Agenda of Manurewa Local Board

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation - Te Whare Awhina O Tamworth, Clendon Park and Randwick Park Community Houses 2018/2019 Work Programme - Jaylene Ball 5

8.2 Deputation - Life Education Trust - Lincoln Jefferson 6

8.3 Deputation - Presentation on Touched Clendon by Melissa Atama and Moni Collins 6

8.4 Deputation - New Zealand American Football Federation 6

9 Public Forum 7

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Manurewa Youth Council Update 9

13 Manurewa Ward Councillors Update 27

14 Members' Update 29

15 Chairperson's Update 35

16 Auckland Transport Update to the Manurewa Local Board – April 2018 37

17 Nathan Homestead Identity Project 47

18 Renewal of community lease to Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated (Clendon Early Learning Centre) at 60R Finlayson Avenue, Manurewa 73

19 Manurewa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 77

20 Local Transport Capital Fund: options for distribution and size of the fund 81

21 Reprioritisation of the Manurewa Local Board 2017/2018 budget 95

22 Delegation for formal local board views on notified resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement 99

23 Manurewa Local Board feedback on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No 2) 105

24 Appointment of Local Board Member to Local Government New Zealand Zone One Committee 119

25 2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 123

26 Regional Facilities Auckland second quarter report for 2017/2018 financial year 131

27 Manurewa Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2018 155

28 Manurewa Local Board Achievements Register 2016-2019 Political Term 163

29 Manurewa Local Board Workshop Records 173

30 For Information: Reports referred to the Manurewa Local Board 189

31 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

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 Manurewa Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 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 Manurewa Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation - Te Whare Awhina O Tamworth, Clendon Park and Randwick Park Community Houses 2018/2019 Work Programme - Jaylene Ball

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Jaylene Ball, Senior Manager Manurewa Community Houses has requested an opportunity to update the board on the 2017/2018 and 2018/19 work programmes for Te Whare Awhina O Tamworth, Clendon Park and Randwick Park Community Houses.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) thank Jaylene Ball, Senior Manager Manurewa Community Houses for her update on the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 work programmes for Te Whare Awhina O Tamworth, Clendon Park and Randwick Park Community Houses.

8.2 Deputation - Life Education Trust - Lincoln Jefferson

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Lincoln Jefferson, General Manager, Life Education Trust Counties Manukau & Ponsonby Eden Roskill would like to present to the Board the work that the Trust undertakes each year in the Manurewa Local Board area.

2. The Trust is known for Harold the Giraffe but the public and the Board may not know of the work that they undertake in primary schools. Nationwide they work with 250,000 children a year.

3. Attached is the Life Education Programme Outline for 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) thank Lincoln Jefferson, General Manager, Life Education Trust Counties Manukau & Ponsonby Eden Roskill for his presentation.

Attachments

a Life Education Programme Outline for 2018....................................... 201

8.3 Deputation - Presentation on Touched Clendon by Melissa Atama and Moni Collins

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Melissa Atama along with Moni Collins from Touch NZ would like to make a presentation to the Board on Touched Clendon. Touched Clendon is a project which is a collaboration between Touch NZ, ACC, NZ Police and Clendon Pride.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) Thank Melissa Atama and Moni Collins from Touch NZ for their presentation.

8.4 Deputation - New Zealand American Football Federation

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The New Zealand American Football Federation want to thank the board for its support, update them on what they’ve accomplished recently, and what they plan to achieve going forward.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) thank Russell Preston from the New Zealand American Football Federation for his presentation.

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.

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update to the Manurewa Local Board – April 2018

File No.: CP2018/05054

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters; provide an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), request approval for new LBTCF projects, provide a summary of consultation material sent to the board, and provide information on transport-related matters of specific interest and application to the Manurewa Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report covers:

a) current status of Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects and confirmation the board wishes to include mana whenua signage in its scope of works for the Te Mahia station upgrade project

b) an approval request for new project to upgrade the Manurewa town centre clock

c) progress of improvements at the Manurewa bus/train station

d) Auckland Transport’s response to requested hatching on Great South Road

e) The Poppy Remembrance project

f) The Regional Land Transport Plan 2018

g) opening of new Manukau bus station.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) receives the report entitled ‘Auckland Transport Update to the Manurewa Local Board – April 2018’.

b) confirms it wishes to include the installation of mana whenua signage at Te Mahia station as part of the board’s scope of works, to be funded from within the existing project’s funding allocation of $2 million

c) approves construction on the upgrade and refurbishment of the Manurewa town centre clock, based on the upper range cost estimate of $36,436.60 (including GST), to be funded from the Manurewa Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Horopaki / Context

3. This report addresses transport-related matters in the local board area and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and LBTCF projects.

4. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. Auckland Transport reports on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in the Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within and on behalf of their local communities.

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme.

6. Any LBTCF projects selected must be safe; must not impede network efficiency; and must be located in the road corridor or on land controlled by Auckland Transport (though projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

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

Manurewa Local Board transport capital fund summary:

Total Funds Available in current political term (includes 2019/20 FY)	$3,068,375
Amount committed to date on projects approved for detailed design and/or construction	$531,705
Capped contribution amount to joint Te Mahia station upgrade project	$2,000,000
Remaining budget left available to allocate by the end of the current political term	$536,670

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

*ID#*	*Project Description*	*Progress/Current Status*
353	Hill Road pedestrian link: A project to improve pedestrian links on Hill Road between Great South Road and the Botanic Gardens · FEC = $525,000 · Spend to date = $416,744	· Project first initiated in Oct-14 but scale reduced in Nov-15 to six new crossing points and safer intersections only (proposed cycleway removed). · Construction approved in Nov-15 based on FEC of $575,000 (later reduced to $525,000). · Project completed except for one remaining site at the Hillcrest Grove intersection. Given previous consultation is more than a year old, AT will repeat consultation. *Project update:* · Internal consultation has been completed, resulting in some amendments to the design. · External consultation will be undertaken in April. The amended design will also be re-sent to the board. · Following consultation, the resolution report will be prepared and taken to the TCC for approval – expected in May. · Construction would then be expected in June.
354	Manurewa covered walkway: A project to improve connectivity between the Manurewa bus station, rail station, and Great South Road (through Southmall) by building a weather-proof canopy to link all three. · FEC = $1,172,000 · Spend to date = $1,088,864	· Project initiated in Oct-14 and construction approved in Nov-15. FEC has changed a number of times due to scope changes. · Following a further request, ROCs were provided in Mar-17 for canopies over the station ramps – the ROC for a solid (metal) roof was $721,632 while the ROC for a structureflex roof was $795,072. · All requested AT physical works have now been completed. · The board postponed making a decision on covering the ramps until potential opportunities relating to Te Mahia train station could be identified with AT. *Project update:* · The designer art mesh to be installed on the southern side of the overbridged will be led by Council’s Public Arts team.
545	Wattle Farm Road new central pedestrian refuge: A project to improve pedestrian inter-connectivity between Acacia Cove Village and Bupa Retirement Village · FEC = $29,000 ($16,300 from LBTCF, $12,700 from Bupa) · Spend to date = $6,807	· The board approved construction on 14-Dec-17 based on the total project firm estimate of $29,000 and an agreed cost share of $16,300 from the board and $12,700 from Bupa. · The resolution plan and report has been approved by the TCC committee. · AT is planning for works on the pedestrian refuge to be undertaken in conjunction with AT’s installation of footpaths in the immediate area. *Project update:* · Approval for the proposed refuge has been given by the TCC. · Consultation on the AT footpath element closed before Easter. · Construction is likely to begin in the latter half of April.
546	Te Mahia station upgrade: A project to work in conjunction with AT to upgrade the station beyond the basic scope of works identified by AT · Capped allocation of $2m · Spend to date = $3,775	· On 16-Nov-17, under confidential business, the board considered and endorsed a package of works to be funded by the LBTCF, and approved a maximum allocation of $2 million. *Project update:* · The tender for the platform works at both Te Mahia and Takanini stations was awarded to Dempsey Wood, and dawn karakia were held at both sites on 26 March. · Construction work began on Good Friday and will run through to Queens Birthday weekend in June. · The tender award included an optional second shelter on the station platform to be funded by the board. As the price of $275,000 falls within the allocation set aside by the board, the board has confirmed that AT may award the contract. · The board has expressed interest in funding the installation of mana whenua signage at the station to document the origin of the station’s name (see examples at attachment A). · The cost of manufacture and installation of these signs is ~$8,000 (including AT Design Studio time for drafting the artwork). Costs would increase if project management, underground wiring check and a resource consent application were required. · AT has provided an application form for the board to start the process, which includes confirmation of funding. A draft resolution is provided for consideration.

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

353

Hill Road pedestrian link:

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

· FEC = $525,000

· Spend to date = $416,744

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

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

· Project completed except for one remaining site at the Hillcrest Grove intersection. Given previous consultation is more than a year old, AT will repeat consultation.

Project update:

· Internal consultation has been completed, resulting in some amendments to the design.

· External consultation will be undertaken in April. The amended design will also be re-sent to the board.

· Following consultation, the resolution report will be prepared and taken to the TCC for approval – expected in May.

· Construction would then be expected in June.

354

Manurewa covered walkway:

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

· FEC = $1,172,000

· Spend to date = $1,088,864

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

· Following a further request, ROCs were provided in Mar-17 for canopies over the station ramps – the ROC for a solid (metal) roof was $721,632 while the ROC for a structureflex roof was $795,072.

· All requested AT physical works have now been completed.

· The board postponed making a decision on covering the ramps until potential opportunities relating to Te Mahia train station could be identified with AT.

Project update:

· The designer art mesh to be installed on the southern side of the overbridged will be led by Council’s Public Arts team.

545

Wattle Farm Road new central pedestrian refuge:

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

· FEC = $29,000 ($16,300 from LBTCF, $12,700 from Bupa)

· Spend to date = $6,807

· The board approved construction on 14-Dec-17 based on the total project firm estimate of $29,000 and an agreed cost share of $16,300 from the board and $12,700 from Bupa.

· The resolution plan and report has been approved by the TCC committee.

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

Project update:

· Approval for the proposed refuge has been given by the TCC.

· Consultation on the AT footpath element closed before Easter.

· Construction is likely to begin in the latter half of April.

546

Te Mahia station upgrade:

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

· Capped allocation of $2m

· Spend to date = $3,775

· On 16-Nov-17, under confidential business, the board considered and endorsed a package of works to be funded by the LBTCF, and approved a maximum allocation of $2 million.

Project update:

· The tender for the platform works at both Te Mahia and Takanini stations was awarded to Dempsey Wood, and dawn karakia were held at both sites on 26 March.

· Construction work began on Good Friday and will run through to Queens Birthday weekend in June.

· The tender award included an optional second shelter on the station platform to be funded by the board. As the price of $275,000 falls within the allocation set aside by the board, the board has confirmed that AT may award the contract.

· The board has expressed interest in funding the installation of mana whenua signage at the station to document the origin of the station’s name (see examples at attachment A).

· The cost of manufacture and installation of these signs is ~$8,000 (including AT Design Studio time for drafting the artwork). Costs would increase if project management, underground wiring check and a resource consent application were required.

· AT has provided an application form for the board to start the process, which includes confirmation of funding. A draft resolution is provided for consideration.

*ID#*	*Project Description*	*Progress/Current Status*
*NEW*	Manurewa town centre clock upgrade and refurbishment A project to upgrade and return the clock to good working order · FEC = $36,436.60	· See section immediately below.

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

NEW

Manurewa town centre clock upgrade and refurbishment

A project to upgrade and return the clock to good working order

· FEC = $36,436.60

· See section immediately below.

Manurewa town centre clock

9. The Manurewa town clock is located within road reserve and has been maintained by Auckland Transport since the 2010 amalgamation. The Manurewa Local Board has indicated an interest in upgrading the clock as it has not been in good working order for some years.

10. At a workshop on 1 March, the Manurewa Local Board considered and discussed various options with a representative of the Precision Watch Co Ltd (watch and clock repair specialists). Precision maintains almost 30 clocks around the Auckland region, and has been maintaining the Manurewa clock since the 1970s, in both its current and previous location.

11. The board indicated a desire to preserve the existing historic mechanical workings of the clock. The board requested Precision to provide a firm estimate to upgrade the clock with a new watertight clock head casing complete with new night-time illumination, restore the clock’s mechanical movement, and replace the glass viewing panels for the clock movement at the base of the clock.

12. At a workshop on 5 April, the Manurewa Local Board considered two quotes from Precision as follows:

· To refurbish the clock and upgrade with new clock case, dials, electrical and lighting – total estimated cost from $28,964 to $30,564 + GST = $35,148.60.

· To replace four glass viewing panels at base of clock – total cost $1,120 + GST = $1,288.

13. The board indicated it wishes to proceed with upgrading and refurbishing the town centre clock as outlined in the quotes. A formal recommendation is therefore provided for consideration.

Local projects and activities on interest to the board

Manurewa bus/train station improvements

14. The construction of the bus layovers within the Manurewa bus station area was completed in February.

15. All pre-work has commenced for the installation of the exeloos, and a pre-start meeting will be held on site on 12 April with the intention that the exeloos will be installed within the two weeks following that. The drivers’ portacom will take three weeks to make and deliver to site.

16. For the planned improvements at the Station Road overflow park-and-ride (to mitigate the parking loss at the main park-and-ride), a full lighting and CCTV design and pricing has been received and reviewed. Construction is expected to begin in 4-6 weeks.

Requested hatching on Great South Road

17. Auckland Transport has reassessed the Manurewa Local Board’s request for criss-cross hatching on Great South Road between Hill and Station Roads to reinforce to motorists not to queue across the offset intersection.

18. Auckland Transport has confirmed the queuing issue across the intersection occurs in the southbound direction primarily affecting right-turn traffic out of Station Road.

19. Auckland Transport has considered providing hatching along the entire section of road between the two pedestrian crosswalks on Great South Road for southbound traffic but has concluded this area would be too long and motorists would not have a clear view of the extent of the hatching. Other reasons to keep any hatching to a minimum are:

· it is important to retain visibility of as much of the existing lane markings as possible to maintain lane discipline

· issues have been experienced with long extents of hatched areas in other places across the network (such as on Mt Albert Road at the Owairaka Avenue intersection and on Mt Eden Road to the north of the village)

· once hatching is installed, it requires regular maintenance particularly along high volume arterials such as Great South Road

· overuse of hatching can reduce its effectiveness and also result in a polished, slippery surface.

20. Auckland Transport is therefore proposing to install a short section of hatching as shown in the diagram below. In addition, a lane arrow will be installed for southbound traffic on Great South Road to guide drivers towards the kerbside lane and better utilise that lane – which is currently under-utilised. These installations should encourage motorists to allow a clear turning area for those travelling from Hill Road to Station Road.

21. A quote for installation has been sought, and timeframes will be confirmed once received. Once installed, Auckland Transport will monitor the effectiveness of these markings.

Proposed extent of hatching and new lane arrow marking on Great South Road

Poppy remembrance project

22. The Places of Remembrance Project is managed by the New Zealand Poppy Places Trust and is about identifying and recording street names and places that are directly related to people and events from New Zealand’s overseas military history.

23. In support of this project, the Manurewa Local Board sought permission from Auckland Transport to include a poppy logo on a small number of road name blades – being roads named after military figures or battles from both world wars, ahead of 100^th anniversary Armistice Day celebrations in November this year.

24. While, under national regulations, single logos may be included on road name blades at the discretion of the road controlling authority concerned, the use of any type of logo on road name blades in Auckland is not acceptable under the Regional Signage Policy jointly developed and adopted by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council.

25. Auckland Transport has alternatively proposed a supplementary white sign blade with two options of poppy design that could be installed immediately beneath a road name blade for the Manurewa Local Board’s consideration. The board has indicated a preference for the design shown on the left hand side of the picture below, and Auckland Transport has been requested to provide a cost estimate.

Poppy logo options proposed by Auckland Transport

Other Auckland Transport news

Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2018

26. Consultation on the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2018 will begin on Monday 23 April and close on Sunday 6 May.

27. Members from all 21 local boards have been invited to an information, question and answer session on Monday 23 April.

28. Each local board will have an opportunity to give verbal feedback on the plan to representatives of the Regional Transport Committee (decision-makers on the RLTP) on Monday 30 April.

29. There will be a number of public information sessions and the Manurewa Local Board will be informed of these as soon as details are confirmed.

Opening of new Manukau bus station

30. At the heart of South Auckland's public transport network, the new bus station at Manukau will open on Saturday 7 April, and include a free public community celebration, in partnership with Panuku Development Auckland.

31. Local bus services that will use the Manukau Bus Station include the 380 Airporter, relocating from its current place in front of Manukau's Westfield Mall.

32. The bus station fills in a missing link for public transport in Manukau, providing easy bus-to-bus and bus-to-train connections and serving as a gateway for the South.

33. Funded by Auckland Council and the NZ Transport Agency, the total construction and property costs for the station amounted to $49 million.

34. Auckland Transport is moving the city to a simpler and more integrated transport network. Together with the adjacent Manukau Train Station, the new bus station will provide a more connected network of local feeder services connecting with frequent bus and train services.

35. Compared to last year's figures, public transport patronage at Manukau Tran Station has increased by 35% in the 12 months from February 2017 to January 2018, with a total of 487,996 passengers using the train station.

Southern corridor improvements (SCI) project update

36. As part of the SCI project, temporary new road layouts were put in place through Pahurehure Inlet in late March – southbound on 24 March and northbound on 27 March.

37. The northernmost bridges over the Pahurehure Inlet will be replaced with a new more resilient and safer single-span bridge. To achieve this while keeping the motorway operating requires a staged approach (see diagrams below).

38. A temporary bridge has been constructed to carry southbound traffic, and northbound traffic has been moved across to the bridge that previously carried the southbound lanes.

39. Moving the traffic across enables the old bridges to be demolished and the new bridge constructed. The first bridge to be demolished is the bridge that until late March carried the northbound lanes.

40. Further stages will follow over the next 18 months.

41. For more information about closures and detours, visit the NZTA website:

www.nzta.govt.nz/auckland-southern-corridor

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

Auckland Transport consultations

42. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Manurewa Local Board for its feedback. Both the proposals and any feedback received are summarised below.

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

44. Proposed new footpath, Wattle Farm Road, Wattle Downs – Auckland Transport is proposing to install a new footpath on the east side of Wattle Farm Road between Muirfield Street and the bus stop near Wattle Downs Golf Course at 130 Wattle Farm Road. The project is part of a region-wide programme to improve safety, connectivity and accessibility for pedestrians. This site has a high priority because it links directly to a bus stop and a new retirement complex in the area.

45. Board feedback supported the proposal as it ties in with the Board’s own project to provide a central pedestrian refuge in the same location.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

46. Decisions of the TCC during the month of March 2018 affecting the Manurewa Local Board area are shown below.

Date	Street (Suburb)	Type of Report	Nature Of Restriction	Decision
9-Mar-18	Katote Close, Charles Prevost Drive (The Gardens)	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined	No Stopping At All Times, Edge line.	Carried
26-Mar-18	Station Road (Manurewa)	Temporary Traffic and Parking changes (Event – Manurewa Food Festival)	Temporary Traffic and Parking restrictions	Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

47. Auckland Transport consults with the public including Maori on the key projects it delivers for the board. Specific engagement will be undertaken with iwi in relation to the proposed mana whenua signage for Te Mahia station.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

48. The mana whenua signage at Te Mahia station is proposed to fall within the budget already set aside for the project. The proposed upgrade of the Manurewa town centre clock can be accommodated within the available budget left to allocate under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

49. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

50. Auckland Transport provides the Manurewa Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

51. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Mana whenua signage examples (excerpt from Auckland Transport’s Technical Design Manual – Signage)	45

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jenni Wild – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South)

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Nathan Homestead Identity Project

File No.: CP2018/03552

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the Nathan Homestead Identity Project and the final visual concept for the facility.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Following the development of the 10-year strategic business plan for David Nathan Park and Homestead in 2016, staff progressed a community-led identity project to address aspirations and actions from the strategic plan.

3. The focus of the project was to:

· improve people’s access to the site (such as increasing visibility and presence from Hill Road)

· improve people’s perception of the site

· attract the community and visitors

· connect with and reflect the Manurewa and arts community

· renew focus on the historical aspects of the site including mana whenua.

4. Staff engaged with key stakeholders for this project, including the local community, arts practitioners, relevant council departments, local businesses, local marae, youth and arts organisations, the Nathan family, mana whenua and the local board.

5. A visual concept of the project was developed and workshopped with the local board in December 2017. The board’s feedback was integrated into the final concept design, which the board supported in principle.

6. Staff recommend that the local board formally endorse the Nathan Homestead identity project and visual concept (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) endorse the Nathan Homestead identity project and visual concept that was developed in 2017 (attached to agenda report as Attachment A)

b) endorse the following elements to be implemented in 2018:

· a new typeface design and visual approach for marketing

· the use of bi-lingual signage inside and outside the building and throughout the site

c) adopt “Nathan Homestead Pukepuke” as a unique wordmark.

Horopaki / Context

7. Te Ākitai Waiohua have advised that Ihaka Takaanini of Te Ākitai Waiohua originally owned a large section of land that spanned across Papakura and Manurewa. In 1842, Ihaka sold a portion of the land that now falls within the Manurewa Local Board area and includes Totara Park and David Nathan Park and the Nathan Homestead. It was one of the first pieces of land to be sold by Te Ākitai Waiohua.

8. One of the reasons for the land to be sold was because of its hilly nature; Ihaka was a land surveyor and it is likely that he would have realised that it was not viable for the iwi to retain it at the time.

9. In the early 1900s, David Nathan purchased and developed a large section of that land in Manurewa. The family’s summer home, affectionately known by the family as ‘The Hill’, was established and the complex now referred to as Nathan Homestead was completed in 1925.

10. In December 1962, the descendants of David Nathan offered the house and the twelve acres of garden and bush to the Manurewa Borough Council to be used for community purposes, as part of their statutory contribution for reserves required by the sub-division to form David Nathan Park.

11. Nathan Homestead community arts centre was opened in the late 1970s with fit-for-purpose creative spaces including a pottery studio, theatre, jewellery studio, gallery, café, childcare centre and as a venue for hire.

12. In May 2016, the David Nathan Park and Homestead strategic business plan was adopted following extensive consultation to ensure the needs of the community were being met, and alignment with local board outcomes and priorities. In April 2017, staff progressed a community-led identity project for Nathan Homestead that addressed aspirations and actions from the strategic business plan, mentioned above.

13. The focus of the project was to:

· improve people’s access to the site
(such as increasing visibility and presence from Hill Road)

· improve people’s perception of the site

· attract the community and visitors

· connect with and reflect the people of Manurewa and the arts community

· renew focus on the historical aspects of the site including mana whenua.

14. A visual concept of the project was developed and workshopped with the local board, and their feedback was integrated into the final concept design. This included the following proposed items:

· a new typeface and font suite for all marketing and communication channels

· templates for marketing and communication (eg. brochures, t-shirts, nametags)

· a unique wordmark (logotype) of “Nathan Homestead Pukepuke”

· improved external and internal signage (including David Nathan Park) with a bi-lingual application to all signage and wayfinding throughout the site.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. Staff engaged with key stakeholders for this project, including the local community, arts associates, Auckland Council (Communications and Engagement, Pools and Leisure, Parks, Sports and Recreation and Community Facilities), local businesses, the local marae, local youth and arts organisations, members of the Nathan family, mana whenua and the local board.

16. Mana Whenua (led by Te Ākitai Waiohua) and the Nathan family were identified as key stakeholders in the project, and were closely consulted with between May and October 2017 to make contributions to the identity project.

17. The local board endorsed the contribution from mana whenua of Pukepuke and its incorporation into a unique wordmark of “Nathan Homestead Pukepuke”.

18. The local board acknowledged that the Nathan family’s contribution of ‘The Hill’ is valued and intended to be communicated through various channels (including key messages, signage about the history of the site, and acknowledgement of family members’ contributions to the community).

19. On 1 February 2018, the local board provided feedback on the visual concept and supported specific elements of the project as follows:

a) endorsed the new typeface design and visual approach for marketing

b) endorsed the use of bi-lingual signage throughout the site

c) endorsed incorporating Pukepuke into a unique wordmark of “Nathan Homestead Pukepuke”

d) acknowledged that feedback from the local board will be received and incorporated into the design of the visual concept where appropriate.

Options

Options	Risks	Benefits
Option 1 (recommended) The local board endorse the identity project at Nathan Homestead, including the following elements: · a new typeface design and visual approach for marketing · the use of bi-lingual signage throughout the site · the incorporation of Pukepuke as a unique wordmark of “Nathan Homestead Pukepuke”	There is a risk that there will be a negative response to the bi-lingual signage and the incorporation of the te reo name ‘Pukepuke’ due to limited understanding of its significance for non-Māori speakers.	This option aligns with the David Nathan Park and Homestead business plan and the 2017 Manurewa Local Board Plan to ensure more people access and participate in multi-use facilities, spaces and activities; and aligns with council’s Māori Language Policy. The endorsement of the identity project, and the use of ‘Nathan Homestead Pukepuke’ as a wordmark will allow staff to implement a contemporary, unified approach to communicate with the community and to deliver clear messaging that reflects Manurewa’s history and culture and the uniqueness of the arts centre and the site.
Option 2 (not recommended) The local board reconsiders its support of the identity project at Nathan Homestead, and agree that future marketing and signage will follow standard council brand guidelines.	Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget has been invested in the development of the visual concept designs. The risk of endorsing this option is that the designs that have been developed will no longer have value and there will be no visible result of the investment. There is a risk that stakeholders and mana whenua that have contributed to the David Nathan Park and Homestead business plan will be disappointed in the final result.	This option will align with council’s brand guidelines and signage manual for council facilities around the region.
Option 3 (not recommended) Status quo. The local board reconsiders its support of the identity project at Nathan Homestead, and no changes to the current signage and wayfinding are implemented.	There is a risk that the old and outdated signage (displaying the old Manukau City Council logo) will cause confusion for the community and customers as to the purpose of the site. This option prevents staff from achieving initiative actions from the David Nathan Park and Homestead business plan, and delivery of the approved work programme item.	The local board could re-prioritise and re-allocate the funding that is currently allocated to the implementation stages of this project.

Considerations

20. If the local board does not wish to continue with the new identity project (Option 1), the Nathan family and mana whenua contributions can continue to be communicated through various channels where appropriate (including key messages; signage about the history of the site, architecture and mana whenua; as well as acknowledgement of Nathan family members).

Preferred option

21. Staff recommend proceeding with Option 1, to endorse the identity project and the attached elements which the local board supported in principle in December 2017.

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

22. The Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017 states the local board’s commitment to ensure ‘more people access and participate in multi-use facilities, spaces and activities’ by ensuring ‘people in Manurewa are actively connecting everywhere, every day’.

23. This commitment will be realised through implementation of the identity project, strengthening the space as accessible, attractive and connecting.

24. The content of this report was workshopped with the local board on 7 December 2017, along with a presentation of the visual concept. Feedback received has been incorporated into the final concept design for the identity project.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. During consultation for the identity project concept at the Mana Whenua South Iwi Forum, Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Te Ata expressed their interest in being involved with several aspects of the project. This included the naming, signage and wayfinding, capturing mana whenua stories, a proposed launch event and future collaborative programming opportunities.

26. During further consulation, Ngāti Te Ata supported Te Ākitai Waiohua to lead any feedback on the project on behalf of mana whenua, however wished to be kept informed and updated accordingly.

27. On behalf of Te Ākitai Waiohua, Kathleen Wilson proposed the name Pukepuke, meaning ‘hilly’. The name is intended to reflect the mana whenua connection to the area, using te reo Māori as a way for the community to be connected to the whakapapa of the site.

28. Staff will continue to work with mana whenua, including but not exclusively Te Ākitai Waiohua and Ngāti Te Ata, to capture and communicate their stories throughout the site.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

29. The recommended approach will support the use of $40,000 LDI funding allocated to the Nathan Homestead Business Plan initiatives work programme for 2017/2018, and any further allocation for 2018/2019.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

30. If the local board does not endorse the recommended approach, there is a risk that this will cause delays to the delivery of the project in FY18, including completion of the Arts, Community and Events work programme items for Nathan Homestead Business Plan initiatives and LDI allocations.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31. Following endorsement, staff will proceed with implementation of the preferred option and delivery of the project before the end of 2017/2018, and will provide an implementation timeline at an upcoming local board workshop.

32. Staff will work with council’s Communications and Engagement department to implement the visual concept.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Final Visual Concept	53

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sarah Edwards, Arts & Culture Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Renewal of community lease to Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated (Clendon Early Learning Centre) at 60R Finlayson Avenue, Manurewa

File No.: CP2018/03217

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the renewal of the community ground lease to Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated (Clendon Early Learning Centre) at 60R Finlayson Avenue, Manurewa.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated is a children’s charity that operates a number of early learning centres across New Zealand. The group holds a community ground lease for the group-owned early childhood education centre operating as the Clendon Early Learning Centre. The lease commenced on 1 December 2007 for an initial 10 year term expiring on 30 November 2017 and contains one 10 year right of renewal effecting final expiry on 30 November 2027. The group wishes to exercise the right of renewal.

3. Staff have reviewed the lessee’s performance and assessed its financial position to ensure the organisation is sustainable and that its services and programmes are beneficial to the community.

4. Staff recommend that the board approves the lease renewal under the terms and conditions stated in the recommendation below, as the group has met all the requirements in accordance with the renewal provision in the lease and the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) grant a renewal of the community ground lease to Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated (Clendon Early Learning Centre) for the property at 60R Finlayson Avenue, Manurewa subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term - 10 years commencing 1 December 2017 to 30 November 2027.

ii) rent - to remain at $0.10 plus GST per annum.

iii) all other terms and conditions to be in accordance with the original deed of lease dated 30 November 2007.

Horopaki / ContextThe Land

5. The parcel of land at 60R Finlayson Avenue, Manurewa is legally described as Part Lot 210 Deposited Plan 83570. The land is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified local purpose (community buildings) reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated

6. Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated first registered as an incorporated society on 26 November 1957 (under the name Dr. Barnardos in New Zealand Incorporated). The group was renamed Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated on 1 December 2008. Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated is a children’s charity that operates and manages a number of early learning centres across New Zealand, including the Clendon Early Learning Centre at 60R Finlayson Avenue, Manurewa.

7. The Clendon Early Learning Centre was established in January 2008. The centre provides a full day early childhood education and care for up to 50 children, including children under two years of age. Almost all the children on the roll have Māori or Pacific heritage and staff represent a diverse range of cultures. The centre participates and celebrates Matariki, Diwali and language weeks. The hours of operation are Monday to Friday from 7.30am to 5.30pm.

8. The centre is promoted on an annual basis, with promotional activities at Mountfort Park and Southmall where pamphlets and balloons are handed out.

9. A weekly visit from a social worker is made available to parents. The service covers a wide range of matters including advice and referral to appropriate agencies, if required.

10. The Education Review Office (ERO) under the Ministry of Education undertook an assessment of the centre in April 2016. The ERO report noted that the centre is well placed to promote positive learning outcomes for children.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. The group has submitted a comprehensive application in support of the renewal of its community ground lease. In addition, the group has provided financial accounts which indicate that its funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and are being managed appropriately.

12. The lease contains one 10 year renewal term and the group has applied to exercise its final renewal term from 1 December 2017 to final expiry on 30 November 2027.

13. Under the terms of the lease, renewal must be granted if council is satisfied that the group has not breached any term of the lease, there is sufficient need for the activities undertaken by the group and that in the public interest the property is not required for another purpose.

14. Staff recommend that the Manurewa Local Board grant the renewal of lease to Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated, as the group has met all the requirements in accordance with the renewal provision in the lease and the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

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

15. The recommendations within this report fall within local board’s allocated authority to grant leases within local community facilities in line with the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

16. The recommendations support the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017 outcome five: Our community spaces are part of a first-class network. They offer choices for people from different cultures and life-stages to take part in local life.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader statutory obligations to Māori. Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Te Toa Takitini, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework.

18. The services that are offered by Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated benefits all Aucklanders including Māori living in the Manurewa Local Board area. The 2016 Education Review Office report shows that 28 of the 52 children identify as Māori. The centre follows the principles of tuakana, teina, with supervised time for the children to spend together that enables the babies and older children to interact and learn from each other. Teachers regularly include cultural activities and strengthen the children’s confidence by promoting te reo and tikanga Māori within the programme.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19. All costs involved in the preparation of lease documents are borne by Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20. Should the Manurewa Local Board resolve not to grant the group the renewal of its lease, this decision will affect the lessee’s ability to undertake its core activities. Since the commencement of the original lease, the lessee has invested significant funds toward the improvement of the centre which may be at risk should the lease not be granted.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21. Community leases staff will work with Barnardos New Zealand Incorporated to finalise the lease documentations.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tai Stirling, Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Manurewa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/03708

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Manurewa Local Board Community Grants Programme for 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year.

4. This report presents the Manurewa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 for adoption (see attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) adopt the Manurewa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy was implemented on 1 July 2015. The policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board grants programme guides community groups and individuals when making applications to the local board.

7. The local board community grants programme includes:

· outcomes as identified in the local board plan

· specific local board grant priorities

· which grant types will operate, the number of grant rounds and opening and closing dates

· any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply

· other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. Once the local board community grants programme for the 2018/2019 financial year has been adopted, the types of grants, grant rounds, criteria and eligibility with be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach which includes utilising the local board channels.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The new Manurewa Community Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2018/2019.

10. The new grant programme includes:

· new outcomes and priorities from the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2017

· the same number of grant rounds for 2018/2019, as are available in 2017/2018.

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

11. The Community Grants Programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of their grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. All grant programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes in the application process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

14. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. Therefore, there is minimal risk associated with the adoption of the grants programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

15. An implementation plan is underway and the local board grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and council channels. Targeted advertising and promotion will be developed for target populations, including migrant and refugee groups, disability groups, Māori and iwi organisations

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Manurewa Community Grants Prorgamme 2018/2019	79

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04642

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.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board endorses:

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’^{^[1]}”.

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^{^[2]} 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.

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^{^[3]}^. The distribution has not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund was established.

24. We have modelled (Attachment 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 (Attachment 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 (Attachment 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^{^[4]}, five percent deprivation^{^[5]}and five per cent land area^{^[6]}^.

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	89
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	91
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	93

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Reprioritisation of the Manurewa Local Board 2017/2018 budget

File No.: CP2018/03771

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report recommends options to the Manurewa Local Board for the reallocation of its Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget, following a workshop with members on 5 April 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Through Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan, each local board receives an allocation of operational and capital funding to enable them to deliver local activities and projects aligned to their local board plan priorities.

3. Staff have identified that some of the Manurewa Local Board’s operational budgets will not be fully allocated as planned in this current financial year. The amount identified as currently available for reallocation in this financial year is $121,000.

4. At a workshop on 5 April 2018, local board members discussed a number of projects they had identified for possible funding support.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) Note that it currently has $121,000 of its Locally Driven Initiatives funding available for reallocation.

b) Allocate from the Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget:

i) $2,000 from the Heron Point Mangrove removal budget line to Clendon Residents Association to enable planting at the Clendon Community House.

ii) $15,000 from the Heron Point Mangrove removal budget line to cover costs associated with attaining a coastal resource application for the Puhinui jetty.

iii) $1,500 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to the Manurewa Youth Council to support attendance at the Aspiring Leaders Forum to be held 26-29 July 2018 in Wellington.

iv) $6,000 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to Te Awa Ora Trust to undertake community engagement and education about the inorganic collection service and other waste minimisation options.

v) $20,000 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to OKE Charity to develop the next stage of a children’s online application that will assist its “Growing a Future” initiative.

vii) $20,000 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to Nathan Homestead to progress its business plan with a focus on the fit out of the new café.

ix) $10,000 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to MyRivr to progress development of an online application that enables quick access to locally based health, social and community services.

c) Amend the 2017/2018 Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme by adding “Māori Identity stage one - to undertake specialist research of existing names of local parks, including involvement with mana whenua, and developing communications materials” with a total budget allocation of $10,000.

d) Allocate Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget funding of $10,000 to undertake Māori identity stage one, from work programme line item 2042 Teaching gardens $5,000, and work programme line item 2012 Heron Point: planning for mangrove removal $5,000.

e) Note that recommendations for further reallocations of the board’s Locally Driven Initiatives budgets will be presented to the local board in future reports.

Horopaki / Context

5. Auckland Council’s 21 local boards have decision making responsibility for local activities. Each local board is allocated operational funding in the council’s Long-term Plan which is used for the delivery of local activities, aligned to local board plan priorities, and allocated through the annual plan process each year.

6. Each local board also receives an allocation of capital funding to enable them to deliver small, local asset-based projects, either directly, in partnership with the community, or through joint agreements between boards.

7. During the course of the year, the council reports to the local board on the progress of projects and initiatives.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

8. Staff have identified that some of the Manurewa Local Board’s operational budgets will not be fully allocated as planned in this current financial year. These include budgets allocated to Local Parks, Sport and Recreation ($33,000); and Local Planning and Development ($88,000).

9. At a workshop on 5 April 2018, members discussed a number of projects they had identified for possible funding support. Staff provided advice and information to support members’ consideration of these. Each of these items is summarised below.

· Community planting - $2,000 to Clendon Residents Association to enable planting at the Clendon Community House.

· Puhinui jetty - $15,000 to cover costs associated with attaining a coastal resource application for the build of the Puhinui jetty.

· Youth leadership - $1,500 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to the Manurewa Youth Council to support attendance at the Aspiring Leaders Forum to be held 26-29 July 2018 in Wellington.

· Waste management - $6,000 to Te Awa Ora Trust for community engagement and education about the inorganic collection service and other waste minimisation options

· Growing a Future initiative - $20,000 to OKE Charity towards its development of an educational online tool with four modules that capture the elements of hauora (physical, mental and emotional, social, and spiritual wellbeing). This will enable OKE to teach children to grow food while assisting with their overall wellbeing

· Nathan Homestead café - $20,000 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to Nathan Homestead to progress its business plan with a focus on the fit out of the new café.

· MyRivr - $10,000 from the Revitalisation of town centres budget line to MyRivr to progress development of an online application that enables quick access to locally based health, social and community services.

· Māori Identity – $10,000 to enhance Auckland’s Māori identity and Māori heritage. This is a two-staged process and stage one includes undertaking research on the existing names of parks and facilities, working with mana whenua and developing a communications approach for the local board. Stage one would be completed prior to 30 June 2018, which would enable stage 2 to be undertaken in the next financial year. Stage two involves working with mana whenua on the adoption of names by the local board, and communication about the names and their meanings.

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

10. Local board views have been sought and given at a workshop with staff on 5 April 2018. These views are reflected in the recommendations contained in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

11. Several of the projects and initiatives considered by local board members for funding allocation have direct engagement with Māori. The Manurewa Local Board is actively engaged in fostering positive, meaningful relationships with mana whenua, mataawaka and the Manurewa Marae. The budget being reallocated was not tagged to specific projects so has not impacted on existing projects or initiatives.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

12. The local board has $121,000 to distribute. A total expenditure of $84,500 is recommended in this report. As noted elsewhere in the report, any recommendations for further reallocations of the board’s Locally Driven Initiatives budgets will be presented to the local board in future reports.

13. Staff gave advice to members about the likelihood of projects being able to be completed by 30 June 2017. Members’ recommendations for specific projects have taken this advice into account and there are no financial issues with implementation foreseen at this stage.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks14. The projects covered in this report are all of modest scale to be carried out by 30 June 2018. These projects do not present significant risks to the local board. It is considered that the projects involving public participation will have adequate lead time to attain their outcomes.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

15. Staff will initiate the implementation of the relevant new work programmes and payment of grants to the recipient organisations, as appropriate. It is anticipated that staff will report back to the local board on outcomes.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Sarah McGhee - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04517

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Manurewa Local Board delegates 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/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) delegates the authority to an appointed Local Board Member, 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 / Context

Notified 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 advice

Options 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		· 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

16. 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.

17. Any local board members 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

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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. 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

24. The appointed member of the Manurewa Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Manurewa Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Manurewa Local Board feedback on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No 2)

File No.: CP2018/04328

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Manurewa Local Board with an opportunity to provide a submission on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No 2) (the Bill) and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) adopt Attachment C as the Manurewa Local Board’s submission on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No 2) (the Bill) and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP).

Horopaki / Context

2. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 by amending section 133 which addresses the renewal of licenses where a relevant local alcohol policy exists (Attachment A). The purpose of the Bill is to require the licensing authority and licensing committee to take a relevant local alcohol policy into account when considering the renewal of an alcohol licence. During the Bill’s first reading on 21 February 2018, a Supplementary Order Paper was tabled. The SOP seeks to amend the Bill by limiting its application to only off-licence renewals.

3. The council has developed a local alcohol policy. The council's local alcohol policy is currently provisional and is not in force as it is subject to legal challenges. The Bill and the SOP would not affect the provisional local alcohol policy that has been developed by the council, but may have implications for any future policy and the legal processes that are in progress.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

4. The memo provided by Social Policy and Bylaws on 19 March 2018 provides further information and council’s draft submission. This submission will be reported to the April 2018 Environment and Community Committee and is provided as Attachment B.

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

5. Local boards have the following opportunities to provide feedback on the proposed governing body submission:

· informal views provided at a drop-in session for all elected members on 20 March 2018

· formal views provided as an addendum to the council submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

6. Due to the short timeframes for a submission to be provided, Māori have not been specifically consulted on the contents of the Bill and SOP. Māori adults have been identified as experiencing higher rates of alcohol related harm than non-Māori adults.

7. An outcome sought in the Māori Report for Tāmaki Makaurau 2016 is for Māori to enjoy a high quality of life and to promote health and wellness. Māori communities may be positively impacted by having additional tools to address alcohol availability. However, this positive impact would only occur if the changes introduced through this Bill and SOP can actually result in changes to licencing decisions locally.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

8. A decision on whether or not to provide a local board submission is of a procedural nature and is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

9. In some instances, local boards may wish to provide comments that are additional to those proposed in the council submission. If these additional comments are not provided, there is a risk of missing the opportunity to highlight issues and impacts on local communities.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

10. On 10 April 2018 the Environment and Community Committee will decide its response to the bill and SOP.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Sale and Supply of Alcohol (renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Supplementary Order Paper	107
b ⇩	Draft Submission to Governance Select Committee: In the Matter of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No. 2)	109
c ⇩	Manurewa Local Board Feedback to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licenses) Amendment Bill (No. 2)	117

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Sarah McGhee - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2018/04654

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual conference and General meeting (AGM) in Christchurch Sunday 15 July to Tuesday 17 July 2018 and to invite local boards to nominate an elected member to attend.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Local Government New Zealand Annual conference and General meeting take place at Christ’s College from 12 noon on Sunday 15 July to 1pm on Tuesday 17 July 2018.

3. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. The venue is in Christchurch and given the cost of elected member attendance, staff recommend that one member per local board attend.

4. In addition to the official delegates, LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme as soon as possible so that this information can be provided to LGNZ.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) Nominates one elected member to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Annual General Meeting from Sunday 15 July to Tuesday 17 July 2018.

b) Confirms that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

c) Notes that any members who wish to attend the AGM must provide their names to the Kura Kāwana project team to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand.

Horopaki / Context

5. This year the LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the Christ’s College, Christchurch, from Sunday 15 July to Tuesday 17 July 2018. The AGM will commence at 12.00pm on Sunday 15 July 2018 with the conference programme commencing at 4.15pm on Sunday 15 July and concluding at 1.00pm on Tuesday 17 July.

6. The conference programme has the theme “We are firmly focused on the future: Future-proofing for a prosperous and vibrant New Zealand”. The full programme is attached as Attachment A.

7. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. The LGNZ constitution permits the Auckland Council to appoint four delegates to represent it at the AGM, with one of the delegates being appointed as presiding delegate.

8. Elected members who hold LGNZ roles are:

Mayor Phil Goff	Metro Sector representative on the National Council
Councillor Penny Hulse	Chair of Zone One and Zone One representative on National Council, Member Conference Committee
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector
Councillor Wayne Walker	Auckland Council representative on Zone One
Councillor Alf Filipaina	LGNZ Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere
Councillor Richard Hills	Member Policy Advisory Group
Waitemata Local Board Chair Pippa Coom	Member Governance and Strategy Advisory Group

9. Traditionally the four AGM delegates have been the Mayor, the Chief Executive and two Governing Body members who hold LGNZ roles.

10. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at its meeting on 23 March 2018 which includes the recommendation that Mayor Phil Goff be the presiding delegate and the other three delegates be comprised of either:

· two members of the Governing Body who hold a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive; or

· one member of the Governing Body who holds a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive, and a local board member.

11. Delegates in 2017 were:

· Mayor Phil Goff

· Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

· Councillor Penny Hulse

· Local board chair Pippa Coom

12. The Governing Body will also consider an item on conference attendance at its meeting on 23 March 2018 which includes the recommendation that Mayor Phil Goff and the other Governing Body members chosen to be the delegates to the AGM be approved to attend the conference, and that other councillors be chosen to attend so that up to a total of six Governing Body members can attend the conference.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

13. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. In 2018, with the venue in Christchurch and given the cost of elected member attendance, it is recommended that one member per local board attend.

14. This means that a maximum of 27 Auckland Council elected members would attend the conference.

15. Delegates who attend are encouraged to report back to their local boards.

16. In addition, local board members can attend the AGM as observers, or as a delegate (depending on the Governing Body decision), provided their names are included on the AGM registration form, which will be signed by the Mayor.

17. LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme by Friday 13 April or as soon as possible thereafter so that this information can be collated and provided to LGNZ.

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

18. The LGNZ Annual conference has relevance to local board members and their specific roles and responsibilities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. The LGNZ National Council has a sub-committee, Te Maruata, which has the role of promoting increased representation of Māori as elected members of local government, and of enhancing Māori participation in local government processes. It also provides support for councils in building relationships with iwi, hapu and Māori groups. Te Maruata provides Māori input on development of future policies or legislation relating to local government. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a member of the sub-committee. Te Maruata will hold a hui on 14 July 2018.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20. The normal registration rate is $1,410 (early bird) or $1,510 (standard).

21. Costs of attendance for one member from each local board are to be met from the elected members’ development budget as contained in the Kura Kawana Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22. The key risk is of delayed decision making having an impact on costs. The sooner the registration for the nominated local board member can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference and flights.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23. Once members are confirmed to attend, the Kura Kāwana programme will co-ordinate and book all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Conference Programme	127

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Gifford, Kura Kāwana Programme Manager

Authorisers

Kerri Foote, Local Board Services Improvements Manager

Louise Mason, General Manager Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Manurewa Local Board

19 April 2018

Manurewa Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/02831

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents the Governance Forward Work Calendar: a schedule of items that will come before local boards at business meetings and workshops over the next six months. The Governance Forward Work Calendar for the Manurewa Local Board is included in Attachment A.

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

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

ii) clarifying what advice is required and when

iii) clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The calendar will be updated every month, be included on the agenda for business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 19 April 2018.

Horopaki / Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

iii) Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled below:

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. This report is an information report providing the governance forward work programme for the next six months.

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

11. All local boards are being presented with Governance Forward Work Calendars for their consideration.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. The projects and processes referred to in the Governance Forward Work Calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

13. There are no financial implications relating to this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

14. This report is a point in time of the governance forward work calendar. It is a living document and updated month to month. It minimises the risk of the board being unaware of planned topics for their consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Programme - April 2018	159

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Carmen Fernandes - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

[1] Cabinet paper: Auckland Governance: Regional Transport Authority Steven Joyce, Minister of Transport 2009

[2] Based on Statistics NZ 2011 population estimates

[3] There was no formal local board funding policy in place at this time

[4] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

[5] Based on Index of Deprivation provided by the Ministry of Health

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