Agenda of Albert-Eden Local Board

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

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 Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) confirm the minutes of its ordinary meeting, held on Wednesday, 28 March 2018, 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 Albert-Eden 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.

Albert-Eden Local Board

18 April 2018

Auckland Transport Monthly Report, Albert-Eden Local Board, April 2018

File No.: CP2018/05365

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report:

a) Discusses Auckland Transport’s (AT) recommendations to the Board on the proposed transport capital fund projects

b) Supplies brief updates to the Board on the status of its other transport capital fund projects and brief updates on other AT projects of interest to the Board

c) Provides general information on AT’s activities in the Board area, including decisions of the traffic control committee and transport items out for public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In particular, this report:

a) Discusses AT’s recommendations to the Board on three transport capital fund projects

b) Responds to the Board’s March 2018 resolutions: a request for a briefing on the Mt Eden Bus Priority project; information on how to sign up for the Pt Chevalier to Westmere newsletter and the Board request in regard to improvements on Sutherland Road

c) Provides a progress update to the Albert-Eden Local Board on its current transport capital fund projects, namely the:

· Mt Albert Bike-Slide

· Proposed Walford Street cycle improvements

· Proposed Sutherland Road cycle improvements.

d) Indicates how much transport capital fund budget the Board has remaining in this political term

e) Notes consultation information sent to the Board and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee as they affect the Albert-Eden Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Receives the report.

Horopaki / Context

3. The Board has available a fund to construct transport-related capital works in its area. The balance of this fund is reported in the financial section of this report.

4. In 2017, the Board committed funding to two major projects, the Carrington area traffic calming project and a shared path through Chamberlain Park (Meola Creek section). Progress on these projects, and others, is reported below.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund Update

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

Project	Description	Status	Funds Allocated
Owairaka Park Pedestrian Bridge	Pedestrian bridge	In Construction	$138,000
Carrington Area Traffic Calming	Investigation of traffic calming devices in this general area	Detailed designs were presented to the Board in late 2017. These designs are now out for public consultation, closing 13 April 2018.	$450,000
Chamberlain Park Greenway and Bridge	Construction of shared path and bridge	The estimate of works assumes a path on the western side of the creek. The shared path will link Rawalpindi Reserve, through the proposed local park, to the North Western Cycleway. This project is being managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities.	$700,000
Greenlane Station Beacon and wayfinding signage	Provide options for signage and other wayfinding improvements to Greenlane Station and its environs. A site visit to the station to discuss other improvements took place in early April.	Board approved a 5 metre beacon to be investigated for installation at the station entrance.	$35,000
Ngauruhoe Street	Provide options for the Board to consider for replacement of the berm at the corner of Ngauruhoe Street and Mt Eden Road	Board approved the construction of a raised garden (subject to final signoff).	$10,000
McGehan Close	Provide advice on whether it’s feasible to remove the indented parking bay at McGehan Close, in front of Delphine Reserve	This proposal will now be discussed with residents during a park event at Delphine Reserve.
Sutherland Road	Improvement options to Sutherland Road that will create an enhanced cycling link to the NW cycle path	This is discussed below.
Walford Road	To provide improvements to Walford Street to complement the proposed new cycling and walking facilities on Meola Road	This is discussed below.
Mt Albert Train Station bike-slide	Provision of a suitable bike- slide on the New North Road pedestrian access to the Mt Albert train station	This is discussed below.

New project initiation and approvals

6. At its November 2017 meeting, the Board asked AT to provide rough order of costs and recommendations for six further projects, using the Board’s transport capital fund.

7. One of these, improvements around Greenlane Station, was reported to the February 2018 meeting. At that meeting the Board resolved to support the installation of a 5 metre beacon outside the Greenlane Railway Station to improve the visibility of the station entrance.

8. A site visit to the station took place in early April and staff and board members discussed how the area around the station could be improved. Possible improvements will be discussed at the April Board workshop.

9. A berm enhancement consisting of a raised garden for Ngauruhoe Street was approved by the Board at the March 2018 meeting.

10. Also at the March 2018 meeting, the Board requested staff to hold a parks event at McGehan Close to help to gauge support for the kerb build-out project before further work is done.

11. Three other projects Mt Albert Train Station bike-slide and cycling improvements to Walford and Sutherland Roads were discussed at the March workshop. Details of the projects and AT’s recommendations are discussed below.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Mt Albert Station Bike-Slide

12. The Board requested a rough order of costs (ROC) to add a bike-slide (runnel) to the stairs connecting the parking lot on New North Road to the station. This was suggested as a means to assist in cyclists to access the station without having to use the Carrington Road over-bridge entrance.

13. Auckland Transport currently does not have a standard for retrofitting bike-slides or runnels onto existing stairways. Factors that need to be considered in installing a slide to the existing stairs would include:

· Potential usage

· Are there any others options for flat entry available for bikes

· Safety of other users of the stairs, particularly people with disabilities

· Available width of the stairwell

· Lighting of the stairwell

· The material the stairs are constructed of.

14. In this case, the existing entrance off Carrington Road provides a flat, safe entrance into the station for bikes, wheelchairs and prams. People can then use the lift down to the main station platform.

15. This suggests that at least half of potential bike users, coming from the northerly direction, would use that existing entrance, and other less able users coming from the south may also choose to travel the extra 40 metres to use that flat entrance as well.

16. Enquiries on what approvals might be needed to install such a slide revealed that this is covered by the Building Code and would probably be subject to a Building Consent.

17. A recent example in Soljak Place was subject to consent and part of the consent application required a lighting assessment to ensure “contrast” lighting was sufficient so that partially sighted users would see the slide.

18. As the width of these stairs will allow this, it is expected that an additional handrail would be constructed to separate the slide from general users, particularly those with disabilities, adding to the cost.

19. For these reasons, the installation of the slide in Mt Albert is likely to cost between $15,000 to $20,000, with much of the cost associated with lighting assessments, building consent preparation costs, peer review and building consent application costs.

20. The ROC for this project to move to investigation, design, internal consultation, consenting and construction is therefore $20,000. As the costs are high and the benefits of the slide hard to quantify, AT does not recommend that the Board proceeds with this project.

21. At its workshop in March 2018, the Board agreed with AT’s recommendation not to proceed. It commented that a ramp is likely be installed in the future when the parking area is redeveloped, making the bike-slide redundant.

Walford Road Cycle Improvements

22. The Board requested AT to provide a rough order of costs for options to provide a safe cycling route on Walford Road to provide a connection to Pt Chevalier School from the proposed cycleway on Meola Road.

23. Walford Rd is one of two potential routes that could provide a connection between the proposed Pt Chevalier / Meola Rd cycleway and Pt Chevalier School. The other connection being on Pt Chevalier Road itself.

24. Traffic counts for the roads are indicated below:

Walford Road

· Traffic counts Aug 2016: 3600 vehicle movements / day

· 85% percentile speed 42 km/hr.

Pt Chevalier

· Traffic Counts Sep 2016: 6600 vehicle movements/day,

· 85% percentile speed 53 km/h.

25. The vehicle speeds and volumes indicate that the current road environment on both streets is not suitable for less confident riders and in particular school children.

26. AT discussed three potential options to make the cycling connection with some high level considerations. It included Pt Chevalier Road at the Board’s request.

· Walford Road – Greenway / Local Path approach. This would involve reducing traffic volumes and speeds down to levels where it would be appropriate for people on bikes to share the road with motorised traffic

· Walford Road – Bi-directional separated path. This would involve creating a bi-directional path physically separated from motorised traffic with appropriate crossing facilities across side streets

· Pt Chevalier Road Cycleway – This would involve connecting into the proposed Pt Chevalier Road / Meola Road cycleway and providing a similar design.

27. At the workshop, the Board expressed a preference for the cycle design to continue along Pt Chevalier Road as the first priority as this would service the wider community. Costs for this option are unknown, as the Pt Chevalier to Herne Bay project is undergoing a redesign process.

28. AT’s recommendation is that the Board consider this project again once the design for the Pt Chevalier to Herne Bay route is more clearly understood. The option to continue the design along Pt Chevalier Rd to Te Ra Road could then be considered in light of possible costs. If the cost of continuing this treatment falls outside of the Board’s budget, the Board could then relook at the Walford Street options.

Sutherland Road, Pt Chevalier

29. As part of the Transport Capital Fund discussions, the Board asked AT to provide options to improve the cycling experience on Sutherland Road, especially for novice cyclists and children. This was reported to the March 2018 workshop.

30. Sutherland Road is a local road with low traffic volumes and it provides an on-road link to the north western cycleway. It is a road with no vehicle exit and it leads to the cycleway around Chamberlain Park. The surface of the road is small-grade chip seal. There is footpath on both sides of the road, with grass berm and trees.

31. AT’s Road Corridor Delivery team has commented that the road pavement structure on Sutherland Street is not strong enough to make either an asphalt or coloured surface treatment durable. Flexing in the road pavement with the movement of heavy vehicles is likely to make any coloured surfacing or asphalt to crack.

32. Safety improvements to the street suggested at the workshop for consideration to enhance the cycling experience for less confident cyclists were:

· An off road pathway in the southern berm - this option may cause the loss of some smaller trees and the re-location of powerpoles may be required

· Two way on-road path on one side of road, this could be asphalt or coloured provided it was separated from traffic, - this would involve parking loss

· Improvements made to the intersection with Parr Road (narrowing down), and the intersection with Carrington Road to strengthen the low speed environment.

33. At the workshop, the Board expressed the view that AT should renew the surface of the road to make it safer and smoother for cyclists, rather than for the Board to use its fund to resurface the road.

34. AT responded that as the current road pavement is not suitable for asphalt, the road would require rehabilitation to enable this outcome. This is a major project which is not on current work programmes and would cause severe disruption to the North Western cycleway.

35. At its March 2018 business meeting, the Board requested AT to investigate options to bring the Sutherland Road corridor up to an appropriate standard as the missing link in the North Western Cycleway and requested that improvements be funded from the Regional Land Transport budget.

36. Looking to the future, AT advises that its Walking and Cycling programme business case recommends investment in the central isthmus area in the coming five years, budget permitting. These budgets will be confirmed by the Regional Land Transport Plan by the end of June.

37. The Walking and Cycling team would like to work with the Board to identify the Board’s priorities for investment. This includes paths that require upgrading, the strategic connections that need to be made in order to make cycling and walking an attractive way to travel to work, to school, to local centres and to public transport.

38. A session is scheduled into the Board’s workshop programme for June 2018 and this will provide an opportunity to discuss where improvements to Sutherland Road fit into the Board’s priorities for cycling investment.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

Mt Eden Bus Priority and Parking Proposals

39. AT will report back to the Board at its April workshop on the results of the recent consultation.

Pt Chevalier to Westmere Cycle Project Newsletter

40. At its March meeting, the Board requested copies of the newsletter be sent to members. Details of how to register for the newsletter were emailed to Board members.

Traffic Control Committee report

41. Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Albert-Eden Local Board area in April 2018.

Street/Area	Description	Work	Decision
Eden Park Environs	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes	Temporary Traffic and Parking restrictions	Carried

Consultation Items

42. Auckland Transport provides the Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in its local board area.

43. In this reporting period, two public consultations are noted. The first is the Board’s own proposal and the second is required as part of a private development.

Location

Proposal

Mt Albert Traffic Calming Project

At the request of the Albert-Eden Local Board, Auckland Transport is proposing a range of new traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossing facilities in Mount Albert, between Carrington Road and St Lukes Road. These changes include new pedestrian crossing points, “Slow” road markings, signage, speed humps and a roundabout.

There are five clusters of streets to give feedback on:

Cluster 1: Carrington Road, Segar Avenue, Tasman Avenue, Fontenoy St and Fifth Avenue

Cluster 2: Seaview Terrace, Thomas Avenue, Grant Street and Braemar Terrace

Cluster 3: Parkdale Road, Guardwell Terrace, Fifth Avenue, Leone Terrace, Linwood Avenue and Monaghan Avenue

Cluster 4: Segar Avenue, Norgrove Avenue, Rawalpindi Street, Fontenoy Street and Parkdale Road

Cluster 5: Linwood Avenue, St Lukes Road and Challinor Corner

To find out more information about each cluster, look at drawings and provide feedback, please go to: https://at.govt.nz/about-us/have-your-say/central-auckland-consultations/mount-albert-traffic-calming-improvements/

Ranfurly Road

The Elizabeth Knox Retirement home in Epsom is being upgraded. As part of this upgrade a new P10 parking is proposed on Ranfurly Rd.

It is proposed to install two new P10 parking spaces on the southern side of Ranfurly Road. It is also proposed to remove two existing vehicle crossings. Consequently there will be an increase in the amount of on-street parking available and no net loss in the amount of unrestricted parking available. These changes are required in order to ensure the traffic circulation within the site operates correctly.

Feedback required by 18 April.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

45. The Albert-Eden Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects 2016-2019 in its Board area of just under three million dollars.

46. The Board’s only budget implications relate to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. The current financial status of the Board’s transport capital fund is recorded below.

47. The Board still has a substantial amount of funds to allocate to projects in this political term. Should the remaining projects under consideration either not achieve resolution or be low cost items, the Board may like to consider other projects to support.

Financial Summary

Albert -Eden Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$2,944,920
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,923,710
Remaining Budget left	$1,021,210

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48. Any risks are covered in the Analysis and Advice section of this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

49. The next steps is for the Board to consider which project(s) it wishes to support by resolution.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Lorna Stewart – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

18 April 2018

Local Transport Capital Fund: options for distribution and size of the fund

File No.: CP2018/04867

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal feedback from the local board on options for the future size and underlying distribution methodology of the local transport capital fund (LTCF) and on the proposal to increase advisory support for the fund from Auckland Transport staff.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In September 2017, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an increase to the local transport capital fund as an outcome of the governance framework review. Staff were directed to undertake further work with Auckland Transport and local boards on the size of the increase, and the distribution methodology.

3. The LTCF was established in 2012 and currently sits at $10.8 million. It is allocated on a pure population basis. Two options for the size of funding increase have been modelled, an increase of $6 million and an increase of $10 million.

4. Staff have also modelled three different distribution options: the current population model, a model applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, and a model that includes a mix of a fixed level of funding per board, along with a variable rate determined by the Local Boards Funding Policy.

5. Each of the options has been assessed against a set of criteria. The pure population model is not supported by staff, while each of the other two models has merits. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy be applied to the distribution of the LTCF, with an additional amount of $10 million being added to the fund. Feedback is sought from local boards on their preferences.

6. It is also recommended that Auckland Transport have funding allocated to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing local transport projects.

7. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board endorse:

a) an increase to the local transport capital fund of $10 million per annum (inflation adjusted) from 1 July 2018

b) the distribution of the entire local transport capital fund to be made according to Auckland Council’s Local Boards Funding Policy from 1 July 2018

c) Auckland Transport receiving additional funding to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing projects for the local transport capital fund.

Horopaki / Context

8. The local transport capital fund (LTCF) was established by resolution of the Strategy and Finance Committee [SF/2012/40] in April 2012, in order to provide local boards with access to funding for local transport projects that had strong local significance, but which were unlikely to be prioritised through the regional transport planning process.

9. The establishment of the fund is consistent with the government’s original policy intent that local boards would have a role in funding local transport projects out of a dedicated local budget [CAB Minute (09) 30/10] and that “local boards will have an advisory role with respect to transport services and a budget for the transport elements of ‘place shaping’ ”.

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

· provide local boards with more direct ability to influence local transport projects.

11. Projects must be deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and not compromise the network. Auckland Transport retains the responsibility for delivering projects delivered through this funding and the budget remains with Auckland Transport. Depreciation and consequential operating expenditure are also the responsibility of Auckland Transport, as is the core administration of the fund.

12. The fund was initially set at $10 million per annum (since adjusted for inflation, and now sitting at $10.8 million) and is currently split between the local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier Island local boards, which receive two per cent and one per cent of the fund respectively. The population figures that the distribution is based on have remained at 2012 levels.

13. At the Governing Body meeting of 28 September 2017, at which the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review Political Working Party were considered, it was agreed [GB/2017/117] that officers would report back to the governing body through the 10-year budget process on options for significantly increasing the LTCF, as well as providing an assessment of options for allocating the additional funding.

14. This report provides options for the quantum of the proposed increase, the method of allocating the proposed increase among the twenty one local boards and issues relating to the administration of the fund. Workshops have been held with each local board to discuss these proposals and now formal feedback is sought through business meetings. Final recommendations will be made to the Governing Body in May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. Issues with the local transport capital fund identified through the governance framework review were grouped under three key themes:

· the overall size, or quantum, of the local transport capital fund

· the methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards

· the administration and support provided by Auckland Transport to local boards in relation to developing options and projects for consideration.

Quantum of funding

16. When the LTCF was initially established at $10 million, the figure was not based on any specific assessment of need, but more on the recognition that smaller, local projects that had a strong place shaping component were unlikely to be funded according to Auckland Transport and NZTA’s prioritisation formulas.

17. While the fund took some time to get established, it is now delivering valuable transport related outcomes for communities across Auckland. The LTCF spend forecast in 2016-17 financial year was $17 million, as boards have been able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant projects. It has delivered 286 projects over the five year period.

18. The LTCF contribution to these many local projects has also been complemented through the input of additional funds from Auckland Transport (as well as NZTA subsidy) with the value of the work they have delivered to their communities being substantially leveraged through this additional funding.

19. Staff have modelled the impact of the proposed increase on individual local boards according to a range of distribution models. In doing so, two different levels of increase have been used – the $10 million figure, initially proposed by Auckland Transport, and a lower figure of $6 million.

20. Neither figure is based on specific needs assessment, but Auckland Transport is of the view that a baseline of approximately six hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year is desirable to give individual boards the resources to support significant local projects. This would require an increase of at least $6 million per annum.

21. Boards that have had access to higher levels of funding have generally found it easier to leverage that to attract NZTA subsidies and additional Auckland Transport funding, for example for projects that are being brought forward as a result of LTCF investment. Successful examples include the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal, the Mt Albert Station Bridge and the Māngere Future Streets project.

Distribution methodology

22. This section provides modelling of three distribution options applied to two levels of overall increase (sub-option A being an increase of $6 million, and sub-option B being an increase of $10 million). The options are:

· Option 1: status quo – simple population based distribution of both the existing fund and any additional funding

· Option 2: applying the current Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the fund

· Option 3: a model that provides for a fixed level of baseline funding for all boards, as well as a variable component based on the Local Boards Funding Policy.

Population based distribution

23. In 2012, the governing body elected to distribute the first iteration of the LTCF purely on a population basis, following consultation with local boards^{^[1]}^. The distribution has not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund was established.

24. We have modelled (Appendix A) the option of applying the population based distribution methodology, based on Statistics NZ 2017 population estimates. As you will see from the modelling, the impact on boards with higher populations is the most significant, in terms of an increase in funding, especially if the additional amount is $10 million.

25. Under this model, however, if the additional amount is $6 million, six boards would still fall short of the $650,000 baseline figure identified by Auckland Transport as being desirable to enable the delivery of viable local transport proposals.

Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the LTCF

26. Following the establishment of the LTCF, work was undertaken to develop the current Local Boards Funding Policy, as required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. This policy was adopted in 2014, and uses an allocation methodology incorporating three factors: population (90 per cent), deprivation (five per cent) and land area (five per cent). This funding policy is currently applied to locally driven initiatives funding, including the local capital fund, but was not retrospectively applied to the LTCF.

27. The development of the funding policy involved significant consultation and engagement with local boards prior to final adoption. There are no current plans to review the policy.

28. We have modelled (Appendix B) the option of applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the LTCF. The modelling has been applied to the existing fund and the additional amounts of $6 million and $10 million. The modelling is also based on 2017 population estimates.

Fixed and variable costs distribution

29. As previously noted, Auckland Transport has the view that in order to deliver transport infrastructure of any significance, a certain level of baseline funding is desirable – around $650,000 per annum, based on practical experience.

30. Many local boards have achieved significant results with their local transport projects, but transport infrastructure is inherently costly and costs tend not to vary according to location. For example, a footbridge and walking path in Pukekohe will tend to cost the same as a comparable one in Glenfield.

31. In considering the distribution methodology for the extended fund, Auckland Transport has put forward the following factors as being relevant:

· the cost of building transport infrastructure is not directly related to the size of the population it serves

· mature areas with high populations tend to already have higher quality and better developed transport infrastructure

· the existing Auckland Transport/NZTA criteria for regional transport spending tend to favour, as would be expected, areas of high density and growth

· the physical size of an area tends to have a correlation with the need for transport infrastructure e.g. the number of settlements, town centres.

32. A distribution model based on a split of fixed and variable costs has also been modelled as an option. The methodology involves fifty per cent of the entire quantum of funding being distributed by an even split (with the exception of Great Barrier and Waiheke Island Boards which receive 1/3 and 2/3 of a single share respectively), thus giving all other local boards the same level of core funding. The other fifty per cent of the funding would be distributed according to the Local Boards Funding Policy.

33. We have modelled (Appendix C) the option of applying this fixed/variable costs model to the distribution of the LTCF.

Assessing the options

34. Each of the three distribution models has elements to recommend it and others that detract from it. In assessing the models, staff applied the following assessment criteria:

· transparency and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders

· equity and fairness of outcomes across the region

· ensuring delivery of good local transport outcomes

· recognising the role of local boards as leaders of place shaping with their communities.

35. Staff assessment of the options against these criteria is set out below.

Options 1a and 1b – population based distribution

36. These options have been modelled on 2017 Statistics New Zealand population estimates.

37. A pure population based approach has the benefits of being objective, transparent and straightforward and means that funding received is proportionate to the number of ratepayers. It was, however, recognised at the time that this approach applied to areas of extremely low population (Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands) would result in those boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve anything practical, hence the application of the one and two per cent formula for the island boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Boards Funding Policy.

38. The limitations of this approach are that it does not address either the level of need in a given local board area, or the underlying cost drivers of transport infrastructure. Hence, large areas of low population density with significant roading networks and multiple population centres are funded at the same, or lower, level as smaller urban communities of interest with already well-developed transport infrastructure, but higher population density.

39. The distribution methodology is simple and transparent and easy for communities and stakeholders to understand. In terms of delivering equity and fairness, this model delivers the widest differential of funding levels across boards, with the highest funded board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded board (excluding the island boards).

40. Option 1a also results in six boards receiving less than Auckland Transport’s benchmark identified as desirable for supporting good local transport outcomes in communities. The model limits the potential for those boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers and to leverage additional investment into their projects. This model, and therefore Options 1a and 1b, is not supported by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

Options 2a and 2b – Local Boards Funding Policy based distribution

41. This distribution method involves application of the current Local Boards Funding Policy. The policy is currently applied to distribution of funding for local activities (including local capex) to local boards and is based on the following factors: ninety per cent population^{^[2]}, five percent deprivation^{^[3]}and five per cent land area^{^[4]}^.

42. Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy is a simple methodology that has a clear rationale, is easily described to the community and is consistent with council’s wider approach to funding local boards. It takes account of multiple factors, delivering a more equitable distribution of funding, especially to boards with lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.

43. Reviewing the projects that have been funded from the LTCF to date, it is clear that much of the local boards’ focus has been on “people centred” transport projects, for example pedestrian safety improvements, walkways and cycleways, footpaths and streetscape improvements. This is consistent with the principles underpinning the Local Boards Funding Policy i.e. that population is the key driver of need for the funding, but that geography and deprivation also need to be taken into account.

44. This distribution methodology evens out the increase in funding across the twenty one boards. The boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the pure population model, and all boards receive the proposed level of baseline funding, but only under the $10 million quantum increase.

45. Under this model, however, the level of funding that accrues to the more populous boards becomes very substantial in relationship to that for the smaller boards, due to the compounding impact of the distribution model. For example, the Howick Local Board would receive over $1.7 million and Henderson-Massey over $1.4 million. Despite these extremes, this option provides an arguably more equitable and nuanced distribution of funding, as well as being consistent with current funding policy.

46. Its variation between the lowest and highest level of funding is still high with the highest funded board receiving 2.57 times the amount of the lowest funded board. Under Option 2a, five boards still receive less than Auckland Transport’s desirable benchmark for delivering good local transport outcomes in communities and it limits the potential for those boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers.

47. This is the preferred option on the basis of consistency with the existing funding policy, assessment against the criteria and recognition of the population focus of projects delivered using this fund. The preferred option is for the $10 million quantum as better providing for good local transport outcomes and delivering local place shaping.

Options 3a and 3b – fixed and variable cost distribution

48. This model is more complex and less transparent to communities and stakeholders than the other models. The identification of the benchmark figure is based on Auckland Transport’s experience of administering the fund over the past five years and the learning that has been gained from this, rather than in-depth financial analysis of infrastructure costs.

49. The results of this distribution are similar to those of applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, in that a similar number of local boards benefit under each model. However, it is different local boards that benefit from each model. In terms of equity and fairness, this model reduces the difference between the highest funded and lowest funded boards and also brings all boards above the $650,000 benchmark, even under Option 3a ($6m increase).

50. The model reduces the impact of population on the distribution of funding, however, which is a core component of current funding policy and the focus of the projects delivered using the LTCF. The model performs well against the criteria of enabling the delivery of good local transport outcomes and supporting the role of local boards as place shapers.

Summary of assessment of options

51. Of the three distribution models assessed, the current model of pure population distribution performed the poorest and is not recommended by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

52. The other two models deliver mixed results against the criteria. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy distribution best meets the criteria and is consistent with current funding policy. The final recommendation to the governing body will also be informed by feedback from local boards through this process.

Administration of the LTCF

53. When the LTCF was established in 2012, it was recognised that there would be an impact on Auckland Transport as the fund administrator. While design costs are capitalised within the cost of a specific project, there are also additional costs in developing options, undertaking feasibility studies, assessing proposals and general administration.

54. It was noted at the time that if each local board proposed 3-4 projects a year that this could place a considerable burden on Auckland Transport and it was recommended that this be reviewed at the time the fund was reviewed. Given the proposed increase to the size of the fund, this issue needs to be revisited.

55. Auckland Transport’s advice on LTCF investment focusses on whether a project put forward by a local board is technically feasible, and whether it is realistic in light of the available funding from the LTCF. During the governance framework review some local board members raised concerns about the nature and quality of advice received from Auckland Transport in relation to LTCF proposals. Boards felt that advice was limited to assessing their proposal against criteria, rather than helping them identify and develop high quality proposals.

56. It is recommended that Auckland Transport be allocated additional opex funding in support of the LTCF to be used to develop a more systematic and responsive work programme with local boards around the application of the LTCF. This will include supporting boards to investigate and develop options for projects for consideration. A sum of $500,000 per annum is recommended to support this deliverable.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

57. Workshops have been held with every local board and a range of initial feedback has been received. Discussion on collective views has also taken place at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum. While some local boards have given early indication of their preferred options, others have reserved the right to engage in further consideration ahead of providing formal feedback.

58. There was general support for an increase to the fund and for additional funding to be provided to Auckland Transport to provide advice on projects and mixed views on options for allocating the fund. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently.

59. Growth was raised by some boards as a factor that should be considered. Staff’s view is that the population element of each of the models addresses this as current population is the only reliable indicator of growth. Population estimates are updated and will be applied to the fund annually.

60. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently. A recent presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum noted that it would be helpful for the Governing Body to have a clear preference signalled by the majority of local boards, in order to facilitate its decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

61. A move away from a pure population based distribution model would take into account other factors, being deprivation and land area. Both options 2 and 3 include a deprivation component, although this is greater in option 2. This would have some positive impact on local board areas where there is a higher Māori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

62. The source of the additional funding is not addressed in this report, as it is being considered through the overall budget setting process in the 10-year budget. Essentially, however, there are two options that the governing body will need to consider – that additional funding comes from rates and/or borrowing, or Auckland Transport reprioritises within its existing funding envelope.

63. The proposed size of the increase to the fund (both options) is not significant enough within the overall transport budget to be able to enable transparent trade-offs at a detailed level e.g. which specific transport projects might not be funded in the Regional Land Transport Plan in a given year if the LTCF is increased.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

64. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

65. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May. Any new funding and change to the distribution methodology will be applied from 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Population based distribution modelling	23
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	25
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	27

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

18 April 2018

Delegation for formal local board views on notified resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement

File No.: CP2018/04865

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Albert-Eden Local Board delegate the responsibility of providing formal views on resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement to a local board member.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Local board feedback can be provided on notified resource consents, plan changes and designations. Written feedback needs to be provided prior to the submission closing date (usually 20 working days after public notification). This feedback is included in the planner’s report verbatim and local boards are also able to speak to their written feedback at the public hearing. Views should be received by the processing planner or reporting consultant by submission closing date to ensure the content can be considered in planning reports.

3. This report explores options to enable local boards to provide their views in a timely way. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings. Because local board reporting timeframes don’t usually align with statutory timeframes, in most instances formal reporting at a business meeting will not allow local feedback to be provided by submission closing date.

4. Providing formal local board views by way of a delegation to a local board member is considered the most efficient way of providing formal local board views. This is because the delegate can provide views within the regulatory timeframes and because no additional reporting is required when new applications of interest are notified.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) delegate the authority to Local Board Member XXX, to prepare and submit local board views and speak those local board views at any hearings on:

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

Horopaki / ContextNotified Resource Consents

5. Local boards are able to provide input into the determination of applications that may be notified. Local boards, via their appointed Resource Consents Leads, input into a wide range of resource consents that are received by the council and that trigger the matters of particular interest to local boards.

6. Local views and preferences are also able to be provided, once a decision of notification is made, and local boards can then submit further feedback to any notified resource consent application within their local board area. This feedback is then included in the planner’s report verbatim for the hearing and for the consideration of the commissioners who determine the outcome of the resource consent application.

7. Local boards are also able to speak to their written feedback at any notified resource consent hearing. Local boards are taking this opportunity up more often and it is considered important to ensure any feedback is authorised by the local board and a delegation is in place for the Resource Consent Lead to authorise them to speak on behalf of the local board at hearings.

Notified Plan Changes and Notices of Requirement

8. The Auckland Unitary Plan was made “Operative in Part” in November 2016. As plan changes and notices of requirement can now be received and processed by council, there are opportunities for local boards to provide their views and give feedback on notified applications.

9. For council-initiated plan changes and notices of requirement, staff will seek local board views prior to notification for proposals where there are issues of local significance. For private plan changes and notices of requirement submitted by non-council requiring authorities, local boards may not have any prior knowledge of the application until notification.

10. Local boards can provide written feedback on notified applications. Written feedback needs to be provided prior to the submission closing date (usually 20 working days after public notification). Local boards can subsequently present their feedback to support their views at any hearing.

11. It is important that options are explored to enable local boards to provide their views in a timely way and a delegation to ensure timely feedback is desirable. At present the local board views must be confirmed formally and statutory timeframes are short and do not always align with local board reporting timeframes.

12. Local boards may want to add the responsibility for plan changes and notices of requirement feedback to the resource consent lead role. This will broaden the responsibilities of the role to enable feedback on notified plan changes and notices of requirement to be provided. Alternatively, local boards may want to develop a separate planning lead role and each local board has the flexibility to make appointments that best suit their needs.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and adviceOptions considered

13. Options available for local boards to provide their views into the hearings process have been summarised in Table 1.

14. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings (option 2). Because local board reporting timeframes do not usually align with statutory timeframes, in most instances formal reporting at a business meeting will not allow local feedback to be provided by submission closing date. Views must be received by the processing planner or reporting consultant by the submission closing date to ensure the content can be considered in planning reports.

15. Providing formal local board views by way of a delegation to one local board member (option 5) is considered the most efficient way of providing formal views. This is because no additional reporting is required when new applications of interest are notified.

Table 1: Options for local boards to provide their formal views on notified applications (resource consents, plan changes, notices of requirement)

Options	Pros	Cons
1. No formal local board views are provided	16.	· Local board views will not be considered by the hearings commissioners
2. Formal local board views are provided at a business meeting	· All local board members contribute to the local board view · Provides transparent decision making	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process
3. Formal local board views are provided as urgent decisions	· Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines	· Decisions are not made by the full local board · Urgent decisions may not be accompanied by full information and the discussion may be rushed · Not transparent decision-making because the decisions do not become public until after they have been made
4. Formal local board views are provided by separate and specific delegation for each application which the local board wishes to provide their views	· Delegations can be chosen to align with area of interest and/or local board member capacity	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines required to make each separate delegation are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process · Decisions are not made by the full local board
5. Formal local board views are provided by way of delegation to one local board member (preferred option) for all applications	· Delegate will become subject matter expert for local board on topic they are delegated to · Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines · Any feedback can be regularly reported back to the local board	· Decisions are not made by the full local board

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

17. This report seeks a delegation to a local board member for resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement, to allow local boards to provide feedback in accordance with agreed timeframes on notified resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement.

18. Any local board member who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

20. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that council consult with Mana Whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities, on draft plan changes prior to their notification. Council must also consider iwi authority advice in evaluations of plan changes.

21. For private plan changes, council seeks that the applicant undertakes suitable engagement with relevant iwi authorities, and where necessary will undertake consultation before deciding whether to accept, reject or adopt a private plan change.

22. For notices of requirement, council serves notice on Mana Whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities. Requiring authorities must also consult with the relevant iwi as part of the designating process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. If local boards choose not to delegate to provide views on notified applications, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views prior to the submission closing date and may miss the opportunity to have their feedback presented and heard at a hearing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. The appointed member of the Albert-Eden Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Albert-Eden Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Anna Bray – Policy & Planning Manager - Local Boards

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards