Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

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

Members were 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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

The following are declared interests of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron · New Zealand Society of Genealogists – Member · New Zealand Military Defence Society – Member · Cartwright Collective – Member · Titirangi RSA – Member · Portage Trust – Member · West Auckland Trust Services - Director
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Whau River Catchment Trust - Employee
Greg Presland	· Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member · Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee · Combined Youth Services Trust – Trustee · Glen Eden Bid - Member
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee
Saffron Toms	NIL

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Rural Advisory Panel - Member
Steve Tollestrup	· Glen Eden Business Improvement District
Greg Presland	· Glen Eden Business Improvement District (alternate)
Saffron Toms	· Ark in the Park

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 12 April 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 Update from Ward Councillors’

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

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 Waitākere Ranges 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.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update Report for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board – April 2018

File No.: CP2018/05433

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report covers:

i. Progress on the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018

ii. Consultation on Proposed Safety Improvements

iii. Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the report entitled ‘Auckland Transport Update to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board – April 2018.

Horopaki / Context

Projects and activities of interest to the Board

Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2018

3. Consultation on the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2018 will begin on Tuesday 1 May and closes on Monday 14 May.

4. Members from all 21 local boards have been invited to an information, question and answer session on Monday 30 April.

5. 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 7 May.

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

Piha and Scenic Drive Intersection - Road Safety Issues

7. Auckland Transport are still investigating options for the intersection but will have more of an idea in May 2018, regarding the high level feasibility of different options.

8. This will give us a better initial understanding of physical requirements, costs, and stakeholder requirements and if larger physical works need to be pursued.

9. We are also investigating if any minor road marking or signage changes can be made as an interim measure.

10. A meeting has been arranged in April for AT to meet with the Local Board and key stakeholders for AT to provide an update.

Improved safety for pedestrians at rail crossings

11. Auckland Transport (AT) and KiwiRail have begun to install automatic safety swing gates to keep pedestrians safe at rail crossings across the city.

12. The pedestrian crossing at Metcalfe Road in Ranui was the first to have safety swing gates installed last year. Work will be carried out at the crossings at Asquith Avenue and Rossgrove Terrace (Baldwin Avenue Station), Fruitvale Road Station and the crossings at Woodward Road and Lloyd Avenue (Mount Albert Station). These are expected to be operational by May-June this year (weather dependant).

13. The gates are activated by a sensor on the tracks, and have a safety zone with an emergency exit gate. When a train approaches these pedestrian level crossings, the bells sound, red lights flash on and off and the crossing gates close automatically.

14. Project details

· Auckland Transport is gating several pedestrian level crossing across train tracks at Baldwin Avenue, Mount Albert and Fruitvale Road Stations

· These will be followed by the crossings at Woodward Road and Lloyd Avenue in Mt Albert

· The project aims to improve safety for pedestrians, especially school children who cross over the tracks regularly

· The new pedestrian safety swing gates are activated by a sensor on the tracks and have a safety zone with an emergency exit gate

· When a train approaches, the bells sound, red lights flash and the crossing gate will automatically close

· Pedestrians are advised to stay behind the swing gate and wait until it is fully open before crossing

· When pedestrians have started to cross and the gates start closing, they can:

o Continue crossing the tracks to the other side and wait in the safe zone in front of the emergency exit gate,

o Return to the safe zone that they entered

· Once pedestrians are in the safety zone (on the other side), they can push the emergency exit gate to walk through

o If there is no push button, they can simply push the gate to exit.

15. For more information on the electronic ticketing gates project visit at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/train-stations-pedestrian-level-crossing/

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

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

16. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for it’s feedback, and are summarised here for information purposes only.

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

· Proposal to Broken Yellow Lines in Atkinson Road, Titirangi

· Proposal to install broken yellow lines on Rangiwai Road,Titirangi

Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

18. Decisions of the TCC during the month of March 2018 affecting the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area are listed below.

Date

Street (Suburb)

Type of Report

Nature of Restriction

Decision

1-March-18

West Coast Road, Shaw Road, Glengarry Road, Oratia

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined

Nsaat, Shared Path, Give-Way, Traffic Island, Road Hump, Pedestrian Crossing

Carried

1-March-18

Sunvue Road, West Coast Road

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined

Lane Arrow Markings, Nsaat, Traffic Island, Stop Control, Flush Median

Carried

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. 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

20. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Members Relationship Manager (Western Boards)

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

Business Improvement District (BID) Programme Compliance Report to Waitakere Ranges Local Board for FY 2016-2017

File No.: CP2018/04808

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Glen Eden Village Business Association for the financial year ending June 2017.

2. To provide information on which the local board will recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for this BID programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement Districts programme supports business associations by collecting a targeted rate from commercial properties within a defined geographic area. The funds from the targeted rate are then provided by way of a grant to the relevant business association (BID).

4. The BIDs are incorporated societies that are independent of council. For council to be confident that the funds provided to the BIDs are being used appropriately, council requires the BIDs to comply with the The Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016) (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi), known as the BID Policy.

5. The BID Policy was developed to encourage improved governance of BID committees and staff to improve financial management, programme delivery and transparency to their members.

6. This report indicates that the Glen Eden Village Business Association has failed to comply with the BID Policy for the year ending June 2017. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by this business association to council’s BID programme team to date.

7. Glen Eden Village BID does not meet BID policy requirements due to its failure to provide an Annual Accountability form by the 12 March deadline specified in the Policy and to submit a board charter. However, these instances of non-compliance are not grounds under the Policy for withholding the targeted rate, nor are they cause for serious concern.

8. Staff recommend that the Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by the Glen Eden Village BID despite not complying fully with the BID policy for the year ending June 2017.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) recommend to the governing body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the in the Annual Budget 2018-19 for the following BID:

· $91,920 for the Glen Eden Village Business Association

Horopaki / Context

9. Council adopted the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) in 2016. This policy outlines the principles behind the council BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and terminating BIDs; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements. Please see Attachment A for a review of key elements of the BID programme.

10. BID targeted rates are applied to all commercially-rated properties within a designated area around a town centre or commercial precinct. Those funds are transferred to the business association operating the BID programme.

11. There are currently 48 BID programmes throughout Auckland which represent more than 25,000 businesses and a combined $17.5 million in targeted rates investment. Please see Attachment B for current and proposed targeted rates budgets for all BIDs.

12. Under the Auckland Council co-governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities in relation to BIDs. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.

13. Recommendations of this report are put into effect with the Governing Body’s approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019 and striking of the targeted rate.

14. This report is a requirement of the BID Policy (2016).

Compliance with BID Policy

15. The BID Policy is the means for council to ensure accountability for targeted rate funding, and encourage good governance, by requiring regular reporting specifically by providing to council the following documents, and staying in touch with their local board at least once a year:

· Current Strategic Plan – evidence of achievable medium to long-term opportunities.

· Audited accounts - assurance that the BID is managing its members’ targeted rates funds responsibly.

· Annual Report on the year just completed. – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit ratepayers.

· Business Plan for the coming year – detailed one-year programme, based on the Strategic Plan, to be achieved and resourced.

· Indicative budget for the following year - the Council Annual Plan requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Plan process which sets all rates.

· Board Charter – establishes guidelines for effective board governance and positive relationships between the association and its members.

· Annual Accountability Form – certification that these requirements have been met.

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID and council that embodies basic parameters of the council/ BID relationship.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16. The council BID team monitors compliance with the BID policy on an on-going basis, and provides governance advice to BIDs as needed or requested.

17. As BIDs are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to members’ stated priorities. In recognition of their independent corporate status, the policy does not prescribe standards for programme effectiveness. Officers, therefore, cannot base recommendations on these factors, but only on the policy’s express requirements.

18. Glen Eden Village BID does not meet BID policy requirements due to its failure to provide an Annual Accountability form by the 12 March deadline specified in the Policy and to submit a board charter. However, these instances of non-compliance are not grounds under the Policy for withholding the targeted rate, nor are they cause for serious concern. Therefore, staff recommend that the Waitakere Ranges Local Board recommend the striking of the targeted rate for Glen Eden Village BID in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

19. The recommendation of this report is made notwithstanding the failure of the Glen Eden BID to comply with all requirements of the BID policy for the 2016-2017 financial year. Staff is confident that the Glen Eden Village BID in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area will continue to serve its members and comply in future years. Please see Attachment C for details of compliance for this BID.

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

20. Recommending that the governing body strike the targeted rate for the Glen Eden Village BID in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area means that this BID programme will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in its district, and will provide services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in their Strategic Plans.

21. By continuing these services and programmes, the Glen Eden town centre should better serve residents and visitors, and support business growth.

22. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board approved a similar recommendation for this BID last year, as did the seventeen other local boards that have BIDs in their areas. (Resolution WTK/2017/45)

23. A number of local boards provide additional funding to local BIDs but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the BID. Those requirements are apart from the requirements of the BID policy so are not covered in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

24. This decision will have no adverse effects on, or particular benefits to, the Maori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. There are no financial implications for the local board. Targeted rates for BID-operating business associations are raised directly from commercial ratepayers in the district and used by the business association for improvements within that district. Council’s financial role is only to collect the BID targeted rates and pass them directly to the association on a quarterly basis.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. There is the possibility of reputational risks to council if ratepayer funds are misused, but this is rare. Otherwise, there are no direct financial risks to the local board or council that could result from this recommendation to approve the targeted rates.

27. The requirements of the BID policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds by requiring the BIDs to plan for the intended use of funds, report on its activities to its members, and to have its accounts audited.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. If the local board accepts the recommendations of this report, it will recommend to the governing body that the targeted rates for this BID be struck as stated in the Recommendations as part of its approval of the 2018-2019 Annual Plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key Elements of BID Programme	17
b ⇩	Targeted Rates Budget Comparison All BIDs 2018	19
c ⇩	Glen Eden BID Policy Compliance Summary Table	21

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

Waitākere Ranges Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/03624

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) adopt the Waitākere Ranges 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 Waitākere Ranges 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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan 2017 and the endorsement of zero waste practices for projects and events.

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 Maori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Maori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Maori 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, Maori and iwi organisations

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitākere Ranges Community Grants Programme 2018/2019	25

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

Waitākere Ranges, Quick Response Grants, Round Three 2017/2018

File No.: CP2018/02641

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Waitakere Ranges Quick Response Round Three 2017/2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 (see Attachment B).

3. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board adopted the Waitākere Ranges Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 25 May 2017. The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $75,000.00 for the 2017/2018 financial year. A total of $48,650.80 has been allocated for one local grant round and two quick response rounds. This leaves a total of $26,349.20 to be allocated for 2017/2018.

5. Nine applications were received for Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018 requesting a total of $11,268.00. (see Attachment B).

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board: a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018, listed in Table One. Table One: Waitākere Ranges Quick Response Grants 2017/2018, Round Three Applications
Application Number	Applicant	Project/ activity focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1819-310	Rangmanch New Zealand Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards music track recordings and sound effects for theatrical productions for the International Theatre Festival 2018	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1819-311	Chris Berthelsen	Arts and culture	Towards costs of provision of mobile self-learning pottery space.	$1,000.00	Eligible
QR1819-313	Divisionary Films Limited	Arts and culture	Towards production costs for a short film	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1819-302	Glen Eden Baptist Church	Community	Towards costs of food, transport and entertainment activities for a Youth Leadership Training Weekend 2018	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1819-303	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards a portion of the overall phone bill for the free crisis helpline for Youthline	$1,152.00	Eligible
QR1819-306	Swimmable Waterways, Te Henga	Environment	Towards costs of analysis of water samples from the Waiti Stream, Waitākere River and the Bethells Beach Lagoon	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1819-308	Birdsong Opanuku	Environment	Towards costs of possum traps, mustelid traps and rat bait for the pest control project	$1,000.00	Eligible
QR1819-307	Francis Anne Stone	Historic Heritage	Towards costs of procurement and replacement of 60 meters of weatherboards for the Packing Shed Café restoration.	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1819-312	Helen Fergusson	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire and facilitator costs to implement two Elemental Movement practice workshops	$616.00	Eligible
Total				$11,268.00

Horopaki / Context

6. 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.

7. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme (see Attachment A).

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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board will operate three quick response and two local grants rounds for this financial year.

10. 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.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

11. 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

12. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Waitākere Ranges 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.

13. 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.”

14. A summary of each application received through Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round Three is attached, see Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processesTwo applicants in this round have indicated their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

17. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $75,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

18. A total of $48,650.80 was allocated for one local grant round and two quick response rounds. This leaves a total of $26,349.20 to be allocated for 2017/2018.

19. In Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018, nine applications were received, requesting a total of $11,268.00.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20. 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

21. Following the Waitākere Ranges Local Board allocating funding for round three quick response, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitakere Ranges Local Board Grants Programme 2017/2018	33
b ⇩	Waitakere Ranges Quick Response Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications	37

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Adam Abdeldayem - Environmental and Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

Waitakere Ranges Programme - Six Month Update

File No.: CP2018/05023

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update the Local Board about activities across the Council from those departments that are contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. This report focuses on the six month period from July to December 2017 (the first half of the 2017/2018 financial year).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The implementation of activities to meet the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act) is undertaken by Council. These objectives are summarised in Attachment A. Updates on activities are presented in Attachment B. Additional key points are outlined in the body of this report, for the following topics:

· Waitākere Ranges Monitoring Report five yearly report is due in April 2018 Preparation of this report is almost complete. This has been a major focus for the last eight months.

· Kauri Dieback disease remains the most significant threat to the Waitākere Ranges. The 2016 surveillance of Kauri dieback within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park has reaffirmed the disease is a widespread biosecurity issue within the parkland. Comparison of Kauri health surveys data between 2011and 2016 shows the distribution of Phytophthora agathidicida has risen from 7.9% to 18.95% of the complete Kauri area

· Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Web page has been refreshed with relevant information as appropriate

· There has been one editions of ‘Thrive‘ newsletter published in 2017

· Building in the Bush Design Guidelines have been completed

· Auckland Transport Draft Road Corridor Design and Management Guide for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is completed and forms part of the Auckland Transport Design Manual.

· Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Local Parks Design Guidelines: Public consultation was scheduled for the 2017/2018 summer.

· Auckland Unitary Plan appeals: The council publicly notified its decisions and the decisions version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan on 19 August 2016. The one remaining relevant appeal has been referred to the Environment Court, and it is from the Waitākere Ranges Protection Society. This appeal is concerned with subdivision activity and seeks to reinstate prohibited activity status in some situations

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the Waitākere Ranges Programme – Six Month Update report for the period July to December 2017

b) note that this report and its attachments will be provided as an information memo to the Environment and Community Committee and the Whau Local Board.

Horopaki / Context

3. The Heritage Area covers approximately 27,720 hectares and includes the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. The Act recognises the national, regional and local significance of the Heritage Area, and promotes the protection and enhancement of its natural, cultural and heritage features for present and future generations.

4. This report collates information about all Council-wide activities that contribute to achieving the objectives of the Act. These include “business as usual” activities and projects that are specifically established to assist implementation of the Act.

5. An officer-level Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme Co-ordination Group (the Group) provides for exchange of information and ensures that the relevant work streams and activities are coordinated and aligned as much as possible. The Group provides a mechanism for discussing, prioritising, monitoring and reporting of progress among Council units and Council Controlled Organisations involved in implementing the Act. It continues to improve the co-ordination of work streams and activities in the Heritage Area that contribute to achieving the purpose and objectives of the Act. It has contributed to the attachments for this report.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

6. This report lists the projects and activities for the first half of the 2017/18 financial year and provides a summary of their progress, with details provided in Attachment B. The information provided in Attachment B is primarily project-based and does not cover maintenance or routine management of physical assets, staff costs or fixed overheads.The projects and activities have been grouped under topic headings that align with the Heritage Area’s features and objectives. These are

· Planning and Communication - Planning for, communicating about and implementation of the Act as a whole

· Landscape - activities aimed at protecting and enhancing the characteristic landscape of the foothills, rural and forested areas and coast

· Development and Consent Activity - management of subdivision and development within the context of the Resource Management and Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Acts

· Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services - protection, restoration and enhancement of ecosystems by both Council and community

· Cultural and Built Heritage - this relates to both pre-and post-European settlement, including the relationships between tangata whenua and the Heritage Area, and the history of kauri milling, horticulture and viticulture

· Recreation Opportunities and Visitor Management- provision of facilities and services for enjoyment and appreciation of these heritage features, and management of visitor pressures and impacts.

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Five Year Monitoring Report

7. Section 34 of the Act requires a monitoring report on the heritage area’s environment and progress towards achieving the objectives of the Act. The second five year Monitoring Report is due in April 2018.

Kauri Dieback Disease

8. Regional and Local Parks together with the Biosecurity team of Council continue to respond to Kauri Dieback disease, which continues to be the most significant threat to the Heritage Area. In 2015, the Ministry for Primary Industries, on behalf of the Kauri Dieback Programme, commissioned Auckland Council to undertake a project to investigate the distribution of kauri dieback within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, including implications for its future management.

9. The 2017 report outlines the results of an investigation into the distribution of Kauri Dieback, and implications for its future management, within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park. The report is part of a nationally coordinated effort to determine the distribution of kauri dieback in New Zealand, and completes the first study in New Zealand to compare kauri dieback distribution within the same forest over a five year period.

10. The report contains a number of recommendations focused on minimising disease spread within the Waitākere Ranges, through the enhancement of existing initiatives and undertaking new actions some of which require further work to understand the feasibility of implementation, resource implications and impact on park users.

11. Auckland Council’s response to kauri dieback includes consideration of the rahui implemented by Te Kawerau a Makin in December 2017. Alongside track closures, there is a strategy to monitor kauri health across the Regional Park network every five years using the National Vegetation Survey national standard, and to assist with the operational management of kauri dieback across the Auckland Region.

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Webpage

12. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area webpage (embedded within the Council web site) has been maintained with relevant content added as appropriate. The webpage contains information, embedded files, documents and web links related to the Heritage Area at one place. The Council website has been refreshed, and so the way that information about the heritage area is being updated. A further update of the page is required.

Thrive Newsletter

13. There has been one further edition of the Thrive newsletter published in June 2017. Thrive reflects the Board's commitment to sustainable rural business in the Heritage Area by providing local business news, information on accessing local and regional resources, profiles of sustainable practice, and a calendar of events and learning opportunities. The newsletter is available from both the Waitākere Local Board website and from the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Webpage.

Building in the Bush Design Guide

14. The Building in the Bush Design Guide Was completed to allow for the inclusion of current and relevant planning information following the Auckland Unitary Plan decisions.

Road Corridor Design and Management Guide

15. Auckland Transport Road Corridor Design and Management Guide was completed in 2017. The guide establishes a set of principles that acknowledges the specific character of the Heritage Area, assists in meeting the requirements of the Act and delivers routes and connections that are safe and convenient for all road users. This will form part of the Auckland Transport Design Manual.

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Local Parks Design Guidelines

16. Development of Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Local Parks Design Guidelines continues this financial year. A draft document is being prepared and was consulted on during the 2017/2018 summer months.

Auckland Unitary Plan

17. The council publicly notified its decisions on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan on 19 August 2016. The Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) incorporates specific provisions for the Waitākere Ranges in the Regional Policy Statement, the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Overlay, the creation of the Waitākere Ranges and Waitākere Foothills zones and the Waitākere Ranges Precincts (Wainamu, Te Henga, Bethells).

18. One remaining appeal from the Waitākere Ranges Protection Society relates to subdivision provisions that are applicable to parts of the Heritage Area. In particular, the Society is challenging the application of non-complying activity status that has been applied to some categories of subdivision. The Society seeks reinstatement of prohibited activity status, which was the status that applied in the legacy Waitākere City District Plan.

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

19. This report is for information purposes and forms the basis for a memorandum that will be provided to the Environment and Community Committee and the Whau Local Board.

20. The report is part of continuing to implement the Act and to evaluate progress being made to achieve its objectives. It is consistent with the priorities of the Board (as expressed through the 2015-2018 Local Board Plan), and does not trigger the Significance Policy. This report is for Council reporting purposes and has not therefore been subject to a wider consultation process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei have not been consulted specifically on this report. However, regular consultation and engagement takes place on a range of individual projects and activities described in this report, and on matters of mutual interest in the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. There are no financial implications associated with this report. The work reported on is being carried out within existing council’s budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. There are no risks associated with this report that are not being addressed by the workstreams discussed in the report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

24. This report will also be provided in a memorandum format to the Environment and Community Committee and the Whau Local Board. There are no other direct implementation issues

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Summary of Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Objectives	69
b ⇩	Attachment B - June - December 2017 Programme And Projects	71

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

State of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area 2018

File No.: CP2018/03503

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To consider and endorse the State of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area 2018 report (the Report) for referral to the Environment and Community Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The purpose of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (the Act) is to recognise the national, regional and local significance of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area (the heritage area) and to promote the protection, restoration and enhancement of its heritage features. The preparation of a monitoring report every five years is a statutory requirement under Section 34 of the Act. This must report on the state of the heritage area’s environment and the progress that council has made towards achieving the objectives of the Act. The objectives of the Act are numerous and cover the span of environmental, social, cultural and economic parameters. The report must also provide information on the funding implications of activities specifically carried out to give effect to the Act.

3. Waitakere Ranges Local Board member Denise Yates passed away in January 2018. Denise was the Chair of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board when council completed the first Five Year Monitoring Report in 2013 (the 2013 Report). This second Report is dedicated to her memory. The Local Board has provided guidance to staff on the nature and extent of the information collected to be used in the Report.

4. The overall conclusions in the Report (refer to Attachment A) are that the communities within the heritage area continue to grow and strengthen themselves. The heritage area provides a large range of opportunities for people to enjoy recreation experiences, and visitor numbers have increased significantly. This is placing pressure on the infrastructure that supports those visitors. Kauri dieback has spread significantly since the 2013 Report, and continues to be a significant threat. The Report also recognises the numerous other plant and animal pests that are affecting the ecosystems within the heritage area. Subdivision and development statistics are showing a reduction in the number of applications and approved resource consents. When combined with the landscape assessment of the heritage area, the implementation of the planning controls is considered to be addressing environmental effects and not degrading the heritage features.

5. The findings of the Report are primarily based on the collation and analysis of existing data obtained from council departments and council controlled organisations. The Report reviews that data (and compares it to the data in the 2013 Report where possible) to determine whether there have been changes in the state of the heritage features (both improvements and decline). This information is then able to be used to inform the many policy considerations that council engages with in the heritage area, and how to better target and coordinate operational activities to achieve greater value from those interventions.

6. Importantly the monitoring process has identified gaps and deficiencies in some information and data collection systems. The quality, quantity and extent of information has changed over the last five years as units such as the Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit have improved their systems and prioritised what is monitored. However a common theme is that coherent information gathering, analysis and reporting has not significantly improved since the first Five Year Monitoring Report (completed in 2013). This presents a challenge to council, in terms of how it can achieve greater coherency in the monitoring which will then provide a better basis for decision making.

7. Engagement with Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Orakei has been on-going during the preparation of the Report. In a joint statement (contained in Maori Impact Statement), the two iwi recommend that a co-government and co-management steering group be established. This group would develop a strategic plan for the heritage area which will assist in coordinating council and council controlled organisation activities that seek to meet the objectives of the Act. They also request that baseline data gaps be identified and the monitoring process be redesigned to align with both tikanga Māori and western science. They also state their desire to complete the two Deeds of Acknowledgement enabled by the Act.

8. The Report will be published and the findings and issues identified in it will be referred to the relevant policy and operational units within council and its council controlled organisations. They will then utilize this information as part of their ongoing business as usual and in determining what new programmes of work have priority.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) endorse the State of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area 2018 Report

b) refer the State of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area 2018 Report to the Environment and Community Committee for its consideration and adoption

c) delegate to the Manager North West and Islands to make any minor amendments to the State of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area 2018 Report prior to its adoption by the Environment and Community Committee.

Horopaki / Context

9. Over the past year a cross-council team has been preparing the monitoring report. The breadth and complexity of the Heritage Area and the Act’s requirements has required the collection and analysis of data and information on activities undertaken by the council, the private sector and community organisations across a wide range of topics, environmental media and geographical scales.

10. This has included preparation of specialist reports on the topics of Ecosystems, Landscape, Historic Heritage, the Dark Sky, and People and Communities. The reports provide detailed results (where available).

11. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei are the mana whenua in the heritage area and both iwi played key roles in establishing the Act. The iwi continue to represent their mana whenua interests and exercise their kaitiakitanga in a wide range of forums. The heritage features are of particular significance for mana whenua, and collectively they are a taonga and maintain the heritage area’s mauri. The places of significance to mana whenua are integral to the wellbeing of the heritage features of the Act.

12. The objectives of the Act and the heritage features (identified in Sections 7 and 8) are very broad and inter-related and some are open to differences in interpretation. Further to this, the achievement of one objective does not always assist in achieving other objectives. To provide clarity for readers, the reporting has been grouped into topics and aligned with the heritage features and the objectives that apply to them. Indicators to measure change against have been identified where possible for each topic and feature. These have been selected on the basis of their relevance, the ability to make comparisons (with the indicators used in the 2013 Report), and the availability of information at an appropriate geographical scale and level of detail.

13. The period from January 2013 to December 2017(i.e. five years) has been taken as the second monitoring period. The next monitoring report will cover the period from January 2018 to December 2022. In some of the topics, the reporting time periods vary because of the time periods used in data collection. In particular, the emerging discussion about the management of Kauri Dieback disease stops at the end of 2017. This matter is dynamic and in the interests of having a coherent document, actions and decisions taken in the early months of 2018 will be reported in the 2023 Monitoring Report. Information about the effectiveness of decisions (such as closing the walking tracks) will then be placed in the context of the next five years of management of the heritage area.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Adequate data to monitor the heritage area

14. Robust data on the heritage area is needed to measure changes and assess the impacts of activities on heritage features for the State of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area 2023 report.

15. An archaeological and built heritage survey and research programme has been initiated but significant work is still needed to establish the baseline state of the historic heritage environment and enable a comprehensive on-going monitoring programme to be undertaken.

16. Additional data is needed in some locations (areas adjoining the regional park and road corridors) to monitor changes in pest plant and animals and the success of control programmes.

17. Mana whenua seek that future data collection and monitoring programmes be designed to incorporate both western science and tikanga Māori in measuring and assessing changes to the heritage area. This will involve cross-topic consultation with mana whenua.

Integrated management

18. A large number of council, council-controlled organisations and community programmes are undertaken within the heritage area, particularly relating to pest plant and animal control. These could be undertaken in a more integrated way and greater alignment of activities is likely to be beneficial.

19. Mana whenua have identified the integrated and strategic management of the heritage area as an issue that needs to be addressed. They recommend that a co-management group be established and a strategic plan be developed to better co-ordinate activities within the heritage area.

Implementation of the Auckland Unitary Plan

20. The monitoring period for the Report has largely assessed resource consents issued under the former Waitakere City District Plan. Over the 2018 - 2023 monitoring period the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions will apply. While these are intended to maintain the heritage features, the achievement of this needs to be monitored, particularly in the eastern foothills and coastal villages (where most changes arising from subdivision and development were identified).

Indigenous terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

21. The heritage area contains approximately 21,200 hectares of indigenous forest, of which approximately 9,500 hectares (45 per cent) is kauri-podocarp forest. This is one of the largest blocks of continuous indigenous vegetation remaining in Auckland. Two of the most significant wetlands in Auckland are also located within the heritage area; at Te Henga/Bethells Beach and at Whatipu.

22. Between 2013 – 2017 the indigenous terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the heritage area have been enhanced through:

· the addition of 98 hectares of land as either regional park land, local reserve, or as covenanted land (87 hectares of this land contains predominantly indigenous vegetation and 34 hectares contains ecologically significant habitat)

· a likely increase in the proportion of threatened species with stable or increasing population sizes

· key roosting sites of the long-tailed bat within the heritage area being identified

· a diverse range of ecosystems have been identified (called Biodiversity Focus Areas) to ensure each area’s long-term retention and as a focus for protection and restoration activities

· the on-going council and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board pest plant and animal control activities undertaken throughout the heritage area

· the significant effort that community groups and landowners have made in undertaking on-going pest plant and animal control, ecological restoration activities and programmes to manage the spread of kauri dieback disease.

Natural landscapes and character

23. The natural landforms and landscapes, rural character of the foothills, urban and residential areas within the forest settings and the coastal villages are all heritage features. An objective of the Act is that the character, scale and intensity of subdivision and development does not adversely affect the heritage features.

24. Between 2013 – 2017 the natural landscapes and character of the heritage area have been enhanced. The analysis of the available consenting data indicates that there has been a substantial annual decline in the number of resource consent applications approved for subdivision and development. The planning provisions that applied during this period have met the objectives of retaining:

· the natural landforms and landscapes which give the heritage area its distinctive character

· the subservience of the built environment to the heritage area’s natural and rural landscape

· the identity, scale and character of the coastal villages

· the low-density residential and urban areas in forest settings

· the rural character of the foothills.

25. The darkness of the Waitākere Ranges and coastal areas are a heritage feature. During this monitoring period, measurements of the night sky were taken and were found to correspond to the International Dark Sky Association’s Bronze Standard.

Recreational use and wilderness experiences

26. The heritage area is located in close proximity to the city and is highly valued and used for a range of recreation activities and wilderness experiences. The Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, the west coast beaches and the Manukau Harbour are major visitor destinations.

27. Between 2013 – 2017 the opportunities for recreational use have been further enhanced by:

· the addition of park land at Piha: Taitomo (a 78 hectare addition to the regional park), and Seaview Road, (a two hectare local reserve)

· the addition of park land at Karekare: property next to McCreadies Paddock (a 1.2 hectare local reserve)

· the provision of new public infrastructure such as the Piha public toilets and sections of the Little Muddy Creek walkway (linking Tangiwai Reserve and Grendon Road) and a walkway between Rimutaka Place and Huia Road.

People and communities

28. Local communities, volunteer groups and land owners play a significant and valuable role in actively maintaining the natural, historical, cultural and recreational features of the heritage area. The relationship of the people, communities and mana whenua with the heritage area and their exercise of kaitiakitanga and stewardship is a heritage feature. Between 2013 – 2017 the many community organisations and volunteer groups within the heritage area have thrived.

Historic heritage

29. The Act refers to the heritage of the area including evidence of past human activities such as timber extraction, gum-digging, flax milling, mineral extraction, quarrying, extensive farming, and water impoundment and supply. Other past human activities such as Māori settlement and use are also historic heritage features.

30. Between 2013 – 2017 the knowledge and understanding of historic heritage has been improved by survey and research work being underway or completed for over 250 historic heritage places.

Water catchment and supply

31. The water catchment and supply system and its operation, maintenance, and development to serve the people of Auckland are a heritage feature. An objective of the Act is to protect the features of the heritage area that relate to its water catchment and supply functions.

32. Between 2013 – 2017 the operation, maintenance and development of the water catchment and supply system has remained an important heritage feature and presently provides 19 per cent of Auckland’s water supply

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

33. The Local Board has provided guidance to staff on the nature and extent of the information collected to be used in the Report. The Local Board also hosted a public information evening in 2017 to enable members of the public to contribute their view on the topics within the Report, any other matters to monitor and possible information sources. The Local Board supports the on-going development of the depth and breadth of understanding of the heritage area, and considers that the Report is a useful addition to a more informed policy debate about the very complex place that is the heritage area. The Report also assists in showing that the Local Board continues to make progress on meeting its Local Board Plan Objectives.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

34. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area and its cultural and natural values are of great significance to Tangata Whenua (Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei). Both iwi played a key role in establishing the Act. Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei were invited and have provided input to the Report in relation to their history and the heritage features of greatest significance to them. The iwi have also provided a joint statement and recommendations for the future for the heritage area. Their recommendations are as follows :

a) establish a co-governance and co-management steering group for the heritage area

b) co-develop a Waitākere strategic plan for the heritage area to better co-ordinate activities

c) identify baseline gaps, and re-design the measures and monitoring processes to align with both western science and tikanga Māori

d) progress and complete the two Deeds of Acknowledgement with Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua.

35. Their recommendations provide an opportunity for the council to engage with these iwi to identify opportunities to promote and develop the existing relationships between the iwi and Council, and clarify and confirm how decision-making and day to day management of the heritage area can be improved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

36. The funding for activities associated with managing the heritage area comes from a number of council departments, from the local board and from council-controlled organisations (CCOs). The amount of funds spent by each department is aggregated in regional budgets, and so it is difficult to establish the total budget for each year in the heritage area. The implementation of one-off or ongoing community projects, supported either by the local board, the council or a CCO also has funding impacts.

37. A substantial increase in funding through a natural environment targeted rate is being sought in the council’s Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This will determine the extent of a range of pest plant, animal control, water quality and other programmes that can be undertaken within the heritage area over the next ten years.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

38. Te Wao Nui ā Tiriwa – the great forest of Tiriwa is a taonga that has significant and cultural and spiritual values for mana whenua. For Te Kawerau ā Maki the death of the forest is an existential threat. Kauri are tupuna (ancestors) and the rangatira (chiefs) of the forest. The health of the kauri is linked to the health of numerous other plants and animals within the forest ecosystem, and to the health of the iwi. The heritage area contains large areas of kauri forest as well as many individual trees. Kauri dieback disease is a major threat to the kauri forest ecosystem of the heritage area and all kauri are considered to be at very high risk of infection.

39. Between 2013 – 2017 monitoring of kauri within the heritage area showed that:

· the number of trees infected by kauri disease has more than doubled from eight per cent in 2013 to 19 per cent in 2016 (with a further five per cent showing signs of infection)

· of the 91 distinct areas of kauri forest greater than five hectares in size (which makes them ecologically significant), 53 are exhibiting symptoms of kauri dieback disease

· there is a close relationship between kauri dieback zones and their proximity to the track network, with 71 per cent of kauri dieback zones within 50 metres of a track

· all of the kauri forest within the heritage area is at very high risk of being infected.

40. Pest plants and animals are a major on-going threat to the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the heritage area. Pest plant and animal control is required at a level that (at a minimum) retains the ecosystem values of the heritage area.

41. Between 2013 – 2017 a considerable number of council (including the Waitākere Ranges Local Board), community and landowner pest plant and animal control programmes have been undertaken and these are vital to maintaining the heritage area ecosystems. The on-going challenge is to fund programmes at a level that will restore and enhance ecosystem health. Additional monitoring sites are needed in the eastern foothills (which act as buffer to the forest) and along road corridors to enable accurate measurement and reporting of the effectiveness of pest plant control programmes.

42. There has been a significant increase in the level of recreational use of the heritage area between 2013 - 2017. There is a growing concern that this level of use, unless appropriately managed, may act to the detriment of other heritage features such as ecosystems, wilderness and historic heritage values. Mana whenua have identified the uncontrolled growth of tourism and recreation activity in sensitive areas as a matter that needs to be addressed. The challenge associated with managing kauri dieback disease has also highlighted the need to better monitor and manage all uses of the heritage area.

43. Coastal lagoons form part of the dune and aquatic ecosystems. The adjoining beaches contribute to the recreational opportunities of the heritage area. Water quality at five coastal lagoons and 12 beaches within, or adjoining the heritage area, are tested weekly over summer (from November to March) to determine if they are safe for swimming. Five lagoons and seven beaches have been found to be unsafe for swimming. In most cases the source of contamination is from failing on-site septic tank systems. The challenge for council is to work with the local communities to improve water quality at coastal lagoons and beaches through programmes such as:

· upgrading septic tank systems

· ensuring proper septic tank maintenance

· riparian planting

· stock exclusion fencing in the Te Henga / Bethells Beach catchment.

44. An emerging biosecurity threat with potentially devastating effects is myrtle rust. Myrtle rust affects pōhutukawa and other myrtle tree species. It can easily be spread by the wind. In December 2017 myrtle rust was discovered in west Auckland. It has not yet been found in the heritage area, but this needs to be closely monitored. An on-going seed collection programme (led by the Department of Conservation) is underway to ensure preservation of species vulnerable to this disease

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

45. Following consideration of the Report by the Local Board, staff will forward the Report to the Environment and Community Committee for its consideration and approval for publication. This will include consideration of the themes that have emerged through the process of preparing the Report, and recommendations to the Committee about how council is to progress the matters raised by this Report during the next five year period, and beyond.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Attachment A - Draft State of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area 2018 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04661

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In September 2017, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an increase to the local transport capital fund as an outcome of the governance framework review. Staff were directed to undertake further work with Auckland Transport and local boards on the size of the increase, and the distribution methodology.

3. The LTCF was established in 2012 and currently sits at $10.8 million. It is allocated on a pure population basis. Two options for the size of funding increase have been modelled, an increase of $6 million and an increase of $10 million.

4. Staff have also modelled three different distribution options: the current population model, a model applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, and a model that includes a mix of a fixed level of funding per board, along with a variable rate determined by the Local Boards Funding Policy.

5. Each of the options has been assessed against a set of criteria. The pure population model is not supported by staff, while each of the other two models has merits. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy be applied to the distribution of the LTCF, with an additional amount of $10 million being added to the fund. Feedback is sought from local boards on their preferences.

6. It is also recommended that Auckland Transport have funding allocated to provide an increased level of support to local boards in developing and assessing local transport projects.

7. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board endorse:

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

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

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

Horopaki / Context

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

9. The establishment of the fund is consistent with the government’s original policy intent that local boards would have a role in funding local transport projects out of a dedicated local budget [CAB Minute(09) 30/10] and that “local boards will have an advisory role with respect to transport services and a budget for the transport elements of ‘place shaping’^{^[1]}”.

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

· provide local boards with more direct ability to influence local transport projects.

11. Projects must be deliverable, meet transport safety criteria and not compromise the network. Auckland Transport retains the responsibility for delivering projects delivered through this funding and the budget remains with Auckland Transport. Depreciation and consequential operating expenditure are also the responsibility of Auckland Transport, as is the core administration of the fund.

12. The fund was initially set at $10 million per annum (since adjusted for inflation, and now sitting at $10.8 million) and is currently split between the local boards on the basis of population, excepting Waiheke and Great Barrier Island local boards, which receive two per cent and one per cent of the fund respectively. The population figures that the distribution is based on have remained at 2012^{^[2]} levels.

13. At the Governing Body meeting of 28 September 2017, at which the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review Political Working Party were considered, it was agreed [GB/2017/117] that officers would report back to the governing body through the 10-year budget process on options for significantly increasing the LTCF, as well as providing an assessment of options for allocating the additional funding.

14. This report provides options for the quantum of the proposed increase, the method of allocating the proposed increase among the twenty one local boards and issues relating to the administration of the fund. Workshops have been held with each local board to discuss these proposals and now formal feedback is sought through business meetings. Final recommendations will be made to the Governing Body in May.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15. Issues with the local transport capital fund identified through the governance framework review were grouped under three key themes:

· the overall size, or quantum, of the local transport capital fund

· the methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards

· the administration and support provided by Auckland Transport to local boards in relation to developing options and projects for consideration.

Quantum of funding

16. When the LTCF was initially established at $10 million, the figure was not based on any specific assessment of need, but more on the recognition that smaller, local projects that had a strong place shaping component were unlikely to be funded according to Auckland Transport and NZTA’s prioritisation formulas.

17. While the fund took some time to get established, it is now delivering valuable transport related outcomes for communities across Auckland. The LTCF spend forecast in 2016-17 financial year was $17 million, as boards have been able to accumulate funding across years to put towards more significant projects. It has delivered 286 projects over the five year period.

18. The LTCF contribution to these many local projects has also been complemented through the input of additional funds from Auckland Transport (as well as NZTA subsidy) with the value of the work they have delivered to their communities being substantially leveraged through this additional funding.

19. Staff have modelled the impact of the proposed increase on individual local boards according to a range of distribution models. In doing so, two different levels of increase have been used – the $10 million figure, initially proposed by Auckland Transport, and a lower figure of $6 million.

20. Neither figure is based on specific needs assessment, but Auckland Transport is of the view that a baseline of approximately six hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year is desirable to give individual boards the resources to support significant local projects. This would require an increase of at least $6 million per annum.

21. Boards that have had access to higher levels of funding have generally found it easier to leverage that to attract NZTA subsidies and additional Auckland Transport funding, for example for projects that are being brought forward as a result of LTCF investment. Successful examples include the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal, the Mt Albert Station Bridge and the Māngere Future Streets project.

Distribution methodology

22. This section provides modelling of three distribution options applied to two levels of overall increase (sub-option A being an increase of $6 million, and sub-option B being an increase of $10 million). The options are:

· Option 1: status quo – simple population based distribution of both the existing fund and any additional funding

· Option 2: applying the current Local Boards Funding Policy to the distribution of the fund

· Option 3: a model that provides for a fixed level of baseline funding for all boards, as well as a variable component based on the Local Boards Funding Policy.

Population based distribution

23. In 2012, the governing body elected to distribute the first iteration of the LTCF purely on a population basis, following consultation with local boards^{^[3]}^. The distribution has not been adjusted to account for population distribution changes since the fund was established.

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

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

Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy to the LTCF

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

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

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

Fixed and variable costs distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing the options

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

· transparency and ease of understanding for communities and stakeholders

· equity and fairness of outcomes across the region

· ensuring delivery of good local transport outcomes

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

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

Options 1a and 1b – population based distribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

42. Applying the Local Boards Funding Policy is a simple methodology that has a clear rationale, is easily described to the community and is consistent with council’s wider approach to funding local boards. It takes account of multiple factors, delivering a more equitable distribution of funding, especially to boards with lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.

43. Reviewing the projects that have been funded from the LTCF to date, it is clear that much of the local boards’ focus has been on “people centred” transport projects, for example pedestrian safety improvements, walkways and cycleways, footpaths and streetscape improvements. This is consistent with the principles underpinning the Local Boards Funding Policy i.e. that population is the key driver of need for the funding, but that geography and deprivation also need to be taken into account.

44. This distribution methodology evens out the increase in funding across the twenty one boards. The boards with a larger land area receive more funding than under the pure population model, and all boards receive the proposed level of baseline funding, but only under the $10 million quantum increase.

45. Under this model, however, the level of funding that accrues to the more populous boards becomes very substantial in relationship to that for the smaller boards, due to the compounding impact of the distribution model. For example, the Howick Local Board would receive over $1.7 million and Henderson-Massey over $1.4 million. Despite these extremes, this option provides an arguably more equitable and nuanced distribution of funding, as well as being consistent with current funding policy.

46. Its variation between the lowest and highest level of funding is still high with the highest funded board receiving 2.57 times the amount of the lowest funded board. Under Option 2a, five boards still receive less than Auckland Transport’s desirable benchmark for delivering good local transport outcomes in communities and it limits the potential for those boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers.

47. This is the preferred option on the basis of consistency with the existing funding policy, assessment against the criteria and recognition of the population focus of projects delivered using this fund. The preferred option is for the $10 million quantum as better providing for good local transport outcomes and delivering local place shaping.

Options 3a and 3b – fixed and variable cost distribution

48. This model is more complex and less transparent to communities and stakeholders than the other models. The identification of the benchmark figure is based on Auckland Transport’s experience of administering the fund over the past five years and the learning that has been gained from this, rather than in-depth financial analysis of infrastructure costs.

49. The results of this distribution are similar to those of applying the Local Boards Funding Policy, in that a similar number of local boards benefit under each model. However, it is different local boards that benefit from each model. In terms of equity and fairness, this model reduces the difference between the highest funded and lowest funded boards and also brings all boards above the $650,000 benchmark, even under Option 3a ($6m increase).

50. The model reduces the impact of population on the distribution of funding, however, which is a core component of current funding policy and the focus of the projects delivered using the LTCF. The model performs well against the criteria of enabling the delivery of good local transport outcomes and supporting the role of local boards as place shapers.

Summary of assessment of options

51. Of the three distribution models assessed, the current model of pure population distribution performed the poorest and is not recommended by either Auckland Council or Auckland Transport staff.

52. The other two models deliver mixed results against the criteria. On balance, staff recommend that the Local Boards Funding Policy distribution best meets the criteria and is consistent with current funding policy. The final recommendation to the governing body will also be informed by feedback from local boards through this process.

Administration of the LTCF

53. When the LTCF was established in 2012, it was recognised that there would be an impact on Auckland Transport as the fund administrator. While design costs are capitalised within the cost of a specific project, there are also additional costs in developing options, undertaking feasibility studies, assessing proposals and general administration.

54. It was noted at the time that if each local board proposed 3-4 projects a year that this could place a considerable burden on Auckland Transport and it was recommended that this be reviewed at the time the fund was reviewed. Given the proposed increase to the size of the fund, this issue needs to be revisited.

55. Auckland Transport’s advice on LTCF investment focusses on whether a project put forward by a local board is technically feasible, and whether it is realistic in light of the available funding from the LTCF. During the governance framework review some local board members raised concerns about the nature and quality of advice received from Auckland Transport in relation to LTCF proposals. Boards felt that advice was limited to assessing their proposal against criteria, rather than helping them identify and develop high quality proposals.

56. It is recommended that Auckland Transport be allocated additional opex funding in support of the LTCF to be used to develop a more systematic and responsive work programme with local boards around the application of the LTCF. This will include supporting boards to investigate and develop options for projects for consideration. A sum of $500,000 per annum is recommended to support this deliverable.

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

57. Workshops have been held with every local board and a range of initial feedback has been received. Discussion on collective views has also taken place at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum. While some local boards have given early indication of their preferred options, others have reserved the right to engage in further consideration ahead of providing formal feedback.

58. There was general support for an increase to the fund and for additional funding to be provided to Auckland Transport to provide advice on projects and mixed views on options for allocating the fund. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently.

59. Growth was raised by some boards as a factor that should be considered. Staff’s view is that the population element of each of the models addresses this as current population is the only reliable indicator of growth. Population estimates are updated and will be applied to the fund annually.

60. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual boards differently. A recent presentation to the Local Board Chairs’ Forum noted that it would be helpful for the Governing Body to have a clear preference signalled by the majority of local boards, in order to facilitate its decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

61. A move away from a pure population based distribution model would take into account other factors, being deprivation and land area. Both options 2 and 3 include a deprivation component, although this is greater in option 2. This would have some positive impact on local board areas where there is a higher Māori population.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

62. The source of the additional funding is not addressed in this report, as it is being considered through the overall budget setting process in the 10-year budget. Essentially, however, there are two options that the governing body will need to consider – that additional funding comes from rates and/or borrowing, or Auckland Transport reprioritises within its existing funding envelope.

63. The proposed size of the increase to the fund (both options) is not significant enough within the overall transport budget to be able to enable transparent trade-offs at a detailed level e.g. which specific transport projects might not be funded in the Regional Land Transport Plan in a given year if the LTCF is increased.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

64. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

65. Final decisions will be made by the Governing Body as part of the 10-year budget process in May. Any new funding and change to the distribution methodology will be applied from 1 July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Population based distribution modelling	107
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	109
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	111

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

26 April 2018

Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/05616

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To present to the board with a governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings over the upcoming months. The governance forward work calendar for the board is included in Attachment A.

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

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

· clarifying what advice is required and when

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

3. The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to 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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) note the updated Governance Forward Work Calendar for April 2018 (attachment A).

Horopaki / Context

4. 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.

5. 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 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.

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

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

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

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

· Governance role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled on the following page.

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

8. 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.

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

9. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

10. 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 koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Governance Forward Work Calendar - April 2018	115

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

[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	Greg Presland
Deputy Chairperson	Saffron Toms
Members	Sandra Coney, QSO
	Neil Henderson
	Steve Tollestrup

Author	Raewyn Curran - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau