Agenda of Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/07134

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 (RLTP) 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 (NZTA), Auckland Council and KiwiRail.

3. The draft RLTP has been developed in collaboration with the NZTA. Legislation requires that the RLTP 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 RLTP.

4. The RLTP will be consulted with the public between 1 and 14 May 2018.

5. Alongside the RLTP, Auckland Council is consulting the public on a draft Regional Fuel Tax (RFT) 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 (GPS) and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) were still under review so the projects proposed to be funded by a regional fuel tax could not be identified. The draft RFT 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

That the Waitematā Local Board give formal written feedback on:

a) the draft 2018-2028 Regional Land Transport Plan

b) the draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal

c) the draft Contributions Policy.

Horopaki / ContextRegional Land Transport Plan

8. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires that the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) prepare an 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 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 Chair and Deputy Chair under delegation.

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

Regional Fuel Tax

12. In preparing the 10-year Budget 2018-28, 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. An 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 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 Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Contributions Policy will run for two weeks between 1 May and 14 May 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

21. The consultation material for the draft 2018-2028 RLTP, draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal and draft Development Contributions Policy have been attached for local boards consideration. Formal feedback on these consultation documents is being sought from local boards through this report.

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

22. The RLTP sets out a 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.

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

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

25. The draft proposal signals the Council’s intent to exclude Great Barrier Island from the 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.

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

27. Local boards 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 boards to provide formal feedback to inform further decision-making on the RLTP.

28. The draft Regional Fuel Tax Proposal and draft Contributions Policy were 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

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

30. The introduction of a regional fuel tax 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.

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft 2018-2028 RLTP for consultation	13
b ⇩	Draft Regional Fuel Tax proposal	91
c ⇩	Draft Contributions Policy	115

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Auckland Transport May 2018 update

File No.: CP2018/07145

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update to the Waitematā Local Board on transport related matters in their area including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report covers:

· The Quarterly report from Auckland Transport to the board

· A summary of Auckland Transport projects and operations in the local board area

· A summary of the board’s transport capital fund.

· A summary of consultation activity

· A summary of general information items sent to the board

· Traffic control committee decisions

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Transport May 2018 update report.

Horopaki / Context

3. This report updates the board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the local board area. It updates the board on their advocacy and consultations, and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

4. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities.

5. The Local Board Transport Capital Fund is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of Auckland Transport’s work programme. Projects must also:

· be safe

· not impede network efficiency

· be in the road corridor (although projects running through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

Quarterly report on Auckland Transport projects and activities

6. Please see attachments A and B for the board’s information on Auckland Transport’s activities over the past quarter (January – March 2018).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Auckland Transport projects and operations in the local board area

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

Item	Update
Park Road Busway - bus priority improvements on Park Road between Grafton Bridge and the Hospital entrance	Auckland Transport has been engaging with key stakeholders on the Park Road project. Traffic management outside the new University medical facility conflicts with construction of the proposed improvements and is likely to delay the project until 2020. Public consultation has been put on hold until we confirm with the University the earliest date that construction could proceed.
Northwestern busway – proposed rapid transit corridor from City to West Auckland	The refreshed Auckland Transport Alignment Project directs AT and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) to work together on how best to deliver light rail along the corridor, though staged improvements of bus rapid transit will be needed in the interim. Full funding of NW light rail is not yet secured but ATAP allocates ‘seed’ funding to allow the network to commence development.
Wellesley Street Bus Improvement Project (formerly Midtown bus route) – improving how city centre buses operate	Work is being undertaken into the potential to integrate the proposed off-street bus interchange in Grafton Gully into the surrounding Learning Quarter campus, as well as more detailed design concepts, operational assessments, economic evaluation and commercial considerations. Co-ordination with being undertaken with the Victoria Street linear park team and CRL Ltd. The scope for the Detailed Business Case (DBC) has been completed and was released to the market in late March for likely commencement in May.
Quay Street East Bus Project (formerly the Downtown bus project) - a new set of bus stops and associated kerbside infrastructure on Quay St East to enable the rollout of the Central New Bus Network.	Design consultant are currently working on the proposed bus interchange, with site investigations, full design and consenting to take place over the next year. The work is being undertaken as part of the Quay Street Streetscape programme and in co-ordination with the seawall repairs and CRL reinstatement works. Construction is expected to start Q4 2019 and finish Q4 2020.
Parnell Busway - bus priority improvements on Parnell Road between Davis Crescent and St Mary’s Close.	Public consultation for the Parnell Road project closed on the 5 March 2018, with over 100 submissions received. Submissions are being analysed. The project team briefed the board on the results in a workshop on the 3 April 2018. The Road Safety Audit is in progress.
Federal Street Upgrade Stage 2 - between Mayoral Drive and Wellesley Street, incorporating improved lighting, signage, street furniture and planting.	Public consultation ran from November – December 2017. It is expected that the public report will be available on the Auckland Transport website by the time this report is published. A consultant has been appointed to start detailed design work. The project team will approach the board for feedback when they have developed some drafts.
Parnell residential parking zone - proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses	Consultation closed in December 2017 and we have received 426 responses including two submissions from the Parnell Business Association and Parnell community committee . Analysis of all the feedback is in progress.
Arch Hill residential parking zone – proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses.	Public consultation is now closed, the project team has sought the board’s feedback and the results are being analysed. Further parking survey work completed and results sent to the board. The project team are now in the process of responding to the submissions received. Due to the importance of the issue, we are duly considering the public’s feedback and investigating specific suggestions and concerns. Unfortunately, this is taking some time, as we’ve received a large amount of submissions.
Grey Lynn parking scheme - proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses	Public consultation is now closed, the project team has sought the Board’s feedback and the results are being analysed. Further parking survey work undertaken and results sent to the Board. The project team are now in the process of responding to the submissions received. Due to the importance of the issue, we are duly considering the public’s feedback and investigating specific suggestions and concerns. Unfortunately, this is taking some time, as we’ve received a large amount of submissions.
Nelson St cycleway phase 3 – a bi-directional cycleway from Nelson Street to Quay Street	Public consultation closed on the 1st of October and the project team has sought the Board’s feedback. The project team is delaying making any decision on the proposal. This is due to streetscape improvement opportunities presented following the consultation for Market Place and Custom Street West. They will report back on what changes can be expected for Market Place and Customs Street, alongside the process and timing for delivering the project. At this stage there will be no substantive change to the Lower Hobson layout. They will be back in touch with submitters and other key stakeholders as soon as a decision has been reached. If substantial changes are proposed AT will be required to re-consult.
Wynyard Quarter street and park upgrades – central construction package	AT will shortly be notifying project stakeholders that work is commencing mid-year on the street and park upgrades on Daldy Street and Gaunt Street. A project newsletter will be distributed and signs will be put up throughout the quarter to let people know that the work is coming up and what they can expect.
Grafton residential parking zone - proposed permit scheme for residents and businesses	The public feedback report is complete and published on Auckland Transport’s website. The Traffic Control Committee approved the project on 26 March 2018. The project is now in the installation stage and is hoping to go live in May as planned. All the residents within the zone will receive letter advising them about the “go live” date and on how to apply for a permit or coupon if they want one by mid-April.
Parnell cycleway – proposed cycleway through Parnell	The project team has revised the design brief to incorporate views of the community reference group as well as views of internal stakeholders. They have investigated new design options, including options to incorporate urban design/streetscape elements - Boffa Miskell was engaged to provide input and option review. Internal discussion of these designs began in April and will continue through May. The project team plan to present options to the local board in June. These options will also be shared with other key stakeholders including Bike Auckland, Auckland Design Office and the community reference group.
Tamaki Drive cycle route (Plumer St to Ngapipi Rd)	In detailed design. Construction is expected in June 2018
Tamaki Drive cycle route (Quay Street to Solent Street)	Tamaki Drive from Solent Street to Ngapipi Bridge section is waiting for funding approval from NZTA, construction expected to start in end of 2018. For the section between The Strand to Solent Street, options were presented to The Local Board on March 2018. Following the boards feedback AT is currently revising the options and the team will present the options back to the local board once the review is complete.
Tamaki Drive cycle route (between Plumer to the Strand)	Construction began on the 8 January 2018
Herne Bay cycling and walking improvements – proposed changes to encourage slower driving speeds and improve routes for people walking and cycling.	Currently in detailed design, which is expected to be complete in September 2018. Construction is now scheduled to begin late 2018.
Pt Chev to Westmere cycleway - - A dedicated cycle route along Pt Chevalier Road and Meola Road ending near the Westmere Shops	Urban Design advice is being sought.
Victoria Street East-West cycleway - dedicated cycle route along Victoria Street West, from the Beaumont Street intersection to the Hobson Street intersection.	Currently in detailed design. Urban Design advice is being sought. Construction scheduled September 2018
Ian McKinnon Cycleway – a high quality cycle facility connecting the North-western cycleway and the Grafton Gully cycleway.	Construction started on the 19 February 2018. We have been working on finalising the design at Upper Queen Street/Ian McKinnon Drive which has involved an increase in scope to extend the works over Upper Queen Street bridge to Canada St intersection. There has been some delay whilst we seek endorsement from the Auckland Motorways Alliance (NZTA) given the vicinity of the works to the motorway. The final design will be sent to the local boards and we estimate completion at the end of August / early September.
Federal Street Contra Flow Cycle Lane - an interim cycle lane proposed for Federal Street linking Fanshawe Street to Victoria Street until the full Federal Street Upgrade occurs.	Broken Yellow Lines will be marked on the areas where parking control is missing and some signs are being updated. The design around planter placement is being refined and adjustments made on an ongoing basis as we get feedback from businesses requesting amendments. The formal public evaluation period is currently pencilled for June. There have been delays to this evaluation period as background conversations occur with 9 Wolfe Street and their request to demolish the building noting this will affect the lower part of Federal Street.
Route 4 of Waitematā Safer Routes. Improvements for pedestrians, people on bikes and bus users for the section of Great North Road between Crummer Road and Ponsonby Road.	The project is going through an internal review. The project team anticipate that they will have a full update for the Waitematā Local Board in June.
Parnell Station link – pedestrian link from the Station to Carlaw Park	Piling works are underway. The programme for walkway completion has shifted to the end of June, so there is a risk of this moving out into July. This will cover installation of gate line and building control sign off for public use. A contract has also been awarded to Gibbons contracting to install the remaining sections of platform around the station building as per the original design. They plan to mobilise in May and complete in July.
Newmarket crossing project – a bridge to replace the rail crossing, linking Laxon Terrace with nearby Cowie Street.	Construction commenced on the 11 December 2017. Concrete bridge beams over the rail corridor were installed in late February and over Easter weekend twelve concrete bridge barriers were installed. The next rail shutdown will take place 12/13 May 2018.
Franklin Road upgrade - upgrades to improve the road quality and future-proof existing services.	Phase A (Victoria Street to Wellington Street) upgrade works are underway and expected to be completed by the end of August 2018. The roundabout construction is 90 per cent completed. All key stakeholders have been notified and are receiving regular newsletters. Phase B (from Wellington Street to Ponsonby Road) is planned to commence in September 2018 and expected to finish in August 2019. The project will again close down to enable the Christmas Lights event to take place.
Route 2 of the Waitematā safe routes - improvements for pedestrians, people on bikes, and bus users. This route runs along Richmond Road from Surrey Crescent to Parawai Crescent through the West Lynn shopping centre.	AT’s design partners, Boffa Miskell, reported to the April Community Liaison Groups on the high levels findings of over 700 local respondents on the project. Pedestrian safety was the most common theme. Draft indicative plans are being circulated for comment prior to a new round of re-engagement with the community in the middle of the year.

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

8. As of the new electoral term Waitematā Local Board had $1,605,522 available in their Local Board Transport Capital Fund. The board currently has $1,339,522 uncommitted.

9. From this sum the board has approved:

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

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

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

10. Auckland Transport has completed two options for rough order of costs for creating a walking and cycling connection through Cox’s Bay reserve to Wharf Road via Bayfield Park.

11. Option 1 - Greenways Route Shared Path, the rough order of cost is $456,000

· This allows for a 2.5 metre wide shared path (to match existing within park)

· It allows for vegetation removal but no loss of significant trees

· It allows for replacement of the existing handrails on the existing bridge on the route

· It allows for widening of the slab of bridge from 1.2 metre to 1.8 metre using cantilevered sections but no change to the bridge height, hence the steps at one end remain in place. It also includes new handrails for the bridge.

· It allows for improvements to the steps and installation of “bike channels” at sides to get bikes up and down steps easier

· It allows for considerable retaining walls to allow path widening to occur.

· It allows for some drainage improvements

· It does not allow for any lighting of the route or service relocations should they be required.

12. Option 2 - Main cycle network route, The rough order of cost is $825,000

· This allows for a 2.5 metre wide shared path (to match existing within park)

· It allows for vegetation removal but no loss of significant trees

· It allows for removal of the existing bridge and steps and the installation of a new sloping 2.5m wide bridge which removes the need for steps on the route. It also includes new handrails for the bridge.

· It allows for considerable retaining walls to allow path widening to occur.

· It allows for some drainage improvements

· It allows for lighting of the route ( but not for the remainder of the shared path within the park)

· It does not allow for any service relocations should they be required.

13. Auckland Transport is currently confirming with Auckland Council Community Facilities if they could contribute renewal funding to this project and what level of funding this is likely to be.

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

· A green bus shelter as part of the Quay Street project

Responses to resolutions

15. There are no responses to resolutions in this report.

Other Auckland Transport news

Electric buses to hit Auckland’s streets

16. Auckland Transport is driving into the future with its first electric buses. Two buses trial funded by the Government’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and Auckland Transport will operate on the City Link service from next week.

17. Compared to diesel buses, the new e-buses will be cleaner, quieter and provide passengers with a better experience. Modern electric buses can have a range of more than 200 km with one charge so the shorter runs on the hilly city loop are a great testing ground. Trials like this will help local and central government learn and plan for large scale deployment of zero emissions buses.

18. Auckland Transport was awarded $500,000 from the EECA Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund towards one of the buses and charging infrastructure. Auckland Transport’s contribution towards the cost of the buses is $1.21m.

19. EECA is also funding the installation of 60 EV charging stations at Auckland Transport parking facilities. The first three electric vehicle charging locations have gone live. A total of 15 chargers have been installed at:

· Downtown (6)

· Civic carpark (6)

· Victoria St carpark (3)

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

20. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no local, sub-regional or regional impacts.

Auckland Transport consultations

21. Following a workshop with the board on the 6 March 2018 with regard to Victoria Street Cycleway Project, please see the following for Auckland Transports response to board feedback:

Board feedback	Auckland Transport response
The WLB confirms its support for the project and provides the following feedback on the latest design.	Noted, thank you.
Strongly objects to the proposal to encroach into Victoria Park for the cycleway and bus stop and requests Auckland Transport find another solution.	Project team acknowledges board’s feedback and the design has been altered to have the footpath and cycle path in the road reserve. This will require two Pohutukawa trees to be removed.
Requests that Auckland Transport work with Auckland Council staff to relocate any trees proposed to be removed as part of this project and also take this opportunity to add more trees to the public realm.	Project team is working with consultant arborist and council arborist to decide if trees from road reserve can be planted in Victoria Park. If it is considered the trees could not be successfully relocated then the arborists will be considering the planting of new trees. The project team will consider opportunities to plant new trees in the road reserve.
Requests that Auckland Transport use this opportunity to replace trees along the south side of Victoria Street that have been removed leaving empty tree pits.	There are two empty tree pits that relate specifically to the redevelopment of 206 Victoria St and council’s arborist is aware of this. The project team can work with council arborist to assess having other tree pits with no trees considered for planting.
Requests Auckland Transport resolve the conflict between drivers turning right into Union Street from Victoria Street across the cycleway through appropriate design (e.g. cycle signals)	The project team is developing a design to mitigate risk of conflicts including redesign of the speed table at the Victoria/ Union Street intersection and using electronic signs incorporating radar technology (to detect bike speed) and warn drivers of people on bikes approaching the intersection.

22. Auckland Transport attended workshops on:

· 10 April 2018 on the subjects of the road maintenance issues on Jervois Road and a bus stop proposal in Grey Lynn.

· 1 May 2018 on the subjects of the future work programme for residential parking zones, the Regional Long-term Plan and the Ferries Strategy.

General information items sent to the board:

23. Please see below for a summary of items sent to the board for their information or feedback:

Item	Date sent to Board
FYI: Grey Lynn shops - kerb build out	04/04/2018
Warning Road markings Ponsonby Rd	05/04/2018
Update: The Strand	06/04/2018
Update: Seawall Repairs week 21	06/04/2018
Update: Federal St Upgrade Stage 2	09/04/2018
Consultation Summary: Pedestrian Crossing Improvements in Freemans Bay	09/04/2018
FYI: Warning Road markings Ponsonby Rd	09/04/2018
FYI: Feedback - Hobson Street, Loading Zone Restrictions	10/04/2018
FYI: Feedback on Broken Yellow Lines in Regina Street, Westmere	11/04/2018
FYI: West Lynn - concept plans	17/04/2018
FYI: Minor Improvements on New Street, Ponsonby	17/04/2018
FYI: Extension of Broken Yellow Lines on Mayoral Drive	18/04/2018
FYI: Signalised Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing on Khyber Pass Road	20/04/2018
FYI: Ponsonby Rd project	20/04/2018
FYI: Pedestrian Crossing on St George's Bay Road, Parnell	23/04/2018
Waitematā Safe Route - Newsletter 4	23/04/2018
FYI: Western Springs Shared Path Consultation	24/04/2018
FYI: Chancery St - Mobility Parking	26/04/2018
Update: Waitematā Safe Routes new design	27/04/2018
FYI: Waitematā Safe Routes - Newsletter Five	30/04/2018
FYI: Federal Street Update Stage 2 - Public Feedback Report	30/04/2018

Traffic Control Committee resolutions

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28. Auckland Transport will provide another update report to the local board next month.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Auckland Transport Activities January - March 2018	169
b ⇩	Attachment B - Auckland Transport School Community Transport	187
c ⇩	Attachment C - April 2018 Traffic Control Committee Decisions	189

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Ben Halliwell - Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Parnell Plan Consultation Document

File No.: CP2018/06617

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval of the Parnell Plan Consultation Document and allocation of up to $23,450 to deliver the urban design visualisations for the final Parnell Plan, mana whenua event and local activation initiatives.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The consultation document contains a vision, five objectives and supporting strategies that seek to achieve the five objectives of the plan.

3. The consultation document was developed in collaboration with the Parnell Plan working group and mana whenua, with input from internal stakeholders, Auckland Transport and Watercare.

4. An engagement strategy for consultation on the consultation document is summarised in this report. Board members will be invited to all public engagement events.

5. Consultation on the Parnell Plan Consultation Document will be undertaken from 21 May to 29 June 2018.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approve the Parnell Plan Consultation Document as set out in Attachment A for public engagement commencing 21 May 2018;

b) delegate the authority to council officers to make minor amendments to the Parnell Plan Consultation Document prior to commencement of public engagement.

c) Approve the following budget contributions:

i) Up to $10,000 for urban design visualisations for the final Parnell Plan

ii) Up to $8,000 for mana whenua engagement

iii) Up to $5,450 for local activation

Horopaki / Context

6. On 28 November 2017, the Waitematā Local Board workshopped the proposed scope of the Parnell Plan and supported the establishment of a working group to collaborate on the development of a draft plan/consultation document. The working group is comprised of the following groups:

· Blind Foundation

· Holy Trinity Cathedral

· Local Board members (x2) with a 3^rd alternate

· Local youth representatives (x2)

· Parnell Business Association

· Parnell Community Committee (x2)

· Parnell Heritage

· Parnell School

· Parnell Trust

· The Auckland War Memorial Museum

· Mana whenua.

7. Six workshops were held with the working group between 15 February and 16 April to work collaboratively on the development of the Parnell Plan Consultation Document. The workshops were held at the Holy Trinity Cathedral. Separate individual meetings were also held with working group members.

8. In addition, the project team has liaised with council-controlled organisations and other council departments through email correspondence, meetings and an internal stakeholder workshop.

9. Fifteen mana whenua groups were invited to engage in the planning process of which three groups have provided input and/or been actively involved in the planning process.

10. Feedback from everyone involved to date has helped shape the Parnell Plan Consultation Document.

11. The purpose of the consultation document is to seek public feedback on a vision, objectives and strategies for Parnell to ensure that it continues to be a fantastic place to live, work, play and do business in the future. The draft vision is: “Auckland’s First Suburb: A creative, innovative and collaborative community that celebrates its unique natural, cultural and historic environment.” The five objectives are:

· Objective 1: Promote Parnell as an innovative and creative place to work, live, visit and do business

· Objective 2: Enhance connectivity within Parnell and with its neighbours

· Objective 3: Enable the community to use and enjoy our great places and spaces

· Objective 4: Care for, protect and enhance our natural environment

· Objective 5: Respect, recognise and protect our historic and cultural heritage.

12. Each objective is accompanied by a number of strategies to achieve them and a map depicting ideas and projects suggested by the working group.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

13. The public engagement period on the Parnell Plan Consultation Document is proposed to be from Monday 21 May to Friday 29 June 2018.

14. A series of events are proposed, including:

· A workshop with students at Parnell School

· A tea and biscuits conversation with parents at Parnell School’s late May family event

· An event and a static display board at the Auckland Museum

· A pub quiz with a ‘how well do you know Parnell’ category

· Attendance at local events, specifically the French and Farmers markets

· A public ideas evening

In addition, feedback will be able to be provided in a number of ways, including:

· Online feedback – have your say

· Email feedback provided via email to the Parnell Plan inbox (parnellplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

· Displays and feedback boxes at key public facilities such as the Jubilee Building

· Continued meetings with key stakeholders such as the Parnell Business Association.

15. During the public engagement period, there will also be some local activation initiatives in collaboration with and facilitated by the Parnell Business Association. This will involve activity within the Parnell area that is designed to attract the attention of and engage with the public. The primary purpose of the activation would be to raise awareness of and engagement with the consultation document and the planning process.

The secondary purpose of any activation would be to align with the objectives of the plan being consulted on:

· Produce some positive social or economic outcome

· Help demonstrate the possibility for change within the area.

The recommendation for this ‘activation’ is for the use of a Tuk Tuk with wrapped signwriting

This would achieve the above purpose by:

· Becoming a roving advertisement for engagement on the Plan

· Providing a point of initial engagement for the public

· Through its mobile ability it can provide an opportunity to engage with a diverse range of people in a variety of areas around Parnell

· An additional benefit is that it could test the idea of a shuttle within Parnell.

An estimate of the cost would be as follows:

TUK-TUK
Branding/Wrap	$1,450.00
Weekly rate including driver $2,000 x 2 weeks	$4,000.00
	$5,450.00

16. Feedback received from this round of public engagement will be reviewed and used to help develop a final Parnell Plan. The final plan will be reported to Waitematā Local Board for adoption in September 2018.

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

17. The plan is sponsored by the Waitematā Local Board. At the 28 November 2018 Local Board workshop, two members of the board were nominated to be part of the Parnell Plan working group, with an additional member as an alternate.

18. A local board workshop was held on 24 April 2018, ahead of the 15 May business meeting to discuss the draft consultation document prepared in collaboration with the Parnell Plan Working Group, mana whenua and internal stakeholders.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

19. The Parnell area contains a number of places of cultural importance to mana whenua, including Taurarua Pā and the Waipapa Stream. All 15 mana whenua groups with an interest in the area were contacted at the beginning of the project. Three groups were involved in the planning process. Ngāti Tamaoho provided input through email. Three meetings were held with Ngāti Whātua o Orākei in addition to email correspondence. One meeting occurred with Ngāti Maru. Their representative also attended a number of the working group workshops. The key themes that emerged from mana whenua were ensuring Māori stories and histories were visible and shared, and enhancement of the natural environment. The Parnell Plan Project Team, within the Plans and Places Department, will continue to work together with mana whenua in developing the final Parnell Plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

20. To support the completion of the Parnell Plan the following financial contributions are requested, as discussed at a workshop on 24 April 2018.

21. Up to $10,000 is requested to cover urban design visualisations for the final document. The visualisations will provide the public with an idea of what a future Parnell could look like, in line with the plan’s vision for the area.

22. Up to $8,000 is requested to support mana whenua engagement. On 20 March 2018 the Waitematā Local Board confirmed three appointees for the Parnell Plan Project to provide specific guidance that may be required outside of the business meeting schedule. It is proposed that the mana whenua engagement recommendations, developed by the Parnell Plan project team in consultation with mana whenua, are confirmed by the Local Board appointees. This is to ensure the consultation timeframes are met. The appointees are:

· Pippa Coom

· Vernon Tava

· Richard Northey.

23. The final plan will be accompanied by an implementation plan. This will be developed by the Parnell Plan project team and will be based on the feedback received from public engagement, internal stakeholders and mana whenua. The implementation plan will outline short-term and long-term actions to help achieve the vision. Some of these will already be funded, some may not require funding, and some will be aspirational and require further investigation.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. For longer term spatial plans such as the Parnell Plan, there is a significant strategic and reputational risk of not maintaining momentum for the implementation of actions. To avoid this risk, a monitoring and implementation programme will be developed by the Parnell Plan project team so that the relevant delivery agents remain accountable for, and committed to following through on the plan’s short, medium and long-term actions. This will be completed together with the final Parnell Plan and accompanying implementation plan.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. The project team will continue working with the relevant parts of the council family, the local board, mana whenua, community groups and key stakeholders to ensure there is commitment to deliver on the actions in the plan after the final plan is adopted. As noted above, an implementation plan will be developed together with the final Parnell Plan. This will identify actions to help deliver the plan’s vision.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Parnell Plan Consultation Document	197

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Tim Solomon – Planner – Planning Central and Islands

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/05753

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide information to the Waitematā Local Board on compliance with Auckland Council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 (Hōtaka ā-Rohe Whakapiki Pakihi) by the Heart of the City, Karangahape Road, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown Business Associations in the Waitematā Local Board area for the financial year ending June 2017.

2. To provide information which the local board can consider in deciding whether to recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate for these BID programmes.

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 (BID).

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

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

6. The BID programmes covered by this report are operated by the Heart of the City, Karangahape Road, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown Business Associations in the Waitematā Local Board area. Information presented in this report is based on documents submitted by these business associations to council’s BID programme team to date.

7. Staff recommends that the Local Board should recommend to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rate sought by the Heart of the City, Karangahape Road, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown Business Associations, as they have substantively complied with the BID Policy.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) Recommends to the Governing Body to strike the targeted rates for inclusion in the 2018/2019 Annual Plan Budget for the following BIDs:

· $4,643,315 for the Heart of the City Business Association

· $425,648 for the Karangahape Road Business Association

· $1,634,409 for the Newmarket Business Association

· $815,000 for the Parnell Business Association

· $471,586 for the Ponsonby Business Association

· $270,000 for the Uptown Business Association

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 terminating BIDs; prescribes operating standards and guidelines; and sets accountability requirements. Please see Attachment A for a review of key elements of the BID programme.

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 serve more than 25,000 businesses and represents 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 shared-governance arrangements, local boards are allocated several decision-making responsibilities. One of these is to annually recommend BID targeted rates to the Governing Body.

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

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

Compliance with BID Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

17. The recommendation of this report regarding the Heart of the City, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown Business Associations in the Waitematā Local Board area is supported by evidence of full compliance with the policy. Please see Attachments D,E,F, G and H.

18. As the Heart of the City, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown Business Associations in the Waitematā Local Board area have complied with the BID policy for the year ending June 2017, staff advice is that the Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate to the Governing Body.

19. Whilst the Karangahape Road Business Association failed to submit its Accountability Form by the deadline set out in the Policy (12 March), it was submitted soon after (15 March).

20. The late submission of the Accountability Form is not considered grounds to justify not recommending to strike the targeted rate, and staff advice is that the Local Board should recommend the striking of the targeted rate to the Governing Body..

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

21. Recommending that the Governing Body strike the targeted rate for the Heart of the City, Karangahape Road, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown Business Associations in the Waitematā Local Board area means that these BID programmes will continue to be funded from targeted rates on commercial properties in their districts, and will provide services in accordance with its members’ priorities as stated in their Strategic Plans.

22. By continuing these services and programmes, the Heart of the City, Karangahape Road, Newmarket, Parnell, Ponsonby and Uptown town centres should better serve residents and visitors, and support business growth.

23. The Waitematā Local Board approved a similar recommendation for these BIDs last year, as did the seventeen other local boards that have BIDs in their areas. (Resolution WTM/2017/72)

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Key Elements of BID Programme	221
b ⇩	Targeted Rates Comparison All BIDs 2017-2018 and 2018-2019	223
c ⇩	Heart of the City BID Compliance Summary Table	225
d ⇩	K Road BID Compliance Summary Table	227
e ⇩	Newmarket BID Compliance Summary Table	229
f ⇩	Parnell BID Compliance Summary Table	231
g ⇩	Ponsonby BID Compliance Summary Table	233
h ⇩	Uptown BID Compliance Summary Table	235

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Manager - CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Waitematā Local Grants Round Two and Accommodation Support Fund 2017/2018 Grant Allocations

File No.: CP2018/06246

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for the Waitematā Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018.

2. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for the Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund 2017/2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. This report presents applications received for the Waitematā Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018 (see Attachment B) and the Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund 2018 (see Attachment C).

4. The Waitematā Local Board adopted the Waitematā Local Grants Programme 2017/2018 on 11 April 2017 (see Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

5. The Waitematā Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $125,000.00 for the 2017/2018 financial year.

6. A total of $91,355.77 has been allocated in one local grant and three quick response rounds, leaving a total of $33,644.23 to be allocated for this last 2017/2018 local grant round.

7. Thirty-seven applications were received for the Waitematā Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, requesting a total of $223,282.64.

8. The Waitematā Local Board has set a total accommodation budget of $125,000.00 for the 2017/2018 financial year, with one grant round.

9. Thirty-three applications were received for the Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund 2017/2018, requesting a total of $441,506.65.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1820-207	The Auckland Performing Arts Centre at Western Springs	Arts and culture	Towards the purchase of two professional video cameras and associated accessories.	$7,379.86	Eligible
LG1820-217	Auckland and District Pipe Band Incorporated	Arts and culture	Towards the purchase of 20 new band drums.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-218	Tuatara Collective Limited	Arts and culture	Towards actor wages for a production at Q Theatre.	$2,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-219	Chinese New Settlers Services Trust	Arts and culture	Towards advertising and tutor fees for dance, painting, Kungfu and chess sessions.	$6,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-231	St Mary's College Board of Trustees	Arts and culture	Towards the purchase of 30 kapahaka costumes.	$3,391.30	Eligible
LG1820-235	Dance Therapy NZ	Arts and culture	Towards programme facilitation and supervision for the art therapist and administration and equipment for the “Arts 4 Us” workshops.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-236	The Actors` Program	Arts and culture	Towards the graduation production writers fee, location shoot and professional writers fee for the Actors Program training course.	$4,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-237	Jacqui Wilkinson	Arts and culture	Towards a mural panel to depict famous people who have lived in Grafton, which will cover the hoardings while Auckland University of Technology is under development.	$996.00	Ineligible, as below minimum funding request
LG1820-214	Auckland Festival of Photography Trust	Arts and culture	Towards equipment hire for a photography festival, specifically staging and lighting.	$2,747.50	Eligible
LG1820-229	Show Me Shorts Film Festival Trust Board	Arts and culture	Towards costs of the opening night and awards ceremony, specifically programming, catering, licensing and print costs.	$6,906.83	Eligible
LG1820-201	City of Auckland Cadet Unit	Community	Towards camping equipment for a week-long camp in the Hunua Ranges.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-202	Citizens Advice Bureau Auckland City	Community	Towards the purchase of furniture, including desks, chairs and mobile units for two Auckland City offices.	$5,148.00	Eligible
LG1820-205	The Karangahape Road Business Association Incorporated	Community	Towards the printing, layout and distribution of a monthly newsletter.	$5,285.00	Eligible
LG1820-206	Rainbow Youth Incorporated	Community	Towards facilitator fees and supplies to run 129 peer support group meetings.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-210	Mind Over Manner	Community	Towards the venue hire, facilitators fees and promotional materials for a neurodiversity workshop.	$4,977.00	Eligible
LG1820-211	The Auckland Women's Centre Incorporated	Community	Towards facilitator fees for cultural workshops, follow up and resources for staff and volunteers.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-212	Ponsonby Community Centre Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs to install a shade sail structure.	$7,000.00	Ineligible as the request is for a Council asset
LG1820-215	Action Education Incorporated	Community	Towards the cost of delivering 20 spoken word poetry workshops at schools in the Waitematā area.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-224	The Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	Community	Towards subsidising six music therapy groups in the Grey Lynn and Ponsonby communities, specifically two adult, two adolescent and two childrens sessions.	$6,135.00	Eligible
LG1820-227	Breaking Boundaries Trust	Community	Towards fees for a project manager, four panellists, a support person for the participants, venue hire and promotion for a mental health awareness workshop for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer community.	$1,550.00	Ineligible, as below the minimum funding request
LG1820-233	KidsCan Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the purchase of food for school children in the Waitematā area.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-238	Auckland Kids Achievement Trust trading as Graeme Dingle Foundation Auckland	Community	Towards the community challenge component of "Project K" for 12 girls at Auckland Girls Grammar School.	$3,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-239	Auckland City Mission	Community	Towards 50 portable backpack beds for the homeless in the central business district.	$5,271.50	Eligible
LG1820-240	Conscious Kids Grey Lynn Limited	Community	Towards equipment and wages for four open days for "Nature-based Play Community Days" on Sundays at Western Springs and Meola Reef parks.	$5,200.00	Eligible
LG1820-241	Audrey van Ryn under the umbrella of Auckland City Mission	Community	Towards wages for City Mission to supervise showers for rough sleepers at the Ellen Melville Centre.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG1820-244	Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the Youthline service delivery costs, specifically helpline and text delivery costs, clinical support worker wages and team leader wages	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-220	Global Action Plan Oceania	Environment	Towards the cost of consultancy fees for small businesses to gain a National Australian Built Environmental Rating System New Zealand (NABERSNZ) energy performance rating.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-228	The Auckland King Tides Initiative under the umbrella of The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Incorporated	Environment	Towards a community water level (tidal) gauges project.	$5,736.25	Eligible
LG1820-245	New Zealand Sunday School Union	Historic Heritage	Towards the cost of vinyl replacement for the second floor and stairs.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-204	Herne Bay Petanque Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the costs to install flood lighting over the playing terrains.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-216	Auckland Basketball Services Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards venue hire at the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) Pitt Street for a youth and senior basketball programme.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-221	Auckland Table Tennis Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the development coach wages, tables and tablets to run the table tennis community programme in the Waitematā area.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-234	Newmarket Business Association Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the installation of artificial turf to enhance Station Square at Newmarket Station.	$7,500.00	Eligible
LG1820-242	Gladstone Tennis Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards two outdoor seats for the tennis club.	$7,500.00	Eligible
Total				$185,724.24

b) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each multiboard application in Waitematā Local Grants, Round Two.

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG1805-226	Age Concern Auckland Incorporated	Community	Towards the provision of health promotion, accredited visitor service and field social support services across West and Central Auckland.	$4,800.00	Eligible
LG1815-212	Project Litefoot Trust	Environment	Towards the overall cost of the LiteClub project, specifically salaries, materials, administration, travel and promotion.	$3,194.00	Eligible
LG1806-234	Kelly Group NZ Limited	Sport and recreation	Towards coaching fees and resource kits to deliver a traditional Maori games programme to 29 schools in Auckland.	$29,564.40	Ineligible, as above maximum funding request.
Total				$37,558.40

c) agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund, listed in Table Three.

Application ID	Organisation	Accommodation Location	Amount Requested	Eligibility
ASF1820-002	Ponsonby Cruising Club Incorporated	141-151 Westhaven Drive	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-003	New Zealand Dance Festival Trust trading as Tempo Dance Festival	Wellesley Studios, 113 Wellesley Street West; Q Theatre, 305 Queen Street	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-004	The Documentary New Zealand Trust	Q Theatre, 305 Queen Street	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-005	Rainbow Youth Incorporated	11 Edinburgh Street	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-008	Body Positive Incorporated	3 Poynton Terrace, Newton	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-009	New Zealand Comedy Trust	321 Queen Street, Auckland	$2,500.00	Eligible
ASF1820-010	National Youth Theatre Company Trust	Chancery Storage Elliott Street Sharespace Ponsonby Primary Hall St Mary's College Hall	$19,575.20	Eligible
ASF1820-011	Script to Screen	195 Ponsonby Road	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-012	Auckland Choral Society	Diocesan School for Girls, Clyde Street, Epsom	$17,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-013	Heart Kids New Zealand Incorporated	60 Grafton Road	$10,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-014	Te Karanga Charitable Trust	26/179 Karangahape Road	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-015	The Lifewise Trust	453 Karangahape Road	$6,441.00	Eligible
ASF1820-016	Action Education	Youthline House, 13 Maidstone Street, Grey Lynn	$3,550.08	Eligible
ASF1820-017	Artspace Aotearoa Trust	300 Karangahape Road, Newton	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-018	Global Action Plan Oceania	Otahuhu; Bizdojo Parnell Shared Space	$5,988.00	Eligible
ASF1820-019	Raukatauri Music Therapy Trust	15 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn	$19,990.00	Eligible
ASF1820-020	Auckland Festival of Photography Trust	Ponsonby	$15,295.93	Eligible
ASF1820-021	The Auckland Film Society Incorporated	Academy Cinemas, 44 Lorne Street	$3,400.00	Eligible
ASF1820-022	New Zealand Society of Authors	Auckland University of Technology Oracle Tower	$10,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-023	Show Me Shorts Film Festival Trust	Trades Hall, 147 Great North Road, Grey Lynn; The Civic	$5,047.44	Eligible
ASF1820-024	Chinese New Settlers Services Trust	Jubilee Building, 545 Parnell Road, Parnell	$18,800.00	Eligible
ASF1820-025	Indian Ink Trust	Sunday School Union Building, 323 Queen Street	$4,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-026	Louise Perkins Foundation trading as Sweet Louise	23 Union Street	$15,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-027	Foundation for Peace Studies Aotearoa New Zealand trading as The Peace Foundation	Methodist Church Parish Offices, 78 Pitt Street	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-030	Pacific Islands Dance Fono Trust	147 Great North Road, Grey Lynn	$9,500.00	Eligible
ASF1820-032	New Zealand Writers Guild Incorporated	400C Great North Road, Grey Lynn	$19,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-033	Fun and Games Toy Library Incorporated	Holy Trinity Cathedral, Brighton Road, Parnell	$5,335.00	Eligible
ASF1820-035	New Zealand Dance Advancement Trust	Wellesley Studios, 113 Wellesley Street West	$20,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-036	The Actors` Program	283 Karangahape Road	$10,000.00	Eligible
ASF1820-037	Opera Factory Trust	Saint Marks Centre, 95 Remuera Road; Kennards Storage, Mount Eden	$9,495.00	Eligible
ASF1820-039	St Columba Anglican Church and Community Centre	92 Surrey Crescent, Grey Lynn	$13,209.00	Eligible
ASF1820-040	Objectspace	13 Rose Road	$16,460.00	Eligible
ASF1820-031	The Auckland Fringe Trust	11a Poynton Terrace	$1,920.00	Ineligible, as below minimum funding request
Total			$441,506.65

Horopaki / Context

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

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

12. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

13. The Waitematā Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2017/2018 on 11 April 2017 and will operate three quick response, two local grant rounds and one accommodation grant round for this financial year.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

18. A summary of each application received through Waitematā Local Grants, Round Two (see Attachment B) and Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund (see Attachment C) are provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

21. The Waitematā Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $125,000.00 and a total accommodation budget of $125,000.

22. A total of $43,095 was allocated in Local Grants, Round One 2017/2018, a total of $16,812 was allocated in Quick Response, Round One 2017/2018, a total of $15,930 was allocated in Quick Response, Round Two 2017/2018 and a total of $15,518 was allocated in Quick Response, Round Three 2017/2018.

23. Thirty-seven applications were received for the Waitematā Local Grants, Round Two 2017/2018, requesting a total of $223,282.64 (see Attachment B).

24. Thirty-three applications were received for the 2018 Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund, requesting a total of $441,506.65 (see Attachment C).

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

26. Following the Waitematā Local Board allocation of funding for Local Grants Round Two and Accommodation Support Fund, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision and facilitate payment of the grant.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitematā Local Grants Programme 2017/2018	249
b ⇩	Waitematā Local Grants Round Two 2017/2018 grant applications	253
c ⇩	Waitematā Accommodation Support Fund 2017/2018 grant applications	389

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Makenzie Hirz - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Shane King - Operations Support Manager

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Tree planting proposal for St Marys Road, St Marys Bay

File No.: CP2018/07078

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for the proposal for the future management of street trees within St Marys Road, St Marys Bay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. At its meeting on 17 October 2017, the local board passed resolution WTM/2017/197 approving an allocation of up to $20,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund for streetscape enhancement incorporating tree planting on St Marys Road subject to community support and following consultation in partnership with St Marys Bay Association.

3. Staff have engaged with the St Marys Bay Association to discuss the project and in February 2018, a survey was provided to St Marys Road residents to ascertain their views on the proposed tree planting.

4. On the basis of this consultation, staff have developed a proposal for the future management of street trees within St Marys Road. Staff recommend that the board approve the proposal to enable the project to proceed.

5. The proposal supports the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 outcome three: “the natural environment is valued, protected and enhanced” by increasing the urban forest and enhancing biodiversity.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board:

a) approve the proposal for future management of street trees within St Marys Road, St Marys Bay.

Horopaki / Context

6. At the business meeting on May 2017, the board passed resolution WTM/2017/70 requesting that Auckland Transport prepare a rough order of costs for streetscape enhancement incorporating tree planting for St Marys Road as proposed by the St Marys Bay Association.

7. At the business meeting on 17 October 2017, Auckland Transport presented options for the tree planting and the board passed resolution WTM/2017/197 approving an allocation of up to $20,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund for option two.

8. Option two was to consider removing all the existing trees which are of various types, sizes and condition and fully replant the entire road with 40 new trees. Due to the size of some trees this would require resource consent and full street consultation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Consultation

9. Staff met with the St Marys Bay Association to discuss the proposed streetscape enhancement project to create a leafy and unified street. A survey was also letter dropped to St Marys Road residents asking their views on the project including:

· Whether trees should be deciduous or evergreen

· What would be an appropriate size tree

· Whether there should be uniformity of species along the street or a mix

· Thoughts about the number of trees currently planted on the berms

· Any other factors that are important to you.

10. The survey conducted revealed that the majority of residents had a preference for any newly planted trees to be of a small to medium stature, evergreen (will not drop leaves) and without any known predisposition to cause infrastructure problems.

11. It is encouraging to see the recognition from the local board and the residents of St Marys Road of the importance of our urban ngahere (forest). This proposal will help to grow Auckland’s urban ngahere and improve a range of environmental services and outcomes through enhancing biodiversity both in terms of the urban ngahere itself and the fauna it helps to support.

Proposal

12. For this year, staff propose to remove five dead or heavily declining trees, and to plant 22 new trees where there is sufficient space for new trees to grow to maturity and avoid conflict with the adjacent built environment (the exact locations and house numbers are shown in Attachment A).

13. In the following years it is proposed to monitor the health and stability of the current trees and to remove and replace the ones that die or become structurally unsound.

14. Staff recommend a selection of two native trees, Tawapou (Planchonella costata), and Five finger (Pseudopanax arboreus). This selection will, among many other benefits, fulfil the residents’ requirements and provide a food source for birds for most of the year.

15. Before any planting or removal takes place the neighbouring property owner will be advised of any proposed works via letter drop.

Strategic alignment

16. The proposal supports the Waitematā Local Board Plan 2017 outcome three: “the natural environment is valued, protected and enhanced” by increasing the urban forest and enhancing biodiversity.

17. It also supports the Auckland Plan 2012 outcome “a green Auckland” by committing to environmental action and green growth.

18. The proposal aligns with the council’s strategy ‘Together growing Auckland’s urban ngahere for a flourishing future’ which was adopted by the Environment and Community Committee on 20 February 2018 (ENV/2018/12).

Recommendation

19. Staff recommend that the local board approve the proposal for future management of street trees within St Marys Road to enable the streetscape enhancement project to proceed.

20. Consultation with St Marys Road residents has been undertaken and the proposal is strategically aligned to deliver on the agreed outcomes for Auckland.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views21. The consultation feedback and proposal were discussed with the local board at a workshop in April. The local board were supportive of staff proceeding to present the proposal for formal approval at a business meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22. This proposal recognises the importance of Auckland’s urban ngahere and supports environmental outcomes including enhancing biodiversity. A well-managed, flourishing and healthy urban ngahere has a wide range of evidence-based benefits for the communities of Auckland, including Māori. These include community health and well-being, environmental, cultural and economic benefits.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

23. The local board has allocated $20,000 of funding from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund for streetscape enhancement incorporating tree planting on St Marys Road. The cost of trees for this proposal is estimated at $5,000. Once planted, the trees will be maintained under the council’s arboriculture maintenance contract.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

24. The residents of St Marys Road were advised through the consultation that planting would commence during the planting season in May to July 2018. If the local board does not approve the proposal, then this will delay the start of the project

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

25. Once the local board has approved the proposal, staff will proceed to establish the trees during the planting season in May to July 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Locations of trees	507

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

David Stejskal - Senior Arboriculture Asset and Horticulture Supply Specialist

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

Feedback on Rates Remission and Postponement Policy

File No.: CP2018/06111

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. It is proposed to introduce a remission of the APTR for owners of no more than two serviced apartments with long term fixed rental leases to hotel operators. 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. 6 submitters were supportive of aspects of the regional schemes, and none were opposed. Officers recommend adoption as proposed.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitematā Local Board endorses the:

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

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

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

iii. amendments to simplify the remission for rates penalties

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

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

Horopaki / Context

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

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

· community and sporting organisations

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

· commercial properties on Great Barrier Island.

12. A summary of the level of funding provided by these remission schemes by local board is in Attachment C. Attachment D 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 of 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. 153 submitters provided feedback on the proposal for legacy schemes for natural heritage 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. 105 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. 36 submitters commented on legacy remissions for community and sporting organisations, of which 15 represented organisations receiving a remission. The following table sets out the key themes from submitters commenting on remissions for community groups.

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

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

Key Stakeholder Feedback

26. The 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 QE II Trust and Forest and Bird reflect the key feedback points above.

27. 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.

28. Both the QE II Trust and Federated Farmers supported consideration by the council of grants in addition to remissions for QEII covenanted land.

Remission for the Accommodation provider targeted rate

Proposal

29. 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.

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

31. 73 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

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

Amendment to regional schemes

Proposal

33. 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

34. 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.

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

Conclusions and Recommendations

36. 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 these outcomes across the region

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

37. 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.

38. 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 to 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.

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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 board area that currently receive remissions (or postponements in the case of Great Barrier Island).

42. 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 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.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

44. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

46. There are no identified risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

47. Local board feedback will be 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	523
b ⇩	Proposed Draft Remission Policy	525
c ⇩	Remission value by local board	535
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

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

Waitematā Local Board

15 May 2018

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

File No.: CP2018/07423

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Waitematā 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 Waitematā 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

i) that the Waitematā Local Board consider whether subdivisions within the board area are appropriate

ii) 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 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 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 New Zealand at mesh-block 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 into 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 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 stationery 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 Chairperson or another member to represent the board’s views on the review. This is in the event that 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 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 21 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	561
b ⇩	Rodney ward boundary options	563
c ⇩	Manurewa-Papakura ward boundary options	565
d ⇩	Local board subdivisions and the 10 per cent rule	567
e ⇩	Botany subdivision boundary options	569
f ⇩	Rodney Local Board subdivision options	573
g ⇩	Waitematā Local Board subdivision option	577
h ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board subdivision option	579

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board

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

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

Authors	Liz Clemm – Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Trina Thompson - Relationship Manager/Senior Advisor Waitematā Local Board