Agenda of Howick Local Board - 18 September 2017

1 Welcome

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 Howick Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its Local Board Plan 2017 Hearing, held on Tuesday, 15 August 2017, as a true and correct record.

b) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 21 August 2017, 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 Howick 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.

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

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.

9.1 Public Forum - Cockle Bay Erosion

Purpose

Jan Naish-Wallis would like the opportunity to speak to the board on the erosion at Cockle Bay.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board thank Jan Naish-Wallis for her attendance.

9.2 Public Forum - Pakuranga Tennis Club

Purpose

Jenny Richardson from the Pakuranga Tennis Club would like the opportunity to thank the board for their ongoing support.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board thank Jenny Richardson from the Pakuranga Tennis Club for her attendance.

9.3 Public Forum - Basketball Facility

Purpose

Rollin Kennedy would like the opportunity to speak to the board regarding establishing an outdoor basketball facility at Meadowlands Reserve.

Recommendation:

That the Howick Local Board thank Rollin Kennedy for his attendance.

Attachments

a Basketball Facility Proposal Background............................................ 111

b Basketball Facility Proposal................................................................. 113

c Draft Concept....................................................................................... 117

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.

Howick Local Board

18 September 2017

Auckland Transport Update - September 2017

File No.: CP2017/18798

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

· Auckland Transport Quarterly Report

· A Local Board Transport Capital Fund update

· Auckland Transport projects that are being delivered in Howick

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

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) note the Auckland Transport Update – September 2017 report.

Comments

Response to Resolutions

3. The Resolution is recorded below in bold. Auckland Transport’s response is below the Resolution in normal font.

Resolution Number HW/2017/142

b) request Auckland Transport provide the board with a formal written response explaining why the “Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012, Clause 23: Parking for display or sale. A person must not stop, stand or park a vehicle on any road or parking place for the purpose of advertising a good or service, or for offering the vehicle for sale unless the vehicle is being used for day to day travel” is not being enforced.

4. This resolution refers to Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012, Clause 23: “Parking for display or sale A person must not stop, stand or park a vehicle on any road or parking place for the purpose of advertising a good or service, or for offering the vehicle for sale unless the vehicle is being used for day to day travel”.

5. The key points relating to this bylaw are that:

· This bylaw is an Auckland Transport bylaw

· Auckland Transport is the ‘agency’ tasked statutorily by central government (in the Local Government Act Auckland 2009) as the regulator of Auckland’s roads and transport networks.

6. Auckland Transport is the ‘Road Controlling Authority’ and legally responsible for drafting, enforcing and retracting transport related bylaws in Auckland. The powers are granted in the Local Government Act Auckland 2009. Auckland Transport’s legal team regularly reviews bylaws. About 18 months ago the legal team completed a review of the bylaw in question and found that there were issues with how the ‘offence’ was scripted in the bylaw. Essentially, the bylaw does not meet its original intent; the offence is hard to define and therefore could either be legally challenged or be unfairly applied.

7. An ‘enforcement agency’ (i.e. Auckland Transport) cannot either act or be seen to act in a manner that is not supported by the relevant law. Once Auckland Transport was made aware of the issue we are legally and morally obliged to cease enforcement.

8. Currently the legal team is drafting a new bylaw that will be better written. With regards to Cascades Road Auckland Transport is currently looking at other options to resolve the matter.

9. In summary Auckland Transport acknowledges the concerns that are being raised and have discussed this matter with the Howick Local Board and the local Councillors and are working to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

Bucklands Beach Erosion

10. Erosion of the Bucklands Beach foreshore is an issue that the HLB is working to address. Auckland Transport continues to engage with the project led by Auckland Council to plan a response to this issue.

11. Officers meetings have taken place and a large community meeting was held on 11 August 2017. At the public meeting Auckland Council committed to working with the community to develop a plan for addressing coastal erosion. Currently officers are working hard to finish the project aiming to complete this work in time ready for it to be used to support Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan process. This process will set Council’s budget and any increase or re-allocation of funding will be made through this process.

12. On 7 September 2017 a joint team of Auckland Transport and Council officers is scheduled to meet with the HLB and discuss issues related to Bucklands Beach. This meeting will also help the HLB to confirm their position on this issue and to access quality advice upon which to base their advocacy to the Governing Body.

Local Board Plans and the Long Term Plan – Advocacy Opportunity

13. Local Board Plans are due to be adopted this month. Consultation is complete and soon Local Boards will start discussing their requests for projects to be funded with Council’s Governing Body.

14. The final budget will become Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan. Development of the Long Term Plan is concurrent with writing the Regional Land Transport Programme (Auckland Transport’s budget). Transport funding is able to be advocated for through this process

15. Once the Regional Land Transport Programme is completed Auckland Transport’s budget and levels of service are fixed for the next three years. We encourage all Local Boards to work with the Governing Body advocate for any transport projects they wish to have funded or levels of service that they would like changed.

Eastern New Network

16. Last month Auckland Transport reported on the Eastern New Network that will soon be delivered in the Howick Local Board Area. Last month’s report provided information about the wider work programme that Auckland Transport has delivered over the last seven years to improve public transport in Auckland. This work programme included the introduction of ATHOP, zone based fares and building new transport stations.

17. The Eastern New Network will simplify bus routes in Howick. By simplifying the routes it will increase reliability and the number of buses servicing individual routes. The aim being that people can use regular, reliable bus services to either get to their destination or to access trains or ferries on which to complete their journeys.

18. The New Network Team is scheduled to speak with the HLB on 20 September 2017. The team will provide the Board with lots of information about the new services. Public information is available on the Auckland Transport website by using the following link - https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/new-network-for-east-auckland/

Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF) update

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

· Be safe

· Not impede network efficiency

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

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

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

Projects

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

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

Table 1: Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

Projects	Current Status	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed	Current Status
Half Moon Bay Ferry Pier and Bus Turnaround		Providing better facilities for ferry passengers at Half Moon Bay	‘Rough Order of Cost’ requested by the HLB in 2013. ‘Detailed Design’ was authorised by HLB in October 2014 based on a Rough Order of Cost of $ 4.3 million of which the HLB would provide $ 2.5 million. ‘Construction’ The pier is complete and was opened on 7 April 2017. Consent has still not been submitted but developed designs for the landside works are finished and have been discussed with the HLB.
Buckland’s Beach Walkway Improvements		Providing safer pedestrian facilities at Buckland Beach	‘Rough Order of Cost’ of between $1.5 and 2.1 million has been provided to the HLB. Concept design was carried out in a number of stages: · 14 July 2014 – Detailed design of a small initial project authorised by resolution · 8 June 2015 – The HLB expanded the project to include detailed design for a project running the length of ‘The Parade’ · 13 July 2015 Concept design reported to the HLB · 26 April 2017 the HLB requested investigation of two projects identified during consultation. Last month Rough Orders of Cost were provided for these projects: · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade – Approx. $ 80,000 · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads – Approx. $ 450,000. ‘Firm Cost Estimate’: was authorised at the May Howick Local Board meeting for the following elements of the project: · Improved pedestrian facilities and one-way options on The Parade · A roundabout at the intersection of Buckland Beach and Whitcombe Roads. ‘Construction’ of improvements to pedestrian safety, consisting of widening the shoulder of the road using Macrocarpa sleepers, between Numbers 61 and 68A of The Parade is complete.
Howick Village Centre Plan		Supporting improvements to Howick Village that will make it nicer, safer and more pedestrian friendly.	Howick Village Centre Plan is finished. Auckland Transport is working closely with the Auckland Council planners will bring proposals from this review back to the HLB on 13 September 2017. The HLB can then decide if they wish to pursue Rough Orders of Cost.
Cascades Walkway		Building a footpath on Cascade Road that will provide access under the bridge on the western edge of the golf course to the walking track that follows the stream.	Auckland Transport has provided options with of either approx. $83,000 or approx. $225,000 depending on the route of the pathway. ‘Rough Orders of Cost’. The HLB accepted the option with the Rough Order of Cost of $225,000. ‘Firm Estimate of Cost’: development of a ‘Firm Cost Estimate’ was authorised at the June 2017 Howick Local Board meeting. The aim being to provide a confirmed cost estimate that could be used to try and seek funding from partners.
Walking and Cycling Access to Half Moon Bay		Develop walking and cycling opportunities around Half Moon Bay.	The HLB discussed this project on 8 February 2017. It was decided to let the ferry pier and bus stop improvements become operational before a new project was started.
Highbrook Cycling and Walking Project		Develop walking and cycling opportunities around Highbrook.	The HLB was briefed by Auckland Transport about this project on 24 March 2017. The HLB did not choose to pursue the project at this time.
Baverstock Road Crossing		Building traffic calming and a crossing on Baverstock Road to reduce traffic speed and create a safer pedestrian environment.	‘Rough Order of Cost’ of approx. $150,000 has been provided to the HLB. The HLB discussed this project on 8 February 2017 and decided not to proceed with the project at this time.
Notes: A ‘traffic light’ code is used to summarize the status of projects. The colours are used as follows: Green – Project progressing ‘on time’ and on budget. Orange – An issue has been identified that may need to be resolved. Red - A major issue has been identified that needs to be resolved. Black – The project has been investigated and the HLB has decided not to pursue it at this time.

Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal Update

23. Building a new ferry pier and bus turn around area at Half Moon Bay was HLB’s key Local Board Transport Capital Fund Project in the 2013-16 term. The HLB were briefed on progress of the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal in July.

24. The key issue holding up implementation, submitting the consent has not been resolved. Although a pre-lodgement meeting has been held.

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

Bucklands Beach Update

26. The small safety project that the HLB asked to be delivered between Number 61-68A The Parade, has now been completed.

Cascade Road Update

27. Auckland Transport has started work on the Firm Cost Estimates for the Cascades Road walkway HW/2015/98, but the work is in a riparian reserve so may require iwi input. Auckland Transport guidelines for delivery of Local Board projects emphasise the importance of the relationship between iwi and local elected representatives and require that we highlight any project that requires liaison between these parties.

Upcoming projects and activities

Consultations

28. Auckland Transport provides the HLB with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this Local Board Area and one project was circulated. Details are included in Attachment A.

29. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions are reported on a monthly basis.

Table 2: Traffic Control Committee Summary of Decisions August 2017

Street	Area	Work	Decision
William Roberts Road / Pakuranga Road	Pakurange	Lane Arrows, No Stopping At All Times, Clearway, Traffic Islands, Give-Way control, Flush Median	Carried
Cascades Road / Pakuranga Road	Botany	Lane Arrows, No Stopping At All Times, Traffic Islands, Pedestrian Crossing, Traffic Signal, Give-Way control	Carried
Botany Road	Botany	Berm Parking prohibition	Carried
The Parade / Whitcombe Road	Bucklands Beach	No Stopping At All Times, Lanes, Shoulder Markings, Give-Way control, Traffic Islands, Edge Lines	Carried
Stonedon Drive	East Tamaki	Temporary Traffic and Parking restrictions	Carried

Regional and sub-regional projects

AMETI

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

31. AMETI will be deliver in three stages:

· A busway linking Panmure and Pakuranga

· Improvements to Reeves Road to make sure that the traffic can flow through the area better

· A busway linking Pakuranga and Botany.

32. The first stage of AMETI the busway running from Pakuranga to Panmure is currently undergoing Notice of Requirement (NOR) hearings and work is planned to start late next year. While this process takes place Auckland Transport is planning ahead and there is progress on planning for the Pakuranga to Botany stage of the project. The initial planning (the Scheme Assessment Report) is almost finished and Auckland Transport is starting the tender process to select a design consultant.

Figure 1: Artists Impression of the AMETI Busway on Lagoon Drive

33. Soon the Pakuranga to Botany public consultation programme will start and ahead of this the HLB is being briefed on the plan. On 17 August 2017 the AMETI project team met with the HLB and over coming months there will be a series of workshops with HLB to get their views about the latest design work.

34. The HLB raised concerns about how traffic will be managed during construction. The project team listened and discussed current plans. Auckland Transport understands that any project of this size and scale will have impacts and intends to work hard to plan ahead and minimise traffic inconvenience. Auckland Transport made a strong commitment to the HLB that it would work hard to keep the community well-informed so that local residents and commuters could plan ahead and avoid the worst impacts.

Chapel Road

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

36. Initial geo-technical investigation is now finished. The geotechnical investigation showed a large, actively moving landslip immediately north of Otara Creek. It means that the options suggested (either a straight alignment that removes the turns or a curve following the existing road) need to be reconsidered and that more geo-technical investigation needs to be done.

37. Information is required that was not initially available because access to the reserve was restricted. The importance of this project means that it is prudent to carry out further geotechnical testing in order to fully understand the behaviour and conditions of the landslip. This work is being organised at this moment, and is anticipated it will require two to three months to complete. Once the second stage of geotechnical investigation is completed. It will need to be reviewed and a new option will be developed. This means that the project is running slower than was originally predicted.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Consultation Information	23
b ⇩	Issues Register	25
c ⇩	Media Releases	27

Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

18 September 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19184

Purpose

1. To provide comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document “Local Government Review” by 15 December 2017.

Executive summary

2. The Remuneration Authority is consulting local authorities on proposals in its consultation document “Local Government Review”. Feedback is due by Friday 15 December 2017. The Remuneration Authority wants to discuss the proposals with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) zone meetings.

3. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

4. The Authority proposes the following long-term changes to the way in which remuneration is decided:

(i) each council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii) a remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii) the mayor’s salary is determined by the Authority

(iv) the council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of responsibility

(v) there is relativity between mayors and MPs, with the Auckland mayor being paid no more than a cabinet minister.

5. The consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to specific questions.

6. The proposals do not impact on expenses policies or meeting fees for resource management hearings.

7. The body of this report summarises the content of each section of the document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

8. The proposal to provide each council with a remuneration pool gives councils more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but it puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

9. The consultation document does not discuss local boards. In other councils, community board salaries would be funded from the council pool, unless they were funded by a targeted rate. Local boards are very different from community boards and local boards should make their comments in the context of their role and responsibilities within Auckland Council. Local boards may wish to comment on how, if the remuneration pool concept proceeds, the remuneration of local boards should be decided.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) Provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document Local Government Review.

Comments

Introduction

10. The Remuneration Authority has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017. This is appended in Attachment A. The Authority states that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland Council.

11. The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff. All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

12. Currently, the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i) a size index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii) job-sizing council positions in sample councils

(iii) assessing the portion of full-time work

(iv) the Authority’s pay scale

(v) a pool equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of responsibility

(vi) a loading of 12.5% for unitary councils

(vii) hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

13. The report summarises the content of each section of the discussion document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

Council size

14. The discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”. It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i) population

(ii) operational expenditure

(iii) asset size

(iv) social deprivation

(v) guest nights.

15. For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

16. For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities. The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

17. Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion document.

18. Remuneration Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

· Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

· Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

· When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

· If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets?

19. Comments:

(i) It is noted that prior to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account. The councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

(ii) In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses

Weighting

20. The discussion document proposes weighting the factors slightly differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

21. Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:

· Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

· If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

22. Comments:

(i) Staff do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

23. Mayors are considered to be full-time positions. The discussion document states that a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above. The Remuneration Authority would set the mayor’s salary.

24. Remuneration Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

· Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

· If not, how should they be treated?

· Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

· If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

25. Comments:

(i) For Auckland Council, the roles of the mayor, councillors and local board chairs have all been treated as full-time. There has been no diminution in role responsibilities since that was determined. There is no rationale for change.

Councillor remuneration

26. A total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has been deducted). A 75% majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

27. The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

28. Remuneration Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

· Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

· If so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

· Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

29. Comments:

(i) Setting a remuneration pool for an entity with the entity then responsible for deciding how it is allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice.

(ii) One issue to consider relating to the pool proposal is that the size of the pool, once determined, is fixed. If a pool is determined for each local board, then if the number of members on a board is increased or decreased, say by a review of representation arrangements, the amount that each member is paid will decrease or increase accordingly. This issue is acknowledged in paragraphs 102 and 103 of the discussion document.

(iii) In view of this, the local board might wish to consider its view on the assumption that the governance responsibility can be represented by a fixed pool.

(iv) A further issue to consider is that elected members would need to debate how to allocate the pool. The Remuneration Authority currently fully sets Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration. Council has not had to debate how remuneration might be apportioned among governing body and local board members. This would be a major change.

(v) Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75% majority vote.

External representation roles

30. The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

31. Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:

· Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

32. Comments:

(i) There are many bodies such as trusts and co-governance entities to which Auckland Council elected members are appointed. These appointments are currently treated as part of the role of being an elected member.

(ii) If the pool proposal allows councils to recognise additional responsibilities (or workload) attached to representation on external organisations, an issue to consider is whether such recognition of additional workload might then extend to internal committee membership, including the number of committees a member is part of. The issue is how granular the recognition of responsibilities should be.

Appointments to CCOs

33. The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

34. Remuneration Authority questions on appointments to CCOs:

· Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

35. Comments:

(i) Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport.

(ii) In the current term, Auckland Council has not appointed elected members to Auckland Transport, but in previous terms the two appointees received directors’ fees.

Community boards

36. The discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and we recommend this is clearly stated in any local board response.

37. Community board salaries would either come from the council pool or be separately funded by way of a targeted rate.

38. Remuneration Authority questions on community boards:

· Should community board remuneration always come out of the council governance/representation pool?

· If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

· If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration of community board members?

Local Boards

39. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

40. Most local boards are larger or similar in size to other councils in New Zealand.

41. Local boards have decision-making and governance responsibilities over $500million per annum

Comments:

Local boards should comment

(i) On the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach

(ii) If the Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach

a. Should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board or

b. Should the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

Local government pay scale

42. The discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale. It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors. These are not elected member roles.

43. The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

44. Remuneration Authority questions on local government pay scale:

· Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

· If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

· If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

45. Comments:

(i) The Authority suggests in the document that mayor/chair salaries are related to MPs. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland mayor. By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a cabinet minister, other mayors would be scaled accordingly.

Timetable

46. A determination setting councils’ remuneration pools will be made around 1 July in each election year. Following the elections, each council is to resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the triennium. In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based on published “Labour Market Statistics”.

Conclusion

47. These proposals constitute a major change for Auckland Council. From its inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully determined by the Remuneration Authority.

48. The remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49. This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposals contained in the Remuneration Authority’s discussion document. Local board views will be reported individually to the Remuneration Authority.

Māori impact statement

50. The level at which elected members are remunerated does not impact differently on Māori as compared with the wider community.

Implementation

Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Remuneration Authority.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Government Review	39

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor, Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson – Governance Director

Karen Lyons – General Manager, Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

Howick Local Board

18 September 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement

File No.: CP2017/18805

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on draft Auckland Plan content to inform the final draft of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Executive summary

2. In June and July 2017 the Auckland Plan refresh team provided all local boards with summaries of the strategic themes and focus areas for the refreshed Auckland Plan for their consideration.

3. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July, and feedback from stakeholders informed the further development of the content and development of the strategic framework. The framework was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017. A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied the report to the Planning Committee.

4. A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

5. Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.

6. Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to public consultation in early 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) provides feedback, including any specific feedback on the package of materials across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy (attachment A).

b) notes that the resolutions of this meeting will be reported back to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Comments

Background

7. Auckland Council is required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to develop and review a spatial plan for Auckland. The Auckland Plan refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues, to ensure the plan continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland.

8. On 28 March 2017, the Planning Committee endorsed a streamlined spatial approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan. The refreshed plan is intended to be more focused and structured around a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the development strategy.

Local Board involvement in the refresh

9. Local board chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan during 2017. Throughout these workshops, chairs (or their representatives) have provided early input into opportunities and challenges for Auckland over the next 30 years and feedback on the proposed strategic framework for the refreshed Auckland Plan. This input was the views of chairs only and does not represent formal local board feedback.

10. At local board cluster briefings in February and April 2017, local board members gave feedback and information which was used to refine the scope of strategic themes and focus areas.

11. A report on the Auckland Plan Refresh was considered at local board business meetings in June and July. Local boards were invited to consider their formal position on the themes and focus areas and provide further feedback.

12. Local board cluster briefings were also held in April and July on the Development Strategy which is a core component of Auckland Plan.

13. Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July informed the further development of a draft strategic framework. This was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August. A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied this report to the Planning Committee.

14. A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August 2017. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

15. Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.

16. Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to full public consultation in early 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Local board feedback on the package of engagement material is being sought in this report.

18. Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan through communicating local views to the governing body and providing input to regional strategies, policies, and plans.

Māori impact statement

19. The council is required to provide opportunities for Māori engagement and to support Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, the council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

20. Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) provided guidance on the strategic themes of the plan. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the strategic themes and focus areas.

21. The strategic themes acknowledge and celebrate Māori culture as Auckland’s point of difference, and Māori as Treaty partners in Auckland.

22. Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the plan. The outcome describes the application of Te ao Māori values to the region, acknowledges the unique role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau and acknowledges the foundational role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

23. Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka, and relevant Māori community groups has been undertaken to develop the draft plan.

Implementation

24. Feedback from the local boards will be summarised and provided to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Plan draft content package	73

Signatories

Authors

Christina Kaiser - Principal Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Jacques Victor – GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons – GM Local Board Services

Nina Siers - Relationship Manager

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	3rd August 2017 Workshop Record	93
b ⇩	9th August 2017 Workshop Record	95
c ⇩	16th August 2017 Workshop Record	97
d ⇩	17th August 2017 Workshop Record	99
e ⇩	23rd August 2017 Workshop Record	101
f ⇩	24th August 2017 Workshop Record	103
g ⇩	30th August 2017 Workshop Record	105
h ⇩	31st August 2017 Workshop Record	107

Authors	Nichola Painter - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Nina Siers - Relationship Manager