Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i. a financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member

ii. a non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 21 February 2019, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour 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.”

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board open unconfirmed minutes - 21 February 2019	9
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board minutes attachments - 21 February 2019	17

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020

File No.: CP2019/01926

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

3. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year.

4. This report presents the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 for adoption (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopt the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020, as presented in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy guides the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grant programmes to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt their own local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board community grants programme guides community groups and individuals when making applications to the local board.

7. The local board community grants programme includes:

· outcomes as identified in the local board plan

· specific local board grant priorities

· which grant types will operate, the number of grant rounds and opening and closing dates

· any additional criteria or exclusions that will apply

· other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

8. Once the local board community grants programme 2019/2020 has been adopted, the types of grants, grant rounds, criteria and eligibility with be advertised through an integrated communication and marketing approach, which includes utilising the local board channels.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

9. The aim of the local board community grants programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. The new Upper Harbour Community Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2019/2020.

10. The new community grants programme includes grant round dates which exclude decision dates coinciding with the local government elections in October 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

11. The community grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations; therefore, their views are not required.

12. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant department will provide input and advice. The main focus of an application is identified as arts, community, events, sport and recreation, environment or heritage.

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

Local impacts and local board views

13. The community grants programme has been developed by the local board to set the direction of their grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

14. All community grants programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. During the application process, applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

15. The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

17. An implementation plan is underway, and the local board community grants programme will be locally advertised through the local board and council channels, including the council website, local board Facebook page and communication with past recipients of grants.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020	35

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Grant Operations Manager

Authorisers

Shane King - Head of Operations Support

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

Proposed kauri dieback mitigation in local parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

File No.: CP2019/02494

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse high-level kauri protection actions for local parks and reserves within the Upper Harbour Local Board area, ahead of the development of a detailed kauri dieback mitigation programme in mid-2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To prevent the spread of kauri dieback and protect healthy kauri, staff have analysed all local parks and reserves in the Auckland region and developed recommended high-level mitigation measures for each park.

3. This interim report provides the results of the prioritisation of local parks and reserves in the Upper Harbour Local Board area. The report also seeks endorsement of the recommended high-level kauri protection actions prior to the development of a detailed programme of works.

4. A detailed kauri dieback mitigation programme will be presented to the board for approval at a mid-2019 business meeting. The report will identify specific works for each park and the associated implementation costs and timeframes.

5. There are approximately 350 local parks throughout the Auckland region that contain kauri. Protection of healthy kauri is the primary objective of council’s kauri dieback management approach.

6. Following the introduction of the natural environment targeted rate, additional funding is available to support the management of kauri dieback in the Auckland region. This funding is prioritised to support the protection of high value (Category A) kauri ecosystems and minimise the risk of spreading kauri dieback.

7. In the Upper Harbour Local Board area there are 30 local parks or reserves that contain kauri ecosystems. All of these parks have been analysed and allocated to one of four kauri dieback management categories, as summarised in this report.

8. Four parks in the local board area are classified as Category A; these are Gills Reserve, Kereru Reserve, Paremoremo Scenic Reserve, and Three Streams Reserve. These parks are of high recreational value and contain a high value kauri ecosystem. Investment will be required to ensure that healthy kauri are protected and any diseased kauri are contained and do not become a source of infection.

9. Recommended mitigation measures are high-level and focus on asset solutions, which could include track upgrades, re-alignment or re-routing of tracks, installation of boardwalks, and installation of hygiene stations. Non-asset solutions such as awareness-raising and education will also be undertaken.

10. A list of all the local parks in the local board area that contain kauri, and recommended high-level kauri dieback mitigation measures is appended to this report as Attachment A. Copies of the recreational assessments for selected Category A parks have been appended to this report as Attachment B.

11. Further investigations are required to determine the exact nature of the necessary kauri protection works for each park in the local board area, as well as the costs and achievable timelines. These investigations will be completed in April 2019 and the results presented to the board as part of the detailed kauri dieback mitigation programme at a mid-2019 business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) endorse the following high-level kauri protection measures for local parks and reserves:

i. undertake detailed investigations to determine appropriate mitigation measures (such as track upgrades, track re-alignment, track re-routing, or other physical works), and consider temporary closure until mitigation works are completed to protect symptom-free high-value kauri ecosystems in the following Category A parks:

· Gills Reserve

· Kereru Reserve.

ii. undertake detailed investigations to determine appropriate mitigation measures (such as track upgrades, track re-alignment, track re-routing, or other physical works), and consider temporary closure until mitigation works are completed to prevent potentially infected kauri ecosystems in the following Category A parks from becoming a source of infection:

· Paremoremo Scenic Reserve

· Three Streams Reserve.

iii. discourage public access through barrier planting and signage in the Category B park, being Albany Heights West Reserve.

iv. note that Category B parks Dene Court Reserve and Redfern Nature Reserve are closed to the public.

v. note that the Category D parks are considered to be low-value kauri ecosystems with low-value recreational use, thus making them a lower priority for mitigation investment at this stage.

b) note that a detailed kauri dieback mitigation programme with costs and timelines will be developed and submitted to a local board business meeting in mid-2019 for approval.

Horopaki

Context

Natural environment targeted rate funding to support the management of kauri dieback in local parks

12. In June 2018, the Governing Body adopted Auckland Council’s 10-year budget for the period 2018-2028. This included a natural environment targeted rate which will provide $311 million of additional investment towards environmental outcomes over the next decade (resolution number GB/2018/91).

13. Funding has been identified within the plant pathogen workstream of the natural environment targeted rate programme to support the management of kauri dieback. Along with existing local board renewals budgets, this funding will support the provision of physical works such as upgrades of tracks in parks with high-value kauri across the local parks and reserves network.

14. Funding from the natural environment targeted rate will be integrated with existing renewals budgets where available. This funding will be focused on tracks, or sections of tracks, where kauri are located within 30 metres of the track, and where the park has been identified as high priority (Category A) in accordance with the categorisation process detailed in the analysis and advice section of this report.

Overview of the kauri dieback mitigation programme

15. There are approximately 350 local parks throughout the Auckland region that contain kauri. The funding available from the natural environment targeted rate will not be able to provide for the protection of all kauri in the region.

16. To manage investment across the region, a risk-based prioritisation approach has been applied. Local parks have been analysed in terms of kauri ecosystem value, recreational value and kauri health status, noting that the council’s primary objective is the protection of healthy kauri.

17. This report focuses on the results of the prioritisation of local parks and reserves and the high-level kauri protection measures recommended for each prioritisation category.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Establishing kauri dieback management prioritisation categories for local parks

18. There are 30 local parks and reserves within the Upper Harbour Local Board area that contain kauri.

19. Each park was assessed and prioritised on the following basis:

· the value of the kauri ecosystem, which was classified as high, medium or low. A kauri ecosystem value was assigned by council ecologists based on the work undertaken by Singers et al (2017): Indigenous terrestrial and wetland ecosystems of Auckland

· the health status of the kauri, which was noted as infected, possibly infected or symptom-free. This information was sourced from the council’s active surveillance programme, which includes soil sampling

· the recreational value of the park, which was identified as high, medium or low. Staff analysed key recreational activities such as recreational trails, active transport, visitor destinations, volunteer activity and sports and recreation use. Reviews of reserve management plans (if applicable) and any other relevant strategic documents were undertaken.

20. Each local park has been assigned to one of four kauri dieback management prioritisation categories, as illustrated below:

21. Recreational assessments for Category A parks in the local board area have been appended to this report as Attachment B. These assessments have also identified mana whenua and key stakeholders with interest in the parks. For high and medium recreational value sites, the assessments also describe service outcomes. Examples of service outcomes include connections, access to existing leased areas and facilities, and any planned development.

Identifying high-level kauri dieback mitigation measures for local parks and reserves

22. In the context of kauri dieback mitigation, kauri-safe means that a track has a dry, mud-free surface 100m along the track before and after the location of kauri or kauri roots. This can be achieved in a variety of ways including boardwalks, box steps, applying soil confinement membranes and providing aggregate cover.

23. All 30 of the local parks that contain kauri within the local board area have been analysed and allocated to one of four kauri dieback management categories, as summarised in the following table:

Category	Kauri ecosystem value	Park recreational value	Number of parks	Proposed mitigation measures
A	High to medium	High to medium	4	Upgrade or re-align tracks or track sections where needed or undertake other works to protect kauri. Temporary closure may be required until works are completed.
B	High to medium	Low	3	Indefinite closure of tracks.
C	Low	High to medium	0	Install hygiene stations at strategic locations if needed.
D	Low	Low	23	No mitigation measures.

24. Further investigations are required to determine the exact nature of the works recommended, their costs and feasible timelines for delivery. Investigations will be undertaken by a team of asset management experts and biosecurity staff.

25. Category A parks are those with high to medium kauri ecosystem value and high to medium recreational value. Selected tracks in these parks will be upgraded and/or provided with asset solutions that meet recreational outcomes and are kauri-safe. Category A parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are:

· Gills Reserve

· Kereru Reserve

· Paremoremo Scenic Reserve (infected kauri)

· Three Streams Reserve (kauri has been identified as possibly infected).

26. To protect healthy kauri and help prevent Paremoremo Scenic Reserve and Three Streams Reserve from becoming sources of infection, recommended actions for Category A parks may include temporary closure until mitigation works are completed.

27. Investigations began in February 2019 and will be completed by April 2019. Findings will inform the development of a detailed kauri dieback mitigation programme which will be submitted to a local board business meeting in mid-2019 for consideration and approval.

28. Category B parks are those with high or medium kauri ecosystem value and low recreational value. Tracks in these parks will be recommended for indefinite closure. Category B parks in the local board area are:

· Albany Heights West Reserve

· Dene Court Reserve (closed to the public)

· Redfern Nature Reserve (closed to the public).

29. Category C parks contain low value kauri ecosystems with high recreation values. There are no Category C parks in the local board area.

30. Category D parks contain low value kauri ecosystems with low recreation values. No action will be recommended for these parks.

31. A list of all the local parks in the local board area that contain kauri and recommended high-level kauri dieback mitigation measures is appended to this report as Attachment A.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. The recommendations in this report have been developed through collaboration between council’s Environmental Services department, Parks, Sports and Recreation department and Community Facilities department.

33. Representatives from these key departments are working as part of a dedicated and ongoing project team to ensure that all aspects of the kauri dieback mitigation programme are undertaken in an integrated manner.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. In September 2018, a workshop was held with the local board on the natural environment targeted rate work programme and included discussion on kauri dieback management. The board were supportive of protecting kauri and preventing the spread of kauri dieback disease within their local board area.

35. Closing tracks in parks or reserves will have an impact on recreational activities available to communities in the local board area. Recreational assessments were undertaken to help determine the recreational value of each local park. Along with kauri ecosystem value and health status, park recreational values form the basis of the categorisation process used to determine suitable kauri dieback mitigation measures.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. Kauri is a keystone species that supports a distinct New Zealand forest ecosystem, sustaining indigenous flora and fauna. Kauri is a taonga species. Auckland Council, in partnership with mana whenua, have a responsibility for the protection of the spiritual, economic and ecological values associated with this taonga and the ecosystems it supports.

37. Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua kaitiaki kaimahi representatives have stressed the importance of the kauri species and expressed a desire to work more closely with the council and the Department of Conservation. Staff will work with mana whenua on the approach to kauri dieback on a site-by-site basis, where appropriate.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. In May 2018, the Governing Body approved a natural environment targeted rate to support environmental initiatives, including addressing kauri dieback. The rate will raise $311 million over the duration of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (resolution number GB/2018/91).

39. The costs of the mitigation measures proposed in this report will be supported by the natural environment targeted rate. Where track works are already programmed in the renewals budget, additional works required to protect kauri, such as removing muddy sections of track where kauri are at risk, will be funded by the natural environment targeted rate.

40. Detailed design work will be undertaken as part of the kauri dieback mitigation programme development for the local board area. This work will identify the level of funding required and clarify funding sources for the recommended works.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

41. Closing tracks in parks and reserves, whether temporary (until upgrade works are completed) or indefinitely (where upgrade works are not recommended) will have an impact on the recreational activities available in the local board area. This may result in additional recreational pressure on other parks and reserves.

42. To mitigate this risk, information will be provided to the public about alternative recreational activities. As part of the kauri dieback education campaign, the public will be provided with information about the reasons for the closures and the objectives of the kauri dieback mitigation programme.

43. There is also a risk of non-compliance, where mitigation measures are disregarded by the public, particularly with respect to track closures (where tracks continue to be used despite closure notices) and hygiene stations (where hygiene stations are not used, or not used correctly).

44. Risk mitigation includes the provision of appropriate information and effective implementation of track closures, including signage, physical barriers and other site-specific measures such as barrier planting.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Following the local board’s decision on the recommendations provided in this report, staff will develop a kauri dieback mitigation programme for each park in the local board area. The recommended mitigation measures will include an indicative cost and delivery timeframe.

46. A report detailing the recommended kauri dieback mitigation measures for local parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area will be submitted to the board for decision at a mid-2019 business meeting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	List of local parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and recommended high-level kauri dieback mitigation measures	47
b ⇩	Recreational assessments of selected Category A parks in the Upper Harbour Local Board area	49

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phil Brown – Biosecurity Manager

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

Allocation of funding to Citizens Advice Bureaux

File No.: CP2019/03509

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek local board feedback on the proposed new model for allocating funding to Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB), and on increasing the baseline grant to Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) by $200,000 in 2019-2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. There are 32 CAB sites in the Auckland region, which are operated by 11 separate CAB organisations. Bureaux staff and volunteers offer free information, advice, referral and client advisory service to local communities.

3. Local boards hold relationships with their local bureaux, which report on service usage and other matters of interest to the community.

4. In 2018/2019 council granted $2.067 million to ACABx, which was conditional on staff and ACABx jointly developing a new funding model to be agreed by 1 April 2019.

5. The new model developed with ACABx is population-based with a deprivation factor to reflect communities with high needs and access constraints.

6. Feedback is sought from the local board on the new funding model and the retention of the additional $200,000 to baseline funding of $1.867 million provided to ACABx in 2018/2019.

7. Local board feedback will be included in the report to the Environment and Community Committee in May 2019 to approve a new funding model for CAB.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) consider feedback on the new model for allocating funding to Citizens Advice Bureaux (based on 90 per cent population and 10 per cent deprivation), and on increasing the baseline grant to Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated by $200,000 in 2019-2021 (refer to Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

8. Auckland Citizens Advice Bureau Incorporated (ACABx) was established in 2012 to provide a support structure for funding from council and other bodies, as well as the development of a strategic direction for the service in the Auckland region.

9. Currently there are 32 Auckland CAB sites in 18 local board areas (refer Attachment B). There are no sites in Franklin, Great Barrier and Upper Harbour.

10. Auckland bureaux are members of ACABx and Citizens Advice Bureau New Zealand (CABNZ). The role of CABNZ is to support membership standards and influence development of social policies and services at a national level.

11. In 2018, a joint working group of council staff and ACABx was established to develop a new funding model for Auckland bureaux.

Auckland Council funding of CAB

12. In 2018/2019, council granted $1.867 million to ACABx, which distributes funding to bureaux to provide services across Auckland.

13. Through council’s 10-year Budget 2018-2028, an additional one-off grant of $200,000 was approved to maintain and develop the service in the 2018-2019 financial year (resolution number GB/2018/91). The ACABx board have distributed $90,300 of this grant to bureaux facing financial pressure (Helensville, CAB Auckland City, Māngere). The remaining funds will be used to test new ways of delivering the service and develop a regional network provision plan.

14. Council provides accommodation for bureaux at minimal cost under community lease arrangements, which is equivalent to a $641,000 subsidy per annum. In addition to the funding through ACABx, some local boards also provide grants to bureaux for specific purposes.

15. The Environment and Community Committee set four conditions for the 2018/2019 operational grant, as shown in Table 1 below: (resolution number ENV/2018/48)

Table 1: Funding conditions 2018/2019

Funding condition	Progress to date
A joint review between Auckland Council and ACABx of the funding model	· Joint working group established · Considered what to include in the funding model · Agreed a new funding model and transitional arrangements
Updated Strategic Relationship Agreement to include the development of a regional network provision plan	· Revised Strategic Relationship Agreement signed between Auckland Council and ACABx with scoping and timeline for regional network provision planning to be agreed by June 2019
Improved reporting and access to consistent data on the service provided at regional and site level	· Council, CABNZ and ACABx jointly developed new report templates for bureaux to provide data and commentary on their activities · CABNZ is currently rolling out an improved database and data collection system (CABNET) which will impact the Q3/Q4 reports for 2018/2019
Strengthened and more strategic relationships between local boards and bureaux	· The revised Strategic Relationship Agreement sets out guidance on the relationship between local boards and bureaux

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Current funding model

16. The current model allocates the funding received by ACABx to sub-regional clusters of bureaux based on 2013 census population data.

17. The current funding model was implemented by ACABx with support from council as an interim approach to transition from legacy council funding to regional funding.

Council staff model

18. In April 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

‘seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland.’ (resolution number REG/2016/22)

19. A review of CAB services was undertaken, and council staff developed a revised funding allocation model using 70 per cent population, 25 per cent client usage, and 5 per cent deprivation. This model responded to the review findings and focused on funding to achieve greater equity and fairness.

20. This model was not supported by ACABx who strongly objected to the introduction of client usage as a funding factor.

New model from joint working group

21. The joint working group have developed a new funding model for bureaux using:

· 90 per cent population, using annual Statistics New Zealand population estimates

· 10 per cent deprivation to increase the capacity of bureaux to meet the complex needs of communities with higher levels of deprivation. This will support the development of new service approaches to increase the access to CAB services within these communities.

22. ACABx advise that this model will be difficult to implement at the current funding level as funding will be reduced to bureaux in the north, central and Ōtara. Some bureaux are experiencing financial pressure and any decline in funding would lead to a significant reduction in services.

23. If the annual grant of $1.867 million is increased by $200,000 per annum, ACABx have indicated that the new funding model could be implemented without service reductions if bureaux continue to receive funding at the 2018-2019 level at a minimum. The additional funding request for the $200,000, is now part of the budget refresh process and includes Executive Leadership Team and Governing Body decisions regarding approval for this funding. To further moderate the redistribution impacts of the new funding model at a bureau level, population-based increases in funding would be capped at 10 per cent for 2019-2021.

24. The application of the new funding model is shown in Table 2 below:

Table 2: New funding model allocations

Bureau	2018/2019 Actual	New model (current funding)	New model (plus $200,000)	Percentage difference between 2018/2019 Actual and New model plus $200,000
Helensville	$40,365	$36,872	$40,365	0
Hibiscus Coast	$51,712	$58,713	$58,920	14
Wellsford	$38,298	$36,770	$38,298	0
CAB North Shore (5 sites)	$309,030	$250,153	$309,030	0
WaiCAB (5 sites)	$298,746	$300,401	$344,999	15
CABAC (10 sites)	$499,901	$487,965	$553,597	11
Māngere (3 sites)	$169,849	$179,162	$190,494	12
Manurewa (2 sites)	$82,775	$114,454	$118.217	43
Ōtara	$86,927	$78,215	$86,927	0
Pakuranga (2 sites)	$98,662	$109,188	$109,262	11
Papakura	$86,471	$110,844	$112,628	30
Total	$1,762,737	$1,762,737	$1,962,737	11

Note: Based on 2018-2019 funding allocated. Excludes provision for premises lease payments to Auckland Council and ACABx fee (2 per cent)

25. The new funding model developed by the joint working group is the preferred model for implementation in 2019-2021. During this period, the regional network provision plan will be developed, and council’s level of investment can be confirmed and provided for as part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

26. The new model supports The Auckland Plan 2050 outcome, ‘Belonging and Participation’:

· Focus area two – Accessible services and social and cultural infrastructure that are responsive in meeting people's evolving needs

· Focus area six – Focusing the council’s investment to address disparities and serve communities of greatest need.

27. The criteria applied to assess the models were developed by the joint working group. Consideration is given to equity, responsiveness to population growth and community need. Under the Auckland Plan 2050, adopting an equitable approach means prioritising the most vulnerable groups and communities to achieve more equitable outcomes. An assessment of the funding allocation model is shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Funding model assessment

Criteria X does not meet ü partially meets üüfully meets	Current model	Council staff model	New model from joint working group (preferred model)
Equity	X	ü	üü
Population growth	X	üü	üü
Community need	X	üü	üü
Advantages	ACABx used the current funding model to transition to regional funding from legacy arrangements	Uses latest population estimates to reflect future growth Deprivation factor supports equity for populations with complex issues and access constraints Client usage as a proxy indicator of community need which takes into consideration that service users do not necessarily just access services in the area they live	More equitable across Auckland with population-based funding covering all the region except Great Barrier Island Uses latest population estimates to reflect future growth Targeted deprivation factor (NZDep2013, deciles 8-10) supports equity for populations with complex issues and access constraints Provides platform for Auckland Council and ACABx to work together to develop a regional network provision plan Supported by ACABx if additional funding is retained
Disadvantages	The legacy cluster funding arrangements do not provide for service development Relies on 2013 census data Does not target funding for populations with complex issues and access constraints	Not supported by ACABx because client usage data does not consider the range of complexity in interactions from simple information requests to lengthy interviews Redistribution of bureaux funding within current funding envelope could lead to service reduction unless alternative funding is sourced	Redistribution of bureaux funding within current funding envelope could lead to service reduction unless alternative funding is sourced

28. A comparative overview of the funding models is provided in Attachment C.

29. ACABx support the new model conditional on the retention of the additional 2018-2019 one‑off funding of $200,000 as part of the baseline operational grant. This increased funding level would ensure that no bureaux would lose funding when the model is implemented in 2019-2020. Increased funding enables the inclusion of the Franklin population in the new funding model.

30. ACABx has indicated that the funding for deprivation will be allocated to bureaux for initiatives to enhance access to services and to trial the development of new service models.

31. Staff support the new model as it starts to address equitable services across Auckland through population-based funding and targeted deprivation. The model provides a platform for future service growth and the development of a regional network provision plan for CAB services.

32. Staff support the addition of $200,000 to the ACABx baseline grant from 2019-2020 to implement the new model and extend service funding across the region. All bureaux will receive their current or increased level of funding if council increases baseline funding by $200,000.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33. Council staff from across the business work cooperatively on matters concerning CAB. Council departments and units that were consulted on the new model and involved in regional network provision planning include:

· Community Facilities and Community Places – administration of the leases for CAB premises and facility operation

· Libraries and Information – some CABs are co-located with libraries

· Service, Strategy and Integration – expertise in service design and integrating service offers.

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

Local impacts and local board views

34. Local boards provided input to the 2017 review of CAB services, which has informed the development of the new funding model. Local boards generally agreed that a higher level of funding was required to maintain services, and that any funding model needed to consider the area’s demographics and other needs in addition to overall population.

35. Overall, local boards reported that they had a good relationship with bureaux, that they were providing valuable, wide-ranging services to the community, and that there was room to improve reporting, service responsiveness and equity of funding.

36. Feedback is sought from the local board on the proposed new funding model and the retention of the additional $200,000 to baseline funding of $1.867 million provided to ACABx in 2018-2019.

37. Local board feedback will be included in the report to the Environment and Community Committee in May 2019 to approve a new funding model for CAB. The report will also reflect views on the implementation of the new model from ACABx consultation with bureaux.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

38. CAB services are available to all, and there is currently limited targeting of services to groups, including Māori.

39. Staff and ACABx have worked together on development of the new model and no specific engagement with Māori was undertaken.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. It is recommended that the additional $200,000 is retained in the ACABx baseline grant, bringing the annual total to $2.067 million in 2019-2021. This excludes any consumer price index adjustment. The additional funding request for the $200,000, is now part of the budget refresh process and includes Executive Leadership Team and Governing Body decisions regarding approval for this funding.

41. The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board has provided funding from 2015-2018 to Māngere CAB to operate a CAB agency in Ōtāhuhu. Reliance on the local board funding would reduce under the new model, as the Māngere CAB would receive increased funding of 12 per cent if the $200,000 is retained in the ACABx baseline grant.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42. In applying the new model without the retention of the additional $200,000, funding to the following bureaux would decline:

· Helensville (-9 per cent)

· Wellsford (-4 per cent)

· CAB North Shore (-19 per cent)

· CAB Auckland City (-2 per cent)

· Ōtara (-10 per cent).

43. If the grant is increased by $200,000 per annum, no bureaux would face a reduction in funding.

44. There is a risk of reduction in CAB services in some communities if funding declines to bureaux. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended that the additional $200,000 is retained.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Local board feedback will be included in a report to the Environment and Community Committee in May 2019 to approve a funding model.

46. Staff will work with ACABx to scope a regional network provision plan project by June 2019. The plan development will involve bureaux and other stakeholders in setting the direction for the CAB service from 2021 onwards.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	20 March 2019 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Local board feedback template	61
b ⇩	20 March 2019 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Map of bureaux locations by local board	63
c ⇩	20 March 2019 - Kaipātiki Local Board Business Meeting - Comparative overview of funding models	65

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sibyl Mandow - Advisor Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

Panuku Development Auckland six-monthly update: 1 August 2018 to 31 January 2019

File No.: CP2019/02495

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Upper Harbour Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area and the region, for the six months from 1 August 2018 to 31 January 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Panuku is charged with balancing financial and non-financial outcomes in order to create and manage sustainable and resilient places where people want to live, work, invest, learn and visit. The activities of Panuku cover four broad areas:

· redevelopment of urban locations, leveraging off council-owned land assets, mostly within existing suburbs

· review of, and where appropriate, redevelopment of council non-service property

· management of council property assets including commercial, residential, and marina infrastructure

· other property related services, such as redevelopment incorporating a service delivery function, strategic property advice, acquisitions and disposals.

3. Panuku currently manages 34 commercial and residential interests in the Upper Harbour Local Board area (refer to Attachment A).

4. Panuku’s Unlock Hobsonville programme continues with key development areas in progress.

5. Two properties are currently under review as part of Panuku’s rationalisation process.

6. Three properties were purchased in the Upper Harbour Local Board area, and a number of sites were sold during the last six months.

7. Panuku leads a multi-year redevelopment programme of the council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) portfolio (Haumaru). There is one HfOP village in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Panuku Development Auckland update for the period 1 August 2018 to 31 January 2019.

Horopaki

Context

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

9. The Auckland Plan is the roadmap to deliver on Auckland’s vision to be a world class city. Panuku will play a significant role in achieving the ‘Homes and Places’ and ‘Belonging and Participation’ outcomes.

10. Panuku is leading urban redevelopment in Manukau, Onehunga, Wynyard Quarter, the waterfront, Northcote, Avondale, Takapuna, Henderson, Papatoetoe, Ormiston and Flat Bush, Panmure, Pukekohe, the city centre and redevelopment of the Haumaru portfolio.

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

12. As at 30 December 2018, the property portfolio comprises 1636 properties, containing 1062 leases. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

13. The net surplus for the council and Auckland Transport (AT) property portfolio for the period ending 31 December 2018 was $13.8 million. This provided an additional year to date return of $1.178 million against the budgeted figure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Ngā Mahi ā-Hapori / Local Activities

Development

14. Unlock Hobsonville – the Hobsonville programme continues, with the following key development areas in progress.

15. Megalots 2, 3 and 4 – 9.9ha of residential land was settled with Top Garden Property Development Limited (Avanda) on 13 November 2017. They will be delivering 510 dwellings, which will include a minimum of 10 per cent affordable housing. Civil infrastructure works commenced in late November 2017 to construct Waka Moana Drive, Commanders Avenue and the balance of Wallace Road, with completion in February 2019. In December 2018, Avanda launched their product onto the market, and dwelling sales are ongoing.

16. Megalots 5 and 6 – Panuku and Homes, Land and Community (HLC) are working together to prepare a vision of the potential employment precinct at Hobsonville, which will form part of the ‘Go to market’ strategy for the site. This is planned for issue by June 2019.

Properties managed in the Upper Harbour Local Board Area

17. Panuku currently manages 31 commercial and three residential interests within the local board area (refer to Attachment A).

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

18. Optimisation is a self-funding development approach targeting sub-optimal service assets approved in 2015. The process involves an agreement between Community Facilities, Panuku and local boards and is led by Panuku. It is designed to equal or enhance levels of service to the local community in a reconfigured form, while delivering on strategic outcomes such as housing or urban regeneration with no impact on existing rate assumptions.

19. Using optimisation, underperforming assets will have increased utility and efficiency, lower maintenance and operating costs, as well as improved service delivery benefiting from co-location of other complementary services or commercial activities. Optimisation will free up a range of under-capitalised development opportunities, such as air space, full sites, or part sites.

20. Local boards are allocated decision making for the disposal of local service property and reinvestment of sale proceeds in accordance with the service property optimisation approach.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

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

22. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

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

24. The target for July 2018 to June 2019 is:

Unit	Target	Achieved
Portfolio review	$30 million disposal recommendations	$8.6 million as at 31 January 2019

Process

25. Once identified as no longer delivering the council service use for which it was acquired, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council departments and council-controlled organisations (CCOs), the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with the local ward councillors, the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Under review

26. Properties currently under review in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the Governing Body.

Property	Details
131 Clark Road, Hobsonville	Large site with multiple zones under the Unitary Plan. The portions zoned Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Housing Urban are being rationalised with a view to implementing the planned neighbourhood centre and housing. The majority of the site will be retained by council for open space and roading purposes. Panuku is working with council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department regarding the Scott Point Sustainable Park master plan open space requirements and with AT regarding transport infrastructure requirements. Once design requirements are confirmed, Panuku will engage with the local board regarding the site.
Hobsonville Marina (Clearwater Cove, West Harbour)	At the Planning Committee meeting in September 2018, the committee resolved that the Auckland Plan Strategy and Research team undertake further work on a strategy and a forward plan with respect to the future of Auckland marinas. Panuku will not progress with its marina proposal until the work outlined above is complete.

Property

Details

131 Clark Road, Hobsonville

Large site with multiple zones under the Unitary Plan. The portions zoned Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Housing Urban are being rationalised with a view to implementing the planned neighbourhood centre and housing. The majority of the site will be retained by council for open space and roading purposes.

Panuku is working with council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department regarding the Scott Point Sustainable Park master plan open space requirements and with AT regarding transport infrastructure requirements. Once design requirements are confirmed, Panuku will engage with the local board regarding the site.

Hobsonville Marina (Clearwater Cove, West Harbour)

At the Planning Committee meeting in September 2018, the committee resolved that the Auckland Plan Strategy and Research team undertake further work on a strategy and a forward plan with respect to the future of Auckland marinas.

Panuku will not progress with its marina proposal until the work outlined above is complete.

Acquisitions and disposals

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

Acquisitions

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

29. Panuku purchased 12 properties for open space across Auckland in the 2018-19 financial year at a cost of $35 million and bought one property for stormwater use at a value of $188,000.

30. Three properties were purchased in the Upper Harbour Local Board area during the reporting period.

31. All land acquisition committee resolutions contain a confidentiality clause due to the commercially sensitive nature of ongoing transactions, and thus cannot be reported on while in process.

Disposals

32. The disposals team has sold 13 properties, realising $40.9 million of unconditional net sales proceeds in the current financial year. The Panuku 2018-19 disposals target is $24 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis.

33. A number of reserves situated alongside SH1 and SH18 were sold in the Upper Harbour Local Board area for the Northern Corridor Improvements (NCI) project. One other property, 61-117 Clark Road, was sold in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Housing for Older People

34. The council owns 1412 units located in 62 villages across Auckland, which provide rental housing to low income older people in Auckland.

35. The Housing for Older People (HfOP) project involved the council partnering with a third-party organisation, The Selwyn Foundation, to deliver social rental housing services for older people across Auckland.

36. The joint venture business, named Haumaru Housing, took over the tenancy, facilities and asset management of the portfolio under a long-term lease arrangement from 1 July 2017.

37. Haumaru Housing was granted community housing provider (CHP) status in April 2017. Having CHP registration enables Haumaru to access the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) scheme.

38. Auckland Council has delegated Panuku to lead a new multi-year residential development programme.

39. The first new development project is a 40-unit apartment building on the former Wilsher Village site on 33 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson. Once completed in mid-2019, this development will increase the council’s portfolio to 1452 units.

40. The following HfOP villages are located within the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

Village	Address	Number of units
Windsor Court	480A East Coast Road, Windsor Park	18

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. The proposed decision has no impacts on the council group. The views of the council group are incorporated on a project by project basis.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. The proposed decision of receiving this report has no impacts. Any local or sub-regional impacts related to local activities are considered on a project-by-project basis.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. The proposed decision of receiving the report has no significant impacts on Māori.

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

49. The next six-monthly update is scheduled for September 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	List of Upper Harbour commercial and residential properties	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Carlos Rahman - Senior Engagement Advisor

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

2019 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2019/02313

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To inform local boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Conference and Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington, from Sunday 7 July to Tuesday 9 July 2019, and to invite local boards to nominate elected members to attend.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The LGNZ Conference and AGM takes place at the TSB Arena, Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington from 1.30pm Sunday 7 July to 12.30pm on Tuesday 9 July 2019.

3. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. As the venue for 2019 is in Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington and given the cost of elected member attendance, staff recommend that one member per local board attend.

4. The Governing Body can select up to five Governing Body members to attend the conference.

5. In addition to the official delegates, LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme by Friday 12 April 2019 so that this information can be provided to LGNZ.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) nominate one elected member to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2019 Conference and Annual General Meeting in Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington, from Sunday 7 July to Tuesday 9 July 2019.

b) confirm that conference attendance, including travel and accommodation, will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

c) note that any members who wish to attend the AGM must provide their names to the Kura Kāwana programme team by Friday 12 April 2019 to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand.

Horopaki

Context

6. This year, the LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the TSB Arena, Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington, from Sunday 7 July to Tuesday 9 July 2019. The AGM will commence at 1.30pm on Sunday 7 July 2018, with the conference programme commencing at 4.30pm on that day and concluding at 12.30pm on Tuesday 9 July 2019.

7. The conference programme has the theme ‘Riding the localism wave: Putting communities in charge’. The high-level programme is attached to this report (refer Attachment A).

8. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. The LGNZ constitution permits the Auckland Council to appoint four delegates to represent it at the AGM, with one of the delegates being appointed as presiding delegate.

9. Elected members who hold LGNZ roles are:

Mayor Phil Goff	Metro Sector representative on the National Council
Councillor Penny Hulse	Chair of Zone One and Zone One representative on National Council, Member Conference Committee
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector
Councillor Wayne Walker	Auckland Council representative on Zone One
Councillor Alf Filipaina	LGNZ Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere
Councillor Richard Hills	Member Policy Advisory Group
Waitematā Local Board Chair Pippa Coom	Member Governance and Strategy Advisory Group

10. Traditionally the four AGM delegates have been the Mayor, the Chief Executive and two Governing Body members who hold LGNZ roles.

11. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at its meeting on 28 March 2019, which will include the recommendation that Mayor Phil Goff be the presiding delegate and the other three delegates be comprised of either:

· two members of the Governing Body who hold a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive, or

· one member of the Governing Body who holds a formal representation role with LGNZ and the Chief Executive, and a local board member.

12. Delegates in 2018 were:

· Mayor Phil Goff

· Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore

· Councillor Penny Hulse

· Local Board Chairperson Pippa Coom.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. Local board members are invited to attend the conference. As the venue for 2019 is in Te Whanganui-a-Tara Wellington and given the cost of elected member attendance, it is recommended that one member per local board attend.

14. This means that a maximum of 26 Auckland Council elected members would attend the conference.

15. Delegates who attend are encouraged to report back to their local boards.

16. In addition, local board members can attend the AGM as observers, or as a delegate (depending on the Governing Body decision), provided their names are included on the AGM registration form, which will be signed by the Mayor.

17. LGNZ requires prior notice of which local board members plan to attend the AGM. Members wishing to attend are asked to register their intention with the Kura Kāwana programme by Friday 12 April 2019 so that this information can be collated and provided to LGNZ.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. The Governing Body will also consider an item on conference attendance at its meeting on 28 March 2019 which will include the recommendations that the Mayor is appointed presiding delegate to the AGM and that three other delegates be appointed (one of which may be a local board member). It is recommended that these delegates also attend the LGNZ conference, along with any other Governing Body members up to a total of five attendees.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. The LGNZ Conference has relevance to local board members and their specific roles and responsibilities and is in line with the purpose provided for in the elected member development budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. The LGNZ National Council has a sub-committee, Te Maruata, which has the role of promoting increased representation of Māori as elected members of local government, and of enhancing Māori participation in local government processes. It also provides support for councils in building relationships with iwi, hapu and Māori groups. Te Maruata provides Māori input on development of future policies or legislation relating to local government. Councillor Alf Filipaina is a member of the sub-committee. Te Maruata will hold a hui on 6 July 2019.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. The normal registration rate is $1410 (early bird) or $1510 (standard).

22. Costs of attendance for one member from each local board are to be met from the elected members’ development budget, as managed by the Kura Kāwana Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. The key risk is of delayed decision-making impacting costs and registration choices.

24. The sooner the registration for the nominated local board member can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference and flights, all done via bulk booking.

25. Delayed information may also impact registration into preferred conference streams or events.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. Once members are confirmed to attend, the Kura Kāwana programme will co-ordinate and book all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Programme for 2019 LGNZ conference and AGM	79

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Linda Gifford – Programme Manager Kura Kawana

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

Road name approval: new roads in the Te Uru superblocks 2 and 3 subdivisions at 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2019/02486

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board to name four new public roads and eight new private roads, being jointly owned access lots (JOALs) created by way of subdivision at 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, by Fletcher Residential Limited, for superblocks 2 and 3 of the Te Uru village development within Hobsonville point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming across the Auckland region.

3. The applicant, Fletcher Residential Limited, has proposed the following road names for consideration by the local board:

Public road	Proposed name	Alternate name
1	Puku Road	Waenganui Road
2	Ringa Matau Road	-
3	Te Rito Road	-
4	Taranui Road	-

JOAL	Location	Proposed name	Alternate name
1	TU3, superblock 2	Matimati Place	Mikao Place
2	TU5, superblock 3	Uma Grove	Poho Place
3	TU5, superblock 3	Ringa Maui Place	-
4	TU6, superblock 3	Ko Iti Place	Te Rau Place
5	TU6, superblock 3	Ko Roa Place	Rauroa Place
6	TU6, superblock 3	Ko Nui Place	Koro Matua Place
7	TU7, superblock 3	Ko Tohu Place	Takoroa Place
8	TU4, superblock 2	No name proposed

4. The proposed road names were developed by Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara (Ngati Whatua O Kaipara), using the narrative of pa harakeke (flax) and raranga (weaving). The Upper Harbour Local Board has already approved road names for superblock 1 of Te Uru that followed these same themes and ‘weave into’ the new names proposed now.

5. The proposed road names have been assessed to ensure that they meet Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming.

6. The applicant chose not to propose a name for JOAL 8, but council staff recommend a road name be applied to this road for addressing purposes, as this private JOAL road crosses an intersection with a public road.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the following new road names for the four new public roads and eight new private roads (jointly owned access lots or JOALs) created by way of subdivision at 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road, Hobsonville, for the Te Uru superblocks 2 and 3:

Public road	Approved name
1
2
3
4

JOAL	Location	Approved name
1	TU3, superblock 2
2	TU5, superblock 3
3	TU5, superblock 3
4	TU6, superblock 3
5	TU6, superblock 3
6	TU6, superblock 3
7	TU7, superblock 3
8	TU4, superblock 2

Horopaki

Context

7. The Te Uru village subdivision sits within the wider Hobsonville Point special housing area. The development will provide approximately 200 new dwellings split across three main ‘superblock’ stages (each split into smaller blocks for reference, labeled TU3, TU4, etc.).

8. Maps and plans of the development and superblocks 1 to 3 can be found in Attachment A.

9. Road names for superblock 1 of Te Uru have already been approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board in December 2017 (resolution number UH/2017/200). Refer to Attachment B for a summary of those names and their theme, noting that superblock 1 is referred to as ‘stage 1’ in this document. The name themes for superblocks 1 to 3 are closely related and link together in an overarching narrative from Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara (additional detail follows in paragraphs 11 to 13).

10. This road naming application is for superblocks 2 and 3, which contain four public roads and eight private JOALs that require new road names. This is in accordance with the National Addressing Standards for road naming (the AS/NZS 4819-2011 standard), wherein any new roads, including private roads and JOALs that serve more than five lots require a new road name

11. Superblocks 2 and 3 will be delivered by the applicant, Fletcher Residential Limited, and have been approved by the following resource consents:

· superblock 2 (blocks TU3 and TU4) have already been approved under resource consent number BUN60312431; encompassing land use consent number LUC60312496 and subdivision consent number SUB6031249

· superblock 3 (block TU5) resource consent is currently being processed under number BUN60331736, land use consent number LUC60331871, and subdivision consent number SUB60331872

· superblock 3 (blocks TU6 and TU7) are not yet lodged. However, the masterplan layout of the overall development (shown in Attachment A) has been approved in the earlier consents and will not be changed.

12. Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara have provided proposed road names based on the narrative of pa harakeke (flax) traditionally used for raranga (weaving). The harakeke (flax bush) is a living whakapapa and represents whanau, hapu and iwi.

13. The names already approved for superblock 1 ‘weave’ and link together with the names proposed now for superblocks 2 and 3. The full narrative and background to the choice of names is set out in Attachment B.

14. For clarity when referring to Attachment B, Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara have referred to already approved superblock 1 names as ‘stage 1’ and subject superblocks 2 and 3 names together as ‘stage 2’.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name/s for the local board’s approval.

16. Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect one of the following local themes, with the use of Māori names being actively encouraged:

· a historical, cultural or ancestral linkage to an area

· a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity theme or feature, or

· an existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

Assessment

17. The proposed road names have been assessed to ensure that they meet Auckland Council’s Road Naming Guidelines and the National Addressing Standards for road naming. Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara have provided names with a local cultural theme and a narrative that links to names already approved in superblock 1 of the same development (see Attachment B for a summary). Some names shown in Attachment B have been omitted, being too similar to other road names already in use elsewhere. The rest, listed in the tables below, are acceptable for use.

18. The applicant chose not to propose a name for JOAL 8, instead proposing that the road name for JOAL 1 (proposed ‘Matimati Place’) extend all the way along superblock 2, between blocks TU3 and TU4. However, an intersection separates these two sections of road. It is therefore, recommended that two separate names are approved for JOAL 1 and JOAL 8 either side of the intersection with road 1 (proposed ‘Puku Road’) in order to minimise addressing and wayfinding confusion. This would be in keeping with other similar JOALs, such as JOAL 6 (proposed ‘Ko Nui Place’), and JOAL 7 (proposed ‘Ko Tohu Place’), which cross a similar intersection with road 4 (proposed ‘Taranui Road’) and therefore have separate names.

19. A name for JOAL 8 could be allocated by the local board from the list of unused ‘alternative names’ provided by the applicant.

Theme

20. The meanings of the proposed road names are set out in the tables below, and Attachment B provides the full narrative of the overarching pa harakeke (flax) and raranga (weaving) themes, as described by Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara. In the summary of Attachment B, the korero for superblocks 2 and 3 (stage 2) is based on whanaungatanga, where the role of the parents and grandparents, the outer leaves of the harakeke, protect the children and the inner younger leaves of the harakeke protect the future generations. The names for superblocks 1 to 3 weave together under this narrative.

Public road	Proposed names	Meaning, from Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara
1 Alternate	Puku Road	belly
1 Alternate	Waenganui Road	the centre, the middle, among, midst, amid, between, intervening space.
2	Ringa Matau Road	right hand
3	Te Rito Road	middle strand of the harakeke - this is considered the baby, surrounded by parents and grandparents in order to protect it. This lends itself to the term pa harakeke (reference to family).
4	Taranui Road	right hand side

JOAL	Proposed names	Meaning, from Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara
1 Alternate	Matimati Place	fingers – dexterity of fingers was crucial in the creation of woven treasures
1 Alternate	Mikao Place	another word for finger
2 Alternate	Uma Place	chest – the place where the heart beats and can be felt
2 Alternate	Poho Place	another word for chest
3	Ringa Maui Place	left hand
4 Alternate	Ko Iti Place	littlest digit
4 Alternate	Te Rau Place	leaf, frond, plume, spray, feather
5 Alternate	Ko Roa Place	middle digit
5 Alternate	Rauroa Place	long digit
6 Alternate	Ko Nui Place	thumb – without the thumb, weaving would be impossible
6 Alternate	Koro Matua Place	dominant thumb
7 Alternate	Ko Tohu Place	to point out, show, indicate, point at
7 Alternate	Takoroa Place	index finger
8	None proposed	Note: the applicant chose not to propose a name for JOAL 8, but council staff recommend a road name be applied to this road for addressing purposes, as it crosses an intersection with a public road.

21. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has confirmed that all proposed names listed above are acceptable for use and are not duplicated elsewhere in the region.

Road types

22. ‘Road’ is an acceptable road type for the new public roads, as is ‘Place’ for the private roads, suiting the form and layout of the respective roads in accordance with the Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines. ‘Uma Grove’ was originally suggested for JOAL 2, being the only anomalous road type. However, this is not recommended for JOAL 2, as ‘Grove’ is defined as a ‘Road that features a group of trees standing together’. There is nothing to indicate that JOAL 2 has these features or stands out from the other JOALs in this manner. Therefore ‘Place’ is recommended and has replaced ‘Grove’.

Mana whenua consultation

23. This requirement has been met, with Nga Maunga Whakahi O Kaipara being closely involved in this development and providing the proposed names.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The decision sought for this report has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. The decision sought for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. The decisions sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board in this report are linked to the Auckland Plan outcome ‘a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world’. The use of Māori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Māori identity.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process, with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. Approved road names are notified to LINZ and are then recorded on their New Zealand-wide land information database for street addresses issued by councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site location and plans: 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road subdivision	89
b ⇩	Theme and narrative: 60-73 Hobsonville Point Road	95

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emerald James - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

David Snowdon – Team Leader Subdivision

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

21 March 2019

Auckland Transport monthly report - March 2019

File No.: CP2019/00794

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide:

· an update on the current status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

· a summary of consultation material sent to the local board

· transport-related information on matters of specific application and interest to the Upper Harbour Local Board and its community.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In particular, this report includes:

· Auckland Transport (AT) quarterly report material covering AT’s activities over the September to December 2018 period

· updates on AT major capital works in the Upper Harbour area

· consultation information sent to the local board for feedback and decisions of the Traffic Control Committee (TCC), as they affect the local board area.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the monthly update report from Auckland Transport for March 2019.

Horopaki

Context

3. This report addresses transport-related matters in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) update

5. The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important but are not part of AT’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. The Upper Harbour Local Board’s LBTCF allocation was $1,835,080 for the current political term. In addition, there is a sum of $764,795 which was approved by the council and became available from 1 July 2018.

7. Following a series of workshops, the Upper Harbour Local Board submitted five project applications to AT for assessment. Four of these applications have now been scoped and costed by AT and all five will need to be workshopped with the local board to seek feedback on which project to allocate the remaining LBTCF budget to.

Electoral term allocation 2016/17 to 2019/20 as at 30/06/18			$1,835,080
Budget committed to date (projects below)			$1,938,222
		STATUS
Gills Road pedestrian bridge	$297,222	Complete
School stay-put signs	$45,000	Complete
Chester/Wickham cycle route	$56,000	Complete
Rame Road upgrade	$1,540,000	Design
Current budget remaining to allocate in term			-$103,142
Additional budget in RLTP for 18/19 and 19/20			$764,795
New total budget remaining for electoral term			$661,653

Rame Road update

8. The Rame Road project is in detailed design (as per option two below, resolution number UH/2018/158) and is currently proposed to go through consultation. Design may be completed by the end of April 2019:

· Option 2: constructing the footpath towards the property side to avoid possible consenting requirements and additional stormwater infrastructure. This will negate the requirement for kerb and channel as existing swale drainage would be utilised. Minor supplementary drainage will be required, and no resource consent application would be necessary.

Quarterly report for September to December 2018

9. The following quarterly report material is attached to this monthly report:

· Attachment A – report from AT departments on activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter

· Attachment B – report on Travelwise Schools’ activities in the Upper Harbour Local Board area over the last quarter.

Major capital works in the Upper Harbour Local Board area

Gills Road link update

10. AT is planning to procure a single ‘design and construct’ contract for the detailed design and construction of the proposed new Gills Road link. This procurement is subject to approval by the AT Board, which is anticipated to occur in April or May of 2019.

Dairy Flat Highway/ The Avenue update

11. The project is presently in the investigation phase. AT’s next steps are to undertake public consultation, detailed design, NZTA funding and then secure resource consents. Construction is programmed to start in 2020/21, subject to designation and funding approval. Procurement is subject to AT Board approval, which is anticipated to occur in April or May of 2019.

Medallion Drive link update

12. It is estimated that design completion and consent will be approved by early April 2019. Land negotiation and purchase is extended due to court proceedings with a hearing taking place in July 2019. This should be complete by January of 2020 with construction starting in February 2020. The project will take approximately 18 months to complete.

Pedestrian signal on Oteha Valley Road update

13. AT is working on the design phase of this project and is expecting to have this ready for external consultation by the end of March 2019. AT will update the local board via a workshop which has yet to be scheduled.

Dairy Flat Highway safety improvements 2018/19 update

14. AT presented to an Upper Harbour Local Board workshop on the Dairy Flat Highway safety improvements project on Thursday 28 February 2019.

15. This is a road safety project which involves a number of safety upgrades along the Dairy Flat Highway. Most improvements are within the Rodney Local Board area. However, the northbound passing lane, from Stevensons Crescent to Albany Heights Road, sits in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

16. Consultation and engagement on the project took place last year and the report is available online: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/dairy-flat-highway-safety-improvements/.

17. The timing for construction of the individual upgrades is yet to be decided. However, construction for the Coatesville-Riverhead/Dairy Flat Highway roundabout and the Stevensons Crescent to Albany Heights Road passing lane could take place towards the end of 2019.

18. AT will provide monthly updates to the board on this project.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Issues investigated and responses

Spencer and East Coast Road safety concerns

19. AT will discuss this further with the complainant to confirm what is being requested.

Roland Road and Greenhithe Road intersection safety concerns

20. AT has investigated the issue and will be relocating the chevron sign to the appropriate location in April 2019.

Road subsidence at the intersection of Kauri Road and Brigham Creek Road

21. The work to repair the road has started and will be completed in approximately six weeks.

Bush Road parking removal and afternoon/evening clearway update

22. AT have undertaken queue length observations and conducted a parking occupancy survey. The results support installation of a clearway and AT is expecting to have this ready for external consultation in March 2019.

Intersection safety at Brigham Creek and Williams Roads

23. AT have undertaken an initial review of the concerns raised and further detailed investigation now needs to be undertaken. The local board can expect to receive an update by early April 2019.

Intersection at Bomb Point Drive and Wallace Road

24. Wallace Road is designated to be a significant connecting route and a bus route in the future, which will make it the ‘major road’ through the intersection with Bomb Point Drive. Due to the way the construction of these roads has been staged, it is understandable that this might not seem intuitive at present. However, as the area continues to be developed, this will become clearer. In the meantime, AT have reviewed the intersection and is of the view that the give-way line markings are correct. AT will remove the old signage in the next few weeks to avoid further confusion.

Greenhithe Residents and Ratepayers Association roading issues

25. On 26 November 2018, AT investigated the pot-holes at the Greenhithe/Isobel/Churchouse Roads roundabout. Currently there is no pot-hole, although there is a depression which is not deemed as unsafe. A note has been made to check this as part of the regular inspection.

26. Concerns were raised about missing traffic pegs which were replaced on 5 December 2018.

Caribbean Drive pedestrian crossing request

27. The Northern Corridor Improvements Alliance reached agreement with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 30 November 2018 to re-align the path within Meadowood Reserve. This will exit adjacent to the pedestrian refuge on Caribbean Drive, before the roundabout. A gate will also be included. The reserve reinstatement plan will be updated to reflect this.

Consultation documents on proposed improvements

28. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board for feedback and are summarised here for information purposes only.

29. Following consultation, AT considers the feedback received and determines whether to proceed further with the proposal as consulted on or amend the proposal if changes are considered necessary:

· Bush Road bus stop consultation

· north bus tracking batch 1 (six sites)

· proposed bus stop and bus shelter relocation at Albany Highway, Rosedale

· proposed bus stop infrastructure outside 112 Bush Road and opposite 106 Bush Road

· Buckley B Stage 3, Hobsonville, resolution consultation

· proposal to improve bike accessibility in Rosedale Road, Albany

· proposal to improve visibility by installing broken yellow lines on Rising Parade, Fairview Heights

· proposal to improve road safety by signalising the intersection of Oteha Valley Road and Harrowglen Drive, Northcross

· proposal to improve visibility and accessibility by installing broken yellow lines on Georgia Terrace, Albany

· proposal to improve safety and accessibility by installing broken yellow lines along Fairview Avenue, Fairview Heights

· proposal to improve pedestrian crossings in 31 Constellation Drive, Rosedale

· Airfields Megalot 2 traffic and parking control resolution consultation.

Regional information and updates

Extra ferry services in time for the holiday weekend

30. Weekend ferry services to and from Hobsonville started on Saturday, 26 January 2019.

31. There are seven services running between Hobsonville, Beach Haven and the Downtown Ferry Terminal on Saturdays and six services on Sundays.

32. Funding for the weekend ferries is provided in a joint partnership with the Hobsonville Point Residents’ Society, Homes Land and Community (HLC), Willis Bond and Co, AV Jennings, Classic Builders, Jalcon Homes, Universal Homes, AT and the NZTA.

33. AT would like to thank the local community and HLC for partnering in the increased schedule. AT are continuing to grow and improve Auckland’s ferry network and providing weekend services is a key part of that plan.

34. The service will be run by Fullers 360, and further details can be found online at https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/.

Extra services to cope with peak transport demand

35. AT is gearing up for the busiest time of the year on public transport. Late February and March see an annual peak transport demand as tertiary students return for the academic year and fewer workers are on annual leave.

36. AT is adding services on key routes to supplement the additional capacity created by the New Network for bus services. The New Network across Auckland has simplified bus services and added more than 1700 additional trips a day in the past year.

37. AT is now running 12,937 trips on a weekday, compared to 11,200 this time last year. AT have recently added more double-decker services on Dominion, Mt Eden, Manukau and Remuera Roads, as well as other routes with 193 double decker buses now in service.

38. The additional services introduced over the past three years mean AT can cope with most of the capacity issues, but some routes have grown faster than predicted so some extra services will be added where possible.

39. Recent bus service improvements include:

· twelve additional trips for Onewa Road to address capacity issues

· changing to larger buses for some school routes

· addition of four double-decker trips to the Mount Eden 27T service

· double-deckers introduced on Remuera Road with banker buses redeployed to other routes

· changing to larger buses for route 923/924

· changing to larger buses for route 83

· Rodney Local Board – introduction of new Wellsford to Warkworth service

· Rodney Local Board – introduction of new Helensville to Hibiscus Coast Station service

· adding route 191 in the Blockhouse Bay, New Lynn and Rosebank area.

40. Train capacity is expected to cope with the increased numbers travelling and additional ferry sailings have been added to the popular Hobsonville Point service.

41. AT is monitoring services daily to check capacity and to identify which routes may need additional services. AT will move buses around where it can to assist with the demand.

42. Unfortunately, some buses will be full and passengers may have to wait for the next bus. It is suggested that where possible on busy routes, passengers should travel outside the morning or afternoon peak. AT apologises for any delays but is doing its best to provide adequate services.

43. Each school day, AT operates 12,937 bus trips or 82,422 trips a week. This number drops to 12,489 a day or 80,043 a week during the school holidays. On a weekday, 120,000 people use Auckland’s buses, making 220,000 trips.

44. For timetables, go to: https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

45. Receipt of this monthly 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

46. There are no financial implications in receiving this monthly update.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47. Receipt of this monthly report has no risks. AT has risk management strategies in place for the transport projects undertaken in the local board area.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

48. AT provides the Upper Harbour Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in the local board area.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Transport quarterly activities report - September to December 2018	105
b ⇩	Travelwise Schools activities - September to December 2018	125

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster – Elected Member Relationship Manager Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Margaret Miles, QSM, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Uzra Casuri Balouch, JP
	Nicholas Mayne
	John McLean
	Brian Neeson, JP

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 14 February 2019	133
b ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 21 February 2019	135
c ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 28 February 2019	137
d ⇩	Upper Harbour Local Board record of workshop - 7 March 2019	139

Author	Cindy Lynch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager