Agenda of Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 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 Presentation from Area Commander, Counties Manukau West Police 5

8.2 Faith City Trust Board presentation 6

8.3 Presentation from Transpower 6

9 Public Forum 6

9.1 Presentation from Te Kupenga Kohanga reo 7

9.2 Presentation from David Riley 7

9.3 Family First Welfare Trust - Update on Kaardaan Project 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 8

12 Manukau Ward Councillors Update 9

13 Board Members' Report 11

14 Chairperson's Announcements 13

15 Future of community buildings at Manukau Sports Bowl, 19R Boundary Road, Otara 15

16 Land Owner Approval to extend building at 25R Othello Drive, Israel Drainage Reserve, Otara 25

17 Auckland Transport Update - September 2017 33

18 Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement 41

19 Remuneration Authority consultation document 53

20 Nomination of candidate for the Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility (WIri Men's Prison) Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee 91

21 Urgent decision - funding grant amendment 101

22 Governance Forward Work Calendar 111

23 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Workshop Notes 115

24 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

Apologies from Chairperson L Fuli and Member D Lee have 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 15 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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 Presentation from Area Commander, Counties Manukau West Police

Purpose

Naila Hassan, Area Commander - Counties Manukau West, New Zealand Police will be in attendance to introduce herself to the local board and also provide an update on the work of the Police in Papatoetoe.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thanks Naila Hassan, Area Commander, Counties Manukau West Police for her presentation.

8.2 Faith City Trust Board presentation

Purpose

Essendon Tuitupou, Project Manager, Faith City Trust Board will make a presentation to the Local Board on 'Project Wy' - a leadership development and family mentoring programme they run with 5 schools in Otara and Papatoetoe.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank Essendon Tuitupou, Project Manager, Faith City Trust Board for his presentation.

8.3 Presentation from Transpower

Purpose

1. Selina Corboy, Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Transpower NZ Ltd want to present the work that they are doing on to support Auckland’s future growth and get some feedback from the local board.

Executive summary

2. Earlier this year Transpower, a state owned enterprise, that manages the national grid that supplies electricity into Auckland before it gets distributed to Vector and then households, established a dedicated project team to focus on supporting Auckland’s future growth and communities and what it means for the national grid. With the extensive work that is happening in Auckland at the moment, they are taking a moment to look holistically at the grid and what that may look like in the future.

3. To do that, they feel it’s important to connect with the communities that live in and around their assets. It will help provide a better understanding of their values. Otara is certainly a very important community, as there are some Transpower transmission lines running through the area and they also have their Auckland office and substation in Otara.

4. Transpower is currently presenting to other local boards and working with iwi/hapu too.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank Selina Corboy Stakeholder Engagement Manager, Transpower NZ Ltd, for her presentation.

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 Presentation from Te Kupenga Kohanga reo

Purpose

Karen Kite representing Te Kupenga Kohanga reo would like to present to the local board on a proposal of extending the land of their Kohanga reo at 25R Othello drive, Otara

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank Karen Kite from Te Kupenga Kohanga reo for her presentation.

9.2 Presentation from David Riley

Purpose

David Riley would like to show the local board the book called Cook Islands Heroes which they supported through community grants. He also wants to present his ideas for a new book he’s going to write called Tokelauan Heroes and the way he hopes to use digital technology to help young people with their reading.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank David Riley for his presentation.

9.3 Family First Welfare Trust - Update on Kaardaan Project

Purpose

Sabah Al Mushtaq and Suman Ramavat of Family First Welfare Trust will make a presentation to the board on the Kaardaan Project for which they received community grant from the local board.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board thank Sabah Al Mushtaq and Suman Ramavat of Family First Welfare Trust for their presentation.

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.

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Future of community buildings at Manukau Sports Bowl, 19R Boundary Road, Otara

File No.: CP2017/18729

Purpose

1. To approve the use of the property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara as a skills shed, operating under a community lease with an Expression of Interest process to identify a tenant.

Executive summary

2. The Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board identified the provision of two skills sheds as a priority outcome in the 2014-2017 Local Board Plan. The property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara offered the opportunity to house one skills shed in the Ōtara community.

3. In October 2015, the board agreed to the transfer of the property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara, (see Attachment A) from the portfolio of Panuku Development Auckland to the Community Facility department of council (OP/2015/174). This included:

· a small three-bedroom house to be managed as a community lease

· garage and annex (known as the Skills Shed) and garden.

4. The board subsequently agreed to a funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage for the garage and annex (the Skills Shed) and adjoining garden to the Clover Park Community House Incorporated from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017, to operate a skills shed and community garden from the property (OP/2016/26).

5. Council staff were advised in February 2017 that the property was no longer operating as a skills shed and community garden. The Skills Shed has remained empty since that time. The house was already unoccupied.

6. In June 2017, the local board adopted the 2017/2018 ACE (Arts, Community and Events) work programme, which included a request for a report providing future options for the Skills Shed (OP/2017/98). No funding agreement or licence to occupy was granted for the Skills Shed.

7. The local board is being asked to consider options for the property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara including:

i) the future purpose of the garden; garage and Skills Shed (i.e. a community group with a funding agreement and licence to occupy; or a tenant under a community lease; or repurpose to a commercial site).

ii) the tenancy model for the house and garden; garage and Skills Shed (i.e. a single tenant for the property, or shared tenancies).

8. Identifying potential community group(s) to occupy the property could be undertaken through either an expression of interest process; an invitation to apply to a selected list of known providers of skills shed type services; or at the board’s discretion, a preferred operator nominated without an expression of interest process being undertaken.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) approve the property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara to be utilised as a Skills Shed with suitable programmes open for the local community.

b) approve that the property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara, including Skills Shed site (garage, annex and garden) and house, operate under a community lease and be subject to the terms and conditions of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

c) approve an expression of interest process to select a single community lease tenant for the property at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara.

Comments

Background

9. One of the 2014 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Plan outcomes is to establish one or two skills sheds in the area. The board planned to find potential funding and partners to develop and run the sheds and decide the best locations. The property at Boundary Road offered the ability to provide this service to the Ōtara community.

10. There are two council owned assets, both currently vacant, located at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara (also known as 41 Boundary Road), at Manukau Sports Bowl. These are:

· a house managed under a community lease

· a separate building commonly known as the Skills Shed, which includes a garage, to which is attached a former ‘sleep-out’, known as the annex. Adjacent to the annex is an area set aside for a community garden.

11. On 19 October 2015, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board approved the transfer of the house and garden; garage and annex (the Skills Shed), located at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara from the portfolio of Panuku Development Auckland to council’s Community Facilities department (OP/2015/174). The board also endorsed Clover Park Community Houses Incorporated as the provider to deliver skills shed activity from the garage, annex and community garden space and shared use of the kitchen, toilet and bathroom within the adjacent house (OP/2015/173).

12. The board subsequently agreed to a funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage for the garage and annex (the Skills Shed) and adjoining garden to the Clover Park Community House Incorporated from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. The community house committee would operate a skills shed and community garden from the property with access to the kitchen, bathroom and toilet facilities within the adjacent house.

13. On 21 March 2016, the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board approved the granting of a licence to occupy and manage to Clover Park Community House Incorporated at two locations, namely:

(i) 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara Part of Lot 490DP76628 being the shed, annex and community garden (the Skills Shed)

(ii) 16A Israel Avenue, Clover Park, Ōtara Part of Lot 295 DP82025.

The licences to occupy and manage were for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 (OP/2016/26).

14. Due to a change in personnel on the Clover Park Community House committee the Skills Shed has been vacant since February 2017. This change resulted in cessation of activities, including maintenance of the community garden and removal of items stored at the Skills Shed.

15. The vacant garage at 19R Boundary Road has experienced some damage due to weather and vandalism, occurring most recently over the weekend of 26-27 August 2017. Council staff have arranged for contractors to repair the damage. More recent vandalism has been recorded to the vacant house and council contractors are assessing the costing and repairs necessary.

16. The board have expressed concern about the vacant nature of the buildings. Occupation of the property is expected to lessen the likelihood of future vandalism.

2017/2018 Local Board Work Programme

17. In June 2017, the local board adopted the 2017/2018 ACE work programme (OP/2017/98). This included a funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage to Clover Park Community House Incorporated for a period of one year, from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 for the community house located at 16A Israel Avenue, Ōtara.

18. Council staff continue to actively support the Clover Park Community House Incorporated and the community work undertaken at 16A Israel Avenue, including a funding agreement and licence to occupy, and a business mentoring programme for the governance committee.

19. At the local board’s direction, no funding agreement or licence to occupy was granted for the Boundary Road Skills Shed in the 2017/2018 ACE Work programme. A report was requested to provide options for future consideration of the 19R Boundary Road site, presented here (2017/2018 ACE work programme line item 1974).

20. The board is asked to decide on the future purpose for the Skills Shed at 19R Boundary Road. A second decision on the tenancy model for the site is sought in order for staff to fully implement the board’s intent and aspirations for the site.

Options for future purpose of the Skills Shed at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara

21. The options available for the garden; garage and annex (Skills Shed) include:

· Option A: status quo: retain as a community asset, with local programming and activations under a funding agreement and licence to occupy arrangement for a community group.

· Option B: retain as a community asset but repurpose to a single group provider through a community lease.

· Option C: repurpose the facility to a commercial (non-community) site, and remove from community use.

Table 1

Option	Proposal	Requirements	Pros	Cons
A	Retain as a community asset, with a community group providing local programming and activations under a funding agreement and licence to occupy arrangement	Identify a community group to occupy the site and deliver a range of programmes. Identify what the intent is for the activity. LDI budget required to cover costs of programmes and annual loss of revenue	Activation and programmes will align closely to local board priorities and be monitored and evaluated.	Duplication of community house programming.
B	Retain as a community asset but repurpose to a single group provider through a community lease	Identify a community group to occupy the site Identify what the intent is for the activity. LDI required to cover annual loss of revenue	No duplication of services provided. Group has flexibility to manage their performance	Exclusive use long term arrangement.
C	Repurpose to a commercial site which is not available for community use.	Return the property to the portfolio of Panuku Development Auckland. No ongoing Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget commitment.	Potential to add housing stock back to the market. Additional income to Auckland Council.	No longer available for community use. Does not empower the community.

Option

Proposal

Requirements

Pros

Cons

Retain as a community asset, with a community group providing local programming and activations under a funding agreement and licence to occupy arrangement

Identify a community group to occupy the site and deliver a range of programmes.

Identify what the intent is for the activity.

LDI budget required to cover costs of programmes and annual loss of revenue

Activation and programmes will align closely to local board priorities and be monitored and evaluated.

Duplication of community house programming.

Retain as a community asset but repurpose to a single group provider through a community lease

Identify a community group to occupy the site

Identify what the intent is for the activity.

LDI required to cover annual loss of revenue

No duplication of services provided.

Group has flexibility to manage their performance

Exclusive use long term arrangement.

Repurpose to a commercial site which is not available for community use.

Return the property to the portfolio of Panuku Development Auckland.

No ongoing Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budget commitment.

Potential to add housing stock back to the market.

Additional income to Auckland Council.

No longer available for community use.

Does not empower the community.

22. If the board adopt option A or option C, a decision on the tenancy model is not required by the local board.

23. If the board adopt option B, which is the staff recommendation, a further decision will be required by the local board around preferred tenancy model of the property to enable staff to progress with occupation under a community lease agreement.

24. Should the local board adopt option B, the occupant will be subject to the terms and conditions of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012. This would include:

· an annual rental of $1.00 (+ GST), if demanded

· a term of five years, plus a five year right of renewal

· an annual subsidised maintenance fee (if one group is chosen for the entire property)

· an annual operational charge (if the property is shared between two or more groups)

· an approved community outcomes plan that will identify the benefit the group will provide to the community and measures that will be used to review the group’s performance against the plan over time.

Options for future tenancy model of 19R Boundary Road

25. The site has a house and a separate asset on site (the Skills Shed); plus an area set aside to be developed as a community garden. Staff seek direction from the board on the preferred management model for this site. Options are presented in Tables 2 and 3 below:

Table 2

Option 1: Single tenant Include the house, Skills Shed and garden as one ‘footprint’		Pros	Cons
1a)	Undertake an open, advertised expression of interest process.	Better outcome for the community if an open and transparent process for selecting a group is undertaken.	Slower process of advertising and assessment of applications and reporting to the board for a decision (minimum three month process).
1b)	Undertake a selected tender process whereby a number of specified groups are asked to apply.	Faster process: the group would take possession within two-three months.	There may be other groups in the community able to achieve the board’s outcomes.
1c)	Grant a lease to a specific group nominated by the local board.	Faster process: the group would take possession within two-three months.	There may be other groups in the community able to achieve the board’s outcomes.

Table 3

Option 2: Multiple tenants Consider the house, Skills Shed and garden as independent assets		Pros	Cons
2a)	Undertake an open, advertised expression of interest process for each of the three areas. A public notice would be placed in the local community newspaper and placed on the council website; also all groups in the community leasing interest register would be advised that there is a property available for tenancy.	It is an open and transparent process for selecting a group is undertaken.	Slower process of advertising and assessment of applications and reporting to the board for a decision. All tenants would need to share the kitchen, bathroom and toilet facilities inside the house. This could cause problems as the house is not designed for such use, both in size and configuration.
2b)	Grant separate leases to groups nominated at the local board’s discretion to occupy the respective assets.	Differing services to the local community could be provided from each of the three separate areas on the property.	Not a transparent and fair-to-all process for selecting tenants. As above regarding shared use of kitchen and bathroom facilities.
2c)	Undertake a dual process of nominated tenant and an expression of interest process to occupy the respective assets. Each asset (the buildings and/or community garden space) would be tenanted in a different way. The local board would nominate one tenant for one building and the expression of interest process would be undertaken for the other.	Ability to have at least one tenant on site as soon as possible to reduce the likelihood of further vandal damage to the property while the other building is advertised.	A confusing and uneven method of selecting tenants for the property. As above regarding shared use of kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Recommended option

26. Staff recommend option 1a: calling for expressions of interest for the property as this will ensure an open and transparent process for selection of a new tenant. The layout and facilities available on the property means that there would be no possible conflicts between a number of groups over the use of the shared kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27. A workshop was held with the board on 4 April 2017 to discuss the proposed local board work programme for 2017/2018. This included the proposed future of the funding agreement and licence to occupy and manage at 19R Boundary Road. Members at the workshop agreed that the funding agreement/licence to occupy agreement for the skills shed at 19R Boundary Road, Ōtara be separated from that for the Clover Park Community House at 16A Israel Avenue, Ōtara. They also agreed to exploring options for the property. This was considered and subsequently approved when the local board adopted their 2017/2018 ACE Work Programme (OP/2017/98).

28. A further workshop was held on 29 August 2017 where the options above were discussed.

29. The board has identified in their draft 2017 local board plan that it is keen to encourage community gardening and for younger and older generations to get together and share experiences and skills.

The draft plan says under Outcome 5: Empowered, inclusive and prosperous communities that there is a “priority over the next three years is to work with local communities to strengthen their ability to realise their own aspirations, create and successfully stage their own events and campaigns. Examples include our teaching gardens…”.

30. The report’s recommendations also align with outcome 6: Honouring youth and seniors, of the draft plan, which states: “The board is keen to encourage younger and older generations to get together and share experiences and skills. One example of this is the Ōtara Skills Shed where seniors socialise and build craft and hobby projects, and share their skills with young people. We envisage recycling and resource recovery activities and small not-for-profit community enterprises will also operate from the skills shed.”

Māori impact statement

31. The 2013 census showed a Māori population of 10,794, being 14.3 per cent of the total population of the local board area.

32. Community leases and community places support a wide range of activities and groups and are awarded based on an understanding of local needs, interests and priorities. It is expected that the skills shed will cater for a wide community, including opportunities for Māori to pursue social, cultural and wellbeing outcomes through skills and craft development activities delivered from the property.

Implementation

33. Staff will undertake the expression of interest process for the property in quarter two and following assessment, will report the applications received to the board for a decision on the tenant group(s).

34. All costs involved in the preparation of community lease documents are borne by Auckland Council.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Manukau Sports Bowl, 19R Boundary Road, Otara - Site Map	23

Signatories

Authors

Sharon McGinity - Team Leader, Event Facilitation South

Jenny Young - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Land Owner Approval to extend building at 25R Othello Drive, Israel Drainage Reserve, Otara

File No.: CP2017/19205

Purpose

1. To seek a decision from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to decline the application for the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board to extend the building footprint of the existing early childhood centre building at 25R Othello Drive, Ōtara, into the Israel Drainage Reserve.

Executive summary

2. The Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board (Early childhood centre) was granted a community lease renewal on 30 April 2015 for the property at 25R Othello Dive, Ōtara, with the lease terminating 30 April 2025.

3. The trust board has applied to council for land owner approval to extend the existing childhood centre building into the Israel Drainage Reserve and for alteration of their existing lease to accommodate this.

4. Local boards have the delegated decision-making authority to approve any application for landowner consent that is referred to the local board for a decision and to grant leases within local community facilities.

5. Staff recommend that the local board declines the application to extend the existing early childhood centre building. The proposed extension encroaches on to a recreation reserve and would result in a loss of recreational amenity and passive surveillance into the reserve.

6. If the local board approves the application, reclassification of a portion of the Israel Drainage Reserve, being Part Lot 216 76719, will need to occur at council’s expense to accommodate the building extension.

7. If the local board approves the application in principle with changes, staff will report back to the local board for a decision once the changes are finalised.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) decline the application from Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board for land owner approval to extend the existing childhood centre at 25R Othello Drive, Ōtara into the Israel Drainage Reserve.

Comments

Background

8. Israel Drainage Reserve comprises three land parcels, Part lot 216 DP 76719 (Bare land), Part Lot 216 DP 76719 (containing the building) and Lot 297 DP 88194. The parcel of land described as Part Lot 216 DP 76719 (Bare land) is held by Auckland Council in fee simple as a classified recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

9. Israel Drainage Reserve is located off Othello Drive, Ōtara. The land parcels were vested as recreation reserve on deposit of subdivision plan DP76719 in 1975. Lot 297 88194 was vested as a local purpose reserve (access and drainage) reserve on deposit of subdivision plan DP 88194 in 1979. These land parcels provide a connection to James Watson Park.

10. In 1994, Part Lot 76719 was reclassified as local purpose (community buildings) reserve. This was to allow Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board to establish a building on the drainage reserve.

11. A renewal of lease was granted to the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board, dated 9 May 2017 for a term of ten years. The termination date being 30 April 2025.

12. Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga provides education to young children in the community and early learning of Te Reo Maori. Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga has identified what they believe is a need in the community to provide further spaces on their roll for children Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga has been providing early childhood care in the Ōtara community since 1982.

Proposal

13. Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board is proposing to extend the building footing to accommodate more children on its roll. The current site area is 723.13 square metres, and is proposed to increase to 934.37 square metres. The existing building area is 184.49 square metres and is proposed to increase to 274.89 square metres (Attachment A).

14. Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga is has been operating an early childcare centre out of the existing building on 25R Othello Drive, Ōtara since 1994. The Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga is licensed for 35 children for its current building, with a current roll of 24 children. The Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga is working towards increasing its roll to full capacity. If successful with the application the roll will increase to 50 children.

15. The proposal will encroach over Part Lot 216 DP 76719 (Bare land). This land classification is recreation reserve and does not provide for community buildings. A lease may be issued to Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga in the instance where the application is approved and reclassification may be completed, this reclassification will be at Auckland Council’s expense (Attachment B).

16. Staff from the Parks, Sport and Recreation Department were consulted as part of the application process and do not support the proposal as it will result in a loss of passive surveillance into the reserve from Othello Drive. The proposal presents a ‘hiding space’ for anti-social behaviour. The proposal is contrary to the open space management plan and reduces the future opportunity for the provision of recreational amenity (Attachment A).

17. Israel Drainage Reserve forms part of the adopted Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board’s Greenways Network Plan, which provides walking and cycling connections throughout the area. This connection is a high-value off-street corridor through green space, which is one of few in the area.

18. The recommendation to decline the application supports strategic alignment to the Ōtara- Papatoetoe Local Board outcomes 3: Parks and facilities that meet people’s needs and the directives of the Auckland Plan to improve pedestrian and cycle routes.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. Ōtara- Papatoetoe Local Board was sent the application for feedback on 27 July 2017. Two members responded with comments, these included that the proposed extension would further inhibit visibility into the reserve and has the potential to create safety issues. Recently issues in the area have been raised regarding sightlines within parks.

20. Part lot 216 DP 76719 (Bare land) will be required to be reclassified under the Reserves Act 1977 from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Community Buildings) to provide for the change in activity which is not of a recreational nature. This process will require the Ōtara- Papatoetoe Local Board to support the reclassification and the public notification process. The Community Facilities Department would cover the costs if funds are available as it is the department’s policy to not charge community groups the reclassification fees.

21. Local boards have the delegated decision-making authority to approve any application for landowner consent that is referred to the local board for a decision by the nominated local board portfolio holder and to grant leases within local community facilities in line with the Community Occupancy Guidelines.

Māori impact statement

22. Engagement with iwi identified as having an interest in the land in the Ōtara- Papatoetoe Local Board geographical area will be required as part of the proposal to alter the lease area.

23. At this time iwi have not been consulted as approval from the Ōtara-Papatoetoe has been sought first.

24. Council staff will undertake engagement with mana whenua regarding the extension to the childhood centre. This will involve email contact containing detailed information and inviting iwi representatives to hui and or for a kaitiaki site visit to comment on any spiritual, cultural or environmental impacts with respect to the proposal. Nine iwi have been identified as having interest in the site.

Implementation

25. If the local board supports the proposed building extension, council’s land advisory and community leasing staff will work with Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga to finalise the land owner approval and community lease.

26. If the local board declines the proposed building extension, council’s land advisory staff will advise Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga to work within the existing footprint or to investigate a new building design that does not reduce sightlines into the reserve.

27. The costs associated with public notification and engagement with iwi about council’s intention to grant a new community lease may be met by Community Facilities Department. This will require approval from the Manager, Land Advisory Services.

28. The costs associated with the reclassification of the recreation reserve may be met by the Community Facilities Department. This will require the Ōtara- Papatoetoe Local board to endorse a report to the Minister of Conservation delegate for approval.

29. Council staff will report back to the local board (prior to public notification of council’s intention to grant a new community lease to Te Kōhanga Reo o Te Kupenga on Othello Park for a decision or final approval.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Site Area Plans - 25R Othello Drive	29
b ⇩	Classifications of Israel Drainage Reserve	31

Signatories

Authors

George McMahon - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Auckland Transport Update - September 2017

File No.: CP2017/19402

Purpose

1. This report:

a) Provides an update on the current status of Local Board Transport Capital Fund

b) Responds to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters

c) Provides a summary of consultation material sent to the Board and

d) Provides transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report covers:

a) Progress on the current local board’s transport capital fund projects, streetscape upgrade in Hunters corner, completion of Rongomai walkway, canopy for Otara Town Centre, Welcome to Otara signage, footpath upgrade on East Tamaki Road, Otara Town Centre.

b) Responses to resolutions made by the local board on 18 July and 15 August 2018

c) Update on the progress of Manukau Bus Station

3. Update on the increase in rail patronage on the public transport network.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) Note the Auckland Transport update - September 2017 report.

Comments

Transport capital fund update

Project Updates

Table 1: Local Board Transport Capital Fund– Current projects

Project Name	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed	Current Status
Upgrade of Hunters Corner Streetscape	Degraded streetscape in Hunters Corner town centre, Papatoetoe.	Rough Order of Cost requested by the OPLB in August 2017 – currently under investigation. Findings will be reported back to the local board to decide whether this project will be advanced to the next stage in the process – Firm Order of Costs.
Completion of Rongomai Walkway	Incomplete pathway through Rongomai Park connecting to Te Irirangi Road.	Rough Order of Cost requested by the OPLB in August 2017 – currently under investigation. Findings will be reported back to the local board to decide whether this project will be advanced to the next stage in the process – Firm Order of Costs.
Canopy for Ōtara Town Centre	Canopy for area between Otara Music and Arts Centre and Fresh Gallery.	Rough Order of Cost requested by the OPLB in August 2017 – currently under investigation. Findings will be reported back to the local board to decide whether this project will be advanced to the next stage in the process – Firm Order of Costs.
Welcome to Ōtara sign	Lack of distinctive signage identifying entry into Ōtara suburb.	Rough Order of Cost requested by the OPLB in August 2017 – currently under investigation. Findings will be reported back to the local board to decide whether this project will be advanced to the next stage in the process – Firm Order of Costs.
Footpath upgrade on the East Tamaki Road	Grade of footpath in this area does not match upgraded footpaths in town centre.	Rough Order of Cost requested by the OPLB in August 2017 – currently under investigation. Findings will be reported back to the local board to decide whether this project will be advanced to the next stage in the process – Firm Order of Costs.

Financials update

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$1,880,041
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$0
Remaining budget left	$1,880,041

Responses to resolutions

4. The resolution is detailed below in italics followed by Auckland Transport’s response is in normal font.

Resolution number OP/2017/114

d) request Auckland Transport to advise the reason for the Election Signs Bylaw amendment proposing to delete the nine-week restriction on the display of election signs before an election, and in particular, whether the amendment means that election signs may be displayed for unlimited periods in future.

a) The AT Election Signs Bylaw amendment seeks to address in part, time restrictions of election signage on private sites as the previous position was potentially inconsistent with the Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

b) Prior to the next local body elections Auckland Transport will review the bylaw completely to provide clear guidelines for electoral signage on public sites. On public land, a time limit can be imposed via a resolution of the entity that controls the site. The locations of these approved Election Signs sites are detailed on Auckland Transport’s website.

c) It should be noted that the current national elections are carried out under Electoral Act 1993 which automatically sets an 8 week time limit for election signage.

5. Resolution number OP/2017/135

c) note that Auckland Transport is proposing to install food and drink vending machines at transport centres in the local board area, and request Auckland Transport to exclude products with high sugar content, to be consistent with the board’s policy for vending machines at Leisure Centres.

a) The local boards request is noted. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve customer amenity and convenience at public transport facilities, Auckland Transport are installing vending machines in partnership with Coca-Cola (Branded as Pump) and Sanitarium across the network.

b) Customers will be offered a broad range of breakfast, snack and cold drink products to choose from, while focusing on promoting healthier choices. This will be achieved by ensuring that healthy options benefit from high visibility and dominate the range of products on offer.

Upcoming projects and activities of interest to the board

Manukau Bus Station

6. Works are progressing on schedule for the completion of the Manukau Bus Station including fit-out and driver training early next year.

7. A site tour for local board members has been arranged for next month - October 2017.

8. For further information on the project, visit: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/manukau-bus.

Regional and sub-regional projects

Rail Patronage

9. Auckland’s commuter train network has surpassed its passenger forecasts to record 20 million train trips in one year recently, a mark that the network wasn’t expected to hit for another three years in 2020.

10. The past year has seen the opening of a new train station in Parnell, a bus-train interchange in Ōtāhuhu, improved links with our bus services and currently underway, the construction of the new Bus Station in Manukau due for completion in early 2018.

11. On average, train patronage has risen by nearly 20 percent each year and the number of services has increased by almost 11,000 in the last year with punctuality now at 96.7 per cent with the graph below indicating patronage growth till April of this year.

12. These improvements to the service through significant investment is helping to provide commuters with greater travel options than previously available and resulting in significant increases to patronage.

Consultation

13. Auckland Transport provides the local board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in this local board area.

14. In the reporting period for August 2017, only one project was put forward for comment by the local board. The project was for the installation of a pedestrian refuge island at 76 Swaffield Road Papatoetoe, including parking removal. A summary, the proposal and local board’s feedback is at Attachment A.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions

15. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions within the local board area are reported on a monthly basis

Table 2: Transport Control Committee Decisions

Street name

Type of Report

Nature of Restriction

Committee Decision

Puhinui Road / Kenderdine Road/ Bridge Street / Cambridge Terrace

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined

Cycle Lane, No Stopping At All Times, Cycle Path, Shared Path, Bus Stop, P15 Time-Restricted parking, P30 Time-Restricted parking, Lane Arrow markings, Bus Shelter, Flush Median, Shoulder Markings, Traffic Island, Give-Way control, Stop control, Traffic Signal, Pedestrian Signal, Pedestrian Crossing and Number of Lanes

Carried

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16. The local board’s views will be taken into account during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

17. 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.

Health and safety implications

18. Health and Safety is an inherent part of all Auckland Transport projects. Any specific concerns will be covered as part of individual project reporting.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of consultation information: Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board September 2017	39

Signatories

Authors

Kenneth Tuai – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement

File No.: CP2017/18793

Purpose

1. To seek the local board’s feedback on the 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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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

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	45

Signatories

Authors

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19181

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 Ōtara-Papatoetoe 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	61

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Nomination of candidate for the Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility (WIri Men's Prison) Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee

File No.: CP2017/18090

Purpose

1. Requesting the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board to nominate their candidate for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

Executive summary

2. The Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee (SIFAC) was established as a result of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) hearing relating to the planning designation for the new men’s prison located at Wiri, Manukau.

3. The Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee is administered by the Department of Corrections. Its purpose is to allocate, review and oversee the social impact fund which may accumulate to a maximum of $500,000.

4. Each triennium Auckland Council must appoint two representatives to the Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

5. The Environment and Community Committee has delegated making the appointment of the two Auckland Council representatives to the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

6. The Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards are being asked to put forward their preferred candidate for consideration by the subcommittee.

7. The candidate is required to provide a one page brief outline of what they bring to the role and why they should be considered.

Recommendation/s

That the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board:

a) nominate its preferred candidate for consideration by the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee

b) note that a one page brief outline of what the nominated candidate can bring to the role, and why they should be considered, is required.

Comments

8. The Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee (SIFAC) was established as a result of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) hearing relating to the planning designation for the new men’s prison located at Wiri, Manukau. The BOI’s decision included the following conditions:

· Condition 55 - “The Minister shall establish a Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee whose purpose is to allocate, review and oversee the funds made available by the Minister under condition 52(d) for the purposes recommended to it from the Community Impact Forum (CIF) and/or the Tangata Whenua Committee.”

· Condition 55(a) - “The SIFAC shall be chaired by the chairperson appointed to the CIF.”

· Condition 55(b) - “There shall be no more than 7 members of the SIFAC of whom at least 2 shall be appointed by the Minister (one of whom shall be appointed in consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs), at least 2 shall be appointed by the Council, and up to 2 may be co-opted by the SIFAC following its establishment.”

9. The Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee is administered by the Department of Corrections. Its purpose is to allocate, review and oversee the social impact fund.

10. The Minister of Corrections makes $250,000 available annually to avoid, remedy or mitigate identified social and cultural effects directly attributable to the Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility (ASCF) and Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility (ARWCF). Any unused allocation accumulates to a maximum of $500,000.

11. Refer to attachments A and B for more information about the Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee’s membership and purpose.

12. Each triennium Auckland Council must appoint two representatives to the Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

13. The Environment and Community Committee at its meeting held on 8 July 2017 resolved as follows:

Resolution number ENV/2017/1

MOVED by Cr E Collins, seconded by Cr J Walker:

That the Environment and Community Committee:

a) delegate making the appointment of two members to the Social Impact Fund Allocations Committee to an ad-hoc sub-committee comprising the chair, or deputy chair, of each of the Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards and up to two councillors from the southern wards.

b) refer to the sub-committee as the “Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee”.

c) appoint Cr A Filipaina and Cr D Newman from the southern wards to the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

d) note that the Independent Māori Statutory Board will have the right to make two appointments to the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

CARRIED

14. The Manurewa, Papakura, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards are being asked to put forward their preferred candidate for consideration by the subcommittee.

15. The candidate is required to provide a one page brief outline of what they bring to the role and why they should be considered.

16. The board is being asked to nominate its preferred candidate for consideration for the two Auckland Council representative roles on the Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. This report is requesting the board to nominate its candidate for consideration along with the Manurewa, Papakura, and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Boards’ candidates.

18. The appointment process for the two Auckland Council representatives will be undertaken by the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

Māori impact statement

19. This report has no specific impact on Māori. It covers the nomination of a local board candidate for consideration.

20. The Independent Māori Statutory Board has the option to put forward two representatives on the Environment and Community Committee’s Sub-committee to Make Appointments to the Wiri Prison Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee.

Implementation

21. There are no implementation issues as a result of the recommendations in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee membership and purpose	95
b ⇩	Kohuora Auckland South Corrections Facility Community Impact Forum and Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee role and position descriptions	97

Signatories

Authors

Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board

19 September 2017

Role Description: Member of Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee

Background

The Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee (SIFAC) is a newly established body resulting from the Board of Inquiry (BOI) hearing relating to the planning designation for the new men’s prison to be located at Wiri, Manukau. The BOI’s decision included the following conditions:

Condition 55 “The Minister shall establish a Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee whose purpose is to allocate, review and oversee the funds made available by the Minister under condition 52(d) for the purposes recommended to it from the Community Impact Forum (CIF) and/or the Tangata Whenua Committee.”

Condition 55(a) “The SIFAC shall be chaired by the chairperson appointed to the CIF.”

Condition 55(b) “There shall be no more than 7 members of the SIFAC of whom at least 2 shall be appointed by the Minister (one of whom shall be appointed in consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs), at least 2 shall be appointed by the Council, and up to 2 may be co-opted by the SIFAC following its establishment.”

In establishing the SIFAC, CIF and Tangata Whenua Committee (TWC) the Board was endeavouring to establish a structure that would ensure suitable consideration and mitigation of any effects of the Prison. The Board advised in its decision:

“We have considered the various proposals put forward and decided that a tripartite structure is most likely to be effective, being the CIF, TWC, and a committee responsible for final allocation decisions about the use of the social impact fund. That committee, to be known as the Social Impact Fund Allocation Committee (SIFAC) will be chaired by the chairperson of the CIF ….. will receive recommendations for funding from the CIF, and determine the project priorities and scheduling for allocations from the fund…”

For more information on the new men’s prison please refer to the Department’s website:

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/news-and-publications/wiri_project.html

Purpose of Role

The purpose of the SIFAC is to allocate, review and oversee funds made available to address social and/or cultural effects.

The establishment of this annual fund of “at least $250,000” is for the purposes of appropriately avoiding, remedying or mitigating identified social and/or cultural effects directly attributable to the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility (ARWCF) and the Men’s Corrections Facility (MCF).

Secretariat services for the SIFAC will be provided by the Community Liaison Manager (CLM), a Department employee.

Term of Office

The SIFAC members shall be appointed for a term of three years.

Remuneration

Under the Cabinet Office Fees Framework the SIFAC has been assessed as a Group 4, level 1 body. This equates to a daily fee for non-government SIFAC members of $375-$640. The Minister of Corrections has approved a daily rate of $450.

Key Responsibilities

· Evaluate and prioritise the recommendations of the CIF and TWC regarding the use of the Social Impact Fund.

· Interpret the SIMP to ensure that the decisions made will best address the social and cultural effects of the two correctional facilities.

· Communicate clearly to the CIF and TWC the reasoning for decisions made.

· Support the SIFAC Chairperson as required in preparing the annual report on the SIFAC’s activities for the Minister and the Department.

· Support the SIFAC Chairperson as required in meeting any other reporting obligations as agreed.

Criteria for appointment

Knowledge and experience

· Understanding of the Conditions relevant to their duties.

· Proven ability to make balanced and reasonable decisions.

· Proven ability to write in a concise and accurate manner.

· Experience in a decision-making role.

· Ability to cope with stressful situations and balance competing needs and views.

· Demonstrate interest and experience working with community based committees.

Decision-making and analytical skills

· Demonstrate financial acumen.

· Contribute and lead to sound, balanced and defensible decision making.

· Remain open minded and be willing to put aside their own opinions.

· Assimilate and assess competing information.

· Thoroughly analyse the information and quickly identify facts, opinions and key issues.

· Recognise when further critical information is required.

Environmental awareness

· An awareness, sensitivity and commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the role of both mana whenua and tangata whenua.

· Sensitivity and awareness of diversity within communities.

· Sensitivity and awareness of community and social issues.

· Ability to manage competing interests and work with a wide range of stakeholders with diverse and sometimes conflicting views.

· Ability to listen, articulate and understand others.

Chairperson	Lotu Fuli
Deputy Chairperson	Ross Robertson, QSO, JP
Members	Apulu Reece Autagavaia
	Dr Ashraf Choudhary, QSO, JP
	Mary Gush
	Donna Lee
	Donna Lee
	Dawn Trenberth

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop Notes - 1 August 2017	117
b ⇩	Workshop Notes - 8 August 2017	119
c ⇩	Workshop Notes - 22 August 2017	121
d ⇩	Workshop Notes - 29 August 2017	123

Authors	Carmen Fernandes - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager