Agenda of Albert-Eden Local Board

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Notice of Motion - Member Benjamin Lee - Support for Concerts at Eden Park as Proposed in the Resource Consent Application LUC60351212	9

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 May 2020

Albert-Eden Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 grant allocations

File No.: CP2020/04262

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To fund, part-fund or decline the applications received for Albert-Eden Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report presents applications received in Albert-Eden Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 (Attachment B).

3. The Albert-Eden Local Board adopted the Albert-Eden Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 1 May 2019. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

4. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $140,500 for the 2019/2020 financial year. A total of $71,698.78 was allocated to Local Grants and Quick Response Round One 2019/2020. This leaves a total of $68,801.22 to be allocated to one local grants and one quick response round.

5. Twenty applications were received for Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020, requesting a total of $136,691.73.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

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

Application ID	Organisation	Main focus	Requesting funding for	Amount requested	Eligibility
LG2001-210	Jasmin Ziedan	Arts and culture	Towards equipment and staffing costs for the "Base FM Youth Mentoring Programme" and venue hire for the final event at the Otara Music and Arts Centre.	$6,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-223	Panacea Arts Charitable Trust	Arts and culture	Towards the costs for the production of a short film to celebrate 20 years of Mapura Studios.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-231	Interacting	Arts and culture	Towards the facilitator costs for weekly community dance, drama and music-making classes between May and December 2020 including the strategic developer's fee.	$9,995.00	Eligible
LG2001-232	Eden Arts: Maungawhau Mount Eden Community Arts Trust	Arts and culture	Towards a contribution to the musicians’ fees and advertising costs for the "Mt Eden Chamber Music Festival" between 30 October to 1 November 2020.	$5,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-202	Auckland Central Community Shed Incorporated	Community	Towards the purchase of a dust extraction system, security cameras, signage and the cost of monthly maintenance of the machinery.	$7,300.00	Eligible
LG2001-203	Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the counsellor`s wages for the Bhartiya Samaj Trust.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-204	Home and Family Counselling Incorporated	Community	Towards the costs for the after-hours counselling sessions for the Albert-Eden community between 4 May 2020 to 5 October 2020.	$4,110.00	Eligible
LG2001-206	The Upside Downs Education Trust	Community	Towards the speech language therapy fees for six children in the local board area.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-212	Balmoral Scouts (The Scout Association of NZ)	Community	Towards replacing gutters and re-roofing of the Balmoral Scout Hall	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-213	Afghan Funeral Services Charity in New Zealand	Community	Towards the purchase of grave plots, debt repayment, and operational costs.	$6,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-220	Shiloh Creative Life Centre Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the costs of delivery of two "BeYOUtiful" eight-week programs to 40 young women aged nine to 13 years from Pasadena Intermediate school.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-224	New Zealand Eid Day Trust Board	Community	Towards venue hire to host the New Zealand Eid Day 2020 - Eid-ul-Adha.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-225	Dance Therapy NZ	Community	Towards venue hire, marketing, facilitation, equipment, coordination, administration, client support and liaison costs for the "STARS" Mt Albert programme from 29 July to 9 December 2020.	$4,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-226	Morningside Urban Market Garden (MUMG) Belong Aotearoa (formerly Auckland Regional Migrant Services)	Community	Towards the cost of producing MUMG urban market gardening curriculum and promotional materials including an expansion of the website.	$7,465.00	Eligible
LG2001-228	Eyeview Ethnic Trust	Community	Towards administration, printing and delivery costs for 700 magazines to 30 schools in the Albert-Eden local board area.	$5,987.00	Eligible
LG2001-233	Fab City Aotearoa Charitable Trust	Community	Towards the purchase of two recycling machines and one year maintenance costs for the machines.	$4,383.48	Eligible
LG2001-209	Mt Albert Bowling Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the re-laying of the club’s two bowling greens.	$10,000.00	Eligible
LG2001-215	Badminton New Zealand Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the purchase of shuttlecocks and venue hire for the New Zealand under 13 and under17 badminton championships.	$4,500.00	Eligible
LG2001-219	The Mt Albert Contract Bridge Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards the cost of the underfloor insulation of the clubhouse.	$6,670.00	Eligible
LG2001-227	Trent Bray Swim School Central City Swimming Club Incorporated	Sport and recreation	Towards lane hire for two months for the swim school.	$6,281.25	Eligible
Total				$136,691.73

Horopaki

Context

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

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

8. The local board grants programme sets out:

· local board priorities

· lower priorities for funding

· exclusions

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

· any additional accountability requirements.

9. The Albert-Eden Local Board adopted the Albert-Eden Local Board Community Grants Programme 2019/2020 on 1 May 2019. The document sets application guidelines for contestable grants.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

12. The Local Board Grants Programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups for projects that support and enable community climate action. Community climate action involves reducing or responding to climate change by local residents in a locally relevant way. Local board grants can contribute to expanding climate action by supporting projects that reduce carbon emissions and increase community resilience to climate impacts. Examples of projects include local food production and food waste reduction; increasing access to single-occupancy transport options; home energy efficiency and community renewable energy generation; local tree planting and streamside revegetation; and educating about sustainable lifestyle choices that reduce carbon footprints.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

13. 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.

14. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

15. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Albert-Eden Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications in accordance with its priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

16. The local board is requested to note that section 48 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time”.

17. A summary of each application received through Albert-Eden Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 (Attachment B) is provided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

18. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Maori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Maori. Auckland Council’s Maori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

19. Four applicants applying to Albert-Eden Local Grants Round Two indicate projects that target Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

21. The local board has set a total community grants budget of $140,500 for the 2019/2020 financial year.

22. A total of $71,698.78 was allocated to Local Grants and Quick Response Round One 2019/2020. This leaves a total of $68,801.22 to be allocated to one local grants and one quick response round.

23. Twenty applications were received for Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020, requesting a total of $136,691.73.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

25. Following the Albert-Eden Local Board allocation of funding for the local grants round two, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Albert-Eden Local Board Grants Programme 2019-2020	17
b ⇩	Albert-Eden Local Grants Round Two 2019/2020 applications	21

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Moumita Dutta - Senior Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 May 2020

Albert-Eden Local Board Grants Programme 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/03736

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Albert-Eden Grants Programme 2020/2021.

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 Albert-Eden Grants Programme 2020/2021 for adoption (see Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) adopt the Albert-Eden Grants Programme 2020/2021.

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 its own local grants programme for the next financial year. The local board 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 grants programme 2020/2021 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 grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. The new Albert-Eden Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2020/2021.

10. The new grant programme includes the following additional criteria:

· an addition of two higher priorities:

o “we will also consider applications with match funding. Match funding is where grants are provided in exchange for the community groups ‘match’ in volunteer labour, cash or donated goods and services up to the value of 50 per cent. Applications will be prioritised and assessed under the same priorities as other grants.

o applicants who have considered other sources of funding for their project.

· an addition of one lower priority:

o travel unless there is strong evidence of the benefits to the community.

· an addition of three exclusions:

o groups which have failed to meet accountability obligations from previous council grants, will not be funded except in exceptional circumstances

o applicants are ineligible to apply for the Albert-Eden Local Board contestable grants if they have had one successful grant application within the current financial year (excluding the Accommodation Support Fund).

o groups requesting funding not within the minimum and maximum amount set.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

11. The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to address climate change by providing grants to individuals and groups with projects that support community climate change action. Local board grants can contribute to climate action through the support of projects that address food production and food waste; alternative transport methods; community energy efficiency education and behaviour change; build community resilience and support tree planting.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. The grants programme has no identified impacts on council-controlled organisations and therefore their views are not required.

13. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant council unit 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

14. The grants programme has been developed with input by the local board to set the direction of its grants programme. This programme is reviewed on an annual basis.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

15. All grant programmes respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering positive outcomes for Māori. Applicants are asked how their project aims to increase Māori outcomes in the application process.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

16. 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

17. 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 grants programme.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

18. An implementation plan is underway and the local board 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 ⇩	Albert-Eden Grants Programme 2020/2021	103

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Moumita Dutta - Senior Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Rhonwen Heath - Head of Rates Valuations & Data Mgmt

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 May 2020

Albert-Eden Local Board decisions and input into the Annual Budget 2020/2021

File No.: CP2020/05173

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for local financial matters for the local board agreement 2020/2021, which need to be considered by the Governing Body in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 process.

2. To seek feedback on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. Our Annual Budget contains 21 local board agreements which are the responsibility of local boards to agree with the governing body. These agreements set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.

4. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March 2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 and local board priorities to be included in the local board agreements (Consultation part 1).

5. Since this consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. The council is now considering what those impacts are likely to be, and plan to ask Aucklanders for their views on certain aspects of Auckland Council’s proposed ‘emergency budget’ in response to the financial impacts of COVID-19 (Consultation part 2).

6. Local boards are required to receive the feedback on the proposals in consultation part 1, which are not affected by the changes being considered by the council and therefore will not be subject to further consultation and make decisions on them. This must be done before consultation part 2 can get underway, so the scope of consultation part 2 is clear.

7. This report seeks decisions on local financial matters for the local board agreement, including:

a) proposed Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

b) release of local board specific reserve funds.

8. The council received feedback in person at community engagement events and through written forms, including online and hard copy forms, emails and letters.

9. This report summarises consultation feedback on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021, including on local board priorities for 2020/2021.

Feedback on Albert-Eden Local Board priorities for 2020/2021

10. The local board consulted on the following priorities:

· Priority 1: We will focus on projects which connect communities, especially those experiencing change, and work with other organisations in development areas to assist new residents to feel welcome and part of our community.

· Priority 2: We will plan for when and where we provide facilities in our parks such as toilets, shade, shelter, water or play.

· Priority 3: We will prioritise upgrading our community centres, libraries and halls.

· Priority 4: We will investigate building developments at Windmill and Nixon Parks, and implement upgrades at School Reserve and the former bowling greens at Nicholson Park.

· Priority 5: We are working on a revised approach for Chamberlain Park including development of a local park and walking and cycling connections, restoration of Waititiko (Meola Creek) and wetland area, while retaining an 18-hole golf course.

11. 180 submissions were received on Albert-Eden Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, showing that the majority of people either support most (45 per cent) or support all (34 per cent) of the local board’s priorities.

Feedback on regional proposals in the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 from the Albert-Eden local board area

12. This report seeks local board views on the proposed regional Annual Budget topics including:

· the changes to rates and fees, key proposals:

o waste management targeted rate

o refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

o Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

· the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021

· other budget information.

13. Local board views on these regional matters will be considered by the Governing Body (or relevant committee) before making final decisions on the Annual Budget 2020/2021.

14. Out of the 4,765 submissions received on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021, 256 submissions were from people living in the Albert-Eden local board area.

15. The waste management targeted rate was overall supported by Albert-Eden residents with 119 in support, 43 opposed, and 11 marked ‘other’. Submitters considered this proposal to be fair and that the user pays model makes sense.

16. There were 107 comments in support, 52 opposed and 12 ‘other’ for the refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City. Respondents throughout noted their request for ‘pay as you throw’.

17. Respondents generally supported continuing the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate. With 99 in support – continue the service, 32 do not support – end the service, and 13 do not support – continue the Waitakere septic tank service subsidised by all general ratepayers. The key concern from submitters was the cost to rate payers and said that user pays should apply instead.

18. Submissions on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021 generally discussed the felling of exotic trees. 55 submissions were received with 4 feedback points in support, 4 feedback points in partial support and 32 against. Of those opposed, the primary comment was on the effect this would have on native birds.

19. Auckland Council also consulted on the Council-Controlled Organisations (CCO) Review at the same time. The feedback received on this will be presented at a later date.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receive consultation feedback on the proposed Albert-Eden Local Board priorities for 2020/2021.

b) receive consultation feedback on regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Albert-Eden local board area.

c) recommend that the Governing Body approves any proposed Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) capital projects, which are outside local boards’ allocated decision-making responsibility.

d) recommend the release of local board specific reserve funds to the Governing Body.

e) provide feedback on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021.

Horopaki

Context

20. Local board agreements form part of the Auckland Council’s Annual Budget and set out local funding priorities, budgets, levels of service and performance measures.

21. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 21 February to 22 March 2020 to seek community views on the proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 and local board priorities to be included in the local board agreements. This is now referred to as consultation part 1.

22. Since this consultation was undertaken, the COVID-19 pandemic has exerted significant pressure on the council’s financial position, which will have flow on effects for the proposed budget for the 2020/2021 financial year. Work to date on the proposed Annual Budget will need to be adjusted to consider the new financial realities facing Auckland.

23. The financial report presented to the Emergency Committee during April 2020 indicated potential reductions in cash revenue of $350-650 million for financial year 2020/2021, depending on the length and extent of the disruption caused by COVID-19. The Emergency Committee requested staff provide further information to the Governing Body on the impacts of the various scenarios modelled against a rates increase of between 0 per cent and 3.5 per cent. They also resolved that further public consultation on the Annual Budget would include considering whether to adopt a 2.5 per cent rather than 3.5 per cent general rates increase for the 2020/2021 financial year, among a suite of other measures aimed at offering support to all ratepayers, including businesses, facing hardship due to the impacts of COVID-19.

24. The council is planning to ask Aucklanders for their views on certain aspects of Auckland Council’s proposed ‘emergency budget’ in response to the financial impacts of COVID-19. It is anticipated this will be carried out from late May until mid-June 2020. This will be in addition to the Annual Budget 2020/2021 consultation we have already carried out from February to March 2020. This is referred to as consultation part 2.

25. Consultation part 2 is unlikely to revisit any of the specific proposals in consultation part 1. Therefore, the local boards and the Governing Body are required to receive the feedback on these proposals and make decisions on them. This must be done before consultation part 2 can get underway so it is clear what decisions have already been made, and what decisions will be made after consultation part 2. In addition, local boards will need to provide formal views to the Governing Body to inform consultation part 2 and further information will be made available to local boards when it becomes available to enable this to occur.

26. Further, some of the proposed changes to fees and charges required a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) and the requirements for this were met in consultation part 1. It is important to complete this statutory process, especially where consultation part 2 will not be relevant to the decisions on these fees and charges.

27. This report includes analysis of the consultation feedback on the Albert-Eden Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, and on the regional proposals in the Annual Budget 2020/2021 from people or organisations based in the Albert-Eden local board area.

Local financial matters for the local board agreement

28. This report allows the local board to agree its input and recommend other local financial matters to the Governing Body in May 2020. This is to allow time for the Governing Body to consider these items in the Annual Budget process.

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

29. Local boards are allocated funding annually to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards can approve LDI capital projects up to $1 million, projects over that amount require approval from the Governing Body.

30. Local boards can recommend to the Governing Body to convert LDI operational funding to capital expenditure for 2020/2021 if there is a specific need to do so. Governing Body approval may be needed for the release of local board specific reserve funds, which are funds being held by the council for a specific purpose.

Local board input on regional plans

31. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on the proposed Annual Budget.

32. Local Board Plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide both the development of local board agreements and input into regional plans.

Council-controlled organisation (CCO) review

33. An independent panel was appointed by Auckland Council to examine three areas: (1) the CCO model, roles and responsibilities, (2) the accountability of CCOs, and (3) CCO culture. Local boards had the opportunity to provide input into this in March 2020.

34. Auckland Council also consulted on the review of CCOs during the same period as the Annual Budget, from 21 February to 22 March 2020.

35. After receiving feedback, the panel will report on key issues, community and stakeholder feedback to the council in May 2020.

36. The panel will provide a final report and recommendations to the council in July 2020.

Types of feedback

37. Overall Auckland Council received feedback from 4,765 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· Written feedback – 3820 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters

· In person – 793 through 58 Have Your Say and community events

· Informal forms – 144 informal forms were received

· Other – 8 forms were received through ‘other’ formats.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Feedback received on Albert-Eden Local Board priorities for 2020/2021

38. The Albert-Eden Local Board consulted on the following priorities:

· Priority 2: We will plan for when and where we provide facilities in our parks such as toilets, shade, shelter, water or play.

· Priority 3: We will prioritise upgrading our community centres, libraries and halls.

· Priority 4: We will investigate building developments at Windmill and Nixon Parks, and implement upgrades at School Reserve and the former bowling greens at Nicholson Park.

39. Key themes across all feedback received (through written and in person channels) were:

· Priority 1: There remains some concern from respondents about the duplication of services that could be provided by central government or non-governmental organisations (2 feedback points), however most respondents supported this priority (7 feedback points). Comment from a respondent: “I am very pleased to read that inclusion and diversity remain a focus for the Albert—Eden Local Board, with continued projects with migrant communities, youth, and Maori. The population of Auckland is diverse and this diversity is projected to grow so local boards need to be ready and able to respond to the needs and aspirations of our communities. A shared sense of belonging at a local community level will create positive social cohesion. Please keep diversity and inclusion on your agenda.”

· Priority 2: Respondents generally supported upgrading park facilities, 4 feedback points in support and 2 against. Those who did not support this priority felt that the money could instead be used on supporting infrastructure: “With more In Fill Housing going on in our area and Old Water and Waste Pipes that need attention, instead of more work on Parks that are fine and meeting needs, use the money to fix infrastructure.”

· Priority 3: Submitters overwhelmingly supported this priority with 8 feedback points in support and 1 opposed. The comment in opposition stated: “I do not support prioritising upgrading community centres, libraries and halls. I would rather see that money spent on removing on—street parking to make better public spaces, implementing more mode separation and making walking and cycling safer”.

· Priority 4: Respondents did not indicate in the comments whether they supported the proposal or not, but they did want more specific information regarding what the developments and upgrades would be: “What are you planning to do at Windmill?”

· Priority 5: Submitters were very supportive of the focus on the restoration of Waititiko (Meola Creek) and wetland area (4 feedback points in support, none against): “Restoration of Waititiko (Meola Creek) and wetland area is the biggest priority to me.” However, out of 20 comments, most submitters generally did not support the board’s approach to the golf course, with the breakdown of 4 comments supporting the proposal, 3 partially supporting the proposal and 13 comments against. Of those who did not support the approach, the majority commented that they felt that “this is not a compromise — a 9 hole golf course was the compromise”.

Feedback received

40. 180 submissions were received on Albert-Eden Local Board priorities for 2020/2021, showing that the majority of people either support most (45 per cent) or support all (34 per cent) of the local board’s priorities.

41. The Albert-Eden Local Board held 1 drop in community event.

· Of those submitters who supported all of the priorities, they felt the priorities represented those of the community: “The goals are correct and meet people's [sic] expectation”

· Those who support most of the priorities noted that they wanted: “More investment in environmental initiatives.”

· Respondents who did not support most of the priorities were mainly concerned with both the spending on governance and the lack of spending on the environment: “Environment number should be much higher — and governance is far too high!”

· Comments from submitters who did not support the board’s priorities mentioned infrastructure “This is a council, not a holiday park. Money should be spent on infrastructure only. Not on making people feel good!

Feedback on other local topics

42. Key themes across feedback received on other local topics include:

· Theme 1: Climate / environment (18 feedback points). In support of further climate and environmental policies (6 feedback points), alternatives modes of transport (6 feedback points), and to increase shade in parks (2 feedback points).

· Theme 2: Transport (9 feedback points). Support for alternative modes of transport (5 feedback points); concern about safety, particularly when cycling (3 feedback points); and congestion (2 feedback points).

· Theme 3: Infrastructure (6 feedback points). More spend on infrastructure, particularly for future needs (3 feedback points), maintenance on town centres (1 feedback point), protecting historic buildings (1 feedback point).

Information on submitters

43. The tables and graphs below indicate what demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

Gender and age demographic of submitters

Age	Male	Female	Gender Diverse
< 15	0	0	0
15-24	5	10	0
25-34	9	13	0
35-44	9	17	1
45-54	21	22	0
55-64	9	26	0
65-74	22	15	0
75 +	6	4	0
Total	81	107	1

*Ethnicity*		#	%
*European*		*121*	*64%*
	Pakeha/NZ European	110	58%
	Other European	11	6%
*Maori*		7	4%
*Pacific*		8	4%
	Samoan	3	2%
	Tongan	1	1%
	Other Pacific	4	2%
*Asian*		66	*35%*
	Chinese	50	26%
	Indian	6	3%
	Other Asian	10	5%
*African/Middle Eastern/Latin*		2	1%
*Other*		9	5%
*Total people providing ethnicity*		*190*	*112%*

Ethnic breakdown of submitters

Overview of feedback received on the Annual Budget from Albert-Eden Local Board area

44. The proposed Annual Budget 2020/2021 sets out our priorities and how we're going to pay for them. The regional consultation on the proposed Annual Budget focused on changes to rates and fees, the key proposals were:

· waste management targeted rate

· refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

· Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.

45. The submissions received from the Albert-Eden Local Board area on these key issues is summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Waste management targeted rate

46. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the waste management targeted rate.

Question 1: Waste management targeted rate

The cost of responsibly dealing with our kerbside recycling (paper, cardboard and plastics) has increased due to international market conditions.

To pay for this we propose to charge only those who use the service by increasing the targeted rate by $19.97 a year or $0.38 a week (the total cost changing from $121.06 to $141.03 incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to fund the shortfall by increasing general rates for all ratepayers, including those who don’t get a kerbside collection service.

47. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

1-Q1 Waste management targeted rate	Count	%
Do you support our proposal?
Support	119	69%
Do not support	43	25%
Other	11	6%

48. Those who support the proposal do so as they believe it is fair (9 feedback points) and that user pays makes sense (6 feedback points): “it seems the most fair, and sustainable plan.” Respondents who do not support believe the cost is already too high and they should not be fronting it (9 feedback points) and do not want their rates to increase (7 feedback points). The ‘other’ comments feel that this is a one size fits all and penalises those who take extra care and responsibility to reduce their waste (2 feedback points) and that rate payers shouldn’t be the only ones paying for this (4 feedback points).

Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

49. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City targeted rate.

Question 2: Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City

In the old Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas, households pay for rubbish through a targeted rate. In other parts of the city, residents pay for their collection via Pay As You Throw. The targeted rate for the Auckland City and Manukau City Council areas no longer meets the cost of collection.

To cover this extra cost we propose increasing the targeted rate in these areas by $14.23 a year or $0.27 a week for a 120 litre bin (the total cost changing from $129.93 to $144.16 incl. GST), and an additional $6.68 a year or $0.13 a week for a large 240 litre bin (the total cost changing from $191 to $211.91 incl. GST).

If we do not do this, we would have to increase general rates for all ratepayers, including those living outside these two areas who would subsidise residents of old Auckland and Manukau cities.

50. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

2-Q2 Refuse collection in former Auckland City and Manukau City	Count	%
Do you support our proposal?
Support	107	63%
Do not support	52	30%
Other	12	7%

51. Comments in support believe that it is fair and equitable (13 feedback points) but that they wanted pay as you throw added as well (4 feedback points). Those who do not support the proposal state that cost is too high (3 feedback points), the cost should be spread across Auckland (3 feedback points), and want pay as you throw (7 feedback points). Respondents who selected ‘other’ want pay as you throw (3 feedback points) and think it should be standardised across Auckland so that certain areas aren’t paying more than others (3 feedback points).

Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

52. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to increase the Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate.

Question 3: Waitākere rural sewerage service and targeted rate

Last year we consulted on removing the septic tank pumpout service funded by a targeted rate. While feedback indicated a willingness to go ahead with the removal of this service in the Henderson-Massey and Upper Harbour local board areas, residents of the Waitākere Ranges local board area said they wanted to keep the service. The cost of delivering this service is higher than the current targeted rate of $198.43.

Our proposal, for those in the Waitākere Ranges local board area who want the service, is to recover the full cost by increasing the targeted rate to between $260 and $320 a year (incl. GST). This increase would apply from July 2021.

If we do not do this, the council could end the service, or continue to subsidise the cost of the service to septic tank users in the Waitākere Ranges local board area from all general ratepayers, including those who don’t use the service.

53. The graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

3-Q3 Waitakere rural sewerage service and targeted rate	Count	%
Do you support our proposal?
Support - continue the service	99	69%
Do not support - end the service	32	22%
Do not support - continue the Waitakere septic tank service subsidised by all general ratepayers	13	9%

54. Respondents who supported the new policy believed it is fair and right (4 feedback points), user pays (6 feedback points). Those who supported continuing the Waitakere septic tank service said that residents are entitled to a good system (2 feedback points), there should be consistency across the city (1 feedback point), and they believe it would be cheaper to continue (2 feedback points). Comments by submitters who wanted to end the service did not like the cost to the rate payers and said instead that user pays should apply (5 feedback points).

Other feedback

55. Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if they had any feedback on any other issues. This could include the key topics of how we charge for pool fencing inspections, and adjusting our fees and charges.

56. Pool fencing inspections: generally, submitters were against changing the current practice (12 feedback points against, 5 feedback points for). The key concern of those against were that they will be paying more for a service they already feel they are paying too much for. There was also confusion over whether the fee would be yearly, but the inspection would triennially (2 feedback points).

Feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021

57. Feedback was received from the Albert-Eden Local Board area on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021.

58. 55 submissions were made from Albert-Eden residents on the draft Tūpuna Maunga o Tamaki Makaurau Authority – Operational Plan 2020/2021. The draft operational plan received 4 feedback points in support, 4 feedback points in partial support and 32 feedback points opposed. Those who partially supported the plan liked certain aspects, including the transition towards more native plants on the maunga, they however wanted a gradual process. Respondents who were opposed, referenced the impacts on native birds (24 submission points) and cutting down trees during a climate emergency (8 submission points).

Feedback on other regional proposals with a local impact

59. All feedback has been reflected in previous sections.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

60. The decisions recommended in this report are procedural in nature. New targeted rates and the release of reserve funds will not have any climate impacts themselves.

61. Some of the proposed projects these would fund may have climate impacts. The climate impacts of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a result of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

62. Some of the proposed projects these would fund will be specifically designed to mitigate climate impact, build resilience to climate impacts, and restore the natural environment.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

63. The Annual Budget is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

64. Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. Local boards have a statutory role in providing local board feedback on regional plans.

65. Local boards play an important role in the development of the Annual Budget. Local board agreements form part of the Annual Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the Annual Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori.

67. Local board plans, which were developed in 2017 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.

68. The analysis included submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

69. Ongoing conversations between local boards and Māori will assist to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

70. Some of the proposed projects these would fund may have impacts on Māori. The impacts on Māori of any projects Auckland Council chooses to progress with as a result of this, will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

71. This report is seeking local board decisions on financial matters in local board agreements that need to then be considered by the Governing Body.

72. Local boards are also providing input to regional plans. There is information in the consultation material for each plan with the financial implications of different options.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

73. Local boards are required to make recommendations on these local financial matters for the Annual Budget by 15 May 2020, to enable the Governing Body to make decisions on them when considering the Annual Budget in May.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

74. Local boards will approve their local board agreements and corresponding work programmes.

75. Recommendations and feedback from local boards will be provided to the relevant governing body committees for consideration during decision making at the Governing Body meeting.

76. The dates of these meetings are yet to be determined as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown are taken into account.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Albert-Eden Local Board individual submissions on the Annual Budget and Local Priorities 2020/2021 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Claire Abbot - Local Board Services Graduate

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 May 2020

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2020/04486

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Albert-Eden Local Board delegate authority to the local board chair to submit the local board’s formal views for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils, where this feedback is due before a local board meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Central Government (and other councils) seek feedback through public consultation on bills, inquiries and other key matters. The consultation timeframes vary between four and eight weeks.

3. The Governing Body is responsible for making official submissions to Central Government on most matters except for submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to a local board area. Where the Governing Body decides to make an official submission on a Central Government matter, staff work to develop a draft submission for consideration by the Governing Body and will call for local board input so it can be incorporated. The Auckland Council submission needs to be approved within the consultation timeframes set by Central Government.

4. Local board input is required to be approved by the local board. Where local boards are unable to make these decisions at a local board meeting due to the constrained timeframes, another mechanism is required. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for the council.

5. In situations where timeframes don’t allow reporting to formal business meetings, staff recommend that the local board either uses the urgent decision process or delegates authority to the chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions. Both options provide an efficient way to ensure that local board formal input is provided when external parties set submission deadlines that don’t allow formal input to be obtained from a local board business meeting.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) delegate authority to the chair to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

b) note that the local board can continue to use its urgent decision process to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils, if the chair chooses not to exercise the delegation sought in recommendation (a).

c) note that this delegation will only be exercised where the timeframes do not allow for local board input to be considered and approved at a local board meeting.

d) note all local input approved and submitted for inclusion in an Auckland Council submission is to be included on the next local board meeting agenda for the public record.

Horopaki

Context

6. Government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils seek feedback on issues using both formal and informal consultation opportunities. Auckland Council has an ongoing opportunity to provide advocacy on public policy matters and this is often done by making a public submission. Submissions can be provided on other council’s plans, on policy and legislative reviews or on an agency’s proposed strategy.

7. Council submissions are the formal responses to the public consultation opportunities that are open to everyone, including all Aucklanders.

8. Under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 the Governing Body must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, where a Governing Body decision affects or may affect the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

9. Under the current allocation of decision-making responsibility, the Governing Body is allocated decision-making responsibility for “submissions to government on legislation including official submissions of Auckland Council incorporating local board views”. Local boards are allocated decision-making for “submissions to government on legislation where it specifically relates to that local board area only”.

10. Central Government agencies set the deadlines for submissions which are generally between four to eight weeks. These timeframes do not usually allow for formal reporting to local boards to input into the council submission. In situations where local boards prefer not to use the urgent decision process, local boards can sometimes provide informal feedback that is endorsed at the next business meeting. This is not considered best practice because the local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage, which leads to reputational risk for council.

11. Providing a delegation for Central Government submissions provides local boards with another option to give formal local views within prescribed timeframes.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. There are five options available to local boards to approve their formal views and input on submissions to Central Government. Where this input is sought within a time constrained process and is due before a meeting of the local board, only four of these options will be available.

Table 1: Options for mechanisms through which the local boards can approve their formal views on Auckland Council submissions to Central Government and other councils

Options	Pros	Cons
1. Local board input approved at a business meeting	· Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Local board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines often don’t align with external agency deadlines.
2. Local board input approved at an extraordinary meeting of the local board	· Provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Decision is made and adopted in a public meeting (transparency of decision making). · All local board members have the opportunity to make the formal decision.	· Extraordinary meeting needs to be called by a resolution (requires anticipation by the local board) or requisition in writing delivered to the Chief Executive. The process usually requires a minimum of three clear working days. · There are additional costs incurred to run an unscheduled meeting. · It may be difficult to schedule a time when enough local board members can attend to achieve a quorum.
3. Local board input approved using urgent decision mechanism (staff recommend this option)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules. · Local board input can be submitted once the Chair, Deputy Chair and Relationship Manager have received the report providing the local board views and input. · The urgent decision needs the sign-off from two local board members (ie the Chair and Deputy Chair), rather than just one.	· The decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · Chair and deputy may not have time to properly consult and ascertain view of the full local board.
4. Local board input approved by the chair who has been delegated authority from the local board (staff recommend this option where local boards choose not to use the urgent decision process)	· It provides a mechanism for local boards to provide their formal views where submission deadlines do not align with local board meeting schedules and local boards don’t want to use the urgent decision process. · Local board input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Decision is not made in a public meeting. It may be perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. · The chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board.
5. Local board input submitted and ratified at a later date	· Local board informal input can be submitted as soon as possible after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.	· Local board input submitted is considered to be the informal views of the local board until they are approved. · Local board input can be challenged or changed at ratification or approval stage. · Decision to ratify informal views, even if made in a public meeting, is unable to be changed in the council submission (can be perceived as non-transparent decision-making). · Inclusion of informal views in the Auckland Council submission will be at the discretion of the Governing Body. These may be included with caveats noting the views have not been ratified by the local board. · If the local board changes its views, there is a reputational risk for the council.

13. Options one, two and three are already available to local boards and can be utilised as required and appropriate. Option one should always be used where timeframes allow reporting. Option four requires a delegation in order for a local board to utilise this mechanism and should be used only when timeframes don’t allow reporting to a business meeting.

14. Local boards who wish to utilise option four are requested to delegate to the chair as this fits within the leadership role of the chair and they are more likely to be available because the chair is a full-time role. The role of this delegated member will be to attest that the approved and submitted input constitutes the views of the local board. The input should then be published with the agenda of the next formal business meeting of the local board to provide transparency. The delegate may choose not to exercise their delegation if the matter is of a sensitive nature and is something that the full board should consider at a business meeting.

15. Each local board will be in charge of its own process for considering and developing their local board input that will be approved by the delegated member. This can include discussions at workshops, developing ideas in a small working group or allocating it to an individual member to draft.

16. Where local boards do not wish to delegate the views to the chair, the recommended option is to use the urgent decision mechanism (where deadlines don’t align with local board reporting timeframes). The mechanism requires a staff report and the decision to be executed by three people (the Chair, Deputy Chair and the Relationship Manager). Local board input can be submitted within one to two days after the local board views and input have been collated and discussed by the local board members.

17. Option five is not considered best practice and local boards are strongly discouraged from using this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

18. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. This report proposes a delegation to ensure that staff can undertake the preparation of submissions in a timely manner, while receiving formal local board input on matters that are of local board importance.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. This report seeks to establish a specific delegation for the local board chair.

21. Any local board member who is delegated responsibilities should ensure that they represent the wider local board views and preferences on each matter before them.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

22. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have a positive or negative impact for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

23. A decision of this procedural nature is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

24. If local boards choose to delegate to provide their formal views on Auckland Council submissions, there is a risk that this mechanism is perceived as non-transparent decision-making because it is not made by the full local board. This can be mitigated by publishing the submitted local board input on the next agenda.

25. There is also a risk that the chair who has the delegated authority may not have time to properly consult and ascertain views of the full local board. This can be mitigated by encouraging the local board to collectively discuss and agree their input before it is submitted by the member who has been delegated authority.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. On those occasions where it is required, the delegation will be used to approve and submit the local board’s input into Auckland Council submissions on formal consultation from government departments, parliament, select committees and other councils.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 May 2020

New Community Lease at Building One 869 New North Road, Mt Albert to Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated

File No.: CP2020/03827

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to grant a new community lease to Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Council owns the property at 869 New North Road, Mt Albert. The property has two buildings that are used for community activities. The building fronting New North Road is the larger of the two and for the purposes of this report it will be referred to as building one. The rear building is the smaller of the two and is currently leased to Auckland Resettled Community Coalition Incorporated.

3. An expression of interest was called in 2015. The outcome of the expressions of interest was that three of the applicants, who were also groups occupying the space on an informal basis, were working collaboratively and continued to occupy the building to provide a range of community activities and services. The process of granting a lease was not completed at the time.

4. To date, Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated and Mt Albert Community Patrols have continued to co-exist in the building on an informal basis. Staff recommend that one community lease be granted to Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated and then that group provide a hire agreement to Mt Albert Community Patrols for the space they occupy and activities they carry out in building one.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) grant a community lease to Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated for building one at 869 New North Road, Mt Albert for a term of three years with one right of renewal of three years.

b) approve rent of $1 per annum with subsidised maintenance charges of $500 per annum, both amounts plus GST.

c) approve a hire agreement for the Mt Albert Community Patrols (MARA) to run concurrently with the lease to Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated.

d) request that a community outcomes plan be prepared for approval of the elected members, this is to be attached as a schedule to the lease.

e) note that all other terms and conditions to be in accord with the council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Horopaki

Context

5. The building at 869 New North Road has been occupied by long term community tenants on either an expired lease or informally.

6. To formalise the occupation an expression of interest was called for in 2015 to seek the interest of groups in the community to occupy the space. Expressions were received from the occupants of the building only. At the time the lease process was not completed and a lease was not granted, so the tenants have occupied the space informally since then.

7. This report recommends the granting of a new community lease subject to conditions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Property description

8. Council owns the property at 869 New North Road, Mt Albert. The property has two buildings that are used for community activities. The building fronting New North Road is the larger of the two and for the purposes of this report will be referred to as building one. The rear building is the smaller of the two and is currently leased to Auckland Resettled Community Coalition Incorporated.

9. The property was purchased in 1961 by Mt Albert Borough Council to allow the building of a service lane behind the properties at 867-901 New North Rd.

10. In 2003 Auckland City Council resolved to retain the property for car parking as part of the Mt Albert parking plan although it was not immediately required for that purpose. In 2005 the Eden Albert Community Board asked that in the interim the property be made available for community use. Subsequent advice (March 2016) from Auckland Transport is the property is no longer required for parking.

11. The property is legally described as Lt 8 DP 51459 and is zoned Business Activity 2 (Attachment A Site Plan). The land held under the provisions of the Local Government Act.

12. Building one has been upgraded with renewal works undertaken including painting, interior and exterior repairs and maintenance.

Current occupying groups

13. An expression of interest was called in 2015. The outcome of this was that three applicants, who were already occupying the space on an informal basis, (one of which has since found alternative space) were working collaboratively and continued to occupy the building to provide a range of community activities and services.

14. The groups are New Zealand Neighbourhood Support and Mt Albert Community Patrols. A CCTV surveillance monitoring system belonging to the Mt Albert Business Association is also housed. There is a large meeting room, managed by New Zealand Neighbourhood Support, that is well used by them and other groups in the community. It is generally used five to six days per week.

15. The details of the occupants can be summarised as follows:

Name

Activity

Operating hours / week

Membership

Comment

NZ Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) Incorporated

Crime prevention and neighbourhood relationship building

Reaches 11,000 people

Current tenant. Manage the meeting room bookings and access.

Mt Albert Community Patrol (MARA)

Community security patrols

Intermittent

21 active participants

But reach a wider number of residents

Current tenant. Uses garage to store patrol vehicle. Close relationship with NZ Neighbourhood Support.

16. New Zealand Neighbourhood Support, supports households and communities across the country connecting residents to improve their safety and resilience.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

17. Climate change is unlikely to be an issue during the term proposed, as there are no additional emissions created by the continued occupation. The site is not within a flooding or coastal inundation zone.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. There are 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.

19. Prior to granting a lease of longer than six months under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, public notification and iwi consultation is required.

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

Local impacts and local board views

20. The proposed new lease was discussed with the Local Board at workshops in June and November 2018. The Local Board requested staff to enquire with Mount Albert Community Patrol to ensure their needs were being met. Staff undertook this and confirm that the Mount Albert Community Patrol are happy to continue the current occupation arrangement.

21. Staff recommend a lease term of three years with a right of renewal of three years, in line with the Albert Eden Local Board’s community leases policy.

22. Public notification was undertaken 12 December 2019 to 27 January 2020 and there were no submissions received.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

23. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader statutory obligations to Māori. Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework.

24. Consultation with iwi with an interest in the Mt Albert area was undertaken. Staff presented the proposal at the Central South Mana Whenua forum on 27 November 2019 and followed up by email on 9 January 2020 requesting written feedback. No submissions were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. There are no financial implications associated with the renewal of the community lease.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. Should a community lease not be formalised, Neighbourhood Support (Auckland City) may not be able to continue its activities and they and the community patrols would have to seek alternative accommodation.

27. Security of tenure will be afforded by the Board resolving to grant a lease to the group.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

28. Subject to the local board approval of the community lease, staff will prepare the Deed of Lease and Community Outcomes Plan.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan	131

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Tsz Ning Chung - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

05 May 2020

Attendance at local board meetings during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period

File No.: CP2020/05032

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend an amendment to the local board’s standing orders in order to provide for attendance of non-members at local board meetings via audio or audio-visual link.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report updates the local board on the temporary arrangements for local board meetings enabled by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 and provides options for implementing similar arrangements for non-members.

3. The COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 temporarily amends the existing legislative restrictions for local government on remote attendance for elected members and minimum quorum at local board meetings. This now enables meetings to proceed by audio-visual link, changes how meetings can be open to the public and how members of the public receive the agenda and minutes.

4. The current local board standing orders do not provide for non-members, specifically members of the public and Māori, to give input via audio or audio-visual link.

5. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that a person other than a member of the local board may participate by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met. (Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7, LGA). Local board standing orders do not currently allow for this.

6. Auckland Council will be using Skype for Business for local board meetings. Attendance by members and non-members (if approved) will be facilitated by phone (audio only) or Skype video (audio-visual) via Skype for Business app.

7. An amendment to Standing Orders to enable electronic attendance can either be reversed at a future date or maintained to support that attendance in the future, where it is available.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendations

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) note the temporary amendments pursuant to the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 which allows members to attend meetings by audio-visual link, as of right and despite anything to the contrary in standing orders and to be counted for the purposes of quorum.

b) amend its standing orders by including a new Standing Order 3.3.10 that reads as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link

A person other than a member of the local board may participate in a meeting of the local board by means of audio link or audio-visual link if the person is otherwise approved to participate in accordance with Standing Orders Sections 6 and 7.

c) amend its Standing Order 7.8.5 to provide discretion to the chair of the meeting to decline Public Forum requests via audio or audio-visual link.

Horopaki

Context

COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020

8. In late March 2020, central government enacted an omnibus bill that amended various acts of parliament including the LGA and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA).

9. The amendments to the LGA and LGOIMA enable local authorities to have meetings by audio-visual link (given the restrictions regarding physical distancing and Alert Level 4) and support the effective operation of those meetings by removing conditions associated with the right to attend meetings by audio or audio-visual link.

10. These amendments only apply while the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 is in force and will be repealed when that notice expires or is revoked.

Amendments to LGA

11. The amendments to the LGA modify Clause 25A, Schedule 7 so that a member of a local authority has the right to attend any meeting by audio or audio-visual link, regardless of what is provided for in the local authority’s standing orders. It also modifies clause 25A so that a member attending by audio link or audio-visual link is counted for the purposes of quorum.

Amendments to LGOIMA

12. The amendments to LGOIMA include modifying s 47 so that the requirement for meetings of local authorities to be ‘open to the public’ may be met during Alert Level 4 and other restrictions on physical distancing. The amendment redefines ‘open to the public’ to mean that the local authority:

a) if it is reasonably practicable, enables access to the meeting by broadcasting live the audio or video of the meeting (for example, by broadcasting it on an Internet site); and

b) does 1 or both of the following as soon as practicable after the meeting ends:

i. makes an audio or a video recording of the meeting available on its Internet site

ii. makes a written summary of the business of the meeting available on its Internet site.

13. This amendment does not anticipate public involvement as part of the meeting itself but ensures the public can access or view meeting proceedings online (either live or after the meeting) or through reviewing the summary.

14. Other amendments to LGOIMA include:

· Modifying s 46A so that agendas and reports for the meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations.

· Modifying s 51 so that minutes of meetings may be made available on the local authority’s internet site instead of at offices and other physical locations.

· The changes made by the COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 now supersede some of the provisions in the local board standing orders and the restrictions on physical distancing and from Alert Level 4 now limit the opportunity for public input.

Local Board Standing Orders

15. The LGA requires local authorities to adopt a set of standing orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees (Clause 27, Sch 7). Each local board has adopted its standing orders which have been developed from a template.

16. As a result of the statutory amendments listed in this report, the follow standing orders have been temporarily superseded:

· 3.3.2 Member’s status – quorum and vote

· 3.3.3 Conditions for attending by electronic link

· 3.3.4 Request to attend by electronic link

· 7.3.1 Information to be available to the public

· 7.3.2 Availability of agendas and reports

· 8.2.1 Inspection of minute books

17. There are additional provisions in standing orders that may require further consideration if the local board wishes to enable these to continue during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. These relate to input and participation by Māori and the public.

18. Clause 25A(2), Schedule 7 of the LGA requires that a person other than a member of the local authority may participate by audio link or audio-visual link if the standing orders of the local authority permit this and if the chair is satisfied that all conditions and requirements in the standing orders are met.

19. The current standing orders do not currently provide for non-members, if required and approved to do so, to give input by means of audio link or audio-visual link.

20. Other participants at local board meetings include Governing Body members and staff. The LGA and the recent amendment provide the right for any member of a local authority or committee to attend any meeting of a local authority by audio-visual link (unless lawfully excluded). This can be interpreted broadly to extend to meetings where the elected member may not be a decision-maker or be participating in the decision at all. As such, Governing Body members participation may be by audio or audio-visual link and the process for providing them with speaking rights remains under standing orders.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. In performing their role, local boards are required to act in accordance with the principles contained in s 14(1) of the LGA including the requirement for the council to conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner and make itself aware of and have regard to the views of all of its communities.

22. While the LGA does not specifically require public input to be provided for at local board meetings, the standing orders approved by the local board reflects the principles in s 14 LGA by providing for public attendance and enabling public input at meetings.

23. In order to continue to provide this opportunity as well as facilitate input by Māori and the public, the standing orders require amending.

Standing Orders Section 6 Māori Input

24. Speaking rights for Māori organisations or their nominees are granted under standing orders for the purpose of enabling Māori input, if any, to any item on the agenda of a meeting.

25. To ensure this right can be exercised during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision needs to be made enabling any input to be given by audio or audio-visual link.

Standing Orders 7.7 Deputations and 7.8 Public Forum

26. The provisions for public input in standing orders are one of the ways that local boards give effect to the requirements of the LGA (s 78 and s 79).

27. The LGA provides that in the course of its decision-making, a local authority must consider the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter. The LGA does not specify how those views are to be obtained or what form that consideration should take. It does not require a public forum at meetings.

28. However, the LGA gives local authorities discretion as to how to comply with s 78 and what to consider. Through their standing orders, local boards and the Governing Body have chosen to enable public input through deputations and public forum at their meetings as one way to obtain community views, among other things.

29. To ensure this opportunity can continue to be made available during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period, provision must be made in standing orders to receive this by audio or audio-visual link.

Proposed amendment

30. This report recommends that input from non-members continue to be enabled during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. This requires an amendment to the standing orders.

31. An amendment to standing orders requires a 75% majority vote.

32. A similar amendment has been made by the Governing Body to their standing orders. It is desirable to ensure consistency across the governance arms of Auckland Council. The Governing Body resolutions are as follows:

Resolution GB/2020/33 (n) That the Governing Body amend standing orders by inserting a new Standing Order 3.3.10 as follows:

Attendance of non-members by electronic link A person other than a member of the Governing Body, or the relevant committee, may participate in a meeting of the Governing Body or committee by means of audio link or audio-visual link in emergencies if the person is otherwise approved to participate under these standing orders (such as under Standing Order 6.2 “Local board input” or 7.7 “Public input”.)

Resolution GB/2020/33 (p) That the Governing Body agree to change Auckland Council’s Standing Orders to provide full discretion to the chair of the Emergency Committee to decline public input requests

33. The local board’s standing orders currently gives discretion to the chair to decline deputations but not public forum requests. Giving discretion to the chair to manage requests for public forum during this time can ensure the requirements of the LGA regarding the provision of the technology requirements, can be supported.

Technology options available

34. Where attendance by audio or audio-visual link is permitted, the LGA requires that the chair of the meeting ensures:

· that the technology for the audio link or audio-visual link is available and of suitable quality

· that the procedure for use of the technology will ensure that participants can hear and be heard by each other.

35. The chair’s discretion will need to be exercised where the technology and quality cannot be guaranteed.

36. The audio and audio-visual link options available for non-member input are provided by Auckland Council through Skype for Business:

Option	Ability
Audio link only Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone.	· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting · Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone
Audio-visual link Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting	· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending · Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

Option

Ability

Audio link only

Attend Skype for Business meeting via phone.

· No ability to see presentations being shared or to see and be seen by local board members attending the meeting

· Only technical equipment required is a landline or mobile telephone

Audio-visual link

Video and audio attend Skype for Business meeting

· Allows non-member to see both presentations being shared and to see and be seen by the local board members attending

· Requires a mobile phone or a computer device with an internet connection

37. If enabled under standing orders, non-members who wish to give input would need to contact the local board with a request to attend. If approved by the chair, information on how to join the meeting using audio and audio-visual link options above will be sent out to the attendee by staff.

Summary of meeting

38. Where it is not reasonably practicable for the public to attend the meeting through a broadcast and/or peruse a recording after it has happened, a summary of the meeting will need to be provided by staff.

39. A summary in this context would be different from the content of agendas, reports and minutes which are all separately required to be publicly available. It should contain the thrust or key points of the discussion or debate at the meeting keeping in mind that its purpose is to provide an alternative to an audio or video recording of the meeting, in a situation where the public is not able to attend and hear this discussion themselves.

40. The ordinary definition of a summary is a brief statement or account of the main points of something. While the appropriate level of detail is likely to vary depending on what is being discussed at meetings, a summary is not expected to include verbatim notes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

41. This decision is procedural in nature and any climate impacts will be negligible. The decision is unlikely to result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

42. Staff attendance at meetings, while not specifically provided for, is a necessary part of local board meetings and as such is expected to take place using audio-visual link.

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

Local impacts and local board views

43. This report seeks to amend the local boards standing orders to enable public input and Māori input at meetings.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. This report seeks a decision that will ensure Māori input can continue to be given during the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period.

45. This will ensure Māori are not prevented from giving input at a meeting on any matter that may be of interest to them.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. The decision to amend standing orders is of a procedural nature and is not considered to have financial implications on Auckland Council.

47. The scaling up of technology to ensure compliance with COVID-19 Response (Urgent Management Measures) Act 2020 is being done at a cost to the council. The costs are not known at this stage and will be factored into operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The objective of the recent legislative changes is to reduce public health risks and ensure compliance with social distancing measures and other restrictions in New Zealand’s COVID-19 alert levels response plan.

49. While this is not specifically required by legislation, permitting public input by audio or audio-visual link, if practicable, can ensure the local board can receive and consider views of its constituents on decisions that they are making.

50. There is a risk that the audio-visual option would only be taken up by a small number of constituents as this would only be available to those who have the technical devices and internet access. The software that will be used for meetings is Skype for Business which is free to download and use. However, the internet access costs or availability of technology/devices can be a limiting factor for some constituents. Constituents who do not have internet access can participate, if approved, by phone.

51. The report is seeking discretion for the local board chair to decline public forum requests. This delegation should be exercised with caution so as to not undermine the intention of standing orders (which currently provided some limited grounds to decline public input). There will be instances where it is reasonable to decline (noting these examples are not intended to be exhaustive), such as:

· where the technology cannot be provided or quality cannot be assured

· a need to manage time allocations for the agenda

· the matter is neither urgent nor the subject of a decision to be made at the meeting

· the request is offensive, repetitious or vexatious.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

52. If approved, the amendments to standing orders can, if the local board chooses, continue beyond the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period. Enabling these changes gives maximum flexibility for attendance of non-members at future meetings, including those with underlying health issues or compromised immune systems that may need to take extra precaution even after the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice period has ended.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Manager, Local Board Services

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Chairperson	Margi Watson
Deputy Chairperson	Lee Corrick
Members	Graeme Easte
	Rachel Langton
	Ben Lee
	Julia Maskill
	Christina Robertson
	Kendyl Smith

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	10 March 2020 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	149
b ⇩	31 March 2020 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	153
c ⇩	7 April 2020 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	155
d ⇩	14 April 2020 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	157
e ⇩	21 April 2020 Albert-Eden Local Board Workshop Record	161

Author	Michael Mendoza - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards