Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

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

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) confirm the minutes of its ordinary meeting, held on Tuesday, 20 March 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation: Lincoln Jefferson, General Manager, Life Education Trust – Counties Manukau and Ponsonby Eden Roskill

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Lincoln Jefferson, General Manager, Life Education Trust – Counties Manukau and Ponsonby Eden Roskill, will be in attendance to deliver a presentation regarding the work the trust is undertaking in the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Lincoln Jefferson, General Manager, Life Education Trust – Counties Manukau and Ponsonby Eden Roskill, for his attendance and Deputation presentation about the trust’s work in the local board area.

Attachments

a Life Education Programme Outline 2018............................................ 133

8.2 Deputation: Frances Arns, Executive Director, Rainbow Youth

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Frances Arns, Executive Director, Rainbow Youth, will be in attendance to deliver a presentation outlining Rainbow Youth’s 2020 strategy and the results of Rainbow Youth’s 2017 survey.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Frances Arns, Executive Director, Rainbow Youth, for her attendance and Deputation presentation summarising Rainbow Youth’s 2020 strategy and the results of Rainbow Youth’s 2017 survey.

Attachments

a Rainbow Youth 2020 Strategy............................................................. 135

b Rainbow Youth Survey 2017............................................................... 137

8.3 Deputation: Gael Baldock, resident, restoration of the local board area waterway

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Gael Baldock, resident, will be in attendance to deliver a presentation advocating for, and outlining the importance of restoring waterways in the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Gael Baldock, resident, for her attendance and Deputation presentation about the restoration and importance of the local board area waterway.

8.4 Deputation: Wendy Gray, resident, Western Springs Plan

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Wendy Gray, resident, will be in attendance to deliver a presentation regarding the Western Springs Plan.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) thank Wendy Gray, resident, for her attendance and Deputation presentation about the Western Springs Plan.

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.

Waitematā Local Board

17 April 2018

Auckland Transport Update - April 2018

File No.: CP2018/04971

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update the Waitematā Local Board on Auckland Transport activities and to summarise the ongoing engagement between Waitematā Local Board and Auckland Transport (AT).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· A general summary of projects and activities of interest to the board

· Traffic control committee decisions

· A summary of Auckland Transport workshops with the board

· A summary of general information items sent to the board

· A summary of engagement with the board on various projects

· An update on the board’s transport capital fund.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the report Auckland Transport Update – April 2018.

Horopaki / Context

Regional Land Transport Plan 2018

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

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

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

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

Other projects

7. The table below has a general summary of projects and activities of interest to the board with their current status. Please note that all timings are indicative and are subject to change:

Project	Current Status
Park Road Busway - bus priority improvements on Park Road between Grafton Bridge and the Hospital entrance	AT has been engaging with key stakeholders on the Park Road Busway project. Traffic management outside the new University medical facility conflicts with construction of the proposed improvements and is likely to delay the project until 2020. Public consultation has been put on hold until we confirm with the University of the earliest date that construction could proceed.
Northwestern busway – proposed rapid transit corridor from City to West Auckland	With a greater emphasis on light rail being looked at by the new government, AT is continuing to finish off the current busway business casework but is expecting to need to update it once the new central government transport policy direction is formalised. Anticipated public consultation has therefore been delayed, as the wider context is still not yet clear. AT has draft consultation material and hope to make speedy progress on public engagement once the central government approach is known. It is expected clarity on a way forward will increase following the release of the Government Policy Statement and refreshed Auckland Transport Alignment Project.
Wellesley Street Bus Improvement Project (formerly Midtown bus route) – improving how city centre buses operate	The Project reached a milestone late last year with the confirmation of Wellesley Street as the corridor for bus movements (leaving Victoria Street free to be developed as a linear park) and including the requirement for an off-street bus interchange in Grafton Gully. The scope for the Detailed Business Case (DBC) has been completed and was released to the market in late March for likely commencement in May. The work involves more detailed design concepts, operational assessments, economic evaluation and commercial considerations. Further work is being undertaken into the potential to integrate the bus interchange into the surrounding Learning Quarter campus, as well as how best to provide for the East-West cycling connection and future integration with light rapid transit on Queen St.
Quay Street East Bus Project (formerly the Downtown bus project) - a new set of bus stops and associated kerbside infrastructure on Quay St East to enable the rollout of the Central New Bus Network.	This project has reached an agreed location and form, once integration with surrounding projects was confirmed – in particular the Quay St seawall upgrade, Quay St streetscape improvements and related private or City Rail Link Ltd works on nearby streets. The project is currently being coordinated with those interdependent projects into a Council-led programme of works for the Downtown area, and it is expected more information on the likely timeline and tasks will be known shortly. Whilst the location of the bus facility is agreed, there is further work to be undertaken on design, consultation and consenting, including work with adjoining stakeholders such as Cooper and Company and Ports of Auckland. An open day for the overall programme was held for people in the local area and was well received.
Parnell Busway - bus priority improvements on Parnell Road between Davis Crescent and St Mary’s Close.	Public consultation for the Parnell Road Busway project closed on the 5 March 2018, with over 100 submissions received. Submissions are being analysed. The project team briefed the board on the results in a workshop on the 3 April 2018.
Federal Street Upgrade Stage 2 - between Mayoral Drive and Wellesley Street, incorporating improved lighting, signage, street furniture and planting.	Public consultation ran from November – December 2017. It is expected that the public report will be available on the AT website by the time this report is published. A consultant has been appointed to start detailed design work. The project team will approach the board for feedback when they have developed some drafts.
Parnell residential parking zone - proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses	Consultation closed in December 2017 and we have received 426 responses including submissions from Parnell Business Association and Parnell community group. Analysis of all the feedback is in progress at the moment.
Arch Hill residential parking zone – proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses.	Public consultation has now closed, the project team has sought the Board’s feedback and the results are being analysed. Further parking survey work has been completed and results sent to the Board. The project team are now in the process of responding to the submissions received.
Grey Lynn parking scheme - proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses	Public consultation has now closed, the project team has sought the Board’s feedback and the results are being analysed. Further parking survey work has been undertaken and results sent to the Board. The project team are now in the process of responding to the submissions received.
Nelson St cycleway phase 3 – a bi-directional cycleway from Nelson Street to Quay Street	Public consultation closed on the 1 October 2017 and the project team has sought the Board’s feedback. The project team is delaying making any decision on the proposal. This is due to streetscape improvement opportunities presented following the consultation for Market Place and Custom Street West. They will report back on what changes can be expected for Market Place and Customs Street, alongside the process and timing for delivering the project. At this stage there will be no substantive change to the Lower Hobson layout. They will be back in touch with submitters and other key stakeholders as soon as a decision has been reached. If substantial changes are proposed AT will be required to re-consult.
Wynyard Quarter street and park upgrades – central construction package	Work in the next round of street and park upgrades is scheduled to commence mid-2018. This next phase of work involves upgrading Daldy Street (between Fanshawe Street and Pakenham Street) and Gaunt Street (between Daldy Street and Beaumont Street). This will include extending the Daldy Street Linear Park from Pakenham Street to Fanshawe Street and creating a neighbourhood park at the corner of Pakenham Street and Daldy Street. Work is expected to be completed at the end of next year. AT will shortly begin notifying the wider Wynyard Quarter community that work is approaching and what to expect while work is underway
Grafton residential parking zone - proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses	The public feedback report is complete and published on Auckland Transport’s website. The Traffic Control Committee approved the project on 26 March 2018. The project is now in the installation stage and is hoping to go live in May as planned. All the residents within the zone will receive letter advising them about the go live date and on how to apply for a permit or coupon if they want one by mid-April.
Parnell cycleway – proposed cycleway through Parnell	The project team has revised the design brief to incorporate views of the community reference group as well as views of internal stakeholders. They have investigated new design options, including options to incorporate urban design/streetscape elements - Boffa Miskell was engaged to provide input and option review. Internal discussion of these designs will take place in early April, these will then be shared with the Waitematā Local Board and key stakeholders including Bike Auckland, Auckland Design Office and the community reference group. Feedback from the Board and these key stakeholders will inform the next stage of the investigation process, a multi criteria analysis, expected to be undertaken in May.
Tamaki Drive cycle route (Plumer St to Ngapipi Rd)	In detailed design. Construction is expecting to commence in June 2018
Tamaki Drive cycle route (Quay Street to Solent Street)	In detailed design. Construction is expecting to commence in June 2018
Tamaki Drive cycle route (between Plumer to the Strand)	Construction began on the 8 January 2018
Herne Bay cycling and walking improvements – proposed changes to encourage slower driving speeds and improve routes for people walking and cycling.	Currently in detailed design, which is expected to be complete in September 2018. Construction is now scheduled to begin late 2018.
Pt Chev to Westmere cycleway - a dedicated cycle route along Point Chevalier Road and Meola Road ending near the Westmere Shops	Urban Design advice is being sought. The project team will present options to the Project Control Group in April to confirm the form of the cycleway that will be taken forward for discussion with the Community Liaison Group and developed into detailed design.
Victoria Street East-West cycleway – A dedicated cycle route along Victoria Street West, from the Beaumont Street intersection to the Hobson Street intersection.	Currently in detailed design. Urban Design advice is being sought. Construction scheduled September 2018
Federal Street Contra Flow Cycle Lane - an interim cycle lane proposed for Federal Street linking Fanshawe Street to Victoria Street until the full Federal Street Upgrade occurs.	Construction is complete. Feedback on the project will be taken between April and May 2018.
Route 4 of Waitemata Safer Routes. Improvements for pedestrians, people on bikes and bus users for the section of Great North Road between Crummer Road and Ponsonby Road.	The project is going through an internal review. The project team anticipate that they will have a full update for the Waitematā Local Board in April.
Parnell Station link – pedestrian link from the Station to Carlaw Park	The building consent has been approved and details around privacy screen resolved with stakeholders. Construction is now underway. Earthworks have been completed and an access way to install all of the piles has been completed. Next is the installation of timber piled screen and the piles for the boardwalk. Planned completion of walkway is June 2018.
Newmarket crossing project – a bridge to replace the rail crossing, linking Laxon Terrace with nearby Cowie Street.	Construction commenced on the 11 December 2017. Concrete bridge beams over the rail corridor were installed in late February and over Easter weekend six concrete bridge barriers were installed.
Franklin Road upgrade - upgrades to improve the road quality and future-proof existing services.	Work is underway to complete the speed table and roundabout, to progress western side toward New World. It is planned to work on vehicle crossings during the upcoming school holidays. The project is currently running on schedule.
Route 2 of the Waitemata safe routes - improvements for pedestrians, people on bikes, and bus users. This route runs along Richmond Road from Surrey Crescent to Parawai Crescent through the West Lynn shopping centre.	The project is currently under review. It is anticipated that the review process will take 4-6 months before physical works continue. The review process is currently underway with Beca and Boffa Miskell contracted to undertake the review. The Richmond Rd and Surrey to Garnet Community Liaison Groups have both met twice. A fortnightly newsletter is going to residents who have signed up for the update.

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

Traffic Control Committee decisions

8. Please see attachment A which outlines decisions made in the Waitematā Local Board area in March 2018. Auckland Transport's resolution and approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put in place and can be legally enforced.

Workshop overview

9. Auckland Transport attended workshops on the 3 April 2018 about the Cook Street safety project, an introduction by AT Chief Strategy Officer Cynthia Gillespie, the proposed Parnell Busway, an update on the Central New Bus Network, a debrief on the Ponsonby Road Pedestrian project and a workshop on the Local Board transport capital fund.

General information items sent to the board:

Item

Date sent to Board

Eden Terrace paid parking zone - price review	05/03/2018
Community Bike Fund Update	09/03/2018
Consultation Summary: Morton Street - Parking Restriction Changes	15/03/2018
Consultation Summary: Car Share - Central Auckland Locations	15/03/2018
Consultation: Pedestrian Crossing Improvements in Freemans Bay	15/03/2018
FYI: Car share on Queens Wharf	16/03/2018
Update: Special Vehicle Lane Changes of Operation	16/03/2018
Consultation Summary: Variable Message Sign on Tamaki Drive.	16/03/2018
Proposal to declare Freyberg Place a Pedestrian Mall	16/03/2018
FYI: St Georges Bay Road	16/03/2018
Feedback on Signalised Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing on Khyber Pass Road	19/03/2018
FYI: Snapchat pilot and pavement decals	19/03/2018
Victoria St West cycleway - project update	20/03/2018
Seawall repair update week 19	21/03/2018
FYI: Removal of build out on Surrey Cres	21/03/2018
FYI: Federal Street – Questions	21/03/2018
Update: Caltex GNR shared path project	22/03/2018
FYI: Mobility Parking Relocation – Newmarket	23/03/2018
FYI: Waitemata Safe Routes Newsletter	23/03/2018
Grey Lynn RPZ - parking occupancy survey results 2018	27/03/2018
Update: Great North Road project	27/03/2018
Update: Alfred Street	29/03/2018

Local board views and implications

10. The board’s views are incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes. The table below has a summary of consultation with the board on key projects in the board area.

Project Name	Stage of consultation
Grey Lynn & Arch Hill Residential Parking Zone	Public consultation is complete. The project team briefed the board on the initial results of public consultation at a workshop on the 5 December 2017. The Project Team came to the local board on 13 February 2018 with the results of public consultation. Auckland Transport received the board’s feedback on 23 February 2018.
Parnell Residential Parking Zone	Public consultation is complete. The project team briefed the Board on the results of public consultation at a workshop on 5 December 2017. The Project Team came to the local board on 6 March 2018 with the results of public consultation to seek the board’s feedback.
North-western Busway	A workshop was held with the board on 4 July 2017. The consultation is currently on hold.
Nelson Street Phase 3	Consultation material was sent to the board for their information on 28 of August 2017. Public consultation closed on 1 October 2017 and a workshop to seek the board’s feedback was held on 7 November 2017. The boards feedback was received on 10 November 2017.
Park Road Busway	Workshop was held on 7 November 2017 to outline the project. Public consultation was expected in April 2018 with consultation with the local board to follow. However following engagement with key stakeholders it was determined that traffic management outside the new University medical facility conflicts with construction of the proposed improvements. Public consultation has been put on hold until we confirm with the university the earliest date that construction could proceed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

Transport capital fund update

12. As of the new electoral term Waitematā Local Board had $1,605,522 available in their Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

13. From this sum the board has approved:

· Up to $221,000 as additional funds for the Ponsonby Road pedestrian improvement project

· Up to $25,000 for a parklet on Nuffield Street

· Up to $20,000 for streetscape enhancement incorporating tree planting on St Marys Road

14. Auckland Transport has ongoing investigations into rough orders of costs for the following project:

· Creating a walking and cycling connection through Cox’s Bay reserve to Wharf Road via Bayfield Park

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

15. Normal project risks are managed within each project and no extraordinary risks have been identified with any of the Board’s Transport Capital Fund projects to date.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	March Traffic Control Committee Decisions	43

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Ben Halliwell – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitemata Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

17 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04673

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 Waitematā Local Board endorses:

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

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

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

Horopaki / Context

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

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

10. The objectives of the fund are to:

· ensure locally important transport projects are given appropriate priority

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

· the methodology underpinning its distribution among local boards

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

Quantum of funding

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

17. While the fund took some time to get established, it is now delivering valuable transport related outcomes for communities across Auckland. The LTCF spend forecast in 2016-17 financial year was $17 million, as local 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 local boards the resources to support significant local projects. This would require an increase of at least $6 million per annum.

Local 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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 local boards with higher populations is the most significant, in terms of an increase in funding, especially if the additional amount is $10 million.

24. Under this model, however, if the additional amount is $6 million, six local 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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 Local 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.

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

Assessing the options

33. 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.

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

Options 1a and 1b – population based distribution

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

36. 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 local boards receiving insufficient funding to achieve anything practical, hence the application of the one and two per cent formula for the island local boards. A similar approach is also used in the Local Boards Funding Policy.

37. 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.

38. 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 local boards, with the highest funded board receiving 2.78 times the amount of the lowest funded board (excluding the island local boards).

39. Option 1a also results in six local 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 local 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

40. 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]}^.

41. 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 local boards with lower populations but very large land areas and roading networks.

42. 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.

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

44. Under this model, however, the level of funding that accrues to the more populous local boards becomes very substantial in relationship to that for the smaller local 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.

45. 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 local 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 local boards to actively implement their role as local place shapers.

46. 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

47. 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.

48. 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 local boards and also brings all boards above the $650,000 benchmark, even under Option 3a ($6m increase).

49. 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

50. 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.

51. 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

52. 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.

53. 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.

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

55. 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 local 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

56. 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.

57. 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 local boards differently.

58. Growth was raised by some local 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.

59. As noted in the assessment of options, each of the options for the amount of increase and the distribution methodology affects individual local 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

60. 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

61. 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.

62. 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

63. No significant risks have been identified.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

64. 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	53
b ⇩	Local boards funding policy distribution modelling	55
c ⇩	Fixed and variable costs distribution modelling	57

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Linda Taylor - Programme Manager Governance Framework Review

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitemata Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

17 April 2018

Waitematā Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019

File No.: CP2018/04510

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) adopt the Waitematā 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 Waitematā 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 Waitemata Local Board Plan 2017

· the same number of grant rounds for 2018/2019, as are available in 2017/2018.

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

11. The Community Grants Programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of their grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. All grant programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes in the application process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

14. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. Therefore, there is minimal risk associated with the adoption of the grants programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

15. An implementation plan is underway and the local board grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and council channels. Targeted advertising and promotion will be developed for target populations, including migrant and refugee groups, disability groups, Māori and iwi organisations

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitemata Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019	61

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitemata Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

17 April 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/04726

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek that the Waitematā Local Board delegates the responsibility of providing formal views on resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement to a local board member.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Local board feedback can be provided on notified resource consents, plan changes and designations. Written feedback needs to be provided prior to the submission closing date (usually 20 working days after public notification). This feedback is included in the planner’s report verbatim and local boards are also able to speak to their written feedback at the public hearing. Views should be received by the processing planner or reporting consultant by submission closing date to ensure the content can be considered in planning reports.

3. This report explores options to enable local boards to provide their views in a timely way. Local boards normally provide their formal views at business meetings. Because local board reporting timeframes don’t usually align with statutory timeframes, in most instances formal reporting at a business meeting will not allow local feedback to be provided by submission closing date.

4. Providing formal local board views by way of a delegation to a local board member is considered the most efficient way of providing formal local board views. This is because the delegate can provide views within the regulatory timeframes and because no additional reporting is required when new applications of interest are notified.

5. In December 2016 the Waitematā Local Board resolved to:

Appoint the planning and heritage portfolio lead or co-portfolio holder where required, to provide input into notification decisions for resource consent application (WTM/2016/206.

6. This report recommends delegating responsibility to also include notified plan changes and notices of requirement to a local board member.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

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

· Notified resource consents

· Notified plan changes

· Notices of requirement.

Horopaki / Context

Notified Resource Consents

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

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

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

Notified Plan Changes and Notices of Requirement

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options considered

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

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

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

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

Options	Pros	Cons
1. No formal local board views are provided		· Local board views will not be considered by the hearings commissioners
2. Formal local board views are provided at a business meeting	· All local board members contribute to the local board view · Provides transparent decision making	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process
3. Formal local board views are provided as urgent decisions	· Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines	· Decisions are not made by the full local board · Urgent decisions may not be accompanied by full information and the discussion may be rushed · Not transparent decision-making because the decisions do not become public until after they have been made
4. Formal local board views are provided by separate and specific delegation for each application which the local board wishes to provide their views	· Delegations can be chosen to align with area of interest and/or local board member capacity	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines required to make each separate delegation are unlikely to align with statutory deadlines imposed by the planning process · Decisions are not made by the full local board
5. Formal local board views are provided by way of delegation to one local board member (preferred option) for all applications	· Delegate will become subject matter expert for local board on topic they are delegated to · Local boards can provide their views in a timely way that meets statutory deadlines · Any feedback can be regularly reported back to the local board	· Decisions are not made by the full local board

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

18. This report seeks a delegation to a local board member for resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement, to allow local boards to provide feedback in accordance with agreed timeframes on notified resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement.

19. Any local board members who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

20. In December 2016 the Waitematā Local Board appointed the planning and heritage portfolio lead or co-portfolio holder where required, to provide input into notification decisions for resource consent applications. This resolution did not include delegation for plan changes and notices of requirement.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

21. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

22. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires that council consult with Mana Whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities, on draft plan changes prior to their notification. Council must also consider iwi authority advice in evaluations of plan changes.

23. For private plan changes, council seeks that the applicant undertakes suitable engagement with relevant iwi authorities, and where necessary will undertake consultation before deciding whether to accept, reject or adopt a private plan change.

24. For notices of requirement, council serves notice on Mana Whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities. Requiring authorities must also consult with the relevant iwi as part of the designating process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26. A local board can delegate to a ‘committee, subcommittee, or member of the local board, or to an officer of the unitary authority’. Committee’s have a minimum of three local board members and subcommittee’s have a minimum of two local board members. The risk of delegating to more than one local board member will mean that inadvertently either a committee or sub-committee is formed. It is therefore recommended that the responsibility is delegated to one local board member

27. If local boards choose not to delegate to provide views on notified applications, there is a risk that they will not be able to provide formal views prior to the submission closing date and may miss the opportunity to have their feedback presented and heard at a hearing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. The member of the Waitematā Local Board who is delegated the responsibility of providing formal views on resource consents, notified plan changes and notices of requirement will operate under the delegations of the Waitematā Local Board once they have been adopted.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Anna Bray – Policy & Planning Manager - Local Boards

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitemata Local Board

[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	Pippa Coom
Deputy Chairperson	Shale Chambers
Members	Adriana Avendano Christie
	Richard Northey, ONZM
	Denise Roche
	Vernon Tava
	Rob Thomas

Author	Judy Lawley – Manager, Local Board Engagement
Authoriser	Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitemata Local Board

Author	Michael Mendoza - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitemata Local Board