Agenda of Waiheke Local Board

1 Welcome

Kua uru mai a hau kaha, a hau maia, a hau ora, a hau nui,

Ki runga, ki raro, ki roto, ki waho

Rire, rire hau…pai marire

Translation (non-literal) - Rama Ormsby

Let the winds bring us inspiration from beyond,

Invigorate us with determination and courage to achieve our aspirations for abundance and sustainability

Bring the calm, bring all things good, bring peace….good peace.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 23 November 2017, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waiheke Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

New community lease to Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated for the Kiln Shed, 4 Korora Rd, Oneroa, Waiheke Island

File No.: CP2017/25588

Purpose

1. To approve a new community lease for the kiln shed at 4 Korora Rd.

Executive summary

2. The Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated (the gallery) have requested the use of a small shed at 4 Korora Rd as a kiln shed in association with a ceramics program they run with the Dunedin School of Art.

3. The program is a two year course and there are currently 7 students enrolled with another intake in February 2018. Teaching of the course is undertaken off-site with firing of the ceramic proposed to be undertaken at the shed.

4. The shed was used for this purpose prior to 2006 and fitted out with three phase power with two kilns.

5. The shed is small approximately 7m2 in area and because of this has limited functionality for other activities. Recently the shed has been used as informal storage by one of the site tenants but that has now been cleared.

6. The proposed use of the shed to house kilns meets an objective of the draft 2017 local board plan to “support the growth of a flourishing arts community on Waiheke”.

7. This report will recommend granting a lease subject to conditions.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) grant a lease of the small shed at 4 Korora Rd to the Waiheke Community Art Gallery Incorporated subject to:

i) Notification to the Art Complex occupants and immediate neighbours of the proposal.

ii) Advise the iwi groups with an interest the island of the proposal.

iii) There being no adverse comment resulting from the notification.

b) approve a lease term of five (5) years from 14 December 2017 with no right of renewal.

c) approve a rental of one ($1) per annum plus GST if requested.

d) approve a maintenance charge of $175 plus GST per annum with the first two years forgiven to compensate the tenant for attending to deferred maintenance of the shed.

e) request the kilns be made available to other users if required, subject to that use being supervised by the course Tutor.

f) request that the gallery provide safety equipment and implement procedures to ensure the safety of those participating in the course activities.

Comments

8. This report seeks approval for new community lease for a small shed known as the Kiln Shed at 4 Korora Rd Oneroa.

9. The property is described as Lot 181 DP 24643 and contains 809 m2 in certificate of title NA817/102. The property is held in fee simple by the Auckland Council under the Local Government Act, and is zoned OV (Oneroa Village) Commercial One. Community facilities are a permitted activity within that zone. (Attachment A)

10. The site contains three buildings: The former residence that houses the Waiheke Community Radio Trust, a garage occupied by Once Upon an Island Trust and the small shed. The shed is approximately seven (7) m2.

11. The shed has been used informally for storage by an adjacent tenant on the site. Prior to 2006 the shed had contained two kilns for ceramic firing of pottery courses run by Ray Ericson and Simona Madonna. Three phase power is installed at the shed to operate the two kilns. This supply is distributed from the adjacent garage building.

12. The Waiheke Community Art Gallery Inc. has a contract with the Dunedin School of Art to run a Diploma in Ceramics programme on Waiheke. This is a 2 year programme and currently 7 students are enrolled. A second intake of students to the programme is scheduled for February 2018.

13. Teaching of other part of the programme is undertaken at the residence of a Gallery supporter who makes a barn at Owhanake available to the tutor and students for this purpose. It is not practical to install the kilns at the supporter’s property.

14. There are also kilns at the Catherine Mitchell Centre but these are used to full capacity with their programmes. The addition of these two kilns will provide for the continuation of the current ceramic program run by the gallery.

15. Operation of the kilns will be under the supervision of the course Tutor. The gallery will need to implement safety procedures and provide any equipment to ensure the firing activities are carried out in a safe manner. At other times the shed will be secured.

16. The gallery is willing to make the kilns available to others but this use will need to be supervised due to the technical and potentially hazardous procedures.

17. This will recommend a lease term of 5 years. A shorter term will allow for the occupation to be reconsidered if the plans for the development of the Artworks complex are progressed.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. A request to use the shed to house kilns for the ceramic program was made by the gallery in July and was workshopped with the Local Board on 14 July and again on 16 November. At both workshops the board was supportive of the use of the shed to house the kilns. (Attachment B).

19. The Draft 2017 Waiheke Local Board Plan includes the following outcomes:

· Thriving, strong and engaged communities

· Vibrant places for people

20. Key initiatives of these outcomes include:

· Carry out a needs assessment to inform any future development of our Artworks complex.

· Complete an Artworks masterplan following engagement with our arts and culture groups and our community.

21. Granting a short term lease to occupy this shed will not impact on these initiatives.

22. Authority to grant a lease is provided by the Local Government Act 2002, and the local board has delegated authority to grant leases.

Māori impact statement

23. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The Council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tamaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

Implementation

24. New lease applications are considered on a case by case basis. As the options for use of this shed are limited because of size and location, calling for expressions of interest is not warranted. A potential user (the gallery) and activity has been identified which fits with the local board plans and objectives.

25. The Local Government Act 2002 requires consultation and iwi engagement when providing a lease of longer than six months. The act also provides for the significance of the proposal to be considered in determining the level of consultation and engagement required.

26. The shed does not constitute a significant part of the built environment the Arts Complex and as noted there are a limited number of options for its use because of size. The proposed use for ceramic kilns supports an objective of the Draft 2017 Waiheke Local Board Plan to “support the growth of a flourishing arts community on Waiheke”. It is also recognition of the past use of the shed as a location for ceramic kilns when used by Ray Ericson.

27. The report will therefore recommend that notification be provided to occupants of the Artworks complex site and the immediate neighbours, and that iwi groups with an interest in the island be advised of the proposal to grant a lease of an existing small building. This communication with iwi groups is contemplated in the guide “Te Whakawhirinakitanga Engaging with Māori”.

28. There is deferred maintenance of the shed to be attended to and the gallery is willing to do this. On that basis it is reasonable to provide a maintenance charge holiday for two years ($350) to recognise this contribution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A Site Plan	13
b ⇩	Attachment B Request	15

Signatories

Author

Ron Johnson - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Funding of rock revetment sea wall at Picnic Bay Reserve

File No.: CP2017/25242

Purpose

1. To secure a financial contribution towards the community led build of a rock revetment sea wall at Picnic Bay Reserve plus the allocation of capex funds for Auckland Council to deliver drainage improvements at this site.

Executive summary

2. Two reports have been submitted to the Waiheke Local Board regarding the community led project to build a 205 m long rock revetment sea wall at Picnic Bay Reserve and adjoining esplanade reserve. The Waiheke Local Board resolved (WHK/2017/113 and WHK/2017/170), subject to resource consent being secured, to grant land owner approval for the build of this wall.

3. This report confirms the appropriateness of the Waiheke Local Board contributing financially to the build of a section of the rock revetment sea wall (highlighted in blue in attachment A) and requests that the Waiheke Local Board consider granting $64,000 of Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capex funding to this project.

4. In addition $50,000 of capex budget is estimated to be required to address drainage and slumping issues at Picnic Bay Reserve that are impacting on the site’s viability in its current form. This budget will allow for Auckland Council to carry out drainage improvements that will cover the planning, consenting and construction of drainage infrastructure at the site. It is possible that investigation and design undertaken by Community Facilities for this project will identify the need for additional funds, in which case officers will come back to the board to report a budget shortfall.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) contribute $64,000 of LDI discretionary capex budget in FY 2018 towards the community led build of a 75m long section of rock revetment sea wall at Picnic Bay Reserve.

b) allocate LDI discretionary capex budget of $10,000 in FY 2018 and $40,000 in FY 2019 to enable Community Facilities to deliver drainage infrastructure improvements to address stability and slumping issues at Picnic Bay Reserve.

Comments

5. The community living close to Picnic Bay Reserve have since 2007 aspired to build a 205m long rock revetment sea wall to protect the esplanade reserve seaward of their properties (69-75 Donald Bruce Rd) and the edge of Picnic Bay Reserve from erosion (see attachment A).

6. A portion of wall was constructed in 2007 and a new resource consent has been submitted in October 2017 by a member of the community (Pam Nash) to allow for the build of the wall in its entirety.

7. Two reports regarding this project have been tabled at board meetings. On 27 July 2017 the Waiheke Local Board passed a resolution (WHK/2017/113) to:

a) approve in principle, and subject to gaining resource consent, the granting of landowner consent for the build of a 130m long rock revetment sea wall on the

esplanade reserve below 69-75 Donald Bruce Rd.

8. On 26 October 2017 the local board also passed a resolution (WHK/2017/170) to:

a) grant land owner approval for the build of a 75m section of rock revetment sea wall along the edge of Picnic Bay Reserve (as identified in attachment A) conditional upon the applicant entering into an agreement with the council clearly identifying respective roles and responsibilities and expressly providing that the applicant will be liable for the cost of building the sea wall structure, and authorise staff to negotiate and prepare the agreement.

b) consider making a financial contribution towards the build of a rock revetment sea wall extending along the coastal edge at Picnic Bay Reserve and adjoining esplanade reserve.

9. The community group, who are aiming to become a charitable trust, plan to build the wall in its entirety in March / April 2018. They have requested that the Waiheke Local Board contribute to the cost of the build.

10. The extent of Auckland’s coastline and the number of assets that sit on, or close to, the coastal edge means that Auckland Council has to carefully prioritise the management of erosion across the region. Investment is made in coastal defences where the recreation value of reserves are threatened, where essential services could be compromised or where key access for vehicles or pedestrians could be lost.

11. In this context the active management of erosion along the esplanade reserve below Donald Bruce Rd (130m section shown in red in attachment A) is considered a low priority for Auckland Council and staff do not support a financial contribution towards the build of this section of wall. The esplanade reserve neither provides a critical pedestrian or vehicle link, nor does it provide for key infrastructure that needs protection. However, the 75m section of wall seaward of Picnic Bay Reserve will protect the edge of a well-used reserve where the community enjoys passive recreation outcomes and through which the community gain access to a popular beach. A financial contribution from the Waiheke Local Board towards the build of this particular section of wall is therefore regarded as appropriate.

12. The community have indicated that they will be able to achieve significant savings through discounted rates being given by suppliers / contractors and have estimated that they can build the rock revetment sea wall at a rate just under $1,000 per linear metre. The community have therefore requested a $64,000 contribution from the board to cover the approximate costs for the build of the 75m section of wall seaward of Picnic Bay Reserve.

13. Active Management of coastal erosion on the edge of Picnic Bay Reserve is considered strategically important and a financial contribution towards the construction is supported by staff. At the same time it should be highlighted that there is an element of risk associated with the community building the wall.

14. The project is a significant undertaking and involves a community group building a structure along the front of a beach reserve that provides for considerable recreational activity during the summer months. If the project was only partially completed the Waiheke Local Board would potentially need to find additional funds either to complete the project or to remove rock materials from the beach front.

15. It is intended that these risks are managed by an agreement being entered into by the applicant and the council that describes respective roles and responsibilities (as detailed in report submitted in October 2017). A financial contribution towards the build will further reduce the level of risk associated with potential non-completion of the project.

16. If LDI budget is allocated by the board, it would be used by Auckland Council to buy materials for the construction of the wall directly from the relevant supplier (as provisionally agreed with the community group) rather than by giving a grant to a person or entity.

17. It is intended that utilisation of the LDI capex budget (if approved) would not occur until there is a signed agreement with the consent holder (Pam Nash) or relevant charitable trust. This agreement would cover the following:

· Auckland Council approving a works methodology prior to works starting.

· Proof of sufficient funding to be provided, confirming works as proposed can be completed.

· Appropriate consultation with the council in relation to the development and implementation of a Health and Safety Plan prior to works starting.

· A requirement that a suitably qualified and experienced contractor is engaged by the community to manage the build.

· Physical works to be project managed by the community’s contractor.

· Progress reporting to be provided via contractor for community and Local Board information.

18. Community Facilities, who have been involved in the planning stages of this project, will facilitate any payments directly to the relevant suppliers.

19. Regulatory Services will ensure the construction of the wall complies with the consent conditions.

Drainage issues at Picnic Bay Reserve

20. In addition to the active management of the coastline, staff are also seeking funds to address storm water drainage issues at Picnic Bay Reserve. The uncontrolled flow of stormwater across the reserve is leading to ground saturation during winter months and slumping along the bank of the reserve. Failure to address this issue through drainage improvements is likely to result in further slumping and potential future damage to the proposed wall.

21. Community Facilities would manage investigation, design, consents and construction linked to drainage improvements at Picnic Bay Reserve should funding be allocated.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

22. The issue has been workshopped with the board on two occasions and two reports have been tabled at business meetings in July and October 2017. The board have, subject to resource consent being issued, granted land owner approval for the build of the sea wall and have requested that staff formally request funding towards both the build of the rock revetment sea wall and drainage improvements at Picnic Bay Reserve.

Māori impact statement

23. The coastal environment is of fundamental importance to Tangata Whenua, their culture and traditions and the following iwi have been informed of the community’s desire and intent to build a rock revetment sea wall:

· Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Tamaterā.

24. Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki subsequently expressed an interest in the project and undertook a site visit in October 2017. A formal response to the consent application from Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki has been provided (27 November 2017); this acknowledges the applicant’s determination to deliver coastal protection in order to provide amenity to the local community and wider user groups. With all factors taken into consideration, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki reported that they have no issue supporting the consent application.

Implementation

25. The community are looking to build the rock revetment sea wall in March / April 2018.

26. Drainage improvements to be delivered by Auckland Council, funding permitting, will be planned in FY 2018 and delivered on the ground in FY 2019.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Picnic Bay Reserve sea wall	21

Signatories

Author

David Barker - Parks & Places Team Leader

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Waiheke Island Inorganic Trial September 2016 – June 2017

File No.: CP2017/18011

Purpose

1. To receive a report back on the Waiheke Island inorganic and resource recovery trial, and note the next steps for inorganic collections on Waiheke for 2017-2019.

Executive summary

2. Noting the uniqueness of the Hauraki Gulf Islands, an on-island solution of a Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan was agreed to be developed as part of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012. To give effect to this, a trial inorganics collection service was approved for Waiheke and operated as part of the wider inorganic and resource recovery trial (resolution WHK/2015/45).

3. The trial operated on Waiheke from September 2016 to June 2017 with an objective to investigate ways to have a more holistic waste and recovery service.

4. The trial resulted in a collection of just over 200 tonnes of inorganic waste in total from Waiheke households.

5. A summary of the key findings from the trial was provided to the board in July 2017. These included that:

· of the 200 tonnes of inorganic waste collected, approximately 30 per cent was diverted from landfill which is an increase of 20 per cent over the previous

· 26.4 per cent of the total eligible properties used the bi-annual, on the berm inorganics service (as compared to 17 per cent on the mainland).

6. One of the key learnings from the trial was that the Tahi Road site is too small to enable efficient resource recovery activity. It was noted that there was limited availability of experienced staff on site to undertake minor repairs of items and that community groups on the island had capacity issues receiving reusable goods. There was an overall poor quality and low value of recovered goods.

7. At the July 2017 workshop, the board was informed of the next steps which included progressing the procurement process in November 2017 for the resource recovery element of the service. This service will commence in January 2018.

8. Improvements to the resource recovery facility will be implemented through the new contract, working towards the medium term goal of establishing a community recycling centre located at the existing Waiheke Refuse Transfer Station and Tahi Road sites from 2019.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) note the Waiheke Inorganic Trial September 2016 – June 2017 report and next steps for inorganic collections on Waiheke.

Comments

9. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2012 (the waste plan) is Auckland Council’s road map towards zero waste by 2040. The waste plan provides a regional approach to waste services, including the development of an Auckland resource recovery network.

10. Although the waste plan provides for regional consistency to services, it also recognises the need for tailored and integrated solutions for the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The emphasis is to work with relevant local boards, community and businesses to foster on-island solutions for waste.

11. The current waste plan is due for review. Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, a new version must be adopted by 20 June 2018. The board provided feedback on the direction of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste (the draft waste plan) at its 27 November 2017 business meeting, and highlighted a need for Waiheke to have a comprehensive community recycling centre developed along with the first tranche rather than waiting until 2024 (resolution WHK/2017/197).

12. The current waste plan includes the development of an Auckland resource recovery network and a community recycling centre is proposed for Waiheke. This strategy was agreed by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in October 2014 and identified 12 regional areas with indicative budgets and site selections. In order to determine the feasibility of operating a recycling centre on Waiheke, the board resolved to operate an inorganic collection and resource recovery trial. The board also resolved to approve Member SD Brown to act as a spokesperson for the trial (WHK/2015/45).

13. As part of the current waste plan, inorganic collections in the Auckland region changed to an annual, pre-booked, on-property collection service.

14. The current waste plan acknowledges the unique nature of the Hauraki Gulf Islands through an action to develop a specific plan for the Hauraki Gulf that reflects the aspirations of the local community, and mana whenua. The board endorsed the Waiheke section of the Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan for the current waste plan, at their meeting held on 22 June 2017 noting ‘a new approach to on-island inorganic material is being trialed, with the intent to establish a community recycling centre by 2020’ (WKH/2017/97).

15. The trial aimed to:

· to trial a new inorganic service on Waiheke Island based at the Tahi Road depot that increases resource recovery and provides opportunities for local enterprises

· to build the capacity and capability of the community sector for resource recovery.

16. The trial commenced on 5 September 2016 and was completed 30 June 2017. The trial had a participation rate of 26.4 per cent, with 1,433 of 5,436 eligible properties using the service (compared to 17 per cent using the inorganics service on the mainland).

17. Waste Solutions had agreement with City Parks Services to temporarily share the Tahi Road site to facilitate resource recovery from the trial. The Tahi Road site was re-configured to enable continuation of existing City Parks Services operations, in addition to creating space for resource recovery.

18. City Parks Services undertook the collection of inorganic material during the trial period, with community providers (Waiheke Resources Trust and Global Action Plan Oceania supported by the Community Recycling Network) facilitating the resource recovery part of the operation. This partnership created the Island Waste Collective who were in charge of sorting the collected inorganic items.

19. The outcomes of the trial helped:

· to better understand the flow of materials and what is possible to reuse, repurpose and recycle on island in order to develop a practical inorganic collection service for Waiheke

· to better understand material flows and capacity requirements for a future community recycling centre

Overview of results

20. Table 1 below illustrates the amount of inorganic waste collected, and the total amount of inorganic waste diverted from landfill (over 200 tonnes).

Table 1. Tonnage chart – Waiheke Inorganics 2016 - 17

	Refuse (tonnes)	Reuse (tonnes)	Recycling (tonnes)	Total (tonnes)
Refuse direct to Waiheke Transfer Station	129.02
Tahi Road residual waste	11.49
Total refuse				140.51
Reuse and recycling (diversion)		2.44	57.26	59.7
Total inorganic waste (tonnes)				200.21

21. Figure 1 below illustrates the type of waste collected that was able to be reused or recovered. To ‘reuse’ an item is use in its original form instead of throwing them away.

Figure 1. Breakdown of items recovered during the Waiheke inorganics trial by category

22. A total of $3,000 was raised from the sale of donated goods, which went to the Island Waste Collective who were in charge of sorting the collected inorganic items and deciding what happens to them next. The steel was sent to Auckland scrap metal dealers by Waste Management New Zealand. Any whiteware and e-waste was recovered by Abilities in Auckland.

Learnings

23. One of the key observations from the trial is that the Tahi Road site is too small to enable efficient resource recovery activity. There is limited covered space enabling materials to be repaired, and stored. The site is also not conducive for public visits.

24. Other key issues noted during the trial are as follows:

· limited availability of staff who are experienced in resource recovery, and can undertake minor repairs of covered items

· capacity issues of community groups to receive reusable goods

· poor quality and low value of recovered goods

· more marketing is required to find alternative avenues for collected materials.

25. The trial results were presented to the local board at a workshop held on 27 July 2017 with Waste Solutions. The board advised that the next steps included progressing a procurement process in November 2017 for the resource recovery element of the service.

26. The cost of the Waiheke Island inorganic and resource recovery trial was funded by agreed regional budgets.

27. In 2019 both contracts for the waste collection services and the resource recovery service expire and it is proposed that a procurement process will commence to secure one contractor for both services to operate.

28. Improvements to the resource recovery facility will be implemented under the new contract, working towards the medium term goal of establishing a community recycling centre located on the existing Waiheke Refuse Transfer Station and Tahi Road sites from 2019. Waste Solutions is working directly with the local board and community partners to develop a waste and resource recovery solution for the island

29. Waste solutions will provide on waste and resource recovery updates to the board’s delegated local board member S Brown as required. An update workshop will be held with the whole board in April 2018.

Financial implications

30. The cost of the Waiheke Island inorganic and resource recovery trial and ongoing costs of the contract are funded by agreed regional budgets.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31. A workshop was held with the board on 27 July 2017 and the board provided their feedback on the trial. The board noted that Waiheke lacked the infrastructure to provide an upcycling centre in which materials can have value added, similar to the centres on mainland Auckland. Therefore, improvements to the resource recovery facility will be implemented during the next procurement, funded by agreed regional budgets, working towards the goal of establishing a community recycling centre located on the existing refuse transfer station and Tahi Road sites from 2019.

32. The board has consistently expressed interest in supporting community organisations and social enterprises to manage waste on Waiheke and will continue to work with Waste solutions to build the community capacity.

33. All 21 local boards have recently provided feedback on the direction of the draft waste plan and the Waiheke Local Board noted their input to the Waiheke section Hauraki Gulf Islands Waste Plan and also resolved that there was a need for the island to have a comprehensive community recycling centre developed (WHK/2017/197).

Māori impact statement

34. There has been no specific engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka on this trial, however Waste Solutions will explore future opportunities for their participation in future waste minimisation and resource recovery initiatives.

35. On a regional note there is a strong alignment between the approach of the draft waste plan and Te Ao Māori.

36. Relationships have been developed with mana whenua and mataawaka in implementing the first waste management and minimisation plan. With support from Auckland Council, Para Kore ki Tāmaki has worked alongside marae to identify the most effective way of diverting para (waste) from Papatūānuku.

37. Auckland Council is committed to ensuring Māori values and world views are also represented in the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste.

38. Specific actions proposed in the draft waste plan include:

· expanding Para Kore ki Tāmaki

· supporting established Para Kore marae to take a leadership role in waste minimisation initiatives within their rohe.

Implementation

39. The cost of the Waiheke inorganic and resource recovery trial was funded by agreed regional budgets.

40. At the July 2017 workshop, the board was informed of the next steps which included progressing the procurement process in November 2017 for the resource recovery element of the service. This service will commence in January 2018.

41. The contract to operate waste collections services, including disposal of green waste, on Waiheke is currently held by Waste Management. This contract is scheduled to expire in 2019.

42. In 2019 both contracts for the waste collection services and the inorganic recovery service expire and it is proposed that a procurement process to secure one contractor for both services to operate.

43. Improvements to the resource recovery facility will be implemented, working towards the medium term goal of establishing a community recycling centre located at the existing Waiheke Refuse Transfer Station and Tahi Road sites from 2019. Waste Solutions is working directly with the local board and community partners to develop a waste and resource recovery solution for the island

44. Update meetings on the inorganic collections and resource recovery matters will continue with Member S Brown as required. An update workshop will be held with the full board in April 2018.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

George Fietje - Resource Recovery Manager

David Curgenven - Snr Waste Specialist (Streetscapes)

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

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

File No.: CP2017/19537

Purpose

1. To update the Waiheke 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

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) note 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 31 October 2017. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

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 Waiheke Local Board Area

9. Panuku currently manages 9 commercial properties within the Waiheke Local Board area.

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 is one managed business interest in the Waiheke Local Board area – the Hoporata Quarry in Ostend.

12. Hoporata Quarry has been in operation on this site since the 1950s. Origin Quarries Limited is the operator, paying a royalty to the Council based on sales on a monthly basis.

13. The quarry operator has requested an extension to the operating agreement which expires in 2020 to reflect the term of the resource consent which expires 2032. Panuku are considering its options in relation to this extension.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. Target for July 2016 to June 2017:

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Properties currently under review in the Waiheke Local Board area are listed below. This list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale, or development and sale by the governing body.

Property

Details

6 Belgium Street, Waiheke

A commercial site acquired by the former Auckland City Council to locate a service centre which was to also include a library. However the library was located elsewhere. Council’s community & social policy department requested 6 Belgium Street, Waiheke progress through the rationalisation process to enable full review of future use options.

6 Belgium Street, Waiheke is subject to section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, which provides that in certain circumstances the Waitangi Tribunal may return the land to claimants, irrespective of the current ownership.

A land covenant protects the right of Chorus New Zealand Ltd to operate a telecommunications network on the adjoining land and puts limitations on the use of 6 Belgium Street, Waiheke.

The Waiheke Local Board does not support disposal and requested that the site be retained for housing purposes or for a community swimming pool.

Council currently does not have a policy to provide council owned land at low or no cost for housing purposes. Following Panuku’s advice, the board commissioned a business case to inform a sustainable social housing development that would use the site.

Council’s recreation services department have submitted an expression of interest requesting additional time to undertake an assessment of the subject site for a proposed swimming pool.

7 Waitai Road, Waiheke

A commercial site acquired by the former Waiheke Road District in 1958 for the purpose of a works depot. Council’s community & social policy department requested 7 Waitai Road, Waiheke progress through the rationalisation process to enable full review of future use options.

The board does not support disposal and requested that the site be retained for housing purposes or for a community swimming pool.

Council’s recreation services department have submitted an expression of interest requesting additional time to undertake an assessment of the subject site for a proposed swimming pool.

Acquisitions and Disposals

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. No property was purchased in the Waiheke Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

27. 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.

28. No properties were sold in the Waiheke Local Board 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 2017, 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 Waiheke Local Board’s information.

46. This report was workshopped with the Waiheke Local Board on 30 November 2017.

47. 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

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

49. 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.

50. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 8 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the Waiheke Local Board area.

51. Māori make up 11 percent of the Waiheke Local Board population, and there is one marae located within the local board area.

52. 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.

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

Implementation

54. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Toni Giacon - Manager Stakeholder Engagement

Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Land owner approval for Awaawaroa wetland planting project

File No.: CP2017/26336

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Waiheke Local Board on the land owner application for wetland planting at the Awaawaroa Wetland at 176 Awaawaroa Road, Waiheke Island.

Executive summary

2. The applicants, Conservation Volunteers New Zealand and Friends of Awaawaroa Wetland, are proposing to undertake wetland restoration of the Awaawaroa Wetland.

3. The proposed works include the planting of the wetland and margins to provide an enhanced habitat for native fish species and to assist with sediment control. The applicant also proposes to fence the boundary between 176 and 178 Awaawaroa Road and install “no take” fishing signs along the reserve road boundary.

4. Council’s parks and places specialist and senior biodiversity advisor have been consulted on the proposal and are supportive. All plantings are native species and will enhance the native species already in the area.

5. The works will not impact the reserve nor impact users as access is still provided for.

6. Staff recommend that the proposal be supported as it will enhance the ecological and aesthetic values of the wetland.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve the granting of the land owner approval application to Conservation Volunteers New Zealand and Friends of Awaawaroa Wetland to undertake wetland restoration, signage and boundary fencing of Awaawaroa wetland (Lot 5 DP 165463, Lot 6 DP 165463, Lot 7 DP 165463, Lot 8 DP 165463).

Comments

7. The applicants, Conservation Volunteers New Zealand and Friends of Awaawaroa Stream, have formed a partnership to restore the Awaawaroa wetland and spawning site of the threatened native fish, the Giant Kokopu.

8. The applicant proposes to plant the wetland and margins to provide an enhanced habitat for native fish species and to assist with sediment control. The applicant also proposes to fence the boundary between 178 and 176 Awaawaroa Road and install “no take” fishing signs along the reserve road boundary. The fencing will demarcate the boundary of the reserve which at present is unfenced. This will also provide protecting of planting and prevent stock grazing the reserve.

9. The works are pending the funding agreement with Auckland Council being accepted. This has been submitted to Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund 2017-2018. If approved, the works will commence February 2018 with completion in September 2018.

10. Council’s parks and places specialist and senior biodiversity advisor have been consulted on the proposal and are supportive. All plantings are native species and will enhance the native species already in the area. The planting plans are attached to this report as Attachment A along with planting lists. Recommendations from council have also been forwarded to the group regarding the fencing options along the boundary of 176 and 178 Awaawaroa Road.

11. Staff recommend that the proposal be supported as it will not negatively impact wetland users as access is still provided for and will enhance the ecological and aesthetic values of the wetland.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. Waiheke Local Board Plan outcome 3, “Waiheke’s environment is treasured” is met through this application as the proposed works will further enhance the Awaawaroa wetland through ecological restoration.

Māori impact statement

13. Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 requires iwi consultation in regard to reserve land and reads, “This Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” Auckland Council is required to fulfil the obligations of Section 4 on behalf of the Crown as treaty partner when dealing with council owned or council administered reserves.

14. If the Waiheke Local Board approves the proposal, Auckland Council will facilitate consultation with all iwi that have registered interest in Waiheke Local Board area.

15. The applicant has not engaged with iwi for this proposal at this time.

Implementation

16. If approved by the local board, Auckland Council staff will facilitate iwi consultation.

17. Following iwi consultation, staff will issue a land owner approval letter to the applicant with relevant conditions, allowing the works to be completed within the next planting season, subject to approval of funding, as mentioned above.

18. If the application is declined, the applicant will be made aware of the decision and no planting will occur.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Awaawaroa plantings_overview map_PlantList_A4P	39
b ⇩	Planting Plan AWAAWAROA WETLAND - funding application	41
c ⇩	Sign quote and details	43

Signatories

Author

Cherie Veza - Stakeholder Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Waitangi Day funding

File No.: CP2017/26211

Purpose

1. Consider a grant to the Piritahi Marae from the 2017/2018 “Local Māori Responsiveness” locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget to support the Waitangi Day celebration on 6 February 2018.

Executive summary

2. The board have $15,000 budget available within their 2017/2018 Local Board Agreement to support key aspirations and priorities for Māori in the area.

3. Piritahi Marae will be hosting a Waitangi Day celebration on 6 February 2018. It is a free community event that will provide opportunities to learn more about Māori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi.

4. The board’s empowered communities broker has been liaising with the marae and the board on possible partnership opportunities and this event has been proposed.

5. It is recommended the board approve a grant for the Waitangi day celebration with the objective of supporting Māori aspirations and initiatives on Waiheke.

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve a grant of to Piritahi Marae from the 2017/2018 “Local Māori Responsiveness” locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget to support the Waitangi Day celebration on 6 February 2018.

Comments

6. The board have $15,000 budget within their 2017/2018 Local Board Agreement to work with mana whenua and mataawaka to support Māori aspirations and priorities, and build strong relationships with Māori in the local area.

7. Piritahi Marae will be hosting a Waitangi Day celebration on 6 February 2018. The event celebrates the Treaty of Waitangi and is free for the community. The day will provide educational opportunities for those in the Waiheke community to learn more about Māori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi.

8. The event will be a family orientated day with focus on manaakitanga of our elderly and families in our community.

9. The event will have free entry with the following activities free of charge for attendees:

· Learning flax weaving

· Carving demonstration

· Ta Moko demonstration

· Kapa Haka performances

· Music band performance

· Educational talks on the Treaty of Waitangi

· Horse rides for the children

· Waka ama rides for the whole family

· Full welcome on to the Marae with powhiri experience and morning tea.

10. A hangi lunch will be provided with a low fee charged to cover food costs.

11. All staff on site will be working on a volunteer basis except for the musicians. Previous years have seen 1500 people attend during the day with people of all ages and ethnic backgrounds attending and participating.

12. Following engagement between the empowered communities broker and Piritahi Marae, it has been suggested that the board consider supporting the Waitangi Day festival.

13. Costs for the events are as follows:

Rubbish sorting/removal $400 (minimal waste approach via sorting stations)

Gas, Power $150

Cleaning $100

Koha to MC $100

Advertising $1000

Musicians $400

Hireage $1750 Sound system, pavilions, kitchen equipment, etc.

Administration $200

Kitchen consumables $600 (Non-edible e.g. paper plates)

Timber for hangi $300

Total $5000

14. Note that further Māori Responsiveness proposals are being worked on, however due to timeframes it is necessary to consider Waitangi Day event funding at this board meeting.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. The Waiheke Local Board values Te Ao Māori world view, the essence of which is about relationships. As outlined within the local board plan, the board seeks to support Māori organisations and initiatives that celebrate and sustain Māori cultural identity, knowledge and practice.

16. The board have $15,000 budget within their 2017/2018 Local Board Agreement to support Māori aspirations and priorities. The empowered communities broker is liaising with Piritahi Marae to discuss possible partnership opportunities.

17. The board provided funding of $3,000 to the Piritahi Marae for the 2017 Waitangi Day Event.

Māori impact statement

18. The event celebrates the Treaty of Waitangi and will provide educational opportunities for those in the Waiheke community to learn more about Māori culture and the Treaty of Waitangi.

Implementation

19. Officers will liaise with Piritahi Marae representatives following consideration of this report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke
Authoriser	Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Market Research on the Demand for Resthome Level Care Facilities on Waiheke Island

File No.: CP2017/26210

Purpose

1. To receive the final report from the Waiheke Housing Steering Group on the Demand for Rest home level care facilities on Waiheke Island.

Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 27 July, 2017, the Waiheke Local Board approved the following resolution:

Market research – Rest home level care facilities on Waiheke Island

Resolution number WHK/2017/115

MOVED by Chairperson P Walden, seconded by Member J Meeuwsen:

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) approve a grant of $10,500 from the LDI: Opex FY18 ACE: Community

Empowerment Housing budget for Community Network Waiheke to undertake a

market research study on the need for rest home level care facilities on

Waiheke.

CARRIED

3. The research commenced in August and was completed in November, 2017.

4. The research concluded that there is a high level of demand on Waiheke, in actual numbers, for both rest home and semi-independent living facilities.

5. The report will be used in evidencing the demand on the island for rest-home level care when progressing discussions with providers who may be considering establishing rest home level services on Waiheke.

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

a) note the Report on Demand for Rest Home Level Care Facilities on Waiheke Island.

b) approve the sum of $1,575 to cover additional costs to the previously approved funding.

c) thank the Housing Steering Group and researchers Pam Oliver and Sue Watson for their work on the report.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

6. The Housing Steering Group, which undertook the research, under the umbrella of Community Network Waiheke, presented the final report to the Board on 16 November, 2017.

7. The Waiheke Local Board Plan includes an action to support the development of on-island aged care and respite options for Waiheke residents. This proposal has assisted the board to progress this action.

Māori Impact Statement

8. The survey was promoted via the Piritahi Marae networks and Piritahi Hau Ora to encourage participation by Maori. Demographic questions asked people for information on cultural background in line with the categories used for the New Zealand Census. This analysis assessed how many people who identify as Maori, including tribal affiliation, are seeking supported living on Waiheke Island for themselves or for members of their families. The researchers recommend that the Board share the survey findings with Piritahi Marae Trust and Piritahi Hau Ora directly.

Implementation

9. The report will be used in evidencing the demand on the island for rest-home level care when progressing discussions with providers who may be considering establishing resthome level services on Waiheke. The research will increase the likelihood that a city-based operator may be encouraged to develop services on Waiheke for aged-care.

10. The Housing Steering Group requested the sum of $12,310 + GST for the survey and the board approved $10,500 for the survey, as per the resolution indicated in paragraph 2 of this report. Since the Housing Steering Group is not legally constituted, the Board decided the funds would be paid through Community Network Waiheke (CNW), formerly known as the Waiheke Island Council of Social Services (WICOSS).

11. The Community Empowerment Unit prepared a funding agreement for the project for $10,500. The researcher has since advised the quote to the Housing Steering Group was excluding GST. Consequently it is recommended that a further sum of $1575 be approved from the Locally Driven Initiatives: Opex FY18 ACE: Community Empowerment Housing budget for this project. This budget has the necessary funds available.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Report on Demand for Resthome Level Care Facilities on Waiheke Island	51

Signatories

Author	Mark Inglis - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Janine Geddes – Acting Relationship Manager Great Barrier & Waiheke

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Revising the local board Standing Orders

File No.: CP2017/25148

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Waiheke 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.^{^[1]} 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	83
b ⇩	Governing Body Political working party’s finding	143

Signatories

Author	Blair Doherty - Kaipatiki Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Decision-making allocation update

File No.: CP2017/25798

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of proposed amendments

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

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

18. Under the current allocation the Governing Body makes the final decision on disposal and acquisition of all property assets, including local service properties that may be optimised. Through the Governance Framework Review process the Governing Body agreed that these local service property optimisation decisions should be made by local boards.^{^[2]} This amendment to the allocation implements this decision. This issue was canvassed with local boards during consultation on the Governance Framework Review and they were supportive of local boards holding this decision-making.

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

20. Other minor changes to wording include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

· workshops with each local board during the independent review phase

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

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

Māori impact statement

25. There are no particular impacts to 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	157

Signatories

Author	James Liddell - Portfolio Manager
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Ten Year budget 2018-2028 Consultation

File No.: CP2017/25859

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

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

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

· areas of focus for 2018/2019

· the key advocacy project.

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

Recommendations

That the Waiheke Local Board:

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

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

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

i) Local Board Members and Chair,

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

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

c) note and adopt Attachment A local content for consultation and Attachment B local supporting information for consultation (as tabled), including the key advocacy project.

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· four regional stakeholder events (traditional hearing style);

· an independently commissioned quantitative survey;

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

· hui with mana whenua and mataawaka.

and

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

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

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

13. Local boards are requested to agree their key priorities and key advocacy project for 2018/2019 and adopt their local content and supporting information for consultation. Waiheke Local Board will be confirming content at a board workshop on 7 December and they will be tabled under this report as Attachments A and B.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

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

20. 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

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

22. 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 the meeting)	175
b ⇩	Local supporting information for consultation (to be tabled at the meeting)	177

Signatories

Author	Christie McFayden - Graduate Advisor
Authoriser	Carol McKenzie-Rex - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

Waiheke Local Board

14 December 2017

Local board feedback on rates remission and postponement policy review

File No.: CP2017/25854

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:

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

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

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

Alternative options

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

· Option 2: keeping the current remissions schemes is inequitable

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

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

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

Recommendation

That the Waiheke 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:

· six 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.

· eleven 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:

· Option 1: integrate with grants schemes with three-year transition for current recipients

· Option 2: retain the status quo

· Option 3: extend to entire region

· Option 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 council’s accounts

· do not increase the rates requirement and hence do not impact the headline rates increase^{^[3]} (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 are 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 per cent) 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.

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of Auckland Council Rates remission and postponement policy scheme	187
b ⇩	Rates remission and postponement policy	193
c ⇩	Value of legacy schemes by local board area Remissions for communitysporting are split by regional and local	211
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 - Acting General Manager Local Board Services

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

[3] 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	Paul Walden
Deputy Chairperson	Cath Handley
Members	Shirin Brown
	John Meeuwsen
	Bob Upchurch