I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Papakura Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

4.30pm

Local Board Chambers
Papakura Service Centre
35 Coles Crescent
Papakura

 

Papakura Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brent Catchpole

 

Deputy Chairperson

Felicity Auva'a

 

Members

Hon George Hawkins, QSO

 

 

Bill McEntee

 

 

Michael Turner

 

 

Katrina Winn

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Trish Wayper

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

18 August 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 295 1331

Email: Patricia.Wayper@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     Deputation - The Rising Foundation Mentoring and Leadership Programme - Donna Rogers                                                                                                                   5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Councillors' Update                                                                                                       7

13        Community Led Placemaking - Town centre security and safety 15 August 2017 9

14        Auckland Transport Update August 2017 to the Papakura Local Board             13

15        Papakura sports needs assessment scope approval and budget allocation       33

16        Papakura Quick Response Round One 2017/2018                                                  43

17        Grant a New Lease to Baljit Singh and Jasbinder Kaur trading as Redhill Superette - 152 Dominion Road, Papakura.                                                                                       109

18        ATEED Six-monthly Report to the Papakura Local Board                                   111

19        Papakura Local Board 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme for approval                                                                                                                      127

20        Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy Project - Feedback on decision from Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority                                                                       131

21        Goverance Framework Review recommendations                                               137

22        Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Papakura Local Board: Quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017                                                                                                161

23        Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Papakura Local Board report                          201

24        For Information: Reports and Information referred to the Papakura Local Board      215

25        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     217

26        Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2016-2019 Electoral Term        223

27        Papakura Local Board Workshop Notes                                                                233  

28        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

Member Felicity Auva’a will lead the meeting in prayer.

 

2          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 26 July 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

b)         confirm the hearing minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 2 August 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Papakura Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Deputation - The Rising Foundation Mentoring and Leadership Programme - Donna Rogers

Purpose

1.       Donna Rogers, Programme Administrator, The Rising Foundation has requested an opportunity to speak to the board on The Rising Foundations Mentoring and Leadership Programme currently being run at Papakura High and Rosehill College Schools.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      thank Donna Rogers, Programme Administrator, The Rising Foundation for her overview on The Rising Foundations Mentoring and Leadership Programme currently being run at Papakura High and Rosehill College Schools

 

Attachments

a          The Rising Foundation - Term 1 Newsletter........................................ 251

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Councillors' Update

 

File No.: CP2017/16921

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       An opportunity is provided for Ward Councillors’ Daniel Newman, and Sir John Walker to update the Board on  regional matters of interest.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

a)      That the Councillors’ update be received.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Community Led Placemaking - Town centre security and safety 15 August 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/17249

 

  

Purpose

1.       To recommend options for the allocation of the Papakura Local Board town centre security budget for security guards and a town centre safety coordinator.

Executive summary

2.       The local board allocated $169,000 of its Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) 2017/2018 budget for town centre security.

3.       The local board have been contributing funding for four security guards, two at the Papakura railway station carpark and two at the town centre. The board have allocated $169,000 in 2017/2018 for town centre security. Auckland Transport (AT) contributed $52,800 in 2016/2017 for the railway car park security guards and will continue to fund for 2017/2018.

4.       Staff met with the local board on 12 July 2017 and 26 July 2017 to discuss the potential options for spending the $169,000 town centre security budget. After these meetings staff met with local police to discuss both town centre security and the Beca Limited safety review report. 

5.       This report is about the options for expenditure on the security guards and the potential engagement of the town centre safety coordinator.

6.       Staff will meet with police and the local board on 16 August 2017 to workshop the allocation of budget on guards, town centre safety coordination and the findings of the Beca Limited safety review.

7.       A further report, analysing actions from the safety review and allocation of the remaining LDI budget of $76,000, will be presented on 25 October 2017.

8.       Based on guidance from the local board, staff recommend that:

·    $70,000 is allocated to the Papakura Business Association to address safety issues in the town centre which may include engaging a town centre safety coordinator and enhancing the existing Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) capability.

·    $23,000 is allocated for the two town centre security guards to continue patrol until 30 September 2017. This will maintain current levels of town security and provides time for the smooth transition to a new security set up.

·    Responsibility is transferred to AT to oversee the operation of security services at the railway station car park, effective immediately.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      allocate $70,000 to the Papakura Business Association to address safety issues in the town centre which may include engaging a town centre safety coordinator and enhancing the existing Closed Circuit Television capability

b)      allocate $23,000 for the two town centre security guards to continue patrol until 30 September 2017

c)      endorse the handover of responsibility for security in the railway station car park to Auckland Transport to manage.

 

Comments

Background

9.       The local board has allocated $169,000 of its LDI 2017/2018 budget for town centre security to support safety, activation and economic development for Papakura.

10.     Staff met with the local board on 12 July 2017 and 26 July 2017 to discuss and explore options for town centre security and safety. Based on guidance from the local board and police the following options are to be considered.

 

Table 1: Options for spending the Papakura Local Board town centre security LDI

Options

Risk/benefit

Cost/Values

Option one: Current model

retain four security guards – two at railway car park and two at the town centre

 

 

 

 

Risks

-     AT has agreed to continue to fund $52,800 towards railway car park security guards. There is potential that AT will withdraw this funding in the future due to  changes in technology or parking strategy

-     limited connection with other safety and security initiatives in the area, e.g. could be better coordinated through the business association and others (see option 2.)

 

Benefits

-     no perceived loss in service or perception of safety outcomes achieved can be specific to ensure alignment with the board’s three year plan.

Budget

$169,000 LDI

 

Expenses

Current totals based on 2016/2017 expenditure:

$221,000

-     $92,000 town centre security 

-     $126,000 railway security 

-     $3,000 railway hut rent (annually.)

 

Option two: Proposed model

-     $70,000 provided to the business association to engage a town centre safety coordinator and fund enhancements to the CCTV system

 

-     $23,000 to extend the town centre security guard contract to 30 September 2017 to allow for transition and maintain level of service

 

-     Handover of responsibility of railway security to AT (including ceasing rental of a railway hut.)

Risks

-     there is potential that AT will withdraw funding for guards in the future due to changes technology, parking strategy, and because it is financially unsustainable

-     perceptions of safety could reduce.

 

Benefits

-     opportunity to improve perception of safety and connect in with other safety and security initiatives, coordinated through the business association

-     opportunity to improve perceptions by proactive initiatives drawn up by the business association to tackle safety

-     real sense of ownership by the business association especially when connected with other safety and security initiatives

-     opportunity to achieve safety review

      recommendations with real ownership  

      and insight

-     outcomes achieved can be specific to ensure alignment with the board’s new three year plan

-     opportunity to align community safety and place making activities.

Budget

$169,000 LDI

 

Expenses

-     $70,000 to business association for coordinator/

CCTV

-     $23,000 to extend the town centre security guard contract to 30 September 2017

-     railway station car park security: AT to manage going forward.

-     (remaining $76,000 LDI allocation to be reported in October)

 

Options analysis

11.     Option one: the current model is unsustainable in the long term as it is a standalone security response that costs a lot of money to continue. Two railway station car park guards and rental of the railway hut, costs the local board and AT approximately $126,000.  AT has agreed that it will continue to fund the security guards at the railway station car park effective immediately.

12.     Option two is the preferred option because it:

·    provides the Papakura Business Association with $70,000 budget which may include engaging a town centre safety coordinator who would establish a town centre safety network, educate local retailers and work with local police to monitor the Closed Circuit TV system, and potential enhancements to this system

·    connects with safety volunteer groups receiving local board funding (Crimewatch Patrols, Neighbourhood Support and Maori Warden), to establish a collaborative approach. Police are supportive of the appointment of a safety coordinator

·    includes a budget of $23,000 to help with the transition from the use of town centre guards until 30 September 2017 until a new model of coordination is implemented.

Safety review

13.     A further report analysing actions from the Beca Limited Papakura town centre safety review and allocation of the remaining LDI budget of $76,000 will be presented on 25 October 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14.     The local board plan outcomes that align to this work are:

·    a vibrant metropolitan centre: it’s great that Papakura meets our needs for shopping, leisure, arts and culture and we don’t need to travel elsewhere for these things

·    strong, safe and healthy communities: we have good places for communities to meet and great places to play in. Our young people get a great start in life and we value the wisdom and experience of our older people.

15.     Members of the local board have participated in site visits as part of the safety review, workshops and have also contributed to the development of the programme that supports safety initiatives, placemaking and economic development.

Māori impact statement

16.     The local board funds community safety volunteer groups including the Papakura Māori Wardens to work alongside other community organisations to improve perceptions of safety in Papakura. If a town centre safety coordinator is appointed, they will be required to work with wardens and the local marae. The marae will also be involved in wider strategies for community placemaking, capacity building and community resilience.

Implementation

17.     If the local board chooses to no longer fund security guards, staff would extend the security guard contract until 30 September 2017 to enable the transition of services from council to the business association and AT.

18.     Staff will work alongside the business association, other council departments, police and other relevant community groups for the transition to this approach.

19.     Staff will assign $70,000 to the business association to engage a town centre security coordinator to coordinate safety groups and safety initiatives that could include CCTV in the area. The coordinator role will be accountable to the business association who will manage the operations of the coordinator.

20.     Staff will assign $23,000 to fund the town centre guards until 30 September 2017.

 

PLEASE AMEND AUTHOR NAME TO Rosetta Fuimaono

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Suzanne Shaw-Lentini - Business Coordinator

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

 


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 Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Papakura Local Board Report – AT School Community Transport

 

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

 

 

 

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Papakura sports needs assessment scope approval and budget allocation

 

File No.: CP2017/17116

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the scope of the Papakura sports needs assessment and to allocate budget to the project.

Executive summary

2.       The Papakura Local Board wishes to undertake a comprehensive sports and recreation needs assessment to help inform future planning within the district.

3.       The Papakura sports needs assessment study (the study) provides an opportunity to take a holistic view of the current and future needs of sports clubs and how the network of facilities serving the Papakura local board community can meet such demand.

4.       The framework for the study has been developed following consultation with the local board.

5.       This report seeks approval of the attached scope and allocation of budget for the study.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      approve the Papakura sports needs assessment study scope in Attachment A.

b)      reallocates $80,000 from the mangrove removal budget #1026 in the 2017/2018 work programme to the Papakura sports codes and parks needs assessment budget in the Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme.

 

 

Comments

6.       The Papakura Local Board has championed the need to provide quality sport and recreation parks and facilities for a number of years. Their support and advocacy for sport and recreation continues to be prioritised in their Draft Local Board Plan 2017.

7.       In May 2017 the Papakura local board resolved to immediately engage with sports codes and clubs throughout the Papakura Local Board area to establish a working party to provide a needs assessment for sports at Opaheke Park and other sports parks in the Papakura Local Board area. The Board Chair and Deputy Chair are to report the results of the sport needs assessment back to the Papakura Local Board by 30 September 2017 (Resolution number PPK/2017/84, abridged).

8.       The Papakura sports needs assessment study provides an opportunity to take a holistic view of the current and future needs of sports clubs and how the network of facilities serving the Papakura local board community can meet such demand. The study seeks community input which will assist with finding solutions to achieve optimum use of available resources.

9.       The framework for the comprehensive study has been developed in consultation with local board members and will help inform future planning within the district, including the development of and use of Bruce Pulman Park, Opaheke and Hingaia sports grounds.

10.     In developing the framework a number of options were considered to ensure the study outcomes provided sufficient data for the local board to make future focused decisions.  The following table reflects options considered:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

11.     When considering the study’s methodology it is acknowledged that the Papakura community are likely to provide many of the solutions to future challenges. In the Papakura Draft Local Board Plan 2017, it is identified that an empowering communities approach can assist in carrying out the plan. “We seek to empower and enable communities. This means listening to what you want to achieve, directing council resources towards community aspirations and supporting diverse communities to have an input into the things they care about and which matter uniquely to them.” Accordingly a community consultative approach is envisaged in the scope.

12.     The study scope acknowledges that the primary contributors will be sports clubs and codes however it also recognises that some churches in Papakura participate in organised sport. Similarly schools are both providers and users of sports fields so secondary schools within Papakura have been included in the scope.

13.     The study scope has been developed following consultation with local board member’s and council staff. The study scope is in Attachment A.  

14.     The study has been initiated by inviting identified clubs and sports organisations to update membership data and to register their interest in taking part in the study.

15.     Currently the Sports Field Capacity Development (SFCD) supply and demand study is being refreshed in preparation for the Long Term Plan 2018-2028. Updated data from the SFCD refresh is expected to be available in September or October and will provide additional information to assist this study.

Work programme and budget

16.     In June 2017 the Papakura local board adopted their 2017/2018 parks, sport and recreation work programme with an amendment to include a line item called “Papakura sports codes and parks needs assessment” with the description to undertake a review of all sports codes and clubs to determine the needs of each code and assessment of the use of Opaheke and all sports parks in the Papakura local board area. (Resolution PPK/2017/108, abridged).

17.     At the time the work programme was adopted, the scope and funding requirements had not been determined and so budget was not allocated. The local board will therefore need to reallocate budget from within the existing work programme.

18.     The proposed study scope has been shared with known consultants who have been asked to provide a cost estimate for this piece of work.

19.     To allow the study to proceed, it is proposed that up to $80k be reallocated from the 2017/2018 mangrove removal budget work programme (#1026) to the Papakura sports codes and parks needs assessment budget in the Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme.

20.     The local board has informally discussed reallocating LDI opex budget from the mangrove removal budget as it is considered that there will be minimal impact on the mangrove removal programme for the following reason; there was $300k for mangrove removals in the 2016/2017 budget which has carried over into this financial year and has not yet been fully spent.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21.     Local board workshops on  12 July 2017 and 19 July 2017 captured local board member’s views which have incorporated into the development of the scope for the study

Māori impact statement July

22.     The study supports Auckland Council’s commitment to Māori and supports positive outcomes for Māori participation in sport and recreation through the provision of a network of sports parks. 

Implementation

23.     The final cost of the study is being negotiated and has not yet been confirmed. It is recommended that up to $80,000 is allocated and if it is not all required for the study it can be reallocated to another project at a later date.

24.     The Sport and Recreation team will facilitate the engagement of a suitable consultant to carry out the study.

25.     The Sports and Recreation team will provide study updates to the Papakura Local Board Chair and Deputy Chair on a monthly basis.

26.     The required timeframes for the study are:

a)   Initial needs assessment data received to be presented by 30 September 2017.

b)   Emerging findings to be reported in November 2017 to help inform Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

c)   The final  report will be presented to council by 30 April 2017

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papakura sports needs assessment scope for approval

37

     

Signatories

Authors

Martin Devoy - Sport and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Dave Stewart - Manager Sport & Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


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

 

 


 


 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Grant a New Lease to Baljit Singh and Jasbinder Kaur trading as Redhill Superette - 152 Dominion Road, Papakura.

 

File No.: CP2017/11067

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the Papakura Local Board approval to grant a new three year lease with one right of renewal term of three years resulting in a total lease term of six years to the existing Tenant, Baljit Singh and Jasbinder Kaur  trading as Redhill Superette at 152 Dominion Road, Papakura.

Executive summary

2.       152 Dominion Road has been owned by Auckland Council (previously Papakura District Council) since 2002. There is a lease in place with Baljit Singh and Jasbinder Kaur who have been occupying the Tenancy and operating a Superette since 01 May 2011.

3.       The initial lease was for a term of three years expiring in 2014 with a further renewal term of three years with the final expiry occurring on the 30th April 2017. The property is located next to the Carisbrooke Reserve in Papakura. Currently there are no plans for redevelopment of the site, Council could potentially decide to incorporate the area occupied by the Superette into the Reserve in the future, but at the current stage there are no plans to do so.

4.       Whichever direction Council decides to take with the property, it can be achieved as there is a standard termination clause in the lease stating six months’ notice to the tenant if Council requires the site.

5.       Parks Sport & Recreation and Community Services have given their support of the term subject to approval from the Papakura Local Board. The local board members have indicated that they are in support of a new lease for three years with a further renewal term of three years.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      approve the Deed of Lease for a period of three years with one right of renewal term of three years.

 

 

Comments

6.       Auckland Council Parks Sport and Recreation is supportive of the new lease to Baljit Singh and Jasbinder Kaur t/a Redhill Superette.

Consideration

Māori impact statement

7.       Panuku Development has a comprehensive Iwi engagement process that engages with the 19 key mana whenua groups in Tāmaki on four fronts: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal and development properties, flagging commercial interests, development partnering discussions and engagement around design outcomes for council driven development projects.

8.       Panuku Development Auckland has also undertaken to be part of council’s Maori Responsiveness Plan pilot program. The project’s key output will be an operational document outlining how Panuku Development Auckland will contribute to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Māori.

9.       As there is no change to the property use, the existing lessee, or other major factors, there has been no iwi engagement undertaken in respect of the tenants’ new lease on the reserve.

Implementation

10.     Panuku Development Auckland will enter into a new commercial lease with Baljit Singh and Jasbinder Kaur t/a Redhill Superette once the local board approves the lease.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Elmarie  VanRensburg - Commercial Property Manager

Authorisers

Margrit de Man - Manager Property Portfolio

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

ATEED Six-monthly Report to the Papakura Local Board

 

File No.: CP2017/17353

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the six-monthly report from ATEED on their activities in the local board area.

Executive summary

2.       This report provides the Papakura Local Board with highlights of ATEED’s activities in the local board area for the six months from 1 January to 30 June 2017

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      Receive the six-monthly report period 1 January to 30 June 2017.

 

 

Comments

3.       This report provides the Local Board with an overview of ATEED activities for discussion.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

4.       The report is for information only.

Māori impact statement

5.       Māori, as stakeholders in Council, are affected and have an interest in any report on local activities. However, this performance report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such, the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Māori.

Implementation

6.       N/A

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

ATEED six-monthly report to the Papakura Local Board

113

     

Signatories

Authors

Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Papakura Local Board 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme for approval

 

File No.: CP2017/17265

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board for the 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme.

Executive summary

2.       On the 28 June 2017, the Papakura Local Board approved the 2017/2018 Community Facilities Work Programme. Unfortunately, due to an administration error, the leasing work programme was not included in the attachment of this report.

3.       The work programme was workshopped with the Papakura Local Board on the 12 April 2017 and feedback was incorporated into the final work programme (as detailed in Attachment A).

4.       The leasing work programme is now included in Attachment A for approval from the local board.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      approve the 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme as detailed in Attachment A.

 

 

Comments

5.       Community leases are a valuable way in which the council provides support to local community organisations to provide activities and services aligned with recognised local priorities.

6.       Attachment A provides a detailed list of the community leases and licences that will expire or are due for renewal over the 2017/2018 financial year, in addition to those from previous years’ work programmes which have yet to be completed.

7.       The local board has the allocated decision-making authority to grant leases and licences within local community facilities, in line with the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012. 

8.       The leasing work programme was not included in the report presented to the local board on the 28 June 2017 due to an administrative error.

9.       Once the 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme is approved, staff will be able to bundle reporting on routine or non-controversial matters whilst focusing attention on those community leases that are more complex.

Local board views and implications

10.     The draft 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme was considered by the local board at a workshop on 12 April 2017. The views expressed by local board members during the workshop have been adopted in Attachment A. The full work programme was then approved by the local board on the 28 June 2017, but the leasing work programme was not included in the attachments. The leasing work programme is now included for approval by the local board.

11.     The Community Facilities work programme supports the achievement of the following 2014-2017 Papakura Local Board Plan priority:

·    Strong, safe and healthy communities

Māori impact statement

12.     The 2017/2018 Community Facilities Work Programme ensures that all facilities and open space assets continue to be well-maintained assets that benefit the local community, including Māori. All community assets contribute significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

Implementation

13.     The leasing work programme will be implemented as part of Community Facilities’ usual business practice.

14.     Work programme implementation will be reported regularly by stakeholder advisors and quarterly through the performance report to the local board.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papakura Local Board 2017/2018 Community Facilities Leasing Work Programme

129

     

Signatories

Authors

Chantelle Subritzky - Manager, Stakeholder Advisory

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 



Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Auckland Council Local Alcohol Policy Project - Feedback on decision from Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority

 

File No.: CP2017/17288

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide an update and seek feedback on the recent decision received from the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (Authority) with regards to the appeals against the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy (Alcohol Policy).

Executive summary

2.       The council was successful in its defence of the Alcohol Policy.

3.       The Authority has required the council to reconsider the five elements of the Alcohol Policy:

·    the maximum trading hours for off-licence premises, specifically the 9am opening restriction

·    restriction for the hours of delivery for remote sellers

·    the requirement for a Local Impacts Report when an off-licence is renewed

·    two discretionary conditions for off-licences to restrict single sales and to require closing in the afternoon if the off-licence is located near education facilities.

4.       For each of the elements, council must decide whether to:

·    delete, amend or replace the element or

·    appeal to the High Court the Authority’s finding that the element is unreasonable

5.       Council can also decide to discontinue the development of the local alcohol policy.

6.       When the local alcohol policy would come into force is dependent on the chosen course of action.

7.       A decision report is being prepared for the 14 September 2017 Regulatory Committee meeting.

8.       Council are seeking feedback from local boards on the options for the elements to be reconsidered.

9.       Feedback from local boards needs to be received by staff by 1 September 2017 if it is to be included in the decision report. If feedback is received after 1 September 2017, resolutions passed by local boards will be tabled at the Regulatory Committee meeting.

 

 

Recommendation/s

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                              That the Papakura Local Board:

a)   feedback to the Regulatory Committee is that it should not decide to delete any of the elements.  All five elements remain important and it is understood that Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority  has suggested that the shortcomings were in the drafting and not the content.  Therefore they should be re-submitted.

b)   in respect of opening hours ARLA deemed the restriction went beyond the authority of the Act and if that is the case this element may require amendment.

c)   The local board be kept informed of progress and receives advice from staff of any changes and the potential impact on Papakura.

 

 

Comments

Background

Successful defence of major alcohol policies and a need to reconsider five elements

10.     The Authority released its decision on the appeals against council’s Alcohol Policy on 19 July 2017. The council has been successful in defending the majority of its policies and has been asked by the Authority to reconsider five policy elements.

11.     A high level summary of policy elements of the Alcohol Policy is contained in Attachment A. The elements highlighted in yellow are those which the council has been asked to reconsider.

12.     Council needs to reconsider the elements of the Alcohol Policy (refer table 1) before a local alcohol policy is adopted and comes into force.

 

Table one: Elements for council decision making and whether to delete, amend, replace or appeal

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.

 

Next Steps

Appeal extension being sought for decision making by Regulatory Committee in September 2017

13.     Staff are currently making an application to the High Court to extend the appeal date from 16 August 2017 to 28 September 2017.

14.     Council will need to decide its approach to the elements the Authority has asked council to reconsider including whether to:

·   delete the unreasonable element from the Alcohol Policy

·   amend or replace the unreasonable element in the Alcohol Policy

·   appeal to the High Court against the Authority’s finding that the element is unreasonable.

15.     Council may also decide to discontinue the development of a local alcohol policy.

16.     A report is being prepared for decision making at the 14 September 2017 Regulatory Committee meeting.

17.     If council decides to delete, amend or replace an element from the Alcohol Policy, it will be need to be considered by the Authority. All persons who have previously provided a submission on an amended element are required to be notified of council’s intent. This could result in additional appeals.

18.     Council are seeking feedback from local boards on the options for the elements to be reconsidered.

19.     Feedback from local boards needs to be received by staff by 1 September 2017 if it is to be included in the decision report. If feedback is received after 1 September 2017, resolutions passed by local boards will be tabled at the Regulatory Committee meeting.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20.     Local boards have played a significant role in shaping the draft local alcohol policy including:

·    participation in the joint political working party provided feedback at the issues and options stage of the project through individual workshops in 2013

·    provided feedback on the staff position paper in 2013

·    provided feedback on the draft local alcohol policy in 2014.

21.     Papakura Local Board participated throughout the preparation of the draft Local Alcohol Policy and has been consistent in pursuing an objective of reducing alcohol related harm. As such the Papakura Local Board requests that the Regulatory Committee continues the development of the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

22.     Most of the Provisional Local Alcohol Policy was confirmed by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) however they referred five elements back to the council for re-consideration.  These five elements are the focus of the local boards feedback to the Regulatory Committee.

23.     Without staff advice on the implications of any changes to the five elements referred back to council for re-consideration the Papakura Local Board feedback to the Regulatory Committee is that it should not decide to delete any of the elements.  All five elements remain important and it is understood that ARLA has suggested that the shortcomings were in the drafting and not the content.  In respect of opening hours ARLA deemed the restriction went beyond the authority of the Act and if that is the case this element may require amendment.  

Māori impact statement

24.     The local alcohol policy seeks to improve the health of Māori.

25.     Throughout the development of the draft local alcohol policy and the special consultative procedure staff worked with numerous parties including the Independent Māori Statutory Board to deliver a program for engaging with and involving Māori on alcohol issues.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Madelon De Jongh - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

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

·        Provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance

·        Be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events

·        Take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes.

67.     It was also proposed that these directions be actively monitored and reported annually to the governing body.

68.     The PWP supported these positions on improving the relationship by requiring Auckland Transport to be more consistent on meeting its obligations, and through more consistent monitoring of how it is doing so. It also supported directing Auckland Transport to empower local boards further as described above.

69.     The PWP also considered that potential delegations to local boards should not be ruled out, and should be investigated further. It also noted that not all ward councillors are regularly engaged or informed of transport projects and issues within their ward areas, and that this should be done as a matter of course.

70.     Recommendations xii – xxv reflect these positions. Local board feedback is sought on these.

71.     More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working papers ‘Local boards and Auckland Transport’ (Appendix E) and ‘Confirmation of draft transport recommendations’ (Appendix F).

Waiheke Local Board pilot

72.     The GFR identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It considered whether it would be feasible for some local boards to have greater decision-making powers depending on the extent of the regional impact of specific local decisions. It suggested that this could be piloted on Waiheke Island given:

·        the more clearly defined community of interest on the island (relative to most other local board areas);

·        the separation of the island from wider Auckland services such as roading, stormwater or public transport;

·        the desires of the local board for greater decision-making autonomy, and a feeling that the regionalisation of services across Auckland has failed to reflect the unique nature of the island.

73.     The Waiheke Local Board has consistently sought greater autonomy, arguing that this would deliver better outcomes for the community and better reflect the principles of subsidiarity and the policy intent of the Auckland amalgamation.

74.     A range of functions and decisions that the GFR suggested could be devolved to local boards are currently under the purview of the governing body or Auckland Transport. These include area planning, community development and safety, developing local visitor infrastructure, management of the stormwater network, some transport decision-making and catchment management.

75.     Other matters the GFR proposed for devolution are in fact already allocated to local boards or provided for under statute, but boards have not had access to the resources to support them – such as local area planning or proposing bylaws – or they have not been assessed as a priority in an environment where large regional projects have tended to dominate (such as the Unitary Plan).

76.     In response, a proposed three year pilot project for Waiheke has been developed in conjunction with the local board. The activities proposed are broader than the technical allocation or delegation of decision-making, and include operational issues, policy and planning, funding, compliance and enforcement and relationships with CCOs. The pilot will include:

·        A programme of locally-initiated policy, planning and bylaw work that includes responses to visitor growth demands, a strategic plan for Matiatia, and development of a proposal for a community swimming pool, will be undertaken.

·        Addressing a number of operational issues that frustrate the local board. For example there are a number of longstanding compliance and encroachment issues on the island that have not been resolved and have become almost intractable, resulting in ongoing negative environmental and social impacts. This may be addressed through better locally-based operational leadership from council.

·        Developing some key local transport strategic approaches, such as a 10 year transport plan and Waiheke and Hauraki Gulf Islands design guidelines.

77.     The pilot has been developed with intervention logic and an evaluation methodology built-in from the beginning. This will enable a sound evaluation of the pilot to be undertaken, particularly to assess success and the applicability of the findings to the rest of Auckland.

78.     The Waiheke Local Board will oversee governance of the pilot project. It is proposed that the pilot be implemented from 1 October 2017.

79.     The PWP endorsed the pilot project and recommends that it be endorsed by the governing body. Recommendations xxvi – xxvii reflect this position. Local board feedback is sought on these.

80.     Further details on the analysis, rationale and key projects is available in the working papers ‘Waiheke Local Board pilot project’ (Appendix G) and the project outline (Appendix H).

Next steps

81.     An implementation plan and an evaluation plan will be developed and reported to the Waiheke Local Board for its consideration prior to the implementation date (currently proposed to be 1 October 2017).

Workstream 2: Local boards funding and finance

 

82.     The GFR identified the following key issues that have been considered within the context of the Funding and Finance workstream:

·    Local boards do not have to balance the trade-offs of financial decisions in the same way as the governing body needs to e.g. local boards can advocate for both additional investment in their own area and lower rates.

·    Inflexibility of the current funding policies to empower local board decision making. In particular local boards feel they have little or no control over the 90 per cent of their budget which is for “Asset Based Services” (ABS).

·    Inflexibility of the current procurement processes and definition of when local boards or groups of local boards can undertake procurement of major contracts.

83.     The workstream looked at a range of alternative models for financial decision making around local activities:

·        Status Quo (predominantly governing body and some local board decision making)

·        Entirely Local (unconstrained local board decision making)

·        Local within parameters (local board decision making but within parameters set by the governing body)

·        Entirely Regional (all governing body with local boards as advocates)

·        Joint governing body/local board (joint committees)

·        Multi Board (joint decision making of two or more local boards).

84.     The early discussion paper attached to this agenda at Appendix I describes these options in more detail.

85.     After initial discussion with the PWP the options were narrowed down to two, for further exploration. The attached papers (Appendix J and Appendix K) describe the approach to the two models in some detail. However, in summary:

Option 1: Enhanced status quo

This option is based on the governing body continuing to set the overall budget availability and allocating the budget between local boards (the allocation is currently based on legacy service levels). The budgets will be funded from general rates and decisions made by the governing body on the level of rates, efficiency savings and levels of service would be reflected through, as necessary, to the local board budgets. Within these parameters some additional flexibility for local decision making is proposed.

Option 2: Local decision making within parameters

In this option additional decision making is enabled for local boards through all or some of the costs of local activities and services being funded through a local rate. This enables the local board to have much increased flexibility in determining levels of service in different activities and to directly engage with their community on the costs and benefits of providing those services. The key issues identified with this option are the impact of redistributing the costs of local services on different communities and the additional costs of supporting local decision making.

86.     A number of key themes emerge from evaluating the two models of decision making and these form the main issues for consideration when determining the way forward:

i)        Legal context – The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out expectations for the two arms of governance. There is a clear expectation that local boards will reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities “in respect of the level and nature of local activities to be provided by Auckland Council…” To do this local boards need the ability to make decisions about service levels and appropriate funding.

ii)       Capital expenditure – Both models of decision making have assumed that decisions on major capital expenditure will be reserved to the governing body. Control of debt and the council’s credit rating are key regional issues. There is also recognition that the governing body is best placed to make decisions on investment in new assets that are essentially part of a community infrastructure network.

iii)      Organisational efficiency vs local decision making – Greater decision making by local boards will require a greater level of staff support and will require the organisation to gear its governance advice in a different way. This will have an impact on the resources of the organisation.

iv)      Regional standards vs local preferences – There are different views on whether it is better to have one standard of service across the whole Auckland region for local activities, or whether each local board should be able to prioritise and customise those services according to the needs and preferences of their community.

v)      Legacy funding base – The current funding of local boards for ABS is largely based on the historical funding model from the legacy councils. As each board has inherited different numbers of assets, different levels of service and different method of delivery, the existing funding base in very uneven. This creates a number of difficulties for the Enhanced Status Quo model.

vi)      Local assets as a network – Giving local boards more decision making over the level of renewal and/or services delivered from local assets will, in many cases, impact on communities outside of the local area. To address this issue the proposal includes requirement for local boards to consult outside of their own area in certain situations.

vii)     Funding

The key factors with the general rates based approach are:

·    Overall funding and therefore to a large extent, levels of service, for local activities are determined by the governing body

·    It is difficult to address the historical funding inequities

·    All ratepayers pay the same (based on property value)

The key factors with a local rate are:

·    The rate will reflect the level of service delivered in that area

·    The local board can set their own budgets to reflect local community priorities

·    The redistribution of rates may impact more in communities least able to afford it.

viii)    Data and policy gaps – Regardless of which approach is decided upon for the future, the project has highlighted the need to improve the quality of information and policy support to local boards.

87.     In summary the two proposed models of financial decision making have the following characteristics:

Enhanced status quo –

·        Limited additional financial decision making – may not give full effect to legislative intent of local boards with local decision making and accountability

·        Maintains the efficiencies of more centralised organisational support and procurement at scale

·        Governing body determines budgets and therefore levels of service - tends towards regional standards

·        Unlikely to address legacy inequities of funding in the short term

·        General rate funded therefore no redistribution effect, but also does not address perceived inequity of boards funding higher levels of service in other areas

Local decision making within parameters –

·        Gives more decision making and accountability to local boards – may be more in line with legislative intent

·        Will be less efficient as additional resources will be required to support local decision making

·        Levels of service will tend to be more varied across the region

·        Enables local boards to address funding inequities

·        Redistribution of rates will impact on some communities who can least afford it.

88.     While there are two clear choices of decision making model, there does not have to be a final decision at this point. The “Local decision making within parameters” option requires a change to the Local Board Funding Policy which in turn needs public consultation. There also needs to be more preparatory work before any implementation of a change, and in fact, some of that work would be necessary to implement the “Enhanced status quo” model. Five alternative recommendations were put forward to the PWP:

·    Status quo – no change

·    Enhanced status quo – progress further work prior to implementation on organisational impacts, framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding issues, improving financial data etc.

·    Local decision making within parameters – consult on the change with the LTP 2018-28 and progress pre-implementation work (as above plus work on detailed parameters and rating models). The earliest implementation for this approach would be 2019/20.

·    Consult on both options with the LTP 2018-28 and then decide. In the meantime progress at least the work for enhanced status quo. The earliest implementation for this approach would be 2019/20.

·    Agree in principle to local decision making but subject to further work (as outlined above). Should there then be a wish to proceed to consult with the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

89.     The PWP reached agreement on a variation of these alternative recommendations i.e.:

·    That the Enhanced status quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as possible within that framework.

·    That the additional work to support this model be undertaken – framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards.

·    That further work on the implications of the Local decision making model also be undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision making etc.

90.     These positions are summarised in recommendations xxviii – xxx. Local board feedback is sought on these.

Workstream 3: Governance and representation

91.     This workstream covers:

·        The optimum number of local boards

·        Methods of electing governing body members

·        Naming conventions for elected members

 

The optimum number of local boards

92.     The GFR found that having twenty-one local boards contributed to a complex governance structure and logistical inefficiencies; servicing 21 local boards is costly and creates a large administrative burden. It recommended that the council form a view on the optimum number of local boards, noting that ‘getting the right number of local boards is about striking a balance between getting genuine local engagement, while maintaining a decision-making structure that is able to be effectively serviced’. 

93.     Changing the number of local boards requires a reorganisation proposal, a statutory process that is currently a lengthy and likely costly exercise. Determining the optimum number of local boards, to inform such a proposal, is in itself a significant undertaking.

94.     There are several other processes ongoing that make a reorganisation proposal now not optimal, regardless of the merits of changing the number of boards:

·        Legislative changes to simplify the reorganisation process are being considered by Parliament, but the timeframe for their enactment is not known.

·        The Local Government Commission is considering reorganisation proposals for North Rodney and Waiheke Island, which could result in change to Auckland’s governance structure (for example through the creation of another local board). The Local Government Commission is set to announce its preferred option by the end of the 2017 calendar year.

·        Auckland Council must complete a formal representation review by September 2018.

·        The Governance Framework Review is intended to provide greater local board empowerment and to address some of the shortcomings that may be a key driver for reducing the number of local boards.

95.     Within this context, three potential high level scenarios for change were developed and presented to the PWP:

·        a reduction to fourteen local boards, largely based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;

·        a reduction to nine local boards, largely based on amalgamation of existing local board areas and subdivisions;

·        an increase in the number of local boards.

96.     These scenarios were designed to give the PWP an idea of what issues would need to be considered and the level of further work that would need to be undertaken if council is to consider changing the number of local boards. They were not presented as specific options for change.

97.     Two options for how to proceed were presented to the PWP:

·        Option 1 (recommended): no further work to be undertaken until after other GFR changes to empower local boards have been implemented and evaluated, and the other processes noted above (enactment of legislation simplifying reorganisation proposal processes, completion of the North Rodney and Waiheke Island reorganisation proposals, implementation of the Governance Framework Review, and representation review) have concluded.

·        Option 2: continue this work and refine high level scenarios into specific options for changing the number of local boards. This would require significantly more detailed work to identify communities of interest, proposed boundaries and numbers of elected members.

98.     Option 1 was recommended on the basis that the outcomes of those other current processes had the potential to significantly affect the outcome of any work that would be undertaken now. They may also empower local boards and remove a key driver for reducing the number of local boards identified by the GFR report.

99.     The PWP agreed with Option 1, expressing a clear view that no further work on changing the number of local boards should be undertaken until at least after the GFR has been completed and implemented, and the outcome of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known. The rationale for this is that the 2010 reforms are still ‘bedding in’, with the GFR likely contributing to better delivery of the intentions of the reforms; it was thus considered too early for council to consider initiating any change to the number of local boards.

100.   In line with this position, recommendation xxxi has been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and recommendation.

101.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Number of local boards’ (Appendix L).

Next steps

102.   If this recommendation is accepted by the governing body, staff will not do any further work on this issue until directed otherwise.

 

Methods of electing governing body members

103.   The GFR identified that there is an in-built tension between governing body members’ regional strategic responsibilities and their local electoral accountabilities to their ward constituents who elect them. There may be times when it is a challenge for governing body members to vote against local interests in the interests of the region.

104.   Governing body members are also inevitably approached about local issues, including constituent queries or complaints that relate to local board activities. This can lead to them being drawn into issues that are local board responsibilities. It may also make it harder for the public to understand the respective roles of their ward governing body members and local board members.

105.   The GFR report recommended that council consider amending the number and size of wards, such as moving to a mix of ward and at-large councillors, and / or reducing the number of wards from which councillors are elected, to address the misalignment of accountabilities and responsibilities.

106.   Four options were developed and presented to the PWP:

·        Option 1: status quo. Governing body members continue to be elected from the current ward structure.

·        Option 2: all governing body members would be elected at-large across the Auckland region.

·        Option 3: governing body members would be elected from a mixture of at-large (10 members) and ward-based (10 members) representation.

·        Option 4: governing body members would be elected from a ward-based system, but the number of wards would be reduced (and hence the size of wards increased).

107.   Some other governing body representational issues were also considered. These included developing protocols or role statements around governing body members’ and local board members’ roles to clarify responsibilities, the possibility of introducing a Māori ward for the governing body, and changing the voting system to Single Transferable Vote.

108.   The PWP’s draft position is that the issues raised in the GFR are not in themselves sufficient reason to change electoral arrangements for governing body members. Moving to an at large or combination of larger ward-based and at large wards would, in its view, make representing Aucklanders at a regional level significantly more difficult.  The PWP has also noted that a full statutory review of representation arrangements will be carried out in 2018. The Governing Body will also consider electoral methods, such as changing to STV, at its August meeting this year.

109.   It also noted that council has a current advocacy position for legislative change that would allow the number of governing body members to change in line with population growth, and that the process for changing the numbers and boundaries of local boards should also be made easier than the current statutory process.

110.   In line with this position, recommendations xxxii - xxxiv have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on this position and the recommendations.

111.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Representation options’ (Appendix M).

Next steps

112.   There are no specific next steps for implementation if this recommendation is accepted. The council will continue to advocate for the changes outlined above where appropriate, and staff will begin the statutory review of representation arrangements later this year.

 

Naming conventions for elected members

113.   The GFR found that one of the contributing factors to role overlap and role confusion between governing body members and local board members is Auckland Council’s naming conventions, where governing body members are generally referred to as ‘councillors’ and members of local boards are referred to as ‘local board members’. It recommended that council consider these naming conventions and, either confirm and reinforce the naming conventions, or change them for consistency, preferring that all elected members be accorded the title of either ‘councillor’ or ‘member’ (either local or regional). This would reinforce and clarify the complementary and specific nature of the roles, making it easier for staff and the public to understand.

114.   The titles currently in use are conventions; they are not formal legal titles that are bestowed or required to be used under any statute, nor are they legally protected in a way that restricts their use. This is also true for other potential titles that were identified (see below). If council did change the naming conventions to call local board members ‘councillors’ then the application of some provisions in LGACA which refer to both councillors and local board members together may become confusing and problematic.  Legislative amendment may become necessary to resolve this.

115.   If a decision is to be made on naming conventions then this would be made by the governing body. No decision-making responsibility for naming conventions has been allocated to local boards under the allocation table. Such a decision would fall under the catch-all ‘All other non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council’ that is allocated to the governing body. In making such a decision the governing body would be required to consider the views of local boards.

116.   Three options were assessed and presented to the PWP:

·    Option 1: Status quo. A member of the governing body is generally referred to as ‘councillor’ and a member of a local board as ‘local board member’.

·    Option 2: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members have some permutation of the title ‘councillor’ (e.g. ‘Governing body Councillor’, ‘Local Councillor’)

·    Option 3: Change the naming conventions so that all elected members have some permutation of the title ‘member’ (e.g. ‘Governing body Member’, ‘Local Board Member’)

117.   Any decision to confirm the current conventions or to change to a new convention would need to be applied consistently across the Auckland region, and would affect all council publications and materials.

118.   The PWP did not adopt a position on whether the naming conventions should be retained or changed, preferring to hear the views of local boards and governing body members before adopting a recommendation. It did however agree with the need for regional consistency. A key aspect of the use of the title ‘councillor’ is its meaning to members of the community.

119.   In line with the PWP’s position to hear views prior to making a recommendation, local board feedback is sought on preferred naming conventions for elected members (summarised as recommendation (b)).

120.   More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Naming conventions’ (Appendix N).

Next steps

121.   If conventions are changed, staff throughout the organisation will need to be informed of the updated conventions; Auckland Council’s style guide uses the current naming conventions so would need to be updated, as would other formal council publications (such as reports and documents for consultation). Business cards, name plates and other collateral can be updated to include the new conventions when new materials are required (in line with normal business practice) to ensure that costs associated with any change are minimal.

Ongoing oversight of Governance Framework Review implementation

122.   Consideration needs to be given to future oversight of the governance framework review past September 2017, particularly implementation of any decisions.

123.   The Terms of Reference of the PWP state that one of its purposes is to ‘provide oversight and direction for the governance framework review implementation project’. They also state that the working party ‘may act as a sounding board for changes the organisation is considering to the way that elected members are supported in their governance role. However, decisions on the way the organisation configures itself are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.’

124.   The working party has discussed the desirability and usefulness of continuing the working party, or establishing a similar group, with broader terms of reference, comprising both governing body and local board members.

125.   The broad role of such a group could be to consider governance issues that impact on both local boards and the governing body, for example the upcoming representation review, the oversight of the implementation of the governance framework review and any ongoing policy work arising from the review etc.

126.   Current local board members of the PWP have signalled that they would need a fresh mandate to continue being on such a group. The size of the working party, membership, leadership, Terms of Reference, frequency of meetings and secretariat support would all need to be confirmed.

127.   At this point we are seeking feedback from the local boards on the following possible recommendations for the governing body in September:

·        Option 1: recommend that the governing body thanks the political working party for its work on the governance framework review and notes that any further decision making arising from the implementation of the review will be considered by the governing body; or

·        Option 2: recommend that the governing body thanks the political working party for its work and agrees that an ongoing political working party, comprising governing body and local board members, would provide a valuable vehicle for considering matters that impact on both governance arms and making recommendations to the governing body on these matters.

128.   This request for feedback is summarised in recommendation (c).

Next steps

129.   If this recommendation to extend the PWP is confirmed, staff will redraft the terms of reference of the PWP to reflect these directions, and report them to the governing body for adoption.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

130.   This report seeks local board views on issues and options that may have wide-ranging implications for local boards. These views will be provided to the governing body for its consideration in decision-making.

131.   Significant consultation has been undertaken with local boards throughout the Governance Framework Review and the response to the GFR report. This included a series of workshops with each local board, as well as various cluster meetings, to discuss key issues in this report.

 

Māori impact statement

132.   The Governance Framework Review did not specifically consider the governance or representation of Maori in Auckland. The relationship between the two governance arms of Auckland Council and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) was also out of scope.

133.   The IMSB and Te Waka Angamua were consulted through this process. In response to the final GFR report the IMSB secretariat provided a memorandum setting out its views on a number of the report’s recommendations. These views largely focused on ensuring that Auckland Council meets its existing statutory requirements for:

·        enabling Maori to participate in decision-making in Auckland local government are met;

·        engaging and consulting Maori and considering the needs and views of Maori communities when making decisions;

·        recognising the need for greater involvement of Maori in local government employment.

134.   These statutory requirements should be met as a matter of course and have been noted. No specific actions are recommended.

135.   The secretariat also identified that there is:

·        a lack of definition of the relationship between the governing body, local boards and the IMSB

·        the lack of acknowledgement of the IMSB as promoting issues for Maori

·        the lack of awareness of the governing body and local boards of their obligation to consult the IMSB on matters affecting mana whenua and mataawaka, the need to take into account the IMSB’s advice on ensuring that input of mana whenua groups and mataawaka is reflected in council strategies, policies, plans and other matters.

136.   As stated above, the council-IMSB relationship was out of scope of the GFR report, so these issues are not being addressed through this work.

137.   No specific Maori impacts have been identified.

 

Implementation

138.   Implementation of changes will begin after the governing body has made final decisions in September. An implementation plan will be developed.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

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

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:

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.

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’.   

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.  

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

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:

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.

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

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:

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

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:

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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:

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

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

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Papakura Local Board report

 

File No.: CP2017/15241

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report compares actual activities and performance with the intended activities and level of service set out in the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The information is prepared as part of the local board’s accountability to the community for the decisions made throughout the year.

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017 is currently being prepared and progressed through the external audit process. In late September, the audit is expected to be completed and the final report will be approved and released to the public. The Annual Report will include performance results for each local board.

3.       The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its Local Board Agreement for 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. These requirements include providing comment on actual local activities against the intended level of service, and for the comments to be included in the Annual Report.

4.       The performance measures reported on are those that were agreed on and included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. This is the second time we are reporting an annual result for this set of measures.

5.       The attached report is proposed for approval by the local board. The report includes the following sections:

-    Message from the chairperson

-    The year in review

-    How we performed

-    Financial information.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      notes the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the draft local board information proposed for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017.

b)      receives the draft local board report to be included in the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017.

c)      approves the message from the chairperson, which provides the local board’s comments on local board matters in the Annual Report 2016/2017.

d)      gives authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson to make typographical changes before submitting for final publication.

 

Comments

6.       The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 as follows:

 

Section 23 monitoring and reporting

1)      Each local board must monitor the implementation of the local board agreement for its local board area.

2)      Each annual report of the Auckland Council must include, in respect of local activities for each local board area, an audited statement that –

i.   compares the level of service achieved in relation to the activities with the performance target or targets for the activities (as stated in the local board agreement for that year); and

ii.  specifies whether any intended changes to the level of service have been achieved; and

iii.  gives reasons for any significant variation between the level of service achieved and the intended level of service.

7.       Each local board must comment on the matters included in the Annual Report under subsection 2 above in respect of its local board area and the council must include those comments in the Annual Report.

8.       This report focuses on the formal reporting referred to in Section 23 above. Attachment A provides the draft local board information for inclusion in the Annual Report 2016/2017.

9.       The report contains the following sections:

 

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.

10.     The next steps for the draft Annual Report are:

-      audit during August 2017

-      report to Finance and Performance Committee on 19 September

-      report to the Governing Body for adoption on 28 September

-      release to stock exchanges and publish online on 29 September

-      physical copies provided to local board offices, council service centres and libraries by the end of October.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     Local board comments on local board matters in the Annual Report will be included in the Annual Report as part of the message from the chair.

Māori impact statement

12.     The Annual Report provides information on how Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 over a 12-month period. This includes engagement with Māori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Māori.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Annual Report 2016/2017

205

     

Signatories

Authors

Faithe Smith - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

David Gurney - Manager Corporate Performance & Reporting

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

For Information: Reports and Information referred to the Papakura Local Board

 

File No.: CP2017/16922

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an opportunity for the Board to receive reports, resolutions and memorandums that have been referred from Governing Body Committee meetings, forums or other local boards for the information. 

 

2.       The information listed below has been received and circulated to members from the following local board meetings.

 

No.

Report Title

Date sent to Members

Governing Body Committee or Forum or Local Board

 

1.

 

 

 

2.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board

 

a)      note the information from the following local board meetings:

 

No.

Report Title

Date sent to Members

Governing Body Committee or Forum or Local Board

 

1.

 

 

 

2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2017/16923

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To present a 12 month governance forward work calendar to the board.

Executive Summary

2.       This report updates the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the next 12 months. The governance forward work calendar for Papakura is included in Attachment A.

3.       The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

·    ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is required and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a)      notes the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar.

 

 

Comments

5.       The council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6.       Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7.       This initiative is intended to support the boards’ governance role. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8.       The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

·    Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

·    Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

·    Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

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

 

9.       Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10.     All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11.     The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12.     Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Programme for the period 1 September - 31 December 2017

219

     

Signatories

Authors

Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Papakura Governance Forward Work Calendar for the period 1 September – 31 December 2017

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

 



Papakura Local Board

23 August 2017

 

 

Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2016-2019 Electoral Term

 

File No.: CP2017/16924

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an updated register of achievements of the Papakura Local Board for the 2016-2019 Electoral Term.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

a)      That the report entitled “Papakura Local Board Achievements Register 2016-2019 Electoral Term” be received.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

20170823 Papakura Local Board Achievements Register

225

    

Signatories

Authors

Trish Wayper - Local Board Democracy 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