Agenda of Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 October 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 Kaipātiki 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.

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

Reallocation of 2017/18 local economic development work programme funding

File No.: CP2017/23435

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval from the Kaipātiki Local Board (the local board) for proposed approaches to supporting businesses in Highbury that are being adversely affected by the impacts of the Rawene Road car park slip.

Executive summary

2. This report outlines proposed activities that the Birkenhead Town Centre Association (BCTA) would like to implement in response to potential protracted loss in revenues following the Rawene Road car park slip that occurred in October 2017 leading to the direct loss of 24 car park spaces and a further 35 adjacent spaces within the area that has been cordoned off.

3. The BTCA has indicated that the slip is costing local businesses in lost revenue.

4. Current estimates from Auckland Transport are that the 24 lost parking spaces are permanently lost. Stabilising work will commence in November 2017 and will aim to restore as many of the cordoned off spaces as possible. This is likely to take some months.

5. It was noted at the 18 October 2017 Kaipātiki Local Board meeting that the car park slip has led to a significant decrease in the usefulness of the Highbury Investments Economic Impact Assessment project as it would be taking place in an environment where normal town centre activity is not possible.

6. The local board resolved (resolution number KT/2017/148):

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) agree to cancel the Highbury economic impact assessment , and request staff work with the Birkenhead Town Centre Association investigate and present back alternate options to utilise the allocated funding to the November local board business meeting.

7. The project has a maximum budget of $15,000 that would need to be transferred from the Economic Impact Assessment and granted to the BTCA.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) reallocate the $15,000 budget originally agreed as part of the board’s 2017/18 local economic development work programme to the Birkenhead Town Centre Association to increase its promotional activity in order to increase trade in the town centre, particularly in light of the impact that lost parking may have on local businesses as a result of the October Rawene Road car park slip.

Comments

8. At present there are around 60 car parks out of usage as a result of the October Rawene Road car park slip. The car park itself had already temporarily lost 25 spaces in a leasing agreement with the construction company of the apartments being built on the adjacent site.

9. The Birkenhead Town Centre Association (BTCA) has indicated that businesses are suffering a loss in revenue as a result of the reduced number of parking spaces.

10. The Kaipātiki Local Board wishes to support businesses in the Highbury town centre that have been affected by the loss of car parking following the Rawene Road car park slip. The BTCA is the most appropriate organisation to liaise with local businesses to understand their needs and to deliver activity that will lessen the impact on businesses resulting from the slip.

11. It is understood that Auckland Transport are looking at measures to improve parking availability in the short term including:

· investigating alternative time limits on use of existing parking;

· sourcing alternative parking arrangements; and

· raising awareness of alternative parking.

12. As a result the BTCA focus will be on promoting the town centre to ensure a good level of trade for local businesses. That said, the association does have a role in working with its members to consider staff transport and parking options that frees up available parking for customers.

13. It is suggested therefore that a programme includes:

· Promote visitation of the town centre using existing publicity materials (Le Roys Bush and Butcher, Baker, Candlestick maker)

· Make additional use of radio ads / fliers to promote the centre

· Develop additional events that could be run in the town centre (e.g. using the Kaimataara ō Wai Manawa space) – these could be events already planned for elsewhere in the city transplanted in to Highbury or new events

· Provide additional promotions that could be run that would drive increased footfall.

14. Attachment A provides an outline of the activities that BTCA propose to deliver in order to ensure disruption to trade in the town centre is minimized.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The local board’s initial suggestion was for the BTCA to look at ways to promote the town centre that would contribute to making up the shortfall in trade resulting from the Rawene Road car park slip.

16. The proposed actions are those the BTCA feels they can deliver, utilising existing promotional materials that can be delivered quickly as well as considering several new approaches that could be delivered early in 2018.

Māori impact statement

17. There are no specific impacts identified for Maori.

Implementation

18. ATEED will arrange for a $15,000 grant to be paid to the BTCA upon a funding agreement being signed. The BTCA will keep a record of activity and where possible measure impact. The BTCA will report back via ATEED to the local board in March 2018 on each element of the package of initiatives.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Birkenhead Town Centre Association Response to Rawene Road Car Park Slip	11

Signatories

Authors

Jonathan Sudworth - Local Economic Development Advisor (ATEED)

Authorisers

John Norman - Strategic Planner Local Economic Development (ATEED)

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

Adoption of a regional membership structure across council operated pools and leisure centres

File No.: CP2017/23559

Purpose

1. To endorse the introduction of a regional membership structure across Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres, and new membership options for Glenfield and Birkenhead pools and leisure centres.

Executive summary

2. The Active Recreation team have developed a strategic “Game Plan” to support the vision of the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan – inspiring more Aucklanders to be more active, more often – and to achieve local board priorities.

3. Deploying a single consolidated operating system across all council operated leisure facilities is a key project in this work programme. The new system supports improved operational and business processes. It also enables Auckland Council to offer a new range of affordable and accessible memberships across all council operated leisure centres.

4. A new membership structure was piloted in three leisure centres in June and July: Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa, Stanmore Bay and East Coast Bays (Albany Stadium Pool opened in February with the same membership categories).

5. The response to the pilot was overwhelmingly positive, with increases in membership, member satisfaction and staff engagement. Active Recreation has extended the pilot to all centres and is seeking the endorsement of local boards to continue this as a permanent network-wide membership offer at council operated pools and leisure centres.

6. The recommended membership model provides more choice and membership features, improved benefits and allows full members access to more activities in more centres throughout the region. It also provides lower cost options for people that predominantly enjoy one activity at their home centre.

7. Centres have been grouped into three tiers according to their size, features and services, location, local demographics and financial capability. Extensive customer research and financial modelling has informed the recommended membership structure, which is projected to deliver improved financial and customer service performance.

8. Glenfield Pool and Leisure Centre will become a silver centre. New Get Into It (full) members will gain access to all functions at Glenfield and at fourteen silver and bronze centres across Auckland. Or members can now choose new single function memberships for activities at West Wave only: Gym It (gym access), Move It (group fitness) or Swim It (swimming).

9. Birkenhead Pool and Leisure Centre will become a bronze centre. New Get Into It members will gain access to Birkenhead and nine other bronze centres across Auckland. Members can also choose Gym It (gym access) or Swim It (swimming) memberships at Birkenhead only.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) endorse the introduction of a regional membership structure across council operated pools and leisure centres.

b) approve new membership prices for local pools and leisure centres for the 2017/2018 financial year as indicated below:

Full “Get Into It” membership

Single function membership:

Gym It, Move It or Swim It

Glenfield Pool & Leisure Centre

Silver, at $19.50/week

$16.00/week

Birkenhead Pool & Leisure Centre

Bronze, at $16.00/week

$14.00/week

Comments

Impact in the Kaipātiki Local Board area:

10. Glenfield Pool and Leisure Centre will become a silver centre. New members will pay $19.50 per week for full membership and access to all functions at Glenfield and at fourteen silver and bronze centres across Auckland. This applies the approved 2017/18 percentage increase approved by the local board earlier this year, which is the first time the membership price has increased in the last 3 years.

11. Birkenhead Pool and Leisure Centre will become a bronze centre. New members will pay $16.00 for full membership at Birkenhead and 9 other bronze centres across Auckland. This is a reduction in the previous price for a membership at Birkenhead but better reflects the level of service and is comparable to other Bronze sites. The reduced revenue will be offset across the network and will not impact the local board.

12. Alternatively, new members can choose single function memberships at each location which previously were not offered:

· Gym It (gym access) – Glenfield at $16.00/week, Birkenhead at $14.00/week.

· Move It (group fitness) – Glenfield at $16.00/week.

· Swim It (swimming) – Glenfield at $16.00/week, Birkenhead at $14.00/week.

13. Concessions for seniors, students, families, disabled, community services card holders and green prescription will apply to these prices.

14. Existing members are welcome to retain their memberships until:

a. their current fixed term membership period ends, at which time they will be offered one of the new fixed or open-term memberships, or

b. they choose to upgrade or cancel their open-term direct debit membership.

15. These changes only apply to membership-based products and services. There will be no impact on the cost, features or availability of other activities, including pool entry, Learn-To-Swim, spa/sauna/steam access, casual fitness, OSCAR after school care, Early Childhood Education (ECE), ActivZone, climbing, recreation or holiday programmes.

16. Centres have been grouped into three tiers, or categories, according to their size, range and quality of equipment, features and services, location, local demographics and financial capability. Extensive customer research and financial modelling has informed the recommended membership structure, which is projected to deliver improved financial and customer service performance.

17. In the case of Glenfield, there has been considerable investment in renovating the fitness areas and upgrading the equipment. The facility also hosts a wide range of very popular group fitness classes, including Les Mills, and an extensive aquatic programme which cannot be offered at Birkenhead.

18. Whilst these recommendations, as presented, have no financial risk for the local board (as these changes fall within already approved fees and charges increases or, in the case of Birkenhead, the reduction in revenue of lower membership fees is factored into the regional model and covered under an Asset Based Service), there will be an impact if the board resolve to change the way facilities are categorised or the pricing is calculated. For example: if the local board was to consider changing Glenfield from a Silver to a Bronze facility the estimated reduction in membership revenue would be significant. Financial modelling estimates revenue losses in excess of $350,000 per annum, which will need to be funded by the Local Board.

Background – enabling more Aucklanders to be more active, more often

19. Council manages 44 aquatic, leisure and early childhood education (ECE) facilities across the Auckland region. Nineteen pools and leisure centres are operated under contract or lease agreements by third parties. The remainder are managed and operated by council’s Active Recreation team.

20. The Active Recreation “Game Plan” is a three year transformation programme designed to achieve outcomes aligned to the Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan (ASARSAP):

· inspiring more Aucklanders to be more active, more often;

· enabling our children, young people and whanau to reach their potential; and

· delivering quality experiences through an operationally cost neutral leisure network.

21. Active Recreation has developed a range of new initiatives to improve engagement with “insufficiently active” Aucklanders, based on extensive sector insights, market research, pilot testing and customer feedback. These include:

· offering flexibility and variety in our membership offering, including regional access to Auckland Council operated pools and leisure centres (a new membership structure); and

· providing consistently high quality and engaging member services that encourage and support regular activity for a wide variety of Aucklanders (a new customer promise).

22. Council’s new leisure consolidated operating system (LCOS) will be deployed across all council operated leisure facilities by March 2018. The new system will support improvements in operational processes and business practices, including: point of sale, processing entries and payments, managing memberships, running programmes and courses, allocating staff.

New Auckland-wide leisure membership

23. One significant advantage of the consolidated operation system – for both customers and council – is the ability to simplify and standardise products (memberships), services (courses and programmes) and prices across the leisure network.

24. It will also enable council to offer a new range of affordable and accessible “Get Active Your Way” memberships that include access to many more council operated leisure centres and activities. Within each membership tier there is a mix of services including pool, gym and group fitness programmes for customers with “Get into it” membership and all prices are attuned to the local community.

25. If members want access to centres or services that do not fall within their home centre’s tier they are welcome to purchase a membership for a tier above.

26. Active Recreation has also introduced a new single function (swimming, fitness, group fitness) membership at each centre to offer a cheaper, more targeted alternative.

27. Screenshot%202017-09-27%2020
The Get Active Your Way membership structure is as follows:

28. The table below outlines the proposed changes to individual membership:

Type of membership	Description	Replaces	What’s the change?
Get Into It	Full membership, offers access to all activities within each centre and to other council operated centres across the region according to three tier groupings: Gold (17 centres, including silver & bronze) Silver (15 centres, including bronze) Bronze (10 centres)	Over 50 different full access memberships. Offered in single or small clusters of centres across the region. Currently prices, services, terms and benefits vary across the region and from centre to centre. Full membership: Glenfield & Birkenhead = $18.80/week	Simplicity, clarity and consistency of prices, services and benefits. Access to a much wider range of Auckland Council operated leisure centres. Improved range and quality of services offered. Get Into It membership: Glenfield, silver = $19.50/week Birkenhead, bronze = $16.00/week
Gym It Swim It Move It	Activity based membership option. Offers access to a specific activity at the local centre: Gym It – gym/fitness centre Swim It – pool/spa/sauna Move It – group fitness	Off-peak and restricted single-centre memberships. NA	This is a new, cheaper membership category meeting the demands of customers who only wish to use the gym, pool or group fitness. Gym It/Swim It/Move It memberships: Glenfield = $16.00/week Birkenhead = $14.00/week
Concessions	Senior, disabled, student, youth and green prescription concessions are available for all membership types	Existing concession offers	Membership concessions will be carried forward. Both new and current offers will be applied more consistently.

Membership pilot and positive feedback

29. The membership framework has been extensively researched, developed and tested prior to piloting in three sites (Stanmore Bay, East Coast Bays and Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa) in June and July 2017. Albany Stadium Pool opened in February with the same membership categories. These sites represent a diverse range of customers, services and functions. This allowed Active Recreation to test the membership model across a range of local communities, functions and facilities.

30. Feedback from new members who signed up during the pilot period was overwhelmingly positive (e.g. over 90% opted for the “Get Into It” full access bronze membership at Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa).

31. All three pilot centres experienced similar benefit from the new membership structure and have continued with the new membership offering past the end of the period. This has allowed Active Recreation to continue to evaluate the new membership model against the existing membership offering in other centres.

32. Results remain positive and as a result the pilot has been expanded to all council operated sites. Sales have increased in all pilot centres and both customer and staff experience measures have improved. This is shown in the tables below.

33. New membership growth at pilot leisure centres:

Membership Totals	30 May 2016	30 May 2017	Membership Pilot Begins	30 June 2017	30 July 2017	27 Aug 2017
MNAK Total members	956	985		988	1039	1062
Get Into It members	na	0		+59	+143	+210
ECB Total members	553	571		597	590	576
Get Into It members	na	0		+83	+106	+128
Stanmore Bay Total	1784	2095		2126	2115	2148
Get Into It members	na	0		+117	+191	+260

Customer feedback on the new membership structure

34. Active Recreation performs regular customer research, using Net Promoter Score (NPS) surveys which provide a quantitative measurement of customer satisfaction. This benchmarks the quality of customer engagement and service standards.

35. NPS results suggest that, along with other improvements to the service and support offering, the new membership framework has been received positively by customers.

36. Customer experience results at pilot sites:

Average NPS Scores	3 months, March to May 2017	3 months, June to Sept 2017
Pilot centres	43.6	48.7
Auckland Council Pools & Leisure	28.9	27.4

37. The survey also enquires about the key attributes that customers valued. The top attributes across the pilot sites are:

1. programme suitability;

2. good instructors/teachers;

3. friendliness; and

4. value for money.

These are all benefits associated with the new membership services, which reinforces the positive feedback received from staff and through customer interactions.

Inclusion of contracted pools and leisure centres

38. These new membership options will only apply to council operated facilities at this time, with one exception. Staff have an agreement in principle with Community Leisure Management (CLM), one of council’s three contracted operators, that Auckland Council membership will also include Otahuhu Pool and Leisure Centre (Toia) as a bronze centre.

Impact on existing members of the recommended changes

39. One of the key principles of the change process is that existing members, particularly concession holders, are not disadvantaged by the changes. All current membership types will either be continued for active members and access will not change, or the current membership will be matched to an equivalent new membership (and any cost difference discounted). If the new cost is lower in price, existing members will pay the lesser amount. New members will sign up to one of the new membership types at the new prices.

40. Active Recreation are confident that the new Get Active Your Way membership model, coupled with improvements to the service offering and a more integrated network of pools and leisure centres will provide Auckland residents with better access to quality facilities, expert staff and engaging recreation opportunities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

41. Hibiscus and Bays, and Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards were notified before piloting and updated in July via workshops after the pilot.

42. Mangere-Otahuhu, Howick and Otara-Papatoetoe Local Boards have approved the new membership prices.

43. The new membership structure has also been presented in workshops to Devonport-Takapuna, Manurewa, Orakei, Upper Harbour, Henderson and Waitemata Local Boards. They have all expressed their support for the recommended membership model, and reports have been presented for their approval.

44. The pools and leisure network is a regional asset-based service, so the recommendation carries no financial risk to the local board, unless they resolve to change any of the recommended rates or categories. The table below demonstrates the impact of assigning Glenfield to the Bronze membership category:

	2017 M'ship #	Current Membership		2018 M'ship #	Silver Get Into It		Bronze Get Into It
	2017 M'ship #	Fee 2017	Annual $	2018 M'ship #	Fee 2018	Annual $	Fee 2018		Annual $
Full Multi	1,800	18.45	1,726,920	1,000	18.80	977,600	16.00		832,000
Get Into It				800	19.50	811,200	16.00		665,600
Gym It/Swim It/Move It				150	16.00	124,800	14.00		109,200
Multi offers concession	1,250	14.76	959,400	1,200	15.04	938,496	12.80		798,720
Single corporate AC staff	250	13.84	179,888	250	14.10	183,300	12.00		156,000
Full corporate	200	19.00	197,600	200	19.00	197,600	19.00		197,600
Various legacy	500	12.50	325,000	400	12.50	260,000	12.50		260,000
	4,000		3,388,808	4,000		3,492,996			3,019,120

Glenfield Bronze v Current								-369,688
Glenfield Bronze v Silver								-473,876

Māori impact statement

45. The Active Recreation Game Plan and the membership model have been presented to the Northwest Iwi hui. The iwi representatives were very supportive of these initiatives.

46. Recreation, leisure and aquatics programmes, provided for local communities through pools, leisure centres and recreation teams, contribute to improving wellbeing among Maori communities. Some programmes, such as free swimming for under 16s, are intended to benefit local Maori as a targeted population.

Implementation

47. The membership model and changes to access are being presented to local boards for approval during September, October and November. Meanwhile, the Active Recreation support team are developing and delivering staff training to support the new membership structure and customer activation process and extending the pilot to al centres. Communications for existing members and marketing materials for the new memberships are being created. Active Recreation is aiming to permanently introduce these membership options across the network once agreed by the local boards.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Garth Dawson - Leisure Business Manager

Authorisers

Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

Amendment of the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 and its impact on local parks

File No.: CP2017/23224

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· update the Kaipatiki Local Board on the changes to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw; and

· propose a nine week time restriction on public election sign sites.

Executive summary

2. On 1 August 2017 the Auckland Transport Board amended the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”) which removed the nine week time restriction on the display of election signs. This change came about due to concerns that the time restrictions may limit the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BoRA”).

3. Due to the Bylaw amendment, public sites, including those in local parks and reserves, can now be used for election signs for longer than nine weeks. Signs must relate to a specific election, and must be removed prior to the day of the election. However, there is no limit on the length of time that they can be erected prior to the election.

4. Under section 14 (freedom of expression) of the BoRA everyone has the right to freedom of expression. Under section 5 (justified limitations) of the BoRA the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

5. Local boards must balance the need to provide adequate advertising locations to allow the democratic process to run smoothly, while ensuring that parks and reserves are not overly encumbered with election signage.

6. Election signs restrict the public use of parks, have an impact on amenity and create potential safety issues. Increasing the amount of time that election signs can be erected for will lead to additional compliance and maintenance costs.

7. Staff recommend that local boards limit the time period for election signs on parks and reserves to a nine week period. This option would still provide for election signs in parks and reserves and meet community expectations. These changes would apply to the upcoming by-elections in February 2018 and any future elections, unless the decision is revisited.

8. A nine week period is also consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, which provides that no limitation contained in a bylaw restricts election advertising for a period of nine weeks prior to a general election. This legislation contemplates that local authorities may seek to limit the display of election signs, but provides an override for a nine week period. Further, a nine week restriction for public sites has been in place in Auckland since the bylaw was made in 2013, and therefore continuation of this restriction is in line with community expectations. The complaint to the Minister of Transport in 2016 concerned private sites, which are not affected by the proposal to reintroduce a time restriction on public sites.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) amend landowner approvals for election signs to provide a nine week time restriction on local parks and reserves identified in the List of Election Sign Sites, as outlined within Attachment A to the agenda report.

b) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee provide a nine week time restriction for election signs on road reserve to provide a consistency for public sites across Auckland.

c) request that Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee consider updating their List of Election Sign Sites to reflect these time restrictions in accordance with clause 6 of the Election Signs Bylaw 2013.

Comments

Background

9. On 1 August 2017 the Auckland Transport Board amended the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”). This amendment, among other things, removed the nine week time restriction on the display of election signs.

10. During the 2016 local body election, a private citizen requested the Minister of Transport to disallow the Bylaw under the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998. This was due to the time restrictions on the display of election signs, the Bylaw breached the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BoRA”). The Minister took no action at the time, but required Auckland Transport to review the time restriction in 2017.

11. Prior to the amendment, Auckland Transport consulted with the public and stakeholders. Of the 51 submissions received, 40 disagreed with the proposed removal of the time restriction. They raised concerns over visual pollution issues (loss of amenity if signs remained longer than a nine-week period) and increased safety risk associated with the lack of maintenance and the temporary nature of such signage and supporting structures.

12. Auckland Transport specifies which public sites are suitable for the display of election signs. The report to the Auckland Transport Board (1 August 2017) concluded that time restrictions could be imposed through this process (by only permitting public sites to be used for limited periods of time). This was thought sufficient to address concerns raised by submitters on this issue. Auckland Transport will be seeking feedback from local boards on signage sites prior to the 2019 local body elections. The Auckland Transport website provides a list of the current election sign sites (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/bylaws/election-signs-bylaw/#v).

13. Local boards have allocated decision-making over of local parks and reserves. Prior to the 2016 local body elections, Auckland Transport sought feedback from local boards about the use of local parks and reserves for the use of temporary election signs. Auckland Transport updated the List of Election Sign Sites (located on the Auckland Transport website) following consideration of local board feedback. Due to the Bylaw amendment, these sites, including those in local reserves, can now be used for election signs for periods longer than nine weeks, and this needs review.

14. The List of Election Sign Sites relevant for the Kaipatiki Local Board has been taken from the Auckland Transport website, and is provided at Attachment A for the board’s reference.

Existing issues caused by election signs

15. During the run up to the 2017 general election (1 July 2017 to 29 Sep 2017), council received 131 complaints about election signs. Of those complaints received 63 were about signs being placed in the wrong location, 20 were about oversized signs, 17 raised maintenance issues and 11 complaints were about early placement. There were also a small number of complaints about signs being erected on private property without permission, multiple signs being located on one site and safety hazards. Twenty per cent of the complaints were associated with signs on parks and reserves. Community Facilities noted that existing issues with election signs relate to broken signs, which are often abandoned and become an eyesore or hazard.

16. Council staff anticipate that if election signs are erected for a period longer than nine weeks, there will be additional issues with amenity and safety. Safety concerns include risks associated signs collapsing or blowing down and broken hoardings creating hazards like sharp edges.

17. There will also be additional complaints and increased council costs associated with compliance and park maintenance.

Freedom of expression

18. The following analysis of considerations under BoRA has been prepared by council’s Legal and Risk Department.

19. Under section 14 (Freedom of expression) of the BoRA everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. Restricting the time period that parties and candidates for election can erect signs promoting their election campaigns restricts the freedom of expression.

20. Under section 5 (Justified limitations) of the BoRA the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

21. The section 5 inquiry has been summarised in a leading Supreme Court case (R v Hansen [2007] NZSC 7) as follows:

(a) does the limiting measure serve a purpose sufficiently important to justify some limitation of the right or freedom?

(b) If so, then:

(i) is the limit rationally connected with the objective?

(ii) does the limit impair the right or freedom no more than is reasonably necessary for sufficient achievement of the objective?

(iii) is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective?

22. In considering the approach to determining whether a limiting measure impairs a right "no more than is reasonably necessary", the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] 3 NZLR 456 endorsed the following approach from a Canadian case:

"The law must be carefully tailored so that rights are impaired no more than necessary. The tailoring process seldom admits of perfection and the courts must accord some leeway to the legislator. If the law falls within a range of reasonable alternatives, the courts will not find it overbroad merely because they can conceive of an alternative which might better tailor objective to infringement. On the other hand, if the government fails to explain why a significantly less intrusive and equally effective measure was not chosen, the law may fail."

23. The Court of Appeal agreed that if there is an alternative option that will have less impact, it does not follow that the option adopted is necessarily outside the range of reasonable alternatives.

Purpose of restriction

24. The purposes of the proposed time restriction on public sites are set out above and can be summarised as:

· minimising the risk to public safety (e.g. signs collapsing or blowing down, broken hoardings creating hazards like sharp edges);

· allowing the public to have access and use of public reserves with minimal disruption;

· maintaining visual amenity in public places; and

· limiting the amount of public expenditure that must be spent on compliance monitoring and enforcement, and the maintenance of parks and reserves.

25. These are legitimate concerns that justify some limitation on the freedom of expression.

Connection with objective

26. The proposed time restrictions are rationally connected with the achievement of these purposes. Limiting the amount of time that an election sign may be displayed (and therefore limiting expression on such signs) is intended to promote and protect public safety and/or amenity, protect access to public parks and reserves, and minimise expenditure on compliance and maintenance.

Restriction no more than reasonably necessary

27. The proposed nine week restriction is a reasonable limit on the freedom of expression for signs in public places. The restriction applies only to signs on the designated public sites. Elections signs may be displayed without time restriction on any private property (including commercial billboards and poster board sites). Further, the election signs to which the restriction applies are located in public places, where there is no general right to have the structure in any event - the bylaw therefore effectively authorises the sign (and the expression) when it would not otherwise be allowed.

28. Election signs are only one means of advertising a candidate or party in an election. Other options open to candidates include the internet (e.g. social media advertising), radio or television advertising, pamphlets, letterbox drops, public meetings, and advertising on vehicles.

29. A nine week period is also consistent with the Electoral Act 1993, which provides that no limitation contained in a bylaw restricts election advertising for a period of nine weeks prior to a general election. This legislation contemplates that local authorities may seek to limit the display of election signs, but provides an override for a nine week period. Further, a nine week restriction for public sites has been in place in Auckland since the bylaw was made in 2013, and therefore continuation of this restriction is in line with community expectations. The complaint to the Minister of Transport in 2016 concerned private sites, which are not affected by the proposal to reintroduce a time restriction on public sites.

30. Given the wide range of advertising and promotional opportunities open to candidates, the proposed restriction on public parks and reserves does not restrict the freedom of expression more than reasonably necessary.

Proportionality

31. Overall, the proposed time restriction is not considered to be a disproportionate limit on freedom of expression, given the importance of the objectives. Ensuring the public safety of park users is a matter of very high importance, and there is also a high amenity value in regulating the proliferation of election signage that occurs prior to every election. A reasonably high level of interference with freedom of expression might therefore be justifiable. In fact, however, the time restriction involves only a reasonably modest limit on freedom of expression. It is a measured response, far from being a blanket ban, and candidates can still promote or otherwise express themselves using other means. The proposed restriction is consistent with community expectations and the Electoral Act, and many other councils around New Zealand similarly restrict election signage, suggesting the proposal is not out of step with what is considered reasonable regulation of election signs that are in or visible from public places.

32. The proposed time restriction is therefore not considered to be inconsistent with the BoRA. Such limits as there are on freedom of expression are reasonable and "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", in terms of section 5 of that Act.

Options

33. Local boards have the following options available to them, which are discussed in more detail below:

· continue without a time limit on public election signs;

· amend landowner approvals to limit the time period to nine weeks prior to an election;

· amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks; or

· revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves.

34. The pros and cons of each approach are provided in Table 1.

Option 1 - Continue without a time limit on public election signs

35. Under the do nothing option, local boards would continue to allow use of the parks and reserves as provided for in the List of Election Sign Sites. There would be no time limit on how long the signs could remain on parks and reserves. Staff do not recommend this option.

Option 2 - Limit time period to nine weeks on parks and reserves

36. Under this option, election signs on parks and reserves would be limited to a time period of nine weeks before the election date. This would be consistent with the timeframes that local boards agreed to when Auckland Transport sought feedback on the sites in the List of Election Sign Sites. It is also consistent with the time limitations imposed during the general elections. This option would still provide for election signs in parks and reserves and meet community expectations (as the nine week time period has been past practice).

37. If this option was selected, local boards would need to request that Auckland Transport to resolve to update the list sites that are suitable for the display of election signs under clause 6 of the Bylaw.

38. Staff recommend that the local board adopt this option.

Option 3 - Amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks

39. Under this option election signs on parks and reserves would be limited to a time period, with the length determined by the local board. The key disadvantage of this proposal is that if different sites have different time limits, this could lead to confusion for candidates and the public and lead to inadvertent non-compliance, therefore it is not recommended

40. As with option two, local boards would need to instruct Auckland Transport to resolve to update the list sites that are suitable for the display of election signs under clause 6 of the Bylaw.

Option 4 - Revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves

41. Under this option, landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves would be revoked. While this option would remove the impacts of election signs on parks and reserves, it would also reduce the available locations for election signs, therefore it is not recommended.

Table 1 – Pros and cons of options for election signs on parks and reserves

Pros

Cons

Option 1 – Continue without a time limit on public election signs

· Consistent administration of the Bylaw across local boards

· Opportunity to update time limits is provided when Auckland Transport undertakes a review of public election sign sites.

· Provides the opportunity for candidates to erect signs at any time, and retain them there until the day prior to the election.

· Potential to “privatise” parks and reserves where signage is located over extended periods of time.

· Potential to increase maintenance costs (e.g. mowing around signage).

· Potential to increase the compliance costs of administering signage under the Bylaw.

· Increased risk to safety due to the temporary nature of signage and decay of signs over time.

· Increased opportunity to progressively impact on amenity, where signs become scruffy from prolonged exposure to the elements.

· Increased chance of public dissatisfaction and complaints.

Option 2 - Limit time period to nine weeks on parks and reserves

· Continues the status quo (prior to the Bylaw change), and is consistent with community expectation.

· Limits the adverse impacts of signage (visual amenity, safety).

· Limits the impact on maintenance contracts (e.g. mowing around signs).

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a nine week timeframes.

· Consistent with the nine week Electoral Act timeframe.

· Small loss of amenity and use of parks and reserves due to election signage over a short period of time.

· Needs Auckland Transport to also impose a nine week time limit on road reserve to ensure consistency.

Option 3 - Amend landowner approvals to limit the time period of shorter or longer than nine weeks

· Limits the adverse impacts of signage (visual amenity, safety).

· Limits the impact on maintenance contracts (e.g. mowing around signs).

· Limits safety and amenity concerns to a short timeframe.

· Inconsistent timeframe across local board areas would be confusing for candidates, the public and council staff.

· If the timeframes are shortened significantly, there may be freedom of expression implications under the BoRA.

Option 4 - Revoke landowner approval for election signs on parks and reserves

· Removes any effects caused by election signs on parks and reserves.

· The number of public places for election signs is decreased across the Auckland region.

· If there are very limited election sign locations, there may be freedom of expression implications under the BoRA.

42. Option 2 is the preferred option because it continues to provide for election signs on parks and reserves and is consistent with what local boards have previously agreed when making previous decisions on placement of election signs.

43. The inclusion of a nine week time limit provides some consistency with the Electoral Act. During the nine weeks before polling day the display of election advertisements are not subject to prohibitions imposed in other enactments or in bylaws imposed by local authorities.

44. Staff also consider that a consistent approach to time limits across all local board areas is important. This is because it will provide consistent rules and messaging across the region for candidates, the public and council staff.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

45. This report seeks direction from the local board on whether or not to impose a timeframe on election signs in parks and reserves under the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013. All local boards are considering the report to ensure there is a consistent set of rules for election signs across Auckland.

Māori impact statement

46. The impacts associated with election signs are considered to have a similar impact on Māori compared to the general population. There has been no specific engagement with iwi or mana whenua as part of this report.

Implementation

47. Information provided to candidates for the upcoming February 2018 by-elections will include the location of public election sign sites and time restrictions agreed by local boards and Auckland Transport.

48. These changes would apply to the upcoming by-elections in February 2018 and any future elections, unless the decision is revisited.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipatiki election sign sites (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Relationship Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/21698

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 Kaipātiki Local Board on the revised proposed approach to waste management and minimisation. In particular:

· 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’s 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 Kaipātiki 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 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 to 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); and

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’s 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, General Manager Waste Solutions (Acting)

Julie Dickinson, Waste Planning Manager (Acting)

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

Input to the Review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

File No.: CP2017/23812

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft options for supporting the future provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux services to Auckland’s communities.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is reviewing Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) services in Auckland following a resolution by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016.

3. The review will determine the appropriate level of Auckland Council support for Citizens Advice Bureaux services from 2018/2019 onwards.

4. Thirty-one Citizens Advice Bureaux operate in the Auckland region.

5. Auckland Council fund Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated $1.839 million a year which then distributes the funds to bureaux.

6. Local boards have provided input to the review on the local relationships, services and funding. Staff have developed draft options to address the issues and opportunities raised. The options are in the table below:

Option 1: Enhanced status quo	Enhancements are a refined funding model, reporting improvements and strengthened local relationships
Option 2: Locally driven	Transfers responsibility for existing budget to local boards
Option 3: Regional service provision	Collective review of funding levels and number and location of service sites

7. Staff consider Option 3 to be the best option to achieve consistent regional service delivery. If CABx and Citizens Advice Bureaux New Zealand (CABNZ) do not agree with Option 3, then Option 1 provides for greater consistency of service delivery than Option 2.

8. Staff will incorporate feedback from local boards on the draft options in to the review findings to be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft options for supporting the future provision of Citizens Advice Bureaux services to Auckland’s communities by 1 December 2017.

Comments

Background

9. On 7 April 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

‘seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland’ (resolution number REG/2016/22).

10. The review scope includes:

· alignment to council policy, strategic priorities, local board plans and policies;

· equitable service provision – Aucklanders having access to the services they need across the region, responding to growth and change in Auckland’s communities;

· equity of funding for bureaux across Auckland – the basis for how funding is distributed;

· how Auckland Council interacts and engages with bureaux across Auckland;

· communicating the impact and value of Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) services; and

· council’s governance needs and role with regard to reporting and accountability.

11. Since 2013, Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx), a board made up of representatives from across Auckland bureaux, has been distributing the council funding to bureaux using a population-based funding model which replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils.

12. ACABx received $1.839 million for 2017/2018, which includes an annual inflation provision. This expenditure is included in the Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

13. Some local boards provide funding to their local bureaux in addition to the core funding allocated through ACABx. Local boards provide support to CAB through accommodation as the majority of bureaux are located in council facilities.

14. ACABx distributes funds to local CAB so that communities are provided with access to information, advice, referral and client advocacy services.

Current Auckland CAB services and alignment with local board plans and council strategies

15. Currently there are 31 Auckland CAB sites in 18 local board areas, with over 900 trained volunteers fielding approximately 300,000 enquiries per annum; 75 per cent of the service is delivered face-to-face.

16. Support for CAB services aligns with the following:

· local board plan outcomes, such as connected communities, employment and housing;

· Auckland Plan (strategic direction one): to create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders; and

· Empowered Communities Approach, where individuals, whānau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions.

17. The first annual review of the Auckland Council-ACABx Strategic Relationship Agreement (2016-2018) noted the following achievements and issues:

· agreed relationship principles, established a governing group and secured CABNZ involvement to support the relationship.

· work is still in progress to improve measurement and the CAB reporting model.

· both parties acknowledged that the current arrangements limit the collective ability to achieve regional level change, including closure, rationalisation or new sites and influencing local service provision.

· currently ACABx will not address the overall number and location of service sites operated by member bureaux, which is based on legacy council models. They will not consider opening new sites unless there is an increase in the overall funding envelope. Based on current information shared by CAB it is difficult to determine the value of the service in order for the council to review its funding commitment.

The review of CAB Services in Auckland

18. Local boards provided input to the review during July and August 2017. A comprehensive information pack was provided to resource and support their input. The full summary of local board input is provided in Attachment A.

19. Feedback from boards highlighted what is working well:

· most boards consider the services are of high value to the community.

· leverage of council funding as services are delivered by well trained, approachable, multi-lingual and knowledgeable volunteers.

· connecting people with information and services otherwise out of reach, especially for migrants, older people, international students and lower socioeconomic groups.

20. The review has identified a number of issues, including:

· inequity in funding of bureaux and service provision across the region – service needs to be responsive to growth and community need.

· the need for better connections between local boards and bureaux to support improved two-way communication.

· the need for bureau data and information on trends and emerging issues at regional and site level.

· future service sustainability, including awareness of service and better outreach to targeted groups that currently are under-represented as users (e.g. Māori, some migrant groups, young people, rural communities).

21. Some local boards have raised deprivation as a factor that should be taken into account in allocating funding to bureaux. These boards consider that areas of high deprivation should get more funding as there is increased and more complex need. Further investigation is needed and staff are seeking evidence from CAB on what they deliver and from which sites, and where their clients live before deprivation can be considered within the funding model.

Draft options for feedback

22. Three draft options have been developed that respond to the issues and opportunities raised by local boards and the review of the Strategic Relationship Agreement (refer to Attachment B).

23. Overall, ‘Option 3 Regional service provision’ provides the most likelihood of achieving regional consistency of service delivery to meet changing community need and for this reason staff consider this to be the best option. However, without the agreement of the CABx and CABNZ, Option 3 is not achievable. Discussions between council staff, the ACABx board and CABNZ are still ongoing.

24. If Option 3 is not achievable, ‘Option 1 Enhanced status quo’ will provide for greater consistency of service delivery than ‘Option 2 Locally driven’.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. Local boards have detailed knowledge of both local bureau delivery and of their local communities’ needs. Boards have provided input to the review on their relationship with the local bureau, services and funding, indicating that for most boards there is good alignment of the CAB services with local board plan outcomes.

26. Staff have developed draft options that respond to the issues and opportunities raised by local boards and are seeking feedback on these options.

27. Under ‘Option 1 Enhanced status quo’, the funding model is reviewed and an improved local relationship framework would be available to support reporting and discussions between boards and bureaux. Under ‘Option 2 Locally driven’, boards would take on responsibility for funding local bureaux. Under ‘Option 3 Regional service provision’, a fuller assessment would be undertaken with board involvement to determine a new approach for future CAB service provision across the region.

Māori impact statement

28. For 2016/2017, Māori users of CAB services comprised between 2.5 per cent of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster, to 13.2 per cent in south/east Auckland cluster (Source: ACABx Accountability Report to Auckland Council July 2016-June 2017).

29. Options 2 and 3 are more likely to improve Māori engagement with CAB services as they would support more responsive local service provision.

Implementation

30. Staff request local boards provide feedback on the draft options by 1 December 2017. Staff will incorporate this feedback in to the review findings which will be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in early 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Review of CAB services - summary of local board input (Under Separate Cover)
b	Review of CAB services - draft options (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Carole Blacklock - Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit, Arts, Community a

Suzanne Shaw-Lentini - Business Coordinator

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Andrew Clark - General Manager Commercial and Finance

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

Remuneration Authority consultation document

File No.: CP2017/19186

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 (the 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 is 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 expense 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s consultation document ‘Local Government Review’, noting feedback is required by 15 December 2017.

Comments

Introduction

10. The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017 (appended at 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 elected member 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.

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; and

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 put forward 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; 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 put forward 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 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 put forward 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 put forward the following question 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 staff 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 put forward 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 consider 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; or

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 put forward 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 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

15 November 2017

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Kaipātiki Local Board for quarter one, 1 July - 30 September 2017

File No.: CP2017/23014

Purpose

1. To provide the Kaipātiki Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July to 30 September 2017.

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2017/2018 work programme.

3. Of significance this quarter was the completion of physical works at 136 Birkdale Road and Sunnyhaven Ave toilets, delivery of cultural diversity programmes at our libraries, and increased visitors and programmes at Northart.

4. The snapshot (refer Attachment A), indicates performance against the agreed 2017/2018 work programmes is tracking positively.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (refer Attachment B). All items are reported as either ‘green’ status (on track) or 'amber' status (some risk or issues, which are being managed) except for the following which have a ‘red’ status (behind delivery, significant risk):

· CF: Investigation and Design - Kaipātiki - renew minor park buildings 2018-19;

· CF: Investigation and Design - Larking's Landing - renew furniture and fixtures;

· CF: Investigation and Design - Norman King Building - renew heating & ventilation - first floor; and

· CF: Investigation and Design - Onepoto Domain - repile AFL building.

6. The overall financial performance for quarter one 2017/2018 is unfavourable compared to the budget. There are some points for the board to note:

· Net operating expenditure was $3.2m, a variance of $618k above budget;

· Operating revenue was below budget;

· Asset based services expenditure was ahead of budget; and

· Capital investment for the quarter was $2.7m.

Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

7. The key performance indicators show a trend of delivery that is meeting the indicators, with the exceptions being those measures that have year-end outlook based on the results of 2016/17. These are explained further in detail in Attachment D.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2017

Comments

8. The Kaipātiki Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Libraries and Information; approved on 21 June 2017;

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 21 June 2017;

· Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 21 June 2017;

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 19 July 2017;

· Community Leases; approved on 19 July 2017;

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 19 July 2017; and

· Local Economic Development; approved on 19 July 2017.

Key achievements for quarter one

9. The Kaipātiki Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter one period, which include:

· CF: Project Delivery - 136 Birkdale Road - develop park - all physical works for the new playground, landscape planting and new car park completed 15 September 2017 and handed over to operations and maintenance.

· CF: Project Delivery - Sunnyhaven Ave - renew toilet - refurbishment of toilet block completed July 2017 and handed over to operations and maintenance.

· CS: Libraries & Information: Celebrating cultural diversity and local communities – Kaipātiki - three classes from Northcote Intermediate come in twice each for sessions run by Auckland War Memorial Museum. The sessions tied in with Tongan Language Week and focused on Tongan culture, along with Samoan and Fijian.

· CS: ACE: Arts & Culture - Northart Operational Support Grant - a total of 3886 visitors and delivered 25 programmes to 249 participants.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

10. The following are progress updates against key projects identified in the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

· I&ES: Environmental Services - Pest Free Kaipātiki Strategy Implementation Programme - Auckland Council staff and Pest Free Kaipātiki staff are working together on the restoration plan template for the agreed ten reserves to be targeted. A funding agreement will be drawn up in quarter two once Pest Free Kaipātiki have a formalised structure in place. Auckland Council staff are supporting Pest Free Kaipātiki with the planned Predator Blitz campaign with technical advice and purchasing.

· CS: PSR: Park Services - Kaipātiki local parks: Ecological volunteers and environmental programme FY17/18 - Support provided to volunteers for ecological restoration projects including animal and plant pest management, planting and waste removal. Total volunteer hours for the quarter: 1500 hours. The 2017 planting season is almost complete with a total of 2420 plants planted. Community plantings took place at the following reserves: Hinemoa, Willow Bay, Birkenhead War Memorial Park, Hadfield, Tuff Crater, Eskdale, Charcoal Bay, Dudding Reserve-Seaview Ave, Little Shoal Bay, Le Roys Bush, Fernglen Gardens, Onepoto Esplanade and Shepherd's Park. An appointment has been made into the Pest Free Kaipatiki Co-ordinator and Restoration Advisor roles. The Community Ranger is working closely with specialists and volunteers across Kaipatiki to implement pest free initatives on parks.

· CF: Operations - Kaipātiki Maintenance Contracts - The new full facilities contract started on 1 July. The contractor has been proactive in edging pathways, maintaining playgrounds and mowing sports fields. The relatively high rainfall (e.g. July 120-149 per cent of norm) has presented some challenges, including preparing for the summer sports season. There has also been some ongoing challenges with security gates and litter bins, which staff are focusing on resolving. No significant operational building issues. Arboriculture: The beginning of the first quarter saw mobilisation of new contracts. A priority was ensuring requests for service were effectively managed, particularly after hours emergency response. Replacement tree planting was completed over July/August. Annual inspections of street and park trees has commenced which will inform proactive programmes of tree maintenance. Ecological Restoration: A key focus of the first quarter has been the commencement of site assessments and the preparation of restoration plans for sites of ecological high value, working with other council departments and understanding volunteer activity on sites.

Risks identified in the 2017/2018 work programme

11. The following are risks that have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been set to ‘red’ – significantly behind budget/time or achievement of outcomes/’amber’ status – some risk or issues, which are being managed.

CF: Investigation and Design - Kaipātiki - renew minor park buildings 2018-19 (red status)

· Assets had been renewed in financial year 2016. Therefore this project is not required.

CF: Investigation and Design - Larking's Landing - renew furniture and fixtures (red status)

· This project record was cancelled. The project has been merged with Kaipatiki renew furniture and fixtures.

CF: Investigation and Design - Norman King Building - renew heating & ventilation - first floor (red status)

· Project not required due to future demolition plans of the building by Panuku.

CF: Investigation and Design - Onepoto Domain - repile AFL building (red status)

· The piles have been condition assessed and the piles are in good condition so do not need replacing. Only minor maintenance work is recommended so these will be undertaken by the maintenance contractor.

CF: Investigation and Design Birkdale Hall - Interior and exterior Improvements (amber status)

· The project has been progressing with staff who are no longer involved in the project and between teams. This has caused delays. The project is now with Investigation and Design and should progress timely providing the local board with the necessary updates on progress.

CF: Project Delivery - Glenfield Pool & Leisure Centre - repaint exterior, roof, reception and recarpet studio 2 (amber status)

· Various building related issues are delaying the paint work and air-conditioning project. The roof replacement issue can potentially be a major issue.

CF: Investigation and Design - Hilders Park - renew fixture and furniture (amber status)

· This is a confirmed duplicate. Project has been merged with Kaipatiki renew furniture and fixtures.

CF: Project Delivery - Kaipatiki LDI - small parks top up (amber status)

· Allocation required of remaining budget to ensure it can be incorporated into the scope of works with current projects.

CF: Project Delivery - Kauri Park track and signage renewals (amber status)

· Overall budget insufficient for scope of works. Additional budget is being sourced.

CF: Investigation and Design - Monarch Park - develop toilet (amber status)

· A decision whether to progress this further is required

CF: Project Delivery - Onepoto Domain - renew pathway (amber status)

· Delivery of physical works must be before autumnal rains

ATEED: Local Economic Growth - Research to support future development of Glenfield town centre (amber status)

· Progress is dependent on Glenfield Mall agreeing to support the research by allowing research to take place within the mall. Access to users of the mall would constitute a large share of Glenfield centre users whose views would be missed were research undertaken solely on streets. A change of approach may need to be considered if this access is not possible.

CF: Community Leases - Citizens Advise Bureau – Glenfield (amber status)

· Project Citizen Advice Bureau leases is in progress. Multi premises lease has been drafted and provided to Auckland Citizens Advice Bureau, the umbrella for Citizen Advice Bureau's across the region.

CF: Community Leases - Onepoto Awhina (amber status)

· New lease required from Ministry of Education dependent on Panuku's master plan for the Northcote Point development.

CF: Community Leases - Beach Haven Marae (amber status)

· The feasibility study is in progress. The feasibility study is in progress and there is no build of the Marae at this stage until the feasibility is completed.

CF: Community Leases - Lindisfarne Hall (amber status)

· On hold due to Northcote High Level Project Plan (Panuku).

Financial performance

12. Kaipātiki Local Board's net operating expenditure for the quarter was $3.2m, a variance of $618k above budget.

13. Operating revenue was below budget due to lower enrolment numbers at the Beach Haven and Birkdale early childhood centres. Aquatic revenue was also down due to the Glenfield Pool closure for maintenance.

14. Asset based services expenditure was ahead of budget and the main driver for the overall variance related to parks maintenance costs. The new Project 17 contract providers commenced their services from 1 July 2017. There have been issues with the delivery of services to agreed outcomes due to contractors becoming familiar with their new contracts as well as the amount of rain the region has experienced over the last few months. There was an expectation of budget variances under the new contracts until baselines at local board level are established at the end of this financial year. The trend may continue through the year and will be monitored by the Community Facilities department for any budget movements that are required.

15. Capital investment for the quarter was $2.7m. Asset renewals have the largest budget allocation overall this year. A number of renewals that were in train are either at practical completion or close to being completed. These include the AF Thomas carpark renewal, Rangitira Reserve Walkway and Marlborough Park renewal. Physical works continue at Birkenhead War Memorial skate park and Island Bay wharf and sea wall with completion planned for in the second quarter.

16. Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

Key performance indicators

17. The local board agreements include level of service statements and associated performance measures to guide and monitor the delivery of local services. This report provides information on the performance measure year-end outlook for Kaipatiki Local Board's measures, showing how it is tracking after the first quarter of FY18.

18. The year-end outlook is that 42 per cent of measures will not achieve target.

19. Currently all performance measures are being reviewed as part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

20. For the first and second quarter staff will provide the year-end outlook based on the results of 2016/17 or for any changes to the outlook based on results available. In the third quarter staff will be in a better position to accurately project the year-end outlook for all measures. This is because the frequency of most measures is annual as data is collected through surveys.

21. The full summary of performance information is provided in Attachment D.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. This report informs the Kaipātiki Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2017.

Māori impact statement

23. A number of the activities in the local board work programmes positively impact Māori. Below are the updates on the activities that have a direct Maori outcome focus:

CS: ACE: Community Empowerment - Local Māori Responsiveness Action Plan (KT)

· A new strategic broker is now in place and will be seeking opportunities to apply the Empowered Communities Approach to key aspirations and priorities for Māori in the area from Q2 onwards.

CS: Libraries & Information - Celebrating Te Ao Māori and strengthening responsiveness to Māori – Kaipātiki

· Staff increasingly use Te Reo Māori by opening meetings with a whakataukī starting celebrations with a karakia and will soon be working with Harakeke, a parenting support initiative. Matariki and Māori Language Week were motivators to include Te Reo stories and songs, greetings and Te Ao Māori values into existing programmes.

CS: PSR: Park Services - KT: Creating a Māori Identity

· Eight local boards have committed funding to Māori naming of parks and facilities this financial year. An assessment of the status and background to current names in each of the local board area is currently being undertaken and mana whenua are providing direction on the methodology for Māori naming.

CF: Community Leases - Beach Haven Marae

· The feasibility study is in progress. The feasibility study is in progress and there is no build of the marae at this stage until the feasibility is completed.

Implementation

24. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter 2, December 2017.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipātiki Work Programme Snapshot Quarter One, 2017/2018 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Kaipātiki Work Programme Update Report Quarter One, 2017/2018 (Under Separate Cover)
c	Kaipātiki Work Programme Financial Appendix Quarter One, 2017/2018 (Under Separate Cover)
d	Kaipātiki Work Programme Performance Measure Outlook Quarter One, 2017/2018 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors	Paul Edwards - Senior Local Board Advisor - Kaipatiki
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Danielle Grant
Deputy Chairperson	John Gillon
Members	Paula Gillon
	Ann Hartley, JP
	Kay McIntyre, QSM
	Anne-Elise Smithson
	Adrian Tyler
	Lindsay Waugh

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Bayview Community Centre quarterly report	91
b ⇩	Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project quarterly report	93
c ⇩	Glenfield Community Centre quarterly report	97
d ⇩	Highbury House quarterly report	101
e ⇩	Marlborough Park Youth Facility quarterly report	105

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Kaipātiki Local Board workshop record - Wednesday 4 October 2017	137
b ⇩	Kaipātiki Local Board workshop record - Wednesday 11 October 2017	139
c ⇩	Kaipātiki Local Board workshop record - Wednesday 25 October 2017	143

Authors	Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers