Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board

Apology for absence has been received from Member Vanessa Neeson.

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 following are declared interests of elected members of the Henderson-massey local board:

BOARD MEMBER	ORGANISATION	POSITION	Updated
Shane Henderson (Chairman)	Waitakere Licensing Trust Waitakere Badminton	Elected Member Patron	13 December 2016
Peter Chan, JP (Deputy Chairman)	Cantonese Opera Society of NZ Asian Leaders Forum NZ-Hong Kong Business Association NZ-China Business Association Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA) Whau Coastal Walkway Trust Auckland Asian Association	Member Member Member Member Advisor Trustee President	15 Nov 2016 21 Feb 2017
Brenda Brady, JP	Safer West Community Trust District Licensing Committee	Trustee Member	15 Nov 2016
Matt Grey	Zeal	CEO	15 Nov 2016 21 March 2017
Paula Bold-Wilson	Community Waitakere Henderson Budgeting Services Unitec Institute of Technology	Board member Board member Employee	15 Nov 2016 21 March 2017
Vanessa Neeson, JP	Village Green Quilters Ranui Advisory Group	Member Chairperson	15 Nov 2016 17 February 2017
Warren Flaunty, QSM	Westgate Pharmacy NorSGA Properties Westgate Pharmacy Ltd The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd Life North West Pharmacy Waitemata District Health Board Waitakere Licensing Trust Massey Birdwood Settlers Ass. Taupaki Residents & Ratepayers Ass.	Contractor Director Director Director Director Elected Member Elected Member Member Member	15 Nov 2016
Will Flavell	Te Atatū Tennis Club Asia New Zealand Leadership Network Rutherford College Waitākere Literacy Board	Member Member Employee Board Member	15 Nov 2016

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey 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 Ward Councillors’ Update

Ward Councillors are given an opportunity to update the board on regional issues that impact the Henderson-Massey local board.

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

8.1 Deputation: Brooke Turner - VisionWest

Purpose

1. To provide and opportunity for Brooke Turner, Head of Community Services Development to inform the local board of their work for the community of West Auckland, including social housing, budgeting, counselling and community banks

Executive summary

2. VisionWest Community Trust has been offering community-based services to people in West Auckland since the 1980’s. The Trust was formally incorporated as the Friendship Centre Trust in 1988 in response to a growing desire of the Glen Eden Baptist Church to help those in need in the local community. The Trust started out small with a drop-in centre at the Glen Eden Railway Station as a place where friendships were formed. The Trust responded to the needs present in the community and grew to be one of the largest community based Trusts in West Auckland.

3. VisionWest have expanded our Homecare to reach beyond West Auckland, across the city, to Rotorua, and Hamilton. And we offer Housing services in Christchurch as well. We still have a huge heart for West Auckland and all our services are based in our one campus in Glen Eden. Apart from Homecare and Community Housing, the team works with people through Training & Education, Counselling, Social Work Support, Chaplaincy, Financial Literacy and Budgeting Support, and Community Banks (Food, Curtains, and School Uniforms).

4. At VisionWest, we continually review our services and, in 2015, one of our strategic priorities has become launching a more holistic model of care to support people we work with, namely, the Whanau Centre. Whether it’s working with a child in the Kindergarten, a Young person at the Training Centre or an adult seeking Counselling, there is a whole family and community that sits alongside this person. When the appropriate resources are allocated to support people, the whole family and community can be connected together to become part of the journey towards a better future. Working with the whole family and linking with the community is part of bringing transformational change and is central to VisionWest’s Vision and Values.

5. The outcome will be on giving the board insight to the work of VisionWest in and across West Auckland.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) receive the deputation from Brooke Turner, Head of Community Services Development, VisionWest.

Attachments

a Vision West Annual Report.................................................................. 203

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.

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club site investigation

File No.: CP2017/23911

Purpose

1. Approve the strategic assessment of a Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club proposal to create a new water access and waka ama facility at Bridge Ave, Te Atatū.

2. Approve further investigation and option analysis of the problems and potential benefits of the Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club proposal, as identified in the strategic assessment.

Executive summary

3. Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club seeks support for a proposal to develop a new water access and waka ama facility in the vicinity of Bridge Ave, Te Atatū.

4. Sport & Recreation staff undertook a strategic assessment of the proposal. The assessment identifies potential benefits of the proposal which align with council’s objectives across a range of strategic documents.

5. The strategic assessment recommends further investigation of the proposal is undertaken by Community Facilities: Investigation & Design.

6. The strategic assessment outlines baseline performance criteria required for any project output to deliver the desired benefits.

7. The strategic assessment is attached to this report for consideration by the local board.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) approve the Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club strategic assessment contained in attachment A; and

b) request further investigation, options analysis and recommendations to respond to the identified problems and realise potential benefits outlined in the Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club investment logic map contained in attachment D.

Comments

8. Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club is based at Bridge Avenue, Te Atatū, on land owned by Te Atatū Boat Club. Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club is permitted to access the water via one of Te Atatū Boat Club’s ramps, subject to certain rules.

9. In 2016, Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club approached Henderson-Massey Local Board for support to move the club from its current location which is unsafe and constraining the club’s growth and development. Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club wishes to investigate developing new water access independent of Te Atatū Boat Club.

10. On 20 June 2017 Henderson-Massey Local Board allocated $30,000 to support the Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club investigations (HM/2017/101).

11. Council staff consulted Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club during preparation of the strategic assessment and investment logic map. Consultation included identification of problems, opportunities, potential benefits and outcomes, and baseline performance criteria required to deliver the desired benefits.

12. The strategic assessment identifies potential benefits of the proposal and confirms that these outcomes would align with council’s objectives across a range of strategic documents.

13. If no investigations or analysis are undertaken the implications for the club would be significant as the current site is unsafe, restrictive of growth and participation. There is inadequate space and facilities for competition level paddlers, social and cultural activities and storage of waka and equipment.

14. It is noted that the Te Whau Pathway is planned to go through Bridge Avenue. This will impact on the WOCC proposal and offers potential for collaborative design.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The local board has met Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club members and elected members undertook a site visit of the club’s location and circumstances on 09 February 2017.

16. On 20 June 2017, the local board allocated $30,000.00 to support further investigations of the proposal from Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club (HM/2017/101).

17. On 31 October 2017 a local board workshop exercise with staff clarified problems to be resolved for the Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club and the potential benefits to be achieved if the problems were resolved.

18. On 6 November 2017 further engagement with club members reaffirmed the identified problems of a site inadequate to meet the club needs, and a lack of independence from Te Atatū Boat Club.

19. These discussions informed the strategic assessment and investment logic map.

Māori impact statement

20. In 2012 and 2016 the Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club approached the local board to progress its proposed initiative. In 2017, staff engaged club representatives during preparation of the strategic assessment.

21. Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club is not iwi-affiliated, but the club enjoys strong relationships with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and Te Kawerau a Maki who support the club and the club’s proposal. Ongoing engagement with the club and manawhenua will be required.

22. Waka-ama has strong cultural connections for Maori and experiences high Maori participation. Membership of Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club is predominantly Maori and the club is kaupapa-Maori in its operation.

23. The proposed initiative will have beneficial impacts on Maori well-being through increased participation in waka ama to improve health, wellness and quality of life; support access to Māori culture, Te Ao Māori values and the use of Te reo Māori, and support thriving Māori social networks. Participation in waka ama develops all four areas of hauora: physical, mental and emotional, social, and spiritual.

Implementation

24. Council sport and recreation staff will liaise with colleagues in Community Facilities: Investigation and Design to arrange for appropriate investigations to be undertaken to produce an options analysis with detailed benefits identified and a recommended option to deliver and implement a solution.

25. The $30,000 allocation will be made available to support this next phase of investigations.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	2012_Site analysis_Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club	13
b ⇩	20171108_Strategic assessment_Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club	61
c ⇩	2017_Site analysis_Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club	69
d ⇩	21071107_Investment Logic Map_Waitakere Outrigger Canoe Club	87

Signatories

Authors

Nick Harris - Sport & Recreation Team Lead

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

The purpose of this document is to provide a high-level outline of the proposed initiative, describing the need for change, related benefits and how this fits with Auckland Council’s strategic outcomes. If the budget holder agrees with the strategic assessment, s/he should sign off approval to move this proposed initiative to the initiate phase. Text in italics is for guidance and should be deleted when no longer required.

Investment proposal information
Initiative Name:	Waitākere Waka Ama Outrigger Canoe Club (WOCC) investigation	Decision making body: [Business unit/ department/CCO, local board, etc.]	Henderson-Massey Local Board
Initiative Lead:	Nick Harris	Is this a planned initiative or new?	New
Unique ID#	TBC	Date:	08/11/2017

Strategic case

Introduction

What does this proposed initiative involve?

· Creating a new public (small-craft) water access to the Whau River in the vicinity of Bridge Ave, Te Atatu.

· Creating new waka ama facility for WOCC.

· Possible collaboration with Te Whau Pathway and/or Te Atatu Boat Club to optimise design, construction and outcomes.

Desired Outcomes:

1. Increased participation in waka ama in west Auckland

2. Increased access, especially for rangatahi, to social and cultural benefits of waka ama activities including whakawhanaungatanga, tirohanga maori, hauora, kaitiakitanga.

3. Henderson-Massey Local Board is seen as a leader in Maori Responsiveness at Auckland Council

Project Output:

Improved access and facilities for waka ama in the vicinity of Bridge Ave (including Covil Park), Te Atatu.

To achieve the desired outcomes, the following baseline output performance criteria are required:

· Safe all-tide access to the Whau River

· Good access to flat water (Whau River) and open water (Waitemata Harbour) for safety and maximum workable paddling distances

· Boat ramp and/or pontoon

· Can accommodate frequent use of water access by the club (7 days per week)

· Space for secure waka storage

o An area of 500m²+

o Number

§ W1 (30+ 7m long - these are stored on racks)

§ W2 (3+ - 8m long - stored on racks)

§ W6 (9+ 14m long -- stored side by side)

o Ancillary equipment

o Located near water access

· Fresh water wash down area

· Safe operational area (ie: free of through traffic)

· Space for the club to grow (including consideration of a clubroom facility on-site in the future)

· Central location to catchment (including public transport)

· Space for car parking

· Access to toilets and changing facilities

These criteria are met at the proposed Bridge Ave site.

Note: This project is envisioned in two stages. Firstly the creation of new water access and open space by council. Secondly, development of waka ama facilities (storage compund/clubrooms) by WOCC. This is recommended in order to assign investment & ownership responsibilities to the appropriate parties.

The following site options have been assessed as not fully meeting the performance criteria.

· Te Atatu Boating Club (good water access, no room for growth under current agreement, historically strained relationship)

· Taipari Strand (tidal, long distance to open water)

· Selwood Road (no bus route, toilets, lighting)

· Taikata Sailing Club (tidal and no room for growth)

· Wharf Road (tidal, long distance to open water)

· Archibald Park (tidal, long distance to open water)

· West End Rowing Club (not a central location, busy existing rowing club)

· Peoples Park (difficult access to water, no amenities)

· Hobsonville Airbase (not central to west Auckland catchment)

What is the targeted delivery date / estimated time to deliver this initiative?

To early to predict a delivery date the overall project.

Estimate that investigations for Initiate phase could be delivered by June 2018.

1 If possible, provide a ballpark figure of delivering this proposed project.

2 To be determined in Initiate phase

4 Is funding sought to build the business case?

5 HMLB has allocated FY17/18 $30,000 to investigation of this initiative. This is considered adequate to meet costs at this point.

6 Pending the conclusions of future investigations, more funding may be sought to progress the initiative.

Strategic assessment – Outlining the need for investment

WOCC serves a catchment exceeding 170,000 people in West Auckland. The club is the largest of Auckland’s 15 waka ama clubs and one of the 5 largest nationally. WOCC has enjoyed considerable success over the years at national and international levels.

WOCC is experiencing a number of problems at their current site on TABC land at Bridge Ave. These have become long-term issues; WOCC previously approached Henderson-Massey Local Board for support for the same problems in 2012.

· Problem: the current circumstances of WOCC as tenants of TABC are unsafe (particularly for junior members), restrictive of their operations and prevent the club from improving safety

· Problem: The current site is preventing growth (demand is not being met) and participation in the sport.

· Problem: The current facilities are inadequate for competition level (national and international) club members.

· Problem: The current facilities lack space for:

o social and cultural activities (eg: manuhiritanga)

o adequate storage of waka and equipment

· Problem: WOCC has an historically strained relationship with TABC, who own the current site

· Opportunity: to create a new water access in the vicinity of Bridge Ave to enable increased public access to the Whau River, improve safety of waka ama users, and facilitate the waka ama activities of WOCC.

· Opportunity: With the ability to grow membership, WOCC can cater to more schools, workplaces, tertiary education settings and novice paddlers from all parts of the community.

· Opportunity: benefit to both WOCC and the local community as a whole with a public space to launch sea crafts of various shapes and sizes at all-tides, visible to the public and will cater as another starting/finishing point along the planned Te Whau Pathway walk/run.

· Opportunity: to include in this development a new section of Te Whau Pathway with strategic connection to the North West Cycleway.

· Problem: the obvious potential location/s is constrained and will require permits to work in the coastal marine area.

What are the measurable benefits of implementing this change?

· Increased participation in waka ama in west Auckland

· Increased access, especially for rangatahi, to social and cultural benefits of waka ama activities including whakawhanaungatanga, tirohanga maori, kotahitanga, hauora, kaitiakitanga.

· Henderson-Massey Local Board is seen as a leader in Maori Responsiveness at Auckland Council

· Improved connections for local communities with Whau River and Waitemata Harbour; connecting people with nature.

What would happen if we didn’t continue with this proposed initiative?

· WOCC members, including children, will be left in an unsafe operating environment.

· WOCC will be constrained in its abilities to:

o grow and develop its activities at community sport and high performance sport levels

o promote the physical, social and cultural benefits of waka ama

· Risk that the Te Whau Pathway will be developed in such a way as to:

o preclude any WOCC initiative at Bridge Ave

o omit small-craft water access

· Risk that Henderson-Massey Local Board will not be seen as a leader in Maori Responsiveness at Auckland Council

What other similar projects /initiatives / programmes are currently on the go?

· Te Whau Pathway; this project will create a pathway along the length of the Whau River to connect the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours. In doing so, the project will reconnect communities to the river, local parks and facilities. The pathway will pass through the vicinity of Bridge Ave, connecting with the NW Cycleway to the north and Covil Park to the south.

· Archibald Park; boat ramp renewal, new pontoon and waka ama storage. This project will improve functionality of existing facilities at Archibald Park to better facilitate local use, particularly by local school waka ama paddlers. This small facility will be over 4.5km paddling distance from Bridge Ave and is therefore considered to supplement the Bridge Ave project, rather than duplicate it.

Identify the link to strategic outcomes, business and/or asset management plans.

Outcomes that describe the vision		How we respond
Tick all that apply. √
A fair, safe and healthy Auckland	√	Our citizens have a strong voice
A green Auckland		We get the job done faster, more conveniently and at lower cost	√
A prosperous Auckland		We have a high performance & inclusive workforce
A beautiful Auckland		Elected members are better supported
A well connected Auckland	√	Increase non-rates revenue
A culturally rich and creative Auckland		Doing more with less
A Māori identify that is Auckland’s point of difference	√
The WOCC project aligns with the following strategic documents: Auckland Council Unitary Plan It is stated in the Auckland Council Unitary Plan that Mana Whenua, defined in the RMA as tangata whenua, are Māori with ancestral rights to resources in Auckland and responsibilities as kaitiaki over their tribal lands, waterways and other taonga. The Unitary Plan has an important role in helping decision-makers to expand their perspective to include Mana Whenua interests and values related to resource management, including the integration of mātauranga and tikanga. The Unitary Plan clearly identifies Mana Whenua interests and values, and directs when mātauranga and tikanga must be considered in relation activities within Auckland. The WOCC project would support this statement. Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan 2014 A key feature of Henderson-Massey area is the 16 per cent of people who identify as Māori (compared with 10% for the whole of the rest of Auckland). The area also has a young population. The WOCC project would align with the following from the LB Plan 2014: · ‘Our vision: Creating the world’s most liveable city at a local level’ – strong community organisations and sports clubs that support people in their leisure activities. · ‘Outcome: A community where we know our neighbours, work together on issues and value diversity’ – Henderson-Massey is one of the most diverse communities in New Zealand and there is an especially high proportion of young people that identify as Māori. The local board is turning its attention to what can be done to better provide for this more diverse population · ‘Outcome: A good life for young and old’ – ensure there are things for young people to do. The board want young people to have things to do and places to go. Having a wide range of activities is a community responsibility and one the board is proud to contribute to. · “Outcome: We are an eco-city’ – people in Henderson-Massey love to be on the water and the board want to improve access to our coast and waterways. Henderson-Massey Draft Local Board Plan 2017 The local board wants to work more closely with our tangata whenua, recognising the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in everything they do and focusing on improving outcomes for Māori. · Objective: Diversity and difference is embraced and valued. Support rangatahi in growing their confidence and leadership through projects that build on their interests and challenge them. · Objective: Mana whenua and mataawaka rights are acknowledged and their needs and aspirations widely known. · Objective: Our parks and recreational services provide a range of accessible experiences for our diverse community. Extend the variety of play and exercise experiences for a range of ages. · Objective: Our community facilities are well used and flexible in meeting community needs. Henderson-Massey Open Space Network Plan 2015-2025 The WOCC project fully supports Key Outcome 5 (coasts and walkways) in the Open Space Network Plan 2015-2025. This outcome deals with access to the coastlines and waterways in the area, providing recreational benefits and contributing to community identity and increasing liveability. A new pontoon/jetty in the Bridge Avenue area would give people access to the tidal reaches of the Waitemata Harbour. This outcome also fits well with the proposed WOCC project as it supports community initiatives that contribute to well-being and helps connect and build community networks. Te Whai Oranga – Maori Sport and Recreation Plan This plan aims to increase awareness of whakapapa connection in Tāmaki Makaurau, through the environment, sport and recreation. The proposed WOCC project supports all of the five key outcomes set out in Te Whai Oranga, consistent with mana-whenua principles and corresponding mataawaka community sport and recreation aspirations: · Whanaungatanga – Strong and healthy relationships; More whanaungatanga opportunities · Mana Whakahaere – Leadership and Decision-making as Māori; More culturally competent leadership. · Taonga Tuku Iho – Treasures handed on; More culturally connected opportunities · Tūrangawaewae – Connection to whakapapa and Sense of Place; More access to culturally inspired places/opportunities · Te Ao Turoa – Interaction with the wider world to enable Auckland’s Māori identity; More strategic and practical collaboration Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan This plan aims to get “more Aucklanders more active more often”. The WOCC project strongly aligns with key initiatives identified: 6.7: Identify key actions to improve access and facilities for water-based recreational activities and sport. · Waka ama is a water-based sport & rec activity · WOCC provides and promotes waka-ama · Therefore, improving access and facilities for WOCC supports key initiative 6.7 5.2 Enable Auckland’s diverse communities to participate in recreation and sport by promoting opportunities to meet their needs · Maori are an Auckland community · Waka ama meets needs of Maori for connection to tikanga-maori through sport and recreation · WOCC provides and promotes waka-ama · Therefore, enabling WOCC to provide and promote opportunities for Maori and participate in waka ama supports key initiative 5.2 *Te Whau Pathway Plan* may also offer alignment but has not been reviewed at the time of writing.

Key stakeholders

Which stakeholders / communities have been engaged regarding this proposed initiative?

Engaged and supportive:

· WOCC

· Henderson-Massey Local Board

· Hoani Waititi Marae

· Kelston Girls Waka Ama

· Peeni Henare, MP for Tāmaki Makaurau

· Phil Twyford (MP for Te Atatu)

· Rutherford College, Te Atatu Peninsula

· Dianne Pomare, Principle, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Nga Maungaronga

· Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust

· Waitakere College.

To be engaged:

· Te Atatu Boat Club

· Te Whau Pathway Trust

· Auckland Council

Approval and acceptance

Approval
“This initiative is worthy of further development into the Initiate phase. I agree that the potential benefits identified are realistic, and the required budget to support movement into the Initiate phase of the project is available and approved. The Project Complexity Assessment Tool (PCAT) should be used to identify the rigour required regarding the development of either the Auckland Council Business Case – low, medium or high complexity, which should now be prepared.”
Name	Signature

Appendices

WOCC Site Analysis 2012

WOCC Site Analysis 2017 (updated)

HMLB resolution

PCAT (8 Nov 2017)

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Simpson Holdings 2012 Limited at 78-82 Mili Way South, Ranui.

File No.: CP2017/24436

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board, for a new road name for the existing private right of way required to be named due to the subdivision at 78-82 Mili Way South, Ranui.

2. The private right of way will now serve seven lots following this subdivision.

Executive summary

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

4. The Applicant Simpson Holdings 2012 Limited have submitted the following road names in order of preference :

· Vedika Place

With the alternatives being:

· Lata Place

· Eva Place

5. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature; or

· an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in the area

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

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

7. The road naming criteria suggests road types that could be used and the Applicant has chosen Place, being a short sometimes narrow enclosed roadway (Cul-de-sac). This road type meets the road naming criteria.

8. The Applicants agent confirmed both Vedika and Eva are living persons and family members who are close to his heart and enabled him to get this far and complete the development. Although Council prefers not to use names of livings persons, it may be acceptable in this case. Lata is a family member and the proposed name could be chosen if Local Board defers from Vedika and Eva.

The applicant has pending agreements for sale & purchase for this development and requires urgency in issuing of the new titles The names suggested by Te Kawerau a Maki could be included in choices for proposed names and considered by the Local Board. Para Kore, Kaitiaki and Hiwa are acceptable to NZ Post and Land Information NZ (LINZ).

9. Therefore, the following road names are put forward for consideration of the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

· Vedika Place

With the alternatives being:

· Lata Place

· Eva Place

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a. pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the proposed road names for the existing private right of way required to be named due to the subdivision being undertaken by Simpson Holdings 2012 Limited at 78-82 Mili Way South, Ranui.

· Vedika Place

With the alternatives being :

· Lata Place

· Eva Place

Comments

10. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.

11. The private right of way will serve seven lots following this subdivision. The naming of private roads serving six or more lots is a requirement of Land Information New Zealand.

12. Local iwi were consulted and a response was received from Te Kawerau a Maki who suggested the names of Para Kore, Kaitiaki and Hiwa but also did not oppose applicants preferred names. No other responses were received.

13. The Applicant has proposed the road names listed in the table below, in order of preference.

14. The local iwi have suggested alternative names that are also listed in the table below.

Proposed New Road Name	Meaning	Road Naming Criteria
Road 1 Vedika Place (Preferred)	Owners mothers and great grandmothers name which means restoring knowledge and consciousness.	Meets criteria – unique and appropriate, promotes diversity.
Lata Place	Means vines, woman of sincerity and love. Owners family members name	Meets criteria – unique and appropriate, promotes diversity.
Eva Place	Means full of life, owners family members name.	Meets criteria – unique and appropriate, promotes diversity.
Para Kore Place	Means zero waste with a theme of sustainability.	Meets criteria – suggested by local iwi & thematic.
Kaitiaki Place	Means custodian, guardian, minder and trustee with a theme of sustainability.	Meets criteria – suggested by local iwi & thematic.
Hiwa Place	Means to be vigorous (of growth), active, robust and sound with a theme of sustainability.	Meets criteria – suggested by local iwi & thematic.

15. A map showing the location of the roads is shown below.

Assessment

16. Auckland Councils road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect a historical or ancestral linkage to an area or a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature, or reflect an existing (or introduce) thematic identity in an area. The criteria also encourages the use of Maori names. Names also need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

17. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines.

18. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names are deemed to meet the assessment criteria.

19. All of the proposed names are acceptable to NZ Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

20. The road naming criteria suggests road types that could be used and the Applicant has chosen Place, being a short sometimes narrow enclosed roadway (Cul-de-sac). This road type meets the road naming criteria.

21. Therefore, the following road names are put forward for consideration of the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

· Vedika Place

With the alternatives being:

· Lata Place

· Eva Place

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

23. The decision sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

24. The decision sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

25. Local iwi were consulted and a response was received from Te Kawerau a Maki who suggested the names of Para Kore, Kaitiaki and Hiwa but also did not oppose applicants preferred names. No other responses were received.

Implementation

26. The Western Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that the appropriate road name signage will be installed by the Applicant at their full cost, once an approval is obtained for the new road name and prior to the completion of the subdivision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Dale Rewa - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

10-year Budget 2018 - 2028 Consultation

File No.: CP2017/26678

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.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) agree, subject to approval by the governing body, to hold at least one spoken interaction events during the consultation period (date, venue and event style to be confirmed at meeting).

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 local content for consultation and local supporting information (to be tabled) 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

c) 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() are to be noted in resolution.

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 (to be tabled).

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

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Wendy Kjestrup - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

Decision-making allocation update

File No.: CP2017/25987

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/s

That the Henderson-Massey 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 ⇩	Allocation of decision-making for Local Board feedback	131

Signatories

Authors

James Liddell - Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

Local Board feedback on Rates remission and postponement policy review

File No.: CP2017/25984

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

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey 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 options 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 2018.

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	153
b ⇩	Rates remission and postponement policy	159
c ⇩	Value of legacy schemes by local board area	177
d ⇩	All community and sporting remissions by local board area - 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 Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

Revising the local board Standing Orders

File No.: CP2017/26000

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/s

That the Henderson-Massey 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

Authors

Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex Job title to Manager, Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Henderson-Massey Local Board

12 December 2017

Governance Forward Work Calendar

File No.: CP2017/26441

Purpose

1. To present to the Henderson-Massey Local Board with their most current governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the upcoming months. The governance forward work calendar for the board is included in Attachment A.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant Council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) note the updated Governance Forward Work Calendar for December 2017 (attachment A).

Comments

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

6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the local board plan, long-term plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

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

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, “Topic”, “Purpose” and “Governance Role”:

· Topic describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan

· Purpose indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates

· Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/priorities/budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant Council staff.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance forward work programme - December 2017	189

Signatories

Authors	Busola Martins - Local Board Democracy Advisor (West)
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

[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	Shane Henderson
Deputy Chairperson	Peter Chan, JP
Members	Paula Bold-Wilson
	Brenda Brady, JP
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Will Flavell
	Matt Grey
	Vanessa Neeson, JP