Agenda of Papakura Local Board

Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

Auckland Transport Update August 2017 to the Papakura Local Board

File No.: CP2017/17299

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters and provides an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF). Additionally it includes a summary of consultation material sent to the local board The report also provides information on transport matters of specific application and interest to the Papakura Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. This report responds to resolutions made by the local board at their previous meeting, provides an update on the board’s transport capital fund projects, their current status and proposes an investigation for costs into a new project. It notes consultations forwarded to the Board for comment and decisions made by Auckland Transports (AT) Traffic Control Committee which affect the Board area. General information is also provided on the progress of the Papakura Park and Ride, Manukau Bus Station and the new battery powered electric trains.

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the Auckland Transport update August 2017 report

b) request that Auckland Transport provide a ‘Rough Order of Cost’ for the following project: Priority Greenway Project 12 from the Papakura Greenways Plan - Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace.

c) Notes the ‘Rough Order of Cost’ of $ 15,000 provided by Auckland Transport to build a large information signage plinth at Papakura Train Station and authorises use of this Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund to the develop a ‘Firm Estimate of Costs’ for completion of the project.

Comments

Responses to Papakura Local Board Resolutions

3. The resolution is detailed below followed by Auckland Transport’s response.

Resolution number PPK/2017/58

c) Request Auckland Transport to review the road markings on the intersection of Great South Road and Coles Crescent.

· Both road markings and blacked out lines have been remarked to improve visibility of the temporary lane changes. The temporary markings are associated with the Watercare works in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.

The repainting of road markings is generally only used in cases where road works require temporary changes to lane markings and will be restored once the works are completed.

d) Request Auckland Transport resolve the ongoing issue with the failing chip seal on Elliot Street from the RSA entrance to Mossford Green.

· Elliot Street was chip sealed earlier this year and AT have noted that sections have been stripped and remedial works required.

Remedial works are scheduled and will be undertaken in the warmer/dryer months (i.e. after October) to ensure that conditions are optimal for the resealing of the road.

e) Request an update on progress on the repair of the covered walkway to the train station.

· The covered walkway repairs are on hold until the remedial works are undertaken to address the primary cause of bus strikes.

The works include building out the curb to increase the distance between the buses and the covered walkway and relocating bus layovers in the Papakura Town Centre. These works are being undertaken to ensure that the potential for future bus strikes are minimised and concerns from the local community are addressed. Works are expected to be completed by November 2017.

f) Request a progress report, including a full health and safety review, on the parking and speed situation in Oakleigh Avenue, Takanini, by 31 August 2017.

· AT have undertaken an investigation into the activities relating to road safety and parking on Oakleigh Avenue and noted while parking on both sides of the road can reduce the road to a single lane for larger vehicles, this is not considered a significant safety concern as there is good forward visibility for through traffic, allowing drivers to safely observe and give way to opposing traffic if required. This temporary one-way operation also encourages a lower speed environment and removal of this parking will open the road up and will encourage increased vehicle speeds.

While the current operating speeds along Oakleigh Avenue are reasonable, Auckland Transport is currently considering changes to the posted speed limits in the area, and are proposing to extend the existing 50 km/h section on Oakleigh Avenue to Spartan Road.

The concerns around use of the road reserve by the businesses on Oakleigh Avenue has been raised with our Parking Compliance Team for monitoring to ensure that the vehicles utilising on-street parking or the road reserve are doing so legally.

This issue has also been referred to Auckland Council’s compliance team to investigate, in relation to business and associated activities allegedly being undertaken outside of their legal premise but within the road corridor.

Auckland Transport Quarterly Reporting

4. Auckland Transport provides quarterly reports about the organisations activities both locally and regionally. This provides an overview of the various projects and their status.

5. Attachment A provides information about Auckland Transport’s regional and local activities. Attachment B provides information about Auckland Transport’s work with local schools.

Transport capital fund update

Updates

6. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund is a capital budget provided to all local boards and delivered by Auckland Transport. The Papakura Local Board can use this fund to deliver projects that they deem 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.

7. The Papakura Local Board can consolidate up to three years of the funding available in an electoral term to allocate to projects. For the Papakura Local Board this means a total of approx. $1.34 million could be spent on transport projects in this electoral term.

8. Auckland Transport encourages all local boards to identify potential projects early in their electoral term to ensure that project planning, procurement and delivery can be undertaken within the current electoral term

Projects

9. In May, the Papakura Local Board identified potential projects and have requested that further investigations are taken to assess feasibility and provide a ‘rough order of costs’. Some of these preliminary costings have been discussed in workshops with the local board and are currently being considered for progression to detailed design.

10. 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
Relocation of existing cycleway on Great South Road, Takanini		Relocate the existing cycleway to the current footpath creating a shared cycling and pedestrian walkway along Great South Road, Takanini from Southgate Shopping centre to the Papakura Stream to improve safety for cyclists.	‘Rough Order of Cost’ ROC authorised by PLB in May 2017. A rough order of costs is estimated to be approximately $4m. At this stage due to the limitation in funding, alternative solutions are being considered to improve the outcome i.e. greenway section.
Relocation of pedestrian crossing on East Street, Papakura		Relocation of the pedestrian crossing on East Street, Papakura from its existing site further north, to align with the exit from the New World supermarket and the pedestrian access from the Museum and library facility.	Status update ROC authorised by PLB in May 2017. Pedestrian counts arranged to determine feasibility and pedestrian desire lines.
Raised pedestrian crossing for Wood Street, Papakura		A new raised crossing on Wood Street, Papakura to improve pedestrian safety for the local residents.	Status update ROC authorised by PLB in May 2017. Pedestrian counts arranged to determine feasibility and pedestrian desire lines.
Signage Plinth at Papakura Train Station		A directional plinth signage/information hub for the Papakura Rail Station as a way-finding tool.	‘Rough Order of Cost’ ROC authorised by PLB in May 2017. An estimate of $15k for signage at the train station has been costed. If supported, the local board can request a ‘firm estimate of costs’.
Walkway/ cycleway across Pahurehure Inlet		Investigate whether the Local Board Transport Capital Fund can be utilised for the construction of a walkway/cycleway across Pahurehure Inlet between Longford Park and Pylon Point.	‘Rough Order of Cost’ ROC authorised by PLB in May 2017. Early estimates based on similar projects in the region estimates construction costs to be in excess of $3 million. This exceeds the current balance of the LBTCF for this term. At this stage additional funding will be required to progress this project.
Notes: A ‘traffic light’ code is used to summarise the status of projects. The colours are used as follows: Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and 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 OPLB has decided not to pursue it at this time.

11. New project initiation and approval at a workshop on the 9 August 2016, the local board, in addressing a previous resolution regarding investigation into a greenway, identified a possible project that could be funded from their Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

12. The following potential new projects were identified for further investigation including feasibility and development of a ‘Rough Order of Cost’(ROC):

· Priority Greenway Project 12 - Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace. This connection forms the southern part of a link between Elliot St and the proposed NZTA bridge at Rushgreen Ave to the north. This route is strategically important to the regional cycle network and could be delivered in conjunction with AT.

Papakura Park and Ride

13. This project is investigating a trial Park and Ride for Papakura facility to address the growth in patronage on the Auckland Transport Metro network, specifically the Papakura train station.

14. A briefing to the Papakura Local Board (PLB) was held on the 9 August 2017. The local board were provided with a briefing on the progress and the status update for the Papakura Park and Ride.

15. Currently, a business case is being prepared for the Park and Ride in part to seek partial funding from NZTA.

16. The local board have also identified this project as key priority and are seeking support from the governing body through the Long Term Plan process to address any shortfall in funding.

New Rollerson Road footpath

17. Auckland Transport has a list of approximately 500 sections of new footpath for consideration across Auckland.

18. Recently it has been raised that a section of Rollerson Road, Papakura currently only has a footpath down the western side of the street. A footpath was not installed when the area was first established.

19. A request for the opposite side of the street to have a footpath installed has been received and has been prioritised for investigation and design in 2017/18 and for construction in 2018/19.

Upcoming projects and activities

Consultations

20. Auckland Transport provides the Papakura Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

21. In the reporting period for July 2017, only 1 project was put forward to the Papakura Local Board for comment. The proposal was for:

· New roads and traffic controls for Mill Road/ Walters Road Residential Subdivision

22. No objections were received and a summary of the proposals can be found in Attachment C of this report.

23. The Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions are reported on a monthly basis. In the July period there were 1 TCC decision in the local board area. These are listed in the table below.

Table 1: Transport Control Committee Decisions

Street	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Committee Decision
Ray Small Drive / Wellington Street	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Mobility Parking, Mobility Parking, Stop Control, Edge Line	Carried

Regional and sub-regional projects

Manukau bus interchange

24. Works are progressing on schedule for the full completion of the Manukau Bus Station including fitout and driver training by May 2018 if not sooner.

25. Putney Way is now a one-way street to give the bus station project access on the southern side of Putney Way and a detour will be in place until December.

26. For more information on the project, visit: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/manukau-bus-station/

New electric trains

27. In July, Auckland Council authorised $207 million purchase of 17 new electric and battery powered trains. The new electric and battery powered trains will benefit commuters living further south than Papakura to Pukekohe as this will take away the need to change trains in Papakura as currently occurs, as the electrification of the lines ends at Papakura Station.

28. The expected delivery date is by late-2019 which will address high growth in patronage on the rail network but is contingent on partial funding from NZTA.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29. The Board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

30. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport's Regional and Local Activities	19
b ⇩	Auckland Transport's Work with Local Schools	29
c ⇩	Summary of Proposals for Mill Road/Walters Road Residential Subdivision	31

Signatories

Authors

Kenneth Tuai – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathon Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

Papakura Quick Response Round One 2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/14839

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for Papakura Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018. The Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Papakura Local Board adopted the Papakura Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 26 April 2017 (Attachment A). 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 Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $125,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

5. A total of $2,000 has been allocated to the senior citizen programme in the Arts, Community and Events work programme (PPK/2017/110). Therefore a total of $123,000 is available to be allocated to community grants.

6. Seventeen applications were received for the Quick Response Round One requesting a total of $37,587, (Attachment B) and two local grant multi-board applications were received for $4,578.77 (Attachment C).

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

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

Table One: 2017/18 Papakura Quick Response Round One Applications:

Application No.	Organization name	Project	Total requested	Eligibility
QR1814-101	New Zealand Dance Advancement trust (Operating as The New Zealand Dance Company)	Towards costs of delivering youth engagement programme for schools in Papakura (including Papakura High School) for the New Zealand Dance Company Youth Engagement Programme in October 2017.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1814-102	South Auckland Choral Society Incorporated	Towards costs of remuneration for musical director/conductor and rehearsal pianist based in Papakura for the Conductor and Accompanist for 2018.	$6,000	Eligible
QR1814-103	Sustainable Papakura Trust	Towards costs of regular twice monthly advertisements in the Papakura Courier plus one e-ad every month, to promote “Sustainable Papakura Market” project.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1814-104	Papakura Learn To Swim	Towards the costs of pool hire at the Massey Park Aquatic Center for the “Papakura Learn To Swim” programme.	$1,000	Eligible
QR1814-105	Papakura Pottery Club	Towards costs of lease maintenance payment ($1,600/yr to Council) for Central Park Reserve property which hosts the “Community art” pottery programme.	$1,600	Ineligible
QR1814-106	thebreaksnz	Towards venue hire, promotional costs, artist fees, catering, administration costs, and cost for winners plaque (Hawkins theatre. Papakura), for the “Battlecry Breakdance” event in October 2017.	$2,478	Eligible
QR1814-107	Communicare Centre for Mutual Aid (Auckland) Incorporated	Towards covering costs of rent for Papakura Friendship Center (44 Clevedon Rd, Papakura).	$1,495	Eligible
QR1814-108	YMCA of Auckland Incorporated	Towards costs of gardening tools, equipment, soils and plants for the "Community Garden" project (50 Settlement Road, Papakura).	$2,000	Eligible
QR1814-109	Father and Child Trust	Towards costs for rent, internet and phone services for the community room in Onehunga for the Father and Child Trust support services.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1814-111	Gateway Community Trust	Towards costs for venue hire for the finale event for the "Storytellers New Zealand High School Public Speaking Contest” on 3 November 2017 at Vodafone Centre, 770 Manukau Great South Road.	$4,505	Eligible
QR1814-113	Papakura Business Association	Towards costs of purchasing flags to put up along Great South Road and Railway Street for the "Proud Papakura Proud" initiative.	$1,900	Eligible
QR1814-114	Papakura Netball Centre	Towards costs of bringing netball star, Irene Van Dyk, to be part of the “Future Ferns” programme as ambassador for "Future Ferns Festival Day" on 25 October 2017.	$1,108	Eligible
QR1814-115	Papakura City Football Club	Towards costs of purchasing 20 new chairs for the Papakura City Football Club at McLennan Park, Arimu Place, Papakura.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1814-116	Papakura Museum (trading as Papakura and Districts Historical Society Incorporated.)	Towards the cost of plastering and painting of the military gallery in Papakura Museum	$1,980	Eligible
QR1814-117	Papakura Croquet Club Incorporated.	Towards costs of purchasing 10 participant work books to be used at training at Papakura Croquet Clubrooms (18-19 October 2017) for the "Coaching of coaches programme".	$550	Eligible
QR1814-119	Papakura Playcentre	Towards costs of art supplies, cleaning supplies, sunblock and books for use at the playcentre (15 Opaheke Road, Papakura).	$892	Eligible
QR1814-121	Manukau Orchestral Society Incorporated	Towards venue hire and technical costs including; lighting, venue technician, staging, risers, sound shell at the Vodafone Events Centre on the 23rd to 25th November for the "Homeland" concert.	$1,500	Eligible
		TOTAL	$35,008.23

b) Agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round, listed in Table Two.

Table two: 2017/18 Papakura Local Grant Multi-Board Applications:

LG1721-203

Big Buddy Mentoring Trust

Towards purchase of three laptops and coordinators' salaries from 30 April 2017 to 1 May 2018 for the “matching adult male volunteer mentors with fatherless boys” programme.

$2,578.77

Eligible

LG1812-104

New Zealand Wheelchair Rugby Association

Towards event costs for International Wheelchair Rugby Federation 2017 Asia Oceania Zone Championship, from 25 August to 1 September 2017

$2,000

Eligible

Total

4,578.77

Comments

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

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

11. For the 2017/2018 financial year, the Papakura Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $125,000 for the financial year.

12. A total of $2,000 has been allocated to the senior citizen programme in the Arts, Community and Events work programme (PPK/2017/110).

13. Therefore, a total of $123,000 is available to be allocated to the community grants programme.

14. Seventeen applications were received for the Quick Response Round One requesting a total of $28,144, (Attachment B) and two local grant multi-board applications were received, requesting a total of $4,578.77 (Attachment C).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Papakura 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.

16. 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.”

17. A summary of each application is attached (Attachment A and B).

Māori impact statement

18. 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.

19. For this quick response round ten organizations have indicated their project will target Maori or Maori outcomes.

Implementation

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

21. Following the Papakura Local Board allocating funding for Quick Response Round One, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Papakura Local Grants Programme 2017/2018	49
b ⇩	Papakura Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications	53
c ⇩	Papakura Local Grant multi-board grant application	107

Signatories

Authors

Catherine Bolinga - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

Goverance Framework Review recommendations

File No.: CP2017/16837

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 Papakura 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, focusing 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 ⇨	Appendix A: Summary Table of Governance Framework Review Report Recommendations (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Appendix B: Regional Decision-Making and Policy Processes (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Appendix C: Allocations and Delegations (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Appendix D: Reserve Act Land Exchanges (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Appendix E: Local Boards and Auckland Transport (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Appendix F: Confirmation of Draft Transport Recommendations (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Appendix G: Waiheke Local Board Pilot Project Cover paper (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Appendix H: Waiheke Pilot Project Outline (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Appendix I: Funding and Finance Workstream Paper 1 (Under Separate Cover)
j ⇨	Appendix J: Funding and Finance Cover Paper July (Under Separate Cover)
k ⇨	Appendix K: Funding Finance Description of 2 Models (including two spreadsheet attachments) (Under Separate Cover)
l ⇨	Appendix L: Number of Local Boards (Under Separate Cover)
m ⇨	Appendix M: Representation Options (Under Separate Cover)
n ⇨	Appendix N: Naming Conventions (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Manager Mayoral Programmes

Authorisers

Stephen Town - Chief Executive

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Papakura Local Board: Quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017

File No.: CP2017/17390

Purpose

1. To provide the Papakura Local Board members 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 Papakura Local Board. It includes financial performance and a report on the work programmes.

3. The Papakura Local Board Work Programme Snapshot 2016/17 Q4 (Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Papakura Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment B).

4. Ninety one per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered. Twelve activities were not delivered from the agreed work programmes in the 2016/2017 financial year.

5. Financial operating performance is below budget year to date, with operating expenditure below budget, and operating revenue above budget in facility hire plus funding reimbursements. Locally Driven Initiatives were 90% allocated, with four projects undelivered but committed, being deferred into early Y18. Asset Based Services around parks and leisure operations have recovered to being slightly below budget. Capital expenditure has achieved a large portion of its budgeted delivery year to date (76%), with renewals on target financially and growth programmes in advanced stages of design or soon commencing delivery.

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 as they form part of a separate agenda item entitled ‘Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report’.

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) receive the report entitled ‘Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Papakura Local Board: Quarter four, 1 April – 30 June 2017’.

Comments

Key highlights for Quarter four

7. The Papakura Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the Quarter four period, which include:

· Community Health organisation Vaka Tautua, along with the Papakura Local Board and three other southern local boards hosted two Pasifiki Fono, to increase Pasifika community engagement with council plans, while Te Ora O Manukau led engagement with mataawaka.

· Two emergency preparedness workshops were run with local community leaders. The group collectively agreed on actions to be taken to increase Papakura’s readiness for disasters.

· As part of the Youth Connections programme, the Careers Coach visited Papakura High, Rosehill College and the Papakura Marae. This resulted in over 900 youth learning about a variety of careers and job opportunities.

Key Project achievements from the 2016/17 Work Programme

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

· The Papakura Commercial Project Group, comprising of the Business Association, representatives of local businesses and staff from across the Council family including CCOs, was successfully reestablished. Work has started on the identification of opportunities for new businesses, possibilities for redevelopment of older or vacant sites and the creation of new public spaces to showcase local artists and Papakura’s strong Māori heritage.

· Work has started on the redevelopment of the community space at Smiths Avenue together with local community groups and residents.

· Progress has been made with regards to the removal of mangroves specifically around the Pahurehue inlet and Conifer Grove area.

· The Pahurehure boardwalk and esplanade was officially opened for the public with a formal blessing, marking another step towards the completion of a foreshore walk/ cycle facility.

· There was a successful uptake on the Youth Scholarships programme, with a total of 35 applications received and 19 applicants being granted funding.

· The development of the highly significant Papakura-Takanini-Manurewa Integrated Area Plan began, with community engagement and analysis of feedback completed and the drafting of the plan well underway.

· Volunteers contributed a total of 2237 hours over the past year, with the annual tree planting at the Children’s Forest and the work on Kirks and Margans Bush being the most recent activities undertaken in Quarter four.

Achievement of the 2016/17 Work Programme

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

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

· Community Leases, approved on 15 June 2016

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

· Libraries and Information, approved on 15 June 2016

· Community Facilities Renewals, approved on 15 June 2016

· Local Environment, approved on 20 July 2016

· Local Economic Development, approved on 20 July 2016

· Parks, Sport and Recreation renewals, approved on 17 August 2016

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

11. 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 delivery at the end of the financial year the traffic lights indicate Red = incomplete, Green = delivered as expected.

12. Ninety one per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered.

13. Departments delivered the 2016/2017 work programmes as follows:

· Arts, Community and Events work programme 97% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	18
Green	In progress *	10
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	1
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There are some points to note:

o Placemaking: Town centre safety and economic development (item ID 2267) – This project is reported as in progress and this activity will continue into the next financial year with accountability reports from the Community Patrols, Neighbourhood Support, Māori Wardens and the Business Assciation to be reported back to the Local Board in the first Quarter of the 2017/2018 financial year. Beca was contracted to undertake a safety review of the Papakura Town Centre. This work has taken place and the outcomes of the review will inform the safety work programme from the board going forward.

o Youth Connections (item ID 2252) – The Careers Coach at Papakura High, Rosehill College and the Papakura Marae was successful with over 900 youth using the 26 interactive kiosks to learn about a variety of careers. This programme will continue into the next financial year hence it is being reported as ‘In progress’.

o Smiths Avenue (item ID 3610) – This project is aimed to reactivate and redevelop the community space at Smiths Avenue. Staff are working alongside the community groups and residents. This work will continue into the next financial year and is therefore being reported as in progress.

o Community Volunteer Awards Papakura (item ID 425) – This event was cancelled this financial year and the allocated $8.000 to this activity was reallocated and available for community projects through the contestable grants funding. Hence this is reported as an activity being cancelled in the table above.

· Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme 85% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	10
Green	In progress *	4
Red	On Hold, Deferred	1
	Cancelled	1
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There are some points to note:

o Mangrove removal – Pahurehure and Conifer Grove (Item ID 2798) – This project was not completed before the year end due to delays in the resource consenting process. The Local Board has deferred $300,000 into the 2017/2018 financial year, which was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on the 1 June and this item will appear in the 2017/2018 work programme with Item ID 2798. Hence this is being reported as deferred.

o Pukekiwiriki Paa maintenance (Item ID 2870) – In order to progress the restoration, protection, signage and access works at Pukekiwiriki, a resource consent is required. There have been a number of challenges with completing the assessment of environmental effects (AEE) associated with the draft work programme. The next meeting of the Pukekiwiriki Joint Management Committee is currently being set up to discuss the AEE and reaffirm a long term work programme for the Paa.

· Libraries and Information work programme 100% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	13
Green	In progress *	0
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There is one point to note:

o While the Libraries and Information work programme has been 100% delivered, with positive participation in a number of innovative programmes and activities, the local board has received regular quarterly updates indicating a decline in visitor numbers over the last three years.

· Community Facilities work programme 86% delivered (includes operations and maintenance, renewals and development projects)

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	13
Green	In progress *	23
Red	On Hold, Deferred	3
	Cancelled	3
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There are some points to note:

o Ernie Clark Reserve retaining wall (Item ID 3727) – this item is reported as being cancelled. However, the work will be carried out and this item was merged with the wider work being carried out on the Ernie Clark Reserve and will be reported as part of Item ID 3726.

o McLennan Park Retaining wall renewals (Item ID 3260) – This item was cancelled as staff identified that the work had been undertaken in previous years.

o The Keri Downs Park Carpark Renewal (Item ID 3263) – This project is currently reported as being ‘On hold’ as Community Facilities is looking at establishing a future plan for this site.

· Community Leases work programme 90% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	8
Green	In progress *	9
Red	On Hold, Deferred	2
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There are two points to note:

o New lease for Keri Downs Reserve community garden (Item ID 1798) – This item is being reported as ‘Red’, as there is a delay in community groups returning back their lease applications. Staff have made several attempts to connect with the groups and will continue to do so.

o Uenuku Room (Item ID 1803) – Staff are awaiting further information on this lease and the outcome of the conversations between the Papakura Local Board Chair and iwi representatives regarding the shared use of this room.

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 100% delivered

	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Green	Completed	2
Green	In progress *	1
	Activity Status	Number of Activities
Red	On Hold, Deferred	0
	Cancelled	0
	Not delivered	0

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There is one point to note:

o The one item reported as ‘In progress’ is the ongoing work on Dominion Reserve (Item ID 1391), which has been identified as a priority park for ecological restoration. This activity will be undertaken going forward in the next financial year.

· Local Economic Development work programme 100% delivered

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

* identified to be delivered across multiple years

There are no points to note with regards to this work programme.

Financial Performance

14. Operating Revenue of $549k exceeded budget by $193k in local community services. Community facilities’ related revenues were overall $54k above budget with most facilities achieving budget or better. $85k revenue was released to Youth Connections from sponsorship funds and revenue of $53k was received from Auckland Transport for this year’s Park and Ride security.

15. Operating expenditure of $9.61m is $885k under budget. Four committed projects totalling $390k that haven’t been delivered will be deferred into Y18. Response repairs in aquatic and recreation contracted facilities and full facility contracts, general parks and coastal expenditure came in under budget by $188k for the year.

16. Capital expenditure is underspent, but achieving 76% delivery for the year. Renewals overall were financially on target with progress made on some facility projects ahead of time when other projects were delayed. In growth funding, the development of walkways, playspace and park at Addison subdivision and work at Opaheke SID, are in progress and unspent budgets of $602k will carry forward into Y18.

17. There is $910,000 of Locally Driven Initiatives Capex funding still to be allocated by the local board. Options are under consideration.

18. The Papakura Local Board Financial Performance report is in Attachment C.

Key Performance Indicators

19. The 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 as they form part of a separate agenda item entitled ‘Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report’.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. This report informs the Papakura Local Board of performance to date for the period ending 30 June 2017.

Māori impact statement

21. Pukekiwiriki Paa Joint Management Committee has not met during this quarter.

22. Te Ora O Manukau facilitated a “Have your say” mataawaka engagement hui on four of the six southern draft local board plans including the Papakura Draft Local Board Plan. There was an opportunity to discuss mataawaka interests and issues and to seek feedback on the plans.

23. On the 30 June a relationship agreement between Ngāti Tamaoho and the Papakura, Manurewa and Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Boards was signed, marking a next step in the further strengthening of relationships between the various parties.

Implementation

24. The Lead Financial Advisor will action the deferral of identified projects, approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017. The Local Board has deferred $300,000 for mangrove removal and $30,000 for Community Arts Programmes into the 2017/2018 financial year. This was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on the 1 June (Resolution number FIN/2017/1).

25. 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 ⇩	Papakura Local Board Work Programmes Snapshot 2016-2017	169
b ⇩	Papakura Local Board Work Programmes 2016-2017 Update Quarter four	171
c ⇩	Papakura Local Board Financial Performance Report	193

Signatories

Authors	Madelon De Jongh - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

AC new logo_horz_cmyk

PAPAKURA LOCAL BOARD

ACHIEVEMENTS REGISTER 2016-2019 ELECTORAL TERM

Date	ACHIEVEMENT
19 August 2017	Papakura Innovation Event 3 – Papakura Library
5 August 2017	Papakura Innovation Event 2 – Repair Café (Upcycling)
29 July 2017	Papakura Art Gallery Exhibition Opening – Mohi Ofi
26 July 2017 Business Meeting	- Approved new road name for the residential subdivision by Nagra Homes Limited at 17 Bunnythorpe Road, Papakura – Nagra Lane - Approved new road name for the residential subdivision by Pakenham Group Limited at 170-190 Walters Road and 543-587 Mill Road, Takanini – Toropapa Crescent - Endorsed the local board feedback into the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw - Endorsed the local board feedback in the proposed direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan - Appointed the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson as the lead and alternate to take part in regional strategic priority workshops on the Long-term 2018-2028 - Provided feedback to the Auckland Plan refresh 2018 - Delegated the provision of feedback on the “Takaro – Investing in Play’ discussion to workstream members Hawkins, Auva’a and Turner. - Endorsed the board’s feedback on Auckland Transport’s “Roads and Streets framework”. - Requested Auckland Transport to review the road markings on the intersection of Great South Road and Coles Crescent. - Requested Auckland Transport resolve the ongoing issue with the failing chip seal on Elliot Street from the RSA entrance to Mossford Green. - Requested an update on progress on the repair of the convered walkway to the train station. - Requested a progress report, including a full health and safety review, on the parking and speed situation in Oakleigh Avenue, Takanini by 31 August 2017. - Provided feedback on the report entitled “Airport Access” relating to proposed versions of access to Auckland Airport. - Provided input in the review of the Citizens Advice Bureaux services.
23/24/25 July 2017	Local Government New Zealand Conference
22 July 2017	Papakura Innovation Event – Robots and Wearables – Papakura Library
6 July 2017	Drury Community Committee
3 July 2017	Youth Council Meeting
2 July 2017	Papakura Action Expo
30 June 2017	Opening Brylee Reserve Wetlands
30 June 2017	Signing of Relationship Agreement between Ngati Tamaoho, Manurewa, Papakura, Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards
29 June 2017	Mataawaka Hui – Local Board Plan
28 June 2017 Business Meeting	- Approved an operational grant of $5,000 to the family of Leona McKenzie as a contribution towards the installation of a memorial seat at Opaheke School road crossing. - Approved 24 Papakura Local Board grants. - Approved 7 multi board grants - Approved an application from Papakura Kootuitui Trust for $5,000.00 - Approved the relationship agreement template and a process as a basis for discussions with mana whenua - Approved the Papakura Local Board 2017/2018 Community Facilities Work Programme. - Approved in principle the Papakura Local Board 2017-2020 Community Facilities Physical Work Programme - Supported all the provisions of community and workforce measures for year one (2017/2018) of new maintenance contracts. - Approved the renewal of a community ground lease to Counties Manukau Softball Association Incorporated for the land encompassing the clubrooms at 1R Wharf Street, Papakura - Provided feedback on the Auckland Plan refresh 2018. - Approved a new road name for the residential subdivision by Karaka Brookview Limited at 241 Park Estate Road, Hingaia
28 June 2017	Site Visit State Highway 1 – Papakura to Bombay
27 June 2017	Neighbourhood Support Meeting
25 June 2017	Local Board Engagement Drop-in, Takanini Sikh Temple
24 June 2017	Local Board Plan Engagement – Drury
24 June 2017	Matariki Ki Papakura Event
21 June 2017	Pasifika Fono
19 June 2017	Attended Obligations and Opportunities: Maori, Te Tiriti Treaty and Auckland Council Workshop
19 June 2017	Attended Papakura CrimeWatch Patrol Meeting
14 June 2017	Attended Pips Meeting and TRAG Meeting
13 June 2017	Chair attended LGNZ Zone One Meeting
10 June 2017	Children’s Forest Planting
8 June 2017	Careers Kiosk Opening – Papakura Library
8 June 2017	Civil Defence Workshop
7 June 2017 Business Meeting	- Approved the allocation of $73,000 for environmental projects to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Directorate in 2017/2018. - Approved the Papakura Parks, Sports and Recreation draft Annual Work Programme 2017/2018 financial year with two amendments. - Approved the Papakura Local Board Libraries Work Programme for 2017/2018 - Approved the Local Board Arts, Community and Events (ACE) Work Programme 2017/2018 - Approved the Papakura 2017/2018 Local Economic Development Work Programme - Adopted the Papakura Local Board Agreement 2017/2018 including local fees and charges schedule.
2 June 2017	Local Board Engagement, Papakura Marae including the Careers Coach
1 June 2017	Local Board Plan Engagement – Rosehill College
31 May 2017	Have Your Say Event – Papakura Library
29 May 2017	Local Board Plan Engagement – Papakura High School
29 May 2017	Careers coach at Papakura High School
25 May 2017	Papakura Citizenship Ceremony
24 May 2017 Business Meeting	- Approved 17 Quick Response Round Four Grant Applications - Requested Auckland Transport to provide a “Rough Order of Costs” for five local projects - Requested Auckland Transport to investigate elements of the Papakura greenways – local path plan that could potentially be funded through the Local Board Transport Capital Fund - Approved a new road name for the residential subdivision by Packenham Group Ltd at 170 – 190 Walters Road and 543 – 587 Mill Road, Takanini.
17 May 2017	Arts Facilities, including Papakura Museum, site visits
5 May 2017	Concluded the Parks site visits.
5 May 2017	Attended Jobfest which included the YouthFull Official Launch.
3 May 2017	Papakura Local Board Extraordinary Meeting: - Approved the Opaheke Concept Plan prepared by Surface Design Inc, dated August 2016. - Approved the allocation of the encumbrance funds ($1.75 million) to be paid by Motleon Ltd, towards the development of the southern portion of Opaheke Park. - Adopted the final 2017/2018 Locally Driven (LDI budgets by project, within the funding envelopes. - Agreed to advocate for grade separation of the Takanini rail crossings with Walters Road and Manuroa Road and also to advocate to Auckland Transport to develop a multi-story park and ride at the Papakura Train Station. - Agreed the board’s one key priority for the organisation to work on was to alleviate traffic congestion through building transport infrastructure before intensification. - Agreed that a total of $300,000 for mangrove removal of the 2016/2017 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operational expenditure (Opex) be deferred to 2017/2017.
26 April 2017	Papakura Business Meeting: - Approved the Papakura Local Board Community Grants Programme 2017/2018 - Approved a new community ground lease for Papakura City Brass Band Inc for 30 Wairoa Road, Papakura. - Approve a new community ground lease for Papakura Contract Bridge Club Inc for 13 Opaheke Road, Papakura. - Approved a grant of $4,940.60 for costs incurred on development of a concept plan and a resource consent for Opaheke Park which was required by council final Reserve Management Plan for Opaheke Park. - New road names approved for the following: - For the residential subdivision by Housing New Zealand across various sites in Papakura. - For the New private roads created by various resource consents by Housing New Zealand across various sites in Papakura. - Recommended to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for the Papakura BID Programme - Approved Karaka and Drury Consultants Limited to undertake stream planting and to manage weeds and pests at Hingaia Stream Esplanade and Karaka Reserve as outlined in the landscape planting plan. - Approved for the Chair and Deputy Chair to attend the Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 2017 - Approved the draft of the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 - Endorsed submissions on the Draft Air Quality Bylaw and Statement of Proposal and the Clean Water Package.
25 April 2017	Attended the Papakura and Drury ANZAC Services
22 April 2017	Attended Smiths Avenue Community Cultural Festival
20 April 2017	Attended Maori Communities Engagement Follow-up Expo
11 April 2017	Attended the Launch of Takanini Business Association
2 April 2017	Papakura Fun Run – Bruce Pulman Park
31 March 2017	Hauora at the Pa – Papakura Marae
28 March	Transport Forum - Papakura
25 March 2017	Redhill Funday
25 March 2017	Attended Bruce Pulman Park Indoor Arena Opening
24 March 2017	Attended Police Pay Parade
23 March 2017	Papakura Art Gallery – Exhibition Opening – Tui Tuia with Horomona Horo and Te Kiri o Tane with Nikau Hindin
22 March 2017	Papakura Business Meeting: - Approved the Papakura Art Gallery Business Plan 2017-2020 with amendments. - Approved 16 Quick Response Round Three 2016/2017 applications. - Approved new road names for the residential subdivision by Carhart Investments and Darley Investments Limited at 889 Papakura-Clevedon Road, Ardmore being “Nola Dawn Crescent, Charles Henry Way, Te Aramanu Crescent and Huahua Crescent. - Endorsed the draft Manurewa Takanini Papakura Integrated Plan for community engagement commencing 3 April 2017. - Provided board feedback on Project 17: Auckland Council Maintenance Contracts. - Delegated to the Chair and Work Stream Lead Member Turner to provide feedback and attend the hearings on the draft Air Quality Bylaw for Indoor Domestic Fires. - Allocated up to $15,000 from the board’s Community Response Fund to the Papakura Business Association to commission a comprehensive safety review of the Papakura town centre and immediate surrounds to help inform future local board decision-making. - Allocated $3,500 +GST from the board’s Community Response Fund to the Papakura Business Association to partner with the board to continue the Proud Papakura Proud Initiative for 2017. - Agreed to re-constitute the Manukau Harbour Forum joint committee with the Franklin, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Puketapapa, Whau and Waitakere Ranges Local boards for the 2016-2019 electoral term.
20 March 2017	Attended Pasifika Fono
17 March 2017	Papakura Parks – site visits
16 March 2017	Attended Maori Communities Engagement Hui at Manukau
15 March 2017	Attended Blessing for the site where Papaka Road will be constructed.
10 March 2017	Papakura Local Board “Have Your Say” Event – Papakura Library
25 February 2017	Papakura Town Centre Clean-up
22 February 2017	Papakura Local Board Business Meeting - Agreed to fund the cost of $5,063 from the Community Response Locally Driven Initiatives Fund to the Papakura Business Association Incorporated to support the relocation of Closed Circuit Television from the PBA premises to the Papakura Police Station to improve the monitoring by the CrimeWatch volunteers. - Agreed that the Chair and Deputy Chair liaise with the Papakura Business Association Inc to assess suitable sites for installation of new cameras. - Approved a new community ground lease for Counties Manukau Kindergarten Association Incorporated (Nina Busing Kindergarten) for 13A Clevedon Road, Papakura. - Approved a new road name for the residential subdivision by Karaka Brookview Limited at 241 Park Estate Road, Hingaia. - Approved new road name for three private ways within the residential subdivision by Addison Development at 250 Porchester Road, Takanini. - Reallocated unspent events partnership funding of $22,500 to the three remaining 2016/2017 contestable funding rounds as follows: i) $5,625 towards the Quick Response Round Three ii) $5,625 towards the Quick Response Round Four iii) $11,250 towards the Local Grants Round Two - Approved the scope of the Hawkins Theatre Business Planning Project with the following additions: i) To include a strong focus on improved promotion of the venue ii) To include income and options for increased revenue iii) To include community consultation with stakeholders, and user groups. - Agree that the Papakura Local Board Chair will initiate engagement with mana whenua groups who have registered interest in the Papakura Local Board area, to inform the Hawkins Theatre Business Plan. - Endorsed the Manurewa and Papakura Local Board joint submission on the Point England Development Enabling Bill – January 2017. - Adopted the work stream allocations for the Board and appointed Member Auva’a to the Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group. - Received the Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report for the Papakura Local Board: Quarter Two, 1 October – 31 December 2016.
6 February 2017	Waitangi Day Celebrations
27 January 2017	Art in the Park
25 January 2017	Papakura Business Meeting: - Approved various road names for the residential subdivision by Housing New Zealand at 75 Walters Road, Takanini - Approved 19 Papakura Local Board Scholarship grants.
24 January 2017	Keri Downs Park - Out and About Programme
20 January 2017	Blessing of Pahurehure Boardwalk and esplanade
13 January 2017	Papakura Kite Day
16 December 2016	Papakura Local Board Christmas Community Morning Tea
12 December 2016	Drury Mile Post Ceremony
10 December 2016	Papakura Christmas Market
9 December 2016	Papakura Carols in the Park
4 December 2016	Papakura Christmas Parade
27 November 2016	Attended Counties Manukau Sport Excellence Awards
24 November 2016	Papakura Citizenship Ceremony
18 November 2016	Attended Vector Pacific Music Awards
13 November 2016	Attended Armistice Day Service
3 November 2016	Inaugural Meeting - Election of Chair, Brent Catchpole - Deputy Chair, Felicity Auva’a

Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

Papakura Local Board Workshop Record

Workshop record of the Papakura Local Board held in the Papakura Local Board Chambers, Papakura Service Centre, 35 Coles Crescent on Wednesday, 19 July 2017, commencing at 12.30pm.

PRESENT

Chairperson: Brent Catchpole

Members: Felicity Auva’a (until 4.25pm)

George Hawkins

Bill McEntee (from 2.28pm)

Michael Turner (from 1.07pm and until 4.55pm)

Katrina Winn (from 12.45pm)

Apologies: Bill McEntee for lateness

Michael Turner for lateness

Rex Hewitt (Relationship Manager)

Also present: Madelon De Jongh (Senior Local Board Advisor)

Lee Manaia (Local Board Advisor)

Trish Wayper (Democracy Advisor)

· Workshop Item

· Governance role

· Summary of Discussions

Local Board General Business

Chair and Board Members

· Information dissemination

Board members discussed the following topics:

· Hawkins Theatre;

· Electronic signage;

· Erosion issues around the Hingaia peninsula;

· Massey Park usage;

· Pukekiwiriki Paa;

· Papakura Commercial Project Group;

· Police;

· Drury Library.

Food Waste Rollout Rural/Urban Boundary Settings

Emma Joyce

Relationship Advisor

Daniel Yallop Senior Waste Specialist

Setting direction / priorities/budget

Staff gave an overview of the proposed boundaries for the food waste roll-out.

The proposed boundary would include all the current urban areas in Papakura and the proposed Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL).

Members made the following points:

· The board advised there is a lot of development going on along Settlement Road and north from Kerry Hill. This area should therefore be included in the roll-out as well.

· Is the southern area of Papakura included – on the southern side of Beach Road down through Drury?

· Does the collection go up Settlement Road to the top and around the curve?

· The size of the bin could be problematic if it doesn’t fit into the standard kitchen waste bins.

Members were reminded to call 09 301 0101 if they see instance of illegal dumping or contact the waste team via: customerenhancement@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Staff will report back to the board on the communications plan for the roll out.

Community Facilities (Snapshot) and Parks, Sports and Recreation Work Programmes

Jessica Morris

Stakeholder Advisor

Richard Radonich

Senior Maintenance Delivery Coordinator

Jenny Young

Community Lease Advisor

Greg Hannah

Manager Project Delivery

Gwyn De-Arth

Area Manager Operational and Maintenance

Debra Langton

Parks, Sports and Recreation Portfolio Manager

Setting direction / priorities/budget

Staff presented the Community Facilities “Snapshot” and an update on the Community Facilities and Parks, Sports and Recreation Work Programmes.

The following questions were made during the discussion:

· Pukekiwiriki Paa – what progress has been made? A meeting is required with the joint governance committee.

· Project 17 – currently bedding in the contractors and the new contracts. The contracts are now outcome based. Staff advised that audits are now being undertaken. Staff reported back that the performance to date is going well although the contractors are still developing the intellectual intelligence about the areas they are covering.

· Board members received complaints about the opening and closing of gates at Opaheke Park. This was a contract with Armourguard but is now a contract with CityCare.

· Staff advised that the Massey Park needs to be closed quickly after the users have finished. This was decided by the Parks user group. Staff also advised that the signage on the gates needs to be updated and planning for that work is currently underway.

· Work is underway with regards to dog regulation signage on all park and land areas to inform people where they can take their dogs. Board members requested staff to look into combining all the applicable rules on one sign (liquor bans, dog access etc.).

· Staff highlighted that there were some issues with regards to alcohol usage in changing rooms. With empties been left behind and changing rooms not being cleaned. The sports associations are working with council to address the issue.

· Board members have received comments from residents that they believe that mangrove removal areas have been spasmodic. Staff to provide an update/memo on the actual work that has been undertaken to date and the work planned for FY17/18.

Specific matters that were brought up with regards to line items in the work programme included:

· 3412 - Staff were asked to talk to the developers regarding the Airfield Subdivision. The concept plan should include the restoration around the memorial.

· 3263 –Keri Downs Park carpark renewal – this item has attracted renewals funding to develop a concept plan.

· 3413 – Opaheke SID – the board wanted the sport code review to inform which sports codes would go to Opaheke. The board expressed concern about mentioning specific codes as it potentially creates an expectation.

· 2800 – Staff to confirm which area this work relates to.

A separate workshop will be planned with the board to discuss LDI capex project sitting in the Parks, Sports and Recreation area.

Papakura Sports Needs Assessment - Progress update

Martin Devoy

Sport & Recreation Lead

Debra Langton

Parks, Sports and Recreation Portfolio Manager

Specific local board decision

Staff gave an overview of progress on the sports facilities review. Staff suggested that the issuing of any new leases should be aligned with the timing of the project so that the leases do not hinder the progression of the outcomes of the sports facilities review.

All consultants contacted to undertake the review have advised that completion for 30 September was not possible unless it was a desktop exercise.

The board agreed to proceeding with the first step to collect that data from the clubs as follows:

· Membership details

· Membership issues

· Current issues

· Suggested improvements

· Future ambitions

The list of the codes to be interacted with for this review was shared with the board.

Staff advised athletics had not been included in the list as there was no appetite to move the athletics track. The board requested the Athletics Club be included in the study. The board felt communication be undertaken with the Athletics Club to ascertain their desires for the future.

The board were advised that Aquatic sports were outside the scope of this review. The review focuses specifically on sports park facilities.

Parks captured in the review are:

· Army fields

· Bruce Pulman

· Drury Domain

· Drury sports complex

· Karaka Park

· Keri Downs Park

· Massey Park

· McLennan Park

· Mansell Reserve

· Opaheke Reserve

· Ray Small Park

· South Park

· Smith Ave

· Te Pahure park

· Hingaia / Clotworthy park

· Green St Reserve – tennis and bowling

· 5 Crossbury Road - bowls

· Mountfort Park - Cricket

· Rosa Birch Park - Hockey

Schools in scope:

· Papakura High School

· Rosehill High

· ACG Strathallan College

· Alfriston College

Indicative costs have been requested. No costs have been received yet.

Arts, Community and Events Work Programme

Sarah Bramston

Strategic Advisor

Ashleigh Siteine

Event Facilitator

Kiri McCutcheon

Specialist Advisor

Community Empowerment

Setting direction / priorities/budget

Staff gave an update on the Arts, Community and Events Work Programme.

Events work programme:

· Carols in the Park: The group requires an additional $5,000 to run the event. The additional funds will go to someone to organise and co-ordinate the event. Board indicated support for the additional $5,000 to deliver the event.

· Santa Parade – $15,000 - no changes.

· NZ Rugby League Secondary Schools tournament - $25,000 – Staff confirmed the event will take place at Bruce Pulman Park. The group are also seeking alternative funding sources.

· Papakura Fire Works – Papakura Lions Club - $25,000 – request for the fund to be increased to $32,000 as additional resources are required to protect the new track at Massey Park. Staff advised that the grant wasn’t issued to the Lions last year as the show was cancelled. The grant was reallocated to the contestable funding budget. The Lions have indicated they will not able to proceed with the event without board funding. The Board requested staff to have a conversation with the Lions about what other community event they could potentially organise within the existing funding envelop.

Board members requested further information on what input the board have in music in the park. Music in the Park is funded regionally. Feedback can be fed back to the organisers.

Music and Movies in the Park were run together last year. Feedback from the community was that they wanted two separate events. The board had a desire for two separate events. Staff to progress along those lines.

Arts work programme:

Staff provided the following updates on the Arts work programme:

· Papakura Art Gallery furniture - The Arts and Culture department will be funding the new chairs. The team are in the final stages of confirming the design with the gallery and the lead team. The board will be kept up to date on progress.

· Brass Band funding agreement negotiations are progressing. The Brass Band has advised that they want to utilise Facebook as opposed to developing a new website. The board agreed to the change in the funding agreement to redirect the funding to something else as the Brass Band needs to raise their profile. An update is required to the board from the Brass Band. Staff to set up a workshop.

Members requested regular updates from the organisations that receive board funding.

Community Work programme:

Staff have met with the Framework Trust. The Trust works in mental health area. The Trust is keen to work with the board and other providers. The biggest challenge they have is homelessness. Staff are also working with Ministry of Social Development (MSD).

There is an increase in the demand for boarding houses for mentally ill people. There are none in the Papakura area at the moment.

Community Empowerment staff and Arts and culture staff are working together to link youth, creative souls and the Art Gallery projects together. Board members were supportive of the approach and an Art in the Park project was suggested.

Staff highlighted the requirement to renew resource consent for events. There is currently a resource consent that allows for close off of part of the town centre for events. Funding is required to renew this resource consent. The board requested staff to come back with the costs to inform a board decision on whether or not to pay for this to enable activations in the town centre.

Staff provided an update on the Smith’s Avenue community led place making project. Some quick wins have been:

· WiFi is now available in the hall;

· There is now a key for the toilets, which require work;

· A Smith’s Avenue Community Plan facebook page has been established;

· Dave Wild is the coach for staff and community through the co-design process;

· Outdoor lighting has been repaired;

· Staff are working with current users to determine the best usage of the hall;

· Aiming to have the Smith’s Avenue concept plan designed and approved by June 2018;

· The co-design process is being worked through.

Papakura Youth Council Terms of Reference – the board congratulated staff on their work on this matter.

Actions

i) Staff to have a discussion with the Lions if they can deliver an event that might activiate the town centre. Staff to check that there is no costs incurred by the Lions.

ii) Staff to advise the Harvest Church that the amount is the maximum the board wish to contribute.

iii) The board to undertake advocacy to raise the profile of homelessness and the need for boarding houses for mentally ill people in Papakura.

Governance Review Feedback

Lee Manaia

Advisor

Input into regional decision making

Staff worked through the Governance Framework Review direction that has come through the political working party noting that this item will come back to talk about the funding implications.

The workshop concluded at 4.45 pm.

[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	Brent Catchpole
Deputy Chairperson	Felicity Auva'a
Members	Hon George Hawkins, QSO
	Bill McEntee
	Michael Turner
	Katrina Winn

Papakura	Travelwise status	Total WSB routes	WSB event/ route audit	Active mode promotion events	Speed event	Young drivers event	Safety at the school gate	Other safety promotion event	PT promotion event	Meetings/workshops	Engineering info
C = Completed O = Ongoing P = Planned	(i.e. active, inactive)			(e.g. cycle follow up, WOW event, park and ride, walking promotion)	(e.g. SDAS, back to school)	(e.g. driver licencing training)		(e.g. kea crossing, crossing training, roads and roadsides, ball talks)	(e.g. rail safe week)	(e.g. lead teacher, students, WSB volunteer)	(where relevant)
ACG Strathallan	Active							P
Conifer Grove School	Active				C		O			C
Cosgrove School	Active									C
Drury School	Active	2	PC		CP			C		C
Hingaia Peninsula School	Active		CP				O	P
Holy Trinity Catholic Primary School	Active		P							C
Kauri Flats School	Non-Travelwise									C	C
Kelvin Road School	Active			CP				C	P	C
Opaheke School	Active	2	CP							P
Papakura Central School	Active			C			O
Papakura High School	Active					CP				C
Rosehill College	Active					C	O

Type of sporting codes	Comment	In scope	Out of scope
Outdoor sport platform based **	Primary basis for the study is to determine the best use of sports fields in Papakura	X
Aquatic based	Not aligned to primary purpose of the study		X
Indoor court based	Not aligned to primary purpose of the study		X

Type of sport facilities
Sport platforms	** For the purposes of this study, sport platforms refer to outdoor playing surfaces (including but not limited to courts, fields, greens, turfs and wickets) used for formal sport.	X
Changing rooms and toilets	Considered a requirement to facilitate competition at various age levels. Condition assessment required.	X
Sports field lighting	Required for some training and game purposes. Condition assessment required.	X
Clubrooms and community gathering places	Not considered essential to facilitate competition. Condition assessment required to assist future planning.	X

Type of parks
Sports parks and fields	Parks with sport platforms, primarily used for formal and informal sport.	X
Neighbourhood parks	Parks without sport platforms.		X
Special purpose parks	Parks without sport platforms.		X

Location of Parks
Parks within Papakura Local Board boundaries	Primary basis for the study.	X
Parks in neighbouring local boards if relevant to the network for specific codes.	Considered relevant to a network of sport parks approach.	X

Activity
Formal Sport	Primary purpose of study	X
Informal sport	Acknowledged that the sports parks are also used for informal sport however not the primary purpose of the study. The study may highlight potential benefits to informal sport.		X
Recreation	Acknowledged that the sports parks are also used for informal sport however not the primary purpose of the study. The study may highlight potential benefits to recreation.		X

Element to be reconsidered	Original reason for inclusion	Authority’s reasoning for the element being unreasonable
Clause 4.3.1 - Off-Licence Maximum Trading Hours Maximum trading hours for off-licence premises. This is the proposed 9.00am restriction on opening and the 9.00pm restriction on closing.	Restricting trading hours for off-licences from 9.00am until 9.00pm was to: · limit the availability of alcohol · reduce young people’s exposure to alcohol in the morning and · address ‘pre-loading’, ‘side-loading’, ‘post-loading’ and violence in the home.	The 9.00am opening hour restriction was found unreasonable. The Authority stated that there was an absence of strong evidence to support an opening hour restriction. The Authority indicated that it did not consider it was established that the closing hour restriction of 9.00pm was unreasonable in light of the object of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, however as it formed part of the same element as the opening hour restriction, the Authority has directed the council to reconsider the entire element.
Clauses 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 - Remote Sellers Restrictions for the hours of delivery of alcohol for remote sellers.	To reduce the availability of alcohol, it could not be delivered outside the hours of 6.00am to 9.00pm, Monday to Sunday.	It was found by the Authority that these elements were beyond the legal authority of the Act. If an element is beyond the legal authority of the Act, it will be found unreasonable.
Clauses 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 - Renewals of Off-Licences Requiring a Local Impacts Report A requirement for the District Licensing Committee and the Authority to have regard to a Local Impacts Report when an off-licence is renewed for certain premises.	The purpose of higher-risk licence renewals in Priority Overlay areas requiring a Local Impacts Report was to provide decision-makers with additional information about matters such as: · local demographics · local land uses and · sensitive sites in the area (such as education facilities, treatment facilities and maraes). This information was to assist decision-makers with conditions to include on licence renewals to mitigate impact of the alcohol licence.	These elements were subject to the consent order process. The Authority, after hearing the evidence, was satisfied that there were shortcomings with this element and that the council should reconsider it.
Clause 4.5.1(c) – Discretionary Condition for Off-Licences – Single Sales Consideration of a discretionary condition for off-licences regarding single sales being included for certain premises.	This condition to be included in certain circumstances, particularly in a Priority Overlay area. It aimed to limit the availability of alcohol in areas with higher risk of alcohol-related harm.	This element was subject to the consent order process. The Authority, after hearing the evidence, was satisfied that there were shortcomings with this element and that the council should reconsider it.
Clause 4.5.1(d) – Discretionary Condition for Off-Licences – Afternoon Closing Consideration of a discretionary condition for off-licences to be closed in the afternoon if located near education facilities.	This condition to be included in certain circumstances, particularly in a Priority Overlay area. The purpose was to reduce the visibility of alcohol to children and young people.	This element was subject to the consent order process. The Authority, after hearing the evidence, was satisfied that there were shortcomings with this element and that the council should reconsider it.

	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.

Authors	Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/priorities/budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

Date	Topic	Meeting	Governance Role	Purpose
6 September 2017	Joint Workshop with Franklin Local Board – Proposed Southern Structure Planning	Workshop	Define boards position and feedback	Engagement
6 September 2017	Kura Kawana – Long Term Plan	Workshop	Learning and Development opportunity	Briefing
6 September 2017	Civil Defence and Emergency Management	Workshop	Keeping Informed	Receive update on progress
6 September 2017	Locally Drive Initiatives (LDI) Capital Expenditure (Capex)	Workshop	Setting direction/priorities/budget	Check in on performance/inform future direction
6 September 2017	Greenways Plan	Workshop	Setting direction/priorities/budget	Check in on performance/inform future direction
6 September 2017	Housing New Zealand	Workshop	Engagement	Briefing
6 September 2017	Arts, Culture and Events Workshop Programme	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Check in on performance/inform future direction
13 September 2017	Crimewatch / Maori Wardens / Neighbourhood Support / NZ Police / Brass Band / Pipe Band / Town Centre Co-ordinator	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
13 September 2017	Museum Update	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
13 September 2017	Art Gallery Update	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
13 September 2017	Hawkins Theatre Update	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
13 September 2017	Papakura Youth Council Update	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
20 September 2017	Takanini Community Hub and Library	Workshop	Local initiatives / specific decisions	Receive update on progress
20 September 2017	Kura Kawana – Health and Safety	Workshop	Learning and Development opportunity	Briefing
20 September 2017	2017/2018 Work Programme Updates - Arts, Community and Events - Community Facilities (Snapshot) and Parks, Sports and Recreation	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Check in on performance/inform future direction
27 September 2017	Transport Update	Business Meeting	Oversight and monitoring	Formal adoption
27 September 2017	Disposals Recommendation Report	Business Meeting	Oversight and monitoring	Formal approval
27 September 2017	Papakura Local Board feedback on the Takaro – Investment in Play Discussion Document	Business Meeting	Input into regional decision-making	Formal endorsement
4 October 2017	Pest Free Auckland	Workshop	Input into regional decision-making	Briefing
11 October 2017	Papakura Local Grants – Round 1	Workshop	Local initiatives / specific decisions	Review grants
18 October 2017	2017/2018 Work Programme Update	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Check in on performance/inform future direction
25 October 2017	Papakura Local Grant – Round 1	Business Meeting	Local initiatives/specific decisions	Formal adoption
1 November 2017	Arts Facilities – six monthly update	External site visit	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
1 November 2017	Kura Kawana – Conflict of Interest	Workshop	Learning and development opportunity	Briefing
1 November 2017	Manukau Beautification Trust	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress
8 November 2017	National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management	Workshop	Input into regional decision-making	Briefing
15 November 2017	2017/2018 Work Programme Update	Workshop	Oversight and monitoring	Check in on performance/inform future direction
29 November 2017	Takanini Community Hub and Library	Workshop	Local initiatives/specific decisions	Receive and update on progress
6 December 2017	Papakura Quick Response – Round 2	Workshop	Local initiatives/specific decisions	Review Quick Response Grants
13 December 2017	Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028 Consultation	Business Meeting	Setting direction/priorities/budget	Formal adoption
13 December 2017	Papakura Quick Response – Round 2	Business Meeting	Local initiatives/specific decisions	Formal adoption
13 December 2017	Regional Facilities Auckland Quarterly Report	Business Meeting	Oversight and monitoring	Receive update on progress