Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

2 Apologies

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.

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

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

Board Member	Organisation/Position
Mark Allen	- Community Waitākere – Executive Officer - Bethells Valley Fire – Senior Fire Fighter - Waitākere Licensing Trust – Trustee
Michelle Clayton	- Glen Eden Community House – Treasurer - Glen Eden Residents’ Association – Treasurer - Waitākere Community Organisation Grants Scheme (COGS) – Committee Member - The Personal Advocacy and Safeguarding Adults Trust – Trustee - Glen Eden Returned Services Association (RSA) – Member - Glen Eden Railway Trust – Member
Sandra Coney	- Waitematā District Health Board – Elected Member & Chair of Hospital Advisory Committee - Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron - New Zealand Society of Genealogists – Member - New Zealand Military Defence Society – Member - Cartwright Collective – Member - Piha Wetland Trust – Partner Peter Hosking is a Trustee for the Piha Wetland Trust
Greg Presland	- Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee - Combined Youth Services Trust – Trustee - Glen Eden Bid – Member - Titirangi Ratepayers and Residents Association – Member - Waitākere Ranges Protection Society - Member - Titirangi RSA - Member - Maungakiekie Golf Club – Member
Saffron Toms	- Titirangi Community House – Secretary - Huia-Cornwallis Residents and Ratepayers Association – Committee Member
Ken Turner	- Huia-Cornwallis Residents and Ratepayers Association – Committee Member

Member appointments

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

External community group or organisation	Lead	Alternate
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Mark Allen	Saffron Toms
Ark in the Park	Mark Allen	Sandra Coney
Friends of Arataki and Waitākere Regional Parkland Incorporated	Michelle Clayton	Sandra Coney
Glen Eden Business Improvement District (Glen Eden Business Association)	Michelle Clayton	Greg Presland
Glen Eden Playhouse Theatre Trust	Ken Turner	Mark Allen
Te Uru Waitākere Contemporary Gallery	Mark Allen	Saffron Toms and Sandra Coney
The Rural Advisory Panel	Ken Turner	Saffron Toms

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 February 2021,
as true and correct.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 March 2021

Landowner approval application for stormwater infrastructure at Harold Moody Reserve at 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden

File No.: CP2021/02181

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve a landowner approval application for stormwater infrastructure at Harold Moody Reserve, located at 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden for the proposed adjoining development at 46 Glendale Road, Glen Eden.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The owner of 46 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, has obtained resource consent and building consent for the development of a second dwelling at their property. The construction of this dwelling is now nearing completion.

3. To service their development, the owner of 46 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, is requesting landowner approval to construct stormwater infrastructure within Harold Moody Reserve, located at 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden.

4. The stormwater proposal involves a new stormwater line, two manholes, and a naturalised outfall within the reserve.

5. Five alternative options have been considered. Four of the options were for different stormwater alignments within the reserve, and one option was to pump water up to the road.

6. These alternative options are not possible due to the contours of the site, which does not allow for a gravity led system, and Watercare Services Limited not providing approval for crossing over the critical watermain within the reserve.

7. The current proposal is recommended by staff as:

· the proposed alignment is as close to the reserve’s boundary as possible, which will enable any future development of the reserve, and

· the proposed alignment will allow the neighbouring sites which are likely to be developed in the future to connect their stormwater to the public line with minimal impact to the reserve.

8. Risks involved in approving this application include potential damage to the reserve from construction of the infrastructure, and new visible infrastructure. These risks can be mitigated by conditions placed on the landowner approval letter if approved, such as:

· pre-start and post completion inspections with the facilities manager to approve the work methodology and ensure any damaged council assets are reinstated to Community Facilities standards

· ensuring the proposed outfall structure is naturalised to mitigate any visual impacts. This will include implementing a rock-face finish design, rock riprap, planting around the outfall and within the riprap, as well as planting new native trees.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) approve the landowner approval application from the owner of 46 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, to construct stormwater infrastructure as shown in a pink line in Attachment B within Harold Moody Reserve, located at 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, and legally described as Lot 2 Deposited Plan 427278, Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 18217.

Horopaki

Context

9. The owner of 46 Glendale Road, Glen Eden (the applicant) obtained resource consent and building consent to develop their property in 2018. The development is for a two-lot subdivision, with one new dwelling being constructed at the back of their property.

10. Landowner approval in principle was initially given in 2014 and 2016 by the Local & Sports Parks West team to construct a stormwater pipe and outlet in Harold Moody Reserve, prior to obtaining resource and building consents.

11. The new dwelling, which has been constructed, needs to be connected to the stormwater network. The applicant is seeking landowner approval to install stormwater infrastructure within Harold Moody Reserve to service the development.

12. The stormwater alignment that was accepted in the resource consent does not comply with Watercare Services Limited’s current requirements, as the stormwater pipe would not achieve the minimum safe distance from the existing critical watermain.

13. The applicant is now seeking landowner approval for an alternative stormwater alignment (shown in bright green in figure one below) within Harold Moody Reserve, which does not cross over Watercare Services Limited’s critical asset.

Figure 1: Annotated image showing proposed stormwater alignment - bright green line.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Site details

14. Harold Moody Reserve is located at 44 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, and is legally described as Lot 2 Deposited Plan 427278, Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 18217. This reserve is held by Auckland Council and is subject to the Reserves Act 1977 as a classified recreation reserve.

15. The reserve contains sport fields, netball and tennis courts, a sports club, community buildings, and a carparking area.

Proposal

16. The proposal involves:

· running a stormwater line in the reserve (as close to the boundary as possible)

· two new stormwater manholes

· one new stormwater outfall.

17. Investigation work will be undertaken to check if there is sufficient clearing around the existing underground pipes to allow for directional drilling for the whole length of the proposed stormwater pipe.

18. Where the proposed stormwater line crosses underneath the carparking area and sport courts, the pipe will be installed by directional drilling to minimise impacts to council’s hardstand areas.

19. The location of the proposed outfall has been chosen as this area will require the least amount of vegetation clearance. The vegetation clearance is limited to low-lying shrubs only. The applicant will mitigate this impact by:

· undertaking pest and weed control work

· planting replacement native trees

· maintaining the new native trees for a minimum of two years to ensure they are well-established.

20. The proposed stormwater outfall will be constructed with a rock face finish and riprap to achieve a natural appearance, that is sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

21. Native species (to be approved by council’s ecologist) will be planted into the rock riprap to further mitigate any stream erosion and to enhance the habitat for stream aquatic life.

22. The stormwater construction is expected to take no longer than three weeks. This timeframe factors into account contingency for bad weather. Work is proposed to begin during the summer season in 2021 to reduce potential impact on the grassed areas and the stream bank.

23. Public access throughout the reserve will be safely maintained during the construction of the stormwater pipes. While construction is underway, a safety fence with signage will be installed, and spotters will be present to further protect the public. The spotters’ job will be to carefully watch over and guide moving machinery and vehicles through the reserve, ensuring they do not put any members of the public or other contractors in danger.

24. The applicant will liaise with all groups and sports clubs present at Harold Moody Reserve to ensure no planned events or games are impacted.

Alternative options

25. The applicant has undertaken an extensive analysis of the alternative options available. These options have been ruled out for various engineering reasons. A visual comparison of the options is shown in Attachment A.

Table 1: Alternative options analysis

Option	Description	Option suitability
Option one	Connect to the road’s stormwater system via the reserve.	While this option would be the most ideal situation, it is not possible due to the contours of the site. The gradient of the new pipe would not achieve the Stormwater Code of Practice, as it would be too shallow to achieve a gravity led system.
Option two	Connect to an existing stormwater cess pit near the sports park in Harold Moody Reserve.	This option is not possible, as the stormwater line and outfall are inaccurately recorded on GIS and do not exist. Furthermore, this option would require the stormwater pipe to cross over the existing critical watermain, which is not permitted by Watercare Services Limited.
Option three	Construct a stormwater pipe straight across the reserve horizontally and construct a new stormwater outfall near the existing footbridge	The applicant received resource and building consent for this option, as well as landowner approval in principle from Parks and Sports West, in 2014 and 2016. However, this option also involves crossing over the existing critical watermain, and Watercare Services Limited will not provide approval for this to occur. For this reason, the applicant is now seeking landowner approval for an alternative alignment within the reserve.
Option four	Construct a curved stormwater pipe across the reserve and alongside the rear of the Glen Eden Community Centre building, with one new manhole and one new stormwater outfall.	This option is viable from an engineering perspective and is the preferred option by the applicant. However, this option is not supported by council staff as the pipe would be close to the building’s foundations, and it does not allow for any future development of the reserve.

26. The last remaining option is to pump stormwater from the site up to Glendale Road.

27. This approach is not supported by council’s development engineers and the Healthy Waters Department, as it does not comply with the Stormwater Code of Practice. The code of practice states that all stormwater modifications or extensions should be designed as gravity systems.

28. Pumping stormwater to the road is considered to be impractical as:

· there is a lack of resilience in comparison to a gravity system (i.e. they are prone to breaking down)

· there is a large waste of energy in comparison to a gravity led system

· there is a large increase in operational costs in comparison to a gravity system

· pumps required for stormwater are very large (relative to wastewater pumps), and require large holding tanks to store the water from heavy rain events

· a pumped system can only be designed for a 10-year level of service

· there will still be discharges into the reserve as the developer will need to provide an overland flow path for large rain events

· the stormwater from pumping to Glendale Road will contribute to the same network. The pumped stormwater would enter a catchpit opposite 43 Glendale Road, then flow through a pipe where it eventually discharges into the Waikūmete Stream.

Current proposal

29. The current proposal (indicated in the pink line on Attachment A and B), is to run a stormwater line as close to the boundary as possible, leading to a new outfall within the reserve.

30. This option is viable from an engineering perspective and is the preferred option by council staff. This option is recommended by Community Facilities for the following reasons:

· this alignment will enable any future development of this park, as it is closer to the boundary (in comparison to option four which cuts through the reserve)

· any future maintenance of this pipe is less likely to disrupt the existing building’s foundations (as it is not located in the vicinity of the building like option four)

· there will be less disruption to the park should other properties request permission to connect to the pipe in the future

· the surrounding properties are zoned in the Auckland Council Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) as Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone, meaning there is a high chance of more subdivision and development happening adjacent to the reserve.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

31. All of council’s stormwater modelling and infrastructure analysis includes allowances for predicted climate change parameters.

32. The specific design of the proposed stormwater network to service this development will be in accordance with council’s Stormwater Code of Practice, which takes into account the likely impacts of climate change on stormwater infrastructure. This includes increased rainfall design depths to account for more intensive storm events and ensuring the design of the outfall is resilient to additional stream flows.

33. The alternative option of pumping stormwater to the road (which is not supported by council staff) would result in increased energy consumption.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

34. The table below summarises the specialist’s feedback and specific conditions recommended in the landowner approval letter (if approved).

Table 2: Feedback from council specialists

Specialists	Feedback + specific conditions (in addition to standard landowner approval conditions)
Parks and Places Specialist	· Supportive of the current proposed stormwater alignment. · Staff referred to the Harold Moody and Duck Park Reserve Management Plan and the only relevant management objective in the plan is: “to protect the natural features and landscape qualities of the stream running through the reserve”. · The proposed outfall will be naturalised and planted with native species to complement the natural features and landscape qualities of the stream environment.
Senior Sports Maintenance Delivery Coordinator	· Supportive of the proposal with preference for the stormwater pipes to be installed via directional drilling or thrusting. · A pre-start meeting and post completion meeting will be required to ensure any damage to council and is reinstated.
Community Lease Specialist	· No issues or concerns were raised. · Requested a condition is included in the landowner approval letter requiring the applicant to contact the following clubs and users of the reserve prior to start of works, to ensure that no events, games or bookings will be impacted by the works: - Glen Eden Community and Recreation Centre - Glenora Eagles Softball Club - Glenora Rugby League.
Senior Urban Forest Specialist	· Reviewed the applicant’s arboricultural report and is supportive of the proposed tree works methodology and mitigation. · A complete set of specific arboricultural conditions was provided to be included in the landowner approval letter.
Healthy Waters Specialist	· Confirmed that the stormwater proposal meets the Stormwater Code of Practice · Confirmed that the stormwater infrastructure will be accepted as public infrastructure.
Ecological Advice Manager	· The Ecological Advice Manager reviewed the proposal form a terrestrial and riparian ecology perspective. · No concerns were raised, as long as the recommendations in the arborist report is followed. These are in line with the conditions provided by the Senior Urban Forest Specialist.
Senior Regional Advisor (Freshwater)	· The Senior Regional Advisor (Freshwater) provided the following recommendations to mitigate the potential impacts of the outfall: - the outfall shall be designed with an oblique angle that is compatible with the contours of the stream bank - installing rock riprap to be used as erosion protection - vegetating the rock riprap to further dissipate energy from stormwater flows. · These will be included as conditions in the landowner approval letter if approved.

Healthy Waters Department views

35. The Growth and Development Manager from Healthy Waters was asked to review the proposal and provide feedback. The Growth and Development Manager is supportive of the route and has confirmed that the proposed design and alignment of the stormwater infrastructure would meet the expectations of council’s design standards.

36. The proposed stormwater alignment allows for future connections to this new pipe from the properties at 48 and 50 Glendale Road, Glen Eden, as per the Stormwater Code of Practice.

37. The construction methodology to thrust the proposed stormwater line is considered best practice for this proposal and will minimise the disruption and impact to the park amenities such as the hardstand areas.

38. While the environmental effects of the development have been considered as part of the granting of the resource consent under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part), the Growth and Development Manager also considers that the proposal will have minimum impact on the Waikūmete Stream, assuming that the final location and design of the outfall complies with the risk mitigation recommendations of the landowner approval (if approved) as well as the specific requirements of the Engineering Plan Approval.

Watercare Services Limited views

39. Watercare Services Limited will accept the current proposal, as the proposed pipe alignment does not intersect with the critical watermain line (indicated in blue dotted line in Attachment A).

40. The previous alignments considered have been rejected by Watercare Services Limited due to their close proximity to this critical asset.

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

Local impacts and local board views

41. The stormwater proposal at Harold Moody Reserve aligns with the Waitākere Local Board Plan 2020, specifically “Outcome 7: We have infrastructure and facilities that support and enhance our neighbourhoods and town centres”, as this proposal will allow population growth to occur in Glen Eden by enabling housing development.

42. If the recommendation is approved, the applicant will contact the following clubs and users of the reserve prior to starting work to ensure that no events, games or bookings will be impacted by the stormwater works:

· Glen Eden Community and Recreation Centre

· Glenora Eagles Softball Club

· Glenora Rugby League.

43. The surrounding neighbourhood is zoned as ‘Terraced Housing and Apartment Building Zone’ under the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). This proposed stormwater alignment can service the immediate neighbours of the applicant and Harold Moody Reserve, should any development or connections be made in the future. All future connections to the reserve will still be required to go through the same process for obtaining landowner approval, and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board will be consulted.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi which are articulated in council’s key strategic planning documents: the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2015-2025, and the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part).

45. There are no sites of value or significance to mana whenua identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) in relation to this application.

46. Staff do not consider consultation with iwi is required as the proposal will not adversely affect iwi more than any other person or group.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

47. The stormwater proposal will not result in any financial costs to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board.

48. The applicant will be responsible for the full costs of constructing the stormwater infrastructure, any remediation work to reinstate damage to the park, and the maintenance of the proposed mitigation planting for a period of two years.

49. Healthy Waters will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the proposed public stormwater pipe and outfall if approved. The costs for ongoing maintenance will be covered by the Healthy Waters Department’s operational budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

50. The risks and mitigation associated with approving the stormwater infrastructure is outlined in table three below.

Table 3: Risks and mitigation relating to this proposal.

Risk

Mitigation

Construction damage to the reserve may temporarily result in parts of the reserve inaccessible to by public.

- The stormwater pipe will be installed via directional drilling underneath all hardstand surfaces, such as the carparking area and the netball/tennis court.

- A pre-start and post-completion meeting with the facility manager will be undertaken to discuss the construction methodology, and, to check any damaged land is reinstated to Community Facilities’ standard.

Stormwater outlet visible near the stream

- Native trees will be planted in place of the current low-lying shrubs that will be removed, providing more shade over the stream.

- The stormwater outfall will be finished with a rock-face veneer to naturalise the outfall.

- Planting in and around the outfall will also be help to soften the visual impacts.

- Rock riprap will be installed to the satisfaction of council’s ecologist. This riprap will also be planted to mitigate potential erosion and dissipate energy.

51. If this application is approved, the specialists have provided conditions to be included in the landowner approval letter to mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the proposal. These include (but are not limited to) pre-start and post-completion meetings, health and safety conditions, arboricultural conditions, and specific conditions regarding the design and construction of the naturalised stormwater outfall.

52. There are also risks associated with declining this application, especially if the applicant’s last resort is to discharge stormwater via pumping to the roadside.

53. The risks associated with declining this application are:

· if the applicant discharges stormwater via pumping to the roadside, there is a risk that increased overland flow of surface water may cause erosion, scouring and bogginess in the park. This may result in Healthy Waters, as well as Community Facilities, having to undertake further remedial work within the park. There is no mitigation available as the discharge would be uncontrolled through the reserve.

· should pumping to the roadside not be chosen for the reasons stated in this report, the applicant may apply for engineering approval under sections 480 and 181 of the Local Government Act. This process would involve having the application reviewed by the Regulatory Committee at a hearing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

54. If the Waitākere Ranges Local Board approve the recommendation, a landowner approval letter containing conditions will be issued to the applicant at 46 Glendale Road, for stormwater infrastructure at Harold Moody Reserve.

55. If the recommendation is declined by the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, then the applicant will be advised accordingly, and landowner approval will not be granted.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Annotated aerial image showing the alternative options considered	21
b ⇩	Annotated aerial image showing the approximate alignment of the proposed stormwater infrastructure at Harold Moody Reserve, Glen Eden	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Haya Hamilton - Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 March 2021

Waitākere Ranges Local Board Transitional Rates Grants

File No.: CP2021/02235

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To note that the transitional rates grants are ending on 30 June 2021.

2. To decide the next steps for the transitional rates grants budget.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

Overview of transitional rates grants

3. At the end of the 2017/2018 financial year the council removed the legacy rates remission schemes carried over from the legacy councils. These schemes provided community and sporting groups in some parts of Auckland with property rates relief. In the 2019/2020 financial year community groups located on maunga were also added to the transitional rates grant scheme.

4. To minimise the impact on the recipients of these schemes, the Governing Body provided transitional rates grants for three years, from the 2018/2019 financial year ending on 30 June 2021. These grants were available automatically on the same terms as the original legacy remission schemes. Recipients of the grants were notified in the 2017/2018 financial year that the scheme would be limited to three years.

5. Budgets for local grants (including inflation) was allocated to local boards for 10 years so local boards could eventually integrate them into their community support programme. As the transitional rates grants are automatically distributed, local boards do not currently have authority to make decisions on the use of these funds.

6. An amount of $2,599 was paid to twelve organisations in the Waitākere Ranges local board area in the 2020/2021 financial year. These grants paid less than five per cent of the rates for the qualifying property. The limited support provided by these grants means that there will be minimal impact to the recipients from their removal. Details of these grants are in Attachment A to the report.

7. With the transitional grants now expiring, the local board must decide how to utilise the associated budget. The local board retains the budget associated with the grants as Asset Based Services (ABS) operational budget (Opex) and is available for reallocation through its work programme process.

8. While the funds remain as Asset Based Services (ABS) budget they can be used to support Local Discretionary Initiatives such as the local board’s community grants programme. Retaining this budget under ABS Opex enables this budget to be considered as part of the Governance Framework Review of funding for asset-based services.

9. If the local board wishes to continue to offer rates assistance this can be done by amending its grants programme.

10. A letter will be sent to recipients notifying them of the ending of the transitional rates grants. This will direct organisations to the regional and local grants programmes, should they wish to seek additional support in the future.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) note that transitional rates grants are ending 30 June 2021.

b) note that the local board retains the budget for the transitional rates grants as Asset Based Services (ABS) budget as a separate line item, with discretion over its future allocation. This will enable the grants to be considered as part of the Governance Framework Review on funding for asset-based services.

c) agree to reallocate the budget through the local work programme process.

Horopaki

Context

11. Transitional rates grants replaced rates remission schemes (Attachment B) for community organisations that were inherited from Franklin District Council (FDC), North Shore City Council (NSC), Rodney District Council (RDC) and Auckland Regional Council (ARC). The district and city council schemes were only available to properties within the relevant former district. The regional scheme was only available to properties not covered by a district or city council scheme.

12. In 2019, five community groups located on Auckland’s maunga (in Devonport-Takapuna, Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki) were included in the transitional rates scheme. Prior to the crown settlement of the maunga these organisations did not pay rates under a council community lease. The transfer of the maunga to the Maunga Authority resulted in the Authority becoming liable for rates. As a consequence, these organisations are now required to pay rates under their new lease agreements.

13. The removal of legacy rates remissions and options for transition were consulted on alongside the 10-year Budget 2018-28. Following consideration of feedback (Attachment C) from remission recipients, local boards and the general public, the Governing Body decided to remove the legacy remissions, and introduce a transitional grants scheme for three years, ending 30 June 2021. Under the criteria agreed by the Governing Body, grants were automatically available to organisations that:

· received a legacy rates remission for community organisations in the 2017/2018 financial year

· continued to meet the criteria and conditions of the original remission scheme.

14. The amount of support provided by the grants was determined by the original remission scheme. Each scheme offered differing amounts of support. The district and city council schemes remitted 50 to 100 per cent of the rates, while the regional scheme provided five to 10 per cent of the general rates.

Transitional Rates Grants

15. In the 2020/2021 financial year, 169 local transitional rates grants were made to 104 local organisations. The total value of these grants was $400,000. Of these, 66 grants are less than $500, and are paid as a credit to the rate account for the qualifying property. The remaining 103 grants are paid directly to the bank account of the beneficiary.

16. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board hold twelve transitional rates grants. All these grants are made under the criteria of the Auckland Regional Council scheme. These grants provide less than five per cent of the rates for the qualifying property. Details of Waitākere Ranges transitional rates grants paid in 2020/2021 are provided in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. All recipients of the rates transition grants were advised that the grants were limited to three years. At the end of the scheme recipients are to be advised of any other options for support, such as local and regional grants programmes.

18. Staff did not consider continuing the Waitākere Ranges transitional rates grants in their current form. The existing grants process requires resource from the rates team to calculate grant amounts, and to generate rates credits for lower value grants (grants that were below $500 in the 2020/2021 financial year). This rates resource is no longer available. The option of establishing the low value grants as direct payments made through the grants team was rejected in 2018, as the grants were too low to justify the administration required.

19. Staff do not consider removing transitional rates grants will have a material impact for recipients within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area. The amount of support currently being provided is minimal in the context of the rates each organisation is paying, and the level of revenue they receive. Recipients will still be able to seek further support through the local board’s grant programme if they meet the grant criteria.

20. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board’s current grant programme does not include rates assistance as a criteria. If the board wishes to offer rates assistance in some form this can be done by amending its grants programme.

Local board budgets

21. The funding for transitional rates is currently held and will remain as Asset Based Services (ABS) budget. The amount of budget allocated to each local board is a function of the value of rates remitted in each local board area under the legacy remission schemes.

22. This budget can be reallocated through the local board’s work programme process. The funds can be used to support both Asset Based Services and Local Discretionary Initiatives (LDI) operational work programmes.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. The effects of climate change were not a consideration when the existing transitional rates grants were established. Removing of transitional rates grant will not have a material impact on either the recipients or climate change. The local board is able to consider climate impacts of the future use of the funds associated with the grants.

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 preparation of this advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

25. This report advises the local board of their options now that the transitional grants scheme is ending. The local impacts of the proposal are set out in the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

26. No Māori organisations are receiving funding through the transitional rates grants. Māori land is eligible for support under the Rates remission for Māori freehold land policy. This policy is not under review.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

27. The financial implications are set out in the report. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has $2,599 of transitional rates grants budget that it can reallocate. The grants held by the local board provide minimal support to recipients, and their removal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the recipients.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

28. Removal of transitional rates grants is unlikely to cause hardship for the organisations receiving transitional rates grants in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area. The grants are less than five per cent of the rate liability and a small proportion of revenue.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

29. A letter will be issued to all recipients of transitional rates grants informing them of the changes and any future options for support as appropriate.

30. Decisions on future allocation of the funds for transitional rates grants can be made through the local board’s work programme process.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Transitional Rates Grants Waitākere Ranges	29
b ⇩	Legacy Rates Remission Schemes	31
c ⇩	Local Boards and Rural Advisory Panel Feedback on the Rates Remission and Postponement Policy proposal from 2018	43

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Jestine Joseph - Lead Financial Advisor

David Rose - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 March 2021

2021 Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting

File No.: CP2021/02020

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the process for appointing elected member attendance at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference taking place from 15 to 17 July 2021, appoint delegates to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and provide process information regarding remits and awards.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The 2021 LGNZ Conference will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021. The conference programme is appended as Attachment A.

3. Due to reductions in the Emergency Budget (current financial year) and risks associated with uncertainty of alert levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of members who will be able to attend the LGNZ conference this year is limited.

4. After considering a number of options (detailed in Attachment B), staff recommend an option that enables a representative Auckland Council delegation to be funded from the reduced budget as follows:

· elected members with a formal role as Auckland Council representatives to LGNZ

· six additional local board members to be selected from the local board clusters.

5. The estimated cost of attending the conference (registration, travel and accommodation) is $2,410 per person, bringing the total for the recommended option to $38,560.

6. As in previous years, elected members may use their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation to attend the conference. The IDB allocation has also been reduced under the Emergency Budget to $1,500 per member per electoral term. It is therefore not sufficient to cover the total cost of a member’s attendance. Members who wish to take up this opportunity would need to cover the shortfall of approximately $900 themselves.

7. Auckland Council is entitled to four delegates at the AGM. These delegates are appointed by the Governing Body. Staff recommend that the four delegates include Mayor Phil Goff (as presiding delegate), Chief Executive Jim Stabback, and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees.

8. The adoption of remits at the AGM and the 2021 LGNZ Excellence Awards are elements of this event. This report outlines the Auckland Council process for deciding Auckland Council remits and council positions on the conference remit, as well as a consolidated process for Auckland Council entries to the awards. The LGNZ Auckland Zone meeting, which is attended by representatives of local boards and the Governing Body is the forum that will coordinate these discussions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) note the budget constraints in the current financial year and the recommended process for the appointment of attendees and delegates to the Local Government New Zealand 2021 Conference and Annual General Meeting in Blenheim from 15 to 17 July 2021.

b) endorse the selection of one local board representative per cluster through the Local Board Chairs’ Forum and agree to put nominations for cluster representatives through the Board Chair for consideration at the Chairs’ Forum April 2020 meeting.

c) note the process to submit remits to the Annual General Meeting and entries for the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Excellence Awards has been communicated to elected members on 2 March 2021.

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

e) note that all local board members who are appointed to attend the conference will be confirmed to the General Manager, Local Board Services by 15 April 2021 at the latest to ensure that they are registered with Local Government New Zealand.

f) note that any member who wishes to attend the conference using their Individual Development Budget (IDB) allocation will need to subsidise the cost and must contact the General Manager, Local Board Services by 8 April 2021 to make the necessary arrangements.

g) note that the Governing Body will be appointing delegates to the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting at their 25 March 2021 meeting, with the recommendation being to appoint Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate, and to appoint Chief Executive Jim Stabback and up to two other Auckland Council conference attendees as delegates.

h) note that conference attendees can attend the 2021 Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting in an advisory capacity provided their names are included on the Annual General Meeting registration form, which will be signed by the Mayor.

Horopaki

Context

9. LGNZ is an incorporated society of local government organisations whose primary objective is to represent and advocate for the interests of local authorities in New Zealand. LGNZ champions policy positions on key issues that are of interest to local government and holds regular meetings and events throughout the year for members. The schedule of meetings includes an annual conference and meetings of local government geographical clusters (known as LGNZ zones) and sectors.

10. LGNZ is governed by a National Council made up of representatives from member authorities as outlined in the constitution. Some of its work is conducted through committees and working groups which include representatives from member authorities.

11. Elected members who have been formally appointed to LGNZ roles including members who are involved in advisory groups are:

Name	LGNZ role
Mayor Phil Goff	National Council representative for Auckland Auckland Council representative on the Metropolitan Sector Group
Councillor Pippa Coom Local Board Chair Richard Northey	National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by Governing Body) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone National Council representative for Auckland (appointed by local boards) and co-chair of the Auckland Zone
Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore	Auckland Council representative on Regional Sector
Councillor Alf Filipaina	Auckland Council representative on Te Maruata Roopu Whakahaere
Local Board Member Nerissa Henry	Auckland Council representative on Young Elected Members
Councillor Angela Dalton Local Board Deputy Chair Danielle Grant	Auckland Council representatives on Governance and Strategy Advisory Group
Councillor Richard Hills Local Board Member Cindy Schmidt	Auckland Council representatives on Policy Advisory Group

Auckland Zone

12. LGNZ rules were amended in 2019 to allow Auckland Council, with its unique governance arrangements, to be set up as its own Zone, rather than be part of LGNZ Zone 1 with Northland councils.

13. Auckland Zone meetings are scheduled on a quarterly basis. These meetings are co-chaired by the two Auckland representatives appointed to the LGNZ National Council by the Governing Body (Councillor Pippa Coom) and local boards’ (Chair Richard Northey) and attended by appointed representatives of local boards and members of the Governing Body.

14. The meetings of Auckland Zone are open to all elected members. The zone meetings receive regular updates from LGNZ Executive as well as verbal reports from Auckland Council elected members who have an ongoing involvement with LGNZ.

15. The zone meetings provide an opportunity for council to have discussions across governing body and local boards on joint advocacy issues including remits and other shared priorities that fall within LGNZ’s mandate.

LGNZ Annual conference and AGM 2021

16. The 2021 LGNZ conference and AGM will be held at the ASB Theatre Marlborough, Waiharakeke Blenheim, from 15 to 17 July 2021.

17. This year, the conference programme has the theme “Reimagining Aotearoa from community up”. The programme is available online on the LGNZ website and is appended as Attachment A.

18. The AGM takes place on the last day of the conference from 9.30am to 12.30pm. 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.

19. Due to the restriction following the COVID-19 crisis, the 2020 conference was postponed, and Auckland Council only sent two delegates to the AGM. The two delegates who attended the AGM via remote/electronic attendance were Mayor Phil Goff and Councillor Pippa Coom.

20. In addition to the official delegates at the AGM, LGNZ allows conference participants to attend the AGM as observers but requires prior notice. Nominated attendees to the conference will be invited to register as observers to the AGM.

Remits (for consideration at the AGM 2021)

21. LGNZ invites member authorities to submit remits for consideration at the AGM on 17 July 2021 and entries for consideration for the LGNZ Excellence Awards, to be announced at the conference dinner on 16 July 2021.

22. Proposed remits should address only major strategic ‘issues of the moment’. They should have a national focus, articulating a major interest or concern at the national political level. They should relate to significant policy issues that, as a council, we have not been able to progress with central government through other means.

23. On 2 March 2021, elected members were sent detailed information inviting proposals for remits to be discussed at the Auckland Zone meeting on 12 March 2021. Remits that are agreed on at the zone meeting will be submitted by the due date.

24. The June 2021 meeting of the Auckland Zone will review all the remits that will be discussed at the AGM with a view to recommending a council position that the Auckland Council delegates will advocate at the AGM.

LGNZ Excellence Awards 2021

25. LGNZ also invites member authorities to submit entries for consideration for the LGNZ Excellence Awards, to be announced at the conference dinner on 16 July 2021.

26. The LGNZ Excellence Awards recognise and celebrate excellent performance by councils in promoting and growing the well-being of their communities. The awards are judged on a combination of general and specific criteria, incorporating best practice and components from the CouncilMARK™ excellence programme’s four priority areas. The awards categories for 2021 are:

· Creative New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Cultural Well-being

· Martin Jenkins EXCELLENCE Award for Economic Well-being

· Air New Zealand EXCELLENCE Award for Environmental Well-being

· Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities EXCELLENCE Award for Social Well-being

· In addition, one or more individuals will be awarded the Te Tari Taiwhenua Internal Affairs EXCELLENCE Award for Outstanding Contribution to Local Government, and Fulton Hogan will also select the Local EXCELLENCE Award from among the finalists.

27. The email to elected members on 2 March 2021 also outlined detailed information inviting potential awards entries to be discussed at the Auckland Zone meeting on 12 March 2021 so that entries from Auckland Council can be coordinated.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Overall costs per attendee

28. The estimated total cost of attendance to the conference is $2,410 per person, distributed as follows (all costs are GST inclusive):

Registration (early bird)	$1,400
Accommodation* @ $190 per night x 3 nights	$570
Flights**	$280
Miscellaneous***	$160
Total	$2,410

* based on average cost of Blenheim hotels.

** flights may range from $49 one way (take on bag only) to $199 for a 5pm flight (with a checked bag). $280 is as per 2020 budgeting.

*** for travel to and from airport and reasonable daily expenses under the EM Expenses policy

Options

29. Staff considered several options (Attachment B) that ensure a fair balance of representatives across the governing body and local boards while keeping within budget. The key considerations that were applied to selecting the staff preferred option are:

a. the available budget for the LGNZ conference attendance is only $40,000

b. the cost of attendance per person (registration, travel, accommodation) is estimated at $2,410

c. with the uncertainty to public events and gatherings posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there is a possibility the COVID-19 alert levels may not be favourable in July 2021. If this is the case, cancellations will not recoup all monies spent. Staff estimate that although this risk may be lower in July, it will continue to exist

d. ensure fair representation from local boards given the inability to accommodate 21 representatives

e. empowering elected members who have a formal involvement with LGNZ to be prioritised for attendance to maximise their ongoing contributions on behalf of Auckland Council

30. Staff recommend Option B which will cost $38,560 and fund attendance of 16 elected members including:

· all members who have been formally appointed or nominated to LGNZ National Council, subsidiary bodies and advisory groups (10 members)

· a representative from each of the 6 local board clusters – North, South, West, Central, Islands and Rural (6 members).

31. This is not the cheapest option but is the one that enables a wider representation from local boards. The more expensive options which allow for one representative per local board cannot be accommodated as it will exceed the available budget.

32. Local boards have an existing method for choosing a limited number of representatives. This approach utilises informal cluster groups based on geographic locations and unique characteristics (North, South, West, Central, Island, Rural) and involves local board chairs liaising with and agreeing with others in their cluster on their representative.

33. There is an opportunity to select local board representatives using this methodology at the Local Board Chairs’ Forum on 12 April 2021.

Use of IDB to fund additional attendees

34. Elected members who wish to attend the LGNZ conference and are not nominated or appointed can still attend using their IDB. As IDB entitlements are $1500 per elected member per term and the cost of attendance is approximately $2410, these elected members will need to meet the cost difference.

35. It is recommended that elected members who wish to attend and can pay the difference are included in the group booking for accommodation and travel. Any elected member who wishes to take up this opportunity is encouraged to liaise further with the Kura Kāwana team.

36. LGNZ are working on introducing some form of virtual attendance to the conference but the details are still to be confirmed.

37. As per previous years, LGNZ will make some session recordings available online after the conference.

Delegates for the Annual General Meeting

38. In line with previous years, staff recommend that AGM delegates are appointed from within the attending members as follows:

· Mayor Phil Goff as presiding delegate

· Chief Executive Jim Stabback

· up to two additional delegates.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

39. This report is procedural in nature, however the key impact on climate is through supporting attendance at a conference by means of air travel. A conservative approach to conference attendance would help reduce this impact.

40. Estimates for emissions associated with travel to Blenheim or travel within Auckland for local meetings have not been calculated at the time of writing this report. Emissions, when known, can be offset through a verified carbon offset programme at a small cost.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

41. LGNZ is an incorporated body comprising members who are New Zealand councils. Council-controlled organisations are not eligible for separate membership. However, remits can cover activities of council-controlled organisations.

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

Local impacts and local board views

42. LGNZ advocates for issues that are important to local government. Many of these issues are aligned with local board priorities. As such, there is interest from local boards in contributing to the work of LGNZ and in identifying and harnessing opportunities to progress other advocacy areas that local boards may have.

43. Each local board has a nominated lead who represents them at Auckland Zone meetings and is involved in discussions about LGNZ matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

44. LGNZ advocates on a variety of issues that are important to Māori, including Māori housing, various environmental issues and Council-Māori participation and relationship arrangements. In addition, LGNZ provides advice including published guidance to assist local authorities in understanding values, aspirations and interests of Māori.

45. 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.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

46. Staff considered options to reduce the financial impact of the attendance to the conference, in line with the budget restrictions imposed as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

47. The costs associated with conference attendance, travel and accommodation within the recommended option can be met within the allocated Kura Kāwana (Elected Member development) budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

48. The key risk is of delayed decision-making which can impact costs and registration choices. The sooner the registration for the nominated members can be made, the more likely it is that Auckland Council can take advantage of early bird pricing for the conference, flights and accommodation, all done via bulk-booking.

49. A resurgence of COVID-19 in the community and a change of alert level might prevent elected members from travelling to attend the conference. LGNZ is keeping an active review on the COVID-19 situation and will update directly to registered participants should a change affect the delivery of the conference. LGNZ is still working through a number of scenarios and how these would affect their decision to proceed as planned, postpone, cancel or switch delegates to virtual attendance, with the final decision resting with the National Council on the basis of the information available at the time.

50. In the current COVID circumstances, the reputational risk associated with any financial expenditure is heightened and there is high scrutiny from the public on the council’s expenses. The recommendation to limit the number of members attending the conference mitigates this risk to a certain degree.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

51. Once representatives are confirmed to attend, the Manager Governance Services will coordinate all conference registrations, as well as requests to attend the AGM.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	LGNZ Conference 2021 programme	63
b ⇩	Options for attendance	69

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Rose Leonard - Manager Governance Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

25 March 2021

Local board feedback for inclusion in Auckland Council submissions

File No.: CP2021/02251

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To recommend that the Waitākere Ranges 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 Waitākere Ranges 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

Authors	Carol Stewart - Senior Policy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Waitākere Ranges Local Board Workshop Record - 18 February 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Waitākere Ranges Local Board Workshop Record - 25 February 2021 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Waitākere Ranges Local Board Workshop Record - 4 March 2021 (Under Separate Cover)

Chairperson	Greg Presland
Deputy Chairperson	Saffron Toms
Members	Mark Allen
	Michelle Clayton
	Sandra Coney, QSO
	Ken Turner

Authors	Elizabeth Stewart - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager