Auckland Transport Quarterly Reporting

3. Auckland Transport provides quarterly reports about the organisations activities. Attachment A provides information about Auckland Transport’s regional and local activities. Attachment B provides information about Auckland Transport’s work with local schools.

4. This section provides a report about how Auckland Transport is supporting the HLB’s transport ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ recorded in the Local Board Plan. In this report the HLB’s transport related ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ from the 2013-16 term are recorded in the table below providing a summary of actions being taken that support them.

Table 1: Advocacy Initiative Status – 2013-16 Local Board Plan

Advocacy Initiative	Key Initiative	Status
A well-integrated efficient public transportation system	Investigate options for further ferry transport in the area	Until late-2016 Auckland Transport’s focus has been on current services. Auckland Transport is been implementing the PTOM process and new ferry contracts are being negotiated this year including some service improvements that we will be able to confirm late in 2017.
A well-integrated efficient public transportation system	Input into East/West Connections and SMART project	The HLB has provided regular submissions to Auckland Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency about this project.
Working well with businesses	Fund streetscape improvements as part of the draft East Tāmaki Corridor Management Plan	Crookes Road project delivered. Auckland Transport has discussed working with the HLB to investigate ideas for the area around the new park development at the former Greenmount landfill site.
Well designed and quality development in Howick	Continue to partner with Auckland Transport to develop the Half Moon Bay area as a transport hub	Auckland Transport has worked with the HLB to construct a new ferry pier. Auckland Transport is currently applying for resource consent to complete the planned bus turning area and drop off point at the pier.
Local services and infrastructure in place to meet Howick’s growth	Develop the potential for an integrated planning solution for the Howick Village area e.g. place audit	Auckland Transport is actively supporting the Howick Village Plan and will report back to the HLB with proposals for using the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to support this project.
Note: When the new HLB plan 2016-19 is ratified that plan’s ‘Advocacy Initiatives’ will replace current set.

Bucklands Beach Erosion

5. Erosion of the Bucklands Beach foreshore is a significant issue for the HLB and local community. Auckland Transport has engaged with a project led by Auckland Council to plan a response to this issue.

6. The first meeting of officers took place on 22 June 2017 and was followed by a meeting with Bucklands Beach ratepayers on 11 July 2017.

7. At that meeting Auckland Council committed to working with the community to develop a plan for addressing coastal erosion. Council’s team is aiming to complete this work in time for it to be used to support Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan process.

8. The Long Term Plan is Council’s budget. Any increase or re-allocation of funding will be made through this process this is therefore an important discussion that should be supported by quality advice. A plan developed by experts, with support from the community, provides that support. It is the opportunity for the community (through their local elected representatives) to state their priorities and decide which projects will get delivered and when.

9. When the budget is set by Auckland Council it will be Auckland Transport’s role to deliver the transport related projects that are identified for funding by this process.

Eastern New Network

10. Up to June this year, there were 88.4 million trips on Auckland's public transport network, a 6.7 per cent increase on the previous year. This is an incredible growth in public transport use. The growth is based on years of hard work and planning which is now starting to show results.

11. The Eastern New Network is part of the plan to develop a new and improved public transport services across Auckland. Work in recent years includes:

· AT HOP: Introduction of the AT HOP card provided an efficient and simple system for transferring from bus to train or vice-versa. The supporting IT allows simple ‘tag-on / tag-off’ transfers

· Development of new transport ‘hubs’ where buses, trains and ferries connect: The ‘New Network’ is based on using the capacity of trains to move large numbers of people. Buses will move people to rail / bus hubs where they can meet trains. A number of stations are being built or upgraded to create these ‘hubs’. Such as:

o Panmure Train Station that was built to allow a connection between East Auckland commuters and the rail network

o Manukau and Otahuhu Station that provide both east/west connectivity and access to the rail network for commuters is the southern part of East Auckland

o Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal was able to be funded because it fitted into the wider strategy by providing better access to ferry services for East Auckland commuters

· Simpler Fares: In August 2016 Auckland Transport introduced simpler fares that were based on ‘zones’ rather than ‘stages’ (a map can be found at the following link - https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/fares-discounts/how-simpler-fares-work/#wherezones ). With an AT HOP card, you pay for your entire journey once, instead of paying for each bus or train separately. This not only simplifies fares but makes public transport much more financially attractive

· More AT HOP retailers: The number of retailers selling AT HOP cards has increased. This includes stocking AT HOP cards in supermarkets. The full list of retailers can be viewed at the following link - https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/at-hop-card/at-hop-retailers/#south.

12. Soon another step in the building Auckland’s public transport network will be taken. The Eastern New Network will be introduced in 2018.

13. The Eastern New Network will simplify bus networks in East Auckland and focus on moving people quickly and reliably to multi-modal transport hubs (i.e. people can take a bus to a train station or ferry terminal or connect with other bus services).

14. Although this project is five to six months away from delivery. The introduction of improved public transport services in East Auckland has been planned for a long-time and was fully consulted in 2015. It will make a big difference for people living in the Howick Local Board area and therefore it is useful to stay up-to-date with this project. The following link https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/new-network-for-east-auckland/ is to the Eastern New Network information page on the Auckland Transport website.

15. As the start date approaches Auckland Transport will provide more detailed information.

Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF) update.

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

· Be safe

· Not impede network efficiency

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

HLB’s funding in this term is approx. $ 2.9 million.

17. Auckland Transport encourages all Local Board’s to identify potential projects as early as possible to ensure delivery within the current electoral term.

Projects

Early in this electoral term the HLB started identifying possible projects and planning workshops have been held and reported on previously.

18. The current progress of all projects is summarised in the table below:

Table 1: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

Projects	Current Status	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed	Current Status
Half Moon Bay Ferry Pier and Bus Turnaround		Providing better facilities for ferry passengers at Half Moon Bay	‘Rough Order of Cost’ requested by the HLB in 2013. ‘Detailed Design’ was authorised by HLB in October 2014 based on a Rough Order of Cost of $ 4.3 million of which the HLB would provide $ 2.5 million. ‘Construction’ The pier is complete and was opened on 7 April 2017. Consent has still not been submitted but developed designs for the landside works are finished and have been discussed with the HLB.
Buckland’s Beach Walkway Improvements		Providing safer pedestrian facilities at Buckland Beach	‘Rough Order of Cost’ of between $1.5 and 2.1 million has been provided to the HLB. Concept design was carried out in a number of stages: · 14 July 2014 – Detailed design of a small initial project authorised by resolution · 8 June 2015 – The HLB expanded the project to include detailed design for a project running the length of ‘The Parade’ · 13 July 2015 Concept design reported to the HLB · 26 April 2017 the HLB requested investigation of two projects identified during consultation. This design is broken down into ten separate elements (detailed in February 2017’s report). ‘Firm Cost Estimate’: was authorised at the May Howick Local Board meeting for the following elements of the project: · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads. This month a Rough Order of Cost has been provided. ‘Construction’ of improvements to pedestrian safety between Numbers 61 and 68A of Buckland’s Beach Road is being delivered using funds from Auckland Council’s Community Facilities Department’s Green Ways and Walk Ways Development Fund. This project is currently being legally authorised by the Traffic Control Committee.
Howick Village Centre Plan		Supporting improvements to Howick Village that will make it nicer, safer and more pedestrian friendly	Howick Village Centre Plan is finished and the plan is being reviewed. Auckland Transport will bring proposals from this review back to the HLB. The HLB can then decide if they wish to seek a Rough Order of Cost.
Cascades Walkway		Building a footpath on Cascade Road that will provide access under the bridge on the western edge of the golf course to the walking track that follows the stream	Auckland Transport has provided options with of either approx. $83,000 or approx. $225,000 depending on the route of the pathway. ‘Rough Orders of Cost’. The HLB accepted the option with the Rough Order of Cost of $225,000. ‘Firm Estimate of Cost’: development of a ‘Firm Cost Estimate’ was authorised at the June 2017 Howick Local Board meeting. The aim being to provide a confirmed cost estimate that could be used to try and seek funding from partners.
Walking and Cycling Access to Half Moon Bay		Develop walking and cycling opportunities around Half Moon Bay	The HLB discussed this project on 8 February 2017. It was decided to let the ferry pier and bus stop improvements become operational before a new project was started.
Highbrook Cycling and Walking Project		Develop walking and cycling opportunities around Highbrook	The HLB was briefed by Auckland Transport about this project on 24 March 2017. The HLB did not choose to pursue the project at this time.
Baverstock Road Crossing		Building traffic calming and a crossing on Baverstock Road to reduce traffic speed and create a safer pedestrian environment	‘Rough Order of Cost’ of approx. $150,000 has been provided to the HLB. The HLB discussed this project on 8 February 2017 and decided not to proceed with the project at this time.
Notes: A ‘traffic light’ code is used to summarize the status of projects. The colours are used as follows: Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and on budget. Orange – An issue has been identified that may need to be resolved. Red - An major issue has been identified that needs to be resolved Black – The project has been investigated and the HLB has decided not to pursue it at this time.

Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal Update

Building a new ferry pier and bus turn around area at Half Moon Bay was HLB’s key Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project in the 2013-16 term. The HLB were briefed on progress of the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal on 6 July 2017. Further concept designs were presented and Figure 1 (below) is a sketch of how the 'bus turn around' will look to commuters using it.

19. The project is still not progressing as predicted, the pier is built but at the time this report was written the consent application had not been submitted. This is why the status of the project has moved from ‘Green’ to ‘Red ‘in Table 1.

Figure 1. Half Moon Bay turning artist’s sketches

Bucklands Beach Update

20. Last month Auckland Transport discussed the HLB’s intent with regard to this project and confirmed by ‘resolution’ that the desire was to complete ‘detailed design’ and produce a ‘Firm Cost Estimate’ that would provide accurate information about the costs and benefits of the proposed roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads and of making ‘The Parade’ safer for pedestrians.

21. Auckland Transport stated that they would report back during the process so that the HLB was kept appraised of the predicted costs. The two projects identified have been separated out of the wider project that was initially proposed and discussed with the community. This means that separate Rough Orders of Costs need to be reported.

22. The Rough Order of Costs for these individual projects is estimated at:

· Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade – Approx. $ 80,000

· A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads – Approx. $ 450,000.

Cascade Road Update

23. Auckland Transport has started to investigate this project. This work is in a riparian reserve so will probably require a resource consent and may require iwi input. Auckland Transport guidelines for delivery of Local Board projects emphasise the importance of the relationship between iwi and local elected representatives and require that we highlight any project that requires liaison between these parties. Auckland Transport is seeking confirmation from the HLB that this project has been discussed with iwi and any information about iwi concerns.

Upcoming projects and activities

Consultations

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

25. In this reporting period, no projects were put forward for comment by the HLB. But updates were provided on three projects consulted on last year:

· Pakuranga Road and William Roberts Road - Splitter Island

· Pakuranga Road and Cascades Road - Pedestrian Crossings

· Pakuranga Road and Sir Lloyd Drive - Realign Pram Crossings.

26. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions are normally reported on a monthly basis but at the time this report was written the July results were not available.

Regional and sub-regional projects

AMETI

27. AMETI is a large transport project that will provide better public transport options between Panmure and Botany. The AMETI Eastern Busway will be New Zealand’s first urban busway providing congestion free ‘bus only’ lanes for commuters. This project will help people in East Auckland commute to and from the city more easily.

28. The stage of AMETI currently being delivered is a busway running from Pakuranga to Panmure. The Notice of Requirement (NOR) process consultation is complete. Auckland Transport’s report and the submissions received are being reviewed by independent commissioners at ‘hearings’.

29. While this process takes place Auckland Transport is planning ahead and detailed design work for this stage of the project is currently 60% complete. In late July, Auckland Transport hosted an industry briefing event to outline the procurement process for contractors wanting to work on the Panmure to Pakuranga busway. The purpose of this event was to provide potential contractors an update on the current status of the project and how it fits within the wider Auckland Transport strategy so that they can plan ahead.

30. The project team is also working closely with Mana Whenua to develop the urban design aspects of the project including how the history and culture of the area is visibly represented across the project.

31. Auckland Transport has also listened to concerns about how the volume of traffic through Lagoon Drive will be managed during the project and is currently developing a ‘travel demand management plan’ to try and reduce the traffic impacts during the construction period. An important part of this project will look at trying to increase the use of public transport, alternative journey planning and working with employers to provide flexible work hours for employees.

32. Work is also underway planning the next stages AMETI including the Pakuranga to Botany Busway and Reeves Road Flyover. In August 2017 Auckland Transport is aiming to identify the firm that will; design and run the consent process for these parts of AMETI.

33. Information about public engagement and the consultation programme will be presented to the Howick Local Board in August. This will include activity planned to ensure local communities are well informed about the project and key stakeholders have the opportunity to feedback. An artist’s impressions of the Reeves Road Flyover will be presented to the Howick Local Board in August before being shown to other key stakeholders between August and November 2017.

34. In summary the AMETI project is progressing with pace and momentum. In July the AMETI Project Director met with HLB representatives to discuss future liaison arrangements and a briefing for the whole Board has been scheduled for 17 August 2017. After this brief more information will flow to the wider public.

Chapel Road

35. This safety driven project is about upgrading Chapel Road between Stancombe Road and Ormiston Road to bring it to an ‘urban’ standard for an arterial road. This is because the road used to be a rural road and as development has occurred it needs to be upgraded. The project’s scope of works includes making the road straighter, building a new bridge, a new signalised intersection, and widening Stancombe Road intersection with cycle lanes and two southbound traffic lanes.

36. Geo-technical investigation is now finished and over the last couple of months the project engineers have been discussing the results and working out how they will impact on the project. This process is still ongoing and includes discussions about funding. The team believes it should be able to report back soon. As soon as current work is finished and the implications for the project are confirmed by the project engineers, the HLB will be briefed on progress.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Quarterly Report Auckland Transport Activities	21
b ⇩	Quarterly Report School Travel Programme	31
c ⇩	Issues Register	35

Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Ian Milnes, Acting Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

21 August 2017

Howick Local Grant Round One applications for 2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/15629

Purpose

1. To present applications received for Howick Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Howick Local Board adopted the Howick Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 15 May 2017. The document sets application guidelines for community contestable grants.

3. The local board is required to allocate grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city.

4. The Howick Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $395,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

5. In local grants round one, 30 applications were received; requesting a total of $338,342 (see Attachment B). One Multi-board application was received for Howick local Grants round one; requesting a total of $5,000 (see Attachment C).

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round, listed in Table One and Two.

Table One: Howick Local Grants Round One 2017/2018 applications

Application No.	Organisation	Project	Total Requested	Eligibility
LG1807-114	Broadway Dreams Foundation New Zealand	Towards the cost of running a week long summer intensive programme and showcase, featuring overseas artists, from 13 to 21 January 2018.	$5,000	Eligible
LG1807-123	Howick Little Theatre Incorporated	Towards capital items, maintenance and operational expenses; specifically re-roofing, hiring an office manager and handy-person, from September 2017 to June 2018.	$30,000	Eligible
LG1807-124	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust (Operating as The New Zealand Dance Company)	Towards the cost to create, rehearse and deliver the performance and workshops to Howick schools, specifically salaries for dancers and the artistic teams, transportation to the schools and rehearsal space hire for The New Zealand Dance Company Youth Engagement Programme.	$3,000	Eligible
LG1807-135	Gujarati Sahitya Mandal (New Zealand) Incorporated	Towards the programming and delivery cost of the play "Yogesh Patel Nu Vevishal" at the Basement Theatre, from 11 to 14 October 2017.	$5,500	Eligible
LG1807-103	The UpsideDowns Education Trust	Towards a 50% subsidy for speech therapy classes for six families with children affected by down-syndrome, delivering 66 sessions from September 2017 to September 2018.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1807-105	LifeKidz Trust	Towards wages and activity costs for LifeKidz Trust After School, Holiday and Community Participation Day Programmes.	$15,000	Eligible
LG1807-107	Howick Returned Services Association (RSA)	Towards upgrading the sound system in the RSA club room.	$20,000	Eligible
LG1807-111	Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind	Towards the purchase of digital talking books with licences which enable multiple users to borrow simultaneously.	$3,000	Eligible
LG1807-121	South East Auckland Senior Citizens' Association Incorporated	Towards the cost of transport and accommodation for the overnight trip to Taupo and Mount Ruapehu on 21 to 22 October 2017.	$6,500	Eligible
LG1807-122	Cession Community Trust	Towards the provision of three hour wrap-around support packages to 40 families, from 16 October 2017 to 15 October 2018.	$3,000	Eligible
LG1807-133	The Christian Outreach Centre New Zealand Trust (trading as Citipointe Church)	Towards making and delivering 75 Christmas food hampers to families in need in the Howick Local Board area, from 20 to 21 December 2017.	$3,000	Eligible
LG1807-138	The Christian Outreach Centre New Zealand Trust (trading as Citipointe Church)	Towards sponsoring the cost of young people to attend Awakening Camp, at Waihi Beach Christian Camp, from 5 to 7 October 2017.	$3,625	Eligible
LG1807-141	Father and Child Trust	Towards costs for rent of the Onehunga Community Centre and the printing and distribution of flyers for Mauri Ora Fathers Circle.	$2,000	Eligible
LG1807-142	Korean Positive Ageing Charitable Trust	Towards the cost of venue, court hire and instructor fees for weekly badminton and Tai Chi classes, from September 2017 to September 2018.	$5,500	Eligible
LG1807-113	Eastgate Christian Centre	Towards the general cost of hosting the “Christmas Walk Through” from 18 to 23 December 2017; specifically the cost of lighting, technical equipment, costumes and catering.	$7,500	Eligible
LG1807-126	Howick Pakuranga Principals' Association	Towards costs supporting the hosting of Kohanga Festival at Somerville Intermediate School.	$4,000	Eligible
LG1807-127	CrossNet Incorporated	Towards the cost of sound and lighting, marketing, management fee and resources for the interactive walk through, as part of the Great Christmas Show, from 7 to 10 December 2017.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1807-128	The Howick Children's Charitable Trust	Towards the delivery cost of hosting the Howick Santa Parade on 3 December 2017.	$30,767	Eligible
LG1807-129	The Howick and Districts Historical Society Incorporated	Towards the floor, loft, weatherboard and veranda post repairs and underfloor drainage for the restoration of the Fencible Sergeant Barry's Cottage.	$19,450	Eligible
LG1807-102	Howick Squash Club Incorporated	Towards the cost of 25 prizes across five divisions during the “Squash Auckland - Doubles Squash Tournament”, running from 12 to 14 October 2017.	$3,870	Eligible
LG1807-110	Willowbank School	Towards the purchase of a customised bike trailer and small fleet of bikes and helmets for the cycling programme at Willowbank School.	$10,000	Eligible
LG1807-118	Pakuranga Athletic Club Incorporated	Towards the Pakuranga Athletic Clubs 50th Jubilee celebration series, including family fun run and walk and track and field meeting on 28 October 2017.	$9,246	Eligible
LG1807-132	Bucklands and Eastern Beaches Tennis Club Incorporated	Towards the cost of uplifting and installation of an artificial turf, replacing net posts and repairs to the base surface of three tennis courts.	$20,000	Eligible
LG1807-136	BMX Mountain Raiders Club Incorporated	Towards delivery of all aspects of the upgrade project including costs associated with track modifications and upgrades.	$65,000	Eligible
LG1807-137	Papatoetoe Avengers Rugby Team Papatoetoe Rugby Football Club	Towards costs of gazebos and team fees for Auckland Junior Rugby Festival.	$4,244	Eligible
LG1807-140	Floorball Academy New Zealand Limited trading as Auckland Floorball Academy Club Incorporated	Towards costs of team uniforms, first aid kit and registration fees for Wellington Open Floorball Tournament.	$2,977	Eligible
LG1807-143	Pakuranga Young Mariners umbrella’ed by Young Mariners of New Zealand Incorporated	Towards the delivery cost of the Young Mariners National Easter Regatta, specifically the hirage of a generator and ferry, from 29 March to 3 April 2018.	$5,163	Eligible
LG1807-101	Tane Moana	Towards the purchase of paddles for the Trans-Tasman Gubbi Gubbi Waka Ama Regatta.	$1,000	Ineligible
LG1807-109	Mission Heights Junior College	Towards either a customised bike trailer or small fleet of bikes and helmets, or contribution to bike storage for cycle skills at Mission Heights Junior College.	$5,000	Ineligible
LG1807-134	John Walker Find Your Field of Dreams Foundation	Towards delivery costs of the Community Swim programme to Primary Schools in the Howick Local Board area.	$25,000	Ineligible
Total			$338,342

Table Two: Howick Local Grants Round One multi-board grant application 2017/2018

Application No.	Organisation	Project	Total Requested	Eligibility
LG1812-104	New Zealand Wheelchair Rugby Association	Towards event costs for the International Wheelchair Rugby Federation 2017 Asia Oceania Zone Championship, from 25 August to 1 September 2017.	$5,000	Eligible
Total			$5,000

Comments

6. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme (see Attachment A).

7. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Howick Local Board will operate two quick response and three local grants rounds for this financial year.

9. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

10. The Howick Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $395,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

11. In local grants round one, 30 applications were received; requesting a total of $338,342 (see Attachment B). One multi-board application was received; requesting a total of $5,000 (see Attachment C).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Howick Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or deadline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

13. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

14. A summary of each application received through local grants round one is attached, see Attachment B and Attachment C.

Māori impact statement

15. Community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori. One organisation applying in this round has identified as Maori and two have indicated their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Implementation

16. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

17. Following the Howick Local Board allocating funding to the grant round, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	47
b	Howick Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)
c	Howick Local Grant Round One 2017/2018 multi-board grant applications (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Sara Chin - Community Grants Advisor

Jaimee Wieland - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Ian Milnes - Acting Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

21 August 2017

Governance Framework Review recommendations

File No.: CP2017/16057

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 Howick 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:

· A process for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh;

· Earlier and more joint engagement between local boards and the governing body in regional decision-making processes

· 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

· Specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional decisions

· 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

· 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:

· declaration

· classification

· reclassification

· 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:

· 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’

· 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’

· 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:

· better and earlier engagement and communication between Auckland Transport and local boards;

· 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:

· ‘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:

· 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.

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

· 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 of recommendations	77
b ⇩	Discussion document Regional decision-making and policy processes	87
c ⇩	Discussion document allocations and delegations	101
d ⇩	Reserves act and exchanges	131
e ⇩	Local boards and Auckland Transport	137
f ⇩	Confirmation of draft transport recommendations	165
g ⇩	Waiheke pilot project	169
h ⇩	Waiheke Local Board pilot project	173
i ⇩	Funding and Finance workstream introduction	193
j ⇩	Funding and Finance workstream purpose and problem definition	211
k ⇩	Description of two options for financial decision making	219
l ⇩	Number of boards	235
m ⇩	Representation options	257
n ⇩	Naming conventions	277

Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Executive Officer

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Ian Milnes – Acting Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

21 August 2017

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Howick Local Board
for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017

File No.: CP2017/15682

Purpose

1. To provide the Howick 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 Howick Local Board. It includes financial performance and work programmes.

3. The snapshot (attachment A), shows overall performance against the Howick Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (attachment B).

4. Ninety per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered. Eighteen activities were undelivered from the agreed work programmes in the 2016/2017 financial year.

5. The overall financial performance result for the H Local Board for the year 2016/2017 is favourable compared to the budget. There are some points for the board to note:

· Net cost of service for the year was $19.2m against a revised budget of $20.2

· Operating revenue was slightly below budget

· Operating expenditure for asset based services was $523k below budget

· Expenditure for locally driven initiatives was $694k below budget. This variance is accounted for through the board approved deferral of budgets which includes community grants, facility partnerships, green assets and youth feasibility projects

· Capital investment was $7.0m.

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 Howick Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 June 2017.

Comments

Key project achievements from the 2016/2017 work programme

7. The following are year-end achievements relating to key projects identified in the Howick Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

· The third annual Tamaki River Festival

· The inaugural Chinese New Festival

· The official opening of the Uxbridge Arts and Culture Centre

· A very successful Movies in the Park event

· Adoption of the Howick Heritage Plan

· Adoption of the Howick Village Centre Plan

· Breaking ground on the Highbrook to Panmure walkway

· Approval of a revamped Arts Out East event

· Just over a quarter of a million dollars granted through Community Grants and Quick response funding rounds.

Achievement of the 2016/2017 work programme

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

· Arts, Community and Events, approved on 13 June 2016

· Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 13 June 2016

· Libraries and Information, approved on 5 July 2016

· Community Facility Renewals and Community Leases, approved on 13 June 2016

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services, approved on 13 June 2016

· Local Economic Development, approved on 12 September 2016.

9. The snapshot (attachment A), shows overall performance against the Howick Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (attachment B).

10. In previous quarterly performance reports, the traffic light Red Amber Green (RAG) reflected progress: Red = issues, Amber = warning, Green = on track. As the quarter four report reflects the status of delivery at the end of the financial year, the traffic lights indicate Red = incomplete/not delivered, Green = delivered as expected.

11. Ninety 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 97% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	24
Green	In progress *	9
Red	On Hold, Deferred	1
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Work programme lines identified as Red:

o Howick Celebrated Citizens – Scheduling of the event is yet to be confirmed and is to be workshopped with the board and the event delivery team.

· Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme 96% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	7
Green	In progress *	12
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	1
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Work programme lines identified as Red:

o Playground network and design strategy

§ project was cancelled

· Libraries and Information work programme 100% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	12
Green	In progress *	0
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

· Community Facilities work programme 85% delivered (includes operations and maintenance, renewals and development projects)

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	19
Green	In progress *	41
Red	On Hold, Deferred	6
	Cancelled	5
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Work programme lines identified as Red:

On Hold, Deferred

o Macleans Park Stage 2

§ detailed design underway. Air swing and fitness equipment alignment being confirmed. Next steps: tendering for physical works of track, fitness and air swing. Age appropriate signage to be installed next month

o Dog Park Development – 310 Te Irirange Drive

§ High level cost estimate complete. Next steps: work with local Rotary to establish community led approach

o Flat Bush Multi-purpose Facility

§ Updated concept design is 90% complete. Estimated to exceed available budget by $7m and as consequence requires the overall scope to be revisited. Next steps: Community Services team to work with local community and local board to ensure the requirements for the centre are properly understood and weighted. When completed this will enable the concept design to be modified

o Flat Bush Aquatic Centre

§ Awaiting strategic assessment from Community Services prior to beginning planning. Next steps: planning and consultation

o Bucklands Beach walkway development

§ AT consultation for agreed safety improvements. Next steps: physical works of safety improvements

o Botany Library renewals FY17

§ Reviewed the tender quotations and issued a contract for this work. HVAC upgrade will not be going ahead, only the library interior refurbishment. Next step: monitor the project to completion.

Cancelled

o Bucklands Beach renewals

§ Duplicate of Howick Furniture renewal FY17-18 project

o Howick Structure renewals FY17-18

§ Duplicate of Howick Structure renewal FY17-19

o Kilimanjaro Park Play renewal

§ Project completed in previous years, no need to renew

o Marble Playground sign structure renewals

§ Project not required

o Nixon Centennial Park renewal – carpark renewal

§ Duplicate of Howick Carpark renewal.

· Community Leases work programme 83% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	3
Green	In progress *	16
Red	On Hold, Deferred	4
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Work programme lines identified as Red:

o Howick Local Board Accommodation project

§ On hold

o Pakuranga Bowling Club

§ On hold while negotiations are occurring with Parks, Sport & Rec staff about the utilisation of the grounds

o The Scout Assn of NZ – Minerva

§ Awaiting completed application information to progress following recent staff changes at the organisation

o The Scout Assn of NZ – Cockle Bay

§ A new property manager has been recently appointed for the Scout Assn, and the Community Leases team will be working with them on a multi-premise project for all Scout Assn leases.

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 100% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	4
Green	In progress *	1
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

· Local Economic Development work programme 75% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	3
Green	In progress *	0
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	1

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

Work programme lines identified as Red:

o World Masters Games Leverage activity in Howick

§ Howick BID didn’t submit a proposal. The funding has not been used

13. 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.

14. The Howick Local Board has identified the following 2016/2017 projects that meet 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:

· Green Assets - $50k

· Youth focused facility - $30k

· Community Arts Programmes - $38k

· Local Arts Grants - $25k

· Facility Partnerships - $300k

· Local community grants - $235k.

Financial performance

15. The Howick Local Board’s net cost of service for the year was $19.2m against a revised budget of $20.2m.

16. Operating revenue was slightly below budget due to total revenue from Lloyd Elsmore Pool and Leisure Centre not meeting revenue targets. Despite the reduced revenue, the centre was able to manage its expenditure levels to remain profitable. In community services venue for hire revenue continued to the earlier trend of exceeding targets.

17. Operating expenditure for asset based services was $523k below budget. In local parks due to extreme weather conditions this year planned maintenance was unable to be performed as well as lower response related maintenance contributed to the lower spend. IN community services both Botany and Howick Library had lower staffing costs.

18. Expenditure for locally driven initiatives for the year was$1.6m, a variance of $694k below budget. This variance is accounted for through the board approved deferral of budgets which includes community grants, facility partnerships, green assets and youth feasibility projects.

19. Capital investment for the year was $7.0m, the majority spent in parks, sports and recreation activity on development of new assets and renewals. Implementation of the Barry Curtis Park Master Plan ($2.2m) continued with the development of the John Walker promenade (walkway/cycle way). Total parks renewals were $1.8m/ the remaining spend was on community facility renewals and land acquisition for the provision of stormwater infrastructure. The main variances from budget are related to the land acquisition for the management of stomwater with various infrastructure agreements still being progressed and also renewals related to Lloyd Elsmore Leisure Centre.

Key performance indicators

20. 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

21. This report informs the Howick Local Board of the performance for the year ending 30 June 2017.

Māori impact statement

22. No specific initiatives in the work programme contribute to specific Maori outcomes in the local board plan. Iwi are consulted as part of the development and implementation of projects.

Implementation

23. The Lead Financial Advisor will action the deferral of identified projects, approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017.

24. 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	297
b ⇩	Work programme update	299
c ⇩	Financial performance	327

Signatories

Authors

Ian Milnes – Senior Local Board Advisor Howick

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Ian Milnes, Acting Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

21 August 2017

Panuku Development Auckland Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 January to 30 June 2017

File No.: CP2017/14702

Purpose

1. To give the Howick Local Board an overview of Panuku Development Auckland activities within the local board area for the six months 1 January to 30 June 2017.

Background

2. Panuku Development Auckland was established in September 2015 as a result of the merger of two Council Controlled Organisations – Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited.

3. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland – from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

4. Panuku manages around $2 billion of council’s property portfolio, which we continuously review to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio or release land or property that can be better used by others.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Note the Panuku Development Auckland Local Board Update 1 January to 30 June 2017

Local Activities

Portfolio Management

5. Panuku manages “non-service” property owned by the council and Auckland Transport (AT) that are not currently needed for service or infrastructure purposes. These are properties that are not immediately required for delivery of a council service or infrastructure development but are being held for use in a planned future project such as road construction, the expansion of parks or development of future town centres.

6. The property portfolio comprises 1437 properties containing 1119 leases as at 30 June 2017. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

7. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 30 June 2017 was above budget with a net surplus to Auckland Council (AC) and AT shareholders of $1.1m ahead of budget.

8. The average monthly tenantable occupancy rate for the six month period is more than 98% which is above the Statement of Intent (SOI) target of 95%.

Properties managed in the Howick Local Board area

9. Panuku Development Auckland currently manages 175 commercial and residential properties within the Howick Local Board area.

Commercial properties	36
Residential properties	139
Total Properties Managed	175

Business Interests

10. Panuku also optimises the commercial return from business interests it manages on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries.

11. There are currently no managed business interests in the Howick Local Board area. The Greenmount Landfill ceased operating in December 2016 and closure activities are in progress.

Portfolio Strategy

Optimisation

12. The 2015-2025 Long-Term Plan reflects a desire of council to materially reduce or slow down expenditure and unlock value from assets no longer required or which are sub-optimal for service purposes. In response to this, prior to the establishment of Panuku, Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) developed a new method of dealing with service property, called optimisation.

13. Asset optimisation deals with “service property”. It is self-funding, it maximises efficiencies from service assets, and maintains levels of service whilst releasing property for sale or development. A key element of optimisation is that the sale proceeds are locally reinvested to advance approved projects and activities on a cost neutral basis. It does not include the Auckland Transport portfolio. Panuku continues to advance this programme of work. This includes the development of a cross-council project to coordinate and execute asset sales and optimisation.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

14. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

15. July 2016 to June 2017 Target

UNIT	TARGET	ACHIEVED	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$75m disposal recommendations	$76.9 million as at 30 June 2017	These recommendations include $53 million of sites that are identified for development projects.

16. Panuku works closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

17. July 2017 to June 2018 Target

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$60m disposal recommendations	These recommendations include $8.7 million of sites that are identified for development projects.

Process

18. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage Rationalisation Process. The agreed process includes engagement with: the council, Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs), local board and Mana Whenua. This is followed by Panuku Board approval, engagement with local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and finally a governing body decision.

Under review

19. Properties currently under review in the Howick Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body.

PROPERTY	DETAILS
80 Vincent Street, Howick	Transferred from Auckland Transport (AT) to Panuku as it is no longer required for infrastructure requirements. The Howick Local Board resolved formally at its March meeting that it is opposed to a disposal as it does not see the property as surplus to requirements and that this is a well utilised car park in a commercial area that is short of parking. The board also indicated that it would pass additional resolutions opposing a disposal at its June 2017 meeting. The board has indicated it will present its case to retain the property when the Finance and Performance Committee consider the proposed disposal.
16 Fencible Drive, Howick	Under review for future uses - potential to explore idea of developing hybrid commercial/community space including residential housing outcomes. Panuku is continuing engagement with AT in respect of their requirements before progressing review of options. Further engagement with the board has been scheduled following the board’s adoption of the Howick Village Centre Plan in June 2017.
34 Moore Street, Howick	Under review for potential disposal. Business case presented by local board for retention. Presented to Finance and Performance Committee in 2014. Further engagement with the board has been scheduled following the board’s adoption of the Howick Village Centre Plan in June 2017. Panuku’s Commercial Property Manager is liaising directly with potential commercial tenants.
1 Ara Tai - Half Moon Bay Marina	Ground lease only. Panuku commenced the rationalisation process to evaluate future use options. The internal organisation-wide Expression of Interest phase commenced in June 2014. Panuku is awaiting confirmation by the lessee of its long term plans before progressing further.

Acquisitions and Disposals

20. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. We buy property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other service needs. We manage the sale of properties that are surplus to council requirements. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

21. 22 properties have been purchased this financial year for open space purposes around the region at a value of $48.6m, and seven properties have been purchased for storm water purposes at a value of $19.4m.

22. One property was purchased in the Howick Local Board area during the reporting period.

23. Panuku undertakes acquisitions for Auckland Council Parks and Healthy Waters under delegation from Council’s Chief Executive. Panuku does not unilaterally decide what properties to buy and when but rather follows a directive to manage the commercial transactions following committee approval to purchase a particular property. A prerequisite of the committee resolution is reporting to the Howick Local Board.

24. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

Disposals

25. For the year ending 30 June 2017, the Panuku disposals team has achieved $22.92m of unconditional net sales proceeds from the sale of 16 properties against the 2016/17 disposals target of $20.0m for the year. The disposals target is agreed with council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

26. One of the 16 properties, 201 Murphys Road, Flat Bush is located in the local board area and is under contract with settlement due on 28 August 2017.

Housing for Older People

27. Council owns and operates 1412 units located in 62 villages across Auckland to provide rental housing to older people in Auckland.

28. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involves Council partnering with a third party provider to deliver social rental housing services for older people.

29. On 21 December 2015, Council announced that The Selwyn Foundation was its preferred joint venture partner to manage the HfOP portfolio.

30. Panuku negotiated the new joint venture (JV) arrangements with Selwyn over 2016 and the JV was formally constituted in December 2016.

31. The new joint venture business, named Haumaru Housing (Haumaru meaning ‘to shelter’), took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio under a long-term lease arrangement from 1 July 2017.

32. Haumaru Housing was granted Community Housing Provider (CHP) status in April 2017. CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

33. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a multi-year development programme.

34. The first new development project will be a 40-unit apartment building on the former Wilsher Village site, Henderson. Once completed, this development will increase the provision to 1,452 units.

35. The following HfOP villages are located within the Howick Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Dale Court	33 Dale Crescent, Pakuranga	26
Marriott Court	3R Marriott Road, Pakuranga Hts	8
Mattson Court	22 Mattson Road, Pakuranga	10
Minerva Court	3 Gibraltar Street, Howick	27

Development

36. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately 50 region wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

37. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the life of projects. It also champions best practice project delivery to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time and quality parameters.

38. A high level update on development activities in the Howick Local Board area as below.

39. 2R Ti Rakau Drive, Pakuranga Plaza – As part of the potential Pakuranga Town Centre regeneration Auckland Council is working with Pakuranga Plaza owner GYP to review redevelopment opportunities for the site. GYP are currently assessing its options after having their resource consent for Stage 1A rejected by the Council (acting in its capacity as Regulator). GYP is looking to resubmit resource consent for a residential tower development in the northeast corner of the town centre and review their redevelopment options of the Mall within the existing building footprint. GYP is seeking Right of Way access over Council land to service vehicle access for the Apartment development. Auckland Transport continue to investigate the construction of a bus station on part of the site along Ti Rakau Drive.

40. Ormiston Town Centre – Development activity is underway of a number of residential blocks at Ormiston Town Centre. Panuku is working closely with Todd Property Group to develop the 20 hectare area. Construction of residential Blocks A & B are near completion. Todd Property acquired Block E in June 2017 and are looking to progress the residential component on Block E and are making significant progress on leasing to a Medical Centre. Leasing continues for blocks F & J with a potential construction contract to being in August 2017.

41. Flat Bush School Road (Lot 1-5)

a) Lot 1: This site has been sold to Neil Construction Ltd with the full settlement monies received. Work is underway to lengthen an area of Flat Bush School Road and is expected to be completed in December 2017.

b) Lot 2: This land has been purchased by the Ministry of Education for the development of a primary school.

c) Lot 3: The structure plan provides for this land to be subdivided into 10 residential lots and a subdivisional consent application is to be lodged on this basis. The intent is to sell the undeveloped land with the consent in place to the adjoining land owner who will incorporate the subject land into his larger residential subdivision. The new title for Lot 3 is expected in early August 2017 , at which date the land will be offered for sale by way of open market tender, with settlement expected by December 2017.

a) Lot 4: This landlocked 8693m² site is intended to be sold to the adjoining owner. Negotiations are proceeding with valuations to be obtained by both parties to assist in the agreement on price. The current approved land take area of Lot 4 is 8850m2 with a proposal currently being progressed to increase the area by an additional 5,400m2 to a total area of 14,093m2. Both Parks and the Local Board have given approval in principle to the additional land take. Panuku will present the recommendation for the increase in land area to the Finance and Performance Committee in August 2017. Lot 4 remains landlocked and will shortly obtain legal road access via the adjoining Hugh Green Group subdivision. Sale of this land is not expected until late 2018.

b) Lot 5: The sale of this landlocked site cannot proceed until a North-South link road is constructed by Parks or Auckland Transport which is not planned to happen until closer to 2020 as no funding is currently in place. The current approved land take area of Lot 5 is 29,738m2 with a proposal currently being progressed to increase the area by an additional 26,004m2 to a total area of 55,742m2. Panuku will present the recommendation for an additional land take to the Finance and Performance Committee in August 2017. Lot 5 remains land locked and is not be able to be sold until adjoining roading networks are completed.

42. 66 Flat Bush School Road (Ormiston Residential Finger) – The 6.5 hectare site at 66 Flat Bush School Road has been classified as a Special Housing Area within the Unlock Ormiston project. A development agreement between Panuku and Todd Property Group is complete and Todd’s have lodged Resource Consent for stage 1 of the development for approximately 85 homes.

Regional Activities

Highlights

43. Significant progress has been made planning in Transform and Unlock locations around Auckland:

a) Transform Wynyard Quarter: a refresh of the Waterfront Plan is being done in conjunction with the City Centre masterplan update. This will set down the development pathway moving forward, including residential and commercial development, public space development, and public transport integration. In March, the Pakenham Street section of the Madden and Pakenham Streets upgrade was completed.

b) Transform Onehunga: The Onehunga HLPP was presented to Council’s Planning Committee in March.

c) Transform Tamaki: AT will transfer surplus sites for Panuku / Tamaki Regeneration Company to develop after undertaking a town centre plan.

d) Unlock Henderson: the HLPP was approved by the Planning Committee in May, outlining a regeneration plan that will make Henderson an eco-precinct.

e) Unlock Northcote: a Framework Plan for Northcote has been developed, which outlines significant regeneration of the town centre and supports the redevelopment of Housing New Zealand properties alongside Council-owned properties.

f) Unlock Old Papatoetoe: Supporting the redevelopment of the Papatoetoe Mall, a HLPP has been developed that will regenerate the town centre to provide mixed use development and a more vibrant retail environment. Stage one of the refurbishment of Old Papatoetoe Mall is due for completion in September 2017.

g) Unlock Takapuna: Panuku has been working closely with AT and the Devonport Takapuna Local Board on community engagement regarding plans for the centre and particularly AT’s plans to upgrade Hurstmere Road. An iterative stakeholder engagement process was started late 2016 to seek balanced views to help shape initial planning and design thinking.

44. Support projects, where Panuku supports intensification by enabling development of council-owned land, have contributed over $20 million to the asset disposal target in the year to date. A number of sites in Support areas have been targeted for acquisition using the Strategic Development Fund with particular success in Avondale which has recently been nominated as an Unlock location. The following are some of the key projects within Support areas:

a) The recent sale of 28 residential units at 150 Mt Wellington Highway, Mount Wellington that the purchaser intends to refurbish either to sell or lease.

b) Earlier this year a 5000 sqm vacant site at 96 St Georges Road, Avondale was sold to Housing New Zealand which they combined with their own properties to enable the development of 103 residential dwellings. Construction will start before the end of this year.

c) 24-26 Racecourse Parade, Avondale is a site sold to Ockham Development last year and they are well into the construction of three apartment blocks delivering 72 units with a targeted completion at the end of this year.

d) The New Zealand Housing Corporation is well into the construction of 33 dwellings at a site at 1 Trent Street, Avondale.

45. A development agreement has been signed with Avanda Group to develop a 9.9ha site at the Hobsonville Airfields, which will see 500 homes of mixed typology constructed.

46. Marketing and pre-sales of apartments for the CAB residential building by Tawera Group is going well, following the signing of the development agreement with Panuku in December 2016.

47. The Muriwai Campground was reopened in February 2017 following a complete redevelopment of the office, communal kitchen, shower and toilet blocks and laundry.

48. The waterfront summer programme was a hit, with over 115,000 people attending Auckland Anniversary events organised by the Council family.

A nine year lease for Panuku’s new offices at 82 Wyndham Street was signed, and Panuku will move into the offices later this year. The decision to move was assessed against Panuku remaining in its current offices. Moving is cost effective, allows for more fit-for-purpose accommodation, and will be more centrally located.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49. This report is for the Howick Local Board’s information.

50. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries you have relating to a property in your Local board area be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz

Māori impact statement

51. Tāmaki Makaurau has the highest Māori population in the world with one in four Māori in Aotearoa living here.

52. Māori make up 12% of the region’s total population who mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic with 50% of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau under the age of 25 years. 5% of the Māori population in the region are currently 65 years and over.

53. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 11 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the Howick Local Board area.

54. Māori make up 5 percent of the Howick Local Board population, and there are two marae located within the local board area.

55. Panuku work collaboratively with Mana Whenua on a range projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

56. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Implementation

57. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Team Leader Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Ian Milnes - Acting Relationship Manager

[1] The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out the following respective statutory roles for regional policy and decision-making:

· Each local board is responsible for ‘identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Auckland Council’ [s.16(1)(c)]

· The governing body must ‘consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area’ [s.15(2)(c)] when carrying out its decision-making responsibilities, including regional policy-making.

Chairperson	David Collings
Deputy Chairperson	Katrina Bungard
Members	Garry Boles
	Jim Donald, JP
	John Spiller
	Mike Turinsky
	Adele White
	Bob Wichman
	Peter Young, JP

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name (Road 1)	East Pond Road	There was an existing farm pond located through the centre of the development. The development has involved dewatering and infilling of the existing pond.
First Alternative	Golden Pond Road	As above. The colour gold signifies completeness and God consciousness.
Second Alternative	Tuputupu Road	Means “to grow” or “to develop”.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name (Road 3/Road 13)	Koropa Road	Continuation of existing road.
Preferred Name (Road 4/Road 12)	Nightingale Road	Continuation of existing road.
Alternatives for Road 3 and 4:

Kaihoko Road	Means “retailer,” “buyer,” “seller” or “agent.”
Tuputupu Road	Means “to grow” or “to develop”.
Matatahi Road	Means “young people” or “younger generation.”
Kaitaki Road	Means “leader.”
Horai Road	Goddess of the seasons and the natural portions of time. The Horai were particularly honoured by farmers who planted and tended their crops in time with the rising and setting of the start- measures of the passing seasons.

	Section	Description
a)	Message from the chairperson	Legislative requirement to include commentary from the local board on matters included in the report.
b)	The year in review - Financial performance - Highlights and achievements - Challenges	Snapshot of the main areas of interest for the community in the local board area.
c)	How we performed	Legislative requirement to report on performance measure results for each activity, and to provide explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved.
d)	Financial information	Legislative requirement to report on financial performance results compared to LTP and Annual Plan budgets, together with explanations about variances.

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key regional issues for regional pest management plan	357
b ⇩	Howick Local Board feedback on Regional Pest Management Plan	359
c ⇩	Feedback form	361
d ⇩	Previous engagement on the Regional Pest Management Plan	363

Process	Milestones
a) Consultation with the public	b) 29 May to 10 July 2017
c) Consultation with local boards and advisory panels	d) 19 June to 21 August 2017
e) Analysis of feedback and submissions f)	g) August to October 2017
h) Report to the Environment and Community Committee on the results of the public consultation	i) November 2017
j) Develop and refine a draft investment plan, in consultation with local boards	k) Early 2018
l) Public consultation on the draft investment plan	m) Mid 2018

Date	Phase	Action
June 2017	Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state	Local board chairs forum; local board cluster briefings
June – August 2017	Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state	Local board workshops; local board business meetings
September 2017	Phase two - development of options for the future state	Report to the Environment and Community Committee

Authors	Nichola Painter - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Ian Milnes - Acting Relationship Manager