Agenda of Manurewa Local Board

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 5

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Manurewa Youth Council Update 7

13 Manurewa Ward Councillors Update 9

14 Members' Update 11

15 Chairperson's Update 13

16 Auckland Transport Update to the Manurewa Local Board - December 2017 15

17 Manurewa Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications 25

18 Eugenia Rise playground design 65

19 Locally Driven Initiatives project to install a set of footprints in Manurewa Town Centre 69

20 New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by OMC Construction Limited at 902 Great South Road, Manurewa 71

21 New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Cazadora Holdings Limited at 71 Mill Road, Manurewa 75

22 10-year Budget 2018-2028 consultation - Manurewa Local Board 81

23 Manurewa Local Board feedback on Rates remission and postponement policy review 89

24 Decision-making allocation update 123

25 Revising the local board Standing Orders 141

26 Changes required to triennial meeting schedule for Manurewa Local Board January 2018 business meeting 219

27 Regional Facilities Auckland first quarter report for 2017/2018 financial year 221

28 Panuku Development Auckland Manurewa Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 May to 31 October 2017 243

29 Manurewa Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - December 2017 251

30 Reports Requested - Pending - Issues 255

31 Manurewa Local Board Achievements Register 2016-2019 Political Term 259

32 For Information: Reports referred to the Manurewa Local Board 267

33 Manurewa Local Board Workshop Notes 269

34 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

35 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 293

23 Manurewa Local Board feedback on Rates remission and postponement policy review

d. All community and sporting remissions by local board area Confidential 293

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Auckland Transport Update to the Manurewa Local Board - December 2017

File No.: CP2017/26233

Purpose

1. This report:

a) Provides an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund

b) Responds to requests on transport-related matters

c) Provides a summary of consultation material sent to the Manurewa Local Board

d) Provides information on transport related matters of specific application and interest to the Manurewa Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report covers:

a) Current standings on Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects, and a new recommendation that construction be approved on the Wattle Farm Road pedestrian refuge project (subject to a cost share agreement with Bupa Retirement Village being obtained prior to the meeting)

b) Update on the installation of electronic ticket gating at Manurewa station

c) Annual Travelwise school award recipients from the Manurewa area

d) Airporter 380 bus improvements from 10 December.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) receive the report entitled ‘Auckland Transport Update to the Manurewa Local Board – December 2017’.

b) approve project #545 Wattle Farm Road pedestrian refuge for construction based on the detailed design at Attachment A and the firm estimate of $16,300 (being a share of the overall project estimate of $29,000 that will also include a contribution from Bupa Retirement Village) to be funded from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (subject to a cost share agreement with Bupa Retirement Village being obtained prior to the meeting).

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

3. The local board’s current LBTCF projects are included in the table below (in which ROC = rough order of costs, and FEC = firm estimate of cost):

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

353

Hill Road pedestrian link:

A project to improve pedestrian links on Hill Road between Great South Road and the Botanic Gardens

· FEC = $525,000

· Spend to date = $416,750

· Project first initiated in Oct-14 but scale reduced in Nov-15 to new crossing points and safer intersections only (and proposed cycle ways removed).

· Construction approved in Nov-15 based on FEC of $575,000 (later reduced to $525,000).

· Project completed except for site at the Hillcrest Grove intersection.

Project update:

· A further consultation letter was sent to the registered owners of the affected corner property on 29-Sep-17, seeking a response within two weeks. As no response was received, AT will proceed to obtain TCC approval.

· However, as the public consultation on the entire Hill Road project was completed more than six months ago (in Jul-16), consultation with immediate surrounding property owners for the Hillcrest Grove site will need to be repeated. This will delay TCC approval and construction until next year.

354

Manurewa covered walkway:

A project to improve connectivity between the Manurewa bus station, rail station, and Great South Road (through Southmall) by building a weather-proof canopy to link all three.

· FEC = $1,172,000

· Spend to date = $1,076,529

· Project initiated in Oct-14 and construction approved in Nov-15. FEC has changed a number of times due to scope changes.

· Following a further request, ROCs were provided in Mar-17 for canopies over the station ramps – the ROC for a solid (metal) roof was $721,632 while the ROC for a structureflex roof was $795,072. The local board withheld making a decision on covering the ramps until potential opportunities relating to Te Mahia train station can be identified with AT.

Project update:

· All works expected have now been completed except for the mesh installation on the overbridge.

· AT standard mesh is in storage and an installation date will be coordinated with the Public Arts team for the design mesh developed by iwi artists.

· Installation is now expected to await the Christmas shutdown period from 27 Dec-7 Jan.

512

Manurewa RSA mobility parking:

· FEC estimate of $11,600

· Final cost = $11,594

· Work completed on 26-Sep-17.

Project update:

· Final costs reported at $11,594.

545

Wattle Farm Road new central pedestrian refuge:

A project to improve pedestrian inter-connectivity between Acacia Cove Village and Bupa Retirement Village

· ROC estimate of $24,360

· FEC estimate of 29,000 for entire project, with local board’s proposed share costed at $16,300.

· The rough estimate for the project is $24,360.

· On 17-Aug-17, the local board approved the project to proceed to detailed design and costing phase.

· Bupa was required to install a side-islands style pedestrian facility as part of its consent, but is yet to do so. Given the local board would prefer a central-island style facility, AT is working on implementing the local board’s preferred option and sharing costs with Bupa.

· AT is planning for works on the pedestrian refuge to be undertaken in conjunction with AT’s installation of footpaths in the immediate area.

Project update:

· The detailed design plan for the proposed refuge is included at Attachment A. Council has confirmed that the proposed central refuge island is acceptable as long as it complies with ATCOP standards and AT approves the design. Bupa supports the design.

· The firm (FEC) estimate for the project is $29,000 (as workshopped) with a suggested cost share of $16,300 from the local board and $12,700 from Bupa. A response on the proposed cost share has been requested from Bupa prior to the meeting.

· Public consultation and TCC approval will still be needed. Obtaining resolution plans will not be possible due to heavy workload the CAD team is experiencing at the moment.

· A realistic timeframe for construction is Mar-2018.

546

Te Mahia station upgrade:

A project to work in conjunction with AT to upgrade the station beyond the basic scope of works identified by AT

· $2.5M confirmed funding from AT

· LBTCF contribution from local board capped at $2M

· AT has identified $2.5 million this FY to upgrade the station, including platform resurfacing, new shelter, lighting, public announcement system, passenger information and CCTV improvements, perimeter fencing and upgrading the pedestrian level crossing.

· On 17-Aug-17, the local board noted that $2.5 million had been identified to contribute towards the Te Mahia rail station upgrade project.

· AT met with representatives of the local board’s MTC Steering Group on 5-Sep-17 to discuss the additional scope envisaged by the local board.

Project update:

· AT staff attended a local board workshop on 9-Nov-17 seeking board endorsement of a scope of works to form the local board’s contribution to the Te Mahia station project.

· On 16-Nov-17, the local board approved a scope of works and capped its LBTCF contribution towards the project at $2 million.

4. The Manurewa Local Board’s transport capital fund to date is summarised below.

Manurewa Local Board Transport Capital Fund summary

Total funds available in current political term (includes 2019/20 FY)	$3,068,375
Amount committed to date on projects approved for detailed design and/or construction	$538,605
Capped contribution amount to joint Te Mahia station upgrade project	$2,000,000
Remaining budget left available to allocate by the end of the current political term	$529,770

Responses to Manurewa Local Board requests

5. At its May 2017 business meeting, the Manurewa Local Board requested Auckland Transport to investigate the possibility of installing public toilets at the Manurewa bus/train station. Auckland Transport has since identified a spare three-berth exeloos unit which could be relocated to the bus station area, and potential locations were workshopped with the Manurewa Local Board on 5 October.

6. Both the exeloos unit and the required portacom for bus drivers (also workshopped with the local board) require resource consent. The consent application was lodged with Auckland Council in the week beginning 20 November and approval generally takes four weeks. Exeloo have refined their civil design of the Exeloo in accordance with the site selected by the Manurewa Local Board, and installation is expected early in the New Year if the consent is approved without issue.

Projects and activities of interest to the local board

Electronic ticket gating at Manurewa station

7. To prevent vandalism, security gates to close the station after hours will be put in place at Manurewa station prior to the remaining electronic gating infrastructure being installed.

8. Unfortunately, there has been a delay in the installation of the permanent security gates for Manurewa station. The security gates installation is now intended to be completed in the week of 18 December.

9. As a result of this, the installation of the electronic ticket gates will also be delayed and is now expected to commence on 8 January 2018. It is then anticipated that the ticket gates would begin in operation on Tuesday 16 January.

Annual Travelwise awards

10. On 8 November, 95 Auckland schools accepted Travelwise awards at Auckland Transport’s annual Travelwise celebration. Across the region, 179 schools qualified for a Travelwise award this year.

11. At the celebration, 50 schools were awarded gold for their work to encourage active transport to school and work with their local communities to reduce congestion. The celebration included 648 students from 95 of the participating schools.

12. The Travelwise celebration event rewards student leaders, lead teachers and school management for all the work they do in their schools during the year to promote road safety and sustainable transport. As well as the health benefits, these schools are committed to reducing congestion in their neighbourhoods and making streets safe for all ages.

13. The Travelwise programme works with primary, intermediate and secondary schools to:

· encourage and increase use of active travel modes and public transport

· provide safer facilities for all road users

· reduce congestion around schools.

14. With Travelwise, schools create individualised Safe School Travel Plans with visions and practical actions to create a safer and less congested environment outside the school.

15. The schools within the Manurewa Local Board area that received an award this year are listed below:

School	Award Type	Local Board
Everglade School	Silver	Manurewa
Hillpark School	Bronze	Manurewa
Leabank School	Silver	Manurewa
Manurewa South School	Bronze	Manurewa
Randwick Park School	Bronze	Manurewa
Roscommon School	Silver	Manurewa
Rowandale School	Gold	Manurewa
St Anne's Catholic School (Manurewa)	Silver	Manurewa
The Gardens School	Gold	Manurewa
Weymouth Primary School	Silver	Manurewa

Airporter bus service improvements

16. The new network for East Auckland will begin on 10 December. For East Auckland this means three key routes will have buses arriving every 10 to 15 minutes, three local routes will be timed to connect with the Half Moon Bay Ferry, and increased bus-to-train connections are possible at key interchanges, especially Panmure.

17. Concurrent changes are also being made to the 380 Airporter bus service, which will be doubling its frequency to every 15* minutes between 7am and 7pm, 7 days a week (*though a limited number of trips will be 20 minutes apart).

18. The increased frequency will provide much improved public transport access to the airport for Manurewa residents. Connections can be made to the 380 Airporter bus service at either Manukau Station (better for those catching a bus to Manukau) or Papatoetoe Station (better for those catching a train).

19. Auckland Transport’s online journey planner (AT.govt.nz/journeyplanner) will be updated with the new services from 17 November. Customers simply need to enter a travel date after 10 December to plan their new trip. After the launch of the new network, passengers can track their bus or train in real time with the AT Mobile app.

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

20. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Manurewa Local Board for its feedback, and are summarised here for information purposes only.

21. Following consultation, Auckland Transport considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on, or proceed with an amended proposal if changes are considered necessary.

22. Proposed ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (NSAAT) parking restrictions, Katote Close, The Gardens – The Auckland Botanic Gardens understands that visitors to its facility create safety and operational issues for vehicles and residents on Katote Close. Also, vehicles parked on Charles Prevost Drive near the intersection of Katote Close create visibility issues for vehicles entering and exiting Katote Close. It has therefore proposed that new NSAATs be installed on Katote Close and around the intersection with Charles Prevost Drive.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

23. Decisions of the TCC during the month of November 2017 affecting the Manurewa Local Board area are shown below.

Date	Street (Suburb)	Type of Report	Nature Of Restriction	Decision
2-Nov-17	Grande Vue Road, Kahurangi Place (Manurewa)	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Give-Way Control	Carried
2-Nov-17	McLaughlins Road (Wiri)	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times	Carried
2-Nov-17	Myers Road, Sterling Avenue (Manurewa East)	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Traffic Island, Give-Way Control, Flush Median, Edge Lines	Carried
16-Nov-17	Hill Road, Norm Pellow Drive (Manurewa)	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Traffic Island, Give-Way, Flush Median, Edge Lines	Carried

Regional and sub-regional projects

More electric trains ordered

24. Auckland Transport has signed a contract for another 15 three-car electric trains, which are needed to meet the huge public demand. Auckland Transport needs more train sets to meet the demand and also needs to be ready for when the tracks are electrified between Papakura and Pukekohe.

25. The trains will be built in Spain by Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) and the first of them will be in service from 2019. CAF is the Spanish company that built the 57 three-car electric units which currently operate in Auckland.

26. With 15 more trains, Auckland Transport will be able to operate six-car trains on most services on the Southern, Eastern and Western Lines. Auckland Transport is also planning to increase weekend frequency to every 20 minutes on the Southern, Eastern and Western Lines and weekend trains will operate every 30 minutes between Papakura and Pukekohe.

27. The $133 million contract is funded by NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Council, and the contract has a provision for further trains in the future.

Transport Officers begin work on Western Line trains

28. On 6 November, the first tranche of Transport Officers began working on Auckland’s Western Line trains. The new role is intended to provide customer support as well as improved safety on trains.

29. Auckland Transport has already had very positive feedback on the new Transport Officers. Customers have said that having Transport Officers on the train gives them reassurance that their journey will be safe.

30. Transport Officers also provide a first point of customer service, which can be advising customers which service they should take, making sure they get on and off the train safely and making sure they tag on and off correctly.

31. Transport Officers will be working in pairs and will be deployed when and where they are needed most.

32. Once the rollout is completed (subject to consultation) it is proposed to have almost 230 Transport Officers warranted by the Commissioner of Police working across the Network.

33. As part of the SaFE (Safety and Fare Enforcement) programme run by Auckland Transport and Transdev, the new staff will provide customer service and manage fare evasion through fare inspections and issuing infringements. They will also be trained in how to de-escalate situations caused by anti-social behaviour.

34. There is also an electronic gating programme being rolled out as part of the SaFE programme. The gates mean that in order to access the station’s platform, passengers have to buy a paper ticket or tag on with their AT HOP card. This means more than 90% of passengers will travel through a gated station as part of their journey.

35. So far Henderson and Otahuhu have been finished and coming up they will be installed at Manurewa, Papatoetoe, Parnell, Middlemore, Glen Innes and Papakura.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36. The local board’s views on Auckland Transport projects will be taken into account during consultation on any proposed schemes. Any implications are discussed in the relevant section of the report.

Local board views on transport capital projects are discussed and addressed during the design phase of those projects and will be considered in the relevant section of the report at the time.

Māori impact statement

37. As this is an information only report, no specific issues with regard to impacts on Maori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Maori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Detailed design plan for proposed Wattle Farm Road central pedestrian refuge	23

Signatories

Authors

Jenni Wild – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South); Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Manurewa Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications

File No.: CP2017/23856

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present applications received for the Manurewa Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2. The Manurewa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $141,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

3. The local board has allocated $103,613 for one local grant round and one quick response round. This leaves a total of $37,387 for the local board to allocate in two quick response rounds and one local grant round.

4. A total of ten applications were received for Manurewa Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018, requesting a total amount of $16,145. One multiboard application was also received through the Howick Local Grant Round Two 2017/2108 from The Hindu Heritage Research Foundation for the Family Fun Day on 9 December 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round, listed in Table One.

Table One: Manurewa Local Board 2017/2018 Quick Response Round Two.

Application No	Organisation	Requested Funding For	Amount Requested	Eligibility
QR1810-203	Peniamina Faimasasa	Towards costs for the Auckland Samoa Soccer Sevens Tournament on 11 November 2017	$2,500.00	Ineligible as the event has already occurred
QR1810-204	Totara Hospice South Auckland	Purchase and installation of floodlights for the hospice grounds	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1810-205	South East Auckland Senior Citizens Association Incorporated	Towards transport to Waitangi Treaty Grounds and accommodation in the Bay of Islands	$2,225.00	Eligible
QR1810-206	Connect The Dots Charitable Trust	Towards funding for the cost of printing postcards for participants for the "Making Moments " programme at the Botanical Gardens	$1,124.00	Eligible
QR1810-207	Citizens Advice Bureau Manurewa Incorporated	For venue hire to expand the Citizens Advice Bureau to Manurewa West from 5 March 2018 to 6 August 2018.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1810-209	Multiple Sclerosis Society of Auckland Incorporated	Requesting funding for the weekly pool lane hire for the people with multiple sclerosis in the Manurewa Local Board area.	$596.00	Eligible
QR1810-211	The Kindness Institute Charitable Trust	Towards a youth stress management coach to work with marginalised young people from Manurewa over six months in the "Atawhai" youth program.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1810-212	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Towards " A Pull Apart Torso” (A PAT) to help deliver Life Education's preventative health programme	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1810-213	Deaf Wellbeing Society Incorporated	Funding towards a coordinator for the art and craft lessons at the Deaf Wellbeing Centre in Epsom	$1,400.00	Eligible
QR1810-214	Lijun Guan	Towards venue hire and game purchasing to hold a one day event “Games can be Fun” event on 26 January 2018 at Manurewa Community Centre	$800.00	Eligible
		Total	$16,145

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline the application in this round, listed in Table Two.

Table Two: Application for one multiboard application

Application No	Organisation	Requested Funding For	Amount Requested	Eligibility
LG1807-205	Hindu Heritage Research Foundation (New Zealand)	Towards the Papatoetoe Family Fun Day 2017 on 9 December 2017	$2,326.00	Ineligible

Comments

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

2. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

3. The Manurewa Local Board will operate two local grant rounds and three quick response rounds in this financial year. The Manurewa Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 closed on 3 November 2017.

4. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

5. The Manurewa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $141,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

6. The local board has allocated $103,613 for one local grant round and one quick response round. This leaves a total of $37,387 for the local board to allocate in two quick response rounds and one local grant round.

7. Ten applications were received in quick response round two, with a total requested of $16,145. One multiboard application was also received through the Howick Local Grant Round Two 2017/2108 from The Hindu Heritage Research Foundation for the Family Fun Day on 9 December 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

9. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

10. A summary of each application is attached (see Attachment B).

Māori impact statement

11. The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes, activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori.

Implementation

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

13. Following the Manurewa Local Board allocating funding for Quick Response Round Two, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Manurewa Grants Programme 2017/2018	29
b ⇩	Manurewa Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications	31
c ⇩	Hindu Heritage Research Foundation multiboard application	61

Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

2017/2018 Howick Local Grants, Round Two LG1807-205

Hindu Heritage Research Foundation (New Zealand)

Legal status:

Charitable Trust

Activity focus:

Events

Conflicts of interest:

None identified N/A

Project: Papatoetoe Family Fun day 2017

Location:

35 St. George street, Papatoetoe, Manukau city

Summary:

Our organisation has hosted this programme since last two years and we were very successful in getting all the ethnic groups of Papatoetoe and nearby towns to gather and be entertained at one place with their family, to know each other and enjoy. It is not like a free market but with small amount of neighbours and the families from neighbouring towns

Dates:

09/12/2017 - 09/12/2017

Rain dates:

16/12/2017 - 16/12/2017

People delivering:

People reached:

3000

Promotion:

Not stated through Radio stations, Local Newspapers, Posters, Pamphlets, broachers, word of mouth, emails

Community benefits

Identified need:

I am in many organisations and we talked to have a family fun day for Papatoetoe to bring all the families across to one place and bridge the gaps within our community and see that there is no gaps and no crime and all respect each other

Identified community outcomes:

Bring the families together

enjoy the day with families and friends

know the cultural differences and similarities

free food and free check up with clinics

sports, entertainment

Alignment with local board priorities:

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

· Pleasant neighbourhoods, programmes, and events promoting healthy living, cultural diversity, education and environmental protection

The people of Papatoetoe enjoy the friendship of other areas as they also have friends and families across the other neighbouring towns. They enjoy and mix and mingle with the friends and families and take part in the events so that there is no differences left amongst them, this makes the towns crime free and a lovely and safe place to stay

Collaborating organisation/individual

Role

Papatoetoe historical Society

volunteers

Papatoetoe Library

volunteers

Papatoetoe Library

volunteers

East Tamaki Healthcare

Volunteers/health programmes

Kindergartens/childcare centres

Volunteers

Primary Schools

Performances

Demographics

Māori outcomes:

· Māori focus - tikanga (practises), mātauranga (knowledge), reo (language)

the Treaty of Waitangi, People enjoy the privileges with having be with Maori groups

Accessible to people with disabilities:

Yes - We have Pasifica disability performances too

Target ethnic groups:

New Zealand European, Other European, Māori, Pacific Peoples, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Other Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American, African, All/everyone

Promoting SmokeFree:

We will run anti-smoking and quit smoking clinics too

Percentage of males targeted

Percentage of females targeted

All - not targeted male/female

50%

0-5 years

< 15 years

15-24 years

25-44 years

45-64 years

>65 years

All ages

13%

15%

40%

20%

10%

Financial information

Amount requested:

$2,326.00

Requesting grant for:

Stage truck so that people can see from the ground and also this was used previously in other family fun day events and was really a success and this year we expect more people then past years

If full amount requested is not able to be funded:

We would prefer to have stage truck portion for $3000.00

Cost of participation:

No fee at all

Total expenditure

Total income

Other grants approved

Applicant contribution

$14,378.25

$0.00

$13,378.25

$1,000.00

Local board

% benefit to board area

Amount requested

Howick Local Board

$4,000.00

Expenditure item

Amount

Stage truck @ $750/h X 4 hrs

$3,000.00

Video/Photo

$1,725.00

Food

$601.00

Sounds & Lights

$1,610.00

Printing

$1,575.50

Volunteers costs

$500.00

Face paints, prices and stationery

$800.00

2 X Port a loos & 3 X bins

$557.75

Hire-games, Round ferries wheel, bouncy castles,

$3,000.00

Sausages & Ingredients

$1,009.00

Income description

Amount

N/A

$0.00

N/A

$0.00

Funding history

Application ID

Project title

Round - Stage

Decision

Allocation

QR1813-118

Papatoetoe Deepavali Festival of Lights

2017/2018 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Quick Response, Round One - Project in progress

Approved

$2,000.00

QR1713-403

Sign Board for Budget Service

2016/2017 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Quick Response, Round Four - Project in progress

Approved

$2,000.00

LG1709-231

Budgeting For a change

2016/2017 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Grant, Round Two - Declined

Declined

$0.00

LG1713-113

Christmas in the Park, Dawson Lights Up December 2016

2016/2017 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Grant, Round One - Acquitted

Approved

$8,000.00

LG1713-111

Papatoetoe Family Fun Day 19 November 2016

2016/2017 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Grant, Round One - Refund requested

Approved

$5,780.00

LG1713-105

Papatoetoe Deepavali festival of Lights 2016

2016/2017 Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Grant, Round One - Acquitted

Approved

$3,000.00

QR1709-102

Papatoetoe Deepavali Festival of Lights 2016

2016/2017 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Quick Response, Round One - Declined

Declined

$0.00

LG1710-116

Papatoetoe Deepavali Festival of Lights October 2016

2016/2017 Manurewa Local Grant, Round One - Multiboard

Declined

$0.00

LG1609-143

Papatoetoe Family Fun Day

2015/2016 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Grants, Round One - Declined

Declined

$0.00

LESF173

Papatoetoe Deepavali Festival of Lights 2015

2015/16 Round 1 Local Events Support Fund - Acquitted

Approved

$2,000.00

LESF47

Papatoetoe Family Fun Day 2015

2015/16 Round 1 Local Events Support Fund - Acquitted

Approved

$4,500.00

00230

Ram Katha

Creative Communities Scheme 2015_1 - South Assessment Committee Round 1 2015

Declined

$0.00

LESF00125

Papatoetoe Deepavali Festival of Lights 2014

2014/2015 Round1 Local Events Support Fund - Declined

Declined

$0.00

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Eugenia Rise playground design

File No.: CP2017/25764

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Manurewa Local Board for the design of the new playground on Eugenia Rise, adjacent to the new residential subdivision of Totara Heights, Manurewa.

Executive summary

2. The developed design for Eugenia Rise playground is completed. It requires local board approval to enable the physical works phase of the project to commence.

3. The concept design was presented and discussed at a workshop held 6 April 2017 where the local board indicated its general support.

4. Fletcher Living has formed a partnership with Auckland Council to deliver this playground.

5. Staff recommend that the local board approve the developed design for the Eugenia Rise playground as it will enable the provision of play facilities to support growth and meet the need of the existing community

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) approve the developed design for the new playground on Eugenia Rise, Manurewa.

Comments

6. Fletcher Living is developing the residential subdivision of Totara Heights, off Eugenia Rise, Manurewa. This is the last area of undeveloped residential land in the hillside neighbourhood which currently does not have a local playground.

7. Fletcher was approached by council staff in 2016 about the opportunity to locate a neighbourhood playground in the required stormwater reserve to meet the council’s level of service for the provision of neighbourhood playgrounds.

8. The consultation round with the existing neighbourhood identified community support for a playground and informed the playground design brief.

9. Fletcher was interested in the provision of a playground and to deliver it to coincide with the development of their subdivision.

10. The council has entered into an Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) with Fletcher. The council will purchase the completed playground, designed and constructed to council standards, for a fixed price of $280,000 + GST from the growth fund.

11. Fletcher will contribute more play equipment than the council budget alone would have permitted.

12. The anticipated delivery of the playground is early in 2018.

13. Staff recommend that the local board approve the developed design for the playground to enable Fletcher to proceed with delivery. This will enable the provision of an enhanced play space to support population growth in the local area.

14. If the local board does not approve the design, physical works will be placed on hold and there will be delays in delivering the project which will result in associated financial costs.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The local board had discussed the opportunity for a partnership with Fletcher to deliver the new playground.

16. Prior to the certainty of the growth funding for the playground being available this financial year, the local board had considered Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding as a means of funding the playground project.

17. At a local board workshop on 6 April 2017, staff confirmed that the playground met growth funding criteria and the budget would be available this financial year.

18. The local board indicated its general support for the playground as a growth project and the concept design.

19. Local boards have the allocated decision-making authority for development plans for local capital works.

20. The recommendation supports the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: people in Manurewa are actively connecting everywhere, every day.

Māori impact statement

21. Fletcher has engaged with the local iwi, Te Ākitai Waiohua with regards to the whole of its development, and the playground.

Implementation

22. Local board approval of the developed design will allow Fletcher to proceed with the playground delivery in early 2018.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Eugenia Rise playground developed design plan.	67

Signatories

Authors

Lucy Ullrich – Growth Development Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Community Relations

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Locally Driven Initiatives project to install a set of footprints in Manurewa Town Centre

File No.: CP2017/26303

Purpose

1. To seek approval to install a set of cast bronze of Sir John Walker’s footprints in Manurewa Town Centre, to be funded from the 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiatives capital programme.

Executive summary

2. A memorial bronze statue of Sir John Walker has been commissioned and will be unveiled in Manurewa Town Centre in February 2018.

3. The statue is being funded privately and project managed by the council.

4. The board has indicated that it would like to use its Locally Driven Initiatives budget to fund a set of footprints that would be cast and installed in-ground in front of the statue. This was discussed at a meeting with Community Facilities staff, the Senior Local Board Advisor and the Manurewa Business Association.

5. Two options have been assessed, casting the footprints in concrete or in bronze.

6. Staff recommend that the board approve up to $6000 to cast the footprints in bronze as it is more durable and in keeping with the high-quality nature of the statue.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) approve up to $6,000 of 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative capex budget to commission a bronze cast of Sir John Walker’s footprints as part of the Manurewa Town Centre memorial bronze statue project.

Comments

Bronze statue and footprints

7. A memorial bronze statue has been commissioned and will be installed in Manurewa Town Centre on the corner of Great South Road and Station Road in February 2018. The statue has been funded by the Sir John Walker Legacy Trust and is being project managed by Auckland Council.

8. Manurewa Town Centre has 66 concrete plaster cast, in ground, footprints along the pavements. These footprints have been cast from national, commonwealth and Olympic athletes that have previously visited or competed in New Zealand between the 1960’s and 1980’s.

9. The 66 footprints were bought by the Manurewa Business Association and installed in the pavement around Manurewa Town Centre.

10. The proposed project was discussed at a meeting with Local Board Services staff and the Manurewa Business Association on 4 October 2017, where it was communicated that the board would like to fund a set of new footprints that would be cast and installed in ground in front of the statue.

11. Staff recommend that the board allocates up to $6000 from its 2017/2018 Locally Driven Initiative capex budget to commission a cast of the footprints and associated installation.

Options

12. Two cast options for the footprints are suggested for consideration:

i) Concrete cast

ii) Bronze cast (preferred option).

Option 1 - Concrete cast

13. This is the most cost effective and would involve a cast being taken of both feet, which is then used to cast the footprints in concrete.

14. Approximate cost for this option is $1000 for the foot casts. The cast of both feet would be kept in the event that a further concrete footprint cast would be required.

15. The cost of concrete and installation could be covered under the current installation contract.

Option 2 - Bronze cast – Preferred option

16. This option is to cast both footprints in bronze. This is the Sir John Walker Legacy Trust preferred option.

17. Staff consider that a bronze cast footprint is more in keeping with the high-quality nature of the statue and associated plaques. Long term this is the more durable and sustainable option.

18. The indicative cost for the bronze casting is $4000 plus the cost of installation.

19. As bronze is highly valued, the installation would require more secure fixing to deter potential theft.

20. Total indicative cost of this option is approximately $6000.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. The project in this report was discussed at a meeting with Local Board Services staff and the Manurewa Business Association on 4 October 2017. It was communicated at the time that the local board was in support of the proposed project.

Māori impact statement

22. All community assets contribute significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed projects are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

Implementation

23. The installation of the statue is due to take place on 14 February 2018 with the unveiling ceremony taking place on 17 February 2018.

24. It is envisaged that the footprints installation will take place as part of the installation of the statue.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Tony Hart – Community Led and LDI Specialist

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by OMC Construction Limited at 902 Great South Road, Manurewa

File No.: CP2017/24792

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Manurewa Local Board, for new road name for the new road created by way of subdivision at 902 Great South Road, Manurewa and for the extension of the road names “Totara Meadows Court” from 35 Totara Meadows Court and “Fay Close” from 7 Fay Close.

Executive summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names “Sagar Lane” (Driveway I) (applicant’s preferred road name), “Lawchess Lane” and “Rory Lane” were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. The extension of Totara Meadows Court and Fay Close are appropriate to be also called “Totara Meadows Court” and “Fay Close” respectively.

5. Local Iwi groups were consulted and Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki deferred to Te Akitai Waiohua to comment. Ngati Paoa deferred the matter to the other Mana Whenua who have lead cultural interest in this area. Nga Maunga Whakahii commented that the suggested road names do not reflect the unique heritage of Tamaki Makaurau but has not offered alternative names. No responses were received from the other Iwi groups.

6. The names ”Sagar Lane” (Driveway I), and “Totara Meadows Court” and “Fay Close” proposed by the Applicant and the names “Lawchess Lane” (Driveway I) and “Rory Lane” (Driveway I) are recommended for approval to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for the approval:

a) the road names “Sagar Lane” (Driveway I), proposed by the Applicant, for the new road created by way of subdivision at 902 Great South Road, Manurewa while noting that “Lawchess Lane” (Driveway I) and “Rory Lane” also meet the road naming criteria.

b) the road names “Totara Meadows Court” and “Fay Close” for the extension to the existing Totara Meadows Court and Fay Close respectively.

Comments

7. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new 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 Council’s approval.

8. The Applicant is currently in the civil construction phase for the development of 902 Great South Road, Manurewa. The development is for the construction of 45 new single storey dwellings and semi-detached duplex each with single garage followed by 46 lot fee simple subdivision and includes the construction of Driveway E (extension of Fay Close), Driveway G (No road name required as serving 5 dwellings only), Driveway H (already named – Ibister Lane), Driveway I (new road) and Road 2 (extension of Totara Meadows Court). Consent for this development was granted consent on 21 February 2017 under resource consent 51228 SP 12519.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at site address.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Driveway I
Preferred Name	Sagar Lane	Shareholder’s surname
First Alternative	Lawchess Lane	Shareholder’s holding company
Second Alternative	Rory Lane	No specific meaning provided
Road 2 (Totara Meadows Court extension)
Preferred Name	Totara Meadows Court	Continuation of local road naming theme currently in place
Driveway E (Fay Close extension)
Preferred Name	Fay Close	Continuation of local road naming theme currently in place.

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure Two: Location and Layout of new Roads

Decision Making

9. 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 Local Boards.

Assessment

10. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines.

11. All names proposed by the Applicant meet the road naming guidelines.

12. The Applicant has proposed a suffix of “Lane” for Driveway I. Driveway I meets the definition of the suffix “Lane” which also meet the definition of the suffix “Alley” as the road is a narrow roadway. The Applicant’s preference for Driveway I was “Lane”.

13. As the Applicant’s preferred names “Sagar Lane” (Driveway I), “Totara Meadows Court” and “Fay Close” meet the criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the names “ “Lawchess Lane” (Driveway I) and “Rory Lane” (Driveway I) are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

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

Maori impact statement

15. The decision sought from the Manurewa 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.

Consultation

16. Local iwi groups were contacted by email to seek feedback on the proposed names. The responses received were as follows:

· Ngati Paoa defers the matter to other Mana Whenua who have lead cultural interest in this area;

· Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara commented that the suggested road names do not reflect the unique heritage of Tamaki Makaurau but has not offered alternative road names; and

· Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki defers the matter to Te Akitai Waiohua.

17. New Zealand Post was consulted and indicated that all the names provided are acceptable from their perspective.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

18. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Legal and Legislative Implications

19. The decision sought from the Manurewa Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

20. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Romel Layco – Intermediate Planner

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Cazadora Holdings Limited at 71 Mill Road, Manurewa

File No.: CP2017/24695

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Manurewa Local Board, for new road names for two new roads created by way of subdivision at 71 Mill Road, Manurewa (Stage 14 which is consented and Stage 15 which is currently being processed by the Council).

Executive summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names “Jabal Crescent” (Stage 14 Road) and “Zaituna Way” (Stage 15 Road) (applicant’s preferred road name), “Batroun Crescent” (Stage 14 Road) and “Joubeil Way” (Stage 15 Road) were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria. It is noted that “Ehden Way” did not meet the road naming guidelines criteria because “Ehden Way” could be pronounced as “Eden Way” which is already repeated within the Auckland Region.

4. The applicant sent out a list of names to all relevant Iwi groups. Ngati Paoa deferred the matter to the other Mana Whenua who have lead cultural interest in this area. Ngati Te Ata Waiohua proposed the name “Kowhai”, “Kanuka” and “Kauri” for the new roads. It is noted that “Kowhai Crescent, “Kanuka Crescent” and “Kauri Way” did not meet the road naming criteria because they are already repeated within the Auckland Region. No responses were received from the other Iwi groups.

5. The names “Jabal Crescent” (Stage 14 Road),”Zaituna Way” (Stage 15 Road) proposed by the Applicant and the names “Batroun Crescent” (Stage 14 Road) and “Joubeil Way” (Stage 15 Road) are recommended for approval to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for the approval:

a) the road names “Jabal Crescent” (Stage 14 Road) and “Zaituna Way” (Stage 15 Road), proposed by the Applicant, for the new roads created by way of subdivision at 71 Mill Road, Manurewa while noting that “Batroun Crescent” (Stage 14 Road) and “Joubeil Way” (Stage 15 Road) also meet the road naming criteria.

Comments

6. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new 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 Council’s approval.

7. The Applicant is currently in the civil construction phase for the development of Stage 14 and Stage 15 is currently being processed by the Council. Stage 14 was for the creation of 24 new allotments that ranges in size from 448m² to 2679m² and 1 balance lot of 11,938m² and, contains one new private road which will provide access to the newly created allotments. Stage 14 was granted consent on 11 May 2016 under resource consent 49412 SP 12193. Stage 15 is for the subdivision of the balance lot of Stage 14 into 20 new allotments with one private road.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at site address.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
	Stage 14 Road
Preferred Name	Jabal Crescent	Means mountain and references the significant mountain in Lebanon. It is noted that there is a protected Cedar tree in The Gardens subdivision (which has its origins with the original Lebanese landowners), and the cedars of Lebanon are elevated on those mountain ranges
First Alternative	Batroun Crescent	Is a Lebanese town known for its olive produce and the home of Gibran Khalil Gibran – the famous author of the book “The Prophet” which was translated into many languages and made into a critically acclaimed movie
	Stage 15 Road
Preferred Name	Zaituna Way	Means olives
First Alternative	Joubeil Way	Is the name of a Phoenician city

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Figure Two: Location and Layout of new Stage 14 Road

Figure Three: Location and Layout of new Stage 15 Road

Decision Making

8. 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 Local Boards.

Assessment

9. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines.

10. The name ‘Ehden Way’ does not meet all the criteria of the road naming guidelines as it could be pronounced as “Eden Way” which is already repeated within Auckland Region. There is an Eden Street in Mangere East, Eden Road in Pukekohe, Eden Terrace in Waiheke Island, Eden Crescent, Auckland Central and Eden View Road, Sandringham.

The names ‘Kowhai Crescent”, “Kanuka Crescent” and “Kauri Way” also do not meet all the criteria of the road naming guidelines as they are already repeated within the Auckland Region. There is a Kowhai Road in Whenupai, Kowhai Place in Pukekohe, Kowhai Avenue in Mangere, Kanuka Road in Hobsonville, Kanuka Road in Bombay, Kauri Road in Pukekohe, Kauri Loop Road in Oratia and Kauri Road in Whenupai.

The remaining proposed names comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

11. The Applicant has proposed a suffix of “Crescent” for Stage 14 Road. Stage 14 Road meets the definition of the suffix “Crescent” as the road is crescent shape. Other suffixes also meet the definition, being: “Loop” and “Terrace”. The Applicant’s preference for Stage 14 Road was “Crescent”.

For Stage 15 Road, the Applicant has proposed a suffix of “Way” which also meets the definition of the suffix “Way” as the road is short, enclosed roadway. Other suffixes also meet the definition, being: “Close” “Court” and “Place”. The Applicant’s preference for Stage 15 Road was “Way”.

12. As the Applicant’s preferred names “Jabal Crescent” (Stage 14 Road) and “Zaituna Way” (Stage 15 Road) meet the criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the names “Batroun Crescent” and “Joubeil Way” are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

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

Maori impact statement

14. The decision sought from the Manurewa 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.

Consultation

15. Local iwi groups (Ngaitai Ki Tamaki, Te Kawerau o Maki, Ngati Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Tamatera and Waikato-Tainui) were consulted on 17 October 2017; there were two responses as a result of this consultation. Ngati Paoa deferred the matter to the other Mana Whenua who have lead cultural interest in this area. Ngati Te Ata Waiohua offered the names “Kowhai”, “Kanuka” and “Kauri” for consideration. As of 15 November 2017, there were no further responses received from the Iwi groups.

16. New Zealand Post was consulted and indicated that all the names provided are acceptable from their perspective.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

17. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with the council’s Administrative Charges.

Legal and Legislative Implications

18. The decision sought from the Manurewa Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

19. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Romel Layco – Intermediate Planner

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

10-year Budget 2018-2028 consultation - Manurewa Local Board

File No.: CP2017/25933

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 Manurewa Local Board:

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

i) Hearing style Have Your Say event, Saturday 10 March, 1pm, Manurewa Local Board office

ii) existing event drop in session, Saturday 17 March, 1pm – 4pm, Jazz in the Gardens, David Nathan Park, Manurewa

iii) drop in session, Tuesday 27 March, 10am – 12pm, Te Matariki Clendon Community Centre.

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

i) Local Board Members and Chair

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

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

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

d) delegate authority to the local board chair to approve any final minor changes required following review by the 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 recommended to be held in the Manurewa Local Board area are:

· Hearing style Have Your Say event, Saturday 10 March, 1pm, Manurewa Local Board office

· existing event drop in session, Saturday 17 March, 1pm – 4pm, Jazz in the Gardens, David Nathan Park, Manurewa

· drop in session, Tuesday 27 March, 10am – 12pm, Te Matariki Clendon Community Centre.

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, as attached in Attachments A and B.

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

16. Local boards will have further opportunities to provide information and views as the 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 the council’s responsiveness to Māori. Local board plans, which were adopted in September and October of 2017, form the basis for local priorities.

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local content for consultation - Manurewa Local Board	85
b ⇩	Local supporting information for consultation - Manurewa Local Board	87

Signatories

Authors	Sarah McGhee - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Carol McKenzie-Rex – Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Manurewa Local Board feedback on Rates remission and postponement policy review

File No.: CP2017/24375

Purpose

1. To 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 the Finance and Performance Committee when agreeing a rates remission and postponement policy, and any options, for consultation.

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

· funding decisions are more transparent

· spending for each activity is within an annual budget

· level of support for each organisation is more visible.

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative options

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

· Option 2: keeping the current remissions schemes is inequitable

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

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

10. Local boards feedback on the review will be included in the report to the Finance and Performance Committee in February. 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 Manurewa Local Board:

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

Comments

11. The current Rates remission and postponement policy includes:

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

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

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

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

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

o six remission schemes for community and sporting organisations

o a rates postponement scheme for sports clubs in Manukau

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

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

Assessment of Regional Schemes

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

Assessment of Legacy Schemes

14. Four options were considered for the legacy schemes:

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

2. retain the status quo

3. extend to entire region

4. remove.

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

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

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

· transparency

· cost

· minimise the effects of change

· administrative simplicity.

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

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

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

Allocating grants

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

· allocation of rates expenditure will be transparent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Year Transition

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

Option 2: Retain the status quo

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

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

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

· are recorded as a charge against revenue

· do not appear as a cost in the councils accounts

· do not increase the rates requirement and hence do not impact the headline rates increase[1] (They still increase the rates burden on other ratepayers)

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

Option 3: Extend to entire region

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

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

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

· is not transparent as described in Option 2 above.

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

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

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

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

Option 4: Remove the schemes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Auckland Council Rates remission and postponement policy scheme	97
b ⇩	Rates remission and postponement policy	103
c ⇩	Value of legacy schemes by local board area Remissions for community sporting are split by regional and local	121
d ⇩	All community and sporting remissions by local board area Confidential (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Carol McKenzie-Rex – Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Decision-making allocation update

File No.: CP2017/25929

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 Manurewa 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.^{^[2]} 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 Māori 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	127

Signatories

Authors

James Liddell - Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex –Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Revising the local board Standing Orders

File No.: CP2017/25548

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 board’s Standing Orders requires a majority vote of not less than 75% of members present.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa 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	149
b ⇩	Governing Body Political working party’s finding	209

Signatories

Authors

Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – Acting General Manger Local Board Services

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Panuku Development Auckland Manurewa Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 May to 31 October 2017

File No.: CP2017/19536

Purpose

1. To update the Manurewa Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area for the six months from 1 May to 31 October 2017.

Background

2. Panuku was established in September 2015 as a result of the merger of two Council Controlled Organisations – Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL).

3. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland – from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

4. Panuku manages around $2 billion of the council’s property portfolio, which we continuously review to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio or release land or property that can be better used by others.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland Manurewa Local Board update for 1 May to 31 October 2017.

Local Activities

Development

5. Panuku is contributing commercial input into approximately 50 region-wide council-driven renewal and housing supply initiatives.

6. Panuku works with partners and stakeholders over the life of projects. It also champions best practise project delivery to achieve best value outcomes within defined cost, time, and quality parameters.

7. Below is a high-level update on development activities in the Manurewa and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board areas.

8. Transform Manukau - In December 2015, the Auckland Development Committee (ADC, now Planning Committee) approved Manukau Metropolitan Centre as one of two new Panuku-led ‘transform’ locations. Manukau is also an Auckland Council Spatial Priority Area, as well as being the centre of The Southern Initiative (TSI).

9. In April 2016 the ADC approved a Transform Manukau High Level Project Plan (HLPP) produced by Panuku. This approval gave Panuku the mandate to leverage the council’s significant landholdings and facilities within a 600ha project area to bring about effective and coherent urban regeneration. This approval also gave Panuku the authority to commence work on a Framework Plan for the area.

10. The focus in the first half of 2017 was on completing the Framework Plan, progressing processes to engage a developer for the 20 Barrowcliffe Place land, place making activities in central Manukau, dialogue with the Crown on collaborative opportunities and preparing a Programme Business Case to agree the priorities for action and potential reinvestment opportunities. Panuku continued to develop extensive stakeholder engagement processes and relationships through this period.

11. The Framework Plan was completed and presented to the council for approval. It sets out a wide range of investment and development opportunities that can be further evaluated and scoped as the project proceeds.

12. 20 Barrowcliffe Place is an early development opportunity for Transform Manukau. We are looking to achieve a number of outcomes for the people of Manukau through successful development of the site. Some of the outcomes we are looking to deliver include: a mixed housing scheme of houses and apartments, with a portion being affordable, good urban design with sustainable and accessible design components as well as environmental enhancement. During the period of this report we were working through a process to determine who delivers these outcomes for the site and the community.

13. Key move one in the Transform Manukau Framework Plan is the Puhinui stream. Panuku has been working with Counties Manukau District Health Board and other council organisations to understand and realise the potential for seamless cycling and walking connectivity from the Botanic Gardens through to the Manukau City Centre.

14. Place making activities were carried out regularly in the Manukau town centre. These culminated in the Matariki events in June/July, with an extended offer to the 2016 installations. On the evenings of June 30, July 1 and July 2, the Civic Building was again lit with the Matariki colours, to coincide with the closing dates of the Auckland Council Matariki Festival, as well as to celebrate the architecture of the structure. In trials for the 2018 Matariki contribution, the building was “projection mapped” on July 7 and 8 with content from artists from South Auckland - Allen Vili, Ali Cowley and Te Iwihoko Te Rangihirawea. Thirty haiku on the topic of Matariki, and written by local school children, were included in the art work.

15. The timing of the funding request to the council to enable start up activities was not included in the 2017 LTP process and is now being considered after this reporting period. The local board will be fully updated as progress is made.

Portfolio management

16. Panuku manages ‘non-service’ properties owned by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (AT) that are not currently needed for service or infrastructure purposes. These properties are generally being held for planned future projects, such as road construction, park expansion or development of future town centres.

17. The property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases, as at 31 October 2017. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

18. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 30 June 2017 was above budget, with a net surplus to Auckland Council and AT shareholders of $1.1 million ahead of budget.

19. The average monthly tenantable occupancy rate, for the six month period, is more than 98 per cent, which is above the Statement of Intent target of 95 per cent.

Properties Managed in the Manurewa Local Board Area

20. Panuku currently manages 11 commercial and 26 residential properties within the Manurewa Local Board area.

Business Interests

21. Panuku also optimises the commercial return from business interests it manages on the council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries.

22. There are currently no managed business interests in the Manurewa Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

23. The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025 reflects a desire of the council to materially reduce or slow down expenditure, and unlock value from assets no longer required, or which are sub-optimal for service purposes. In response to this, prior to the establishment of Panuku, ACPL developed a new method of dealing with service property, called optimisation.

24. Asset optimisation deals with ‘service property’. It is self-funding, it maximises efficiencies from service assets, and maintains levels of service, whilst releasing property for sale or development. A key element of optimisation is that the sale proceeds are locally reinvested, to advance approved projects and activities on a cost-neutral basis. It does not include the Auckland Transport portfolio. Panuku continues to advance this programme of work. This includes the development of a cross-council project to coordinate and execute asset sales and optimisation.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

25. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within the council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale, and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

26. Target for July 2016 to June 2017:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$75 million disposal recommendations	$76.9 million as at 30 June 2017

27. Panuku works closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

28. Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$60 million disposal recommendations	$22.5 million as at 31 October 2017

Process

29. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with the council, CCOs, the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Under review

30. There are no properties under review in the Manurewa Local Board area.

Acquisitions and Disposals

31. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. We buy property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other service needs. We manage the sale of properties that are surplus to council requirements. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

32. Panuku doesn’t make the decision on what properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of the council.

33. We purchased 22 properties for open space across Auckland in the last financial year (ending 30 June 2017) at a cost of $48.6 million. We also bought seven properties for storm water use at a value of $19.4 million.

34. We have signed agreements for three properties across Auckland in the current financial year (July 2017), worth $12.7 million. We have purchased one property for storm water use that cost $3.15 million.

35. No property was purchased in the Manurewa Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

36. The Disposal team sold five properties for a total of $6.6 million (net amounts) from July-October 2017. The team’s 2017/18 target is $8.0 million for the year. The target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis. The team sold $22.92m (net sale proceeds) in 2016/17.

37. No properties were sold in the Manurewa Local Board area.

Housing for Older People

38. The council owns and operates 1412 units located in 62 villages across Auckland, to provide rental housing to older people in Auckland.

39. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involves the council partnering with a third party provider, to deliver social rental housing services for older people.

40. On 21 December 2015, the council announced that The Selwyn Foundation was its preferred joint venture partner to manage the HfOP portfolio.

41. Panuku negotiated the new joint venture (JV) arrangements with Selwyn over 2016, and the JV was formally constituted in December 2016.

42. The new JV business, named Haumaru Housing (Haumaru meaning ‘to shelter’), took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio, under a long-term lease arrangement, from 1 July 2017.

43. Haumaru Housing was granted Community Housing Provider (CHP) status in April 2017. CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

44. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a multi-year development programme.

45. The first new development project will be a 40-unit apartment building on the former Wilsher Village site, Henderson. Once completed, this development will increase the provision to 1452 units.

46. The following HfOP villages are located within the Manurewa Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Alfriston Court	33 Alfriston Road, Manurewa	17
Gallaher Court	29 Alfriston Road, Manurewa	16
Inverell Court	18 Inverell Avenue, Wiri	25
Leabank Court	12 Kirton Crescent, Manurewa	64
Percival Court	15 Percival Street, Manurewa	4

Regional Activities

Highlights

47. Over the year, Panuku achieved key project milestones and performance results in our priority development locations. Panuku categorises three types of priority locations:

48. Transform locations – Panuku ‘Transforms’ locations by creating change through urban regeneration. Panuku leads the transformation of select parts of our region; working alongside others and using our custodianship of land and planning expertise. The catalytic work Waterfront Auckland led at Wynyard Quarter is a great example of the transformation of urban locations.

49. Unlock locations – Panuku also ‘unlocks’ development potential for others. By acting as a facilitator; using relationships to break down barriers and influence others, including our council family, to create development opportunities.

50. Support locations – Panuku plays a ‘support’ role to ensure the council is making the most of what it already has. Intensification is a key driver in the Auckland Plan. Panuku will support housing demands by enabling development of council-owned land.

Transform locations

51. The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week, while regeneration is just beginning in Manukau and Onehunga.

a) The first three phases of structural steel have been installed at the Park Hyatt Hotel. All up, approximately 2000 tonnes of primary structural steel will be used to construct the luxury five-star hotel, which will span a total area of 37,000sqm.

b) In April 2017, Mayor Phil Goff officially opened the Mason Bros. building, a former industrial warehouse that has been redeveloped into a three-level office space, bringing together a community of entrepreneurs and businesses. It is the centrepiece of Wynyard Quarter’s innovation precinct.

c) Developer Willis Bond is constructing 500-600 apartments of various types and sizes that are set to house around 1100 people. There are two developments currently under construction, Wynyard Central and 132 Halsey. The first residents have moved in in September 2017.

d) In June, Panuku handed over to Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) the management of the Queens Wharf facilities, including Shed 10 and The Cloud. Panuku continues to lead the delivery of place making and the future development of the wharf.

52. Plans to Transform Onehunga, on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau, were approved in March 2017. These plans were completed involving significant consultation with communities. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of strategic council-owned land, and works in partnership with the Government and others, to deliver positive outcomes for the local community. The Board of Inquiry relating to the East West link is currently going through a hearing process. A draft decision is expected to be made in October and will be finalised in November. This will contain numerous conditions of consent. Once the decision is known, Panuku can advance planning on the Onehunga wharf and foreshore precinct.

Unlock locations

53. In Takapuna, Auckland Council owns nearly four hectares of land focused around the Anzac Street carpark and the Gasometer site, consultation on redevelopment of these sites has started.

54. In Northcote, we completed a Framework Plan in November 2016 that outlines the initial proposals for the town centre. An information kiosk was also opened by Homes Land Community in April. The town centre masterplan and the Awataha Greenway masterplan is targeted for completion in December 2017.

55. Plans to repurpose the iconic Civic Administration Building in Aotea Square into high quality apartments and develop the surrounding area were announced in September 2016, apartment sales are progressing well.

56. Hobsonville 20ha Airfields site - stage one of construction of 102 standalone and terrace homes is underway. Avanda Group have been announced as the developers that will deliver more than 500 homes in stage two, of which a minimum of 10 per cent will be affordable housing.

57. The council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop Old Papatoetoe in June. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of the mall, a 2.5ha block of land, which will see the area opened up with a new plaza space, reconfigured shops, upgraded carpark and a revamped New World supermarket. In addition to the upgrade of the mall which is expected to be completed early next year, approximately 110 new homes are planned to be developed in the surrounding area.

58. With the overall plan for Henderson being approved in May 2017, the vision for Henderson is for it to grow into an urban eco-centre. This vision will guide planning and development with an outcome towards ‘liveable growth’ by creating a safe, attractive and vibrant mixed-use environment with a uniquely west Auckland identity.

59. The regeneration of Avondale has been upgraded from a Support location to an Unlock. A HLPP is underway, identifying opportunities within the development area. Ockham has commenced the construction of 72 apartments on Racecourse Parade, with 10 percent of the apartments being affordable. Panuku also sold a site in Avondale to Housing New Zealand in December which allowed for the development of 103 social housing units

60. A development agreement was signed with Todd Property for the delivery of more than 350 homes in Flat Bush, Ormiston. In December 2016, Panuku sold a site at 187 Flat Bush School Road for a 30-lot subdivision.

Support locations

61. The Mariner Rise subdivision at 20 Link Crescent, Whangaparoa has been completed by our development partner McConnell Property along with the delivery of a 2700sqm park and playground. Sixty new homes will be built on this new subdivision.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

62. This report is for the Manurewa Local Board’s information.

63. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries you have relating to a property in your local board area be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz

Māori impact statement

64. Tāmaki Makaurau has the highest Māori population in the world with one in four Māori in Aotearoa living here.

65. Māori make up 12% of the region’s total population who mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic with 50% of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau under the age of 25 years. 5% of the Māori population in the region are currently 65 years and over.

66. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 12 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the Manurewa Local Board area.

67. Māori make up 25 percent of the Manurewa Local Board population, and there are two marae located within the local board area.

68. Panuku works collaboratively with Mana Whenua on a range projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

69. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Implementation

70. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Manager Stakeholder Engagement

Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

Manurewa Local Board

14 December 2017

Manurewa Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - December 2017

File No.: CP2017/25582

Purpose

1. To present to the Manurewa Local Board the six months Governance Forward Work Calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the Governance Forward Work Calendar: a schedule of items that will come before local boards at business meetings and workshops over the next six months. The Governance Forward Work Calendar for the Manurewa Local 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, be included on the agenda for 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 Manurewa Local Board:

a) note the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 29 November 2017.

Comments

5. The 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 below.

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 ⇩	Manurewa Local Board Forward Governance Work Programme	253

Signatories

Authors	Jacqueline Alexander - Local Board Advisor - Manurewa
Authorisers	Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

Chairperson	Angela Dalton
Deputy Chairperson	Rangi McLean
Members	Joseph Allan
	Stella Cattle
	Sarah Colcord
	Angela Cunningham-Marino
	Ken Penney

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Manurewa Local Board 2 November 2017 Workshop Record	271
b ⇩	Manurewa Local Board 9 November 2017 Workshop Record	277
c ⇩	Manurewa Local Board 22 November 2017 Workshop Record	281
d ⇩	Manurewa Local Board 23 November 2017 Workshop Record	285
e ⇩	Manurewa Local Board 29 November 2017 Workshop Record	287
f ⇩	Manurewa Local Board 30 November 2017 Workshop Record	291

Authors	Trina Bishop - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Sarah McGhee – Acting Relationship Manager