Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 15 March 2018, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

6 Acknowledgements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.

7 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

11 Notices of Motion

There were no notices of motion.

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 April 2018

Upper Harbour locally driven initiatives capital expenditure: Additional funding requests

File No.: CP2018/04952

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· seek land owner approval and locally driven initiatives capital expenditure (LDI capex) funding for the installation of a new disc golf course at Rosedale Park

· seek land owner approval and LDI capital funding for the installation of instructional fitness equipment signage at Bill Moir Reserve

· seek approval to spend $11,000 of the already approved $15,000 contingency for the installation of a basketball half court at Unsworth Reserve

· seek approval to increase funding to four previously approved local board Initiatives.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Two new proposals have been presented to the local board that are in line with the outcomes of the 2017 Upper Harbour Local Board Plan. These outcomes empower people living in Upper Harbour to influence what happens in their neighbourhood. The proposals are to:

· install a disc golf course at Rosedale Park

· install fitness equipment instructional signage at Bill Moir Reserve.

3. There have also been a number of other community-driven projects, previously endorsed by the board, that council staff have been completing investigation and design work on. This planning has revealed that allocated budgets are insufficient to deliver the agreed scope of the projects. Therefore, additional budget is required.

4. In order to complete the two new projects and the underfunded projects, council staff are seeking an additional $87,000 from the Upper Harbour Local Board LDI capital fund.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve installation of a disc golf course at Rosedale Park and fitness equipment instructional signage at Bill Moir Reserve.

b) note that $11,000 of the available $15,000 contingency budget (resolution number UH/2018/11) will be used for the Unsworth Reserve 3-on-3 basketball court to cover costs associated with project scope changes relating to:

i. installation of a new path to the court

ii. additional planting

iii. creation of a grass bund for spectators to sit on.

c) approve additional budget of $87,000 from its 2017/2018 locally driven initiatives (LDI) capital budget to the projects as indicated in the table below:

	Project	Previously approved budget	Additional budget required	Total project cost
1	Rosedale Park disc golf	$0	$18,000	$18,000
2	Signage at Bill Moir Reserve	$0	$8,500	$8,500
3	Herald Island Domain basketball hoop	$5,000	$9,000	$14,000
4	Malcolm Hahn Reserve basketball hoop	$5,000	$10,000	$15,000
5	Hobsonville War Memorial Park cricket nets	$100,000	$30,000	$130,000
6	Gills Reserve walkway link to Hooton Reserve	$7,000	$11,500	$18,500
	TOTAL	$117,000	$87,000	$204,000

Horopaki / Context

Disc golf

5. A proposal has been presented to the Upper Harbour Local Board to install a disc golf course in Rosedale Park. The proposed location is shown in Attachment A.

6. Disc golf is an informal recreation activity consisting of nine holes (also known as baskets) where players throw a frisbee or disc at the basket. The infrastructure required is minimal, consisting of baskets and tee markers (wooden posts with signs). Players use their own discs or frisbees.

7. Disc golf courses have been successfully installed in Auckland Council parks, most recently at Henderson Park in Henderson.

Signage at Bill Moir Reserve

8. Fitness equipment had previously been installed at Bill Moir Reserve; however, there is some confusion as to how to correctly use the equipment. The Upper Harbour Local Board has requested installation of instructional signage detailing the correct usage.

Unsworth basketball court

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board approved installation of a 3-on-3 basketball court at Unsworth Reserve in 2017 (resolution number UH/2017/100). The board then approved additional funding and a contingency of $15,000 to be used to cover any unexpected overruns encountered during construction (resolution number UH/2018/11).

10. During construction, there have been scope changes relating to the installation of a new path to the court, additional planting and the formation of a grass bund for spectators to sit on. These scope changes require $11,000 of the $15,000 contingency to be used.

Other LDI capital projects

11. During the investigation and design phase of a number of already approved LDI capital projects, it has been identified that the allocated budgets will be insufficient to complete the projects. These projects include:

· Herald Island Domain basketball hoop

· Malcolm Hahn Reserve basketball hoop

· Hobsonville War Memorial Park cricket nets

· Gills Reserve walkway link to Hooton Reserve

Decision-making authority

12. The local board has decision-making authority over recreation facilities and initiatives. These include specific location, design, build and fit-out of new local recreation and sports facilities within budget parameters agreed with the Governing Body and the use of local recreation facilities and initiatives, including leasing and changes of use.

Links to strategies, policies and plans

13. By approving the new projects and allocating additional funding for LDI capex projects, the board will be meeting Outcome 1 of the 2017 Local Board Plan:

‘Outcome 1: Empowered, engaged and connected Upper Harbour communities - People living in Upper Harbour are able to influence what happens in their neighbourhoods.’

14. All projects identified in this report have been initiated by the local community.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Rosedale disc golf

15. Council staff support installation of a disc golf course at Rosedale Park. The baskets will all be removable so other user groups of the park e.g. Movies in Parks, can still use the area.

Bill Moir Reserve fitness equipment signage

16. Council staff support the installation of signage to explain how to use the fitness equipment at Bill Moir Reserve. The signage is proposed to be installed on posts next to each piece of equipment.

17. Fitness experts will be engaged to prepare the pictorial designs on how to use the equipment.

Unsworth basketball court

18. The local board resolved to increase funding for the installation of the basketball court (resolution number UH/2018/11). As part of this resolution, the local board delegated authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to allocate up to $15,000 contingency to cover any unexpected costs.

19. This report is requesting approval from the local board to allocate $11,000 of this contingency to install a new path to the court, additional planting and the formation of a grass bund for spectators to sit on.

Herald Island Domain basketball hoop

20. This is a previously approved project to install a fixed height basketball tower and hoop and a small concrete pad (resolution number UH/2017/100). The initial budget was insufficient to deliver the approved scope, and additional funding is therefore required.

Malcolm Hahn Reserve basketball hoop

21. This is a previously approved project to install a height-adjustable basketball hoop and tower, and the renewal of the basketball and tennis line markings (resolution number UH/2017/100). The tower is similar to what has been installed at Hooton Reserve.

22. The use of the adjustable hoop needs to be carefully managed and clear guidelines on who can increase and lower the height need to be developed.

23. If the hoop is not being used correctly and a health and safety risk is identified, the hoop will be locked into its maximum height position.

Hobsonville War Memorial Park cricket nets

24. This is a previously approved project to install cricket nets with three lanes at Hobsonville War Memorial Park (resolution number UH/2017/100). During investigation and design and based on other recently completed projects, it has been identified that the budget will be insufficient to complete the previously agreed scope. Additional funding is therefore required.

Gills Reserve walkway link to Hooton Reserve

25. This is a previously approved project to install a concrete pathway connecting Gills Reserve and Hooton Reserve (resolution number UH/2015/211).

26. During the investigation phase, it was identified that the budget is insufficient and additional budget is therefore required.

27. Further investigation needs to occur as it has been identified that the proposed pathway is in a storm water zone and alternative surfaces may need to be considered i.e. gravel or permeable surfaces.

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

28. All proposed new projects and budget increases have been discussed with the local board at a workshop on 22 March 2018.

29. The local board have previously approved a number of these projects, and the applicable resolution numbers have been referenced earlier in the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30. No culturally significant factors have been identified in the projects identified in this report.

31. Therefore, it is proposed that no further consultation with the Parks and Recreation North West Mana Whenua Engagement Forum is required.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

32. All additional funding requested in this report is to be funded through the local board’s LDI capital 2017/2018 budget.

33. The local board has $570,000 of uncommitted LDI capital budget available.

34. The following table summarises the additional expenditure required for each project:

	Project	Previously approved budget	Additional Budget required	Total project cost
1	Rosedale disc golf	$0	$18,000	$18,000
2	Signage at Bill Moir Reserve	$0	$8,500	$8,500
3	Herald Island Domain basketball hoop	$5,000	$9,000	$14,000
4	Malcolm Hahn Reserve basketball hoop	$5,000	$10,000	$15,000
5	Hobsonville War Memorial cricket nets	$100,000	$30,000	$130,000
6	Gills Reserve walkway link to Hooton Reserve	$7,000	$11,500	$18,500
	TOTAL	$117,000	$87,000	$204,000

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

35. If additional funding is approved, council staff will progress design and begin tendering for physical works.

36. Availability of contractors will be the main limiting factor for completion of these projects. The local board will be kept updated at workshops as to the progress of each project.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location and layout of disc golf course at Rosedale Park	23

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Kris Bird - Manager Sports Parks Design & Programme

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 April 2018

Upper Harbour Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant allocations

File No.: CP2018/04279

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the Upper Harbour Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in the Upper Harbour Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 (refer Attachment B).

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 20 April 2017 (refer Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. The local board has allocated $64,656 in Local Grant Round One and Quick Response Round One 2017/2018. The local board also approved $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group (resolution number UH/2017/127) from the community grants budget. This leaves a total of $89,744 to be allocated over two quick response rounds.

5. Thirteen applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $41,481.

6. One further application was received as a multi-board application, requesting a total of $10,500.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in the Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 applications as outlined in the following table:

Application ID	Applicant	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1817-216	Chris Berthelsen	Towards facilitator costs for the mobile self-learning pottery project	$1,000	Eligible
QR1817-202	Albany Chinese Association	Towards the annual cost for room hire at the Albany House and Ōteha Valley School	$11,747	Eligible
QR1817-207	The Parenting Place	Towards the costs to deliver 28 mental health and life skills workshops and printed material for four high schools in the Upper Harbour area	$2,099	Eligible
QR1817-208	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Towards the annual cost of the helpline - relative to the approximate number of contacts received from the Upper Harbour area	$1,288	Eligible
QR1817-209	Hearing Dogs for Deaf People NZ	Towards two months’ rent for the National Office for Hearing Dogs for Deaf People New Zealand, based in Albany, from 1 June to 1 December 2018	$2,000	Eligible
QR1817-211	Hobsonville Hall Society Incorporated	Towards a year's insurance cover for Hobsonville Hall between 1 January 2018 to 1 December 2018	$3,000	Eligible
QR1817-212	North Shore Women's Centre	Towards eight weeks of the social worker salary at North Shore Women's Centre	$8,536	Eligible
QR1817-215	Action Education Incorporated	Towards the cost of delivering 10 spoken word poetry workshops in schools in the Upper Harbour Local Board area	$2,000	Eligible
QR1817-204	Sarah Benbow	Towards costs for the Greenhithe Lantern Festival event 2019	$3,000	Eligible
QR1817-206	Badminton New Zealand Incorporated	Towards venue hire for the New Zealand Secondary School Badminton Championships held from 3 September 2018 to 6 September 2018	$2,000	Eligible
QR1817-214	Gymnastics Community Trust	Towards new equipment, including 10 mats, in a new permanent facility at Albany Tennis Park starting from July 2018	$1,913	Eligible
QR1817-217	North Harbour Hockey Association	Towards delivery kits, coaching and coordination costs to assist with running the four to seven-year olds' movement and sport specific skills development programme between May 2018 to September 2018	$2,200	Eligible
QR1817-218	Helen Fergusson	Towards venue hire in the Sunderland lounge in Hobsonville, and a portion of the movement practitioner costs	$698	Eligible
Total requested			$41,481

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline the multi-board application in the Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 application, as outlined in the following table:

Application ID	Applicant	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1808-304	Age Concern North Shore Incorporated	Towards Age Concern North Shore’s operational costs	$10,500	Eligible
Total requested			$10,500

Horopaki / Context

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

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board adopted the Upper Harbour Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 20 April 2017 (refer Attachment A).

10. The Upper Harbour Local Board will operate one local grant round and three quick response rounds in this financial year. Upper Harbour Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 closed on 9 March 2018.

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

12. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

15. A summary of each application received through the Upper Harbour Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 is provided (refer Attachments B and C).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori. Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications17. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

18. The Upper Harbour Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $155,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. The local board allocated $49,252 in the Upper Harbour Local Grant Round One 2017/2018.

19. At the August 2017 meeting, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group (resolution number UH/2017/127):

Approve funding of $600 to the Hobsonville Herb Group from the local board discretionary community grants fund to enable the establishment of the herb garden, and note that as this project provides improvement to a reserve, and in order to take advantage of the planting season, the board is considering this now, rather than through the contestable grants process.

20. A total of $15,404 was allocated in Quick Response Round One 2017/2018, leaving a total of $89,744 to be allocated to two quick response rounds.

21. Thirteen applications were received in this round, with a total amount requested of $41,481.

22. One further application was received as a multi-board application, requesting a total of $10,500.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

25. Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for round two quick response grants, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	29
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications	33
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 mutiboard application	87

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Erin Shin - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 April 2018

Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/03619

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Upper Harbour 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 grants 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 Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 for adoption (refer Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopt the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 as set out in Attachment A to the agenda report.

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 will be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach, which includes utilising local board channels.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. The new Upper Harbour Community Grants Programme has been developed from the board’s 2017/2018 grants programme. The 2018/2019 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 Upper Harbour 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 improve 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 2018‑2028 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 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 ⇩	Upper Harbour Community Grants Programme 2018/2019	95

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 April 2018

Approval for three new road names in the Scott Point Estate Limited Partnership subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2018/04389

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from Upper Harbour Local Board to name three new public roads in the Scott Point Estate Limited Partnership subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3. The applicant, Scott Point Estate Limited Partnership, has submitted the following road names, which are extensions to existing named roads on an adjoining subdivision at 17, 17A, and 19 Scott Road:

Road no.	Name	Type
5	Kota	Lane
6	Craigs	Way
8	Turret	Lane

4. All proposed road names are deemed to meet the criteria and are acceptable to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve three new road names within the residential subdivision at 23 Scott Road, Hobsonville:

i) Road 5 – Kota Lane

ii) Road 6 – Craigs Way

iii) Road 8 – Turret Lane

Horopaki / Context

5. Upper Harbour Local Board approved the road names for road numbers 5, 6 and 8 as follows:

· 28 June 2016 – Kota Lane, Craigs Way and Turret Lane approved, along with nine other road names within 17, 17A, and 19 Scott Road (resolution number UH/2016/110). All were subsequently loaded by LINZ into their road database.

· 21 September 2017 – Gunn Way and Treloar Crescent approved as names for road numbers 12 and 13 at 23 Scott Road (resolution number UH/2017/144).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

6. According to the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines, where a new public or private 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 local board approval.

7. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically requires that road names reflect:

· a historical or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature

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

8. Names need to be easily identifiable and intuitively clear, thus minimising confusion.

9. The three new public roads to be named service properties within the subdivision and are shown in Attachment A. This attachment also shows road numbers 5, 6 and 8 in the adjoining subdivision at 17, 17A, and 19 Scott Road.

10. The neighbour at 21 Scott Road, abutting part of the south-west boundary of 23 Scott Road, has not submitted a subdivision application for their land. However, the developers of the land surrounding 21 Scott Road on three sides have included a possible road layout as part of the planning for their subdivision, as shown in Attachment B.

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

11. 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. A decision is therefore, sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board in this report.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

13. Local iwi were consulted in June 2016 during original approvals and responses were received from Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust, Te Akitai Waihoua, Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua and Ngati Whatua Orakei Toki Taiao.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

14. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed changed road name is recoverable in accordance with Auckland Council’s administrative charges..

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

17. Approved road names are notified to LINZ who record them on their New Zealand-wide land information database, which includes street addresses issued by councils. On completion of the subdivision and after all resource consent conditions are met, the roads can be legalised and new property titles issued.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Location plan	103
b ⇩	Neighbour's possible layout	105

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Philip Steven - Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

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

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04646

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In September 2017, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an increase to the LTCF 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 Board 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 Board 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 Board 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 views and 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse an increase to the Local Transport Capital Fund of $10 million per annum (inflation adjusted) from 1 July 2018.

b) endorse distribution of the entire Local Transport Capital Fund to be made according to Auckland Council’s Local Board Funding Policy from 1 July 2018.

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

9. 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 (Cabinet 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 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 which has since been adjusted for inflation, and now sits at $10.8 million. Funding is currently split between local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier Island local boards, which receive 2 per cent and 1 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 (resolution number 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 21 local boards, and issues relating to the administration of the fund. Workshops have been held with each local board to discuss these proposals and now formal feedback is sought through business meetings. Final recommendations will be made to the Governing Body in May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. Issues with the LTCF identified through the Governance Framework Review were grouped under three key themes:

· the overall size, or quantum, of the LTCF

· 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 New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) 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 the 2016‑17 financial year was $17 million, as local boards have been able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant projects. LTCF funding has delivered 286 projects over the five-year period.

18. The LTCF contribution to these 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 as 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 $650,000 a year per local board 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. Local boards that have had access to higher levels of funding have generally found it easier to leverage the LTCF budget to attract NZTA subsidies and additional Auckland Transport funding, e.g. 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 Board 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 Board 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. The option of applying the population-based distribution methodology has been modelled (refer Attachment A) based on Statistics New Zealand 2017 population estimates. As is evident 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 Board Funding Policy to the LTCF

26. Following establishment of the LTCF, work was undertaken to develop the current Local Board 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 (5 per cent) and land area (5 per cent). This funding policy is currently applied to locally driven initiatives funding, including the local driven initiatives capital funding, but was not retrospectively applied to the LTCF.

27. Development of the Local Board Funding Policy involved significant consultation and engagement with local boards prior to final adoption. There are no current plans to review the policy.

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

Fixed and variable costs distribution

29. As previously noted, Auckland Transport has the view that to deliver transport infrastructure of any significance, a certain level of baseline funding is desirable – around $650,000 per annum per local board, 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 50 per cent of the entire quantum of funding being distributed by an even split (except for Great Barrier and Waiheke Island local boards which receive one third and two thirds of a single share respectively), thus giving all other local boards the same level of core funding. The other 50 per cent of the funding would be distributed according to the Local Board Funding Policy.

33. Options have been modelled (refer Attachment C) to apply 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, the following assessment criteria have been applied:

· 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. 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 benefit 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 applying this approach 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 1 and 2 per cent formula for the island boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Board 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, 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 two 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 Board Funding Policy based distribution

41. This distribution method involves application of the current Local Board Funding Policy. The policy is currently applied to distribution of funding for local activities (including local capital expenditure) to local boards and is based on the following factors: 90 per cent population^{^[4]}, 5 percent deprivation^{^[5]}and 5 per cent land area^{^[6]}^.

42. Applying the Local Board 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 Board Funding Policy, i.e. that population is the key driver of need for the funding, but that geography and deprivation also need to be considered.

44. This distribution methodology evens out the increase in funding across the 21 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 relation 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 based on 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 applying the Local Board 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 ($6 million 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 Board 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 three or four 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. Local 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 operating expenditure 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. There were 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 distribution criteria of 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 deprivation and land area factors. 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, and/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 enable transparent trade-offs at a detailed level to be understood 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	115
b ⇩	Local board funding policy distribution	117
c ⇩	Fixed and variable cost distribution 50 50	119

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

19 April 2018

Reallocation of funds from the Auckland Regional Services Trust

File No.: CP2018/04142

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide recommendations for matters requiring the board’s attention in the following areas:

· Arts, Culture and Events

· Finance.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. North Shore City Council administered funding which it held in trust following dissolution of the Auckland Regional Services Trust (ARST). A grant from this funding was made to the Shore Exhibition Trust to establish a new exhibition centre in Takapuna. However, the trust has been unable to complete the project.

3. The General Manager Corporate Finance and Property has prepared a memorandum outlining the re-allocation of the $270,000 funding as per the Local Board Funding Policy formula (refer Attachment A). The approximate allocation to the Upper Harbour Local Board will be $55,650, which will come into the board’s budget at the start of the 2018/2019 financial year.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note that approximately $55,650 of operational budget will be made available in the 2018/2019 financial year, to be used for arts and culture purposes as part of the return and redistribution of the grant provided under the Auckland Regional Service Trust grants scheme to the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust, prior to the amalgamation of council.

b) note that this funding is ring-fenced for reallocation within the boundary of the former North Shore City Council for arts and cultural activities.

c) request that, as part of the 2018/2019 work programme, staff advise how the budget referenced in clause a) can be used towards implementing arts and culture initiatives, programmes and events, as outlined in the local board plan.

Horopaki / Context

4. This report addresses matters which require the attention of the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Auckland Regional Services Trust Grant

5. North Shore City Council administered funding which was held in trust following dissolution of the ARST. A grant from this funding was made to the Shore Exhibition Centre Trust to establish a new exhibition centre in Takapuna.

6. The Shore Exhibition Centre Trust were unable to complete the exhibition centre project. The General Manager Corporate Finance and Property has prepared a memorandum outlining the re-allocation of funding (refer Attachment A). The main points are summarised below:

· The residual balance of funding is $270,000. The funds will be reallocated based on the current Auckland Council policy, specifically the Community Grants Policy and Local Board Funding Policy. Given the original purpose of this funding, it is appropriate for the funds to be ring-fenced for re-allocation within the boundaries of the former North Shore City Council for arts and culture activities.

· Applying the formula in the Local Board Funding Policy for locally driven initiatives budgets, the approximate allocation to the Upper Harbour Local Board will be $55,650. The funds will be available to be used in the 2018/2019 financial year, with any budget remaining unallocated after this period to go towards savings. The funding is operational in nature (rather than capital) and cannot be used to support council-generated capital projects but may be used to provide a grant to a third party organization for capital works.

· It is recommended that the local board request staff come back with advice, ideally as part of the 2018/2019 work programme development, as to how the budget can used for implementing arts and culture initiatives, programmes and events as outlined in the local board plan.

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

7. Local board views are sought via this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

8. There are no specific impacts on Māori arising from this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

9. Advice will be sought from the relevant staff as to how the budget can used in 2018/2019 for implementing arts and culture initiatives, programmes and events as outlined in the local board plan.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

10. There are no significant risks arising from the recommendations of this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

11. A workshop will be scheduled for the local board to discuss the use of the funding from the reallocated Auckland Regional Services Trust grant in the 2018/2019 financial year.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Regional Services Trust memo	123

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[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	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

Authors	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager