Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

1 Welcome

Chairperson IM Fordham will open the meeting and welcome everyone in attendance.

Member J Cleave will lead a karakia.

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 21 November 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 Great Barrier 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.

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

10-year Budget 2018-2028 consultation

File No.: CP2017/25916

Purpose

1. To agree local engagement events, and adopt local content and supporting information for consultation as part of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process.

Executive summary

2. Consultation on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 (Long-term Plan) will take place from 28 February – 28 March 2018. Local boards will be consulting on their areas of focus and advocacy for their 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement. The Local Board Agreement is part of the budget setting process for the first year of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

3. There will also be concurrent consultation on the Auckland Plan Refresh (APR), Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

4. This report seeks agreement from local boards on spoken interaction events that will be held in their local board area during the consultation period and to adopt their local content and supporting information for consultation, including:

· areas of focus for 2018/2019

· the key advocacy project.

5. The governing body will agree regional items for consultation on 11 December and local boards will agree their items by 14 December. The regional and local consultation items will then be incorporated into the consultation document and supporting information, which will be adopted by the governing body on 7 February 2018.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) agree, subject to approval by the governing body, to hold the following spoken interaction events during the consultation period:

i) type of event, day, time and location to be determined

b) delegate to the following elected members and staff the power and responsibility to hear from the public through “spoken/NZ sign language interaction” in relation to the local board agreement at the council’s public engagement events during the consultation period for the 10-year Budget 2018-2028:

i) Local Board Members and Chair

ii) General Manager Local Board Services, Local Board Relationship Manager, Local Board Senior Advisor, Local Board Advisor

iii) any additional staff approved by the General Manager Local Board Services or the Chief Financial Officer.

c) adopt Attachment A local content for consultation and Attachment B local supporting information for consultation, including their key advocacy project.

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to approve any final minor changes required following review by council’s legal team and/or Audit NZ, of the local consultation content for the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 prior to publication, including online consultation content, and should any changes be made they are to be reported to the next business meeting.

Comments

6. The 10-year Budget sets out the priorities and funding for council activities that are planned over a 10-year period. It includes financial and non-financial information for the whole Auckland Council group. The Long-term Plan is reviewed and consulted on every three years.

7. As part of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process, the council is required to produce a consultation document. This will cover any significant or important issues proposed to be included in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028. The consultation document and supporting information will also include information on local board issues and priorities.

8. As part of the consultation on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, local boards will consider and be consulting on their areas of focus and advocacy for their 2018/2019 Local Board Agreement. The Local Board Agreement is part of the budget setting process for the first year of the 10-year Budget 2018-2028.

9. Public consultation on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 will take place from 28 February – 28 March 2018. There will also be concurrent consultation on the Auckland Plan Refresh (APR), Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP).

10. Aucklanders will be able to provide feedback during the consultation process through a variety of channels which include verbal (or face to face), written, social media and digital. A report on how council will receive verbal feedback from the public was considered by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 November 2017. At a high level, the report outlines several different types of events which are planned for specific audiences and communities as well as those planned for general Auckland residents. At that meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to:

a) approve the approach to receive all feedback from Aucklanders on the Long-term Plan and Auckland Plan from 28 February 2018 to 28 March 2018 comprising of:

· up to 25 Have Your Say events targeting general Auckland residents are held in local board areas across the region;

· four regional stakeholder events (traditional hearing style);

· an independently commissioned quantitative survey;

· community specific events to collect feedback from different demographic and interest groups. Demographic events will target Youth, Seniors, Pacific, Ethnic, Rainbow and Disability communities;

· hui with mana whenua and mataawaka.

and

b) require the Mayor and Councillors to attend a minimum of three Have Your Say events each to hear the views of Aucklanders and all regional stakeholder events.

11. The final consultation process for the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 will be approved by the governing body on 7 February 2018.

12. Spoken interaction constitutes any opportunity where Aucklanders have a dialogue with decision makers or their official delegations on the themes relating to the consultation. The spoken interaction events recommended to be held in the Great Barrier Local Board area are still to be determined.

13. Local boards are requested to agree their key priorities and key advocacy project for 2018/2019 and adopt their local content and supporting information for consultation, which will be tabled at the meeting as Attachments A and B.

14. Any new local BID targeted rates must be consulted on before they can be implemented. Local boards are therefore also requested to agree any new proposals for consultation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Local board decisions are being sought in this report.

16. Local boards will have further opportunities to provide information and views as council progresses through the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process.

Māori impact statement

17. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori. Local board plans, which were adopted in September and October of 2017, form the basis for local priorities.

18. Bespoke consultation materials for the Māori community are being developed. These materials will explain how the LTP and APR are relevant for them. Engagement advisors will have access to this collateral to support local engagement.

19. Specific regionally supported local engagement with Māori is being targeted for south and west Auckland.

20. An integrated approach to mana whenua engagement is being taken, with LTP and APR discussions already happening through the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum.

21. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

Implementation

22. The governing body will approve the consultation document, supporting information and consultation process for the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 on 7 February 2018.

23. Following consultation, the governing body and local boards will make decisions on the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and Local Board Agreements 2018/19 respectively.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local content for consultation (to be tabled at the meeting)	29
b ⇩	Local supporting information for consultation (to be tabled at the meeting)	31

Signatories

Author

Christie McFayden - Strategic Project Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Allocation of ecology conversations budget

File No.: CP2017/24464

Purpose

1. To approve the allocation of the ecology conversations budget to fund a paid project coordinator.

Executive summary

2. The ecology vision – Aotea Great Barrier Island: A world of its own, where people and place are woven in a tapestry of ecological richness – was received by the board at its December 2016 meeting. Funding is set aside in the 2017/2018 environment work programme to progress the vision. The board is also supporting community rat control projects in Mulberry Grove, and Okiwi through its environment work programme. There is an opportunity to develop those community rat control projects into broader biodiversity projects, aligning with the proposed oases outlined in the ecology vision.

3. This report proposes that the $20,000 allocated to the ecology vision fund a coordinator to facilitate the development of the rat control projects into oases focused on improved biodiversity outcomes. Funding for purchase of plant and equipment to support the groups is available through the local pest coordinator budget, or regional funding.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve the allocation of the ecology conversations budget to fund a project manager to oversee the development of ecological oases.

Comments

4. The board has funded a community rat control in Mulberry Grove since 2013. Limited community support saw the paid coordinator undertaking a greater role in day to day operations than initially anticipated. Following a community meeting, the project has been revised to focus on the area around Mulberry Grove School. A similar project is planned for Okiwi.

5. The Great Barrier ecology vision is centred on the creation of ecological oases, managed by the community. There is an opportunity to transform the existing community rat control projects in to ecological oases, and to locate oases around the schools. However, this requires significant project management and coordination working with council staff, community organisations, and residents.

6. Option one (recommended) is to allocate the $20,000 ecology vision budget to fund a project manager for up to two days per week on a trial basis until the end of June 2018. This role would focus on working with community groups to establish and monitor oases, as well as working with new groups and landowners. There is potential to align the ecological oases with the regional biodiversity programme to undertake community programmes within biodiversity focus area. The Great Barrier golf club is an example of this approach. The coordinator role will allow for the enhancement of biodiversity through community participation and by using the ecology conversations as a template to decide on management priorities and techniques within this area. This role could extend the biodiversity advice available through the Great Barrier biodiversity officer.

7. A review of the coordinator role will be undertaken in June 2018. This review will assess achievement against key objectives of extending the existing community pest control programmes to focus on broader environment outcomes, and establishing new groups to work in focus areas.

8. Option two is to use the ecology conversations budget to support implementation of the biodiversity focus areas. A memo (attachment A) provides advice on how the suggested ecological oases align with biodiversity focus areas.

9. This option is not recommended. The ecology vision encourages community led-initiatives, and there is currently limited community activity in the biodiversity focus areas. Opportunities for the board to support implementation of the biodiversity focus areas can be explored as part of the development of future local environment work programmes.

10. Option three is to use the ecology conversations budget to support the purchase of plant and equipment (particularly econodes) for the Okiwi and Mulberry Grove pest coordinator projects.

11. Option three is not recommended. Existing funding in the 2017/2018 environment work programme enables supply of traps, and potentially econodes. Groups can apply to local or regional grants programmes to purchase additional plant and equipment. Some equipment may be available through regional budgets. Moreover, option three does not provide a path to developing the rat control projects into ecological oases.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The board received the ecology vision report at its December 2016 meeting, with funding set aside in its 2017/2018 environment work programme for implementation. A workshop was held in April 2017 addressing how the proposed oases could align with biodiversity focus areas. However, there has been no decision on how best to implement the vision.

13. The proposed options outlined in this report were discussed with the board at a workshop in October 2017. There was general support for developing the pest control projects into ecological oases.

Māori impact statement

14. No consultation with Māori was undertaken for the purposes of this report. Feedback from Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea was provided during the development of the ecology conversations report.

15. The Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Hapū Management Plan is generally supportive of projects that aim to improve the environment. Opportunities to work with Ngāti Rehua -Ngātiwai on specific projects will be explored.

Implementation

16. Subject to the approval of option one and an internal approval process, implementation will be by extending the hours of the existing biodiversity officer. This avoids costly and time-consuming competitive tendering process, and reflects the existing knowledge and experience of the biodiversity advisor.

17. It is recommended that in developing the 2018/2019 Great Barrier environment programme consideration be given to renaming the pest coordinator budget to ecological oases (or similar) to emphasise alignment with, and implementation of, the ecology vision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Ecological review of the Aotea Great Barrier ecological vision	37

Signatories

Author

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Options for progressing water quality projects

File No.: CP2017/24691

Purpose

1. To allocate the remaining $25,000 of water quality budget to support an expansion of the septic tank education programme, undertake stream walks, and establish the Wai Care programme on Aotea Great Barrier.

Executive summary

2. The board allocated $45,000 in its 2017/2018 environment work programme for a water quality programme. A total of $20,000 was set aside for a septic tank management programme. This report outlines options for allocating the remaining $25,000.

3. The Great Barrier freshwater monitoring programme commenced in 2014/2015 with eight freshwater sites in Tryphena monitored over one year. The results showed e.coli contamination, with subsequent source tracking undertaken in 2016/2017 confirming that the contamination was a mix of human and animal sources. It is likely that a similar investigation in other catchments will reveal similar information.

4. Therefore, this report recommends that funding be directed towards undertaking a number of stream walks. Stream walks will identify immediate issues impacting on stream health, including greywater outfalls, septic tank issues, stock access, and erosion. A stream walk was undertaken as part of the Tryphena study.

5. It is also recommended that the board extend the septic tank education project to allow for additional inspections of septic tanks, and establish a Wai Care stream monitoring programme.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve the allocation of the remaining $25,000 of water quality budget to extend the septic tank education programme, undertake stream walks, and to establish a Wai Care community stream monitoring programme.

Comments

6. Table one below provides a summary of options. Further information is provided in paragraphs 7 to 18 below.

Option		Purpose	Cost
One	Septic tank education project (recommended)	To increase the number of free septic tank inspections to 30 households.	$5,000
Two	Stream walks (recommended)	To walk streams within the Okupu and Fitzroy catchments to investigate stream health.	$10,000
Three	Wai Care programme (recommended)	To establish community-based monitoring of streams as part of the regional Wai Care programme.	$5,000
Four	Catchment specific investigation	To undertake monitoring of streams within identified catchments to establish baseline water quality information.	$20,000
Five	Waterways Protection Fund	To establish a grants fund for landowners to fence and plant streams from stock.	Minimum $20,000
Six	Septic tank subsidy scheme	To provide local subsidies for property owners wanting to upgrade or renew their septic tanks.	Minimum $20,000

Table one: Summary of options

Septic tank education project

7. Options one to three are recommended. The board is already funding septic tank education and inspections with its water quality budget. There is an option to expand the project to offer septic tank inspections to more households in the Okupu and Fitzroy catchments with additional funding.

8. The septic tank education project will commence in early December 2017. There will be two engagement events with inspections commencing in early 2018.

Stream walks

9. Option two is undertake a number of stream walks to identify stream habitat, and provide information on any greywater or wastewater outfalls that could be impacting on stream health. Stream walks also provide the opportunity to engage with adjacent landowners on stream health. The target streams would be in the Okupu and Fitzroy streams to align with the septic tank education project.

10. Information from stream walks enables better understanding of where to target any future interventions, such as fencing or planting. Stream walks will also identify any water takes from streams for water quantity management purposes.

Wai Care

11. Engaging the community in the management of the environment is a key objective in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan, and acknowledged as a key aspect of the Great Barrier ecology vision. Establishing the Wai Care stream monitoring programme provides an opportunity to engage communities in active monitoring and stewardship of streams.

12. Wai Care is an affordable means of collecting data on water quality in local streams. There is the possibility in the future of including e.coli testing in this programme, subject to the purchase of testing equipment. The purchase of an e.coli incubator requires further investigation, particularly with regards to asset management and ownership. Staff continue to investigate this as an option for future local work programmes.

Other options

13. The board could choose to continue a monthly or quarterly freshwater quality monitoring programme. This option is not recommended. While the investigation would provide baseline information on water quality, it is unlikely that the results will be different from that found in Tryphena (incidences of e.coli contamination traced to human or ruminant sources). Catchment types are similar with forest, pastoral land, and houses. This option is also costly.

14. The similar programme at Tryphena cost approximately $20,000, including costs for sample collection, freight, and testing. This cost could be reduced if monitoring was undertaken on a quarterly basis, with samples taken from upstream and downstream sites in the Kaitoke and Whangapoua Creeks, and Awana Stream. If preference is given to monitoring a specific catchment only, it is recommended that monitoring be undertaken in the Medlands or Whangapoua catchments. These catchments have the most variability in land use.

15. Establishing a waterways protection fund offers an incentive to landowners to address issues of stock access by providing a grant to fence and plant streams from stock. This option is not recommended as landowners are able to access existing grants fund to support this work. It will also not address any contamination from human sources.

16. Option six is to offer local subsidies for property owners to upgrade or renew their septic tanks. This option is not recommended. The subsidy scheme operated by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board scheme has had limited success. While a total of 14 subsidies were taken up over two years, it is not clear whether households would have upgraded without the council incentive. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board annual budget for this programme was $50,000, with property owners able to access a subsidy of up to $5,000.

17. The likely uptake of a subsidy can be explored through the septic tank education programme. If there is significant interest, this option could be explored through the development of the board’s 2018/2019 work programme.

18. It is recommended that the board advocate for Aotea to be included in the regional retrofit programme for septic tank upgrades and renewals.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. A September 2017 report to the board recommended funding support removal of a fish passage barrier, and to establish a Wai Care community stream management programme. These options were not supported at the time. The board subsequently requested confirmation of the objectives of the septic tank management programme and a proposed water quality monitoring programme prior to agreeing the remaining projects. This report provides that information.

20. The board agreed to continue a freshwater monitoring programme, in discussion with council staff, at its September 2017 meeting (resolution number GB/2017/92). Options for a monitoring programme were discussed at a workshop in November 2017. There was no agreement at the workshop on preferred option for this programme. This report continues the workshop discussion, and invites the board to consider a range of options to progress its objectives for healthy streams.

21. “All our freshwater streams will be healthy” is a key objective in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017.

Māori impact statement

22. No consultation with Māori was undertaken for the purposes of this report. The Ngāti Rehua - Ngātiwai ki Aotea Hapū Management Plan references the importance of freshwater to the hapū.

Implementation

23. Costs are indicative at this time as detailed scoping is yet to be completed. The costs for water quality monitoring are dependent on the frequency and number of sites selected for monitoring.

24. If no decision on preferred project is agreed, it is unlikely that staff will have sufficient time to scope and deliver a water quality project before the end of June 2018.

25. Regular reporting on project delivery will be through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services’ contribution to the board’s quarterly performance report.

: Democracy Advisor: Could you please add Rhianna Drury – Senior Healthy Waterways Specialist as a co-author. Thanks!

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan

File No.: CP2017/25762

Purpose

1. To approve the governance entity for the Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan.

Executive summary

2. One of the board’s key initiatives in the 2017/2018 Arts, Community and Events work programme was to develop a Life-long Learning Strategy.

3. The strategy consists of six principles, seven key strategic areas of focus, and 11 strategic objectives (attachment A). It is supported by an action plan which sets out a coordinated collaborative framework of learning opportunities for all ages that includes attracting investment.

4. Staff recommend Aotea Education Ltd, a charitable company established under the umbrella of the Orama Christian Trust, be the governance entity of the strategy and implement the action plan.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve the Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan be governed by Aotea Education Ltd.

b) approve a funding agreement of $30,000 towards implementation of the Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan to Aotea Education Ltd.

Comments

Background

5. At its business meeting on 18 April 2017, the Great Barrier Local Board approved the Arts, Community and Events work programme for 2017/2018 (GBI/2017/66). One of the key activities within the work programme is to develop a life-long learning strategy that coordinates learning opportunities for all ages and attracts investment.

6. The local board has allocated $30,000 towards the implementation of the Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan.

7. The local board approved the Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan (attachment A) at its 17 October business meeting.

8. The board was advised to defer making a decision on the future governance of Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan until quarter two upon receiving an operational update and financial report.

Governance option

9. Since May 2017, the Aotea Learning Hub has been supported by Orama Christian Trust with funding agreements from both the local board and Ministry of Education.

10. Orama Christian Trust set up the Aotea Education Ltd, as a small charitable company to provide interim governance and operational oversight through a steering committee, for the Aotea Learning Hub.

11. The two directors of Aotea Education Ltd have declared willingness for the charitable company to provide governance for the Life-long Learning Strategy and implement the Action Plan.

12. No other entity has been identified on Aotea Great Barrier Island to have the capacity, interest and experience to progress the mission of the strategy and implement the action plan.

13. Staff recommend Aotea Education Ltd govern the Aotea Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan subject to:

· naming a third director to mitigate the potential conflict of interest for Member Johnson

· receipt of a letter from Orama Christian Trust stating their commitment to be the umbrella group for Ministry of Education funding for the Aotea Learning Hub

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. There is a need to manage potential or perceived conflict of interest for two elected members. Member Johnson is one of the two directors of Aotea Education Ltd. Deputy chair Coles is on the Steering Group for the Aotea Learning Hub.

15. Local Board members have received the operational update and financial report on the Aotea Learning Hub on 28 November 2017.

Māori impact statement

16. The action plan includes a clear focus on ensuring and enhancing a diversity of educational initiatives, including cultural and learning experiences provided by the local marae.

17. The Great Barrier Local Board’s work programme for 2017/2018 includes working with local Māori to ensure greater responsiveness to Māori aspirations, including under the Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan.

Implementation

18. Local board will need to give direction, depending on its priorities, desired outcomes and available resources, as to how the Life-long Learning strategic objectives and their proposed initiatives are prioritised and progressed.

19. Staff will circulate a draft version of the funding agreement for local board input.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Aotea Great Barrier Island Life-long Learning Strategy and Action Plan Sept 2017	49

Signatories

Authors

Jacqueline Fyers - Local Board Advisor Great Barrier

Kathy Cumming - Strategic Broker

Authoriser

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Great Barrier Local Board Community Grants Programme 2017/2018 updated

File No.: CP2017/24561

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to present the amended Great Barrier Local Board Community Grants Programme 2017/2018.

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The policy guides the establishment of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme.

4. This report presents the current local board grants programme (Attachment A) and an amended Great Barrier Local Board Community Grants Programme 2017/2018 (refer Attachment B). The amended programme has been updated to reflect the newly adopted outcomes and priorities in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) adopt the amended Great Barrier Local Board Community Grants Programme 2017/2018.

Comments

5. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The policy guides the establishment of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to allocate funding to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme. The local board grants programme guides community groups and individuals when making funding applications to the local board.

7. The local board community grants programme includes:

· outcomes as identified in the local board plan;

· specific local board grant priorities;

· which grant types will be offered, the number of grant rounds and opening and closing dates;

· any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply; and

· other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. The Great Barrier Local Board adopted their Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan 2017 at their September 2017 business meeting. The plan includes new outcomes and priorities.

9. The changes to the amended grant programme for 2017/2018 include the addition of:

· the new local board plan outcomes

· new priorities which are aligned to the local board outcomes

10. Once the new local board community grants programme for the 2017/2018 has been adopted, these changes will be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach which includes utilising the local board channels.

11. There is one local grant round remaining for the 2017/2018 financial year, which opens on 12 February 2018 and closes on 23 March 2018, with local board decisions on 15 May 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. The Community Grants Programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of their grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis and will be reviewed again in 2018 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

Māori impact statement

13. All grant programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Maori. Applicants are asked how their project may increase Maori outcomes in the application form.

Implementation

14. The amended local board grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and community channels alongside promotion for the February grant round.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Great Barrier Island Community Grants Programme 2017/2018	85
b ⇩	Great Barrier Island Community Grants Programme 2017/2018 amended	89

Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Decision-making allocation update

File No.: CP2017/25174

Purpose

1. This report seeks local board input on the allocation of non-regulatory decision-making as part of the 10 Year Budget 2018-2028.

Executive summary

2. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the Governing Body to allocate decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities either to the Governing Body or to local boards. This must be undertaken in accordance with certain legislative principles and after considering the views and preferences of each local board. There is a presumption that local boards will be responsible for making decisions on non-regulatory activities except where decision-making on a region-wide basis will better promote the wellbeing of communities across Auckland because certain criteria are satisfied.

3. Each long-term plan and annual plan must identify the non-regulatory activities allocated to local boards.

4. A significant review of this decision-making allocation was undertaken during the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan (LTP) cycle. The allocation was also recently considered during the Governance Framework Review over the period 2016-2017. A comprehensive review is thus not being undertaken this LTP cycle.

5. One substantive change to the allocation is proposed in order to implement a policy decision from the Governance Framework Review: allocating certain local service property optimisation decisions to local boards. There are various other minor wording amendments in order to improve clarity and consistency.

6. Local board feedback is sought on this proposed allocation. It will be considered by the Governing Body during its adoption of the 10 Year Budget 2018-2028.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) endorse the proposed allocation of non-regulatory decision-making as attached to this report.

Comments

Background

7. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets out the functions and powers of the Governing Body and local boards. Local board functions and powers come from three sources:

· those directly conferred by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009;

· non-regulatory activities allocated by the Governing Body to local boards;

· regulatory or non-regulatory functions and powers delegated by the Governing Body or Auckland Transport to the local boards.

8. The Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) was given the task of determining the initial allocation of the council’s non-regulatory activities using the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (the Auckland Council Act). In undertaking this exercise, the question considered by ATA was not “why should the activity be allocated to local boards?” but “why not?” This was in line with the Auckland Council Act.

9. The non-regulatory decision-making allocation has been reviewed twice since the ATA first developed it, as part of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022 and the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.The current non-regulatory decision-making allocation was determined as part of the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan. It is written on an inclusive basis; it does not contain an exhaustive list of all elements that might make up an allocated activity.

10. A significant review of the allocation was undertaken during the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan. The review concluded that a number of clarifications and text changes were required but no substantive changes were needed to the allocated responsibilities. The review also concluded that the then allocation had worked well and there had been a growing understanding and increasing sophistication of how to use it.

11. The 2016 independent Governance Framework Review report also considered the decision-making allocation as part of the respective roles of the Governing Body and local boards, and what is working well and not working well in Auckland Council’s governance. As with the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 review the Governance Framework Review found that the current allocation is well understood, sensible, and generally works well. It did recommend that one minor technical change be made to the allocation to more accurately describe the current practical limitations of local board roles in park acquisitions. Further analysis and consultation demonstrated that this recommended change was not necessary.

12. In responding to the Governance Framework Review report and considering how local boards could be further empowered, the Governing Body decided on a policy change that requires the allocation table to be amended. This is described below.

13. Local boards were extensively consulted during the Governance Framework review.

14. Due to the recent timing of the Governance Framework Review and the consideration of the allocation of non-regulatory decision-making as part of it, no comprehensive review of the allocation table is being undertaken this Long-term Plan cycle.

15. The Governance Framework Review did identify other decision-making opportunities for local boards, e.g. around service levels. No change is required to the allocation table to provide for this; local boards already have the necessary responsibilities allocated to them. Rather the organisation needs to be in a position to provide local boards with quality advice when making those decisions.

Summary of proposed amendments

16. The current allocation with proposed amendments is attached as Attachment A.

17. The only substantive amendment to the allocation is to allocate decision-making for disposal of local service properties and reinvestment of sale proceeds to local boards where this falls within the service property optimisation policy. This policy was adopted in 2015 by the Governing Body and sets out the purpose and principles for optimisation of underperforming or underutilised service property. A key element is that sale proceeds from underperforming service property are locally reinvested to advance approved projects or activities on a cost neutral basis.

18. Under the current allocation the Governing Body makes the final decision on disposal and acquisition of all property assets, including local service properties that may be optimised. Through the Governance Framework Review process the Governing Body agreed that these local service property optimisation decisions should be made by local boards.^{^[1]} This amendment to the allocation implements this decision. This issue was canvassed with local boards during consultation on the Governance Framework Review and they were supportive of local boards holding this decision-making.

19. The current allocation has one specific allocation for the Governing Body on acquisition and disposals - ‘acquisition and divestment of all park land, including the disposal of surplus parks.’ This was introduced to the allocation table in 2012 to provide clarity of decision-making responsibility in this space. This allocation would conflict with the new allocation given to local boards (disposal and reinvestment of property assets in line with the Service Property Optimisation Policy). In order to retain clarity an amendment has been made to the parks allocation to make it clear that the Governing Body’s responsibility for acquisition and divestment of parks does not apply in the case of the Service Property Optimisation Policy applying.

20. Other minor changes to wording include:

· Amending ‘Auckland-wide’ to ‘regional’ in several instances to maintain consistency throughout the allocation table.

· Updating various names (such as Panuku Development Auckland and various parks and maunga) to bring them into line with Auckland Council style.

· Updating descriptions of governance arrangements for several reserves to more accurately describe the current arrangements.

· Renaming themes and activity groups to bring them in to line with the new LTP nomenclature.

· Updating the planning language to bring it in line with Auckland Plan refresh nomenclature.

21. Whilst not part of the allocation of decision-making, the preamble to the allocation table that describes what powers have been delegated to local boards has also been updated to note the recent decision to delegate certain Reserves Act powers to local boards. This delegation was an outcome of the Governance Framework Review.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. Local board views on the proposed allocation are being sought via this report.

23. There was extensive consultation with local boards about their decision-making roles and powers during the Governance Framework Review. This included:

· workshops with each local board during the independent review phase;

· workshops and one business meeting with each local board during the response phase.

24. The review found that the allocation table was generally working well and no substantive changes to the allocation were recommended. This was specifically discussed with local boards during workshops. Feedback from local boards was generally supportive of this position.

Māori impact statement

25. There are no particular impacts to Maori in relation to this report.

Implementation

26. As the changes proposed to the decision-making allocation are not significant it is not necessary to publicly consult on them. Local board feedback will be reported to the Governing Body in 2018. Changes to the allocation would come into effect on 1 July 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Allocation of Decision-Making Responsibility for Non-Regulatory Activities	97

Signatories

Author

James Liddell - Senior Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Local board feedback on rates remission and postponement policy review

File No.: CP2017/24364

Purpose

1. Seek preliminary feedback from local boards on the review of the rates remission and postponement policy and in particular the legacy schemes. Feedback will be considered by Finance and Performance Committee when agreeing a rates remission and postponement policy, and any options, for consultation.

Executive summary

2. The council is required to review its rates remission and postponement policy every six years.

3. Rates remissions are a reduction in rates, usually by a set percentage. Rates postponement defers the payment of rates to a future point in time, usually the sale of the property.

4. The current policy includes six regional schemes and eleven legacy schemes inherited from the former councils that are only available within the former districts. Only minor changes are proposed to the regional schemes.

5. Officers recommend Option 1 that the legacy schemes (excluding the postponement for Manukau sports clubs) be replaced with grants because:

· funding decisions are more transparent

· spending for each activity is within an annual budget

· level of support for each organisation is more visible.

6. A three year transition is proposed for current recipients during which they will receive their current funding via a grant. At the end of transition they would need to apply for renewal.

7. Current legacy remissions and postponements funding would move to grant budgets:

a) regional grants programmes: remissions for natural heritage and community/sporting remissions for regional/sub-regional facilities

b) local board grants programmes: all other legacy remissions in the relevant area and the Great Barrier Island postponements.

8. Each board will be funded to provide the same level of grants as is presently provided in b) above. After three years boards can choose to continue the grants if they wish. While some boards will get more funding than others, this will be smoothed over time by the local board funding policy.

Alternative options

9. The other three options were considered and rejected because:

· Option 2: keeping the current remissions schemes is inequitable

· Option 3: extending the remissions in their current form is costly and does not provide the same level of transparency and oversight as is achieved with grants

· Option 4: removing the schemes with no replacement could present some ratepayers/community groups with affordability issues.

10. Local boards feedback on the review will be included in the report to the Finance and Performance Committee in February 2018. Public consultation on the proposed Rates remission and postponement policy and any options will occur in April 2018. Local boards will be able to consider public feedback, and provide their formal views on the proposed policy at their May 2018 meetings. Local board and public feedback will be reported to the 31 May 2018 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee when the adoption of the policy will be considered.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) resolve feedback on the options to address the legacy council remission and postponement schemes.

Comments

Background

11. The current Rates remission and postponement policy includes:

· 6 regional schemes available to all ratepayers with the objectives to:

o provide ratepayers with some financial or other assistance where they might otherwise have difficulty meeting their obligations

o address circumstances where the rating system results in anomalies in the incidence of rates.

· 11 legacy schemes supporting community objectives set by the former councils and only available in some areas:

o five remission schemes for natural and in some cases historic heritage

o six remission schemes for community and sporting organisations

o a rates postponement scheme for sports clubs in Manukau

o a rates postponement scheme for businesses on Great Barrier Island.

12. A summary of the regional and legacy schemes and the amount of remission or postponement granted in 2016/2017 is in Attachment A. The full rates remission and postponement policy is in Attachment B.

Assessment of Regional Schemes

13. Officers have reviewed the regional schemes and identified that the schemes are operating in accordance with expectations. The only amendment proposed to the regional schemes is to simplify the remission scheme for rates penalties. This amendment will be designed to maintain ratepayers’ existing level of access to penalty remissions.

Assessment of Legacy Schemes

14. Four options were considered for the legacy schemes:

1. integrate with grants schemes with three year transition for current recipients

2. retain the status quo

3. extend to entire region

4. remove.

15. A summary of the options can be found in Table 1 at the end of this report.

16. The following criteria were used to assess options for the legacy remissions and postponements policies.

· equity – same treatment for all ratepayers in all areas across Auckland

· transparency

· cost

· minimise the effects of change

· administrative simplicity.

Option 1: Integrate remissions and postponements with grants schemes with three year transition (excluding the Manukau postponement scheme for sports clubs)

17. This option would remove the present remission and postponement schemes. Up to the current amount equivalent of the 2018/2019 remission would be transferred to grants expenditure in the relevant areas over the next three years. The amount of grants will be adjusted for the increase in rates in the subsequent two years.

18. This option will increase the council’s grants and other budget lines by $900,000. This increase is offset by the increase in rates revenue of $900,000 resulting from remissions no longer being applied. There is no net cost to ratepayers of converting rates remissions to grants.

Allocating grants

19. Integration of remissions into wider regional, or local, grants schemes is preferable because:

· allocation of rates expenditure will be transparent

· spending via grants is public and assessed against other comparable demands on public money in terms of efficacy. Value for money is regularly assessed.

· administrative systems for grants are already in place although there will be a change in volume

· proposed transition will result in no change for recipients over the three years

· regional equity will be achieved over time as the legacy grants are integrated into the wider grants programme

· enables equity between community organisations that own land and those that do not.

20. Legacy schemes have been assessed against local and regional responsibilities. From this it is proposed that grants budgets be allocated as follows:

Remission/Postponement For	Aligns with	Grant allocates to
Natural heritage	Regional	Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme
Historic Heritage	Regional	Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme
Regional or sub-regional sports facilities	Regional	Regional Sports and Recreation Grants Programme
Local sports clubs and facilities	Local	Local Board where property receiving remission is located
Regional or sub-regional community facilities	Regional	Regional Community Development Grants programmes
Local community organisations and facilities	Local	Local Board where property receiving remission is located
Great Barrier businesses	Local	Great Barrier Local Board

21. Remissions for community and sporting organisations have been split between Regional and Local based on the area served by the property receiving the remission. For example, Eden Park, St John’s ambulance stations, IHC care homes and the SPCA have been classed as regional. Remissions for the Scouts Association and Plunket NZ have been classed as local because they relate to local scout halls and Plunket centres.

22. The value of remissions by local board area can be found in Attachment C. A list of all community and sporting remissions by local board showing the ratepayer and amount of remission, can be found in Attachment D.

Three Year Transition

23. The relevant decision maker, e.g. the Governing Body Committee for regional grants, and local boards for local grants, would be required to provide a grant to the level of the existing remission for a period of three years. The present recipient would therefore be protected from any change to their current funding for that period. At the end of the three years the decision maker can then decide whether to continue the grants on the existing basis or release the funds to the wider grants pool.

Option 2: Retain the status quo

24. This option would retain the remissions and postponement schemes in their current form in the former council areas. Properties in other parts of the region would not be able to apply for them.

25. This option is administratively simple for the council and recipients. It minimises change. Costs will depend on applications but have been relatively stable over time. The option is not equitable because the schemes are only available to ratepayers in some areas.

26. Rates remissions and postponements are not a transparent mechanism for supporting wider council goals because they:

· are recorded as a charge against revenue

· do not appear as a cost in the councils accounts

· do not increase the rates requirement and hence do not impact the headline rates increase[2] (They still increase the rates burden on other ratepayers)

· are not prioritised against other expenditure proposals or subject to the same value for money scrutiny.

Option 3: Extend to entire region

27. This option would extend the current policies to apply to the entire Auckland Council area. Extending the policies in their current form is equitable, and simplifies administration. However this option:

· increases costs to ratepayers without being compared to other council proposals that may offer greater benefits

· lacks evidence as to how much benefit will be returned by this investment

· is not transparent as described in Option 2 above.

28. The cost of extending existing legacy remission schemes regionally will depend on the criteria for eligibility. Costs for extending the current remission schemes have been estimated at $4.5 - $6 million as follows:

· Extending remission for natural heritage to properties with a covenant managed by the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust: $40,000. There are just over 100 properties in Auckland with a QEII covenant. If the criteria is extended to include other types of covenant, such as a covenant with a council, then the number of eligible properties will increase significantly. For example there are 4,500 properties with a bush-lot covenant from Rodney Council.

· Extending remissions for historic heritage: $3 million. This is derived from the rates for properties that are scheduled Category A in the Auckland Unitary Plan, where the status is associated with a building. This ignores archaeological sites such as middens and pa, but will capture the whole value of properties where the heritage status only applies to part of the property.

· Extending remissions for community and sporting organisations: $1.5 million for 50 per cent remission to $3 million for 100 per cent remission. This is estimated by applying a full remission to properties currently receiving a five per cent remission for the Auckland Regional Council scheme for community and sporting organisations. This is likely to under estimate the value of remissions, as offering a more generous remission is likely to significantly increase the number of applicants.

Option 4: Remove the schemes

29. Removing the schemes would lead to immediate financial impacts for a number of organisations presently receiving support from council. While the sums remitted are in many cases small, it is not clear that all the current recipients would be able to adequately accommodate change in a short time period.

Postponement for sports clubs in the district of the previous Manukau City Council

30. It is not recommended that the rates postponements for Manukau Sports clubs be converted to remission. This is because the postponement is currently set to be cost neutral. This is achieved by interest being charged, and by the postponement being secured against the title of the property. The council can require the full amount of postponed rates and interest be paid before any sale of the property can proceed. It would not be effective or efficient to try and replicate the postponement through a grants process.

31. The clubs are accruing a major liability against their land under this scheme. The total current liability including interest is $880,000. If the policy is not changed then rates will continue to accrue as the rates are never remitted. While the postponements are cost-neutral when they end, in the meantime they represent a significant debt liability at a time when the council is debt constrained. For this reason officers prefer that the schemes be removed after a suitable transition period. (The outstanding liability at the time the scheme is removed would remain a liability on the land until its sale or transfer of ownership.)

32. The two clubs receiving the postponement are zoned for residential development. Both clubs have significant (around 240%) increases in capital valuation following changes in zoning under the unitary plan. One club has repaid a portion of its liability following the sale of part of the property, and has chosen to pay rather than postpone the current year’s rates.

33. Officers propose to do further work to understand the individual circumstances of these two golf courses before developing formal recommendation and options for addressing this postponement scheme. Next steps and a timeline for actions will be included in the report to the February Finance and Performance Committee.

Next Steps

34. Preliminary feedback from local boards will be attached to the report to the February Finance and Performance Committee. The committee will agree a Rates remission and postponement policy, and any options, for consultation.

35. Public consultation will occur in April. All current recipients of the legacy rates remission and postponement schemes will be notified of any proposed changes to enable them to submit feedback.

36. Local boards will be able to consider the results of the public consultation, and provide formal feedback on the proposed policy, at their May meetings.

37. The Finance and Performance Committee will consider feedback from the public and local boards and adopt a final Rates remission and postponement policy by 31 May 2018. This enables the council’s budgets to be updated for the adoption of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

Table 1: Review of the rates remission and postponement policy: Options for legacy remission and postponement schemes

Option	Description	Pros	Cons	Implementation
Option 1: Integrate with grants schemes	· Legacy remission and postponements schemes (excluding MCC postponement for sports clubs) transfer to regional or local grants schemes. · Three year transition – same level of support given as provided in remission or postponement	· Increased transparency and accountability – grants assessed for value for money · Can cap costs · No change for three years for current recipients – time to adjust · Greater flexibility in application – not restricted to organisations that own land, level of support can reflect outcomes not property rates · Reduced rates administration	· Increased grants administration	· Administrative systems already in place for grants · Increase in grants volume
Option 2: Retain the status quo	· Legacy remission and postponements schemes continue unchanged	· Minimises change	· Inequitable – only available in some areas, and only available to groups that own land · Lacks transparency – spending not reviewed against other council priorities · No cap on costs	· No change to current processes
Option 3: Extend to entire region	· Schemes expanded to regional schemes. Costs will depend on the criteria applied	· Increases equity across the region	· Cost – estimated at $4.5m to $6m · No cap on costs · Lacks transparency – spending not reviewed against other council priorities · Lack of evidence this would improve outcomes · Only available to groups that own property	· Increases volume of remissions to process
Option 4: Remove the schemes	· Legacy schemes removed without transition	· $700,000 reduction in cost of rates for 2018/2019	· No time for recipients to adjust	· Reduces rates administration

Consideration

Local board views and implications

38. Implications for local boards are set out in the report. Under the proposal boards will be provided with additional funding to maintain the existing level of support for local community and sports groups in their board area that currently receive remissions. However, local boards will have more grant applications to appraise in the future and potentially more decisions to make at the end of the three year transition.

39. This report seeks feedback from Local Boards to inform the consideration of this issue by the Finance and Performance Committee in February.

Māori impact statement

40. None of the properties presently receiving remissions or postponements under the legacy schemes are known to be Māori owned or operated.

41. The only reference to Māori in the legacy remission and postponement schemes is the provision for remissions for Māori reservations in the Rodney District. No properties applied under this criterion. Such properties would be eligible for remission under the Council’s Māori freehold land rates remission and postponement policy. The Council is not required to review its MFL rates remission and postponement policy until 2019. No changes are proposed for this policy.

42. Under the principles for the Community Grants Policy, all grants programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori outcomes.

Implementation

43. Differences in implementation for each of the options are set out in Table 1 above.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Auckland Council rates remission and postponement policy schemes	119
b ⇩	Rates remission and postponement policy	125
c ⇩	Value of legacy schemes by local board area	143
d ⇩	List of all community and sporting remissions by local board area (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

Great Barrier Local Board

12 December 2017

Revising the local board Standing Orders

File No.: CP2017/25173

Purpose

1. To consider and adopt revised Standing Orders for local board meetings.

Executive summary

2. Standing Orders are the rules for conduct and procedure at meetings. They are used to help meetings run smoothly and in accordance with relevant legislation, to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process, and to help elected members and members of the public understand how they can participate.

3. The current local board Standing Orders (SOs) were set by the Auckland Transition Agency on 27 October 2010. It is now timely to revise them to ensure they remain a clear, relevant and practical tool for local board meetings.

4. At its meeting on 28 May 2015, the Governing Body resolved to amend its Standing Orders on the basis of work undertaken by a political working party.

5. The revised Standing Orders have a simplified layout, are written in a plain language style, and contain a summary and process diagram at the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

6. A working group of Democracy Advisors has assessed each provision of the current (generic) local board Standing Orders against the corresponding revised governing body Standing Orders. For each local board standing order they considered whether to retain the current wording, use the revised Governing Body wording or to have a combination of the two.

7. A draft set of revised local board Standing Orders is set out in Attachment A for local boards’ consideration. It is based on the recommendations of the Democracy Advisor working group and follows the revised Governing Body Standing Orders in terms of style.

8. The more significant suggested changes include new provisions for electronic attendance at meetings, dealing with conflicts due to the non-financial interests of members, processes for Governing Body and Māori input and enabling use of New Zealand Sign Language at meetings.

9. This report recommends that local boards consider and adopt the revised Standing Orders in Attachment A.

10. Any changes to a boards Standing Orders requires a majority vote of not less than 75% of members present.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) adopt the standing orders detailed in Attachment A to the agenda report, entitled “Auckland Council Standing Orders of the Local Board”, in replacement of its current standing orders.

Comments

Background

11. Standing Orders are the rules for conduct and procedure at meetings. They are used to help meetings run smoothly and in accordance with relevant legislation, to ensure the integrity of the decision-making process, and to help elected members and members of the public understand how they can participate.

12. The Governing Body Standing Orders were compiled in 2010 by the Auckland Transition Agency from legacy council standing orders and the NZ Standards Model Standing Orders.

13. Local Board Standing Orders were modelled on the Governing Body Standing Orders.

14. A political working party was set up in November 2013 to review the Governing Body’s Standing Orders. The working party’s findings were reported back to the Governing Body at its 28 May 2015 meeting (Attachment B).

15. Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) allowed additional changes to be considered by the working party. These changes included a provision to allow members to attend meetings via audio or audiovisual link.

16. At its 28 May 2015 meeting, the Governing Body adopted an amended set of Standing Orders which have a simplified layout, are written in a plain language style, and contain a summary and process diagram at the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

17. It was resolved at this meeting to forward the report to all local boards, drawing their attention to the suggestion to provide for councillor participation at local board meetings in their Standing Orders.

18. Over the last 18 months, a working group of local board Democracy Advisors has assessed each provision of the current (generic) local board Standing Orders against the corresponding revised Governing Body Standing Orders. For each local board standing order they considered whether to retain the current wording, use the revised Governing Body wording or to have a combination of the two.

19. A revised set of local board Standing Orders has been developed as an outcome of this work (Attachment A) which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Democracy Advisor working group.

20. The revised local board Standing Orders follow a similar format to the Governing Body Standing Orders with a simplified layout, a plain language style, and a summary and process diagram at the front for ease of reference during a meeting.

21. Key substantive changes from the current local board Standing Orders are summarised below. They aim to ensure the local board Standing Orders are up to date, fulfil Auckland Council’s legal obligations and are practical and useful for business meetings.

22. Many standing orders reflect provisions in legislation. In some cases the wording of the standing order may have been changed to a plain language style but the intention of the standing order remains the same. These standing orders are usually indicated by a reference underneath to the relevant clause in legislation. These standing orders may not be suspended.

Key changes

23. Key substantive suggested changes from the current local board Standing Orders are set out below.

Issue	Suggested changes	Purpose of suggested change	Reference in the revised LB Standing Orders
Quorum	Provision for the Chairperson to extend the 30 minute waiting time for a quorum, at the start of a meeting, by another 10 minutes - where members are known to be travelling to the meeting but are delayed due to unusual weather or traffic congestion. Change in the waiting time for a quorum to be reestablished (where, after a meeting starts, member(s) leave and there is no longer a quorum) from 20 minutes to 10 minutes.	Assists smooth running of meeting and ensures consistency with GB Standing Orders	3.1.4 and 3.1.6
Record of a workshop	Deletion of the requirement for the chairperson to sign-off the record of a workshop. Record of workshop proceedings will be circulated.	Assists smooth running of meeting	12.1.4
Public excluded business not to be disclosed	Clarification on situations where the duty of non-disclosure of information, at a meeting where the public were excluded, does not apply - namely where: · a meeting has resolved to make the information publically available · there are no grounds under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for withholding the information when requested · the information is no longer confidential.	Clarification and ensures consistency with GB Standing Orders	7.4.3
Languages	Amendments to allow New Zealand Sign Language (as well as English and Māori) to be used by members and in deputations, presentations and public forum. Two clear working days’ notice must be provided when an address is not in English (this is the same as the notice period required under the current local board Standing Orders and the governing body Standing Orders). The Governing Body input and Māori input sections also provide for addressing the meeting in New Zealand Sign Language, English or Māori.	Recognition of NZ Sign Language as an official language	1.1.2, 5.1.5, 6.1.5, 7.6.1, 7.7.5 and 7.8.4.
Minutes	Clarification of what meeting minutes are to record.	Clarification	8.1.2
Agendas	Clarification that agendas can be sent electronically, and that names of local board and committee members are to be on each agenda.	Clarification	2.4.1 7.3.3
Non-financial interests	Suggested new provision regarding procedure for dealing with non-financial interests of members. If a member considers that there is a conflict of interest for an item, they may not take part in the discussions about or vote on the relevant matter.	Helps ensure robust, legally defensible decisions and consistent with GB Standing Orders	1.3.8
Repeat Notices of Motion	Suggested amendment that a Notice of Motion that the local board or a committee has considered twice and rejected within the previous six months may be refused by the Chairperson. (There is no longer the option for a further notice - prior to the expiration of the original period of 6 months - where signed by a majority of all members.)	Assists smooth running of meetings and ensures consistency with GB Standing Orders	2.5.8
Procedural motions	Suggested new provision that the Chairperson has discretion about whether to allow any other procedural motion that is not contained in these Standing Orders.	Assists smooth running of meeting and ensures consistency with GB Standing Orders	1.7.12
Urgent items	Suggested change in title, from ‘Major items of business not on the agenda may be dealt with (extraordinary business)’ to ‘Urgent items of business not on the agenda may be dealt with (extraordinary business)’. This provision sets out when items not on an agenda may be considered. The suggested change in title aims to help clarify the types of issues that fall under this provision and better reflect the purpose of the provision. Text has also been added clarifying that extraordinary business may be brought before a meeting by a report of the Chief Executive or Chairperson. Where the matter is so urgent a written report is not practical, the report may be verbal.	Clarification	2.4.5 and Appendix D
Governing body input	A proposed section on Governing Body input sets out that a Governing Body member may provide input at meetings via speaking rights on items at the discretion of the chair and a report on the agenda for a Governing Body member to provide a general update on matters of interest to the board. This can include reporting on regional matters of interest to the local board or any matter the Governing Body member wishes to raise. This section aims to be more flexible than the current local board SO 3.9.14, by applying to Governing Body members in general rather than ward councillors for the local board area. Whilst the right for Governing Body members to speak as a deputation has also been retained, the Governing Body input section enables a more flexible/permissive option, given it does not require the authorisation of a governing body resolution. Use of the process for Governing Body deputations will be appropriate for more formal circumstances, where the Governing Body member is representing the views of the Governing Body as a whole. The suggested notice period is seven clear working days, to enable sufficient time for it to appear on the agenda. However, this is at the discretion of the Chairperson and can be shortened if necessary. The suggested speaking time is five minutes, in accordance with provisions in the Governing Body Standing Orders.	More permissive input provisions	Part 5
Order of business	Clarification that the order of business for an extraordinary meeting should be limited to items relevant to the purpose of the meeting. The Chairperson may allow governing body, Māori and public input that is relevant to the purpose of the meeting. The items listed in this section have been amended to fit with the order of business generated by Infocouncil.	Clarification and ensures consistency with GB Standing Orders	2.4.2
References to working parties and briefings	These have been taken out, as these forums tend to be less formal and not covered by Standing Orders.	Relevance
Public forum	Suggested changes clarifying that: · public forum may not be required at the inaugural meeting, extraordinary meetings or a special consultative procedure · members may not debate any matter raised during the public forum session that is not on the agenda for the meeting, or take any action in relation to it, other than through the usual procedures for extraordinary business if the matter is urgent. The meeting may refer the matter to a future meeting, or to another committee, or to the Chief Executive for investigation · Māori or New Zealand Sign Language can be used at public forum, as long as two clear working days’ notice is provided. Where practical, council will arrange for a translator to be present · the Chairperson may direct a speaker to a different committee and prohibit a speaker from speaking if he or she is offensive, repetitious or vexatious, or otherwise breaches these standing orders.	Clarification	7.8
Suspension of standing orders	A provision has been included for a member to move a motion to suspend standing orders as a procedural motion. The member must name the standing orders to be suspended and provide a reason for suspension. If seconded, the chairperson must put it without debate. At least 75 per cent of the members present and voting must vote in favour of the suspension, and the resolution must state the reason why the SO was suspended. It should be noted that some SOs reflect provisions in legislation so cannot be suspended. These are usually indicated by a reference underneath the SO to the relevant clause in legislation.	To assist the smooth running of meetings and ensure consistency with GB Standing Orders	1.7.11
Notice to be seconded	A notice of motion delivered to the Chief Executive must be signed by another member of the meeting as a seconder – unless member is giving notice of motion to revoke or alter a previous resolution.	Consistency with GB Standing Orders	2.5.2
Chairperson discretion	The discretion of the Chairperson has been clarified and made as consistent as possible in Standing Orders relating to Governing Body input, Māori input, public forum and deputations.	Clarification and consistency	Parts 5 and 6, 7.7 and 7.8
Māori responsiveness	Suggested provisions for representatives of Māori organisations to provide input at local board or committee meetings via speaking rights during relevant items. The main purpose of the provisions is to recognise the special status of Māori and increase the council’s responsiveness to Māori. The provisions also provide more flexibility than the deputations process, which restricts the number of deputation members that may address the meeting. The suggested notice period is seven clear working days, to enable sufficient time for such an item to appear on the agenda. However, this is at the discretion of the chair and can be shortened if need be.	Recognition of the special status of Māori and IMSB’s role under section 85 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009	Part 6 and 4.2.2
Working days / clear working days	The term “clear working days” has been used throughout the document, to refer to the number of working days prescribed for giving notice. It excludes the date of service of that notice and the date of the meeting itself. This is in accordance with legislation (Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the Interpretation Act).	Clarification and consistency
Governing body input, Māori input, public forum, deputations	The provisions in these sections have been made as consistent as possible and, where appropriate, in accordance with the Governing Body Standing Orders. Legal advice has been followed regarding the subjects a speaker may not speak about and the questions which can be put to speakers.	Clarification
New appendices	New appendices have been added, setting out who must leave the meeting when the public is excluded and how business is brought before a meeting. Provisions in the current local board Standing Orders relating to workshops have been placed in an appendix, given their exemption from Part seven of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1978.	Clarification	Appendices B-D
Electronic attendance at business meetings	Recent changes to the Local Government Act 2002 now allow members to attend meetings by audio or audio-visual means in certain situations. There are a number of restrictions for this provision in the legislation including that relevant technology is available and of suitable quality, all those participating can hear each other and there is no reduction in accountability or accessibility of the member in relation to the meeting. Members attending meetings by electronic link may vote but are not counted as part of the quorum. The revised Standing Orders contain provisions to enable members to attend meetings by electronic link, where the member is representing the council at a place that makes their physical presence at the meeting impossible or impracticable, to accommodate the member’s illness or infirmity or in emergencies. This provision will only apply where the technology is available.	Allows members to attend meetings whilst away on council business, or during illness or other emergency.	3.3
Membership of committees	In accordance with section 85 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, a clause has been included acknowledging that the Independent Māori Statutory Board must appoint a maximum of two people to sit as members of committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources.	Clarification	4.2.2
Powers of delegation	Clause 36D of schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 identifies who a local board may delegate decision-making to, and the powers a local board cannot delegate. This clause does not include the power to delegate to other subordinate decision-making bodies or more than one member of a local board. Therefore references to subordinate decision-making bodies have been removed.	Clarification	Part 4

Key differences from the governing body standing orders

24. The revised local board Standing Orders contain some points of difference with the governing body Standing Orders. Key points of difference are in the areas of refreshment breaks, petitions, notices of motion, and public input.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. This report provides information and a revised set of Standing Orders for local board consideration and adoption.

Māori impact statement

26. The local board Standing Orders deal with meeting procedure. They provide for Māori to be spoken at business meetings and for deputations, presentations and petitions to be in Māori. They also enable:

· Māori to participate on local board committees, even if they are not members of the relevant local board. See current local board SO 2.9.2 which states: “members of a committee or subcommittee may, but need not be, elected members of the Local Board”. As such, non-members may be appointed to committees or subcommittees if they have relevant skills, attributes or knowledge.

· the suspension of Standing Orders, which can be useful to flexibly incorporate tikanga at meetings.

27. New suggested provisions relating to Māori in the revised Standing Orders include:

· a section on Māori input, to recognise the special status of Māori and encourage their input at local board meetings. This is in accordance with advice from Te Waka Angamua and work being undertaken by some local boards on a co-design process with mana whenua to improve Māori input into local board decision-making

· clarifying that the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) must appoint a maximum of two people to sit as members of committees that deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources (in accordance with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, section 85)

· providing for Māori to be spoken at public forum, and by the governing body or Māori organisations providing input, as long as two clear working days’ notice is given of the intention to do so.

28. Including these provisions recognises the special status of Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Local Government Act 2002 requirements to provide opportunities and processes for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes.^{^[3]} It is also in accordance with the goals of council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework, Whiria Te Muka Tangata. In particular, to foster more positive and productive relationships between council and Māori, and contribute to Māori well-being by developing strong Māori communities.

Implementation

29. Changes to Standing Orders requires a majority vote of not less than 75% of members present (s27(3) Schedule 7, Local Government Act 2002).

30. If approved, the revised Standing Orders will come in to effect immediately.

31. Copies of the revised Standing Orders will be provided to all local board members, where local boards choose to adopt changes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Revised Local Board Standing Orders (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Governing Body Political working party’s finding (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author

Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – General Manager Local Board Services

Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier

[1] The Governing Body resolved to delegate this power to local boards. However, this was in error, as it was always intended that the power should be allocated to local boards by Governing Body and it was discussed by the Political Working Party in this context.

[2] The headline rates increase in an annual plan, or long-term plan, is a comparison of the annual rates requirement to the previous years budgeted rates requirement. Moving a charge against revenue to an expenditure item like grants will increase the council’s costs and inflate the apparent rates increase. However, remissions and postponements are a cost already borne by those ratepayers not receiving them. Therefore an adjustment will be made to the 2014/2015 budgeted rates requirement for the purpose of calculating the rates increase proposed for 2015/2016.

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Luke Coles
Members	Jeff Cleave
	Susan Daly
	Shirley Johnson

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 7 November 2017	161
b ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 14 November 2017	163
c ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 21 November 2017	165
d ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 28 November 2017	167
e ⇩	Great Barrier Local Board workshop record - 29 November 2017	169

Author	Guia Nonoy - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Janine Geddes - Acting Relationship Manager Waiheke and Great Barrier