Agenda of Papakura Local Board

A member will lead the meeting in prayer.

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 Papakura Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 28 March 2018, including the confidential section, 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

6.1 Youth Scholarship recipient presentation - Rachel Biggelaar

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Providing an opportunity to acknowledge Rachel Biggelaar for receiving a Youth Scholarship for nursing studies as part of the 2018 Papakura Local Board Youth Scholarship programme.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) acknowledge Rachel Biggelaar as a successful recipient of Youth Scholarship for nursing studies as part of the 2018 Papakura Local Board Youth Scholarship programme.

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 Papakura 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. Lincoln Jefferson from the Life Education Trust, will speak about the trust and the work they undertake in primary schools.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

2. thank Lincoln Jefferson from the Life Education Trust, for speaking about the trust and the work they undertake in primary schools.

Attachments

a Life Education Programme Outline..................................................... 125

8.2 Deputation - Keri Vista Rise playground request

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Anneke Rene, a local resident, will speak about requesting a playground at Keris Vista Rise.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

2. Anneke Rene, for speaking about requesting a playground at Keri Vista Rise.

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.

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update – April 2018 to the Papakura Local Board

File No.: CP2018/04791

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the current status of Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), respond to resolutions made by the Papakura Local Board and provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Papakura Local Board and its community

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This months report requires no decisions from the local board and provides a summary of information on the following matters:

a. Auckland Transport’s ‘draft Regional Land Transport Plan’

b. Progress on the current local boards Transport Capital Fund projects

c. Responds to local boards resolutions

d. Update on Papakura Park & Ride/ Bus Interchange

e. Update on Safer Communities Project in Papakura

f. Takanini Platform Upgrades

g. Update on Papakura Train Station gating project

h. Footpath repair on Settlement Road

i. Update on New Rollerson Road footpath

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

i) note the Auckland Transport update for April 2018

Horopaki / Context

Regional Land Transport Plan 2018 (RLTP)

3. 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.

4. The original intention was to consult on the plan alongside Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan. However, the consultation has been “decoupled” and moved into April to ensure it is informed by, and strongly aligned with, the Government’s soon to be released Policy Statement on Transport and a refreshed Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. This section covers the analysis and advice related to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) Projects.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

10. The Papakura Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects in the local board area of approximately $300,000 per annum.

11. The local boards current Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects are summarised in the table below:

Table 1 – Local Board Transport Capital Fund Summary Table

Project Name	Problem or Opportunity Being Addressed	Current Status
Relocation of pedestrian crossing on East Street, Papakura.	Existing pedestrian crossing seen as a potential safety hazard and located in the wrong position.	The rough order of costs for this project is $117,000. As the current allocation of funding for this term has been allocated, alternative funding options are being explored.
Raised pedestrian crossing for Wood Street, Papakura.	Lack of safe pedestrian crossing on Wood Street and speeding.	This work is at scheme plan phase and costings have been completed. The rough order of costs for this project is $156,000. As the current allocation of funding for this term has been allocated, alternative funding options are being explored.
Priority Greenway Project 12 from the Papakura Greenways Plan - Elliot Street to Freelance Terrace.	No off-road cycleway/ pedestrian link to SH1 cycleway / walkway currently under development.	This boardwalk will link the existing boardwalk around the Pahurehure Inlet to the proposed bridge over State Highway 1, Karaka and the shared pathway currently under construction by New Zealand Transport Agency alongside SH1. This project has recently been allocated to Auckland Council Community Facilities for delivery. As part of the feasibility study, options are being explored including a proposal by the Pahurehure Inlet Protection Society (PIPS) presented to the local board at the December 2017 business meeting. An objection to the boardwalk project has also been received by Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. Currently awaiting confirmation from Auckland Council Community Facilities for a confirmed timeline for report back to the local board.

Responses to Local Board resolutions

12. At the 28 March 2018, 28 February 2018 and 22 November 2017 meeting of the Papakura Local Board, a number of resolutions were passed which are responded to in the table below:

Table 2 – responses to local board resolutions

That the Papakura Local Board:
March 2018 Resolution	Resolution number PPK/2018/35
b) request the Local Board Relationship Manager to meet with the Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship management staff to discuss the quality and content of reporting required to meet the board’s expectations	Meeting arranged for 12 April 2018. Local board Relationship Manager will report back to the local board on outcomes of that meeting.
February 2018 Resolutions	Resolution number PPK/2018/12
c) request Auckland Transport investigate and report back on the feasibility of installing pedestrian safety measures to allow pedestrians to cross the eastern side of the Settlement Road / Marne Road round-a-bout.	This is currently under investigation and will be reported back to the local board by May 2018.
d) request Auckland Transport develop a parking strategy for the Papakura town centre and its immediate surrounds.	This request is currently being progressed and an update was expected to be provided to the local board in the April 2018 meeting with details for delivery. This has been delayed and a report back is now expected next month – May 2018.
h) request Auckland Transport provide an update on the plans for the Hingaia and Linwood Roads and Hingaia Bridge to deal with the congestion in the area.	A workshop is being organised to brief the local board as per their request. Currently the works consist of road widening for Hingaia Road up to 280 Hingaia Road, (just west of the Oakland Road intersection). Options for the improvement of the Hingaia Road bridge and Linwood road have not been investigated. The workshop will brief the local board on the road widening plans, and include future planning in the area.
November 2017 Resolution	Resolution number PPK/2017/251
c) request Auckland Transport to investigate options for a pedestrian crossing at the Drury bridge to link the footpath on the western side to the footpath on the eastern side of the bridge.	This was originally intended to be reported back to the local board in March 2018. At this stage, pedestrian surveys north of the Slippery Creek Bridge and speed surveys were organised earlier this year. Various options including alternative pedestrian facilities, refuge islands, lowered speed limits and a pedestrian bridge are being considered though it should be noted however that the cost for a bridge may be prohibitive. This initiative is being been investigated as part of the Safer Communities Papakura project.

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

Consultation

13. Auckland Transport provides local boards with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the Papakura Local Board area.

14. In the reporting period for March 2018, 2 projects were put forward for comment by the Papakura Local Board. They included a proposal for the installation of Give Way and No Stopping At All Times [NSAAT] on Hollowout Street & Kuaka Drive. The other was for Broken Yellow Lines along for the proposed Medical Centre at 57 Clevedon Road. A summary of these proposals can be found in attachment A.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) decisions

15. Traffic Control Committee decisions within the Papakura local board area are reported on a monthly basis. There were four decisions for the period of February 2018.

Table 2: TCC Decisions

Street name	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Committee Decision
Nelson Street, Great South Road, Chapel Street, South Street	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	NSAAT, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Lane Arrow Markings, Traffic Island, Flush Median, Stop Control	Not Carried
Willis Road, Kelvin Road, Sheehan Avenue, Settlement Road, Albion Place	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	NSAAT, Bus Stop, Edge Line, Traffic Island, Road Hump, Pedestrian Crossing, Stop Control, Give-Way, Flush Median	Carried
Te Napi Drive, Gosper Road, Paraone Crescent, Orford Lane, Naganui Avenue, Pepene Avenue	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	Lane Arrow Markings, Cycle Lane, Shared Cycle Path, NSAAT, Traffic Island, Road Hump, Pedestrian Crossing, Give-Way, Roundabout, Flush Median, Delineators	Approved in Principle
Hayfield Way, Unnamed Streets	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	NSAAT, Give-Way, Lanes	Approved in Principle

Papakura Park & Ride & Bus Interchange

15. On 4 April 2018, a workshop was held with the local board to discuss a change to the scope of the originally planned project for the Papakura Park & Ride.

16. Issues around the provision of bus layovers and safe movement of buses in and around the existing bus station were identified through recent works to upgrade the area around the existing bus station.

17. It was identified that a more comprehensive solution would be required to address the identified issues resulting in a proposal to extend the existing bus station. The extension would mean encroaching into the proposed Park & Ride site thereby impacting the current plan and timelines for the existing Park & Ride plan which was due to be progressed for delivery in early 2018.

18. Work around developing a more comprehensive plan of the site to include both a redesigned Park & Ride and accommodate an expanded bus interchange is currently underway – April 2018.

19. In May/June, the project will seek the Auckland Transport Board’s guidance on the progression of this expanded project.

Safer Communities project – Papakura

20. Papakura has been selected as one of three locations for the Safer Communities Project to be initially trialled. The Safer Communities Project seeks to improve road safety in communities and promote active modes of transport by improving pedestrian infrastructure.

21. The community feedback from consultation, which was held in October 2017, has been collated and is being used to develop a priority list of projects to improve the ‘walkability’ in and around the Papakura Town Centre. A local board workshop was held on the 21 February 2018 where direction from the local board included a presentation to the Papakura Commercial project.

22. A further workshop was held with; a lead from the Papakura Commercial project, Auckland Council parks team and the Integrated Area Plan team to better integrate work in the Papakura Town Centre area amongst the various stakeholders.

23. Currently scheme plans are being drawn up in preparation for community engagement and a report back to the local board at a workshop on 13 June 2018.

Takanini Station Platform upgrades

24. An upgrade to the Takanini and Te Mahia Stations began on the 30 March 2018. The works to the Takanini station include a change to the profile of the platform to improve drainage and preparation for the new foundations, new lighting and CCTV with subsequent works to install standard shelters, which will bring the station into alignment with other stations on the network.

25. Works will run periodically into June 2018, with the station closed to allow major excavation works to be undertaken on the station platform. Buses will replace train services over this period.

26. While work is underway, necessary steps will be taken to minimise disruption where possible. Designated car parks and vehicle drop off zones will remain open at all times but land utilised for informal parking may be utilised for the construction works.

Papakura Train Station gating project

27. Auckland Transport is currently nearing the completion of region wide programme to install electronic ticket gates at selected stations on the rail network. This includes Papakura, which was set to be operational in June 2018.

28. This work has been delayed due to contractual issues. This has delayed work in the current scheduled location of works in Papatoetoe, which has had a flow on effect, pushing out the Papakura operational date to July 2018.

Footpath repair on Settlement Road

29. In March 2017, a request was received from a member of the public, via the chair of the Papakura Local Board, to repair of the footpath outside Papakura Intermediate on Settlement Road. The works were scheduled for July 2017 but not carried out, as advised to the local board.

30. The request for the footpath repair was recently raised and contractors have been out to meet with the Principal of the school who have confirmed that the work will be done later this month during the April 2018 school holidays. It is expected to have minimal impact to the activities of the school.

New Rollerson Road footpath

Picture of proposed new footpath on Rollerson Road.

31. Auckland Transport has a list of approximately 500 sections of new footpath for consideration across Auckland.

32. In 2017, it was highlighted that a section of Rollerson Road, Papakura, did not have a footpath down the western side of the street. A footpath was not installed when the area was first established.

33. This was added to the list of new footpaths to be developed. Recently consultation has been completed on this project with no objections. This is now progressing to detailed design stage.

34. This work is expected to be delivered before July 2018, subject to any further changes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

36. With regards to transport, the Papakura local boards only budget implication is related to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. The current financial status of the local board is recorded below

Table 3: Transport Capital Fund Summary

Papakura Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary
Total funds available in current political term	$1,465,381
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$1,436,237
Remaining budget	$29,144

37. Projects that are adopted by the local board through resolutions at the April 2018 meeting will be reflected in next month's report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

38. No significant risks have been identified

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

39. Auckland Transport provides the Papakura Local Board with the opportunity to comment or make requests through resolution on transport projects and issues in the local board area.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Kenneth Tuai – Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04792

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks formal feedback from the Papakura ocal 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 Papakura 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	27
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	29
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	31

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

New community leases at 32 Old Wairoa Road and 21R Cliff Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2018/02672

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve two new community leases for:

· Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo) at Old Wairoa Reserve, 30 Old Wairoa Road, Papakura.

· The Scout Association of New Zealand (Papakura Sea Scouts) at Pahurehure Esplanade Reserve, 21R Cliff Road, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Community leases are one of the ways in which the council provides support to local community organisations, assisting them to sustain the activities and experiences they provide in alignment with recognised local priorities.

3. For the recommended new leases, a process has been followed which includes a review of the tenants’ performance, that the organisations are sustainable and the services and programmes offered are beneficial to the community.

4. The lease with Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for the Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo was issued by Papakura District Council and commenced on 1 June 2007. The lease had a term of 10 years. The trust has applied for a new lease for their building on Old Wairoa Reserve.

5. As the kohanga reo lease is on land that is administered under the Local Government Act 2002, iwi engagement and public notification of the intended lease is required.

6. The lease with The Scout Association of New Zealand for the Papakura Sea Scouts was issued by (the then) Papakura Borough Council and commenced on 1 April 1974. The lease had an initial term of 21 years, with one 21 year right-of-renewal. The right-of-renewal was exercised by Papakura District Council in 1995 and has now expired. The association has applied for a new lease for their building on Pahurehure Esplanade Reserve.

7. As the scout lease is on land classified as a recreation reserve with a management plan that does not anticipate this activity; the Reserves Act 1977 requires public notification and iwi consultation to be undertaken.

8. Community outcomes plans have been agreed to by both groups and will be an attachment to the new leases, subject to local board approval (Attachments B and D). The groups will report annually against their target performance measures.

9. It is recommended that the board delegate to the chair to appoint a hearings panel to hear any submissions/objections received as a result of the public notification process and make a decision in that regard. Staff recommends that the new leases be granted for these two groups under the terms and conditions stated in the recommendations below, provided no public objections are received.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) grant a community lease to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo) under the Local Government Act 2002, for the land described as Part Lot 3 Deposited Plan 10784, being 1480 square meters (more or less) - NA427/165; encompassing the kohanga reo at Old Wairoa Reserve, 30 Old Wairoa Road, Papakura, (outlined in blue in Attachment A), subject to one months’ public notification, and provided no objections are received, on the following terms and conditions under the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 years commencing 1 June 2017, with one ten-year right-of-renewal

ii) rent - $1.00 (+ GST) per annum if demanded

iii) community outcomes plan - (Attachment B) be attached to the lease document

iv) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

b) grant a community lease to The Scout Association of New Zealand (Papakura Sea Scouts), under Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, for the land encompassing the clubrooms at 21R Cliff Road, Papakura (outlined in blue in Attachment C), subject to one months’ public notification, and provided no objections are received on the following terms and conditions, under the following terms and conditions:

i) term – 10 years commencing 1 August 2016, with one ten-year right-of-renewal

ii) rent - $1.00 (plus GST) if demanded

iii) community outcomes plan - (Attachment D) be attached to the lease document

iv) with the addition of the following clauses:

TREATY OF WAITANGI ACT

Statutory Administering Body: Where, pursuant to the Classification of the Land, the Landlord has granted this Lease in its capacity as the statutory administering body of the Land, acting on behalf of the Crown, under the Reserves Act 1977, then the Crown reserves the right to resume control and administration of the Land in the event of a successful claim being made for the Land to be used as redress pursuant to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The contractual rights contained in this Lease will not be affected by any change in ownership of the Land.

OPEN MEMBERSHIP

Admission to membership of the Tenant’s organisation is governed by the rules of the Tenant and in accordance with the Scout Association of New Zealand Act 1956 (within this clause the “Act”). If membership of any person is refused or cancelled then the Landlord may request the Tenant in writing to review that decision and following such request the Tenant will appoint a member of its National Council (as defined within the Act) to review the decision to refuse or cancel the membership and provide a brief written statement to the Landlord of the outcome of that review and its rationale for the refusal or cancellation of such membership.

v) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

c) delegate to the Chair to appoint a panel to hear any submissions received following the public notification process and for the panel to make a decision with regard to the Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo and Papakura Sea Scout leases.

Horopaki / Context

10. Under the terms of the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to re-apply at the end of their occupancy term and are offered a standard lease term of 10 year, plus one 10 year right-of-renewal. Rental is set at $1.00 per year (plus GST) if demanded. These tenants are responsible for all utility costs regarding their buildings (electricity, gas, water, internet, etc.), insurance, structural and non-structural maintenance.

11. Prior to the granting of a lease under the Local Government Act that exceeds six months, Auckland Council is required to engage with local iwi and publicly notify its intention to grant a lease. There is no cost to the local board for these two processes. It is recommended that the board delegate to the chair to appoint a hearings panel to hear any submissions received as a result of the public notification process and make a decision in that regard.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo)

12. Te Kohanga Reo Trust first registered as an incorporated society on 4 January 1984, changing the name to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board on 14 September 1992. Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo has operated in Papakura since 1983. The trust owns the building located on Old Wairoa Domain at 30 Old Wairoa Road Papakura (Site Plan – Attachment A).

13. The family orientated kohanga reo operates as a total immersion language nest and is open to anyone wanting to be part of Māori culture – regardless of race, religion, age or gender. They aim to revive Māori language and customs, have been instrumental in the establishment of total immersion Māori units in local schools and have close ties to the local marae. A recent addition to the teaching programme has been collaboration with Massey Park Aquatic Centre to provide Te Reo Māori swimming lessons for their children.

14. Papakura District Council issued a lease that commenced on 1 June 2007, with a term of 10 years. The lease expired on 31 May 2017. The trust has applied for a new lease for the property on behalf of the Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo.

15. A site visit was undertaken and a community outcomes plan discussed and sent and approved by the Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo.

16. The land at Old Wairoa Reserve is described as Part Lot 3 Deposited Plan 10784 - NA427/165 being 5172 square meters. The kohanga reo occupies approximately 1480 square meters of the reserve. The land is held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002, as such iwi engagement and public notification of the intention to lease is required. Iwi engagement is underway and the board is asked to nominate a hearings panel to consider all submissions and decide.

Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo, 30 Old Wairoa Road, Papakura

17. Staff recommend that a new lease be issued to Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board for the Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo at 30 Old Wairoa Road, under the standard terms and conditions in the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 as outlined in the recommendation above, subject to no objections being received.

The Scout Association of New Zealand (Papakura Sea Scouts)

18. The Scout Association of New Zealand is a body corporate incorporated under the Scout Association of New Zealand Act 1956. Papakura Sea Scouts continues to occupy the buildings located on Pahurehure Esplanade Reserve, 21R Cliff Road, Papakura (Site Plan – Attachment C).

19. Sea Scouts are a branch of Scouting New Zealand and use a maritime environment to deliver a range of water based activities to provide a safe, fun, challenging and adventurous programme in which to develop important life skills. The Papakura Sea Scouts have provided scouting activities from the current location since 1974. The club has approximately 35 members aged between five and 19 years old; with 10 adult leaders. An additional clause relating to membership of scouts is detailed in the above recommendation (c)(iv).

20. The lease issued by the former Papakura Borough Council provided an initial term of 21 years, with one 21-year right-of-renewal. The lease reached final expiry on 31 March 2016. The organisation has applied for a new lease for the property on behalf of the Papakura Sea Scouts.

21. A site visit was undertaken and a community outcomes plan discussed and approved by Papakura Sea Scouts.

22. The land at Pahurehure Esplanade Reserve is described as Part Allotment 12, Section 12 Village of Papakura -NA510/204 Deposited Plan 20572; comprising 8094 square meters. The scout buildings cover approximately 358 square meters of the reserve. The land is held by the Department of Conservation, classified under the Reserves Act 1977 as a recreation reserve and vested in the Auckland Council, in trust, for recreation purposes. As such the lease will contain a Treaty of Waitangi clause relating to the underlying crown ownership of the land.

23. As a classified recreation reserve with an operative reserve management plan that does not contemplate this use of the reserve, public notification of the intention to lease and engagement with iwi must be undertaken under the terms of the Reserves Act 1977. Iwi engagement is underway. The board is asked to approve public notification and nominate a hearings panel that will be convened only if there are any public or iwi objections to the granting of this lease.

Papakura Sea Scout building at Pahurehure Esplanade Reserve, 21R Cliff Road, Papakura

24. Staff recommends that a new lease be issued to The Scout Association of New Zealand for the Papakura Sea Scout building at Pahurehure Esplanade Reserve, 21R Cliff Road, Papakura, under the standard terms and conditions in the Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 as outlined in the recommendation above, subject to no objections being received. A further additional clause, used in all Scout Association leases, regarding membership of Scouts, will be included in the deed of lease.

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

25. The recommendations in this report fall under local boards’ delegated authority relating to local recreation, sports and community facilities.

26. Additionally, the recommendations also support the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 outcome of people in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives and the objective of services and facilities that meet the community’s needs now and into the future; and the outcome treasured for its environment and heritage.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

28. Community leases support a wide range of activities and groups and are awarded based on an understanding of local needs, interests and priorities. Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo is a Māori language immersion early childhood education provider, committed to the continuation of Māori culture and language. Papakura Sea Scouts has around seven per cent Māori members and all scouts now have the option of making the Scout Law and Scout Promise in te reo Māori.

29. Engagement was undertaken with mana whenua identified as having an interest in land in the Papakura Local Board area about these proposed new community leases, with a presentation at the Central South Mana Whenua Forum held at Manukau on 28 March 2018. The forum had no objections to the proposed leases.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

31. Both groups own and maintain their own buildings on council land and have an automatic right to reapply for a new lease at the end of the term. If the leases are not granted then the buildings would transfer to council ownership, maintenance would be the responsibility of council; and advertising for and assessment of new tenants would need to take place.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

32. Subject to the grant of a new community lease, staff will work with the groups to finalise the leasing documents.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo) – Site Map	39
b ⇩	Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board (Nga Puāwai o Wikitōria Kohanga Reo) – Community Outcomes Plan	41
c ⇩	The Scout Association of New Zealand (Papakura Sea Scouts) – Site Map	43
d ⇩	The Scout Association of New Zealand (Papakura Sea Scouts) – Community Outcomes Plan	45

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Jenny Young – Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by MJ99 Ltd at 96 Settlement Road, Papakura

File No.: CP2018/03836

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Papakura Local Board, for a new road name for a new private way created by way of subdivision at 96 Settlement Road, Papakura.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Old Villa Way,’ ‘Prosper Way’ and ‘Accession Way’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted and no responses were received.

5. NZ Post and LINZ were consulted who both confirmed that the proposed names are acceptable.

6. The names ‘Old Villa Way,’ ‘Prosper Way’ and ‘Accession Way’ are put forward for approval by the Papakura Local Board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval the road name ‘Old Villa Way’ for the new private way created by way of subdivision, at 96 Settlement Road, Papakura while noting that ‘Prosper Way’ and ‘Accession Way’, also meet the road naming criteria.

Horopaki / Context

7. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the local board’s approval.

8. The residential subdivision is located on the northern side of Settlement Road, between Kelvin Road and Harper Street.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the private way created as part of the development at 96 Settlement Road, Papakura.

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Old Villa Way	The site previously boasted a beautiful old villa, which was well known to the community and an informal landmark on Settlement Road.
First Alternative	Prosper Way	To succeed, flourish and grown strong and successful. The developer’s vision is that future residents will establish a community where people will prosper and thrive.
Second Alternative	Accession Way	The action or process of formally joining or being accepted by an institution, community or group. The developer considers that this name fits well as their vision is to have this subdivision accepted and integrated into the closer community and neighbourhood.

Figure One: Location and layout of new private way

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

10. The applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines. The names are all considered to be consistent with the guidelines.

11. The road names were also referred to NZ Post and LINZ, who confirmed that the names were acceptable. NZ Post did note that there is a Prospero Terrace in Mt Albert, however considered that ‘Prosper Way’ is acceptable as the names are phonetically different.

12. Local iwi groups were consulted and no responses were received.

13. The proposed suffix of ‘Way’ is considered to be acceptable as it accurately reflects the characteristics of the road, being a short enclosed roadway.

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

14. The decision sought from the Papakura Local Board 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

15. The decision sought from the Papakura Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with council’s administrative charges.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17. The decision sought from the Papakura Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Danielle Ter Huurne – Intermediate Planner

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

Papakura Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/04853

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) adopt the Papakura 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 Papakura 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 Papakura 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 ⇩	Papakura Local Board Grant Programme 2018/2019	53

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04793

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Papakura 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 Papakura Local Board:

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

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

Horopaki / Context

Notified Resource Consents

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

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

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

Notified Plan Changes and Notices of Requirement

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options considered

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

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

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

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

Option	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 Papakura Local Board will operate under the delegations of the Papakura Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

Papakura locally driven initiaitves (LDI) - capital expenditure allocations 2017/2018

File No.: CP2018/04858

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Papakura Local Board for the addition of five locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital projects to the 2017/2018 Community Facilities Work Programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Papakura Local Board has proposed to Community Facilities staff a number of projects to be scoped utilising their LDI Capex funding.

3. The list below was agreed by local board members during Locally Driven Initiatives workshops in December 2017, March and April 2018 to be approved for delivery during the 2017/2018 financial year:

· Massey Aquatic Park - solar heating and thermal pool covers

· Papakura City Brass Band – all weather parking

· Drury library – programme support

· Fitness stations Papakura local board area - scoping only

· Drinking fountains Papakura local board area - scoping only.

4. This report outlines the scope of each project and recommends the LDI capital budget allocation required for each project.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) approve up to $170,000 of their LDI Capex financial Year 2017/2018 budget to the installation of solar panel heating and new thermal pool covers for the outdoor pool at Massey Aquatic Park.

b) approve up to $74,000 of their LDI Capex financial Year 2017/2018 budget to install an all-weather parking surface (‘gobi block’ or grasscrete) for the Papakura City Brass Band facility.

c) approve up to $6,000 of their LDI Capex financial Year 2017/2018 budget to provide equipment to support learning programmes at the Drury library.

d) approve up to $5,000 of their LDI Capex financial year 2017/2018 budget to progress the scoping of fitness style equipment requirements across the Papakura local board area and report back to the Local Board with recommendations.

e) approve up to $5,000 of their LDI Capex financial year 2017/2018 budget to progress the scoping of water drinking fountain requirements across the Papakura local board area and report back to the Local Board with recommendations.

Horopaki / Context

Massey Aquatic Park - solar heating and thermal pool covers

5. The Massey Park Aquatic Centre facility has been operating within the Papakura community catchment for more than 50 years and provides the community with an invaluable asset (Attachment A, figure 1 – outdoor pool ariel view).

6. With no external weather protection and/or heating mechanism existing external pool utilization is limited to 4 months of the year.

7. This in turn has resulted in a reduced aquatic membership base with members and catchment community having to either go elsewhere to swim or not swim at all. This is resulting in:

a. large numbers of younger people not having the opportunity to develop or maintain basic level water survival skills

b. the demise of Massey Park Aquatic Centre as a venue of choice for school, interclub and regional events.

8. This outdoor 50M public pool has historically been used for competition events and has been certified and confirmed as 50.01 – 50.015 M in length, within competition required specifications.

City Brass Band – all weather parking

9. At the request of the Papakura Brass Band and with approval from the Papakura Local Board, Community Facilities has begun to investigate the requirements and costs associated with installing a ground cover system (such as Gobi-block or grasscrete) to enable year-round off-street vehicle parking.

10. An existing grassed area in front of the building, totalling approx. 437sqm, is currently used by approx. 20 to 30 vehicles 4 times per week.

Drury Library programme support

11. Supply of new equipment to support the Drury library programmes. Items include

· Shelving for children’s books

· Return secure drop box

· A laptop and Wi-Fi capable printer

· Signage.

Fitness style equipment – Papakura Local Board area

12. Installation of fitness style stations aligns with the Papakura Local Board Outcome 2: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives, where they have great parks and places to play and do the things that they enjoy.

Water drinking fountains – Papakura Local Board area

13. Installation of water drinking fountains aligns with the Papakura Local Board Outcome 2: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives, where they have great parks and places to play and do the things that they enjoy.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Discussion

Massey Aquatic Park - solar heating and thermal pool covers

14. In November 2017 Auckland Council completed an unrelated infrastructure project at Massey Park Aquatic Centre to remove and renovate building structures surrounding the outdoor pool.

15. This has resulted in a need to re-scope the original canopy and solar heating system requirements.

16. The solution proposed is utilizing a Heliocol system (20year +, High UV cover, separated riser system allowing water through with robust fixings).

17. The indoors heating annual costs (2104) were $275,000. The indoors and outdoors annual pool heating costs (forecasted) at $315,000.

18. It is estimated the annual heated savings due to solar are $32,500.00 and 77 tonnes of emission reductions annually.

19. A site-visit including key contractors and stakeholders; Auckland Council Pools & Water Feature Specialist, Papakura swimming club manager, local subject matter experts and LDI project manager has been held to confirm the scope feasibility and building requirements.

20. It has been noted that if parts of the current thermal pool covers can be reused the cost for the thermal pool cover replacements will be reduced.

Papakura City Brass Band (104 Arimu Road) – all weather parking

21. At the request of the Papakura Brass Band and with approval from the Papakura Local Board, Community Facilities has begun to investigate the requirements and costs associated with installing a ground cover system to enable year-round off-street vehicle parking.

22. An existing grassed area in front of the building, totaling approx. 437sqm, is currently used by approx. 20 to 30 vehicles 4 times per week

23. The proposed space encompasses both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport owned land.

24. Auckland Transport officers have provided direction for the completion of a Corridor Access Request (CAR) as formal land owner approval . They have provided some technical advice about ways to approach the project that would best comply with Auckland Transport’s policies such as the use of grass-crete. This advice will be used in the development of the CAR.

25. As noted the Auckland Transport land owner approval may require the area for a pedestrian footpath is kept free for future development.

Drury Library programme support

26. Supply of new equipment to support the Drury library programmes. Items include

· Shelving for children’s books

· Return secure drop box

· A laptop and Wi-Fi capable printer

· Signage.

Fitness style equipment – Papakura Local Board area

27. Fitness style equipment in parks will provide increased opportunity for park users to remain active.

28. Installation of fitness style equipment will be a step towards the Local Board Outcome 2: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives, where they have great parks and places to play and do the things that they enjoy.

29. The approval of the scoping budget will enable a review of the current provision across the Papakura Local Board area, identify gaps in the provision, undertake a planning assessment and provide recommendations to the local board for implementation.

Water drinking fountains – Papakura Local Board area

30. Drinking fountains provide park visitors with a means of rehydration, resulting in longer stays at the park and increased opportunity to recreate.

31. Installation of drinking fountains will be a step towards Local Board Outcome 2: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives, where they have great parks and places to play and do the things that they enjoy.

32. The approval of the scoping budget will enable a review of the current provision across the Papakura Local Board area, identify gaps in the provision, undertake a planning assessment and provide recommendations to the local board for implementation.

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

33. The proposed projects in this report were discussed at the local board workshop December 2017, March and April 2018. The local board was in support of the proposed recommendations.

34. Installation of solar panel heating for the outdoor pool at Massey Aquatic park will provide long term sustainable solution that reduces emissions, reduces power costs and increases the number of hours the outdoor pool can be open during the winter months, further enabling increased use of the indoor pool;.

35. Installation of an all-weather parking solution will ensure that the brass band only have to carry their heavy music instruments a short distance between their vehicles and their practice facility during poor weather.

36. Installation of outdoor fitness equipment will ensure public users of the open spaces have increased opportunity to remain active.

37. Installation of drinking fountains will ensure public users of the open spaces have access to drinking water and improve the amenity of public reserve.

38. These proposed projects align with the Papakura Local Board Plan 2017 Outcome 2: People in Papakura lead active, healthy and connected lives.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

39. All community assets contribute significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed projects are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua then appropriate engagement will be undertaken.

40. Te Ao Māori values have influenced all design aspects of the proposals presented.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

41. The cost estimates for the preferred options presented in this report are seeking to be funded from the Papakura Local Board’s Locally Driven Initiatives capital budget, which currently has approximately $647,000 available for allocation within the 2017/2018 financial year.

42. Any savings achieved will be returned to Local Board’s LDI capital budget for reallocation.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

43. A delay in decision making could potentially impact upon the physical works delivery programme planned for completion by June 2018.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

44. Following approval from the board, next steps are to:

a. Complete any required design documents and resource consenting

b. Hand over to the project delivery team to manage the physical works delivery.

45. It is expected that physical works will be completed within the 2017/2018 financial year.

46. The board will receive monthly updates on the progress of this project through regular Community Facilities reporting.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Locally Driven Initiative Capital Projects 2017/2018	67

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Katrina Morgan - Manager Community Led & LDI Project

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Papakura Local Board

18 April 2018

Papakura Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/03938

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To present the three months Governance Forward Work Calendar to the Board.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

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

ii) clarifying what advice is required and when

iii) clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Papakura Local Board:

a) note the Governance Forward Work Calendar as at 5 April 2018.

Horopaki / Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

14. This report is a point in time of the governance forward work calendar. It will be updated monthly. It minimises the risk of the board being unaware of planned topics for their consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Review Calendar as at 5 April	115

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Madelon De Jongh - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

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

[2] Based on Statistics NZ 2011 population estimates

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

[4] Based on annually revised estimates from Statistics NZ

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

Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson	Brent Catchpole
Members	Felicity Auva'a
	Hon. George Hawkins, QSO
	Bill McEntee
	Michael Turner
	Katrina Winn

Authors	Paula Brooke - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura

Authors	Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Manoj Ragupathy - Relationship Manager Manurewa & Papakura