Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meetings, held on Wednesday, 18 April 2018 and Thursday, 3 May 2018, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 East Coast Bays Community Project

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. The East Coast Bays Community Project has requested a deputation to provide the six monthly update to the local board.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Thank the East Coast Bays Community Project for their presentation.

8.2 Make Auckland a Military War Weapon Free Peace City

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Mr Laurie Ross has requested a deputation to make a presentation on Auckland becoming a military war weapon free peace city.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thanks Mr Ross for his presentation.

8.3 Arundel Reserve - Freedom Camping

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Mr Michael Parker has requested a deputation to discuss freedom camping on Arundel Reserve.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Mr Parker for his presentation.

8.4 Poppy Trust World War 1 street naming programme

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Ms Diane Shearer has requested a deputation to discuss the Poppy Trust World War 1 street naming programme.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Thank Ms Shearer for her presentation.

8.5 Inanga Spawning Project

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1. Sophie Tweedle from Whitebait Connection has requested a deputation to provide an update on the local board funded Inanga Spawning Project.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Thanks Ms Tweedle for her presentation.

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.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

File No.: CP2018/06662

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide analysis of public feedback on the review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and to seek the views of the local board on the proposed policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

Replacement of legacy schemes for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations with grants

2. The Rates Remission and Postponement Policy proposal provides for:

· transfer of current budget for legacy remission schemes to the operating group with relevant expertise (e.g. remissions budget for Natural Heritage will transfer to Environmental Services while those for local community facilities will transfer to the relevant local board as asset based service funding)

· current recipient receives same support (exc GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· development of an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region.

3. One hundred and twelve submitters opposed the proposal and 28 supported it. 91 submitters, including the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust (QEII) and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, wanted remissions retained for land with a QEII covenant. 27 responses cited the uncertainty of on-going support. 24 thought grants would require more administration. 9 respondents stated they would be worse off as they were not GST registered.

4. Currently there is significant regional variation in the level of support available and how it is provided (for example, remissions, grants, subsidised rentals). Depending on location, some properties are receiving multiple forms of council funding. This leads to inequity and a lack of transparency in the use of council funding.

5. This proposal aligns this legacy funding with council’s broader funding for these activities. The proposal is a transitional step that enables the relevant council groups to integrate this legacy funding into regionally consistent support schemes.

6. Officers recommend that the proposal be adopted with the following amendments:

· budget increased by $10,000 to cover the cost of GST for recipients not GST registered

· direct officers to work with sector groups on the development of an integrated approach to council support for these activities.

Introduction of a remission for the accommodation provider targeted rate (APTR)

7. The proposed remission provided for owners of no more than two serviced apartments with long term fixed rental leases to hotel operators to receive a remission of the accommodation provider targeted rate. The remission would be reduced in equal steps over ten years. Thirty- nine submitters supported and 30 were opposed to the proposal. Thirteen thought the accommodation provider targeted rate should not be charged while 11 wanted the remission scheme to be more generous.

8. Officers recommend adoption of the accommodation provider targeted rate remission scheme as proposed.

Amendments to regional remissions

9. Six submitters were supportive of aspects of the regional schemes, and none were opposed. Officers recommend adoption as proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board endorses:

a) the proposal to:

i. transfer current budget for legacy remissions schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations to the operating group with relevant expertise

ii. transfer current budget for postponements for Great Barrier Island businesses to Great Barrier Island Local Board

iii. grant the current recipient the same support guaranteed for three years

iv. develop an integrated approach to supporting outcomes for natural heritage, and community and sporting activities across the region

b) the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy in Attachment B to this report, which includes the following amendments to the existing policy:

i. introduction of a remission scheme for the Accommodation Provider Targeted rate.

ii. amendments to the remission for residents of licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing to remove references to retirement villages and the Interim Transport Levy

iii. amendments to simplify the remission for rates penalties

iv. removal of the legacy remissions schemes for natural heritage and community and sports organisations and postponement for Great Barrier Island

c) the amendments to the postponement for Manukau Sport Clubs to restrict the scheme to current applicants and to close off the scheme after three years.

Horopaki / Context

10. Council is required to review and consult on its Rates Remission and Postponement Policy every six years. The policy was last reviewed in 2012.

11. The policy offers eleven legacy remissions and postponement schemes that were carried over from the previous councils. These schemes only apply in the district of the originating council. They provide varying levels of support for:

· community and sporting organisations

· rating units protected for natural or historic or cultural conservation purposes

· commercial properties on Great Barrier Island.

12. A summary of the level of funding provided by these remission schemes by local board is in Attachment C. Attachment D (confidential) provides a list of community and sporting organisations receiving support by local board area.

13. The policy also includes seven regional schemes that provide financial assistance or address anomalies in how rates are applied.

14. When the accommodation provider targeted rate (APTR) was adopted in 2017, the council asked officers to consider applications for remissions for properties with long term fixed rental agreements with hotel operators and forward contracts that didn’t include provision for price adjustments. These were considered under the Remission of Rates for Miscellaneous Purposes scheme.

15. A review of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy was undertaken by officers. Local boards provided feedback on the draft Rates Remission and Postponement Policy at their December 2017 meetings. The draft policy for consultation was agreed by the Finance and Performance Committee at their 27 February 2018 meseting.

16. Consultation was open to the public from 13 March to 13 April 2018. Notification of the consultation was targeted to:

· current recipients of legacy remission and postponement schemes

· ratepayers currently charged the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate

· administrators for retirement villages currently receiving the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga.

· relevant key stakeholders including the Queen Elizabeth II Trust and Forest and Bird.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

17. Analysis of feedback and officers responses has been separated into the key issues on which feedback was received. A summary of feedback by local board is in Attachment A.

Legacy remission and postponement schemes

Proposal

18. The proposal retained the current budget for each legacy scheme and transferred administration and budget to the operating group with the relevant expertise. Decision making for regional activities would fall under the relevant operating group delegation and local asset based services with local boards.

19. Support would be provided in the form of a grant rather than a remission. Current recipients would receive a grant (exc GST) at the same level as the existing remission for a period of three years adjusted for any changes in their rates.

20. Officers would report back on the integration of these grants with a wider approach to supporting these activities, developed with sector groups, within the three year transition.

21. The draft policy retained the postponement of rates for two Manukau golf clubs for a period three years after which it would expire. At the end of the three years any postponed rates would remain as a liability on the property, to be paid on sale or transfer of the property.

Feedback

22. One hundred and fifty-three submitters provided feedback on the proposal for legacy schemes for natural hertage and community and sports organisations. Responses are summarised in the table below:

Feedback on Legacy Remission	Number of submitters who:
Feedback on Legacy Remission	Responded	Commented	Hold a remission
Supports proposal	28	13	15
Opposes proposal	112	105	58
Other comment	13	13	10
Total	153	131	83

Feedback related to remissions for natural heritage

23. One hundred and five submitters commented on legacy remissions for natural heritage, with 91 opposed to the proposal. Key themes from feedback and officers comments are set out in the table below.

Theme	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
QEII covenanted land should be non-rateable	37	Land is only non-rateable if owned or used by (for example under a lease) the QEII Trust. The QEII Trust is empowered by its establishing legislation to pay the rates on land that has a covenant to the Trust
Will be worse off because not GST registered	9	Officers recommend funding the GST component which would leave recipients in the same position as currently. This will cost $10,000.
Ongoing support (after three years) is uncertain	27	Neither grants nor remissions guarantee on-going support, as policies can be changed. All support should be subject to regular review to ensure value for ratepayers in terms of outcomes achieved.
Grants require more administration	24	Grants can provide long-term support with same administration requirements as current schemes. Properties in Waitakere already receive grants for rates
Grants will not encourage people to covenant land in future	29	The incentive value of remissions is minimal compared to the opportunity cost of covenanting land. Council offers grants that can be used for costs associated with covenanting land.
Remissions recognise value to environment of QEII covenants	49	Grants offer flexibility to increase recognition of the beneficial outcomes achieved.
Remissions recognise the cost of maintaining covenanted land	50	Amount of remission is limited to the amount of rates charged to the land and is not related to the costs of maintenance. Grants provide more flexibility in level of support offered. This issue can be considered when options for future support are developed.
Costs of maintaining QE2 land as identified in Waikato study^{^[1]} which put the cost to owners for establishing a covenant at $64,000, and the annual cost of maintain the land at $6000.	12	Figures in the study were derived from a sample of properties with QE2 covenants, of which 11 were in Auckland. For the Auckland sample, the study records an average cost for establishment as $8,457 in cash and $2,818 in non-cash costs. Annual maintenance costs were $319 cash and $1,062 non-cash.
Removing remissions is inconsistent with RMA and/or Unitary Plan	22	Council uses a variety of mechanisms to meet its obligations under the RMA and Unitary Plan.
Extend remissions to SEAs	9	Significant Ecological Area status does not guarantee enduring protection for native habitats

Feedback related to remissions for community and sporting organisations

24. Thirty-six submitters commented on legacy remissions for community and sporting organisations, of which 15 represented organisations receiving a remission. The following table sets out the key themes from submitters commenting on remissions for community groups.

Theme	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
Ongoing support is uncertain	14	Neither grants nor remissions guarantee on-going support, as policies can be changed.
Grants require more administration	11	Grants can provide long-term support with same administration requirements as current schemes.
Support should be continued because of the benefit the organisation provides to the community	13	Feedback reflects concerns for continuation of support rather than the form in which it is received. It is proposed that options for future support be developed with input from relevant sectors within the three years.
Removing support will have significant financial impact on organisation	12
Supports grants or remissions so long as support maintained	2
Rates cost will need to be met through existing funding agreement with council	1	Harmonising funding mechanisms will reduce administration for some organisations

25. No feedback was received on the proposals for postponements for Manukau Sports Clubs that are provided to two golf clubs. One submitter opposed the transfer of rates postponements to Great Barrier Island businesses to grants as they thought any future loss of support may make essential services financially unviable.

Key Stakeholder Feedback

26. The QE II Trust and Forest and Bird, opposed the proposal to replace legacy remissions with grants for QEII covenanted land. The feedback of the QE II Trust and Forest and Bird reflect the key feedback points above. Federated Farmers considered that transitioning legacy remissions for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations to grants would signal a lack of committment by council to these activities. Both the QE II Trust and Federated Farmers supported consideration by the council of grants in addition to remissions for QEII covenanted land.

Remission for the Accommodation provider targeted rate

Proposal

27. The draft policy proposed a new remission scheme to remit APTR for the following:

· properties used as emergency accommodation, in proportion to the amount of time and the part of the property that is put to this use

· ratepayers who own no more than two serviced apartments, who are paid a fixed rent by a hotel operator (with no profit sharing), and who are unable to pass on the cost of the rate and unable to exit the contract before the start of rating year. (A partial remission will apply where the lease to the accommodation operator expires during the rating year.) This remission will be phased out over 10 years, with the amount of remission available declining by a tenth each year.

28. Remissions under this scheme are expected to cost ratepayers $1.2 million in 2018/2019, with this amount declining over the next ten years.

29. Seventy-three submitters provided feedback with 39 in support of the proposal and 30 opposed. Of those opposed, five thought the remission should be more generous. The key themes from feedback are shown in the table below:

Response to Remissions	Feedback Points	Officers Comments
Remission assists those who most need it	2	This feedback reflects the key issues for and against adoption of an APTR remission
Remission supported because can't pass on rate to operator	12
Remission shouldn't be offered - everyone should pay	4
No APTR should be charged	13	6 supported and 6 opposed the proposal
Remission should be available to more properties	8	3 supported, 4 opposed proposal
Full remission should be granted until lease ends	3	1 supported proposal
Should use bed tax or similar charge rather than APTR	7	2 supported, 1 opposed proposal

30. None of the key stakeholder organisations notified of the consultation opted to make a submission.

Amendment to regional schemes

Proposal

31. The proposed changes are:

· rates penalties – simplifying the scheme for easier administration

· license to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga housing – removes references to:

o retirement villages as residents now qualify for central government rates rebates

o Interim Transport Levy (should this levy not be continued.)

· remission for rates transition management policy change properties – this scheme is redundant.

Feedback

32. Two submitters supported the proposed change to the remission for licence to occupy retirement villages and Papakāinga scheme. Grey Power requested that the scheme remain unchanged until the rates rebate process has been established. Four submitters broadly supported the policy. Grey Power and four other submitters wanted greater support for older/retired residents in general.

33. One submitter supported the changes to the penalty scheme.

Conclusions and Recommendations

34. Officers recommend that for the legacy remissions schemes:

· transfer of the current budget to the operating group with relevant expertise

· current recipient receives same support (exc GST) as a grant guaranteed for three years

· development of a standardised approach to support of these outcomes across the region

· an increase in the budget of $10,000 to cover GST cost for recipients not registered for GST.

35. The proposal:

· maintains supports for existing recipients with a three year transition

· aligns responsibility for these grants with relevant areas of council

· allows this support to be considered alongside other sources of funding as regionally consistent support mechanisms are developed

· remove the current legacy remissions schemes.

36. Grants are recommended over remissions as they offer greater transparency and oversight for rates expenditure. The proposal provides a first step in transitioning the issue of equitable council support for natural heritage and community and sporting organisations and recognises that support is currently inconsistent across the region. Currently, some areas may be able access remissions while others receive grants, subsidised rents or are directly supported to deliver services for council. For example, two sports facilities receive remissions and community access grants, while 16 of the 42 recipients of the Green Network Grants for rates also claim the rates remission.

37. Officers also recommend the changes to the regional schemes in the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy and the introduction of a scheme for the remission of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate be adopted as proposed.

Alternative Options

38. Officers considered the following alternatives but do not recommend them. The council could choose to:

· retain the existing schemes - this will continue the current inequities in regional support.

· remove the schemes without a transition -potential for significant impact for current recipients particularly as other forms of council support are not always consistently available across the region.

· extend the remission schemes to cover the entire region - would require further policy work to develop appropriate options and have substantially increased cost. Does not align support with other council funding mechanisms. Level of support determined by rates (driven by property values) rather than outcomes achieved.

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

39. Implications for local boards are set out in the report. Under the proposal local boards will be provided with additional asset based service funding to maintain the existing level of support for local community and sports groups in their local board area that currently receive remissions (or postponements in the case of Great Barrier Island).

40. The amount of support provided by the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy varies significantly by local board area. (A summary of the amount of remissions, and the individual schemes by local board area is in Attachment C.) In other areas, support may be provided through grants, discounted rentals, and the direct provision of facilities and services by council. Within the three year transition period, officers will report back on options for integrating funding mechanisms across the region.

41. Analysis of feedback by local board area is in Attachment A to the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

42. No significant feedback was received from Māori or Māori organisations. Māori land is eligible for support under the Rates Remission for Māori Freehold Land Policy. This policy is not under review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

43. The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

44. There are no identified risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

45. Local board feedback will reported to the 30 May 2018 meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee for the consideration and adoption of the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Feedback by local board	17
b ⇩	Proposed Draft Remission Policy	19
c ⇩	Remission value by local board	29
d ⇩	Community and Sports Remissions by local board (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust Pavilion Design and East Coast Bays Rugby League Feasibility and Options Study

File No.: CP2018/06847

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an overview of sports facility development projects at Metro Park East and Freyberg Park along with rationale for the reallocation of underspent Locally Driven Initiatives operational budget, to enable these projects to be substantially delivered within the 2017/2018 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Each year local boards approve work programmes with departments to deliver local board plan priorities through initiatives and projects in their local board agreement. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 2017/2018 work programmes were approved on 1 June 2017.

3. Departmental staff have confirmed anticipated underspends across agreed work programme items. The departments concerned are in agreement that unspent funds could be re-allocated to other local board aligned priorities if re-allocated projects can be substantially completed in the current financial year.

4. In the 2017/2018 local board work programme the local board allocated $20,000 Locally Driven Initiatives Operating Expenditure for a feasibility study to be carried out to assess the community sport needs for buildings at Metro Park, Millwater. This work was carried out by Opus and completed in March 2018.

5. Simultaneously, a Metro Park concept plan refresh was developed and workshopped with the local board in October 2017. The refresh was an update to the 2010 master plan and integrated actual field and perimeter path layout, latest sports facility regional plan needs, community club needs and feasibility report findings.

6. In November 2017 the Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust was registered, with sub-groups setup to have input into outdoor court design and to lead multi-sport pavilion development.

7. Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust are seeking a $100,000 local board investment to develop design-build plans for the pavilion.

8. In June 2017 an assessment was undertaken on the East Coast Bays Rugby League clubrooms that concluded the current structure was at the end of its useful life and due to its location in a flood plain that it was not economically viable to repair it. Further assessments were then carried out in November 2017 that identified that the facility needed to be closed due to pressing health and safety issues. The clubrooms have now been closed in consultation with the club.

9. East Coast Bays Rugby League are seeking a $10,000 local board investment to undertake a building feasibility and options analysis to determine if new clubrooms should be built at Freyberg Park.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) delegate the General Manager, Parks, Sport and Recreation to approve a funding agreement for the allocation of $100,000 to the Metro Park Community Charitable Trust for development of sport pavilion design-build plans, to be delivered within the 2019 financial year.

b) delegate General Manager, Parks, Sport and Recreation to approve a funding agreement for allocation of $10,000 to the East Coast Bays Rugby League club for completion of a building feasibility and options analysis, to be delivered by 31 October 2018.

Horopaki / Context

Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust

10. The following key recommendations were made by Opus through the feasibility review:

11. Due to the linear nature and scale of the park it is not practical to position one centrally located building that would serve all sports and activity spaces. Buildings should be developed as part of a staged approach as population grows and funding allows. A suggested staged approach would be:

12. Stage 1 - Delivery of the toilet block next to the hockey turf, as already approved by the local board in late 2017.

13. Stage 2a - Small pavilion near the centre of the sports field platform, next to the car park, which aligns with original master plan thinking. Fundraising would be driven by Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust (the Trust) and the building would be owned by the Trust under a community lease.

14. Stage 2b - Outdoor courts with multi-sport markings, plus parking (for hockey and outdoor courts) and extension to the toilet block (to be completed in stage 1) with additional toilets, changing rooms, storage and event management space.

15. Stages 2a and 2b are projects that can progress simultaneously by sub-committees of the Trust.

16. Stage 3 - Three indoor basketball courts (also sized for netball and futsal) and four squash courts to be located at the south end of the park between the hockey turf and proposed outdoor courts. Further investigation (and sub-committee establishment) is subject to the outcome of the Auckland Regional Indoor Court Strategy due June 2018.

East Coast Bays Rugby League Club

17. East Coast Bays Rugby League Club (the club) has held a lease over the old East Coast Bays Rugby Football Club clubrooms since 1992. This lease provided for an initial term of 11 years and two rights of renewal for 11 years each, effecting final expiry on 31 March 2025.

18. The club had not exercised its right of renewal on expiry of the initial term. However, the North Shore City Council, on 26 June 2010, granted a lease to the club for a period of ten years with the provision for an early surrender to develop new premises on Freyberg Park. This lease was never formalised. As such, the original 1992 lease remained operative and continues to be operative on a month-by-month basis.

19. A clause within the lease required the club to upgrade the property, at its own cost, within nine years of the commencement of the lease. The club was able to re-roof the facility and upgrade the toilets.

20. The Freyberg Park and Sherwood Reserve Management Plan 1994 states: “that in the long term, however, consideration should be given to the resiting of this building due to the fact that it is sited on the 100 year flood plain and therefore susceptible to flooding. When the club’s lease expires in 2026 further consideration should be given to the building’s situation on the reserve.”

21. In March 2013 the club resolved to pursue relocation on their current facility and seek a partnership with council to assist this process.

22. In September 2013 the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays Subdivision Local Board Funding subcommittee (DTKUF/2013/16) resolved to grant $40,000 to East Coast Bays Rugby League to support project management, architectural and feasibility study fees to support the project. The club have $10,000 remaining from this project.

23. The club engaged a consultant to undertake this process. The only output received by council was a high level concept design for the new facility. From 2014-2016 numerous meetings were held between council, the club and the consultant. It was stressed that feasibility work around funding for capital and operational expenses of the facility was very important, however this was not completed.

24. In June 2016 it was decided that a new process should be undertaken in partnership between the club, East Coast Bays Softball, other potential community partners and council to look at a new facility that could combine the renewal of the current changing rooms, toilets and clubrooms on Freyberg Park.

25. In June 2017 an assessment was undertaken on the clubrooms that concluded the current structure was at the end of its useful life and due to its location in a flood plain that it was not economically viable to repair it. Further assessments were then carried out in November 2017 that identified that the facility needed to be closed due to pressing health and safety issues. The clubrooms have now been closed in consultation with the club.

Existing assets on park

26. There are currently five council owned assets on Freyberg Park which are identified in the Community Facilities Work Programme for renewal. These assets are:

a) East Coast Bays Rugby League Clubroom;

b) Freyberg Park retaining wall next to the clubrooms;

c) Freyberg Park toilets/changing rooms;

d) Freyberg Park sports fields;

e) Freyberg Park sports field lights.

26. The current condition rating on the existing toilet and changing room facility at Freyberg Park is three, meaning that renewal may be required in the near future. The changing room is not fit for purpose and is currently only used for storage.

27. With the fact that the changing rooms will soon be due for renewal it makes sense to plan for all the potential facilities that could be located on Freyberg Park.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust

28. The multi-sport pavilion will serve as the home venue for summer sports (cricket and athletics) but as a satellite venue for winter sports (football and rugby). It will not be practicable to build something of sufficient scale to accommodate 300+ athletes at one time, so summer shade will be a consideration within the design. For large events, such as prizegivings, clubs will use school sports halls or similar local venues.

29. The indicative cost of the multi-sports pavilion is $900,000 - $1.4m, with a design-build approach proposed to minimise costs. The design will allow for, and indicate, a potential future extension for flexible future-proofing.

East Coast Bays Rugby League

30. To ascertain what need there is for facilities other than changing rooms and toilets on Freyberg Park as well as any potential groups, a needs assessment and feasibility study needs to be undertaken.

29. The club still has $10,000 remaining from their 2013 Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays Subdivision Local Board Funding subcommittee grant and will include this in any building feasibility work.

30. It is anticipated that to complete the required work approximately $20,000 will be required. This study will investigate:

• Are there other community facilities in the local area?

• Would a new facility be supported by the Sports Facilities Priorities Plan?

• Who would the potential users be?

• Does the project link with relevant regional and national code facility plans?

• Is there really enough demand for this project?

• Would funding be available for this project?

• How would a potential facility be funded in the future?

• What would be needed in a potential community facility?

• Who would own and maintain the facility?

31. If it is identified that a new multi-use community facility on Freyberg Park is not feasible, this means that the club will be required to look at alternate options from owning and operating their own club rooms. This could include holding prize-givings at alternate locations, re-locating or merging with another club or, using local bar facilities for senior functions.

32. If it is identified that a new multi-use community facility on Freyberg Park is feasible then the completed needs assessment and feasibility study can inform the Community Facilities Investigation and Design team to allow them to include the design and consent of the potential facility along with the renewal of the changing rooms and toilets facility.

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

Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust

33. The development and activation of Metro Park has been a local board plan priority for many years.

34. Outdoor court investigation, currently underway, will also comprise a parking and traffic management assessment and look at the relationship between activity spaces and school and community use.

35. The local impacts of this project will be significant in activating and bringing together the Millwater and surrounding community through the provision of a multi-sport hub.

East Coast Bays Rugby League

36. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board have been supportive of East Coast Bays Rugby League Club to develop a new facility that is multi-use.

37. On 8 November 2017 a local board workshop was held to inform the local board on the current state of the clubroom facility and to seek direction for moving forwards. The local board at this time was supportive in principle of combining the renewal of the current toilet and changing room facility with the design and consent of a new multi-use facility in partnership with the community.

38. The local impacts of this project depend on the outcome of the needs assessment and feasibility study for any new community multi-use facility project. If it is not feasible then it is unlikely the club and partners will be able to proceed with the project which could lead to a decrease in participation for the club or the club having to leave the area.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

39. The proposed initiatives will have beneficial impacts on Māori well-being through increased participation in sport to improve health, wellness and quality of life.

40. The club has strong cultural connections for Māori and experiences high Māori participation as rugby league does across the region.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust

41. The Trust require $100,000 to complete the detailed design of their project, with another $50,000 to complete construction drawings, likely to be raised from non-council funding sources.

East Coast Bays Rugby League Club

42. A go or, no-go commitment is needed by all parties in relation to sport building needs at Freyberg Park. The cost of this investigation is an additional $10,000 on top of funds already allocated to the project.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

Both Projects

43. Both multi-use facility projects will be assessed against the Auckland Sport Sector: Facility Priority Plan. The greatest risk is that investment into the project may not be seen as priority. Metro Park is seen as a lower risk at this stage given the area and club growth, participant impact and multi-code collaboration. Based on the same criteria East Coast Bays Rugby League Club is a higher risk, meaning they will potentially find it more difficult to raise funding for facility replacement.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

Metro Park Community Sport Charitable Trust

44. The suggested next stages (subject to project funding) that the Developed Design will enable are:

• Stage 1 – Developed Design ($100,000) and agreement to lease once footprint is confirmed

• Stage 2 – Construction Drawings

• Stage 3 – Tender for construction contractor

• Stage 4 – Build

East Coast Bays Rugby League Club

45. Feasibility study scope developed and Request for Proposal process undertaken to find an appropriate independent party to lead investigation.

46. A suggested stakeholder approach will be workshopped with the local board and thereafter a report will be brought with identified options.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Neil Coventry - Sport Partnerships Project Manager

Authorisers

Dave Stewart - Manager Sport & Recreation

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round Two and Quick Response Grants Round Three 2017/2018 Grant Applications

File No.: CP2018/06289

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

4. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $550,000.00 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

5. A total of $169,576.00 has been allocated between one local grants and two quick response grants rounds, leaving a total of $380,424 to be allocated between one local grants and one quick response grants round.

6. Forty-three applications were received for Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, including eight multi-board applications, requesting a total of $297,674.05. Ten applications were received for Quick Response Grants, Round Three 2017/2018 requesting a total of $16,483.00.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

Table One: Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications

Application ID	Applicant	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1806-202	Centrestage Theatre Company (Orewa) Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the cost of lighting and sound hire for a Grease production at the Centrestage Theatre.	$4,363.00	Eligible
LG1806-210	AS and SC Riach	Arts and culture	Towards venue hire, tutor fees, advertising and mounting costs for a month-long photography exhibit.	$2,571.00	Eligible
LG1806-215	Hibiscus Coast Community Arts Council Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the costs of venue hire, publicity, koha and administration for the Art Awards at the Estuary Arts Centre.	$8,650.00	Eligible
LG1806-219	Torbay Business Association	Arts and culture	Towards the costs of printing and publicity for a community photo event.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-222	Mairangi Bay Business Association	Arts and culture	Towards publicity and printing costs for a photography exhibit.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-235	Hibiscus Coast Music Society Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the pianist honorarium and venue hire for rehearsals and a choral performance at Saint Andrews and Whangaparaoa Methodist churches.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-246	Estuary Arts Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the costs to install two security cameras and outdoor lighting.	$2,400.00	Eligible
LG1806-203	Literacy Auckland North	Community	Towards tutor costs for a family literacy programme and a communication skills programmes.	$3,200.00	Eligible
LG1806-208	The Parenting Place	Community	Towards the cost of delivering 27 mental health presentations to 6200 students across four Hibiscus and Bays schools and the purchase of 850 drug and alcohol education handbooks.	$2,073.00	Eligible
LG1806-209	Mountains to Sea Conservation Trust	Community	Towards the costs of hiring kayaks and the wages of two contractors to plan the event, run the guided tours and create a post event video.	$2,609.00	Eligible
LG1806-212	Torbay Playcentre	Community	Towards the costs to update and resurface the outdoor playground.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-217	Whangaparaoa Toy Library under the umbrella of Agora Connections Trust	Community	Towards the purchase of high quality educational toys for the Toy Library.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-218	Torbay Business Association	Community	Towards the cost of printing, advertising and boxes for a buy local campaign.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-220	Mairangi Bay Business Association	Community	Towards printing and advertising costs for a buy local competition.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-226	Torbay Business Association	Community	Towards the cost of 28 flags to celebrate various events in the Torbay Centre.	$5,460.00	Eligible
LG1806-227	Recreation Solutions	Community	Towards delivering six environmental and social enterprise incubator days, specifically the costs of marketing, registration, preparation and management.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-228	Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated	Community	Towards printing, phone and internet for youth, staff training and part wages to run the youth development programme.	$20,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-229	Children’s Autism Foundation	Community	Towards the costs of holding a two hour community workshop, the “Join In Social Skills” programme and ten family outreach consults, specifically venue hire, consultant fees, printing and materials.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-232	Home and Family Counselling Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs of running 24 professional counselling sessions.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-233	The Bellyful New Zealand Trust	Community	Towards the cost of kitchen hire, kitchen equipment, delivery materials, advertising and administration for their meal delivery service.	$3,220.00	Eligible
LG1806-236	Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	Community	Towards the costs of subsidising client fees for their programme in Orewa.	$9,950.00	Eligible
LG1806-237	Silverdale Business Association	Community	Towards the costs of prizes and advertising for this project.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-238	New Zealand Council of Victim Support Groups Incorporated	Community	Towards the victim support volunteer programme including training, recruitment and volunteer expenses.	$1,875.00	Eligible
LG1806-239	Silverdale Business Association	Community	Towards advertising and printing costs for a buy local campaign.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-244	Life Education Trust Rodney	Community	Towards the operational costs to deliver educational programmes to 850 children.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-245	Youth In Transition Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the fees of two registered counsellors who run the youth programme.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-223	Recreation Solutions	Environment	Towards the costs of the restoration plan for the “Taiaotea Stream and Coastal Forest Community Restoration” project between August 2018 and November 2019.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-221	Mairangi Bay Business Association	Events	Towards advertising and publicity costs for a mid-winter swim community day at Mairangi Bay Beach.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-231	Friends of the School Browns Bay School Parent Association	Events	Towards the costs of fireworks and security to host a Guy Fawkes community night.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-240	Silverdale Business Association	Events	Towards the costs of a bouncy castle, a magician, face painters and balloon twisters at the “Santa Day” event.	$3,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-207	Harbour Sport Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards costs to run the Mud Rush event, specifically changing room and stage hire, ambulance hire, bins and liners and printing costs.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-224	Red Beach Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the cost of level one and level two first aid training for 38 junior lifeguards.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG1806-234	Kelly Group NZ Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards coaching fees and resource kits to deliver traditional Maori games programme to 29 schools in Auckland.	$66,030.00	Eligible
LG1806-243	Netball Northern Zone Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the coaching fees to deliver the “Netball in Schools” programme to four schools, one festival day and three professional development sessions for teachers.	$5,195.00	Eligible
LG1806-248	North Harbour Hockey Association	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs of providing hockey to primary and secondary school students, specifically the costs of a coordinator, delivery kit and venue hire for Funsticks.	$5,500.00	Eligible
Total				$248,096.00

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each multi-board application in Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round Two, listed in Table Two.

Table Two: Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 multiboard applications

Application ID	Applicant	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1802-203	North Shore Centres of Mutual Aid Incorporated	Community	Towards a proportion of operating costs for the six month period from July 2018 to December 2018.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1808-304	Age Concern North Shore Incorporated	Community	Towards operating expenses for the 2018/2019 financial year.	$10,500.00	Eligible
LG1808-309	North Shore Women’s Centre	Community	Towards the wages of the community resource worker and social worker.	$2,111.00	Eligible
LG1808-311	Neighbourhood Support North Shore	Community	Towards the costs to set up neighbourhood support groups, specifically, resource packs, brochures and wages.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1802-210	Yes Disability Resource Centre	Community	Towards salary, resources and administrative costs to deliver weekly drop-in sessions.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1815-212	Project Litefoot Trust	Environment	Towards the overall cost of the project, specifically salaries, materials, administration, travel and promotion.	$3,190.00	Eligible
LG1802-205	The Kids for Kids Charitable Trust	Events	Towards venue hire and production costs for a youth performance.	$3,277.05	Eligible
LG1802-232	Gymnastics Community Trust	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of gymnastic equipment.	$16,000.00	Eligible
Total				$49,578.05

c) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response, Round Three, listed in Table Three.

Table Three: Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Round Three 2017/2018 applications

Application ID	Applicant	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1806-305	Pat George under the umbrella of New Zealand Mosaic Art Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the costs to host a mosaic workshop, specifically venue hire, travel and accommodation for workshop presenter, materials and workshop fee subsidies.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1806-306	Kristin Stock	Arts and culture	Towards the costs to hold a writing workshop, specifically venue hire, tutor fees, catering and registration fees	$318.00	Eligible
QR1806-303	Air Training Corps No 5 (Rodney District) Squadron	Community	Towards the purchase of two personal locator beacons to be used for an emergency while camping and tramping.	$1,120.00	Eligible
QR1806-308	Age Concern Rodney Incorporated	Community	Towards venue hire, coordination fees, mileage and catering for five months of the “Time Out” programme.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1806-310	Equestrian 4 Everyone	Community	Towards an annual dentist check-up and six-weekly farrier costs for nine horses.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1806-311	Stoney Homestead Trust	Community	Towards management fees and equipment for community events, classes and education.	$2,000.00	Eligible
QR1806-313	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards a portion of the overall phone bill and text delivery to cover the costs of operating the helpline.	$2,125.00	Eligible
QR1806-314	CareerMum Limited	Community	Towards venue hire and service provider fees for three workshops.	$940.00	Eligible
QR1806-301	Whangaparaoa Golf Club Incorporated	Environment	Towards pest control products for the Army Bay area.	$1,980.00	Eligible
QR1806-309	All Heart New Zealand Charitable Trust	Environment	Towards annual truck costs for corporate environmental sustainability.	$2,000.00	Eligible
Total				$16,483.00

Horopaki / Context

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

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

9. 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.

10. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2017/2018 on 20 April 2017 and will operate three quick response and two local grant rounds for this financial year.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

15. A summary of each application received through Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018 (see Attachment B) and Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018 (see Attachment C) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

18. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $550,000.00.

19. A total of $17,171 was allocated for Quick Response Round One 2017/2018, a total of $138,700 was allocated for Local Grants Round One 2017/2018, a total of $10,205 was allocated for Quick Response Round Two 2017/2018 and a total of $3,500 was allocated to fund costs for temporary signage and public notices for the alcohol ban on 2 and 3 December 2017. A total of $380,424 remains to be allocated for one local grants and one quick response round.

20. Forty-three applications were received for Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, including eight multi-board applications, requesting a total of $297,674. Ten applications were received for Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018 requesting a total of $16,483.00.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

21. 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

22. Following the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocation of funding for Local Grants Round Two and Quick Response Round Three, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision and facilitate payment of the grant.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grant Programme 2017/2018	59
b ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications	63
c ⇩	Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018 grant applications	211

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Makenzie Hirz - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy

File No.: CP2018/06572

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal local board feedback on the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan, the draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and the draft Contributions Policy 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Regional Land Transport Plan sets out a 10-year capital and operating programme for transport in Auckland. It covers transport activities delivered by Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Auckland Council and KiwiRail.

3. The draft Regional Land Transport Plan has been developed in collaboration with the New Zealand Transport Agency. Legislation requires that the Regional Land Transport Plan is revised every six years and reviewed after three years. It has been agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full revision of the Regional Land Transport Plan.

4. The Regional Land Transport Plan will be consulted with the public between 1 and 14 May 2018.

5. Alongside the Regional Land Transport Plan, Auckland Council is consulting the public on a draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal. The council consulted on a fuel tax to fund transport improvements as part of the 10-year Budget. The regional fuel tax, if introduced, would add 10 cents a litre (plus GST), and generate approximately $1.5 billion over 10 years for transport projects in Auckland. At the time, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project were still under review so the projects proposed to be funded by a regional fuel tax could not be identified. The draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal sets out the programmes and projects that the regional fuel tax would fund.

6. The draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal is conditional on the enactment of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill which is currently passing through the Parliamentary process.

7. The council is also consulting on a draft Contributions Policy 2018. The draft Contributions Policy proposes an increase in development contributions to reflect additional investment, including for parks.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board provides feedback on::

a) the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan

b) the draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal

c) the draft Contributions Policy.

Horopaki / Context

Regional Land Transport Plan

8. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires that the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) prepare a Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) every six years, which sets out the region’s transport priorities for the next 10 years, and must contribute to the purposes of the Land Transport Management Act and be consistent with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS).

9. At its meeting of 24 October 2017 the Auckland Transport Board agreed that the level of change associated with Auckland’s growth warrants a full review of the RLTP. Since the 2015 RLTP was prepared, Auckland’s population growth has increased at a much faster pace than was envisaged. By 2028, the population of Auckland is expected to be around two million people – four years earlier than projected in 2015. Significant investment in transport infrastructure and services will be required to meet the increasing needs of these additional people both to service new housing required to match growth and to service many more customers.

10. The draft RLTP, included in Attachment A, has been developed in collaboration with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and was considered by the Regional Transport Committee (a committee comprised of the Auckland Transport Board and a representative of the NZTA convened to adopt the RLTP) on 1 February 2018, and was subsequently approved by the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson under delegation.

11. Preparation of the draft RLTP and consultation were delayed as the GPS and ATAP were still under review, leading to some uncertainty about project priorities. Both the GPS and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) have now been released, and have informed the draft RLTP.

Regional Fuel Tax

12. In preparing the 10-year Budget 2018-2028, the council considered a range of funding options for its activities. The consultation on the 10-year Budget signalled that in order to achieve the level of investment that Auckland needs to address its transport issues, new funding mechanisms for transport were required. A Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) of 10 cents per litre plus GST was proposed, subject to central government providing a legislative basis for such a tax.

13. While the RFT, as a funding mechanism, was the subject of consultation, there was no ability to identify the projects that might be funded from the RFT at that time, due to the review of the GPS and ATAP.

14. The government has initiated the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. If passed, this will enable Auckland to levy a regional fuel tax of up to 10 cents per litre, plus GST, from 1 July 2018.

15. A draft RFT proposal, included in Attachment B, has been developed based on the requirements of the draft legislation. While the legislation is still to progress through the full parliamentary process, the transitional provisions in the legislation mean that Auckland Council can develop a draft proposal, consult with the public, and submit to the responsible Ministers (the Minister of Finance and Minister of Transport) for consideration, once the legislation has been passed.

Contributions Policy

16. Development contributions enable the council to charge developers for a portion of the cost of growth infrastructure needed as a result of development. The current Contributions Policy expires on 30 June 2018. The policy needs to be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-year Budget 2018-2028 and the RLTP.

17. Over the next ten years, the council needs to fund additional infrastructure to enable the construction of 120,000 dwellings to house an expected 300,000 additional Aucklanders. The 10-year Budget 2018-2028 also allowed for an increase in investment in parks.

18. The proposed Contributions Policy 2018, included in Attachment C, proposes an increase in both urban and greenfield prices to reflect this additional investment.

19. Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the council’s ability to use development contributions to fund public swimming pools and libraries. It is not certain when this legislation will be passed so provision for the inclusion of public swimming pools and libraries has not been included in the draft Contributions Policy 2018. Once the legislation has been passed the council can consider amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure or to prioritise within the expenditure programme for community infrastructure.

20. The timetable for this process is very compressed. Public consultation on the draft RLTP, draft RFT proposal and draft Contributions Policy will run for two weeks between 1 May and 14 May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21. The consultation material is attached for the

1. Draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan

2. Regional Fuel Tax proposal and

3. Draft Development Contributions Policy

for local boards consideration. Formal feedback on these consultation documents is being sought from local boards through this report.

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

22. The RLTP sets out a 10-year regional programme. Early engagement with local boards has taken place to ensure that projects of particular interest to local communities could be taken into account in the prioritisation process by which the programme was developed.

23. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to give formal feedback on the capital and operating programmes, and any other aspects of the RLTP, including projects of particular interest to local communities. In particular, feedback from local boards is sought on whether the RLTP places the appropriate emphasis on the priority areas.

24. The draft RFT proposal reflects the priority projects in the RLTP, along with a few specific local board priorities.

25. The draft proposal signals the council’s intent to exclude Great Barrier Island from the RFT, in line with council’s submission on the draft legislation and subject to the legislation being amended accordingly. The consultation will also signal council’s advocacy in support of rebates being enabled for fuel that is purchased for off-road use, an issue which has been raised by a few local boards.

26. The draft Contributions Policy price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The capital expenditure programme to be funded by development contributions was included in the draft 10-year budget and local boards can provide feedback on the proposed programme through the LTP process.

27. Local boards have been invited to attend a briefing on the draft RLTP on 30 April 2018, followed by a full day of informal hearings-style sessions on 7 May 2018 with representatives of the Auckland Transport Board to give verbal feedback. This report enables local boards to provide formal feedback to inform further decision-making on the RLTP.

28. The draft RFT proposal and draft Contributions Policy will also be covered in the briefing. Formal feedback from local boards will be considered by the Governing Body and/or the Finance and Performance Committee when making their decisions on the RFT and the 10-year Budget

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29. Many components of the RLTP are of importance to and impact on Māori. The RLTP is one of the tools that can enable and can demonstrate responsiveness to Māori. Early engagement with mana whenua took place throughout the region during the development of the draft.

30. The introduction of a RFT will negatively impact some lower socio-economic communities who do not have access to alternative transport options and rely on their private vehicles. Māori tend to represent a high proportion of these communities, however, many of the projects that will be funded by the RFT are targeted at improving transport access to jobs and education for these communities as well as providing greater public transport alternatives. In the longer term, this should have a positive impact for these communities.

31. The impact on Māori for the changes to development contributions will be similar to the impact on other residents and ratepayers. The council’s Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund provides grants to support marae and papakāinga development and can be used to fund development contributions. The Contributions Policy treats Kaumatua housing the same as retirement villages, which generally place lower demands on council services.

32. There is a need to continue to build relationships between the council, transport agencies, mana whenua, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing engagement will assist the council and agencies in understanding priorities for Māori, and can encourage Māori participation in decision-making processes.

33. Appropriate engagement on the RLTP, RFT proposal and Contributions Policy are planned for the consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

34. The financial implications of the draft RLTP, RFT proposal and Contributions Policy are set out in those documents. There are no specific financial implications from seeking local board feedback

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

35. This report seeks local board feedback on draft regional proposals, which is part of the local board role. There are no specific risks from this process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36. Possible changes to the RLTP, RFT proposal, and Contributions Policy will be considered following public consultation.

37. The RFT proposal will be considered by the Governing Body for adoption and submission to government on 31 May 2018.

38. Decisions on the Contributions Policy will also be made on 31 May 2018, with the final policy document planned to be adopted on 27 June 2018.

39. The final RLTP document will be considered by the Auckland Transport Board for approval prior to 30 June 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft 2018-208 RLTP for consultation	255
b ⇩	Draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal	337
c ⇩	Draft Contributions Policy	361

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Business Improvement District Programme Compliance Report to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for FY 2016-2017

File No.: CP2018/05787

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Browns Bay, Mainstreet Orewa (trading as Destination Orewa Beach), Mairangi Bay and Torbay Business Associations for the financial year ending June 2017.

2. To provide information to enable the local board will recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for these four Business Imporvement Districts programmes for the 2018/2019 financial year.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District 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.

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

5. The Business Improvement District Policy was developed to encourage improved governance of business improvement district committees and staff to improve financial management, programme delivery and transparency to their members.

6. This report indicates that the Browns Bay, Mainstreet Orewa (trading as Destination Orewa Beach), Mairangi Bay and Torbay business associations are in compliance with the Business Improvement District Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s Business Improvement District Programme team to date.

7. The Business Improvement District Programmes covered by this report are operated by the Browns Bay, Destination Orewa Beach, Mairangi Bay and Torbay business associations.

8. Staff advice is that the local board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for the business improvement districts as they have met the requirements of the Business Improvement District Policy.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) recommends to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the following Business Improvement District programmes:

· $150,000 for Browns Bay Business Association;

· $232,220 for Mainstreet Orewa (trading as Destination Orewa Beach);

· $63,000 for Mairangi Bay Business Association; and

· $15,415 for Torbay Business Association.

Horopaki / Context

9. Council adopted the Business Improvement District Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) (BID Policy) in 2016. This policy outlines the principles behind the council Business Improvement Districts (BID) programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and disestablishing 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 governance arrangements, local boards are allocated specific decision-making responsibilities. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body. The local board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate if it is satisfied that the BID is substantially complying with the BID Policy.

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 rates.

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

Compliance with the BID Policy

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

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

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

· Annual Report on the year just completed – evidence that programmes are addressing priority issues that benefit BID targeted 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 – Auckland Council’s Annual Budget requires targeted rates to be identified a year in advance to inform the Annual Budget process which sets all rates.

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

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

· Programme Agreement – a good faith agreement between each BID-operating business association and council that sets basic parameters of the council-business association relationship.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16. The council BID programme team monitors compliance with the BID Policy on an ongoing basis, and provides governance advice to BID-operating business associations as needed or requested.

17. As BID programmes are operated by private independent societies, their programmes and services are provided according to their 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. The Browns Bay, Mainstreet Orewa (trading as Destination Orewa Beach), Mairangi Bay and Torbay business associations are in compliance with the BID Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date.

19. The recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the BID Policy. Please see Attachments C, D, E and F for details.

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

20. By recommending that the Governing Body strikes the targeted rates for the Browns Bay, Mainstreet Orewa (trading as Destination Orewa Beach), Mairangi Bay and Torbay business associations means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their districts, and provide services in accordance with their members’ priorities as stated in their strategic plans.

21. By continuing these services and programmes, the Browns Bay, Mainstreet Orewa (trading as Destination Orewa Beach), Mairangi Bay and Torbay business associations should better serve their town centres and members, and support business growth.

22. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the BID programmes last year (Resolution HB/2017/45), as did the 17 other local boards that have BID programmes operating in their areas.

23. Several local boards provide additional funding to local business associations but accountability for that funding is set by funding agreements between the local board and the business association. Those requirements are separate from the requirements of the BID Policy and 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 Māori 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 are 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 BID targeted rates.

27. The requirements of the BID Policy are intended to help minimise the potential for BIDs to misuse funds, by requiring each BID 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. Upon local board recommendation the Governing Body will strike the BID targeted as part of its approval of the Annual Budget 2018/2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Review of key elements of the BID programme	407
b ⇩	BID Budgets	409
c ⇩	Compliance Report Browns Bay	411
d ⇩	Compliance Report Orewa	413
e ⇩	Compliance Report Mairangi Bay	415
f ⇩	Compliance Report Torbay	417

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Thompson - BID Programme Specialist

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Review of Auckland Council's representation arrangements for the 2019 elections

File No.: CP2018/07353

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board an opportunity to give formal feedback on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s representation arrangements have to be reviewed this year. The outcome will apply at the 2019 elections.

3. The Governing Body finalised the process for conducting the review in December 2017, following consultation with local boards.

4. The Joint Governance Working Party established by the mayor will develop a proposal for reporting to the Governing Body in July 2018.

5. The local board is now invited to provide its formal feedback on the review, for consideration by the Joint Governance Working Party.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) endorse the general approach to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections, which is to make changes on an issue-by-issue basis and to not seek significant change.

b) endorse the Joint Governance Working Party’s position on the following matters with respect to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections:

i) That all Governing Body members are to continue to be elected by ward as decided by the Governing Body

ii) That the current number of members in each ward is retained

iii) That the Waitematā and Gulf ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be addressed by reducing the size of the isthmus part of the ward on both the east and the west of the ward as in “Option 1”, with the resulting changes for neighbouring wards as set out in that option

iv) That the Rodney ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be retained on the basis that compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

v) That the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not have a community of interest with Warkworth, and that the Rodney Local Board is invited to provide feedback on the alternative options for subdivision arrangements.

c) endorse the following recommendations with respect to the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections, noting that they have yet to be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party:

i) That the Botany subdivision non-complying variance (population per member) should be addressed by moving the southern boundary of the Howick ward southwards and that the Howick Local Board is invited to provide feedback on the two alternative options

ii) That the Manurewa-Papakura ward non-complying variance (population per member) should be retained on the basis that compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest

iii) That the Waitematā Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the board area are appropriate

iv) That the Upper Harbour Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the board area are appropriate.

d) provide any other feedback on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections.

e) delegate authority to the chairperson to represent the local board’s views on the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections should the Joint Governance Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the local board prior to reporting to the Governing Body with a proposal in July 2018, or during the consideration of submissions following public notification.

Horopaki / Context

There are statutory deadlines

6. All councils must, under the Local Electoral Act 2001, review their representation arrangements at least every six years. Auckland Council, under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, must conduct a review of its representation arrangements no earlier than the 2013 elections and no later than September 2018.

7. The Governing Body considered conducting a review for the 2016 elections but resolved to defer this.

8. The Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the following timeline and process:

· public notice of the council’s proposals by 8 September 2018

· consideration of submissions

· public notice of the council’s final proposals within six weeks of the closing date for submissions.

· if there are no objections or appeals, the council’s proposals stand and are implemented

· if there are objections or appeals, they are forwarded to the Local Government Commission for a decision.

9. Staff are planning to report the Joint Governance Working Party’s proposals to the Governing Body meeting on 26 July 2018.

Role of the Joint Governance Working Party and the process for developing the Auckland Council proposal

10. In 2017 the Governing Body endorsed a process for the review of Auckland Council’s representation arrangements for the 2019 elections that was then recommended to local boards. Local board feedback, which was generally supportive of the proposed process, was reported back to the Governing Body in December 2017.

11. The Governing Body, after considering local board feedback, made the following decision:

“That the Governing Body:

a) receive the feedback from local boards.

b) note the mayor’s appointments to the Joint Governance Working Party as follows:

Cr Cathy Casey (Central), Cr Linda Cooper (West), Cr Daniel Newman (South), Cr Wayne Walker (North), Angela Dalton (South), Phelan Pirrie (Rural North), Richard Northey (Central) and Shane Henderson (West).

c) approve the draft terms of reference for the Joint Governance Working Party for inclusion in the Auckland Council Committee Terms of Reference.

d) approve the following process for conducting the review of representation arrangements:

i) the Joint Governance Working Party will develop Auckland Council’s initial review of representation arrangements and present it to local boards and the Governing Body for comments before the Governing Body makes the statutory resolution for public notification for submissions.

ii) the Joint Governance Working Party will conduct the hearing of submissions and report its findings to local boards and the Governing Body before the Governing Body makes the final statutory resolution on any representation changes, which will then be publicly notified for objections and appeals.

iii) the Governing Body will review the process for hearing submissions under (ii) at the time the initial proposals for change are known.”

12. The rationale for (d)(iii) in the decision was to respond to some local board feedback regarding the hearing of submissions. The legislation requires a final proposal to be publicly notified within six weeks of the submission closing date. This may require a centralised process, however this will be reviewed once the nature of changes being proposed is known.

Representation arrangements that may be reviewed

13. For the Governing Body it is possible to review, for members other than the mayor:

· Whether members are elected by ward or at-large or by a mixture

· If by ward, the number of wards, names, boundaries and number of members for each ward.

14. For each local board it is possible to review:

· Whether members are elected by subdivision or at-large or by a mixture

· If by subdivision, the number of subdivisions, names, boundaries and number of members for each subdivision

· The number of members for the local board

· The name of the local board.

Matters that are required to be taken into account

15. The Local Electoral Act 2001 (Act) requires the council to take into account:

· The effective representation of communities of interest

· Fairness of representation.

16. Other requirements in the Act include:

· Ward boundaries should align with local board boundaries as far as is practicable

· Boundaries must align with mesh-block boundaries

· When the council gives public notice of its proposal it needs to give reasons for any changes from the 2016 elections.

17. The concept of effective representation of communities of interest can be explained by considering a single electorate which has two quite different communities and two elected representatives. The outcome of each election might mean that both representatives are elected by one of the communities with the result that the other community will not be represented. This might be solved by splitting the total electorate into smaller electoral areas, each having one representative. In the case of territorial local authorities, those smaller electoral areas are known as “wards” and in the case of local boards, those smaller areas are known as “subdivisions”.

18. The concept of fairness means that the ratio of population to elected member for wards, in the case of the Governing Body, and subdivisions, in the case of local boards, should not vary across the region or local board area respectively. The legislation allows for a variance of up to 10 per cent. It further allows the council to not comply if compliance would result in splitting communities of interest or joining disparate communities of interest. The final decision on a proposal to not comply is made by the Local Government Commission.

19. A practical consideration is the distribution of voting documents. Each voter receives a pack of voting documents which is relevant to that voter (the pack contains voting papers for the governing body positions and local board positions relevant to that voter). Misalignment of boundaries can create additional combinations of governing body and local board positions. This leads to additional cost in terms of voting documents. This reinforces the legal requirement for ward and local board boundaries to align as far as is practicable.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The general approach is to not make significant change

20. The Local Government Commission determined the current arrangements in 2010 following 736 submissions on its first proposal. There was a lot of public interest and the process was robust. There are no significant issues with the current arrangements.

21. There have been discussions at local board cluster meetings and by the Joint Governance Working Party. Significant change has been considered (such as some Governing Body members being elected at large) but the outcome of these discussions to date is to basically retain the status quo except where changes are required.

22. One significant issue, though, which has been considered by the Governing Body is the number of Governing Body members. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 sets this at 20 members in addition to the mayor. All other councils are able to review the number of councillors.

23. The Governing Body, when it considered conducting a review of representation arrangements for the 2016 elections, decided instead to seek legislative change to allow it to review the number of Governing Body members. It also sought provision for re-aligning local board boundaries with ward boundaries, should ward boundaries need to change and if there was support from local boards to keep boundaries aligned.

24. This submission was not successful. The Governing Body is not able to review the number of Governing Body members. Local board boundaries are not able to be changed other than through the separate process of applying for a local government reorganisation.

25. The council is continuing to advocate change, however any legislative change in the short term is unlikely to be effective for the 2019 elections.

Wards

Wards that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

26. Based on statistics provided by the Local Government Commission (being a 2017 estimate) population ratios are as follows:

Ward	Population	Members	Population per member	Difference from quota	% Difference from quota
Rodney Ward	64,300	1	64,300	-18,560	-22.40
Albany Ward	169,800	2	84,900	2,040	2.46
North Shore Ward	156,800	2	78,400	-4,460	-5.38
Waitākere Ward	176,500	2	88,250	5,390	6.50
Waitematā and Gulf Ward	119,100	1	119,100	36,240	43.74
Whau Ward	84,700	1	84,700	1,840	2.22
Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward	172,200	2	86,100	3,240	3.91
Ōrākei Ward	91,500	1	91,500	8,640	10.43
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward	79,700	1	79,700	-3,160	-3.81
Howick Ward	150,200	2	75,100	-7,760	-9.37
Manukau Ward	168,900	2	84,450	1,590	1.92
Manurewa-Papakura Ward	148,900	2	74,450	-8,410	-10.15
Franklin Ward	74,600	1	74,600	-8,260	-9.97
Total	1,657,200	20	82,860

27. Final statistics will eventually be based on data provided by Statistics NZ at meshblock level. Staff expect that final statistics will be very close to those that have been used in the review to date.

28. As stated above, one of the matters that must be taken into account in the review is fairness of representation. The legislation requires that the ratio of population to member should not vary by more than 10 per cent unless there are reasons for not complying with this requirement (on the basis of splitting communities of interest or uniting disparate communities of interest).

29. There are four wards that do not comply:

· Waitematā and Gulf ward

· Rodney ward

· Ōrākei ward

· Manurewa-Papakura ward.

Review of the Waitematā and Gulf ward and neighbouring wards

30. The Waitematā and Gulf ward has a population approximately 28,000 above the 10 per cent quota. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered three options to address this (maps are in Attachment A):

· Option 1: boundaries on both the east and west of Waitematā are moved

· Option 2: the eastern boundary with the Ōrākei ward is not changed and there is substantial change on the western boundary with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward

· Option 3: the western boundary with the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward is not changed and there is substantial change on the eastern boundary with the Ōrākei ward.

31. Each option has different flow-on effects to neighbouring wards.

32. The Joint Governance Working Party recommends Option 1. The other options disrupt communities of interest to a greater extent.

33. For example, Option 2 takes areas around Ponsonby and Grey Lynn away from the central city into the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward.

34. Option 3 places large areas of Ōrākei in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki. In the Local Government Commission’s first proposal for wards, Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki were combined. Following submissions, the Local Government Commission determined that Ōrākei and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki were distinct communities of interest and created separate wards. The Commission took into account socio-economic differences and voting patterns.

35. The effect of Option 1 on the 10 per cent rule is as follows:

Ward	% Difference from quota
Whau	9.5%
Waitematā and Gulf	9.5%
Albert-Eden-Roskill	9.8%
Ōrākei	11.0%
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	10.6%
Waitākere	6.5%

Review of the Rodney ward

36. The Rodney ward needs to gain about 10,000 population to be only 10 per cent under the quota. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered three options (maps are in Attachment B):

· Option1: the area north of the Whangaparaoa peninsula which is currently in the Albany ward is moved into Rodney (Orewa, Hatfields, Waiwera)

· Option 2: the southern boundary of Rodney ward is moved southwards

· Option 3: the council proposes the status quo, which is not complying, on the basis that any options to increase the population in the Rodney ward split communities of interest.

37. The Joint Governance Working Party recommends Option 3. Both Option 1 and Option 2 split communities of interest.

38. In Option 1, the area from Orewa to Waiwera shares a community of interest with the Hibiscus Coast.

39. Option 2 is difficult to achieve without splitting a community of interest. Option 2, as shown, moves the Rodney ward boundary south to include Whenuapai and Paremoremo and it borders Ranui and Westgate. The Whenuapai area is assumed to be south-looking rather than north-looking. (For example, residents in Whenuapai would tend to go south for key activities like retail shopping or business, rather than north). Another option for a boundary is along the Upper Harbour motorway. However, this splits the Hobsonville community.

40. Further reasons for keeping the status quo include:

· Ward and local board boundaries remain aligned (the Local Electoral Act requires alignment as far as is practicable)

· The current boundaries are the boundaries originally set by the Local Government Commission as representing communities of interest

· Population is increasing and will continue to increase over time.

Review of the Manurewa-Papakura ward

41. The Joint Governance Working Party has not yet considered options for changing the Manurewa-Papakura ward boundaries.

42. In order to be only 10 per cent different to the average population to member ratio, the ward needs to gain a population of about 250. The Franklin ward cannot lose population or it will become non-complying. Any change to the ward boundary will need to be at the northern end.

43. Staff have provided two options for local board comment back to the Joint Governance Working Party, in Attachment C:

· Option 1: move the northern boundary of the ward on the western side of SH1 motorway up to Cavendish Drive

· Option 2: move the northern boundary of the ward on eastern side of SH1 motorway northwards, just over the Redoubt Road ridge

· Option 3: the status quo, which would need to be promoted to the Local Government Commission on the basis that it is not possible to achieve compliance without splitting communities of interest or uniting disparate communities of interest.

44. Staff recommend Option 3, given it is the least disruptive option, and that the degree of non-compliance is minimal. It also means that the ward and local board boundaries remain aligned (the Local Electoral Act requires alignment as far as is practicable).

Review of the number of members in wards

45. Wards are currently either single-member or double-member wards.

46. The Joint Governance Working Party has considered larger wards. For example a southern ward based on the current Manukau, Howick and Manurewa-Papakura wards and having six members. Implications include:

· The cost of a by-election across such a large ward if a vacancy occurs

· Voter turnout – those elected will tend to be elected by areas with higher turnout, meaning there will not be as much a spread of representation as there is now

· The cap on campaign expenditure is increased

· Each of the six members will have the same large electorate to service.

47. The Joint Governance Working Party also considered splitting current double-member wards into single-member wards. If this was done using local board boundaries as defining communities of interest, only the Manukau ward, if split into two, would continue to comply. The Joint Governance Working Party is recommending no change to current ward arrangements.

Local boards

Local board population

48. The following table provides the population for each local board and the number of board members:

Board	Population	Members	Population per member
Rodney	64,300	9	7,144
Hibiscus and Bays	104,500	8	13,063
Upper Harbour	65,300	6	10,883
Kaipātiki	94,000	8	11,750
Devonport-Takapuna	62,800	6	10,467
Henderson-Massey	122,300	8	15,288
Waitākere Ranges	54,200	6	9,033
Great Barrier	1,000	5	200
Waiheke	9,630	5	1,926
Waitematā	108,500	7	15,500
Whau	84,700	7	12,100
Albert-Eden	109,200	8	13,650
Puketāpapa	63,000	6	10,500
Ōrākei	91,500	7	13,071
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	79,700	7	11,386
Howick	150,200	9	16,689
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	81,100	7	11,586
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	87,800	7	12,543
Manurewa	94,500	8	11,813
Papakura	54,500	6	9,083
Franklin	74,600	9	8,289
Total	1,657,330

49. This table is provided for information. There is no legal requirement that the number of members should reflect the size of population. The 10 per cent rule only applies between internal boundaries of subdivisions. Staff are not aware of any reasons for changing the existing number of local board members.

Local board subdivisions that do not comply with the 10 per cent rule

50. A table showing local board subdivisions in relation to the 10 per cent rule is in Attachment D.

51. There are two subdivisions that do not comply:

· Botany subdivision of the Howick Local Board (at 16.84 per cent, which needs to reduce its population)

· Wellsford subdivision of the Rodney Local Board (at -10.69 per cent, which will be addressed in response to a suggestion to change the Warkworth subdivision).

Review of the Botany subdivision in the Howick Local Board area

52. Maps showing the current subdivision boundaries and two alternative options are contained in Attachment E.

53. It is clear that the only way for the Botany subdivision to lose population is through the Howick subdivision extending southwards. There are two options proposed for consideration by local boards.

54. One option expands the Howick subdivision southwards on the eastern side of Botany Road only, while the second option expands the Howick subdivision southwards on both sides of Botany Road. Each option results in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule.

55. The Howick Local Board is invited to indicate its preferred option. This would be the option which has the least disruptive effect on existing communities of interest.

Review of the subdivisions in the Rodney Local Board area

56. A submission has been received from a resident, Mr Grant Kirby, living near the Kaipara Harbour, pointing out that the Warkworth subdivision extends from coast to coast. Mr Kirby was a former chair of the Local Government Commission. The submission states that the area alongside the Kaipara Harbour does not share a community of interest with Warkworth and suggests extending the Kumeu subdivision boundary northwards, to follow the Helensville electoral boundary.

57. Maps showing current subdivisions, the option of extending the Kumeu subdivision northwards and an option of extending the Wellsford subdivision southwards, are contained in Attachment F. Both options result in subdivisions that comply with the 10 per cent rule.

58. The Joint Governance Working Party agrees that those near the Kaipara Harbour do not share a community of interest with Warkworth and invites the Rodney Local Board to recommend its preferred option in view of its knowledge of current communities of interest.

Waitematā Local Board subdivisions

59. A suggestion has been received that the Waitematā Local Board should have a central subdivision. A map is contained in Attachment G showing what this might look like.

60. The Waitematā Local Board is invited to recommend whether subdivisions should be created in order to promote more effective representation of communities of interest and, if so, whether it supports the proposed option.

Upper Harbour Local Board subdivisions

61. A suggestion has been received that the Upper Harbour Local Board should have subdivisions to ensure there was representation from the western end of the local board area. A map is contained in Attachment H showing an arrangement of three subdivisions that complies with the 10 per cent rule.

62. The Upper Harbour Local Board is invited to recommend whether subdivisions should be created to improve effective representation of communities of interest and if so whether it supports the proposed option.

Review of local board names

63. Staff noted comments at local board cluster meetings and other meetings that some current names may not be appropriate. These include:

(i) Howick Local Board and Ward: “Howick” is only part of the local board area

(ii) Waitematā Local Board and Ward: Some people associate “Waitematā” with a different area (for example the area of the Waitematā District Health Board)

(iii) Ōrākei Local Board and Ward: “Ōrākei” is only part of the local board area

(iv) Albany Ward: “Albany” is only part of the ward area.

64. The Great Barrier Local Board has recommended adding “Aotea” to its name. This acknowledges a recent Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngati Rehua - Ngatiwai ki Aotea.

65. Apart from the Great Barrier Local Board proposal, staff are not aware of any other specific proposals and are not researching alternative names. Local boards should note that a name change has the potential to confuse the electorate and there are budgetary implications with changing associated stationary and signage.

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

66. The Auckland Council’s review of representation arrangements for the 2019 elections has implications for local boards. These are discussed in the body of the report. The report also provides comments on changes that affect the Governing Body, for local board information and feedback.

67. Local boards have supported a process where a Joint Governance Working Party develops the Auckland Council proposal for presentation to the Governing Body. The Joint Governance Working Party has joint local board and Governing Body representation. The Governing Body will make the resolution required by the legislation which will be notified for public submissions.

68. Following the closing date for submissions the Governing Body must make the final statutory resolution within six weeks. The Joint Governance Working Party will consider submissions. So that the working party may liaise effectively with local boards, the local board is invited to delegate authority to the Chair or another member to represent the board’s views on the review should the Joint Governance Working Party seek further engagement with and/or feedback from the board prior to reporting to the Governing Body with a proposal in July 2018, or during the consideration of submissions following public notification.

69. There will be an opportunity for the Governing Body, when it makes its first resolution, to further consider a process for local board involvement in commenting on submissions.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

70. The Local Electoral Act 2001 provides for councils to establish Māori wards for electing governing body members. There is no similar provision for local board elections. The process for electing local board members is no different for Māori as for others.

71. The Auckland Council Governing Body has considered the possibility of creating a Māori ward. A resolution to do so was required by 23 November 2017. The Governing Body supported the creation of a Māori ward in principle but decided not to proceed further until the number of Governing Body members was able to be increased.

72. When considering subdivisions and communities of interest within its area it may be relevant to take into account tribal rohe boundaries.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

73. The review process is supported in-house. There will be costs associated with public notices and a payment to the Local Government Commission for preparing plans of boundaries and having them certified by the Surveyor-General. These costs are budgeted city-wide.

74. There are no financial implications for local boards. There will be down-stream council costs if the total number of local board members is increased (salary and support costs) or if there are changes to local board names resulting in costs associated with changing signage and stationery.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

75. The legislation requires deadline dates for certain decisions and public notification. Auckland Council has the greatest number of governance entities in the country (one governing body and twenty-one local boards) and there is a risk of not meeting these deadlines due to the need to involve all entities in the review.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

76. The Joint Governance Working Party will consider local board feedback in June 2018 and develop proposals for consideration by the Governing Body at its July meeting, when it will make its statutory resolution for public notification. This report provides the opportunity for local boards to have input.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitematā ward boundary options	431
b ⇩	Rodney ward boundary options	433
c ⇩	Manurewa - Papakura ward boundary options	435
d ⇩	Local board subdivisions and the 10 per cent rule	437
e ⇩	Botany subdivision boundary options	439
f ⇩	Rodney Local Board subdivision options	443
g ⇩	Waitematā Local Board subdivision option	447
h ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board subdivision option	449

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 May 2018

Disposal recommendations report

File No.: CP2018/06132

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland to recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee the disposal of a council owned property in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The council-owned site at 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is vacant land that was acquired for transport purposes. The site is no longer required for this purpose. The rationalisation process for 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay commenced in May 2016. Consultation with council departments and its Council Controlled Organisations, iwi authorities and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service use has been identified for the property through the rationalisation process. Due to this, Panuku Development Auckland recommends disposal of the site.

3. A resolution approving the disposal of the subject site is required from the Finance and Performance Committee before the proposed divestment can be progressed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) endorse Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to dispose of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay.

Horopaki / Context

4. Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) is required to undertake ongoing review of council’s property assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that are no longer required for council service purposes and may be suitable for potential sale, and development if appropriate. Panuku has a particular focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) and the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

5. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council departments and its Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors. All sale recommendations must be approved by Panuku’s Board before a final recommendation is made to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Property Information

6. 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is a 809m²vacant site acquired by the former Rodney District Council in 1998 for the purpose of Whangaparāoa Road widening project. The widening of Whangaparāoa Road remains a "live project" but this site is not included in the Whangaparāoa Road upgrade project (between Hibiscus Coast Highway to Red Beach Road).

7. The Auckland Transport (AT) Board resolved in November 2015 that 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay was no longer required for current or future transport related purposes. It was subsequently transferred to Panuku for rationalisation.

8. The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) zoning is residential - single house. It has a 2017 capital valuation of $530,000.

9. 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is subject to the offer back obligations to the former owners in accordance with section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981.

Internal Consultation

10. The rationalisation process commenced in May 2016. No alternate service uses for the subject site were identified during the internal consultation.

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

11. Panuku attended a workshop with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board regarding 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay in October 2017. The local board provided informal feedback that it supported retaining part of the subject site in council ownership and requested confirmation that the subject site is not required for the Weiti Crossing (Penlink) and Whangaparāoa Road widening projects. The local board also requested further information relating to AT’s decision to release the subject site from service.

12. In response, both Panuku and AT have advised the local board that 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is outside the extent of the AUP Penlink designation; that the subject site is not affected by the Whangaparāoa Road widening AUP designation which only includes the other side of Whangaparāoa Road at this point in the alignment; and confirmed that the subject site is not required for current or future strategic transport purposes.

13. Panuku and AT also provided the board with the November 2015 AT Board resolutions releasing 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay from service. Further information relating to AT’s assessment process supporting the decision has also been provided to the local board.

14. This report provides the local board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding the subject site.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. 14 mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay. The following feedback was received:

a) Ngāti Wai