Agenda of Rodney Local Board

An apology from Member B Steele has 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 Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 19 April 2018 and Thursday, 10 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 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney 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 Public Transport Users Association

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Representatives of the Public Transport Users Association NZ Inc. will be in attendance to give a presentation on their local ‘trains to Huapai’ campaign.

2. The ‘trains to Huapai’ campaign has been running for several years and seeks to use existing rail lines, stock and stations for an hourly return service between Huapai and Swanson (or Henderson). The presentation from the Public Transport Users Association will provide the local board with an update on latest developments in the campaign.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from the Public Transport Users Association for their presentation on their campaign for trains to Huapai.

8.2 Tender Road - road maintenance issues

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Andrew McNeil of Tender Road, near Pine Valley Road, has requested a deputation to address the local board on the issues with road maintenance in his area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Mr McNeil for his presentation on the issues with road maintenance on Tender Road, near Pine Valley Road.

8.3 Residents of Sunnyside Road, Coatesville

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Ryan Murdoch and John Ambler will be in attendance to discuss a recently approved road name, Hartway Grove, for the Lionel Hart subdivision at 406 Sunnyside Road, Coatesville.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Mr Murdoch and Mr Ambler for their presentation on the recently approved road name of Hartway Grove for the Lionel Hart subdivision at 406 Sunnyside Road, Coatesville.

8.4 Baddeleys and Campbells Residents and Ratepayers Association

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. Representatives from the Baddeleys and Campbells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association will be in attendance to address the local board in regard to a proposed alcohol ban in the area.

2. A report on an alcohol ban for Baddeleys and Campbells Beach was on the agenda of the local board meeting on 19 April but was deferred at the request of the local board in order for the maps of the ban area to be better defined. The report on the alcohol ban is expected at the local board’s business meeting on 21 June 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives from the Baddeleys and Campbells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association for their presentation regarding a proposed alcohol ban for the area.

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.

Rodney Local Board

17 May 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/05814

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Rodney Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by North West Country Incorporated for the financial year ending June 2017.

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

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 the Business Improvement Districts to comply with the Business Improvement District (BID) 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 North West Country Incorporated (formerly known as the Northwest District Business Association) is in compliance with the Business Improvement District Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by this business association to council’s Business Improvement District programme team to date.

7. Staff therefore recommend that as the Business Improvement District has met the requirements of the Business Improvement District Policy, that the local board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by the Business Improvement District.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) recommends to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for inclusion in the Annual Budget 2018-2019 for the following Business Improvement District programme:

· $180,000 for North West Country Incorporated.

Horopaki / Context

8. Council adopted the Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) in 2016. This policy outlines the principles behind the council BID programme; creates the process for establishing, expanding, and 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Under the Auckland Council co-governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several 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.

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

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

Compliance with the BID Policy

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. The North West Country Incorporated (formerly known as the Northwest District Business Association) is in compliance with the Business Improvement District Policy. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by this business association to council’s Business Improvement District programme team to date.

18. Staff therefore recommend that as the Business Improvement District has met the requirements of the Business Improvement District Policy, that the local board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by the Business Improvement District.

19. The recommendation of this report is supported by evidence of full compliance with the policy by North West Country Incorporated in the Rodney Local Board area. Please see Attachment C for details.

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

20. Recommending that the Governing Body strikes the targeted rate for North West Country Incorporated in the Rodney Local Board area means that this BID programme will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in its district, and provides services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in its Strategic Plan.

21. By continuing these services and programmes, North West Country Incorporated should better serve the commercial precinct and its members, and support business growth.

22. The Rodney Local Board approved a similar recommendation for the North West Country BID programme last year (resolution RD/2017/62), 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 apart 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. If the local board accepts the recommendation of this report, it will recommend to the Governing Body that the BID targeted rate be struck as stated in the recommendation as part of its approval of the Annual Budget 2018-2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	BID Key elements	13
b ⇩	BID budgets	15
c ⇩	North West Country	17

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Paul Thompson - BID Programme Specialist

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 May 2018

Panuku Development Auckland Local Board six-monthly update 1 October 2017 - 31 March 2018

File No.: CP2018/06493

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update the Rodney Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area for the six months from 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Panuku was established in September 2015 due to the merger of two council controlled organisations, Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited.

3. Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland, from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

4. Panuku manages around $2 billion of council’s property portfolio, which is continuously reviewed to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland Local Board update for 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018.

Horopaki / Context

Local Activities

Portfolio management

5. Panuku manages ‘non-service’ properties owned by council and Auckland Transport (AT). Non-service properties are those that are not currently needed for service or infrastructure purposes. These properties were generally being held for planned future projects that are no longer required, such as road construction, park expansion or development of future town centres.

6. As at 31 March 2018, the property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

7. The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 31 January 2018 was above budget, with a net surplus to council and AT shareholders of $1.1 million ahead of budget.

8. The average monthly tenantable occupancy rate, for the six-month period is more than 98 per cent, which is above the Statement of Intent target of 95 per cent.

Properties managed in the Rodney Local Board Area

9. Panuku currently manages 52 commercial and 15 residential interests within the Rodney Local Board area.

Business interests

10. Panuku also optimises the commercial return from business interests it manages on council’s behalf. This includes two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries.

11. There is currently one managed business interest in the local board area:

12. Ti Point Forest – Woodbank completed Stage 1 Harvest (about 2/3 of the forest) mid 2017. Stage 2 requires dry conditions 4-6 weeks prior to harvest. The weather conditions this summer have not been ideal. Stage 2 is also conditional on Department of Conservation granting legal access over the marginal strip land and a concession license. The terms of the agreements are yet to be finalised. An archaeological assessment of the skid site (the area within a forest where harvested logs are processed and loaded onto transport) needs to be undertaken. The lease to the tenant has expired and will not be renewed.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

13. The 2015-2025 Long-Term Plan reflects a desire of council to materially reduce or slow down expenditure and unlock value from assets no longer required or which are sub-optimal for service purposes. In response to this, prior to the establishment of Panuku, Auckland Council property Limited (ACPL) developed a new method of dealing with service property, called optimisation.

14. Asset optimisation deals with “service property”. It is self-funding, it maximises efficiencies from service assets, and maintains levels of service whilst releasing property for sale or development. A key element of optimisation is that the sale proceeds are locally reinvested to advance approved projects and activities on a cost neutral basis. It does not include the Auckland Transport portfolio. Panuku continues to advance this programme of work. This includes the development of a cross-council project to coordinate and execute asset sales and optimisation.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

15. Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. Panuku has a focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to 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.

Performance

16. Panuku works closely with council and Auckland Transport to identify potential surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

17. Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$60 million disposal recommendations	$88 million as at 30 April 2018

Process

18. Once identified as a potential sale candidate, a property is taken through a multi-stage ‘rationalisation’ process. The agreed process includes engagement with council, council-controlled organisations (CCOs), the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku Board approval, engagement with local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Under review

19. Properties currently under review in the Rodney Local Board area are listed below. This list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale, or development and sale by the Governing Body.

Property

Details

14 Baxter Street, Warkworth

The site comprises a public car parking platform, the airspace above it, and the ancillary foyer, stairs and support pillars. It was originally acquired by the former Rodney District Council (RDC) for a proposed community centre development.

Consultation about this property has been undertaken with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the local board. No alternative service uses have been identified.

The local board resolved at its 16 February 2017 business meeting that it was opposed to the proposed disposal of this site on the basis that it may be required for town centre car parking purposes in the future.

A report was submitted to the Finance and Performance Committee’s 21 March 2017 meeting for a final decision on the proposed disposal. The committee resolved to delay the decision regarding the disposal of land until such time as the Auckland Transport Strategy team investigates parking options (including all day parking options) for Warkworth, with at least the same or greater number of carparks as the above property, and report back to the Finance and Performance Committee by way of a written report within the next three months.

The committee also directed staff and the Rodney Local Board to investigate the urgency and the funding of the weather tightness remedial work and other deferred maintenance totaling approximately $500,000 and noted that resolution of the funding issue cannot be held over until the 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

Council’s Community Facilities department is currently undertaking the required investigations before Panuku can report again to the committee.

12 Waimauku Station Road, Waimauku

The vacated site is the remainder of land acquired by the former Rodney District Council in 2006 for the provision of vehicle and pedestrian access to the current commercial area.

The rationalisation process commenced in December 2014. An expression of interest was received from Auckland Transport noting that the road and footpath is constructed on the site and the boundaries will need to be realigned.

Panuku are working to resolve legal issues associated with the acquisition of the site and to legalise the road and footpath.

Further engagement with the board is scheduled for July 2018.

Acquisitions and Disposals

20. Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. Panuku purchases property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other service. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

21. Panuku does not decide which properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of council.

22. Panuku purchased eight properties for open space across Auckland in this financial year (ending 30 June 2018) at a cost of $19.7 million, and also bought six properties for storm water use at a value of $4.2 million.

23. One property was purchased in the Rodney Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

24. The disposal team sold eight properties for a total of $10.7 million this financial year. The team’s 2017/2018 target is $8.0 million for the year. The target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

25. One of the properties sold is in the Rodney Local Board area is Allots 136, 137, 140 and 141 Parish of Kourawhero, Woodcocks.

Regional Activities

Highlights

26. Over the year, Panuku achieved key project milestones and performance results in our priority development locations. Panuku categorises three types of priority locations:

27. Transform locations – Panuku ‘transforms’ locations by creating change through urban regeneration. Panuku leads the transformation of select parts of the Auckland region; working alongside others and using the custodianship of land and planning expertise. The catalytic work Waterfront Auckland led at Wynyard Quarter is a great example of the transformation of urban locations.

28. Unlock locations – Panuku also ‘unlocks’ development potential for others. By acting as a facilitator; using relationships to break down barriers and influence others, including the council family, to create development opportunities.

29. Support locations – Panuku plays a ‘support’ role to ensure council is making the most of what it already has. Intensification is a key driver in the Auckland Plan. Panuku will support housing demands by enabling development of council-owned land.

Transform locations

30. The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week.

· The first three phases of structural steel have been installed at the Park Hyatt Hotel. All up, approximately 2000 tonnes of primary structural steel will be used to construct the luxury five-star hotel, which will span a total area of 37,000sqm.

· In April 2017, Mayor Phil Goff officially opened the Mason Bros. building, a former industrial warehouse that has been redeveloped into a three-level office space, bringing together a community of entrepreneurs and businesses. It is the centrepiece of Wynyard Quarter’s innovation precinct.

· The innovation precinct in Wynyard Quarter has expanded with the newly opened five-floor building at 12 Madden Street. The purpose-built home for entrepreneurs offers the latest in flexible co-working spaces. This milestone marks two years since the GridAKL initiative was launched by Auckland Tourism, Events, and Economic Development (ATEED), partnering with Panuku and Precinct Properties to develop the commercial space to house ambitious companies and connecting technologists, designers, digital content makers, product designers and start-ups.

· Developer Willis Bond is constructing 500-600 apartments of various types and sizes that are set to house around 1100 people. There are two developments currently under construction; Wynyard Central and 132 Halsey. The first residents moved in during September 2017.

31. ‘Transform Manukau’ was the first location to have a Framework Plan completed, outlining the five key moves for the project and the vision for Manukau in 2040. Over the past six months, the emphasis has been on confirming the delivery of an affordable housing development on 5ha of land at 20 Barrowcliffe Place. This project will be Panuku’s largest development of affordable housing and involves the first partnership arrangement with mana whenua in a property development role. Earthworks on the development of over 200 homes will commence soon. Work is also about to commence on the street-scape upgrade of Putney Way, in conjunction with the bus station process led by AT.

32. The high-level plan to ‘Transform Onehunga’, on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau, was approved in March 2017. The plan was completed involving significant consultation with the community. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of strategic council-owned land, and works in partnership with government and others, to deliver positive outcomes for the local community. The East-West link, which affects the wharf and southern parts of the area, is currently being reassessed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The final board of inquiry decision approving the East-West link was given in January 2018. Panuku is however, expecting amended plans later this year. Working with the local board and key stakeholders, Panuku has advanced plans on the town centre and the Onehunga wharf precinct where possible. The Framework Plan that will guide the transformation is due for completion in April 2018.

Unlock locations

33. In Takapuna, Auckland Council owns nearly four hectares of land focused around the Anzac Street carpark and the Gasometer site, and consultation on redevelopment of these sites has started.

34. In Northcote, a masterplan and design guide for the new Awataha Greenway project has been completed, and work is well advanced on the masterplanning and reference design for the town centre regeneration. Works are also progressing well on the redevelopment of the Housing New Zealand stock by Homes Land Community (HLC).

35. Hobsonville 20ha Airfields site - stage one of construction of 102 standalone and terrace homes is underway. Avanda Group have been announced as the developers that will deliver more than 500 homes in stage two, of which a minimum of 10 per cent will be affordable housing.

36. The opportunity to revitalise Avondale has been given the green light in November 2017 with the approval of the over-arching plan for its regeneration by the Planning Committee. The vision for Avondale will be enabled through a number of key moves. Panuku will work closely with the local board and community to implement a retail strategy that attracts new businesses, increasing diversity of products and services. The train station, upgraded bus network and new cycleways offer great transport options and we will continue to strengthen connections between these activity hubs and the town. A focus for the regeneration of Avondale is working with developers to build quality residential neighbourhoods that offer a mix of housing types, including terraces and apartments. A number of significant developments are already underway in the area.

37. Council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop Old Papatoetoe in June 2017. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of the mall, a 2.5ha block of land, which will see the area opened up with a new plaza space, reconfigured shops, upgraded carpark and a revamped New World supermarket. In addition to the upgrade of the mall, which is expected to be completed early next year, approximately 110 new homes are planned to be developed in the surrounding area.

38. With the overall plan for Henderson being approved in May 2017, the vision is for it to grow into an urban eco-centre. This vision will guide planning and development with an outcome towards ‘liveable growth’ by creating a safe, attractive and vibrant mixed-use environment with a uniquely west Auckland identity.

39. A development agreement was signed with Todd Property for the delivery of more than 350 homes in Flat Bush, Ormiston. In December 2016, Panuku sold a site at 187 Flat Bush School Road for a 30-lot subdivision.

Support locations

40. The Mariner Rise subdivision at 20 Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa, has been completed by Panuku’s development partner, McConnell Property, along with the delivery of a 2700sqm park and playground. Sixty new homes will be built on this new subdivision.

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

41. This report is for the Rodney Local Board’s information.

42. Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries relating to a property in the local board area be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

43. Tāmaki Makaurau has the highest Māori population in the world with one in four Māori in Aotearoa living here.

44. Māori make up 12% of the region’s total population who mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic with 50% of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau under the age of 25 years. 5% of the Māori population in the region are currently 65 years and over.

45. There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 15 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the local board area.

46. Māori make up 10 percent of the local board population, and there are seven marae located within the local board area.

47. Panuku work collaboratively with Mana Whenua on a range projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

48. Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Carlos Rahman - Senior Engagement Advisor

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 May 2018

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Rodney Local Board for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018

File No.: CP2018/07413

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Rodney Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter three, 1 January - 31 March 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against local board key performance indicators, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2017/2018 work programme. Of significance this quarter:

· allocation of $50,000 to commence the first stage (needs assessment) of the Green Road Reserve, Dairy Flat Master Plan.

· commencement of the construction of the Rautawhiri Park perimeter path in Helensville.

· renewal of the Rautawhiri Park, Helensville netball and tennis courts.

· allocation of an additional $10,000 to cover fee waiver applications by the community over the coming six months.

· commencement of earthworks for the Huapai Hub community town centre project.

· community launch of the Warkworth Aspirations document which outlines community priorities for the town centre.

· granting of leases to the Riverhead Playgroup Incorporated for the Riverhead War Memorial Park and Sandspit Yacht Club.

3. Performance against the agreed 2017/2018 work programmes is tracking positively.

4. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. The majority of activities are reported with a status of green (on track) or amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed). The following activities are reported with a status of red (behind delivery, significant risk):

· “Whangateau Harbour: Stage 1: Identifying methods to address coastal erosion” (Work Programme ID788)

· “Rodney local active spaces planning 2017-2018” (Work Programme ID 2013)

· “Rodney Recreational Walkways - Kowhai Park Reserve - develop design” (Work Programme ID 3178)

· “Rodney - plan and design town centre improvements” (Work Programme ID 3375)

· “Feasibility study for the expansion of Kumeu Arts Centre” (Work Programme ID 3387).

5. Changes to the work programme are recommended to reflect recent resolutions of the board allocating funding to Green Road Reserve planning and to remove proposed leases that do not require renewal this financial year.

6. Overall, the net operational financial performance of the board is tracking at 78% of revised budget year to date. Revenue is tracking slightly behind the year to date budget although should be on budget at year end. Delivery of the capital expenditure programme is currently at 50% against the year to date revised budget and includes works underway on various sportsfields and coastal asset renewals.

7. The key performance indicators show a trend of delivery that is not meeting the indicators The year-end outlook is that 56 per cent of measures will not achieve target. These are explained further in detail in the report.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 31 March 2018.

b) approve a new work programme line led by the Service Strategy and Integration team entitled “complete the first stage of the process to develop a master plan for Green Road Reserve, Dairy Flat” in accordance with the $50,000 allocated to this project under resolution RD/2018/5.

c) cancel and remove the work programme line “Rodney local active spaces planning 2017-2018” (Work Programme ID 2013).

d) cancel and remove the work programme line “RNZ Plunket Society – Kumeu” (Work Programme ID1435).

e) cancel and remove the work programme line “RNZ Plunket Society – Rodney” (Work Programme ID1436).

Horopaki / Context

8. The Rodney Local Board has an approved 2017/2018 work programme for the following operating departments:

· Arts, Community and Events; approved on 15 June 2017

· Parks, Sport and Recreation; approved on 15 June 2017

· Libraries and Information; approved on 15 June 2017

· Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew; approved on 15 June 2017

· Community Leases; approved on 15 June 2017

· Infrastructure and Environmental Services; approved on 18 May 2017.

9. The work programmes are aligned to the 2014 Rodney Local Board Plan.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Key achievements for quarter three

10. The Rodney Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter three period, which include the:

· allocation of $50,000 to commence the first stage (needs assessment) of the Green Road Reserve, Dairy Flat Master Plan.

· commencement of the construction of the Rautawhiri Park perimeter path in Helensville.

· renewal of the Rautawhiri Park, Helensville netball and tennis courts.

· allocation of an additional $10,000 to cover fee waiver applications by the community over the coming six months.

· commencement of earthworks for the Huapai Hub community town centre project.

· community launch of the Warkworth Aspirations document which outlines community priorities for the town centre.

· granting of leases to the Riverhead Playgroup Incorporated for the Riverhead War Memorial Park and Sandspit Yacht Club.

Key project updates from the 2017/2018 work programme

11. Listed below are progress updates against key projects identified in the Rodney Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Construct recreational walkways, fitness trails and bike trails and undertake plans to identify key linkages to determine areas of priority”.

This initiative has been progressed through the commencement of the construction of the Rautawhiri Park, Helensville perimeter walkway.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Partnering on main street upgrades at Warkworth, Wellsford, Kumeū/Huapai, Helensville and Te Hana”.

This initiative has been progressed through the commencement of earthworks for the Huapai Hub community town centre project and the public launch of the Warkworth Community Aspirations document in February.

· Local Board Plan Objective: “Our play areas are active zones that cater to the needs of all ages and abilities”

This initiative has been progressed through consultationwith the community on the ‘Rodney Challenging Playspaces’ projects for Muriwai and Wellsford. Next steps will include the final approval of designs by the local board prior to construction commencing.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Continue to develop, renew and improve sports parks, fields, hardcourts and other key open spaces such as Centennial Park in Wellsford”.

This initiative has been progressed through the work completed on the Wellsford Centennial Park sand field renewals with the installation of irrigation and primary drainage completed.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Advocate to the Governing Body for improvements to the capacity and maintenance of stormwater infrastructure in our unserviced rural areas to support growth and address negative environmental impacts”.

This initiative has been progressed through the completion of an assessment report on the drainage district which will be peer reviewed prior to presentation to the local board.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Investigate the options for multisport facilities in Kumeū/Huapai, Warkworth and Wellsford. Support and advocate for their funding and construction”.

This initiative has been progressed through the ‘Wellsford Sport and Recreation Plan’ project. This has involved a consultant working with the Wellsford Sports Collective to review sport and recreation needs in the area, analyse findings and develop a community sport and recreation plan that identifies projects.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Work on realising Rodney’s greenways plans, including working with our key stakeholders to complete our plans, identify priority areas, and design and build the greenways”.

This initiative has been progressed through internal and external agency stakeholder engagement sessions held on two new greenways plans. These sessions included local board members, Auckland Transport, Planning and Parks Policy representatives.

· Local Board Plan Initiative: “Develop a plan to meet the future recreation needs at Green Road, Dairy Flat.”

This initiative has been progressed through the reallocation of funding from the ‘Rodney local active places planning’ work programme line to fund the first stage of the Green Road Master Plan being the needs assessment. It is recommended that the original work programme line be removed and a new line created to reflect this change in quarter four.

12. It has been recommended by lease officers that the RNZ Plunket Society lease for the Kumeu Plunket rooms be deleted from the work programme as the lease does not expire until March 2020 (work programme linke 1435). Similarly it is recommended that the RNZ Plunket Society lease for the Warkworth Plunket rooms be deleted from the work programme as the lease does not expire until October 2021 (work programme linke 1436). Both leases will be recommended for inclusion in future work programmes. This report therefore recommends that the board resolve to delete these work programme lines.

Key performance indicators

13. The year-end outlook is that 56 per cent of measures will not achieve target. The measures that not currently meeting targets are listed below and are explained in further detail in Attachment D.

· Percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of local parks and reserves

· Percentage of residents who visited a local park or reserve in last 12 months

· Percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of sports fields

· Number of visits to library facilities per capita

· Percentage of funding/grant applicants satisfied with information, assistance and advice provided

· Percentage of Aucklanders that feel connected to their neighbourhood and local community

· Percentage of attendees satisfied with council delivered and funded local events

· Percentage of Aucklanders that feel their local town centre is safe (night)

· Facility Utilisation - utilisation at peak times and off-peak times for council managed community centres and venues for hire (peak)

· Facility Utilisation - utilisation at peak times and off-peak times for council managed community centres and venues for hire (off peak).

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

14. This report informs the Rodney Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 31 March 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15. Māori, as stakeholders in the council, are affected and have an interest in any report on the quarterly financial results. However the recommendation to the local board of receiving the report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on, Māori. Two specific work programme items of interest are outlined below.

16. The local board work programme item ‘Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund’ involves partnering with Te Uri o Hau regarding the provision of plants from the Te Arai Nursery. The update on this work programme action confirms that “Funding agreements have been sent to all the successful applicants for this fund. Two applicants have finished their fencing projects and have been paid. The remaining applicants have a mix of planting and fencing projects. Payment for these will be after the upcoming planting season in May - July 2018. The remaining funds will be used for applicants in the wider Rodney area.”

17. The work programme item ‘Increase diverse participation: Community engagement and partnering’ references recent work with mana whenua and mataawaka. In particular “Te Kakano Codesign - delivering services for Wellsford based on te ao Māori. Staff participated in co-design sessions with council and community to create better access to services for tamariki and whanau Māori. The broker and specialist advisor have been liaising throughout the year with Social Policy team who are leading this piece of work.”

Financial performance

18. Operating expenditure for the year to date is under budget overall, predominantly due to the implementation of the Project 17 full facilities contract and the spread of costs over the region. A full year of costings will be required to more accurately budget in this area. There are a number of locally driven initiative projects which we will monitor in the final quarter to ensure delivery is achieved as per planned work programmes.

19. The revenue relating to community venues, halls and libraries is slightly behind budget for the year to date although this should come back in line with the overall budget at the end of the financial year.

20. The capital spend of $5.1m is $5.1m less than anticipated by the year to date budget. A number of projects are currently underway including the Shelly Beach Seawall, Omaha Groyne (seawall) Stage 3 and various other coastal asset renewals, fields 1 and 2 and netball lighting at Warkworth Showgrounds, Rautawhiri Park court renewals, Riverhead War Memorial sand field renewals, Huapai Domain sandfield renewals, Kowhai Park toilet renewal and a playground renewal at William Fraser Reserve.

21. The complete Rodney Local Board financial performance report can be found in Attachment C.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

22. This report is for information only, with the exception of the cancellation and amendment of work programme lines as a consequence of previous local board decisions or leases not progressing this year. Therefore this report has no direct financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

23. The following risks have been identified by operating departments where the progress and performance indicator has been reported as red – significantly behind budget/time or achievement of outcomes:

· “Whangateau Harbour: Stage 1: Identifying methods to address coastal erosion” (Work Programme ID788)

The Coastal Compartment Management Plan for Whangateau Harbour, Point Wells site is on hold as the coastal management team respond to increased risks at Whangaparaoa Peninsula and test trial this location. The project is likely to be deferred to the 2018/2019 financial year.

· “Rodney local active spaces planning 2017-2018” (Work Programme ID 2013)

This project is currently on hold as the entire $50,000 budget required has been reallocated by the local board to the Green Road Master plan (needs assessment) resolution reference RD/2018/5.

It is recommended this line item be cancelled and a new line item be included in the next quarter for the ‘Green Road Master Plan $50,000.

· “Rodney Recreational Walkways - Kowhai Park Reserve - develop design” (Work Programme ID 3178)

The walkway project is dependent on a structure over covenanted bush adjacent to the council reserve. Discussions with the landowners are occurring in this regard. In parallel the local board are liaising with Auckland Transport on possible options for a new footpath connection along Matakana Road wich would connect to existing footpaths and the new walkway.

· “Rodney - plan and design town centre improvements” (Work Programme ID 3375)

The remaining capital budget of $520,000 is likely to be deferred from FY2018 to FY2019 until the Community Empowerment department have determined in partnership with the community the scope of projects and priority areas of focus for discussion with the local board. The current operational budget of $100,000 is currently being utilised to assist with this determination and scoping.

· “Feasibility study for the expansion of Kumeu Arts Centre” (Work Programme ID 3387)

24. Following the completion of the feasibility study, the local board resolved to continue with the expansion of the Kumeu Arts Centre. The capital budget for this project $300,000 sits in a separate work programme line (ID3297) and is being delivered by council’s investigation and design team whilst this line remains with the Arts and Culture team. Further planning and investigation work associated with the arts centre expansion will be progressed with the remainder of this budget. Construction of the building is not expected to commence in the current financial year.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter four, August 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Work Programme Snapshot	49
b ⇩	Work Programme Update	51
c ⇩	Financial Performance	83
d ⇩	Key Performance Indicators	91

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Kathryn Martin – Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 May 2018

Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

File No.: CP2018/06050

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. Nine 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 APTR. The remission would be reduced in equal steps over ten years. 39 submitters supported and 30 were opposed to the proposal. 13 thought the APTR should not be charged while 11 wanted the remission scheme to be more generous.

8. Officers recommend adoption of the APTR 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 Rodney Local Board:

a) endorse 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) endorse 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 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) endorse 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 providing 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 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 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 meetings. The draft policy for consultation was agreed by the 27 February meeting of the Finance and Performance Committee.

16. Consultation was open to the public from 13 March to 13 April. 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 continue 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 Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust and Forest and Bird, opposed the proposal to replace legacy remissions with grants for QEII covenanted land. The feedback of the QEII 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 QEII 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, 5 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. 4 submitters broadly supported the policy. Grey Power and 4 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 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 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	107
b ⇩	Proposed Draft Remission Policy	109
c ⇩	Remission value by local board	119
d ⇩	Community and Sports Remissions by local board (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Acting Group Chief Financial Officer

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 May 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/06552

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report seeks 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 ten-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.

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 Projects 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 RFT 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 Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan.

b) provide feedback on the draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal.

c) provide feedback on 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 ten 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 Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) were still under review, leading to some uncertainty about project priorities. Both the GPS and 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 Regional Fuel Tax 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.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21. The consultation material for the following has been attached for the consideration of local boards:

· Draft 2018-2028 RLTP for consultation

· Regional Fuel Tax proposal and

· Draft Contributions Policy

22. Formal feedback on these consultation documents is being sought from local board through this report.

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

23. The RLTP sets out a ten-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.

24. 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.

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

26. The draft proposal signals the council’s intent to exclude Great Barrier Island from the regional fuel tax, 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.

27. 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 Long-term Plan (LTP) process.

28. Local boards were 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.

29. The draft RFT proposal and draft Contributions Policy was also 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 Regional Fuel Tax and the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

30. 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.

31. 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 regional fuel tax 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35. 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

36. 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

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

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

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

40. 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 2018-2028 RLTP for consultation	139
b ⇩	Draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal	221
c ⇩	Draft Contributions Policy	245

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

17 May 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/07320

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Rodney 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 Rodney 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	299
b ⇩	Rodney ward boundary options	301
c ⇩	Manurewa - Papakura ward boundary options	303
d ⇩	Local board subdivisions and the 10 per cent rule	305
e ⇩	Botany subdivision boundary options	307
f ⇩	Rodney Local Board subdivision options	311
g ⇩	Waitematā Local Board subdivision option	315
h ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board subdivision option	317

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

[1] Waikato University: “2017 Investment in Covenanted Land Conservation” prepared for the Queen Elizabeth the Second Trust

Chairperson	Beth Houlbrooke
Deputy Chairperson	Phelan Pirrie
Members	Brent Bailey
	Tessa Berger
	Cameron Brewer
	Louise Johnston
	Allison Roe, MBE
	Colin Smith
	Brenda Steele

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager