Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

Auckland Transport November 2017 Report

File No.: CP2017/25238

Purpose

1. This report seeks to update the Puketapapa Local Board (the Board) on Auckland Transport’s (AT) activities in the Board area over the last month, and provides responses to Board resolutions from the November 2017 meeting.

Executive summary

2. This report notes the Board’s October 2017 resolution that delivering a Greenways route is its highest priority for its 2016-19 transport capital budget. It acknowledges the further advice received from the Board at its November meeting in regard to providing advice and costings around four possible routes as outlined in the Puketapapa Greenways Review 2017.

3. The report responds to other resolutions from October 2017 in regard to Cape Horn Road and the Pah/Manukau Road corridor.

4. It provides particular bus stop boarding numbers as requested by the Board in October, to aid the Board in its strategic decision making around the transport capital fund.

5. It provides monitoring data from intersection in the general area since the opening of the Waterview tunnel and notes the decisions of AT’s Traffic Control Committee in November 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport Report for December 2017.

Comments

Transport Capital Fund Update

Financial Summary

Puketapapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$2,064,658
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,359,058
Remaining Budget left	$705,600

Greenways Project

6. The Puketapapa Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects and the Board is now considering projects to proceed with in this political term.

7. The priority project for the Board is a Greenways connection and the Board has asked AT for advice regarding four routes.

8. In its November meeting the Board added to its October resolution by requesting AT to provide rough order of costs for options C and F of the Puketapapa Greenways Review 2017, being connections between Monte Cecilia Park and One Tree Hill Domain and to Mt Roskill Shops and the future Dominion Road transport hub.

9. The Board also requested advice on the feasibility and potential cost savings of amending Option D of the Puketapapa Greenways Review 2017 (a connection between Three Kings, Monte Cecilia Park and Mt Roskill campus) by replacing part of the proposed route using the top of Dornwell Road and the western arm of Hayr Road with local footpaths east from Dornwell Road to the lower part of Hayr Rd. AT will also provide some general advice about Option E, a connection between SH20 and Monte Cecilia Park.

10. It is expected that this information will be provided for the Board’s consideration at the February 2018 Board meeting.

Bus Shelters

11. Puketapapa Local Board has been considering allocating some budget to provide bus shelters at strategic bus stops in its area.

12. At its November meeting, the Board requested AT to provide passenger boarding numbers for a number of stops to assist the Board in prioritising this work. These are provided below:

· 30/106 Carlton Street

There are no patronage numbers as this will be a new route under the New Network.

· 93 White Swan

Forty to forty-five boardings daily between 06.00 and 10.00 (about 10 per hour).

· 6 Hillsborough Rd

There are very low boarding numbers here. Between 1 and 2 per hour across the day.

· 37 Carr Rd

This location appears to be an afternoon school stop, with just under 20 boardings between 14.00 and 16.00. At other times, single digits boardings per hour.

· 67 Staveley Rd

This is a moderately busy bus stop in the morning peak. Typically, about 30 boardings between 06.00 and 10.00. It has a shelter but it won’t be on the New Network route path, which will redirect the bus down Oakdale Road, not Staveley Avenue. The new stop at 61 Oakdale Road is being planned with a new shelter and the preceding stop outside Waikowhai Intermediate has an Adshel shelter on it.

· Pah Rd vicinity Seymour Park

Current numbers are low. Single digits in peak hours. It seems to be more of a drop-off stop. This is a location that AT would expect to become a better connection point under the New Network. As the crosstown route is improved, it will become more attractive to hop off a crosstown service and move around the corner to pick up a Pah Rd service.

· Corner Mt Eden / Mt Albert Rds

This stop has an average of 75 boardings per hour between 06.00 and 10.00. (March 2017 figures). From this data, we would expect about a 100 boardings in the busiest hour. This stop is a good candidate for a neighbourhood interchange project. Under current funding budgets, this would not be considered by AT until 2023/24. There are no short term plans to upgrade here without funds from other sources.

13. The Board’s current Local Board projects are summarised in the table below.

Project	Description	Status	Projected Cost
Fearon Park Pathway	A shared path to be constructed through Fearon Park.	This is being managed by Auckland Council Parks. First stage of the greenway path is complete and the second section of the pathway by the playground will be completed by June 2018.	$190,000
Richardson Road carpark realignment and Lighting project	A project to shift parking in the carpark to facilitate the construction of a shared path past the kindergarten. This will complete the missing link in the Mt Roskill safe route scheme.	Financial resourcing for this project was agreed in August 2017. This project will be managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities.	$220,000
Keith Hay Park Lighting – Southern Section	Continuing the lighting project from the northern section to the southern end of the park past Noton Road carpark to Richardson Road.	Financial resourcing for this project was agreed in August 2017. This project will be managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities.	$350,000
Smart Studs	The Board has requested rough order of costs (RoCs) for smart studs at three locations in their area	RoCs being drafted.
Greenway Project	The Board has requested advice from AT in regard to four potential Greenways projects. These are routes C, D E and F in the 2017 revised Greenways report.	Further advice has been requested from AT.

Responses to Resolutions

PKTPP/2017/182 – October 2017

The Puketapapa Local Board requests information on the latest date for broken yellow lines on Cape Horn Road and concerns about T3 lane on Pah Road.

Cape Horn Road

14. The Cape Horn Road broken yellow lines were applied on November 21, 2017. Following some comments from residents, AT will be checking to ensure that the lines on the road are as the amended plan.

Pah Road / Manukau Road T3 Lanes

15. The corridor appears to be operating safely and there has been a significant reduction in volume and travel time after the completion of the Waterview tunnel. This has been particularly beneficial for bus passengers. Additional parking was re-introduced to the corridor, off –peak earlier this year. AT is investigating to see if any further parking can be introduced as requested by some residents and will communicate the outcome with those residents.

Regional and Sub Regional Projects

Waterview Traffic Monitoring

16. Auckland Motorway Alliance's report 'Waterview Tunnel Early Outcomes' indicates that in general there has been a decrease in the traffic volume after the Waterview tunnel opening across the location of interest. Refer to table below from the report where the intersections can be taken as an indication for each of the locations:

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

17. Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Puketapapa Local Board area in November 2017.

Street/Area	Description	Work	Decision
Stoddard Road, Mt Roskill	Amended Permanent Traffic and Parking changes	No Stopping At All Times, Flush Median	Carried

Consultation Items

18. Auckland Transport provides the Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in its Local Board Area.

19. In this reporting period, no consultations were sent to the Board.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018 Grant Applications

File No.: CP2017/24738

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the Puketāpapa Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 16 March 2017. The document sets application guidelines for community contestable grants.

3. The local board is required to allocate grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of becoming the world’s most liveable city.

4. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $72,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $12,000, from this budget, was set for the three quick response grant rounds. A total of $60,000, from this budget, was set for the two local grant rounds.

5. A total of $31,680 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018. A total of $40,320 remains to be allocated for one local grant and two quick response rounds.

6. In Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018, five applications were received, requesting a total of $3,626. (see Attachment B).

7. The Puketāpapa Local Board passed a resolution (PKTPP/2017/198) on 16 November 2017 approving grants to Connect the Dots Charitable Trust, Active Transport Trust, Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust and Anirban Datta. The Mt Roskill Baptist Church application was not included for approval.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One, listed in Table One.

App ID	Applicant	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1815-101	Mt Roskill Baptist Church	Events	Hiring of Bouncy Castles, Inflatable Boxing Ring , Preschool Ride On toys and Gazebos for Light Party	$750.00	Eligible
			Total	$750.00

Comments

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

9. 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.

10. The Puketāpapa Local Board will operate three quick response and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

11. 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.

12. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $72,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $12,000, from this budget, was set for the three quick response grant rounds. A total of $60,000, from this budget, was set for the two local grant rounds.

13. It is recommended that the local board allocate up to $3,626 or 33% of the total budget, in this grant round.

14. A total of $31,680 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2108. A total of $40,320 remains to be allocated for one local grant and two quick response rounds.

15. In Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018, five applications were received, requesting a total of $3,626. The Puketāpapa Local Board passed a resolution (PKTPP/2017/198) on 16 November 2017 approving grants to Connect the Dots Charitable Trust, Active Transport Trust, Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust and Anirban Datta. The Mt Roskill Baptist Church application (Attachment B) was not included for approval.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

17. 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.”

18. A summary of the application from The Mt Roskill Baptist Church received through Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round One is attached, see Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

19. 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 Maori. 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 Maori. One organisation applying in this round has indicated their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Implementation

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

21. Following the Puketāpapa Local Board allocating funding for round one quick response, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	37
b ⇩	Puketapapa Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications	41

Signatories

Authors

Moumita Dutta - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Andrew Clark – General Manager Commercial and Finance

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

Approval of the 'Becoming a Low Carbon Community: An Action Plan' for the Puketāpapa Local Board

File No.: CP2017/24177

Purpose

1. To approve the ‘Becoming a Low Carbon Community: An Action Plan’ for the Puketāpapa Local Board.

Executive summary

2. This report presents the draft ‘Becoming a ‘Low Carbon Community: An Action Plan’ for the Puketāpapa Local Board (referred to as the ‘draft action plan’ in this report) for the board’s consideration and approval (see Attachment A).

3. In the 2016/2017 financial year, the local board allocated $10,000 of its locally driven initiatives budget towards the development of a low carbon action plan, to provide strategic direction around low carbon initiatives that the board may support in future years (resolution PKTPP/2016/145).

4. The draft action plan was developed in alignment with both the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2014-2017 and the recently adopted Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017-2020. In particular, the draft action plan aligns with the outcomes relating to a ‘treasured and enhanced natural environment’.

5. The draft action plan is based on a stocktake of existing low carbon projects, a mini-climathon event with stakeholders, and a summary matrix containing the results of the stocktake. Based on this work, the draft action plan comprises seven actions areas. Each area has a recommended flagship project with high level targets, a list of actions to focus on, and monitoring requirements.

6. The draft action plan builds on existing initiatives of the council, local board, council-controlled organisations, and other organisations, integrates suggestions from the climathon, links with regional Live Lightly climate change campaign themes, builds on successes of the Waitematā Low Carbon Plan, and links to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

7. The draft action plan identifies a number of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and specifies the role of the local board in the implementation of these opportunities. Once adopted, the action plan will be implemented, where possible, using a combination of support for advocacy, and direct local and regional funding models.

Recommendations

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the ‘Becoming a Low Carbon Community – An Action Plan’ for the Puketāpapa Local Board.

b) consider the memorandum provided (to be tabled) to support the allocation of $10,000 to implement the 2017/18 low carbon actions.

c) delegate to the chair, H Doig, the ability to make minor amendments to the ‘Becoming a Low Carbon Community – An Action Plan’ for the Puketāpapa Local Board.

Comments

8. The Auckland Plan and the Low Carbon Auckland: Auckland’s Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan lay the foundation for Auckland’s transformation to a highly energy resilient, low carbon city. They set an aspirational target of a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 (based on 1990 levels).

9. In 2014, Auckland Council launched the Low Carbon Auckland - Auckland’s Energy Resilience and Low Carbon Action Plan, Toitū te whenua, toitū te tangata, which sets out a 30 year pathway and a 10 year plan of action that will guide the first stage of Auckland’s transformation towards an energy resilient future, and help deliver on the Auckland Plan’s aspirational target as detailed above.

10. The opportunity to examine the connection between the Auckland-wide strategy and local action was identified by the Puketāpapa Local Board, and a draft low carbon action plan was developed which seeks to define focus areas at a local level that will contribute to the Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emission reduction target.

11. This draft action plan was developed simultaneously to the recently adopted Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017-2020, and supports the local board’s vision to create a ‘treasured and enhanced natural environment’ in which ‘people and businesses adopt sustainable practices’.

12. The draft action plan focuses on promoting actions in households, businesses, infrastructure, buildings, consumption patterns and behaviour, which lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It gives effect to both local board and regional outcomes which relate to sustainability, carbon reduction and caring for the environment.

13. Since staff commenced with the development of the draft action plan, the council’s regional Live Lightly programme was launched in October 2017. This programme involves collaborations between community groups, Auckland Council and partners to engage with Aucklanders and offer ways people can make a difference and live a low carbon lifestyle.

14. Feedback from mana whenua on the Live Lightly programme indicated a need to focus on low or no cost solutions and initiatives enabling behaviour change, and this feedback has been considered through the development of the draft action plan.

15. The draft action plan was developed in consultation with local community partners. The process for developing the plan involved undertaking the following work during the 2016/2017 financial year:

· a stocktake of existing low carbon projects at both local and regional levels – May 2017

· a mini-climathon event with context-setting presentations from representatives from key stakeholder and partner organisations – May 2017

· a presentation to the local board on the stocktake, mini-climathon results, and recommended actions – June 2017

· the development of a summary matrix, which links regional documents with local ideas and local board aspirations – July 2017 .

16. The mini-climathon event held in May 2017 was focused on finding practical solutions to specific local climate change challenges. Eighteen representatives from the community spent a day generating ideas and creating plans for low carbon community projects.

17. The draft action plan was then developed, which builds on existing initiatives of the council, local board, council-controlled organisations and other organisations, integrating suggestions from the mini-climathon, regional and global goals.

18. The draft action plan focuses on seven action areas that contribute to greenhouse gas reductions on the local level. These action areas are listed below, and are further detailed in Attachment A to this report:

· Championing change – a network of champions

· Low Carbon Economy

· Low Carbon Food

· Low Carbon Homes and Buildings

· Shop Low Carbon

· The Way We Travel

· Green Spaces.

19. For each of these action areas, the action plan includes:

· targets based on achieving regional, national and global greenhouse gas emission reduction targets

· opportunities to amplify existing regional and local initiatives

· actions suggested through the mini-climathon process, including:

- seven flagship low carbon projects requiring seed funding for over the next three years

- a monitoring framework for measuring progress against these targets.

20. The seven action areas, targets and flagship projects are outlined in Table 1 below. The draft action plan includes quantitative detail on specific targets, as well as a proposed programme to measure progress against these (see Attachment A).

· Table 1. Proposed Low Carbon Targets and Flagship Projects

	Action area	Targets and flagship projects
1	Championing Change	Our targets: · create a network of low carbon Live Lightly champions – for homes, schools, business and community to improve education, raise awareness and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning, with a focus on women and youth, as well as local and marginalised communities · by 2020, at least 300 residents have measured and can track their carbon footprints, as they adopt recommendations to reduce their carbon emissions. Flagship Project: A Puketāpapa Low Carbon Network A low carbon network with regular get-togethers designed to empower and enable local climate champions to meet our low carbon targets. This will require a facilitator to establish and coordinate this group with the support of the council’s Low Carbon team.
2	Low Carbon Food	Our targets: · to increase the ability of our residents to enjoy local seasonal food with a low carbon footprint. · composting facilities and/or services at all community facilities, local food markets and schools by 2020 · over 300 residents have completed Compost Collective workshops by 2020 and have set up composting systems for their home, business or community. Flagship project: Community Garden, Fridge and Education Centre Encourage initiatives which promote growing and sourcing food locally, sharing the surplus, reducing and composting all food waste. Supporting regional efforts to co-ordinate Auckland’s food system at a local level.
3	Low Carbon Homes and Buildings	Our targets: · to improve the energy performance of existing buildings and ensure all new buildings are low or zero carbon · all rental properties insulated to comply with new government regulation by 1 July 2019 · reduce carbon emissions from community facilities by 40 per cent by 2040^{^[1]} · reduce carbon emissions from community facilities by 1.7 per cent per annum. Flagship Project: Warrant of Fitness for Rental Homes Amplify the uptake of energy efficiency in our rental homes through increased delivery of our Healthy Rentals initiative to support and empower renters. Work with landlords to ensure that all rental properties are insulated to comply with new government regulation by 1 July 2019.
4	Shop Low Carbon	Our targets: · an average carbon footprint for Puketāpapa residents of 3 tonnes per person by 2040 · to encourage residents to think before they buy and to choose low carbon locally made products and services · reduce household waste per capita per annum by 30 per cent to 110kg by 2018^{^[2]}. Flagship Project: Tracking our Footprints Measure and track the carbon footprints of residents through the promotion of the carbon footprint tool, and use this data to inform Low Carbon Network projects.
5	Low Carbon Consumption and Business	Our targets: · create a low carbon network for Puketāpapa businesses to foster the development of a profitable local low carbon economy · to support low carbon businesses and social enterprises · at least 100 local businesses implementing low carbon plans to achieve carbon reduction targets by 2020. Flagship Project: A Puketāpapa Low Carbon Economy Network Develop a network to support the adoption of low carbon practices by the local business community, partnering to design and deliver low carbon initiatives and create a profitable local low carbon economy.
6	The Way We Travel	Our Targets · create a community transport innovation hub to increase the use of low carbon travel options by 2020 · 100 per cent of Puketāpapa schools participating in Travel Wise by 2020 · 22 public electric vehicle charging points by 2020. Flagship Project: A Community Transport Innovation Promotion Promote walking, cycling, public transport, and ridesharing - with a carpooling and sharing initiative, designed to maximise the use of T2 and T3 lanes, and exploring the use of existing carparks as meet points.
7	Green Spaces	Our Targets · strengthen resilience to climate-related hazards and natural disasters^{^[3]} · expand our existing network of tree-based ecological corridors and stepping stones for wildlife across our landscape to achieve a 50 per cent increase in carbon sequestration (compared with 2014 levels) by planting ecological corridors · increase the Puketāpapa urban tree canopy cover from 20.4 per cent (2013) to 35 per cent by 2040 · encourage at least 30 per cent tree canopy cover for our streets · encourage every Puketāpapa resident to support the planting of a tree every year until 2040, to plant another million trees in Puketāpapa, Tāmaki Makaurau and Aotearoa^{^[4]}. Flagship Project: A Beautiful Carbon Sink Encourage every Puketāpapa resident to support the planting of a tree every year until 2040, to plant a million trees in Puketāpapa and beyond. Empowering local residents, businesses and groups to accelerate the planting of trees, increasing carbon capture, biodiversity and the health and beauty of Puketāpapa, Tāmaki Makaurau and Aotearoa.

Implementation of the action plan

21. Once the draft action plan has been approved by the local board, the flagship project options will be costed and provided to the local board to consider funding in future financial years. In May 2017, the local board allocated $10,000 towards the implementation of this plan (resolution PKTPP/2017/77). This budget can be utilised to initiate implementation of a flagship project or projects.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. The draft action plan delivers on the Puketāpapa Local Board’s vision to create a ‘treasured and enhanced natural environment’ in which ‘people and businesses adopt sustainable practices’.

23. Puketāpapa Local Board members considered the draft version of this action plan on 22 November 2017 at its green cluster meeting, and provided feedback towards the refinement of the draft.

24. Following the approval of the draft action plan, a memorandum will be circulated to the local board outlining the costs associated with each of the flagship projects, which the local board may consider funding with the $10,000 low carbon plan implementation budget for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Māori impact statement

25. Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Ata Waiohua, Te Ahiwaru Waiohua, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaterā and Waikato-Tainui were invited participate in the consultation process through the mini-climathon event in May 2017, however no representatives were available to attend. One representative indicated strong interest in remaining informed, and updates have been sent to him through the development of the draft action plan.

26. Individual projects noted in this report may impact on Māori well-being, and mana whenua will be consulted on these projects as part of the implementation of the draft action plan.

27. Feedback from mana whenua through the development of the regional Live Lightly programme indicated a need to focus on low or no cost solutions and initiatives enabling behaviour change, and this feedback has been considered through the development of the draft action plan.

28. The Puketāpapa Local Board Plan describes some of the ways the local board will work with Māori in Puketāpapa Local Board area and these mechanisms will guide implementation of this action plan.

Implementation

29. The ‘Becoming a Low Carbon Community – an action plan’ for the Puketāpapa Local Board is aspirational and as such, many of the proposals are not specifically funded within regional or local board budgets. However there are opportunities to leverage some programmes which are currently being delivered from wider council group such as the Urban Forest strategy, the introduction of electric vehicles to the council fleet, and the development of Auckland’s resource recovery network, which will deliver on the aspirations of the action plan.

30. Following the approval of the draft action plan, staff will develop a memorandum for local board members which will outline the costs associated with each of the flagship projects. The local board can then determine if they would like to fund any of the options using its low carbon plan implementation budget for the 2017/2018 financial year ($10,000 budget).

31. Once the low carbon plan projects for the 2017/2018 financial year have been approved by the local board, staff will provide progress reports through the quarterly performance reporting process, and will identify the activity undertaken against each of the action areas outlined in the plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft 'Becoming a Low Carbon Community: An Action Plan' for the Puketāpapa Local Board	53

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Hayden – Low Carbon Specialist

Carolyn Cox – Senior Low Carbon Specialist

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

10-year Budget 2018-2028 consultation

File No.: CP2017/25901

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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

i) Drop-in Have Your Say event on Thursday 22 March 6-8pm (Lynfield Room, Fickling 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 council’s legal team and/or Audit NZ, of the local consultation content for the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 prior to publication, including online consultation content, and should any changes be made they are to be reported to the next business meeting.

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· four regional stakeholder events (traditional hearing style);

· an independently commissioned quantitative survey;

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

· hui with mana whenua and mataawaka and

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

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

12. Spoken interaction constitutes any opportunity where Aucklanders have a dialogue with decision makers or their official delegations on the themes relating to the consultation. The spoken interaction event recommended to be held in the Puketāpapa Local Board area is a:

· Drop-in Have Your Say event on Thursday 22 March 6-8pm (Lynfield Room, Fickling 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 council progresses through the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process.

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local content for consultation (to be tabled)	89
b ⇩	Local supporting information for consultation (to be tabled)	91

Signatories

Authors

Christie McFayden - Graduate Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

Landowner Approval for local parks affected by the Central Interceptor sewer tunnel

File No.: CP2017/25272

Purpose

1. To request landowner approval be granted subject to certain conditions being met by Watercare Services Ltd (Watercare) for the temporary occupation and granting of easements for infrastructure in local parks in the Puketāpapa Local Board area through which the Central Interceptor sewer tunnel will be constructed.

Executive summary

2. The Central Interceptor is a new sewer tunnel to be constructed commencing 2019 between Western Springs and the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant. The tunnel will be about 13 kilometres in total length and will lie between 15 and 110 metres below ground level. The route was designated and project consented in 2013.

3. In the Puketāpapa Local Board area, two local parks will be affected above ground by the tunnel project. The parks are Keith Hay Park and Walmsley Park.

4. Staff have negotiated with Watercare conditions for the landowner approval. This report sets out the conditions for each of the affected parks for consideration and confirmation by the Puketāpapa Local Board.

5. Staff have endeavoured to inform the local board of the above ground requirements through various workshops with Watercare staff in attendance.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the landowner approval conditions for the Central Interceptor project works within Keith Hay Park and Walmsley Park, as set out in the body of this report, and

b) grant landowner approval to Watercare Services Ltd for temporary occupation and any easements required for permanent infrastructure and future access for the Central Interceptor project works within Keith Hay Park and Walmsley Park, as set out on the plans appended to this report.

Comments

6. The Central Interceptor is needed to ensure there is sufficient capacity in the sewer network to meet planned population growth and development in Auckland. More overflows of sewerage into the waterways and harbours will occur if the Central Interceptor is not built.

7. Staff have negotiated with Watercare conditions for the landowner approval (LOA). This report sets out the conditions for each of the affected parks for consideration by the Puketāpapa Local Board. The conditions will be integrated into the LOA documents that will be issued by Community Facilities.

8. Watercare has designations on the three reserves to enable the infrastructure to be constructed and operated. Watercare has a resource consent which imposes conditions on the tunnel to avoid, remedy, or mitigate environmental effects of the construction and operation of it.

9. The LOA conditions seek to resolve outstanding matters for the board following the granting of the designation and resource consent. The outstanding matters relate to the implications for some board assets, some effects on park users, and integration with the board’s future development plans for the subject parks.

10. The conditions require Watercare to submit temporary park service provision plans and reinstatement plans to the board for approval.

11. The temporary park service provision plans will set out how Watercare will provide for the current park services during construction e.g. cycleway connection and car parking. Due to the scale of the project, some services will be compromised and will only be provided to the extent that is safe and feasible.

12. The reinstatement plans will set out how Watercare will complete the construction of the Central Interceptor to provide for the agreed permanent park services e.g. tree planting, replaced path connections and cycleway connections.

13. Staff have negotiated to ensure that visible infrastructure is integrated into the receiving parks. To achieve this, staff have proposed using a Public Arts led process to create visible infrastructure which is appropriate for the parks.

14. In the conditions that follow, the Grantor refers to Auckland Council and the Grantee refers to Watercare.

Keith Hay Park (Attachment A)

15. Implementation of the Central Interceptor project in Keith Hay Park will affect existing services on the reserve including car parking and the cycleway. Watercare will seek approval from the board for temporary provision of these services, then reinstate them permanently after completing construction.

16. The LOA conditions for Keith Hay Park are:

· The Grantee to submit a landscape plan (for land to be integrated with the Park) to Puketāpapa Local Board for approval.

· Maintenance of the site to be integrated with park maintenance standards.

· The Grantee to maintain walking and cycling connection through the park and provide temporary access routes and temporary car parks to replace those lost for the duration of the works.

· The Grantee to submit temporary park service provision plan for the duration of the Works to Puketāpapa Local Board for approval.

· The Grantee to submit park reinstatement plans to Puketāpapa Local Board for approval.

· Vent and plant room to be designed as a sculptural feature by a suitably experienced artist(s) working with the project’s architect and engineer. Reasonable costs are to be met by Watercare. The public art team will lead the integrated art component and provide advice to the Grantee throughout the project to ensure a successful design outcome is achieved.

Design Process	Responsibility
Brief Creation	Public Art Team
Project Proposal	Public Art Team
Concept Development	Selected artist(s)
Developed Design	Selected artist(s), Public Art Team, the Grantee
Detailed Design	Selected artist(s), the Grantee
Manufacturing/Build	Selected artist(s), the Grantee
Installation	The Grantee

Walmsley Park (Attachment B)

17. Walmsley Park is being developed by the Te Auaunga Awa (Oakley Creek) Walmsley and Underwood Reserves Restoration project. Healthy Waters is leading the project and has integrated the Central interceptor into the Te Auaunga Awa project works. Reinstatement by Watercare in Walmsley Park will be in accordance with the Te Auaunga Awa project design.

18. The LOA conditions for Walmsley Park are:

· The Grantee to reinstate the site in accordance with the Te Auaunga Awa naturalisation design by Boffa Miskell, including the shared path.

· The Grantee to maintain walking and cycling connection through the park and provide temporary access routes for the duration of the works.

· The Grantee to submit temporary park service provision plan for the duration of the works to Puketāpapa Local Board for approval.

· The Grantee to submit park reinstatement plans to Puketāpapa Local Board for approval.

· Vent to be designed as a sculptural feature by a suitably experienced artist(s) working with the project’s architect and engineer. Reasonable costs are to be met by the Grantee and the public art team will lead the integrated art component and provide advice to the Grantee throughout the project to ensure a successful design outcome is achieved.

Design Process	Responsibility
Brief Creation	Public Art Team
Project Proposal	Public Art Team
Concept Development	Selected artist(s)
Developed Design	Selected artist(s), Public Art Team, the Grantee
Detailed Design	Selected artist(s), the Grantee
Manufacturing/Build	Selected artist(s), the Grantee
Installation	The Grantee

Consideration

Local board views and implications

19. Staff initiated negotiations with Watercare on the board’s behalf. Staff workshopped the issues requiring negotiation with the board on 2 March 2017. Following the workshop, staff drafted LOA conditions based on the feedback of the board and then undertook negotiations across the whole project which crosses five local board areas. Staff then workshopped the conditions with the board on 28 September 2017. The board’s views were integrated into the final conditions recommended in this report.

Māori impact statement

20. Watercare is engaging with Mana Whenua on the Central Interceptor. The landowner approval conditions have been developed to support the board to respond to the Central Interceptor.

21. The Public Arts led process to integrate visible infrastructure into the parks will involve Mana Whenua engagement.

Implementation

22. Community Facilities staff will complete the negotiations with Watercare to resolve further detail and appropriate wording of the conditions. Community Facilities staff will seek endorsement from the board for any significant changes that become necessary during the finalisation of formal documentation. The agreement between the parties is to be in the form of an agreement to grant easement and will include the temporary occupation terms and conditions.

23. Watercare will present the temporary park service provision plans and reinstatement plans to the board for approval. Parks Services and Community Facilities staff will review the plans and advise on the appropriateness for approval.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Keith Hay Park	97
b ⇩	Walmsley Park	99

Signatories

Authors

Allan Walton - Principal Property Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill – Head of Community Relations

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

Decision-making allocation update

File No.: CP2017/25841

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 Puketāpapa 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.^{^[5]} This amendment to the allocation implements this decision. This issue was canvassed with local boards during consultation on the Governance Framework Review and they were supportive of local boards holding this decision-making.

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

20. Other minor changes to wording include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

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

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Allocation of decision-making for Local Board feedback	105

Signatories

Authors

James Liddell - Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza – Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/19477

Purpose

1. To update the Puketāpapa 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 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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

Local Activities

Portfolio management

5. Panuku manages ‘non-service’ properties owned by 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.

6. The property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases, as at 30 September 2017. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

7. 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.

8. 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 Puketāpapa Local Board Area

9. Panuku currently manages 14 properties within the Puketāpapa Local Board area, including 2 commercial and 12 residential properties.

Business Interests

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

11. There are currently no managed business interests in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

12. The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2015-2025 reflects a desire of 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.

13. 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

14. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within 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 council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

15. Target for July 2016 to June 2017:

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

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

17. 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

18. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with 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

19. There are no properties currently under review in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Acquisitions and Disposals

20. 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

21. 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 council.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. No property was purchased in the Puketāpapa Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

25. 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.

26. No properties were sold in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

27. Three Kings Reserve – Land Exchange – Fletcher Living is planning a redevelopment of its quarry site and adjoining reserve land to create up to 1500 apartments and townhouses and additional reserve land. As part of the project, Fletcher intends to develop sections of the quarry site into a central park with sports fields in exchange for Auckland Council-managed reserve land bordering the site.

28. Following the settlement agreement between Fletcher Residential Limited and the appellants on the District Plan and Unitary Plan appeals, the land exchange proposal has been submitted to the Department of Conversation (DoC). Fletcher have obtained Overseas Investment Office (OIO) approval for the acquisition of the land parcels and the exchange is conditional on DoC approval and investigations into contamination on the southern reserve area.

Regional Activities

Highlights

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. Support locations – Panuku plays a ‘support’ role to ensure 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

33. 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) The Innovation Precinct in Wynyard Quarter has expanded with the newly opened five-floor building at 12 Madden Street. The purpose-built home for entrepreneurs offers the latest in flexible co-working spaces. This milestone marks two years since the GridAKL initiative was launched by ATEED, partnering with Panuku and Precinct Properties to develop the commercial space to house ambitious companies and connecting technologists, designers, digital content makers, product designers and start-ups.

d) 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.

e) 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.

34. Transform Manukau was the first location to have a Framework Plan completed, outlining the five key moves for the project and the vision for Manukau in 2040. We are aiming to get the first housing site underway soon at Barrowcliffe Place. Public realm projects anticipated to start next year include the Council’s Hayman Park Playground and Putney Way street improvements in conjunction with the new bus station is targeted for completion by May 2018. Panuku is also exploring with the Scentre Group on how the shopping mall’s future development could relate to and interface with the town centre.

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. The opportunity to revitalise Avondale has been given the green light in November 2017 with the approval of the over-arching plan for its regeneration by the Planning Committee. The vision for Avondale will be enabled through a number of key moves. Panuku will work closely with the local board and community to implement a retail strategy that attracts new businesses, increasing diversity of products and services. The train station, upgraded bus network and new cycleways offer great transport options and we will continue to strengthen connections between these activity hubs and the town. A focus for the regeneration of Avondale is working with developers to build quality residential neighbourhoods that offer a mix of housing types, including terraces and apartments. A number of significant developments are already underway in the area.

43. 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

44. 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

45. This report is for the Puketāpapa Local Board’s information.

46. 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

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

48. 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.

49. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 14 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the local board area.

50. Māori make up 6 percent of the local board population, and there are no marae located within the local board area.

51. Panuku work 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.

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

Implementation

53. 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

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

LB feedback on Rates remission and postponement policy review

File No.: CP2017/25852

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

· funding decisions are more transparent

· spending for each activity is within an annual budget

· level of support for each organisation is more visible.

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative options

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

· Option 2: keeping the current remissions schemes is inequitable

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

Comments

Background

11. The current Rates remission and postponement policy includes:

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

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

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

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

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

o six remission schemes for community and sporting organisations

o a rates postponement scheme for sports clubs in Manukau

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

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

Assessment of Regional Schemes

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

Assessment of Legacy Schemes

14. Four options were considered for the legacy schemes:

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

2. retain the status quo

3. extend to entire region

4. remove.

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

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

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

· transparency

· cost

· minimise the effects of change

· administrative simplicity.

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

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

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

Allocating grants

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

· allocation of rates expenditure will be transparent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Year Transition

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

Option 2: Retain the status quo

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

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

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

· are recorded as a charge against revenue

· do not appear as a cost in the councils accounts

· do not increase the rates requirement and hence do not impact the headline rates increase^{^[6]} (They still increase the rates burden on other ratepayers)

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

Option 3: Extend to entire region

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

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

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

· is not transparent as described in Option 2 above.

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

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

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

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

Option 4: Remove the schemes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

39. This report seeks feedback from Local Boards to inform the consideration of this issue by the Finance and Performance Committee in February 2018.

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Auckland Council Rates remission and postponement policy schemes	133
b ⇩	Rates remission and postponement policy	139
c ⇩	Value of legacy schemes by local board area	157
d ⇩	All community and sporting remissions by local board area (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker – Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Carol McKenzie-Rex – GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

14 December 2017

Revising the local board Standing Orders

File No.: CP2017/25138

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa 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.^{^[7]} 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	167
b ⇩	Governing Body Political working party’s finding	227

Signatories

Authors

Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Carol McKenzie-Rex – GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

[3] United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/

[4] Equates to approximately one tree per resident per year, trees can be planted in any location

[5] 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.

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

Chairperson	Harry Doig
Deputy Chairperson	Julie Fairey
Members	Anne-Marie Coury
	David Holm
	Shail Kaushal
	Ella Kumar, JP

Authors	Brenda Railey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager