Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 27 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Lincoln Jefferson - Life Education Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Providing Lincoln Jefferson of Life Education Trust the opportunity to present to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board about their organisation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. As per standing orders the Chairperson has approved the deputation request from Life Education Trust.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) Thank Lincoln Jefferson of Life Education Trust for his attendance.

Attachments

a Programme Outline........................................................................................ 83

8.2 Roger Milne - Auckland Rowing Club and Ngahau Maiangi Waka Ama Club

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Providing Roger Milne of Auckland Rowing Club and Ngahau Maiangi Waka Ama Club the opportunity to present to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board about their club.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. As per standing orders the Chairperson has approved the deputation request from Auckland Rowing Club and Ngahau Maiangi Waka Ama Club.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) Thank Roger Milne of Auckland Rowing Club and Ngahau Maiangi Waka Ama Club for his attendance.

Attachments

a Auckland Rowing Club................................................................................... 85

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.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

24 April 2018

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/03684

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 for adoption (see attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) adopt the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 ⇩	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Community Grants Programme 2018/2019	17

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

24 April 2018

Road Name Approval: New Private Road at 23 Church Street & 20-22 George Terrace, Onehunga

File No.: CP2018/04687

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to name a new private road created by way of a subdivision at 23 Church Street & 20‐22 George Terrace, Onehunga.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. The Applicant, Avanda Group Limited, has submitted the following road name options:

· Governors Lane (preferred)

· Davanas Crescent / or Way

· Passage Avenue / or Crescent

4. Following consultation with iwi, Te Akitai Waiohua suggested the following additional options:

· Wharenoho Crescent

· Ahuwhenua Crescent

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approve a name from the abovementioned list of options, for the new private road created by way of a subdivision at 23 Church Street & 20‐22 George Terrace, Onehunga (Council resource consent reference SUB60229144 and R/SUB/2016/5535), in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Horopaki / Context

5. Resource consent has been obtained for construction of 44 residential apartments across five new terrace blocks (38 units) and one three-storey apartment block (6 units) under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Area Act 2013 (HASHAA).

6. Council approved resource consent for construction of the development on 15^th December 2016, under council references R/LUC/2016/3696 and R/REG/2016/2713, and approved the staged subdivision around the development on 31^st July 2017 under Council reference SUB60229144 (R/SUB/2016/5535).

7. This approved development contains a new private road, in the form of a jointly owned access lot, which requires a road name since it services more than 5 lots / units.

8. A site plan of the road and development can be found in Attachment A & B.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

- a historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

- a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature; or

- an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

10. Both the Applicant and local iwi have proposed road names, summarised in the table below:

Applicant’s Proposed Names & Preferences

Meaning

(as described by applicant)

Acceptable?

Governors Lane

(preferred)

In reference to Governor Grey, who established The Royal New Zealand Fencible corps circa 1846, due to concern about the 'unrest' between Maori and the early settlers in New Zealand. Known as the ‘Fencibles’*, these retired soldiers from Britain and Ireland were enlisted as a military reserve & 'defence force' for the protection of the early settlers in the fledgling town of Auckland. They settled in Onehunga, Otahuhu, Panmure and Howick. In return for availability in case of attack and attendance at parades, the Fencibles were provided with a cottage and an acre of land which, after seven years’ service, they would own.

Yes:

Historical link to the area.

Not already in use.

*The applicant first proposed the road name ‘Fencibles Lane’, but this is already in use; therefore ‘Governors’ was suggested as an alternative.

Davanas Crescent

/or Way (alternative)

An anagram of Avanda, the name of the applicant’s development company.

Yes:

Links to the development.

Name not already in use.

Passage Avenue

/or Crescent (alternative)

Chosen to represent the transformation from Maori settlement to urban living, and also the transformation of the area from industrial to residential.

Yes:

Historical link to the area.

Name not already in use.

Iwi’s Proposed Names

Meaning

(as described by Te Akitai Waiohua)

Acceptable?

Wharenoho Crescent

Meaning: (noun) dormitory, barracks, hostel, apartment, accommodation:

In 1850 an Onehunga Native Hostelry was built to provide accommodation for Maori and as a market place for local and visiting Maori. Another was built in Mechanics Bay. These marketplaces played a central role in the relationship between Tamaki Iwi and Auckland Settlers. It was run by Ihaka Takaanini, the Te Akitai Waiohua Chief of the Onehunga area.

Yes – historical and ancestral linkage to area.

Name not already in use

Ahuwhenua Crescent

In reference to the Onehunga Native Hostelry (verb) to be industrious, busy, conscientious, assiduous, active, diligent, energetic

Yes – historical and ancestral linkage to area.

Name not already in use

11. Land Information New Zealand has confirmed the proposed names are acceptable for use in this location.

12. The proposed names are all deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines.

13. The road suffix ‘Crescent’ is deemed most appropriate, due to the crescent shape of the road to be named. However, all suffixes listed in the tables above are acceptable.

14. Iwi Consultation: All relevant local iwi were written to (via email) and invited to comment. Te Akitai Waiohua suggested the names listed above, which were supported by Ngāti Tamaoho. Both Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngāti Te Ata commented that they would prefer Te Reo names and did not support the applicant’s non-Te Reo suggestions.

15. Community Consultation: The applicant also contacted Onehunga Business Association for comment on the proposed road names, but no response was received.

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

16. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17. The applicant corresponded with local iwi and the responses received were in favour of using Te Reo names instead of those suggested by the applicant. Te Akitai Waiohua suggested two names that are acceptable for use.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

19. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

20. Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand who records them on their New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Site Plan	23
b ⇩	Attachment B - Location Plan	25

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivisions, Northern Resource Consenting and Compliance

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

24 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/05111

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

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

Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the LTCF

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

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

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

Fixed and variable costs distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing the options

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

· transparency and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders

· equity and fairness of outcomes across the region

· ensuring delivery of good local transport outcomes

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

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

Options 1a and 1b – population based distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

41. This distribution method involves application of the current Local Boards Funding Policy. The policy is currently applied to distribution of funding for local activities (including local capex) to local boards and is based on the following factors: ninety per cent population^{^[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	35
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	37
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	39

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

24 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/05113

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

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

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

Horopaki / 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager