Agenda of Henderson-Massey Local Board

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

Member

Organisation

Position

Chris Carter (Chair)

1. St Lazarus Trust

2. Waitākere Badminton Club

Member

Peter Chan, JP

1. Cantonese Opera Society of NZ

2. Asian Leaders Forum

3. NZ-Hong Kong Business Association

4. NZ-China Business Association

5. Te Whau Pathway Environmental Trust

Member

Trustee

Dan Collins

1. Rānui Action Project

Chair

Dr Will Flavell

(Deputy Chair)

1. Asia New Zealand Leadership Network

2. Te Atatū Tennis Club

3. Waitākere Literacy Board

4. Te Kura

Member

Board Member

Member

Brooke Loader

1. Waitākere Licensing Trust

2. UDL Energy Complaints Scheme Advisory

3. Neighbourhood Support

4. Te Atatū Glendene Community Patrol

5. Real Estate Authority New Zealand

Member

Volunteer

Member

Ingrid Papau

1. Liberty Impact Community Trust

2. #WeLoveTuvalu Community Trust

3. Neighbourhood Support

4. Liberty Church

5. Rutherford Primary Board of Trustees

Board Member

Member

Street Contact

Member

Member appointments

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

External organisation	Lead	Alternate
Massey Matters	Will Flavell	Peter Chan
Central Park Henderson Business Association	Chris Carter	Dan Collins
Heart of Te Atatū South	Brooke Loader	Brenda Brady
Ranui Advisory Group	Dan Collins	Brooke Loader
Te Atatū Peninsula Business Association	Ingrid Papau	Brenda Brady
Waitākere Ethnic Board	Peter Chan	Brooke Loader
Waitākere Healthlink	Ingrid Papau	Brenda Brady
Te Whau Pathway Environmental Trust	Chris Carter	Dan Collins

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, including the confidential section, as true and correct.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

6.1

Acknowledgement: Volunteer Awards

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) āhukahuka / acknowledge the following individuals in our community who contribute to the well-being of residents through their volunteering or other community work:

i) Whaea Mihi Te Huia (QSM)

ii) Raymond Hall

iii) Carolyn Makiri

iv) Melba Wellington on behalf of the Te Atatū Marae Whānau Committee

v) Olga Mills

vi) Esther Thai Thul

6.2

Acknowledgement: New Years Honours

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) āhukahuka / acknowledge the following individuals for being nominated for New Years Honours 2025:

i) Dr Karen Colgan

ii) Ms Moeapulu Frances Tagaloa

iii) Mrs Anne Sinclair.

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

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

8.1 Deputation: Annual review of volunteer pest control within Harbourview-Orangihina Park

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a deputation on the annual review of pest control at Harbourview-Orangihina Park, on behalf of Forest and Bird Waitākere.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. To provide an annual update on the volunteer work Forest and Bird Waitākere have completed in Harbourview-Orangihina Park.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the presentation and thank Janette Fawcett and John Fawcett on behalf of Forest and Bird Waitākere, for their attendance.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 March 2025

Allocation of 2025/2026 Local Board Transport Capital Fund

File No.: CP2025/03287

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. The purpose of this report is to approve projects for investigation and delivery from the remaining 2025/2026 Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The local board has $1,008,841 in its 2025/2026 LBTCF to allocate to projects.

3. On 15 October, two projects were approved as priorities for delivery should any cost savings or additional funding from the LBTCF become available. The following projects were formally resolved as priorities for delivery (HM/2024/147):

· Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade - $101,752.32

· Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path Lighting – Section A (Toi-Coletta Esplanade) - $445,000.

4. In, addition, the LBTCF project Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path – Section B and C path upgrade and lighting (Tui Glen/Chilcott Brae), is an existing project which requires an additional $10,000 to complete.

5. At its workshop on 4 February 2025, the local board was presented with a list of new projects along with indicative costs. The local board provided informal support for the following projects:

· Awaroa Road pedestrian improvements - $162,088

· Keeling Road Cycling path - $230,000

· Henderson-Massey Bus stop upgrade - $60,000.

6. On the 25 February 2025 at a local board workshop, Auckland Transport presented the findings of the investigation for Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade and Duncan Avenue speed calming projects. Each project was presented two options for the Local Board to consider. Following the workshop the costs of the projects were reviewed.

7. The local board provided informal support to the following options:

· Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade (Waipani Road) – (option 1) - raised zebra crossing. The updated additional funds required is estimated to be $160,000 instead of $101,752.32 which includes the raised crossing and stormwater mitigation.

· Duncan Avenue speed calming option 1 – removal of existing chicanes outside of 24 Duncan Avenue and 2A Duncan Avenue and replacing with speed humps. The current resolved budget is sufficient to deliver option 1 at this stage.

8. It is further recommended that any further cost savings from the completion of currently active LBTCF projects or any alternative funding that becomes available be applied to the Great North Road slip lane crossing improvements project - $375,000.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) toha / allocate it’s remaining 2025/2026 Local Board Transport Capital Fund of $1,008,841 to the following projects:

i) $10,000 to complete the Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path – Section B and C path upgrade and lighting (Tui Glen/Chilcott Brae)

ii) $160,000 to the Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade

iii) $445,000 to the Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path Lighting – Section A (Toi-Coletta Esplanade)

iv) $230,000 to the Keeling Road Cycling path

v) $163,841 to the Awaroa Road pedestrian improvements.

b) whakaae / approve as its first priority, that any cost savings from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects and/or any new additional funding that becomes available for 2025/2026 be applied to its active projects if they require additional funding to complete within the current three-year local board programme.

c) whakaae / approve as its second priority, that any further cost savings from the completion of currently active 2025/2026 Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects or any alternative funding that becomes available be applied to the following projects in this priority order:

i) Henderson-Massey Bus stops - $60,000

ii) Great North Road slip lane crossing improvements project - $375,000.

Horopaki

Context

9. The LBTCF is an Auckland Transport fund established in 2012 to allow local boards to deliver small projects in their local area that would not normally be prioritised by Auckland Transport.

10. After the finalisation of the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan, the budget was increased to $48.7 million of which $17 million is approved for 2024/2025 and $20.4 million is endorsed for 2025/2026.

11. The budget for Henderson-Massey Local Board has been increased from $2.833 million to $3.841 million for the 2022-2025 term. The local board has allocated a portion of this budget to projects already and these projects have either been constructed or are now construction ready.

12. There is a budget of $1,008,841 now available for the local board to allocate new projects or to top up current projects where required.

13. This report requests the local board approves as its first priority, that any cost savings from its currently active Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects and/or any new additional funding that becomes available be applied to its active projects if they require additional funding to complete within the current three-year local board programme.

14. This report also requests the local board to approves as its second priority, that any further cost savings from the completion of currently active Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects or any alternative funding that becomes available be applied to the following projects in this priority order being, Henderson-Massey Bus stops - $60,000 and Great North Road slip lane crossing improvements project-$375,000

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Active projects

15. The following information recaps the status of current active projects in the programme:

Table 1 – Update on active projects as of 4 February 2025 workshop

New LBTCF Budget

16. Through the 2024-2034 Regional Land Transport Plan process, additional budget of $1,008,841 is now available for the board to allocate to new LBTCF projects.

17. The local board has provided informal support for the projects in the following table:

Project Name

Project Description

High level cost estimate

Awaroa Road pedestrian improvements

The request is from the local board and community to provide pedestrian improvements at the existing kea crossing on Awaroa Road, the footpath from Sunnyvale School comes out to Gregg Place. The scope of the project is to improve the existing Kea crossing and provide speed calming on the bend to reduce the speeds of the vehicles approaching this crossing.

$163,841

Keeling Road Cycling path

The request is from the local board to provide the missing shared path approx. 40 metres to connect the two sections of the Opanuku Stream Path from the end of Keeling Road to a cycling path that runs adjacent to 54 Keeling Road. Currently, cyclists have to go onto the road where many vehicles and trucks are parked in spite of parking restrictions.

$230,000

Henderson-Massey Bus stop upgrade

Bus Stop 5710 - 18 Northside Drive, Westgate. The request is to provide a new bus shelter at this location, the catchment is from the new subdivision.

$60,000

18. On 15 October, two projects were approved as priorities for delivery should any cost savings or additional funding from the LBTCF become available. These projects were formally resolved as contingency projects (HM/2024/147) as follows:

· Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade

· Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path Lighting – Section A (Toi-Coletta Esplanade).

19. This report recommends formal approval of these projects for delivery.

20. On the 25 February 2025 at a Local Board workshop, Auckland Transport presented the findings of the investigation for Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade and Duncan Avenue speed calming projects. Each project was presented two options for the Local Board to consider. The details are below:

Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade (Waipani Road)

· The concept design options included replacing the existing refuge crossing outside of the Peninsula Primary school front gate to a raised zebra crossing (Option 1) or an At-grade zebra crossing (Option 2).

· At the workshop AT recommended the At-grade zebra crossing option due to the additional stormwater improvements needed, cost and the potential flooding to properties on the southern side of the crossing. The LB’s informal feedback was in support of the option fora raised zebra crossing (Option 1), shown below.

· Since the workshop, the cost of the two projects were reviewed. Additionally, AT/designer have undertaken further stormwater analysis, including a comprehensive stormwater assessment to further investigate the stormwater mitigations. AT/designer have discussed internally and agreed that the flooding risk can be minimised with minor changes, including changes to the berm on the southern side of the crossing. If the local board wishes to proceed with the raised zebra crossing (Option 1), the additional funds required needed is estimated to be $160,000 instead of $101,752.32 which includes the raised crossing and stormwater mitigation.

· If the local board wishes to proceed with an AT-grade zebra crossing (Option 2), the additional funds required will be $101,752.32.

Duncan Avenue Speed Calming

· The concept design options included replacing the chicane islands outside of 24 Duncan Avenue and 2A Duncan Avenue with speed hump (Option 1) or side islands (Option 2) near these locations.

· AT recommended the speed hump option to reduce vehicle speeds and decrease the potential for rat-running along Duncan Avenue where the chicane islands are removed. The speed hump option was supported informally by the LB to be taken forward. The current resolved rough order costs for the project is expected to be sufficient to remove the chicane islands and installing the speed humps (Option 1).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Auckland Transport engages closely with the council on developing strategy, actions and measures to support the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Climate Action Plan and the council’s priorities.

22. Auckland Transport reviews the potential climate impacts of all projects and works hard to minimise carbon emissions. Auckland Transport’s work programme is influenced by council direction through Te-Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

23. The Local Board Transport Capital projects noted for decision do not impact on Council facilities.

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

Local impacts and local board views

24. The Local Board Transport Capital projects were workshopped with members prior to this report being submitted. At the 4 February and 25 February 2025 workshop local board members expressed informal support for the proposals outlined in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. Auckland Transport is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations in being more responsible or effective to Māori.

26. Auckland Transport’s Māori Responsiveness Plan outlines the commitment to 19 mana whenua tribes in delivering effective and well-designed transport policy and solutions for Auckland. We also recognise mataawaka and their representative bodies and our desire to foster a relationship with them. This plan is available on the Auckland Transport website - https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/maori-responsiveness-plan/#about

27. In this case, neither decision involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water so specific Māori input was not sought.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The local board transport capital project decisions in this report do have financial implications, reducing the Local Board Transport Capital Fund by $1,008,000.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

29. The proposed decisions do have some risk, any construction project can be affected by a range of factors including weather, contract availability or discovery of previously un-identified factors like unmapped infrastructure.

30. The costs outlined in this report are indicative costings and selected projects may cost more or less than the amount indicated. Once projects are selected, further investigation will confirm project costings.

31. Auckland Transport manages risk by retaining a 10% contingency on the projects and historically there are several occasions in the organisation has used budget surpluses in other programmes to support delivery of the LBTCF. However, there is always a small risk that more money may be required from the LBTCF.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

32. The following activities or actions are planned following formal allocation of funds:

a) to complete the Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path – Section B and C path upgrade and lighting (Tui Glen/Chilcott Brae).

b) investigation and initial design for:

i) Peninsula Primary School pedestrian crossing upgrade.

ii) Tui Glen Henderson Creek Shared Path Lighting – Section A (Toi-Coletta Esplanade).

iii) Keeling Road Cycling path.

iv) Awaroa Road pedestrian improvements.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie, Head of Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 March 2025

Feedback on options to address local board operating cost pressures for Annual Budget 2025/2026

File No.: CP2025/04227

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide feedback on options to manage local board cost pressures in the context of Fairer Funding, for reporting back to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) in April 2025, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP). This included new funding of $84 million operating and $50 million capital over two years to transition most local boards significantly closer to funding equity. $35 million of new operating funding was planned for in 2025/2026 and allocated to local boards through the LTP.

3. Through the council’s Annual Budget 2025/2026 refresh process, staff have identified that some costs are forecast to be higher than previously anticipated, and operating revenue budgets set in the LTP are at risk of not being achieved. In a memorandum to the Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications.

4. Thirteen local boards (identified as funded below their equitable levels) were allocated a portion of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 exceeding their individual cost pressures, however there are eight local boards (that were identified as funded at or above their equitable levels) which were allocated little or no additional funding, and staff anticipate the level of implementable advice and options available to these local boards will be insufficient to fully mitigate the size of their individual cost pressures without materially impacting service levels.

5. After a recent budget refresh exercise, which concluded in February, the revised total cost pressures and revenue shortfalls identified for local community services is $13.9 million across 21 local boards, comprising of:

· Known variations to asset schedules within full facility contracts (subject to final price negotiation) were not budgeted for in the LTP, $5.1 million

· Utilities costs (driven primarily by Electricity and Gas forecasted prices), $5.8 million

· Improved libraries rostering to meet health and safety requirements, reduce the likelihood of unplanned facility closures and deliver planned levels of service, $1.5 million

· Revenue shortfalls from pools and leisure facilities and venue for hire, $2.4 million

· Improvements in leasing revenue is an overall net positive contribution of $0.3 million, however this differs by local board. Where they are net positive, this could be used to mitigate the effect of cost pressures. Leasing revenue improvements can arise because of local board decisions.

6. While this initial budget refresh exercise has been completed, staff are continuing to investigate the cost pressures to identify mitigations and other offset opportunities.

7. Between 4 and 6 March 2025, finance staff have workshopped with all local boards the updated local board budget position (based on the best available information), including individual local board positions, and options to manage the collective local board cost pressures. A further budget update since these workshops has occurred (and local boards informed through a memo), reducing the overall cost pressures for local boards from $18 million to $13.9 million.

8. This report seeks local board feedback on the three potential options and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views including other matters relating to local cost pressures to the Joint Governance Working Party, to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback on the three identified options to manage local board cost pressures in the short term.

b) tuku / provide feedback on any other matters relating to local board cost pressures and budgets.

Horopaki

Context

9. Fairer Funding was adopted through the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) and is to be implemented from 1 July 2025 (year two of the LTP) to transition towards significant funding equity for most local boards over four years, including the allocation of $35 million of new operating funding to 13 local boards for 2025/2026. Eight local boards have been allocated little to no new funding.

10. Cost pressures can arise when the costs of delivering a service are forecast to increase beyond what is projected in the LTP. These can occur as new information becomes available after the adoption of an LTP or Annual Plan, and budgeting assumptions are updated.

11. The total net operating cost pressures identified for local community services for 2025/2026 is $18 million and relate to ‘asset-based services’. This is the total across all 21 local boards and does not include cost pressures relating to any other area of the council group operations.

12. Operating cost pressures relating to networks of asset-based services (e.g. pools, libraries, open space maintenance) have historically been managed across local boards at a regional level by the Governing Body. In this approach additional levers are available, such as changes to the level and distribution of general rates funding and minimum service levels. There is also the ability for staff to drive efficiencies across the regional network, and to manage “unders and overs” across that network.

13. Local boards have two main levers for responding to cost pressures in the short term. These are:

a) utilising new operating funding from their share of the $35 million in 2025/2026 provided to support a transition to Fairer Funding, or

b) by making changes to services including prioritisation and trade-off decisions across their service portfolio.

14. Staff also have some levers available to help manage the costs and revenues for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

15. The eight local boards that will not receive sufficient new funding would need to respond to cost pressures by reviewing service levels, making prioritisation and trade-off decisions to remain within their existing funding levels, and then work with staff to ensure the efficient delivery of those services. However, staff do not expect the level of implementable options and advice available for 2025/2026 to be sufficient to cover the full amount of their individual cost pressures.

16. On 14 February 2025, staff presented a report to the Joint Governance Working Party (JGWP) about cost pressures for local boards, how local boards can currently manage these cost pressures, and possible transitional support which the JGWP could recommend to the Governing Body as part of annual budget decision making. This report is included in Attachment A. At this time the updated local cost pressure position was unknown, however since then, updated estimates of cost pressures have been forecasted.

17. The JGWP resolved (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) on three potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term, and has requested staff seek formal local board feedback on these to support a recommendation to the Governing Body for Annual Budget 2025/2026:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

18. As operating cost pressures are ongoing, local boards should also consider in their feedback, how this would be managed for future years.

19. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the JGWP in April to support a recommendation to the Governing Body, per JGWPC/2025/4 c).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

20. Through the budget refresh process staff identified $13.9 million of net operating cost pressures related to delivering existing levels of service for local community services. The distribution by local board is presented below. Staff are continuing to investigate these cost pressures, including identifying mitigations, and have identified some regional scheduled maintenance costs were incorrectly attributed to local boards. A memo was distributed to all local boards on 12 March 2025 explaining the corrections, and this has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million from the $18 million presented in workshops, as presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: distribution of cost pressures to local boards

21. Analysis was completed to compare the level of individual local board cost pressures against each local board’s allocation from the new operating funding in 2025/2026. This is because the new funding is yet to be allocated towards a service or activity, and if this was used to cover cost pressures, there would not be an impact to existing service levels.

22. Analysis showed that 13 local boards had sufficient new operating funding to cover their individual cost pressures, however this would result in a reduction of up to 61 per cent in their new operating funding, which was provided for the purpose of funding equity and which local boards expected to deliver additional outcomes for their communities.

23. Eight local boards with little to no new funding would only have the option to look across existing services to find cost reductions or revenue opportunities to offset cost pressures. However, advice on strategic options and opportunities for local boards to change asset-based services to reduce cost will initially be limited. Advice is more readily available for activities currently funded from ‘Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)’ operating funding which is a only a small proportion of the local board operating costs.

24. For these eight local boards, this could mean between 36 per cent and 84 per cent funding reduction from their existing ‘Locally Driven Initiatives’ programme of services and activities. Changes at this level are likely to be material to existing levels of services, as most of these services and activities have been ongoing for many years and are designed to achieve local board plan outcomes. Any material changes to existing levels of service are likely to trigger a requirement for public consultation; however local boards were not recommended to consult in detail on specific opportunities in the Annual Budget 2025/2026 consultation. Therefore this gives rise to a risk that certain opportunities may not be implementable unless further consultation is held.

Table 2: analysis of cost pressures compared to available funding by local board

Supporting a transition to fairer funding

25. To support this significant shift in the way local boards are funded, some key principles and assumptions were agreed as part of the adoption of Fairer Funding:

· No local board is worse off in its level of funding (than under the prior ABS/LDI funding model).

· Achieving significant funding equity for most local boards in four years.

26. The level of implementable advice across local community services and environmental management may not be available for the Annual Budget 2025/2026 to fully cover the full quantum of local boards individual cost pressures. Additional options to address local cost pressures in the short term have been developed for JGWP consideration to help all local boards transition to the new way of funding.

Options analysis for addressing local board cost pressures

27. The Joint Governance Working Party on 14 February 2025 (resolution JGWPC/2025/4) requested staff to seek local board feedback on the following potential options to address local board cost pressures in the short term:

i) Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

ii) Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase (for local boards) in 2025/2026

iii) Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget.

28. A combination of options will likely be needed to resolve the full range and quantum of cost pressures for 2025/2026, but consideration should also be given to whether these options should be temporary (e.g. one year) or implemented for a longer period (e.g. two years, or on an ongoing basis).

29. Based on of the current projected size of local cost pressures it is unlikely any overall funding changes to local boards would be considered significant (per council’s Significance and Engagement Policy), and therefore would not require public consultation to implement. However, changes to local funding levels requires a Governing Body decision.

30. A Governing Body decision is required to implement options 2 and 3 as these involve a change to how funding for local boards is distributed and involves a departure from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

31. This option requires local boards to fund services within LTP funding allocations, including any new funding received. This is in line with the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, makes progress towards bringing 19 local boards to within 5 per cent of their equitable funding level in 2025/2026, and places no additional burden on ratepayers.

32. Under this approach local boards would address cost pressures by:

i) Utilising new operating funding

ii) Adopting and seeking staff advice on opportunities to increase revenue or reduce costs in some areas to make room for increased costs in others. These may include minor changes to services, or trade-off decisions across a range of locally funded services and must be implementable in time to support the 2025/2026 Annual Budget (including re-consultation if significant)

iii) Working with staff during the financial year to continuously seek out cost efficiencies and revenue enhancements for asset-based services as part of their day-to-day operational management of these services.

33. Local boards that will not receive any new funding, or that will receive insufficient new funding to address cost pressures, are limited to available staff advice on opportunities and changes to services. The implications of delays to the provision of advice over their portfolio of services until 2026/2027 may mean that local boards look to more flexible areas of their funding, which are well understood and supported with staff advice (for example services and activities previously funded from LDI). Reducing these services may impact on the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

34. Based on initial estimates of local cost pressures, staff had advised that local boards did not need to consult on significant service level changes, therefore seven of the eight local boards with little to no new funding consulted broadly on priorities. This limits the level of implementable opportunities without having to further consult.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

35. Of the $35 million new operating funding in 2025/2026 provided to support the transition to funding equity, a portion could be used to provide temporary support for local boards unable to fully offset cost pressures. Some of the additional funding may not otherwise be utilised if there are insufficient options and advice on new and increased service levels. This would involve allocating funding to local boards with little to no new funding to address cost pressures from the $35 million new funding, then distributing the remainder based on the equitable rankings.

36. The impact of using this option is that local boards that were allocated additional operating funding would see a reduction to that level of operating funding, with the reduction in the level of operating funding used to cover cost pressures from other local boards.

37. Based on the budget information at end of February 2025, modelling was carried out and presented to local boards showing the impact should all local cost pressures be covered from the $35 million new funding first, with the remainder distributed equitably as per the Local Board Funding Policy 2025. Since then there has been a reduction to the overall size of local cost pressures from $18 million to $13.9 million, which means the modelled impact is expected to be less than what was presented through workshops.

38. However this is only one possible scenario, and there are various ways this option can be applied, including:

· whether all local cost pressures are covered from the $35 million first, or only for those local boards that cannot cover their own

· the proportion of local cost pressures covered from the $35 million first, and this could be on a scale from zero per cent to 100 per cent.

39. This option would represent slightly less progress towards funding equity for the 2025/2026 year than anticipated in the LTP. This approach remains consistent with a transition to equitable funding over four years and places no additional burden on ratepayers should it be used temporarily, until sufficient advice is available and implementable for local boards to manage cost pressures over their full portfolio of services.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures, including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

40. The Governing Body is responsible for decision making on the overall funding level for local boards and could allocate additional local funding to support cost pressures. This could be achieved without increasing general rates within the existing overall LTP funding level if there are sufficient improvements to other assumptions (such as interest rates and depreciation costs), or by balancing the application of funding across a wider range of services including regional activities. These options are not available to local boards, and any new local targeted rates could not be implemented in time for 2025/2026.

41. Once budget projections have been fully updated across the group, it will be clearer whether or not the emerging cost pressures for local services can be accommodated within the currently projected rates increase for 2025/2026. If it can be, then it will be up to the Governing Body to approve that allocation, after considering budget trade-offs across the group. If it cannot be, then the Governing Body is expected to be able to have some flexibility to make minor adjustments to the rates increase as part of its final budget decision-making in May 2025. However, the current political direction on this is clear that a higher rates increase is the last resort.

42. While progress will still be made towards funding equity, any permanent direct funding provided to individual local boards to address cost pressures is an inequitable way of distributing general rates funding and would increase the challenge of progressing towards full funding equity. This also departs from the adopted Local Board Funding Policy 2025.

43. Under this option, additional funding could be provided for one or more years until sufficient advice is available for local boards to manage cost pressures, and could be managed at a regional level to be provided to local boards as needed to minimise the impact on funding equity.

44. The Joint Governance Working Party resolved specifically for staff to investigate whether the Delivering Differently budget could be used to temporarily resolve local cost pressures. The majority of the funding for this programme is debt funded (such as capital grants) which cannot be re-purposed to mitigate local operational cost pressures. The remaining funding is for the purpose of supporting local boards shift away from asset-based service provision and future unaffordable renewals, and it‘s important that progress on this work continues.

Summary of options and risks

45. The following table summarises the impact, risks and alignment to the proposed principles for each option. A combination of options may be used to resolve the level of cost pressures for local boards in both 2025/2026 and beyond.

Option

Risks and/or impacts

Option 1: Local boards manage within existing local board funding envelopes

· Advice not fully ready across local board service portfolio to implement for 2025/2026.

· Activities and services with advice to respond this year may be limited to those tailored to local priorities and reducing these will impact the delivery of local board plan outcomes.

Option 2: Recalibration of the $35 million operating funding increase for local boards in 2025/2026

· Funding equity gap between local boards would be slightly larger than planned (5 per cent of funding equity by 2025/2026).

· A one-year approach would mean local boards may have cumulative cost pressures to solve in the next year.

· Continued application would slow progress to significant funding equity in subsequent years.

· Perceived retreat on historical commitments made through the LTP for individual local boards.

Option 3: Seeking additional funding to accommodate cost pressures including utilising the Delivering Differently budget

· Could impact on other services, including regional services, as a result of funding reallocation.

· Inequitably allocating additional funding to local boards departs from funding policy and slows progress towards equitable funding.

Improvements to budget and cost allocation accuracy

46. Through the Annual Budget 2025/2026 budget refresh process, staff identified over $25 million of costs and budget held in regional community services but are related to the delivery of existing levels of local community services. These relate to services that are managed across the region (or at a network level), with financials also historically being managed at a regional level.

47. Implementing these cost allocation changes through Annual Budget reviews will impact local funding envelopes and funding equity. While changes to baseline budgets are typically made when the Fairer Funding model is refreshed in the next LTP to align with the frequency of review specified in the Local Board Funding Policy 2025, some necessary improvements to the accuracy of budgets may be required to support effective management and local board governance.

48. Allocation of these costs and funding will not be based on an equitable distribution as these are considered adjustments to baseline budgets, instead of new local funding. An example would be where there are Pools and Leisure centralised costs to be allocated to local boards, only those local boards with Pools and Leisure sites will receive an allocation of costs and funding. Changes that impact baseline budgets would impact funding equity analysis and local board rankings, however should not impact the total cost to the council or planned service levels, as they are a change to how costs and funding is allocated only.

49. There will be no cost pressures for 2025/2026 associated with these cost and funding transfers for local boards, nor any impacts on the existing levels of service being delivered in each local board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

50. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have climate impacts.

51. In particular, local boards contribute to climate outcomes through their local environmental work programmes (currently funded through their LDI operating funding) and therefore the scale of cost reductions required to fund the cost pressures could result in significant impacts to local environmental work programmes. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on the level of funding that can be allocated towards local environmental work programmes. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards climate outcomes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

52. Staff from the Finance and Community divisions provided input into the report for the Joint Governance Working Party and have developed the list of local community cost pressures for the 2025/2026 Annual Budget through reviewing the costs of delivering existing levels of services.

53. Staff will continue to improve the quality and range of advice for local boards over the four years transitioning to significant funding equity. This could have impacts on the operations of the Community Division which may need to adapt to the new funding structure of local community services, and improvements to how local services are being budgeted.

54. Some options for feedback in this report require Governing Body decisions on funding and may need to be considered together with the entire council group financial position and budget updates. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

55. In a memorandum to Budget Committee and local board members on 2 December 2024 (Attachment B), staff provided an update on this emerging issue but did not recommend local boards take urgent action at that point or propose material service changes in their consultation materials based on these early indications. Seven local boards have consulted broadly on priorities but not specific cost reduction initiatives.

56. Finance staff workshopped the updated budget position and options to manage the collective cost pressures with local boards between 4 and 6 March 2025. This report seeks local board feedback on the options presented and is an opportunity for local boards to provide their views to the Joint Governance Working Party.

57. The identified $13.9 million net operating cost pressures is over a third of the $34.6 million additional operating funding provided to local boards to progress towards funding equity. Individual local board impacts were workshopped with local boards, based on the $18 million cost pressures identified at that time. However subsequently staff identified through a detailed review, updates to the budgets presented, which has reduced the total net operating cost pressures to $13.9 million (Table 1 in this report).

58. Under Fairer Funding, 13 local boards are able to cover their individual cost pressures using new operating funding allocated to achieve funding equity purposes, however this will reduce the level of new operating available to these local boards to improve community outcomes. The proportion of new operating funding required to cover cost pressures for individual local boards can be up to 61 per cent of their allocated new operating funding.

59. Eight local boards would be unable to address their individual cost pressures without making reductions to existing services, and there is unlikely to be sufficient cost reduction or revenue generating options available for local boards which can be implemented for 2025/2026 to offset the entirety of their cost pressures.

60. The options provided intend to assist all local boards in transitioning to funding equity over time, and depending on the combination of options may change individual local board funding envelopes compared to the LTP.

61. A feedback template has been provided (Attachment C) to assist local boards in providing feedback to this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

62. Local board feedback through this report will inform the Joint Governance Working Party on a recommendation to the Governing Body on decisions for local board funding levels. This may have varying impacts on individual local board level of investments in local services and activities, which may have Māori impacts depending on each local board’s specific community.

63. The decision for local board funding will have a direct impact on local board work programming which is the process where local boards prioritise their available funding towards achieving local board plan outcomes for their community, including impacts to their Māori community. This includes reductions, but also the scale of new initiatives contributing towards Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

64. Some of the options proposed in this report for further engagement will impact local board funding decisions and council’s overall funding levels for this Annual Budget 2025/2026, but would be subject to further Governing Body decision making. Full detail on risks, mitigation and implications are outlined in the earlier sections of this report, and in more detail below.

65. Feedback on this report informs the Joint Governance Working Party and inputs into Governing Body Annual Budget decision making.

66. Some options for managing cost pressures would have no impact to rates by requiring these to be managed within existing local board funding envelopes or the wider Auckland Council Group (subject to Governing Body decision making). However, there may be a risk that an increase in rates is required to fund cost pressures, and this would only be clear once the Governing Body is presented with a budget update for the Auckland Council Group.

67. The final decisions to manage local cost pressures may have a direct impact on the level of funding each local board is allocated and may vary the funding levels set out in the LTP.

68. Options where the level of funding to local boards are set on a non-equitable distribution, including any targeted operating funding support provided, requires the decision maker, which is Governing Body, to agree to a temporary departure from the Local Board Funding Policy 2025 adopted through the LTP.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. There are significant risks identified with the uncertainty of local board annual funding envelopes and available funding, which has resulted in challenges for staff to plan for and engage with local boards to participate effectively in work programme discussions and to meet key annual budget timelines with sufficient levels of clarity and understanding. This is because options which alter local board funding require Governing Body decision-making, and based on the current timeline, Annual Budget decisions are set to be made on 28 May 2025. A mitigation being confirmed is for a recommendation from the JGWP to be presented to the Budget Committee on 16 April 2025, seeking indicative support for later formal decision-making by the Governing Body.

70. There is a risk should the Governing Body not decide to provide additional support to local boards. Given the updated size of local cost pressures it is unlikely that options with a minor impact to service levels could fully mitigate these for local boards not receiving top-up funding. Eight local boards are therefore at risk of not being able to approve a balanced budget by June 2025 without additional support or further consultation in a short timeframe on further reductions which are considered significant (under council’s Significance and Engagement Policy).

71. Some proposed options will have financial and reputational risks to council as these could be perceived as changes to the commitments made in the LTP, such as changing the allocation of funding levels for individual local boards.

72. There are also risks relating to the timeframe for the council to develop the necessary improvements to financial budget data and process improvements, and to develop the capability to provide local boards with advice on options for changing service levels and how local services can be more efficiently delivered. Some improvements to local board data and increased staff advice are expected from 2026/2027, however these will not be across the full portfolio of services. A longer-term solution is anticipated to require the full transition period to funding equity of four years.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. Staff will collate local board feedback and report back to the Joint Governance Working Party on 11 April 2025 to seek recommendations from JGWP to the Governing Body for Annual Budget decision making.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Options to address local board operating cost pressures and their impact on Fairer Funding implementation – (14 February 2025 JGWP)	31
b ⇩	Memorandum: Local Board cost pressures – additional information (2 Dec 2024)	43
c ⇩	Feedback template	47

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Hao Chen - Manager Local Board Financial Advisory

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Brian Chan - General Manager Financial Advisory

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 March 2025

Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan: Approval of scope, engagement approach, and public notification of the intention to prepare the plan

File No.: CP2025/02966

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval from the Henderson-Massey Local Board to publicly notify its intention to prepare the Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan.

2. To approve the project scope and engagement approach for the Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. In July 2023, Henderson-Massey Local Board approved the development of the Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan in its Customer and Community Services work programme (Resolution number: HM/2023/66).

4. Once adopted, the Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP) will provide a policy framework and direction to manage use, protection and development of the Henderson-Massey local park network.

5. Land which is in scope for the LPMP includes local park land for which the local board has allocated decision-making authority, held under both the Reserves Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

6. For drainage reserves, the local board has allocated decision-making authority for non-regulatory activities. Non-regulatory activities include local park improvements that will not negatively affect the stormwater network which is the responsibility of the Governing Body (delegated to Healthy Waters).

7. Land that has an open space function is excluded from the scope of the LPMP where:

· it is not owned or managed by Auckland Council

· the local board does not have a decision-making role e.g. regional parks.

8. For unformed legal roads that adjoin local parks, and contribute to the function of those parks, the local board’s advocacy to Auckland Transport can be expressed through the plan.

9. The LPMP will be prepared using the process for reserve management plans outlined in the Reserves Act 1977 (see Attachment A).

10. Approval is sought to notify the intention to prepare a plan and to invite written submissions pursuant to section 41(5) of the Reserves Act.

11. The public notices are likely to be published in early May 2025, and the deadline for written submissions will be a minimum of one month later.

12. This report outlines the engagement approach for the development of the LPMP. The engagement includes online interactive platforms for receiving community feedback such as Social Pinpoint (see Attachment D).

13. The cost of public notification will be met from the project budget.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve public notification of the intention to prepare a Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan for all local parks and reserves in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area and invite written submissions on the proposed plan.

b) whakaae / approve the scope and engagement approach for the development of the Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan (as outlined in Attachments B, C, and D of the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

Background information

14. The local board approved the development of the Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP), and associated budget, as part of the adoption of the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 Customer and Community Services work programmes (Resolution numbers: HM/2023/66 and HM/2024/74).

15. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has decision-making responsibility for approximately 233 local parks in the Henderson-Massey area. Almost 80 per cent (182 local parks) are covered by existing reserve management plans. All of these plans are 14 years old or more and will be superseded by the new LPMP (see paragraphs 25 to 26 for more details).

16. This report covers the ‘what, why and how’ of preparing a LPMP. It also seeks approval from the local board to initiate the first round of public consultation.

What is a local parks management plan?

17. The LPMP is a statutory document for land held under the Reserves Act 1977. Section 41(1) of the Act requires the council to create management plans for certain classifications of reserves. This also means that the council is legally bound to adhere to management plans.

18. The contents of the LPMP (outlined in Attachment B) will provide:

· A park management framework consisting of:

o high-level values and principles to guide policies that apply across all parks

o classification of land held under the Reserves Act 1977 which determines the primary purpose for which individual parks, or parts of parks, must be managed

· guidance on issues impacting individual parks and intentions to manage those issues

· overarching direction for leases and other activities requiring landowner approval for relevant parks.

Why do we need a local parks management plan?

19. A LPMP is an important tool to protect the values of parks while providing for appropriate activities. It provides a framework for consistent, transparent decision-making for managing and developing park land. Management plans guide the local board, council group, other organisations and the wider community as to the appropriate use of local parks.

20. The table below gives an overview of the benefits of LPMPs:

Types of benefits	Examples
Māori outcomes	Incorporates Māori values and input into decision-making.
Statutory compliance	Fulfils requirements of the Reserves Act to have a management plan for each reserve held under the Act and to keep plans under continuous review.
Certainty	Aligns park activities with outcomes sought and protects important park values. Indicates types of leases and activities contemplated for each reserve.
Transparency and consistency	Provides one framework for decision-making for all parks within a local board area. Provides key information for all parks within the local board area in a consistent way.
Relationship building	Provides confidence that park management aligns with mana whenua and community aspirations.
Risk management	Acknowledges hazards such as coastal inundation, stormwater and contamination.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

What park land is included in the LPMP?

21. The scope of the LPMP includes local park land for which the local board has allocated decision-making authority. This includes land held under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

22. For drainage reserves, the local board has allocated decision-making authority for non-regulatory activities. These activities include local park improvements that will not negatively affect the stormwater network, which is the responsibility of the Governing Body (delegated to Healthy Waters).

23. For unformed legal roads that adjoin local parks, and contribute to the function of those parks, the local board’s advocacy to Auckland Transport can be expressed through the plan.

24. A summary of the park land which is in scope for the LPMP is shown in the table below. See Attachment C for more detail and specific examples:

In scope

Land for which the local board has allocated decision-making:

ü land held under Reserves Act 1977

ü park land held under Local Government Act 2002

Advocacy role only

Land for which the local board does not have allocated decision-making, but that does fulfil an open space function:

· legal roads that have a significant open space function and adjoin local parks

Out of scope

Land for which the local board does not have allocated decision-making:

û unformed roads (unless they have an open space function and adjoin local parks – see above)

û drainage reserves (unless they have an open space function)

û regional park land

û open cemeteries

û park land owned and managed by other entities such as the Department of Conservation (where there is no management agreement with council)

Continuous review

25. A list of existing Reserve Management Plans (RMPs) for local parks in Henderson-Massey to be superseded by the LPMP can be found in Attachment E. If additional plans are discovered during research, advice will be provided to the local board for consideration as to whether they should be superseded.

26. The main benefit of superseding existing RMPs within the LPMP, is to fulfil the requirement of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Reserves Act) to keep RMPs under continuous review. It also ensures that plans reflect current community and mana whenua aspirations for these parks.

27. Staff recommend including all parks without existing RMPs within the scope of the LPMP. This is to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Reserves Act and consistency in park management across the network.

28. Existing spatial plans, such as park specific masterplans and concept plans will not be superseded by the LPMP. The parks specific section of the LPMP can reflect the direction of the adopted spatial plans.

Approval to notify the intention to prepare a local parks management plan

29. To develop a LPMP compliant with both the Reserves Act and the LGA, it is prudent to prepare the plan using the processes and procedures as set out in the Reserves Act (Attachment A).

30. The process required under the Reserves Act includes two formal rounds of public consultation.

31. This report seeks approval for the first round of public consultation. The consultation will seek feedback to inform the development of a draft plan.

32. Public notices are anticipated to be published in early May 2025. The deadline for written submissions will be at least one month after the notification date.

33. The second round of consultation will be undertaken once the draft LPMP has been prepared and approved for public consultation by the local board.

Tailored community engagement

34. Consultation beyond the statutory requirements of the Reserves Act will be undertaken. This will be done by providing different ways for key stakeholders and the wider community to provide feedback.

35. Planned engagement activities will include paper and online tools. As well as the use of an innovative digital social mapping tool to capture comments and feedback on individual parks. This is supported by a range of communications through social media, council publications, park signage, posters, emails and in person information sessions (see Attachment D).

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

36. The decisions in this report are largely administrative with a low likelihood of direct impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The management direction set out in the future LPMP, will emphasise the role of local parks in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

37. The LPMP programme will seek input from council units and council-controlled organisations, including, but not limited to:

· Ngā Mātārae

· Resilience and Infrastructure

· Environmental Services

· Parks and Community Facilities (including Leasing)

· Community Investment (Policy)

· Planning (including Heritage)

· Legal Services

· Eke Panuku Development Auckland

· Auckland Transport.

38. Staff will work closely with council departments to draft the LPMP, ensuring alignment with other council plans where possible. After adoption of the LPMP, staff will communicate any relevant direction provided in the LPMP on council’s activities on parks to impacted council departments to support implementation of the plan.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

39. The LPMP will give local residents and park users the opportunity to influence the direction of future park management and development.

Local board views

40. Staff discussed the proposed scope of the LPMP, and the first round of public notification, with the local board at workshops in August 2024 and February 2025.

41. At the workshops, local board members expressed support for the proposed scope of the LPMP and the first round of public consultation. Some suggestions were received on ways to reach park users and improve levels of engagement.

42. As discussed at the workshop, staff will send the local board a detailed engagement plan and draft consultation material prior to the start of the consultation in early May 2025.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

43. The Reserves Act is one of the Acts in the First Schedule to the Conservation Act 1987. Section 4 of the Conservation Act contains an obligation to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti / the Treaty).

44. In performing functions and duties under the Reserves Act, such as developing a reserve management plan, the local board must give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti / the Treaty.

45. The principles of Te Tiriti / the Treaty likely to be most relevant in making decisions on the Henderson-Massey LPMP and land status review work are:

· partnership – mutual good faith and reasonableness

· informed decision-making – being well-informed of the mana whenua interests and views. Engagement is a means to achieve informed decision-making

· active protection – this involves the active protection of Māori interests retained under te Tiriti / the Treaty. It includes the promise to protect rangatiratanga and taonga.

46. The LGA contains obligations to Māori, including to facilitate Māori participation in council decision-making processes (sections 4; 14(1)(d); 81(1)(a)).

47. All interested mana whenua will be engaged in the development of the LPMP, in order to:

· enable Te Ao Māori (Māori world view) to be incorporated into the management of parks in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area

· provide an opportunity for mana whenua to express their kaitiaki role.

48. Initial mana whenua engagement commenced in November 2024, with staff reaching out to Ngāti Whātua hapu (Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua) and attending the Te Kawerau ā Maki – council hui.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

49. When including the LPMP in its work programme, the local board allocated a total of $30,000 to the project. This consists of $30,000 carried forward from 2023/2024 to be applied to the 2024/2025 financial year (Resolution numbers: HM/2023/66, HM/2024/74).

50. Project costs are in addition to staff time and include public notification, mana whenua and community engagement, specialist technical advice and hearings.

51. The budget may not meet all of the project costs over the next two years. The local board will be notified ahead of time of any potential budget shortfall. This will not reduce project scope, however, as this is guided by statutory requirements.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

52. A risk assessment was undertaken as part of the planning for the development of the LPMP. The following table outlines relevant risks and mitigations:

IF <event>

THEN <impact>

Possible mitigations

If the community are having to engage with council over multiple topics at the same time.

Then the community may not provide feedback on how they would like parks in their area managed in the future. This means that the LPMP may not accurately reflect community aspirations.

· Align with other engagement activity where possible to make it easy for the community to participate.

· Use multiple engagement channels to reach the community, including those who do not normally take up the opportunity to engage.

If the community suffers from ‘consultation fatigue’ due to being involved with recent council consultation processes.

Then the community may display a more limited interest in providing feedback for this project.

· Ensure we use creative and innovative engagement methods to pique interest of the community, to encourage them to submit feedback.

· Make sure the engagement methods (particularly online systems) are working effectively and are simple for the public to provide their input.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

53. The high-level timeline, including key project and consultation milestones, and local board decision-making, is outlined in Attachment A of this report.

54. The next steps in the development of the LPMP are to:

· continue initial engagement and partnership with mana whenua

· publicly notify the intention to prepare the management plan for at least one month, starting in early May 2025

· commence consultation with key stakeholders and the community

55. Submissions from the first round of consultation will be given full consideration in preparing the draft plan.

56. It is anticipated that the draft Henderson-Massey Local Parks Management Plan will be available for public consultation in early-2027.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	High-level process and timeline	57
b ⇩	General content in scope of the LPMP	59
c ⇩	Park land in scope of the LPMP	61
d ⇩	Engagement approach	63
e ⇩	Existing reserve management plans to be superseded by the LPMP	65

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Jessica Morris - Service and Asset Planning Specialist

Authorisers

Angela Clarke - Head of Service Investment & Programming

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 March 2025

Local board views on draft plan change to add trees and groups of trees to the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part and to the Notable Trees overlay

File No.: CP2025/03742

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To invite local board views on a draft plan change which seeks to add trees and groups of trees to Schedule 10 of the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Decision-makers on a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) must consider local boards’ views on the plan change if local boards provide their views.

3. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to the AUP Schedule of Notable Trees (‘Schedule 10’), and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps. The proposed additions are derived from nominations received from the public over the course of the last decade, and which have been held in council’s database. The 169 trees and 27 groups affect approximately 160 properties.

4. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions. If authorisation is given by the committee, it is anticipated that the plan change will be notified in May 2025.

5. The local board will have a second opportunity to express its views on the plan change after the period for submissions is complete

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) tuku / provide local board views on draft plan change to add approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region to Schedule 10, and to the Notable Trees Overlay in the AUP maps.

Horopaki

Context

Decision-making authority

6. Each local board is responsible for communicating the interests and preferences of people in its area regarding the content of Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. Local boards provide their views on these documents’ contents. Decision-makers must consider local boards’ views when deciding the content of these policy documents (sections 15-16 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Accordingly, local boards’ views are relevant to finalising a draft plan change (to be notified for submissions). A plan change will be included in the AUP if it is later approved.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Plan change overview

7. The purpose of the draft plan change is to address all of the nominations for notable trees that council has held in its database over the last 10-12 years. All nominations have been progressively evaluated, with a view to adding them to Schedule 10, and the corresponding mapped overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and notable groups found in the schedule.

8. Schedule 10 currently contains approximately 3000 ‘line items’ representing thousands of trees and groups of trees. It is a very large and dynamic schedule, which undergoes constant change through consenting activities such as subdivision, resource consent processes and other changes as a result of emergency works (in the case of dangerous of storm-affected trees, for example). Schedule 10 is an amalgam of all the legacy councils’ similar schedules which contained lists of specially protected trees. These were ‘rolled over’ into the Proposed AUP prior to the AUP being made partially operative in November 2016.

9. Schedule 10 is managed by the AUP through a policy and rule framework. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in the AUP (Chapter B4.5. Notable Trees) contains the objectives and policies (including the criteria for scheduling), while Chapter D13. Notable Trees overlay contains the district-level objectives and policies, and sets out the rules framework for how activities affecting notable trees are treated. Schedule 10 itself is found in Chapter L Schedules. The AUP maps contain the Notable Trees overlay which spatially sets out the locations of all notable trees and groups throughout the region, using specific symbology.

10. A number of plan changes have been undertaken in the last 5 years relating to Schedule 10 and Chapter D13 of the AUP. However, there has not been a comprehensive plan change that has attempted to evaluate and address all of the nominations received by council. These nominations have been sporadic but regular, and also include those trees which were requested to be included at the time of the PAUP through the public submission process.

11. All nominations that seek to add trees and groups to the Schedule are triaged to ensure they are ‘eligible’ to progress through to the site evaluation stage. Those that are found to already be included in Schedule 10, or which are duplicate nominations, or those which nominate trees that are no longer present on the site, for example, are not added to the on-site application which council and consultant arborists use to assess trees.

12. The evaluation process is a detailed exercise based on the criteria as set out in the RPS. Each tree, and group of trees, is evaluated against each criterion and provided with a score.

The criteria are based on the following:

a) heritage or historical association;

b) scientific importance or rarity;

c) ecosystem service or environmental function;

d) cultural association and accessibility

e) intrinsic value: the trees are intrinsically notable because of a combination of factors including size, age, vigour and vitality, stature and form or visual contribution.

13. Approximately 160 new ‘line items’ representing 169 trees and 27 groups have been found to meet the criteria and are proposed to be put forward to the plan change with a view to adding them to Schedule 10 and the corresponding Notable Trees overlay maps.

14. The plan change addresses the nominations only, and does not seek to alter any of the objectives and policies, or any part of the rules framework relating to Notable Trees.

15. A summary of the numbers of trees and groups of trees according to Local Board area that are proposed to be added to Schedule 10 is included at Attachment A. The table also includes the districts within the Local Board areas that will be affected by the addition of trees and group of trees.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

Context

16. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan sets out Auckland’s climate goals:

· to adapt to the impacts of climate change by planning for the changes we will face (climate adaptation)

· to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (climate mitigation).

17. Both council’s climate goals (climate adaptation and climate mitigation) are relevant and align with the requirementfor Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) decision-makers to:

· have particular regard to the effects of climate change (section 7(i) RMA), and

· to have regard to any emissions reduction plan and any national adaptation plan prepared under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (section 74(2) RMA) when preparing or changing a district plan.

18. It is considered that the draft plan change has positive climate considerations. The proposed formal protection through scheduling of 169 trees and 27 groups of trees across the region will contribute positively to carbon sequestration and therefore is beneficial to mitigating the effects of climate change.

Local board views – climate

19. It is not considered that the plan change will affect any local board in particular in terms of climate change. Across local board areas, the collective addition of approximately 169 trees and 27 groups of trees will be beneficial in terms of their contribution to climate change mitigation by ensuring the retention of and formal protection of a number of trees.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

20. Many of the trees and groups of trees are located on council reserves and also on road reserves which are the domain of Auckland Transport. All owners of land upon which a nominated tree or group is located were notified as part of a mail-out to advise of an upcoming site visit by a council or consultant arborist. As part of the notification process, they will again be contacted if a tree or group is one of those included in the qualifying number for inclusion to the plan change. All owners and affected parties (including council departments and Auckland Transport) will have the opportunity to participate in the submission process.

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

Local impacts and local board views

21. The purpose of the draft plan change is to add approximately 160 new ‘line items’ to Schedule 10 of the AUP, representing 169 trees and 27 groups of trees.

22. This draft plan change affects all local boards, except for Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board and Waiheke Local Board.

23. There are no funding impacts on Local Boards as a result of the plan change.

24. This report is the mechanism for obtaining local board views. The committee will be provided with the local board’s resolution when considering whether to authorise notification of the draft plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

25. If the local board chooses to provide its views on the plan change it includes the opportunity to comment on matters that may be of interest or importance to Māori well-being of Māori communities or Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview).

26. Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Consultation is currently underway simultaneously with all iwi authorities. Feedback will be incorporated into the plan change.

27. Later in the plan-making process, the planner will analyse Part 2 of the RMA which requires that all persons exercising RMA functions take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance (2021) and Māori Plan (2017, Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

28. The plan change does not pose any financial implications for the local board’s assets or operations.

29. Costs from undertaking the plan change are met by existing council budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. The local board will be unable to provide its views and preferences on the draft plan change, if it does not pass a resolution. This report provides the mechanism for the local board to express its views and preferences in contributing to formulation of the draft plan change.

31. If the local board chooses not to pass a resolution at this business meeting, the opportunity to influence policy prior to public notification is forgone. (There is a later opportunity to comment on the plan change, following the close of submissions).

32. The power to provide local board views regarding the content of a plan change cannot be delegated to individual local board member(s) (Local Government Act 2002, Sch 7, cls 36D). This report enables the whole local board to decide whether to provide its views and, if so, to determine what matters those views should include.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Local boards will provide feedback at the March business meetings.

34. Any additional analysis necessary will be undertaken following receipt of local board views. The final draft plan change, including local board views, will be reported to committee in May 2025 seeking authorisation to notify the plan change for submissions.

35. After submissions close, a second report will provide an opportunity for views and preferences of the local board, which will then be included in a hearing report for the decision-makers on the plan change. The local board may appoint a local board member to speak to the local board’s views at the plan change hearing.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A: Proposed additions of trees and groups by Local Board, and areas within each Local Board	75
b ⇩	Attachment B: Additional information on notable tree sites for Henderson-Massey Local Board	77

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 March 2025

Local board input into Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill

File No.: CP2025/03890

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek feedback from the local board on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill proposes a mechanism for extending New Zealand’s parliamentary term from three to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

3. Rather than mandating an automatic change, this would allow Parliament to extend its term only if select committees reflect proportional representation – meaning the number of MPs from each party on committees matches their share of seats in Parliament.

4. Supporters argue a four-year term enables better policymaking and project delivery, while opponents highlight reduced electoral accountability. New Zealand’s three-year term is rare globally, and past referendums have opposed extending it, though recent reviews suggest shifting public sentiment.

5. A key consideration for Auckland Council is the potential impact on local election cycles. There could be years where local and central elections coincide, which could impact voter engagement. Fixed parliamentary terms would benefit the alignment of local election timing.

6. In December 2024, the council submitted feedback on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper, supporting a four-year electoral cycle for local government. The submission acknowledged potential benefits of aligning local and central elections if local elections shift to booth voting but recommended keeping them two years apart otherwise. While most local boards supported a four-year term, views varied on election timing—some favoured aligning with central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap.

7. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider the council’s submission on 10 April. The submission closing date is 17 April.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) tuku / provide feedback to Auckland Council’s submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of the Bill

8. The Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) proposes a mechanism to extend the current three-year Parliamentary term to four years, subject to a binding referendum.

9. The Bill doesn’t automatically change the term to four years. Instead, Parliament can choose to extend its term from three to four years if select committees are structured in a way that fairly reflects the makeup of Parliament. To make this happen, Parliament must pass a resolution within the first three months of a new term stating that the proportionality requirement has been met, and the Governor-General must then issue a proclamation.

Key Considerations

10. Arguments in favour of a four-year term include allowing for a more deliberate and considered legislative process, reducing the frequency of election cycles, and providing governments with a longer timeframe to implement policy.

11. Arguments against a four-year term highlight concerns around democratic accountability. A longer term would mean elected representatives face elections less frequently, shifting accountability from a three-year to a four-year cycle.

12. Additionally, New Zealand’s constitutional framework differs from jurisdictions with stronger checks and balances, such as an upper and lower house or a clearer separation of executive and legislative powers. In New Zealand, the executive is formed from the majority party in Parliament and drives the legislative agenda.

13. To address concerns around accountability, the Bill strengthens the role of select committees by requiring their composition to more accurately reflect the proportionality of Parliament.

History of New Zealand Parliamentary terms

14. New Zealand originally had a five-year parliamentary term, in line with Britain. In 1879, it was reduced to three years following the abolition of provincial governments, as there were concerns about the concentration of power at the central level. Reducing the term ensured more frequent electoral accountability.

15. Two non-binding referendums on extending the term—held in 1967 and 1990—both resulted in strong opposition. Both referendums saw large majorities opposed to extending the term to four years.

16. Recent reviews, including the 2013 Constitutional Advisory Panel and the 2023 Independent Electoral Review, suggest public opinion may be shifting towards a four-year term.

17. A key change since the last referendum was the introduction of the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system in 1993, which increased proportional representation and strengthened the role of smaller parties in governance. While MMP has enhanced legislative scrutiny, concerns remain about reduced accountability if the term is extended.

18. The Constitutional Advisory Panel in 2013 found that public support for a four-year term was contingent on improved legislative scrutiny and accountability measures, such as more referenda, better human rights assessments, and the introduction of an upper house. The panel emphasised that any extension should be decided by referendum.

19. The Independent Electoral Review (IER), set up in 2022, also assessed the term length and found arguments for and against a four-year term to be finely balanced.

International context

20. New Zealand’s three-year parliamentary term is rare internationally. In 183 countries with elected lower houses or unicameral parliaments, only eight have a term of three years or less, 72 have a four-year term, 99 have a five-year term and four have a six-year term.

21. In general, parliaments (whether unicameral or bicameral) have a four-year or five-year term including both the United Kingdom (with Westminster-style of Parliament and Executive, headed by a sovereign) and Germany (with an MMP electoral system), from which New Zealand’s system is based.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. The last referendum on the parliamentary term took place in 1990 in which 69 per cent of voters rejected extending the term from three to four years. It is timely to revisit the topic again with communities.

23. A key concern for local government is the uncertainty around whether Parliament will adopt a three-year or four-year term. If local government maintains its three-year term while Parliament alternates between three and four years, there is likely to be occasional overlap, where parliamentary and local elections occur in the same year. However, this would likely happen inconsistently.

24. If local elections remain the responsibility of councils (rather than the Electoral Commission), the concurrent timing of parliamentary and local elections could lead to voter confusion.

25. Auckland Council, in its submission to the Electoral Reform Working Group, acknowledged that there could be potential benefits if local elections were conducted by the Electoral Commission, using the booth voting method, alongside parliamentary elections. This could capitalise on the higher voter turnout for parliamentary elections to boost participation in local elections. However, it remains uncertain whether this will occur.

26. As a result, the council’s draft submission on the bill would consider requesting that parliamentary terms be fixed, and that the legislation governing local elections be amended to align with parliamentary terms.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The Bill does not have any direct climate impacts.

28. However, a four-year term could provide a longer, uninterrupted timeframe for planning and implementing climate-related initiatives.

29. If both local and central government terms are fixed at four years, this could lead to a reduction in postal voting for local government elections. This change may result in environmental benefits, such as reduced paper usage and a decrease in transport requirements for the delivery and collection of voting papers.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. The council group is not directly affected by the proposed change. However, if local and central elections were to coincide, further analysis of the potential impacts would be necessary.

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

Local impacts and local board views

31. In February 2023, nine local boards provided feedback on the introduction of a four-year electoral term for local government in the draft submission of the Future for Local Government paper. Most supported a four-year term, though views on election sequencing varied. One board opposed aligning local and central elections, emphasising the importance of maintaining local focus.

32. In November 2024, local boards provided further feedback to inform the council’s submission on the LGNZ Electoral Reform Working Group Issues Paper (Issue Five), which also addressed the four-year term. While most local boards supported the shift, there were differing views on election timing—some favored aligning local and central elections, while others preferred a two-year gap. Local board views are compiled here.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. Māori views were not sought in the preparation of this report. A four-year term could allow more time to build relationships and ensure continuity in key initiatives, without disruptions from frequent election cycles.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

34. The Bill does not impose any direct costs. Potential cost efficiencies could arise if central and local elections coincide.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. The council's position on this matter presents minimal risk.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. The Policy and Planning Committee will consider approving the council’s submission at its meeting on 10 April.

37. Submissions close on Thursday, 17 April.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Maclean Grindell - Senior Advisor Operations and Policy

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor Governance

Authorisers

Oliver Roberts - Planning & Operations Manager

Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Henderson-Massey Local Board

18 March 2025

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Henderson-Massey Local Board for Quarter Two 2024/2025

File No.: CP2025/01167

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To provide the Henderson-Massey Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter two, 1 October – 31 December 2024.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2024/2025 work programme.

3. The work programme is produced annually and aligns with Henderson-Massey Local Board Plan outcomes.

4. The key activity updates from this quarter are:

· Hub services Te Manawa: Hub sites use an integrated service delivery model that provides access to a wide range of library, community centre/art centre and venue hire activities that cater to the diversity of the local community, including delivering outcomes for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau: To support communities of greatest need, Te Manawa collaborated with Salvation Army who used the facility to run their Christmas toy and kai drive.

5. All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. Activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged).

One activity is reported with a status of amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed):

· Harbourview-Orangihina – investigate wetland development: Investigate returning the exotic grassland on the lower terrace to wetland with assistance from the Auckland Council I&ES specialist team. Implementation will be subject to environmental impact and feasibility assessments: This project is placed on hold until funding for 2024/2025 is made available.

One activity is reported with a status of grey (cancelled, deferred or merged):

· Te Rangi Hiroa-Birdwood Winery – West City Darts Association Incorporated lease: New lease – (Top Floor): This item is on hold until seismic strengthening of the building has been completed in 2025/2026.

6. The financial performance report for the quarter in Attachment B is excluded from the public. This is due to restrictions on half-year annual financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on or about 28 February 2025.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive the performance report for quarter two ending 31 December 2024.

b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the financial performance report in Attachment B of the agenda report will remain confidential until after the Auckland Council Group half-year results for 2024/2025 are released to the New Zealand Exchange (NZX), which are expected to be made public on or about 28 February 2025.

Horopaki

Context

7. The Henderson-Massey Local Board has an approved 2024/2025 work programme for the following:

· Customer and Community Services;

· Economic Development;

· Local Environmental;

· Plans and Places;

· Auckland Emergency Management;

· Local Governance.

8. The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Local Board Plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

9. The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey) which measures the performance of the activity. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Work programme performance by RAG status

10. The graph below shows the stage of the activities in each departments’ work programmes. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes.

Graph 3: Work programme performance by activity status and department

Key activity updates from quarter two

· Local civic events Henderson-Massey - Deliver local civic events: The Rānui Domain Playground blessing was delivered by Te Kawerau ā Maki on 17 December 2024 and the playground was opened to the community on 20 December 2024. Planning is currently underway for the official Rānui Domain Playground Opening event to be delivered on 28 January 2025.

· Henderson Christmas Festival – Deliver the Henderson Christmas Festival in November or December 2024: The Henderson Christmas Festival was successfully delivered on Saturday 7 December 2024 in the Henderson Town Centre. The free family festivities began with the addition of the Waipareira Trust Christmas Parade. The Christmas festival commenced from 12pm-4pm with an estimated audience of 2,500 attending the event.

Activities with significant issues

11. There are no activities with significant issues.

Activities on hold

12. The following work programme activity has been identified by operating departments as on hold:

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

13. Te Rangi Hiroa-Birdwood Winery – West City Darts Association Incorporated lease: This item is on hold until seismic strengthening of the building has been completed in 2025/2026.

Cancelled activities

14. There are no cancelled activities.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

15. Receiving performance monitoring reports will not result in any identifiable changes to greenhouse gas emissions.

16. Work programmes were approved in June 2024 and delivery is already underway. Should significant changes to any projects be required, climate impacts will be assessed as part of the relevant reporting requirements.

17. The local board is currently investing in a number of sustainability projects, which aim to build awareness around individual carbon emissions, and changing behaviour at a local level. These include:

· Henderson-Massey: Love Your Streams (EcoMatters): To engage and support individuals, schools and community groups to adopt a proactive approach to enable the health of Henderson-Massey waterways: Sunnyvale Backyard Stream conducted restoration work, including two volunteer sessions with 50 participants. Twenty volunteers participated in an event at Sunnyside Stream on 16 November 2024, and 30 volunteers participated in an event at Waari Stream on 14 December 2024. At Waari Stream, local ownership of the waterway’s future vision and ongoing restoration contributions having become increasingly evident. A self-sustaining group plans to meet monthly for working bees. Engagement with Timatanga Community School continued, with a Manutewhau Stream education session planned for 2025.

· Te Wai O Pareira: This programme supports the Rivercare Group Te Wai o Pareira to continue to engage with local community, educate and empower the Henderson-Massey region and support water quality improvements in the awa: Focus has been on maintenance as soil dries out and bi-monthly maintenance days to support community involvement. Education efforts concluded for the 2024 school year, with the project having reached over 450 children across 19 sessions. A total of 750 interactions were between July and December 2024, including 250 children from Rutherford Primary. Teachers from Te Atatū Intermediate participated in a ‘teacher only day’ where they learned about tools to connect children to place. Collaboration continues with Te Kawerau ā Maki, Community Waitākere pest control, Earth Action Trust and Healthy Waters Safe Networks team to address local environmental issues. Social media reached over 5,300 people.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

18. When developing the work programmes council group impacts and views are presented to the local board.

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

Local impacts and local board views

19. This report informs the Henderson-Massey Local Board of the performance for quarter two ending 31 December 2024.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

20. Hub Services – Hub sites use an integrated service delivery model that deliver outcomes for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau:

· Te Atatū Pātaka Kōrero Whare Hiranga Hapori – Te Atatū Peninsula: A key focus at the Te Atatū Hub is the promotion of whānau wellbeing. Te Pae O Kura has been a cornerstone for strengthening Māori and Pasifika identities with wānanga led by E Tipu E Rea, The Fono and Te Whānau o Waipereira. These sessions empower whānau health and build relationships, creating spaces for learning and growth.

· Te Manawa: Staff continue to support and grow programmes that celebrate Māori identity and culture through Tatai Whakapapa Wānanga, Kākahu Raranga, Maramataka Maara Kai, Weaving with Nature, Kai Ora, Wai Pepi and Triple P with Waipareira.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. This report is provided to enable the Henderson-Massey Local Board to monitor the organisation’s progress and performance in delivering the 2024/2025 work programme. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Financial Performance

22. Auckland Council (Council) currently has a number of bonds quoted on the NZ Stock Exchange (NZX). As a result, the Council is subject to obligations under the NZX Main Board & Debt Market Listing Rules and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 sections 97 and 461H. These obligations restrict the release of half-year financial reports and results until the Auckland Council Group results are released to the NZX on or about 28 February 2025. Due to these obligations the financial performance attached to the quarterly report is excluded from the public.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

24. The approved Customer and Community Services capex work programme include projects identified as part of the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP). These are projects that the Community Facilities delivery team will progress, if possible, in advance of the programmed delivery year. This flexibility in delivery timing will help to achieve 100 per cent financial delivery for the financial year if projects intended for delivery in the current financial year are delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

25. Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter three (31 March 2025).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Henderson-Massey Local Board - 1 October 2024-31 December 2025 Work Programme Update	89
b ⇩	Attachment B - Operating Performance Financial Summary	123

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors	Michelle Knudsen - Lease Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager

Chairperson	Chris Carter
Deputy Chairperson	Dr Will Flavell
Members	Brenda Brady, JP
	Peter Chan, JP
	Dan Collins
	Oscar Kightley
	Brooke Loader
	Ingrid Papau

Authors	Laura Hopkins - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Local Area Manager