Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

Member Ella Kumar will deliver the welcome message.

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 Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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 - Life Education Trust

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To deliver a presentation to the Board during the Deputations segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Lincoln Jefferies, general manager of the Life Education Trust (Counties Manukau & Ponsonby Eden Roskill) will be in attendance to present the work that Life Education Trust does locally and nationwide.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the presentation on the Life Education Trust’s work and thank Lincoln Jefferies for his attendance.

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.

9.1 Public Forum - Central City Baseball Club update

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To deliver a presentation to the Board during the Public Forum segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Andrew Laird, club president of Central City Baseball Club and Peter Elliott, board member from Baseball New Zealand, will be in attendance to present an update of the Club’s activities.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive an update from Central City Baseball Club and thank Andrew Laird and Peter Elliott for their attendance and presentation.

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.

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

Report Name: Chair’s report

Report covering the period 05 March to 08 April 2018

Auckland Council workshops, meetings and briefings

05 March 2018 Attend Leadership for Local Board Leaders - session two with Deputy Chair Fairey

06 March PA/Chair Catch Up

06 March Long Term Plan Discussion with Hobsonville Land Company (HLC)

06 March Te Auaunga Healthy Waters Project Tour with HLC and Panuku Development Auckland

07 March Observe Owairaka Footbridge Installation – Underwood Park

07 March Asian Community Leaders Forum Preparation Meeting

07 March Chair/Deputy Weekly Catch-up

07 March Attend Community Cluster

07 March Chair, Relationship Manger and Advisors meeting

07 March Community Forum meeting

08 March PLB Workshop including Business meeting agenda run through

08 March Meet with Ministers’ Association

09 March Quarterly Police/PLB Meeting

09 March Attend Local Board Briefing on 35-Year Stormwater Discharge Consent

09 March Attend Whānui: Image the Land Opening – Blockhouse Bay

12 March Attend at opening of Senior Showcase workshop

12 March Local Board Chairs - chairs-only session

12 March Local Board Chairs’ Local Board Chairs Forum

13 March Long Term Plan – Wesley Pop Up Table

13 March PA/Chair Catch Up

13 March Met with Strategic Broker and manager

14 March Asian Community Leaders Crime Prevention Forum with Albert–Eden chair

14 March Chair/Deputy Chair Weekly Catch-up

14 March Infrastructure and Heritage Cluster meeting

14 March Chair and Advisors meeting

15 March PLB Business Meeting

16 March Long Term Plan – Wesley Pop Up Table including Healthy Puketāpapa Community Kai Cooking Demonstrations

16 March Communications meeting

16 March Met with Cr Casey and Albert-Eden Local Board chair

19 March MARCH Regional/Sub-Regional Cluster Workshop

19 March Long Term Plan - Ethnic Advisory Panel Have Your Say (part)

20 March PA/Chair Catch Up

20 March Meeting with Albert-Eden members about lava caves

21 March Long Term Plan – Tai Chi/Dance group

21 March Chair/Deputy Chair Weekly Catch-up

21 March LTP Meeting

21 March Community Facilities draft work programme discussion

21 March Chair, Relationship Manger, and Advisors meeting

22 March PLB Workshop

22 March Conflict of Interest Issues Meeting with Maureen Glassey and Relationship Manager

22 March Long Term Plan - Drop In:

23 March Tūpuna Maunga Authority: 2018 Local Board Chairs' hui

23 March Met with Cr Casey and Albert-Eden Local Board chair

26 March Skype discussion – Working principles to guide support for deputy chairs

27 March PA/Chair Catch Up

27 March Pah Homestead / JWAT / Auckland Council meeting

27 March Chair and Advisors meeting

28 March Joint Governing Body / Local Board Chairs Meeting

29 March PLB Workshop – Work Programme 5

03 April ANZAC Service meeting

03 April Catch up with Democracy Advisor

04 April Chair/Deputy Chair Weekly Catch-up

04 April Attend Community Cluster

04 April Chair, Relationship Manger and Advisors meeting

04 April Citizenship Ceremony with members Coury and Kumar

05 April Site Walkover of the Wattle Bay Track with Deputy Chair Fairey and members Holm and Kaushal

05 April Taste of Puketapapa video shoot with members Holm, Kaushal and Coury

08 April AKL International Cultural Festival stall with Deputy Chair Fairey and members Coury, Holm and Kaushal

08 April Auckland International Cultural Festival – opening ceremony

Other issues/challenges

Disclosures

nil

Recommendation/s

a) That the report be received.

Signatories

Author

H Doig

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

Auckland Transport's Monthly Update

File No.: CP2018/03629

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide a progress update to the Puketapapa Local Board (the Board) on its current transport capital fund projects.

2. It also provides information on other transport related activities in the Board area, including decisions of Auckland Transport’s (AT) traffic control committee and any consultations sent to the Board for comment.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. This report provides an update on the Board’s transport capital fund projects to date, together with financial information.

4. Included are updates on the Regional Land Transport Plan and a description of a site visit undertaken by staff and Board members in Lynfield.

5. Any reporting on consultations sent to the Board for feedback is noted along with relevant decisions of AT’s Traffic Control Committee.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive Auckland Transport’s monthly update for April 2018

Horopaki / ContextLocal Board Transport Capital Fund

6. The Puketāpapa Local Board’s projects are summarised in the table below:

Project	Description	Status	Projected Cost
Fearon Park Pathway	A shared path to be constructed through Fearon Park.	This is being managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities. First stage of the greenway path is complete and the second section of the pathway by the playground will be completed by June 2018.	$190,000
Richardson Road carpark realignment and Lighting project	A project to shift parking in the carpark to facilitate the construction of a shared path past the kindergarten. This will complete the missing link in the Mt Roskill safe route scheme.	This project is being delivered by Auckland Council Community Facilities who advise that a consent application is in progress.	$220,000
Keith Hay Park Lighting – Southern Section	Continuing the lighting project from the northern section to the southern end of the park past Noton Road carpark to Richardson Road.	This project is being delivered by Auckland Council Community Facilities who advise that they are in discussions with the affected stakeholders as to their preferred delivery timing. Delivery of this project is likely later in this calendar year.	$350,000
Smart Studs	Installation of flashing studs at the pedestrian zebra on Mt Albert Rd, vicinity of Three Kings Plaza.	Financial resourcing for this project was agreed in February 2018. Project is in design.	$60,000
Greenway Cycling Project – Route D (modified)	This route includes shared paths on Frost Road and then a combination of traffic calming measures, signs, markings along Britton and Dornwell Roads, shared paths through the laneways and then traffic calming on Hayr Road and Haughey Avenue through to, but not across Hillsborough Rd. It avoids the Hayr/Dornwell/Mt Albert Rds intersection.	Financial resourcing for this project was agreed in March 2018.	$600,000
Tetra Trap Installation	Working to improve water quality in the Oakley Creek catchment area.	Advice from Healthy Waters included installation of 25 tetra traps in catchpits in the Gifford Avenue area. This project is on hold until Board funding becomes available.	$30,000

7. At its March 2018 meeting, the Board supported Greenways route D, a cycling connection between Mt Roskill Campus and Hillsborough Road. The costs for this Improvement are likely to exceed the Board’s $600,000 capital fund but AT will be able to supply information to the Board on how the project might be staged.

8. In February 2018, the Board supported installing flashing studs at the zebra crossing on Mt Albert Road, near Three Kings Plaza. A project manager has now been assigned to this improvement.

9. Three other projects are being readied for delivery – they are the Fearon Park project, Richardson Road carpark realignment and lighting as well as the completion of lighting of the pathway in Keith Hay Park. These projects are being delivered by Auckland Council Community Facilities.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Hillsborough Road/Commodore Drive/Griffen Park Rd

10. This intersection has been of concern to the Board for some time. In particular, the illegal straight through movement many drivers attempt, and this has been exacerbated with recent commercial developments nearby and a large construction project beginning on Commodore Drive.

11. AT staff and Board members attended a site visit to the intersection in March to discuss the current layout.

12. AT’s traffic engineer was able to confirm several improvements to the intersection that are already in development:

· Cut back of the refuge island on Commodore Drive to allow the tanker to access the service station more easily

· Remove the redundant pram crossing on Commodore Drive

· Add a pram crossing outside the café on Hillsborough Rd

· Apply anti-skid marking to the intersection and red slow markings on the approach to the intersection

13. To discourage the straight through movement, AT will trial some “hit sticks” that will temporarily extend the traffic island on Griffen Park Rd. If this proves successful, it may be possible to extend the concrete traffic island to make a more permanent and resilient deterrent.

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

Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)

14. The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) is a plan of how transport delivery agencies intend to respond to growth and other challenges facing Auckland over the next 10 years. It includes a 10-year prioritised delivery programme of transport services and activities. It was decoupled from the consultation on Auckland’s Long Term Plan to allow extra time to for the document to consider transport priorities in light of the direction signaled by the new government.

15. It is now expected to be released for public consultation on 23 April 2018 and available to local boards on Friday 20 April 2018.

16. There will be a Local Board presentation and chance to ask questions about the RLTP on Monday 23 April 2018 and opportunities for the public to participate and ask questions are expected to take place. Dates for these events will be advertised once they are confirmed.

17. Hearings have been organised for Monday 30 April and Boards will have received invitations and time slots so that they can make presentations.

Bus Priority Measures Affecting Puketapapa Board Area

18. Mt Eden Road improvements, including the Balmoral Rd intersection and Mt Eden Village - AT is currently working through nearly 800 submissions on this consultation.

19. The proposed new bus lanes on Mt Eden Rd, Grahame Breed Dr to Roskill Way are delayed. The delay until late 2018 is due to the Three Kings development which is occupying part of the footpath along the route.

20. Bus/ Transit lane hours of operation changes citywide over the next two months, including Dominion Road and Mt Eden Road, Landscape Rd to Balmoral Rd.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

21. There was one decision of the Traffic Control Committee that affected the Puketapapa Local Board area in March 2018.

Street/Area	Description	Work	Decision
Denbigh Avenue, May Road, Mt Roskill Road, Radnor Road, Dominion Road	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	Nsaat, Clearway, Bus Stop, Lane Arrow Markings, Stop Control, Roundabout, Traffic Island, Flush Median, Traffic Signal Control	Carried

Consultation Items

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

1. The Puketāpapa Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects in its Board area of just over two million dollars.

Financial Summary

Puketapapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	2,064,658
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	2,025.039
Remaining Budget left	$39,619

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

25. Risks relating to the Board’s transport capital fund were discussed above.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

26. The next step for the Board is to consider whether it wishes to support the Greenways cycling option D and allocate the Board’s remaining transport capital fund to this project.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

Puketāpapa Open Space Network Plan - Key moves

File No.: CP2018/02741

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt key moves for the development of the Puketāpapa Open Space Network Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Agreement on the key moves will inform the development of an open space network plan for the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

3. Staff recommend adoption of the five key moves that focus on improving the quality of, and access to, open space in Puketāpapa.

4. The open space network plan will assist decision-making and provide a framework for the development of open space over the next 10 years.

5. There is no additional funding to implement projects in the open space network plan beyond renewal of existing assets and planned capital expenditure.

6. A draft open space network plan will be presented to the Local Board in April 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve the following key moves to guide the development of the Puketāpapa Open Space Network Plan:

i. high quality parks network

ii. treasured environment

iii. inclusive communities

iv. active involvement and wellbeing

v. opportunities to connect.

Horopaki / Context

7. An open space network plan is being prepared for the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

8. This plan will inform local board decision-making and expenditure across the park network as the area grows and changes over time.

9. The open space network plan will set out key moves for the development of open space over the next 10 years. The key moves respond to the current open space provision, the growth anticipated in the Puketāpapa area and changes in demographics and patterns of usage.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10. Staff have researched demographic data growth projections, and the current state of open space in the Puketāpapa area. The following is a summary of the findings.

Demographic data

Puketāpapa is a culturally diverse community

11. Puketāpapa is a culturally diverse community:

· 15.9% identify as Pacific Islanders

· 5.7% identify as Māori

· 44.2% identify as Asian

· 38% identify as New Zealand European

· 19% of residents are under 15 years of age

· 69% of residents are 15 to 64 years of age

· 11% of residents are 65 years of age or older.

12. Puketāpapa has the highest percentage of people in Auckland who identify as Asian. This is predicted to grow to nearly 60 per cent in the next 20 years.

Puketāpapa is anticipated to grow significantly

13. The population of Puketāpapa is anticipated to grow significantly over the next 20 years. Approximately 32 per cent growth is projected.

14. The Auckland Unitary Plan will result in the intensification of residential and business development in Puketāpapa.

15. This planned and expected growth will put pressure on parks and open space and a range of existing facilities.

Open space provision

16. Staff have researched the current state of open space in the Puketāpapa area through desk-top research, user surveys and discussions with key staff members.

17. The analysis has identified the following key points about the existing open space network:

· the network includes 144 council-owned parks covering 502 hectares of open space

· there is a lack of diversity in the open space experiences across the network

· a number of parks have poor access and are unsafe because of poor surveillance and connectivity.

Puketāpapa is generally well provided for in terms of the quantity of open space

18. Neighbourhood parks provide basic informal recreation and social opportunities within a short walk of people’s homes. A neighbourhood park should be provided within a 400 to 600 metre walk of residents’ homes depending on the density of housing.

19. There are some gaps in neighbourhood park provision when the Puketāpapa parks network is assessed against the Open Space Provision Policy (2016). These gaps are around the Royal Oak, Akarana and Walmsley census areas.

20. Suburb parks provide a variety of informal recreation and social experiences and will often accommodate organised sport facilities such as sports fields. Suburb parks should be provided within a 1000 to 1500 metre walk of residents’ homes.

21. The main gaps in the suburb park network are around the Royal Oak and Waikōwhai East census areas.

22. Puketāpapa has a good supply of sports fields, however, capacity in Mt Roskill is insufficient to meet current demand for competition. Overall, the sport field network across the Local Board is expected to be able to meet 75 per cent to 100 per cent of competition demand to 2028.

23. There is shortfall of sport facilities with adequate lighting for training purposes. A current shortfall of six hours per week has been noted for football and rugby league. This shortfall is forecast to increase to 26 hours by 2028. This indicates the need to provide more lighting for training fields in Puketāpapa to meet current and projected demand.

Residents are generally satisfied with open space quality

24. In 2015, the Parks and Recreation Policy Unit commissioned research to understand how people in the Puketāpapa Local Board area use and regard their local parks. The research found that 89 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their local neighbourhood parks.

25. People who visit parks in Puketāpapa enjoy a variety of activities, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Puketāpapa residents’ park activity preferences

26. The main barriers preventing people from using parks more often included a lack of time due to other commitments such as family or work, a perception that parks are not safe and a lack, or range, of facilities and activities.

27. The most common suggestions for improvements across all ages, ethnicities, family structures and incomes included:

· more facilities – seating areas, shaded areas, water fountains, toilets, gym equipment and volleyball courts

· improved park maintenance - specifically collection rubbish and toilets

· better security lights and security

· more children’s playgrounds and equipment - including play for different ages.

Residents want more and better play facilities

28. There are approximately 35 playgrounds that vary in size in Puketāpapa. Research found that 19 per cent of residents suggested improvements to local parks related to provision of more or better play facilities.

29. Issues around existing play provision centred on maintenance and lack of an interesting mix of activities.

30. Existing play spaces are of a similar design and do not provide for a wide age range. Furthermore, there is limited supporting recreation infrastructure in the parks to encourage people to stay for longer periods of time.

The Greenways Plan identifies high priority connections for the network

31. Puketāpapa Local Board adopted its first Puketāpapa Greenways Plan in 2012.

32. Implementation of the plan has led to the development of a good network of local paths for cyclists and pedestrians through the parks network.

33. The Puketāpapa Greenways Plan was updated in 2017. The plan identifies high priority routes that connect the parks network and growth areas to town centres with the existing greenways network. High priority routes identified include:

· Three Kings to One Tree Hill Domain

· Monte Cecilia Park to One Tree Hill Domain

· Three Kings to Monte Cecilia Park and Mt Roskill School Campus

· State Highway 20 cycleway at Hillsborough Road to Monte Cecilia Park

· Te Tātua-a-Riukuita - Big King accessibility links.

34. Renewals of the path network may require increased level of service or upgrades. This is currently unfunded.

Five key moves are proposed

35. Key moves are developed to inform and analyse the development of options in the open space network plan. They respond to the current state and anticipated growth in the area.

36. Staff have engaged with the local board at three workshops to formulate the key moves.

37. Staff have also engaged with mana whenua twice on the development of the open space network plan.

38. Both the Local Board and mana whenua have similar aspirations for the open space network in Puketāpapa. These aspirations are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Local Board priorities and mana whenua priorities

Puketāpapa Local Board priorities:

Mana whenua priorities:

· vibrant and popular parks and facilities

· treasured and enhanced natural environment

· Puketāpapa is well-connected and easy to move around

· a prosperous local economy, support local people

· connected communities with a sense of belonging

· improved wellbeing and safety.

· improve water quality / environmental quality

· keep open space open and available to all by reducing the number of buildings and commercial activities on parks

· make parks attractive places for locals to use

· promote use of local parks with local residents

· prevent crime and make parks feel safe

· incorporate Māori names, storytelling and signage

· always involve mana whenua in the process.

39. Staff recommend five key moves based on the current state analysis and feedback from the Local Board and mana whenua. These key moves are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Key moves and focus areas for action

Key move	Focus areas
High quality parks network	· provide for a range of open space experiences · optimise open space · develop distinctive parks.
Treasured environment	· develop sustainability opportunities · manage and improve water quality · improve biodiversity.
Inclusive communities	· reflect Maori identity, culture and heritage · celebrate the community’s identity and belonging · responding to the needs of the community equitably.
Active involvement and wellbeing	· support healthy lifestyles · improve awareness of open space · develop open spaces opportunities.
Opportunities to connect	· improve connectivity between communities and places · improve connections within and between open space · enhance ecological corridors · improve awareness of connections.

40. The key moves will inform the prioritisation of actions that will be included in the final open space network plan.

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

41. Improving the quality of open space will have a positive impact on all residents in the network plan area including Māori.

42. The following workshops have been held with Puketāpapa Local Board:

· September 2017 – present the parks survey and open space network plan process

· November 2017 – identify key moves

· February 2018 – develop key moves with mana whenua.

43. Local Board approval of the key moves is sought through this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

44. Data from the 2013 Census show that the Puketāpapa area has a lower Māori population (5.8%) than the average population across Auckland (10.7%).

45. The provision of quality parks and open spaces will facilitate Māori participation in sport and recreation.

46. Māori participation rates in sport and recreation in Auckland are slightly higher than the national average. Approximately 85 per cent of Māori participate in sport and recreation each month according to Active New Zealand Survey – Auckland Results (2013/2014). This figure is relatively comparable to other ethnic groups. However, Māori are disproportionately represented among those with sedentary lifestyles and there is a higher incidence of mortality and morbidity associated with inactivity.

47. Staff engaged with mana whenua in September 2017 and February of this year to seek their views and values in relation to the open space network in Puketāpapa. These views have been incorporated into the key moves.

48. Staff will continue to engage with mana whenua on the development of the open space network plans at a local board workshop.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

49. Actions identified within the network plan will need to be accommodated within existing budgets as no additional funding has been allocated.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

50. There is a risk that the expectations of local residents may not be met if identified actions within the network plan are not achieved due to lack of funding.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

51. Staff will prepare a draft open space network plan for the Puketāpapa Local Board area using the key moves.

52. The draft plan will be presented to the local board and mana whenua at a workshop in April 2018 for feedback.

53. The final plan will be reported to the local board for adoption in June 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Clark - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Andrew Wood - Team Leader Parks and Recreation Policy - North/West

Paul Marriott-Lloyd - Senior Policy Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/03564

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 Puketāpapa Local Board endorse:

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

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

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

Horopaki / Context

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

9. The establishment of the fund is consistent with the government’s original policy intent that local boards would have a role in funding local transport projects out of a dedicated local budget [CAB Minute(09) 30/10] and that “local boards will have an advisory role with respect to transport services and a budget for the transport elements of ‘place shaping’^{^[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	49
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	51
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	53

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two and Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018 grant allocations

File No.: CP2018/03377

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018 and Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Puketāpapa Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 (see Attachment B) and Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018 (see Attachment C).

3. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the Puketāpapa Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 16 March 2017 (see Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total of $60,000 local grants and $12,000 for quick response grants for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $31,781 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018, leaving a total of $28,219 to be allocated. A total of $5,012 was allocated in Quick Response, Round One and Two 2017/2018, leaving a total of $6,988 to be allocated to quick response round two.

5. Thirteen applications were received for Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, requesting a total of $47,334.52 and five applications were received for Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018, requesting a total of $5,371.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two, listed in Table One.

Application ID	Organisation	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1815-217	Basava Samithi of Australasia (New Zealand Chapter) Incorporated	Towards production of “Vachanotsava” materials.	$4,022.00	Eligible
LG1815-211	Dance Therapy NZ	Towards programme facilitation fees, supervision costs, programme coordination, administration and equipment to run “Dance 4 Us” workshop sessions.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-203	Wizkids Learning Limited	Towards the cost of facilitators' and assistants' salary, advertisements and workshop materials for technology holiday workshops.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-204	Vandana Patel	Towards equipment costs for free boot camp fitness classes in Winstone Park.	$1,898.65	Eligible
LG1815-205	Shager Ethiopian Entertainment	Towards hall hire for practices, decorations, volunteer costs, wages for the chairperson, printing costs for flyers and office supplies for the Ethiopian Cultural Day.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-207	Kelly Hutchison	Towards the cost of group activities and equipment for "Rise," a fitness and weight loss programme.	$1,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-215	The Scout Association of New Zealand (Royal Oak Group)	Towards preparation, maintenance and painting of the internal den of the Royal Oak Scout Hall.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-216	Citizens Advice Bureau Auckland City Incorporated.	Towards the refurbishment of the waiting room and the installation of a video screen to promote services and local events at the Citizens Advice Bureau, Mount Roskill.	$2,730.87	Eligible
LG1815-219	Sina Panama	Towards delivery costs for the “Niue Community Today Show Day”	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-220	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards the Youthline help line and text delivery costs, and support for the clinical support worker and youthwork team leader salary costs.	$4,664.00	Eligible
LG1815-221	Life Education Trust Counties Manukau	Towards costs to purchase workbooks for the Life Education health and nutrition programme.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-212	Project Litefoot Trust	Towards the overall cost of Project Litefoot, including materials, equipment, advertising and promotion.	$1,219.00	Eligible
LG1815-218	Te Karanga Charitable Trust	Towards the delivery of a two week holiday program, specifically the cost of three youth development workers’ wages.	$4,800.00	Ineligible as the applicant has applied for the same project in this financial year
Total			$47,334.52

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Three, listed in Table Two.

Application ID	Organisation	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1815-306	Urdu Hindi Cultural Association of New Zealand Inc	Towards venue hire, sound systems and musician fees for the “Mushaira and Ghazal Night”.	$817.00	Eligible
QR1815-308	Family First Welfare Trust	Towards venue hire of the Wesley Community Hall, poster printing and child care for “Effective Parenting Workshops”.	$554.00	Eligible
QR1815-301	Genealogical Computing Group	Towards projects costs for the “Auckland Family History Expo 2018”.	$1,000.00	Eligible
QR1815-307	Action Education Incorporated	Towards the cost of running 10 spoken word poetry workshops to be held in schools in the local board area.	$2,000.00	Ineligible as the amount requested exceeds the maximum limit set for the grant round
QR1815-302	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards a portion of the phone bill to cover the operating costs of the Youthline helpline.	$1,000.00	Ineligible as the applicant has applied for the same project in this financial year
Total			$5,371.00

Horopaki / Context

1. The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme.

3. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

· grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

· any additional accountability requirements.

4. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2017/2018 on 16 March 2017 and will operate three quick response and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

5. The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice7. The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

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

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

9. The board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

10. A summary of each application received through Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two and Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Three is attached, (see Attachment B and C).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

11. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes. Three organisations applying in Local Grants round two and Two organisations in Quick Response round three has indicated their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

13. The Puketāpapa Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $60,000 for local grants and $12,000 for quick response grants, the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $31,781 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018, leaving a total of $28,219 to be allocated. A total of $5,012 was allocated in Quick Response, Round One & Two 2017/2018, leaving a total of $6,988 to be allocated to one quick response round.

14. Thirteen applications were received for Puketāpapa Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, requesting a total of $47,334.52 and Five applications were received for Puketāpapa Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018, requesting a total of $5,371.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks15. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	61
b ⇩	Puketāpapa Quick Response Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications	65

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Moumita Dutta - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

Puketāpapa Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/04722

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) adopt the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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 ⇩	Puketāpapa Local Board Grants Programme 2018/2019	85

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

2018 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2018/03048

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about the Local Government New Zealand Annual Conference and General Meeting in Christchurch Sunday 15 July 2018 to Tuesday 17 July 2018 and to invite local boards to nominate elected members 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 2018 to 1pm on Tuesday 17 July 2018.

3. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. In 2018, with the venue 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, Local Government New Zealand requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the Annual General Meeting. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme by Friday 13 April 2018 so that this information can be provided to Local Government New Zealand.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

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

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

c) note that any members who wish to attend the AGM must provide their names to the Kura Kāwana project team by Friday 13 April 2018 to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand.

Horopaki / Context

5. This year, the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference and Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held at the Christ’s College, Christchurch, from Sunday 15 July 2018 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 2018.

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 chairperson 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 2018 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 impacting 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	93

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

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04431

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Puketāpapa 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

Puketāpapa Local Board

19 April 2018

Additions to the 2016-2019 Puketāpapa Local Board meeting schedule

File No.: CP2018/02858

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve two additional meeting dates to be added to the 2016-2019 Puketāpapa Local Board meeting schedule in order to accommodate the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 timeframes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted the 2016-2019 meeting schedule on 24 November 2016 (Resolution PKTPP/2016/1).

3. At that time the specific times and dates for meetings for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement as part of the 2018-28 Long-term Plan were unknown.

4. The board is being asked to approve two additional meeting dates to the Puketāpapa Local Board meeting schedule so that the Long-term Plan timeframes can be met.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) approve two additional meeting dates to the 2016-2019 Puketāpapa Local Board meeting schedule to accommodate the 10-year Budget 2018-28 timeframes as follows:

· Thursday, 10 May 2018, 10.00am

· Thursday, 7 June 2018, 10.00am

b) note the venue for both meetings will be the Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Fickling Convention Centre, 546 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.

Horopaki / Context

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) have requirements regarding local board meeting schedules.

6. In summary, adopting a meeting schedule helps meet the requirements of:

· clause 19, Schedule 7 of the LGA on general provisions for meetings, which requires the chief executive to give notice in writing to each local board member of the time and place of meetings. Such notification may be provided by the adoption of a schedule of business meetings.

· sections 46, 46(A) and 47 in Part 7 of the LGOIMA, which requires that meetings are publicly notified, agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting and that local board meetings are open to the public.

7. The Puketāpapa Local Board adopted its business meeting schedule at its 24 November 2016 business meeting.

8. The timeframes for local board decision making in relation to the local board agreement which is part of the 10-year Budget 2018-28 were unavailable when the meeting schedule was originally adopted.

9. The board is being asked to make decisions in early May and early June to feed into the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process. These timeframes are outside the board’s normal meeting cycle.

10. The schedule of meetings for 2018 is as follows:

Date	Time	Venue
15 February	4.00pm	Lynfield Room, Fickling Convention Centre, 546 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings
15 March	4.00pm	Lynfield Room, Fickling Convention Centre, 546 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings
19 April	4.00pm	Lynfield Room, Fickling Convention Centre, 546 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings
10 May*	10.00am	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Fickling Convention Centre, 545 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
17 May	4.00pm	Lynfield Room, Fickling Convention Centre, 546 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings
7 June*	10.00am	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
21 June	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
19 July	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
16 August	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
20 September	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
18 October	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
15 November	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
6 December	4.00pm	Puketāpapa Local Board office boardroom, Mt Roskill Borough Building, 560 Mt Albert Road, Three Kings.
* additional meetings

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. The board has two choices:

i) Add the two meetings as additions to the meeting schedule.

ii) Add the two meetings as extraordinary meetings.

12. For option one, statutory requirements allow enough time for these meetings to be scheduled as additions to the meeting schedule and other topics may be considered as per any other ordinary meeting. However there is a risk that if the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 timeframes change or the information is not ready for the meeting there would need to be an additional extraordinary meeting scheduled anyway.

13. For option two, only the specific topic 10-year Budget 2018-2028 may be considered for which the meeting is being held. There is a risk that no other policies or plans with similar timeframes or running in relation to the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 process could be considered at this meeting.

14. Since there is enough time to meet statutory requirements, staff recommend approving these meetings as additions to the meeting schedule as it allows more flexibility for the board to consider a range of issues.

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

15. This report requests the board’s decision to schedule two additional meetings and consider whether to approve them as extraordinary meetings or additions to the meeting schedule.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report. Local boards work with Māori on projects and initiatives of shared interest.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

17. There are no financial implications in relation to this report apart from the standard costs associated with servicing a business meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

18. There are no significant risks associated with this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

19. Implement the processes associated with preparing for business meetings

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories