Agenda of Devonport-Takapuna 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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 19 September 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 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Public Forum - 2 The Strand, Takapuna

Purpose

1. The purpose of this public forum item is to address the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board regarding number 2 The Strand, Takapuna.

Executive summary

2. Ruth Ell will be in attendance to address the board regarding number 2 The Strand, Takapuna.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) receive the presentation from Ruth Ell and thank her for her attendance.

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.

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna

File No.: CP2017/21352

Purpose

1. To seek Devonport-Takapuna Local Board’s views on the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna from a single-level asphalt car park to a mixed use development. This would involve the sale and subsequent development of parts of the site as approved by the Auckland Development Committee in March 2016.

2. To provide an overview of submissions received during the public consultation on the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna.

Executive summary

3. The properties approved by the Auckland Development Committee in March 2016 for the Unlock Takapuna project include 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna. This property is currently a 250-space car park located in the centre of Takapuna between Anzac Street and Lake Road, adjacent to Potters Park.

4. In March 2016 the Auckland Development Committee endorsed the Takapuna High Level Project Plan and granted Panuku the authority to dispose selected properties in Takapuna for the purpose of achieving urban renewal and housing (the “Unlock Takapuna” project).

· Picture 1: 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna

5. There is a legal obligation for council, under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, to consult on any proposal to use 40 Anzac Street for a non-car park purpose, which includes the sale of the land.

6. The Statement of Proposal: Proposed Change of Use of 40 Anzac Street Takapuna is presented at Attachment A.

7. The consultation period for the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna ran from 7 August to 4 September 2017.

8. A total of 2,061 submissions were received on the proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post.

9. The change of use of 40 Anzac Street from a single-level asphalt car park to an area of mixed development was supported by 838 submissions (41%) and opposed by 1,183 submissions (57%). 31 submitters (2%) neither supported nor opposed the proposal.

10. Submitters responded on a number of common themes which included market activity, car parking, open space and public use, development and design outcomes, land sale and the consultation process. Details of each of these themes are provided in the body of this report.

11. The Regulatory Committee appointed a hearing panel at its 10 August meeting.

12. The hearing panel will receive all the submissions and hear any submitters that wish to speak in support of their submission. Hearings are being held on 4 and 5 October 2017.

13. Following the hearings, a recommendation from the hearing panel will be reported back to the Planning Committee for a decision on the change of use of 40 Anzac Street.

14. If the proposed change of use is approved, the next step would be to work with the communities of Takapuna on future planning for physical public spaces and their preferred uses and activities.

Recommendation

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide its views on the change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna.

Comments

15. On 25 June 1963 the Local Authorities Loans Board approved a proposal by the Takapuna City Council to raise a loan for the purpose of purchasing and developing land in central Takapuna for off-street parking.

16. 40 Anzac Street was purchased with a “special loan” that was paid off by a separate rate being charged to the commercial properties in the Takapuna central area.

17. The separate rate does not give the ratepayers any substantive rights or interests in respect of 40 Anzac Street. However, the separate rate, and the history of the car park in general, has given rise to an obligation on the council’s part to consult in respect of any proposal to deal with the land in a new way.

Public consultation

18. Consultation on the proposal to change the use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna was open from 7 August to 4 September and submissions were accepted until 8 September 2017.

19. The proposal was publicly notified on 3 August 2017 in the North Shore Times and NZ Herald. In addition a media release was sent on 8 August, advertisements were placed in the North Shore Times on 15 August and 31 August, information adverts were placed in the Channel Magazine in the August and September and there was an article in the September version of Our Auckland.

20. Emails with consultation materials were sent to stakeholder groups that had been part of early engagement at the start of 2017. The groups emailed were:

· Auckland North Community and Development (ANCAD)

· Environment Takapuna

· Generation Zero

· Physically Disabled and Able Bodied Assn Inc (PHAB)

· Apartment residents (Sentinel and Maison)

· Takapuna central residents group

· YOUNITE (Devonport-Takapuna Youth Board)

· Barry’s Point Business Association

· Takapuna Beach Business Association

· The Sunday Market operators

· All the members of the former Greater Takapuna Reference Group.

21. Mana whenua with an interest in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area were also notified of the consultation on the 4 August 2017. This included the following iwi:

· Ngai Tai ki Tamaki

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Tamatera

· Ngāti Te Ata

· Ngaati Whanaunga

· Ngāti Whatua Orakei

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Te Patukirikiri

· Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

· Ngāti Manuhiri

· Ngāti Rehua

· Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

22. Two public information sessions were held at the Takapuna Boating Club during the consultation period. One was during the evening on Wednesday 16 August. The other was in the morning on Saturday 19 August.

23. A number of hard copies of the feedback form were made available at the Takapuna council service centre and the Takapuna Library. Panuku provided additional forms to all staff and local board members as requested to ensure availability for the public.

24. Information and feedback forms were distributed via post to all residents and tenants in the 0622 postcode, all property owners in the Takapuna commercial area and all contributors to the Takapuna Off-Street Carpark Reserve Fund that were able to be located.

25. Hearings of submissions were scheduled on Wednesday 4 and Thursday 5 October 2017, at the Takapuna Council Chamber.

26. The regulatory committee resolved at its 10 August meeting (resolution REG/2017/756 included refer Attachment B) to appoint Cr Cooper (hearing chairperson), Cr Hulse, Cr Clow and independent Māori Statutory Board member Wilcox as the hearings panel. Cr. Hulse is unavailable for the hearings and has been replaced with Cr Stewart under the chairperson’s delegation.

27. The consultation feedback form is included for reference at Attachment B.

Summary of submissions

28. A total of 2,061 submissions were received. 160 submitters wished to speak to their submissions.

29. A feedback overview report is included refer Attachment C.

30. The tables below include demographics of submitters who provided demographic information.

Ethnicity of submitters:

Ethnicity	#	%
European	1,143	90%
Maori	63	5%
Pacific	18	1%
Asian	76	6%
African/Middle Eastern/Latin	24	2%
Other	18	1%
Total submitters providing data	1,263

Age and gender of submitters:

Age	Male	Female	Diverse	#	%
< 15	0	0	0	0	0%
15 – 24	29	38	0	67	5%
25 - 34	56	94	1	152	12%
35 - 44	90	101	0	192	15%
45 - 54	80	150	1	235	18%
55 - 64	96	137	0	240	19%
65 - 74	95	154	0	258	20%
75 +	55	54	0	119	9%
Total submitters providing data				1,263

31. The change of use of 40 Anzac Street from a single-level asphalt car park to an area of mixed development was supported by 838 submissions (41%) and opposed by 1,183 submissions (57%). 31 submitters (2%) neither supported nor opposed the proposal.

32. Many submissions contained more than one theme.

Market activity

33. The theme most mentioned in submissions was in regards to providing enough open space to keep the markets. A total of 44% of submissions referred to this theme. 30% of those submitters supported the proposal while 14% opposed the proposal.

34. 2% of submissions included a comment that the market should continue at a new location and a few submissions mentioned that better facilities should be provided for markets.

Car parking and transport

35. There were various themes regarding car parking. These are split into the following comments:

Comments on car parking theme	Percent of submissions
Less or no parking on 40 Anzac Street	30%
Keep the car park	21%
40 Anzac Street should provide more parking	9%
Parking should go underground	4%
Supports the Gasometer site for alternative parking	2%
Do not support Gasometer for alternative parking	2%

36. A number of submissions also mentioned other modes of transport. 4% of submissions included comments on improving and promoting public transport and 2% of submissions included comments on improving and promoting walking and cycling options.

Open space and public use

37. Comments on open space and public use were reflected in a number of submissions with 17% of the submissions stating that open space should be retained or improved and 2% of the submissions supporting redeveloping space for public use. In addition a small number of submissions noted concern about surrounding reserve/gardens.

Development and design outcomes

38. There were various themes regarding future development and design outcomes. These include the following comments:

Comments	Percent of submissions
Ensure development has a high sustainability rating	28%
No more apartments/high-rise development	7%
Quality design and accessibility	6%
Keep the character of Takapuna	4%
Housing and infrastructure	3%
Environmental concerns	1%

Land sale

39. Comments by 13% of submissions related to selling public land and 2% stated a belief that it is not council land to sell.

Consultation process

40. A total of 5% of the submissions commented concern about the process and 2% of the submitters felt there was a lack of information.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. This report is to seek local board views on the proposed change of use for 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna.

Māori impact statement

42. Mana whenua were made aware of the consultation obligation which has been discussed at multiple workshops at the initial planning stages of the Unlock Takapuna project.

43. The consultation information and feedback form were sent to mana whenua for them to submit their views and comments on the proposal.

44. If the proposal is approved by the Planning Committee, Panuku will work with mana whenua on the future planning for physical public spaces and preferred uses and activities on 40 Anzac Street.

Implementation

45. Implementation is dependent on the Planning Committee decision in November.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Statement of Proposal: Proposed change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna	15
b ⇩	Consultation feedback form for change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna	17
c ⇩	Summary of consultation - change of use of 40 Anzac Street, Takapuna	21

Signatories

Authors

Kate Cumberpatch - Development Manager

Carlos Rahman - Local Board Engagement Advisor

Authorisers

Clive Fuhr - Project Development Director Central

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Proposed Shore Exhibition Centre, 2 The Strand, Takapuna: Project Review

File No.: CP2017/18033

Purpose

1. To outline the findings of an independent review of the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust their to establish an exhibition centre at 2 The Strand, Takapuna.

Executive summary

2. The Shore Exhibition Centre Trust (the Trust) has signalled its desire to restore the building at 2 The Strand and for its adaptive reuse to a multi-purpose exhibition centre.

3. As part of a legacy project, North Shore City Council provided $300,000 funding to the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust to enable the Trust to advance the project through investigations and a feasibility analysis and to present a proposal based on those findings.

4. The Trust’s proposal is that 2 The Strand would be leased from council in a structurally-sound condition. The Trust would then convert the building into an exhibition centre, while maintaining the heritage of the building. In addition, the local board would be approached to provide a concurrent annual grant of $50,000 towards operating costs. The centre, the Shore Exhibition Centre (SEC), would be open to the public Wednesday to Sunday.

5. The local board sought definitive advice in response to the Trust’s proposal. Council staff commissioned Tattico Ltd. to conduct an independent review of the opportunities and feasibility of the proposal (refer to Attachment A).

6. The key findings of that report are:

a) The Trust is made up of committed, enthusiastic experts in the arts and community fields. If this proposal is to proceed, the existing membership of the Trust would need trustees with commercial and development skills.

b) The capital costs of upgrading the building are likely higher than envisaged by the Trust. Council would carry the risks of the core structural upgrades of the building.

c) The Trust’s proposed operations budget of $245,000 per annum would rely on $50,000 per annum from the local board and $150,000 per annum from philanthropic sources. Tattico Ltd, believes this budget is unrealistically low.

d) Arts budgets are limited with no or minimal prospect of additional funds. The Trust’s project would need to be funded from the reallocation of the local board’s other arts budgets. Local board arts partners who receive funding support are operating on very tight margins and there would be demonstrable impact on them if their funding lines were reduced to accommodate funding for an additional arts facility.

e) An exhibition centre is not identified as a need in the Arts, Community and Event’s (ACE) programme for public funding and such a facility is not defined as a need within council’s Community Facilities Network Plan.

f) If additional money was available for the arts, ACE would recommend that other programmes are funded rather than an exhibition centre.

7. As considerable time has passed and significant uncertainty remains on the future of the project it is important for all parties that a decision regarding the future of the exhibition centre is made.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) advise the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust that council is not in a position to support the Trust and provide a lease of 2 The Strand, Takapuna, for the purpose of an exhibition centre.

b) formally acknowledge and thank the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust for the energy and passion they have brought to the exhibition centre project.

c) write to the Becroft family, Shore Exhibition Centre trustees, explaining why council is unable to support the project and acknowledge and thank them for their previous generous offer to the Trust.

d) request staff investigate the return and reallocation of $270,000 residual transitional fund given to the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust at the time of amalgamation to arts and culture activities within the North Shore.

Comments

Background

8. The Shore Exhibition Centre (SEC) Trust (the Trust) has expressed a desire to restore the building at 2 The Strand and establish the building as a multi-purpose exhibition centre.

9. North Shore City Council provided $300,000 in funding to the SEC Trust for further investigations, a feasibility analysis and to present a proposal based on the findings.

10. Staff commissioned Tattico Ltd. to review the proposal. Tattico’s review involved extensive discussions with a variety of key stakeholders including the SEC Trust, people knowledgeable in the arts, and various council and council-controlled organisation teams.

Report’s key findings

11. The key findings of that report are:

a) The Trust is made up of committed, enthusiastic experts in the arts and community projects. If this proposal is to proceed, the existing membership of the Trust would need trustees with commercial and development skills.

b) The capital costs of upgrading the building are likely higher than envisaged by the Trust. Council inevitably carries the risk of the core structural upgrades of the building.

c) The Trust’s proposed operations budget at $245,000 per annum would rely on $50,000 per annum from the local board and $150,000 per annum from philanthropic sources. Tattico believes this budget is unrealistically low.

d) Arts budgets are limited with no or minimal prospect of additional funds. The Trust’s project would need to be funded from the reallocation of the local board’s other arts budgets. Local board arts partners who already receive funding support are operating on very tight margins and there would be demonstrable impact on them if their funding lines were reduced to accommodate funding for an additional arts facility.

f) If additional money was available for the arts, ACE would recommend that other programmes are funded rather than an exhibition centre.

g) The SEC trustees, council staff and the reviewer are of the opinion that given considerable time has passed and significant uncertainty remains on the future of the project it is important that a decision is made on the future of the exhibition centre. Deferral is not an option desired by any party.

12. An exhibition centre is a good adaptive reuse of 2 The Strand, but it does not provide an ongoing income stream to allow a financially sustainable future for the building. There are likely other adaptive reuses for the building which would achieve the same or better financial sustainability.

Potential funding streams

13. The local board has previously given consideration to (but not confirmed) support for $50,000 operational funding in the Trust’s proposal. The Trust has maintained that the funding sought would be additional to currently funded groups yet there is no additional funding.

14. The Trust has recently signalled that a $1 million gift from their sponsor is no longer available and as such the Trust is no longer able to advance the project unless council provides significant alternate funding.

Additional pieces of work that may be required

15. If the recommendations of this report are adopted, that will trigger two additional pieces of work:

a) a look at the future adaptive reuse of the building at 2 The Strand; and

b) investigation and recommendation as to the reallocation of the $270,000 council funding which is currently held in the Trust’s accounts and would need to return to council.

Assessing arts and culture facilities for fit for purpose

16. The Community Facility Network Plan has identified that arts and culture facilities in the local board area need to be assessed for fit for purpose standards, addressing some of the physical limitations of the assets. However gaps in provision have not been identified for the current arts and culture needs. Future provision of arts and culture activity related to growth would likely be addressed by a larger co-located council services facility. The addition of 2 The Strand to the current portfolio will not significantly address future growth needs of the area.

17. Regional Facilities Auckland manage the Bruce Mason centre which has adaptable spaces which along with the capacity of existing arts and culture facilities such as the Lake House Arts Centre are able to meet short to medium arts and culture demands generated by growth.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. The local board discussed the independent review report at a local board workshop on 22 August.

19. The local board support arts and culture activities and currently funds a number of arts facilities and programmes in the local board area including the Rose Centre and the Lake House Arts Centre.

Māori impact statement

20. There has been no Māori consultation as part of this review. This decision has no direct impact on Māori, although undoubtedly the Shore Exhibition Centre could at various times showcase Māori/cultural exhibits once developed.

21. Reallocation of the legacy grant would include assessment criteria relating to Māori impacts.

Implementation

22. If the recommendations of this report are adopted staff will investigate the mechanisms for return and reallocation of the remaining grant money.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report on 2 The Strand, Takapuna: Shore Exhibition Centre Trust and Exhibition Centre: Independent Review of the Proposal	29

Signatories

Authors

Xanthe Jujnovich - Arts and Culture Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Local Board Services monthly report - October 2017

File No.: CP2017/20616

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek decisions and update the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board (the local board) on a range of local projects, issues and opportunities which impact the local board area. This report recommends to:

· provide formal views and preferences on the Hurstmere Road streetscape upgrade;

· request Auckland Transport (AT) to consider implementing parking restrictions at the Takapuna Library carpark;

· grant land owner consent to undertake landfill cover improvements / remedial works and storm water improvements at Barry’s Point Reserve, Takapuna;

· grant land owner consent to undertake a stormwater pipe upgrade at Killarney Park, Takapuna; and

· note the governance forward work calendar included as Attachment G to the agenda report.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide formal views and preferences on the Hurstmere Road streetscape upgrade.

b) request Auckland Transport to undertake the process to implement parking restrictions at the Takapuna Library carpark.

c) grant land owner consent to council’s Closed Landfills team to undertake remediation and storm water improvement works at Barry’s Point Reserve, Takapuna.

d) delegate to the Manager Land Advisory Services to issue landowner approval to the applicant, council’s Closed Landfills team, to undertake remediation and storm water improvement works at Barry’s Point Reserve, Takapuna.

e) recommend that the Manager of Land Advisory Services, Community Facilities determines all relevant conditions and signs off a landowner approval letter in accordance with the provisions outlined in resolution d) above.

f) grant land owner consent to council’s Healthy Waters department to undertake a stormwater pipe upgrade at Killarney Park, Takapuna;

g) note the governance forward work calendar included as Attachment G to the agenda report.

Comments

Hurstmere Road streetscape upgrade

2. Auckland Transport (AT) and council’s Development Programme Office (DPO) are undertaking the Hurstmere Road streetscape upgrade, which proposes to revitalise Hurstmere Road, and install new stormwater infrastructure to improve water quality flowing on to Takapuna Beach.

3. The upgrade has been identified as a key project in the Takapuna Centre Plan, which sets the vision for developing Takapuna. It was also identified in the Auckland Plan as one of the key metropolitan centres for growth and development.

4. Key features of the upgrade include:

· addressing critical infrastructure issues with Hurstmere Road;

· installing a new stormwater treatment system, which will ensure higher quality water flowing into Takapuna Beach This will mainly be done through new, modern rain gardens and an improved stormwater treatment system;

· Hurstmere Road, between Anzac Street and Lake Road will become a one-way lane for north-bound traffic (with a 30km/h speed limit and a level surface between road and public space);

· there will be an overall reduction of 28 car parks on Hurstmere Road to reduce vehicle dominance on the street. This has been factored into AT’s parking strategy for the area and reflected in the number of car parks at the proposed Gasometre car park building on Northcroft and Huron streets;

· four loading zones at key locations along Hurstmere Road;

· the level surface between the road and public space will help create a low-speed environment and encourage a more natural flow of people between restaurants, shops, and other businesses, including to and from Hurstmere Green; and

· greater provision of functional and flexible open space will also allow more opportunity for outdoor dining and events, such as markets, festivals, and open days.

5. The local board is requested to provide their formal view and preferences, which will guide the next stages of the project’s development.

6. Please refer to Attachments A to D for concept plans for the proposed upgrade.

Implementing parking restrictions at the Takapuna Library carpark

7. Local Board Services staff have received a request from Takapuna Library staff to implement parking restrictions at the carpark located under the library.

8. Libraries staff have noted this has been a long-standing issue for their patrons since the commencement of the Auckland Council. In particular, the parking issues are significantly impacting older patrons from easily accessing the library.

9. It is important to note that Local Board Services, Customer Services and Libraries staff regularly receive complaints and feedback that people use the carpark for periods well in excess of the P60 limit.

10. The carpark is currently managed by council’s Community Services department and therefore is not enforced by Auckland Transport. A resolution from the local board is required to commence the process for Auckland Transport to consider the issue, and present their recommendations to the AT Traffic Control Committee. This process to implement parking restrictions at a library is the same as local parks and reserves (e.g. Auburn Reserve).

11. While there is no cost to undertake this process, AT note council departments will need to meet the costs of setting the restrictions in local parks and libraries (i.e. signage).

12. Staff recommend the local board support this request because it will enable AT to assess this long-standing issue for the library, and potentially provide regular enforcement at the carpark.

Land owner consent at Barry’s Point Reserve, Takapuna

13. Council’s Land Advisory unit has received an application from the council’s Closed Landfill unit to undertake landfill cover improvements / remedial works and storm water improvement works at Barry’s Point Reserve, Takapuna.

14. The remedial works will be undertaken in two stages, which includes improvements to the golf driving range and the northern swale (adjacent to Rosmini College).

15. The improvements at the driving range will increase the cover thickness and improve surface water drainage. There is currently no formalised surface water / storm water management within the golf driving range and settlement of the refuse has resulted in the surface being uneven. Approximately 15,000m³ of fill material is required, which will be placed and contoured so future surface water flows are directed towards existing overland flow paths which ultimately discharge to the Hillcrest Creek.

16. The improvements at the northern swale include the installation of two new scruffy dome manholes at the low points of the swale and connecting these to an existing manhole, which is in-turn connected to an existing 1200mm diameter concrete storm water pipe that runs through the closed landfill and discharges into Hillcrest Creek. New cover material will also be placed and contoured in the swale location such that surface water flows are directed towards the new scruffy domes. The maximum depth of fill is approximately 1.5 metres with an estimated volume up to 5,000m³.

17. It should be noted that resource consent has been applied for in relation to the works and all necessary environmental controls required by the resource consent will be monitored and implemented as required. It is anticipated that the stockpiling of material will occur in October 2017 and the remedial works for both the golf driving range and northern swale will occur from 1 February 2018 until the end of April 2018.

18. Staff support the applicant’s proposal because the proposed works will minimise potential adverse effects on human health and the environment by:

· creating an effective barrier to human contact with refuse materials;

· reducing surface water infiltration into refuse materials, which in-turn act to reduce leachate volumes generated;

· removing water hazards presented by ponded water;

· conveying storm water towards Hillcrest Creek, thus reducing infiltration and leachate volumes generated; and

· make the site more usable, appealing and safer for the public to use as a recreational reserve.

19. Reinstatement work to Barry’s Point Landfill Reserve will occur and there will be no disturbance to the operational maintenance of the park. Access to, and use of, Barry’s Point Reserve will also be maintained.

20. Please refer to Attachment E for a memo which provides further detail on the project.

Land owner consent at Killarney Park, Takapuna

21. Council’s Land Advisory unit has received an application from the council’s Healthy Waters department to upgrade a stormwater pipe to mitigate flooding at 5-7 Lakeview Road, Takapuna.

22. Healthy Waters, the applicant, is requesting landowner approval for the up-grade of the stormwater pipe to reduce the frequency of flooding and overland flow issues to residents in Lake View Road, Takapuna. A new stormwater line through 1 Lakeview Road is required to connect to the existing public stormwater network located in Killarney Park.

23. The properties near the Lake Pupuke side of Lakeview Road experience frequent flooding as the existing stormwater infrastructure is in poor structural condition and has insufficient capacity. The project extends from the top of Kowhai Street to 5 Lake View Road through Killarney Park to connect to the existing stormwater network within the park.

24. Council’s Parks and Places and Maintenance teams have been consulted and after review and assessment of the application, support the planned upgrade by Healthy Waters to the stormwater infrastructure to alleviate flooding and overland flow issues.

25. Staff support the application because it will mitigate further flooding and overland flow issues for residents. These changes will have a positive effect on the surrounding area and reserve.

26. Please refer to Attachment F for a memo which provides further detail on the project.

Governance forward work calendar

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

28. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the local board’s projects in the Local Board Plan, Long-term Plan, departmental work programmes and key projects. It also includes governing body regional policies, plans and bylaws that require a local board input and feedback.

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

30. The updated calendar for October 2017 is included as Attachment G to this report.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. The content in this report reflects the local board’s view and priorities. Implications for each topic have been detailed in the respective sections of this report.

Māori impact statement

32. There are no implications for Māori associated with this report.

Implementation

33. There are no implementation matters in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hurstmere Road concept plan	63
b ⇩	Hurstmere Road concept plan - Lake Road end	65
c ⇩	Hurstmere Road concept plan - central Hurstmere Road	67
d ⇩	Hurstmere Road concept plan - ANZAC Street end	69
e ⇩	Memo - Land Owner Approval request for landfill cover - Barrys Point Landfill	71
f ⇩	Memo - 5-7 Lakeview Road, Killarney Park	75
g ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - October 2017	81

Signatories

Authors	Tristan Coulson - Senior Local Board Advisor Devonport-Takapuna
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

File No.: CP2017/21132

Purpose

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan review.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. This plan is prepared under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and is part of council’s responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation in Auckland.

3. This report seeks feedback from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board on the revised proposed approach to waste management and minimisation. In particular:

a) advocating to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship

b) addressing three priority commercial waste streams:

o construction and demolition waste

o organic waste, and

o plastic waste

c) addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

4. These points were initially discussed with local boards during September and October workshops on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

5. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2017, seeking approval to publicly notify the draft plan. Formal feedback from all local boards will be included as a part of this report.

Recommendations

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the proposed direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Comments

Legislative context

6. Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, Auckland Council is required to adopt a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, as part of its responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste management.

7. The first Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan was adopted by council in 2012. It set an aspirational vision of achieving zero waste to landfill by 2040. It placed initial priority on waste reduction within the waste services that are more directly managed by council, which account for approximately 20 per cent of all waste to landfill in the region.

8. Council is required to review the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan every six years. This includes conducting a waste assessment to review progress, to forecast future demand for waste services, and to identify options to meet future demand. This assessment was completed in mid-2017, and the findings have been outlined below.

Findings of the Waste Assessment: progress and challenges

9. Under the first Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, seven separate council-managed waste services to households are being merged into one standardised region-wide service. This has included:

· introducing a new inorganic collection service;

· introducing large bins for recycling across the region;

· introducing bins for refuse in areas that had bag collections; and

· establishing five community recycling centres in Waiuku, Helensville, Devonport, Henderson and Whangaparaoa, with another seven to be established by 2024.

10. Some service changes agreed under the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 are still to be introduced to standardise the approach across the whole Auckland region, most notably, a food waste collection in urban areas and a pay-as-you-throw charge for kerbside refuse collections.

11. Whilst the council-managed services have achieved waste minimisation, the total amount of waste to landfill has increased by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2016. This is due to the increased amounts of commercial waste being generated, particularly construction and demolition waste. The amount of waste sent to landfill is projected to continue to grow unless a concerted effort is made to intervene and address this trend.

12. Barriers to waste minimisation in Auckland include the low cost of sending waste to landfill compared to diverting waste to other productive uses, the lack of financial incentives to divert waste from landfill, the lack of council influence over the 80 per cent of waste that is commercially managed, and rapid population growth.

Options analysis

13. The waste assessment identified and evaluated three options to guide the direction of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018, as follows below.

14. Option one: status quo involving full implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. Undertaking the actions agreed in 2012 will focus interventions on 20 per cent of waste within council’s direct control. Although this option could be implemented within council’s waste budget envelope it would not meet council’s responsibilities under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to minimise waste in Auckland.

15. Option two: expanded focus. Full implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 and a focus on three priority commercial waste streams identified in the waste assessment - construction and demolition waste, organic waste and plastic waste. This option addresses the 80 per cent of waste outside of council’s direct control and could be implemented within the current waste budget, with some reprioritisation.

16. Option three: significant investment in residual waste treatment technologies. This option requires development of residual waste treatment facilities, with energy from waste (mass-burn incineration facilities) likely to achieve the best diversion. Significant investment is needed from both the private and public sector to develop these technologies, and there would be reputational risks associated with disposal of waste by incineration.

17. It is proposed the council adopts option two, which has the potential to significantly reduce total waste to landfill, and can be undertaken within the current funding envelope.

Proposed updates to the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012

18. It is proposed that the new Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will continue the direction of the 2012 Plan, and extend the focus of council activity from the 20 per cent of waste that is directly managed by council and its contractors, to the other 80 per cent that is commercially managed.

19. The proposed vision of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is ‘Auckland aspires to be zero waste by 2040, taking care of people and the environment, and turning waste into resources’.

20. It is proposed that zero waste is maintained as an aspirational target. Achieving high diversion rates in Auckland (in the order of 80 per cent as achieved by an exemplar city, San Francisco) is considered to be a successful response to such an aspirational target.

21. To achieve the zero waste vision, three goals are proposed: minimise waste generation, maximise opportunities for resource recovery, and reduce harm from residual waste.

22. Three updated targets are proposed:

· total waste: reduce by 30 per cent by 2027 (no change from the current waste plan);

· domestic waste: reduce by 30 per cent by 2020/2021 (extension of date from 2018 to align with the roll-out of the food waste kerbside collection service; a new target will be set once this is achieved); and

· council’s own waste:

o reduce office waste by 60 per cent by 2040 (target doubled from current waste plan)

o work across council to set a baseline for operational waste (generated as a result of council activities such as property maintenance, construction and demolition, and events, and implement these baseline targets by 2019.

23. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan identifies the actions that will be undertaken over the next six years. The priority actions that will have the biggest impact on waste reduction include:

· continued delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012, including the transition to consistent kerbside services (including introduction of a kerbside organic collection in urban areas and the standardisation of pay-as-you throw kerbside refuse collection across the region), and establishment of the resource recovery network;

· a focus on addressing the 80 per cent of waste that council does not directly influence, by:

o advocating to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship;

o addressing three priority commercial waste streams:

- construction and demolition waste;

- organic waste, and

- plastic waste.

o addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation’s operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

24. The draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will put emphasis on partnership and engagement with other sectors that are relevant to the priority action areas. Council recognises that it cannot achieve its waste minimisation responsibilities by acting alone.

25. It is important to note that council has limited tools to address commercially managed waste. Achieving policy changes at central government level will be essential to achieving waste to landfill reductions in Auckland. If council is unsuccessful in its advocacy, targets will not be met.

Request for local board feedback

26. Local boards are being asked whether they support the proposed approach taken in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, and in particular the focus on:

· advocating to central government for a higher waste levy and for product stewardship;

· addressing three priority commercial waste streams:

o construction and demolition waste;

o organic waste; and

o plastic waste.

· addressing waste generated from council and council-controlled organisation operational activities, particularly construction and demolition waste.

Financial implications

27. The actions proposed in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan can be achieved within existing waste funding. Funding will be obtained through a combination of:

· pay-as-you-throw domestic refuse collections, which will be progressively introduced across the region;

· rates funding; and

· revenue from the waste levy (from the $10 per tonne waste levy that is administered by the Ministry for the Environment, 50 per cent of which is distributed to councils, amounting to $6.1 million for Auckland Council in 2016).

28. Infrastructure to enable commercial resource recovery will require investment from external sources such as government and the private sector.

29. The budget for implementing the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be considered through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. Workshops were held with all local boards in September and October 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. This report seeks formal feedback from local boards.

Māori impact statement

31. Mana whenua and mātāwaka have been actively engaged in implementing the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. A number of initiatives have enabled waste minimisation from a te ao Māori context. Through Para Kore ki Tāmaki, marae in the Auckland region are able to foster kaitiakitanga practices and affirm their connections with the natural world. More than 2,000 whānau participate in the programme annually, and over 50 Para Kore zero waste events have been held since the programme rolled out in 2014. The programme provides a catalyst for taking the kaitiakitanga message from the marae into homes and the community. Protecting Papatūānuku, connecting with traditions and showing respect for customs has become a priority for whānau through this programme.

32. The proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan seeks to present a stronger mana whenua and mātāwaka perspective, recognising the close alignment between te ao Māori and zero waste. Two mana whenua hui and one mātāwaka hui held in June 2017 have identified mana whenua and matāwaka principles and priorities, for direct inclusion into the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Implementation

33. The draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will have financial implications, as the targeted rate for food waste must be costed and included in consultation on the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. It is proposed that this be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This will ensure that any budget implications are considered through the Long-term Plan process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Parul Sood, Acting General Manager, Waste Solutions

Julie Dickinson, Acting Waste Planning Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Public alerting framework for Auckland

File No.: CP2017/19556

Purpose

1. To provide information on the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland. The report also provides the results of an analysis carried out by GNS Science, identifying communities at risk from tsunami across Auckland.

2. In addition, the report also seeks in-principle support for the proposed enhancement of Auckland’s tsunami siren network.

Executive summary

3. In February 2017, the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Committee endorsed the draft Public Alerting Framework for Auckland.

4. Following on from this, crown research agency, GNS Science was commissioned to provide an analysis of those communities most at risk from tsunami within the orange and red tsunami evacuation zones.

5. The GNS report and the Public Alerting Framework was presented to local boards in workshop sessions. Auckland Emergency Management is asking local boards for in principle support for the Public Alerting Framework and for an enhanced tsunami siren network.

6. Next steps involve procurement and design of tsunami siren and signage. Further information will be presented to local boards in due course.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) note the approach to public alerting as outlined in the Public Alerting Framework for Auckland as outlined in Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) provide in-principle support for the development of an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network, noting that further information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will be reported in due course.

Comments

Tsunami risk for Auckland

7. A tsunami is a natural phenomenon consisting of a series of waves generated when a large volume of water in the sea, or in a lake, is rapidly displaced^{^[1]}. Tsunami threats pose a risk to New Zealand and to Auckland. Occurrence rates of tsunami are higher in the Pacific than for other oceans because of the "Ring of Fire".^{^[2]} Tsunami waves are most commonly caused by underwater earthquakes. In addition, these events have the potential to cause multiple other hazards including but not limited to; fire, fault line ruptures, coastal inundation, landslides, lifeline utility failures and serious health issues.^{^[3]}The Tonga-Kermadec trench is one of the Earth’s deepest trenches, and is Auckland’s highest risk for tsunami. Auckland is susceptible to regional and distant source tsunami, that is, tsunami generated from earthquakes in and around the Pacific Rim with travel time more than 1 hour as well as locally generated tsunami. Tsunami can be categorised as local, regional or distant based on their travel time or distance to the Auckland coastline.

· Local source – less than 1 hour travel time. These tsunamis can be generated by offshore faults, underwater landslide or volcanic activity.

· Regional source – Earthquakes in and around the Pacific Islands and the Tonga-Kermadec Trench 1 to 3 hours travel time to Auckland

· Distant source – Commonly generated by a large earthquake from any location around the Pacific Rim including but not limited to South America, Japan, the Aleutian Islands and Alaska. The travel time to Auckland will be 3 hours or greater. ^{^[4]}

Figure 1. This map shows the position of New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean within an area of intense seismic activity called the ‘Ring of Fire’. Source: GNS Science

Tsunami sirens

5. Currently, Auckland has 44 fixed tsunami warning sirens across nine sites in legacy Rodney and Waitakere. These sirens were installed in 2008 and 2010 and do not meet current government technical standards^{^[5]} for tsunami warning sirens. All new and existing siren installations will need to meet these standards by June 2020.

6. Auckland Emergency Management is currently investigating the upgrading of its existing siren network from ‘tone-only’ sirens to those with PA/voiceover loudspeaker capability. The sirens have a strong immediate effect and can prompt immediate action to seek further information. There are valuable benefits in using tsunami sirens, in particular, sirens can be used when other communications (e.g. cell phones and radio broadcasting) may not have the maximum reach or be as effective. It is commonly accepted across the emergency management sector that effective public alerting systems are those that take a holistic view. This being said, public alerting needs to be well planned, understood, and in conjunction with effective public education information and campaigns. This is imperative for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting that communities can use and understand.

7. The limited locations of the present tsunami siren systems have been identified as a gap in the public alerting capabilities of Auckland region. Presently, Auckland is not well represented by tsunami sirens with the estimated reach of Auckland’s current sirens being only eight per cent of the ‘at-risk’ population. Auckland’s tsunami siren network is currently being considered for enhancement and expansion through the delivery of the Public Alerting Framework

Public Alerting Framework

8. Auckland Council has recognised the need for a regionally consistent approach to public alerting through the adoption of the Public Alerting Framework. The Framework, which was approved for consultation with local boards in February 2017, has been designed to:

· explain what public alerting in a CDEM sense is, what it can and cannot do;

· give detail on the range of channels for public alerting currently available in Auckland;

· highlight the advances being taken with regards to public alerting at a national level;

· provide some commentary on tsunami sirens, their uses and limitations; and

· assist with decisions taken by the Auckland CDEM Group Committee, local boards and partners and stakeholders with regards to the prioritisation of budgets and options for enhancing public alerting across the Auckland region.

9. Auckland Council recognises the need to enhance the public alerting network, and as such, has allocated funds from the current Long-term Plan (LTP) for this venture. This funding provides a starting point for consultation on the future of Auckland’s tsunami siren network and the enhancement of public alerting.

10. It is important to understand that no one public alerting system is without fault. The Public Alerting Framework focusses on the use of multi-platforms, understanding that a holistic approach is one that maximises the reach of public alerting in an emergency or hazard event. Through this project, prioritised public education is critical. Without effective public education and engagement activities, sirens alone are not considered a standalone approach to public alerting.

GNS Science report

Introduction and methodology

11. Following the endorsement of the Public Alerting Framework, crown research agency GNS Science was contracted to complete an independent analysis (refer Attachment B) of those communities most at-risk of tsunami.

12. A GIS based analysis was used to calculate the number of exposed residents in communities. The analysis used 2013 census population data to identify the number of residents located in the red and orange tsunami evacuation zones. (refer Figure 2.) For further detail on the evacuation zones and the methodology refer Appendix B.

Figure 2. Auckland red and orange tsunami evacuation zones as used in the GNS Science analysis

Results

13. The results of the analysis carried out by GNS Science identified 217 communities at-risk from tsunami. For all 217 communities modelled, there are a total of 49,853 people at-risk from tsunami in the orange and red evacuation zones. For detailed information on the results of this analysis including detail on those communities at risk of tsunami please refer to the report from GNS Science at Appendix B.

Next steps

14. Workshops have been held with local boards across the region in order to share the results of the GNS Science report and the intention to implement an enhanced and expanded regional tsunami siren network. This report seeks in-principle support for this enhanced and expanded network. More information on design, placement and other considerations for the network will be reported in due course.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Workshops on tsunami risk were held with local boards in 2016. Following the development of the Public Alerting Framework further information on tsunami risk (including the results of the GNS Science report) were shared with local boards between July and October 2017. Local boards were told that in-principle support for the enhanced and expanded tsunami siren network would be sought at formal business meetings of local boards.

16. As key decision makers representing local communities, local board input into this important project will continue.

Māori impact statement

17. There are no particular impacts on Māori communities which are different from the general population arising from this report. The Public Alerting Framework for Auckland notes the importance of community resilience, of reaching all members of the community and of having systems in place to ensure that public alert messages are understood and ubiquitous.

Implementation

18. Once in-principle support has been achieved, procurement and design of tsunami siren and signage will be undertaken.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Public Alerting Framework	111
b ⇩	GNS Science Report	121

Signatories

Authors

Celia Wilson, Project Manager

Authorisers

Craig Glover - Head of Strategy and Planning

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

PDF Creator

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19204

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 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 council is determined based on the size;

iii. the mayor’s salary is determined by the authority;

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

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 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.

10. A draft submission from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board is presented at Attachment B for the board’s consideration.

i. new paragraph 10 referencing inclusion of draft submission at Attachment B

ii. reframed recommendation to account for inclusion of Attachment B

iii. new paragraph 51 which is the same as paragraph 10

iv. reference made to an additional attachment (B) – I suspect infocouncil will update the report anyway once Attachment B is uploaded to infocouncil.

Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a) adopt the submission on the ‘Local Government Review Consultation Document’ presented as Attachment B to the agenda report.

Comments

Introduction

11. 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.

12. The Authority has noted 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.

13. 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 per cent for unitary councils; and

vii. hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

14. 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

15. 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; and

v. guest nights.

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

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

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

19. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

20. Comments:

i. It is noted that prior to 2013, the authority took population growth into account. 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

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

Territorial authorities:

· population, operational expenditure;

· assets; and

· deprivation index, visitor nights.

Regional councils:

· operational expenditure, geographic size;

· assets, population; and

· visitor nights.

Unitary authorities:

· population, operational expenditure, geographic size;

· assets; and

· deprivation index; visitor nights.

22. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

23. Comments:

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

Mayoral remuneration

24. 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.

25. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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’?

26. 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

27. 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 per cent majority vote would be required. The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

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

29. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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 per cent majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

30. 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 per cent majority vote.

External representation roles

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

32. The Remuneration Authority has the following question on external representation roles:

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

33. 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

34. The authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to CCOs.

35. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

36. 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

37. 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.

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

39. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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 a 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

40. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

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

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

43. Comments:

Local boards should comment on the following:

i. the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach; and

ii. whether the Remuneration Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach:

· should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board; or

· should the Remuneration Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

Local government pay scale

44. 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.

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

46. The Remuneration Authority has the following 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?

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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.

50. 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

51. 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.

52. A draft submission from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board is presented as Attachment B for the board’s consideration.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Government review	185
b ⇩	Devonport-Takapuna Local Board submission recommendations	215

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson – Governance Director

Carol McKenzie-Rex – Acting General Manager, Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

17 October 2017

Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2017/20517

Purpose

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

Executive summary

3. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $276,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

4. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has allocated $127,037 from the 2017/2018 community grants budget for Local Grants Round One. This leaves a balance of $148,970 to allocate to Local Grants Round Two and Quick Response Round Two and Three 2017/2018.

5. Fourteen applications were received for Quick Response Round One 2017/2018, with a total amount requested of $26,677. One deferred application for $11,000, from Local Grants Round One, is now being presented to the local board for their consideration.

Recommendation/s That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board: a) consider the applications listed in the table below and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round: Table One: Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications
Application number	Organisation	Project Title	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1802-101	Milford Business Association	Towards a contribution for the Auckland Symphony Orchestra Free Family Concerts.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-102	Age Concern North Shore Incorporated	Towards a contribution for catering, taxis, transportation, entertainment and venue hire for ‘Club Gordon’.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-103	‘GL?TCH Collective’ under the umbrella of the Depot Artspace	Towards a contribution for the production of products (T shirts and kits), promotional material, online promotion, website domain, gallery rental and posters for the product launch.	$1,200	Eligible
QR1802-104	Devonport Peninsula Trust	Towards the cost of planting and seating for the Ngataringa Maze restoration project.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-106	Wilson Home Trust	Towards a contribution for the cost of hiring the stage for entertainment for the Wilson Home Trust Christmas Party.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-107	Paul Cornish	Towards a contribution for the cost of marketing such as flyers, road signs and banners for the ‘Jets community run’.	$608	Eligible
QR1802-109	Les Mills Takapuna	Towards a contribution for the permit fee for the Free Community Group Fitness Classes.	$300	Eligible
QR1802-110	45 Events Limited trading as Beach Series	Towards a contribution for the cost of water safety for the ‘Takapuna Beach series’ for 18 evenings from 7 November to 27 March 2018.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-111	Elvis in the Gardens Incorporated Society	Towards a contribution for the operational costs for ‘Elvis in the Gardens 2018’.	$1,000	Eligible
QR1802-112	StarJam Charitable Trust	Towards the cost of equipment and resources, tutor fees, salary and travel for regional programme coordinator for the end of year concert for youth with disabilities.	$2,069	Eligible
QR1802-113	Lake House Trust Incorporated	Towards a contribution for artist fees and materials for the ‘Hitting the Boards - Street Art meets Summer Shakespeare’.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-114	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards a contribution for the cost of two barista training workshops to support young people into employment.	$1,676	Eligible
QR1802-115	North Shore Rowing Club Incorporated	Towards a contribution for the cost of waste management, special event toilets, first aid, sound, lane laying equipment hire and security guard hire. For the ‘R F Bennett Shield Rowing Regatta’ on 4 and 5 November 2018.	$2,000	Eligible
QR1802-116	Devonport Peninsula Precincts Society	Towards a contribution for printing information flyers for delivery three times a year.	$5,824	Eligible
LG1802-138	Tennis Northern Region Incorporated	Towards removal of invasive trees on the boundary of the tennis club.	$11,000	Eligible
		Total	$37,677.00

Comments

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

· 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; and

· any additional accountability requirements.

8. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board will operate three quick response rounds for this financial year. The first quick response round closed on 15 September 2017.

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. For the 2017/2018 financial year, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board set a total community grants budget of $276,000. It is recommended that the board consider allocating up to 15% of this in this grant round.

11. Fourteen applications were received for this quick response/local grant round, requesting a total of $26,677. One deferred application for $11,000, from Local Grants Round One, is now being presented to the local board for their consideration.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

13. 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.”

14. A summary of each application is attached (refer Attachment B).

Māori impact statement

15. 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 Maori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Maori.

Implementation

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

17. Following the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board allocating funding for round xx quick response/local grants, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Devonport-Takapuna Grants Programme 2017/2018	237
b ⇩	Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications	241
c ⇨	Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Quick Response Round One applications (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Samantha Arumugam - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[1] Berryman, K. et al. (2005) Review of Tsunami Hazard and Risk in New Zealand. Dunedin, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited.

[2] GNS Science, Tsunami in New Zealand data accessed on 26th June 2017 from https://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Our-Science/Natural-Hazards/Tsunami/Tsunami-in-New-Zealand

[3] ACDEM (2016), Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021

[5] [5] MCDEM (2014), Tsunami Warning Sirens Technical Standard [TS 03/14]

Chairperson	Dr Grant Gillon
Deputy Chairperson	George Wood, CNZM
Members	Mike Cohen, QSM, JP
	Jennifer McKenzie
	Jan O'Connor
	Mike Sheehy

Authors	Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Karen Durante - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager