Agenda of Upper Harbour 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 September 2017, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour 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 Sustainable Pare partnership with Auckland Prison

Purpose

1. For representatives from Sustainable Pare and the Auckland Prison to discuss the mutual benefits of a partnership.

Executive summary

2. Mike Patchett, Chair, and Kim Ward, Secretary, of Sustainable Pare, along with Simon Chaplin, Assistant Prison Director, and David Grear, Manager Industries, from the Auckland Prison, will be in attendance to discuss their proposal for a partnership and the benefits this contribution could make to the Pare-dise Project, including Sanders Reserve.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Mike Patchett and Kim Ward of Sustainable Pare, and Simon Chaplin and David Grear from the Auckland Prison, and thank them for their attendance and presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

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

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 (LBS 3.11.1) or Standing Order 1.9.1 (LBS 3.10.17) (revoke or alter a previous resolution) a Notice of Motion has been received from Chairperson Lisa Whyte for consideration under item 13.

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Upper Harbour Local Grants Round One 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2017/16710

Purpose

1. To present applications received for the Upper Harbour Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. The local board has also approved $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group outside of a grant round. The remaining community grants budget is $154,400.

3. Twenty-two applications were received in this round, with a total requested amount of $181,401.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each of the Local Grant Round One applications listed in the table below:

Application	Organisation name	Project	Total requested
LG1806-138	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Towards costs to create, rehearse and deliver the youth engagement performances and workshops delivery, including dancers’ salaries, artistic team salaries, transport to the schools and rehearsal space hire	$7,500
LG1817-105	Greenhithe Community Trust	Towards a contractor, to create 10 new car parks at 12 Greenhithe Road	$10,226
LG1817-106	Parent to Parent Auckland	Towards 'Champion Your Needs’ workshop in Upper Harbour	$3,500
LG1817-107	Bays Youth Community Trust	Towards printing, postage and stationery costs	$2,700
LG1817-111	Community Impact Trust	Towards purchasing cleaning and gardening equipment and furniture regeneration tools for community impact days, between November 2017 and September 2018	$5,000
LG1817-112	Graeme Dingle Foundation	Towards training manuals, travel and coordinator training for the Project K programme coordinator hui	$3,000
LG1817-114	Children's Autism Foundation	Towards outreach support services for children with autism and their families	$13,245
LG1817-116	Age Concern North Shore Incorporated	Towards operational costs for the Chinese and Korean Groups, between November 2017 and December 2018	$30,000
LG1817-118	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards the youth development worker salary from February to April 2018	$10,000
LG1817-120	Business North Harbour Incorporated	Towards a traffic management report to monitor the impact of growth on economic development	$5,000
LG1817-121	Kids Safe With Dogs Charitable Trust	Towards wages for instructors and administrators and towards print material for Kids Safe with Dogs in Upper Harbour	$10,000
LG1802-116	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Towards a proportion of operating costs for the 2017/2018 financial year	$5,000
LG1802-119	StarJam Charitable Trust	Towards venue hire, tutor fees and programme coordinator salary for music workshops and community performance at North Harbour Life Development Centre	$1,876
LG1808-101	The Korean Society of Auckland	Towards venue hire, equipment hire and volunteer costs for the 2018 Korean Day	$1,400
LG1803-124	New Zealand Women Limited	Towards performer fees, advertising, equipment and operational costs for Elvis in the Gardens 2018	$1,000
LG1817-102	Albany Kindergarten - Northern Auckland Kindergarten Association	Towards a community garden shed at Albany kindergarten	$2,174
LG1817-103	Hobsonville Point Marine Sport and Recreation Centre Charitable Trust	Towards infrastructure feasibility and concept design for the Hobsonville Point Marine Sport and Recreation Centre	$20,000
LG1817-108	East Coast Bays and District Cricket Club Incorporated	Towards costs for match scorers between October 2017 and April 2018	$1,500
LG1817-115	Windsor Park Board Incorporated	Towards project management fees, feasibility study and concept plans for the multi-sport indoor facility at Windsor Park	$22,625
LG1817-117	NorthSport Academy Limited	Towards the salary for the lead athletic accelerator coach and towards coaches for the Athletic Accelerator Programme	$10,000
LG1817-119	Tennis Northern Region Incorporated	Towards subscription and support for the online booking and management systems, systems training and an extra monitor screen	$12,655
LG1817-122	Harbour Sport Trust	Towards print advertising for the Shore to Shore 5km fun run/walk	$3,000
		Total amount requested	$181,401

Comments

4. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board in adopting a grants programme (see Attachment A).

5. 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.

6. The Upper Harbour Local Board will operate one local grant round and three quick response rounds in this financial year. The Upper Harbour Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018, closed on 25 August 2017.

7. 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.

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

9. At the August 2017 meeting, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group, resolution number UH/2017/127:

b) approve funding of $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group from the local board discretionary community grants fund to enable the establishment of the herb garden, and note that as this project provides improvement to a reserve, and in order to take advantage of the planting season, the board is considering this now, rather than through the contestable grants process.

10. This leaves a total of $154,400 in the community grants budget to be allocated. It is recommended that the local board consider allocating 25 per cent of the budget in this grant round.

11. Twenty-two applications were received in this round, with a total requested amount of $181,401.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Upper Harbour 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 (see Attachment B).

Māori impact statement

15. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, and 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 new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori. One applicant applying in this round has identified as a Māori individual or organisation, and four applications have indicated their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Implementation

16. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Auckland Council Long‑term plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

17. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for Local Grants Round One, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Grants Programme 2017/2018	37
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018 grant applications	41

Signatories

Authors

Caroline Teh - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Auckland Transport monthly report - October 2017

File No.: CP2017/21019

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters

· provide an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

· provide a summary of consultation material sent to the local board

· provide transport-related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report covers:

· progress reports on the board’s advocacy initiatives in creating well-connected and easily accessible public transport networks, improvements to the road network, access to walkways and cycleways, and connecting Westgate to the North Shore

· a new link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road

· a new link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue and an upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway between Stevenson Crescent and Gills Road

· the Dairy Flat Highway intersection with The Avenue and Lucas Creek Bridge will also be upgraded

· Auckland Transport (AT) is improving public transport with the implementation of the New Public Transport Network, which has a revised bus service proposed for the area. This will increase bus service provision in the area and offer an enhanced public transport system

· AT will be looking to enhance timetables for delivery by operators on both the Hobsonville and Beach Haven routes

· AT has improved the road network and access to walkways and cycleways through the completion of the upgrade of the Albany Highway, and its associated footpaths and cycleways.

3. Progress on the Upper Harbour Local Board current transport capital fund project:

· Gills Road Pedestrian Bridge and a gravel footpath with a structural timber boardwalk.

4. Responses from the Upper Local Board on consultation feedback on:

· no stopping at all times (NSAAT) - Jade Court, Rosedale

· Albany park and ride

· speed camera proposal - Dairy Flat Highway (Albany Hill).

5. Investigation and responses to the local board regarding requests on transport-related matters:

· traffic issues in Albany

· Constellation Drive traffic delays

· Greenhithe footpath

· Herald Island Residents and Ratepayers roading and pedestrian access concerns

· Oscar Road, Greenhithe, kerb and channel request.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport update for October 2017.

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

6. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is currently $355,167 per annum and will have an adjustment for inflation added in future years. The following tables note previous decisions, progress since the last update, budgets and financial commitments:

Project

Description

Current status

Gills Road

footpath

To construct a footpath along Gills Road, between the Living Stream intersection and the one-way bridge

Footpath and boardwalks:

· detailed design for the footpath, including retaining structures, is underway

· once detailed design is complete, AT will have to re-lodge the resource application and lodge a new building consent application.

Gills Road

pedestrian bridge

To construct a footbridge adjacent to the road bridge

Footbridge:

· building consent application lodged with Auckland Council and is expected to be approved by the end of September

· construction of the footbridge is planned to start in November.

Upper Harbour Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$1,835,080
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$297,222
Remaining budget	$1,537,858

Upcoming projects and activities

Traffic congestion at the intersection of Rothwell Avenue and Albany Highway

7. Concerns have been raised regarding traffic congestion at the intersection of Rothwell Avenue and Albany Highway.

Response

8. Since the implementation of the Albany Highway Transit 2 (T2) lane, AT has been monitoring the performance of this corridor and has identified potential opportunities for improvement. This includes possible operational improvements to the Rothwell/Albany Highway intersection. AT is currently assessing options to safely improve efficiency at this intersection and expect to complete investigations within the next six months.

9. The objective of the T2 lane on Albany Highway is to promote the efficient movement of buses and high occupancy vehicles, and therefore enable efficient movement of people along the corridor. It is not designed purely for school traffic but looks to enable travel behaviour change in the form of carpooling and public transport use. Additionally, as part of the annual monitoring and review of bus and transit lanes across Auckland, AT will assess the appropriateness of the Albany Highway T2 lane, including the operating hours, and will make corresponding changes should such changes be appropriate.

10. With regard to suggestions of shortening the T2 lane, AT proposes to terminate the T2 lane at the intersection with Rothwell Avenue. Given the formal process involved in such a change, AT expects this to be implemented in 2018, together with other potential improvements for Albany Highway currently being investigated.

Constellation Drive traffic congestion

11. Concerns have been raised regarding traffic congestion on Constellation Drive.

Update

12. AT is currently investigating and will need to monitor congestion on Constellation Drive. When this work is completed, AT will provide an update.

Greenhithe Road footpath remediation

13. AT has awarded the contract and the work will commence at the beginning of October. This work may be completed by the time this report is received by the local board.

Herald Island Residents and Ratepayers Association concerns about roading and pedestrian access on Herald Island

14. Further detailed investigation needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of these issues. This investigation has been prioritised and programmed for review. Following this, AT will be in a position to provide the board with the outcome and recommendations on any proposed changes. The local board can expect to receive an update from AT by mid-October 2017.

Oscar Road, Greenhithe, kerb and channel request

15. AT is investigating a request for kerb and channel on Oscar Road. When this investigation is complete, AT will provide an update.

Kyle Road - damaged walkway

16. AT is investigating the damaged walkway on Kyle Road. When this investigation is complete, AT will provide an update.

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

17. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for feedback. The material below is included for general information purposes only:

· no stopping at all times (NSAAT) - Jade Court, Rosedale

· Albany park and ride

· speed camera proposal Dairy Flat Highway (Albany Hill).

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

18. Decisions of the TCC over the month of September 2017, affecting the Upper Harbour Local Board area, are shown in the following table:

Capri Place, Calypso Way	Unsworth Heights	NSAAT, angle parking, roundabout and traffic island
Hobsonville Road and Luckens Road	West Harbour	NSAAT, bus stop, transport shelter, lane arrow markings
Santiago Crescent	Unsworth Heights	NSAAT and give-way control
Schnapper Rock Road	Schnapper Rock	NSAAT, bus stop, footpath, edge line no passing
Scott Road, Greenfinch Road, Myland Drive, Cicada Road, Silvereye Road, Toanui Road, Craigs Way, Kano Way, Riroriro Road	Hobsonville	NSAAT, cycle path, bus stop, bus shelter, cycle lane, give-way control, road hump, pedestrian crossing

Longer term major projects in Upper Harbour

‘Auckland Transport announces raft of new projects for Albany’

19. On 3 August 2017, AT announced that funding had been approved for three new roading projects in Albany:

· a new link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road

· a new link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue and an upgrade of the Dairy Flat Highway between Stevenson Crescent and Gills Road

· the Dairy Flat Highway intersection with The Avenue and Lucas Creek Bridge will be upgraded.

20. The bulk of funding (of approximately $60 million) will be provided by Auckland Council through the Local Residential Growth Fund (LRGF).

21. The investigation of designs and statutory requirements for each of these projects will commence in coming months. Subject to land acquisition and statutory approvals, physical construction will start for the link road between Gills Road and Oteha Valley Road in October 2018. Work on the link road between Medallion Drive and Fairview Avenue and the Dairy Flat Highway upgrade will commence in early 2019.

22. The Albany area has seen rapid growth in the past 20 years, changing from a rural environment on the fringe of Auckland city, to a growing, urbanised environment on the outer edge of the city boundaries. These new projects will improve corridors and provide new road connections, improve walking and cycling facilities, and enhance safety for all road users. The LRGF is provided to facilitate local transport infrastructure projects for vital residential growth areas.

23. The LRGF is designed to bridge the budget gap for critical missing infrastructure links in residential areas, where a private developer is not responsible under the requirements of a Resource Management Act consent or other planning condition. This situation might otherwise impede the development of new homes.

24. Auckland Council and AT will be delivering essential public infrastructure to support the growth of over 3,000 residential dwellings in the Fairview Heights and Albany Heights areas. In addition, the works on the Dairy Flat Highway will connect with future transport infrastructure needed for the estimated 25,500-30,000 dwellings to be constructed in the Wainui, Dairy Flat and Silverdale areas over the next 30 years.

25. The Upper Harbour Local Board welcomes this announcement as improving transport infrastructure is essential for the ongoing prosperity and wellbeing of Albany’s residential and commercial communities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26. The views of the Upper Harbour Local Board will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

27. No specific issues with regard to impacts on Māori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Māori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Request for LDI Capex funding

File No.: CP2017/21203

Purpose

1. To consider Locally Driven Initiatives capital expenditure (LDI capex) funding for the retrofitting of the disability toilet at the Albany Stadium Pool, to include a shower and an adult changing bed, in addition to the dry change area, and include minor changes to the shop changing room.

Executive summary

2. The Albany Stadium Pool was opened in January 2017. The facility has been operational for nine months and during this period, various issues requiring alteration have been identified. This report serves to request that the Upper Harbour Local Board considers funding two identified issues.

3. The identified issues that require alteration are the retrofitting of the disability toilet, to include a shower and an adult changing bed, in addition to the dry change area. Minor changes to the shop changing room are also required and these include the installation of a seat, mirror, door locks and clothing hooks.

4. The quote received from the contractor totals an amount of $21,798.50, as per Attachment B of the report. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s LDI Capex Fund has a remaining amount of $660,000 available for allocation.

5. It is recommended that the Upper Harbour Local Board allocate $30,000, including contingency, towards the retrofitting of the disability toilet at the Albany Stadium Pool, to include a shower and an adult changing bed, in addition to the dry change area, and include minor changes to the shop changing room, from its LDI Capex Fund.

6. A number of potential users, PHysically Disabled and ABle Bodied Association Incorporated (PHAB) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Auckland have indicated that, should the current changing facility be upgraded, the facility could assist with the delivery of a hydrotherapy class to people with MS. It would also encourage those with physical impairments to utilise the facility as there would be access to a private shower and a safe place to change someone with high needs.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) consider allocating $30,000, including contingency, towards the retrofitting of the disability toilet at the Albany Stadium Pool, to include a shower and an adult changing bed, and include minor changes to the shop changing room, from its Locally Driven Initiatives Capex Fund.

7. The Albany Stadium Pool’s primary focus is on community, play and leisure. It does have a water education component, however it deliberately does not cater for competition and club activities.

8. The main pool hall has a progression of irregular shaped pool forms catering to those less confident discovering water, to those more confident and seeking adventure. There is a zero depth splash pad together with toddlers and deeper pools that have a variety of water toys.

9. The Albany Stadium Pool was a project approved for construction in the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial year as part of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. The pool was constructed and opened in January 2017.

10. The facility has been operational for nine months, in this time, various issues have been identified that require alteration after construction and this report serves to request the Upper Harbour Local Board’s consideration to fund the above mentioned additions.

11. A contractor has been requested to scope and quote the following works (Attachment A):

· move existing sliding door frame and re-use – disability toilet

· extend ceiling line to cover new entrance – disability toilet

· plumbing as required including installing new want type shower unit – disability toilet

· tiling to match existing around block work to new entrance – disability toilet

· add new fold-down slatted bed with water-proof mattress – disability toilet

· move existing baby-change table, paper town unit to new dry area – disability toilet

· remove internal door for a shop changing room

· add solid bench seat as required - shop changing room

· add a mirror to the front wall H1800mm X W600mm - shop changing room

· change external door lock to a two-way door - shop changing room

· add two clothing hooks to the rear wall - shop changing room.

12. The quote received from the contractor totals an amount of $21,798.50, as per Attachment B of the report. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s LDI Capex Fund has a remaining amount of $660,000 available for allocation.

13. It is recommended that the Upper Harbour Local Board allocate $30,000, including contingency, towards the retrofitting of the disability toilet at the Albany Stadium Pool, to include a shower and an adult changing bed, in addition to the dry change area, and include minor changes to the shop changing room, from its LDI Capex Fund.

14. A number of potential users, PHysically Disabled and ABle Bodied Association Incorporated (PHAB) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Auckland have indicated that, should the current changing facility be upgraded, the facility could assist with the delivery of a hydrotherapy class to people with MS. It would also encourage those with physical impairments to utilise the facility as there would be access to a private shower and a safe place to change someone with high needs.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The local board is being requested to consider a funding request as part of this report.

Māori impact statement

16. There are no adverse effects identified should the request for funding be approved. The facilities will enable all physically impaired members of the community to partake in the use of the pool.

Implementation

17. The funding will enable the construction of the upgraded disabled toilet and shop changing room to be completed by the end of October 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Scope of works	133
b ⇩	Quote for works to be conducted	137

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Senior Local Board Advisor Upper Harbour
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19172

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

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document Local Government Review as per Attachment B of the agenda report.

Comments

Introduction

10. The Remuneration Authority has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017 (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 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 per cent 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 per cent loading would not apply.

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

18. 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?

Comments:

19. 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.

20. 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

· 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.

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?

Comments:

23. 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’?

Comments:

26. 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?

Comments:

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75 per cent majority vote.

External representation roles

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

36. 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?

Comments:

37. 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.

38. 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

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

40. 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?

Comments:

41. Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport.

42. 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

43. 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.

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

45. 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

46. The discussion document does not mention local boards.

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

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

Comments:

49. Local boards should comment on the following:

· the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach; and

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

o should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board

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

Local government pay scale

50. 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.

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

52. 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?

Comments:

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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.

56. 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

57. 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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Government review	147
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board comment to the Remuneration Authority	177

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Remuneration Authority

Consultation Document: Local Government Review

Upper Harbour Local Board Submission

Executive summary

Auckland Council’s 21 local boards and 149 local board members, have a significant and wide-ranging governance role. We are independent governance entities with decision-making responsibility for local activities, issues and facilities, as well as providing the local input into regional policies, plans and decisions. We have responsibility for significant operating and capital budgets and are fully accountable for the decisions we make.

The manner in which local board members are remunerated is of critical importance to us and the communities we serve. After 7 years experience with Auckland Council’s governance model, we have the depth of knowledge to advise on the potential implications of the remuneration proposals put forward by the Remuneration Authority We also note that Auckland Council has undertaken considerable work over the last two years to develop detailed role and capability descriptions for its elected members, including local board members, chairs, and deputy chairs. The responsibilities and requirements of these roles are now well articulated and understood.

The workload and responsibilities of each local board, and as a result, local board members, chairs and deputy chairs, are primarily driven by statutory and allocated roles and responsibilities. There is a base level of work and activities that all local boards are required to undertake, regardless of budget or population size. While there may be some difference in workload and responsibility between local boards based on factors such as those proposed by the Remuneration Authority (namely population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights), we do not believe that they are the most relevant factors to be used when sizing local boards. As such, we submit that the roles and responsibilities of local boards should be the primary factor in determining the base level of local board remuneration across all local boards. A base level of remuneration should be allocated for each local board role (member, chair, and deputy chair), with other factors, such as population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights, being used to provide additional remuneration to particular local boards, where appropriate.

We do not agree with the principle of local authorities deciding their own remuneration. As such, we do not agree that local board remuneration should be decided by Auckland Council (by either the governing body and/or local boards) through a remuneration pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority. We believe this approach would negatively impact on local boards and as a result, the communities we serve. It provides uncertainty about remuneration to potential local board candidates, makes local board remuneration a political issue, and may well cause unnecessary conflict and tension between elected members (and particularly with the governing body if it is the decision-making body).

Given the considerable work undertaken by Auckland Council to clearly define and articulate the roles and responsibilities of local board members, including chairs and deputy chairs, we believe that the Remuneration Authority has sufficient information and clarity to make a determination. Therefore, we strongly believe that the Remuneration Authority should continue its current practice of transparently and independently setting the rates of remuneration for local board members, chairs, and deputy chairs.

We are firmly of the view that the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to reflect the fulltime commitment required of this role. The specific requirements of the role and workload are unique to Auckland and its governance structure and are not comparable to roles in other local authorities. We do not believe there is any rationale to change the current approach to remuneration of local board chairs and as such, the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority. We also submit that the Remuneration Authority should increase the rate of remuneration for local board deputy chairs to reflect the additional responsibilities and workload expected of this role, as demonstrated by Auckland Council’s recent work to develop a detailed role and capability description for this role.

Introduction

About local boards

Auckland Council’s 21 local boards (comprising 149 local board members) have a significant and wide ranging role. Local boards are independent governance entities and for some purposes, are considered to be local authorities. We have decision-making responsibility for local issues, activities, services and facilities. We are fully accountable for the decisions we make, without any involvement or oversight of Auckland Council’s governing body. We also have a key advocacy role in regional decisions and policies. In particular local boards:

· help make local government accessible to Aucklanders

· make governance decisions on local activities, issues and services

· develop and adopt local board plans every three years, to reflect the aspirations and priorities of local communities

· prioritise expenditure in local board budgets and monitor delivery of projects and spending against budget

· work with mana whenua and mataawaka

· develop annual local board agreements

· engage with communities and express views and preferences on their behalf to the governing body on region-wide strategies, plans and bylaws

· develop relationships with key stakeholders including community organisations, sports and recreation organisations and special interest groups

· propose local bylaws and local targeted rates

· work with council-controlled organisations on services they provide in the local board area.

The extent of the local board governance role is reflected in the Annual Budget. For the 2017/2018 financial year, the combined annual operating budget of local boards is $287,444,000. The combined capital budget is $172,888,000. As well, some local boards are bigger in terms of both budget and the population they serve, than other New Zealand local authorities.

The governance role of local boards, and as a result, local board members, is a significant one. When considering local board remuneration, the nature and extent of this governance role, and the demands associated with it, are key factors. After seven years experience with this model of governance, local boards have a good understanding of these demands and are well equipped to advise on the implications of the Remuneration Authority’s proposal as it relates to local board members.

About local board members

Auckland Council has undertaken considerable work over the last two years to develop detailed role and capability descriptions for all its elected members. These have been developed in consultation with and have the agreement of elected members from both arms of Auckland Council’s shared governance model. The role and capability descriptions for local board chairs, deputy chairs and local board members, all require a considerable time commitment (see Appendix A for the full role and capability descriptions). These roles are as follows.

· Local board chair: The role of local board chair is a full-time position requiring substantial additional commitment to that of other local board members. It involves civic leadership and is the most high-profile role in the local board. The chair has broad oversight of the local board’s activities and is called upon to undertake additional tasks, such as fronting media enquiries and representing the local board at a regional level. The chair is also responsible for leading local board meetings and workshops.

· Local board deputy chair: Each local board elects a deputy chair. Deputy chairs form part of the local board’s leadership team and assume significantly more responsibilities than other local board members. To meet the expectations of their role, deputy chairs are generally undertaking well in excess of the 20 hours per week time commitment expected of other local board members.

· Local board members: The workload of local boards is extensive. As a result, local board members can expect to spend around 20 to 25 hours per week on local board business. The role involves a mix of daytime and night-time commitments. Annual business such as plan development and hearings mean the job is also busier at certain times of the year.

These are significant governance roles requiring considerable commitment and as a result, limit the capacity to undertake additional employment. The manner in which local board members are remunerated is therefore, an important issue.

Factors to be used in sizing local board member remuneration

The Remuneration Authority is proposing a mix of population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights to be used when sizing local authorities for the purposes of determining remuneration. However, while there may be some difference in workload and responsibility between local boards based on these factors, we do not believe that they are the most relevant factors to be used when sizing local boards. Due to the statutory and allocated responsibilities of local boards, the workload and responsibilities of each local board, and particularly chairs and deputy chairs, are very similar. There is a base level of work and activities that all local boards have to undertake, regardless of budget or population size. For example, all local boards are required to prepare local board plans and local board agreements. They are all responsible for significant local activities, issues, facilities and services. All local boards are required to input into a multitude of regional policies and plans, as well as work with council-controlled organisations on issues relevant to their areas. These are significant undertakings required of all local boards, irrespective of issues such as size of population, operating expenditure or asset base.

Collectively, the roles and responsibilities required of all local boards have the most impact on workload and should be the predominant factor when allocating a base level of remuneration across Auckland Council’s local boards. Each local board role (member, chair, deputy chair) should be sized and a base level of remuneration allocated to that role. The other proposed factors (population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights) would then be used to provide additional levels of remuneration to particular local boards, if appropriate. This approach should apply to the current remuneration practice, which determines the level of remuneration by role, as well as any proposed remuneration pool.

Submission:

· The roles and responsibilities of local boards have the most significant influence on the workload of local board members (including chairs and deputy chairs) and should be the primary factor in determining the base level of local board remuneration across all local boards.

· A base level of remuneration should be allocated for each local board role (member, chair, and deputy chair), with other factors, such as population, operational expenditure, asset size, social deprivation and number of guest nights, being used to provide additional remuneration to particular local boards, where appropriate.

Local board member remuneration

We strongly believe that the Remuneration Authority’s proposal of a remuneration pool is not in the best interests of local board members and will negatively impact on local boards and as a result, the communities they serve. Our reasons are set out below.

Certainty

Certainty regarding remuneration is an important issue for potential local board candidates. Currently, candidates know the remuneration they will receive if successful and can plan accordingly. This certainty is also relevant to a local board member’s decision-making process at the start of the electoral term when considering a potential role as a chair or deputy chair of a local board. The proposed remuneration pool will create uncertainty, as the actual level of remuneration for specific local board roles will not be set until after the local government election. This uncertainty has the potential to discourage potential candidates. It may also disadvantage local board members who sought re-election based on certain remuneration expectations which are not met when decisions regarding allocation of the remuneration pool are made. Financial hardship could occur as a result, particularly for those candidates who have reduced their hours of work elsewhere to become a local board member.

Independence and transparency

The remuneration pool approach has the potential to make local board member remuneration a political issue. It removes the current transparency and independence provided by the Remuneration Authority. If the level of remuneration is determined by the governing body, it has the potential to undermine the autonomy of local boards and cause unnecessary conflict and tension between the governing body and local boards. If it is determined by each individual local board (with a remuneration pool allocated at the individual local board level), it has the potential to cause conflict within the local board, particularly if there are discrepancies in how individual local board members are remunerated. It may also result in significant inconsistencies between local boards in remuneration levels for similar roles, which may negatively affect relationships between local boards.

Adequacy of information

Prior to 2017, the role definition for Auckland Council’s elected members was underdeveloped. Auckland Council has undertaken significant work over the last two years to define the roles and capabilities required of its elected members. This includes local board chairs, deputy chairs, and members. We are confident that the responsibilities and requirements of these roles are now well articulated and understood. As such, we believe there is now sufficient information and clarity on roles for the Remuneration Authority to continue with its current practice of setting the rates of remuneration. While some differences may occur in terms of the specific workloads of individual local board members, the expectations of the various local board roles are clear. Workload issues and discrepancies are best addressed internally within each local board as part of its management of performance, rather than as a remuneration matter.

Submission:

· We do not agree with the principle of local authorities deciding their own remuneration. As such, we do not agree that local board remuneration should be decided by Auckland Council (by either the governing body and/or local boards) through a remuneration pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority.

· We believe that the current regime, where remuneration is transparently determined by an independent authority, is preferable and should continue, and that there is sufficient clarity on roles to enable the Remuneration Authority to make its determination.

· If however, the Remuneration Authority decides to allocate a remuneration pool to Auckland Council, then:

o We believe the remuneration pool should be allocated to each individual local board for its determination, rather than to the governing body;

o Each additional position of responsibility, above the base local board role, should have a formal role description; and

o Each local board should be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all of its positions.

Local board chair remuneration

The local board chair has a leadership role, with broad oversight of all local board activities. The chair is called upon to undertake many additional tasks, such as chairing local board meetings and workshops, representing the local board at a regional level, fronting media enquiries, and representing the local board at civic and community events. The role of the local board chair requires a fulltime commitment. This is reflected in the current remuneration set by the Remuneration Authority. The specific requirements of the role and workload are unique to Auckland and its governance structure, and are not comparable to roles in other local authorities. We do not believe there is any rationale to change the current approach to remuneration of local board chairs. As such, the remuneration for local board chairs should continue to be set by the Remuneration Authority, taking into account the roles and capabilities required.

Submission:

· The local board chair role should continue to be treated as fulltime and remunerated accordingly.

· The current approach to determining the remuneration for local board chairs should continue.

· If however, the Remuneration Authority decides to allocate a remuneration pool to Auckland Council, then the remuneration for local board chairs should be set by the Remuneration Authority, taking into account the role and capabilities required of a local board chair.

Local board deputy chair remuneration

Local board deputy chairs have a major role, which extends beyond that of a local board member. As well as chairing meetings and assuming the role of the chair when the chair is absent or unavailable, they provide leadership, governance and decision-making support to the chair and the local board as a whole. A role and capability description has been developed, which demonstrates an expectation that deputy chairs will commit to a workload well in excess of the 20 hours per week expected of local board members. However, currently deputy chairs receive no additional remuneration for this additional responsibility and workload, which significantly disadvantages those local board members who are prepared to accept this leadership role. We strongly urge the Remuneration Authority to set a rate of remuneration for deputy chairs which reflects the additional responsibilities and workload assumed by local board deputy chairs.

Submission:

· The Remuneration Authority should increase the rate of remuneration for local board deputy chairs to reflect the additional responsibilities and workload expected of this role.

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Appendix A

Context

Auckland Council has a unique two-part governance structure, made up of the governing body and local boards. The governing body comprises of the mayor (elected at large) and 20 governing body members (councillors) elected from 13 wards. There are 21 local boards, each of five to nine members elected from the local area (a total of 149 members).

Governing body members and local board chairs are a full-time role, while local board members are a part- time commitment.

The role of the mayor is to articulate and promote a vision for Auckland and to provide leadership towards that vision, including leading the development of the council’s plans (including the long-term plan and the Auckland Plan), policies and budgets.

The governing body focuses on Auckland-wide strategic decisions including strategies, policies, plans, regulations and activities. The governing body also appoints the chief executive and governs the council-controlled organisations.

Local boards set local direction through the local board plans, represent their local communities and make decisions on most local issues, activities and facilities. Local boards also provide input to the governing body on regional decisions and on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws.

Decisions of the local boards and the governing body are decisions of Auckland Council. The chief executive has management responsibility, delegated by the elected members, for implementing the direction and decisions of the governing body and the local boards.

The elected member role is therefore a governance one.

The governing body member role

The following provides an outline of the governing body member role.

Provide regional strategic leadership and direction

· Consider the Mayor’s proposal for plans and budgets, and together with the Mayor, set direction through regional strategies, policies and plans including the Auckland Plan, long-term plan and Unitary Plan

· Balance a wide range of considerations and perspectives to provide the best possible outcomes for Auckland as a whole

· Bring views on the future of Auckland into the collective vision-making process

· Set direction for the council-controlled organisations and appoint their directors

Make decisions on regional matters

· Make decisions, without bias, that take into account social, cultural, environmental and economic matters for the benefit of all Aucklanders, both now and in the future

· Make financially responsible decisions that ensure Auckland Council has a sound financial future

· Adopt regional strategies, policies and plans and consider the views of local boards before adopting regional policies and plans or making a decision which affects the communities in a local board area Allocate non-regulatory decision-making powers to local boards

· Appoint the chief executive of Auckland Council

· Debate issues and consider all views, but once a decision is made, respect the democratic process and accept this as part of collective responsibility

· Ensure decisions are transparent and be aware of conflicts of interest

Work collaboratively and build relationships

· Work collaboratively with other councillors, the mayor’s office, the local boards, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and the advisory panels

· Create a strong working relationship with council’s Executive Leadership Team and the council-controlled organisation executive teams and board members

Engage with communities

· Engage with the community, interest groups and organisations, particularly about regional strategies, plans and policies

· Be aware of and interested in ward issues, including attend local events, meetings and local board meetings

· Respond to requests from constituents

· Develop relationships with mana whenua and mataawaka

· Honour Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori and promote Māori wellbeing

· Take part in overseas delegations to promote Auckland’s interests and relationships

· Represent Auckland Council at civic other events

· Oversee hearings as part of formal public consultation

Monitor performance

· Oversee the council’s regulatory activities, consenting and bylaws

· Monitor and review performance of the organisation to ensure regional outcomes and priorities are achieved

· Oversee emergency management processes and protocols

Identify and manage risk

· Identify risks early and gain assurance that the organisation is managing risks appropriately

The role of the committee chair

In addition to the above

· Provide leadership and inspire the committee to achieve its priorities

· Encourage an environment of collaboration and respectful debate

· Represent the committee, and the wider Auckland Council, on the committee’s work

· Develop a strong working relationship with key stakeholders and senior council staff

· Chair committee meetings efficiently and in accordance with standing orders, terms of reference, and the elected members’ code of conduct

· Promote and support the principles of good governance

· Ensure committee members understand what is expected of them, monitor their performance and hold them to account (noting that the Mayor plays this leadership role for the governing body as a whole)

The local board member role

Provide civic leadership locally

· This is the fundamental purpose of the role of a local board member. It is about making a positive difference to communities and shaping local places

· The points below are the elements that enable a local board member to achieve this.

Set local direction and deliver priorities

· Work with the community to identify a vision, outcomes and priorities in the local board plan that take into account the Auckland Plan and council’s overall financial position

· Set a work programme based on the local board plan and the local board agreement within the available budget (noting that the agreement must not be inconsistent with regional strategies and policies)

· Work pro-actively with the local community and partner with others to deliver shared aspirations

· Consider the national and regional context, including relevant legislation, when setting strategic direction

Make decisions on local matters

· Make decisions without bias for the benefit of the whole community (not just particular groups) and for both current and future generations

· Debate issues but once the local board makes a decision, respect democratic process and accept this as part of collective responsibility

· Ensure decisions are transparent and be aware of conflicts of interest

· Maintain a broad view and check that the overall direction remains appropriate

Input to regional decisions, policies, plans and strategies

· Provide views to the governing body to inform their regional decisions, including input to regional strategies, policies and plans

· Recognise that the governing body makes regional decisions and once they are made, these are decisions of Auckland Council, of which the local boards are a part

Work collaboratively and build relationships

· Build relationships and work collaboratively with other local boards, the governing body and the mayor

· Build relationships across the council family, including council staff and council-controlled organisations

Promote strong, resilient and engaged communities

· Develop relationships and understanding with mana whenua, mataawaka and the range of people, groups, organisations and businesses in the area.

· Work proactively with the local community, encouraging and enabling them to have influence, get involved and work together

· Honour Auckland Council’s commitments to Māori and promote Māori well-being

· Oversee local hearings as part of formal public consultation

· Represent Auckland Council at civic and public events

Represent members of the local community

· Represent all members of the local community by actively seeking and sharing their views with others and, advocating on their behalf

· Communicate with members of the local community in an open and appropriate way

· Advise members of the local community on the appropriate council channels to address their issues and concerns (provide the bridge between the council and the community)

Monitor the organisation’s progress and report to the public

· Monitor progress and review performance to ensure the organisation achieves the local board’s outcomes and priorities.

· Be accountable to the public by explaining council processes and reporting progress against outcomes and priorities

Identify and manage risk

· Identify risks early and gain assurance that the organisation is managing risks appropriately

The role of the local board chair

In addition to the above

· Provide strong leadership and inspire the local board

· Build and maintain relationships to develop a collegial local board that is able to work effectively together and reach consensus to deliver the local board’s vision and priorities

· Be accountable for the local board relationship with iwi (chief-to-chief)

· Develop a strong working relationship with key stakeholders and senior council staff

· Chair local board meetings effectively abiding by standing orders and the code of conduct

· Represent the local board, and the wider Auckland Council as appropriate, including in a civic and community role (such as citizenship ceremonies) and as the spokesperson to the media

· Promote and support the principles of good governance

· Work with the governing body and council committees to provide local board input to regional decisions and to regional strategies, policies and plans

· Ensure local board members understand what is expected of them, monitor their performance and hold them to account

The role of the local board deputy chair

The chair and deputy chair collectively form the leadership team for the local board.

In addition to the local board member role, the local board deputy chair has the following roles.

Chairing and attending meetings	· Assumes leadership responsibility for chairing local board meetings and workshops (in the absence of the Chair, or as agreed with the Chair). · Shares the leadership responsibility for attending meetings and workshops on behalf of the local board (in the absence of the Chair or as agreed with the Chair).
Supporting strong and inspiring leadership	· Works with the Chair to provide strong and inspiring leadership to the local board and to support the achievement of agreed local board outcomes and priorities. · Supports the Chair by acting as a sounding board and sharing knowledge, experience, and workload.
Promoting good decision-making and governance	· Promotes the principles and processes of good governance and decision making by encouraging the provision of quality advice, sharing of information, and open, inclusive and robust discussion and debate amongst local board members.
Team and capability building	· Strives to build strong and collaborative working relationships within the local board. · Supports local board members in their roles and activities, including mentoring less experienced or new local board members.
Representing the local board and building good relationships	· Works with the Chair to develop strong relationships with the community, stakeholders, staff, and other elected members. · Shares the leadership responsibility for representing the local board at civic, community and council events and with the media (in the absence of the Chair, or as agreed with the Chair).
Delegated decision-making and activities	· Undertakes specific decision-making roles as delegated by the local board. · Undertakes specific activities delegated by the local board.

Capabilities (knowledge and skills) for all elected members

Quality decision-making

· Make good decisions based on a combination of staff advice, community views, wisdom, experience and informed judgement

· Understand and interpret information

· Be open minded, apply critical thinking and ask the right questions at the right time to test and challenge advice

· Take a broad view and balance considerations and conflicting opinions while putting aside personal bias

· Be financially prudent and have an eye to risk

Political acumen

· Understand the political environment as well as the respective roles of governors and management

· Use influence and persuasion to mobilise and proactively engage in the political environment

· Manoeuvre through complex political situations effectively and respectfully

· Aware of all stakeholders and their different needs

Leadership

· Provide leadership and direction and makes things happen to achieve the vision and outcomes

· Put energy and focus into the higher priorities

· Show leadership by continuously developing skills and knowledge, supporting others to do so and being open to feedback

Cultural awareness

· Understands and empathise with different people and cultures within the Auckland community

· Respect and embrace differences and diversity in a non-judgemental way

· Support equal and fair treatment and opportunity for all

· Understand tikanga Māori, the Māori Responsiveness Framework and the council’s responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi

· Makes an effort to support and use Māori and other languages where possible and appropriate

· Respectfully participates in cultural activities and ceremonies when required

Strategic thinking

· Understand Auckland’s needs and priorities and the links between local, regional, national and global perspectives

· Consider multiple aspects and impacts of an issue or opportunity

· Understand possible future scenarios, options and consequences and see connections across issues and opportunities

Knowledge and understanding of Auckland Council and local government

· Understand Auckland Council’s governance model and the role of the Mayor, the governing body and local boards (in particular the allocation of decision making)

· Understand and comply with relevant legislation

· Understand council’s processes (such as decision-making and policy development) and know how to influence appropriately

· Understand and abide by the Standing Orders and Terms of Reference and support the chair in using the Standing Orders

· Understand council’s key strategies, policies and plans as well as topical issues

· Understand the council organisation including the council-controlled organisation model and how to work with CCOs

· Understand central government’s policy and legislative framework, and how it affects the council

· Understand the council’s financial language, budgets and processes

Communication and engagement

· Relate well and build rapport and trust with people from all parts of the community and within the council

· Use diplomacy and tact to put others at ease. Is easy to approach and talk to

· Seek the input of others, shares ideas and engages in active listening

· Diffuse high-tension situations with confidence and respect and facilitate respectfully to reach acceptable resolutions

· Consult and engage with the whole community

· Is effective and comfortable in a variety of engagement settings, e.g. one-on-one, small and large, public and internal facing groups

· Speaks well in a range of forums with a range of people from different backgrounds and cultures

· Represent and promote council in a measured, unified and dignified light and avoid risks to council’s reputation

· Work effectively with the media, as appropriate

Relationship building and collaboration

· Build productive relationships and support within the community and with other organisations to create and deliver on the vision and outcomes

· Work to find common ground and solve problems for the benefit of all

· Represent their own views with respect, empathy and fairness to other groups or perspectives

· Able to agree to disagree and accept and own decisions and outcomes

Resilience

· Manage time, prioritise and be flexible

· Cope with the pressures of being in the public eye

Ethics and values

· Understand and uphold the code of conduct and relevant policies that guide appropriate behaviour for elected members

· Understand and model the council values and behaviours and discourage unethical behaviour

· Work respectfully with council staff, and others, and value their roles

Integrity and trust

· Widely trusted, keeps confidences and respects the confidentiality of information provided

· Seen as an honest, fair and open-minded elected member

· Take ownership and responsibility for actions

· Does not misrepresent him/herself or others for personal gain

Computer literacy

· Utilise computers and related technology as required, to carry out the role effectively

Additional capabilities for the role of committee chair or local board chair

The following capabilities are in addition to the above and specific to the role of a committee chair or a local board chair.

Leadership and delegation

· Encourage direct and robust debate but is not afraid to end it and move on

· Looked to for direction in challenging situations and faces adversity head on

· Take an unpopular stand if necessary

· Not afraid of using the casting vote if necessary

· Delegate tasks and decisions when needed

· Support peers and colleagues when needed

· Chair meetings effectively

· Find common ground and get cooperation with minimum noise

· Negotiate skilfully in tough situations with both internal and external groups

Managing vision and purpose

· Communicate a compelling and inspired vision or sense of core purpose for all members of the committee or board

· Invite input from each person and share ownership and visibility

· Foster open dialogue

Additional capabilities specific to local board chairs

· Build and lead an effective local board team, including providing feedback to members of your local board

· Develop and mentor other local board members

· Work effectively with the media

Additional capabilities specific to local board deputy chairs

In addition to the capabilities of all elected members:

Chairing and attending meetings	· Chairs meetings effectively and in accordance with good governance principles. · Demonstrates a good knowledge of standing orders · Understands and accurately represents and articulates the views of the local board
Supporting strong and inspiring leadership	· Works collaboratively to achieve agreed outcomes and priorities · Provides feedback in a constructive manner.
Promoting good decision-making and governance	· Shares information, seeks input and views on issues, and listens to competing interests and perspectives. · Role models good decision making and governance by encouraging robust, sound, open and inclusive processes.
Team and capability building	· Acts in a supportive manner to other local board members as needed. · Role models collaboration. · Displays a high level of political acumen and ability to navigate different political dynamics to encourage the local board to work effectively together.
Representing the local board and building good relationships	· Builds strong and respectful relationships.
Delegated decision-making and activities	· Seeks the input and views of local board members (where appropriate) and ensures they are accurately represented and articulated.

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 October 2017

Approval for four new road names within the subdivision at 1 Ockleston Landing, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2017/20742

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board, for road names for two new public roads and two new jointly owned access lots (JOALs), within a subdivision development at 1 Ockleston Landing, Hobsonville.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. The applicant, Ockleston Investments Limited, have submitted the following road names in order of preference :

Road no.	Type	Preferred	Alternate 1	Alternate 2
1	Crescent	Makete	Pakoro	Poti Tara *
2	Street	Waipana	Tupahipahi	Wakarere
JOAL 1	Close	Aratoto	Wapu	Tungangi
JOAL 2	Lane	Waita	Poti Tara	Wapu *
* repeats once

4. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the criteria and are acceptable to both New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve a road name for the new public ‘Road 1’ within the subdivision development at 1 Ockleston Landing, Hobsonville, from the following options:

i. Makete Crescent (preferred)

ii. Pakoro Crescent

iii. Poti Tara Crescent.

b) approve a road name for the new public ‘Road 2’ within the subdivision development at 1 Ockleston Landing, Hobsonville, from the following options:

i. Waipana Street (preferred)

ii. Tupahipahi Street

iii. Wakarere Street.

c) approve a road name for the new jointly owned access lot ‘JOAL 1’ within the subdivision development at 1 Ockleston Landing, Hobsonville, from the following options:

i. Aratoto Close (preferred)

ii. Wapu Close

iii. Tungangi Close.

d) approve a road name for the new jointly owned access lot ‘JOAL 2’ within the subdivision development at 1 Ockleston Landing, Hobsonville, from the following options:

i. Waita Lane (preferred)

ii. Poti Tara Lane

iii. Wapu Lane.

Comments

5. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider / developer may suggest their preferred road name for local board approval.

6. These criteria typically require that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

7. The guidelines encourage the use of Māori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

8. The two new private roads to be named (JOALs) each service properties within the subdivision. Lots serviced are:

JOAL	Lots serviced	Adjacent named roads
1	40 - 47	Road 1
2	63 - 70	Road 1

9. Maps showing the two new public roads and two new JOALs, with surrounding lots in the subdivision are attached (refer Attachments A and B).

10. The applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below, in order of preference. All names meet the criteria by having a historic or ancestral linkage to the area:

Road	Proposed name	Meaning
1	Makete Crescent (preferred)	Market
	Pakoro Crescent	Storing place for crops
	Poti Tara Crescent	Food basket
2	Waipana Street (preferred)	Sea channel
	Tupahipahi Street	Sandbank
	Wakarere Street	Aeroplane roaring
JOAL 1	Aratoto Close (preferred)	Path of discovery
	Wapu Close	Wharves
	Tungangi Close	Cockles found on sand flats
JOAL 2	Waita Lane (preferred)	Star associated with food harvesting from the sea
	Poti Tara Lane	Food basket
	Wapu Lane	Wharves

11. The road naming criteria suggests that the road types could be referred to as:

Road no.	Type	Guideline description	Applicant’s preference
1	Crescent	Crescent shaped thoroughfare, especially where both ends join the same thoroughfare	Crescent
2	Street	Public roadway in an urban area, especially where paved and with buildings and footpaths along one or both sides	Street
JOAL 1	Close	Short enclosed roadway	Close
JOAL 2	Lane	Narrow roadway between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway	Lane

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2012-2022, allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads to local boards, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974. A decision is therefore sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board in this report.

13. The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

14. Local iwi were consulted and no comments were received.

Implementation

15. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road names is recoverable for the applicant in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges.

16. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location plan - 1 Ockleston Landing	225
b ⇩	Site plan - 1 Ockleston Landing	227

Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven - Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, JP
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board workshop record - 14 September 2017	247
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board workshop record - 28 September 2017	251
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board workshop record - 5 October 2017	253

Authors	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Judy Lawley – Manager Local Board Engagement, Regional Facilities Auckland
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager