Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

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

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

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

The following are declared interests of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

Board Member	Organisation/Position
Sandra Coney	- Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member - Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron - New Zealand Society of Genealogists – Member - New Zealand Military Defence Society – Member - Cartwright Collective – Member - Titirangi RSA – Member - Portage Trust – Member - West Auckland Trust Services - Director
Neil Henderson	- Portage Trust – Elected Member - West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director
Greg Presland	- Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee - Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee - Combined Youth Services Trust – Trustee - Glen Eden Bid – Member - Titirangi Ratepayers and Residents Association - member - Waitakere Ranges Protection Society - member - Titirangi RSA - member - Maungakiekie Golf Club - member
Steve Tollestrup	- Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member - Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee - Piha RSA - Member
Saffron Toms	Nil

Member appointments

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

Board	Organisation/Position
Sandra Coney	- Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	- Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee - Rural Advisory Panel - Member
Steve Tollestrup	- Glen Eden Business Improvement District - Member - Aircraft Noise Consultative Committee Group - Member - Local Government New Zealand Zone One Committee - Member
Greg Presland	- Glen Eden Business Improvement District (alternate)
Saffron Toms	- Ark in the Park - Manukau Harbour Forum - Chair

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 13 September 2018, as a true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

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

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Memorandum of Understanding between South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network and Auckland Council

File No.: CP2018/19807

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Auckland Council and the South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network (STNN).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The STNN is a community-led network of neighbourhood groups, with a vision to restore the health of the South Titirangi landscape so it becomes free of pest animals by 2022 and free of Waitākere’s worst pest plants by 2028.

3. A MoU was initiated by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board in February 2017, to support the STNN vision. The intent was to clarify communication channels and establish processes for the coordination of pest management activities on public and private land between STNN, council and Auckland Transport.

4. The MoU (Attachment A) is the result of discussions between the local board, council and STNN. The document and associated Letters of Intent (LoI) (Attachment B) from operational units of council clarify accountabilities, roles and contributions and set out joint activities and processes for planning, communication and reporting by all parties.

5. The MoU and LoI will help achieve the environmental and community outcomes of the Auckland Plan 2050 and the Local Board Plan 2017. They will help achieve the purpose and objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2018 and align with council’s Empowered Communities Approach.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Auckland Council and the South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network (Attachment A).

Horopaki / Context

6. The STNN was formed in 2015 as a collective of neighbourhood groups from the South Titirangi Peninsula. It currently comprises of seven groups, each led by a volunteer neighbourhood coordinator.

7. The vision of STNN is for South Titirangi to become free of animal pests by 2022 and free of Waitākere’s worst pest plants by 2028. To achieve this vision, the groups, supported by the Gecko Trust, established the following:

· communications channels - web site, social media, quarterly newsletter, articles in local media

· management groups with data recording and reporting processes for animal pest control, pest plant control, kauri die-back training, stream care and bird counts projects

· monitoring tools for capturing ecological and community information, including a landscape-wide database

· community workshops, with support from experts and opportunities for community skill-sharing

· collaborations with community organisations, local businesses and the University of Auckland for campaigns, fund raising, venues and expertise.

8. In February 2017, the local board visited a few of the sites that are being restored by STNN volunteers on public land near Titirangi Beach, including a walkway, a roadside verge and in a regional and a local park.

9. STNN members expressed their aspirations for a more coordinated and strategic approach to pest plant and animal management on public and private land by key stakeholders.

10. The local board and STNN agreed that a formal agreement should be developed with council and Auckland Transport, to clarify lines of communication and enable a more coordinated work programme.

11. Between February 2017 and August 2018, staff and STNN, supported by Gecko NZ Trust, worked together to develop a MoU and LoI that enabled better communication and coordination of works undertaken by individual land owners, volunteers, council and contractors working on community and regional parkland.

12. Auckland Transport have provided information on their programme of pest plant management within the road corridor.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

13. The MoU sets out the intended cooperation between council and STNN regarding predator control, weed eradication and planting of native vegetation on public and private land in South Titirangi.

14. The LoI establish specific frameworks for cooperation between STNN and council’s operational units for works within community parks and regional parks (Attachment B).

15. The MoU provides a framework for communication, joint planning and reporting of progress against objectives that are agreed by all parties, including:

· common high-level objectives of maintaining, protecting and enhancing biodiversity in South Titirangi Peninsula

· the role and contributions of STNN, including communicating its annual work plan and reporting on achievements and progress to council and the local board

· the role and contributions of the local board, including land owner approval, access to resources and training and a process for coordination with STNN to achieve its annual objectives.

16. The LoI outline specific operational processes in order to:

· cooperate over restoring and enhancing bio-diversity of community and regional parks on the South Titirangi Peninsula

· support the building of community capability

· coordinate efforts strategically to maximise the community and council’s joint ability to achieve ecological objectives.

17. The LoI also identify key points of contact for STNN for works within Regional and Community Parks, who are the Regional Park Senior Ranger Conservation and the Community Park Ranger.

18. The following changes are expected to take place in the coming months, which may enhance opportunities for supporting STNN objectives:

· vegetation management on land currently owned and managed by Auckland Transport, such as vegetated road reserves and paper roads, is currently under review and new maintenance arrangements are expected to be established in April 2019

· the enhanced regional environmental programme of work funded by the Natural Environment Targeted Rate of Auckland Council is currently being scoped. It will be informed by strategic and regulatory documents such as the Regional Pest Management Plan and Pest Free Auckland 2050, expected to be adopted in March 2019

· the local board’s environmental programme for 2018/2019 includes the development of a Pest Free Strategy for South Titirangi, which will enable long-term objectives and a collective strategy developed by the South Titirangi community, council and other agency stakeholders.

19. Staff recommend that the local board adopt the MoU because the initiative aligns with the Auckland Plan’s Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome, including its direction to “Ensure Auckland’s natural environment and cultural heritage is valued and cared for”.

20. It also aligns with the following Local Board Plan outcomes:

Outcome	Key initiative
People actively protect the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area	help land holders and residents understand their duty of care for the fragile heritage area
Our unique natural habitats are protected and enhanced	enable community-based pest plant and animal control on public and private property; support local projects which make a positive difference to their environment

21. The MoU will contribute to achieving the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, by helping to:

· protect and enhance the ecological values of the South Titirangi area

· foster the ability of the local community to exercise guardianship over the area.

22. Overall, the adoption of the MoU has the potential to contribute to achieving significant ecological and community outcomes on a large scale. If successfully implemented, the model of joint communication, strategic planning, capacity building and coordination that it promotes could be replicated to other communities within the local board area and wider Auckland Region.

23. The MoU can be reviewed in the future by council or STNN and provides for further negotiations and agreements via LoI.

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

24. The MoU was initiated by the local board following a site visit with the community in February 2017. The local board provided feedback on the content of the MoU at workshops held in October 2017 and August 2018, which has been incorporated.

25. The MoU provides for regular communication, joint planning and opportunities to reflect on progress between STNN and the local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

26. The South Titirangi Peninsula is part of the Waitākere Rāhui area. Kauri trees are present in many of the reserves and private land across the area. STNN have sought a warrant from Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority to be able to work within the area in ways that respect the rāhui.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

27. The MoU does not require any financial commitment from the local board.

28. The local board’s volunteer programme in Community Parks for 2018/2019 includes support for ecological restoration work of STNN on some of the local reserves.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

29. The MoU is not a legally binding agreement and either party may request a review of the MoU or may terminate this MoU upon one month’s written notice.

30. Risks in not approving the MoU include:

· community or council pest management activities becoming ineffective due to poor communication or lack of coordination between the different land owners, for example through weed re-infestation of cleared areas from neighbouring public or private land

· community volunteers and land owners becoming discouraged in their efforts, which would impact on the effectiveness of the collective action fostered by STNN, and potentially have adverse ecological impacts.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31. Following approval of the MoU, the local board and STNN will sign the document. Managers of Community Parks and Places, Community Facilities and Regional Parks units, and STNN will sign the LoI.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Memorandum of Understanding between Auckland Council and South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network	15
b ⇩	Letters of Intent between Auckland Council and South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network	23

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Claire Liousse - Strategic Broker

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

AND

SOUTH TITIRANGI NEIGHBOURHOOD NETWORK

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

PARTIES:

A. AUCKLAND COUNCIL

B. SOUTH TITIRANGI NEIGHBOURHOOD NETWORK (“STNN”) consisting of groups of neighbours from the South Titirangi peninsula.

PURPOSE:

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) sets out the basis of the intended cooperation between Auckland Council and STNN in respect of predator control, weed eradication and planting of native vegetation on public and private land in South Titirangi (“Project”) during the Term (as set out in Item 5(a) of this MoU).

It is contemplated that STNN may negotiate and enter into additional Letters of Intent with other relevant divisions of Auckland Council and/or its CCOs, where appropriate, to establish specific frameworks for cooperation.

PRINCIPLES FOR COOPERATION

1. Background

The Waitākere Ranges Local Board aims to achieve greater conservation outcomes in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area through working with our communities to support ecological restoration projects on public and private land, and advocating for better coordination of pest plant, pest animal and pathogen control across Auckland Council and the Auckland Council family of organisations. Together with iwi and communities, the local board has a stewardship role in ensuring the ecological values of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area are protected, restored and enhanced.

STNN was established by local residents in 2015 to “take action to improve the wellbeing of people and nature in South Titirangi”. One of its aims is to achieve a South Titirangi peninsula free of pest animals by 2022 and free of Waitakere’s worst pest plants by 2028. (Refer to Appendix 1)

STNN has identified long term objectives and short- term actions for predator control, weed eradication and planting of native vegetation on public and private land in South Titirangi. These objectives are documented in working documents entitled “South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network Priorities” (original version dated January 2017). They align with regional aspirations of Pest Free Auckland and, at the local level, to the outcomes of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan 2017.

Auckland Council controls public reserves in South Titirangi, including regional parkland and local parks. The road reserves are managed by Auckland Transport through their Corridor Maintenance services. From 1 April 2019, maintenance budgets will move to Auckland Council to manage pest plants in accordance with the Regional Pest Management Plan within the road reserves (including paper roads) on behalf of Auckland Transport, who will continue to own the asset. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has decision making authority over local matters (e.g. activities in Local Parks), and inputs into the decisions of the Governing Body of Auckland Council (e.g. activities in Regional Parks) and the Board of Auckland Transport. The Local Board and STNN consider that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) is desirable in order to increase the effectiveness of ecological management on public and private land through better coordination of the work of STNN, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport in South Titirangi.

South Titirangi is part of the Waitākere Rahui area. STNN has obtained a warrant from iwi Te Kawerau a Maki to continue its operations within forested areas in a controlled manner. STNN further acknowledges that it will comply with all restrictions and closures in respect of the Waitākere Ranges and any areas of South Titirangi imposed by Auckland Council and any other authorities.

2. Common Objectives

Both parties will contribute to maintaining, protecting and enhancing biodiversity in South Titirangi peninsula.

This strategic approach is focused on restoring the ecological health of the South Titirangi landscape including pest management (pest plants, pest animals and pathogens), planting of native vegetation, building capability and empowerment of the community to play a major role in achieving these objectives, and joint advocacy to third parties.

3. Roles and Contributions

During the Term, STNN will:

(a) cooperate and communicate with Auckland Council in an open, timely and transparent manner;

(b) ensure that all its neighbourhood coordinators:

(i) have been fully informed and understand the terms of this MoU and all letters of intent between Auckland Council and STNN in respect of this Project;

(ii) act at all times in accordance with the terms of this MoU and all letters of intent;

(iii) comply at all times with any instructions of Auckland Council staff and representatives; and

(c) provide Auckland Council with an annual work plan which will outline their objectives and proposed activities. This plan will:

(i) align with the relevant reserve management plans, the Regional Pest Management Plan and Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy;

(ii) detail how STNN activities will give effect to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; and

(iii) detail how STTN activities will comply with the most up-to-date Standard Operating Procedures for Kauri Dieback published by Auckland Council; and

(d) report quarterly to Auckland Council on activities undertaken by volunteers on local and regional parkland, volunteer hours, and the difference made to the local environment;

(e) meet annually to update the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on progress made towards achieving its annual plan objectives;

(f) undertake other tasks as identified in the attached letters of intent; and

(g) comply with all restrictions imposed by the Auckland Council and its Representatives including restrictions on access to areas subject to Park closures.

During the Term, Auckland Council through the Waitākere Ranges Local Board will:

(a) cooperate and communicate with STNN in an open, timely and transparent manner;

(b) when and where appropriate but at the sole discretion of Auckland Council, give land owner approval for volunteer activities on local parks according to an annual work plan provided by STNN with the consultation of Auckland Council, (subject to park closures or restrictions, availability and any other event);

(c) consider access to resources and training for STNN activities in community parks within the constraints of the annual budget through the work programming process, or via contestable grant applications; and

(d) hold yearly discussions with STNN to determine how it can coordinate with STNN to achieve its annual objectives.

4. Fundraising

(a) STNN will consult Auckland Council prior to making any application for sponsorship or funding from external sources for activities on local parks. This is to maintain clear communications on future plans and transparency with regard to funding sources; and

(b) Auckland Council will, where appropriate, provide letters of support for third party funding applications submitted by STNN provided the applications are in accordance with the joint annual plan and/or agreed longer term objectives, and meet Auckland Council funding policy.

5. Scope and Term

(a) Term: This MoU is effective for a period of three years from the date of signing. The parties may renew this MoU for a further term of 3 year by written agreement;

(b) Either party may request a review of this MoU; and

6. Communications / Dispute resolution

(a) If any disagreements or disputes between the parties arise under this Agreement, the parties will seek to resolve this dispute in good faith through appropriate dialogue, respect and appreciation of the others' points of view. The parties agree to keep confidential any such disagreements or disputes subject to paragraph (c) below.

(b) Where the parties are unable to resolve any dispute, either party may terminate this MoU on providing written notice to the other party.

7. General

Both parties acknowledge and agree that this MoU merely states the understandings of the parties in respect of the Project. Nothing in this MoU:

(a) binds either party to funding or resource allocation;

(b) creates any relationship of agency, partnership, joint venture, trust or employment between the parties; and/or

(c) creates or imposes any other legally binding obligations or liabilities on either party or any of their respective officers, employees, agents and/or advisors.

SIGNATURES

Greg Presland, Chair, Waitākere Ranges Local Board

Signature: _____________________________________________________________

Signed on behalf of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board

Date:

STNN Representative

Names: Vicki Sargisson – Okewa Rd Co-ordinator. Linda Kestle – Grendon Rd Co-ordinator

South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network representatives

Signature: _____________________________________________________________

Signed on behalf of South Titirangi Neighbourhood Network

Date:

Appendix 1: List of Waitakere’s worst pest plants (from “Worst Weeds in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area”, poster by Auckland Council and Forest and Bird Society, 2016)

1. Climbing asparagus

2. Wild ginger

3. Woolly Nightshade

4. Moth Plant

5. Agapanthus

6. Wandering Jew/Wandering Willie

7. Arundo Grass/Giant Reed

8. Japanese honeysuckle

9. Blue Morning Glory

10. Pampas Grass

11. Jasmine

12. Chinese privet and tree privet

13. Plectranthus

14. Taiwan Cherry

15. Gorse

16. Cape Ivy

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Waitākere Ranges Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 grant applications

File No.: CP2018/17727

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round One 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Waitākere Ranges Local Board Quick Response, Round One 2018/2019 (refer to Attachment B).

3. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board adopted the Waitākere Ranges Local Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 26April 2018 (refer to Attachment A). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

1. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $75,000.00 for the 2018/2019 financial year. A total of $29,269.00 has been allocated in one local grant round. This leaves a total of $45,731.00 to be allocated for 2018/2019.

4. Fourteen applications were received for Waitākere Ranges Local Board Quick Response Round One 2018/2019, requesting a total of $16,324.00

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board

a) fund, part fund or decline applications received for Waitākere Ranges Local Board Quick Response Grants, Round One 2018/2019.

Table One: 2018/2019 Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round One

Application ID	Organisation	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
QR1919-126	WIA Hindi Language and Cultural School	Towards venue and equipment hire and prizes.	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1919-106	West Auckland Community Toy Library	To purchase new exersaucer activity tables for the toy library.	$800.00	Eligible
QR1919-107	Waitakere Japanese Supplementary School	Towards venue hire for the school holiday programme, term one, 2019.	$500.00	Eligible
QR1919-108	Community Waitakere Charitable Trust	Towards packing, transport and installation of the "Behind closed doors" artworks exhibition at the Glen Eden venue.	$502.00	Eligible
QR1919-124	Friends Of Arataki And Waitakere Ranges Regional Parkland Incorporated	Towards “Creatures Unlimited” and “Enchanted Party” event costs.	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1919-128	Oratia District Ratepayers and Residents Association Incorporated	Towards safety billboards, materials and printing costs for leaflets.	$1,296.00	Eligible
QR1919-112	Trevor Pollard	Towards printing, choir and musician costs.	$725.00	Eligible
QR1919-104	Waitakere Rivercare Group	Towards potting mix, potting bags and fertilizer tabs for the Matuku Link Wetland Restoration Project.	$1,449.00	Eligible
QR1919-118	Roger Davies	Towards 100 mini bait stations for a pest control project in the Swanson North Conservation area.	$1,259.00	Eligible
QR1919-121	Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society - Waitakere Branch	Towards an autonomous acoustic survey of Matuku bird numbers around Te Henga wetland.	$1,283.00	Eligible
QR1919-123	Titirangi Primary School	Towards a rainwater collection system and materials to establish a sustainable fruit and vegetable garden.	$1,138.00	Eligible
QR1919-129	Megan Fitter under the umbrella of EcoMatters Environment Trust	Towards traps, bait, signage, flyers for the Little Muddy Creek pest control project.	$1,434.00	Eligible
QR1919-111	Laingholm Playcentre	Towards stage one of a three stage development for the playground.	$1,500.00	Eligible
QR1919-120	Taekwondo Union of New Zealand Incorporated	Towards hall hire and equipment for the club.	$1,438.00	Eligible
Total			$16,324.00

Horopaki / Context

2. 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.

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

4. 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.

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

6. 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

5. 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

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

7. The board is requested to note that section 48 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.”

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

9. 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. Five applicants in this round have indicated their project targets Maori or Maori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

11. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $75,000 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

12. A total of $29,269.00 was allocated for one local grant round and one multi-board round. This leaves a total of $45,731.00 to be allocated for 2018/2019.

13. In Waitākere Ranges Quick Response, Round One 2018/2019, fourteen applications were received, requesting a total of $16,324.00

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Waitakere Ranges Grants Programme 2018/2019	35
b ⇩	Waitakere Ranges Quick Response Round One 2018/2019 grant applications	39

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Robert Walsh - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grant Operations Manager

Shane King - Head of Operations Support

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Auckland Transport Update Report – October 2018

File No.: CP2018/19757

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to respond to requests on transport-related matters, provide an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) and, provide transport related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

A decision is not required this month. In particular, this report:

2. Provides information on Auckland Transports Road Safety Action Plan for 2018-19.

3. Provides a progress update to the Board on its current transport capital fund projects, along with financial information indicating how much budget the board has remaining in this political term.

3. Notes consultation information sent to the Board for feedback and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee as they affect the Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive Auckland Transport’s update for October 2018.

Horopaki / Context

4. This report addresses transport related matters in the Waitākere Ranges local board area.

5. The LBTCF 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).

6. Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. Auckland Transport reports on a monthly basis to all local boards, as set out in their Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the importance of the relationship Auckland Transport has with local boards.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Fund (LBTCF) Update

7. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF was $1,900,714, for the current political term. In addition, there is a sum of $596,937 which has been approved by Council and available from 1 July 2018. Auckland Transport encourages the local board to prioritise making decisions on what projects they would like to allocate their remaining budget too. Auckland Transport has very limited time to deliver any project before the end of this electoral term.

Waitākere Ranges Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary
Total Funds Available in current political term	$2,497,651
Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction	$992,198
Remaining Budget left	$1,505,453

Auckland Transport’s Road Safety and Speed Management programme 2018-21

8. In June 2018, the AT Board endorsed an accelerated speed management programme that proposes a $24 million investment over the next three years.

9. Over the next 10 years, $210 million from the regional fuel tax will directly and indirectly contribute to more than half a billion dollars being spent keeping people safe on Auckland’s roads.

10. Speed is currently responsible for 30% of all road deaths and serious injuries. As part of the Speed Management Programme, AT will identify areas and roads around the Auckland region to set lower speed limits.

11. These roads will be added to the Schedule of Speed Limits and drafted into the bylaw. The bylaw will be consulted on Auckland-wide in late 2018 and consistent with AT’s new streamlined consultation that’s designed to reduce costs and speed up project delivery.

12. AT’s Road Safety Action Plan for 2018-19 covers the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Area. AT has proposed the following changes:

ROAD	WHERE	CHANGE
Birdwood Road	From Red Hills Road	100km/h to 60km/h
Mudgeways Road	Entire length	100km/h to 60km/h
Yelash Road	Entire length	100km/h to 40km/h
Christian Road	From Swanson Road to No. 10 Christian Road	80km/h to 50km/h
Christian Road	From No. 10 Christian Road to the northwest end of Christian Road	80km/h to 60km/h
Pooks Road	From O’Neills Road to No. 140 Pooks Road	70km/h to 50km/h
Tram Valley Road	Entire length	100km/h to 60km/h
Welsh Hills Road	Entire length	80km/h to 60km/h
Huia Road	Existing 70km/h section at the southern end of Parau	70km/h to 50km/h
Shirley Road	Entire length	70km/h to 50km/h

Why Are There Different Speed Limits Proposed For Roads That Once Had Similar Speed Limits?

13. Historically speed limits were set based mainly on the land use. Urban areas defaulted to 50km/h, rural areas defaulted to 100km/h, and there was some limited scope to apply 80km/h and 70km/h to urban fringe areas.

14. Central government have updated the legislation for setting of speed limits and under the new speed management approach while 50km/h and 100km/h are still the default values there are options to set speed limits based on the nature of the road rather than just the surrounding land use.

15. In the case of rural roads this allows the adoption of speed limits of 80 or 60 where the roads are not designed to operate safely at 100. In extreme cases such as narrow, winding, unsealed roads, 40 may also be considered as a rural speed limit.

16. The roll out of lower speed limits will occur gradually across the network. Key criteria for selecting which roads to treat first include:

· Routes with high crash rates (where speed reduction could be expected to give the best crash reductions)

· Routes where the road conditions/geometry already encourage most drivers to drive at a lower speed and aligning the limit with the lower speeds will help to make speed limits more credible.

What Is The Difference Between Different Speed Limits In Terms Of Safety And Survivability?

17. Whatever causes a crash the severity of the outcome depends on speed. Driving even a few kilometers slower can make a big difference to making the roads safer.

Table 1: Survivable Speeds for Vulnerable Road Users

The Record Of Injuries And Fatalities 2013-2017

ROAD	FATAL	SERIOUS	MINOR
Birdwood Road	1	3	5
Christian Road	-	2	4
O’Neils Road	-	-	4
Yelash Road	-	-	2
Pooks Road	-	1	5
Huia Road	-	9	15

18. In last 5 years there haven’t been any injury crashes on Shirley Road, Welsh Hills Road, and Tram Valley Road

The Current Operating Speeds along the Road at the moment

19. It is important to understand that despite most roads having a single speed limit the actual speed driven changes along the route depending on the conditions.

20. The below represents the most recent data collected by AT.

ROAD	WHERE	OPERATING SPEED	CHANGE
Birdwood Road	From Red Hills Road	30-39km/h to 50-59km/h	100km/h to 60km/h
Mudgeways Road	Entire length	30-39km/h to < 30km/h	100km/h to 60km/h
Yelash Road	Entire length	< 30km/h	100km/h to 40km/h
Christian Road	From Swanson Road to No. 10 Christian Road	60-69km/h	80km/h to 50km/h
Christian Road	From No. 10 Christian Road to the northwest end of Christian Road	50-59km/h to 30-30km/h	80km/h to 60km/h
Pooks Road	From O’Neills Road to No. 140 Pooks Road	50-59km/h	70km/h to 50km/h
Tram Valley Road	Entire length	60-69km/h to 30-39km/h	100km/h to 60km/h
Welsh Hills Road	Entire length	30-39km/h	80km/h to 60km/h
Huia Road	Existing 70km/h section at the southern end of Parau	55-59km/h	70km/h to 50km/h
Shirley Road	Entire length		70km/h to 50km/h

What Impact On Journey Times If The Speed Limit Is Dropped

21. Given that roads operate at a variety of speeds the below table gives an indication of the additional time added to a journey per kilometre. Many of the roads operate at a range of speeds from 30 – 70km/h so it is complicated to calculate an average journey time increase for the road. However, the increase in journey time is likely to be minimal:

CHANGE	ADDITIONAL TIME / PER KM
100km/h to 60km/h	24 seconds
100km/h to 40km/h	54 seconds
80km/h to 60km/h	15 seconds
80km/h to 50km/h	27 seconds
70km/h to 50km/h	21 seconds

Next steps

22. Auckland Transport recognises that it can’t achieve our aims for road safety alone. Working in alignment with partners is vital and AT welcomes support and input from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board to help address the road safety challenge.

23. Reducing speed limits is a sensitive topic, with expectations from some stakeholders that AT should deliver rapid changes to speed limits across Auckland, while others in the community may not like the speed limit reductions and speed calming measures. For individuals, the risks of a severe crash might seem small, but from a societal point of view there are substantial safety gains from reducing average speeds on streets.

24. AT will be looking for Local Boards to support us in accelerating the delivery of vital road safety interventions, and making sure our transformational changes meet local community needs.

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

Local Board Issues Being Investigated

25. The Local board requested the following issues be investigated and they are in the initial investigation stage:

26. LED Lights in the Waitākere Ranges – A workshop was held with the Local Board and AT to discuss the Waitākere Ranges Design Guidelines during which LED lighting was discussed. AT is looking at changing the flood lights at the Piha Domain and the tall new lights near the public toilets, to very low LED light.

27. The general concerns around LED lights in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area has been investigated by Auckland Transport and the responses are below:

· Security cameras and associated lighting at Piha surf club and public toilets. In June 2017, a request was made to Auckland Transport to install security cameras at these two locations. The street light team was requested to make power available 24/7. This required modification to the existing streetlights to switch them individually. Unfortunately, the street light team went the second mile and upgraded the lights on the understanding it would be necessary for the camera operation. This was not necessary. Auckland Transport have arranged with our contractor to return the streetlights to the original configuration. The lights have been changed from the old 70 Watt HPS to the new LED equivalent light. Auckland Transport do apologise that the lights were increased both in size and number without discussion with the Local Board.

· Changing from the old discharge lights to LED lights. Auckland Transport have resolved to change all the lights on the network from the old high-pressure sodium lights and metal halide lights to LED lights. At the same time, a central management system is being installed on each light which monitors and controls the lights. There are savings from less energy use and less maintenance using LED lights. Because of the significant saving in energy use, the government is heavily subsidising the programme. It has been council policy for many years to light arterial roads and many intersections with white light because white light provides a safer environment. The white colour AT chose for the LED lights is the same colour temperature as moonlight.

The central management system allows dimming profiles to be set up to trim the light level during night hours to match traffic conditions. As Auckland Transport reported at the local Board workshop recently AT will look to establish a dimming profile for the Waitākere Heritage area based on traffic volumes.

· Dark Sky Association. Auckland Transport have met with representatives from the Dark Sky Association. Our specification for LED lights specifically limits upward light and our installation instructions require LED lights to be mounted horizontal to limit any upward light. The retrofit programme has already significantly reduced nightglow across the city. This is being monitored on an annual basis. The new LED lights direct the correct amount of light onto the road and limit spill light onto neighbouring properties. Auckland Transport consider that this meets the requirements of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act and associated Design Guidelines.

Glengarry Road, Shetland Street, Rosier Road Pedestrian Improvements

28. Auckland Transport is investigating an additional crossing at this location. Once this has been investigated AT will report the findings to the board.

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

29. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board for its feedback, and are summarised below for information purposes only.

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

· Road Marking changes associated with new subdivision on Crows Road, Swanson.

Auckland Transport’s Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

31. Decisions of the TCC during the month of August 2018 affecting the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area are listed below.

Date	Street (Suburb)	Type of Report	Nature of Restriction	Decision
1-August-18	Daffodil Street, Atkinson Road, Titirangi	Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined	No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Stop Control, Traffic Island, No Passing	CARRIED

30 Red Light Runners Caught Per Day As Six More Red Light Cameras Go Live In Auckland

32. From 1 October Six new red light safety cameras are operating in Auckland, adding to six already in operation that have issued 2,314 infringements in just two and a half months.

33. The new cameras, which are enforced on a rotational basis, are operating at:

· Great South Road and Cavendish Drive – two sites

· Te Irirangi Drive and Accent Drive – two sites

· Great North Road and Rata Street

· Great South Road and Reagan Road.

34. The purpose of the cameras is to save lives and stop injuries that is why we are telling people where the cameras are and that they are operating from today.

35. There is a culture among some drivers that red lights don’t matter and can be ignored. That is blatantly wrong and puts the safety of others on the road – drivers, pedestrians and people on bikes – at risk.

36. When red light cameras were trialed between 2008 and 2010, there was a 43% reduction in red-light running and an average 63% decrease in crashes attributable to red light running.

37. Between 21 June and 7 September this year, 2314 infringements were issued from the six cameras that are already running. That’s 30 times a day when motorists put their own lives and the lives of other at risk.

38. With deaths and serious injuries increasing on Auckland roads by 78% in the last four years, three times the national average, Auckland Transport have to change this attitude. That’s why we are installing the additional cameras.

39. The new cameras are in addition to the six red light cameras that began enforcing in June. Money from infringements goes to the Crown’s National Consolidated Fund.

40. $700 million will be invested in road safety improvements in the next 10 years, partly funded by the Regional Fuel Tax.

Supporting Growth North West Consultation Open

41. This is purely for information only on what is happening in your neigbouring Local Board area.

42. The Supporting Growth Programme is about planning the support needed for the transport network to grow in future urban areas of Auckland over the next 30 years.

43. Consultation is now open for transport plans being investigated in Auckland's northwestern future urban growth areas.

44. Public information days have been held in late-September as follows:

· Massey Birdwood Settlers Hall - Tues 25 September, 4:00pm-7:00pm

· Riverhead Hall - Weds 26 September, 3:00pm-7:00pm

· Kumeū Community Hall - Fri 28 September, 3:00pm-7:00pm

· North-West Mall - Sat 29 September, 10:00am – 1:00pm.

45. In order to provide the community with good information about what is proposed to support growth in the short term (ahead of the Programme’s longer term focus) a number of other projects have been showcased at these information days, including:

· The Huapai Triangle project (Auckland Transport)

· The Safe Roads SH16 Brigham Creek to Waimauku upgrade (NZ Transport Agency)

· The SH16-18 Connections project (NZ Transport Agency)

· AT Dairy Flat Highway Safety improvements (Auckland Transport)

· The Huapai-Kumeū Town Centre Plan (Auckland Council)

· Whenuapai Plan Change (Auckland Council).

46. Feedback closes at 5.00pm on Friday 19 October. Consultation information and feedback forms are available at: http://supportinggrowth.govt.nz/have-your-say/north-west-auckland/

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

47. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

49. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no risks. Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for the transport projects undertaken in the local board area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster – Elected Members Relationship Manager (Western Boards)

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Future of the Waitākere septic tank pumpout service

File No.: CP2018/16739

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on whether Auckland Council should consult in the Annual Plan 2019/2020 on ending the septic tank pumpout scheme and associated targeted rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. In June 2018 the Governing Body approved the introduction of a new water quality targeted rate to raise $452 million over ten years to achieve cleaner harbours, beaches and streams.

3. One initiative that will be delivered through the rate is a regional proactive compliance monitoring programme for on-site wastewater systems across Auckland. This will require property owners to regularly provide documentation that their systems have been inspected and maintained. This approach is based on a Waiheke model that has led to improvements in water quality in some areas. It is expected to improve the maintenance and operation of on-site wastewater systems across Auckland.

4. Development of the new compliance programme has prompted a review of the three-yearly septic tank pumpout service, which has been operating in the former Waitākere City Council legacy area, to consider whether it is still fit for purpose.

5. The service currently provides a triennial pumpout to approximately 3,475 systems in the board area and has an operational asset based services budget of $632,766 per annum.

6. This review has identified a number of issues with the reach and scope of the Waitākere pumpout service. For example, the service only targets properties with septic tanks and long drops but not modern systems. This means it only services approximately half the on-site wastewater systems in the board area. It also only pumps the sludge out of the septic tank or long drop. It does not cover the maintenance of filters, occupancy or disposal fields, which are important for an effective on-site wastewater system.

7. Despite the pumpout service being in place for 20 years, monitoring shows that the state of popular swimming spots in Waitākere is not improving and, in some areas, is getting worse.

8. Given these issues, staff are proposing that a formal consultation and engagement process for ending the three-yearly septic tank pumpout service and associated targeted rate be carried out as part of the 2019/2020 Annual Plan consultation process.

9. Feedback is being sought from all three impacted local boards (Henderson-Massey, Upper Harbour and Waitākere Ranges) on this proposal. The local boards’ feedback will be presented to the governing body to support their decision making on the annual plan.

10. Residents with on-site wastewater systems within the legacy Waitākere City Council area will continue to receive pumpouts according to the current triennial schedule until formal consultation on the rate is undertaken and a final decision has been made.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) provide feedback to the governing body as to whether Auckland Council should consult in the draft Annual Plan 2019/2020 on ending the three-yearly septic tank pumpout service and associated targeted rate.

Horopaki / Context

Water quality improvement targeted rate

11. In June 2018, Auckland Council adopted the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 which includes a new water quality improvement targeted rate.

12. This rate will generate $452 million over ten years to fund an accelerated water quality improvement work programme. This includes a septic tank and on-site wastewater programme.

13. The proposal approved through the targeted rate is to introduce an improved compliance programme to ensure on-site wastewater systems are regularly inspected and maintained. This will reduce the amount of wastewater entering waterways to help improve water quality.

Regional compliance programme for on-site wastewater systems

14. Currently, the legacy Waitākere City Council area is the only part of Auckland which has a targeted rate for septic tank pumpout service. The council has no involvement in overseeing the maintenance of wastewater systems in other areas of the region apart from on Waiheke Island.

15. This inconsistency in the management of on-site wastewater treatment devices across the region informed the development of the new regional on-site wastewater compliance monitoring programme.

16. The new programme under development is modelled on the on-site wastewater compliance scheme in place on Waiheke Island. In this programme, the council requests property owners to regularly provide documentation that their systems have been inspected and maintained. The expected benefits of this new programme are:

· It will cover and check all types of on-site wastewater systems, not just septic tanks and long drops.

· It will be used to increase awareness of property owners about the importance of regularly checking their systems and that they are responsible for their system performance (not the council).

· It will be rolled out across the region to improve and have consistent oversight of all properties with on-site wastewater systems, not just in areas such as Waiheke and Waitākere.

· The roll out of the Waiheke scheme since 2008 has shown improvement in water quality in some streams on the island.

17. The roll out of the new on-site wastewater compliance monitoring programme will be funded as part of the new water quality targeted rate, with a forecast (uninflated) cost of approximately $8.2 million over the ten years of the Long-Term Plan 2018 - 2028.

Septic tank pumpout service

18. Since 1998, some properties within the legacy Waitākere City Council area have paid a targeted rate for pumpouts, cleaning and inspection of on-site wastewater treatment systems including septic tanks, long drops, grease traps and greywater systems.

19. Households pay a targeted rate for maintenance of on-site wastewater systems and are visited every three years to have their tanks inspected, pumped out and cleaned.

20. The programme services approximately 3,900 properties with 4,270 onsite waste water systems, including 3,475 systems in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area. The others are located in the Upper Harbour and Henderson-Massey Local Board areas.

21. In Waitākere Ranges Local Board, the pumpout service has an operational asset based services budget of $632,766 per annum.

22. A review of the pumpout service has identified a number of issues with the reach and scope of the programme. Specifically:

· The programme excludes modern on-site wastewater systems as it only covers properties with septic tanks and long drops (about half of the properties with on-site wastewater systems in the former Waitākere City Council area).

· The remaining properties with other types of on-site wastewater systems, such as those with aerators and chemical treatment are not regularly checked by council. These systems also need to be maintained at least annually to be effective and not contribute to poor water quality.

· The programme only pumps the sludge out of the septic tank or long drop. It does not cover the maintenance of filters, occupancy or disposal fields, which are important for an effective on-site wastewater system.

· The programme may lead to a perception among home-owners that they do not need to be concerned about the state of their system as maintenance is carried out by council through the pump-outservice.

· System failures and overflows can occur between the three-yearly pumpout.

23. Despite the pumpout service being in place for 20 years, water quality monitoring has shown that the state of popular swimming spots around Waitākere Ranges is not improving and, in some areas, is getting worse.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options Analysis

24. There are two options available for the future of the septic tank pumpout service and associated targeted rate. These are:

· Option A: the status quo, continue offering the septic tank pumpout service and charging the targeted rate.

· Option B: consult on ending the septic tank pumpout service and associated targeted rate in the Annual Plan 2019/2020.

25. Option A: To continue offering the septic tank pumpout service is not preferred. As outlined above, various issues have been identified with the scope and reach of the septic tank pumpout service. There is also no evidence that it is leading to improvements in water quality.

26. The regional compliance scheme for on-site wastewater systems will also soon be introduced, whether or not, the septic tank pumpout service continues. This means that under the status quo, residents in the legacy Waitākere City Council area will soon be required to both:

· pay the septic tank pumpout targeted rate for the triennial pumpout

· pay the water quality improvement targeted rate and provide regular certification that their wastewater system has been inspected and is functioning property.

27. Currently residents and the wider community have differing views on whether the three-yearly septic tank pumpout service is delivering value for money. Some residents have stated that they can get their tank pumped out for a lower cost than the council is charging through the septic tank targeted rate.

28. Others have said they like the convenience of the service. However, residents will probably find this service less convenient if they also need to arrange for certification of their on-site waster system through the regional compliance programme.

Recommended option: Consult on ending the septic tank pumpout service

29. Because of the various issues with the septic tank pumpout service described above, staff recommend that the Annual Plan 2019/2020 should include a proposal to end the legacy Waitākere septic tank pumpout service and associated targeted rate.

30. Before making this proposal to the governing body feedback is being sought from all three of the impacted local boards.

31. The local boards’ feedback will be provided to the governing body for their decision making when confirming the contents of the draft Annual Plan 2019/2020.

32. If a proposal to end the septic tank pumpout service is included in the Annual Plan 2019/2020, this will go through a formal public consultation process in early 2019, alongside the rest of the annual plan consultation process.

33. If the final decision is to discontinue the pump out service, staff will provide a remission for residents in the targeted rate area who have already paid for a pumpout.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

34. The purpose of this report is to formally request local board feedback on the future of the septic tank pumpout service and associated targeted rate.

35. A workshop to discuss these issues will be held with the local board on 4 October 2018.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement36. Waterways and improvements to water quality are of key significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environments.

37. On-site wastewater systems are impacting water quality in areas across the Waitākere Ranges. Despite the pumpout service being in place for 20 years, the state of popular swimming spots is not improving and, in some areas, is getting worse.

38. The new regional on-site wastewater compliance monitoring programme seeks to improve water quality, restoring the mauri of waterways.

39. Feedback was sought from mana whenua on introduction of the water quality improvement targeted rate and associated work programmes, including the regional compliance programme for on-site wastewater systems, during the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process.

40. 10 iwi provided specific feedback on the targeted rate, with nine iwi in support, including Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority & Settlement Trust, and one offering conditional support.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

41. The three-yearly septic tank pumpout service and the associated targeted rate currently remain in place. The service has an operational asset based services budget of $632,766 per annum in the board area.

42. Residents with on-site wastewater systems within the legacy Waitākere City Council area will continue with the current triennial pumpout schedule until formal consultation on the rate is undertaken.

43. If the final decision is to discontinue the pump out service, the council will stop collecting the rate and providing the service from 1 July 2019. Staff will work through a remission process for residents in the targeted rate area.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

44. There are relatively few risks for the local board in providing feedback on the proposal to end the septic tank pumpout service and targeted rate at this stage. Any final decision will be subject to a full consultation process through the Annual Plan 2019/2020. This will enable the local board to hear from their community before giving final feedback on the proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

45. Local board views provided in response to this report will be presented to the governing body to inform their decision making on annual plan consultation documents.

46. If the governing body supports the staff recommendation, a proposal to end the septic tank pumpout service associated targeted rate will be included in the draft Annual Plan 2019/2020 for public consultation and feedback.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Janet Kidd, Principal Wai Ora Strategic Programmes

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Review of the Code of Conduct

File No.: CP2018/18674

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Code of Conduct (code).

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The council’s initial code was prepared by the Auckland Transition Agency prior to Auckland Council commencing. It was last reviewed in 2013. The code has worked well but there have been a number of issues identified. The Governing Body agreed that the code be reviewed through the Joint Governance Working Party. Presentations were made to local board cluster meetings earlier this year.

3. Based on feedback to date, an amended code has been drafted and the Joint Governance Working Party has approved it to be reported to local boards for feedback. The proposals contained in the draft code address the issues that were identified.

4. A comparison of the draft code with the current Code can be summarised as follows:

(i) The code itself is more concise

(ii) Material breaches are defined

(iii) There are separate complaint processes depending on whether a complaint relates to a non-material breach, a material breach or conflict of interest

(iv) The current independent review panel is replaced by a Conduct Commissioner, who can impose sanctions

(v) Findings of the Conduct Commissioner (for material breaches) will be made public to assist compliance with sanctions imposed by the Conduct Commissioner

(vi) There is no political involvement in determining a complaint or imposing sanctions

(vii) Related documents are bundled in with the code and key policies and protocols and adopted with the code:

a. Conflict of interest policy

b. Access to information protocol

c. Election year policy

d. Communications policy

e. Media protocols

5. Local board feedback is being sought on the draft code.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) provide its feedback on the draft Code of Conduct attached to this report.

Horopaki / Context

What is the Code of Conduct

6. A code of conduct essentially sets out a council’s expectations about how members will conduct themselves. Every council is required to adopt a code of conduct (Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 15). It must set out:

“(a) understandings and expectations adopted by the local authority about the manner in which members may conduct themselves while acting in their capacity as members, including—

(i) behaviour toward one another, staff, and the public; and

(ii) disclosure of information, including (but not limited to) the provision of any document, to elected members that—

(A) is received by, or is in the possession of, an elected member in his or her capacity as an elected member; and

(B) relates to the ability of the local authority to give effect to any provision of this Act; and

(b) a general explanation of—

(i) the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987; and

(ii) any other enactment or rule of law applicable to members.”

7. Once adopted, a code of conduct requires a 75% majority to change it.

8. Members of local boards must comply with the code of conduct that is adopted by the governing body (Local Government Act 2002, schedule 7, clause 36B).

Reasons for reviewing the Code of Conduct

9. In working with the current code the council has experienced a number of issues:

(i) It is not easy to follow. It includes principles, descriptions of roles and responsibilities and statements about relationships and behaviours. However, a complaint about a breach can only relate to the section on relationships and behaviours.

(ii) Although a positive aspect of the current code is a focus, initially, on resolving complaints to the satisfaction of the complainant, it is not appropriate for an allegation about a conflict of interest to be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant – conflict of interest allegations need to be tested against the law.

(iii) The code does not distinguish between non-material and material breaches. All allegations of breaches are treated the same.

(iv) The final point of escalation of a complaint is to the independent review panel which comprises three members. This process is valuable but is underused because it can be expensive with three members being required.

(v) There needs to be a requirement that a complainant has tried to resolve their complaint prior to submitting it to the formal complaint process in the code.

(vi) The code is underused because it is seen to “lack teeth”. There needs to be a review of available sanctions.

10. PWC were commissioned to review the current code and the Governing Body agreed at its February 2018 meeting that the current code should be reviewed. The Joint Governance Working Party is overseeing the development of the code.

Engagement to date

11. Staff made presentations to local board cluster meetings and a Governing Body workshop earlier this year. Among the issues discussed, was whether a revised code should be concise and principles-based or prescriptive.

12. The approach to the draft code was discussed with the Joint Governance Working Party, whose guidance included that there should be no political involvement in the determination of complaints and the imposition of sanctions.

13. A draft was presented to the Joint Governance Working Party on 12 September which the working party approved for reporting to local boards for their feedback.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The draft code

14. The draft code is at attachment A.

15. The draft code is presented as two documents:

(i) The code itself contains:

a. principles

b. descriptions of material breaches

c. the complaints process.

(ii) The second document contains attachments which provide more detail:

a. Policies and protocols which are adopted along with the code and are an intrinsic part of the code. Elected members must abide by the conduct set out in these documents.

b. Description of applicable legislation which the Local Government Act requires all codes to contain

c. Documents which are described as “external” in the sense that they are agreed outside the code but are relevant to the conduct of members. An example is the Expenses Policy which is agreed by the Finance and Performance Committee and approved by the Remuneration Authority. It is useful to have these documents included for easy reference and to provide context to some aspects of the code.

16. The code describes two key principles – trust and respect. The principle of trust captures the expectations of the community in their elected representatives. The community trusts that members will act in the interest of the community and not their own interest, for example. This principle encompasses the ethical dimension of conduct.

17. The principle of respect captures the expectations members have of each other in terms of their conduct towards each other and towards the public.

18. The principles are written in a style which indicates personal commitment (“I will…”).

The complaints process

19. The draft code contains definitions of “material breaches”. This defines what the bottom line is and at what point a breach needs to be treated more seriously than other breaches. A complaint which relates to a material breach is treated differently to a complaint which relates to a non-material breach.

20. A complaint is lodged with the chief executive. A complaint must set out what part of the code has been breached, must provide evidence of the breach and evidence of attempts to resolve the breach. (Where the code refers to chief executive this includes a nominee of the chief executive.)

21. If the complaint relates to a conflict of interest, the chief executive will arrange for the member to receive advice from either Legal Services or Audit and Risk. The complainant has no further role. If the member does not comply with advice, the matter becomes a material breach for investigation by the Conduct Commissioner.

22. In other cases, the chief executive refers the complaint to an “Investigator”. An Investigator is appointed by the chief executive and may be a staff member or external person.

23. The Investigator conducts a preliminary assessment of the complaint and has the discretion to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or vexatious or without substance.

24. If the complaint relates to a non-material breach, the Investigator may make non-binding recommendations, including a recommendation to apologise or undertake voluntary mediation.

25. If the complaint relates to a material breach, it is referred to a “Conduct Commissioner”. A Conduct Commissioner is a person of the calibre of a retired High Court judge and is selected from a list of such persons which has been approved by the Governing Body.

26. The Conduct Commissioner may direct mediation or conduct an investigation which may include a hearing.

Sanctions

27. The Conduct Commissioner has the power to impose sanctions, including a requirement to apologise, withdraw remarks or make a public statement. The report of the Conduct Commissioner is formal and made public, to promote compliance with the sanctions imposed by the Conduct Commissioner.

28. The Conduct Commissioner replaces the current independent review panel, which is not used frequently due to the cost associated with it having three members.

29. Staff had been asked to investigate whether there could be financial sanctions. The Remuneration Authority was asked whether it would agree to a reduction of salary paid to a member who breached the code. The reply included:

The Authority is often asked whether the performance of an individual or individuals is considered when making a determination. Performance does not feature in the list of criteria that the Authority is required to take into account. Therefore, it has no mandate to consider performance.

Section 14 (implementation of determinations) of the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 says that every determination issued by the Authority must be implemented according to their tenor and it is unlawful to act contrary to a determination. This prevents a council from making deductions from an elected member’s salary.

Attachments to the code

30. The attachments include:

(i) Policies and protocols that are adopted along with the code:

· Conflict of interest policy

· Access to information protocol

· Election year policy

· Communications policy

· Media protocols

(ii) A description of legislation that is required by the Local Government Act 2002.

(iii) Documents that are external to the code but are included because they are relevant to conduct:

· Guide to governance roles and responsibilities

· Guide to working with staff

· Expenses policy

31. The attached policies include the conflict of interest policy which has been rewritten and a new “Access to information protocol.” All other documents attached to the code are from existing sources and are not new.

Conflict of interest policy

32. The Conflict of Interest Policy has been updated to reflect the current legal position relating to conflicts of interest and pre-determination, as the current policy is out of date.

33. It remedies a current inconsistency between the treatment of financial and non-financial interests (being automatically disqualified from decision-making for a financial interest, but not for a non-financial interest).

34. It includes a new section on pre-determination, which is a separate legal concept to conflicts of interest.

35. It places stronger emphasis on the interests of the council in the probity and integrity of its decisions, as the consequences of failing to manage are more commonly borne by the council.

36. It is intended to be more user-friendly and accessible.

New protocol included – Elected Member Access to Information

37. Included in the policies and protocols attached to the Code of Conduct is a new ‘Access to information protocol’. This protocol puts a framework around elected members legal right to council information under the ‘need to know’ principle. This protocol is in addition to the existing ways that elected members can gain access to information. It is aimed at addressing circumstances where there has been lack of clarity over requests for information where it is not clear if it is or is not confidential.

The need to know principle for elected members

38. In addition to rights under LGOIMA, elected members have a legal right to council information under the “need to know” principle established by the common law. Under this principle, a good reason to access council information exists if an elected member shows that access to the information is reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their statutory functions as a member of the council. In some limited cases elected members may also be able establish a “need to know” council information relevant to their representative duties.

Why we are proposing a protocol

39. The purposes of the draft protocol are to:

(i) Give effect to the legal ‘need to know’ principle.

(ii) Enable elected members to properly perform their statutory functions as democratically elected local decision-makers; and to facilitate them in fulfilling their representative duties. This promotes democratic and effective local government.

(iii) Provide elected members with better and more efficient access to Council information than is provided for LGOIMA, by reducing the number of withholding grounds that can apply to the information and the timeframes for response.

(iv) Provide for transparent and impartial Chief Executive decisions on requests under this protocol, and a democratic mechanism for the reconsideration of such decisions.

(v) To provide that confidential Council information will be made available to elected members in a manner that reflects the Council’s legal duty to protect the confidentiality of the information and does not prejudice the interests protected by LGOIMA.

40. We have agreed with the Chief Ombudsman that we will develop a protocol to better manage elected member access to information.

41. Because this is the first time that council is adopting such a protocol, staff are suggesting that it is revisited and reviewed within 18 months of its adoption to ensure that it is working effectively, best enabling elected members to properly perform their statutory functions as democratically elected local decision-makers and facilitating them in fulfilling their representative duties.

Summary of suggested process in draft protocol

42. The protocol sets out a framework and process for elected member requests for council information. In summary, the process in the protocol is:

(i) Elected members make a request for information held by Council and explain why they need the information.

(ii) Chief Executive makes a decision on whether the information is reasonably necessary for the elected member to exercise their statutory functions or performance of their representative duties, and whether any of the limited reasons to withhold may apply (for example if personal information should be redacted for Privacy Act reasons).

(iii) Decision and the provision of information to the elected member (with conditions if necessary for confidential information) within 5 working days.

(iv) If an elected member is not happy with the Chief Executive decision, they can ask it to be reconsidered by the Audit & Risk Committee.

Local board feedback

43. Local board views are being sought on the proposed changes in the draft code and the supporting policies that will be adopted alongside the code. In particular:

· The principles based and positive intent in the drafting of the code

· Defining material breaches and making the findings of complaints of a material breach public

· Replacing the current independent review panel with an independent Conduct Commissioner, who can impose sanctions which means having no political involvement in determining a complaint or imposing sanctions

· Support for the access to information protocol

44. Feedback from local boards will be considered by the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 31 October 2018. The working party will then recommend a final draft code to the Governing Body for adoption. Once adopted by the Governing Body, the code applies to all elected members.

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

45. Local board feedback will be reported to the Joint Governance Working Party. The code impacts local boards in that all members must abide by it.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

46. The Code of Conduct is an internal procedural document. The principles and values expressed in the document provide for inclusivity and specifically disallow discrimination.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

47. There may be financial implications if the Investigator that the chief executive appoints is external. Escalation to the Conduct Commissioner will have lesser financial implications than referral to a full review panel as provided in the existing code, but because of the reduced financial cost, may be utilised more often.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

48. There is a risk that some elected members will not be fully socialised with the new code. Staff will investigate how best to ensure all elected members are fully aware of the new code.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

49. The feedback from local boards will be reported to the meeting of the Joint Governance Working Party on 31 October 2018. The working party will then recommend a final draft code to the Governing Body for adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Code of Conduct	107
b ⇩	Draft Code of Conduct attachments	119

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet, General Manager, Democracy Services

Louise Mason, General Manager, Local Board Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Draft Facility Partnership Policy

File No.: CP2018/17881

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To seek local boards’ views on the draft Facility Partnerships Policy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A ‘facility partnership’ is where Auckland Council invests in a community facility alongside others. Done well, partnerships can enable and empower our communities, and help us provide more of the quality facilities Auckland needs, faster and more cost-effectively.

3. The council intends to meet more facility needs through partnerships in future, and a new regional policy (refer Attachment B) has been developed to guide their selection and support.

4. Key policy positions outlined in the draft Facility Partnerships Policy and summarised in Attachment A include:

· a focus on shared outcomes

· partnerships that recognise, value and honour Te Ao Māori

· multiple partnership models, with fit-for-purpose arrangements

· ‘Proactive’ and ‘Responsive’ partnership tracks

· principles to shape eligibility and investment priorities

· valuing (and costing) in-kind support

· a stronger focus on the partnership relationship

· greater acknowledgement of the complexity of developing/managing assets.

5. During policy development, staff engaged with Māori to explore specific opportunities and barriers for facility partnerships with Māori. The findings from this engagement (refer Attachment C) have shaped a commitment in the draft policy to partner in ways that align with the Treaty Principles, and acknowledge the distinct characteristics of marae.

6. The draft policy was endorsed by the Environment and Community Committee in June 2018 for public consultation and formal engagement with local boards. The consultation activities carried out and the community feedback received are summarised in Attachment D. Public feedback was highly supportive of the draft policy overall.

7. Staff attended local board workshops on the draft policy during July and August. This report invites local boards to formally indicate their support for the proposed approach, and/or provide any additional feedback on the policy they would like the committee to consider.

8. A summary of all feedback and a final policy will be tabled for consideration and adoption by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2018.

9. Implementation of the new approach is expected to begin during the 2019/20 financial year.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) support the adoption of the Draft Facility Partnerships Policy and provide any additional feedback on the proposed approach for the Environment and Community Committee’s consideration.

Horopaki / Context

10. Auckland Council is a major provider of community, arts and sports facilities, but not the only provider. A ‘facility partnership’ is where the council invests in a community facility alongside others. Done well, partnerships can enable and empower communities, and help the council to provide more of the quality facilities Auckland needs, faster and more cost-effectively.

11. There are already around 300 of these arrangements in Auckland, and the council has signalled more facility needs will be met through partnerships in future. There is currently no regional policy to guide the selection and support of facility partnerships.

12. In 2016, a cross-council team began work on a new regional policy. The team met with a number of partners and experts to understand existing practice and how policy could improve decision-making in the partnering experience.

13. Findings from discovery work were shared in December 2016 at walk-throughs with elected members, staff and participating partners, and reported to the Environment and Community committee in February 2017 (resolution number ENV/2017/9).

14. A new approach was developed and tested at walk-throughs in February 2018. The committee endorsed the draft policy for public consultation and formal engagement with local boards in June 2018 (resolution number ENV/2018/74).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Facility partnerships benefit the council and the community

15. Auckland Council supports facility partnerships because they can:

· leverage external investment and community effort

· empower communities, and help us respond to Auckland’s increasing diversity

· optimise the existing facility network and reduce the need for new facilities.

Facility partnership selection and management is ad-hoc and inconsistent

16. Discovery work in 2016 and into 2017 identified a range of issues that are preventing the council from realising the full potential of facility partnerships.

17. Currently, facility partnership decisions are made on an ad-hoc basis. Often the lifetime costs and benefits of the partnership have not been fully considered, or how these relate to network gaps and evolving community needs.

18. Investment opportunities and selection decisions lack transparency, and our management processes tend to be uncoordinated and inconsistent. Many partners report that they feel under-prepared and insufficiently supported by council to deliver successfully.

Proposed policy provides strategic approach with tailored process

19. Staff have developed a new policy (refer Attachment B) to respond directly to these findings.

20. This will enable the council and partners to make more informed and strategic investment decisions. Advice will be based on clearer evidence of need and impact and comprehensive costings and will emphasise viability and sustainability.

21. The new approach introduces a more transparent and contestable selection process. Requirements will be tailored to reflect the scale, complexity and risk of each proposal. The policy recognises the importance of quality relationships, and the need to better coordinate staff expertise and support to improve partners’ experience and build capability.

22. The draft policy proposes:

· a focus on shared outcomes

· partnerships that recognise, value and honour Te Ao Māori

· multiple partnership models, with fit-for-purpose arrangements

· ‘Proactive’ and ‘Responsive’ partnership tracks

· principles to shape eligibility and investment priorities

· valuing (and costing) in-kind support

· a stronger focus on the partnership relationship

· greater acknowledgement of the complexity of developing/managing assets.

23. A summary of key policy positions relating to these themes is provided as Attachment A.

Public engagement held during July and August 2018

24. Staff undertook public consultation and briefed interested advisory panels between June and August 2018. Public consultation activities included six drop-in consultation events across Auckland, and online submissions via the council’s ‘Have Your Say’ website.

25. Public feedback was highly supportive of the draft policy overall. Those providing feedback generally saw the value of having a policy for this activity, and were positive about its intent. Responses to questions about specific aspects of the policy were also strongly affirmative.

Public feedback shows strong support for new approach

26. Key themes that emerged from the public consultation are:

· Most respondents agree the new approach will better enable council to invest in the right facility partnerships, and ensure that partnerships work for both partners and council.

· The investment principles, the proposal to enable appropriate commercial activities in facilities, and the establishment of Lead Relationship Brokers were all positively received by the majority of respondents.

· The ‘Track, Type and Scale’ model was also welcomed for encompassing a wide range of facility partnerships, and the intention to ensure requirements are proportionate.

· Respondents hope the new approach will make it easier for partners to navigate the multiple council systems and processes involved, and get good support from staff.

· Using the Treaty principles to guide partnerships with Māori was welcomed by most, but this was acknowledged as a complex area.

· Respondents appreciated a more visually appealing document that is easier to navigate.

Most public concerns relate to application of policy

27. Concerns identified included:

· how the investment principles will be applied in practice, especially where they must be ‘traded off’ against each other

· whether some communities will be unfairly advantaged by the new approach

· whether the higher level of staff support will be properly resourced, and implemented as intended across all parts of council

· whether the process is flexible enough to respond to the ‘messy reality’ of partnerships.

28. A full summary of the public consultation activities to date and a more in-depth description of key feedback themes is provided as Attachment D for local board consideration.

29. Key national and regional stakeholders will also be briefed prior to the draft being finalised.

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

30. Local boards have a strong interest in facility partnerships and some decision-making responsibility in this area, including:

· determining local outcomes and advocating for local investment priorities

· governing local and sub-regional facility partnership relationships and agreements

· allocating local discretionary funding and community leases of council property.

31. Staff have engaged with local boards informally at various stages throughout the discovery work and subsequent policy development. Local board member views and concerns have helped shape the draft policy.

32. During July and August 2018, local boards were offered a workshop to hear an overview of the proposed policy approach and seek clarification on any areas of local interest or concern. Eighteen local boards requested a workshop.

Formal local board feedback sought September and October 2018

33. Community feedback has now been summarised for local boards’ consideration. Staff are seeking to understand local boards’ views on the new approach, and requesting a formal indication of support at local board business meetings during September and October 2018.

34. Staff would particularly value local board feedback on the following parts of the draft policy (refer Attachment B), which are likely to have the most bearing on local board decision-making:

· the Tracks, Types and Scales model (p.16-23) to differentiate partnerships and customise the partnership process

· the draft investment principles (p.26) and priorities (p.33)

· proposed eligibility criteria for investment (p.27-30)

· the proposal to allow facility partnerships to generate revenue through appropriate commercial activities (p.31)

· the focus on quality relationships, as outlined in the proposed partnering principles (p.35) and supported by allocation of a lead relationship broker (p.38).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

35. Marae are a focal point for Māori social, economic, environmental and cultural development, and are identified in the Community Facilities Network Plan as potential facility partners.

Engagement to better understand facility partnerships and Te Ao Māori

36. In 2017, staff undertook additional engagement with Māori, with a focus on marae, to ensure that the new policy incorporates any special context, barriers or opportunities for facility partnerships with Māori. A summary of the findings is provided as Attachment C.

37. The draft policy reflects these findings and commits the council to partnering with Māori in ways which align with the Treaty Principles and reflect the distinct characteristics of marae.

38. The draft policy approach and the findings report will be shared at hui with interested marae during September, as part of initial discussions on a new Marae Investment Policy.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

39. The Facility Partnerships Policy is not supported by a dedicated budget. Future investment in facility partnerships will be provided through existing budgets for facility development and operation, allocated through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and Annual Plan. Local boards may also award grants and community leases of council property to support facility partnerships.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

Risk	Mitigation
Adoption of a new policy may create expectations that there will be additional budget to support facility partnerships.	All public-facing communications and guidance about the new policy will reference the funding available from existing regional and local budgets and how this will be allocated.
Existing facility partners may be concerned that the new policy will impact arrangements already in place, or ongoing council investment.	The new policy will guide decisions on new facility partnerships only, unless an existing partnership is already scheduled for review, and guidance will clearly state this. Where existing partnerships are to be reviewed, staff will ensure partners are adequately supported to prepare.
The transition to the new policy approach will be operationally complex. It impacts multiple teams across the council, and new business processes, guidance and forms will need to be designed to support it.	Detailed implementation planning will be required to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible. Phased implementation over the first financial year (2019/20) may be necessary to achieve this.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

40. A summary of all feedback and a final policy will be tabled for consideration and adoption by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2018.

41. Implementation of the new approach is expected to begin during the 2019/20 financial year.

Approved by Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy and Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Facility Partnerships Policy - summary of key policy positions	187
b ⇩	Draft Facility Partnerships Policy	189
c ⇩	Facility partnerships with Māori - Summary report	233
d ⇩	Draft Facility Partnerships Policy - Public feedback summary report	259

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Rebekah Forman - Principal Policy Analyst
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

ATEED's six monthly report for 1 January to 30 June 2018

File No.: CP2018/19871

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To inform the Local Board of Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited (ATEED) activities at a regional, and where possible, a local level.

2. For the Local Board to receive the six-monthly report (Attachment A) from ATEED on their activities in the local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

3. ATEED reports to local boards every six months to provide them with an update of their activities.

4. Work undertaken by ATEED in the Waitākere Ranges area includes:

· LDI activities, such as the implementation of the Glen Eden prospectus.

· Business capability building and support for new businesses.

· Film permitting in the Local Board area.

· Tourism-relating activity.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive the six-monthly report (Attachment A) from Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development for 1 January to 30 June 2018.

Horopaki / Context

5. ATEED helps lay a strong foundation for Auckland’s economic growth through a broad programme of initiatives focused on:

· Business growth and innovation

· Business attraction and investment

· Conferences and business events

· Major events

· Film

· International education

· Tourism.

6. ATEED’s work can impact and provide opportunities locally as well as regionally. For this reason they have committed to reporting to local boards every six months.

7. The report attached reflects this commitment and covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

The ATEED activities carried out in the local board area are outlined in the below table.

Table 1: Local ATEED activities

Activity	ATEED team responsible
LDI activities, such as the implementation of the Glen Eden prospectus	Economic Development
Business capability building and support for new businesses	Economic Development
Film permitting in the Local Board area	Economic Development
Tourism-related activity	Destination

8. As part of business-as-usual, destinations in the local board area continue to feature in the official Auckland visitor information website administered by ATEED.

9. Should a local board choose to allocate some of their locally-driven initiatives (LDI) fund to economic development activities, ATEED’s dedicated Local Economic Development team can manage the delivery of a work programme for them.

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

10. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no local impact, however some of the activities described in the report do. Details of this are outlined in the six-monthly report as Attachment A.

11. Local board views were not sought for the purposes of this report. Local board views were sought for some of the initiatives described in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

12. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no impact on Māori. ATEED assesses and responds to any impact their initiatives may have on Māori on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

13. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

14. The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no risk. ATEED assesses and manages any risk associated with their initiatives on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

15. The next ATEED six-monthly report will be presented to the local board in early 2019 and will cover the period 1 July to 31 December 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	ATEED's six-monthly report for 1 January to 30 June 2018	273

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Samantha-Jane Miranda, Operational Strategy Advisor (ATEED)

Chris Lock, Senior Strategic Advisor - Local Boards (ATEED)

Authorisers

James Robinson, Head of Strategy and Planning (ATEED)

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 October 2018

Board Member report - Steve Tollestrup

File No.: CP2018/20001

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To update the Waitākere Ranges Local Board members on projects, activities and issues.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Board members are responsible for leading policy development in their areas of interest, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3. Member S Tellestrup is the lead for Economic and Community Development.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) receive member S Tollenstrup’s October 2018 report.

Horopaki / Context

Local Government NZ Conference

1. I attended as the representative for the Waitākere Ranges Local Board the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference that this year was held in Christchurch and brought together over 600 delegates.

2. The conference focused on a number of specific concerns and themes. First is the need for more eﬀective funding and ﬁnancing tools for infrastructure. This was a key and consistent message from councils throughout the country and was been marked as a priority work stream. Support for housing infrastructure is a particularly salient example. Another was water management particularly the current discussions around the ‘three waters’ initiative: drinking water, storm water and wastewater (three waters) to better support New Zealand's supply, public health and environment. While LGNZ supports improved infrastructure for water, there is some concern from delegates about a one size fits all approach. This will require close partnership with central government, councils and communities recognising unique regional needs.

3. Second, was the topic of ‘Localism’. Local Government New Zealand is calling for a shift in the way public decisions are made in New Zealand by seeking a commitment to the concept of localism. Instead of relying on central government to decide what is good for our communities, it is time to empower councils and communities themselves to make such decisions.

4. LGNZ is advocating for an active programme of devolution and decentralisation so that both local and central government contributes equally to the governance of New Zealand in an integrated way according to their unique strengths and competence. The need to properly empower councils was reinforced by pointing to supporting evidence that decentralised countries tend to have higher levels of prosperity than centralised ones, e.g. Denmark, Germany, and Finland.

5. Climate change and resilience was of interest to me as our Local Board area, the west as well as the wider region, have experienced its negative impact on our communities and local economies. I’m thinking particularly of Piha, Huia and Te Henga. Climate change was given a key note address by Minister James Shaw of the Green Party.

6. Of most interest to me, was the half day working group. The working group allowed for discussion across councils on various impacts, possible responses and community responsiveness and resilience through future planning and some infrastructure local government and community partnerships and education. A document was prepared for review by LGNZ as an advocacy platform. See also http://www.lgnz.co.nz/climate-change-project/supporting-documents/lgnz-climate-change-symposium-2018/.

Piha emergency response planning

7. Working over winter with member Sandra Coney, staff from both Auckland Emergency Management (AEM) and the local board office, we have had a close partnership with the Piha community developing a locally led disaster response plan. The plan brings together first responders and key local leaders, identifies communication channels and assesses available emergency assets to produce response plans for fire, flooding, storm damage or other probable disasters. Other groups in our local board area are doing similar planning in Henderson Valley, Te Henga and Laingholm. I’m presently also supporting Henderson Valley in their planning development.

8. Best practice has AEM as a coordinator of regional emergency services but avoids overarching control recognising local community knowledge has greater depth and insight so works in partnership with community to support resilience and response.

Glenesk Rd Flood events

9. Two major flooding events in the Glenesk Valley catchment have occurred and a report prepared by Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters outlining the risks to persons and property, predictions of future storm frequency as well as suggested options for mitigation. In response, the local board has been working with Healthy Waters, AEM, Regional Parks, Panuku and Community Facilities to support residents and users of facilities in the flood plain. Local board members, including myself and Sandra Coney, have joined AEM in house to house survey and needs assessment with residents.

10. It should be noted that the Healthy Waters report is provisional and further work with assessment of individual properties and facilities are on-going.

11. I attended the recent meeting between facility operators in the identified flood plain and representatives from council who provided an opportunity for those users to ask questions, seek clarification and get some indication of the progress on future flood assessment. Because of the severe risk factors and the resulting issues of liability in major flooding events. the impact on the council facility users is of concern and should not be minimised.

Place-making Week Tamaki Makaurau 12-19 October

12. Place-making Week is a weeklong global gathering of place-makers with hands-on learning and innovative training events. Embracing a wide variety of sectors and disciplines, the Place-making week creates a dynamic forum for attendees to develop and share concrete strategies to advance place-making both locally and globally. Auckland Council participated in this year’s Place-making Week joining in with other global cities. Kura Kāwana, the Elected Member Development Programme in partnership with Panuku, initiated the week by providing a full day workshop on place-making theory and tools for local engagement.

13. Training was facilitated by Lucy Tukua bringing a tangata whenua perspective on place-making, Ethan Kent from New York’s Project for Public Spaces, Neil McInroy from Manchester Centre for Local Economic Strategies and Denise Bijoux of Catalyst community development in Auckland.

14. The workshop had a practical and applied nature with those attending investigating sites in the down town using an analytical tool developed by the Project for Public Spaces. The workshop also referenced Auckland Council’s ‘Communities Shaping their Places’ best practice workbook of which I was part of the writing and producing during last term.

15. A further event held mid-week at a local social enterprise ‘Crave Café’ in Morningside had participants from civic, private and not for profit sectors engaging in wide ranging discussions around urbanisation and place-making. Crave is an excellent example of a group from the community establishing a local hub as a social enterprise and animating a neglected industrial precinct.

16. The emphasis of the week has been on community led place-making rather than the usual developer led place-making, we so often think about. The theme running throughout was the democratising of space that is people and community shaped and importantly, activated and enjoyed. These values should be at the centre of any place-making in Glen Eden, Swanson or any of our other towns and villages out west.

Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group (“ANCCG”)

17. This committee, of which I am a representative, is concerned with complaints and incidents of aircraft noise, most of which come from South Auckland and the eastern suburbs. However, increased air traffic from the west and particularly evening flights from Australia as well as international flights have given rise to complaints over our local board boundary. Aeropath, the agency within Airways which designs flight paths, has agreed to attend the next ANCCG meeting on 4 December, to discuss how flight paths are designed and what factors are taken into account and any options for redirecting. I do advocate for our community for reduced aircraft noise pointing out that such noise pollution is contrary to the WRHAA.

Glen Eden Business Association

18. I took part in the Glen Eden Business Association Annual General Meeting. The association is an Auckland Business Improvement District (BID) member. It is good to report that a year on from their expansion ,which grew the BID by more than double, to hear news of their on-going growth and development. No doubt, with the completion of the new major housing development next July, businesses within the BID boundary should enjoy some significant growth.

19. During the year reported on by the Association, the local board has provided a central business office, as well as continued funding of research and development, to enhance and activate the Glen Eden retail and business precinct.

20. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board and Glen Eden Business Association have conducted research among users of the Glen Eden town centre (visitors/customers/shoppers) to obtain a richer understanding of the customer profile, perceptions of current facilities and amenities, retail mix, and ideas for how the centre may be improved. This research will provide input into the Glen Eden BID’s delivery of its strategy to promote and market the town centre, encourage a more attractive retail mix that can support economic growth in Glen Eden and to help develop a vibrant town centre.

21. The report is now complete and compliments the business prospectus prepared last year to attract new and more diverse business to the town centre.

ATEED local Tourism and Waitakere experience group

22. I met with the Waitakere Experience, a working group representative of tourism operators in the West and the Heritage area. All of those attending had either been forced to suspend their business operations or severely curtail them due to the restrictions of Rahui currently in place and regional park closures. For the most part, these are small businesses, often family run, concerned with sightseeing, wilderness experience, accommodation or local food outlets. They are a group with a strong local connection and realistic response to the need for closure.

23. Following this meeting, I arranged to meet with Steve Armitage, General Manager for Destination Auckland (ATEED), to advocate for the support of these businesses through ATEED using and redirecting their services to wider regional opportunities as well as the use of ATEED business mentors.

Tula’i Graduation

24. I attended the Tula’i Pacific Youth leadership graduation evening. This event is always on my calendar and it is wonderful to watch these young west Auckland Pasifika leaders, both men and women, take to the stage. Auckland is a Pacific capitol and our growing number of Pasifika peoples looks to these young leaders for the future. This year’s graduation was highlighted by Pasifika cultural items from all the various island groups represented and for the first time Papua New Guinea. Tula’i means be strong and upright. The local board has been a Tula’i funder for a number of years and a supporter of the great work they do.

Arts

25. I met with Andrew Clifford, the gallery director for Te Uru, who invited me to have some time to review and provide suggestions for their proposed strategic plan The gallery is going from strength to strength and is a feature of the west and particularly, our local board area that we can all take pride in. My suggestions to the new plan are concerned to ensure the gallery continues to exhibit and promote our own creative and talented local artist alongside other nationally recognised and international artists exhibiting.

26. I also opened the Titirangi Painters exhibit with its array of talent and themes from its members as well as representing the Local Board at the Greater Auckland Art Awards & Exhibition 2018 held at Corban Estate.

Miscellaneous

27. Over the period reported I attended the Annual General Meetings of the Waitakere and Henderson Valley resident’s associations taking the opportunity to speak at both and provide an overview of Local Board engagement and work in their particular area.

28. As a naturalised New Zealander, citizenship ceremonies are always a great privilege for me to participate in and throughout the period reported on. I have attended 4 of these events. Working for nearly twenty years in international humanitarian assistance and development, I have a good understanding of the circumstances these new citizens have left. I always find these ceremonies deeply heartfelt and moving.

29. Haere mai – you offer us so much.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors	Brenda Railey - Democracy Advisor - Waitakere Ranges
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

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