Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 17 August 2017, as a true and correct.

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 Puketāpapa Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation: St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Inc - protecting Waititiko Meola Creek

Purpose

1. Elizabeth Walker, Chair of the St Lukes Environmental Protection Society Inc., will be in attendance to present to the Board on restoring and protecting Waititiko Meola Creek and underlying aquifer.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the presentation on restoring and protecting Waititiko Meola Creek and thank Elizabeth Walker for her attendance.

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

Puketāpapa Local Grants Round One 2017/2018

File No.: CP2017/17512

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for Puketāpapa Local Grants Round One 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the Puketāpapa Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 16 March 2017. The document sets application guidelines for community contestable grants.

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

4. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $72,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $12,000, from this budget, was set for the three quick response grant rounds. A total of $60,000, from this budget, was set for the two local grant rounds.

5. In local grant round one, twenty one applications were received, requesting a total of $76,711 (see Attachment B).

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Local Grant Round One, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1815-103	The James Wallace Arts Trust	Towards the delivery of Pah Homestead Community Day 2017 on 30 September, specifically the cost of workshops; promotional fliers; and hire of a bouncy castle.	$1,956.00	Eligible
LG1815-109	Mika Haka Foundation	Towards the delivery and production cost of the Screen Pro Series summit 2017, from 24 October to 16 November 2017.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-110	NZ Dance Advancement Trust (Operating as The New Zealand Dance Company)	Towards creating and delivering the youth engagement programme to schools in the Puketāpapa Local Board area, from October 2017 to September 2018.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-101	The Parenting Place - Attitude Youth Division	Towards delivering 18 mental health presentations to four schools in the Puketāpapa local board, including providing 914 handbooks from January to November 2018.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-108	Communicare CMA (Ak) Incorporated	Towards the cost of venue hire for the Hillsborough Friendship Centre, from October 2017 to October 2018.	$2,100.00	Eligible
LG1815-112	ADHD Association Incorporated	Towards the delivery of ADHD Awareness Day 2017, specifically the cost of venue hire on 29 October 2017.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-114	Te Karanga Charitable Trust	Towards the delivery of a 12-week multicultural youth development program, specifically the cost of facilitators wages, stationary and equipment, from October to December 2017.	$4,920.00	Eligible
LG1815-118	Winstone Park Tennis Club Incorporated	Towards the purchase of an automated external defibrillator for park users.	$3,600.00	Eligible
LG1815-122	Auckland Sexual Abuse HELP Foundation Trust	Towards creating and implementing plan to meet the needs of Pasifika, refugee and migrant survivors and their families in the Puketāpapa area, specifically the cost of the Crisis Service Manager, from October to December 2017.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-123	Auckland Young Women's Christian Association Incorporated t/a YWCA Auckland	Towards sponsoring two young women to participate in one year of YWCA Auckland's Future Leaders Programme, from September 2017 to August 2018.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG1807-105	LifeKidz Trust	Towards running the after school/school holiday programme and community participation programme, specifically the wages of youth workers, and activity resources, from October 2017 to January 2018.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1807-111	Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind	Towards the purchase of multi-licence digital talking books for people affected by blindness and low-vision.	$1,000.00	Eligible
LG1801-104	Chirag Jindal under the umbrella of New Zealand Speleological Society	Towards contribution of archival grade 2D printing; 3D printing scale-replica fabrication; exhibition mounting; and advertisement for Into the Underworld exhibition.	$2,250.00	Eligible
LG1815-102	5Tunz Communications Ltd T/A HummFM	Towards the delivery of Holi - Festival of Colours 2018 on 3 March 2018, specifically the cost of port-a-loos, waste management, park permit, security and marquees.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-104	Tri Star Gymnastics Club Incorporated	Towards the delivery of Disability Gymnastics Programme, a subsidised gymnastics programme for those affected by disabilities, from July 2017 to December 2018.	$4,600.00	Eligible
LG1815-105	Shager Ethiopian Entertainment NZ Incorporated	Towards delivery of weekly sporting activities, specifically the cost of hall and field hire, and purchase of sports gear.	$4,400.00	Eligible
LG1815-113	Kumar Laxman	Towards the cost of hiring Fickling Convention Centre for a yoga and healthy lifestyle festival, on 16 December 2017.	$995.00	Eligible
LG1815-116	May Road School	Towards bikes in school project, specifically the purchase of a small fleet of bikes, helmets and a secure facility for storage.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-121	HockeyFirst Limited	Towards developing digital content on cricket bat making and servicing, from October 2017 to April 2018.	$4,890.00	Eligible
LG1815-107	Rotary Club of Hillsborough / Lynfield / Mt Roskill Inc.	Towards building a community shelter at War Memorial Park.	$5,000.00	Ineligible: unable to be funded through community grant
LG1811-111	OneTree House Limited	Towards costs of development of translations and the design requirements for print ready artwork.	$5,000.00	Ineligible: submitted after round closing date
Total			$76,711.00

Comments

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

7. The local board grants programme sets out:

· Local board priorities

· Lower priorities for funding

· Exclusions

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

· Any additional accountability requirements.

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

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

10. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $72,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $12,000, from this budget, was set for the three quick response grant rounds. A total of $60,000, from this budget, was set for the two local grant rounds.

11. It is recommended that the local board allocate up to $30,000 (41.6% of the total budget) in this grant round.

12. In local grant round one, twenty one applications were received, requesting a total of $76,711 (see Attachment B).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

15. A summary of each application received through Local Grant Round One is attached, see Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

16. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori. One applicant has identified their organisation as Māori and three organisations have indicated their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Implementation

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

18. Following the Puketāpapa Local Board allocating funding for Local Grant Round One, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	33
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Grant Round One 2017/2018 application information	37

Signatories

Authors

Sara Chin - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Fran Hayton - Environmental Funding Advisor

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

PDF Creator

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

Adoption of the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017

File No.: CP2017/16955

Purpose

1. To adopt the final version of the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017.

Executive summary

2. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 each local board is required to adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017.

3. The Act also requires local board plans to be developed using the special consultative procedure. The consultation period for the 2017 local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June.

4. The local board have considered submissions received and feedback gathered from the consultation period. As a result of this consideration, the following changes are proposed:

Outcome: Connected communities with a sense of belonging

· Increase emphasis on cultural diversity, age-friendly approaches and working with mana whenua and mataawaka

· Strengthen initiative that about working with mana whenua to seeking mutually beneficial outcomes. Include a new initiative about supporting mataawaka

· Emphasise need for community space and art

· Emphasise that support will be given to children, young people, seniors and culturally diverse communities so they can contribute to local decision-making and leadership

· Remove specific reference to the Whare fundraising trust and replace with broader expression of support for heritage restoration

· New key initiative that welcomes the recording of the heritage of all cultures

Outcome: Improved wellbeing and safety

· Increase emphasis on new migrants, seniors and sports groups

· Broaden the reference to community harm to include family violence. Note the need to enforce harm reduction strategies

· Add a new initiative for smoke-free and alcohol-free clauses in council facility leases

· Broaden description of Healthy Puketapapa Action Plan to include healthy housing and harm reduction

Outcome: Thriving local economy and good job opportunities

· Remove second reference to Youth Connections and add Wise Women Catering Collective as an example

· Remove reference to the business survey, which will become dated

Outcome: Transport choices meet our varied travel needs

· Expand key initiatives to include need for bus lanes and stops and high quality footpaths

· Add new objective “More environmentally sensitive transport” and key initiative “Fund local environmental initiatives, such as natural stormwater detention and advocate for low emission transport”

Outcome: Urban development meets community needs

· Strengthen reference to affordable housing

· Strengthen the reference to coordination between developers, Council, schools and community for housing developments

· Reword the Liston Village initiative to note that, once purchased, the site may need to be reconfigured and that the housing should be managed by Council for use by seniors

· Include the identification of heritage trees and investigation of pedestrian links as part of the implementation of the Three Kings Plan

· Remove reference to maximising benefit of light rail (as this will be implemented in the future)

· Add initiative about spatial planning in Stoddard Road

· Replace the commitment to undertake a Three Kings masterplan, with a further consideration of this idea

Outcome: Vibrant and popular parks and facilities

· Delete reference to growth driving investment, as it is noted as a challenge

Outcome: Treasured and enhanced natural environment

· Note the work of the St Lukes Environmental Protection Society on Waititiko/ Meola Creek and the need for restoration of the awa to be across local board boundaries

· Expand the key initiative to include specific reference to support for the Manukau Harbour Forum and projects

· Separate the key initiative for the harbour from awa and note the need to work across local board boundaries

5. The Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017, which includes proposed changes, is attached to this report.

6. Pending adoption of the plan, photos and other design features will be added to prepare it for publication.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) adopts Attachment A as the final Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017

b) delegate authority to the Chair to approve any minor edits that may be necessary.

Comments

7. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan every three years. This means that the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 must be adopted by 31 October 2017.

8. Local board plans are strategic plans for the following three years and beyond. The plans reflect the priorities and preferences of the community. They guide how the local board:

· makes decisions on local activities and projects

· provides input into regional strategies and policies.

9. The plans form the basis for development of the annual local board agreement for the following three financial years and subsequent work programmes. They also inform the development of council’s 10-year budget.

10. Under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 local boards are required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan. The consultation period ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

11. Submissions were made through the following channels and coded together:

· online form available on the Shape Auckland website

· hard copy form included in the household summary document

· via email or post.

12. In total, 147 submissions were received on the draft Puketapapa Local Board Plan 2017 via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post. In addition, 18 people provided feedback at formal engagement events and 27 pieces of feedback were gathered through Facebook. This written feedback is supported by the numerous conversations between board members and their communities about the draft local board plan, throughout the consultation period. Two submitters requested to speak to the board.

Consideration of submissions and feedback

13. The board has considered the submissions and feedback gathered. They received data analysis reports and all submissions and feedback to read on 8 August 2017 and held a workshop to discuss this on 10 and 24 August 2017.

14. Public feedback on the draft plan was generally positive although some feedback was given concerning things people didn’t like about the draft or thought were missing. Key feedback points are outlined in the table below. Analysis of these points, and any resulting substantive proposed changes to the outcome chapters, are outlined in the corresponding columns.

Key public feedback points

Rationale

Proposed changes

Outcome: Connected communities with a sense of belonging

· Request from Waikato Tainui for support for their outcomes

· Strong messages about the support needed for ethnic communities, children, young people and seniors. Seeking places to meet and work and also leadership training. Noting desire of these communities to contribute

· Requests for reflections of culture through, art, heritage and events by a range of groups, including from Maori

· The board met with Waikato Tainui to discuss its aspirations. It can see the potential for working towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

· Feedback supports existing initiatives but wants them to be strengthened. Of note are the requests by many ethnic groups for reflections of their culture and the need for support, in order to participate in democratic processes. Recommend that the initiatives are strengthened in response to these submissions

To narrative

· Changes that emphasise cultural diversity, age-friendly approaches and mana whenua outcomes

To initiatives

· Change initiative to seek mutually beneficial outcomes with mana whenua

· Emphasise need to work with and support mataawaka

· Emphasise need for community space and art

· Emphasise that support will be given to children, young people, seniors and culturally diverse communities so they can contribute to local decision-making and leadership

· Remove specific reference to Whare fundraising trust and replace with broader expression of support for heritage restoration

· New initiative that welcomes recording the heritage of all cultures

Outcome: Improved wellbeing and safety

· Strong feedback from migrant communities / agencies, youth and seniors.

· Extensive submissions from sport advocacy and health promotion groups. Strong support, and willingness to work on, the proposed Healthy Puketapapa Action Plan

· Detailed suggestions from health and sports can be incorporated into the Healthy Puketapapa Action Plan and implemented through future annual work programmes. They are also a valuable resource for the board, when they are making submissions on these topics

To narrative

· Increase emphasis on new migrants and seniors

· Increase reference to sports groups

To initiatives

· Broaden the reference to community harm to include family violence. Note the need to enforce harm reduction strategies

· Add a new initiative for smoke-free and alcohol-free clauses in council facility leases

· Broaden description of Healthy Puketapapa Action Plan to include healthy housing and harm reduction

Outcome: Thriving local economy and good job opportunities

· Minor changes sought

· Minor changes recommended

· Remove second reference to Youth Connections and add Wise Women Catering Collective as an example

· Remove reference to survey, which will become dated

Outcome: Transport choices meet our varied travel needs

· Feedback sought increased provision of public transport and mitigations of the adverse environmental effects of transport

· Recommend broadening the initiative for bus services

· Recommend a new objective and initiative that seek low emission transport

To initiatives

· Expand key initiatives to include need for bus lanes and stops and high quality footpaths

Outcome: Urban development meets community needs

· Numerous submissions focussed on the provision of healthy and affordable housing

· Support for vibrant town centres, including Stoddard Road shops, but limited support for the Three Kings masterplan work (largely due to insufficient information about what cost-benefits)

· Recommend that the references to affordable housing are strengthened and that the initiative about Liston Village is clarified to be about the provision of housing for seniors

· Suggest adding Stoddard Road shops spatial planning

· Suggest reducing the commitment to a Three Kings masterplan, pending further information about the cost and likely trade-offs

· Suggest removing the reference to maximising benefit of light rail, as this will be implemented in the future

To narrative

· Strengthen reference to affordable housing

To initiatives

· Strengthen the reference to coordination between developers, Council, schools and community for housing developments

· Reword the Liston Village initiative to note that the purchase is underway and the board seeks that these units be provided for seniors

· Include the identification of heritage trees and investigation of pedestrian links as part of the implementation of the Three Kings Plan

· Remove reference to maximising benefit of light rail

· Add initiative about spatial planning in Stoddard Road

· Replace the commitment to undertake a Three Kings masterplan, with a further consideration of this

Outcome: Vibrant and popular parks and facilities

· Minor changes sought

· Minor changes recommended

To narrative

· Delete reference to growth driving investment, as it is noted as a challenge

Outcome: Treasured and enhanced natural environment

· Strong community feedback that there needs to be a coordinated effort between local boards to protect and restore awa and the harbour

· Recommend that the plan should further emphasise the need for local boards to work together to protect and restore awa on the isthmus and the Manukau Harbour

To narrative

· Note the work of the St Lukes Environmental Protection Society on Waititiko Meola Creek and the need for restoration of the awa to be across local board boundaries

To initiatives

· Expand the key initiative to include specific reference to support for the Manukau Harbour Forum and projects

· Separate the key initiative for the harbour from awa and note the need to work across local board boundaries

Changes to the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017

15. The Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017, with proposed substantive changes to the outcome chapters as described in the above table, is attached to this report as Attachment A.

16. Other minor changes, made for the purposes of clarification, are also included.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The local board’s views have driven the development of the plan attached to this report.

18. In developing the plan, the board considered:

· what we already know about our communities and what is important to them

· submissions received via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post as well as feedback provided by people at engagement events and gathered through Facebook.

· regional strategies and policies

· staff advice

· written submissions from the following groups:

o Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Nga Maungarongo

o Roskill South Oasis

o Roskill Together

o Migrant Action Trust/Auckland Resettlement Community Coalition

o Springleigh Residents Association

o Auckland Cricket Association

o Sport Auckland

o Auckland Grey Power Association Inc

o Heathy Auckland Together

o Te Whakakitenga O Waikato-Tainui

o ATWC (Engage Priority Families)

o Auckland Rugby Union

o Cancer Society Auckland Northland

o The Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Creative NZ

o Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust

o STEPS- St. Lukes Environmental Protection Society

o Earth Action Trust

o Somali Kiwi Association Incorporated

o Mt. Roskill (Puketapapa) Historical Society

o The Umma Trust

o Te Manawanui Trust

o Love Our Libraries

o HLC (Homes, Land, Community)

o Auckland Regional Migrant Services (ARMS)

o The Tree Council Inc.

o Auckland Central Volleyball Club

o Auckland Resettlement Community Coalition and the Auckland Resettlement Sector Steering Group

o EcoMatters Environmental Trust

o Auckland Curling Club

o Age Concern

o Spray Free Streets (proforma)

o Mt Roskill Grammar School students (focus group)

o Local youth group (from the development of a Puketapapa Youth Action Plan)

o A local children’s group (from the development of a Puketapapa Childrens’ Action Plan and Children’s Panels)

o Lynfield College (a school focus group)

Māori impact statement

19. As part of developing the plan, the board have:

· considered views expressed by mana whenua authorities at a sub-regional governance level hui and local level one-on-one hui

· responded to a request to be heard by Te Whakakitenga O Waikato-Tainui by inviting them to speak to a local board workshop on 24 August. The local board Chair has also offered to visit the Chair of the iwi to discuss ways to strengthen their relationship.

· considered pre-existing feedback from Māori within the local board area

· engaged with mataawaka by holding a targeted event during the consultation period with Maori families from a local kura kaupapa school (Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Nga Maungarongo).

20. The Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 promotes outcomes or issues of importance to Māori with the following initiatives:

· Support initiatives that respond effectively to Māori aspirations and ensure Māori tikanga (custom) and culture is woven into local events and facilities e.g. by funding cultural impact assessments and working with mana whenua on key projects

· Build relationships with mana whenua to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes

· Respond to opportunities to work with and support mataawaka

· Continue to support a programme of unique local arts and events that reflects cultural diversity

· Contribute to our visible/audible multicultural landscape by welcoming approaches from different communities to record their heritage

· Support the creation and enforcement of council and government policies that reduce harm caused by alcohol, smoking, gambling or family violence

· Implementing local harm reduction policies, such as smoke-free and alcohol-free clauses in council facility leases.

· Develop the Healthy Puketāpapa Action Plan, including strategies to promote wellbeing through access to water, healthy food, sport and recreation, healthy housing, and less use of harmful substances

· Support organisations that help people make the move into education, self-employment or the workforce e.g. by providing driver licence training

· Work closely with developers of social housing, such as Housing New Zealand or private developers, along with local schools and community groups to ensure the delivery of community-centred housing

· Work with mana whenua, the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, schools, community groups, and other local boards to improve environmental health and community connection to natural features e.g. supporting a biodiversity strategy for Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta

· Support schools and community groups to empower people to become kaitiaki of the environment

· Support the Manukau Harbour Forum and projects that improve the health and amenity of the harbour and coastline

· Support projects and restoration strategies that improve the health and amenity of waterways, including those that flow through other local board areas, and seek funding in the 10-year budget for further naturalisation of the upper catchment of Te Auaunga/Oakley Creek

Implementation

21. Pending adoption of the plan, minor edits may be necessary. This report recommends that responsibility for approving these are delegated to the Chair.

22. Photos and other design features will then be added to the plan to prepare it for publication.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017	111

Signatories

Authors	Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

Puketāpapa Greenways Review Plan

File No.: CP2017/18476

Purpose

1. To seek adoption of the Puketāpapa Greenways Review Plan, and endorsement of the priority routes listed within the plan.

Executive summary

2. The Puketāpapa Local Board commissioned a review of the existing Puketāpapa Greenways Plan, to be undertaken in 2016/2017.

3. This review aimed to provide a summary of work completed so far, identify what is missing from the network, and present priorities for future implementation.

4. A consultant worked with staff from both Parks Services and Auckland Transport to undertake this review, with additional input from the local board and Mana Whenua.

5. Identified routes were prioritised based on several criteria, and classified into three groups, i.e. high priority, advocacy, and long term routes.

6. A final draft of the Puketāpapa Greenways Review Plan, proposed for adoption, is attached (Attachment A, dated 5 September 2016).

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) adopt the Puketāpapa Greenways Review Plan as presented in Attachment A to this report.

b) endorse the priority routes outlined within the plan.

Comments

Background

7. The Puketāpapa Local Board commissioned and formally adopted the Puketāpapa Greenways Plan in 2012. This was the first document of its kind in Auckland. This plan detailed a connected network of safe walking and cycling paths used by the local community for active transport and recreation, underpinned by a desire to improve the local ecology.

8. Implementation of this plan since 2013 has resulted in a strong network of local paths for cyclists and pedestrians through Puketāpapa, including the notable Mount Roskill Safe Routes cycleway.

9. Since this time, other local boards have followed suit with their own greenways plans. Presently there are 18 similar plans either adopted, or in development across the 21 local board areas of Auckland.

Greenways Review

10. In 2016, the Puketāpapa Local Board committed funding to a review of the greenways plan in order to summarise what has been completed, identify what is missing from the network, and prioritise next steps for implementation.

11. This also provided an opportunity to give consideration to recent developments at a regional level that were not a part of the original thinking. This included the Unitary Plan, Auckland Transport Network Plans, the Local Paths Design Guide, and Greenways Plans developed in neighbouring local board areas.

Route Prioritisation

12. Each of the suggested routes for implementation was scored out of 10 from an environmental, transport and recreation perspective, in order to give weighting to possible benefits.

13. Initial feedback from the local board indicated a preference for a prioritised list for implementation which would inform future budget allocation.

14. Further prioritisation took place with staff from the Auckland Transport Planning for Walking and Cycling team. At this stage, particular weighting was given to the commuter potential of each of the routes, as well as potential benefits for recreation.

15. Members agreed that some of the suggested routes would be too expensive to be delivered by the local board alone, or sat outside their remit. Therefore, a system which prioritised routes into high priority, long term, and advocacy routes was implemented.

16. Prioritised routes are listed below:

High priority routes:

· Connections to Mt Roskill Shops and Dominion Road Transport Hub.

· Te Tātua-a-Riukuita - Big King Accessibility Links.

· Connection between Te Tātua-a-Riukuita – Three Kings and One Tree Hill Domain.

· Connection between Monte Cecilia Park and One Tree Hill Domain.

· Connection between Three Kings and Monte Cecilia Park and Mt Roskill School Campus.

· Connection from the SH20 Cycleway at Hillsborough Rd to Monte Cecilia Park.

Advocacy routes:

· SH20 Cycleway to Lynfield Youth and Leisure Centre Via White Swan Road & Maioro Road to Lynfield Recreation Centre.

· Link to Hillsborough Cemetery from Keith Hay Park.

· Monte Cecilia Parks.

· Quiet Street Zones.

Long term routes:

· City Link along Buckley Road and The Drive.

· Lynfield to Wattle Reserve Link.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. The Puketāpapa Local Board allocated $8,000 from their LDI OPEX budget on 30 June 2016 towards development of the Greenways Review Plan (resolution # PKTPP/2016/144).

18. Workshops were held with the full board to discuss the plan on 14 December 2016 and again on 30 March 2017. Additionally, Parks Services staff met with the local board’s Green Cluster Forum on 22 February 2017. Additional meetings took place with the Infrastructure Cluster Forum on 10 May 2017 and 12 July 2017.

19. Through these meetings the local board helped to refine the list of priority projects, of which a final list was presented in a joint Auckland Transport/Parks Services presentation to the Infrastructure Cluster on 12 July 2017.

20. Further investment into the Greenways network will have number of benefits for local communities. Improved infrastructure will result in increased usage for both recreation and active transport purposes, resulting in a community who are ‘more active more often’, and healthier as a result. Environmental benefits through street greening will also have a number of benefits for the local ecology and will help to mitigate climate change.

21. Delivery of priority routes identified in the Greenways Review Plan will help to meet the following objectives from the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017:

· An expanded network of safe and well-connected walking and cycling routes

· An accessible network of open spaces that provides a variety of sports and recreational opportunities

22. All future projects identified within the plan will be workshopped with the local board through design and implementation.

Māori impact statement

23. Mana Whenua were engaged throughout the development of the plan. The document was discussed at the Parks, Sport and Recreation Kaitiaki Forum in both February 2017 and May 2017. No groups indicated that they wished to be involved further in the development of this plan. It was noted that further involvement was anticipated during the implementation phase of the priority routes identified.

24. The greenways plan identifies potential future projects for continued implementation of the greenways plan. Mana Whenua will be engaged to provide cultural input when relevant projects are initiated.

25. It is suggested in the document that future naming of key routes from the Puketāpapa Greenways Plan should reference pre-European pathways through the area. This will help to reflect the importance of Mana Whenua as kaitiaki (guardians) of the land, and Auckland Council’s desire to deliver the vision of the world’s most liveable city, including a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world.

Other consultation

26. During development of the Greenways Review Plan, the author met with the chairs of both the neighbouring Albert-Eden and Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Boards, in order to ensure that strategic outcomes were aligned to facilitate active transport between local board areas. Both chairs were positive about working with the Puketāpapa Local Board towards an integrated greenways network.

27. Auckland Transport was consulted throughout the development of the plan, and had particular input during the prioritisation stage. Specific comments were received from the Transport Planning for Walking and Cycling team.

Implementation

28. Should the Greenways Review Plan be adopted, priority routes will be implemented in a staged manner following further consultation with the Puketāpapa Local Board and other stakeholders, further investigation and design, and funding allocation from the local board LDI Capex budget or Transport Capital Fund.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Greenways Network Review Plan Final	147

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Dixon - Parks & Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/17320

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

· restriction for the hours of delivery for remote sellers

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

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

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

· delete, amend or replace the element or

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) provides formal feedback on the options for elements to be reconsidered.

Comments

Background

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

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

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

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

Table 1: Elements for council decision making and whether to delete, amend, replace or appeal

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

· delete the unreasonable element from the Alcohol Policy

· amend or replace the unreasonable element in the Alcohol Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

· participation in the joint political working party

· provided feedback at the issues and options stage of the project through individual workshops in 2013

· provided feedback on the staff position paper in 2013

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

Māori impact statement

21. The local alcohol policy seeks to improve the health of all our communities, including Māori.

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement

File No.: CP2017/18445

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 Puketāpapa 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	231

Signatories

Authors

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM - Auckland Plan Strategy & Research

Karen Lyons - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

21 September 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19179

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 Puketāpapa 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