Agenda of Howick Local Board - Thursday, 6 May 2021

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Highbrook Park Trust Disestablishment

File No.: CP2021/04800

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek endorsement from Howick Local Board to disestablish the Highbrook Park Trust following consultation with its Board and Manager Area Operations, Community Facilities (Area Manager).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Highbrook Park Trust (the Trust) is a legacy Council-controlled Organisation (CCO) that was established in August 2000 to acquire, establish and maintain a park on the Waiouru Peninsula, adjacent to the Highbrook Business Park.

3. The Trust provides for the lifetime of the Trust to be limited to a maximum of 15 years. This timeframe was extended in August 2015.

4. The park of approximately 40 hectares was established subsequent to the establishment of the Trust. Auckland Council provides an annual grant (management fee) to the Trust to maintain the park.

5. During 2020, the Community Facilities department reviewed its funding arrangements with all stakeholders. Following the review, the Area Operations team believe that disestablishing the Trust provides an opportunity for the council to save money through its internal maintenance teams.

6. In addition to increasing costs of servicing the park, the maintenance agreement does not require the Highbrook Park Trust to fund the depreciation of the assets in the park. By disestablishing the Trust, and ensuring depreciation is accounted for, the council will be able to spread the cost of replacing assets over time.

7. The intent on disestablishing the Trust is that all assets will be transferred to Auckland Council on dissolution of the Trust.

8. The Area Manager has met with Highbrook’s Trust Board advising them that the grant would not be renewed in 2020. The Trust was informed that the services will continue to be delivered on a month-by-month basis, ceasing on 30 June 2021.

9. Disestablishing the Trust means the council will supply maintenance in the park from
1 July 2021. The supply of maintenance services by the council does not lead to new financial implications, but greater opportunities for future savings.

10. This report seeks support from the local board of the recommendation that the Highbrook Park Trust be disestablished from 30 June 2021, and a letter of thanks be sent Highbrook Park’s Trust board.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) support the recommendation to disestablish the Highbrook Park Trust as of
30 June 2021.

b) send a letter of thanks to Highbrook Park Trust Board noting the achievement and vision of its members in developing a great business park in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Horopaki

Context

11. The Trust was established in August 2000 by Manukau City Council and Highbrook Development Limited. It is a legacy CCO of Auckland Council. The purpose of the Trust was to acquire, establish and maintain a park on the Waiouru Peninsula (adjacent to the Highbrook Business Park in East Tamaki) for the benefit of the public of the region. The business park is managed by Goodman NZ.

12. The other objectives of the Trust are to:

· ensure the effective, efficient and safe use of the park

· protect environmentally sensitive and geologically important areas within the park

· ensure that uses and activities within the park are compatible with the adjoining communities

· maintain references within the park to the historic uses of the land.

13. Approximately 30 hectares of land was initially transferred to the Trust, and subsequently an additional 10 hectares was acquired and transferred. The area in question is highlighted in Attachment A of the report. The business park has been developed in stages and the park areas associated with each stage have been transferred to the Trust for management.

14. The Trust has been responsible for the development of the park and has undertaken extensive landscaping and planting. The Trust is also responsible for the ongoing management, maintenance and administration of the park. The council currently pays an annual grant (management fee) to the Trust to meet the Trust’s annual budgeted expenses, including park maintenance.

15. The Trust provides for the disestablishment of the Trust, on a date to be nominated by the Trust and agreed with the council some 15 years after the establishment of the Trust, which was in August 2000.

16. Once disestablished, the Trust states that the land owned by the Trust must be transferred to the council “to be held by the council on trust for any charitable purpose or purposes in the region approved by the council as being as similar as is practicable to the objectives for which the Trust was established”.

17. The trustees must apply any residual Trust funds remaining after the Trust has met all its costs, expenses and liabilities, “to any charitable purpose or purposes in the region approved by the council as being as similar as is practicable to the objectives for which the Trust was established”.

18. This report seeks support from the local board for the recommendation that the Trust be disestablished.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19. Staff from the Community Facilities department and the council’s Legal department met with the Highbrook Park Trust Board in March 2021.

20. The Trust Board was advised that in addition to increasing costs of servicing the park, the maintenance agreement does not require Highbrook Park Trust to fund the depreciation of the assets in the park.

21. Following review of its funding arrangements, the Area Operations team believe that the disestablishing of the Trust provides an opportunity for the council to save money through its internal maintenance teams. It also ensures depreciation is accounted for allowing council to spread the cost of replacing assets over time.

22. The savings are anticipated to be approximately $100,000 per annum. In addition, the council management will ensure that there is appropriate provision made for the replacement of assets within the park, which the Trust is currently not required to do.

23. For these reasons, staff decided that the grant to the Trust will not be renewed, and that the council will take over maintenance of the park from 1 July 2021. As the Trust will no longer be undertaking these activities, it is recommended that the Trust be wound up, as it performs no other function.

24. The continued depreciation of assets has been flagged in Long-term Plan considerations with the Head of Asset Management and Investment Programme, Community Facilities

25. Once disestablished, the land owned by the Trust must be transferred to the council “to be held by the council on trust for any charitable purpose or purposes in the region approved by the council as being as similar as is practicable to the objectives for which the Trust was established”.

26. Once the land owned by the Trust is transferred back to the council, the park will continue to be managed as public open space until such time as classification of the land can be determined.

27. Auckland Council staff have engaged with the Trustees to discuss with them that the grant would not be renewed, the implications for the Trust, and the transition towards the council management of the park. The Trustees are actively co-operating with the transition towards the council management.

28. There are no other obligations that the council will inherit by disestablishing the Trust.

29. It is recommended that the Howick Local Board endorse the disestablishment of the Highbrook Park Trust as of 30 June 2021, and send a letter of thanks to the Highbrook Park Trust Board noting the achievement and vision of its members in developing a great business park in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. The designated impact level of the recommended decision on Green House Gas emissions has “no impact” because the proposal continues an existing activity and does not introduce any new sources of emissions.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. The disestablishment of the Highbrook Park Trust has no impact on any other department of Auckland Council, as Community Facilities will be solely responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the park.

32. No other Council-controlled Organisation is affected by this proposal.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. Staff from Community Facilities and CCO Governance staff held a workshop with the local board in 2020 advising of the proposal to disestablish the Highbrook Park Trust.

34. The local board provided in principle support to continue with the proposal and seek formal approval.

35. Including the 40 hectares along the Waiouru Peninsula as a local asset will facilitate greater community involvement in further potential development and encourage aligned public use of the park land.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. The decision whether to consent to the disestablishment of the Trust does not have an impact on issues of significance to iwi, as the current management agreement will continue on a day-to-day basis.

37. There are references within the park to the historic uses of the land, and these, together with the park brochure and website, highlight the significance of the area, particularly the Pukekiwiriki crater.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. Auckland Council’s contribution, through a grant to the Highbrook Park Trust to deliver maintenance and associated activities such as management, legal fees and rates for the 2021/2022 financial year, will be $377,947, increasing year on year with inflation. The costs for continued maintenance that aligns with the current Full Facility and Arboriculture Contracts will total $269,224 for the same period. Therefore, by delivering the aforementioned activities internally, a positive financial position of approximately $100,000 is anticipated.

39. As the assets within the park are currently under the ownership (management) of the trust, depreciation has not been allowed for in the councils finances. Should the Trust not be disestablished, the resulting financial implications will create an operational budget shortfall as the assets potentially begin to fail. Community Facilities has allowed for renewals funding within Highbrook Park in the local boards draft three-year work programme. The continued depreciation of assets has been flagged in Long-term Plan considerations with the Head of Asset Management and Investment Programme, Community Facilities

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. There are no identified financial or associated risks with the recommendations made in this report to disestablish the Highbrook Park Trust. The recommendations are envisaged to have a positive long-term impact.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

41. Following the outcome of the local board meeting, staff will be seeking committee approval for Auckland Council to take ownership of the land and disestablish the Trust.

42. Auckland Council’s legal department and Highbrook Park Trust will develop the appropriate amendments to the trust documentation.

43. Auckland Council’s Community Facilities department and Highbrook Park Trust will develop the appropriate amendments to the Operational Agreement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Highbrook Park Map	13

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Edward Siddle - Principal Advisor

Marcel Morgan – Manager Area Operations, Community Facilities

Authorisers

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

Kim O’Neill – Acting General Manager, Community Facilities

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Howick Local Board consultation feedback and input into the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

File No.: CP2021/05175

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive consultation feedback from the Howick Local Board area on:

· proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Howick local board agreement 2021/2022.

· regional topics for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

2. To recommend any local matters to the Governing Body, that they will need to consider or make decisions on in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 process.

3. To provide input on the proposed regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Local board agreements set out annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives for each local board area. Local board agreements for 2021/2022 will be included in the council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

5. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031. This included consultation on the Howick Local Board’s proposed priorities for the 2021/2022 financial year, and advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031 to be included in their local board agreement.

6. Auckland Council received 19,965 submissions in total across the region and 1,292 submissions from the Howick local board area. Submissions were mainly in favour of the local board priorities and advocacy items.

7. In the 10-year Budget process there are matters where local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body, for consideration or decision-making. This includes:

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

· release of local board specific reserve funds

· any local board advocacy initiatives.

The Governing Body will consider these items as part of the 10-year Budget decision-making process in May/June 2021.

8. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on the council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) receive consultation feedback on the proposed Howick Local Board priorities and activities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives for 2021-2031.

b) receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 from people and organisations based in the Howick local board area.

c) approve its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement as follows:

i) for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to be reinstated to the pre-COVID-19 level of $21million annually, and for the $38 million previously allocated through the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to local boards – which was lost through the COVID-19 Emergency Budget – to be fully restored

ii) for increased regional funding for the restoration of our beaches and to address the impacts on our coastline due to climate change, sea level rise and weather-related events

iii) for funding to upgrade rural roads to urban standards, including widening narrow bridges in response to growth of our urban areas (eg. Flat Bush School Road, Chapel Road and Murphys Road)

iv) for use of eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable building methods for the Flat Bush Aquatic & Leisure Centre and the Flat Bush Community Centre and Library

v) for the construction timeframe of the Flat Bush Community Centre and Library. to be brought forward.

d) provide input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

9. Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the Howick Local Board) for each local board area. This local board agreement reflects priorities in the Howick Local Board Plan 2020 through local activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and advocacy initiatives.

10. The local board agreements for the 2021/2022 financial year will form part of the Auckland Council’s 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

11. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 22 February to 22 March 2021 to seek community views on the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, as well as local board priorities and proposed advocacy initiatives to be included in the local board agreement 2021/2022.

12. Due to the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, significant pressure has been placed upon the council’s financial position. This has created significant flow on effects for the council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031, in particular in the first three years.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. This report includes analysis of consultation feedback, any local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body and seeks input on regional topics in the proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

Consultation feedback overview

14. As part of the public consultation Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.

15. In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 19,965 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 18,975 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

· in person – 607 pieces of feedback through 61 Have Your Say events (38 in person and 23 online webinars), one of which was held in the Howick Local Board area, and two independently managed phone interviews. Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns 26 events were affected (either cancelled, postponed or moved to an online platform), social media – 78 pieces of feedback through Auckland Council social media channels.

16. All feedback will be made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback submissions for the 10-year Budget 2021-2031” and will be accessible from 3 May 2021 through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/hub-page/10-year-budget-2021-2031 .

Feedback received on the Howick Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2022 and key advocacy initiatives

17. The Howick Local Board consulted on the following priorities for the 2021/2022 financial year:

· improved focus on play space renewals - including equipment for all ages

· investigate the provision of a play space focused on people with differing needs

· provision of shade for play spaces

· investigation of a destination play space

· more options for wheeled play for all ages.

18. The Howick Local Board also consulted on the following key advocacy initiatives:

· for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to be reinstated to the pre-COVID-19 level of $21million annually, and for the $38 million previously allocated through the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to local boards – which was lost through the COVID-19 Emergency Budget – to be fully restored

· for increased regional funding for the restoration of our beaches and to address the impacts on our coastline due to climate change, sea level rise and weather-related events

· for funding to upgrade rural roads to urban standards, including widening narrow bridges in response to growth of our urban areas (eg. Flat Bush School Road, Chapel Road and Murphys Road)

· for use of eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable building methods for the Flat Bush Aquatic & Leisure Centre and the Flat Bush Community Centre and Library

· for the construction timeframe of the Flat Bush Community Centre and Library. to be brought forward.

19. 1292 submissions were received on Howick Local Board’s priorities for 2021/2031 and key advocacy initiatives. The majority of local respondents supported the board’s priorities and advocacy initiatives

20. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between the 14-18 June 2021. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in the current report.

Information on submitters

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

Table One: Gender

Table Two: Ethnicity

Key themes

22. Key themes of note across the feedback received (through written and in-person channels) included:

· support of priorities and advocacy initiatives

· opposition to sale of reserves

· requests for improved coastal management

· requests for improvement with regards to transport/traffic related issues

· requests to improve maintenance (including parks, footpaths, etc).

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the 10-year Budget from the Howick Local Board area

23. The proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031 sets out Auckland Council’s priorities and how to pay for them. Consultation on the proposed 10-year Budget asked submitters to respond to five key questions on:

1. The proposed investment package

2. Climate change

3. Water quality

4. Community investment

5. Rating policy.

24. The submissions received from the Howick Local Board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Proposed investment package

25. Aucklanders were asked about a proposed $31 billion capital investment programme over the next ten years, allowing the council to deliver key services and renew our aging assets. The proposal includes a one-off 5 per cent average general rates increase for the 2021/2022 financial year, rather than the previously planned 3.5 per cent increase, before returning to 3.5 per cent increases over the remaining years.

26. The proposal also includes higher borrowings in the short term, a continuation of cost savings and the sale of more surplus property. Without the greater use of rates and debt, around $900 million of investment in Auckland would be delayed from the next three years.

27. The table and graph below give an overview of the responses from the Howick Local Board area.

Table Three: Overview of responses received for Key Question 1: Proposed Investment Package

Support	358	29%
Do not support	771	62%
Other	46	4%
Don't know	63	5%
TOTAL	1238	100%

Key Question 2: Climate Change

28. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to provide additional investment to respond to climate change challenges. This includes enabling a quicker transition from diesel to cleaner electric and hydrogen buses, diverting more waste from landfill and enabling significant planting initiatives.

29. The table and graph below give an overview of the responses from the Howick Local Board area.

Table Four: Overview of responses received for Key Question 2: Climate Change

Support the proposed increased investment	523	55%
Do not support increased investment	343	36%
Other	47	5%
Don't know	44	5%
TOTAL	957	100%

Key Question 3: Water quality

30. Aucklanders were asked about a proposal to extend and increase the Water Quality Targeted Rate for another three years – from 2028 until 2031 – as well as increasing the targeted rate annually in line with proposed average increases in general rates. The Water Quality Targeted Rate funds projects to improve water quality in Auckland’s harbours, beaches and streams.

31. The table and graph below give an overview of the responses from the Howick Local Board area.

Table Four: Overview of responses received for Key Question 3: Water quality

Support the extension and the increase	345	36%
Support the extension only	315	33%
Do not support either change	213	22%
Other	26	3%
Don't know	53	6%
TOTAL	952	100%

Key Question 4: Community investment

32. Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on a proposal that would see council adopt a new approach for community services to enable them to reduce building and asset maintenance related expenditure. The proposal involves consolidation of community facilities and services, increased leasing or shared facility arrangements, and an increased focus on providing multi-use facilities and online services in the future.

33. The table and graph below give an overview of the responses from the Howick Local Board area.

Table Five: Overview of responses received for Key Question 4: Community investment

Support	550	59%
Do not support	267	29%
Other	53	6%
Don't know	66	7%
TOTAL	936	100%

Key Question 5: Rating policy

34. Aucklanders were asked for their feedback on a raft of proposed rating changes impacting different properties across Auckland differently. Proposed changes also included, for example, the extension of the Natural Environment Targeted Rate until June 2031, along with options to extend the Urban Rating Area and reinstatement of the Accommodation Provider Targeted Rate.

35. The tables and graphs below give an overview of the responses from the Howick Local Board area.

Table Six: Overview of responses received for Key Question 6: Rating policy – Extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate

Extending the Natural Environment Targeted Rate
Support	496	56%
Do not support	256	29%
Other	95	11%
Don't know	31	4%
TOTAL	878	100%

Table Seven: Overview of responses received for Key Question 6: Rating policy – Extending the Urban Rating Area

Extending the Urban Rating Area
Support	575	66%
Do not support	182	21%
Other	17	2%
Don't know	102	12%
TOTAL	876	100%

Table Eight: Overview of responses received for Key Question 6: Rating policy – Charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates

Charging farm and lifestyle properties in the Urban Rating Area residential rates
Support	557	64%
Do not support	211	24%
Other	15	2%
Don't know	87	10%
TOTAL	870	100%

Table Nine: Overview of responses received for Key Question 6: Rating policy – Extending the City Centre Targeted Rate

Extending the City Centre Targeted Rate
Support	450	52%
Do not support	286	33%
Other	103	12%
Don't know	34	4%
TOTAL	873	100%

Other feedback

36. Aucklanders were asked what is important to them and if they had any feedback on any other issues. There were a wide range of responses, with the main submissions from Howick relating to Housing (123) and Regional Planning (119).

Recommendations on local matters

37. This report allows the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the 10-year Budget process, in May 2021. This includes:

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· proposed locally driven initiative capital projects outside local boards’ decision-making responsibility

· release of local board specific reserve funds

· approve its advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to its 2021/2022 Local Board Agreement.

38. The Howick Local Board did not propose any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates, or new/amended local targeted rate proposals,

Funding for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)

39. Local boards are allocated funding for local driven initiatives (LDI) annually, to spend on local projects or programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision-making over the LDI funds but need approval from the Governing Body where:

· operational LDI funding is to be converted into capital LDI funding

· the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose

· a LDI capital project exceeds $1 million.

40. These conditions do not apply to the Howick local board for the 2021/2022 financial year.]

Local board advocacy

41. Local boards are requested to approve any advocacy initiatives for inclusion (as an appendix) to their 2020/2021 Local Board Agreement, taking into account the consultation feedback above. This allows the Finance and Performance Committee to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 in May/June.

Local board input on regional topics in the 10-year Budget 2021-2031

42. 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 Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed 10-year Budget 2021-2031.

43. Local board plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide the development of local board agreements (LBAs), local board annual work programmes, and local board input into regional plans such as the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The decisions recommended in this report are part of the 10-year Budget 2021-2031 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next 10 years.

45. Projects allocated funding through this 10-year Budget process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress, are all assessed carefully as part of council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

46. The 10-year Budget 2021-2031 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

47. The local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

48. Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s 10-year Budget. Local board agreements form part of the 10-year Budget. Local board nominees have also attended Finance and Performance Committee workshops on the 10-year Budget.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

49. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the 10-year Budget are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori.

50. Local board plans, developed in 2020 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and the wider Māori community.

51. Analysis provided of consultation feedback received on the proposed 10-year Budget includes submissions made by mana whenua and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

52. 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.

53. Some projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. The potential impacts on Māori, as part of any project progressed by Auckland Council, will be assessed appropriately and accordingly as part of relevant reporting requirements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54. This report is seeking the local board’s decisions on financial matters in the local board agreement that must then be considered by the Governing Body.

55. The local board also provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

56. The council must adopt its 10-year Budget, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2021. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the 10-year Budget by mid May 2021, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the 10-year Budget on 25 May 2021.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

57. The local board will approve its local board agreement and corresponding work programmes in June 2021.

58. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the relevant Governing Body committee for consideration during decision making at the Governing Body meeting.

59. The final 10-year Budget 2021-2031 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 22 June 2021.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Ian Milnes - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Review of the Code of Conduct - draft revised code

File No.: CP2021/04676

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek formal feedback on the draft Auckland Council Code of Conduct.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Every council is required to adopt a Code of Conduct which must set out:

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

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

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

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

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

(b) a general explanation of—

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

3. All elected members must comply with the Code of Conduct adopted by the Governing Body.

4. Auckland Council’s current code of conduct was last reviewed in 2013. In 2020, staff sought agreement from local boards and the Governing Body on the scope and process for reviewing the current code.

5. An initial draft of the code of conduct was presented to local board workshops in March/April 2021 to provide feedback for staff to consider when developing the second draft.

6. The second draft of the code of conduct is attached for formal feedback which will be reported to the Governing Body when it meets to adopt the revised code on 27 May 2021.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) consider and provide its feedback to staff on the draft revised Auckland Council Code of Conduct to append to the report to the Governing Body on 27 May 2021.

b) support the proposed revised draft Auckland Council Code of Conduct to be adopted by the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

7. In October and November 2020, presentations on the review of the draft Auckland Council Code of Conduct (draft code) process and scope were made to local board workshops and local board feedback was reported to the Governing Body on 26 November 2020.

8. The Governing Body resolved to:

a) note the feedback from local boards provided in Attachment B.

b) agree that the scope of the review of the Auckland Council Code of Conduct will include consideration of:

i) retaining and updating principles

ii) retaining a process for complaints

iii) appointing conduct commissioners

iv) making reports of investigations by conduct commissioners public unless there are significant reasons to withhold them

v) defining materiality

vi) providing for sanctions which will be decided by conduct commissioners

vii) providing policies on:

A) conflicts of interest (including declarations on an interest register)

B) confidential information access and disclosure

C) election year

D) communications

E) media

F) social media

G) governance roles and responsibilities

H) working with staff

I) elected members expenses.

c) agree that the process for finalising the review includes a:

i) draft Code being presented to a Governing Body workshop followed by local board workshops (February 2021)

ii) second draft incorporating feedback from workshops being presented to the Governing Body / Local Board Chairs meeting for joint discussion (March 2021)

iii) a final draft reported to local boards for formal feedback (April 2021)

iv) a final draft reported to Governing Body for adoption (May 2021).

9. During March 2021, the draft code, in line with the agreed scope, was presented to local board workshops so that feedback could be considered when preparing a second draft for formal presentation to local board business meetings.

10. The second draft code is appended as Attachment A for consideration at this meeting.

11. Due to the way that dates for the joint meetings of the Governing Body and local board chairpersons fall, the presentation to that meeting was moved to the Local Board Chairs Forum on 12 April 2021.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

12. Local board members generally supported the first draft code. The feedback given at workshops is summarised in the following paragraphs. The feedback was informally provided by individual members and not by resolution of the full boards.

Conduct Commissioner

13. Comments at the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Waitematā Local Board workshops noted the need for diversity of commissioners. A comment at the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board felt the panel of three was preferable to a single commissioner.

Comments

14. Most local boards did not object to replacing the panel with a single Conduct Commissioner and so the provision in the draft code for a single Conduct Commissioner has not been changed.

Decisions of the Investigator and Conduct Commissioner

15. A couple of comments queried these decisions not being open to challenge.

Comments

16. The draft code has been amended to clarify that although the code itself does not provide an appeal process, this does not prevent the intervention of the Ombudsman or the courts.

Conflict of Interest Policy

17. The draft code reduced the threshold for declaring gifts from $300 to $50 based on a survey of other councils. There was feedback from some local boards that a threshold of $100 would be more realistic.

Comments

18. The Conflict of Interest Policy has been amended to set the threshold for declaring gifts at $100. The purpose of declaring gifts as part of the register is transparency around any sense of obligation that a member might have towards those who provide gifts. Often, the greater the gift the greater the sense of obligation. A threshold set at too low a level would require declarations of items which could result in non-compliance with making declarations due the administrative requirements and which would likely not create any sense of obligation to the giver. Staff consider a threshold of $100 as being reasonable for elected members. By comparison, the threshold for staff is $0 (all gifts need to be declared) but this is in the context of being work-related. The meaning of ‘work-related’ for elected members is less defined than it is for staff and could mean a greater range of gifts that need to be declared.

Confidential information

19. One workshop noted that restrictions on disclosure should apply to discussions in workshops.

Comments

20. Attachment B to the draft code has been amended to recognise confidentiality implications around workshops (which would not apply if a workshop was open to the public).

Other feedback

21. The draft code has been amended to clarify various additional matters that were raised. These include:

a) references in the draft code to decisions of the Investigator or Conduct Commissioner being final mean that the code does not provide an appeal process, but this does not prevent recourse to the Ombudsman or to the courts

b) clarification that a complaint would normally be provided to the respondent in full but there may be occasions where, for reasons such as privacy, identities might not be provided

c) under principles applying to consideration of complaints, the word ‘reasonableness’ has been added to the bullet:

the concepts of natural justice, fairness and reasonableness will apply in the determination of any complaints made under this code.

Additional changes that have been made by staff

22. There have been additional changes made by staff to improve the presentation and as a result of internal legal review:

a) the relationship of the attachments to the draft code has been clarified in section 2 of the code. This section notes that some attachments are considered to be adopted with the code and have provisions that can lead to a breach of the draft code.

b) in the complaints section 4.2, the list of situations pertinent to lodging a complaint has been removed such that a complaint must simply relate to a member acting in their capacity as a member.

Additional changes that might yet be made

23. The second draft that is attached to this report has also been sent to the Ombudsman and Professor Ron Paterson for comment. The Ombudsman has previously expressed interest in the protocol relating to confidential information and Professor Paterson is the current Principal Convenor of the Conduct Review Panel. There may be changes arising from their feedback.

24. There may be changes arising from further internal legal review.

25. There may be changes arising from feedback from local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

26. The code of conduct is purely procedural. It does not use any resources that could have an impact on climate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. The code of conduct applies to elected members acting in their capacity as elected members.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The draft code is ultimately adopted at a meeting of the Governing Body, but all elected members are required to comply with it. It is important, therefore, that local boards have adequate input into the review of the draft code. Local boards will resolve their comments which will be conveyed to the Governing Body when it considers adopting the revised draft code.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

29. The Māori community is affected by the relationship it has with its local council. The conduct of members has relevance to this. The revised draft code centres around two key principles, an ethical principle and a relationship principle. These principles contribute to the relationship the council develops with its Māori community.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. A key financial aspect of the revised draft code relates to replacing the current conduct review panel of three members with a single Conduct Commissioner (who is drawn from a list of commissioners approved by the Governing Body).

31. Under the current code, if a complaint cannot be resolved in its initial stages, it is escalated to the Principal Convenor of the panel and could result in the panel conducting a hearing for a cost of possibly around $10,000.

32. A single Conduct Commissioner would reduce that cost.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. The key risk of not adopting the revised draft code lies primarily in the Conflict of Interest Policy. The current policy does not reflect the current law.

34. A mitigation is that at its meeting on 27 May 2021, the Governing Body will be asked to adopt the attachments to the code of conduct part by part so that the likelihood of one singular matter holding up adoption of the whole code of conduct is lessened. Additionally, if there are issues with a particular attachment, they can be further researched and reported back as a separate part.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

35. The feedback from local boards will be incorporated into the report to the Governing Body which will recommend adoption of a revised Code of Conduct.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Code of Conduct - for local boards (Under Separate Cover)
b	Draft Code of Conduct - attachments for local boards (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Rose Leonard – Manager, Governance Services

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Howick Local Board Grants Programme 2021/2022

File No.: CP2021/04043

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To adopt the Howick Grants Programme 2021/2022.

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 Howick Grants Programme 2021/2022 for adoption (as provided in Attachment A to this report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) adopt the Howick Grants Programme 2021/2022 included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki

Context

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

6. The Community Grants Policy supports each local board to review and adopt 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 2021/2022 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 Howick Grants Programme has been workshopped with the local board and feedback incorporated into the grants programme for 2021/2022.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

10. 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

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

12. Based on the main focus of an application, a subject matter expert from the relevant Auckland 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

13. The grants programme has been developed 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

14. 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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Howick Grant Programme 2021/2022	37

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marion Davies - Grants and Incentives Manager

Authorisers

Rhonwen Heath - Head of Rates Valuations & Data Management

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Howick Local Board Transitional Rates Grants

File No.: CP2021/04589

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

2. To decide the next steps for the transitional rates grants allocated to groups in the Howick Local Board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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. An amount of $9300 was paid to two organisations in the Howick local board area in the 2020/2021 financial year. Details of these grants are included in Attachment A to the report.

6. With the transitional grants now expiring, the local board must decide how to utilise the associated budget. The local board can choose to either:

· let the grants end, and reallocate the budget

· amend their grants programme criteria to enable rates grants to continue high value grants on a temporary or permanent basis.

7. Howick Local Board has one “low value grant” which pays less than five per cent of the total property rates. Removal of this grant is unlikely to have a significant impact on the recipients. The remaining “high value grant” provides a more material level of and the impact of its removal is unclear.

8. If the local board wishes to continue to support existing beneficiaries and enable integration of community rates funding into their grants programme they should:

· amend their grants programme criteria to enable rates grants to continue for any high value grants the local board consider are broadly aligned with the local board’s community funding strategy. This can be done when the local board review its grants programme criteria in April 2021.

· retain the budget for these grants in the Asset Based Services (ABS) budget as a separate line item. This enables the grants to be considered as part of the Governance Framework Review of funding for asset-based services.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick 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 continue the high value transitional rates grant for the 2021/2022 financial year and to review this grant prior to the adoption of the 2022/2023 Local Board Agreement.

d) agree that rates grants paid out in future will be calculated by applying the average rates increase to the previous year’s grants.

e) agree in principle to amend its discretionary community grants programme criteria for the 2021/2022 financial year to enable the rates grants to continue for the financial year 2021/2022.

f) request the above resolutions be forwarded to the community grants team for consideration prior to the development of the local board’s 2021/2022 community grants criteria.

Horopaki

Context

9. 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.

10. In 2019, five community groups located on Auckland’s maunga (in Devonport-Takapuna, Howick, Howick 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. The Howick Local Board holds two rates grants. One of these grants is made under the criteria of the Auckland Regional Council scheme, and the other is for a maunga property. The grants are $3400 and $5900 each and pay four per cent and 87 per cent of the rates for the respective property. Details of Howick transitional rates grants paid in the 2020/2021 financial year are provided in Attachment A.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

15. 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.

16. Staff recognise that in some cases recipients may not be fully prepared for the end of the transition grants scheme and/or that local boards may wish to provide for further support. Two options for this are set out below and assessed against the following criteria:

· managing impact for recipients

· administration cost.

Options

17. Staff did not consider retaining the transitional rates grants in their current form. The transition rates grants process consumes significant administrative resource. This includes rates specialists to manually calculate grants amounts. Resource for this work is no longer available in the rates team.

a) Option one: Status quo: grants end and recipients may seek support through existing grants programmes.

b) Option two: amend Howick Local Board grants programme: to enable high value rates grants to continue on a temporary or permanent basis using a simplified grants process.

18. Under both options the local board retains the budget under Asset Based Services operational (opex) budget. The funds cannot be reallocated to LDI opex budget due to Local Board Funding Policy limitations but can be used to top-up LDI opex work programmes.

19. The Howick Local Board’s current grant programme does not identify assistance with rates as a criteria or priority. If the local board decides to retain the transitional rates grant in some form the local board’s grant programme will need to be updated to set the criteria for this grant. This can be part of the local board’s review of the grant programme in April.

Managing the impact on recipients

20. The Howick grant related to the former ARC scheme pays less than five per cent of the property rates. This grant provides limited support to its recipient and its ending is unlikely to have a significant impact on the recipient.

21. The remaining grant of $5900 pays 87 per cent of the property rates. This grant may provide a significant level of support to the recipient organisation. To minimise the impact on the recipient, the board can consider whether it is appropriate to continue to offer rates assistance through their grants programme.

22. The impact of Option one on the recipient is unclear. Option two minimises any impact on current recipients by retaining the grants for a further period of time. Retaining the high value grants on a transitional basis also provides the local board with additional time to consider the future of the grants.

Administration cost

23. Option one has no associated administration cost.

24. Option two will require administrative resource, although significantly less than before, as only the high value grants will remain. The grants team is able to administer the high value rates grants within their current resources, if in future the grants are calculated by applying the average rates increase to the previous year’s grants.

Conclusion

25. Administration costs are lower for option one but the impact on recipients of grants is unclear. Option two mitigates the impact on recipients of high value grants while grants continue to be offered. This option can be undertaken within current council resourcing if the grants are simplified as proposed above.

26. It is the local board’s decision whether to continue to offer high value rates grants. If the local board wish to continue to support recipients on a temporary or permanent basis then it can amend its grant criteria when the local board’s grant programme is reviewed in April.

Local board budgets

27. he 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.

28. If transitional rates grants are to be continued, funding should be retained in the Asset Based Services budget under Community Services group of activities. This ensures there is no impact on the local board’s Locally Driven Initiative budget allocation. This approach also enables these grants to be included in the equity-based funding allocation being considered by the Governance Framework Review. Local boards will retain decision making responsibility for these grants.

29. If transitional rates grants are removed, the associated funding is available to the local board for reallocation. While these funds will remain within the ABS budget, they can be used to support Local Discretionary Initiatives (LDI) such as the local board’s community grants programme without impacting on LDI budget allocations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

30. The effects of climate change were not a consideration when the existing transitional rates grants established. Integrating the transitional rates grants into the local boards community grants programmes will enable local boards to consider climate impacts in the future application of these funds.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. The financial implications are set out in the report. The Howick Local Board has $9300 in transitional rates grants budget that it can reallocate. One of the grants held by the board provides a significant level of support to the recipients. The local board can opt to amend its grant programme to continue the high value grants to minimise impacts to recipients.

35. If the local board decide not to continue the grants, they can reallocate the budget through the work programme process.

36. The budget will continue to be held as Community Services ABS operating expenditure and the use of these funds will be included in the equity-based funding allocation being considered by the Governance Framework Review.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. Removal of transitional rates grants may cause hardship for some organisations. This report advises the local board of the options available to them to manage any impacts.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. If the local board chooses to retain its high value grant then it will need to amend its grant programme criteria to include rates grants. This can be completed in April 2021 as part of the annual review of local boards grant programmes

39. 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.

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Local Transitional Rates Grants Howick	47
b ⇩	Legacy Rates Remission Schemes	49
c ⇩	Local board feedback	61

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Audrey Gan - Lead Financial Advisor Local Boards

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Andrew Duncan – Manager, Financial Policy

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Decision-making responsibilities policy

File No.: CP2021/04978

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the draft decision-making responsibilities policy for inclusion in the long-term plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Governing Body is required by legislation to allocate decision-making responsibility for the non-regulatory activities of Auckland Council to either itself or local boards. This allocation is outlined in the Decision-Making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and Local Boards policy that is published in each long-term plan and annual plan.

3. The policy also records delegations given to date by the Governing Body to local boards and provides a list of statutory responsibilities that are conferred on both governance arms.

4. An internal review of the policy was undertaken in early 2021 and considered by the Joint Governance Working Party at its meeting on 22 March 2021. The review outlined some proposed changes to the policy as well as some recommendations on how to take forward other issues that do not yet lend themselves to a policy amendment. The recommendations adopted by the Joint Governance Working Party have informed the proposed changes in the draft policy. (Attachment A).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) endorse the draft Decision-making Responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards policy.

Horopaki

Context

5. The Governing Body and local boards obtain their decision-making responsibilities from three sources:

· statutory responsibilities - functions and powers directly conferred by the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 (LGACA) 2009

· non-regulatory activities that are allocated to local boards and the Governing Body in accordance with a set of principles (section 17(2) LGACA)

· delegations – these can be regulatory or non-regulatory responsibilities; the Governing Body has delegated some of its responsibilities to local boards.

Allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities

6. The primary purpose for the policy is to set out the allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities. However, it incorporates other sources of decision-making authority for completeness and context, including a register of key delegations which have been given by the Governing Body to local boards.

Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP)

7. To facilitate a review by the JGWP, staff provided an analysis of issues raised, mainly by local boards, and proposed recommendations in relation to those issues. The report containing this advice can be found in the record of the Joint Governance Working Party Meeting, 23 March 2021.

8. The JGWP carefully considered the issues that were in scope for the review as well as the staff advice and raised some questions and issues that staff are exploring further. These are discussed in the advice below.

9. This report only covers the discussions relating to the recommended changes to the policy. A memo will be provided to each local board providing a summary of the issues considered in the review and outlining a staff response to specific issues, if any, that individual local boards raised in their feedback.

10. Following their review, the JGWP agreed as follows:

That the Joint Governance Working Party:

(a) note the feedback from local boards on the decision-making responsibilities policy

(b) request the following amendments to the decision-making responsibilities policy:

(i) request that staff report with urgency that local boards can be delegated approval for developing and approving area plans, provided the Governing Body can make its views known on such plans

(ii) that the local boards can take responsibilities for decision making over drainage reserves provided such decisions are constrained to those that will not negatively affect the drainage functions and stormwater network operations.

(iii) provide for local boards to tailor locally delivered projects within regional environmental programmes, subject to advice from staff on the types of projects that can be tailored

(iv) provide explicit reference to Health and Safety obligations and requirements that local boards and Governing Body must consider in their decisions

(v) local boards can object to a special liquor licence and this be enabled by an appropriate administrative process.

(c) note the recommendations that the next phase of the Waiheke pilot should consider some of the issues that have been raised including:

(i) trialing delegations from Auckland Transport on decision-making relating to street trading for roads and beaches, placemaking and urban design decisions

(ii) Identifying opportunities and non-regulatory decision-making elements in relation to town centres that the Governing Body can consider when making allocation

(d) recommend that Auckland Transport consider if there are types of community activities that can take place on road reserves without impacting the roading network.

(e) request staff scope out a review of the role of the Governing Body in regional governance within the shared governance model of Auckland Council, taking into considerations the recommendation of the CCO Review.

The following members requested that their dissenting votes be recorded as follows:

Cr A Filipaina against e)

Member R Northey against e)

The following members requested that their abstention be recorded as follows

Cr S Henderson against (b)(i)

Cr R Hills against (b)(iii)

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Request for further advice or implementation support

Area plans

11. Local boards requested that the responsibility for adoption of area plans, which is currently allocated to the Governing Body, be assigned to them. This can be done through allocating the responsibility to local boards or through the Governing Body delegating this allocated responsibility to local boards to exercise on their behalf.

12. Staff have considered this request and advised the JGWP as follows.

· Area plans are an important tool in council’s spatial planning framework. It is used to strategically plan an area usually for the purpose of seeking and/or supporting changes to the Unitary Plan. The responsibility for the Unitary Plan rests with the Governing Body.

· Area plans, as a stand-alone non-regulatory tool and decision, appear ‘local’ in nature given their focus on local planning which is a responsibility allocated to local boards.

· However, area plans also meet the exceptions in section 17(2) of the LGACA: specifically that for these decisions to be effective, they require alignment or integration with other decision-making responsibilities that sit with the Governing Body. These include plan changes and amendments to the Unitary Plan, infrastructure prioritisation and regional investment.

· During the Waiheke pilot, the Waiheke Local Board sought a delegation to sign off the Waiheke Local Area Plan. This delegation was granted with conditions that included a requirement to ensure the involvement of a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board. This suggests delegations on a case-by-case basis can be possible and provides an alternative route if a standing delegation is not given to local boards.

13. The JGWP carefully considered the advice of staff but were not all in agreement with it. Members had strong views about the need to empower local boards in their local planning role and have requested staff to reconsider their advice and to explore the risks and possible risk mitigation of enabling local boards to adopt the plans through a delegation from the Governing Body.

14. Whilst the practice already ensures high involvement of local boards in the development of these plans, it was the view of the JGWP members that delegating the adoption decision with relevant parameters is more empowering for local boards. JGWP members felt that this would enable local boards to make local planning decisions that are aligned with their local board plan aspirations and other community priorities without requiring further approval from the Governing Body, whose members may not be as familiar with these local priorities.

15. JGWP members agreed that area plans, while local, often require funding and alignment to other plans that are developed by the Governing Body. Keeping the responsibility and accountability allocated to the Governing Body ensures the decision continues to sit at the right level but that this does not necessarily need to be exercised by the Governing Body on all occasions.

16. The JGWP have requested advice from staff on how to pursue a Governing Body delegation. Staff will seek to provide further advice to the JGWP. If the JGWP considers recommending a delegation from the Governing Body on this issue, staff will present the request to the Governing Body for consideration. A delegation can be given at any time and it will have immediate effect.

Special liquor licence administration process for notifying local boards

17. One of the issues raised in the local board feedback is special liquor license applications. On this matter, the request was for clarification that local boards can object, as per the delegation from Governing Body granting the ability to make objections under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. Elected members perceived this is not being enabled as notifications on these licences are not proactively shared with them in the same way that information about other applications (on, off and club licences) are.

18. The JGWP has recommended that this be clarified in the policy and request that staff enable notifications to be sent to local board where public consultation is required for special licence applications.

Proposed changes to the Allocated decision-making responsibilities (part c)

Local purpose (drainage) reserves

19. During discussions with local boards on the scope of the review, many local boards raised concerns about the interpretation of the policy.

20. An example raised by Upper Harbour Local Board demonstrated the need for clarity, especially in areas where decision-making authority allocated to both governance arms overlap. During the development of the board’s local park management plans, staff had advised that those reserves that are primarily dedicated to stormwater drainage should be treated as part of the stormwater network. This advice appeared to suggest that local boards do not hold any decision-making over a subset of local parks since it is the Governing Body that is responsible for management of the stormwater network.

21. Through discussions with staff as part of this review, the advice has been revised. Staff accept this is an example of where there is clear overlap in activities and decision-making responsibilities. Staff will need to work closely with local boards to develop protocols that enable decision-making by the Governing Body on stormwater issues to be exercised efficiently and effectively.

22. The JGWP were supportive of the staff recommendation to clarify that the exercise of decision-making in relation to stormwater network and how it functions must be properly enabled on local parks. This is done by acknowledging that these considerations and decisions about the stormwater network constrains local board decision-making over local parks (or parts of local parks) that have a stormwater drainage function. This clarity will also help staff to understand that the local board continues to retain the decision-making responsibility over all other activities of local parks.

Role of local boards in environmental programmes and grants

23. Some local boards feel the current policy wording and ways of working does not provide a meaningful role for local boards on regional environmental issues, specifically regional environmental programmes. These local boards have also requested that local boards be enabled to monitor the progress of any locally-delivered projects (funded by regional environmental programmes) through the established work programme reporting mechanism.

24. Local board input into regional environmental programmes is at the policy and/or programme approval stage. The approved programme direction provides sufficient guidance to staff, acting under delegation from the Governing Body, when developing an implementation plan and prioritising projects for delivery.

25. At the operational level, where identified priorities and project ideas are to be delivered in local parks or other key locations within the local board area, local board input is sought by staff at workshops. This is to ensure locally delivered projects are tailored to local circumstances. While it is possible to capture this current practice in the policy, this needs to be done in a way that continues to enable relevant local boards to add value to projects without too many administrative requirements. A member of the JGWP also expressed concern about signalling all projects can be tailored to local circumstances as this is not the case.

Other changes

Health and Safety – parameters for decision-making

26. Council decisions need to take account of Health and Safety considerations, as well as reflecting a shared approach to risk.

27. Staff advise that Health and Safety considerations should be explicit in the policy to protect the council from liability. The JGWP supports this recommendation and a reference to complying with health and safety legislation and plans has been inserted in the policy.

Issues relating to delegations

28. The review considered requests for new delegations or additional support to implement delegations given to local boards. Some of these were requests for delegation from Auckland Transport.

29. The review considered that before recommending or agreeing any new delegation, the delegator, whether it be Governing Body or Auckland Transport, must first weigh the benefits of reflecting local circumstances and preferences (through a delegation) against the importance and benefits of using a single approach in the district (through itself retaining the responsibility, duty, or power concerned).

30. Staff advised the JGWP to recommend that the Waiheke pilot (part of the Governance Framework Review) which is about to enter another phase, expands to include a trial of delegated decision-making on key issues raised in this review. They include several issues that relate to Auckland Transport, namely street trading and town centre/urban design. Piloting these delegations can help Auckland Transport to identify any practical issues that need to be considered before a formal delegation to all local boards can be given on any of the issues identified.

Other issues

JGWP resolution on role of Governing Body

31. Some members of the JGWP expressed concerns about what they perceived to be a heavy focus on local board responsibilities.

32. Both sets of governors were invited to identify issues to be examined in the review. The Governing Body, in workshop discussions, did not identify any major issues that it wanted to review but was open to including any issues raised by local boards. As a result, almost all of the issues raised were suggested by local boards and the majority of them relate to their areas of decision-making responsibility. This may have given the impression of a bias towards examining the role of local boards.

33. To address this concern, the JGWP requested that staff scope a review of the role of the Governing Body. Staff will provide advice to the JGWP in response to this request at an upcoming meeting.

Escalation process for any disputes relating to the Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for non-regulatory activities

34. The process for resolving disputes relating to allocation of non-regulatory responsibilities (including disputes over interpretation of the allocation table) will vary depending on the issue at hand. The chart below outlines the basic escalation process.

Figure One: Process for resolving disputes

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

35. This report relates to a policy and does not have any quantifiable climate impacts.

36. Decisions that are taken, in execution of this policy, will likely have significant climate impacts. However, those impacts will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and appropriate responses will be identified as required.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. Council departments support and implement decisions that are authorised by this policy.

38. Feedback received to date from some departments reinforces the need for guidance notes to aid interpretation of the allocations in the decision-making policy. This work will be done in consultation with departments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

39. This report canvasses issues that had been raised by local boards and focuses on those issues that warrant an amendment to the policy.

40. All other issues raised by local boards in their feedback were canvassed in the staff advice that formed part of the review. This information is available to all local boards.

41. Staff have also prepared responses to specific issues raised by local boards and have shared this information in a memo.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

42. There are no decisions being sought in this report that will have a specific impact on Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

43. There are no financial implications directly arising from the information contained in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

44. The are no identified risks other than timeframes. The Governing Body will be adopting this policy in June as part of the Long-term Plan. Local board feedback is requested in early May in order to provide time to collate and present this to the Governing Body for consideration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

45. Staff will prepare guidance notes to aid the interpretation of the decision-making policy following its adoption.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Decision making responsibilities policy	81

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason – General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Howick Local Board

06 May 2021

Land classification and a new community lease to Howick Croquet Club Incorporated at Millhouse Reserve 67R Millhouse Drive, Northpark

File No.: CP2021/03999

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To classify the Millhouse Park reserve and grant a new community lease to Howick Croquet Club Incorporated (The croquet club) for the land at Millhouse Park, Northpark.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The croquet club seeks a new community lease for the land sited at Millhouse Reserve, 67R Millhouse Drive, Northpark.

3. The operative lease for the croquet club commenced 1 January 2005 and expired 31 December 2019. The lease remains operative on a month-by-month basis until a new lease is granted.

4. The croquet club occupies a portion of Millhouse Reserve, being Lot 211 DP 161574 and Lot 206 DP 160060 comprised of 3.5301 hectares and 5980 square metres respectively and are contained in Record of Title NA978A/730 and Record of Title NA96B/77 respectively and are both held in fee simple by the Auckland Council as unclassified recreation reserves.

5. Classification of the reserve is required prior to a new lease being granted to the croquet club as per the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

6. To ensure the control, management, development, use, maintenance, and preservation of reserves for their appropriate purposes this report recommends that the Howick Local Board exercise its delegated authority under Section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify the parts of Millhouse Reserve as described in the recommendation as a classified recreation reserve.

7. Subject to classification being approved, this report also recommends that the Howick Local Board grant a new community lease to the croquet club.

8. In accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, Auckland Council must publicly notify and engage with iwi on its intention to grant the proposed new community lease. No submissions opposing the proposal were received.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a) resolve pursuant to Section 16 (2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify parts of Millhouse Park reserve legally described as Lot 211 DP 161574, Lot 206 DP 160060, Lot 211 DP 168378, and Lot 206 DP 151970 as classified recreation reserve as shown on Attachment B to the agenda report.

b) subject to the classification of the land being approved, grant a new community lease to Howick Croquet Club Incorporated for the land comprising approximately 4,900m2, shown in Attachment A and situated at Millhouse Reserve 67R Millhouse Drive Northpark described as Lot 211 DP 161574 and Lot 206 DP 160060 subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) term – an initial term of 10 years commencing 1 May 2021 with one 10-year right of renewal with final expiry 30 April 2041

ii) rent – one dollar ($1.00) plus GST per annum if requested

iii) approve the community outcomes plan (attachment C to the agenda report) to be attached to the lease as a schedule

iv) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Horopaki

Context

9. This report considers the classification of the Millhouse Park Reserve and a proposed new community lease to the croquet club.

10. A new community lease for the croquet club and the land classification was discussed at a workshop held with the Howick Local Board on 25 February 2021. No objections were raised at that time.

11. The Howick Local Board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

Land

12. The croquet club building and lawns are sited at Millhouse Reserve 67R Millhouse Drive Northpark. The land is legally described as Lot 211 DP 161574 and Lot 206 DP 160060 comprising 3.5301 hectares and 5980 square metres respectively, contained in Record of Title NA978A/730 and Record of Title NA96B/77 respectively. Both are held in fee simple by the Auckland Council as unclassified recreation reserves.

13. The Auckland Council as a reserve administering body is obligated to classify all unclassified reserves. To align the activities on the land to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, Auckland Council staff propose that the entire Millhouse Reserve be classified as a recreation reserve. It is a suitable classification considering the activities and the reserve is intended for recreation purposes.

14. The purpose of recreation reserves as set out in Section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977 is to provide for “recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public, and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside, with emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor recreational activities, including recreation tracks in the countryside”.

15. Classification of Millhouse Reserve does not require public notification but a new lease to croquet will require public notification and engagement with iwi on council’s intention to grant a new lease is required in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, as there is no management plan for the reserve.

Howick Croquet Club

16. The croquet club is registered as an Incorporated Society under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

17. The croquet club has operated in the Howick and Pakuranga area since 1908. The club plays both traditional croquet and golf croquet. With a membership of 50 people.

18. The club has two to three days a week of structured play, but the facility is open every day for individual players.

19. The club works with local colleges to encourage younger players and was recently awarded a grant to approach more schools to help with coaching and play.

20. The clubrooms are also hired out to several other groups such as the Mah-jong club, Probus and a 500 club.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

21. The recommended term for a lease of tenant-owned buildings and improvements is ten years with one ten year right of renewal in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

22. Auckland Council staff have agreed to a Community Outcomes Plan with the croquet club (Attachment C of the report) and this will be attached as a schedule to the lease deed.

23. The croquet club satisfies the requirements specified in the Community Occupancy Guidelines in the following ways:

a) it is a registered society

b) it has a history of delivering quality services to the local community

c) The croquet club has provided a copy of its financial accounts which indicate that its funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and that it possesses adequate financial reserves

d) The croquet club is managed appropriately by its longevity and programmes offered

e) The croquet club holds all necessary insurance, including public liability cover.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. The designated impact level of the recommended decision on Green House Gas emissions is “no impact” because the proposal continues an existing activity and does not introduce any new sources of emissions.

25. Climate change has an unlikely potential to impact the lease as the site does not sit in close proximity to the coast nor is it in a flood plain

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

26. Staff have engaged with various internal council stakeholders including Service, Strategy and Integration, Parks and Places Specialist and Parks, Sport and Recreation and the area’s Strategic Broker to obtain feedback on the proposed lease to the club. No objections were received.

27. The proposed new ground lease to the club has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this memorandum’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. This item is on the Community Facilities Work Programme for 2020/2021.

29. This item was discussed with the local board through a memorandum that was presented at a workshop on 25 February 2021 to provide feedback.

30. Public notification commenced on 15 March 2021 and concluded on 15 April 2021, no objections were received.

31. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority relating to local, recreation, sport, and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and individual local board plans.

33. Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. Community leasing aims to increase Māori wellbeing through targeted support for Māori community development projects. Additionally, it seeks to improve access to facilities and participation for Māori living in the Howick Local Board area.

34. Formal Iwi engagement was undertaken between 8 March 2021 and 6 April 2021 with the iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in the Howick Local Board area.

35. Engagement included:

a) a mana whenua forum presentation held at Manukau in 2019

b) written advice of the proposal to classify the land to a recreation reserve and to grant a lease to croquet club was sent to iwi groups with an interest in the Howick Local Board area.

36. The above meets the requirements of Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 that the council consult with iwi.

37. No objection to either proposal was received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

38. Once the classification approval is resolved by the local board, staff will arrange for publication of notice in the New Zealand Gazette confirming the classification. The cost of this will be borne by Community Facilities.

39. Public notification costs of the intention to grant a new community lease will also be borne by Community Facilities.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. Should the Howick Local Board resolve not to grant the croquet club a new community lease, this decision may materially affect the group’s ability to undertake its core activities.

41. Auckland Council staff advise that the benefits to the community as recommended outweigh any risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Subject to the local board approval to classify the land and grant a new community lease to the croquet club, Auckland Council staff will work with the group to formalise the lease documents.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Site Plan Howick Croquet Club	101
b ⇩	Land classification Millhouse Park outlined in blue	103
c ⇩	Community Outcomes Plan Howick Croquet Club	105

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Phillipa Carroll - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Stakeholder and Land Advisory

Victoria Villaraza - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Adele White
Deputy Chairperson	John Spiller
Members	Katrina Bungard
	Bo Burns
	David Collings
	Bruce Kendall
	Mike Turinsky
	Bob Wichman
	Peter Young, JP